IMPEACHMENT KONTRA SARA

HINDI nangimi si dating political affairs secretary Ronald Llamas sa paghula sa susunod na kabanata sa pulitika ng bansa. Sa kanyang pagharap sa Saturday News Forum sa kauna-unahang pagkakataon, walang pag-aalinlangan sa sarili na sinabi na hindi siya magtaka kung may maiharap na sakdal na impeachment ngayong linggo laban kay Sara Duterte sa Camara de Representante.

Hindi sinabi ni Llamas kung ano ang batayan ng impeachment case laban kay Sara. Hindi kinilala ni Llamas kung sino sa mga mahigit na 300 kasaping mambabatas ng Camara ang may balak magsampa ng impeachment case laban sa kontrobersyal na pangalawang pangulo. Ngunit ipinahiwatig ni Llamas na may sapat na bilang ang mg kontra kay Sara upang sumulong ang anumang kasong impeachment laban sa kanya.

Hindi binanggit ni Llamas ang batayan ng impeachment kontra Sara, ngunit pinakamalaking usapin ang kakulangan ng paliwanag kung paano ginasta at inubos ni Sara ang P125 milyon sa loob ng 11 araw noong katapusan ng 2022. Walang paliwanag si Sara kung ano ang ginawa niya sa P125-M. May utos na ibinaba ang Kamara upang tingnan ng Commission on Audit ang detalye ng pag-ubos sa halaga.

Ngayong linggo ang pinakatamang panahon upang inihain sa Camara ang impeachment case laban kay Sara, ani Llamas, dating kasapi ng Gabinete ni Noynoy Aquino. Kailangan magkumahog ang mga mambabatas sa kanilang plano dahil nahaharap sa recess ang Kongreso sa Setyembre at muling pagbubukas ng sesyon sa Oktubre, aniya. Masyadong maantala kapag nagpatumpik-tumpik sila, aniya.

Kumalat ang balita na planong maghain ang ilang mambabatas ng kasong impeachment kontra kay Sara dahil hindi niya naipaliwanag ng maayos kung paano ginugol ang P125-M confidential at intelligence fund sa ibinigay sa kanya ng Office of the President noong siya ang kalihim ng Deped. Itinuring niSara nap era na niya ang halaga at tumanggi siyang magpaliwanag kung paano niya inubos ang salapi ng sambayanan.

Itinuturing na isang kilos politikal ang paghain ng impeachment case laban sa presidente, bise presidente, mahistrado ng Korte Suprema, at mga hinirang sa mga constitutional offices tulad ng CoA, Commission on Elections, at Commission on Human Rights. Batay sa Saligang Batas, unang inihaharap ang sakdal na impeachment sa Camara de Representante at kung sumulong, dinadala ito sa Senado na nagiging impeachment court.

Nagkakaroon ng pagdinig sa Senado kung saan inaalam kung totoo o hindi ang mga bintang batay sa kasong impeachment. Nagsisilbing presiding officer ang punong mahistrado ng Korte Suprema. Tinatanggal sa puwesto ang sinumang napatunayan na nagkasala. Noong 2012, tinanggal sa puwesto si Renato Corona bilang punong mahistrado.

***

PILIT ipinapangalandakan ng isang pipitsugin opisyal ng DoJ (hindi na namin babanggitin ang kanyang pangalan sa pangambang sisikat ng walang sapat at makatarungang dahilan) ang hatol ng Korte Suprema tungkol sa pagtiwalag ng ng Filipinas sa Rome Statute, ang tratado ng bumuo sa ICC. “Obiter dictum” umano ang bahaging ito, aniya. Pero kay Llamas, may saysay ito. Halaw ito sa pangalawang aklat, “BUMPS Fifty Years of Dictatorship and Democracy in the Philippines 1972-2022.” Tinatapos pa ang aklat na ito.

JUDICIAL RESTRAINT. The Supreme Court decision stressed judicial restraint in the treatment of the unilateral withdrawal of the Philippines from the Rome Statute. But it ensured that the government would have to adhere to the provisions of the Rome Statute, when it was still a member-state. In brief, the withdrawal initiated solely by Duterte in what appeared to be a fit of frenzy does not mean outright loss of obligations to the ICC. In what could be considered an iron-clad, black and white part of the Supreme Court decision, the following has to be cited from the SC decision:

“Withdrawing from the Rome Statute does not discharge a state party from the obligations it has incurred as a member. Article 127(2) provides: ‘A State shall not be discharged, by reason of its withdrawal, from the obligations arising from this Statute while it was as a Party to the Statute, including any financial obligations which may have accrued. Its withdrawal shall not affect any cooperation with the Court in connection with criminal investigations and proceedings in relation to which the withdrawing State had a duty to cooperate and which were commenced prior to the date on which the withdrawal became effective, nor shall it prejudice in any way the continued consideration of any matter which was already under consideration by the Court prior to the date on which the withdrawal became effective.’

“A state party withdrawing from the Rome Statute must still comply with this provision. Even if it has deposited the instrument of withdrawal, it shall not be discharged from any criminal proceedings. Whatever process was already initiated before the International Criminal Court obliges the state party to cooperate.

“Until the withdrawal took effect on March 17, 2019, the Philippines was committed to meet its obligations under the Rome Statute. Any and all governmental acts up to March 17, 2019 may be taken cognizance of by the International Criminal Court.

“Further, as petitioners in G.R. No. 239483 underscored: [U]nder this reverse complementarity provision in [Republic Act No. 9851, the Preliminary Examination opened by the [International Criminal Court] on the President’s drug war is not exactly haram (to borrow a word used in Islam to mean any act forbidden by the Divine). Assuming such a [Preliminary Examination] proceeds . . . when Art. 18 (3) of the Rome Statute comes into play, [Republic Ad No. 9851 may be invoked as basis by Philippine authorities to defer instead to the [International Criminal Court] in respect of any investigation on the same situation.

“Consequently, liability for the alleged summary killings and other atrocities committed in the course of the war on drugs is not nullified or negated here. The Philippines remained covered and bound by the Rome Statute until March 17, 2019.”

Hence, the Supreme Court dismissed the claim that the unilateral withdrawal of Philippine membership from the Rome Statute “violated their right to be provided with ample remedies for the protection of their right to life and security.” This is baseless, according to the High Court. “This fear of imagined diminution of legal remedies must be assuaged. The Constitution, which embodies our fundamental rights, was in no way abrogated by the withdrawal. A litany of statutes that protect our rights remain in place and enforceable,” it said.

In the first book, this author concludes this is a matter that Duterte and cohorts have had a hard time to understand. Even their purported lawyers do not understand this issue either. They have kept on insisting that the withdrawal of the Philippines from the Rome Statute has extinguished outright their liability or responsibility from the Rome Statute. Hence, they have insisted the ICC has no power to run after them. This simplistic view is false, by all means.

The Supreme Court has laid down the consequences if ever a state like the Philippines refuses to cooperate with the ICC in its probes. The operative phrase is “full cooperation.” The ICC has the power to employ ways to ensure the personal safety of victims. This is a matter that Duterte, his cohorts, and lawyers have not seen or understood.