- 10 hours ago
Where does international justice end and national sovereignty begin?
Let’s talk about it LIVE.
Atty. Amando Virgil Ligutan joins Beyond the Headlines to dissect the friction between the International Criminal Court (ICC) and Philippine sovereignty. We will analyze how the state balances local jurisdiction with global human rights standards, and what true legal accountability looks like on the ground.
Ask your questions in real time.
Let’s talk about it LIVE.
Atty. Amando Virgil Ligutan joins Beyond the Headlines to dissect the friction between the International Criminal Court (ICC) and Philippine sovereignty. We will analyze how the state balances local jurisdiction with global human rights standards, and what true legal accountability looks like on the ground.
Ask your questions in real time.
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
03:27Attorney Amando Virgil Ligutan.
03:30Hello, Attorney.
03:31Welcome back to Beyond the Headlines.
03:33DJ, it's nice to be here again.
03:35Yes, and our conversation today is another hot topic, which has been circulating in social media a lot, but the
03:45good thing about this conversation, because this is also an opportunity for our viewers to rightfully educate ourselves with what's
03:54happening.
03:54So, I'm referring to the current ICC proceedings and debates.
04:00So, in the beginning, I will just remove from the equation the personalities of Senator Bato and the former President
04:07Duterte.
04:08So, my question is the frequently asked question of national sovereignty and international jurisdiction.
04:18Can you quickly walk us through about the relationship between the relationship between international law and international community and the
04:29sovereignty that you mentioned, the tension has been there for the longest time.
04:35For the longest time, but from the perspective of an international law teacher like me, I have taught international law.
04:44So, there is something that the fact that we are part of the international community, we surrendered a portion of
04:55our sovereignty.
04:57Within the context of international law, DJ, there is no absolute sovereignty.
05:03The principle we follow is the principle of self-limitation.
05:07By that, we mean the self-limitation or the auto-limitation principle.
05:12It means once a country, a sovereign state like the Philippines, once it joins the international community, it surrenders, it's
05:22a portion of its sovereignty.
05:24So, we cannot claim absolute sovereignty within the context of international law.
05:31So, that doesn't work that way.
05:33But having said that, having said that, there should be no conflict between on one hand international law and on
05:40the other hand sovereignty on this one.
05:44In the sense that, remember the crimes being charged, the crimes being alleged to have been committed by these individuals.
05:52So, we call them, DJ, crimes against humanity.
05:56Okay.
05:57And then, when we say crimes against humanity, they are infractions, they are crimes committed exactly against all humankind.
06:09So, it's not an argument that the international community has no stake in what these individuals are alleged to have
06:19done.
06:19In the same manner, DJ, that if a crime, for example, is piracy is committed, for example, in the Arabian
06:29Peninsula.
06:31Our courts may have jurisdiction for these acts because these are acts committed against humankind.
06:39So, I think that's a way to put things into proper context.
06:43There should be no tension.
06:45There should be no tension between sovereignty on one hand and international law on the other hand.
06:52If what we are talking about, for example, in this case, are crimes against humanity.
06:58There's a reason why, DJ, it is crimes against humanity.
07:02So, those advocating that we must not abide by our international law commitments, for me, that is fundamentally wrong.
07:12That is a parochial view on the matter of relationship between international law and sovereignty.
07:20That two could and they should coexist, DJ.
07:24I've read somewhere, and this is a chance also for people to get clarity from experts like you.
07:33Some would liken this into this analogy.
07:37Now, if junior steals money from daddy, mommy, and sister, so it will have to be resolved within the home.
07:46The village will just come in, which is the outside community, if junior steals money from the neighborhood.
07:54What can you say about that?
07:55Okay, again, that's a too narrow, that's a parochial view.
08:00Again, I have to repeat, DJ, the crime is against humanity.
08:03It's not only a crime against the Filipino people.
08:06Case in point, if A murders an individual and murders B within the Philippines, if only one person is involved,
08:17and then we have one accused, then it's not the concern of humanity.
08:22It's not the concern of the law of nations, i.e., the other states may not interfere with how we
08:30prosecute A for murdering B.
08:32But remember, I have to repeat, in this instance, the charges are crimes against humanity.
08:39Okay.
08:40In the context of the war on drugs, according to the ICC, according to the charges, yes, the Filipinos were
08:51the object, the subject, the victims of these so-called extrajudicial killings.
08:57Yes.
08:58But the manner the killings were perpetrated also fit the element, for example, of crimes against humanity.
09:07And in that instance, the act is now converted from being a purely local crime into what we call in
09:16the international community, crime against humanity.
09:20I.e., all the other states outside the Philippines now have a stake to prosecute, to arrest, to hold accountable,
09:31and to punish or to penalize those that will be found guilty.
09:36So, the analogy that's parochial, it's self-serving, it doesn't appreciate the more accepted, normal, and the more modern approach.
09:49That is, we are part of the international community, DJ.
09:54Now, there are also critics who will say, and I will have to quote because I'm not a lawyer, no?
10:00International accountability comes on certain crimes, such as what you said, crimes against humanity that are serious, that can be
10:09prosecuted internationally.
10:12But there is a clause that people would normally, critics would normally quote, when domestic systems are unable and unwilling
10:22to do.
10:23What does this mean?
10:24Alright, so that principle is the principle of complementarity, i.e., if, for example, the individual charges of crimes against
10:36humanity are able to prove that our judicial system, our courts are able and willing to prosecute them, then there's
10:45no need for, for example, an international tribunal like the ICC to come in.
10:50Now, the question really is, can we really say, during the Duterte administration, can we really say that the legal
11:02system, our own legal system is able and willing to prosecute, for example, the former presidents, the former PNP chief,
11:13and the senator now?
11:14So I think the answer is no. That issue has been settled by the ICC in deciding to continue with
11:25the trial of the former president.
11:27And then, remember, the senator that we are about to talk about is only a complicit, is a co-perpetrator,
11:36so to speak, to the crimes allegedly committed by the former president.
11:41So the issue of the ability and the willingness to prosecute them has been settled by the ICC.
11:49So the answer is no. That's what the ICC is telling us. The state has been unable and unwilling to
11:58prosecute the highest officials of the land for crimes against humanity.
12:03So the argument, the counter-argument that they have, DJ is, but we have police officers that are now in
12:10prison for being found guilty, for example, for the death of Kian de Los Santos.
12:16But the question is how many of them and what is their rank?
12:20Do they reach the level of, for example, a regional director?
12:24Or do they reach the level of, for example, a member of the cabinet or the former PNP chief?
12:31They don't. They don't.
12:33So the argument is that despite the convictions of some police officers, the state is still unable and unwilling to
12:43do so, DJ.
12:43So correct me if I'm wrong, attorney.
12:46So what we are saying is because of the level of the people allegedly involved, plus the alleged widespread crimes
13:01that were allegedly committed,
13:05then this complication cannot be managed by our local court.
13:13Yeah, I think that's what the ICC is telling us.
13:17That's what the ICC is telling us, DJ.
13:19Now on the flip side, supporters of Philippine sovereignty, so this can also be likened as supporters of the senator
13:27and the former president,
13:29argued that Philippine institutions should handle matters involving, this time, Filipino citizens.
13:36They don't put the crime, but Filipino citizens.
13:38Why do you think this principle is important to them?
13:42Yeah, it's important because it serves them.
13:44It's important because it serves them.
13:46Again, it doesn't matter which court is trying these individuals.
13:52For me, it should not matter in the sense that if, for example, the senator is, what's up, the senator's
14:01charge of crimes against humanity, okay?
14:03He may be tried in the ICC or he may be tried locally here.
14:10But for me, it doesn't matter.
14:11In the sense that he, in both instances, in both tribunals, in both fora, he will be afforded due process.
14:22He will be afforded the right to defend himself.
14:25All this plethora of rights and privileges that should be accorded to, for example, an accused or a person charged
14:36of a crime against humanity, he will be afforded this.
14:39So, for me, it is a parochial view to invoke sovereignty when it serves your purpose, DJ.
14:50Now, the other one also, and this has been surfacing a lot in social media, and we know that social
14:59media is not necessarily the source of real education materials.
15:07So, this one, I've picked this also from there.
15:11So, in some countries, so I've gathered that Singapore, I think it's Israel, Russia, they do not recognize ICC.
15:21And there were even instances in South Africa, countries like South Africa, or Israel, or even Russia, they refuse to
15:29execute an ICC warrant.
15:33Why do you think the Philippines should be expected to act differently?
15:39Because it's still valid, it's still valid.
15:42When we withdrew from the ICC, when we withdrew from the Rome Statute, it doesn't mean that all the acts
15:50perpetrated prior to the withdrawal may not be subject of ongoing investigation and prosecution like what we are having now.
15:59So, the argument that we are no longer part of the ICC doesn't absolve, for example, those who are charged
16:09of crimes against humanity committed before the withdrawal.
16:13And so long as, so long as prior investigation, but I think the ICC said, even considerations.
16:20If the ICC already started considering these crimes prior to the withdrawal, then any valid warrant of arrest that is
16:29issued after the withdrawal must be implemented.
16:32So, I think there's a big difference.
16:34We were part of the ICC statutes and the charges for which the former president and his co-perpetrators are
16:43being charged of.
16:44These were committed prior to the withdrawal.
16:47So, as to the question whether the ICC still has jurisdiction, it's already settled by the ICC itself.
16:53What we are saying, DJ, is all these arguments, all these arguments that we already withdrew, that we have a
17:01functioning legal system, all of these have been considered already at least many times by the ICC.
17:09And they are quite consistent.
17:11The charges stand, the warrant of arrest should be implemented, and this individual should be tried in the ICC, in
17:19the Hague, DJ.
17:22Now, this one is also, and then, so this is my chance actually to clarify some points that I'm also
17:29reading a lot.
17:30The other one also that I've also read is, we've had seen, we saw Filipinos who have allegedly committed crimes
17:40abroad.
17:42And the usual reaction that we see is, we bring them, we extract, we extract them from the host country.
17:52To be tried here.
17:53To be tried here.
17:54But in this case, it's the reverse.
17:56Yes.
17:56We have a Filipino extracted here and tried.
18:00Yes, exactly.
18:00At first, I think I answered the question, because the first example you gave, these are examples of Filipino citizens
18:09who committed crimes against local Filipino laws.
18:14All right.
18:15So they violated, for example, any of the crimes stated in the revised penal code.
18:21And through the facility of extradition, we can have them transported back to the Philippines so they can be tried
18:27here.
18:28That is totally the opposite of the situation we are in now.
18:33We have local Filipino citizens who are charged of crimes against humanity, which may be tried, for example, by the
18:43ICC.
18:45And they should be arrested, for example, here in the Philippines to be transported to the ICC to face trial
18:52there.
18:52So these are like apples and oranges.
18:54We cannot equate the two situations, DJ.
18:58And this is also to confirm from an expert.
19:04And the case that the former president is currently going through in terms of his arrest, manner of arrest, is
19:14also intertwined.
19:15Or similarly related to the case of Senator Bato at this time.
19:22So however, the case of the former president will eventually be ruled by the Supreme Court, that will also apply
19:30to Senator Bato.
19:32Yes.
19:33That's correct.
19:33That's correct.
19:34So the two cases are intertwined.
19:36Now, this one, another also sentiment that I also gathered from social media.
19:44Some people believe that there's tremendous enthusiasm from certain camps to bring the senator to The Hague.
19:58It's because of the assumption that the senator indeed committed the crime.
20:07And some people would say, so where is the area of assuming innocence of the senator until being proven guilty?
20:16Because they say that, oh, people want to extract him.
20:20It's because he's already presumed guilty.
20:22But you know, the practice is also present here.
20:27For example, if the allegation is a Filipino citizen committed murder in the Philippines, and there's a warrant of arrest
20:36issued by a local court, then that Filipino citizen should be incarcerated, detained while the case is pending.
20:45So the idea of a person charged before the ICC being detained, even prior to the trial being conducted, we
20:57also do that here.
20:59For crimes, for example, in the level of murder, rape, etc., planned, for example, these are non-bailable offenses.
21:08So again, it's not foreign.
21:10It's not groundbreaking.
21:13We do that here.
21:15It's part of our laws.
21:17A person may be detained, should be detained, without bail, even prior to the commencement of the trial.
21:24So it's not unheard of in the Philippines, so to speak, DJ.
21:28Now, Dick's next question is for people, for our viewers who think that this is also political, Syria.
21:39And the contention is, I mentioned earlier, there are several countries, Russia, for example, in which a warrant was issued,
21:50but because the Russian government did not cooperate, there was no arrest that happened.
21:57And when I did my research, it's also because international courts like ICC do not have a police force.
22:06So what are your views also regarding people thinking that this could not even move forward if not for the
22:18cooperation of our local authorities, also known as the executive branch?
22:25Exactly.
22:26That's a keen observation, DJ.
22:28Okay, so we read the comment by the Office of the Solicitor General, and I fully agree with their position.
22:36It's like this, it is the function of the executive department to implement warrants of arrests, and we have a
22:46valid warrant of arrests issued by the ICC.
22:50It's a standing warrant.
22:52Now, it's correct, the executive department could have decided not to proceed, okay, and it could have decided to proceed
23:04with the implementation.
23:06Now, the question really is, by not following, by not abiding, by not executing a valid warrant of arrests, is
23:18the executive department violating international law?
23:21I think so, yes.
23:23So what we are saying, yes, it's a decision, but in this instance, no matter the political color that other
23:31individuals may ascribe to it,
23:34the acts of the executive implementing a valid warrant of arrests by an international tribunal like the ICC is in
23:46keeping with international law, it is allowed, it should be the case.
23:54It should be the case.
23:55Now, why do I say this?
23:58Because if we start not following international law orders, for example, then it diminishes our standing and our position to
24:09extract, for example,
24:11or to demand that other countries also follow suit, i.e. to follow decisions of the international tribunal.
24:18What I'm saying is, for example, it may affect our standing, our credibility to ask China, for example, to ask
24:27China to comply with the ruling of the international tribunals that said,
24:33the West Philippine Sea, okay, I'm generalizing, but we want that case, we want that case that these certain islands
24:43within the West Philippine Sea are part of our exclusive economic zone.
24:49That if we don't, for example, if we don't follow, if we don't implement an international, no, a warrant issued
24:57by an international tribunal,
24:58the conclusion is, we don't follow international law.
25:02It diminishes our position, for example, on the issue of the West Philippine Sea against China, DJ.
25:12Just to push the envelope.
25:15Sure.
25:16Further, attorney.
25:18But, and don't worry, we'll go back to this.
25:21But, but the case also, correct me if I'm wrong, of the West Philippine Sea, there was a ruling.
25:29Yes.
25:30But sad to say, it was also not enforced.
25:33Exactly, exactly.
25:35So, the moment, the moment we start not following international law, okay, it diminishes our credibility.
25:42So, China will say, what is your position, what credibility you have in asking the international tribunal to implement it
25:52when you yourself is not complying with your international obligations, in this instance,
25:59the matter of us implementing a valid warrant of arrest issued by an international tribunal like the ICSDJ.
26:07And then last.
26:08Sure.
26:09However, on the reverse attorney, do you also think that it also says about the, the lack of a better
26:17word, the teeth of the ICC?
26:19Because for a ruling like that, and at least for the moment, it looks like China ignores it.
26:28But do you really think ICC has a teeth?
26:30For me, this is an opportunity, this is an opportunity for the Philippines to contribute to international law.
26:39You know, exactly the issue whether international law has teeth, that has been an issue.
26:46That's why there is this statement issued after the arrest of the former president.
26:53And I fully agree with this.
26:55All this time, we thought that international law has no teeth.
26:59For example, we thought that it is imperfect.
27:02But with the arrest of the former president, we realized that, in fact, it is not as ineffective as we
27:10thought it to be.
27:12So, this is an opportunity for the Philippines to abide by international law and to show to the world that
27:20no matter, despite its imperfection, international law could be effective, DJ.
27:27So, now let's move in the area of discernment.
27:30Sure.
27:30Okay, so, because of the democratization of opinions, that also contributes to everybody having a say, whether lawyers or non
27:44-lawyers.
27:45So, there are people said to be supporting or defending based on legal principles.
27:54And there are also people who are supporting or defending based on particular individuals.
28:04So, how can our viewers be able to see the difference that is this a matter of legal principles or
28:11this is already protecting individuals?
28:14Exactly, exactly.
28:14I think I have a say on that one.
28:19For example, for me, I'll take myself an example, DJ.
28:24I have taught international law.
28:26I have been a student of international law since law school.
28:30I participated in several international law competitions abroad.
28:35But I always make it a point to read all possible materials, available materials, consider the opinions of both sides
28:44before I come up with my own opinion on the matter.
28:47In interviews like this.
28:49But on the other hand, DJ, exactly.
28:52We have lawyers, for example, who post legal positions as if they eat international law for breakfasts.
29:03And for me, that is irresponsible.
29:05Because the people look up to us as examples of expertise in law.
29:13So, many people believe us.
29:16Many people believe us.
29:17So, the moment you are not sure with what you are saying, the moments that you know for yourself, that
29:24you haven't read everything available on the matter, please, please, hold on to that opinion.
29:31Because you should know for a fact that people will still believe you, no matter how half-truth your post
29:40is.
29:40So, that is being irresponsible.
29:42So, to the public, the fact that you see something on Facebook that fits your political narrative, believe that that
29:52may not be accurate.
29:54So, you should start now discerning what you see, what you read on Facebook.
30:00But it's hard to do that.
30:02But what we are saying is just because a lawyer posts something about a matter, it's not gospel truth.
30:10So, you should compare, you should analyze, you should criticize what this lawyer is saying in conjunction with what the
30:23other lawyers, what the experts are saying on the matter, DJ.
30:27So, for example, you are on the other side.
30:32So, that means you are supporting sovereignty.
30:36Now, what do you think is their strongest argument so far?
30:42Okay, sovereignty in the sense that our courts are functioning, that we are able and willing to prosecute these individuals.
30:51That is the strongest argument that they could master in forcing the argument that the ICC must not exercise.
31:01But I think the Filipinos, the people know better.
31:05Are we really capable during the Duterte administration?
31:09Do we have the capability to prosecute the president himself, the senators, the members of the PNP, the members of
31:21the cabinet?
31:21Do we have the capacity at that time?
31:24I don't think so.
31:25I don't think so.
31:25So, that is the strongest argument.
31:27But for the peace of mind of those advocating this position, no, that the camp of the former president already
31:36raised the matter several times before the ICC and the ICC has been consistent, no, no.
31:43Okay, so the ICC retains jurisdiction because our courts, our legal system before was unable and unwilling to prosecute these
31:53individuals.
31:54Now, recently, I think that was late last week, the Supreme Court denied the request of the senator, so Senator
32:05Bato De La Rosa and his lawyers, for a TRO.
32:10And then, so now there's a debate, even among lawyers.
32:13So, should Senator Bato be now, I mean, should he now be addressed as a fugitive?
32:21Because there are also lawyers who would say, not yet.
32:24Not yet, no.
32:25Okay.
32:26For me, the situation is simple.
32:30There is a valid warrant of arrests issued against an individual.
32:36And that individual, okay, there was an attempt to serve the warrant against an individual.
32:41But because of the unfortunate events in the Senate, the individual is now gone.
32:47So, for me, okay, without referring to the senator, without referring to the senator, but only referring to the situation
32:55of a valid warrant of arrests being issued and is being questioned before the Supreme Court.
33:01And the individual, and the individual, who is the subject of the warrant, can nowhere be found.
33:08For me, that fits the narrative of a fugitive from Justice and D.J., as simple as that, without referring
33:15to the senator.
33:16Now, this time is on the presumed innocence until proven guilty.
33:22And correct me if I'm wrong, but there's a principle that would rather free the guilty than convict the innocent.
33:35You'd rather free 10 guilty individuals than imprison one innocent individual.
33:42That doesn't apply here.
33:43That doesn't apply here.
33:45Because exactly as to innocence and as to culpability being guilty, that can only be ascertained after trial, D.J.
33:58The situation of, for example, those charges for crimes against humanity being detained prior to trial.
34:06The issue is they are being held without bail.
34:09They should be detained without bail, okay?
34:12We cannot yet follow exactly the principle as to being guilty or innocent because that only comes after trial.
34:21So, that doesn't apply, D.J.
34:25Now, just in case the Supreme Court rules that the process that was done to the former president was incorrect,
34:40just in case, what would be the implication?
34:43Actually, that's an interesting question.
34:45So, in the event that the Supreme Court, for example, rules that the arrest of the former president was illegal,
34:54okay?
34:54So, we have a principle in international law that you may, the arrest may be illegal, but the fact that
35:02the person is already arrested, that renders the matter muthan academic.
35:07That's a principle being followed in international humanitarian law, for example.
35:12But the issue now, for example, what if the Supreme Court orders the release of the former president?
35:19Or what if, for example, in the…
35:21Our Supreme Court.
35:22Yes, our Supreme Court with depending cases before it.
35:25What if it eventually rules that the arrest of the former president is illegal, that he must be freed?
35:33Now, the interesting question is how do we have that enforced?
35:37The issue now is, can the Philippine Supreme Court, as to the Supreme Court of a member state in the
35:45law of nations, order an international court like the ICC to implement its ruling?
35:52I'm telling you, there's no precedent on that.
35:55There's no precedent on that.
35:56So, that is an interesting issue among international law practitioners, DJ.
36:03Do you also think that probably the reason why Senator Bato and his lawyers are wary about it, precisely because
36:16of that, that once he's already there, whatever the Supreme Court would rule, he can't be extracted back to the
36:25Philippines?
36:25Exactly. I think that's what they have in mind.
36:29And they also know for a fact that if he'll be arrested, he'll be detained, pending trial on the marriage
36:36of the charges against him.
36:37It means that he should be locked up, incarcerated, detained, that's the term, even while the case is pending.
36:45So, they know once he is apprehended, once he is turned over to The Hague, then he should be detained
36:53for years to come.
36:55I think that's what they are fearing most, DJ.
36:58And it's been said, correct me if I'm wrong, that because the funding of the international criminal court is not
37:07bottomless, so the case could drag for decades.
37:11Yes.
37:12You think it's a valid claim also for him to avoid incarcerated in a place that would drag to 10
37:20years, 20 years?
37:21For me, yeah, on practical reasons, they should have that, but that's not a legal argument.
37:27That's not a legal argument, DJ.
37:29As to the funding of the ICC being bottomless, as to the fact that he will be incarcerated, but legally,
37:37while the case is pending,
37:39which in the standards of the international criminal court, it will take years for charges as complicated as this to
37:54proceed and to be tried.
37:56Yes, that is a practical argument, but unfortunately, that is not a sound legal argument to make, DJ.
38:03So now, going back to social media and everybody having opinion or views on what's happening,
38:12when I was younger, and I'm not a lawyer, it was clear to me the separation among the three branches.
38:21But I noticed a little bit of a crack when the Supreme Court made its ruling on the impeachment of
38:34the vice president last year.
38:36And when I say crack, it's because I saw reactions coming from the legislative body and the executive also through
38:47his spokesperson.
38:49My question actually is, how does the three branches eventually resolve a matter in which, in this particular case,
38:59and maybe the ICC ruling can also look like that, depending on how it will be ruled, will have different
39:05interpretations of the law?
39:06I think, well, let's grab the bull by the horn.
39:09The issue is, can the Supreme Court stop the executive from executing the warrant of arrest?
39:17The answer is yes.
39:18The answer is yes.
39:20In the 1987 Constitution, DJ, the Constitution expanded the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
39:28Now, the Supreme Court may intrude into the acts of the other co-equal branches if the Supreme Court is
39:39satisfied that there is grave abuse of discretion.
39:42That's on one hand.
39:44There is that facility.
39:45There is that competency on the part of the Supreme Court.
39:48But on the other hand, on the other hand, the conservative in the court would argue that despite the presence
39:56of that facility, it should not be exercised.
40:01It should only be exercised in the most extreme cases because we also need to adhere exactly to the separation
40:08of the three branches of government.
40:11We also need to adhere to the political question doctrine.
40:18As to whether the Philippines should implement a valid warrant of arrest issued by the ICC, the conservatives would argue
40:26that that is part of a political question that should be given fully to the executive branch.
40:34But as to the issue, can the Supreme Court stop?
40:37Yes.
40:38So now, that brings me to the same question also.
40:45If I remember correctly, and by the way, we shifted to the impeachment, but this is really more on the
40:52independence of the three branches and how they relate with each other.
40:57I remembered that this was before the second impeachment was tried.
41:01And then, Justice Committee, Congresswoman Jerby Luestro was asked, if the Supreme Court would eventually rule that the impeachment is
41:17illegal, would she abide by it?
41:20And her answer, if I remember correctly, she was inside her car, she said that she will, but she could
41:29not speak necessarily for the others.
41:32Exactly, exactly.
41:32What are your thoughts about lawyers who would publicly express their thoughts about legality or constitutionality that is not aligned
41:48to how the Supreme Court have ruled on a particular case?
41:53The issue is, can we criticize the Supreme Court?
41:56Can lawyers criticize cases decided by the Supreme Court?
42:00Yes, they should.
42:01They could.
42:01They could.
42:02They can do that.
42:03It's not illegal.
42:04So long as they do so without malice, without defaming the authority, without undermining the authority of the Supreme Court,
42:15for example.
42:16So the answer is yes, so long as there's no malice.
42:19And it's for purposes of discussions.
42:22For purposes of discussion.
42:24Why we are saying this?
42:25Yes, exactly because the Supreme Court may have ruled in this manner for this particular case, but it doesn't mean
42:32that the Supreme Court may not revisit the doctrine in a future time.
42:37It could.
42:38And in fact, in so many instances, the Supreme Court reverts itself.
42:42So can we criticize the Supreme Court?
42:46Yes, that's allowed.
42:48So long as we do so without malice, without defaming, and without undermining the authority of the court.
42:54So there's a way to do that, DJ.
42:57Now the malice part, for a lay person, that's hard to detect.
43:02Yes, exactly.
43:03Or confirm or deny.
43:06Exactly.
43:06So do you also think that now with social media, and I think you've mentioned also about lawyers being more
43:13responsible,
43:14that if there will be more lawyers expressing dissent, that's the term, expressing dissent about a particular Supreme Court ruling,
43:26and a lot of them actually would do that, do you also think it erodes the credibility of the Supreme
43:34Court?
43:35Yes, I think so.
43:37I think so.
43:38With the advance of, sorry, but with the advance of members of the legal profession posting on Facebook, unverified legal
43:50positions that lack academic rigor and basis,
43:54yes, it erodes the legal system in particular.
43:59You know, DJ, I had this conversation last week.
44:02I said, during our time, if there is a constitutional issue, the reporters, our friends in the media would, for
44:11example,
44:12visit law schools and solicit the legal opinion of professors or the deans of those law schools.
44:21And eventually, that would now ripen into the legal position of the academic community on that matter.
44:31That was the case before.
44:33The opinions of those who are learned on the matter, those who are teaching the matter, those who know about
44:40the subject matter,
44:41they are the ones given the opportunity to err their side.
44:45And the opinions will crystallize, for example, as the unofficial position of the legal community, academic community.
44:53But that's no longer the case now.
44:55Any lawyer now has that privilege of posting on social media, whatever they can think of, cite legal provisions that
45:09may not be accurate,
45:10and now criticize even former justices of the Supreme Court.
45:15As if there is parity between what the former justices are saying and what these lawyers are saying.
45:23That is now the unfortunate case that we have now.
45:28But yes, I agree.
45:30I agree.
45:30That's part of the freedom of expression, freedom of speech.
45:35But again, this is also what I have been advocating this.
45:38Because we lawyers should be more responsible before we post something.
45:44We should be so sure that what we are posting is based on what the law says,
45:50and not only based on what we want the law to be, just to suit our political opinion on a
45:57raging issue of the day.
46:00And you've mentioned justices.
46:02So this is not necessarily on this particular case because the ruling has not yet been released.
46:08But I'm referring to the ruling also of the first impeachment.
46:13And sadly, from a layperson, I noticed some justices also contradicting the decision.
46:20You think that's a healthy discourse?
46:22Yes, it is.
46:23It is.
46:24Exactly.
46:25Because I was also part of those really, really voicing my criticism on the Supreme Court ruling in the first
46:34impeachment complaints.
46:36And because of these criticisms, the Supreme Court eventually had to clarify.
46:44Eventually, the Supreme Court had to clarify some points in the first decision.
46:48And it is because of the clamor.
46:50Exactly.
46:51It's because of the voices raised by the former justices of the Supreme Court.
46:57So long as the debate is healthy, so long as it is based on sound legal principles, it could help
47:07in the debate, DJ.
47:11So now we're towards the end of the conversation.
47:14It's been helpful so far, attorney.
47:18So what precedents, so granting, so assuming that the, not the Supreme Court, assuming, not yet, without the ruling of
47:27the Supreme Court, the former president is already in The Hague.
47:30And now there's a warrant for Senator Bato de la Rosa.
47:40And there's no temporary restraining order.
47:43So with the cooperation of the executive, he could again be extracted and flown to The Hague.
47:50And now there are talks about Senator Bongo.
47:54What if this same situation will happen to him and there's still no Supreme Court ruling still and he would
48:00be extracted and brought to The Hague?
48:02What precedents is also this setting that might potentially erode Philippine sovereignty?
48:13No, I don't think so.
48:14Without referring to the actual names you mentioned, just imagine the spectacle of those occupying the highest positions of the
48:26land being held accountable for crimes against humanity.
48:31It sends a powerful signal, DJ, in that your position in government could not and should not insulate you from
48:44the processes of our courts.
48:49You may be held accountable despite the high positions you occupy in governments.
48:57I've been telling this, ultimately, 50 years from now, we will realize that this is the proper thing to do
49:06because we are telling the generations to come that no matter how high your position in government, if you commit
49:16a crime, you should be held accountable, DJ.
49:24It is to the interest of the republic, it is to the interest of the republic, it is to the
49:29interest of the republic that we should do this, DJ.
49:31So thank you very much for your time, Attorney Ligutan, and thank you for sharing your expertise also in providing
49:39insights on the legality and the constitutionality of this massive national debate.
49:48Thank you so much, DJ.
49:49So as the legal proceedings continue and the public debate involves, one thing remains clear, difficult questions deserve thoughtful discussion.
50:01Whether one's concern is sovereignty, accountability, due process, or justice, informed dialogue.
50:08So the keyword there is informed dialogue remains essential in a democratic process.
50:14So I'm DJ Moises, this has been Beyond the Headlines, thank you for joining us today, see you again tomorrow.
Comments