Full transcript of “Supreme Court Nag-decision Na: Mapapauwi Na Ba Si FPRRD? Sen. BATO, Hindi Na Pwedeng Isurrender!!!”. Click a timestamp to open the video at that moment. Need another video? Use the YouTube transcript generator.
0:00 Breaking news mga kaibigan. Talaga namang matataranta dito talaga yung mga dilawan at mga pinklawan dahil sa totoo lang mga kaibigan sila lang naman talaga yung porsegido na ma-impeach si BP Sarah Duterte. Sila din po talaga yung nagsusulsol, nag-uudyok sa administrasyon na hindi na mapauwi si dating pangulong Rodrigo Roa Duterte. Sila din yung nag-uudyok, nagsusulsol at talaga namang nagnanais na makulong din sa ICC si Senator Rolando Bato de la Rosa. Kasi kung inyong matatandaan, napakainit po ng naging pangyayari noong nakaraang linggo sa lower House ay nagbutuhan na nga po ang mga congressista.
0:47 Sa botong 257 ay naimpeach po si BP Sarah Duterte. And last week din po na-endorse, na-transmit na rin po sa Senado ang articles of impeachment. Okay. So last week ay kitang-kita po natin kung paano tinangkang hulihin ng operatiba ng NBI si Senator Bato de Rosa. Subalit ito po ay nakatakbo at nakapasok po sa plenaryo kung saan ay ah nakaboto po ito sa pagbabago ng liderato. Okay. So naging Senate President po si ah Senator Alan Peter Cayetano. Okay. So mainit po ang nangyari. Bukod po doon mga kaibigan ay
1:33 nagkaroon po ng ah putukan sa senado. Okay. Bago po ang putukan mga kaibigan ay kataka-taka na nakauwi na po no ang mga miyembro ng Dilawan, mga miyembro po ng Pinklawan. Kasama po diyan syempre sina Bam Aquino at iba pang mga miyembro nila. So ibig sabihin planado po ang mga pangyayari. Okay. So ang NBI director sabi po nila ay hindi sila nagpunta doon. Wala daw operatiba ng NBI sa Senado. Hindi raw sila doon nagpapunta. Sino ang ah mga tao doon na nanggulo no? So ginawa lamang po ni uh Sergeant at
2:20 Arms Head no ng Senado na si Mao Aplaska ang kanyang tungkulin na ipagtanggol, pangalagaan at panatilihing tahimik ang ah senado. Kaya nag-wning shot po ito. Sumunod na mga araw, mga kaibigan, ang sinabi po ni NBI Director Matibag ay ' ba sabi niya wala daw operatiba ng NBI. Para ah para saan no? Para saan? Para sabihin niya na walang operatiba ng NBI. The other day ay nagsalita ito no. Wala daw sa senado ang ah operatiba ng NBI. Nandoon daw sa GSIS. Okay. So bigyan ko kayo ng halimbawa mga kaibigan. ang National Labor Relations Commission,
3:07 okay, na matatagpuan po dati sa P Florentino no sa Banawe, okay, Quezon City. Yung building po na kinatatayuan ng National Labor Relations Commission or NLRC, ang may-ari po GSIS. Ibig sabihin, nangungupahan ang NLRC sa GSIS. And the same thing sa Senate 'no? Ang building po ng uh Senado ay pag-aari ng GSIS. Nagbabayad po sila sa GSIS. Nangungupahan po sila sa GSIS. 'Yun po ang dahilan mga kaibigan. So para sabihin po ni ah NBI director na ang kanyang uh mga operatiba ay wala daw sa Senate kundi
3:55 nandoon daw sa GSIS. Eh malaking kalokohan 'yan. Malaking kaguhan 'yan no kasi mismo ang Senado ay nangungupahan sa GSIS building. Okay? So yun po ang mga pangyayari. Bakit kaya ginagawa ito ni uh NBI director? Bakit tila uh lapastangan 'no at hindi na po sinusunod ang ah tamang proseso ng pagdakip? No? Wala po sa ayos ang kanyang pagdakip. Kasi nung una na pumunta siya doon, yung una po na nakita natin na tumatakbo si Senator Rolando Bato de la Rosa ay sinasabi ni nila no na nagpunta doon ang NBI kasama
4:42 po si Trilyanes pero wala po silang dalang warrant of arrest. Pwede po ba yun? Wala pong dalang warrant of arrest. And uh after that ah after further investigation dahil nga po walang maibigay na warrant of arrest eh kataka-taka na ang may hawak ng warrant of arrest ay si Antonio Trellanz. Tandaan po ninyo mga kaibigan na si Antonio Trillanes ay hindi po miyembro ng gabinete. Wala rin pong opisina at hindi po nagtatrabaho sa gobyerno si Antonio Trillanes. Ibig sabihin jobless po siya. Siya po ay private citizen. So ano po ang kanyang karapatan para magsilbi ng
5:27 warrant of arrest kay Senator Rolando Bato de la Rosa? Okay. So bakit po natin nababanggit itong mga bagay na ito mga kaibigan? Marami pong pending sa Corte Suprema. Nandiyan na po yung R of Havias Corpus na i-pinile ng mga anak ni dating Pangulong Rodrigo Roa Duterte. Nandiyan din po yung pag-aresto kay dating Pangulong Duterte no na kung saan ay kin-question po yung proseso ng pagdakip sa kanya. Okay. Napanood din po natin ng makailang beses no ang Senate hearing na isinagawa dating chairperson ng Foreign Relation na si Senator Imy Marcos kung saan dito natin
6:13 natuklasan ang malaking paglabag ng gobyernong ito ni President Ferdinand Romales Bongbong Marcos Jr. At kung inyong mapapakinggan ang naging dahilan at paliwanag ni dating DOJ Secretary Hesus Crispin Remulia, yung 9851, Republic Act 9851 daw ang ginamit para i-surrender si dating pangulong Rodrigo Roa Duterte. Okay. So marami po ang kweston. Tama ba ang naging pagdakip kay dating pangulong Rodrigo Roa Duterte? Kung mali ang naging pagdakip sa kanya, bakit no? Bakit ang mga dilawan at Pinklawan no? Ay ah tila yata nais na
7:03 gawin din kay Senator Rolando Bato de la Rosa ang ginawa kay dating pangulong ah Rodrigo Roa Duterte. Ayan. So syempre sa bagay na ito kailangan ng interpretasyon sa ating saligang batas. Okay at ang ginagamit nga pong ah dahilan ni dating DOJ na ngayon po ay ombodsman na si H Jesus Christen Remulia isinurrender ang dating pangulong si Rodrigo Rowa Duterte Pursuant to the Republic Act 9851. Kaya ito po ang tinalakay ng korte suprema sa ah Cayatano Pangilinan versus Cayatano.
7:51 Okay. So dito po ay malinaw na malinaw ang naging interpretasyon ng korte suprema sa pamamagitan ni Associate Justice Marvic Leonen. Ang una pong tanong ni Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, nang kumalas ang Pilipinas sa utos ng pangulo no sa ICC, mayroon ba itong probisyon na nilabag? Okay. So meron bang probisyon na nilabag? Ang ah paliwanag po dito at sagot ng abogado ay meron daw. Okay. Meron daw kasi common sense na raw ito. Pero dahil sa
8:36 napakatalinong pagpapaliwanag talaga namang hinimay-himay ni Associate Justice Marvic Leonen kung ano yung nakasulat sa ating batas no sa Republic Act 9851. Okay. Sabi nga po ni Attorney no ni Justice Leonen, "Saang batas na kasulat na tinanggap na ng Pilipinas ang ICC bilang isang dagdag na hukuman." Ang sabi naman po ni Attorney Romel Bagares, halos kopya ng Rome Statute ang Republic Act 9851. Kaya implicit na may additional layer or complementary role ang ICC. Ibig sabihin daw nito common sense na raw yon. Kahit hindi na raw
9:22 nakasulat. Kahit hindi na raw in-specific no ng batas na kailangang i-consider ang ICC bilang dagdag na hukuman. Okay. Pero ito po mga kaibigan noong nag-aaral tayo ng laws, sabi ng aking uh professor, ang ating batas maybe two harsh but it is straightforward. Ibig sabihin napaka-specific po ng ating saligang batas. Kung hindi po ito nakasulat, kung wala pong provison, ibig sabihin hindi ito binded. Okay? Ibig sabihin wala itong visa. So kagaya nga po ng ah sagot ni Attorney Romel
10:09 Bagares, ay common sense na raw yon. Implicit na raw yun na may additional layer or complementary role ang ICC. Hindi po gano no. Sapagkat kung ganun po ang paliwanag at ganun po ang pagkaintindi natin sa ating saligang batas eh marami pong magkakaroon ng problema at iisipin po na ay naku common sense na yun. Pwede na yun kahit hindi nakasulat. Hindi po ganyan ang ating batas. Ang kongreso mga kaibigan ayon po sa paliwanag ni Marvic Leonen ni Justice kinopya nga po 'yung core crimes no? Andiyan po yung ah crimes against genocides. Yan no. Ah crimes against
10:56 humanity. Ah ano pa, war crimes, crimes of aggression. Kinopya lamang po 'yung mga 'yon. Pero hindi nila isinama yung ICC, ang prosecutor. Wala po no yung complementarity o yung ibang procedure na nakasaad po sa Rome statute no. Hindi po nila isinama iyon sa ating saligang batas. Kaya hindi na po binded yung mga bagay na iyon. Ibig sabihin kinakailangan nating interpretin at intindihing mabuti yung Republic Act 9851. At sabi pa nga po ni Justice Marvic Leonel no, yung mga provisions, yung mga
11:41 procedures na yan yung mga powers ng ICC ay gumagana lamang dahil mayroong isang kasunduan o mayroong isang treaty na nagu o nagiging binding no sa mga ito. kung wala in the absence of the treaty mga kaibigan ay hindi po maaari no hindi po maaari at wala pong mangyayaring ganon okay so kung ganon po mga kaibigan malinaw na po no malinaw na po itong desisyon na ito ng korte suprema hindi po maaaring hulihin si dating si senator no Rolando
12:27 Bato de Rosa because wala na po yung treaty ng kumalas po tayo bilang miyembro nito. Okay. So ang tanong pa nga po ni ah Justice Leonen nang kumalas po tayo sa ICC, meron bang nilabag ang pangulo? Meron bang nilabag si dating pangulong Rodrigo Roa Duterte when he decided na umalis sa ICC? No, meron ba? Okay. So yun po mga kaibigan ang sagot po wala. Therefore, ang sabi naman ni Attorney Bagares, eh kailangan ng approval ng lower house at ng upper house. No si attorne Jam sapagkat
13:14 yung nakasaad po sa batas natin sabi po ni Justice Leonel malinaw po doon na noong magpasya ang Pilipinas na maging miyembro tayo ng ICC pinag-usapan ni-ratify ito ng lower house at ng upper house. Ibig sabihin mayroong approval. Okay. Mayroong approval. Okay. So 'yun po no, mayroong approval ang lower house at ang upper house kung magiging o mag ah kumbaga magpapasya ang Pilipinas na maging bahagi ng ICC, kailangan ng kanilang approval. Pero hindi po nila isinulat
14:00 doon sa ating batas na yan na paano naman kung kakalas na tayo sa ICC, kailangan pa ba ng approval ng lower and upper house? Wala na po na nakasaad doon. Ibig sabihin, mayroon ng karapatan ang pangulo na kumalas sa ICC. Okay. Kahit na po walang approval ang lower and upper house dahil hindi po nila doon isinulat 'yung pamamaraan 'yung proseso ng ating pagkalas. Okay. So dahil wala na po tayong uh treaty therefore at wala naman din nilabag ang pangulo, 2019 officially we are no longer a member of
14:46 the International Criminal Court. And because we are no longer a member, wala na po silang powers para hulihin, dakpin si dating pangulong Rodrigo Roa Duterte. and much more. Syempre hindi na nila pwedeng hulihin si Senator Rolando Bato de la Rosa. Okay. So para po sa hindi nalinawan, no, panoorin at pakinggan po natin no ang ah argument na po ito no nina Associate no Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, no at ni Attorney Romel R. Bagares. Ito po yung tinalakay nila.
15:32 Pangilinan etal versus kayetano etal. Okay. This is an oral arguments. Okay. So malinaw ano po ang masasabi ninyo dito? Okay. Hindi po bias ang korte suprema. Napakalinaw po ng kanilang paliwanag. Okay. >> The president initiates and writes the content. Therefore, the president initiates the crafting and writes the content of that instrument which has the effect of law. Correct? >> That's correct. You honor? >> Yes. Uh the effect of treaty on domestic legislation, I think we need to qualify it a bit in order to be able to see how it relates to domestic law. Okay.
16:19 >> Very well honor. >> International law has traditionally affected the relationships of two states. Correct. Yes you >> in so far as the subject matter of international law especially of treaties before it was only between state to state. Correct. >> That's correct as far as classical international. >> Therefore, whenever there is a treaty under the old conditions, it only affects the roles of the representatives of the state another state. Correct. Yes, you honor as the procedure you >> and of course there is a possibility that the treaty will also affect the relationship of the citizen of another country sourning or passing through the other state. Is that not correct? >> That's correct. In which case therefore that treaty has
17:06 effect only because it commits the host state to the other state as to how it will treat the nationals from the other state. Is that not correct? >> That's correct. You >> Okay. The third situation is when a treaty like a human rights treaty has the effect of committing a state with respect to its behavior with respect to its own citizens. Is that not correct? >> Agree you honor. >> Yes. Tax treaties are day of the first, the second or the third kind? Well, uh that concerns uh usually taxia owner uh has a bilateral nature. So it concerns uh it would concern simultaneously the >> it affects whatever taxes that the a
17:53 boxer who boxes in the United States earns. Therefore the treatment on income tax is dependent on the tax treaty. Is that not correct? >> Yes, your honor. >> VFA visiting forces agreements. >> That's correct your honor. >> Also with respect to the second. Correct. Yes >> now with respect to the treaty that we are now considering it has as its core obligations of the state visav its nationals. Is that not correct? >> Yes and more you honor. >> And with respect to that it internationalizes four sets of crimes. Is that not correct? >> That's correct. You are >> yes it creates not only an obligation but also liability for the first time. Correct. Yes. As a for some but not all.
18:39 >> Yes. >> Yes. And these four sets of crimes are genocide. The second is war crimes. Honor. >> The third is crimes against humanity. And the third one is the crime of aggression. Honor. >> Correct. Okay. So with respect to this four, it means that a state is committing that it will not commit all of these crimes visav its own nationals. Is that not correct? >> Yes, that's one part of uh the Rome statute you honor. >> Yes, the Rome statute that is the core part because International Criminal Court has a crime that it prosecutes. Correct? >> The most serious crimes you honor. >> Yes. Uh well in terms of uh violations of the Geneva uh norms it is not most serious but grave.
19:25 >> Yes you honor. They have been >> cor in terms of dehave it is serious not grave. Correct. >> In terms of crimes against humanity it depends. Correct. Yes. And there are of course the introduction lately in the Rome statute of gendered crimes which are not found in the Geneva Convention clearly or in the Hag convention. Is that not correct? Okay. So we have to qualify that. >> The point there is that here we have an obligation of the state visav its nationals. Correct. >> Yes. >> Yes. And in with respect to the Rome statute before it was ratified by the Senate there was already a law. Correct. >> Yes. One year before you honor. >> But there was a law. >> That's the RN851. >> Yes. Which uh your group helped in
20:12 negotiating. Correct. >> That's correct. >> Yes. And Republic Act 9851 therefore is a law which gave the president more uh powers to accen to that particular treaty. Correct. Yes, you honor because that's provided in section 52. >> Now, in terms of Republic Act 9851, is there an acceptance of the procedures under the Rome statute? >> Yes, you honor because the core crimes are there, you honor. >> No procedures. >> The procedures are not laid down in the >> not laid down. In fact, there is only one specific provision in the Republic Act 9851 which refers to conventions and treaties which have already been ratified. Is that not correct?
20:58 >> That's in section 15 honor. >> It does not mention the Rome statute. Correct. It's not >> Republic Act 9851 is was not the authorizing statute for the president to accute. >> No it's independent but complementary >> yes so if Congress wanted to bind the future generations with respect to the remedies under the Rome statute it could have as easily provided in Republic Act 9851. Correct. Well, we believe you honor that in fact uh the Rome st uh the Rome stat >> could it have provided in 19851 that uh the law authorizes the president and therefore accepts the House and the
21:44 Senate accepts that there will be complementarity there will be an added layer in terms of these crimes. Well, um implicitly that is provided for your honor section 15 and section 2 of the lawy honor because there's a enumeration there you are owner of so many obligations and >> that's obligation I'm not referring to the obligations. There's a difference between substantive crimes and the procedure for the crimes. Is that not correct? >> Yes, you honor me. >> For example, the triggers for jurisdiction. Correct. >> Yes, your honor. >> For example, article 17. Correct. That's correct your honor. >> For example, the acceptance of the crime of aggression >> 15 B and the following. Correct. That's correct honor because the Rome statut
22:30 >> So there are provisions in the Rome statute which were not included in Republic Act 9851. Is that not correct? >> Yes. Because they're not necessarily religion. >> So Republic Act 9851 was produced through the liberations in the House and the Senate. Correct? >> That's correct. and the house and the Senate did not produce the obligation on the part of the president to follow the rule on complementarity, gravity, office of the prosecutor and the international criminal court. Correct >> me your honor because all over the law honor you have those provision honor. Show me. >> Well, you honor um let me refer uh the court you honor to where is the provision on gravity
23:17 requirement of gravity before prosecution. Well, your honor that is implicit in complementarity your honor and according to the >> Show me in article 17 it is very clear under article 17 section D. Yes, your honor. That's correct your honor. >> What about in 19851? >> Um, because you honor in our in >> So the House and the Senate agreed that only parts of the international criminal court will be covered by domestic legislation. Correct. That's also at the heart. >> Can you answer my question? The House and the Senate agreed that only these
24:04 parts of the Rome statute would be part of domestic legislation. Correct? >> That's correct. There is no commitment under the domestic legislation to bind future generations as to another layer of a court. Is that not correct? >> Well, we disagree your honor because the respect your honor to implementing >> where in the law does it say that the president should bind ourselves to a additional layer? >> Your honor may I refer your honor for instance to the age to interpretation provided for inction it international criminal courtes it accept another court
24:51 Your honor um section 15 says uh that uh applicability of international law in the application of an interpretation of this act Philippine courts >> interpretation of the act which means the text must already be there. Where is the text which actually says that it recognizes or allows the president to add another court? >> Um because you honored the R9851 is almost an exact copy of the Rome statute and the Rome stat you honor >> you're not answering my question you're alliding my question my question is where in that statute so that we finish immediately it's not there expressly >> not expressly so the house and the Senate did not pass the house
25:36 representative of the people theate elected at large passed a law which did not include portions of the Rome statute but copied the core provisions. Correct? >> That's correct. Yes. So when the president removed the treaty or withdrew from the treaty, did it violate a law? It did your honor. >> Which law? >> Many laws, your honor. Uh we are parties to so many um show you honor for instance the four Geneva conventions. >> Which one? Which convention? >> The four Geneva Conventions you honor. >> The Geneva Conventions. >> Yes. And >> have we withdrawn from the Geneva Conventions? >> We are not your honor but all of these conventions. withdrawn from protocol of the Geneva Convention of 1949 have we
26:23 withdrawn from protocol 2 of the Geneva Convention you honor but our answer we withdrawn from the Hay convention of 1907 >> you honor >> so what are you saying we have also withdrawn from the Geneva convention are the provisions of the Geneva conventions already in Republic Act 9851 >> yes your honor >> did we withdraw 19851 >> well that that is not >> so be careful council don't do what a law student You answer the question >> we did not honor. >> The question is here we have a law pass by the house and the sene. The house and the senny through a law decided that only these portions of the Rome statute will bind the Philippines. Correct. That's correct your honor. >> Only by treaty did we add certain under
27:10 correct your honor >> with the president withdrawing from the treaty. Did the president violate this statute? Ano >> did the president withdraw from 9851? >> May I qualify? May answer you >> did the president. >> So he did not. >> He did not. >> Yes. So that's it. Thank you. Oh. O. ang isang mainit at napakabigat na topic. Welcome sa ating explainer. Kung law student ka o talagang gusto mo lang intindihin ang mga malalim na legal issues natin dito sa Pilipinas, you're in the right place. Ngayon, hihimain natin literally iisa-isahin natin ng walang kinikilingan at puro facts lang yung Landmark Supreme Court Decision
27:57 tungkol sa pag-withdraw ng Pilipinas mula sa Rome statute na bumuo sa International Criminal Court. Aalamin natin ang bawat detalye ng kasong ito purely based sa official records ng Corte Suprema. Okay, let's dive into this. O ang magiging road map natin for today's explainer. Susundan natin yung deconstructed na Iraq format para siguradong walang mami-miss. Tatalakayin natin ang case basics of doctrines. Ang mismong timeline, procedural hurdles, presidential powers, international rights at sember ang final verdict. Mga detalye at doktrina ng kaso. Para solid ang foundation natin, ilatag muna natin ang metadata ng kaso. Ang official title nito ay Pangilinan V Cayetano.
28:44 Konsolidado ito, meaning pinagsama-sama ang tatlong magkakaibang petisyon sa ilalim ng GR NOS 23875, 239483 at 240954. Galing ang mga petisyong ito sa anim na senador sa Philippine Coalition for the International Criminal Court at sa IBP. Ipinrumulga ito noong March 16, 2021 at ang punente o ang justice na sumulat ng desisyon ay si Associate Justice Marvic Ionen. Ngayon, bago tayo lumalim sa kwento, i-highlight na natin agad yung mga heavy hitting legal principles na naging sentro ng desisyon. Nandiyan angotness doctrine. Yung limitasyon at saklaw ng kapangyarihan niyang pangulo na mag-withdraw sa treeties. Yung supremacy ng ating local statutes laban
29:30 sa international treaties. Ang mirror principle at syempre yung mahigpit na requirements para masabing justiable ang isang kaso. I-keep in mind niyo itong mga ito dahil ito yung mga constitutional mechanics na ide-deconstruct natin in a bit. Part two, ang landas patungo sa withdrawal. Let's backtrack a bit sa timeline ha. Nagsimula ang lahat noong 1998 nung na-adopt ang Rome statute. At take note napakaaktibo ng Pilipinas sa pag-draft niyan. Fast forward sa taong 2000, nilagdaan ito ni dating Pangulong Estrada. Pero heto ang isang sobrang crucial na detail na kadalasan nakakalimutan. Nong 2009, bago pa man tayo formal na naging miyembro ng ICC, nagpasa na ang kongreso ng Republic Act number 9851. Ito yung sarili nating
30:15 batas na nagpaparusa sa mga crimes against international humanitarian law. Then finally, nong 2011, pormal na nag-conquado at ni-ratify natin ang statute. Fast forward naman tayo sa administrasyon ni Pangulong Duterte. Noong 2017, may mga inihain na reklamo sa ICC tungkol sa kampanya kontra droga. By February 2018, nag-umpisa na ang preliminary examination ang ICC prosecutor. Ano ang naging trigger nito? A month later, noong March 15, 2018, nag-anunsyo ang Pilipinas na aalis na tayo sa ICC. At the very next day, isunumiti ang pormal na notice of withdrawal sa UN. At dahil sa rules ng Rome statute, exact one year ang kailangan bago ito mag-take effect. Kaya naging official ang withdrawal natin
31:01 noong March 17, 2019. Part 3, mga balakid sa proseso at moteness. So heto na ang procedural hurdle number one. Kailangan nating itanong direkta. Justiciable ba ang mga consolidated petitions na ito? In simple terms, nasa posisyon ba ang korte suprema para makialam at maglabas ng desisyon sa gulo na ito o masyado na bang huli ang lahat? Dito idiniin ng korte ang mouthness doctrine. Basically, kapag sinabi nating m ibig sabihin may mga events ng nangyari na nag-alis doon sa mismong actual na kontrobersya. Wala ng away. Kaya kahit magbaba pa ng desisyon ng korte in theory wala na itong practical value. Ano ang nangyari rito? Habang nagde-deliberate pa lang ang korte
31:46 suprema, the UN had already consumated the acceptance of our withdrawal. Effektibo na siya. So the crucial point is the court's hands were completely tied. Irreversible na iyung aktion bago pa man sila makapagbaba ng hatol. Bukod doon, as a collegial body, walang ipinasang opisyal na resolusyon ang buong senado para pigilan ang ginawa ng presidente. Kahit may anim na senador na nag-file, the court said hindi nila nire-represent ang opisyal na boses ng buong institusyon. At para naman sa PCICA at IBP, sinabi ng korte na hindi nila napatunayang mayroon silang natamong direct or specific injury sa pag-aalis natin sa ICC. Part 4. Kapangyarihan ng pangulo sa tratado. Dumako naman tayo sa pinakapuso ng
32:31 substantive constitutional issue. Ito yung matinding tanong. Pwede bang unilaterally mag-withdraw ang presidente mula sa isang treaty? Sabi ng mga petitioners, kung kinailangan ng pangulo ng concurrence o approval ng Senado nung una para sumali, 'di ba? Logical lang na kailangan din yan ng approval nila para umalis. Now, what's really interesting about this slide is kung paano nilarawan ng korte suprema yung balanse ng kapangyarihan. Hindi absolute ang kapangyarihan ng pangulo ha. Pwede siyang umatras mag-isa kung sa paningin niya unconstitutional yung treaty o sumasalungat sa prior statute natin. Pero hindi siya pwedeng umatras mag-isa kung noong una pa lang ay nilagyan na ng senado ng conditional concurrence clause na kailangan ng boto nila. O kaya naman
33:17 kung 'yung pag-withdraw ay sasalungat mismo sa Legislative authority. Oh, paano ba inapply ng korte 'yan sa facts ng kaso natin? Binalikan nila yung Senate Resolution number 546 mula noong 2011. And guess what? Nalaman nila na hindi nilagyan ng Senado ng withdrawal concurrence clause ang resolusyong iyon. Wala silang nilagay na kondisyon na kailangan niyo muna kaming tanungin bago kayo umalis. Ang nakakagulat pa diyan sa 17 ibang treaties na na-ratify ng Senado, meron silang inilagay na ganitong clause. Kaya sa particular na sitwasyong ito, the court found na walang nilabag na limitation o nagawang constitutional impass. Part 5, mga internasyonal na obligasyon at karapatan. Tingnan din natin yung
34:03 argument ng petitioners regarding international rights. Sabi nila kung aalis tayo sa ICC, parang binabaliwala natin ang Pacta Sun Servanda. Nababawasan ba ang proteksyon ng mga Pilipino? May merit ba ang takot na ito? Tignan niyo itong table natin. It brilliantly illustrates the court's reasoning. Kinumparan nila yung ating Republic Act 9851 sa Rome's statute. At alam niyo ba, mas malawak pala ang proteksyon na binibigay ng local law natin. Sa torture, sakop natin kahit psychological. Sa Rome statute, physical lang. Sa child soldiers, bawal sa atin ang kumuha ng edad 18 pababa. Sa kanila 15 pababa at yung horisdicsyon natin universal for all Filipinos anywhere in the world. Kaya sabi ng korte hindi tayo
34:50 nawalan ng proteksyon dahil yung sarili nating batas ay mas malakas pa nga kaysa sa tritado. At para i-clear out yung uso na baka daw ginamit ang pag-withdraw para makatakas sa pananagutan, nilinaw ng korte suprema ng mismong article 127-2 ng Rome statute ang nagsasabi na withdrawing doesn't grant you a free pass. Yung mga financial obligations mo nandiyan pa rin. Ang pakikipagtulungan sa mga imbestigasyong naumpisahan na tuloy pa rin. At higit sa lahat, the ICC strictly retains jurisdiction over alleged acts na nangyari prior to the effectivity of the withdrawal noong March 17, 2019. Kumbaga, the accountability mechanisms are completely intact. Part 6, ang pinal na hatol which
35:35 leads us straight to the disposition. Ito yyung pinalektibong hatol ng korte suprema. Wherefore the consolidated petitions in GRS 238875, 23943 and 24095 are dismissed for being moved. Iinasura ito dahil wala na ngang actual na kaso. Nakumplato na ang pag-alis at tinanggap ng UN bago pa man mailabas na hatol at walang ginawang formal act ang Senado to stop it. And take note, all justices concurred on this dismissal. Walang niisang nag-desent na talagang mood na ang issue. Para i-wrap up itong explainer natin, I want to leave you with this powerful quote mula sa ponente si Associate Justice Leonen. Sabi niya, "Ang batas ay nangingibabaw kaysa sa isang tratado. Kapagsalungat sa mga
36:20 batas na ipinasa ng kongreso, ang mga tratado at international na kasunduan ay dapat magbigay daan." Ang bigat noon, 'di ba? Ito ang nagsisilbing ultimate declaration ng hierarchy ng Philippine law. Nagpapakita ito kung paano naninindigan ang sarili nating mga lokal na batas para protektahan ang ating soberania bilang isang bansa. It really makes you think about how our domestic statutes are the ultimate shields we have. Sana marami kayong natutunan sa paghihimay natin ng makasaysayang kasong ito. Maraming salamat sa panonood.
