01:00.7
So, that means that they're preparing for a trial at the moment because for the witnesses, they need translators
01:10.3
because the witnesses might be more familiar with Tagalog or Cebuano.
01:16.3
So, they're precisely looking for translators.
01:19.4
So, that's the big giveaway that there could be a trial soon.
01:24.0
And soon, you're understanding from the timetable.
01:28.4
Yung mga deadline timetable din yan is siguro within the next three to six months, no?
01:32.7
I mean, to have an educated guess on this.
01:35.7
In short, before midterm elections.
01:37.1
I want to be very particular.
01:38.4
Before midterm elections, right?
01:40.0
Yeah, I think within the year.
01:41.8
Yeah, within the year.
01:43.7
I mean, imagine kung magkasabay ba yan sa elections sa October na filing of candidates.
01:49.0
I mean, this is crazy.
01:50.4
Again, I want to also ask you, Justice Garfield, I asked J.J. Batumbacal, our good friend the other day also about this.
01:58.4
Gano ka mahalaga na mag-cooperate si BBM sa ICC sa konteksto ng West Philippine Seed Disputes?
02:04.8
Because if you want the world to be on our side when it comes to rule of law, rules-based international order,
02:10.5
don't you want to also show that you have rule of law at home and you're going to cooperate in international bodies?
02:15.7
Kasi parang weird, ne?
02:17.0
Ayaw mo sa ICC pero gusto mo sa arbitral tribunal at on-clause?
02:20.6
Hindi pwede yan, di ba?
02:21.8
You cannot pick and choose.
02:22.7
You have to show consistency of conviction.
02:25.9
Yes, to a certain extent.
02:28.4
Because the EU, they actually are the originators of the ICC.
02:35.8
They're fully in support.
02:37.2
They're actually financing the ICC.
02:40.6
But the US, of course, is not a member.
02:43.4
It is not ratified.
02:46.9
But the EU would like to see us rejoin or at least cooperate.
02:54.5
And the, in fact, the Supreme Court ruled.
02:58.4
There is a ruling of the Supreme Court in the case filed by, I think it was Pimentel or Cayetano, I can't remember.
03:09.0
The Supreme Court said, okay, the issue was whether the withdrawal by President Duterte was effective or not.
03:15.2
The Supreme Court said, yes, effective.
03:18.0
But there is a one-year period where they could continue with the prosecution.
03:28.4
So, crimes committed while we were a party.
03:34.2
So, in fact, we are, and then the Supreme Court said there that we are obligated to cooperate.
03:39.9
And it was a unanimous decision.
03:42.7
We are obligated to cooperate.
03:44.5
Some are saying that this is just an obiter dictum.
03:48.8
In other words, it's just an aside.
03:50.3
But I don't think so because that goes into the very question of whether the withdrawal was effective.
03:57.3
So, if you're talking of...
03:58.4
Effectivity of withdrawal.
04:00.2
So, you have to look at the residual issue whether there is a phase-out period.
04:07.3
Because that's part of the withdrawal.
04:09.8
Residual jurisdiction in that case.
04:12.0
Although, if I'm not mistaken, the former chief prosecutor, I'm not sure about Karim Khan, but the previous one,
04:19.5
parang may sinabi din sila justice na even if hindi ka kasama sa ICC,
04:24.1
if you have committed crimes against humanity or mass atrocity,
04:28.4
pwede pa rin pumasok.
04:30.1
I mean, for instance, Putin of Russia,
04:32.7
Russia never joined ICC last time I checked, just like the US.
04:35.8
But they issued the warrant of arrest against Putin last year.
04:39.1
Yeah, only because the crime was alleged to have been committed within Ukraine.
04:44.4
And Ukraine made a manifestation or a communication to the ICC that while they are not ratifying,
04:57.4
they are not ratifying.
04:58.4
They are saying that they will allow the ICC to have jurisdiction over offenses committed within their territory.
05:08.3
So, that's why the ICC issued the warrant of arrest against Putin because of that.
05:16.4
Right. I mean, I'm glad that you mentioned the US case because the US obviously didn't raise any criticisms when Putin got the warrant of arrest.
05:25.4
But now there are news that Netanyahu or some top Israelis,
05:28.4
Israeli officials may face something similar in the ICC.
05:31.4
And now you have US senators openly threatening ICC.
05:35.0
And for sure, behind the scenes, there's pressure being put on the ICC.
05:38.4
So, you're right.
05:39.8
I mean, it's not only that the US is not part of the Rome Statute.
05:43.0
We have evidence of US senators, if not the US government, openly opposing or trying to frustrate when it doesn't go in its own favor.
05:50.3
Except, Duterte is not a favorite of America.
05:53.5
So, I'm not sure they'll have an issue.
05:55.2
Yeah, that's interesting.
05:56.6
Except, I don't think US will mind.
05:58.5
At all, if the ICC goes after Duterte, the way they didn't mind at all when it went after Putin.
06:05.3
Well, the US has not issued any statement against the probable issuance of a warrant of arrest on Duterte by the ICC.
06:16.7
They haven't made any comment on that.
06:18.5
But if you recall, the ICC prosecutor before the present one, before Khan, Shuda.
06:30.5
She was actually barred from entering the US, I think.
06:35.7
Because she started an investigation on...
06:39.4
It's Afghanistan, no?
06:40.7
Afghanistan, yes.
06:41.7
Yeah, violations by US servicemen.
06:46.3
So, in short, US, they don't have credibility or moral ascendancy on this issue.
06:52.7
To put it nicely.
06:53.6
And we know, of course, from the literature, the Bush administration was very aggressively against...
06:58.4
The ICC and the Rome Statute.
07:00.0
That's why it's a big deal that we joined in 2011 despite being a US ally.
07:03.2
But by that time, it's Obama.
07:04.5
Now, I don't want to go too much into the ICC.
07:05.9
I only wanted to emphasize justice.
07:11.0
Don't you think it's important that we show that we're a country of a rule of law?
07:15.8
Because if you want to be at the receiving end of international legal instruments' support on the West Philippines issue,
07:25.2
perhaps to a certain degree also you want to show that you're a country of a rule of law.
07:28.1
From my understanding, though, is when Marcos was in Germany,
07:32.0
and I interviewed the German ambassador on this,
07:34.7
very strong Yung Pushni Chancellor Scholz among other European leaders for Marcos to cooperate
07:43.0
or at least not to frustrate the ICC procedures since we are supposed to be fellow democracies, right?
07:49.2
I mean, that's what I also understand.
07:50.7
So, our European friends for sure are putting some good encouragement, not pressure, if I can put it that way.
07:55.7
Yes, well, I go by the decision.
07:58.1
The Supreme Court that we have to cooperate even as we are no longer a member
08:03.5
because of that provision for crimes committed while you were a party,
08:10.8
the ICC will still have jurisdiction.
08:13.6
And we have still a duty to cooperate with respect to those cases which happened while we were still a member.
08:23.0
And that's my position.
08:24.5
Because that's the pronouncement of the Supreme Court.
08:28.1
Right. And by that time, you were no longer in the Supreme Court, right?
08:32.0
Yeah, I was no longer in the Supreme Court.
08:35.5
Yeah, Leonen was the ponente.
08:37.9
It was a unanimous decision.
08:40.0
Right. Absolutely.
08:41.3
Which is sometimes rare on things like that.
08:44.6
But just another question. Sorry.
08:47.0
Curious lang ako, bakit silent yung ating constitution dun sa exit from treaties scenario?
08:53.2
I mean, I find this strange.
08:55.0
Shouldn't that have been anticipated by anyone?
08:58.1
Don't other countries have that? Similar democracies?
09:01.5
Na concurrent kapat ng Senate, et cetera?
09:04.5
Well, it follows that it should be terminated in the same way that it was entered into.
09:13.4
In other words, the President ratified by the Senate.
09:17.0
But in this case, there was no ratification by the Senate
09:19.8
because the Supreme Court said the Senate did not object.
09:23.8
I mean, I don't agree with that.
09:26.1
Yun nga, diba? Medyo...
09:28.1
Honestly, Justice, thank you for pointing that out.
09:29.9
I just find that a little bit...
09:31.6
Yeah, because in the case of ratification, it has to be a positive act by the Senate.
09:39.1
If they don't act on it, it's not ratified.
09:42.3
So it should be the same case in withdrawal.
09:46.1
The President wants to withdraw.
09:48.7
But if the Senate doesn't do anything, then there's no positive approval of the withdrawal.
09:55.8
Because both must act.
09:58.1
That's the requirement of the Constitution.
10:01.3
Thank you, Justice, for saying that.
10:02.5
I wanted to hear that from someone.
10:04.0
Because for me, again, who am I to disagree with the Supreme Court?
10:07.6
But I found that thing a bit queasy, right?
10:09.5
The whole thing a bit...
10:12.5
I want to ask about...
10:13.8
There's something...
10:15.7
This is what the Supreme Court said.
10:17.4
Because in this case, the majority did not object.
10:21.2
Then it is deemed to have been...
10:23.3
They're deemed to have approved it, in effect.
10:25.7
But that's not the way the Constitution is.
10:28.1
There has to be a positive act.
10:30.3
I mean, the bill does not become a law unless there's a positive act.
10:37.9
Unless the Constitution itself says that if the President does not veto it within 30 days,
10:44.7
then it lapses into law.
10:46.7
But there is no such thing.
10:48.8
So, in other words, if the Constitution requires consent, it must work both ways.
10:55.1
Consent to approve and consent to terminate.
10:58.1
I find it a leap of logic, if not leap of presumption, right?
11:04.5
Just because the Senate did not claim it, then okay.
11:07.0
I mean, I just find it weird.
11:08.0
I mean, what is your indicator to say,
11:10.1
there is no appeal to the Senate, right?
11:12.5
Just because Duterte was popular back then.
11:14.6
So, I'm glad, Justice, you mentioned this.
11:16.2
Because, you know, I'm not a constitutional expert.
11:19.1
But honestly, even as a non-constitutional expert, I found the thing a bit strange.
11:23.9
But this is important because
11:25.2
our update is DOJ.
11:28.1
I gave a briefer to Marcos on scenarios on the potential warrants of arrest.
11:32.7
But the other thing is, there are also discussions, from what I understand,
11:36.8
about us rejoining the ICC.
11:38.8
Now, if the Constitution is silent on the exit part, supposedly,
11:44.1
per itong Supreme Court ruling na yan, or implication of Supreme Court,
11:47.6
then rejoining that should be also a unilateral executive decision
11:51.9
or dapat dadaan ulit sa Senado?
11:53.5
The reason I'm saying dadaan ulit sa Senado dapat is,
11:56.4
I know that's your stance probably,
11:57.8
but may batoy, may buko, may Robin Hood Padilla.
12:03.5
I mean, now, suddenly, it's asymmetrical.
12:06.5
That exit, you gave a free pass to Duterte.
12:09.3
Re-entering, you're giving the Duterte people,
12:11.4
well, pro-Duterte people, again, a veto power.
12:13.9
I find that problematic.
12:16.0
Well, I think we have to do it right,
12:20.1
regardless of the composition in the Senate.
12:22.8
And I think to rejoin, the President must,
12:26.5
uh, approve, and the Senate must consent.
12:32.8
And you think there could be enough number?
12:35.1
The concurrence is what?
12:40.4
I think just about.
12:41.7
Yeah, just about.
12:42.3
Yeah, just about.
12:43.9
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
12:45.1
The numbers will be there.
12:46.7
And if this is after 2025 elections, you never know.
12:49.6
Mukhang bati si Amy Marcos, delegado, baka hindi makapasok sa top 12.
12:53.1
I'm looking at the surveys, it's very competitive.
12:56.5
Yeah, it's, uh, very crowded.
12:57.6
Baka bato lang at Bongo.
12:59.1
Yeah, baka bato Bongo lang makapasok from the DDS camp.
13:02.0
And let's see about the other Dutertes if they run.
13:04.3
Now, let's transition now, of course, to, um,
13:08.0
speaking of ICC, one of the persons who has been, uh, advising BBM,
13:12.9
at least until he became complete opposition, is Harry Roque.
13:17.0
I just want to ask you, Justice Carp, because, you know,
13:19.3
you're not just a former, uh, you know, top-level jurist.
13:22.9
I mean, well, I mean, you were part of the Supreme Court.
13:26.5
You are also a democracy advocate, right?
13:28.9
You, you are a believer in the ETSA project, from my understanding,
13:32.5
or at least the promise of the ETSA project.
13:34.9
How do you feel about certain people who are presidential spokesmen of Duterte
13:39.0
after being an ex-human rights lawyer, supporting the UNI team
13:42.9
during the SMNI debate, if I can call that a debate,
13:46.3
saying wala siyang nahanap na ebidensya na may maling ginawa na Marcos
13:49.4
in a sense by saying wala daw kaso sa korte, wala daw Supreme Court.
13:53.9
And then now, invoking people.
13:58.5
Yung mga talking about Marcos' court cases in the U.S.,
14:02.5
implying, and interestingly, I heard this also from my friends in China,
14:06.2
implying that the reason naging matapang ang BBM sa China
14:10.7
is because baka yung mga Amerikano nagpakabait on issues that they're not.
14:14.7
I mean, what's, I'm not, I'm not saying na,
14:17.6
balentong, balentong ba yung term ni, si BBM, but,
14:21.8
wait, speaking of balento, I mean, like, this is nuts.
14:25.1
What's going on here, Justice?
14:26.5
Well, that's, I think, vintage Hariro, okay?
14:31.1
Because, remember, he, before he joined the Duterte cabinet,
14:36.2
he, he said that Duterte was a serial murderer.
14:43.1
He said that on, on camera.
14:45.8
And then he, he became the spokesperson.
14:49.0
He joined the cabinet.
