Latest news with #Diokno
GMA Network
16-07-2025
- Politics
- GMA Network
ICC to ensure fair Duterte trial —solons
The trial of former president Rodrigo Duterte before the International Criminal Court (ICC) will guarantee fair proceedings and the protection of witnesses, two lawmakers said on Wednesday. Akbayan party-list Representative Chel Diokno and Lanao del Sur Rep. Zia Adiong remarked in light of Senator Imee Marcos filing of Senate Bill No. 557 or the President Rodrigo R. Duterte Act, which prohibits the arrest or detention of persons from the Philippine territory and their transfer to an international court without a warrant of arrest issued by a local court. In addition, Senators Robin Padilla, Bong Go, and Ronald dela Rosa filed a Senate resolution seeking a house arrest for Duterte, who is currently detained in The Hague pending trial. 'We have to emphasize that the ICC is the court of last resort, so there is the principle of complementarity. This means if we can hold a fair trial here, there is no need for ICC. But based on the deliberation of the ICC, they have come to the conclusion — and I fully agree with it. It will be so difficult to have a fair trial of a former president in the Philippines,' Diokno said in a press conference. '[This is] a former president who still has a lot of influence. Maaring matakot ang mga testigo, maaring magdalawang-isip. This is a former President who also managed to appoint a lot of members of the judiciary, and a former president who really waged a war on drugs that was a very violent war. That is why for me, we can be assured of a fair trial if it's done in the ICC,' he pointed out. (The witnesses might be caught in fear ahead of testifying.) 'The judges there cannot be coerced, intimidated, or otherwise influenced in their decisions, at para pati ang mga testigo ay hindi rin matatakot na humarap at sabihin 'yung kanilang kaalaman,' Diokno added. (The ICC is the right venue so that witnesses will not be afraid or think twice about testifying about what they know.) Adiong backed Diokno, saying that such moves backing Duterte show that the victims remain in a hostile environment in need of protection from Duterte and his allies. 'The senators are entitled to push for causes they believe in, but what they are doing could also be detrimental to their cause because this is the same point being raised by the family of the victims on why they are opposing the interim release of the former President: while he is closely monitored, he might use some degree of influence that he still enjoys,' Adiong said. 'Having some senators adopting this kind of resolution, it would reinforce the argument of the family of the victims that indeed, the former President can still muster some control,' he added. Diokno reiterated that the the Philippines remains obligated to cooperate with the ICC as provided under the Republic Act 9851 or the Act on the Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law, Genocide, and Crimes Against Humanity and the July 2021 Supreme Court ruling which mandates the Philippine government to cooperate with ICC proceedings if the alleged crimes were committed while the Philippines was a signatory to the ICC. 'We have a duty to respect and to follow the procedures of the ICC. Any law that we will pass or that will be in violation of the Rome Statute would not be consistent with our obligations in the ICC,' he added. Duterte's confirmation of charges hearing in the Hague is scheduled on September 23, 2025. Duterte is currently detained in the Scheveningen Prison, an ICC detention center in The Netherlands.—LDF, GMA Integrated News
GMA Network
01-07-2025
- Politics
- GMA Network
Chel Diokno warns of 'trap' if House submits 2nd certification to impeachment court
The Senate impeachment court's order for the House of Representatives under 20th Congress to submit certification of its willingness to pursue the impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte could sabotage the prosecution's case, House prosecutor and Akbayan Rep. Chel Diokno said Tuesday. Diokno was referring to one of the two Senate impeachment court orders, which also includes issuance of certification that the impeachment complaint against the Vice President did not violate the Constitution's one-year bar rule, which only allows for the filing of one impeachment complaint against an impeachable official per year. The House already submitted the first required certification that the complaint was in accordance with the Constitution, but it is yet to submit the second certification concerning its willingness to prosecute. 'Iyan ang bagay na kailangan pag-aralan nang mabuti kasi baka naman maaaring maging trap na 'yan. Kapag ginawa ng House 'yan ay sasabihin naman nila, 'Oh, nag-violate na kayo ng one-year ban'," Diokno told reporters. Diokno, who worked as a human rights lawyer before his election in Congress, said the election of 11 public prosecutors once the First Regular Session of Congress opens on July 28 is sufficient proof that the House remains committed to prosecuting the Vice President before the Senate impeachment court. "If Congress will designate prosecutors to the panel, that is already a very clear indication that they want to proceed with the case," Diokno said. Diokno said that the Senate impeachment court's order to return the Articles of Impeachment to the House pending the issuance of two certifications has no basis under existing laws, including the Constitution. 'That remand, as well as a senator-judge moving for the outright dismissal of the impeachment case, are not provided for in the Senate impeachment rules and the Constitution,' Diokno said. "That's why all of these things, all of what has happened in the Senate is so highly questionable because instead of obeying the Constitution, which is super clear to me, as soon as the verified complaint is filed with, bearing at least one-third signatures of the House members, they have no choice but to conduct the trial, hear the evidence, and then decide based on the evidence,' he added. The impeachment complaint filed against the Vice President last February 5 had more than 200 House members as endorsers, or way above the Constitutional requirement of one-third of all House members for the impeachment complaint to be directly transmitted to the Senate and for the impeachment trial to 'proceed forthwith.' Lawyer and Ako-Bicol party-list Rep. Alfredo Garbin, for his part, said the House of Representatives need not vote on whether it will pursue the prosecution of Vice President Duterte before the Senate impeachment court. 'Sa tingin ko, hindi po because it was already transmitted to the Senate,' Garbin told reporters when asked if the House should vote on whether or not it should pursue the impeachment complaint against the Vice President. 'The Constitution is clear: what remains is for the Senate to try the same,' Garbin said. The Senate impeachment court did not explicitly state that the House should vote upon such certifications. Garbin said that the Senate could not dismiss the impeachment complaint against the Vice President via a majority vote, a position contrary to what was said by former Senate President Francis Escudero. 'The Constitution provides that the Senate should try and decide on impeachment cases. You need 18 votes [or two-thirds of the Senate] to convict, and less than 18 to acquit. The Constitution does not speak of dismissal,' Garbin said. 'The Constitution speaks of hearing, trial, and the reception of evidence,' he added. The impeachment complaint filed by over 200 lawmakers accuses the Vice President of betrayal of public trust, culpable violation of the Constitution, graft and corruption, and other high crimes mainly over alleged misuse of around P612.5 million worth of confidential funds and threatening to kill President Ferdinand Marcos, Jr., his wife Liza and the President's cousin and then Speaker Martin Romualdez of Leyte. –NB, GMA Integrated News
GMA Network
29-06-2025
- Politics
- GMA Network
Diokno, Lacson: Impeachment court cannot junk VP Sara's case by majority vote
The senator-judges cannot junk the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte by simple majority vote based on the Constitution nor should the motion come from them, incoming lawmakers of the 20th Congress Chel Diokno and Panfilo Lacson said Sunday. ''Yun ay wala rin sa Konstitusyon. Wala sa Constitution yung simple majority vote to dismiss impeachment (the simple majority vote to dismiss the impeachment complaint is not indicated in the constitution),' Diokno told Super Radyo dzBB. 'Bawal 'yung moves to convict. Ang oath ng mga senator-judge bilang senator-judge ay dinggin lang ang ebidensya at gawin lang ang paghuhusga kapag nadinig na ang ebidensya (Moves to convict are not allowed. The senator-judges took an oath to look at the evidence and judge when all of the pieces of evidence have been presented),' he added. Diokno made the statement after Senate President Francis Escudero said the Senate impeachment court may vote on the motion to dismiss Duterte's case. Earlier this week, Escudero said the Senate is a collegial body, and as an impeachment court, a decision can be placed through a simple majority vote. Escudero was referring to the constitutional requirement that two-thirds of the members of the Senate impeachment court is needed to convict the impeachable official under trial. 'Katawa-tawa' Meanwhile, incoming senator of the 20th congress Panfilo Lacson shared Diokno's opinion, noting that a motion to dismiss Duterte's case should come from the defense team and not from a senator sitting as a judge presiding over the impeachment proceedings. 'Sa akin, ang senator-judge hindi naman puwedeng mag-move to dismiss kasi judge eh. Saan ka naman nakakita ng huwes siya pa mismo magmo-move to dismiss eh kami rin 'yung made-decide? So, 'yung motion to dismiss mangagaling dapat 'yun sa defense,' Lacson said in a separate Super radyo dzBB interview. (For me, a senator-judge cannot move to dismiss since he is a judge. Where have you seen a judge who moves to dismiss when we're the ones who are supposed to hand down a decision? The motion to dismiss should come from the defense.) 'Ako maliwanag ako dun, hindi pwede mag move o mag submit ng motion to dismiss ang isang senator-judge kasi huwes kami. Hindi lang sa mali kung hindi improper, inappropriate, at katawa-tawa,' he added. (I'm clear that a senator-judge cannot move or submit a motion to dismiss since we're judges. It's not only wrong but also improper, inappropriate and ridiculous.) Duterte's impeachment complaint includes issues surrounding the use of confidential funds, unexplained wealth, and alleged involvement in extrajudicial killings in Davao City. The complaint also includes her 'assassination' remarks against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos and House Speaker Martin Romualdez. On June 10, the Senate sitting as an impeachment court voted to return to the House of Representatives the articles of impeachment against Duterte without dismissing or terminating them. This came after senator-judge Ronald 'Bato' Dela Rosa, an ally of the Duterte family, even before the impeachment court convened, moved for the dismissal of the impeachment complaint against the Vice President. —RF, GMA Integrated News
