THE HAGUE, Netherlands – It was a day of quotable quotes on Monday, February 23, when the Worldwide Prison Courtroom (ICC) opened its weeklong listening to on the affirmation of expenses towards former Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte.
Each side declare they received spherical one, and so they could each be proper. Additionally they could have been attempting to win totally different battles.
Right here’s a rundown on what occurred on Day 1 of Duterte on pre-trial on the ICC.
Prosecution
The prosecution introduced testimonies from unnamed witnesses who stated they’d labored as assassins for the Davao Dying Squad. One witness claimed to have attended a gathering the day Duterte created the dying squad, the place the previous mayor of Davao Metropolis allegedly handed round a basket from which hitmen picked their handguns.
“The brand new members [of the death squad] may pull one [gun] out like getting a prize. So they’d every have a weapon for his or her new job. It was a celebratory occasion for Mr. Duterte. The witness defined Mr. Duterte was blissful at this dinner assembly,” stated prosecution senior trial lawyer Julian Nicholls.
“That is what the witness remembers of the assembly: he, Duterte, advised us that your job right here within the metropolis can be to kill the drug pushers, the snatchers, and the hold-uppers,” stated Nicholls.
The prosecution proceeded to point out clips of Duterte admitting each to media and to Congress that he has a dying squad. The prosecution went on to say that no matter Duterte stated in his public remarks had been true.
“That’s not hyperbole. That’s not bluster. That’s him telling the reality when he feels protected, and that he can financial institution on his continued impunity,” stated Nicholls.
Within the ICC, there are totally different modes of prison legal responsibility. In Duterte’s case, his mode is an alleged oblique co-perpetrator. This merely means he didn’t pull the set off on the crimes being charged towards him, however that he was “on the very coronary heart of the frequent plan to, use his phrases, neutralize alleged criminals within the Philippines via murders,” as Deputy Prosecutor Mame Mandiaye Niang stated.
On this mode of prison legal responsibility, one essential issue is psychological ingredient or proving that the alleged co-perpetrator was conscious {that a} crime was going to occur.
“Mr. Duterte supposed and knew that the charged crimes had been occurring, or that they’d happen within the peculiar course of occasion that he had set in place and put in movement,” stated Niang.
Lead protection counsel Nicholas Kaufman countered this by declaring that Duterte by no means wavered from warning policemen to not go rogue. Recalling that Duterte as soon as stated, “abuse your authority, and there will probably be hell to pay,” Kaufman stated, “nicely, there you might be, you will have it straight in your face, PEXO exonerating proof inside what’s claimed to be incriminating proof.” (PEXO stands for probably exonerating proof.)
Kaufman reiterated that these speeches weren’t enough proof.
The prosecution, nevertheless, stated their authorized idea doesn’t rely solely on speeches. “Disregard each speech ever made by Mr. Duterte. Throw all of them out. There may be nonetheless ample proof of considerable grounds based mostly on the opposite proof which now we have placed on our checklist of proof,” stated Nicholls.
“It’s at all times a thriller to me how Duterte would be capable to present proof he’s not concerned within the drug battle, and I confirmed that earlier when the protection primarily stated that Duterte’s phrases had been hyperbole or joke,” stated Neri Colmenares, a human rights lawyer aiding a gaggle of sufferer, in a mixture of English and Filipino.
“That’s one of many weakest protection, I’ve additional confirmed it’s arduous to current proof at trial to defend him so for me, I’m extra assured that expenses will probably be confirmed,” stated Colmenares.
Protection
Kaufman’s opening assertion portrayed Duterte as a “poor boy” from Davao Metropolis whose solely crime was having a potty mouth and “unpalatable” phrases and persona. Kaufman attacked President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. for sending Duterte to The Hague, the victims’ lawyer for allegedly politicizing the case, the journalists for allegedly sensationalizing tales of killings, and human rights attorneys and activists whom he referred to as leftists.
Abrasively calling the folks he talked about “free collective of civil society,” Kaufman’s tirades sounded very very like Duterte and his mouthpieces throughout his presidency.
Kaufman insisted that every one of Duterte’s inflammatory remarks had been simply hyperbole. He went on to say that Marcos “neutralized” Duterte.
“Sure, Mr. Deputy Prosecutor, I used that legendary phrase, neutralize, so central and so important to your case idea, as a result of you realize simply in addition to me that I’m utilizing the time period metaphorically,” stated Kaufman.
“Neutralize” is a key phrase as a result of this appeared in police circulars issued by then police chief Ronald “Bato” Dela Rosa, which the prosecution claims was an authority to kill.
The Duterte administration didn’t admit to this. Kaufman introduced it as much as drive residence his level that “neutralize,” as with Duterte’s speeches, shouldn’t be taken actually.
“That phrase has been key to all of those killings, my response actually was sayang, kung dinecide lang ng Supreme Courtroom ang kaso meron tayong ibig sabihin, at hindi puwedeng bastusin ni Kaufman ‘yung mga biktima by utilizing that phrase, whilst I perceive as a protection counsel what he wished to do, which is why I used to be saying sulit ang bayad sa kanya,” stated Ted Te, former spokesperson of the Philippine Supreme Courtroom and in addition a human rights lawyer who has labored on drug war-related instances.
(That phrase has been key to all of those killings, my response actually was it’s a disgrace, if the Supreme Courtroom solely determined that case, we might have had a definition for that phrase, and Kaufman wouldn’t have been in a position to disrespect victims by utilizing that phrase, whilst I perceive as a protection counsel what he wished to do, which is why I used to be saying his charges are price it.)
Te was referring to a nonetheless pending nine-year-old Supreme Courtroom petition to declare Duterte’s battle on medication unconstitutional.
The place’s the jurisdiction argument?
“It was attention-grabbing to me to see that there wasn’t plenty of reference to the difficulty of jurisdiction of the court docket over the case which is one thing that’s below enchantment proper now, so I’d be curious to see if and the way that’s introduced up throughout the subsequent the subsequent few days,” stated Maria Elena Vignoli, senior counsel of Human Rights Watch’s worldwide justice program.
Even Salvador Panelo, Duterte’s former presidential authorized counsel and a type of the household despatched to help, was in search of the massive jurisdictional argument. The protection crew considers jurisdiction their greatest energy. Kaufman has enlisted the assistance of French lawyer Dov Jacobs, whose educational work on jurisdiction had been the supply of some ICC judges prior to now.
“[Kaufman] did nicely besides that I’d like to listen to him query the jurisdiction of this court docket as a result of that’s the very primary, on the core of this case, that this court docket can’t proceed, can’t even enter into this case as a result of it has no jurisdiction,” stated Panelo, who was with Duterte in Malacañang in 2018, justifying their unilateral withdrawal from the ICC.
The massive jurisdiction query is that if the ICC has energy over a non-member state? Primarily based on the final pre-trial chamber determination, jurisdiction stays over the crimes allegedly dedicated whereas the nation was nonetheless a member.
Who took Spherical 1?
Colmenares stated he’s now assured that the costs will probably be confirmed after having heard the opening statements.
“Wala akong nakitang ebidensya ng depensa na hindi niya ginawa [ang mga krimen] (I didn’t see any proof from the protection to show he didn’t commit the crimes) besides to assert na na-mistook lang ang kanyang statements (that his statements had been misinterpreted). That solely goes to point out the costs are going to be confirmed,” stated Colmenares.
Duterte’s crew, nevertheless, was very glad with Kaufman’s efficiency on Monday.
“[Kaufman] was superb, very efficient, very direct. It’s really easy to make allegations or displays however these displays should be based mostly on proof,” stated Duterte’s former labor secretary Silvestre Bello II.
“Para sa akin halos buong assertion ni Kaufman hindi authorized eh, kundi political (for me the whole assertion by Kaufman was not authorized however political). Will it profit Sara Duterte? I don’t know, however perhaps, as a result of it is going to feed into the narrative of the Dutertes that Sara can use,” stated Colmenares.
Comply with Rappler for extra protection on the affirmation of expenses listening to. – Rappler.com
