Bato: Marcos gov’t violated FPRRD’s constitutional rights
Senator Ronald “Bato” Dela Rosa slammed the administration of President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr., echoing Atty. Alexis Medina's legal opinion is that former President Rodrigo Duterte's constitutional rights were violated when authorities surrendered him to the International Criminal Court (ICC).
“Binulag ng pulitika ang pamantayan ng pamahalaang ito sa pagkilala sa garantiyang ibinigay sa bawat Pilipino- dating presidente man o hindi— ng konstitusyon. Hindi lang mga taga-suporta ni dating Pangulong Rodrigo Duterte ang mismong nagsabi na may paglabag sa karaparatan ng ating kapwa Pilipino sa pagsuko kanya sa ICC,” Dela Rosa said in a press release on March 23.
Dela Rosa added: “Dapat maaala, hindi lamang ni Justice Secretary Boying Remulla at mga gabinete ni Presidente Bongbong Marcos, kundi ng buong sambayanang Pilipino na kaya nakapiring ang simbulo ng hustisya dahil dapat walang kinikilingan pagdating sa pagpapatupad at pagsunod sa batas.”
The Mindanaoan lawmaker made the remark after Medina attended the Senate investigation into Duterte’s arrest and opposed the legal position of Justice Secretary Boying Remulla on their move to surrender Duterte to the ICC.
Medina explained the constitutional provision that a lawful court order is required if a person is to be expelled from Philippine territory by any means.
According to Medina, a professor of constitutional law at several universities in the Philippines, surrendering a person arrested to an international body is only valid if the subject has already voluntarily surrendered to the custody of the national government, negating the need for extradition or if the subject is an alien or a foreign national.
“To expel a person from his country of residence without a lawful court order, by excluding the judicial process might amount to a violation of the liberty to abode,” Medina was quoted as saying.
He added: That is guaranteed by Section 6 of the Bill of Rights. The liberty of abode cannot be impaired without a lawful order of the court. That is the text of the Constitution. Now, this constitutional protection is a barrier for any government action that would simply force, compel, an individual, to change his residence.”
Medina made it clear that he is a nonpartisan lawyer who is just expressing his legal opinion on the matter.
He said he served as Senator Grace Poe’s legal counsel during the 2016 presidential elections and clarified that he is not a supporter of Duterte.
“My view that the arrest and the detention and explusion of the former president may have infringed several constitutional guarantees in favor of the former president,” Medina said.
He also disagreed with Remulla’s citing of Republic Act 9851 or the Philippine Act on Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law, Genocide, and Other Crimes Against Humanity in allowing Duterte’s arrest.
Emphasizing the doctrine of constitutional supremacy, he said, “Whatever right that is granted by the constitution cannot be diminished or lessened or stripped away by any statute.”
“We have to interpret RA 9851 in accordance with the broad protection of the constitution, which means that if you will surrender without judicial proceedings, that would be a violation,” Medina said.
Duterte and Dela Rosa filed a petition before the Supreme Court seeking to permanently prohibit the Philippine government from cooperating with the ICC.
Dela Rosa was Duterte’s chief implementor of his war on drugs, where at least 1.6 million drug dependents surrendered to the government.
He maintained that there was a need to implement a war on drugs to eradicate the cause of heinous crimes in the country.