INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT: PBBM'S ALBATROSS

 

“I have stated it often, even before I took office as President, that there are many questions about [the International Criminal Court (ICC)] jurisdiction and what can be – what we in the Philippines regard as an intrusion in our internal matters and a threat to our sovereignty. So, until those questions of jurisdiction and the effects on the sovereignty of the Republic are sufficiently answered, I cannot cooperate with them.” – (President Bongbong Marcos (PBBM)’s statement in not cooperating with ICC)

“Magpapakilala muna tayo. Kapag hindi tayo bumiyahe at nagpakita sa mga conference na ýan, hindi nila tayo iniisip. Wala sa isipan nila ang Pilipinas.”

(We need to introduce ourselves first. If we do not travel and introduce ourselves in conferences, we would never be on their minds.)

“Kailangan natin ipakita kung ano ang ating para mapaganda ang potential investment nila na dadalhin nila dito sa Pilipinas.”

(We need to showcase the country to show them what potential investments they can bring into the Philippines.)

(PBBM’s statement in defending his foreign trips)

PBBM has counted on the above two courses of action to result in two diverging aspirations: leave-us-alone and we-need-you postures which beg the following questions:

1.    Are the two actions mutually independent – one action remains unaffected by the occurrence of the other action? In other words, though PBBM refuses to cooperate with ICC investigation, he still will not lose the support from other countries.

2.    Are the two actions mutually exclusive – two actions cannot occur at the same time? In other words, if PBBM refuses to cooperate with ICC investigation, then he will lose the support from other countries.

If you wish to fathom out the answers, you could delve into my following two cents worth perspective.

IMPLICATIONS

Question: What are the implications of PBBM’s refusal to cooperate with ICC’s ongoing investigation into the drug war killings under former president Rodrigo Duterte (FPRRD)?

SOCIAL

1.    Impunity. It sends a message that there is impunity for those who commit crimes against humanity – demoralizing victims of such crimes and emboldening other leaders to commit similar atrocities.

2.    Tension and Conflict. It could exacerbate tension and conflict.

3.    Human Rights Violations. It could lead to human rights violations, such as arbitrary detention, or extrajudicial killings of witnesses, victims, or those suspected of providing information to the ICC.

POLITICAL

1.    International Isolation. It could lose support from other countries leading to international isolation.

2.    Diplomatic Repercussions. It could harm PH’s reputation on the global stage hampering cooperative work with other countries and international organizations shackling future negotiations and agreements. Exhibit A. "Gov't Rushes To Avert EU Ban On PH Seafarers" (Inquirer)

3.    Domestic Instability. If the public pulse for the ICC investigation turns into widespread support, it could lead to internal unrest.

ECONOMIC

1.    Reduced Foreign Investment. It could lead to a reduction in foreign investment due to the investors’ uneasiness to invest in PH with a perceived poor human rights record and economic instability.

2.    Economic Sanctions. It could lead to economic sanctions – harming the PH economy by reducing investment and access to capital.

3. Damage to International Trade Relations. It could harm PH’s trade relations with other countries leading to reduced exports and distress to local industries. Exhibit B. "EU Parliament To PH: Act On Human Rights Abuses Or Lose GSP+ Perks" (Rappler)

Question: Is ICC as a global institution significant enough and is its investigation carrying a lot of weight that PH’s refusal to cooperate will have a consequential impact?

Well, to answer the question, let me present to you Mr. ICC.

ICC was established in 2002 to investigate and prosecute individuals for the most serious crimes of international concern, including genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the crime of aggression. A total of 123 countries are State Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Here are some feathers in ICC’s cap:

1.    Convictions. ICC has secured several high-profile convictions, including those of Congolese warlord Thomas Lubanga Dvilo for enlisting and conscripting child soldiers and former Ivory Coast President Laurent Gbagbo for crimes against humanity. Though the number of convictions is relatively small compared to the number of cases opened, convictions, however, have helped in instituting this essential principle: even those in positions of power are not above the law.

2.    Deterrence. The mere existence of the ICC has had a deterrent effect with many countries and individuals thinking twice about committing the types of crimes that fall under the ICC’s jurisdiction. Aware of facing prosecutions for their criminal acts, armed groups, and other non-state actors have nipped their scheming machinations in the bud.

3.    Raising Awareness. ICC has blown the whistle on international crimes and taken the wraps off the graveness of accountability for such crimes. Through its investigations and trials, it has gone public with the suffering of the victims and has given voice to those who might otherwise have been ignored and suffered in silence.

4.    Cooperation. ICC has promoted cooperation among countries and other actors in the pursuit of justice. While cooperation has been challenging at times, like that of the PH case, the ICC has been successful in securing the arrest and surrender of several high-profile suspects, including former warlord Bosco Ntaganda. Convicted of 18 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity, Ntaganda (former military chief of staff of the National Congress for the Defense of the People, an armed militia group operating in Congo) was sentenced to a total of 30 years of imprisonment which on December 14, 2022, started in serving at Leuze-en-Hainaut prison in Belgium.

5.    Institutional Development. ICC has developed into a complex and sophisticated institution with a clear legal framework and established procedures for investigations, trials, and appeals – ensuring it operates in a fair, transparent, and efficient manner.

WHY ALBATROSS?

“In the poem The Rime of the Ancient Mariner, an albatross follows a ship setting out to sea, which is considered a sign of good luck. However, the titular mariner shoots the albatross with a crossbow, an act that will curse the ship and cause it to suffer terrible mishaps. Unable to speak up due to lack of water, the ship’s crew let the mariner know through their glances that they blame him for their plight and they tie the bird around his neck as a sign of his guilt. From this arose the image of an albatross around the neck as a metaphor for a burden that is difficult to escape.” (Wikipedia)

If we replace “albatross” with ICC, “the ship” with PH, “the titular mariner” with PBBM, “a crossbow" with non-cooperation with ICC investigation of FPRRD’s alleged EJKs, and “the ship’s crew” with Filipino people, then, we could generate questions: Could it mean that PBBM’s cooperation with ICC would bring "good luck" to PH instead of a burden? Could we allude that the ship crews’ “blame” game could mean Pinoys’ disunity today? What do “curse” and “terrible mishaps” imply? What does “lack of water” mean when there’s water everywhere? And what have you.

As a teacher for many years, when the school buzzer sounded at the tail end of my lecture, I would say to the class this dry and trite expression: “For your homework…”

So, let me wrap up this article by saying: For your homework, you may take a look and think through again at the above metaphor -- you may gain a deep understanding of what’s going on in our country today.

Lastly, writing this article with an uncommon topic outside of my expertise as an engineer by profession, I hand it to ChatGPT the efficacy of this collaborative polished product.

Head still collage photos courtesy of spotdotph and wikipedia.