18/10/2025
Daniel Long
What are you trying to say? That our minds are bought and what we say is dictated to us? That our POVs are based on loyalty, not on law? That only you have discernment? You're not being "too objective", sorry. There is nothing courageous or intellectual about sticking up for a European kangaroo court. The ICC judges ARE blind. They don't even follow their own rules.
Former Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban had addressed your nonsense arguments in his March 24, 2025, column for the Inquirer.
“Undisputedly, the Philippine withdrawal from the ICC took effect on March 17, 2019. On May 24, 2021, then-ICC Chief Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda petitioned the Pre-Trial Chamber (PTC) for authority to conduct a preliminary investigation into the ‘situation’ in the Philippines from November 1, 2011, to March 16, 2019—a period when the Philippines was still an ICC member. On September 15, 2021, the PTC granted the petition. Notably, both May 24, 2021, and September 15, 2021, are more than two years after the Philippine withdrawal took effect on March 17, 2019. I respectfully agreed with the minority’s position because the Office of the Chief Prosecutor (OCP) is not an integral part of the ICC. Therefore, the OCP’s unilateral examination, which began on February 8, 2018, could not be counted as the start of the two-year prescriptive period. If this were not the case, why would the OCP need to secure authority from the PTC to start the investigation?”
In short, the ICC undermined its own position by opening its preliminary investigation two and a half years after the Philippine withdrawal took effect. This delay nullified the residual jurisdiction it had during the one-year window before the withdrawal took effect, as provided in Article 127 of the Rome Statute.
The ICC was acting like someone playing chess alone or making a phone call without the other party answering. Since the Philippines was no longer a member of the ICC—having withdrawn two and a half years earlier—it had no obligation to respond to the ICC’s unilateral decision to open an investigation. Panganiban reaffirmed this by stating: “Thus, the investigation and trial could no longer be conducted, as they were barred by the two-year prescriptive period.”
The “Burundi precedent,” which ICC-accredited lawyer Atty. Harry Roque has frequently referenced in his Philippine Star columns, concerns the African nation of Burundi’s withdrawal from the ICC.
In that case, then-ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda announced a preliminary examination into alleged crimes against humanity in Burundi on April 25, 2016. Burundi subsequently withdrew from the Rome Statute on October 27, 2016, with its withdrawal taking effect one year later, on October 27, 2017. However, the Pre-Trial Chamber authorized the opening of a preliminary investigation on October 25, 2017—just two days before Burundi’s withdrawal officially took effect.
According to Article 127 of the Rome Statute, a withdrawing state remains bound by ICC obligations for one year after submitting its withdrawal. Since the ICC acted within this timeframe, Burundi was still required to cooperate. The action was not unilateral; it was in line with ICC rules.
The Philippine case is different. The ICC initiated its investigation long after the one-year withdrawal period had expired, making any claim to residual jurisdiction invalid.
"The Court's jurisdiction must be triggered before the withdrawal has become effective... (As such), we consider that the Pre-Trial Chamber erred in law in concluding that the Court had jurisdiction over the Philippines situation..." - ICC Judges de Brichambaut and Lordkipanidze
