Adolfo Azcuna Explains: ICC Arrest kay Bato at Constitutional Duty ng Senado sa Impeachment | MEMO

Added: 2026-05-17

[00:00:07]Memo with Corina and Willard.

[00:00:34]due process. Yes.

[00:00:59]Retired Supreme Court Associate Justice Adulo, one of the framers of the 1987 Constitution.

[00:01:16]issues. So, Senator Dear Rosa, Senate President Alan Peter Kayatano.

[00:01:35]And of course he was defending uh giving protective custody to Senator Dear Rosa in the Senate NBI as arresting officers.

[00:01:50]IC arrest warrantator to be transported to the Henu.

[00:02:07]So is that valid?

[00:02:17]provision statute of Rome that notwithstanding withdrawal of a member there is a continuing jurisdiction with respect to matters already under consideration by the court at the time of the withdrawal. So the question is whether or not the Philippine matter was under consideration already by the court. uh it was under consideration by the office of the prosecutor because the office of the prosecutor s Fatu Bersera issued a preliminary examination uh in February before we withdrawn from the ICC and the ruling of the ICC is that uh that is sufficient to trigger jurisdiction especially where there is an attempt to evade the jurisdiction by withdrawing.

[00:03:11]In my view, that is correct because if you look at the statute of Rome, it defines the court uh as having four essential organs and one of the or essential organs of the court is the office of the prosecutor. So when section or article 127 says that matter uh withdrawal is without prejudice to a matter that was already under consideration by the court at the time of the withdrawal that includes under consideration by the office of the prosecutor because the definition of the court includes as an essential organ the office of the prosecutor >> and which one is the office of the prosecutor Philippine no IC ah Okay.

[00:04:00]Alan Peter Willard interview that is an international body.

[00:04:06]So we will wait for a decision from a local court and if the decision of the local court is that we transport him internationally.

[00:04:20]>> Okay. There is also a provision in the statute of Rome itself article 59 that requires uh bringing the person uh subject of the arrest warrant of the ICC before a local court >> in order to verify uh the identity and the uh nature of the charge. So there is a provision requiring participation by a local court and uh in that sense uh Senate President >> Alan Peter Kayano is correct there should be a an order from a local court confirming the warrant of arrest >> but just to verify the identity sir no and the nature of char charges not necessarily to invalidate the warrant >> no no just uh to identify the person that is the person name in the warrant that he understands the charge under the warrant and uh those things only uh and then >> so pallayon in fact in the case of uh former president Rodrigo Duterte this was not done but the ICC uh did it itself in the HEG so it's something that is curable uh even if it's not done uh because you'll remember there was a preliminary hearing in the ICC where the three judges uh tackled just those questions. Uh is he the same person in the war for us? Did he understand the nature of the offense?

[00:05:55]>> So it cured what should have been done in the local court.

[00:06:13]Correct.

[00:06:15]Local courtity.

[00:06:24]Correct. So this will have to be done by the this will have to be forwarded to a local court by the arresting entity which is NBI.

[00:06:32]>> Yes, that's in my view. Article 59 still applies local.

[00:06:46]Huh? Which is what happened during the time of Salonga and relead while in session in the end.

[00:07:03]After the after the session justice protective custody basis protective custody that is an open question. uh there is no provision allowing it but there's also no provision prohibiting it and the tradition has been uh in favor of some kind of protection uh given to members of the senate uh especially during uh the time of the session. But in the constitution, the immunity of a senator refers only to uh offenses which are punished by 6 years or less imprisonment Christian correctional. So in the case of Senator Ronald Batau de la Rosa uh who is being charged with crime against humanity on the sub crime of murder.

[00:08:10]applicable. So strictly speaking he can be arrested but then there are traditions uh that form part of the culture of the Senate which should also be taken into account so that the arrest will not be uh uh as we say uh uh against uh traditional ways of the Senate. Senate is a very tradition uh uh embodied uh institution and so uh I think there's room for dialogue on this >> the precise procedure of uh how to arrest a member of the Senate >> maybe they should come up with some rule >> some rules yes >> or protocol >> so um justice why did you statement uh dean Professor Justice, former justices, why did you feel compelled to come together and sign on this statement uh with regards to the impeachment of VP Sara?

[00:09:21]>> Uh yes. uh I signed that statement which was uh drafted by my colleagues in the San Beda Graduate School of Law because I believe it's correct uh move to uh address uh a situation where there is uh a perceived attempt to uh violate the very clear mandate of the constitution that once an articles of impeachment is transmitted to the Senate, the Senate has no choice but to hold a trial uh under the constitution. So any attempt to evade uh or uh uh totally uh reads on that uh specific mandate >> is uh to our view uh should be uh denounced and that's what we did. Yeah, we're not saying that the Senate is doing that. We are just saying that we perceive that there is a tendency or a move towards that perception. Perception I can understandability of public officers impeachment.

[00:10:48]But uh so you their statement was more of a warning or a reminder.

[00:10:56]>> Reminder.

[00:10:56]>> Yeah, it is a That same day that they were, of course, they were talking days before until the last minute when Senator suddenly reappeared.

[00:11:36]Um, numbers senators, judges. Yes.

[00:11:57]Number two of all members 24 physically present the 2/3 requirement is of all the members uh of the >> of the yes of the senate so present or not you have to count two/3s >> okay for conviction but for uh deciding motions whether or not to open the bank records for instance majority.

[00:12:33]>> So 13 >> so if they say no to opening bank records you cannot open the bank records.

[00:12:42]>> Can you vote if you're absent from the floor?

[00:12:45]>> They have uh adopted new rules allowing electronic voting. electronic voting as long as he's in the country.

[00:13:01]>> Ah, as long as you're in the country condition.

[00:13:04]>> Okay. So, okay. So, in this scenario, in this scenario, if Senator Batau is brought to the Hague, then suddenly they don't have the number >> 13. Anyway, >> I I believe if is outside of the jurisdiction of the Senate, the electronic voting will not be valid.

[00:13:24]Yeah.

[00:13:24]>> So meaning tiebreakering officer impeachment or Senate Presidenting officer. Yes, he can vote. The presiding officer can vote except the chief justice. If he's the one presiding, he cannot vote.

[00:13:49]>> So the senate president can vote.

[00:13:50]>> He can vote.

[00:13:53]He voted for no but it has to be two/3 conviction or conviction motion motion or >> but in deciding motions it's not absolute majority it's majority uh >> plus one >> majority of uh those present there being a quorum. Okay.

[00:14:23]>> So the the quorum is 13.

[00:14:26]>> So majority of 13 >> enough to carry a motion.

[00:14:31]>> But for eight again to convict how many votes?

[00:14:42]>> Uh 16.

[00:14:43]>> 16. Okay.

[00:14:47]Okay. Sir, what is your definition of fortitas depending on the circumstance etc. >> Yes, of course the Supreme Court is the ultimate interpreter of the constitution. However, in the Henelio versus Senate, the pronouncement is not a binding ruling but only uh what we call an abiter dictim which is uh so because the ruling there was that the case for petition for Mandamos to compel the Senate to hold the trial was moot because this is the previous SA case.

[00:15:33]No, it was invalidated by the Supreme Court. So there is no hearing in the Senate to start with. So there's no need to compel the Senate to hold the hearing because the articles were invalidated.

[00:15:45]So whatever the Supreme Court said regarding the the uh the forweet interpretation of for tweet reference with reference to the Senate trial is dictum not binding even on the court itself. So it's an open question.

[00:16:04]What is the meaning of fortitude?

[00:16:06]Supreme Court has not officially defined it yet.

[00:16:13]>> Official Filipino translation constitution forth with a translation. It is an official version.

[00:16:26]uh we also promulgated the our salang batas in Filipino as an official version not just a translation >> and if you look at that Filipino version of our constitution the corresponding word to fore is a god >> so interpretation a god uh of course uh you have to admit that law is a uh command of reason and uh reasonable interpretation of a god or immediate uh can admit reasonable uh circumstances of delay but uh the urgency must always be there and uh an intentional uh delay to avoid retrial would be unconstitutional.

[00:17:33]comics grade three former justice cornh like sibanos we eat cornice Okay. Maya nag.

[00:17:57]Oh my god.