The Supreme Court has justified its decision to deny the appeal of detained Senator Leila de Lima for a furlough to be able to argue for the petition she filed along with opposition senators questioning the constitutionality of President Rodrigo Duterte’s decision to withdraw the country’s membership from the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
In a 16-page resolution, the SC said that they could not find “circumstances and competencies” that would make De Lima the only person capable to defend the petition of the minority senators against the Duterte administration’s decision to withdraw the country’s membership from the Rome Statute.
“It is true that not all of her co-petitioners are lawyers who are equipped with technical competence to argue before courts. Still, it does not appear clearly to this Court why Senator De Lima—and no one else must argue for their petition,” stated the SC resolution released Tuesday.
De Lima, together with Senators Francis ‘Kiko’ Pangilinan, Franklin Drilon, Bam Aquino, Antonio Trillanes IV, Leila de Lima and Riza Hontiveros, have petitioned the high court to nullify the President's unilateral act of withdrawing from the ICC.
In their petition, the opposition lawmakers argued that the country’s withdrawal from the Rome Statute “cannot be justified under the so-called ‘residual powers’ of the President.”
The petitioners also insisted that the Constitution mandated the Senate to ratify a treaty or an international agreement, and as such, the Executive branch cannot just unilaterally repeal a law or withdraw from the treaty of an international agreement.
De Lima, who is presently detained at the Philippine National Police Custodial Center, earlier asked the SC to allow her to argue on behalf of her colleagues.
However, the tribunal ruled that De Lima failed to mention an “exclusive competence” that will make her the only one from her co-petitioners to argue on the oral argument set on Aug. 28.
“Absent a specific allegation on Senator De Lima’s exclusive competence on the subject of their Petition, it is reasonable to assume that the other senator-lawyers joining her as petitioners are equally capable of skillfully and zealously arguing before this court,” the SC said.
The tribunal specifically mentioned Drilon, a former Justice secretary, four-time senate president, minority, majority leader and a Bar examiner as well as Pangilinan, a third term Senator, the majority leader, former representative to the Judicial and Bar Council and an author of laws related to the legal practice.
“Certainly, this court cannot overlook the legal competence, nay brilliance of Senators Drilon and Pangilinan,” the SC said.
While litigants are free to choose their preferred counsel, “any such choice must content with contingencies that may impair the capacity of their selected counsel,” the high court added.
“Thus, a litigant cannot insist on representation by a lawyer who has been suspended from the practice of law, has been disbarred or, as in Senator De Lima’s case, is incarcerated,” it said.
The SC clarified that they have no intention “to belittle Senator De Lima’s demonstrated expertise. Her record speaks for itself.”
However, the high court held that the detained Senator’s capacity to appear for herself “must yield to the fundamental restrictions on her liberty borne by her current detention.”
The SC pointed out that while it is true that individuals under preventive detention enjoy the presumption of innocence…nevertheless, the fact of their detention makes their rights more limited than those of the public.”
Oral argument on the case has been rescheduled on Aug. 28.
Duterte announced the country’s withdrawal from the Statute last March citing the “baseless, unprecedented and outrageous attacks” against him and his administration over its anti-drug war that is being blamed for thousands of deaths.