Kin of drug war victims believe ICC can address Duterte's needs — Conti

The families of drug war victims believe that the International Criminal Court (ICC) can provide for the needs of former President Rodrigo Duterte after he requested for an interim release to an undisclosed country on humanitarian considerations, ICC Assistant to Counsel Atty. Kristina Conti said Friday.
'Ang kanilang basehan, humanitarian. Kaya ito nga, nagko-konsultahan kami ng mga biktima. Sabi nila makatao lang rin naman. Oh sige kung gusto niyang kung saka-sakali magpagamot at maayos,' Conti told Super Radyo dzBB.
(Their basis is humanitarian. So yes, we are consulting the victims. They said it's only humane. Okay, if he wants to undergo treatment and recover, that's fine.)
'Pero sa tingin namin ngayon, 'yung ICC facilities ay kayang mag-arrange ng medical assistance sa kanya,' she added.
(But we believe that ICC facilities are currently capable of arranging medical assistance for him.)
This came after the Duterte camp asked the ICC for him to be released to an undisclosed country based on humanitarian considerations as he is 80 years old.
It said that the undisclosed country 'represents a stable and suitable environment" for Duterte.
When asked if age is a big consideration, Conti stressed that Duterte was previously declared fit for trial.
'As long as you are 'fit for trial,' meaning kaya mo tumayo, kaya mo makinig. Hindi ka naman— kumbaga, ano ito, nababaliw o nag space out, pwede ka pa mag-trial,' she said.
(As long as you're fit for trial, meaning you are able to stand and listen. And you're not, let's say mentally incapacitated or spacing out, you can still be tried.)
'Kung maalala ninyo sa huli nating pagkita sa kanya… Chineck ng doktor daw eh. Kaya sabi ng judge, na claim na 'yan, nasabi na 'yan ni Duterte 'di ba. Eh, sabi ng doktor fit for trial ka. Okay. Period,' she added.
(Remember his last appearance… He was supposedly checked by a doctor. So the judge said, that's already been claimed, Duterte himself mentioned it, right? And the doctor said he was fit for trial. Okay. Period.)
Self-serving
Meanwhile, Conti dismissed some of the claims made by the Duterte camp in their request for interim release as 'self-serving.'
Duterte's camp claimed that since the Chief Prosecutor's leave of absence, 'the Prosecution has confirmed its non-opposition to interim release… on the understanding that the terms and conditions set out in Annex A to this filing would be met.'
Duterte's camp also claimed that the receiving state had expressed its willingness to accept him.
'Hanggat hindi nagsasalita o kumu-kumpirma itong dalawang ito, eh sa ngayon serving 'yung mga statements na 'yan,' Conti told Super Radyo dzBB.
(As long as these two do not speak or confirm anything, for now, those statements remain self-serving.)
Conti added that the victims will be allowed to give their comment on Duterte's interim request.
'Magkakaroon ng pagkakataon na itong 'yung biktima ay magsalita at mag weigh in doon sa interim release. Inaalam namin ang deadline ng observations ng interim release,' she said.
(There will be an opportunity for the victim to speak and weigh in on the interim release. We are currently determining the deadline for submitting observations regarding the interim release.)
According to Conti, the conditions indicated under the annexes may be similar to previous conditions for conditional release.
''Yung hindi ka pwedeng lamyenda nang lamyenda, gala-gala. Nandoon ka lang sa isang lugar at hindi ka talaga kumbaga 'malaya.' Ikaw pa rin ay under detention at under custody ng state. At importante na present ka sa lahat ng hearing,' she said.
(You can't just keep roaming around or wandering. You have to stay in one place and you're not really 'free.' You're still under detention and under the custody of the state. And it's important that you're present at all the hearings.)
GMA News Online has reached out to the ICC for comment and confirmation.
Duterte is currently under ICC custody at The Hague, Netherlands. —AOL, GMA Integrated News

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

GMA Network

a day ago

• GMA Network

Ombudsman on House panel saying it did not file complaint vs. VP Sara: Then why give us committee report copy?

Ombudsman Samuel Martires on Saturday questioned the House why its committee gave them a copy of its report on its investigation into the allegations against Vice President Sara Duterte. This was after House spokesperson Princess Abante on Friday said the House Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability did not file a criminal and administrative complaint against Duterte before the Office of the Ombudsman. "Eh bakit ba nila kami fu-furnish-an ng kopya ng result ng kanilang investigation? Ano 'yun, gagawin naming ano, pardon the word, pero ano 'yun, gagawin naming scratch paper? Ano 'yon? We're not even a part of that investigation of the House of Representatives kaya hindi kami dapat furnish-an ng kopya," Martires said in an interview on Dobol B TV. (Then why did they furnish us a copy of the result of their investigation? What is that? Do they expect us to, pardon the word, use it as scratch paper? What's that? We're not even a part of that investigation of the House of Representatives so we should not have been furnished a copy [of the report].) Abante made the clarification in light of the Office of the Ombudsman's June 19 order asking Duterte to answer complaints of technical malversation, falsification, falsification of public documents, perjury, bribery, corruption of public officers, plunder, betrayal of public trust and culpable violation of the Constitution. The Ombudsman order identified the House good government and public accountability panel as the complainant. 'Unang una, hindi ang House ang nag-file ng (First of all, the House did not file the) complaint. What the House initiated was the impeachment trial through the transmission of the Articles of Impeachment,' Abante said in a press conference. Abante said that the House only furnished Martires a copy of the recommendations of the panel resulting from its inquiry on the budget use of Duterte, including the disbursement of confidential funds. Confused? Martires meanwhile on Saturday said Abante may just have been confused. "Siguro naguguluhan lang sila o naguguluhan lang 'yung spokesperson. Ang nag-endorse sa amin ng committee report ng House Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability ay ang Secretary General mismo. At sinasabi ng Secretary General, sa kanyang sulat, na itong committee report ni Representative Joel Chua was adopted by the House of Representatives," he said. (Maybe they are just confused or the spokesperson is confused. The one who endorsed to us the committee report of the House Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability is the Secretary General himself. And the Secretary General said in his letter that the committee report of Representative Joel Chua was adopted by the House of Representatives.) READ: House adopts panel report urging plunder, other raps vs. Sara Duterte "So ang naging complainant dito na ginawa namin is the House of Representatives Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability, represented by its chairperson, Representative Joel Chua. 'Yun. So sino ang gagawin naming complainant?" Martires said. (So we made the complainant the House of Representatives Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability, represented by its chairperson, Representative Joel Chua. That's it. So who should we make as complainant?) Martires cited the Pharmally case in connection with the government's purchase of P4 billion worth of RT-PCR test kits. "If we remember the Pharmally case, it was not even a committee report kasi hindi lahat ng mga senador ay nag-concur kay (because not all senators concurred with) Senador Richard Gordon at sa (and with the) committee report. It is just considered as a mere result of an investigation of the Blue Ribbon Committee," he said. "Ang naging complainant du'n ay sina [former] Senador Gordon at Senador Risa Hontiveros (The complainants there became Senator Gordon and Senator Risa Hontiveros), representing the Blue Ribbon Committee," Martires said. He said he did not even hear a whisper thereafter from Gordon asking why he was made the complainant. "Si Senadora Imee, nag-file din ng kaso 'di ba, lately lang. Sino ang complainant du'n? (Senator Imee also filed a case recently. Who was the complainant?) 'Yung Senate Committee on Foreign Relations represented by Imee Marcos," the Ombudsman said. "Eh dito, sino ang magiging complainant? Alangan namang kami ang complainant? Hindi kami ang nag-imbestiga ng kaso," Martires said. (In this case, who will be the complainant? It can't be us. We did not investigate the case.) "Nanggaling sa kanila at detalyado ang (It came from them and it detailed the) offenses that were allegedly committed by the Vice President and some of the employees and officers of DepEd [Department of Education] and the Office of the Vice President," he added. Martires said the House panel's committee report "was treated as a complaint." He explained further: "Wala naman kaming pinagkaiba sa piskalya sa public prosecutor's office ng Department of Justice. Kapag nag-file ka ng reklamo sa prosecutor's office, ikaw ang nagrereklamo at hindi 'yung piskal." (It is not any different from a fiscal at the public prosecutor's office of the Department of Justice. When you file a complaint at the prosecutor's office, you are the one complaining, not the fiscal.) "Pero kung finile ng piskal 'yung iyong reklamo, nakita niya may katuturan, may katotohanan, finile sa husgado, ang nagrereklamo du'n ay hindi na 'yung complainant kundi ang People of the Philippines," Martires added. (But if the fiscal filed the case because he saw it was relevant and truthful, and he filed it in court, the complainant will not be the person but the People of the Philippines.) GMA News Online contacted Abante to get her comment but has yet to receive a reply as of posting time. Probe to continue The Ombudsman will continue the investigation into the allegations against Duterte, he said. "Itutuloy namin ang imbestigasyon [kay Vice Pres. Duterte]. Para ano at binigyan kami ng kopya ng report ng investigation. Para ano? Para basahin lang namin?" Martires said. (We will continue the probe. For what purpose were we given a copy of the report of the investigation? For what? For us just to read?) "Diretso ang aming imbestigasyon," he added. (We will continue with our investigation.) "Bibigyan namin ang Kamara ng (We will give the House) sufficient time to file also their pledge from the time that they received a copy of the counter affidavit of the Vice President and the other respondents," Martires said. If the House committee does not want to cooperate with the Office of the Ombudsman, then they may have to use their power to cite them in contempt, he said. "Kung ayaw nilang makipag-cooperate sa amin, we might be forced, mapipilitan kami na gamitin ang aming power to cite them in contempt," Martires said. (If they do not want to cooperate with us, we might be forced to use our power to cite them in contempt.) "Hindi kami nagbibiro. Trabaho ito na ibinigay sa amin ng taumbayan. Trabaho ito na ibinigay sa amin ng Konstitusyon... Ano, bibigyan kami ng sulat, nirereklamo mo isang barangay captain, ano, babasahin lang namin?" he added. (We are not joking. This is a job given to us by the public. It is our duty given by the Constitution. If we will be given a letter of complaint against a barangay captain, will we just read it [and not do anything]?) Asked who will be cited in contempt in this matter, Martires said: "Aba'y 'di kung sino ang ayaw mag-... (Whoever does not want...) Kasi this is a committee represented by Representative Joel Chua. So we'll ask Representative Joel Chua once the Vice President or any of the respondents there will file their counter affidavit. We will ask the committee kung gusto nilang mag-file (if they want to file a) ng reply. Kung hindi (If not), it will be submitted now for resolution by the Office of the Ombudsman." If the committee does not want to file a reply, the Ombudsman will then consider them having waived their right to reply. "Ngayon 'pag sinabi nilang, 'Ay hindi naman kami nag-file sa inyo,' if they insist on doing that, ay siguro naman... I am not threatening them, eh siguro hindi na ito magandang relasyon between the House of Representatives at Office of the Ombudsman na ayaw nating mangyari," Martires said. (Now if they say, 'But we did not file [the complaint with you], if they insist on doing that, then maybe... I am not threatening them, maybe this signifies a not so good relationship between the House of Representatives and the Office of the Ombudsman that we do not want to see.) "I think they should cooperate with us because they are the ones na kumbaga sa ano, kinalabit kami, kiniliti kami (we were the ones contacted)," he added. Ample time Martires said once Duterte and the other respondents give their counter affidavit, the House of Representatives will be furnished a copy. "Sila mismo, si Vice President mismo ang magfu-furnish ng copy sa kanila," he said. (The Office of the Vice President will furnish them a copy.) But what if Duterte says why should I give my counter affidavit to the Ombudsman when there is no complainant? Martires replied: "E tingnan natin kung ano ang kahihinatnan (then let's see what would happen)." "Hindi namin puwedeng isantabi, we cannot close our eyes, hindi namin puwedeng ipikit ang aming mga mata na merong isang reklamo na ibinigay sa amin, 'di ba," he said. (We cannot ignore it, we cannot close our eyes to a complaint given to us, right?) "Hindi pa kami umaabot du'n sa puntos ng pagde-determine ng probable cause. Nakita lang namin du'n sa report na may sufficient na ebidensiya. So gusto naming sagutin ng mga respondent. We advised Vice President Sara 'yung nakasaad sa report na 'yun," Martires said. (We have not yet reached the point where we will determine if there is probable cause. We just saw in the report that there is sufficient evidence. So we want the respondents to give their response. We advised Vice President Sara that this is what is in the report.) "Du'n kami magde-determine, based on counter affidavit at du'n sa report. Pag-aaralan namin. If there is a probable cause, then we will make that determination later on," he added. (That's where we will determine [if there is probable cause], based on the counter affidavit and the report. We will study them.) Martires said they have not received word yet from the Office of the Vice President on whether the respondents will submit a counter affidavit. "Wala naman (No, we haven't received any word). Although natanggap na ng (But it was received by the) Office of the Vice President. Siguro naman (Maybe) they will submit the counter affidavit within that period of 10 days," he said. The OVP said it received the Ombudsman's order at about 9 a.m. Friday, June 20. —with a report from Jamil Santos/KG, GMA Integrated News

GMA Network

a day ago

• GMA Network

Marcos on influencing Sara Duterte impeachment: I choose not to

President Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos Jr. has said it is his decision not to influence the impeachment proceedings against Vice President Sara Duterte, insisting that the matter is in the hands of the Senate and the House of Representatives. Marcos made the remark in an episode of the BBM Podcast on Saturday, when he was asked about views that the President has a say in the decision of the impeachment court even with separation of powers between branches of government. "If a president chooses to do that, I choose not to," Marcos said. Duterte has brushed off Marcos' pronouncements that he was not in favor of her impeachment, as their feud continued to simmer with lawmakers pressing forward with House investigations and endorsing the impeachment complaint to the Senate. Advocacy groups, meanwhile, have called out Marcos for conveying a supposed lack of urgency to make Duterte accountable. Marcos has said the impeachment will take Congress' attention away from passing important pieces of legislation. Speaking on the podcast, Marcos reiterated that he has been preoccupied with lowering retail prices of rice and improving public transportation, among other initiatives of his administration. The Chief Executive stood pat that the impeachment process lies with the legislative branch. "That's not my, I'm busy with the transport, with the rice, all of the different things that we are doing, that, that nauubos ang oras ko doon. Put it bluntly. Wala naman akong papel doon sa impeachment eh," the President said. (That's not my, I'm busy with the transport, with the rice, all of the different things that we are doing. My time is devoted to these things. I have no role in the impeachment.) Senate President Francis "Chiz" Escudero has denied that Marcos was behind the delay in the presentation of the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate. Relations between Marcos and Duterte, running mates in Eleksyon 2022, have turned frosty following House probes into the drug war under the administration of her father, former President Rodrigo Duterte, as well as the handling of confidential funds by offices under her leadership. Last Thursday, House Secretary General Reginald Velasco said the Vice President will not be attending Marcos' fourth State of the Nation Address (SONA) on July 28. Malacañang has said it is her choice if she prefers not to attend the event. — VDV, GMA Integrated News

GMA Network

2 days ago

• GMA Network

House panel did not file complaint vs. VP Sara before Ombudsman —spox

The House of Representatives' good government and public accountability committee did not file a criminal and administrative complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte before the Office of the Ombudsman, the chamber said Friday. House spokesperson Princess Abante made the clarification in light of the Office of the Ombudsman's June 19 order asking Duterte to answer complaints of technical malversation, falsification, falsification of public documents, perjury, bribery, corruption of public officers, plunder, betrayal of public trust and culpable violation of the Constitution. The Ombudsman order identified the House good government and public accountability panel as the complainant. 'Unang una, hindi ang House ang nag-file ng complaint. What the House initiated was the impeachment trial through the transmission of the Articles of Impeachment,' Abante said in a press conference. Abante said that the House only furnished Ombudsman Samuel Martires a copy of the recommendations of the panel resulting from its inquiry on the budget use of Vice President Duterte, including the disbursement of confidential funds. 'The committee report was furnished to the Ombudsman, they received it on June 16. So, it appears that the Ombudsman acted upon the recommendation of the committee. What I know is that the House or the committee itself did not file any complaint but it appears that the Ombudsman acted upon the recommendation,' Abante added. The law gives the Ombudsman the authority to conduct a motu proprio investigation, meaning it can decide to investigate allegations of corruption without a complaint filed. Asked if the House finds it suspicious that the Ombudsman identified it as a complainant even if the Ombudsman has the authority to initiate a probe even without a complainant, Abante responded with another question. 'Bakit nga, di ba? Pero again, ang sasagutin ko lang sa inyo, 'yung factual na meron ako,' Abante said. (I also wonder why. But again, I can only answer your questions based on the facts that I have.) On Thursday, the Office of the Ombudsman directed Duterte and nine others from the Department of Education and Office of the Vice President to respond to the charges filed by the House of Representatives in connection with the alleged misuse of confidential funds. On Friday, the Office of the Vice President (OVP) confirmed receipt of the order issued by the Ombudsman. Martires was appointed Ombudsman by the Vice President's father, former President Rodrigo Duterte, back on July 26, 2018. Martires' seven-year tenure as Ombudsman ends on July 26 this year. The impeachment trial of Vice President Duterte is expected to start once the 20th Congress opens on July 28. Abante said the House does not see the Ombudsman's move as something that will derail the impeachment trial of the Vice President. 'The House transmitted the articles of impeachment already. We are awaiting for the Senate to act on its duty to proceed with the impeachment trial. That is what we are focusing on,' Abante said. The Vice President is accused of betraying public trust and culpable violation of the Constitution over confidential fund misuse and threatening to kill President Ferdinand Marcos, Jr. and his family. The Vice President has maintained that she has never misused public funds. —LDF, GMA Integrated News