u/TradCrosshair

I watched the video of Atty. Regal Oliva entitled Pwede Bang Isuko Ang Isang Sitting Senator Sa ICC? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6SvA_12qe8 and it got me thinking about a legal question I cannot fully grasp on my own yet. I am a 1st year law student, so I apologize in advance if my framing is imprecise. I am genuinely trying to understand this from a constitutional law perspective.

Here is my understanding of the basic facts. The Philippines withdrew from the Rome Statute in 2019. Despite that withdrawal, the ICC is still claiming it has jurisdiction over crimes allegedly committed before the withdrawal took effect. Now there is a sitting senator who is the subject of an ICC arrest warrant in connection with the war on drugs.

My question is about sovereignty, specifically about who has the authority to decide whether a Filipino citizen gets handed over to an international court.

If the Philippines is no longer a member of the ICC, then we are no longer legally bound by the Rome Statute, correct? So if the President decides to cooperate with the ICC and surrender a Filipino official, what is the legal basis for doing that? Is executive discretion alone enough to justify it? Or does it require an act of Congress first, since we no longer have a treaty that compels us to cooperate?

I am also wondering whether surrendering a Filipino citizen to an international tribunal, without a clear legal basis in domestic law, violates the idea that the State has the primary right and duty to prosecute its own citizens through its own courts. I have seen this referred to as ius puniendi in some readings but I am not sure I fully understand how it applies here.

Lastly, would the President need Senate approval under Article VII Section 21 of the Constitution before cooperating with the ICC, since that cooperation might effectively revive a treaty obligation we already walked away from?

I am not taking a side on whether the senator is guilty or not. I just want to understand the constitutional boundaries of what the executive branch can and cannot do in this situation. Any explanation from those who know more about public international law and constitutional law would be very helpful. Thank you future Compañeros.