Ajero Law Office

23/12/2025

🎄✨ Season’s Greetings from Ajero Law Firm ✨🎄

As the year comes to a close, we extend our warmest Christmas and New Year greetings to our clients, colleagues, and friends. Thank you for your trust and continued support.

May this season bring peace, hope, and joy to your families, and may the coming year be filled with new opportunities, good health, and shared successes.

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous New Year!
— Ajero Law Firm

21/09/2025

24/07/2025

📢 𝗖𝗦𝗖 𝗿𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟱 𝗥𝘂𝗹𝗲𝘀 𝗼𝗻 𝗔𝗱𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗖𝗮𝘀𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗖𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗹 𝗦𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗶𝗰𝗲 (𝗥𝗔𝗖𝗖𝗦)!

The updated RACCS reflects key laws, Supreme Court rulings, and evolving governance practices streamlines how disciplinary and non-disciplinary cases are handled in government.

Chairperson Atty. Marilyn B. Yap, DPA led the Commission to act swiftly in completing the RACCS and ensuring its swift release to strengthen capabilities at resolving disciplinary cases. This revised framework promotes accountability, transparency, and efficiency in the civil service.

Key features include:
⚖️ Integration of RA No. 11032 and RA No. 9285
👩‍⚖️ Virtual and clarificatory hearings
📄 Electronic filing
💼 Revised rules on dishonesty and sexual harassment cases

📖 Read the full news release here: https://csc.gov.ph/csc-revises-rules-on-administrative-cases-in-the-civil-service

27/06/2025

05/06/2025

The (SC) has ruled that when a Filipino asks a Philippine court to recognize a foreign divorce, they only need to prove the law of the country where the divorce was obtained – not the law of their foreign spouse’s nationality.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, the SC’s Third Division sent a case back to the Court of Appeals (CA) to give a Filipina a chance to properly prove the divorce laws of Kentucky, United States of America (U.S.A).

The Filipina married a Peruvian citizen in New Jersey, U.S.A; they later settled in Kentucky. Due to marital issues, the husband ended the marriage by obtaining a divorce decree from a Kentucky court.

The Filipina then filed a petition before the Regional Trial Court in the Philippines to have the divorce recognized. She submitted a copy of the divorce decree, along with printouts of Kentucky and Peruvian marriage laws.

The SC clarified that in recognition of foreign divorce cases, what matters is the law of the country that issued the divorce decree. Since the divorce was granted in Kentucky, only Kentucky law needed to be proven.

The SC explained that under Article 26 (2) of the Family Code, a Filipino may remarry if their foreign spouse gets a valid divorce abroad that allows them to remarry. Philippine courts must first determine if the divorce was valid under the applicable foreign law, and the Filipino spouse must prove this law.

The SC also emphasized the relevance of the international law principle of comity of nations. This principle allows judicial acts of one country – such as court rulings or decrees – to be recognized in another, based on mutual respect between states. It also acknowledges the authority of a foreign state not only over its citizens but also over other individuals under its jurisdiction, like legal residents.

However, the SC returned the case to the CA to give the Filipina, who submitted a mere printout of Kentucky law, a chance to submit the proper documents.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/4jhyh8vv.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/ympmypuz.

Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIO’s Credit Attribution Policy: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution-policy/.

03/06/2025

29/05/2025

The (SC) has ruled that while drug use by government employees is an administrative offense, they must first be given the opportunity to undergo rehabilitation. Dismissal is only justified if they refuse to cooperate with, or fail to complete, the required rehabilitation program.

This is consistent with the approach provided by law and treaties to consider drug use as a public health challenge.

In a Decision written by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, the SC 𝘌𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘤 modified the Court of Appeals’ (CA) rulings that upheld the dismissal of a Muntinlupa City government employee (employee) after he tested positive twice for shabu.

The SC ruled that the employee should first be given a chance to rehabilitate before being dismissed. It stressed that drug use is considered a sickness or disease, not just a crime, and must be treated accordingly.

RA No. 9165, or the 𝘊𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘩𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘋𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘋𝘳𝘶𝘨𝘴 𝘈𝘤𝘵 𝘰𝘧 2002, requires the State to provide drug users with access to rehabilitation programs to help them recover and reintegrate into society. This also aligns with the Philippines’ duty under international agreements to address the public health aspect of illegal drug use and addiction.

In the employee’s case, the SC said he should have been referred to a proper rehabilitation program instead of being dismissed right away. It ordered the employee to take another drug test, as nearly 14 years have passed since his last one.

If he tests negative, no treatment will be required, and the CSC may already reconsider releasing his benefits and allowing him to return to government service.

If he tests positive, however, he must undergo a drug dependency exam and enter a rehabilitation program. His penalties will be put on hold while he undergoes treatment.

Once certified that he has fully recovered and is fit to work, the CSC shall assess whether to release his benefits and allow him to work in government again.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/3nv5k5ze.

The full text of the Supreme Court 𝘌𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘤 Decision in G.R. No. 260742 shall be uploaded to the Supreme Court website once available.

Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIO’s Credit Attribution Policy: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution-policy/.

23/04/2025

𝐈𝐁𝐏 𝐉𝐎𝐔𝐑𝐍𝐀𝐋 𝐕𝐎𝐋𝐔𝐌𝐄 𝟒𝟖, 𝐈𝐒𝐒𝐔𝐄 𝐍𝐎. 𝟑

You may access this Issue through this link:
https://www.ibp.ph/pdf/IBP%20Journal/IBPJ-Vol.48_Issue-No-3.pdf

𝐈𝐁𝐏 𝐉𝐎𝐔𝐑𝐍𝐀𝐋 𝐕𝐎𝐋𝐔𝐌𝐄 𝟒𝟖, 𝐈𝐒𝐒𝐔𝐄 𝐍𝐎. 𝟑

Divorce will always be a contentious topic in this country. But discussing it should never be taboo. Recently, a vigorous lobby empowered legislative efforts to pass a law allowing divorce. Though the effort was ultimately overtaken by the 2025 campaign and elections, the movements that fueled it appear to be intent on its revival once the dust settles.

The Journal partnered with the Justice George Malcolm Foundation and U.P. Law to hold a public discussion on divorce. The response surprised the organizers. Attendance - physical and online - was overflowing. And the attendees came from all walks, including distant provinces. It is the hope that the viewpoints offered during the event will be of good use to everyone. As part of that hope, we are reproducing those viewpoints so that all of us can consider and reflect on how we as a nation want to proceed on this issue.

You may access this Issue through this link:
https://www.ibp.ph/pdf/IBP%20Journal/IBPJ-Vol.48_Issue-No-3.pdf

For more up-to-date IBP announcements in the IBP Journal please visit our IBP Website through this link:
http://ibp.ph/IBP%20Journal.html

23/04/2025

𝗖𝗢𝗠𝗘𝗟𝗘𝗖 𝗣𝗿𝗲𝗰𝗶𝗻𝗰𝘁 𝗙𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘄 𝗹𝗶𝘃𝗲!

Alam mo na ba kung saan ka boboto sa darating na halalan?

Hanapin ang iyong Polling Place para sa May 12, 2025 National and Local Elections gamit ang Precinct Finder sa https://precinctfinder.comelec.gov.ph.

Ihanda ang mga sumusunod na impormasyon: 𝘣𝘶𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘢𝘭𝘢𝘯, 𝘢𝘳𝘢𝘸 𝘯𝘨 𝘬𝘢𝘱𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘢𝘯𝘢𝘬𝘢𝘯, 𝘢𝘵 𝘭𝘶𝘨𝘢𝘳 𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘢𝘨𝘱𝘢𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘩𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘰.

22/04/2025

Nagdesisyon ang na ang mga hindi awtorisadong istruktura sa pampublikong lupa, kabilang ang mga videoke machine, sari-sari store, billiard table, karinderya, at iba pang negosyo sa mga dalampasigan, ay maaaring gibain dahil sa pagiging istorbo sa publiko o public nuisance.

Sa Desisyon na isinulat ni Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, kinatigan ng Second Division ng Korte Suprema ang utos ng Court of Appeals (CA) na gibain ang mga iligal na istruktura sa kahabaan ng Matabungkay Beach sa Lian, Batangas. Ang mga istruktura ay itinayo nang walang permit mula sa Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).

Ang mga may-ari ng Villa Alexandra Beach Resort and Restaurant sa Matabungkay Beach (mga may-ari ng resort) ay nagsampa ng kaso laban kina Pablo Calimlim at Patnubay Isla Calimlim (Calimlim) na nag-operate ng mga impormal na istruktura sa tabi ng dalampasigan sa loob ng mahigit 50 taon. Sinabi ng mga may-ari ng resort na ang mga istruktura ay itinayo nang walang kinakailangang mga permit at nakaantala ng kanilang negosyo at nakaabala sa mga bisita dahilan para sa kanilang pagkalugi.

Nagdesisyon ang Regional Trial Court pabor sa mga Calimlim at sinabing nabigo ang mga may-ari ng resort na patunayan na ang mga istruktura ay nagdulot ng pinsala sa kanilang ari-arian o pagkawala ng kita.

Pero idineklara ng CA na iligal ang mga istruktura na maituturing na isang public nuisance. Ipinag-utos nito ang demolisyon ng mga istruktura at pinagbabayad din ang mga Calimlim ng danyos sa mga may-ari ng resort.

Sa ilalim ng Artikulo 694 ng Civil Code, ang nuisance o istorbo ay anumang gawain, pagkukulang, pagtatatag, negosyo, o kundisyon na: (1) nakapipinsala sa kalusugan o kaligtasan ng mga tao; (2) nakaiinis o nakasasakit ng damdamin; o (3) nakabibigla o lumalabag sa kagandahang-asal o moralidad; (4) hinaharangan ang mga pampublikong kalsada o daluyan ng tubig; o (5) nakasasagabal sa paggamit ng ari-arian. Ang isang istorbo ay itinuturing na pampubliko kapag ito ay nakaaapekto sa mga tao o nakasasagabal sa isang karapatang pampubliko sa pamamagitan ng direktang pagpasok sa pampublikong ari-arian o nagdudulot ng isang karaniwang pinsala.

Sumang-ayon ang Korte Suprema sa CA sa pagsasabing ang mga istruktura ay itinayo sa pampublikong foreshore na lupain nang walang lease agreement o kasunduan sa pag-upa mula sa DENR.

Ayon sa DENR Administrative Order No. 2004-24, kaugnay ng Public Land Act o Commonwealth Act No. 141, ang mga foreshore land ay maaari lang ipa-renta sa pamamagitan ng isang kasunduan kasama ang DENR. Ang aplikasyon ng pagpapaupa ng mga Calimlim ay tinanggihan ng DENR. Kinilala ng DENR ang illegal occupancy na ito at naglabas din ng Notice to Vacate pero hindi ito pinansin ng mga Calimlim.

Sinabi ng Korte Suprema na ang pagharang at hindi awtorisadong pag-okupa at paggamit ng foreshore land ay katumbas ng isang public nuisance. Dagdag pa nito, ang mga istruktura ay nakapipinsala sa resort at sa mga bisita nito. Ang kanilang open-fire kitchen ay nagdulot rin ng panganib ng sunog sa resort at sa mga bisita nito. Bukod pa rito, ang kawalan ng permit sa gusali ay nagdulot ng mga alalahanin tungkol sa integridad ng istruktura ng gusali.

Basahin ang buong press release sa https://tinyurl.com/yyp6y4kr.

Basahin ang buong Desisyon sa https://tinyurl.com/5axh8jcj.

11/03/2025

𝗙𝗔𝗤𝘀 𝗼𝗻 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗲𝗿 𝗣𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗥𝗼𝗱𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗼 𝗗𝘂𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗲'𝘀 𝗜𝗖𝗖 𝗖𝗮𝘀𝗲: 𝗙𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗮 𝗣𝘂𝗿𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝗦𝗰𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗮𝗿𝗹𝘆 𝗣𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 (𝗡𝗼 𝗣𝗼𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰𝘀)
by Dean Ralph Sarmiento


𝗔. 𝗝𝘂𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗱𝗶𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗜𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗲𝘀

𝟭. 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗴𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁 𝗥𝗼𝗱𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗼 𝗗𝘂𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗲 𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗜𝗖𝗖?

Rodrigo Duterte is accused of crimes against humanity, specifically murder, relating to extrajudicial killings during his anti-drug campaign (2016–2019) and earlier as Mayor of Davao City (2011–2016) (Rome Statute art. 7(1)(a); Situation in the Philippines, ICC-01/21, Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision Authorizing Investigation (Sept. 15, 2021)).

𝟮. 𝗪𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗰𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗥𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝘁𝘂𝘁𝗲 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱?

The primary provision implicated is Article 7(1)(a) regarding crimes against humanity (murder), committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack against civilians. Official status as head of state does not provide immunity (Rome Statute art. 27).

𝟯. 𝗗𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗜𝗖𝗖 𝗿𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝗷𝘂𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗱𝗶𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝗗𝘂𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗶𝘁𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗽𝗽𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀’ 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗱𝗿𝗮𝘄𝗮𝗹 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗥𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝘁𝘂𝘁𝗲?

Yes. The ICC retains jurisdiction over crimes committed before the Philippines' withdrawal took effect on March 17, 2019. Withdrawal does not affect proceedings initiated prior to its effective date (Rome Statute art. 127(2); Situation in the Philippines, ICC-01/21 OA, Appeals Chamber Judgment, July 18, 2023).

𝟰. 𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗮𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝗜𝗖𝗖 𝗷𝘂𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗱𝗶𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝗗𝘂𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗲’𝘀 𝗰𝗮𝘀𝗲?

The ICC exercises jurisdiction if a state is unwilling or unable genuinely to prosecute. The ICC found that the Philippines failed to conduct genuine domestic investigations, thereby satisfying the complementarity principle (Rome Statute art. 17; ICC-01/21 OA, Appeals Chamber Judgment, July 18, 2023).

𝗕. 𝗟𝗲𝗴𝗮𝗹 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗔𝗿𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗪𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘁

𝟱. 𝗢𝗻 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗯𝗮𝘀𝗶𝘀 𝗱𝗶𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗜𝗖𝗖 𝗶𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗲 𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁 𝗗𝘂𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗲?

An ICC arrest warrant is issued if judges find reasonable grounds that crimes within ICC jurisdiction were committed and arrest is necessary to ensure trial attendance or prevent obstruction (Rome Statute art. 58(1)). The ICC Pre-Trial Chamber determined these conditions were satisfied.

𝟲. 𝗗𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝗗𝘂𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗲’𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝘃𝗮𝗹𝗶𝗱 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝗮𝗳𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗽𝗽𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀' 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗱𝗿𝗮𝘄𝗮𝗹?

Yes. The warrant remains valid because jurisdiction is determined by the timing of the alleged crimes, not the current treaty status (Rome Statute art. 127(2); ICC Appeals Chamber Judgment, July 18, 2023).

𝗖. 𝗟𝗲𝗴𝗮𝗹 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗙𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗼𝘄𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗔𝗿𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘁

𝟳. 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗰𝗲𝗱𝘂𝗿𝗲𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗼𝘄 𝗗𝘂𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗲’𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗯𝘆 𝗣𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗽𝗽𝗶𝗻𝗲 𝗮𝘂𝘁𝗵𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀?

After arrest, Duterte would appear before Philippine authorities to verify the ICC’s request. Under Republic Act No. 9851 (Philippine Act on Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law, Genocide, and Other Crimes Against Humanity, § 17), Duterte could be transferred to the ICC for initial appearance, confirmation of charges, and potential trial (Rome Statute arts. 60, 61).

𝟴. 𝗜𝗳 𝗗𝘂𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗜𝗖𝗖, 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗯𝗲 𝗵𝗲𝗹𝗱?

The trial would take place at the ICC headquarters in The Hague, Netherlands (Rome Statute art. 3).

𝟵. 𝗪𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗗𝘂𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗲 𝗯𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝗱𝘂𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗜𝗖𝗖 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗰𝗲𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴𝘀?

Duterte would be detained at the ICC Detention Centre in The Hague, managed according to international detention standards (Rome Statute art. 59, Regulations of the Court reg. 99).

𝟭𝟬. 𝗖𝗮𝗻 𝗗𝘂𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗲 𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗯𝗮𝗶𝗹 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗹𝗶𝗯𝗲𝗿𝘁𝘆?

Provisional release (similar to bail) is possible in exceptional circumstances if judges determine no risk of flight, obstruction, or continued crimes exists (Rome Statute art. 60(2)).

𝟭𝟭. 𝗖𝗮𝗻 𝗗𝘂𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝘃𝗼𝗸𝗲 𝗶𝗺𝗺𝘂𝗻𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗜𝗖𝗖 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘀𝗲𝗰𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝘀 𝗮 𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗲𝗿 𝗣𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗽𝗽𝗶𝗻𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁?

No. Official status, including as head of state or former head of state, does not grant immunity before the ICC (Rome Statute art. 27).

𝗗. 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗖𝗼𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗘𝘅𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻

𝟭𝟮. 𝗜𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗽𝗽𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀 𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗼𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗴𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗗𝘂𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗜𝗖𝗖?

From the ICC’s perspective, yes. Obligation to cooperate continues for investigations initiated before withdrawal (Rome Statute art. 127(2)). Domestically, however, cooperation is discretionary under Philippine law post-withdrawal (Republic Act No. 9851, §17).

𝟭𝟯. 𝗖𝗮𝗻 𝗣𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗙𝗲𝗿𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗠𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗼𝘀 𝗝𝗿. 𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗿𝗲𝗳𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗗𝘂𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗜𝗖𝗖?

Legally, yes. Without a binding treaty or domestic legal obligation explicitly compelling surrender post-withdrawal, the decision to cooperate remains discretionary under Philippine law (Republic Act No. 9851, §17).

𝟭𝟰. 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗼𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗮𝗹 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗽𝗽𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀 𝗿𝗲𝗳𝘂𝘀𝗲𝘀 𝗜𝗖𝗖 𝗰𝗼𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻?

The ICC may declare the Philippines non-cooperative and refer the matter to the Assembly of States Parties. This has diplomatic and reputational implications but does not involve enforceable sanctions (Rome Statute art. 87(7)).

𝗘. 𝗧𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗣𝗲𝗻𝗮𝗹𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀

𝟭𝟱. 𝗜𝗳 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘃𝗶𝗰𝘁𝗲𝗱, 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗮𝗹𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗜𝗖𝗖 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝗼𝗻 𝗗𝘂𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗲?

Penalties include imprisonment for a term not exceeding 30 years, or life imprisonment in extreme cases, along with possible reparations to victims (Rome Statute arts. 75, 77).

𝟭𝟲. 𝗜𝗳 𝗗𝘂𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗼𝗻𝗲𝗱, 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝘄𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗲 𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲?

Sentences are served in a state designated by the ICC from among willing States Parties, not at The Hague itself (Rome Statute art. 103).

𝗙. 𝗕𝗿𝗼𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗜𝗖𝗖 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗲𝘅𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗜𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀

𝟭𝟳. 𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝗗𝘂𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗲’𝘀 𝗰𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗼𝘂𝘀 𝗜𝗖𝗖 𝗰𝗮𝘀𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝗻𝘃𝗼𝗹𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗵𝗲𝗮𝗱𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲?

Like cases involving Omar al-Bashir (Sudan) and Laurent Gbagbo (Ivory Coast), Duterte’s case underscores accountability regardless of official status. However, Duterte’s case uniquely addresses jurisdiction after withdrawal from the ICC (Rome Statute arts. 27, 127(2)).

𝟭𝟴. 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗱𝗶𝗽𝗹𝗼𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗰 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲𝘀 𝗺𝗮𝘆 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘂𝗹𝘁 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗗𝘂𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗲’𝘀 𝗜𝗖𝗖 𝗰𝗮𝘀𝗲?

Non-cooperation risks diplomatic friction with ICC-supportive states, potentially affecting international relations, aid, and trade incentives.

𝟭𝟵. 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗿𝗼𝗹𝗲 𝗱𝗼 𝗵𝘂𝗺𝗮𝗻 𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁𝘀 𝗼𝗿𝗴𝗮𝗻𝗶𝘇𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘃𝗶𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗺𝘀’ 𝗳𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗽𝗹𝗮𝘆 𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗜𝗖𝗖?

These entities document crimes, submit evidence, advocate for accountability, and participate in ICC proceedings. Victims may participate directly through legal representatives and can claim reparations if convictions occur (Rome Statute arts. 68, 75).

𝟮𝟬. 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗰𝗲𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝗺𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝗗𝘂𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗲’𝘀 𝗜𝗖𝗖 𝗰𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝘀𝗲𝘁 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗳𝘂𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝘃𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗴𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗶𝗻𝘃𝗼𝗹𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗵𝗲𝗮𝗱𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲?

It may clarify ICC jurisdiction post-state withdrawal, reinforce non-immunity of official status, and influence future ICC handling of similar cases involving former national leaders (Rome Statute arts. 27, 127(2)).

𝗥𝗲𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲𝘀:

1. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

2. ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision authorizing investigation (Philippines), ICC-01/21 (2021).

3. ICC Appeals Chamber, Judgment on Appeal against authorization decision (Philippines), ICC-01/21 OA (2023).

4. Republic Act No. 9851 (Philippine Act on Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law, Genocide, and Other Crimes Against Humanity, 2009).

5. Philippine Supreme Court Decision, Pangilinan v. Cayetano, G.R. No. 238875 (2021).

07/03/2025

A notary public must verify whether the affiant is single or married when notarizing a real estate mortgage. Failure to do so may result in disciplinary action. - SC