Manila, Philippines — Three consolidated habeas corpus petitions are currently pending at the Supreme Court seeking the nullification of the arrest and turnover of former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte to the International Criminal Court for his charges of crimes against humanity.
The said petitions were originally filed separately by the Duterte siblings Veronica Kitty, Davao City Mayor Sebastian, and Davao City Representative Paolo challenging the arrest of their father, arguing that ICC has no jurisdiction in the Philippines since the country’s withdrawal in 2019.
In a recent move, Veronica filed on April 7, via lawyer Salvador Panelo, a motion asking the High Court to set oral arguments regarding the said petitions.
The motion noted that since the filing of the traverses and replies regarding the petition, the SC has not yet taken a new action regarding the consolidated petitions, including setting of an oral argument, hence the reason for the motion.
It further cited grounds that can be considered by the Court to decide and set oral arguments.
According to the motion, the consolidated habeas corpus petitions present exigent constitutional issues, and that an oral argument will allow the court to directly question involved parties and balance the issues.
“The petitions present unprecedented issues regarding the scope of writs of habeas corpus. This includes this question of first impression: ‘Can the respondents strip this Honorable Court of its power to issue a writ of habeas corpus by simply transferring the person illegally arrested and detained outside Philippine territory?’” the motion cited.
The petitioner further argued that the discussion of the petition is a matter of public interest, presents conflicting legal arguments, a question on the Rome Statute’s jurisdiction and validity, and whether the consolidated petitions are moot or not.
In an official post, Panelo noted that the request of oral arguments would provide a transparent platform for the SC to address legal issues related to the petition.
“The Motion filed on April 7, 2025 submits that oral arguments would provide, among others, a transparent platform for the SC to address important legal and constitutional issues raised in the petitions, ensuring that its eventual ruling on this case of transcendental importance and significant public interest is fully articulated and understood by the public,” Panelo said.