MANILA, Philippines – The International Criminal Court (ICC) has yet to announce any decision on the warrant in the ICC probe into the drug war killings in the Philippines, its spokesperson said Tuesday night, July 18.

“By definition, the investigation is confidential, and it’s only if the prosecutor or the judges want to make certain aspects public that this can be done. But at this moment, the investigation is confidential, and there has been no request or decisions that have been announced,” ICC spokesperson Fadi El Abdallah told Rappler in an interview.

The ICC spokesperson added that “it has been just a short time” since ICC prosecutor Karim Khan was authorized to resume his probe into the killings under former president Rodrigo Duterte. He is at the center of the ICC probe into his drug war killings when he was president and Davao City mayor; the deaths being investigated include those instigated by the so-called Davao Death Squad.

When asked how long it usually takes for a warrant to be issued, Abdallah said “it will depend on the prosecutor’s capacity to gather enough evidence and how quickly that can be done.”

Must Read

EXPLAINER: ICC ruling a win for victims, also opens options for PH gov’t

On Tuesday afternoon, the ICC appeals chamber announced its rejection of the Philippine government’s appeal against the drug war probe. Three of the five judges – or a majority – found that the ICC pre-trial chamber did not err in law when it gave the green light to continue the investigation.

The rejection of the appeal means the probe will continue, and summons and warrants against people who will be tagged in the case could be released.

Can the request for, and issuance of, warrants be appealed? Abdallah said that “if there are legal arguments, it’s always something that can be raised before the ICC judges who will have to decide on it.”

Play Video

Explaining jurisdiction

In reading the ruling of the ICC appeals chamber, Presiding Judge Marc Perrin de Brichambaut emphasized that the decision is not a ruling on jurisdiction. According to Abdallah, the appeals chamber’s decision did not tackle jurisdiction because it “would not check something that was not checked by the pre-trial chamber.”

What the appeals chamber did was to examine or confirm what was already decided, and not the points that were “outside” of a previous court’s decision. Simply put, the appeals chamber covered only matters that were already tackled by the pre-trial chamber in this case.

The appeals chamber also said that although the Philippines had argued that the ICC has no jurisdiction, this was not raised at the pre-trial chamber’s level. Because the issue of jurisdiction was outside what the appeals chamber was asked to review, “thus, they will not make a ruling specifically on that point,” Abdallah explained. – Rappler.com