Journalists should keep reporting about victims of the drug war to prod authorities and courts to prosecute the perpetrators, human rights lawyer Kristina Conti said at a conference on investigative journalism. 

“It could help perpetuate their stories. It’s more for public awareness,’’ she said at the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism’s third Investigative Journalism Conference (IJCon) on May 1.

In their stories, journalists should also highlight the pattern of killings to help the International Criminal Court establish the existence of systematic and widespread killings, said Conti, counsel of the families of the drug war victims. 

“Pattern, that’s what the ICC is looking for. In a sense, ‘I don’t care how you were killed. What’s important is who pulled the trigger and if that killing is similar to the others’,’’ she said during the breakout session on the drug war. 

“Pattern” leads investigators to the perpetrators, she added.   

In the absence of a truth-telling commission on the campaign against illegal drugs, launched by former leader Rodrigo Duterte and continued by President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.,  journalists should keep writing stories about its victims.

“What’s happening now is de facto truth-telling through the works of the media and that is very, very important,’’ Human Rights Watch senior researcher Carlos Conde said in the same session.

“It helps not only to highlight that these things are still happening, but it helps those in positions to prosecute whoever is responsible.’’

‘Situation’

Duterte and several others are facing crimes against humanity case at the international tribunal court in The Hague over the war on drugs that left thousands dead.  

In May 2017, lawyer Jude Jose Sabio asked the international court to charge Duterte and 11 other officials with mass murder and crimes against humanity over the thousands of extrajudicial killings in the conduct of the anti-drug campaign.

Former Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV filed a supplemental communication asking ICC to investigate Duterte.

 In light of these communications, Conti explained the key differences between ICC’s judicial system and the country’s.  

What is pending before the ICC is a “situation.’’ It assumes the nature of a case only when the international court opens the trial, she said.  

In the Philippines, prosecutors hold preliminary investigation (PI) to answer two questions: Is there a crime and who is the perpetrator?

On the other hand, ICC prosecutors answer these two questions in two phases — the preliminary examination (PE) and investigation.   

“The PE is done. There have been crimes against humanity committed in the Philippines. That’s a done deal,’’ Conti said, referring to the Philippine case.

‘Systematic and widespread’

The ICC has moved to the investigation phase to determine “who is responsible,” she added.

The ICC doesn’t look into the killing of one person, but the killings of many that are “systematic and widespread,’’ according to Conti.  

In the Philippines, prosecutors and judges determine “who pulled the trigger.” It’s the reverse in the international court, she said.

“`We don’t care who pulled the trigger. Sure, he killed him. But what animated that act?’ Through that order, they’ll identify who is most responsible. And it can be two, three or more,’’ she said.  

An arrest warrant is issued once the most responsible – whether one or a group of persons — is identified. But it comes before the “confirmation of charges,’’ which can be compared to Philippine courts’ arraignment where an accused enters a guilty plea or not guilty plea, Conti explained.

Under the Rome Statute, the 2002 treaty that established the ICC, the arrest warrant is issued to persons who committed crimes against humanity, she said.  

The arrest warrant is a summons for a person or a group to appear before the international court and cooperate with its investigation, the human rights lawyer said.  

The court sends out the arrest warrant – also called red notice – to the Interpol. The international agency is not obliged to execute the warrant, but all countries within Interpol system will have to cooperate in terms of giving information on the subject of the warrant.

“This red notice tells you ‘If you see this person, inform us’,’’ she said, adding that countries within the ICC family are also obliged to enforce a warrant against a person or a group.

The Philippine case has been elevated to the ICC investigation stage, according to Conti. 

‘No news is good news’

“We’re looking at possible application or applications of warrant of arrest,’’ she said. “If it’s issued, and the ICC feels it can execute it, they won’t announce it. They will only announce that there is a warrant of arrest if they have arrested that person.’’

Trillanes claimed in January that he received information that ICC probers flew to Manila in December to conduct an investigation of the principal accused. He recently said that the ICC communicated with more than 50 active and non-active police officers and would issue the warrants for Duterte and others in June.

“For us, no news is good news. If they (ICC) had no hopes of serving it, they would have announced it,’’ Conti said.

Responding to the question of whether the Philippine National Police would enforce the warrant, Conti said: “Let’s pressure the President because he’s the chief of law enforcement agencies. He can order the military to do it. He can order some other law enforcement agent to do it… since this is a different kind of crime.’’

Apart from Duterte, former PNP chiefs – now Sen. Ronald dela Rosa and Oscar Albayalde – were explicitly named in documents submitted to the ICC.

The PNP has maintained that it would not enforce the arrest warrant, echoing the Marcos administration’s questions about ICC jurisdiction over the country.  

While the Philippines withdrew from the Rome Statute on March 17, 2019, the court retained jurisdiction of alleged crimes committed when it was still a state party from Nov. 11, 2011 to March 16, 2019. — with a report from John Dewey Ocfemia