Duterte did not apply for asylum in China – Bello

MANILA, Philippines — One of Rodrigo Duterte’s lawyers has denied that the former president applied for asylum in China, following reports that the application was denied, forcing him to return home after his Hong Kong trip.

Former labor secretary Silvestre Bello III, one of Duterte’s legal counsels, said that he was present during the former chief executive’s visit in Hong Kong.

“I was with the president in Hong Kong and I left ahead, and before that we had a meeting and there was never an attempt on the side of the president to seek asylum, otherwise, as his counsel, he should have informed me,” Bello said.

Based on the report, Duterte allegedly applied for asylum in China, but was rejected, forcing him to return to the Philippines.

“There was no such thing. In fact, when he met with the overseas Filipino workers, he even mentioned that there was allegedly a warrant of arrest and he even expressed his readiness to be arrested,” Bello said.

Communications Undersecretary Claire Castro said that the Marcos administration has no knowledge about Duterte’s supposed attempt to seek asylum in China.

A GMA 7 report cited information from an unimpeachable source that, as early as January, the government already planned the arrest of Duterte once the warrant from the International Criminal Court (ICC) was released.

The GMA source said the Philippine National Police (PNP) dubbed the mission as “Oplan Tugis.”

According to the source, PNP chief Gen. Rommel Francisco Marbil directed Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG) chief Maj. Gen. Nicolas Torre III to arrest Duterte as soon as the ICC warrant of arrest was issued.

The source added that when Duterte left for Hong Kong on March 7 to attend an event for overseas Filipino workers, the arrest warrant against him was issued by the ICC Pre-trial Chamber 1.

The PNP-CIDG closely coordinated with the International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol) to serve the warrant of Duterte.

The source said the PNP-CIDG wanted to arrest Duterte in Hong Kong, but the Hong Kong police refused to cooperate, as China is not a member of the ICC or state party of the Rome Statute.

The source added that four CIDG agents were deployed to monitor Duterte’s movements while in Hong Kong.

According to the source, it was on March 11 when Duterte decided to return to the Philippines after China allegedly rejected his plea of asylum.

The source said that Hong Kong police even monitored Duterte to make sure he would return to the Philippines.

No effect

One of the five lawyers accredited by the ICC yesterday said the case of crimes against humanity against Duterte will not be affected even if it will be determined that his arrest was illegal.

In an interview over dzBB, Gilbert Andres, who is also the executive director of the Center for International Law and lawyer for the victims of the war on drugs, cited the case of Adolf Eichmann, a German and leader of the Nazi Party who went into hiding in Argentina and was arrested.

“There is a doctrine in international law where the process of arrest will not affect the legality of the criminal proceedings of an international criminal court because if it’s an international crime, the accused should be present and there should be no trial in absentia,” Andres said.

The Duterte camp has been questioning the legality of his arrest, as former executive secretary Salvador Medialdea said the former president was “kidnapped and surrendered to the ICC.”

“Any wrongdoings in the arrest will not affect the criminal proceedings. That principle was applied to Adolf Eichmann in the 1960s. He went to Argentina. He was arrested and brought to Israel. He questioned his arrest and the court told him that it will not affect his case as he was charged for an international crime,” Andres explained.

“For Duterte, there was no kidnapping. There was a warrant of arrest. Everything was in order,” he said.

Andres said the arrest of Duterte was covered by Section 17 of Republic Act 9851, or the International Humanitarian Law.

“There was no substantive difference (on red notice and red diffusion). The government applied Section 17 RA 9851 or the International Humanitarian Law, where the crimes against humanity was included,” he said.

Andres noted that RA 9851 was passed into law in December 2009 and the Philippines was not yet party to the Rome Statute.