1. Your Honors, Friends, Good Evening!

2. Two points of rebuttal.

3.

We refute these allegations by a matter of fact and as a matter of law.

Sovereignty is the right of the people to control their fate without subordination to outside authorities. It
has at least three dimensions – authority, autonomy and influence.

The UN Probe is not just a mere interference but a declaration of War on our Sovereignty.

Section 7, Article II of the 1987 Constitution has a clear conception of what the nation’s foreign policy
should be that the state shall pursue an independent foreign policy. In its relation with other states the
paramount consideration shall be the national sovereignty, territorial integrity, national interest, and the
right to self-determination.

The framers of the 1987 Constitution upheld that above all, the Executive and the congress in relation to
the Constitution’s section on social justice must always seek for the consultation with the people.

With respect to the pulse of the Filipinos, a survey conducted late last year showed that eight out of ten
are satisfied with this administration’s campaign against illegal drugs.

This can only mean that Filipinos feel safer as the rate of criminality has substantially declined to a
remarkable low for indeed, a significant number of our country’s felonies are drug related.

Assuming without conceding that the Philippines as part of the United Nations must follow the rule of
pacta sunct servanda, the 1981 Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention and Interference in the
Internal Affairs of States declares that No State or group of States has the right to intervene or interfere
in any form or for any reason whatsoever in the internal and external affairs of other States.

The nation-state remains and always will be the true foundation of happiness and harmony.

A State which becomes a Party to this Statute thereby accepts the jurisdiction of the Court with respect
to the crimes referred to in article 5.
Interpellation

1. Do you know what Rome Statute is?

2. Are you aware that the Philippines is a signatory thereto and eventually withdrawn its affiliation?
3. Are you also aware that as a precondition to the exercise of jurisdiction that the state which
becomes a party to this statute must thereby accept the jurisdiction of the court?
4. Based on such premise, would it be safe to say that the Philippines withdrawing from the statute
no longer needs to submit itself under the jurisdiction of the court?
5. Your Honors, the Philippines has withdrawn its membership from the Rome statute thus
therefor, whatever the result of the UN Probe is immaterial since the ICC holds no jurisdiction
over the Philippines.
6. Counsel,

The UNHRC resolution should have belong to any sources whether material or formal sources of
International Law under Art 38 par 1 of the ICJ Statute.

The slippery slope fallacy in saying that because we are mere member of the UN Charter and the ICCPR
then it give rise to a specific obligation to submit ourselves to international review and investigation,
there has to be a distinction. Although, there exist a general obligation to uphold human rights, the
subsidiarity principle would tell us that international human rights law gives wide latitude of discretion
for domestic states to adopt domestic mechanisms for them to address and uphold these obligations.

Lotus case of France v Turkey, a limitation to our sovereignty in handling our own domestic affairs as to
human rights issues cannot be presumed nor can be limited.

Domestic mechanism in the Philippines are failing: We have to test this with a standard set in
international law. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights Case of Velasquez-Rodriguez v Honduras,
were the standards of failed mechanisms were set, the court ruled that domestic mechanism had failed
it is unable to seek the remedy sought by the applicants.

The PH ratified the first optional protocol of the ICCPR for the citizens of the Philippines to file single
complaints to the ICCPR.

Par 17 of the ICJ advisory opinion on the use or threat of nuclear weapons, the ICJ court ruled that UN
General Assembly resolutions are non-binding as they merely represent political statements of the state
party who voted in favor or against that resolution.
UK and Australia parties who voted in favor of this resolution has once rejected the binding effect of
these resolutions calling them merely recommendatory and does not produce any legal effect under
international law.

Our membership is not an automatic waiver of our sovereignty.

IN t