Palace slams International People’s Tribunal’s ‘sham decision’ vs Duterte
By Arjay L. Balinbin, Reporter
MALACAÑANG on Thursday maintained that the guilty verdict on President Rodrigo R. Duterte by the International People’s Tribunal (IPT) is a “sham.”
Mr. Duterte was convicted by the said court of “crimes against humanity, war crimes, and violations of law and legal instruments.”
According to the IPT Philippines, as posted on its social media page, the IPT announced its verdict in Brussels, Belgium, last Wednesday, Sept. 19, on the charges filed against President Rodrigo R. Duterte, United States President Donald J. Trump, International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, World Trade Organization, and transnational corporations and foreign banks doing business in the Philippines “of gross and systematic violations of civil and political rights; gross and systematic violations of economic, social and cultural rights; and gross and systematic violations of the rights of the people to national self-determination and development and violations of international humanitarian law.”
In a video, an IPT juror said: “The Defendants Duterte, Trump and all other Defendants are guilty of all the charges specified in the Indictment, which account for their accountability for crimes against humanity, war crimes and violations of law and legal instruments referred to in the Indictment.”
Kalipunan ng Damayang Mahihirap (Kadamay), one of the complainants, said in a press statement: “Last year, Kadamay had led more than 8,000 families in a successful occupation of public housing projects that have been idle for more or less five years. The group underscored the injustice of having hundreds of thousands of socialized housing units unused for so long amidst a worsening homeless problem.”
Other complainants, according to the IPT, include Bayan, Kilusang Mayo Uno (KMU), Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP), Gabriela, Anakbayan, Migrante, Karapatan, Hustisya, Desaparecidos, Selda, Sandugo, and Rise Up for Life and Rights.
Kadamay’s representative, Concepcion Opalla, who testified against “the gross negligence and grave threats made by Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte against the movements of urban poor and homeless,” was quoted as saying: “Things are not getting any better for the homeless. Both Duterte and the NHA have worked to worsen the housing crisis, treating it like a business rather than a public service. In the last year, more idle homes have been put up while the agency continues to profit and make profits for corporate developers. They are doing more to guarantee the flow of money to their pockets rather than ensure homeless Filipinos have a roof over their heads.”
For its part, the National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers (NUPL) said: “The International Peoples’ Tribunal is a legitimate venue and alternative or parallel platform initiated by the people to seek redress when existing traditional institutions and remedies are either limited, inadequate, unavailing or even skewed.”
The NUPL stressed that the IPT “follows and respects due process where the Defendants are duly notified and given an adequate opportunity to participate and defend themselves; has its rules of procedure that is consistent with universal standards of evidence; convened by prestigious and respected international lawyers’ organizations; presided by a panel of eminent jurors of different disciplines; and where the proceedings are conducted in an open and public trial.”
“Leaders and governments must take these credible initiatives by the people seriously. They must frontally address the complaints, grievances and charges against them before the international community,” the NUPL also said.
For his part, Presidential Spokesperson Harry L. Roque, Jr. said: “That’s a sham decision. It has no official sanction. The validity of the findings will depend on the credibility of the tribunals — I’m in this field of law. I do not know who sat there. They appear to be a propaganda body of the international left; and, therefore, we set it aside as being a useless piece of propaganda against the government.”