Meet one of our speakers at the UMALOHOKAN: Para sa Kaalaman, Kalikasan at Kinabukasan Workshop

Wazzup Pilipinas!?

Remember the date, time and place:

April 13, 2025

2pm onwards

Simbayanan ni Maria Community Foundation, 115 MLQ Street, Purok 2, New Lower Bicutan, Taguig City

Nestor Lim stands as a relentless truth-seeker, battling disinformation with unwavering resolve while championing environmental stewardship. As a tech visionary and advocate, he wields knowledge to empower, protect, and inspire change.

In an age where truth is often overshadowed by disinformation, one man stands at the frontline—unyielding, fearless, and driven by purpose. Nestor Lim is more than just an IT solutions provider, people manager, educator, and blogger; he is a warrior for truth and a steadfast advocate for a better world.

With a career spanning multiple industries, Nestor has built and led high-performing tech teams, pioneering IT service organizations that have empowered businesses and individuals alike. His expertise has reached global shores, serving clients across North America, Europe, Asia, and Oceania. But beyond technology, he wields his influence to combat misinformation, ensuring that facts prevail over falsehoods.

Armed with degrees in Information Technology, Information Systems, and Public Administration, and currently pursuing a Juris Doctor degree at the University of Makati School of Law, Nestor is a relentless force of knowledge and advocacy. His leadership on the editorial board of Justitia: The University of Makati Law Journal reflects his commitment to upholding truth and justice.

Yet, his mission does not stop there. Recognizing that integrity and sustainability go hand in hand, Nestor is also a passionate defender of the environment. He believes that protecting our planet is a duty we must all embrace, ensuring a future where truth, justice, and nature coexist in harmony.

Today, we welcome a man who fights not just with words, but with action. A trailblazer in technology, a fearless advocate for truth, and a guardian of the environment—ladies and gentlemen, let’s give a warm welcome to Nestor Lim!

Media partners are Philippine Daily Inquirer, INQUIRER.net, Pilipinas, Ngayon Na of DWIZ 882 of Aliw Broadcasting Corporation, Leader News Philippines, Radyo Veritas, DZME 1530, 91.5 Win Radio Manila among many others including top and rising social media personalities (vloggers, bloggers, content creators, influencers) and of course WazzupPilipinas.com

A Flawed Narrative: Debunking the Senate Hearing’s Alleged “Exposé” on the ICC Arrest of Duterte

Wazzup Pilipinas!?

The recent Senate hearing on the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the arrest of former President Rodrigo Duterte has sparked controversy, with some claiming that it exposed incompetence within the government. However, a deeper analysis reveals that this narrative is based on flawed reasoning, misinterpretation of legal processes, and a disregard for established laws.

The Philippines’ Withdrawal from the ICC and Its Implications

One of the key issues often overlooked in the debate is the legal standing of the ICC in the Philippines. While former President Duterte withdrew the country from the ICC in 2019, the Rome Statute—the treaty that established the ICC—states that withdrawal does not affect ongoing investigations that started before the withdrawal took effect. The ICC had already begun its preliminary examination of Duterte’s alleged crimes before the withdrawal, which means it retained jurisdiction over these cases.

To argue that the Marcos administration “allowed” the ICC arrest to happen is legally inaccurate. The ICC operates independently, and its actions are based on international law, not the approval or disapproval of any sitting head of state. The claim that Bongbong Marcos had “sole authority” over foreign policy and that the arrest “could not have happened without his approval” ignores the fact that the ICC acts on its own mandate.

The Difference Between a Red Notice and a Diffusion Notice

The hearing raised concerns about the difference between an Interpol Red Notice and a Diffusion Notice. Some claim that since there was no Red Notice, the arrest lacked legal basis. This is misleading.

A Diffusion Notice is an urgent request for cooperation issued by Interpol directly to member countries. It allows for immediate action without waiting for a formal Red Notice. Countries are not obligated to act on either a Red Notice or a Diffusion Notice, but the choice to acknowledge them falls under domestic laws and international obligations.

Furthermore, a Diffusion Notice being acted upon does not automatically mean incompetence on the part of Philippine authorities. Rather, it demonstrates adherence to legal processes—something critics ironically accuse the government of ignoring.

Senate Hearing or Political Theater?

Some argue that the hearing “exposed” government incompetence, but the real question is: did it truly reveal incompetence, or was it merely a platform for political maneuvering?

The claim that 7,000 police personnel were deployed for Duterte’s arrest before the ICC warrant was officially issued lacks concrete evidence. No independent verification has been provided beyond Senate testimonies, and no legally admissible documents confirm this assertion. Mere allegations, even if repeated multiple times, do not constitute proof.

Additionally, the Senate’s role in this issue is questionable. The ICC operates independently, and the Philippine Senate does not have jurisdiction over its decisions. The real purpose of the hearing seems to have been less about uncovering the truth and more about shifting public perception in favor of Duterte.

The DOJ’s Role and Legal Interpretations

The accusation that DOJ Secretary Crispin Remulla is positioning the DOJ as “above the law” is misleading. The DOJ’s role is to interpret and implement Philippine laws, not to dictate ICC processes. The claim that Remulla is disregarding jurisprudence lacks specifics—what exact legal precedents did he ignore? Which landmark cases contradict his stance?

It is easy to make broad accusations, but without citing actual laws, cases, or legal doctrines that were violated, such claims remain speculative at best.

The Marcos Administration’s Alleged “Downfall”

The notion that this issue marks the “beginning of the Marcos administration’s downfall” is purely speculative. The Philippines has faced numerous political controversies, and while this issue is significant, it is not the singular event that will determine the administration’s fate.

If anything, the hearing could have unintended consequences for Duterte’s camp. While some argue that it strengthened his defense, it also brought renewed attention to the ICC’s case against him. The more this issue is discussed in public forums, the more the alleged human rights violations under his administration are scrutinized.

Conclusion: Separating Facts from Political Spin

The Senate hearing did not expose incompetence; it exposed the willingness of some politicians to manipulate legal arguments for political gain. The ICC arrest did not happen because of Bongbong Marcos’ approval—it happened because of established international legal procedures. The distinction between a Red Notice and a Diffusion Notice does not invalidate the arrest. And the claim that the DOJ and PNP are “liars” lacks concrete evidence beyond political rhetoric.

Rather than accepting dramatic claims at face value, it is crucial to analyze the situation based on legal facts and logical reasoning. The ICC operates beyond the influence of any single government, and its actions are not dictated by the Philippine Senate, the DOJ, or even the sitting president.

Ultimately, this entire issue is less about exposing incompetence and more about controlling the narrative. And if there’s one thing that history has taught us, it’s that legal truth cannot be buried under political spectacle.

Imee Marcos Explodes: 'Philippines Now a Province of The Hague!' After Duterte’s ICC Transfer

Wazzup Pilipinas!?

In a dramatic turn of events, the Philippine political landscape has been jolted by the arrest and transfer of former President Rodrigo Duterte to the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague. This move has ignited a fervent debate on national sovereignty, legal obligations, and the intricate dynamics between the nation's most influential political dynasties.

The Arrest and Transfer: A Nation's Sovereignty Questioned

On March 11, 2025, Rodrigo Duterte was arrested at Manila's main airport upon his return from Hong Kong, following a secret arrest warrant issued by the ICC. He was promptly flown to The Hague to face charges of crimes against humanity related to his infamous "war on drugs," which reportedly resulted in thousands of deaths during his presidency from 2016 to 2022. 

The arrest has been lauded by human rights advocates and victims' families as a significant step toward justice. The National Union of Peoples' Lawyers described it as a "symbolic victory" for the marginalized and a beacon of hope for accountability. 

Senator Imee Marcos' Outcry: Allegations of Sovereignty Erosion

The arrest, however, has not been without controversy. Senator Imee Marcos, sister of President Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos Jr. and a known ally of the Duterte family, vehemently criticized the move. Presiding over a Senate inquiry, she contended that Duterte's transfer to the ICC was tantamount to admitting that the Philippines was incapable of trying its own leaders, thereby undermining national sovereignty. Marcos asserted, "Justice rendered by a foreign country is not justice. It's slavery." 

She further argued that allowing foreign entities to judge a Filipino leader diminishes the country's dignity and self-determination, suggesting that such actions could set a precedent for external interference in domestic affairs.

Malacañang's Firm Stance: Upholding Legal Obligations

In response, Malacañang, the official residence of the Philippine president, refuted Senator Marcos' remarks. Palace Press Officer Undersecretary Claire Castro emphasized that the Philippines remains an independent nation and has no intention of becoming subordinate to any foreign power. She stated, "We have never intended to become a province of any country because we are an independent nation." 

Castro clarified that Duterte's transfer to The Hague was conducted legally, in line with the government's obligations under the International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol), and not directly in cooperation with the ICC. She underscored the administration's commitment to upholding national sovereignty, suggesting that the arrest should not be seen as a affront to the government but rather as compliance with international legal frameworks.

Dynastic Feuds and Political Undercurrents

The arrest has also brought to light the deepening rift between the Duterte and Marcos political dynasties. Once allies, the two families are now embroiled in a high-stakes feud that has significant implications for the nation's political future. The fallout became public when Sara Duterte, daughter of the former president and then-vice president, admitted to hiring a hitman to assassinate President Marcos Jr. and other officials. This revelation led to her impeachment and has further strained relations between the two powerful families. 

Analysts suggest that Duterte's arrest could be a strategic move by the Marcos administration to weaken the Dutertes' political influence ahead of the upcoming midterm elections. The timing of the arrest, coupled with the existing dynastic feud, has led to speculations about the motivations behind the swift compliance with the ICC's warrant. 

Public Sentiment: A Nation Divided

The public reaction to Duterte's arrest is deeply divided. Supporters of the former president view the arrest as a politically motivated act orchestrated by the Marcos administration to dismantle opposition. They argue that Duterte should be tried in Philippine courts, asserting that the ICC's intervention infringes upon the nation's sovereignty. 

Conversely, victims' families and human rights groups see the arrest as a long-overdue step toward justice. They believe that the domestic legal system has failed to hold Duterte accountable for the alleged extrajudicial killings during his anti-drug campaign, making international intervention necessary. 

Legal Proceedings Ahead: Navigating Uncharted Waters

Duterte's initial appearance before the ICC's pre-trial chamber took place on March 14 via video link, with a pre-trial hearing scheduled for September 23 to determine whether the prosecution's evidence is sufficient for a trial. If convicted, Duterte faces a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. 

His legal team has challenged the arrest's legality, arguing that it was politically orchestrated and that the ICC lacks jurisdiction, given the Philippines' withdrawal from the Rome Statute in 2019. However, the ICC maintains that it retains jurisdiction over crimes committed while the Philippines was still a member, specifically between November 1, 2011, and March 16, 2019. 

Conclusion: A Pivotal Moment for the Philippines

The arrest and transfer of former President Rodrigo Duterte to the ICC have plunged the Philippines into a complex interplay of legal obligations, national sovereignty, and political power struggles. As the nation grapples with these challenges, the coming months will be crucial in determining the trajectory of its justice system, the resilience of its democratic institutions, and the future of its political dynasties.