Office of the Solicitor General's Withdrawal: A Legal Puzzle or Political Maneuver?

Wazzup Pilipinas!?

The recent decision of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) to withdraw from a crucial legal battle has sparked intense debate and raised troubling questions about its motivations, implications, and the rule of law in the Philippines. The move, which has been described as perplexing by legal experts, challenges the integrity of legal precedents set by the Supreme Court and casts doubt on the true independence of the OSG as an institution.

At the center of this controversy is the Supreme Court’s definitive ruling in Pangilinan et al. v. Cayetano et al. (G.R. No. 238875), which unequivocally established that the International Criminal Court (ICC) retains jurisdiction over acts committed by government officials until March 17, 2019. This means that even though the Philippines withdrew from the Rome Statute, the legal accountability of those implicated in alleged crimes against humanity remains intact. Given this legal backdrop, the OSG’s decision to step back raises critical concerns about whether it is acting in line with the rule of law—or bending to political pressures.

Defying Legal Precedent?

The OSG, as the Republic’s chief legal defender, has a duty to uphold Supreme Court rulings as part of the law of the land. The Pangilinan ruling should have settled any institutional contradictions within the government regarding the ICC’s jurisdiction. Yet, the OSG has opted to distance itself from the case, seemingly contradicting an established legal principle. This is not a matter of discretion; it is a matter of law. By withdrawing, is the OSG signaling that it can selectively disregard Supreme Court decisions? If so, does this not undermine the rule of law itself?

More strikingly, the OSG’s recent manifestation did not argue that the Supreme Court ruling was erroneous. Instead, it clung to the position that the ICC is barred from exercising jurisdiction over the Philippines, despite the clear legal precedent to the contrary. This raises a fundamental question: Is the OSG’s withdrawal legally sound, or is it a political maneuver to distance itself from the Duterte case?

A Political Shield for Duterte?

The timing and circumstances of this withdrawal naturally fuel speculation. Solicitor General Meynard Guevarra, a well-respected legal mind, has maintained that the decision was not personal but institutional. However, given his previous affiliations with former President Rodrigo Duterte and former Executive Secretary Salvador Medialdea, many suspect that political considerations played a role.

If the OSG’s withdrawal is an attempt to shield Duterte from international prosecution, it risks embarrassing the Philippine government on the global stage. The arrest of Duterte under Republic Act No. 9851—a domestic law that permits the surrender of individuals to international tribunals for crimes against humanity—demonstrates that the legal framework exists for his prosecution. The OSG’s refusal to defend this position suggests an internal divide within the government, one that could weaken the country’s credibility in international legal forums.

Contradicting the Executive Branch?

An equally pressing concern is whether the OSG’s decision contradicts the institutional stance of the Executive Branch. The President, as the chief architect of foreign policy, has the authority to make strategic decisions regarding international legal commitments. If the Executive Department has determined that cooperating with the ICC is the best course of action—whether for legal, diplomatic, or stability-related reasons—should the OSG not support this position rather than retreat?

If the Duterte prosecution is being pursued at the ICC to prevent national destabilization, as some legal scholars suggest, then the OSG’s withdrawal appears even more questionable. Does the OSG have independent intelligence or legal reasoning superior to that of the Executive Branch? Or did it make this move without consulting the Office of the President?

An Institutional Crisis?

The OSG’s withdrawal exposes a potential institutional crisis. If the government’s own legal arm refuses to back a policy rooted in both domestic and international law, it raises doubts about whether legal decisions in the country are truly based on legal merit—or swayed by political survival.

Even if one argues that the ICC should not have jurisdiction, the Philippines' own laws—particularly Republic Act No. 9851—allow the Executive to waive its right to try Duterte domestically. This is a legal choice, not a legal violation. So why would the OSG resist defending such a choice?

The Need for Transparency

At its core, this situation demands greater transparency from the OSG. If its withdrawal was truly an institutional decision, it owes the public a more thorough explanation. The Duterte case is not just a legal battle; it is a defining moment for the country’s commitment to justice and accountability. The OSG’s actions should reflect a firm adherence to the law, not political expediency.

Ultimately, the withdrawal of the OSG begs more questions than it answers. Is this a sign of legal independence or a calculated political retreat? Will this move strengthen or weaken the rule of law? And most importantly, does this signal that even Supreme Court rulings can be set aside when politically inconvenient? These are questions that demand urgent and honest answers—for the sake of justice, the rule of law, and the country’s international standing.

The Flaw in Roque’s Statement: Why He Is Not Automatically Protected by No-Refoulement

Wazzup Pilipinas!?

Former presidential spokesperson Harry Roque declared that he could no longer be sent back to the Philippines after applying for asylum in the Netherlands. According to him, this is due to the principle of "no-refoulement," which he claims grants him absolute protection from deportation—even if a warrant of arrest is issued against him.


But the real question is: Is his claim actually true? Or is this just a desperate attempt to evade accountability?


What Is No-Refoulement?

"No-refoulement" is a principle in international law that prohibits a country from forcibly returning an asylum seeker to a place where they may face torture, persecution, or other severe dangers.


However, there is an important caveat: this protection is not automatically granted to anyone who merely files an asylum application. It is only given after thorough scrutiny and official approval of an individual’s asylum status. In short, simply applying does not guarantee absolute protection from deportation.


The Major Flaw in Roque’s Statement
By his own admission, Roque is still in the process of applying for asylum—it has not yet been approved. This means that there is no official declaration from the Dutch government confirming that he qualifies for protection under no-refoulement. Therefore, he cannot use this principle as a defense to claim that he cannot be sent back to the Philippines.


Furthermore, there are two key reasons why his asylum claim could be rejected:


Involvement in Crimes

Under Article 1F of the 1951 Refugee Convention, asylum cannot be granted to individuals involved in serious crimes or activities contrary to the principles of the United Nations. If evidence emerges that Roque was involved in any illegal activities while in government, he may be disqualified from protection under international law.


The Netherlands Has Discretion
Even if he alleges political persecution, the Dutch government has the right to determine whether his asylum application is valid. This status is not granted automatically, and if it is proven that he does not face a real threat to his life or safety, he can be deported back to the Philippines.


The Real Reason Behind Roque’s Attempt to Escape

A crucial question arises: If Roque truly has a strong case for asylum, why is he announcing it on social media instead of quietly following the legal process? Such a statement could be a strategic move to gain public sympathy and preempt any government action to bring him back to the Philippines.


Spreading misinformation is a common tactic used to confuse the public and escape accountability. However, in this case, Roque’s dramatic claims will not deceive either the Dutch legal system or the Philippine authorities.


What Could Happen to Roque?

If it is determined that his asylum application lacks merit, he can be sent back to the Philippines to face any pending charges against him. Even the Netherlands, a country known for its strict refugee protection laws, has rules against individuals abusing the asylum system to evade legal responsibility.


In the end, the law—not his own version of the truth—will decide his fate.

PHLPost Rolls Out Lower Rates for Trackable Domestic and International Mail Services

Wazzup Pilipinas!?

In a major move to provide Filipinos with more affordable and efficient mailing services, the Philippine Postal Corporation (PHLPost) has introduced promotional lower rates for both domestic and international tracked mail services, including its Express Mail Service (EMS). This initiative aims to make postal services more accessible, offering the public a cost-effective alternative to expensive courier options while ensuring reliability and efficiency.

A Commitment to Affordability and Efficiency

Postmaster General Luis D. Carlos emphasized that the revised rates will help Filipinos save on mailing costs while benefiting from high-quality service.

"We are proud to share the benefits of our operational improvements with the public. This promotional rate reduction for domestic and international mail services reflects our commitment to better serving our customers and enhancing the economic well-being of Filipino communities," PMG Carlos stated.

PHLPost attributes this pricing adjustment to effective governance, streamlined operations, and cost-saving measures that have significantly improved efficiency. With these changes, customers can expect better value without compromising service quality.

How the New Rates Work

The computation for the new applicable rates is based on the volumetric weight of mail and packages, with pricing varying depending on the delivery area. More remote and hard-to-reach locations may have different rates compared to major urban centers.

For example, under the new pricing scheme:

A Domestic Tracked Item mailed within Metro Manila (NCR) costs only ₱25 for the first 50 grams, providing customers with an affordable way to track the date of mailing and delivery.

International mail services now offer the lowest rates in the market.

Sending a 1.5 kg package to Japan costs ₱1,680

To Singapore, ₱1,254

To Australia, ₱1,870

To Canada, ₱2,291

To the United Kingdom, ₱1,823

To the United States, ₱2,250

The International Express Mail Service (EMS) rates vary by destination.

For Australia, the rate starts at ₱444.50 for the first 500 grams and ₱2,413 for the first kilogram.

For the United Kingdom, ₱513.50 for the first 500 grams and ₱3,018 for the first kilogram.

For the United States, ₱631.50 for the first 500 grams and ₱2,182 for the first kilogram.

For Singapore, ₱240 for the first 500 grams and ₱1,167 for the first kilogram.

Increased Accessibility, Greater Public Benefit

PMG Carlos acknowledged that high courier rates have long been a burden for the public, with private courier services often charging exorbitant fees.

"With these new promo rates, we offer a better alternative—one that allows individuals and businesses to fulfill their mailing needs at a fraction of the cost," he said.

PHLPost expects increased usage of its services, given the new competitive rates. Additionally, the agency reassures the public that despite the lower prices, efficiency and service standards will remain top-notch.

"We are confident that more people will turn to PHLPost for their mailing needs, both locally and internationally. Our commitment to providing efficient, reliable, and cost-effective services remains unwavering," PMG Carlos added.

Ensuring Transparency and Service Excellence

PHLPost’s new promotional rates are a direct result of cost-saving measures, operational streamlining, and a renewed focus on transparency and accountability. These efforts have enabled the corporation to pass on savings to customers, aligning with its mission to provide affordable and dependable postal services nationwide.

For a complete list of promotional rates, visit www.phlpost.gov.ph.

"Even with the new rates, we assure the public that their mail and packages will be handled with efficiency and the highest standards of service," PMG Carlos reiterated.

With these changes, PHLPost is setting a new standard in the Philippine courier industry, reinforcing its role as a trusted and affordable mailing service provider for millions of Filipinos.