Apr 10, 2018 | News
The ICJ today condemned a threatening statement made by Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte attacking Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno of the Philippines Supreme Court.
The ICJ said that the President’s remarks constituted an assault not just on the Chief Justice, but on the independence of the judiciary in the country.
The ICJ urged President Duterte to respect judicial independence and not to exert political pressure on any government official or agency to undermine the independence of the judiciary.
In a press conference on 9 April 2018, President Duterte told reporters: “I’m putting you on notice that I’m your enemy and you have to be out of the Supreme Court.”
He also called on the House of Representatives to expedite impeachment proceedings presently underway against Chief Justice Sereno.
“It is absolutely unacceptable for President Duterte to make such a statement not only because it constitutes direct intimidation of the Chief Justice, but the chilling effect it may have on other independent judges who carry out their professional duties,” said Emerlynne Gil, Senior International Legal Adviser of ICJ.
“By expressing his personal feelings against the Chief Justice and by directing the House of Representatives to accelerate the impeachment proceedings, the President is actively influencing and interfering with the functions of other co-equal branches of government,” Gil added.
The ICJ reminds President Duterte that as enunciated in the UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, “[i]t is the duty of all governmental and other institutions to respect and observe the independence of the judiciary.”
The Principles affirm that the judiciary must be able to carry out its work “without any restrictions, improper influences, inducements, pressures, threats or interferences, direct or indirect, from any quarter or for any reason.”
The ICJ strongly urges President Duterte to retract his comments and to refrain in the future from making any statements attacking individual judges or in any way interfering with the independence of the judiciary.
Contact
Emerlynne Gil, Senior International Legal Adviser, t: +662 619 8477 (ext. 206) ; e: emerlynne.gil@icj.org.
Background
In September 2017, two impeachment complaints against the Chief Justice were filed before the Committee of Justice of the House of Representatives, the Lower House of Congress.
The Committee of Justice approved only one of the complaints, which is scheduled to be put before the plenary of the House of Representatives in May 2018 when Congress resumes its session.
If it obtains one-third vote of all members in the House of Representatives, the articles of impeachment will be transmitted to the Senate, which is the Upper House of Congress.
Any impeachable officer may be removed from office by a vote of two-thirds of all the members of the Senate sitting as the impeachment court.
Some of the points raised in the approved impeachment complaint are the Chief Justice’s failure to report certain income in her statements of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN), allegations of use of public funds to finance her extravagant and lavish lifestyle, and manipulation of judicial appointments for personal and political reasons, among others.
The Chief Justice maintains she correctly filed her SALNs. She also further claims that the other allegations in the impeachment complaint are baseless or mere fabrications.
In March 2018, the Philippines’ Solicitor General Jose Calida filed a petition before the Supreme Court questioning the Chief Justice’s appointment due to her alleged failure to fully disclose her wealth. Oral arguments on this petition were made on 10 April 2018.
Mar 1, 2018 | Events, News
This side event at the 37th session of the Human Rights Council takes place on Friday, 2 march, 15:00-16:30, room XI of the Palais des Nations. It is organized by the Civic Space Initiative (CSI) and co-sponsored by the ICJ.
In recent years, the use of exceptional national security and emergency powers to combat terrorism has become increasingly common.
The international instruments recognize that respect for human rights and rule of law are the basis of the fight against terrorism.
However, counterterrorism measures and emergency powers have increasingly resulted in or been used to restrict fundamental freedoms, including the rights to assembly, association and expression.
In this context, it is necessary for states and civil society to increase their understanding of the relationship between entrenched emergency powers and sustained human rights violations and to further elaborate guidelines and good practices that will return respect for human rights to the center of state efforts to combat terrorism.
This event aims to elevate attention and further explore the pernicious effects of states of emergency and emergency powers on human rights and fundamental freedoms with particular attention to the rights of freedom of association, assembly, and expression. It will also address how states of emergency often facilitate targeting and undermining the work of human rights defenders.
Speakers:
- Professor Fionnuala Ni Aolain, UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human
rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism
- Kerem Altiparmak, Ankara University, Faculty of Political Science
- Yared Hailemariam, Director, Association for Human Rights in Ethiopia
- Lisa Oldring, Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights
- Sonia Tanic, Representative to the United Nations, International Federation for Human Rights
Moderator:
- Nicholas Miller, International Center for Not-for-Profit Law
Coffee/croissants served at 14:45
For more information contact: nmiller@icnl.org, vanja@ecnl.org
The event will be livestreamed on the @CIVICUS Facebook page
Universal – Counterrorism and Civic Space – News – Events – 2018 – News (Event flyer in PDF)
Feb 6, 2018 | News
The ICJ today condemned the Maldivian Government’s assault on the Supreme Court and its judges and the suspension of human rights protections under the state of emergency.
“President Yameen and his Government have dealt a grave blow to the rule of law and independence of the judiciary in the Maldives,” said Ian Seiderman, ICJ’s Legal and Policy Director.
“The actions by the government are a wildly unjustifiable and disproportionate response to the decision of the Supreme Court”, he added.
On 5 February, the Maldivian Government declared a 15-day state of emergency under Article 253 of the Constitution, suspending a range of human rights protections.
The declaration of emergency followed a Supreme Court judgment on 1 February that ordered the release of at least nine members of opposition parties, who were in detention on a number of charges.
The Government, however, refused to implement the Supreme Court’s judgment, which resulted in the outbreak of protests in the country.
The national defense forces also reportedly entered the premises of the Supreme Court and arrested at least two senior judges, including Chief Justice Abdulla Saeed.
“Summarily suspending basic rights protections and arresting judges whose decisions the President disagrees with is itself a display of sweeping lawlessness in the country,” Seiderman said.
According to the President’s office, the state of emergency was imposed because the Supreme Court order resulted in “disruption of the functions of the executive power, disruption of the functions of the state institutions…and infringement of national security and public interest.”
According to an unofficial translation of the emergency decree received by the ICJ, the constitutionally and internationally protected rights that have been suspended in part or in full during the state of emergency include, among others, the right to liberty; the right to freedom of assembly; the right to privacy; and the right to obtain remedy from the courts.
Basic safeguards surrounding arrest, detention, search and seizures have also been suspended.
In addition, laws providing certain immunities to judges and the right of judges to be informed if any action is taken against them have also been suspended.
“The complete suspension of constitutional protections for human rights such as the right to liberty and right to free assembly goes far beyond anything that could be justified by the alleged grounds cited by the government,” Seiderman added.
The ICJ notes that international law strictly regulates attempts by governments to suspend or otherwise derogate from human rights on the grounds of emergency.
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which the Maldives is a State Party, expressly permits derogations only for certain human rights, and then only ‘in time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation’.
Measures of derogation may only be taken to the extent necessary to meet a specific threat to the life of the nation.
“Maldivian authorities have not even come close to explaining how the current situation constitutes a threat to the ‘life of the nation’, the high threshold set by international law for the derogation of rights in times of emergency,” Seiderman said.
The ICJ urges the Government to immediately lift the state of emergency, release judges of the Supreme Court, implement the ruling of the Supreme Court and ensure the independence of the judiciary.
Contact
Ian Seiderman, ICJ Legal and Policy Director, T: +41 22 979 38 37 ; e: ian.seiderman@icj.org
Reema Omer, ICJ International Legal Adviser for South Asia (London), t: +447889565691; e: reema.omer@icj.org
Additional information
Under international standards, including the UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, it is the duty of all governmental and other institutions to respect and observe the independence of the judiciary.
This means that there shall not be any inappropriate or unwarranted interference with the judicial process and judges shall be free to decide cases without any restrictions, pressures, threats or interferences.
In August 2015, following a joint fact-finding mission to the Maldives, the ICJ and South Asians for Human Rights (SAHR) documented the breakdown of the rule of law and human rights in the Maldives in a 35-page report, Justice Adrift: Rule of Law and the Political Crisis in the Maldives.
Jan 30, 2018 | Agendas, Events
The ICJ invites you to an event to discuss challenges in prevention of, and accountability for, violations of human rights in renditions and other transfers of suspects, including through past European complicity in US-led renditions, and in ongoing transfers of suspects in the CIS region.
Join us for a discussion marking the EU launch of the International Commission of Jurists’ report, Transnational Injustices: National Security Transfers and International Law. The event is kindly hosted by Ana Gomez and Eva Joly, MEPs.
Panelists will discuss the ongoing practice of states unlawfully rendering people accused of terrorism, accountability for violations of human rights in past renditions, and how the EU institutions and EU Member States should address these.
When: Tuesday 30 January 16.00 – 18.00
Where: Room A5G305, European Parliament, Brussels
RSVP to: anamaria.gomes@europarl.europa.eu
Speakers include:
- Ana Gomes, Member of the European Parliament
- Eva Joly, Member of the European Parliament
- Róisín Pillay, International Commission of Jurists
- Natacha Kazachkine, Open Society European Policy Institute
A flyer for this event is available in PDF format by clicking here.
Jan 18, 2018 | Artículos, Noticias
La CIJ está hondamente preocupada por los últimos actos del poder ejecutivo y del Congreso de la República, que atentan contra la vigencia del estado de derecho y de los derechos humanos en Guatemala.
“Las autoridades del Estado de Guatemala al más alto nivel están implementando una política exterior fundamentada en una errónea interpretación de la soberanía nacional y en el absoluto desprecio por el derecho internacional de los derechos humanos, todo ello para defender los intereses personales de funcionarios de los tres poderes del Estado y así hacer prevalecer el sistema de impunidad que ha existido en el país, en las últimas décadas. Todo ello es parte del Pacto de Corrupción e Impunidad que existe en el país y que proviene de las autoridades al más alto nivel.”, declaró Ramón Cadena, Director de la CIJ para Centro América.
Por ende, y con fundamento en la Convención Interamericana contra la Corrupción y la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos, la CIJ hace un llamado a la Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos para que envíe una misión al país, con el mandato de investigar la existencia de este Pacto de Corrupción e Impunidad y evitar así, que avance y cause un grave daño irreparable a la democracia y al pueblo de Guatemala.
Asímismo, con fundamento en la Convención de Naciones Unidas contra la Corrupción, urge a la Representante Residente del Sistema de Naciones Unidas, a tomar las medidas adecuadas para evitar que continúe avanzando dicho pacto.
El Presidente Jimmy Morales (foto) declaró sin ningún fundamento, persona non grata al Comisionado de la Comisión Internacional contra la Impunidad en Guatemala (CICIG), Sr. Iván Velásquez; posteriormente, diputados y diputadas del Congreso de la República intentaron reformar el Código Penal; recientemente, el Superintendente de la Secretaría de Administración Tributaria (SAT) fue removido de su cargo; se han registrado intentos de destituir ilegalmente al Procurador de los Derechos Humanos por parte del Congreso de la República, ya que dicho funcionario ha cumplido con su mandato según la ley; el Presidente de la República está intentando modificar el mandato de la CICIG y/o expulsar al Comisionado Iván Velásquez del país. Estos gravísimos hechos demuestran que las autoridades del Estado de Guatemala, pretenden menoscabar el funcionamiento de la administración pública y promover la impunidad de sus actos.
Por medio de la negociación de la paz y con fundamento en el derecho humano a la paz, el Estado de Guatemala asumió el compromiso de reformar, fortalecer y modernizar la gestión pública, en procura de un manejo transparente y honrado en el uso de los recursos públicos, como condición para lograr que la administración pública tenga la capacidad de cumplir con el supremo deber impuesto al Estado de Guatemala por la Constitución Política, de garantizar a los habitantes del país el bien común.
La CIJ recuerda que es un principio aceptado nacional e internacionalmente, que le está prohibido a las autoridades en cualquier nivel, utilizar el poder que le confiere el ejercicio del cargo o empleo en las entidades del Estado, autónomas o descentralizadas, de participar o influir en la toma de decisiones en beneficio personal o de tercero. Hacerlo atenta en contra de la democracia y del estado de derecho.
El abuso de poder en el ejercicio de la función pública socava las bases del estado de derecho y constituye un acto ilícito, contrario a la Constitución, que debe ser investigado y castigado por las autoridades de justicia con prontitud.
De lo contrario, si no se toman ahora las medidas legales adecuadas, para detener la imposición del Pacto de Corrupción e Impunidad que las autoridades al más alto nivel vienen impulsando, las consecuencias pueden llegar a ser de una magnitud y consecuencias irreparables, causando graves daños a la población guatemalteca y al estado de derecho en Guatemala.
