By Ade S. Fajardo
Was that a grudge list?
The joint affidavit of an assortment of 18 people, mostly dishonorably discharged personnel of the Philippine Marines, identified some personalities as potential witnesses in the anticipated trial of former President Rodrigo Duterte at the International Criminal Court.
Digital copies were circulated online after a press conference at the historic Club Filipino last week.
***
These ex-Marines, etc., claimed that they acted as drivers, look-outs and security assistants when investigators of the ICC prosecution office arrived in the country in 2024 and 2025.
The circulated affidavit enumerates the meeting places and names not only of some of the investigators but the individuals they supposedly interviewed in anticipation of the trial at the Hague.
It was former Senator Sonny Trillanes who allegedly facilitated the meetings.
***
The allegation that money was given to Trillanes to grease the ICC investigation is well publicized.
Trillanes has since denied the accusation and is poised to initiate defamation cases against the 18 witnesses, the lawyer who presented them, and some high-profile individuals who are said to be waging destabilization efforts against the Marcos Jr. government.
The apparent intent, according to Trillanes, is to discredit the proceedings against Duterte. The investigators are being tainted with bribery accusations.
***
The Rome Statute contains an entire article devoted to “offenses against the administration of justice.”
ICC prosecutors or investigators would have to think twice about accepting bribes in the light of a particular offense defined in the statute — that of “soliciting or accepting a bribe as an official of the court in connection with his or her official duties.”
If convicted, such an official might face five years in prison.
***
Other species of obstructing justice are described in the statute.
Thus, it is a crime to obstruct or interfere with the attendance or testimony of a witness, or to tamper with or interfere with the collection of evidence.
It is also a crime to retaliate against a witness for giving testimony or to destroy or interfere with the collection of evidence.
***
The statute also protects the anonymity of witnesses where the disclosure of evidence or information may lead to the “grave endangerment of the security of a witness or his or her family.”
The ICC prosecutor is allowed to withhold such evidence or information in the meantime and instead submit a summary to the court.
By expressly enumerating or naming these alleged potential witnesses in the joint affidavit, the “Brave 18” have effectively uncovered them for possible harassment or retribution.
***
“Doxxing” is internet lingo for “dropping documents.” It is variously defined as the “intentional exposure of personally identifiable information online to intimidate, harass or endanger the target.”
The ICC prosecutor has been quoted as commenting that these are acts of “deliberate intimidation.”
Outing the names of the witnesses sends a message — that they have been monitored and marked for trolling less than two years before the filing of certificates of candidacy in October next year.
Threats dangled as consequences?/WDJ