A legal scholar on Thursday raised concerns over the recent arrest and surrender of former President Rodrigo Duterte to the International Criminal Court (ICC), arguing that by bypassing the judiciary the government may have violated rights guaranteed by the Philippine Constitution.Speaking at a Senate Committee on Foreign Relations hearing led by Senator Imee Marcos, lawyer Alexis Medina, a constitutional law professor, challenged the Department of Justice’s interpretation of Section 17 of Republic Act 9851, which was cited by the government to justify Duterte’s surrender. Medina disagreed with the view that judicial proceedings are unnecessary in such cases, warning that this may infringe on protections.Medina noted that the option to surrender an individual without court proceedings under RA 9851, Section 17, is applicable only in two narrow instances: if the person voluntarily surrenders, or if the person is an alien subject to deportation. “Surrender without judicial proceedings might amount to a violation of the liberty of abode that is guaranteed by Section 6 of the Bill of Rights,” Medina said. “The liberty of abode cannot be impaired without a lawful order of the court.”He explained that the Constitution does not allow government action that forces an individual to change or give up their residence without a court order. “To expel a person from his country of residence without a lawful court order by excluding the judicial process might amount to a violation of the liberty of abode,” he added.Medina noted that the option to surrender an individual without court proceedings under RA 9851, Section 17, is applicable only in two narrow instances: if the person voluntarily surrenders, or if the person is an alien subject to deportation. “Other than those proceedings, it would be very difficult to maintain that [surrender without court process] is sanctioned by the Constitution,” he said.He emphasized that in all cases involving the deprivation of liberty, court intervention is required. “The Constitution does not contemplate exclusion of the court process in depriving a person of his right to liberty,” he said.Section 6 of Article III of the Bill of Rights enshrined in the Constitution states: “The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law.”Medina clarified that his participation at the hearing was based on a legal opinion he had posted online, which drew public attention. “My objective in posting that was really for academic discourse, not for any legal or political advocacy,” he said. “I am not here as a partisan.”The hearing followed a statement issued Wednesday by the Department of Justice, which asserted that the government’s assistance in Duterte’s surrender was in fulfillment of its international obligations and was beyond the review power of the courts.“Thus, in extending assistance to Interpol, the GRP (Government of the Republic of the Philippines) led by the President was merely complying with its international obligations and he was performing his role as chief architect of the country’s foreign policy,” the DoJ stated. “This, naturally, is well within the President’s discretion, and the exercise thereof is a political question, which is beyond the review power of the courts.”Officials confirmed the ICC arrest warrant was transmitted through the International Criminal Police Organization, which asked the Philippine National Police to serve it. Malacañang emphasized that, while the Philippines has withdrawn from the ICC, it remains a member of Interpol and continues to abide by its protocols.On 11 March, Philippine authorities arrested Duterte in Manila based on an ICC warrant issued for crimes against humanity in relation to alleged extrajudicial killings when he was mayor of Davao City and then Philippine president between 2011 and 2019.