"Changing tones from a defender into an offender"
(Or how Harry Roque who once babbled about Human Rights
Suddenly end becoming an administration sockpuppet)
Suddenly end becoming an administration sockpuppet)
"Despots, Murderers, Torturers, beware!" These were the words Atty. Harry Roque stated in his Facebook post last August 16 2011 as he praised the Philippines being a 117th signatory of the Rome Statue, as well as becoming part of the United Nations' International Criminal Court.
For once he was co-chairperson of the "Philippine Coalition for the International Criminal Court", and had pushed the country to ratify the statue, as well as thanked former President Noynoy Aquino for the Philippines' eventual membership in the ICC.
However, nearly 7 years later, this once-human rights lawyer who afforded to take concern on 'so many atrocities brought about by the Arroyo administration' is currently working for a man who himself is accused of impunity- and this time trying to justify his boss's statements at the face of the press, even at the expense of his principles people praised for.
And one of which that makes people this time ridicule him as an apologist is the move to withdraw the country's membership from the court which he once advocated his country's inclusion.
For as his boss is currently being accused of a thousand deaths such as those brought about by its bloody 'war on drugs', and this time choosing to withdraw from the ICC alongaide his usual rants, Roque, like any other Duterte apologist, has to justify the administration's actions as necessary, if not trying to insist that his boss's statements are but hyperboles or whatsoever, enough trying to spare from getting immense ire from the people.
But, as a signatory to the Rome Statute, the Philippines falls under the jurisdiction of the ICC which defines "crimes against humanity" as “serious violations committed as part of a large-scale attack against any civilian population.” And from this statement also somehow enough if not too much for the administration and its apologetics to deny accusations if not making statements like "interfering one's business" or even compared ICC's concern to "inviting foreign intervention" as Duterte's brand of orderism, no matter how bloody it may be, is reinterpreted as an imposition of order by those who supported him- including those of Atty. Roque.
Ironically, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo whom Roque detests is also Duterte's ally in the congress- what a strange coincidence then that his boss's ally was the one whom he opposed years ago!
And yet regardless of their justifications there are also consequences from that kind of desire they wished and granted.
For according to Atty. Antonio "Tony" La Viña, that a non-membership with the ICC will pose a disadvantage especially those of Filipinos living or working abroad are subjected to war situations, what more of existing state-sponsored repressions that again, Roque once detested in the name of upholding Human Rights. What also worrisome is about Judge Raul Pangalangan, who, because the Rome Statute clearly provides that judges are nominated and elected from member states, and with the Philippines withdrew from the ICC, then it looks like he just might lose his seat as one of its justices- is Duterte and the rest of the gang forgot that there's a Filipino in that bench? Que barbaridad! Perhaps the late Miriam Santiago who supposed to be there years ago is now rolling in her grave!
Anyway, to be candid, that most, if not all of Atty. Roque's statements then and now are currently being read all over in various reports, makes a concerned citizen of this so-called "republic" bluntly ask this lawyer turned administration sockpuppet: "how much is your principles?" For knowing that for at once he opposed Arroyo's moves, insisted justice for the victims of Ampatuan Massacre last 2009, and this time justifying Duterte's impunic actions and statements, isn't it obvious that his principles are being compromised, if not thrown altogether as 'moved on' in favour of following his boss's dictum?
Perhaps, Roque et al. are just over-emphasise the word HARSH in the word the "law is harsh but it is the LAW" regardless of its consequences such as those coming from despots, torturers, and murderers.