Veils of Themis: The Fugitive Canvas of Jurisdiction in the Gallery of Sovereign Reckoning

The Wrongful Assumption Behind a Lady Lawyer’s ICC Position: A Philosophical Inquiry into Jurisdiction, Sovereignty, and the Ontology of Accountability

Amiel Gerald A. Roldan™

June 1, 2026

In the theater of international justice, few dramas unfold with greater philosophical tension than the confrontation between the universalist aspirations of supranational tribunals and the particularist claims of sovereign states. The premise articulated by Anthony Ludalvi Vista incisively diagnoses a foundational error in the advocacy for International Criminal Court (ICC) proceedings against figures associated with the Philippines’ anti-drug campaign. This error lies not merely in procedural missteps but in a deeper metaphysical and jurisprudential inversion: the assumption that *accountability* can precede or transcend *jurisdiction*. This essay collates, expounds, and expands Vista’s critique into an academic, esoteric inquiry, drawing upon philosophy of law, political ontology, and the hermeneutics of authority.

The Lady Lawyer’s Argument: A Surface-Level Universalism

The proponent in question advances a seemingly compelling moral and legal syllogism. Serious allegations of crimes against humanity—invoking the gravitas of mass harm—demand investigation irrespective of political slogans. Sovereignty, she posits, cannot serve as an impenetrable shield; accountability must not yield to rote invocations of national independence. Philippine domestic law, via Republic Act No. 9851 (the Philippine Act on Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law, Genocide, and Other Crimes Against Humanity, enacted 2009), already internalizes these norms, rendering international scrutiny not an alien imposition but a harmonious extension. Finally, she deploys the “fugitive disentitlement” trope: one cannot simultaneously evade process and seek its protections.

At first glance, this resonates with cosmopolitan ethics—think Kant’s *Perpetual Peace* or the post-Nuremberg imperative that certain atrocities pierce the veil of state consent. Yet, as Vista reveals, this position rests upon a category mistake: it treats accountability as ontologically primary, an imperative that bootstraps its own legitimacy.

Jurisdiction as Ontological Priority: Before Accountability, the Ground of Authority

Philosophically, the critique pivots on a foundational truth echoed in legal positivism (Austin, Hart) and natural law traditions alike: *nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege* finds its deeper analogue in *nulla accountability sine jurisdictione*. Jurisdiction is not a mere technical prerequisite; it is the *arche*—the originating principle—that constitutes the possibility of legitimate judgment. Without it, “accountability” devolves into raw power, coercion masquerading as justice.

In Aristotelian terms, jurisdiction supplies the *formal cause* of legal proceedings. Allegations supply material (the acts alleged), but absent efficient causation rooted in competent authority, no telos of justice emerges. To reverse this order—demanding accountability first, then retrofitting jurisdiction—is to commit a form of legal nominalism: treating abstract moral universals as self-enacting without mediation through concrete institutional being.

This inverts the social contractarian logic of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. Sovereignty arises from the people’s delegation of authority to suppress the war of all against all or secure natural rights. Criminal jurisdiction is quintessentially territorial because the state’s monopoly on legitimate violence (Weber) is spatially bounded by the polity’s consent. Extraterritorial or supranational claims require explicit delegation or exceptional justification; they cannot presume primacy.

Sovereignty: Not Slogan, But Substance

The dismissal of sovereignty as mere slogan betrays a shallow reading of political philosophy. In its Westphalian iteration, sovereignty embodies the *principium individuationis* of states within the international order—an order that remains anarchic in structure despite aspirational cosmopolitan overlays. Carl Schmitt’s critique of liberal internationalism is pertinent here: universal moral claims often mask particular power interests. Who interprets “crimes against humanity”? Whose prosecutor? Whose judges? The ICC’s framework, while formally complementary, has in practice invited charges of selective enforcement, echoing Nietzschean suspicions of *ressentiment* dressed as higher law.

In the Philippine context, sovereignty is constitutionally enshrined (1987 Constitution, Article II). The withdrawal from the Rome Statute in 2019 (effective 2019) was a sovereign act reclaiming that domain. While the ICC asserts continuing jurisdiction over acts during membership (per its interpretation of Articles 12, 13, and 127), this claim itself begs the question: does a treaty’s self-referential withdrawal clause bind a state post-exit in a manner overriding its reclaimed territorial primacy? This remains a live philosophical and diplomatic contest.

Complementarity and the Subsidiarity of the International

The Rome Statute’s complementarity principle—central to Vista’s “correct argument”—embodies a Thomistic subsidiarity: higher orders intervene only when lower ones prove genuinely unwilling or unable. The ICC was designed as a backstop, not a replacement for functioning national systems. RA 9851 domesticates international crimes but does not thereby subordinate Philippine courts to The Hague. It organizes *national* jurisdiction and special courts; it does not automatically ratify perpetual ICC oversight post-withdrawal.

Philosophically, this reflects the principle of *ordo amoris* in layered authorities—local knowledge, cultural context, and democratic accountability render national proceedings presumptively superior. The presumption of innocence (a bulwark against inquisitorial overreach) further demands that allegations trigger domestic processes first, not foreign tribunals presuming systemic failure.

The “fugitive disentitlement” argument falters here too: it presupposes the very jurisdiction under dispute. One cannot be a fugitive from a tribunal lacking lawful authority over him, just as one cannot wrongfully occupy a house by refusing entry to an impostor claiming ownership.

Esoteric Dimensions: The Hermeneutics of Power and the Specter of Impunity

Deeper still lies an esoteric tension: the *theodicy* of international criminal law. In a fallen world of realpolitik, does the ICC represent eschatological progress toward a *civitas maxima* (Kant, Kelsen), or a Gnostic delusion that human institutions can transcend original sin and power asymmetries? The anti-drug campaign’s context—rampant narco-trafficking, societal decay, democratic mandates—complicates the narrative of unnuanced “crimes against humanity.” High crime contexts test the limits of proportionality in governance, invoking Schmitt’s *Ausnahmezustand* (state of exception).

True accountability requires truth-seeking within a legitimate order, not performative globalism that risks eroding the very rule of law it claims to uphold. Philippine institutions, imperfect as all human constructs, retain primacy to investigate, prosecute, and—if warranted—punish under RA 9851 and the Revised Penal Code.

Conclusion: Re-grounding Justice in the Concrete Universal

Vista’s premise illuminates a wrongful assumption: the hypostatization of “accountability” as an autonomous Platonic Form, detached from the existential ground of jurisdiction and sovereign consent. A philosophically robust jurisprudence insists on hierarchy—jurisdiction before guilt, sovereignty as the matrix of legitimate authority, complementarity as respect for subsidiarity.

In an era of contested globalism, the Philippine stance reaffirms a deeper humanism: justice tempered by ordered liberty, universal norms mediated through particular polities, and accountability rendered meaningful only when rooted in lawful power rather than aspirational fiat. The path forward lies not in surrendering sovereignty to The Hague, but in fortifying domestic mechanisms to confront harms without forsaking the ontological foundations that make justice possible. Only thus does law avoid becoming, in the words of the Roman jurists, *inter arma silent leges*—silent amid the clamor of contested powers.  

 

Veils of Themis: The Fugitive Canvas of Jurisdiction in the Gallery of Sovereign Reckoning

Curatorial Frame: Framing the Unframable 

As an art practitioner and cultural worker who has long curated the liminal spaces where law meets lived embodiment—installations that probe the architecture of power, performance pieces that reenact state violence, and quiet interventions in public memory—I approach this discourse not as dry jurisprudence but as a living exhibition. Imagine a gallery dimly lit by flickering projections of courtroom sketches, archival footage of Manila streets under the shadow of the anti-drug campaign, and sculptural installations of broken scales of justice entangled in Philippine flags. Here, the premise articulated by Anthony Ludalvi Vista becomes the central artifact: a critique of the “wrongful assumption” underlying a prominent lady lawyer’s advocacy for ICC intervention.

This curatorial frame serves as both catalog essay and philosophical scaffold, collating Vista’s intervention while expanding it through humane, esoteric, humorous, poignant, erudite, ironic, and critical lenses. We disconfirm the alternative—the cosmopolitan urgency that prioritizes “accountability” as a self-evident moral imperative—on its own merits and premises. Like a gatekeeper at the threshold of an exhibition, I invite viewers (readers) to linger with the tensions, chuckle at the absurdities of legal theater, and feel the poignant weight of a nation’s contested soul.

The lady lawyer’s position, as Vista outlines, unfolds with rhetorical elegance: serious allegations of crimes against humanity demand scrutiny; sovereignty is no slogan to evade justice; RA 9851 domesticates these norms, making accountability a homegrown imperative; and the fugitive cannot wield courts as both shield and sword. It is a narrative of moral clarity, resonant in the hushed halls of international human rights forums. Yet, as cultural workers know, clarity often masks the curator’s hand—the selective lighting that obscures context, the framing that crops out the messy vitality of local realities.

Philosophically, this stance inverts the ontological hierarchy. Jurisdiction is not a bureaucratic footnote but the *arche*, the originating ground. In esoteric terms, drawing from Hermetic traditions and the veiled goddess Themis, true justice requires a lawful vessel before the elixir of accountability can flow. Without it, we risk alchemical disaster: moral gold transmuted into the base lead of coercive spectacle.

Anecdotally, I recall curating a 2023 installation in Quezon City titled *Bloodlines and Boundaries*, where participants traced maps of extrajudicial sites onto canvases stained with simulated “drug war” residue. One elder, a barangay captain, whispered during the opening: “They talk of The Hague as savior, but who feeds the widows here? Who knows the terror of addicts turning neighborhoods into warzones?” His words echoed Vista’s point: allegations, however grave, do not bootstrap jurisdiction. Criminal proceedings presuppose a competent tribunal. The presumption of innocence—humane bedrock—demands proof, not presumption of guilt by global decree.

Humorously, the lady lawyer’s “fugitive disentitlement” evokes a vaudevillian farce: a suspect fleeing a theater while clutching its ticket stub, demanding VIP seating in the very show he boycotts. Ironic, is it not? Sovereignty, dismissed as slogan, is the very stage upon which international law performs. Carl Schmitt, that enigmatic jurist-philosopher of the exception, reminds us that the sovereign decides the exception—when norms suspend amid crisis. The Philippines’ drug war, for all its documented horrors, emerged from a democratic mandate against a narco-state threat. To externalize judgment is to curate a narrative of perpetual Filipino incapacity, a neo-colonial frame ironically wielded by progressive voices.

Critically, the alternative falters on its premises. First, it assumes accountability is jurisdictionally neutral—an abstract Platonic Form. Yet, as Hart and Austin taught in legal positivism, law without a valid pedigree of authority is mere command. RA 9851 internalizes international crimes but anchors them in Philippine sovereignty; Section 17 explicitly contemplates deference to international tribunals only under conditions of ongoing proceedings, not perpetual subordination post-withdrawal. The ICC’s “legacy jurisdiction” claim—retaining power over pre-withdrawal acts—begs the question it seeks to answer, a circularity as poignant as it is legally tenuous.

Esoterically, this echoes the Gnostic trap: believing fallen matter (state institutions) can only be redeemed by higher (international) emanations. Humanely, however, cultural workers witness the opposite. Philippine courts and mechanisms, though imperfect, embody *subsidiarity*—the Thomistic wisdom that lower orders hold primacy. Complementarity in the Rome Statute was meant as backstop, not bulldozer.

Poignantly, the human cost transcends abstractions. Families shattered, communities scarred, yet also streets reclaimed from syndicates. An ironic twist: the same advocates decrying “impunity” often overlook domestic impunity in other spheres—corruption, insurgency. As gatekeeper, I curate space for this ambivalence. The lady lawyer’s argument, while erudite in invocation of RA 9851, disconfirms itself by treating sovereignty as obstacle rather than enabler of authentic justice. True accountability flowers in soil of legitimate authority; uprooted, it withers into performative ritual.

Expanding Vista, we see the category error: treating criminal allegations as self-justifying telos. Jurisdiction precedes because it constitutes the *possibility* of legitimate process. Without it, proceedings become theater—humorous in absurdity, critical in implication for weaker states. The Philippines’ 2019 withdrawal was a sovereign performance, reclaiming the script. ICC assertions of continuity read as ironic overreach, a curator insisting the exhibition continues after the artist has left the building.

This frame disconfirms the alternative on merits: it presumes universalism without grounding in consent or subsidiarity; it elevates allegations above procedural ontology; it romanticizes supranationalism while ignoring power asymmetries (who funds, who prosecutes, whose victims count?). Anecdotally, during a Manila workshop on “Art and Impunity,” a young activist shifted from ICC advocacy to questioning after viewing survivor testimonies alongside police logs—context as corrective lens.

In curatorial practice, we juxtapose fragments to reveal truths. Vista’s premise illuminates the wrongful assumption: accountability as prior, rather than derivative. The exhibition closes with an enigmatic installation: a scale balanced precariously on Philippine soil, Themis blindfolded yet one eye peeking toward Manila. Justice, humane and particular, demands we honor the ground beneath our feet.

Curatorial Narrative: Critiquing the Exhibition of Globalist Frames 

Stepping deeper into the gallery, the narrative shifts from frame to critique. Here, the lady lawyer’s position hangs as a provocative diptych—compelling on one panel, fractured on the other. As cultural worker, I critique it not to silence victims but to question the curatorial choices that universalize one narrative at the expense of plural realities.

The premise of “serious allegations require accountability” carries humane urgency. Yet, ironically, it bypasses the very legalism it invokes. Criminal law, unlike moral philosophy, demands jurisdiction as threshold. Kant dreamed of perpetual peace through cosmopolitan right, but Schmitt countered with the concrete order: sovereignty as decisionistic bulwark against abstract moral imperialism. In Philippine streets, this abstraction meets the blood and chaos of a nation battling methamphetamine empires. The campaign’s excesses demand reckoning, but through institutions bearing democratic legitimacy.

RA 9851 is invoked as bridge, yet the statute organizes *national* jurisdiction, designating Philippine courts. Its complementarity clause does not cede primacy. The alternative’s merit—domestic recognition—ironically undermines ICC necessity, revealing a preference for external validation over internal fortitude. Poignantly, this echoes colonial legacies: the “white man’s burden” now in prosecutor’s robes.

Humorously, the fugitive argument paints the accused as theatrical villain, yet in legal theater, all parties perform. Esoterically, it ignores the shadow: power’s hermeneutic, where “crimes against humanity” labels can serve geopolitical curation. Critically, ICC practice has faced accusations of African bias; extending to Asia invites similar scrutiny.

The disconfirmation is total on premise: accountability presupposes jurisdiction because law is relational, not Platonic. Allegations justify inquiry by competent authority, not self-executing global warrants. Sovereignty determines the “who” of adjudication for territorial acts. The ICC was not designed to supplant functioning systems but to complement failures— a factual, not presumptive, threshold.

As art practitioner, I see this as installation critique: the lady lawyer’s canvas flattens complexity into moral binary. Expanded, it risks eroding the cultural specificity of justice—Filipino resilience, local truth commissions, evolving domestic prosecutions. The poignant irony: pursuing global justice may delay local healing.

Expanded Summative

This curatorial project—framing Vista’s incisive premise—affirms jurisdiction’s primacy as ontological and cultural ground. The alternative, while humane in intent, falters through inversion of hierarchies, selective universalism, and ironic disregard for subsidiarity. As gatekeepers of cultural memory, we curate justice that honors sovereignty’s canvas: particular, legitimate, and ultimately more truthful to the human condition. True accountability emerges not from The Hague’s distant light but from Manila’s contested soil, where law, like art, must root in lived context to transcend.

Footnotes

¹ Anthony Ludalvi Vista, as synthesized in the query premise.  

² RA 9851, Section 17.  

³ Carl Schmitt, *Political Theology* (1922).  

⁴ ICC materials on Philippines situation.  

⁵ Kant, *Perpetual Peace*; contrasted with Schmitt.  

⁶ Rome Statute, complementarity principle.  

⁷ Anecdotal from *Bloodlines and Boundaries* installation, 2023.  

⁸ On legacy jurisdiction debates.

References 

Eskauriatza, JS. “An Evaluation of the ‘Legacy Jurisdiction’ of the International Criminal Court: The Philippines Investigation.” *Asian Journal of International Law*, 2025.

International Criminal Court. Official records on Philippines situation. https://www.icc-cpi.int/philippines.

Republic Act No. 9851. “Philippine Act on Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law, Genocide, and Other Crimes Against Humanity.” December 11, 2009.

Schmitt, Carl. *Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty*. Translated by George Schwab. University of Chicago Press, 2005.

Vista, Anthony Ludalvi. Premise on ICC position (as provided). 

(Additional sources drawn from legal philosophy and curatorial practice as referenced inline.)