Alleged Arrest Order Shakes Philippine Political Landscape

The simmering legal drama surrounding the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) investigation into the Philippines’ controversial “War on Drugs” intensified significantly this weekend, following an unconfirmed but highly placed claim that an arrest warrant has been issued for a prominent sitting senator. Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla, acting as the Ombudsman, stated on a radio program that the ICC has allegedly ordered the arrest of Senator Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa. Dela Rosa, a former Philippine National Police (PNP) chief, is seen as a potential co-accused to former President Rodrigo Duterte in connection with the charges of crimes against humanity arising from the thousands of extrajudicial killings that characterized the anti-narcotics campaign.

Remulla’s disclosure, made on the dzRH radio show “Executive Session,” was emphatic, though lacking official documentation. “I have it on good authority—because this is a public interest [radio] program—that the ICC has issued a warrant against Sen. Bato dela Rosa,” Remulla asserted, doubling down when pressed for confirmation, stating, “I think so. I would say so.” This statement immediately sent ripples through Manila’s political and legal circles, given the gravity of an ICC warrant and Dela Rosa’s direct role in the implementation of the campaign.

⚖️ A Shifting Stance on Extradition and Surrender

Despite the explosive nature of the Ombudsman’s claim, Executive Secretary Lucas Bersamin offered a measured, though complex, response that suggested immediate detention was unlikely. While Bersamin did not outright deny the possibility of an ICC warrant against Dela Rosa, he indicated that the key lies in the process of transmission.

The former PNP chief, according to the Executive Secretary, might not be joining Duterte in an ICC detention facility in The Hague, Netherlands, anytime soon because the order has “yet to be transmitted through the International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol).” This distinction is crucial, as the mechanism for the prior ICC arrest—that of a former high-ranking official—was through an Interpol request, which Philippine authorities had previously honored in March.

However, Bersamin introduced a significant caveat, stating that this same process would “Not anymore” be applied to the senator. He cited recently approved Supreme Court (SC) rules on extradition which, he explained, “requir[e] a prior resort to a court before the person subject to extradition may be brought out of the country.” Remulla concurred, detailing the required domestic legal procedure: the Department of Justice (DOJ), through the Office of the Chief State Counsel, would need to file an extradition request with a specialized court, with the Solicitor General representing the government in the ensuing legal proceedings.

This emphasis on a domestic judicial process marks a potential shift from the government’s earlier articulated position. Only months prior, in January, Bersamin had signaled that Manila would act “favorably or positively” to any ICC request for custody, even while maintaining that the ICC technically lost jurisdiction after the Philippines withdrew from the Rome Statute in March 2019. The current administration appears to be navigating the fine line between international obligations and protecting national sovereignty by emphasizing the primacy of domestic legal processes.

🏛️ Senate Dignity vs. The Call for Justice

The potential arrest of a sitting senator brought the issue of parliamentary immunity and institutional courtesy sharply into focus. Senate President Vicente “Tito” Sotto III quickly weighed in, asserting that while he was not “privy to the warrant being issued,” the arrest of any senator within Senate premises would be categorically disallowed.

Sotto emphasized that this stance was taken “to preserve the dignity of the Senate, and as a matter of institutional courtesy,” though he conceded that arrests occurring outside the legislative complex were “no longer our concern.”

This institutional protection, however, was immediately met with fierce opposition from human rights advocates. Karapatan, a prominent human rights group, issued a stern warning to the Senate leadership. Cristina Palabay, the group’s secretary-general, stated unequivocally that the Senate would be complicit in “harboring a criminal” should it attempt to shield Dela Rosa from accountability.

“He must face justice—alongside Duterte and all officials who ordered, enabled, and covered up these atrocities,” Palabay stated, directly challenging the Senate President: “To Senator Sotto: there is no dignity in protecting those responsible for widespread killings, torture, and the criminalization of the poor.”

The legal basis for Senate protection is enshrined in the 1987 Constitution, which grants members of the Philippine Congress privilege from arrest for offenses punishable by imprisonment of not more than six years while Congress is in session. However, the charges being leveled by the ICC—crimes against humanity—are of a far greater magnitude and would certainly exceed this six-year threshold, potentially overriding domestic legislative immunity.

🔎 The Lack of Official Confirmation and Defense’s Response

As of the latest reports, the claims of a pending arrest warrant remain unconfirmed by key government agencies. Neither the Department of Justice (DOJ) nor the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG), which oversees the PNP, has corroborated the Ombudsman’s report. Moreover, the Philippine Center on Transnational Crime (PCTC), which liaises with Interpol, has not received any “red notice”—Interpol’s global request to locate and provisionally arrest a person pending extradition. This detail, provided by Interior Secretary Jonvic Remulla (the Ombudsman’s younger brother), indicates that the formal, globally recognized mechanism for arrest is not yet active.

Senator Dela Rosa, who was reportedly distributing aid in typhoon-devastated areas of Cebu, has not yet issued a personal comment. However, his legal counsel, Israelito Torreon, addressed the allegations via the Senator’s Facebook page, stating that they have “no independent confirmation” of Ombudsman Remulla’s report. Torreon’s statement concluded with a posture of compliance, albeit conditional: “If proven true, we trust that the Philippine government will act in accordance with the rule of law, and that any such action shall pass through the proper local judicial confirmation process consistent with our Constitution, due process, and the sovereign rights of the Republic of the Philippines.”

The ICC itself has maintained its characteristic silence. The ICC Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) refused to comment “on ongoing investigations,” citing the necessity of confidentiality to “protect the integrity of investigations and to ensure the safety and security of victims, witnesses, and all those with whom the office interacts.”

💡 The Inevitability of Surrender

Despite the lack of official confirmation from the courts or international bodies, legal counsel for the drug war victims, Kristina Conti, stated confidently that an arrest warrant against Dela Rosa “is certain from what victims know and what the prosecution has presented.”

Conti’s certainty stems from Dela Rosa’s undeniable prominence in the prosecution’s urgent application for the former President’s arrest warrant. Dela Rosa, who served as Duterte’s Davao City police chief before becoming the national PNP chief, was repeatedly cited as the “longtime ally” responsible for developing and nationalizing “Oplan Tokhang.” The prosecution brief specifically attributed to Dela Rosa a pre-presidency promise to immediately scale up the model, infamously accompanied by the threat: “If someone fights back, they’ll die. If nobody fights back, we’ll make them fight back.” Furthermore, on his first day as PNP chief, he launched Command Memorandum Circular No. 16-2016, known as “Project Double Barrel,” which was the national replication of the Davao City model.

Conti clarified the crucial legal distinction between extradition and surrender. Should a warrant be issued, the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber would likely request his “arrest and surrender, and not extradition” to the Philippine government or the country where he may be found. As Conti noted, surrender is viewed as a form of cooperation with the ICC, an international court, which can request assistance from any State—even non-parties to the Rome Statute—to comply with the arrest request in line with their own national laws.

The unfolding situation now rests on two key factors: the official confirmation of the ICC warrant and the Marcos administration’s ultimate decision on how to balance its constitutional duties with its obligations, implied or otherwise, to international justice.