Former presidential legal counsel Atty. Salvador Panelo admitted that the family of former president Rodrigo Duterte is deeply saddened by his recent arrest.

In a television interview on Thursday morning, Panelo stated that the Duterte family is struggling to cope with the situation.

"Of course, when a family loses a member in this way, they feel hurt and angry. They are sad," Panelo said.

The former president was taken into custody upon landing at Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) from Hong Kong. Panelo questioned the legality of the arrest, claiming that authorities failed to present an arrest warrant immediately, which he said was a procedural violation.

"No warrant was shown at the time of the arrest, which should have been done in the first place," Panelo asserted.

Additionally, he labeled the ICC-issued warrant as invalid, arguing that the International Criminal Court (ICC) has no jurisdiction over the Philippines. He recalled that the country withdrew from the ICC when it launched its investigation into drug war-related killings.

Panelo also alleged that Duterte was denied access to legal representation at the time of his arrest.

Following Duterte’s transfer to The Hague, Netherlands, his children — Veronica "Kitty" Duterte and Davao City Mayor Sebastian "Baste" Duterte — filed a petition for habeas corpus before the Supreme Court on Wednesday, seeking to bring their father back to the Philippines.

The petition, filed by Salvador Panelo and Salvador Paolo Panelo Jr., argued that the ICC’s arrest warrant cannot be used as legal grounds to detain the former president due to its alleged lack of jurisdiction.

Separately, the Supreme Court denied a temporary restraining order (TRO) sought by Duterte and Senator Ronald Dela Rosa to block Philippine government agencies from cooperating with the ICC investigation into the drug war.

According to Supreme Court spokesperson Atty. Camille Ting, the petition failed to establish a "clear and unmistakable right" to justify an immediate TRO.

"After a virtual deliberation on the 94-page petition, the Supreme Court, by majority vote, found that the petitioners failed to establish a clear and unmistakable right for the immediate issuance of a TRO," Ting said.

However, the respondents have been ordered to submit their comments on the petition within a non-extendable period of 10 days.