Senator Ronald “Bato” Dela Rosa emphasized on Sunday the importance of examining the violations and irregularities in the arrest of former President Rodrigo Duterte, as revealed by the recent inquiry conducted by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.

Dela Rosa criticized the government's violations for unlawfully surrendering the former president to the International Criminal Court (ICC), pointing out that the tribunal has no jurisdiction over the Philippines.

He then thanked committee chairperson Senator Imee Marcos for launching the investigation.

“Pero gano’n pa man, ako’y nagpapasalamat pa rin sa hearing na ginawa ni Senator Imee dahil at least, nabuksan 'yung mga issues na gusto nating masagot. Maraming mga nakita pa din doon na viniolate nila na mga provisions ng batas. At least, nabigyan ng linaw 'yung mga iniisip natin, (Nonetheless, I am grateful for the hearing led by Senator Imee, as it helped bring to light the issues we wanted addressed. It also uncovered several violations of legal provisions. At least, the concerns we had were clarified),” Dela Rosa said in a statement.

However, Dela Rosa lamented that the debate over the legality of Duterte’s arrest “is now academic” because the former president was already detained in The Hague, Netherlands.

He described the situation as a “passive surrender of the country's sovereignty.”

“Ang question na lang diyan 'yung cooperation natin kung bakit tayo nag-cooperate based doon sa INTERPOL diffusion notice nila. So ano ba, kaya pala tayong diktahan ng INTERPOL? (The question here is our cooperation—why are we cooperating based on their INTERPOL diffusion notice? So, are we really being dictated by the INTERPOL?),” he said.

“Are we not a sovereign state na pwedeng magsabi na, maging consistent man lang sana ang ating pangulo na pwede naman niyang sabihin sa INTERPOL na, ‘Sorry, we cannot enforce that ICC warrant because matagal na naming sinasabi na walang jurisdiction sa amin 'yung ICC na ‘yan,’ (Are we not a sovereign state that can say, at the very least, that our president could have been consistent and told the INTERPOL, 'Sorry, we cannot enforce that ICC warrant because we have long maintained that the ICC has no jurisdiction over us’?),” Dela Rosa added.

Dela Rosa also argued that the INTERPOL was merely used as an excuse, dismissing claims that Duterte's arrest was carried out only on the same day the government received the INTERPOL diffusion notice.

“Napaka-obvious. Ginawang lame excuse ang INTERPOL para talaga mabiyahe si Pangulong Duterte doon, ‘di ba? Sabi pa nga nila 3 o’clock daw nila ng madaling araw natanggap ‘yung warrant of arrest pero naka-deploy na sila the day before (It's so obvious. They used INTERPOL as a lame excuse to make sure President Duterte gets to travel there, right? They even said they received the arrest warrant at 3 o'clock in the morning, but they were already deployed the day before),” he lamented.

Meanwhile, Dela Rosa cited the legal opinion from Atty. Alexis Medina that Duterte’s legal rights as a Filipino have been violated in this situation.

During the hearing, Medina explained that the constitutional provision stated that “a lawful order of the court is required if a person is to be expelled from Philippine territory by whatever means.”

The lawyer also noted that surrendering a person arrested to an international body is only valid if the subject has already voluntarily surrendered to the custody of the national government—which negates the need for an extradition process—or if the subject is an alien or a foreign national.

“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 to abode,” Medina pointed out.

Medina also cited the provision as “guaranteed by Section 6 of the Bill of Rights.”

“The liberty of abode cannot be impaired without a lawful order of the court. That is the text of the Constitution. Now, this constitutional protection is a barrier for any government action that would simply force, compel, an individual to change his residence,” he added.

Medina also disagreed with Remulla's reference to Republic Act 9851, or the Philippine Act on Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law, Genocide, and Other Crimes Against Humanity, as justification for Duterte's arrest.

The lawyer stressed the doctrine of constitutional supremacy, asserting that “whatever right that is granted by the constitution cannot be diminished or lessened or stripped away by any statute.”

“We have to interpret RA 9851 in accordance with the broad protection of the constitution, which means that if you will surrender without judicial proceedings, that would be a violation,” Medina said.

Further, Dela Rosa then slammed the administration of President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. for hastening the arrest of the former president.

“Binulag ng pulitika ang pamantayan ng pamahalaang ito sa pagkilala sa garantiyang ibinigay sa bawat Pilipino—dating presidente man o hindi—ng konstitusyon (Politics has blinded this government’s standards in recognizing the guarantees provided to every Filipino—whether a former president or not—by the Constitution),” he said.