Senator Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa slammed on Sunday the alleged gross violation not only of the rights of former President Rodrigo Duterte, but also of the very Constitution that guarantees them.

Dela Rosa pressed the need to examine the irregularities surrounding Duterte’s arrest, as revealed by the recent Senate Committee on Foreign Relations inquiry.

Duterte was arrested on 11 March 2025 upon his arrival from Hong Kong, where he campaigned for the senatorial candidates of the party PDP Laban.

The former chief executive was forced to face charges of crimes against humanity in relation to his war on drugs before the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague, Netherlands.

The senator cited the legal opinion of constitutional expert Atty. Alexis Medina, who argued during the hearing that the Constitution requires “a lawful order of the court if a person is to be expelled from Philippine territory by whatever means.”

Duterte was forced to board the plane by P/Maj. Gen. Nicolas Torre III, who even handcuffed former Executive Secretary Salvador Medialdea for alleged obstruction of justice.

Dela Rosa himself is in danger of being ordered arrested by the ICC as the first chief of the Philippine National Police to serve under the Duterte presidency and as a chief implementer of the so-called war on drugs.

Government data said nearly 7,000 people died as an offshoot of Duterte’s campaign against illegal drugs, but his critics claimed as many as 30,000 may have been subjected to extrajudicial killings.

Medina, meanwhile, noted during the hearing that surrendering a person like Duterte to an international body is only valid if the individual has voluntarily submitted to the custody of the national government or if the individual is a foreign national.

Otherwise, as in Duterte’s case, the extradition process should have been strictly followed, he explained.

“To expel a person from his country of residence without a lawful court order, excluding judicial process, might amount to a violation of the liberty of abode,” Medina pointed out.

Medina also cited Section 6 of the Bill of Rights, which guarantees this protection.

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

Forced embarkation

Duterte was forced to board the plane by P/Maj. Gen. Nicolas Torre III, who even handcuffed former Executive Secretary Salvador Medialdea for alleged obstruction of justice.

Medina also countered Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin 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 is granted by the Constitution cannot be diminished, lessened, or stripped away by any statute.”

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

Likewise, Dela Rosa criticized the administration of President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. for hastening Duterte’s arrest.

“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.

Dela Rosa, who echoed Duterte’s position that the tribunal has no jurisdiction over the Philippines, thanked committee chairperson Senator Imee Marcos for initiating the investigation.

“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 conceded that the debate over the legality of Duterte’s arrest “is now academic” because the former president is already detained in The Hague, Netherlands. He described the situation as a “passive surrender of the country’s sovereignty.”

Lame excuse

“The question here is our cooperation — why did we comply with the Interpol diffusion notice? Are we really being dictated to by Interpol?” he said, referring to the International Criminal Police Organization.

“Are we not a sovereign state that can, at the very least, have our President consistently tell 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 Interpol was merely used as an excuse, dismissing claims that Duterte’s arrest was executed only on the same day the government received the Interpol diffusion notice.

“It’s so obvious. They used Interpol as a lame excuse to ensure President Duterte would be transported there. They even said they received the arrest warrant at 3 o’clock in the morning, yet they were already deployed the day before,” he lamented.

In 2024, Remulla said that any arrest warrant from the ICC or any order from an international organization must be brought before a local court to determine its validity. But Remulla has since changed his tune.