This is not in defense of Sen. Ronald “Bato” Dela Rosa. But I wonder why he is reportedly being charged with crimes against humanity by the International Criminal Court (ICC)? What exactly was his role in the Duterte administration’s deadly war on drugs?

To be honest, I do not have access to pertinent court records, so I could be wrong. But based on various reports, he is being considered a co-perpetrator on account of his former position as Chief of the Philippine National Police, which allegedly carried out extrajudicial killings of drug suspects and repeatedly asserted self-defense to justify them.

Other than that, there are no specific allegations pointing to him ordering his subordinates to blatantly pursue cold-blooded murders of unarmed suspects already in custody.

In fact, the war on drugs — at least on paper — was a legitimate government operation. The objective was to arrest and apprehend drug offenders. However, its implementation reportedly involved violations of due process and human rights.

For this reason, testimonial and object evidence should be presented to establish his actual participation in these extrajudicial killings, even by inducement at the very least. Otherwise, liability cannot be based on mere command responsibility by virtue of his position as PNP chief at the time.

If that is the case, it would be like holding President Bongbong Marcos liable for the flood control mess simply because the alleged plunder of government funds happened under his watch. That is not how criminal law works, whether domestic or international. There must be evidence directly linking the person to the alleged wrongdoing.

Truth be told, one of the issues being raised as to why former Speaker Romualdez has not been implicated — along with former Rep. Rizaldy Co and others — is because no one has offered credible testimony directly connecting him to the controversy. According to Sen. Panfilo Lacson, he still needs to vet the revelations made by Guteza and look for credible witnesses to corroborate those statements. Otherwise, the allegations remain conjecture.

At any rate, assuming the ICC has already issued a warrant of arrest against Sen. Dela Rosa, it should be noted that the rules on extradition, which require a domestic judicial process, do not apply to him. Extradition presupposes a request from a foreign state involving an extraditable offense. What is involved here is not extradition but a handover based on an international warrant issued by an international tribunal.

Be that as it may, the prudent course of action for the government is not to surrender our sovereignty by readily turning over the senator’s custody to the ICC. As I always say, the ICC cannot do anything if we choose not to cooperate.

What is crucial is for the government to act circumspectly, taking into consideration the probative value of the evidence used against him. If not strong enough, it makes more sense to rely on domestic mechanisms, which are adequate for dealing with the alleged crime.

Unless, of course, there is a political agenda at work. That is another story.