A motion for reconsideration was filed by high school teacher Barry Tayam before the Supreme Court on Tuesday, seeking to overturn the dismissal of his earlier petition that aimed to prevent Senator Ronald “Bato” Dela Rosa from using the Senate as a “sanctuary or safe haven.”

Initially, Tayam filed his petition for prohibition on 21 March 2025, but the SC dismissed it on 20 May, citing his failure to present a concrete case or controversy.

In his new motion, Tayam argued that the issue has now become “ripe for judicial intervention,” citing recent statements from government officials.

He noted that Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla allegedly confirmed the existence of an International Criminal Court (ICC) arrest warrant, while Senate President Vicente Sotto III reaffirmed that senators could not be arrested within the Senate premises.

In his appeal, Tayam said, “This confluence of events establishes the ripeness and transcendental importance of the matter.”

He also clarified that the Supreme Court’s new rules on extradition proceedings do not apply to Dela Rosa, as the ICC is not a sovereign state capable of making an extradition request.

Tayam added that the Philippines does have an extradition treaty with the Netherlands, where the ICC is located, meaning that should an arrest warrant be issued or executed, Dela Rosa would be subject to “surrender, not extradition,” to the relevant international tribunal.

After filing his motion, Tayam urged Dela Rosa to surface and address the issue, stressing that the Supreme Court should act promptly given the possibility that the arrest warrant could be executed at any time.

“Since it was confirmed by Ombudsman Boying Remulla that there is already a warrant of arrest, and with no other agency providing confirmation, no one knows when it will actually be executed,” Tayam said.

In his appeal, Tayam also emphasized the importance of distinguishing between “surrender” and “extradition” in international law, noting that the ICC does not qualify as a sovereign state and, therefore, the legal processes differ from bilateral extradition treaties.

He reiterated that his petition is grounded on constitutional principles, particularly Article VI, which grants members of Congress limited immunity from arrest only for offenses punishable by six years or less. Tayam highlighted that crimes such as war crimes or crimes against humanity exceed this threshold, making any claim to immunity constitutionally questionable.

A vocal critic of potential abuse of legislative immunity, Tayam stressed that his actions are strictly pro-Constitution and not politically motivated. He referenced his previous legal filings — including cases related to the ICC, the constitutionality of the battery fund, and an impeachment complaint against a Comelec commissioner — to underscore his focus on legal principles rather than partisan interests.

He further criticized procedural irregularities in the handling of his previous submissions, asserting that notices of process were not properly delivered and that evidence supporting his claims was disregarded.

Tayam asked the high court to ensure proper notice is given regarding the motion and urged the justices to consider the matter seriously due to its potential implications on the rule of law and legislative immunity.

The motion for reconsideration marks the latest legal development in the ongoing debate over the reach of legislative immunity and the interplay between national authorities and international judicial mechanisms.

Tayam’s appeal positions the Supreme Court as the central arbiter on whether senators can indeed claim sanctuary within the chamber in cases involving international warrants.