In a separate development, De la Rosa’s lawyers filed an urgent motion before the Supreme Court seeking protection against what it called a “coordinated, three-layered enforcement strategy” involving possible ICC processes, Interpol mechanisms, and domestic actions.
The Torreon and Partners law firm argued that no Philippine court-issued warrant exists and questioned the legality of relying on international notices or subpoenas. The lawyers also sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) to block any arrest, detention, or transfer abroad of De la Rosa without judicial authorization.
The lawyers cited government actions, including a reported 10,000-man DILG task force, a CIDG subpoena requiring De la Rosa’s appearance at Camp Crame on 14 May, and references to its enforcement through an ICC warrant, Interpol Red Notice, or diffusion notice.
They argued that none of these could replace a warrant issued by a Philippine judge based on probable cause, as required under the Constitution.
They also challenged the CIDG subpoena as being “void on its face,” calling it a “surrogate arrest mechanism” and warning that it could compel self-incrimination without judicial oversight.
“This is fatal. A subpoena cannot be used as a convenient pretext to physically bring a person to Camp Crame while the government awaits a possible international warrant or notice,” the lawyers’ statement read.
The legal team also asked the Supreme Court to issue a Writ of Prohibition and clarify the constitutional limits on cooperation with international criminal processes, citing an urgency amid concerns over a possible transfer to foreign custody.
