The Supreme Court (SC) must take a stand on the growing imbroglio involving Senator Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa and others facing arrest warrants from the International Criminal Court (ICC).

The nation waits as the High Court navigates the volatile crossroads of international obligations, domestic law, executive action, and judicial restraint, which are now all on a direct collision course.

The SC, unfortunately, appears content to let events run their course. By the time it rules, the decision risks being moot, justice delivered after the fact, if at all.

It happened in the case of former President Rodrigo Duterte, who is now in ICC detention.

Salvador Paulo Panelo Jr., one of the lawyers in Dela Rosa’s pending habeas corpus case, said the parties in the cases filed, and consequently, the legal community is suffering from the SC’s prolonged silence.

Panelo’s most pointed observation is that the Supreme Court should have drawn the constitutional boundary long ago.

For instance, he said the petitions for habeas corpus filed on 12 March 2025, the day after Duterte was transferred to The Hague, have lingered for over 14 months without a definitive ruling.

In that legal vacuum, the Executive branch has operated without judicial guidance and thus exploited what Panelo termed as the judiciary’s silence to justify actions that deserve a constitutional challenge.

The right to habeas corpus is foundational to the constitutional order, and its indefinite deferral may lead to a constitutional breach. Thus, the SC appears to be hiding behind legal complexities to avoid having to make difficult decisions.

The Senate’s recently adopted Resolution 44, condemning extrajudicial renditions and calling for the protection of Filipinos’ right to legal remedies before being surrendered, was apparently the result of judicial abdication.

The resolution did not bind the Executive; it was a mere political statement.

The constitutional arbiter must be the SC. The Senate was, according to Panelo, compelled to act institutionally because the Court had not acted judicially.

In a constitutional democracy, the institutions’ legitimacy rests not on the outcomes they produce but on the processes they honor.

The judiciary’s silence in the face of profound constitutional uncertainty, in an obvious attempt at neutrality, makes it complicit in the outcome of such ambiguity.

The withdrawal from the Rome Statute was a political act, but the legal consequences and of the state’s inconsistent invocation of international law, demand judicial resolution, not executive convenience.

It behooves the SC to do now what it should have done 14 months ago, which was to draw the constitutional line, restore institutional clarity, and issue a reminder that liberty is guaranteed through due process of law.

Among the basic questions the SC must resolve is whether an ICC arrest warrant, standing alone, authorizes immediate Executive action without domestic judicial validation.

Another is whether the Executive’s actions in the Duterte transfer constituted an extrajudicial rendition in violation of the Constitution, and if so, what remedy is available.

In layman’s terms, extrajudicial rendition is the transfer of a person from one country to another, or into the custody of another authority, outside of formal legal processes such as extradition treaties, court orders, or due process protections.

The fundamental question is simple: Must the state, in executing a warrant, domestic or international, comply with the processes mandated by the Constitution?

It must. The supremacy of domestic institutions and law over any international body, especially one whose authority remains contested, cannot yield.

Ask Russia. Ask Israel. The ICC’s reach into sovereign states is far from settled.