Lawyer Paolo Panelo Jr., counsel for Vice President Sara Duterte, has raised concerns over what he described as a looming constitutional crisis, warning that Philippine democracy is at risk if the Executive branch acts without judicial oversight.

In a television interview, Panelo said the country’s system of checks and balances is being strained by the government’s attempt to enforce international legal processes, particularly an International Criminal Court (ICC) warrant, without clear guidance from the Supreme Court.

“If the Executive doesn’t follow the law, and the Judiciary is silent, what is the Senate supposed to do?” he said.

Panelo said the tension largely stems from the Supreme Court’s failure to rule on several petitions questioning the Philippines’ obligations to the ICC following the country’s 2019 withdrawal from the Rome Statute.

For more than a year, the Supreme Court has yet to act on petitions filed by lawyers and rights groups seeking clarity on whether the government may assist, participate in, or enforce ICC directives after former president Rodrigo Dutertewithdrew the Philippines from the Rome Statute in 2019.

The petitions include requests for habeas corpus and challenges to the Executive branch’s authority to honor ICC arrest warrants.

According to Panelo, the unresolved petitions created a legal vacuum.

“The Supreme Court could have given guidance a long time ago, and this could have been avoided,” he said.

Panelo argued that the Executive’s reliance on the ICC arrest order against Sen. Ronald dela Rosa without securing a local judicial warrant undermines Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, which requires arrest warrants to be issued personally by a Philippine judge upon a finding of probable cause.

“For us, that means an arrest warrant should be issued by a Philippine judge, not by an ICC warrant,” he said.

Panelo also defended the Senate’s controversial move to place dela Rosa under protective custody, describing it as a “principled stand” compelled by the lack of judicial guidance.

He cited Senate Resolution No. 44, which condemns extrajudicial renditions and asserts the right of Filipinos to avail themselves of domestic legal remedies before surrender to a foreign tribunal.

The ICC, however, is an independent international tribunal created under the Rome Statute and does not belong to any country. Its warrants therefore do not fall under ordinary extradition or mutual legal assistance procedures.

Meanwhile, Panelo acknowledged that protective custody is not a traditional Senate power but argued that the chamber was left with no choice. He said the move was not intended to shield dela Rosa from accountability but to ensure that constitutional processes are observed.

Panelo’s position has drawn criticism from other legal experts.

Former law dean Mel Sta. Maria countered that the Senate is legally obligated to facilitate the enforcement of international crimes under Republic Act No. 9851, the Philippine law on crimes against humanity.

Sta. Maria also cited a previous Supreme Court ruling affirming that the Philippines remains answerable to the ICC for acts committed before its withdrawal from the Rome Statute in 2019.

Panelo rejected that argument, insisting that Republic Act No. 9851 must yield to constitutional limitations.

He also dismissed allegations of obstruction of justice, noting that the ICC warrant “has not been formally presented” to the Senate by the National Bureau of Investigation.