The government, through the Office of the Solicitor General, has asked the Supreme Court (SC) to dismiss motions filed by Senator Ronald dela Rosa seeking protection from possible arrest and surrender to the International Criminal Court over the Duterte administration’s controversial anti-drug campaign.

In a Comment submitted before the high court in G.R. No. 278747, government respondents argued that Philippine authorities may lawfully enforce an ICC arrest warrant against dela Rosa under Republic Act No. 9851.

Represented by the OSG, the respondents maintained that implementing an ICC warrant “does not require a corresponding warrant of arrest issued by a Philippine court,” asserting that the executive branch has the authority to carry out the arrest and surrender process.

The government further argued that dela Rosa’s constitutional rights were observed under ICC procedures and stressed that the Philippines “remains legally bound to cooperate with the ICC under domestic law, customary international law, and constitutional principles.”

The OSG also opposed the senator’s request for a temporary restraining order, writ of preliminary injunction, or status quo ante order, saying dela Rosa failed to establish a “clear and unmistakable right” to such relief.

In the filing, the government accused dela Rosa of evading lawful processes, stating that “the essence of being a fugitive from justice lies in the deliberate act of placing oneself beyond the reach of law enforcement.”

The Comment cited reports that the senator allegedly went into hiding after news surfaced of a possible ICC warrant. 

It noted that dela Rosa later resurfaced during the Senate leadership change that installed Alan Peter Cayetano as Senate President before reportedly leaving the Senate premises again.

The filing also linked dela Rosa to “Project Double Barrel,” the anti-illegal drugs campaign launched during the administration of former president Rodrigo Duterte, which is under ICC investigation for alleged crimes against humanity.

In its concluding statement, the OSG said the case involved “interests far greater than the fate of a single individual” and emphasized that the Philippines “will never become a sanctuary for impunity.”

“At its core, this case asks what the rule of law truly means,” the Comment stated, adding that the law “was never intended to provide an excuse for evasion.”

The SC, earlier, en banc directed executive branch officials to submit their comments within 72 hours on dela Rosa’s urgent motions seeking to block any arrest, detention, transfer, or surrender related to ICC proceedings.

While the Court did not immediately issue a temporary restraining order, it clarified that its action was “without prejudice” to granting urgent interim measures should circumstances require immediate intervention.

Dela Rosa had earlier argued that any ICC-related arrest or surrender could not proceed without prior judicial authorization from Philippine courts.

He also questioned the validity of a subpoena issued by the Philippine National Police-Criminal Investigation and Detection Group in connection with investigations into alleged extrajudicial killings during his tenure as Davao City police chief.

The Partido Demokratiko Pilipino (PDP) previously urged the SC to immediately resolve pending cases involving Filipinos facing possible extradition or surrender to international tribunals, warning that legal uncertainty is fueling institutional tensions.

It called on the High Court to establish “clear-cut rules” on the enforcement of foreign or international warrants, particularly in cases linked to the International Criminal Court, to prevent future confrontations.

The party’s appeal came after Ronald dela Rosa petitioned the SC to block any arrest, detention, or surrender tied to reported ICC proceedings connected to the Duterte administration’s anti-drug campaign. Dela Rosa is also questioning subpoenas and alleged enforcement actions by state agencies.

The PDP said the absence of judicial clarity nearly triggered violence during a recent Senate incident and warned that similar situations could worsen without definitive legal guidance.