Senator Ronald dela Rosa’s camp has drawn a hard constitutional line against the International Criminal Court, arguing before the Supreme Court (SC) that no foreign-issued warrant can be enforced in the Philippines without the authority of Philippine courts.

In a 117-page reply filed in G.R. No. 278747, dela Rosa’s legal team insisted that an ICC warrant “has no automatic legal effect” in the country unless it is first recognized and enforced through domestic legal processes.

The former Philippine National Police (PNP) chief is seeking a temporary restraining order and injunctive relief to stop any arrest, detention, or surrender tied to ICC proceedings unless carried out under Philippine law.

At stake is not merely Senator dela Rosa’s liberty, his lawyers argued, “but the supremacy of the Constitution itself.”

Led by lawyer Israelito Torreon, the camp warned that allowing direct enforcement of ICC warrants would bypass the Bill of Rights and hand the Executive branch dangerous powers to arrest Filipinos based solely on foreign processes.

“An international process, standing alone, cannot automatically operate as a Philippine warrant of arrest,” the filing stressed.

The defense also attacked the position of the Office of the Solicitor General, saying government lawyers failed to identify any Philippine law authorizing authorities to directly enforce ICC warrants without a local court order.

“The respondents identify none,” the reply declared.

Dela Rosa’s lawyers argued that accepting the government’s theory would reduce constitutional protections to “executive discretion rather than judicial safeguard,” undermining due process and Philippine sovereignty.

The legal battle also zeroed in on Republic Act (RA) 9851, the law criminalizing crimes against humanity and other grave international offenses. 

In a separate television interview, lawyer Jimmy Bondoc argued that the law was never intended to serve as an enforcement mechanism for ICC warrants.

Citing Senate deliberations, Bondoc said lawmakers, including former Sen. Richard Gordon and Sen. Loren Legarda, acknowledged that RA 9851 was designed to prosecute such crimes within Philippine courts “not to surrender jurisdiction to foreign tribunals.”

“Accountability will be pursued. We want that… But it has to be here because our courts are functioning and RA-9851 instructs us to do so, including the Senate journals and the Senate deliberations,” he pressed. 

“They all acknowledge that RA-9851 is not a surrogate arrest mechanism for the ICC.”

The defense further argued that the Philippines’ withdrawal from the Rome Statute in 2019 severely weakens the ICC’s legal footing, noting that key ICC actions, including the authorization of an investigation in 2021 and an alleged warrant in 2025,  happened after Manila had already exited the treaty.

Dela Rosa’s camp also rejected claims that the senator is a fugitive from justice, emphasizing that no Philippine court has issued a warrant for his arrest and no domestic criminal case is pending against him.

“Accountability for even the gravest crimes is a legitimate goal,” the reply said. “But it cannot be pursued by bypassing the Constitution.”