The Supreme Court’s refusal to issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the enforcement of an International Criminal Court (ICC) arrest warrant may be interpreted as an “implied recognition” of the warrant’s validity, according to a lawyer. 

In a radio interview on Thursday, former Integrated Bar of the Philippines president, lawyer Domingo Cayosa, said the absence of a TRO effectively allows authorities to continue implementing the ICC warrant against Ronald dela Rosa.

“Kahit bago nag-issue ng decision na yan o resolution na yan, ay pwede naman sapagkat the government in the conduct of its official function, presumed regular yun. Kung walang TRO, tuloy lang dapat ang pag-enforce,” Cayosa said.

He added that the Supreme Court’s action clarified the legal situation surrounding the warrant.

“So ngayon, mas malinaw na kasi mismo na ang Supreme Court na nagsabi na hindi nila pagbibigyan yung hiling ng kampo ni Senator de la Rosa na patigilin yung pag-enforce ng warrant of arrest,” he said.

Cayosa explained that the enforcement of the ICC warrant could have proceeded even before the court ruling, but the tribunal’s refusal to issue a TRO removed uncertainty over the government’s authority to act.

The former IBP chief was responding to questions on whether the executive branch would still require a separate directive from President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. before implementing the warrant.

According to Cayosa, coordination within the executive branch is “theoretically required,” although earlier developments appeared to trigger a temporary pause in operations following confusion during an attempt to serve the warrant.

He cited an incident on 11 May, when Dela Rosa resurfaced at the Senate after reportedly being absent from his office for nearly six months. 

Authorities allegedly attempted to serve the warrant within Senate premises but failed to complete the arrest after the senator reportedly moved inside the chamber, prompting law enforcement personnel to temporarily stand down.

Cayosa also warned that individuals who may have assisted in evading arrest could face possible liability under Presidential Decree 1829, the country’s obstruction of justice law. 

The measure penalizes acts that knowingly hinder or delay the apprehension or prosecution of suspects.

On the issue of whether ICC-issued warrants may be enforced locally, Cayosa said Philippine law does not strictly confine arrest enforcement to warrants issued by domestic courts.

He noted that existing jurisprudence has, in some cases, recognized the continuing jurisdiction of the ICC over cases initiated while the Philippines remained a party to the Rome Statute.

“Kung ang tingin ng Supreme Court, void yun, kaagad nag-TRO. Kasi nga naman irreparable injury ang mangyayari dun sa aarestuhing Pilipino na wala naman palang bisa yung ICC warrant of arrest,” Cayosa said.

“So it is an implied recognition. At hindi pa nga nila ninalabas kasi yung kabuoan ng desisyon. I'm pretty sure na diniscuss yan dun sa mas mahabang desisyon,” he added.

Cayosa said the Supreme Court’s refusal to immediately halt enforcement could be interpreted as an acknowledgment of the ICC process, noting that courts typically intervene swiftly when a warrant is deemed void.

He added that the tribunal’s full legal reasoning may become clearer once the complete decision is released in the coming days or weeks.