Curious case of Bato
There wouldn’t be any problem if the government simply sought domestic help. It wouldn’t do that, though, because it would allow Dela Rosa the opportunity to legally challenge the warrant.
The government has placed a P50-million bounty for information leading to the capture of Senator Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa. DILG Secretary Jonvic Remulla even called him a fugitive from justice and considered him armed and dangerous. This move follows an International Criminal Court (ICC) arrest warrant issued in November 2025, which tagged the senator as a co-conspirator of former President Rodrigo Duterte in a crimes against humanity case linked to the war on drugs.
To be honest, this is an interesting development considering that, as a general rule, a prescribed reward or incentive usually refers to an accused subject of a domestic warrant of arrest.
Without necessarily preempting the Supreme Court’s decision on the petition filed by the embattled solon, I believe it makes better sense if the government would course the request of the ICC through a local court instead of automatically effecting an arrest.
Because international courts do not possess their own police force or sovereign territory, they depend on a “vertical-horizontal” cooperative framework established under treaties like the Rome Statute and, expectedly, must comply with domestic processes that involve several critical legal and administrative phases before they can gain full custody of the subject individual.
Under Article 3, Section 2 of the Constitution, no warrant of arrest “shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce.”
This explains why, in extradition cases, any warrant issued by a foreign court cannot be executed outright unless the Department of Justice (DoJ) files a petition with a local court, which in turn would issue a warrant of arrest, place the respondent under custody and conduct a hearing to determine the propriety of the extradition request before sending him to said foreign country. This is essentially in keeping with said person’s constitutional right to due process.
Despite this, though, the government has been insisting it could apprehend Dela Rosa and immediately hand over his custody to the ICC, citing Section 17 of Republic Act 9851, which states that local authorities may forgo local proceedings against a person if an international tribunal or another court assumes the case.
As such, they are required to surrender him to said jurisdiction. However, it must be stressed that, albeit such is the case, it can only be done if “pursuant to applicable laws,” such as the Constitution, which requires domestic intervention.
As regards its claim that no temporary restraining order has been issued by the Court, it should be noted that this does not automatically mean that arresting and surrendering him to the ICC is legally tenable. In fact, it simply means the senator was not able to show the existence of irreparable damage, which is why his prayer was denied. At that time, he was still under the protective custody of the Senate, and the President said no warrant had been issued against him. Hence, the denial.
At any rate, there wouldn’t be any problem if the government simply sought domestic help. It wouldn’t do that, though, because it would allow Dela Rosa the opportunity to legally challenge the warrant. Sending him to the ICC outright is a better option because once there, the senator could no longer interpose any objection.