Senator Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa’s camp has challenged the International Criminal Court (ICC) before the Supreme Court, arguing that no foreign-issued warrant can be enforced in the Philippines without the authority of local 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.
Dela Rosa is seeking a temporary restraining order (TRO) and injunctive relief to stop any arrest, detention, or surrender linked to ICC proceedings unless carried out under Philippine law.
At stake is not merely his liberty, his lawyers argued, “but the supremacy of the Constitution itself.”
Led by lawyer Israelito Torreon, the team warned that allowing the 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 said.
The team also questioned the Office of the Solicitor General’s position, saying the government lawyers failed to cite any Philippine law that authorizes authorities to directly enforce ICC warrants without a local court order.
“The respondents identify none,” Dela Rosa’s lawyers declared.
The lawyers argued that accepting the government’s theory would reduce constitutional protections to “executive discretion rather than judicial safeguards,” undermining due process and Philippine sovereignty.
The legal battle also centered on Republic Act 9851, the law criminalizing offenses against humanity and other grave international crimes.
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 past Senate deliberations, Bondoc said lawmakers, including Sen. Loren Legarda and former senator Richard Gordon, had 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 said.
“They all acknowledge that RA 9851 is not a surrogate arrest mechanism for the ICC,” he added.
The defense further argued that the Philippines’ withdrawal from the Rome Statute in 2019 weakened the ICC’s legal footing, noting that key actions — including the authorization of an investigation in 2021 and an alleged warrant in 2025 — occurred after Manila had exited the treaty.
Dela Rosa’s camp also rejected claims that the senator was a fugitive from justice, emphasizing that no Philippine court had issued a warrant for his arrest and no domestic criminal case was pending against him.
“Accountability for even the gravest crimes is a legitimate goal,” the lawyers said. “But it cannot be pursued by bypassing the Constitution.”