Senator Ronald “Bato” Dela Rosa has filed an urgent manifestation with the Supreme Court (SC) seeking to prevent the Executive Branch from enforcing any potential arrest order issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC).
In his submission, Dela Rosa argued that surrendering a Filipino citizen to the ICC without a domestic court order would violate Philippine law and run contrary to procedures outlined in the Rome Statute. He noted that the Statute requires the involvement of local courts, including the submission of a written request, a copy of the warrant, and a judicial process to confirm the validity of a surrender.
The filing came amid widely circulated but unverified reports that the ICC has issued an arrest order for the senator. The ICC has not confirmed the existence of such a warrant.
Dela Rosa also filed a separate “very urgent motion” asking the Supreme Court to direct Ombudsman Boying Remulla to produce the alleged ICC warrant he earlier claimed was saved on his mobile phone. He further sought an explanation from Remulla on how he obtained the document.
In another motion, the senator requested that the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of Foreign Affairs, (DFA) be ordered to submit, within 72 hours, sworn certifications stating whether they have received any ICC warrant or related communication.
If such a warrant is confirmed, Dela Rosa asked the Court to issue a temporary restraining order to prevent its implementation. He also urged the SC to bar government agencies from transmitting ICC-related communications through diplomatic or law enforcement channels pending the resolution of his petition. In addition, he sought to prohibit the government from providing logistical, financial, or protective assistance to ICC witnesses under state care.
Dela Rosa maintained that the Executive Branch should not rely solely on Section 17 of Republic Act No. 9851 as authority to surrender Filipino citizens to the ICC. He argued that treating the provision as a standalone basis for cooperation would conflict with the Constitution, which supersedes statutory law.
