2 hours ago
3
Upgrade to High-Speed Internet for only ₱1499/month!
Enjoy up to 100 Mbps fiber broadband, perfect for browsing, streaming, and gaming.
Visit Suniway.ph to learn
MANILA, Philippines — The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) asked the Supreme Court to deny the petition of Sen. Bato Dela Rosa, who is asking the high court to compel the government not to cooperate with the International Criminal Court (ICC).
In its comment on Dela Rosa’s plea dated May 16, the OSG argued that the Executive Department can legally enforce the warrant of arrest against Dela Rosa, saying there is no need for the Philippine courts to enforce the warrant.
Citing Section 17 of Republic Act 9851, also known as the "Philippine Act on Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law, Genocide, and Other Crimes Against Humanity," the OSG argued that Philippine authorities are required to surrender or extradite a suspected individual when an international court is already investigating or prosecuting a crime covered by the law.
According to the OSG, this applies even if the Philippines had already withdrawn from the ICC in 2019.
RELATED: Legal experts reject Dela Rosa's claims: 'The ICC is not a foreign court'
“While the Philippines is no longer obligated under the Rome Statute, it acts within its legal rights when it cooperates with the ICC because it is authorized by domestic law. Under customary international law, and supported by constitutional principles, we are legally bound to cooperate,” the OSG said.
“In this regard, it is the Constitution that mandates the application of customary international law embodied in the Rome Statute. It allows the government to cooperate with the ICC despite the Philippines not being a party to the Rome Statute. This authority to cooperate necessarily includes acts incident to cooperation. It includes, recognizing and giving effect to ICC processes such as the warrant of arrest within the Philippine jurisdiction,” it added.
Contrary to the claim of Dela Rosa’s camp, the OSG argued that Dela Rosa's right to due process was adequately protected by the ICC in accordance with the Rome Statute.
The OSG emphasized that the issuance of the ICC warrant inherently involves a judicial evaluation and an independent determination by a competent tribunal, thereby satisfying fundamental due process requirements.
“This proves that in deciding whether or not to issue the Arrest Warrant, the Pre-Trial Chamber made an exhaustive review of the Prosecution's evidence and even went to great lengths to afford petitioner the due process he is entitled to under Article 58 of the Rome Statute,” the OSG said.
Furthermore, the OSG argued that Dela Rosa is not entitled to an injunctive writ to prevent his arrest and surrender, contending that he has failed to demonstrate a clear and unmistakable right requiring immediate protection, a material and substantial invasion of such right, or the urgent necessity of an injunctive writ to prevent serious damage.
In this case, OSG pointed out Dela Rosa's alleged evasion of arrest and subsequent departure from the Senate, suggesting "unclean hands" that should preclude the grant of equitable relief.
“Senator Dela Rosa's conduct simply reveals that he does not come to court with clean hands. Having sheltered from potential arrest for half a year, he surfaced for convenience and immediately sought a TRO (temporary restraining order) to ward off enforcement,” the OSG said.
“A party cannot selectively engage with legal processes based on convenience. Truly, his actions reflect inequitable conduct, which bars the grant of the strong arm of injunction,” it added.
Dela Rosa's plea. Following the chaos in the Senate on Wednesday, May 13, Dela Rosa, through his lawyers, filed a "Very Urgent Manifestation of Supervening Events" with reiterative prayer for issuance of a temporary restraining order, status quo ante order and/or injunctive reliefs concerning the government’s cooperation with the ICC.
This is a supplemental motion to the originally filed March 11, 2025, petition, with detained former President Rodrigo Duterte as a co-petitioner. It was filed on the same day the former president was arrested.
Dela Rosa cited the “supervening events” that occurred in the Senate, as well as the attempted arrest of his person on May 11, after his six-month absence.
Also, on May 13, the Supreme Court said that it has yet to act on Dela Rosa’s motions, and required the respondents to the petition to submit their comments, which afterwards will also be responded to by Dela Rosa.
However, in the early morning of May 14, Dela Rosa slipped out of the Senate. Senate President Allan Peter Cayetano defended his act of slipping out, saying that Dela Rosa has no outstanding Philippine court warrant of arrest.
Also, on May 13, the Supreme Court said it has yet to act on Dela Rosa’s motions and required the respondents to the petition to submit their comments, which Dela Rosa may later respond to.
However, in the early morning of May 14, Dela Rosa left the Senate. Senate President Alan Peter Cayetano defended his action, saying that Dela Rosa has no outstanding Philippine court warrant of arrest.
Dela Rosa is a fugitive. The OSG also contends that Dela Rosa is a fugitive, as his actions are “consistent with those of a fugitive from justice.”
The OSG cited the case of Vallacar Transit Inc vs. Yanson, which said:
“A fugitive from justice is a person who attempts to evade law enforcement by fleeing the jurisdiction. Significantly, in Marquez, Jr. v. Commission on Elections, the Court defined a fugitive from justice as one who not only flees after conviction to avoid punishment, but also those who, after being charged, flee to avoid prosecution.”
The OSG also explained that a fugitive from justice is not only limited to crossing national borders “but extends to any deliberate effort to place oneself beyond the reach of lawful judicial process.”
“Clearly, a person who evades arrest and refuses to submit himself to lawful authorities should not be allowed to seek protection from the courts. To allow otherwise would create a situation where an accused may defy the law while selectively invoking judicial processes when beneficial to him,” the OSG said.
“Since a fugitive from justice has demonstrated disrespect for legal processes, he or she has no right to call upon the courts and the judicial system to adjudicate any of his or her claims,” it added.
The existence of the warrant against Dela Rosa was confirmed by the ICC on May 11. He is accused of being an indirect co-perpetrator for crimes committed between July 2, 2016, and the end of April 2018, during which at least 32 people were killed.
The warrant was first revealed on Nov. 8, 2025 by then-Justice secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla, who now serves as Ombudsman.
The development prompted Dela Rosa to go into hiding and skip Senate hearings, leading the chamber to consider withholding his salary over his absences.
The OSG’s concluding statement on the comment:
This Honorable Court is confronted with interests far greater than the fate of a single individual. On one hand is the State’s solemn duty to respond to allegations of crimes against humanity. On the other is the plea of a sitting Senator who, by his own actions, has placed himself beyond the reach of lawful process while asking the courts to protect his rights.
The Philippines stands before the international community with a solemn commitment that this country will never become a sanctuary for impunity for the narrow and universally condemned class of atrocities known as crimes against humanity. Through Republic Act No. 9851, the State itself acknowledged and committed to the international community that there are crimes so grave that our government cannot simply look away.
At its core, this case asks what the rule of law truly means: whether the law exists merely as a shield for the powerful when accountability finally reaches them, or whether it still carries its highest purpose which is the attainment of justice. The law was never intended to provide an excuse for evasion, nor to become a weapon wielded only by those with power. It exists so that even the voiceless dead, whose cries never reached a courtroom, are not forgotten by justice.
No amount of technical reasoning can disguise the absence of justice. Our conscience will know. The nation will know. History will know.
