For Senate President Alan Peter Cayetano, there is nothing illegal with Senator Bato dela Rosa’s escape because his International Criminal Court (ICC) warrant is invalid in the first place.

“But again, mali ‘yong word na escape (the word escape is wrong) because there’s no warrant. There’s no warrant, so he’s free to go,” Cayetano told reporters on Thursday, May 14, hours after Dela Rosa left the compound to continue evading his ICC warrant.

“We don’t take judicial notice of that stuff [ICC warrant]. You have to come to us and present it,” the Senate President added.

Dela Rosa and another ally, Senator Robin Padilla, both said they will only honor a warrant issued by a local court.

“We cannot do anything about it. Even Senator Bato knows that. We cannot do anything if a local court issues a warrant against him,” said Padilla.

But a closer look into these statements would reveal how faulty they are.

ICC warrant is valid

The ICC warrant is a valid and existing document, and the ICC itself has confirmed it.

“The International Criminal Court confirms that the document published by national authorities of the Republic of the Philippines and circulated in media is indeed a formal ICC document,” ICC spokesperson Oriane Maillet told reporters on May 11.

The ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I – the same chamber that ordered former president Rodrigo Duterte’s arrest in 2025 – said it found sufficient grounds to believe that Dela Rosa was allegedly criminally liable for crimes against humanity.

It also found that Dela Rosa allegedly used his position as Davao City police chief under Duterte “to enable DDS killings and to conceive and implement a style of police operations referred to as ‘Tokhang,’ in Davao City and later implemented these operations nationally.”

Besides, as early as November 2025, Ombudsman Jesus Crispin “Boying” Remulla already confirmed that the ICC already ordered Dela Rosa’s arrest. Another high-level source, who’s familiar with the proceedings, had separately confirmed to Rappler the existence of such a warrant.

Remulla’s statement triggered Dela Rosa to seek a temporary restraining order (TRO) from the Supreme Court (SC) in November 2025 – the very same legal action he’s clinging on to to block his arrest.

Dela Rosa also filed another another petition seeking to compel Remulla to submit the supposed ICC warrant. The High Court, however, junked the latter challenge in November 2025.

As with the TRO, the SC released a resolution at least an hour before the shooting incident on May 13 that rattled the Senate building. The High Court did not give immediate relief to Dela Rosa, and only asked the parties to submit their comment and reply within 72 hours.

So, if there is no valid warrant against Dela Rosa, why would he go to such lengths to challenge his arrest?

Suspects may be surrendered to international courts

Two things.

One, the Philippine government is mandated to enforce Dela Rosa’s warrant because the ICC still has jurisdiction over the Philippine case.

For several occasions already, the ICC has reiterated that it has jurisdiction over the Duterte case because the alleged killings happened when the Philippines was still an ICC member. This principle falls under Article 127 of the Rome Statute, which says withdrawal shall not affect proceedings that were already started. 

On Duterte’s jurisdiction challenge, the ICC appeals chamber had also ended the debate in an April 2026 decision, ruling that the international tribunal has the mandate to investigate the alleged drug war and DDS killings. 

Cayetano, in fact, was among the 17 senators who voted in favor of the Rome Statute (the treaty that created the ICC) on August 23, 2011. (READ: Cayetano voted in favor of Int’l Criminal Court membership in 2011)

“The warrant of arrest issued by the court is the warrant itself that is enforceable, subject to the provisions of the Rome Statute. We again encounter the issue here of whether the obligations under the Rome Statute are applicable to the Philippines, but we do have firm legal basis of the Philippines’ duty to cooperate with matters under investigation,” ICC assistant to counsel and international law expert Ross Tugade told Rappler.

On top of the jurisdiction ground, a local law also mandates the country to enforce a warrant issued by the international tribunal.

Republic Act (RA) No. 9851 or the Philippine Act on Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law, Genocide, and Other Crimes Against Humanity is a local law that transformed international criminal law into a domestic law.

Its section 17 states: “Instead, the authorities may surrender or extradite suspected or accused persons in the Philippines to the appropriate international court, if any, or to another State pursuant to the applicable extradition laws and treaties.” 

In fact, this is the same law that the Marcos government used to justify the arrest of former president Duterte in 2025.

Just this week, the Department of Justice reiterated RA No. 9851’s application to suspects facing international warrants.

“Under [Republic Act No.] 9851, we may surrender a suspected or arrested person in the Philippines to the appropriate international court or tribunal. The other mode is extradition,” DOJ spokesperson Prosecutor Rafael Martinez told reporters on May 13. – Rappler.com