Government lawyers asked the Supreme Court (SC) to deny the plea of Senator Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa to stop the enforcement of the arrest order issued against him by the International Criminal Court (ICC).

In its comment filed early Saturday night, May 16, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), in effect, asked the SC to direct law enforcement agencies to enforce the ICC arrest warrant against Dela Rosa.

Dela Rosa has 72 hours from receipt of the OSG comment to submit its reply. Thereafter, the SC is expected to rule on the issue.

The ICC has named Dela Rosa as “co-perpetrator” in a “common plan” with former president Rodrigo Duterte to “neutralize alleged criminals in the Philippines” as Davao City chief of police and later as chief of the Philippine National Police (PNP).

Its arrest warrant against Dela Rosa was issued in a sealed document in November 2025. Last May 11, the ICC unsealed the document that made the warrant public.

The OSG, led by Solicitor General Darlene Marie B. Berberabe, told the SC that Section 2, Article II of the Constitution declares that the Philippines adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation, and amity with all nations.

Thus, it said, the Constitution mandates the application of customary international law embodied in the Rome Statute that set up the ICC.

The Constitution allows the government to cooperate with the ICC despite the Philippines not being a party to the Rome Statute, and the cooperation “necessarily includes recognizing and giving effect to ICC processes such as the warrant of arrest within the Philippine jurisdiction.”

The Philippines withdrew its ICC membership during the administration of Duterte and the withdrawal took effect last 2019.

Dela Rosa claimed that since the Philippines withdrew from the Rome Statute, there is supposedly no binding treaty obligation compelling the government to enforce the arrest warrant and surrender him to the ICC.

The OSG said that the ICC arrest warrant against Dela Rosa can also be legally enforced under the provisions of Republic Act No. 9851, the law that defines and penalizes crimes against international humanitarian law, genocide and other crimes against humanity.

It said that under RA 9851, the “enforcement of an ICC warrant of arrest does not require a corresponding warrant of arrest issued by a Philippine court to be enforceable within the Philippine jurisdiction.”

It also said that “Section 17 of RA 9851 authorizes the relevant Philippine authorities to surrender or extradite, as the case may be, a suspected or accused person when an international court or tribunal is already conducting the investigation or prosecution of a crime punishable under the said law.”

Thus, the OSG pointed out that “the Philippines remains legally bound to cooperate with the ICC under Domestic Law, Customary International Law, and Constitutional Principles.”

It added that the implementation of the ICC warrant of arrest is within the power of the executive branch of government.

Former president Duterte is now detained by the ICC at The Hague in the Netherlands and will face trial on charges of crimes against humanity of murder for the deaths of thousands of Filipinos in his war against illegal drugs when he was mayor.

He and Dela Rosa challenged the arrest and turnover of the former president to the ICC. The petition and those filed by Duterte’s children in March 2025 are still pending resolution by the SC.

The OSG said that after six months in hiding, Dela Rosa appeared before the Senate last Monday, May 11, and cast his vote on the unseating of Senate president Vicente Sotto III. Senator Alan Peter Cayetano was installed as new Senate president.

The Senate then issued a protective custody for Dela Rosa.

Also, last May 11, Dela Rosa, through his lawyers, filed a motion before the SC and pleaded for a temporary restraining order (TRO) to stop his arrest based on a warrant issued by ICC.

The SC did not issue a TRO and, instead, directed the executive branch of government to comment on the motion within a non-extendible 72 hours and, thus, the filing of the OSG comment on behalf of those named respondents.

In the early morning of May 14, Dela Rosa left the Senate immediately after several gunshots were heard in the building that houses the upper chamber of Congress.

Dela Rosa’s whereabouts remained unknown as of posting.

Last May 14, Dela Rosa’s lawyers filed a reiterative motion before the SC for the issuance of a TRO against the ICC’s arrest warrant.

In its comment on the May 11 motion of Dela Rosa, the OSG told the SC: “This is a case study in how the powerful corrodes the rule of law: a sitting Senator, sworn to uphold the law, who insists that he can determine when a warrant should or should not be enforced. He failed to discharge his duties as senator, and suddenly appeared to vote to replace the Senate President, at a time when the Impeachment Complaint from the House of Representatives is about to be transmitted. After seeking refuge from the august halls of the Senate, he ‘escaped’ and continued to hide.”

It also said: “In a constitutional democracy, no individual may place himself above lawful process simply because he disagrees with it. Such actions mock our institutions, by evading accountability while simultaneously taking advantage of the very legal processes meant, not only to uphold the rule of law, but to make sure that justice is served.

“What makes this especially painful is the stark contrast with the experience of countless victims of ‘Tokhang.’ They were never afforded the luxury of interpreting the law for themselves, never given the opportunity to question whether force should be used against them, never heard before judgment was effectively carried out. Their judgment was unilaterally issued, not by competent judicial authority, but by those who pulled the trigger. They ended up dead, forever silenced, their deaths too often reduced to a single phrase: “nanlaban” (fought back).

In its comment, the OSG asked the SC: “Accordingly, the respondents pray that the Honorable Court deny the instant Urgent Manifestation With Omnibus Motion dated May 11, 2026 and Extremely Urgent Supplemental Manifestation With Motion dated May 11, 2026 for utter lack of merit. The respondents likewise pray for other forms of relief that are just and equitable under the premises.”