Not all Supreme Court (SC) justices who are appointees of then president Rodrigo Duterte voted to deny Senator Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa’s plea to stop the enforcement of the arrest order issued against him by the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Based on the resolution issued by the SC at about 6:30 p.m. on Monday, May 25, those who voted to grant Dela Rosa’s plea for a temporary restraining order (TRO) to stop his arrest were Associate Justices Ramon Paul L. Hernando, Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, Ricardo R. Rosario, and Antonio T. Kho Jr. They are all appointees of Duterte.

The majority members who voted to deny Bato’s plea for TRO were Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo, Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, and Associate Justices Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, Rodil V. Zalameda, Samuel H. Gaerlan, Jhosep Y. Lopez, Jose Midas P. Marquez, Maria Filomena D. Singh, and Raul B. Villanueva.

Six of them – Gesmundo, Zalameda, Gaerlan, Lopez, Marquez, and Singh -- are appointees of Duterte.

Leonen and Caguioa are appointees of the late president Nonoy Aquino, while Villanueva is the appointee of President Marcos.

Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, also an appointee of Duterte, was on leave at the time Bato’s motion was taken up by the SC last May 20 during its special full court session.

With the denial of Bato’s plea for TRO, the Department of Justice (DOJ) asked the Philippine National Police (PNP) and the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to enforce the ICC’s arrest warrant.

As of posting time, Bato has not been arrested or has surrendered.

When Bato’s arrest warrant floated last November, 2025, the senator went into hiding.

He surfaced last May 11 and attended a Senate session that led to the unseating of then Senate president Vicente “Tito” Sotto III. He was replaced by the now Senate President Alan Peter Cayetano.

After Cayetano’s assumption as president, the Senate placed Bato under its protective custody that forced the NBI to back off in its attempt to arrest the senator.

Bato filed a petition before the SC seeking for a TRO. His motion was part of the original petition that he and Duterte filed on March 11, 2025 when the former president was arrested and turned over to the ICC in Hague, the Netherlands.

The SC did not issue a TRO on the March 11, 2025 petition and the case is still pending resolution.

After a tumultuous incident at the Senate on the night of May 13, Bato left the Senate building in the early morning of May 14 and his whereabouts remained unknown.

Through his lawyers, Bato repleaded his request for TRO in a separate pleading filed last May 14.

Earlier, Malacañang had said that arrest warrants issued by the ICC may be immediately enforced in the Philippines without the need for approval from local courts.

The Presidential Communications Office (PCO) had said that the administration of President Marcos remains guided by law and due process.

The PCO also stressed that ICC warrants do not need to pass through Philippine courts before implementation as it cited Republic Act No. 9851, or the Philippine Act on Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law, Genocide and Other Crimes Against Humanity, and the legal opinion earlier raised by Solicitor General Darlene Marie B. Berberabe.

In its resolution, the SC said it opted to tackle the interim relief sought by Bato “to avoid prejudging the constitutional issues raised in the main Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition earlier filed by Senator Dela Rosa and former President Rodrigo Roa Duterte.”

The SC stressed that for a writ of preliminary injunction to TRO to issue, an applicant must have a clear and unmistakable right to be protected, that is, a right in esse (in existence); there is a material and substantial invasion of such right; there is an urgent need for the writ to prevent irreparable injury to the applicant; and no other ordinary, speedy, and adequate remedy exists to prevent the infliction of

However, it said that Dela Rosa failed to show that there is a meritorious ground for the issuance of a TRO in his favor.

It cited that Dela Rosa argued that the threatened enforcement of the ICC warrant imperiled his constitutional rights to (1) liberty, (2) be free from unreasonable seizure, (3) due process, (4) not be surrendered, transferred, rendered, or removed from Philippine territory, and (5) effective exercise of legislative functions.

The SC said: “The first three rights are fundamental, but the fourth and fifth are questionable. The right to liberty is not absolute. Seizure or arrest is not unlawful when made pursuant to a lawful order of a court with competent jurisdiction. Likewise, the right to due process is satisfied when the process or proceedings comply with the law of the Iand.”

At the same time, the SC said: “There is no material and substantial invasion of Senator Dela Rosa's rights. In the first place, Senator Dela Rosa has no clear and unmistakable right to be protected. He was also given ‘protective custody’ by the Senate in the interim, which prevented the alleged service or implementation of the ICC warrant, as well as his arrest.

“The Court further takes judicial notice of President Ferdinand Marcos, Jr.'s declaration in his Facebook Live on May 13, 2026, that he has not issued an instruction or directive to arrest Senator Dela Rosa. Hence, Senator Dela Rosa's claimed invasion of his purported rights is more imagined than real.

“Senator Dela Rosa failed to establish an urgent need for the issuance of a TRO to prevent irreparable injury. Injury is deemed irreparable when there is no standard by which its amount can be measured with reasonable accuracy. The possibility of irreparable damage, without proof of an actual existing right, is not a ground for injunction.

“Simply put, since there is no legal right in the first place, there can be no irreparable injury to speak of.

“Proceeding from the lack of irreparable injury, the issuance of a TRO is inappropriate.

“The power to issue a writ of preliminary injunction should be exercised sparingly, with utmost care, and with great caution and deliberation. Being a strong arm of equity or a transcendent remedy, an injunction must be grounded on the existence of a clear and unmistakable right.”

The SC ruled: “For these reasons, Ronald Dela Rosa's application for the issuance of a temporary restraining order or a status quo ante order is denied for lack of merit. Gesmundo, C.J., concurring. Leonen and Caguioa, JJ., with separate concurring opinions. Hernando, Lazaro-Javier, and Inting, JJ., with dissenting opinions. Zalameda, J., with separate concurring opinion. Gaerlan, J., concurring. Rosario, J., with dissenting opinion. Lopez, J., concurring. Dimaampao, J., on leave. Marquez, J., concurring. Kho Jr., J., with dissenting opinion. Singh, J., with separate concurring opinion. Villanueva, J., concurring.”