Hours after reports emerged that the International Criminal Court had issued a warrant for his arrest, some of his allies insisted there was nothing improper when Senator Ronald โBatoโ dela Rosa left the Senate compound on Thursday.
Senate President Alan Peter Cayetano framed the issue as simple. The warrant, he argued, did not legally exist in the Philippines. โBut again, mali โyong word na escape because thereโs no warrant. Thereโs no warrant, so heโs free to go,โ Mr. Cayetano told reporters. He added, โWe donโt take judicial notice of that stuff [ICC warrant]. You have to come to us and present it.โ
Senator Robin Padilla echoed the same argument. He said Senator Dela Rosa, and he would only recognize a warrant issued by a Philippine court. โWe cannot do anything about it. Even Senator Bato knows that. We cannot do anything if a local court issues a warrant against him,โ Mr. Padilla said.
But legal experts say those claims rest on a misunderstanding โ or misrepresentation โ of how international criminal law works, especially in relation to International Criminal Court.
The ICC Warrant Exists โ and the Court Has Confirmed It
The first flaw in the senatorsโ argument is factual. The ICC itself has already confirmed the existence and authenticity of the warrant.
โThe International Criminal Court confirms that the document published by national authorities of the Republic of the Philippines and circulated in the media is indeed a formal ICC document,โ ICC spokesperson Oriane Maillet said on May 11.
That confirmation matters because it establishes that the warrant is not fabricated, speculative, or merely political rhetoric. It is an official judicial order issued by an international tribunal recognized under the Rome Statute.
The question, then, is not whether the warrant exists. It does. And the real question is whether Philippine authorities are legally obligated to cooperate with it.
The Philippinesโ Withdrawal Does Not Automatically Erase ICC Jurisdiction
Supporters of Mr. Dela Rosa have repeatedly argued that the Philippines is no longer under ICC jurisdiction because former President Rodrigo Duterte withdrew the country from the Rome Statute in 2019.
But the ICC has long rejected that interpretation. ICC maintains jurisdiction over alleged crimes committed while the Philippines was still a member state between 2011 and 2019. That includes the bloody anti-drug campaign launched during Mr. Duterteโs presidency, when Mr. Dela Rosa served as chief of the Philippine National Police.
Under international treaty law, withdrawal from a treaty does not extinguish obligations or liabilities incurred before withdrawal takes effect. In practical terms, that means investigations into alleged crimes committed during membership can continue even after a country exits the treaty.
This principle is not unique to the ICC. It is a standard feature of international law intended to prevent states from escaping accountability simply by withdrawing after accusations emerge.
An ICC Warrant Does Not Need to Originate From a Philippine Court
Another misleading claim is that only Philippine courts can issue enforceable warrants inside the country.
It is true that Philippine law enforcement ordinarily acts on domestic warrants. But ICC proceedings operate differently because they arise from treaty obligations and international cooperation mechanisms.
The ICC has no police force of its own. It relies on states to execute arrest warrants. In countries that cooperate with the court, domestic authorities often implement ICC requests through local legal channels. That does not mean the warrant itself becomes invalid absent a Philippine judgeโs signature. The warrant originates from the ICC because the ICC is the court exercising jurisdiction over alleged crimes against humanity.
To insist that only local courts can issue valid warrants against ICC suspects effectively nullifies the entire structure of international criminal justice. By that logic, no ICC warrant anywhere in the world could function unless reissued by a national court โ a standard the Rome Statute does not require.
What โJudicial Noticeโ Actually Means
Mr. Cayetanoโs invocation of โjudicial noticeโ also conflates separate legal concepts. Judicial notice refers to a courtโs recognition of facts without requiring formal proof. But the issue surrounding the ICC warrant is not whether the Senate recognizes it symbolically. The issue is whether Philippine institutions will cooperate with an international tribunal investigating alleged crimes against humanity.
A warrant does not cease to exist simply because a senator refuses to acknowledge it.
The ICC remains an operational international court recognized by more than 120 countries. Its judicial acts carry legal effect within its own jurisdiction regardless of whether political allies of a suspect choose to recognize them publicly.
A Political Argument Disguised as a Legal One
At its core, the defense mounted by Mr. Dela Rosaโs allies appears less like a legal argument than a political one. Their position rests on the assertion that Philippine sovereignty overrides international accountability mechanisms. That debate is legitimate and longstanding.
But claiming the warrant is โinvalidโ is different from arguing the Philippines should refuse cooperation. One is a factual and legal question. The other is a political choice.
And on the narrower legal point, the facts are difficult to dispute. The ICC warrant exists, the court has confirmed it, and the tribunal maintains that it retains jurisdiction over alleged crimes committed at the time the Philippines was still a member of the Rome Statute.
About The Author
