The Failed ICC-kidnapping of Senator Bato dela Rosa

This is part of the preambulatory clauses of the resolution filed by Senators Hontiveros, Aquino, Pangilinan, Sotto, and Lacson. Together with other invoked laws and situations, they are used to justify their call for Senator dela Rosa to voluntarily surrender.

Why am I highlighting these three? Because it reveals the stark difference between their stance on what happened to former President Duterte and what is going on now to dela Rosa.

First paragraph refers to Republic Act 9851 - the Philippine Act on Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law, Genocide, and Other Crimes Against Humanity. Among all the sentences in that law, what these five chose to emphasize is this: 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐑𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐓𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐯𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 “𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐣𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐩𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐀𝐜𝐭.”

This is odd. The alleged warrant of arrest against Bato dela Rosa is NOT issued any Regional Trial Court (RTC) in the Philippines. As far as we know, outside the imagination of Diehard Duterte Haters (DDH), the International Criminal Court - ICC is not an RTC of the Philippines.

If, as these five says, RTCs have original jurisdiction over offenses punishable under RA 9851, then by that same logic, no foreign court — not even the ICC — can step in and issue a warrant for an offense that our own RTCs are already empowered to handle.

If the five insist on quoting RA 9851 to assert RTC jurisdiction, then it is clear that Bato dela Rosa can only be arrested by virtue of a warrant of arrest issued by a Regional Trial Court — not the ICC, not the PNP acting on an ICC request, not any foreign body. Any arrest without such a judicially issued RTC warrant would be, under that reading, an illegal arrest: no RTC warrant, no custody. The ICC can request, but under RA 9851, only a Philippine RTC can order the actual arrest

The second paragraph compares the situation of Bato dela Rosa to other Senators who were arrested: Enrile, de Lima, and Trillanes. However, these are apples and oranges.

These senators were arrested under a warrant issued by a Philippine court — Enrile by the Sandiganbayan, de Lima by an RTC, Trillanes by a Makati RTC. Whatever one thinks of those cases, the legal mechanism was domestic and constitutionally grounded. Bato’s situation is fundamentally different. No Philippine RTC has issued a warrant. No prosecutor under RA 9851 has filed an information. So when these five appeal to Bato to “voluntarily surrender to judicial authority,” they are asking him to do something no sitting senator has ever been asked to do — submit to a foreign court’s process without a domestic warrant. That’s not precedent. That’s an exception dressed up as principle. And exceptions, once granted for one, can be demanded for all.

The third paragraph is asking, Bato to “voluntarily surrender to judicial authority.”

However, what “judicial authority”? If they truly mean RA 9851, then the only judicial authority that can receive his surrender is a Philippine Regional Trial Court. Not the ICC. Not a foreign tribunal. Not the Department of Justice.

So why phrase it vaguely as “judicial authority” instead of simply saying “surrender to an RTC”? Perhaps because they know no Philippine RTC has issued a warrant. Perhaps because they are hoping Bato surrenders to someone — anyone — so they can then argue that jurisdiction has attached.

But that’s not how criminal procedure works. You don’t surrender to a concept. You surrender to a specific court with a specific case number. Without that, “voluntary surrender” is just theater — a man turning himself in to nobody.

If you find value in what this blog does, please consider tipping via GCash - 09288956324 Buy me a Coffee: https://www.buymeacoffee.com/srsasot