On November 8, 2025, a political tremor rippled through the Philippines when Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla announced in a radio interview that the International Criminal Court (ICC) had issued an arrest warrant for Senator Ronald "Bato" dela Rosa. Dela Rosa, the former chief of the Philippine National Police and a key architect of ex-President Rodrigo Duterte’s controversial war on drugs, suddenly found himself at the center of a storm—one that has since raised thorny questions about justice, sovereignty, and the rule of law.
Yet, as quickly as the news broke, doubts began to swirl. According to Reuters, the ICC’s spokesperson Fadi El Abdallah categorically stated, "No. ICC news can only be found on ICC official communications channels and press releases." He emphasized that, as of November 10, 2025, only one case had been officially opened—against former President Duterte himself. The Department of Foreign Affairs and the Philippine embassy in The Hague echoed this, confirming they had not received any warrant of arrest or related documents for dela Rosa. The Department of Justice (DOJ), too, was still working to verify Remulla’s claim, with DOJ spokesperson Polo Martinez telling Reuters, "We have not yet received a copy of said arrest warrant. We shall provide further details as soon as it becomes available."
This uncertainty has not stopped the speculation. Remulla told Reuters that his information came from the officer-in-charge of the DOJ, and Executive Secretary Lucas Bersamin told reporters that President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s office had yet to independently verify the existence of a warrant. Bersamin also noted that the ICC had not transmitted any order to Interpol regarding dela Rosa, a key step that would normally precede any international law enforcement action.
At the heart of this legal drama lies the Philippine Supreme Court’s recent ruling on extradition, which took effect on November 10, 2025. The new rules require a local Extradition Court to hold judicial proceedings before deciding whether an individual wanted by another state—or, as is now debated, by an international court—should be surrendered. Bersamin explained that, unlike Duterte’s swift arrest and surrender to the ICC in March, dela Rosa would not face the same expedited process. The DOJ and other officials cited these new procedures as a potential hurdle, but legal experts quickly pointed out a crucial distinction.
Attorney Kristina Conti, an ICC-accredited assistant to counsel and a lawyer for drug war victims, clarified on DZBB radio and in statements to local media that the ICC’s process is not one of extradition but of surrender. "The extradition process applies to foreign warrants of arrest, which technically have no effect in another country. Hence, a local process is required, where a Philippine court issues a warrant equivalent to or corresponding with the foreign warrant," Conti explained. "Surrender, on the other hand, is a form of cooperation with the ICC, an international court, by both member and even non-member states." She emphasized that the Philippines, despite having withdrawn from the Rome Statute, remains obligated to cooperate with the ICC for incidents that occurred while it was still a member.
Conti also made it clear that no one—neither presidents nor senators—enjoys immunity from ICC arrest warrants. "There is no immunity granted to any individual recognized by the ICC. Even a president can be issued an arrest warrant by the Court. Therefore, Senator Bato dela Rosa cannot claim that he is exempt from arrest simply because he is a senator," she stated.
For his part, dela Rosa has not publicly addressed the latest flurry of reports about the alleged warrant. However, his legal counsel, Attorney Israelito Torreon, issued a statement expressing trust in the Philippine government to act "in accordance with the rule of law, and that any such action shall first pass through the proper local judicial confirmation process consistent with our Constitution, due process, and the sovereign rights of the Republic of the Philippines." Dela Rosa has previously acknowledged receiving communication from the ICC regarding "the extra-judicial killings of suspected drug dependents and other personalities, which constitute crimes against humanity." In March, following Duterte’s arrest, he declared, "I am ready to join the old man, hoping that they would allow me to take care of him."
Dela Rosa’s central role in the war on drugs is well documented. As police chief, he issued Command Memorandum Circular No. 16-2016, which launched Project Double Barrel—better known as Oplan Tokhang. This campaign, which began under Duterte’s presidency, led to anti-drug operations that killed an estimated 30,000 individuals, according to figures cited by multiple outlets including Reuters. In September 2025, the ICC published redacted versions of drug war case documents that also named dela Rosa as a respondent, further cementing his association with the bloody crackdown.
Meanwhile, the legal and political fallout continues to unfold in Manila. Senate President Vicente "Tito" Sotto III, when asked about the possibility of dela Rosa’s arrest, asserted, "To preserve the dignity of the Senate, and as a matter of institutional courtesy, we cannot allow any senator to be arrested in the Senate premises. Outside the Senate premises, that’s no longer our concern." This stance has drawn criticism from victims’ groups, such as Rise Up for Life and for Rights, whose national coordinator Rubylin Litao called for the Senate not to shield dela Rosa. "The Senate cannot be the refuge of criminals and rights violators, mass murderers and the corrupt alike," the group said in a statement, urging immediate arrest should the ICC warrant be confirmed.
The broader context is inescapable. Duterte’s own arrest and detention in The Hague—following an ICC warrant linking him to murders committed during the drug war—has already set a precedent. Both Duterte and dela Rosa have petitioned the Philippine Supreme Court to compel the government to halt cooperation with the ICC, though the Court has thus far upheld the ICC’s jurisdiction over events that occurred during the Philippines’ membership in the Rome Statute.
The issue of whether extradition or surrender applies is not just a technicality; it could determine the fate of high-profile figures like dela Rosa. Attorney Conti insists that "he can appear before the ongoing investigation of the ICC Office of the Prosecutor to clarify his role in the ‘war on drugs.’" For many, the question now is not just if, but when and how Philippine authorities will act, should the ICC confirm an arrest warrant.
As the nation waits for official word from the ICC, the debate continues to rage. Is this a watershed moment for accountability in the Philippines, or just another chapter in a long saga of legal and political maneuvering? For now, the only certainty is that the world is watching, and the stakes—for justice, for democracy, and for the rule of law—could hardly be higher.
