Senator Ronald "Bato" dela Rosa, once the face of the Philippines’ controversial war on drugs, has found himself at the center of a growing legal and political storm. As of November 26, 2025, new revelations about an alleged International Criminal Court (ICC) arrest warrant and his continued absence from Senate sessions have fueled uncertainty in Manila’s halls of power, raising questions about accountability, sovereignty, and the future of the country’s justice system.
The latest development began with a statement from Interior and Local Government Secretary Jonvic Remulla. According to Philippine Daily Inquirer, Remulla clarified that the supposed ICC warrant for Senator dela Rosa, which was presented to Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla, was merely a “signed digital copy.” He explained, “From what I know, a digital copy was signed, was shown to the Ombudsman, but it was not a verified digital copy.” This distinction is crucial: without a verified warrant, the machinery of Philippine law enforcement remains unmoved.
Remulla further emphasized that the document had not been formally transmitted to the Department of Justice or the Center for Transnational Crimes. “So, as far as the state security system is concerned, we are not yet in a position for a request for the arrest of Senator Dela Rosa,” he said. This lack of formal transmission leaves the situation in a kind of legal limbo, with the state’s hands tied until official channels are activated.
This uncertainty is compounded by the Philippines’ withdrawal from the ICC in 2018, a move made under then-President Rodrigo Duterte just as the court began investigating alleged extrajudicial killings tied to the administration’s anti-drug campaign. Remulla reminded the public that, since the withdrawal, “there were no ‘formal channels’ to verify the ombudsman’s claims that the international tribunal already issued a warrant for the former top cop.” The country’s exit from the ICC has complicated the process for any international legal action, and, as Remulla pointed out, the Supreme Court has since clarified the steps required for repatriation or cooperation with such requests. “We will follow that process now since it has been clarified by the Supreme Court,” he said.
Meanwhile, the political ramifications of these developments were felt immediately in the Senate. On November 26, 2025, it was confirmed that Senator dela Rosa would skip the chamber’s crucial deliberations on the 2026 budget for the Department of National Defense (DND), a role he was expected to lead. Senator Sherwin Gatchalian, head of the panel on finance, told reporters that dela Rosa had reached out to inform him of his absence for the November 27 session. “He sent me a message saying he could not attend to defend it,” Gatchalian said in an ambush interview, as reported by Inquirer.net.
Notably, dela Rosa did not provide a reason for his absence—a silence that has only fueled speculation. Gatchalian assured the public that he would step in to defend the DND budget, noting, “I’m there. And I sat on all the budget hearings, so even if I am not the chairman of that subcommittee, I sat on all those committee hearings. We had meetings as well. So I know their budget.”
Dela Rosa’s absence from Senate sessions dates back to November 10, 2025, coinciding with the surfacing of reports about the alleged ICC warrant. His legal counsel, lawyer Israelito Torreon, has acknowledged awareness of these circulating reports but stressed that neither he nor his client has independent confirmation of the warrant’s existence or validity. This ambiguity has left the senator in a precarious position, both legally and politically.
The backdrop to this saga is dela Rosa’s central role in the Duterte administration’s war on drugs—a campaign that has drawn international condemnation for its alleged human rights abuses. As the former chief of the Philippine National Police (PNP), dela Rosa issued Command Memorandum Circular No. 16-2016, which served as the foundation for Project Double Barrel. This project, and its later offshoot Oplan Tokhang, marked the beginning of a brutal crackdown on suspected drug offenders. Thousands of Filipinos lost their lives in the ensuing operations, with critics and human rights advocates labeling many of the killings as extrajudicial.
The ICC’s investigation into these events has been a point of fierce contention. Supporters of the Duterte administration argue that the campaign was a necessary response to the country’s drug crisis, emphasizing national sovereignty and the right to self-determination. They view the ICC’s involvement as an unwelcome intrusion into domestic affairs—a stance reinforced by the country’s withdrawal from the court. On the other hand, human rights groups and many in the international community insist that accountability for alleged crimes against humanity cannot be sidestepped by political maneuvering. They argue that justice for the victims of the drug war requires impartial investigation and, if warranted, prosecution on the global stage.
Senator dela Rosa’s current predicament embodies this clash of perspectives. While the government maintains that no formal request for his arrest has been received, the specter of international prosecution looms large. The lack of a verified warrant and the absence of formal communication channels have, for now, shielded him from immediate legal jeopardy. Yet, his ongoing absence from the Senate and the swirling rumors have cast a shadow over his political future.
For many observers, the case is emblematic of the broader struggle over the rule of law in the Philippines. The Supreme Court’s clarification of the repatriation process offers a procedural roadmap, but the political will to follow it remains uncertain. The government’s cautious approach reflects a desire to balance domestic legal norms with international obligations, all while navigating a deeply polarized public discourse.
As the story continues to unfold, one thing is clear: the debate over accountability for the war on drugs is far from settled. With Senator dela Rosa’s fate hanging in the balance, the Philippines finds itself at a crossroads—torn between the demands of justice, the imperatives of sovereignty, and the realities of a deeply divided society. The coming weeks may well determine not only the future of one man, but also the trajectory of the nation’s ongoing reckoning with its recent past.
For now, the Senate presses on with its business, the international community watches closely, and the question of justice—both at home and abroad—remains unresolved.
