On December 12, 2025, the already turbulent relationship between the Philippines and the International Criminal Court (ICC) took another dramatic turn as the legal team of Senator Ronald "Bato" dela Rosa, a former police chief and a key figure in the Duterte administration’s controversial anti-drug campaign, challenged the enforceability of any ICC arrest warrant in the country. According to ABS-CBN, this latest dispute underscores the deep legal and political divisions that have defined the Philippines’ stance toward international justice since its withdrawal from the Rome Statute in 2019.
At the center of the storm is lawyer Israelito Torreon, who earlier this week reiterated that Senator dela Rosa cannot be arrested by the ICC due to the Philippines’ lack of a domestic legal procedure for enforcing ICC surrender requests. Torreon’s statement, reported by SunStar, came amid growing speculation and public debate over an alleged ICC arrest order connected to dela Rosa’s role in the Duterte-era "war on drugs."
Torreon was unequivocal in his view that only the Philippine Supreme Court has the authority to resolve the constitutional questions swirling around the reported ICC warrant. He argued that the legal debate has become muddied by politics and selective invocation of international law. "Ang sabi mo, wala na bisa ang Rome Statute kung kami mag-invoke, pero di ba atat na atat kayo na ipahuli si Senator Bato based sa warrant of arrest ng ICC na nalikha dahil sa Rome Statute?" Torreon pointedly remarked, highlighting what he sees as inconsistency among critics who, he claims, use the Rome Statute only when it suits their arguments. He added, "Ano yan, kung favor sa inyo pwede i-invoke ninyo, eh kung favor sa amin, hindi kami pwede mag-invoke?"
For Torreon, the issue is not about expanding the Supreme Court’s powers or creating new judicial rules, but about seeking clarity on which branch of government holds constitutional authority to regulate the surrender of Filipinos to a foreign tribunal such as the ICC. As Torreon explained, "What he is asking for is clarity… a judicial declaration of what the law already provides and, critically, which branch of government has the constitutional authority to regulate the surrender of Filipinos to a foreign tribunal."
The crux of Torreon’s argument is that the Philippines, after its 2019 withdrawal from the Rome Statute, has no existing statutory procedure for surrendering citizens to the ICC. He pointed out that while extradition is governed by Presidential Decree 1069 and the recently updated 2025 Extradition Rules, there is no equivalent legal framework for ICC cooperation. Torreon contrasted the Philippines’ situation with other nations, citing Germany’s ICC Cooperation Act, Canada’s Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, Austria’s Federal Law on Cooperation with the ICC, and the Netherlands’ ICC Implementation Act as examples of countries that have enacted comprehensive domestic legislation for ICC cooperation. "Cooperation with the ICC requires comprehensive domestic legislation, not judicial legislation," he emphasized.
Constitutional safeguards, according to Torreon, cannot be bypassed. He warned that acting on a foreign arrest warrant without a Philippine judge personally determining probable cause would violate Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution. "The Constitution requires a judge, not a foreign tribunal, to personally assess probable cause before any warrant may issue," he explained. Torreon cautioned that removing this safeguard would not be a mere procedural change but could require amending the Constitution itself.
Adding to the confusion, Torreon revealed that he has requested an official copy of the alleged ICC arrest warrant from Ombudsman Boying Remulla, intending to submit it to the Supreme Court once verified. He admitted, "Parang totoo na itong arrest warrant ata kasi marami nang nagsasabi sa akin, although hindi ko pa talaga ma-confirm." He reiterated that even if the Rome Statute’s Article 88 were still applicable—a point his camp disputes—the Philippines would still need its own procedures to enforce any ICC-related surrender, procedures that do not currently exist.
The whereabouts of Senator dela Rosa have become a subject of speculation. Philippine National Police (PNP) acting chief LtGen. Jose Melencio Nartatez Jr. told SunStar, "As of now, we don’t know about his whereabouts… Wala naman siyang warrant of arrest or basis for the arrest." Torreon echoed this uncertainty, saying he also does not know where the senator is at the moment. However, he clarified that dela Rosa is not evading authorities but is simply waiting for the Supreme Court to resolve the petition.
In response to the swirling legal and political uncertainty, Torreon’s legal team has asked the Supreme Court to issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) or injunction to prevent any government agency or foreign entity from acting on the alleged ICC warrant while constitutional issues remain unresolved. "The status quo must be preserved because it is the Supreme Court that must first resolve these fundamental questions," Torreon stated. He added that only after the Court issues its ruling can the government act "within the bounds of law, sovereignty, and due process," underscoring that no executive agency may pre-empt the Court’s authority.
This isn’t the first time Torreon has challenged the ICC’s reach. He has previously described the ICC case filed against former President Rodrigo Duterte as "illegal" under Philippine law, arguing that the tribunal no longer has jurisdiction following the country’s withdrawal from the Rome Statute. Torreon contends that any ICC proceedings targeting Duterte’s administration must first be addressed through domestic legal frameworks, which, in his view, do not exist for the surrender or prosecution of Filipino officials. This position now underpins his defense of Senator dela Rosa, as he maintains that the ICC cannot enforce arrest warrants without the necessary domestic legislation and constitutional compliance.
Meanwhile, the Duterte camp has accused ICC prosecutors of a "back-door" appeal to retain jurisdiction over cases involving the former president. According to ABS-CBN, this accusation reflects a broader skepticism among Duterte’s allies toward the international tribunal’s ongoing efforts to investigate alleged crimes committed during the "war on drugs."
With the Supreme Court now at the center of this legal battle, many in the Philippines are watching closely to see how the country’s highest judicial body will interpret the complex intersection of international obligations, constitutional law, and national sovereignty. The outcome could set a precedent not only for the Philippines’ relationship with the ICC but also for how other countries navigate the sometimes choppy waters between domestic law and international justice.
For now, the fate of Senator dela Rosa—and the broader question of whether the ICC can hold Philippine officials to account—hangs in the balance, awaiting a decisive ruling from the Supreme Court. As the legal and political drama unfolds, one thing remains clear: the Philippines’ reckoning with international justice is far from over.
