The Supreme Court of the Philippines has rejected a high-profile plea from Senator Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa and former President Rodrigo Duterte, who sought to compel the production of an International Criminal Court (ICC) arrest warrant reportedly targeting the senator. The decision, announced in a full-court session on Tuesday, November 18, 2025, marks another dramatic turn in the ongoing legal and political saga surrounding the country’s controversial anti-drug campaign and its aftermath.
The legal maneuvering began after Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla publicly disclosed that he possessed a copy of the supposed ICC arrest warrant for Dela Rosa on his personal mobile phone. This disclosure set off a flurry of urgent motions and manifestations from Dela Rosa and Duterte, who have both been implicated in ICC proceedings over alleged crimes against humanity linked to their roles in the Philippines’ bloody war on drugs.
According to Inquirer, the Supreme Court not only denied the “Very Urgent Motion” to compel Remulla to produce the warrant, but also refrained from providing any specific explanation for its decision. Instead, the justices directed government officials—including Executive Secretary Lucas Bersamin, Justice Secretary Remulla, and Interior and Local Government Secretary Jonvic Remulla—to respond to a separate manifestation. This manifestation, filed by Dela Rosa and Duterte, seeks to require the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) to submit written certifications confirming or denying the existence of any ICC-related warrant.
The Supreme Court’s directive gives the respondents a non-extendible period of 10 days from notice to file their comments. As reported by the Philippine News Agency (PNA), this move leaves both the legal status of the alleged ICC warrant and the Philippine government’s cooperation with the Hague-based tribunal shrouded in uncertainty.
The roots of this legal battle stretch back to March 11, 2025, when Duterte was arrested and turned over to The Hague to face charges of crimes against humanity related to his administration’s anti-drug campaign. Dela Rosa, then accused as a coperpetrator, filed his motion on November 12, 2025, shortly after Remulla’s public comments about the warrant. The urgency of the motion reflected mounting concerns among Duterte’s allies about the possibility of further arrests or surrenders to the ICC without due process.
In their filings, Dela Rosa and Duterte raised several pointed questions: Was there an “actual, imminent, and credible threat of arrest”? Did Republic Act No. 9851, the Philippines’ law on crimes against international humanitarian law, genocide, and other crimes against humanity, allow for such arrests or surrenders? And crucially, was the country still bound by the Rome Statute—the treaty establishing the ICC—despite its 2019 withdrawal?
The petitioners’ “Very Urgent Manifestation,” filed on November 13, 2025, went further. They alleged that Remulla had publicly stated an ICC arrest warrant was in effect; that a diffusion order against Dela Rosa had been issued; that the Philippine government would surrender him to the ICC without the usual extradition proceedings; and that at least three witnesses had been placed under the DOJ’s Witness Protection Program at the ICC’s request. These claims, if true, suggested a level of cooperation with the ICC that would be politically and legally contentious in the Philippines.
Seeking to clarify the situation, Dela Rosa and Duterte asked the Supreme Court to take judicial notice of Remulla’s statements and to direct the DOJ and DFA to certify the existence or absence of any official ICC-related warrants or communications. They also requested a preliminary injunction, citing a “clear, present, and continuing danger” that Dela Rosa could be illegally arrested or surrendered to a foreign court without due process—a scenario that would raise profound constitutional questions.
Despite the urgency and gravity of these concerns, the Supreme Court stood firm in its refusal to compel the production of the alleged ICC warrant. The justices’ silence on the reasons behind their decision has only intensified speculation and debate. According to Dela Rosa’s lawyer, Israelito Torreon, the legal team intends to ask the high tribunal to reconsider its decision. Torreon stressed, “As a lawyer and an officer of the court, [Remulla] should be made to explain as to why he has a copy of the alleged warrant, from whom he secured the same, and under what authority was his source able to secure a copy of the warrant.”
The controversy has also drawn in members of Duterte’s family. On November 18, 2025, Veronica “Kitty” Duterte, the former president’s daughter, filed an urgent motion before the Supreme Court seeking the immediate resolution of pending habeas corpus petitions. These petitions, filed by Duterte’s children—Paolo, Sebastian, and Veronica—demand that the government facilitate their father’s return from The Hague. The Panelo Law Office, representing Veronica, urged the court to “urgently resolve” these consolidated petitions and direct Philippine officials to bring Duterte home.
Kitty Duterte’s motion highlighted a sense of frustration with the judiciary’s pace, citing over 200 days of inaction since her father’s arrest and turnover to the ICC. She pointed out that the last action on the case was back on April 8, 2025, when the Supreme Court merely noted a motion to set the case for oral arguments. “Such prolonged inaction does not only amount to a denial of the very liberty the writ seeks to protect, it also diminishes public faith in the judiciary’s role to provide effective relief against Executive violations of fundamental rights,” her motion read.
The broader context of this legal drama is complex and politically charged. The ICC’s investigation into the Philippine anti-drug campaign has been a source of fierce debate since it began, with supporters of Duterte and Dela Rosa insisting that the campaign was a legitimate exercise in law enforcement, while critics and human rights advocates argue it amounted to a campaign of extrajudicial killings and impunity. The Philippine government’s 2019 withdrawal from the Rome Statute further complicated matters, raising questions about the jurisdiction of the ICC over crimes allegedly committed while the country was still a member.
This latest Supreme Court decision leaves many questions unanswered. Will the DOJ and DFA confirm or deny the existence of ICC-related warrants? Will the court eventually act on the habeas corpus petitions filed by Duterte’s children? And could the legal wrangling eventually force a reckoning over the Philippines’ relationship with international justice mechanisms?
For now, the fate of Dela Rosa, Duterte, and their legal battles remains up in the air. The Supreme Court’s refusal to compel the production of the ICC warrant, paired with its demand for further comment from government officials, signals that the story is far from over—and that the next chapter could be just as contentious as the last.