OPPOSITION Sen. Ronald dela Rosa has sought refuge before the Supreme Court (SC) against the implementation by Philippine authorities of the supposed arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC) in connection with his alleged role in the bloody, anti-illegal drug war campaign during the term of former President Rodrigo Duterte.
In a 25-page ‘very urgent’ manifestation, dela Rosa, through his counsel, lawyer Israelito Torreon, asked the Court to compel the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) to submit within 72 hours, written certifications confirming whether or not an ICC-related warrant, note verbale or communication has been received, transmitted or processed through official channels.
Dela Rosa told the Court that aside from the alleged ICC warrant of arrest, he has received reports that the international tribunal has allegedly issued a diffusion order against him on November 9, 2025.
A diffusion request directs Philippine authorities to locate and arrest the person named in the document with a view to extradition, subject to national legal procedures and treaty obligations.
While he has already sent official communications to the DOJ and the DFA seeking confirmation of the ICC-issued arrest warrant, dela Rosa said the two agencies have yet to respond to his letters.
Despite this, de la Rosa asked the SC to issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) or a writ of preliminary injunction or both to stop government officials and law enforcement authorities from facilitating or implementing any warrant, red notice or surrender request, issued by the ICC.
He also pleaded for the Court to stop the government from extending any form of logistical, financial or protective assistance to ICC witnesses through the Witness Protection Program (WPP) or any similar office.
In addition, dela Rosa asked the Court to block the transmittal of any ICC-related communication through diplomatic or law enforcement channels pending final resolution of his manifestation.
In a separate four-page urgent motion, dela Rosa asked the Court to order Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla to immediately submit a copy of the alleged ICC warrant he claims to possess on his mobile phone and direct him to explain how he obtained the alleged document.
It may be recalled that it was Remulla who publicly disclosed in his radio program over dzRH that he has it ‘on good authority’ that the ICC has already issued a warrant of arrest against dela Rosa.
In a separate press briefing held several days after, Remulla maintained the existence of the arrest warrant and that he has a copy of it on his mobile phone.
Remulla’s statements, according to dela Rosa, constitute a confession of possession of evidence which is material to the issues he raised in his very urgent manifestation, which include : (a) whether there is an actual imminent and credible threat of arrest; (b) whether Section 17 of Republic Act 9851 or the Philippine Act on Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law authorizes arrest or surrender; (c) whether the Philippine remains bound by residual obligations under the Rome Statute; (d) whether the Executive Branch is acting illegally or prematurely; and ( e ) whether the SC must issue provisional remedies.
Dela Rosa insisted that any arrest, transfer or cooperation executed by the Executive branch without the approval of the court would constitute grave abuse of discretion, violation of due process and usurpation of judicial authority.
He cited the new Rules on Extradition Proceedings issued by the Supreme Court which took effect on November 10, 2025 which mandates that the court must first determine the existence of probable cause before any warrant of arrest may be issued for extradition or surrender.
The senator added that the Rules provides that ‘no surrender or turnover shall take place unless there is final judgment by the court.’
‘Certainly, the liberty of a Filipino cannot be curtailed or surrendered to a foreign power without judicial scrutiny, emphasizing that courts, not Executive officials, determine extraditability,’ the senator stressed.
‘The rule of law demands specificity and due process in any measure that affects individual liberty. The act of surrendering a Filipino citizen to a foreign or international tribunal constitutes the gravest form of deprivation of liberty, involving physical transfer outside the jurisdiction of Philippines courts,’ the senator pointed out.
Dela Rosa also countered the claim of the DOJ that the government can invoke Section 17 or R.A. 9851 to justify his immediate surrender to the ICC without undergoing extradition proceedings.
The said provision states that the Philippines ‘may surrender or extradite a person to another court or international tribunal that is conducting the investigation or prosecution of crimes punishable under this Act, pursuant to applicable extradition and treaties.’
He argued that there is no implementing rules and regulations promulgated by the DOJ or any other relevant government agencies to effectively enforce the said provision.
‘This provision, however, is not self-executing and cannot operate independently of existing extradition laws and treaties, nor can it override the constitutional framework on due process, liberty, and judicial oversight,’ he said.