By Atty. Howie Calleja
An idea of Bato Dela Rosa facing the International Criminal Court (ICC) isn’t just a legal issue; it’s a matter of justice, accountability, and the Philippines’ place in the world. If Dela Rosa is ever apprehended, process won’t be “extradition.” It’s something more direct, more compelling: a surrender to international justice. This distinction is vital, as Supreme Court has consistently differentiated between extradition and other forms of international cooperation in criminal matters.
Let’s be clear: an ICC warrant isn’t some foreign request we can politely ignore. It’s an international call to action. Every member of ICC, and those who work with it, is bound to recognize it. It carries weight, a moral force that extends across borders. This obligation stems from principle of pacta sunt servanda, international law principle that agreements must be kept, which Philippines, even as a non-member, cannot entirely disregard due to its implications for international relations.
Process, as laid out by Rome Statute, is deliberate and clear. First, ICC, after careful consideration, issues a warrant of arrest. This is a critical step, representing court’s determination that there is sufficient reason to believe a crime within its jurisdiction has been committed. Following issuance of warrant, it, along with a formal request for surrender, is sent to member states and organizations like Interpol. This is a formal notification, compelling these entities to take action. Receiving country then acknowledges warrant and begins difficult work of locating person. This involves significant resources and coordination, reflecting seriousness of request. Here in Philippines, arrest would follow our own rules, ensuring fairness and adherence to our legal standards.
Some may continue to falsely argue that since Philippines has withdrawn from ICC, we’re off hook. But this argument ignores a crucial point: both ICC and Philippine Supreme Court have already ruled that Philippines is bound by its obligations for acts committed while it was still a party to Rome Statute, before Duterte’s withdrawal.
Also this argument has been used abused Duterte lawyers and loyalist but has been repeatedly dismissed even by the ICC and our own Supreme Court. The Principle of continuity of obligations suggests that actions initiated while a state was a party to a treaty may still be subject to treaty’s provisions, even after withdrawal.
This isn’t about extradition, a process between countries. ICC is an international court, a body meant to hold individuals accountable for most serious crimes. Surrender is about cooperating with that court, whether we’re official members or not. It’s about doing what’s right. The Supreme Court has, in various cases involving international law, emphasized the importance of the Philippines fulfilling its international obligations in good faith. Let’s also dismiss idea that Dela Rosa is somehow untouchable. ICC recognizes no immunity, no special privileges. No one, not even a president or a senator, is above law. This aligns with fundamental principle of equality before law, enshrined in Philippine Constitution.
Our Senate, therefore, shouldn’t become a refuge. Dela Rosa faces serious allegations, and he hasn’t presented any compelling defense. Senate should stand for justice, not offer protection to those accused of grave crimes. The most honorable path for Dela Rosa is to voluntarily engage with ICC. He should step forward, participate in investigation, and explain his role in “war on drugs.” Only through transparency and accountability can we hope to find justice and healing. Perhaps he should be reminded of his own words: “I am ready to join the old man hoping that they would allow me to take care of him”.