Senator-allies of Senator Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa definitely got his back.

His allies were using different faulty arguments to justify why the former Philippine National Police chief — who’s the subject of an International Criminal Court (ICC) warrant — cannot be arrested.

First, Senate President Alan Peter Cayetano claimed on Monday, May 11, that no senator may be arrested within Senate premises. This is not true because as several experts and former lawmakers have pointed out, both former senators Leila de Lima and Antonio Trillanes IV had been served their warrants while in the Senate premises.

After this claim, Cayetano, along with Senators Robin Padilla and Dela Rosa himself, repeatedly said that they would only honor a “local” warrant against Dela Rosa. Cayetano also claimed that Dela Rosa’s escape from the Senate compound on Thursday, May 14, was legal because the ICC warrant was not valid.

Again, Cayetano’s claim was faulty on two points. One, the Philippine government is still mandated to cooperate with the ICC investigation and the court itself confirmed the warrant’s validity. And second, Republic Act No. 9851 allows the country to enforce a warrant issued by an international tribunal.

After three days of staying at the Senate, Dela Rosa escaped on May 14 — hours after a shooting incident between the Senate’s sergeant-at-arms and National Bureau of Investigation agents on May 13. Cayetano confirmed that the senator left at around 2:30 am with Padilla.

Comes this question now: can people who protect Dela Rosa from the ICC warrant be punished?

Obstruction of justice?

If some people go to great lengths to actually block Dela Rosa’s arrest, retired Supreme Court senior associate Justice Antonio Carpio said they may be held liable for obstruction of justice.

“Sa Senado i-surrender siya, pinigilan nila (If the Senate blocks the surrender). So that is actually obstruction of justice under the law. If you prevent the law enforcer from serving a warrant of arrest or summons, that is obstruction of justice,” Carpio told reporters on May 13.

“They’re not following the law that’s why the remedy is to file obstruction of justice. [The] NBI [National Bureau of Investigation] should file obstruction of justice,” Carpio added.

Play Video

This is also the position of two more lawyers: ICC-accredited counsel Gilbert Andres and human rights lawyer Dino de Leon.

“Whoever facilitated and enabled the escape should be charged. If there was connivance with the Senate sergeant-at-arms who is being accused of creating a facade that the Senate was under attack to allow the escape of an Internationally wanted person, they should all be prosecuted. If there was negligence or dereliction of duty, they should still be held liable,” said De Leon.

Presidential Decree No. 1829 penalizes obstruction of arrest and prosecution of suspects. Andres said the law’s section Section 1 (c) may apply to the current case.

“Harboring or concealing, or facilitating the escape of, any person he knows, or has reasonable ground to believe or suspect, has committed any offense under existing penal laws in order to prevent his arrest prosecution and conviction,” the provision states.

The paragraph, however, only refers to “existing penal laws,” and the warrant against Dela Rosa is from the ICC. Does the law still apply? Yes, according to Andres, because the Philippines can implement the ICC warrant through its RA No. 9851.

“RA No. 9851 is broader than the Rome Statute itself. This reveals not only an independent, but even a more encompassing, legislative will, even overtaking the course of international relations,” the ICC counsel told Rappler.

On Friday, May 15, Ombudsman Jesus Crispin “Boying” Remulla said his office is looking into possible offenses of those who helped Dela Rosa. These include obstruction of justice and aiding and abetting a criminal act.

The Department of Justice, on the same day, also announced that a prosecution panel had been created to probe into events at the Senate, including the shooting incident and Dela Rosa’s exit.

There are gray areas, but…

Article 70 of the Rome Statute (the treaty that created the ICC) punishes those who obstruct the ICC’s administration of justice.

The punishable acts include giving false testimony and intimidating a court official, among others. Impeding an ICC warrant, however, is not covered by Article 70.

“It (the article) only covers certain acts, and harboring a fugitive or allowing a suspect to escape are not specifically included,” National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers Ephraim Cortez told Rappler.

Cortez added that a complaint for alleged violation of PD No. 1829 may have some limitations when applied to senators: “But they (senators) cannot be subjected to criminal proceedings because of their immunity. Penalty for obstruction is six years maximum, which is within the threshold of their parliamentary immunity.”

But for Andres, what the country and world should look at is the extent of Dela Rosa’s alleged crimes.

“Actually, the bigger conversation here is what the ICC warrant against Bato dela Rosa is. It’s for an international crime and it’s a crime against the international community. In fact, it’s a crime anywhere in the world,” said Andres.

On top of this, the ICC counsel said the current chaotic events in the Philippines — Dela Rosa’s escape and continued evasion of the warrant — affect Duterte’s case.

“The happenings before the Senate. It’s a larger socio-political backdrop for the review of the continued detention of Mr. Duterte,” Andres explained.

Recall that the ICC conducts a yearly review to check if detention is still warranted against a detained suspect. ICC judges annually determine if there’s any change in circumstances.

When the ICC rejected Duterte’s bid for interim release in 2025, they did not only take note of Duterte’s potential to become a flight risk, but also his power and influence. The court also cited his and his camp’s continued insistence that he was “kidnapped” by the ICC. – Rappler.com