14/05/2026
SCALES OF LAW: Senate vs. ICC — The Clash of Views on the Case of Sen. Bato dela Rosa
By: Napoleon Alforte Jr.
May 14, 2026 — The Philippine Senate has become the center of intense legal and sovereignty disputes since the night of May 13, following the public release of an arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC) against Senator Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa. He is accused of crimes against humanity over his role as Chief of the Philippine National Police under the Duterte administration, during the anti-drug campaign from 2016 to 2018.
Amid rising tensions, blockades by police and military forces, and resistance from the Senate, two distinct, opposing viewpoints have emerged — one from our own legislature, and one from the international court. Below is a full explanation of why they differ, what our Supreme Court has ruled, and what lies ahead.
📌 THE ROOT OF THE CONFLICT
Back in November 2025, the ICC already issued an arrest warrant against Sen. Bato, but it was kept confidential and only made public on May 12, 2026. The court states there is sufficient evidence holding him accountable for thousands of deaths and human rights violations that occurred while he led the national police force.
Following this, personnel from the NBI, CIDG, and military arrived at the Senate building last night to serve the warrant, but were strictly blocked and opposed by Senate leadership led by Senate President Alan Peter Cayetano. The Senate declared the senator under the assembly’s protection and custody.
⚖️ THE SENATE’S PERSPECTIVE: "WE ONLY OBEY OUR OWN LAWS AND COURTS"
The core stance of the Senate and supporters of Sen. Bato centers on the country’s national sovereignty and its right to govern itself:
1. The Philippines has withdrawn from the ICC — The country officially left the Rome Statute (the treaty that established the ICC) on March 17, 2019. According to their argument, since we are no longer a member, any order or ruling from the ICC has no force, authority, or legal effect within our territory. For them, the warrant is merely "a piece of paper" from an organization we no longer have ties with.
2. Only the Constitution and Local Laws Apply — The Constitution states that only our own courts and authorities have the power to enforce laws and issue arrest warrants. No foreign country or organization may enter or enforce orders here unless these are first reviewed, recognized, and validated by our own legal system.
3. The Senate’s Authority and Power of Protection — The Senate holds the right and power to protect its members while they are within the Senate premises, and while all legal remedies or appeals have not yet been exhausted. They claim they are only upholding the right to due process, and will not allow our laws to be dictated or shaped by foreign powers.
4. We Can Deliver Justice Ourselves — They firmly maintain that our own justice system is sufficient, proper, and fully capable of investigating and ruling on any case. Foreign intervention is unnecessary, because the crimes happened here, and they should be tried here.
⚖️ THE ICC’S PERSPECTIVE: "LIABILITY REMAINS — LAWS AND TREATIES REQUIRE COMPLIANCE"
On the other hand, the International Criminal Court holds a firm, clear position based on international treaties we once signed and principles of international law:
1. They Still Hold Jurisdiction — Under Article 127 of the Rome Statute, "a state’s withdrawal does not remove or extinguish liability for crimes committed while that state was still a member." The accusations against Sen. Bato refer to acts committed between 2016 and 2018 — a period when the Philippines was still a full member of the treaty. This clearly places the case within the court’s scope and authority.
2. Philippine Law Itself Mandates Compliance — We have a domestic law: Republic Act 9851, or the Philippine Act on Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law. This law was approved by our own Congress years ago, and explicitly states: "The Philippines may surrender or transfer accused persons to international courts such as the ICC in cases involving crimes against humanity." This means we already accepted and agreed to this process long ago.
3. Principle of Complementarity — The ICC was established to assist and take over cases when a country itself refuses, fails, or is unable to deliver proper justice. The court asserts that for years, there has been no genuine investigation, no accountability, and no punishment imposed on high-ranking officials involved in the anti-drug campaign — hence the ICC took up the case to ensure justice is served.
4. Ruling of the Supreme Court — Back in March 2021, our own Supreme Court already ruled: "The Philippines retains liability and must cooperate with the ICC regarding crimes committed while we were still a member." This is already established law and a ruling from our highest court.
📌 WHAT DID OUR SUPREME COURT RULE? WHOSE SIDE ARE THEY ON?
This is the most critical part of the dispute — because this determines who is right and who is wrong.
They do not fully side with one party, but on the core of the issue: ✅ THEY AGREE MOSTLY WITH THE ICC’S POSITION, AND ❌ REJECT THE SENATE’S MAIN ARGUMENT.
Here is their 2021 ruling:
- ✅ WITHDRAWAL IS VALID, BUT ❌ THE CLAIM "ORDERS HAVE NO EFFECT" IS WRONG. The ruling clearly states: "Withdrawal does not remove liability for actions committed while you were still a member." This is exactly the ICC’s argument, and it was upheld by the Court.
- ✅ THE ICC’S AUTHORITY IS RECOGNIZED for this specific case, since the crimes took place between 2016 and 2018, while we were still a member.
- ⚠️ HOWEVER: IT MUST FIRST GO THROUGH OUR COURTS. Orders cannot be enforced immediately; the warrant must first be submitted, reviewed, and validated by our local courts before it becomes a fully enforceable order under Philippine law.
In short: ✅ THE ICC IS CORRECT, ❌ THE SENATE IS WRONG TO CLAIM "THIS DOES NOT CONCERN US" — but the process must still pass through our legal system before it can be fully implemented.
📌 NEXT STEPS: WHAT HAPPENS NOW?
Based on the law and the Supreme Court’s ruling, here is the sequence of events to follow:
1. He will not be sent to The Hague immediately — The ICC’s warrant must first be submitted and registered with our local courts (RTC). The court will review if the process was proper and legal. While this process is ongoing, Sen. Bato will remain inside the Senate and will still be protected — but this is only temporary.
2. Proceedings at the Supreme Court — Sen. Bato has already filed a petition for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to halt the process, but since the Supreme Court already ruled on this matter years ago, his legal defense is expected to be weak. The only option left for his camp is to delay proceedings or find procedural loopholes.
3. If validated by the local court — Once the order is affirmed and validated by our courts, it becomes AN OFFICIAL ORDER OF THE PHILIPPINES. At that point: THE SENADO NO LONGER HAS ANY POWER TO STOP IT. They are legally bound to comply, as it is now an order under our own laws and judiciary. Their protection ends here.
4. If transferred to the ICC — He will be sent to The Hague, Netherlands. He will undergo a lengthy trial that will take 1 to 3 years to complete. If found guilty: there is no death penalty; the punishment will be 20 to 30 years or life imprisonment, plus reparations and compensation to the victims and their families. He will serve his sentence in a country that has a transfer agreement with the ICC — facilities there are well-maintained and operate in line with international human rights standards.
📌 SUMMARY: THE BALANCE OF LAW
- Senate: "We have withdrawn, so this does not concern us — we only follow our own laws." → LEGALLY INCORRECT, per the Supreme Court ruling.
- ICC: "The crimes happened while you were still a member — laws and treaties require you to comply." → CORRECT AND RECOGNIZED by our judiciary.
- The Reality: Sovereignty is valid, but it has limits — we cannot deny or disregard treaties and laws we ourselves signed and enacted long ago.
What is happening at the Senate today is not a victory, but only a delay of justice. In the end, the true winner or loser will not be the Senate or the ICC, but our system of law — and the right of victims to finally achieve justice.
