ICC arrest order vs Dela Rosa no different from Duterte’s — lawyer

MANILA, Philippines — The arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC) against Sen. Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa “should not be any different” from that served on former President Rodrigo Duterte, ICC-listed lawyer Gilbert Andres told the Inquirer on Sunday.

“Or else, this is just a special privilege accorded to Senator Bato. This is against the constitutional framework. We have a government of rules and not of men,” explained Andres, one of the common legal representatives for the victims (CLRVs) before the ICC.

Andres also said that in the absence of a temporary restraining order (TRO), which Dela Rosa failed to secure on his third day under the Senate’s “protective custody”, “nothing [should] stop” Philippine authorities from complying with the ICC request to serve the warrant.

“It’s not for the Senate to implement the law; they just pass the laws, and it’s not for any law enforcement agencies to interpret the law; they merely implement the law,” he added.

This is in contrast to the position of Justice Secretary Fredrick Vida, who said the Department of Justice (DOJ) would wait for the pending petition filed by Dela Rosa and Duterte before the Supreme Court before directing another attempt to arrest the senator.

READ: DOJ: Dela Rosa faces arrest if he tries to leave PH

Vida said that he had instructed immigration authorities to hold Dela Rosa at the borders once he attempts to flee the country. He explained that the directive to limit the triggers for arrest was out of respect for the High Tribunal as the “final arbiter” of legal issues.

But for Andres, there is no legal impediment preventing the DOJ or the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) from enforcing the warrant.

“Any first-year law student will know that if there’s no TRO from the Supreme Court, no injunctive relief from the Supreme Court, the Executive can, under the Constitution, implement the laws, such as Republic Act No. 9851,” stressed Andres when sought for a comment on the DOJ’s stance. 

Under Section 17 of Republic Act No. 9851, or the Philippine Act on Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law, Genocide, and Other Crimes Against Humanity, law enforcement officers may implement the warrant on Dela Rosa since he is not a subject of a parallel investigation by local prosecutors or of an ongoing case in domestic courts.

The same law and provision have been cited by other legal experts in urging the Philippine government to enforce the ICC arrest warrant, which accuses Dela Rosa of crimes against humanity of murder for at least 32 killings under the bloody drug war he implemented as national police chief.

In fact, Andres said there is already a “state practice by the Philippines with respect to an ICC arrest warrant,” as Duterte was apprehended by law enforcement agents in accordance with RA 9851.

Vida, in his press briefing on Friday, said the International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol) was not involved in the earlier attempts to arrest Dela Rosa. This, he said, made a key difference in implementing the ICC warrant.

The Inquirer asked ICC spokesperson Oriane Maillet whether the ICC had already sought the assistance of Interpol.

“ICC arrest requests may be transmitted through Interpol, but it is for national authorities to implement them. No further comments beyond that,” she said.

READ: SolGen to SC: Reject ‘fugitive’ dela Rosa’s bid to block ICC warrant

Dela Rosa renewed his petition for a TRO on Thursday, a day after the Supreme Court denied his initial urgent request for a TRO in light of his arrest.

The latest manifestation, however, was filed when he made a predawn exit from the Senate, just hours after gunshots were fired inside by armed members of the Office of the Sergeant-at-Arms.

The lawmaker’s absence now could actually weaken his request for a legal remedy, said lawyer Romulo Macalintal.

“Since the motion for a TRO was anchored on the imminent threat of arrest within the Senate, his sudden ‘escape’ from the chamber creates a ‘supervening event’ that may render said motion moot and academic,” Macalintal explained.

“By leaving the Senate without informing the chamber, that specific threat—being arrested within the hallowed halls of the legislature—has been superseded,” he added.

Meanwhile, senators who may have had a role in allowing Dela Rosa to leave the Senate may be charged with obstruction of justice under Presidential Decree 1829, according to lawyer Dino de Leon. 

“You cannot invoke protective custody and then suddenly say you are not responsible when the person under your custody escapes. If they insist that Senator dela Rosa was under Senate protection or custody, then they must also answer for his escape,” De Leon earlier said.

PD 1829 states that 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.”

“Accountability follows custody,” De Leon said. /mcm