 flagged the repeated erroneous opinion of Senate President Alan Peter){kind=link}
A FORMER PRESIDENT of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) flagged the repeated erroneous opinion of Senate President Alan Peter Cayetano and his peers, that the arrest of Sen. Ronald “Bato” Dela Rosa can only be executed through a local court ruling.
Calling such a view as “parochial, misleading and divisive propaganda,” Atty. Domingo Cayosa said in an interview with One News that since Dela Rosa was identified as a co-perpetrator of the former president in the charge of crimes against humanity, then it is safe to assume that the warrant for dela Rosa is for crimes against humanity, “which has been adopted by so many countries, including our republic.”
According to Cayosa, even the Supreme Court jurisprudence recognizes the International Criminal Court and its decision to issue an arrest warrant for a crime (against humanity) committed at the time before the country (through detained President Rodrigo Roa Duterte) decided to exit from ICC.
Those clamoring for a local court to handle the case of crime against humanity are just appealing to nationalistic sentiment and misleading our people as they could not even cite any jurisprudence to defend their point.
He said since the warrant had been confirmed by the ICC spokesperson and it had been documented by the ICC (as far back as November 2025), it is the duty of the executive to implement the arrest and surrender the person identified in the warrant to the international tribunal.
The President’s order not to arrest dela Rosa is just an accommodation to the senators so as to de-escalate the tension any further. But the shooting apparently “gawa gawa lang” even escalated the error to a point where people are now critical of Cayetano and those in his bloc.
“Siguro the president only wanted to ease the situation but there is nothing in the law that prevents the executive from implementing that warrant,” he added.
Their argument that a local case of crimes against humanity to try and decide on it is “stupid” because there is a live case in the ICC. What is important – whether local or international tribunal – is that those accused are given the chance to defend themselves from such charges.
“Kung minsan nga mas maayos pa ang processes nila dun kesa sa mga notoriously slow and corrupt processes natin dito sa Pilipinas,” he argued.
The President’s order to NBI and other law enforcers was “umalis kayo dyan,” it is very temporary to defuse the tension from becoming more violent. But he did not say na he would not have Bato arrested at all.
If the president would stop any arrest, then he himself is liable under the law. “He has to explain before the people kasi hindi ito away na Filipino versus dayuhan but Filipino versus Filipino. Kaya lang nasa ICC because the government during the Duterte administration and the early part of Marcos administration– proved that it was unwilling and unable to investigate, prosecute and hold accountable those responsible for such EJKs(extra judicial killings),” Cayosa stressed.
“So even the president should he refuse to serve a validly-issued warrant of a court with such jurisdiction is liable and answerable (for obstruction of justice) kasi nga trabaho yan ng executive eh,” said Cayosa, adding that the president can and should change his mind after being fooled by the senators of keeping dela Rosa in protective custody while orchestrating his escape after the shooting incident and planned/participated in his escape.
They too must be held liable and accountable for obstruction of justice.
Dela Rosa’s escape–with the full cooperation of his peers who wittingly allowed him to escape and hide again thus betraying the service of that warrant, could have legal, political and moral liability to the people, Cayosa explained.
Obstruction of justice carries a penalty of perpetual disqualification, which the justice department might be considering now if it is serious about rule of law.
“Kawawa ang ating republika if government officials in high positions give undue exceptions to themselves– which is morally and legally repugnant– dahil wala na sa batas yan, pinagpipilitan nila sa sarili nila yan.”
He emphasized that there is no legal basis for the Senate to provide protective custody to a person charged before a court — local or otherwise.