Granting Bato’s Immunity Wish Is A Bad Precedent

A SENIOR magistrate dismissed the possibility of granting Senator “Bato” Dela Rosa’s plea seeking “temporary immunity from arrest” in the guise of an “interim relief.”

According to Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, such an idea may set dangerous precedents, which could be used in evading criminal liability.

In a separate concurring opinion, Leonen stood firm on the Supreme Court’s decision to deny Dela Rosa’s bid for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and a status quo ante order (SQAO).

Dela Rosa is facing an arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court (ICC) in relation to the crimes against humanity filed by families of slain drug suspects during the senator’s stint as national police chief under the Duterte administration.

The fugitive senator earlier asked the Supreme Court to stop the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) and other law enforcement agencies from implementing an arrest warrant from a “foreign court.”

According to Leonen, preventing law enforcers from doing their job translates to immunity from arrest.

“This incident, occasioned by petitioner’s manifestations and motions, is principally a prayer to this Court to halt law enforcement through a temporary restraining order, a writ of preliminary injunction, or a status quo ante order. In effect, it seeks temporary immunity from arrest,” Leonen said.

As a general rule, Philippine courts do not issue injunctions to restrain criminal prosecutions or arrests before the warrant is served, adding that the legality of state action is tested after it has been invoked.

“Whether the contested warrant and its attempted enforcement are regular is precisely what a future proceeding must determine,” Leonen explained.

While Leonen acknowledged that the rights to liberty and security are firmly established in the “constitutional order,” he maintained that Dela Rosa failed to show a material and substantial invasion of these rights.

The magistrate further said that a plain, speedy and adequate remedy already exists in the form of a petition for habeas corpus, which is appropriate for testing the legality of restraint — but only after the person is actually detained.

Leonen however assured that Dela Rosa will be accorded with judicial remedies such as the writ of habeas corpus if he is arrested.

Leonen was among the nine Supreme Court justices who voted to deny Dela Rosa’s plea for interim relief concerning the government’s cooperation with the ICC.