A Cagay-anon and former National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) commissioner and law professor, Proculo Sarmen, maintained that accountability must not override constitutional safeguards as debates continue over the International Criminal Court (ICC) warrant issue involving Sen. Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa.
Sarmen issued the statement after opposition coalition criticized the Senate leadership’s decision to place dela Rosa under “protective custody,” calling it a possible case of obstruction of justice not covered by parliamentary immunity.
In a statement posted Wednesday, the coalition described the Senate’s move as “a dangerous abuse of institutional power” that may violate Presidential Decree No. 1829, the law penalizing obstruction of apprehension and prosecution of offenders.
“The rule of law applies to everyone equally. Political standing does not exempt anyone from arrest. Powerful figures must face lawful orders like all citizens,” the coalition said.
You may also like: DENR Summons XU, Developer in Manresa Probe
“When they do not, a damaging message is sent. Some people, it seems, are above the law,” it added.
The group also pointed to dela Rosa’s previous role as chief of the Philippine National Police during former President ’s anti-drug campaign.
“Thousands died under his watch as PNP chief. He later became a senator, gaining institutional protection. That protection has now been grotesquely abused,” the coalition said.
But Sarmen argued that allegations of obstruction remain “legally premature” because there is no conclusive proof that the Senate deliberately intended to impede law enforcement.
He explained that the controversy involves unresolved legal questions surrounding the enforceability of an ICC-issued warrant within Philippine jurisdiction following the country’s withdrawal from the Rome Statute in 2019.
“The situation reflects not a simple case of obstruction, but a complex legal conflict involving international jurisdiction, domestic enforceability, accountability, and constitutional safeguards,” Sarmen said.
According to Sarmen, the Philippines follows a dualist system in international law, meaning international obligations must first be implemented through domestic legislation before they can be enforced locally.
He noted that while the ICC may retain jurisdiction over acts committed before the country’s withdrawal, there remains no clear domestic mechanism automatically authorizing the enforcement of ICC arrest warrants in the Philippines.
“Under the Constitution, arrests must generally be based on warrants issued by Philippine courts or otherwise recognized under Philippine procedural law,” he said.
Meanwhile, president of the Federation of Free Workers (FFW) Atty. Sonny Matula , presented a different constitutional perspective, saying debates over the ICC warrant stem from differing interpretations of the Constitution.
Matula explained that one school of thought follows a literal or originalist reading, insisting that only warrants issued by Philippine judges are valid locally.
Another camp, however, adopts a “living Constitution” or purposive approach, arguing that the Constitution’s main intent is to protect individuals from arbitrary arrests regardless of the nationality of the judge issuing the warrant.
“Hindi immigration issue ang Bill of Rights; liberty issue ito,” Matula said in his “Weekend Consti Talk” discussion.
He pointed out that Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution only states that no warrant shall issue except upon probable cause personally determined by “the judge,” without specifically stating “Philippine judge.”
Matula added that some constitutional scholars believe an ICC judge may satisfy constitutional standards if the warrant came from an independent judicial authority that personally examined evidence under recognized international jurisdiction.
He also cited Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, which adopts generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land, as well as Republic Act No. 9851 concerning crimes against humanity.
“For some legal scholars, the ICC warrant is not a ‘legal tourist’ but part of a judicial process anchored on international law also recognized under Philippine law,” Matula said.
Despite the differing legal interpretations, Sarmen stressed that constitutional protections, including due process and protection against arbitrary arrest, continue to apply even in cases involving serious international allegations.
“A person within Philippine jurisdiction is still entitled to verification of the legality of the arrest order and access to Philippine courts to question its validity,” he added.
He also defended the Senate’s authority to maintain order within its premises and to place its members under temporary protective custody while legal issues are being clarified.
“The Senate did not nullify the warrant nor permanently prevent its enforcement. It merely intervened pending clarification of unresolved legal questions,” Sarmen said.
The former labor commissioner likewise argued that comparisons with the arrests of former senator Antonio Trillanes IV and former senator are not fully analogous because those cases involved warrants issued by Philippine courts, unlike the present ICC-related controversy.
Sarmen further said the Executive branch must balance international commitments, national sovereignty, and constitutional safeguards amid the absence of clear statutory guidance on ICC warrant enforcement.
While acknowledging calls for accountability and justice for alleged victims, Sarmen warned that bypassing legal procedures could weaken the rule of law itself.
“Accountability must never override due process—true justice is achieved not by haste or politics, but by faithfully upholding both the rule of law and constitutional safeguards,” he said.
