Arrest warrant vs. Sen. Bato must be served unless SC issues TRO — Cayosa

Added: 2026-05-12

[00:00:00]As Senator Bau de la Rosa stands to be arrested upon the order of the International Criminal Court, let's discuss the legalities of this with former Integrated Bar of the Philippines President Attorney Iggon Kaiosa. Good evening, Attorney. Welcome once again to the big story.

[00:00:17]Good evening.

[00:00:19]>> So, right now we know that Senator Dear Rosa is going to seek refuge in the Senate premises. Can this be done?

[00:00:32]>> No, you cannot uh shield yourself from a lawful arrest um with a validly issued warrant by a recognized uh court like the ICC. U because the penalty for the crime for which he is being arrested is more than six years. And under our constitution and under our revised penal code, a senator or a lawmaker enjoys immunity from arrest only while Congress or the Senate is in session and only if the pen impossible penalty for the crime for which he's being arrested is less than uh three three six month six years or less. So, dear Rosa.

[00:01:23]>> Well, for one, the Senate has issued a resolution allowing this. And secondly, um even if it is um a warrant issued by an international court and not a local court, does it still cover that exemption you cited?

[00:01:43]Yes, because uh even if it is a warrant issued by an international court, it is a duly recognized court. And even if the Republic of the Philippines during the presidency of uh former President Duterte withdrew from the Rome statute or from ICC, there's a clear provision in that treaty which the Philippines earlier signed and ratified that uh uh the pending cases or investigations or cases that uh have started prior to the withdrawal from the ICC shall will uh continue and ICC remains uh to has jurisdiction and the Republic of the Philippines has residual obligation to cooperate with the ICC. That's very clear.

[00:02:34]>> So, >> Senator B de la Rosa uh has always cited and uh his supporters as well that he should be tried in a local court.

[00:02:48]Well, of course, everybody would want to say that, but during their term in office while they were doing all of this to Khang, it was very clear that uh the Republic of the Philippines under the past administration and even the earlier parts of this administration was unwilling or unable to investigate and prosecute the perpetrators of this uh EJ case. And that's the reason why ICC assumed jurisdiction because of the complimentary uh complimentarity rule.

[00:03:24]>> So it was pretty obvious and had the Republic of the Philippines seriously investigate or persecute the perpetrators of the EJK at that time ICC wouldn't have assumed jurisdiction. Now that it has assumed jurisdiction everybody still claims uh Philippine courts. That's the whole essence of the ICC taking jurisdiction. We failed to respond to the cries for justice of the families of the EJK victims.

[00:03:54]>> I'd like to add that the Senate resolution has allowed this to allow the senator to be able to seek legal remedies. He has gone to the Supreme Court.

[00:04:05]Well, as a matter of fact, uh he has a pending petition with the Supreme Court and so far the Supreme Court has not issued any resolution or any TTRO in his favor. Mhm.

[00:04:16]>> So still presume that the act of uh of of government in enforcing the warrant of arrest is uh as an official act is uh valid and uh legitimate presumption of regularity also because we have a local law enacted by our congress and approved by the president uh so many years ago.

[00:04:39]the law of which penalizes crimes against humanity and it is very clear in that uh uh in that law RA 9851 section 17 that the Republic of the Philippines can directly surrender the accuse to ICC with and the law does not require that you know the executive branch or the republic of the Philippines has to seek clearance or a review by the local courts.

[00:05:04]>> Okay. But attorney, um, looking at the events of earlier this afternoon, uh, what do you make of how the NBI wanted to affect that arrest, uh, meaning Senator Trillianis appears to have been the one with a copy of the warrant while the NBI agents played uh, Habulano with uh, Senator Batau? Is the NBI the right agency to, you know, serve the warrant?

[00:05:28]And where does, uh, randomly, you know, former Senator Trillian fit in all of this?

[00:05:34]Well, number one, any law enforcement uh unit whether NBI uh PNP or any uh uh lawful authority can uh execute or serve a warrant. And of course, you know, if uh the subject of the warrant runs away or hides, you look for him and run after him. That's pretty simple. Uh and it's very also very clear if you look at the our own local law about crimes against humanity and the international treaty that defines crimes against humanity the penalty is 30 years or more.

[00:06:07]>> It's clearly way beyond the threshold provided for in our constitution and in the revised penalt for temporary immunity from arrest. Let me repeat that's a temporary uh immunity from arrest.

[00:06:22]>> Right. But um it was actually not served right. Um we don't know if the NBI agents giving chase to Senator Batau also had a copy, but we only saw the copy from former Senator Trillian who is uh as far as I know not with any agency of the government.

[00:06:39]>> Well, we don't know uh in what capacity is holding that, but he was with NBI agent. So, it's pretty obvious that he was with the team. And uh of course uh it is required that when you arrest somebody that's the time you show him the warrant of arrest. You don't really you know uh as a matter of uh practice and protocol for practical reasons any court will not publicize a warrant of arrest because otherwise you give the >> the subject of the warrant of arrest the chance to escape and hide.

[00:07:10]>> But but the fact now is that there is indeed an ICC warrant warrant of arrest.

[00:07:16]Uh, of course you can verify that the next few hours or days would show if there was a valid warrant of arrest. Uh, to based on existing laws, uh, the NBI or whoever is acting within the authority of law, law enforcement agencies of the of or a country were just doing their job.

[00:07:37]>> Uh, well, attorney, is the NBI required to inform the Senate beforehand um before they affect an arrest warrant?

[00:07:44]because that's one thing senators also pointed out earlier um that they didn't um inform the Senate president and by tradition they usually need to coordinate in advance.

[00:07:54]>> Well, tradition uh resolutions uh do not change the law. Of course, it would be nice uh to to seek permission and to coordinate uh but they don't have to. Especially so if uh the senators themselves will try to obstruct that. M >> so you don't uh the executive branch does not need permission to execute a law or to serve a validly issued warrant. It's only because of courtesy uh and uh better uh smoother coordination that they do that. But under the circumstances uh I couldn't blame the NBI for just doing their job and uh serve the warant. There's nothing in the rules. There's nothing in the international law. There's nothing in our local law that says you have to seek permission of the the uh Senate if you need to arrest or to serve a warrant.

[00:08:52]It's just for propriety's sake, but it doesn't make law.

[00:08:56]>> Now, going to another important occurrence at the Senate, the change in leadership. Can the Senate as a majority vote against uh the body convening as an impeachment trial court?

[00:09:11]I don't think so. The constitution is very clear. It is not optional. The word used there is shall. So it is mandatory whether they like it or not. They'll have to hear the impeachment case. So we hope and also the border is forth with a we don't need to clarify it. We don't even need the Supreme Court perhaps to >> well the Supreme Court said otherwise.

[00:09:38]Well, well, the supreme well, if you look at that case, they needed they didn't need to they did not need to define it there because they could have said we don't have uh authority over the Senate and we cannot command the Senate period. But unfortunately, the Ponente started uh using other words that is are not in the constitution. Had the framers of the constitution meant within a reasonable time, that's what they should have placed there. M >> and I to my mind even the Supreme Court cannot add or change the language of the constitution and it's very clear in statutory construction when a term has a very clear uh colloial meaning for aad that's even translated in official Tagalog version that's what it means you cannot change it into something else >> how would you interpret the words of Senate President Alan Peter Cayatano >> uh what word >> well he said um it's a constitution.

[00:10:38]It's in the con impeachment is provided for in the constitution. They cannot dismiss it outright, but they cannot also convict on uh if to to paraphrase him on flimsy charges or there are no real charges. So, so how would you interpret this statement?

[00:10:57]>> Well, I can agree with that. It's pretty obvious. Number one, it's a duty. So, it's not optional. they have to convene as an impeachment court. It will be great use of discretion if they refuse to do so. Secondly, anybody regardless of who you are in favor of you know you have to look at the evidence not not politics.

[00:11:18]>> But fi finally um it was he it was uh his brainchild the remanding of the complaint back to the house was suggested by senator Cayatano last year.

[00:11:33]>> Well >> that was his brainchild. So, uh, >> could he do something of the same sort?

[00:11:42]>> Well, I we'd like to give everyone the benefit of the doubt. would like to believe that our elected representatives, especially high government officials in in the Senate would do the right thing and be faithful and loyal to the letter, spirit and intent of the constitution, which is when it comes to impeachment, it should be quickly done, no delays and uh they have to base their decisions on evidence, their own oath and their own impeachment rule says they have to shed a lot of political affiliations.

[00:12:17]Hopefully, they will be faithful to that. It remains to be seen, but we want to give everyone a benefit of the doubt.

[00:12:24]Once again, we thank you for your insights.