Five senators reject Senate's protective custody for Senator Bato Dela Rosa

Five Philippine senators filed a resolution declaring that the Senate cannot provide “protective custody” or sanctuary to Senator Ronald Dela Rosa. The resolution urges him to submit to lawful judicial processes.

According to the Philippine News Agency, Senate Resolution No. 395 was filed by Senators Francis Pangilinan, Vicente Sotto III, Panfilo Lacson, Risa Hontiveros, and Paolo Benigno Aquino IV.

The resolution calls on Dela Rosa to “voluntarily surrender to the proper authorities and seek judicial remedies in accordance with the Constitution and applicable laws and rules.”

PNA said the resolution appears to counter earlier moves invoking Senate Resolution No. 44, cited as the basis for placing Dela Rosa under Senate “protective custody” while he pursues legal remedies related to International Criminal Court proceedings.

The five senators who filed SR 395 acknowledged that the Constitution grants limited parliamentary immunity to senators and members of the House of Representatives.

However, they said the Constitution “does not authorize the Senate to provide sanctuary, immunity from arrest or so-called ‘protective custody’ to any member beyond the constitutionally recognized parliamentary immunities expressly provided therein.”

The resolution clarifies that while the Constitution grants limited immunity to members of the Senate and the House of Representatives, it does not authorize the Senate to provide sanctuary, "protective custody," or immunity from arrest beyond what is expressly provided by law.

It also emphasizes that neither the Constitution nor Senate rules contain provisions allowing for "institutional refuge" or any exemption from lawful arrest and surrender processes.

The PNA said the five senators emphasized that adherence to lawful processes and voluntary submission to judicial authority “strengthen democratic institutions, reinforce constitutional accountability and uphold the principle that no public official is above the law.”

The resolution cited Republic Act 9851, also known as the Philippine Act on Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law, Genocide, and Other Crimes Against Humanity.

This act vests jurisdiction over such offenses in designated courts.

The resolution cited previous cases involving lawmakers and former officials who underwent judicial proceedings, including former Senator Juan Ponce Enrile, former Senator and current ML Party-list Representative Leila de Lima, and former Senator Antonio Trillanes IV.

The resolution affirmed the Senate’s commitment to the Constitution, the rule of law, and equal accountability for public officials, regardless of rank or position.

IF A LOCAL COURT ORDERS ICC SURRENDER

Meanwhile, on Wednesday (May 13), Lacson said the Senate protective custody being extended to Dela Rosa would no longer be legally justifiable once a Philippine court orders his surrender to the ICC. The Supreme Court, however, may still intervene to restrain or reverse the order.

“Senate protective custody: legal or not, it cannot be justified anymore when a domestic court issues an order to surrender Senator de la Rosa to the jurisdiction of the ICC, unless the Supreme Court restrains or reverses the order,” Lacson said in a post on X.

Lacson also reiterated that Dela Rosa still has legal remedies available and should exhaust all of them.

He recalled his own experience in the early 2010s when he went into hiding while facing arrest as a “fugitive from injustice,” saying he was then protected by the jurisprudence in Miranda v. Tuliao (G.R. No. 158763, March 31, 2006), which allowed “an accused to file certain motions — such as a motion to quash a warrant of arrest — even if he is not yet under custody of the law.”

According to Lacson, a more recent ruling by the Supreme Court has since limited those same rights previously available to him.

The senator also stressed the importance of recognizing the authority of Philippine courts in matters involving international warrants, including those issued by the ICC.

"International warrant yan, bound tayo ng treaty pero kailangang bigyan natin ng pagpapahalaga ang domestic court. So may international warrant, kailangan dalhin muna natin sa local court na siyang mag-i-issue kung ano ang authorization or subsequent warrant of arrest para ipatupad ang arrest warrant na in-issue ng ICC (In the case of an international warrant, we are bound by a treaty but we still must respect our domestic courts. So in the case of the ICC, it must be brought to a local court that will issue an appropriate authorization or warrant allowing the enforcement of the ICC warrant)," he said in an interview on DZBB radio.

-Paraluman News