The Supreme Court en banc voted 9-5-1 on May 20 to deny Senator Ronald “Bato” Dela Rosa’s petition for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and status quo ante order (SQAO) against possible arrest under an International Criminal Court (ICC) warrant. Five justices dissented, arguing that the Court should have granted the interim relief.
Dissenting Justices
Associate Justices Ramon Paul Hernando, Amy Lazaro-Javier, Henri Jean Paul Inting, Ricardo Rosario, and Antonio Kho Jr. each filed separate dissenting opinions.
Justice Hernando's Argument
Justice Hernando asserted that no domestic judicial process allows Dela Rosa’s arrest or surrender to the ICC. He argued the ICC lacks jurisdiction because its investigation began after the Philippines withdrew from the Rome Statute. He warned there is “zero guarantee” that Dela Rosa would not be immediately transferred to The Hague upon arrest, causing irreparable harm.
Justice Lazaro-Javier's Position
Justice Lazaro-Javier emphasized that the request for injunctive relief should be based on legal merit, not personality or politics. She noted the potential harm to Dela Rosa is clear and irreparable if the petition is denied.
Justice Inting's View
Justice Inting stressed that a status quo ante order is necessary to prevent the case from becoming moot if the ICC warrant is executed.
Justice Rosario's Concerns
Justice Rosario called the arrest of an elected Philippine official under an ICC warrant “questionable on constitutional, statutory, and jurisdictional grounds.” He warned that without a TRO, national sovereignty and judicial power could be jeopardized.
Justice Kho's Analysis
In his 23-page dissent, Justice Kho argued that Dela Rosa met all requirements for a TRO and SQAO. He noted that once arrested and surrendered to the ICC, the senator would find it difficult to return even if the Court later rules in his favor.
Despite the dissents, the en banc decision denying Dela Rosa’s request for interim protection remains effective.
