Bersamin: No ICC warrant for Bato, but PH authorities will act if there is one
However, should the ICC issue an arrest warrant for the senator through Interpol, Philippine authorities may arrest him, he said.
'Wala (There is none),' Bersamin told reporters who covered the departure of President Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos Jr. for the US at Villamor Air Base in Pasay City.
'If there should be a warrant, we'll probably do the same thing that we did in the case of the former president [Rodrigo Duterte], if the warrant is coursed through the Interpol because we continue to be a member of the Interpol," Bersamin said.
'We are not going to do things differently unless the Supreme Court in those pending cases makes a different announcement about how we should proceed,' he added.
This move, Bersamin said, is non-discriminatory since it is in accordance with the law.
'Nothing discriminatory that we will ever undertake. We're always clear about that, hindi kami (we're not) politically motivated. All those attributions to us were unfair,' Bersamin said.
GMA News Online contacted the office of dela Rosa to get his comment on the matter but has yet to receive a reply as of posting time.
The Philippine Act on Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law, Genocide, and Other Crimes Against Humanity stated that Philippine authorities may dispense with the investigation or prosecution if another court or international tribunal is already conducting the investigation.
'Instead, the authorities may surrender or extradite suspected or accused persons in the Philippines to the appropriate international court, if any, or to another State pursuant to the applicable extradition laws and treaties,' the measure read.
Dela Rosa, a staunch ally of the Duterte family, served as police chief during former president Rodrigo Duterte's administration.
Duterte was arrested in the Philippines by local authorities on March 11 based on a warrant issued by the ICC through Interpol.
He is currently detained in the Scheveningen Prison in The Hague for crimes against humanity charges in connection with the killings under his war on drugs when he was mayor of Davao City and when he was president of the Philippines.
In March, Dela Rosa was named among the co-perpetrators of Duterte in the war on drugs, as shown in the application of warrant of arrest posted on the ICC website.
He was identified as the architect of "Oplan Tokhang," which was first implemented in Davao City when he was then the local police chief.
According to police records, drug war deaths totaled about 6,000 Human rights groups however claimed that the death toll was 30,000, including vigilante killings. —KG, GMA Integrated News
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
GMA Network
3 hours ago
- GMA Network
Harry Roque denies interfering in Duterte's ICC case
Former presidential spokesperson Harry Roque has denied allegations that he interfered in former President Rodrigo Duterte's crimes against humanity case before the International Criminal Court (ICC). Roque, however, admitted that he offered an 'additional legal remedy' outside the ICC that was subject to the approval of the Duterte family. 'I cannot be blamed for devising remedies to bring former President Duterte home alive. No such idea can be characterized as a crazy scheme,' Roque said in a statement. 'In fact, the Vice President acknowledged that we have discussed the domestic legal remedy on numerous occasions and I have deferred to VP's decision to hold the domestic legal remedy in abeyance pending the outcome of the interim release,' he added. This came after Duterte's legal counsel, Atty. Nicholas Kaufman, said he was informed that Roque approached a Dutch lawyer with an initiative to sue the Dutch government for Duterte's rendition, based on an interview posted on Alvin and Tourism Facebook Page. Kaufman dubbed the scheme as 'crazy." 'With this plan, he could very well have jeopardized the Defence's efforts to release the former President. I have made it known that I would find it hard to forgive him for that and I refuse to entertain his ramblings,' Kaufman was quoted as saying in a post. Duterte is under custody of the ICC to face charges over his administration's drug war. He said that Roque has been portraying himself as the only person capable of defending the former president. He added that Duterte has made it known that Roque should supposedly stop in the case and return to the Philippines. Roque, for his part, said he is a 'loyal foot soldier of the Dutertes' that wished to see Duterte return to the country. 'Ad hominem attacks and other forms of character assassination have no place in the legal profession and in any decent society, especially if these are directed against individuals who have not – as I said earlier – interfered in the case,' he said. 'I thus call on Atty. Nicholas Kaufman to put an end to this blame game and simply channel his time and energy to bring the former President home alive to make the Filipinos the happiest persons on earth,' he added. Roque is facing charges for qualified human trafficking in connection to the Lucky South 99 POGO firm before the Angeles, Pampanga Regional Trial Court (RTC). —AOL, GMA Integrated News
GMA Network
3 hours ago
- GMA Network
PhilConsa calls on SC to revisit ruling on Sara Duterte impeachment
'A blueprint for evasion.' This was how the Philippine Constitution Association (PhilConsa) described the Supreme Court ruling that barred the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte as it called on the High Court to revisit its decision and for the Senate impeachment court to proceed with the trial. 'This ruling invites dangerous abuse. It opens the door for impeachable officials—or their allies—to deliberately file weak or premature complaints to 'consume' the one-year window and block any real effort at accountability,' it said in a statement. 'This is not a safeguard against harassment—it is a blueprint for evasion,' it added. PhilConsa is chaired by retired Chief Justice Reynato Puno. To recall, three impeachment complaints were filed against Duterte in December 2024, all of which were connected with the alleged misuse of confidential funds. It was the fourth impeachment complaint that was endorsed by over one-third of lawmakers from the House of Representatives, and was later transmitted to the Senate as the Articles of Impeachment. In its ruling, the SC declared that the Articles of Impeachment against Duterte are barred by the one-year rule under Article XI, Section 3(5) of the Constitution. The SC ruled that the one-year ban is reckoned from the time an impeachment complaint is dismissed or is no longer viable. It ruled that the first three complaints were deemed terminated or dismissed when the House endorsed the fourth complaint. According to PhilConsa, the ruling overreached constitutional boundaries, disrupted the separation of powers, and weakened Congress' exclusive authority to hold impeachable officers accountable. It stressed that that the SC previously held that impeachment is only deemed initiated after the complaint is found sufficient in form and substance and referred to the Committee on Justice. 'The earlier complaints never reached that stage. To treat them as having 'initiated' proceedings defies both logic and constitutional intent,' PhilConsa said. Aside from this, PhilConsa argued that the doctrine of operative fact should have applied. It said the principle recognizes the legal effects of acts done in good faith under a law or process that was later declared unconstitutional. PhilConsa said that the Senate has already convened as an impeachment court and that Duterte has filed her formal answer after being served summons. 'All these were done in good faith, based on long-standing jurisprudence and the clear text of the Constitution,' it said. 'To declare all those acts null and void—after the process had matured to the point of trial—is not only legally harsh, it is institutionally destabilizing. The doctrine exists precisely to prevent this outcome,' it added. It said that invoking the doctrine does not violate due process as Duterte was given the opportunity to defend herself. Meanwhile, PhilConsa said the SC should have acted with judicial restraint. 'This ruling, though perhaps well-intentioned, is a clear instance of judicial activism. It turns the Judiciary from a neutral guardian of the Constitution into an arbiter of congressional timing and internal processes—matters the Constitution never assigned to the courts,' it said. 'Judicial activism, if unchecked, becomes judicial supremacy. And that supremacy can, over time, paralyze the political departments that the people themselves empowered,' it added. —AOL, GMA Integrated News
GMA Network
a day ago
- GMA Network
Carpio: SC may still reverse decision on Sara Duterte's impeachment
Retired Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio said Wednesday that there is still a possibility that the high court will reverse its decision declaring the articles of impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte as unconstitutional. Carpio said this, hinging on the plan of the House of Representatives to file a motion for reconsideration on the SC decision as the lower chamber argued that the ruling was based on incorrect findings that contradict official records. 'Theoretically, pwede [it's possible]. I mean, there's no rule or law, constitutional provision that say that they [cannot] correct themselves,' Carpio said at the Kapihan sa Manila Bay forum when asked of the possibility of the decision getting reversed even as the SC justices voted unanimously on it. According to the former SC associate justice, there had been many instances in the past when the high court 'completely reversed itself.' Meanwhile, Christian Monsod, one of the framers of the 1987 Constitution, said that the SC may 'correct itself on some parts' of their decision. 'It's not yet final, it's only executory but not yet final because the House still has motion for reconsideration. So I would think that the Senate should hold in abeyance any action because it's not yet final,' Carpio explained. 'Normally, you act when it's already final. Because it's not yet final, there's still a chance it could be reversed or changed because there's a motion for reconsideration,' he added. Carpio, however, emphasized that if the decision becomes final, the ruling must be followed because the Supreme Court is the final arbiter 'whether it's correct or not.' Voting 13-0, the Supreme Court earlier declared the articles of impeachment against Duterte as unconstitutional, saying that it was barred by the one-year rule under Article XI Section 3 paragraph 5 of the Constitution. The high court also found that the articles violated Duterte's right to due process. The SC decision is immediately executory but a motion for reconsideration may be filed. The high court also emphasized that it is not absolving Duterte from any of the charges against her, but any subsequent impeachment complaint may only be filed starting February 6, 2026. House of Representatives spokesperson Princess Abante said the lower chamber is preparing to file a motion for reconsideration of the SC decision, noting that upon studying, the House found that the bases for it were alarming. 'Ang Kamara, matapos ang masusing pag-aaral, ay maghahain ng motion for reconsideration dahil ang desisyon na nagsasabing ang Articles of Impeachment na ipinadala sa Senado ay barred or unconstitutional ay nakaangkla sa mga factual premises o findings na mali at salungat sa opisyal na record ng Kamara,' Abante said. (The House, after thorough study, will file a motion for reconsideration because the decision declaring that the Articles of Impeachment transmitted to the Senate are barred or unconstitutional is based on factual premises or findings that are incorrect and contrary to the official records of the House.) Meanwhile, Senate President Francis 'Chiz' Escudero announced Tuesday that the Senate will discuss the SC decision on August 6, 2025, 'in order to afford ample and sufficient time to the members to study the 97-page Supreme Court decision, excluding the concurring and separate opinions filed by five or six additional magistrates of the Supreme Court.'—AOL, GMA Integrated News
