THE legal team of former President Rodrigo R. Duterte has denounced what it called the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) plan to adopt a “shortcut” to enforce possible arrest warrants issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC), describing it as a grave constitutional breach and an affront to national sovereignty.
In a statement released Nov. 12, 2025, lawyer Salvador Paolo A. Panelo Jr., counsel for Duterte’s daughter Veronica in the habeas corpus petitions filed for the former president, criticized what he said was the DOJ’s proposed “quicker surrender option.”
“There is no such animal as an ‘option’ to ‘surrender’ Filipinos to the ICC without prior authority from a Philippine court,” Panelo said.
The remark came amid renewed speculation about a potential ICC arrest warrant against Sen. Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa, one of the key figures in Duterte’s anti-drug campaign now under international investigation.
Constitutional concerns
Panelo said the DOJ’s idea of an “executive mode” of surrender violates the Constitution, which guarantees judicial oversight in arrests and detentions. Citing Article III, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution, he emphasized that only a Philippine judge can issue a valid arrest warrant after finding probable cause.
“The DOJ has no authority to bypass the judiciary and choose the so-called ‘executive mode’ of surrender to detain and deliver any person subject to an ICC warrant of arrest,” he said. He also noted that Republic Act 9851, which governs war crimes and crimes against humanity, must be read alongside constitutional provisions requiring court approval before anyone can be turned over to a foreign tribunal.
Questioning ICC jurisdiction
Panelo added that ICC warrants or rulings cannot take effect in the Philippines without local court confirmation, citing Rule 39, Section 48 of the Rules of Court. He pointed out that even under the Rome Statute, an arrested person must first be brought before a judicial authority in the country of custody to verify the legality of the arrest.
He further argued that since the Philippines withdrew from the Rome Statute on March 17, 2019, the government no longer has any authority to surrender individuals to the ICC. “Whatever ‘option’ may have been available expired upon our withdrawal,” he said.
SC motion and sovereignty issue
The Duterte camp said it will file an urgent motion before the Supreme Court seeking an immediate ruling on the consolidated habeas corpus petitions.
Panelo said the move aims to “provide the necessary judicial guidance to put a stop to this administration’s shameless constitutional violations for the sake of political gain,” and secure Duterte’s “long overdue repatriation.”
He accused the DOJ of “flouting constitutional protections” and “undermining national sovereignty.”
ICC focus shifts to Duterte’s health
While the legal debate unfolds in Manila, the ICC’s Pre-Trial Chamber has turned its attention to Duterte’s health. In September 2025, the court appointed neurologists, psychiatrists, and neuropsychologists to assess whether the former president is fit to stand trial.
His legal team has challenged two of the experts, questioning their impartiality. Victims’ representatives, meanwhile, supported the inclusion of independent specialists to ensure fairness.
Court filings show Duterte’s lawyers have cited cognitive decline affecting his memory and reasoning as grounds to defer the proceedings. However, the ICC clarified that if found unfit, the case would only be suspended—not dismissed—as the crimes against humanity probe continues.
Clash over law and sovereignty
The dispute between the DOJ and Duterte’s camp underscores a deeper tension over how far the Philippines should go in cooperating with international justice. For Duterte’s lawyers, surrendering citizens to a foreign court without judicial review is unconstitutional. For the DOJ, honoring such cooperation may reflect the country’s commitment to global accountability. DEF