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
an hour ago
- GMA Network
ICC grants Duterte camp request, defers deciding on interim release
"The Majority emphasises that the present decision shall not be construed as prejudging any matter to be determined in the context of the proceedings related to the interim release request, including in its eventual decision thereon," the ICC ruling said. The International Criminal Court has granted the request of the camp of former President Rodrigo Duterte to suspend the tribunal's decision on his request for interim release until his defense lawyers have collated all the needed supporting information. In a majority decision, the Pre-Trial Chamber 1 deferred the issuance of a decision on the interim release request until further action is undertaken by the Defence on the matter, or until the Chamber deems it appropriate. According to the decision, Judge María del Socorro Flores Liera dissented against the ruling concurred in by presiding Judge Iulia Antoanella Motoc and Judge Reine Adélaïde Sophie Alapini-Gansou. The tribunal said that "interim release proceedings pursuant to article 60(2) of the Rome Statute may exclusively be triggered by the 'person subject to a warrant of arrest,' who preserves the right to submit a request for interim release, or not, at any point in time 'pending trial'." "Accordingly, and to ensure that a decision on the Interim Release Request is appropriately informed, the Majority considers it appropriate, in the circumstances, to defer the issuance of its decision on the interim release request until further action is undertaken by the defense on the matter, or until when the Chamber will deem it appropriate," the decision read. "The Majority emphasises that the present decision shall not be construed as prejudging any matter to be determined in the context of the proceedings related to the interim release request, including in its eventual decision thereon," it added. According to a redacted public copy of the defense's request before the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I, signed by Duterte's counsel, Atty. Nicholas Kaufman, filed on 14 July 2025 and made public on 18 July, the defense said the Pre-Trial Chamber should not make its first determination on interim release until certain materials, whose contents, according to them, were withheld in the public version, are made available to both the defense and the Chamber. 'At the time Mr Duterte's request for interim release was submitted on 12 June 2025, the Defence had been, for some time, seeking to obtain [REDACTED]… The Defence's attempts to obtain [REDACTED] over the course of two months have, for the most part, been slow-walked and stymied,' the filing read. The Duterte camp in June asked the ICC that he be released to a country, the name of which has been redacted from the copy of the urgent request for interim release posted on the ICC's website. According to the 16-page request, the undisclosed country has agreed to take in the former leader, who is facing charges of crimes against humanity 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. "Mr. Duterte does not meet any of the conditions to warrant further pre-trial detention as provided in Article 58(1)(b). He does not pose an objective risk of flight, nor is his arrest necessary to ensure the integrity of the investigations or to preclude the continued commission of crimes. He must, as a result, be immediately released from ICC custody," Kaufman said in his request for Duterte's interim release. –Celine Serquña, Jay-Vee Pangan, Andy Peñafuerte/NB, GMA Integrated News
GMA Network
9 hours ago
- GMA Network
Palace hits VP Sara: You don't know the law on rainwater collection
Palace Press Officer Undersecretary Atty. Claire Castro on Wednesday hit back at Vice President Sara Duterte for saying that floodwaters should be delivered to Malacañang for President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. to drink. At a press briefing, Castro pointed out that it seemed the Vice President does not know the law regarding rainwater collection, adding that Duterte mocked the President's suggestion. ''Unang-una po, kinutya niya ang suhestiyon na ito ng Pangulo na ipunin ang tubig-ulan. Marahil ay hindi po niya batid ang batas na ito, hindi po ito bago kaya nakapagtataka po na mayroon tayo na Bise Presidente pero hindi po niya alam ang batas patungkol po dito sa rainwater collectors – mayroon na po itong batas, Republic Act Number 6716, ito pa po ay noong March 17, 1989 – An Act Providing for the Construction of Water Wells, Rainwater Collectors, Development of Springs and Rehabilitation of Existing Water Wells in All Barangays in the Philippines,'' Castro said. (First of all, he mocked the suggestion of the President to collect rainwater. Maybe she doesn't know the law. It's surprising that she doesn't know, we have a law regarding rainwater collectors. This is Republic Act Number 6716 or An Act Providing for the Construction of Water Wells, Rainwater Collectors, Development of Springs and Rehabilitation of Existing Water Wells in All Barangays in the Philippines.) ''So, nakakapagtaka po talaga na wala po yatang kalam-alam ang Bise Presidente patungkol po sa rainwater collection system at ang pinapalabas lamang niya ay pag-iipon ng tubig sa timba,'' she added. (It's surprising that the Vice President doesn't know anything about the rainwater collection system and she just knows how to collect water using buckets.) To recall, during Marcos' visit to the Department of Social Welfare And Development (DSWD)-National Resource Operations Center last July 18, the President tried drinking water from the agency's family water filtration kit—which could be used in areas with limited access to clean water in times of disasters. ''Yung tinesting namin, 'yun 'yung balde na mayroong filter na kahit anong klaseng tubig, 'wag lang maalat, pero kahit na iba, basta fresh water, kahit hindi masyadong malinis, pwedeng ilagay sa balde, pwedeng inumin. Idadaan lang doon sa filter na 'yun,' Marcos said. (We tested the basin that has a filter. Any kind of water—fresh water not salt water—even if it's not clean, you can put it in the basin and you can drink it. It just has to go through the filter.) In an interview at The Hague on Monday, Vice President Duterte was asked about the suggestion of Marcos to store floodwater and reuse it. She then said floodwater should be collected and delivered to the Palace so the Chief Executive can drink it. 'Ipunin po natin lahat tapos i-deliver po natin sa Malacañang para po may mainom siya,' she said. (Let's collect it and deliver it to Malacañang so that he can drink it.) 'Ganoon na po ang gagawin natin—ipunin natin lahat tapos i-deliver po natin sa Malacañang para meron silang mainom doon,' she added. (That's what we'll do—we'll collect floodwater and then deliver it to Malacañang so that they have something to drink.) Meanwhile, Castro also slammed the Vice President for criticizing the government's response on floods, saying that Duterte is not in the country to know the measures of the administration in addressing the issue. ''Unang-una po ay hindi naman po talaga malalaman marahil ni Bise Presidente kung ano po ang pagpi-prepare ng administrasyon patungkol po dito sa Bagyong Crising dahil wala po siya sa bansa at nagbabakasyon siya sa The Hague. Dahil ang mga pagpupulong na ito na kasama po, bago po umalis ang Pangulong Marcos papuntang US, hindi po rin niya ito malamang nakita at nabalitaan,'' Castro said. (First of all, she wouldn't know the preparations of the administration on Crising because she is not here and she's on vacation at The Hague. She didn't hear or lean about the meetings before President Marcos left for the US.) ''At muli, wala po ang kaniyang presensiya sa Pilipinas para husgahan kung anuman ang naging trabaho ng Pangulo at ng administrasyon at ng mga concerned agencies patungkol po dito sa Bagyong Crising,'' she added. (Her presence is not here to judge whatever work the President and the administration did as regards Tropical Cyclone Crising.) — RSJ, GMA Integrated News
GMA Network
11 hours ago
- GMA Network
House to SC: Queries on impeach rap vs VP Sara best settled before Senate court
Questions on the validity and other matters about the impeachment complaint filed against Vice President Sara Duterte are best settled first before the Senate impeachment court, the House of Representatives prosecution panel said Wednesday. The House made this assertion in its answer to the Supreme Court (SC) which required the Lower Chamber to give details about the impeachment complaint it filed against Duterte and transmitted to the Senate. The same SC order also asked the House how it resolved the three prior impeachment complaints which were archived by the House after the fourth impeachment complaint was signed by over 215 House members, a figure that is way over the constitutionally-required one-third of the House members for the Senate to immediately start the impeachment trial. 'The clarifications sought by this Honorable Court through the above inquiries emphasize one thing: that the issues in this case involve questions which necessitate that this Honorable Court act as a trier of facts. Respectfully, this cannot be done, especially as the Constitution vests jurisdiction of the impeachment trial with the Senate,' the House prosecution panel said. Likewise, the House prosecutors cited that the Senate had already convened itself into the Senate impeachment court last June 10. 'As provided by Article XI, Section 3 (6) of the Constitution, 'the Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment. Respondents [House] thus submit that matters regarding the validity of the transmitted Articles of Impeachment, along with the factual inquiries in this Honorable Court's July 8, 2025 Resolution, should, if at all, fall in the first instance to the jurisdiction of the Senate impeachment court,' the House said. 'These matters are necessarily entwined with the case of impeachment now pending before them, and may be settled once the trial proper begins,' it added. Further, the House said that the High Court's questions on which office prepared the Articles of Impeachment, when it was circulated among members of the House, and if the evidence for each Article were attached in the Articles of Impeachment circulated among the House members are internal House proceedings which are beyond the SC's jurisdiction. The House cited the SC decision on the Santiago v. Guingona case which states that 'the principle of separation of powers ordains that each of the three great branches of government has exclusive cognizance of and is supreme in matters falling within its own constitutionally allocated sphere. Constitutional respect and a becoming regard for the sovereign acts of a coequal branch prevents this Court from prying into the internal workings of the Senate.' 'It is the position of the House that these matters pertain to its internal proceedings, which have always been regarded as beyond the jurisdiction and scrutiny of this Honorable Court. This is especially because the matters referred to — the preparation, circulation, and perusal of the impeachment complaint, as well as its attachments — are not governed by any specific constitutional provision or House rule,' the House said. 'This [position] is grounded on no less than the separation of powers enshrined in our Constitution. Being a co-equal branch, the Congress is entitled to respect with regard to those matters which are within its exclusive jurisdiction,' it added. Still, the House maintained that the fourth impeachment complaint consisting of seven Articles of Impeachment that the House filed against Duterte and transmitted to the Senate are in accordance with the Constitution and the House Rules as stated in House Resolution 328 submitted to the Senate impeachment court last June 25. 'On the status of the first three complaints filed by private citizens, the House directed these to be transmitted to the archives of the House on February 5, 2025 after they were mooted by the fourth impeachment complaint, which had already been acted upon by the plenary [with over 215 lawmakers signing off on the fourth impeachment complaint]. The House Resolution attests that the fourth impeachment complaint fully complied with Article XI, Section 3, Paragraph 5 of the 1987 Constitution,' the House said. 'It is submitted that this is sufficient to affirm the regularity and validity of the fourth impeachment complaint, insofar as the House is concerned. Any further inquiry into the House's internal proceedings, absent a constitutional basis, is unwarranted,' it added. The seven Articles of Impeachment vs. Duterte include: conspiracy to assassinate President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Marcos, and Speaker Martin Romualdez; malversation of P612.5 million in confidential funds with questionable liquidation documents; bribery and corruption in the Department of Education during Duterte's tenure by handing out cash to former DepEd Undersecretary Gloria Jumamil-Mercado (Procurement Head), Bids and Awards Committee Member Resty Osias, DepEd Chief Accountant Rhunna Catalan and Special Disbursing Officer Edward Fajarda; unexplained wealth and failure to disclose assets in the Vice President's Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth where her wealth increased by four times from 2007 from 2017; involvement in extrajudicial killings in Davao City; destabilization, insurrection, and public disorder efforts, which include: boycotting the State of the Nation Address (SONA) while declaring herself "designated survivor," leading rallies calling for Marcos' resignation, obstructing congressional investigations by ordering subordinates not to comply with subpoenas, threatening bodily harm against the First Couple and Romualdez, among others; the totality of the Vice President's conduct as the second highest official of the land. —KG, GMA Integrated News
