A Bold Dissent: Five Justices Stand Against Arrest of Senator Dela Rosa
In a dramatic turn of events, five Supreme Court associate justices voiced their dissent when the High Court denied Senator Ronald “Bato” Dela Rosa’s plea for a temporary restraining order (TRO) in connection with an arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court (ICC). On May 20, during a special session, the Supreme Court En Banc voted 9-5-1 against granting Dela Rosa’s request for interim relief.
The dissenting justices—Ramon Paul Hernando, Amy Lazaro-Javier, Henri Jean Paul Inting, Ricardo Rosario, and Antonio Kho Jr.—each shared their passionate perspectives, shining light on the complexities surrounding Dela Rosa’s case.
Voice of Dissent: Justice Ramon Paul Hernando
Justice Hernando made a powerful assertion: *“There is no domestic judicial process authorizing the arrest or surrender of Dela Rosa to the ICC.”* With conviction, he argued that the ICC lacks jurisdiction in this scenario. He expressed grave concerns about the consequences of an arrest, emphasizing that any injury suffered by Dela Rosa can’t be repaired later.
Hernando pointed out that the ICC investigation began only after the Philippines withdrew from the ICC, questioning the enforceability of the arrest warrant issued post-withdrawal. He underscored a crucial point: *“Cooperation with international tribunals must not contravene the Bill of Rights.”*
An Urgent Call for Judicial Protection: Justice Amy Lazaro-Javier
Justice Lazaro-Javier took a different approach, advocating for a *“disciplined legal inquiry.”* She argued that a plea for temporary injunctive relief transcends politics or public opinion; it’s fundamentally about protecting rights.
*“The rights at stake are neither speculative nor abstract,”* she asserted. To her, denying the relief sought would expose Dela Rosa to harmful consequences that the law cannot tolerate. She passionately reminded everyone that Section 17 of RA 9851 cannot be treated in isolation from the Constitution.
Upholding Court Authority: Justice Henri Jean Paul Inting
Justice Inting joined the dissent to assert that a Status Quo Ante Order (SQAO) is necessary. He believed that a full implementation of the ICC’s warrant would make Dela Rosa’s action meaningless. Inting emphasized that the issuance of an SQAO is crucial for maintaining the authority of the Court, ensuring that justice is not reduced to mere paperwork.
Sovereignty on Trial: Justice Ricardo Rosario
Justice Rosario made an equally compelling argument in favor of Dela Rosa’s request for a TRO. He highlighted that the issuance of an ICC warrant against a Philippine official is open to questions regarding constitutional, statutory, and jurisdictional validity.
*“A serious and imminent threat of arrest by the ICC would exist,”* Rosario warned, stressing that the degradation of sovereignty and an abdication of judicial power could ensue. He was firm that Dela Rosa deserves protection under Philippine law until proven guilty.
A Cry for Urgent Relief: Justice Antonio Kho Jr.
Finally, Justice Kho passionately remarked that Dela Rosa had met all the requirements for a TRO and that the urgency of the situation necessitated swift action. He expressed his deep concern for the potential dire consequences of an arrest, claiming that once surrendered to the ICC, Dela Rosa would have no effective means to return to the Philippines if the case were decided in his favor.
He asserted, *“No amount of compensation or subsequent ruling would be sufficient to remedy the situation.”*
—
As these justices stood their ground, their words reverberated through the halls of justice, embodying a fierce commitment to upholding the Constitution, protecting fundamental rights, and questioning the reach of international law. Their dissent is more than just legal jargon—it’s a call to ensure that justice, sovereignty, and human rights remain at the forefront of the conversation.
