(UPDATE) LAWYERS for Sen. Ronald dela Rosa warned that the government has no legal basis to invoke Section 17 of Republic Act (RA) 9851 — the Philippine Act on Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law, Genocide, and Other Crimes Against Humanity — to justify surrendering the senator to the International Criminal Court (ICC). The statement, issued through the law firm of Torreon and Partners, headed by Israelito Torreon, came amid reports that the ICC has already issued a warrant of arrest against dela Rosa, with a diffusion order allegedly circulated to international law enforcement agencies for possible surveillance and enforcement. According to the senator’s legal team, there are indications that the government may again rely on Section 17 of RA 9851 to justify the “immediate surrender” of dela Rosa to the ICC — an action they described as unconstitutional, baseless, and a grave distortion of Philippine law. “The government cannot rely on Section 17 of RA 9851 to surrender Senator Dela Rosa to the ICC without a valid extradition process or judicial authorization,” the statement read. “Such invocation constitutes a misreading of the statute, a distortion of its intent, and a direct violation of the 1987 Constitution.” The legal team said Section 17 is not self-executing and must be read in conjunction with applicable extradition laws and treaties. It cannot override the requirements of Presidential Decree 1069, the Philippine Extradition Law, or the Rules on Extradition Proceedings, which both require judicial oversight, probable cause determination, and a final court judgment before any person can be surrendered to a foreign or international tribunal. “There is no extradition treaty between the Philippines and the ICC, nor any implementing instrument that allows the direct execution of ICC warrants,” the firm said. “Without such a framework, the government has no legal basis to turn over any Filipino citizen to the ICC.” Torreon and his partners further argued that the Philippines’ withdrawal from the Rome Statute in 2019 extinguished all treaty-based obligations of cooperation with the ICC. The firm also said that even assuming Section 17 remains operative, the ICC is no longer a “court or international tribunal” contemplated under Philippine law following the country’s withdrawal. “You cannot deny ICC jurisdiction in one breath and surrender citizens to it in another,” the statement said. “Surrendering a Filipino citizen to a foreign body without court approval offends the doctrine of separation of powers,” it said. “Under the Constitution, only the judiciary has the authority to determine whether the conditions for extradition or surrender have been satisfied.” The statement also invoked Article III, Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution, which protects the liberty of abode, stating that “the forcible transfer of a Filipino citizen to The Hague constitutes the ultimate impairment of abode.” “The Constitution’s protection of abode is absolute,” it added. “Such impairment cannot lawfully occur without a judicial order.”