June 4, 2026
MANILA – The International Criminal Court (ICC) has been informed of a complaint against senators and officials who allegedly helped Sen. Ronald “Bato” Dela Rosa evade arrest, according to a civil society group.
Tindig Pilipinas on Wednesday filed the complaint-affidavit with the Office of the Ombudsman against Senate President Alan Peter Cayetano, Sen. Robin Padilla, and suspended Senate Sergeant-at-Arms Ma O. Aplasca, whom the affiants said are liable to be charged of obstruction of justice under the Presidential Decree No. 1829.
“We have forwarded a copy of our complaint to the ICC itself,” said Tindig Pilipinas co-convenor Sylvia Claudo in an interview.
Kiko Aquino-Dee, the coalition convenor, said: “We are doing it just for their information.”
However, ICC assistant to counsel Kristina Conti told Inquirer that the transmission of the complaint has “no direct impact” on Dela Rosa’s case.
But still, Conti said the move “will help in putting pressure to make [Dela Rosa] surrender.”
She also noted that aiding suspects to escape is not considered obstruction of justice under the Rome Statute, and is only applicable under the Philippine law.
A complaint against Duterte was filed with the ICC in June 2017. In March 2018, Duterte announced the Philippines’ withdrawal from the Rome Statute, the treaty establishing the court. However, the withdrawal took effect a year later, in March 2019, allowing the ICC to retain jurisdiction over alleged crimes committed in the Philippines between November 1, 2011, and March 16, 2019, while the country was still a member.
Dee said: “I, everyone here [in our coalition], and many others believe that the ICC warrant is part of the Philippines’ sovereignty. We voluntarily joined the ICC in 2011, and although we withdrew in 2018, the Supreme Court itself and all legal institutions in the Philippines recognize the ICC’s authority over the period when we were still a member.”
Since November last year, Dela Rosa has been under an arrest warrant issued by the ICC, which was unsealed only on May 13. He went into hiding that same month.
Dela Rosa resurfaced at the Senate on May 11 following a six-month absence from the chamber, providing the crucial 13th vote that led to Cayetano replacing Sen. Vicente “Tito” Sotto III as Senate President.
Following an alleged standoff on May 13 between Senate security personnel and National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) agents seeking to arrest Dela Rosa, the senator was able to leave the Senate premises in the early hours of May 14, allegedly with the help of his colleague and ally, Padilla.
After the incident, Dela Rosa went back into hiding after leaving the Senate premises with Padilla aboard the latter’s vehicle in the early hours of May 14.
The complaint said the actions of Cayetano, Padilla, and Aplasca “appear to have obstructed, impeded, or frustrated the enforcement of legal process and the performance of legal functions.”
“We are constrained, as citizens and taxpayers, to file this complaint for Obstruction of Justice under P.D No. 1829,” the complaint said.
Specifically, they said the respondents are liable under the for Section 1(c) of the P.D. No 1829, which prohibits ”harboring” or “concealing” accused persons.
The move of Cayetano to put Dela Rosa under Senate custody, Padilla’s act of transporting Dela Rosa away from the Senate premises, and Aplasca’s move to “obstruct” NBI access that “created an environment that enabled Senator Dela Rosa to leave the Senate premises and escape law” makes them liable under Section 1(c) of the P.D. No 1829, according to the complainants.
Meanwhile, the affiants said the antigraft body has a jurisdiction in the case despite Cayetano and Padilla being senators.
They noted that the parliamentary immunity is only limited to speech or debate in Congress or in any committee there, as provided by Section 11, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution.
And the noted that Under Section 13, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution, the Office of the Ombudsman has the power to investigate, on its own or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any public official, employee, office, or agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient.
“Accordingly, Respondent Cayetano and Respondent Padilla cannot invoke parliamentary immunity to defeat this complaint at the outset. Their status as Senators does not shield them from investigation for acts that are not speech, debate, or legitimate legislative deliberation,” the complaint said. “Jurisdiction over this Complaint, therefore, properly pertains to the Office of the Ombudsman.” /dl /mr