The Tamesis
June 4, 2026
Manila – The International Criminal Court (ICC) has been informed of complaints against senators and officials who allegedly helped Senator Ronald “Bato” Dela Rosa evade arrest, according to a civil society organization.
Tindig Pilipinas on Wednesday filed an affidavit of complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman against Senate President Alan Peter Cayetano, Senator Robin Padilla and Senate Sergeant-at-Arms Ma O. Aplasca, who said they may be charged with obstruction of justice under Presidential Decree 1829.
“We have forwarded a copy of the complaint to the ICC itself,” Tindig Pilipinas co-convenor Sylvia Claudo said in an interview.
“We are doing this just to keep them informed,” said alliance convenor Kiko Aquino-De.
However, ICC paralegal Kristina Conti told the Inquirer that the forwarding of the complaint had “no direct impact” on de la Rosa’s case.
However, Conte said the move “will help to put pressure on [Dela Rosa] surrender. “
She also pointed out that helping a suspect escape is not considered obstruction of justice under the Rome Statute and only applies under Philippine law.
In June 2017, a complaint was filed against Duterte at the International Criminal Court. In March 2018, Duterte announced that the Philippines would withdraw from the Rome Statute, the treaty establishing the International Criminal Court. However, the withdrawal came into 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 remained a member.
Dee said: “I, everyone here [in our coalition]Many believe the ICC warrant is part of Philippine 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 recognized the authority of the ICC while we were members. “
Dela Rosa has been subject to an arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court since November last year, which was not unsealed until May 13. That same month, he went into hiding.
De la Rosa reappeared in the Senate on May 11 after a six-month absence for the crucial 13th vote that ended with Cayetano replacing Sen. Vicente “Tito” Sotto III as Senate president.
After an alleged confrontation between Senate security personnel and National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) agents on May 13 who attempted to arrest Dela Rosa, the senator left the Senate chamber in the early hours of May 14, allegedly with the help of his colleague and ally Padilla.
After the incident, de la Rosa took Padilla by car and left the Senate in the early morning of May 14, and then went into hiding.
The complaint alleges that Cayetano, Padilla and Apraska’s conduct “appeared to impede, impede or frustrate the conduct of legal proceedings and the performance of legal functions.”
“As citizens and taxpayers, we are required to file an obstruction of justice complaint under PD No. 1829,” the complaint states.
Specifically, they said the defendants were liable under Section 1(c) of PD No. 1829, which prohibits “harboring” or “concealing” defendants.
The complainants allege that Cayetano’s actions in placing dela Rosa in Senate custody, Padilla’s actions in removing dela Rosa from the Senate premises, and Apraska’s actions in “impeding” the NBI’s entry “created an environment that enabled Senator de la Rosa to leave the Senate premises and escape the law,” making them liable under Section 1(c) of PD No. 1829.
Meanwhile, deponents said the anti-corruption agency has jurisdiction over the case despite Cayetano and Padilla being senators.
They pointed out that under Article VI, Section 11 of the 1987 Constitution, parliamentary immunity is limited to speeches or debates before Parliament or before any committee.
It was also stated that under Section 13 of Article XI of the 1987 Constitution, the Office of the Ombudsman shall have the power to investigate, either on its own initiative or on the complaint of any person, any act or omission of any public officer, employee, office or agency where such act or omission appears to be unlawful, unjust, improper or inefficient.
“Accordingly, Defendants Cayetano and Defendant Padilla cannot invoke parliamentary immunity from the outset to dismiss this complaint. Their status as senators does not protect them from investigation for conduct outside speech, debate, or legitimate legislative deliberations,” the complaint states. “Accordingly, jurisdiction over this complaint rests exclusively with the Office of the Ombudsman.” /dl/Mr.
