For the families of thousands of victims of the Duterte-era war on drugs, the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) intervention offers a glimmer of hope for a long-overdue pursuit of justice and due process. 

This, however, signals the opposite for the accused architects and perpetrators of the extrajudicial killings. Former President Rodrigo Duterte, named as an indirect co-perpetrator, was the first to be brought to The Hague when he was surrendered by the Philippine government to Interpol in March 2025.

Almost eight months later, new developments have emerged for other alleged perpetrators, as Ombudsman Jesus Crispin “Boying” Remulla revealed that he has obtained a copy of the warrant for Sen. Ronald “Bato” Dela Rosa. 

Remulla, who was then Secretary of Justice, had previously justified Duterte’s surrender not as Philippine cooperation with the ICC, but as compliance with Interpol procedures. He further explained that local authorities opted for the surrender route rather than formal extradition, both of which are outlined under Republic Act No. 9851, or the “Philippine Act on Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law, Genocide, and Other Crimes Against Humanity.”

With the issuance of the new rules on extradition by the Supreme Court (SC), the question now arises whether this serves as a legal pathway for those next in line under the ICC’s jurisdiction.

What’s New with the SC’s Extradition Rules

The SC’s Rules on Extradition Proceedings (A.M. No. 22-03-29-SC, 8 April 2025) introduce major reforms that modernize both the institutional structure and procedural flow of extradition cases. 

For the first time, the rules expressly define the Executive Authority (the Department of Foreign Affairs) and the Central Authority (the Department of Justice) and delineate their responsibilities. The DFA now has a formally codified mandate to receive, evaluate, and endorse requests from foreign governments, while the DOJ assumes responsibility for transmitting documents to the courts, filing and litigating petitions, and coordinating with the requesting state. 

The rules also articulate the evidentiary thresholds that govern the two critical stages of extradition. Probable cause is now expressly required for the issuance of an extradition warrant, and a prima facie case must be shown for the grant of the petition. 

Moreover, a significant procedural modernization is the integration of all extradition warrants into the national e-warrant system. Once an extradition warrant is issued, the Extradition Court must upload it to the digital platform for nationwide enforcement. 

Furthermore, the rules also streamline pleadings and impose strict timelines by barring delay-oriented motions; adopt a heightened clear and convincing evidence standard for bail; institutionalize provisional arrest with a 60-day deadline for receiving a full request; allow Precautionary Hold Departure Orders (PHDOs) to accompany provisional arrest; minimize testimonial evidence through a one-day examination rule and relaxed authentication for foreign documents; permit voluntary surrender through a notarized waiver of proceedings; and expressly authorize courts to order turnover of evidence or proceeds of crime found in the extraditee’s possession.

At a glance, this new development on extradition appears to provide a layer of legal reprieve for the ICC-accused individuals—an appeal that had been previously raised and continuously insisted upon by Duterte’s counsels.

Not Extradition

Under Rule 1, Section 1, extradition is defined as “the formal process by which a person found in the territory of one State is surrendered to another State for trial or punishment for offenses committed within the latter’s jurisdiction.” It presupposes state-to-state cooperation and the existence of an extradition treaty between the requesting state and the Philippines. 

The ICC, however, is not a state, and the Philippines has no extradition treaty with it. Moreso, the Duterte government formally withdrew the country from the Rome Statute in March 2018, which took effect in March 2019. 

Meanwhile, RA 9851, Section 17 provides: “In the interest of justice, the relevant Philippine 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, particularly when the court or tribunal is already conducting the investigation or undertaking the prosecution of such crime.”

As Remulla previously pointed out, surrender is distinct from formal extradition, as it does not require compliance with the procedural requirements of an extradition treaty.

Not Extrajudicial Rendition

Nor is it extrajudicial rendition. The ICC operates as an independent international judicial tribunal, functioning within the framework of state cooperation but without supplanting domestic judicial systems. 

As provided in the Rome Statute, the Court “shall be complementary to national criminal jurisdictions” (Article 1) and shall exercise jurisdiction only when a State is “unwilling or unable genuinely” to prosecute (Article 17). Its warrants are judicially issued orders, requiring that a person shall be arrested and surrendered “in accordance with the law of the State on whose territory the person is found” (Article 59).

Although the government maintains that it is no longer mandated to directly cooperate with the ICC following the country’s withdrawal, its decision to coordinate through Interpol remains consistent with the Philippines’ obligations and commitment under international law, and falls within the legal ambit of recognized procedural standards.

Due Course of Due Process

Pending intervention from the high court, the surrender of Duterte—and others in the future, including Bato—can be considered justified, having been executed under a legal mechanism recognized by Philippine law (RA 9851). Accordingly, the purported ICC warrant for Bato thus represents a lawful judicial process that falls outside the scope of extradition and is certainly not an extrajudicial rendition.

While the ICC has yet to confirm the warrant, Bato’s inclusion in previous ICC documents and his role as police chief and ‘poster boy’ of Duterte’s war on drugs make his eventual arrest a matter of when, not if. It should be noted that, as clarified by the ICC, warrants are not publicly disclosed until it has secured custody of the subject, in line with its standard procedure.

Currently, petitions pending before the SC are seeking to prevent the government from enforcing or facilitating any future ICC-related warrant, request, or communication. Regardless of the outcome, one thing is certain: the pursuit of justice, no matter how long and arduous, shall ensure that no stone will be left unturned.

Follow Tan Briones & Associates on LinkedIn for more legal updates and law-related articles.