DAVAO CITY (MindaNews / 26 May 2o26) — The Supreme Court En Banc ruled that Senator Ronald “Bato” Dela Rosa failed to establish a meritorious ground for the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO).
In a nine-page decision uploaded to the Supreme Court’s website on Monday, the Court, in denying his request for a TRO and/or status quo ante order (SQAO), noted that Dela Rosa does not have a “clear and unmistakable right” to be protected and there was “no material and substantial invasion” of his rights.
Ruling that Dela Rosa’s “claimed invasion of his purported rights is more imagined than real,” the Court cited the Senate’s “protective custody,” which prevented personnel from the National Bureau of Investigation from enforcing the arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC).
On May 20, the Supreme Court en banc denied Dela Rosa’s interim relief for the issuance of a TRO and/ or SQAO, seeking to block authorities from arresting him and sending him to the ICC.
The following day, Justice Secretary Fredderick A. Vida directed police and the NBI to enforce the “validly issued” arrest order from the International Criminal Court (ICC) against the fugitive Dela Rosa.
The Court also took judicial notice of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s declaration when he went live on his Facebook account on May 13, in which he stated that he had not issued any order for his arrest.
The senator also failed to establish an urgent need for issuance of a TRO to prevent an irreparable injury, the Court said.
“The possibility of irreparable damage, without proof of an actual existing right, is not a ground for injunction. Simply put, since there is no legal right in the first place, there can be no irreparable injury to speak of,” it said.
According to the SC, Dela Rosa’s alleged right to be protected against unlawful arrest hinges on the Court’s determination of the enforceability of the ICC’s warrant of arrest after the withdrawal from the Rome Statute and the need for prior judicial authorization before the implementation of the ICC warrant.
The Senator also sought guidance from SC regarding the President’s power or authority to recognize and enforce the ICC warrant; the interpretation of Section 17 of Republic Act 9851 on the jurisdiction of the Philippine courts and its rules governing “surrender”; and the application of the fugitive disentitlement doctrine.
The Court, however, did not rule on the senator’s assertions, noting that these are contingent on its resolution of the issues raised in his main petition, but maintained that an injunction will not be granted to “protect or enforce contingent, abstract, or future rights.”
“The prevailing rule is that courts should avoid issuing an injunction that would, in effect, dispose of the main case without trial. There would be a prejudgment of the main case and a reversal of the rule on burden of proof, since it would assume the proposition that the petitioner is inceptively bound to prove,” it ruled.
In her Facebook post on Monday, Nancy Dela Rosa, the senator’s wife, insisted that her husband should be tried in Philippine courts and appealed to the judiciary not to become an accessory in bringing him to The Hague, Netherlands, where the ICC is based.
“Granting the people in power permission to surrender another Filipino voluntarily is an admission that you are weak and incapable of handling this case, thus the need for an international court to intervene. You are a group of great minds. This is just another case sensationalized only by Politics. Please do not waver or give in. Please,” she said. (Antonio L. Colina IV / MindaNews)
