This is a commentary responding to The Manila Times’ recent report quoting the statement of Senator Ronald “Bato” Dela Rosa’s legal team regarding the alleged ICC arrest warrant and the supposed lack of legal basis for invoking Section 17 of Republic Act 9851.
The argument advanced by the Law Firm of Torreon and Partners—that the Philippine government has “no legal basis” under Section 17 of Republic Act 9851 to surrender him to the International Criminal Court (ICC)—rests on a narrow and ultimately misleading reading of the law and the Constitution.
First, Section 17 of RA 9851—the Philippine Act on Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law, Genocide, and Other Crimes Against Humanity—was expressly enacted to domesticate the principles of the Rome Statute into Philippine law. The provision clearly authorizes the Philippine government to “surrender” persons accused of international crimes to the international tribunal having jurisdiction,” upon the request of that tribunal. The ICC was precisely such a tribunal when the law was passed in 2009.
To say that Section 17 “is not self-executing” ignores the fact that RA 9851 itself is the ENABLING LAW. It was passed by the 14th Congress on October 14, 2009, and signed by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo on December 11, 2009, thereby satisfying both domestic and constitutional requirements for enforceability. Its provisions have full force as part of the Philippine penal code—distinct from the treaty obligations under the Rome Statute. Even after the Philippines’ withdrawal from the ICC in 2019, RA 9851 remains in force. It continues to provide the domestic legal basis for prosecuting and surrendering individuals accused of crimes against humanity.
Second, the argument that the Philippines has “no extradition treaty” with the ICC misstates the nature of ICC cooperation. The ICC is not a foreign state; it is a permanent international tribunal created under a multilateral treaty. Cooperation with it does not proceed under traditional extradition mechanisms, but rather through surrender—a process explicitly contemplated by Section 17. The ICC’s jurisdiction over acts committed while the Philippines was still a State Party to the Rome Statute remains intact. The withdrawal did not erase liability for past acts, as Article 127(2) of the Statute clearly provides and affirmed by the Philippine Supreme Court.
Third, invoking Section 17 does not violate the Constitution. This statute has not been declared unconstitutional. On the contrary, it upholds constitutional values. The 1987 Constitution directs the State to “adopt the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land” (Article II, Section 2). This is what lawyers refer to as the doctrine of incorporation. International humanitarian law, the very foundation of RA 9851, is among those principles. The statute, therefore, operates independently of the Rome Statute, embodying the Philippines’ continuing commitment to accountability for grave crimes, even beyond formal treaty obligations.
Finally, the claim that “only the Senate can restore such obligations” misconstrues what is at issue. No new treaty is being entered into; the government is simply implementing existing domestic law. The duty to cooperate in the surrender of accused persons, when requested by a competent international tribunal, flows directly from RA 9851 and from the Constitution’s incorporation clause—not from any renewed Senate concurrence.
In sum, Section 17 of RA 9851 is not a dead letter. It remains a living embodiment of the Philippines’ moral and legal commitment to the rule of law, accountability, and human dignity. The government not only can—but indeed must—act within its authority under this statute when international justice demands it.
The header image features a montage of the ICC logo and a symbol of the Rome Statute. (credit: Opus Publica)
About the author
RAUL F. BORJAL, known as “Rolly” to his family and friends, was born in Naga City, Camarines Sur, and now resides in Parañaque City, Metro Manila. An alumnus of both Ateneo de Naga University and Ateneo de Manila University, he held senior executive roles in several domestic and multinational corporations, culminating in his retirement as Vice President and Corporate Secretary of a Filipino-owned group of companies.
He is married to the former Wenifreda D. Parma, a cum laude graduate of Ateneo de Naga University, and together they have four children. Rolly is also a co-founder and a member of the editorial board of Dateline Ibalon.