WARRANTS of arrest against Senators Ronald dela Rosa and Bong Go are likely to be issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC), which named them and six others as co-perpetrators in the crimes against humanity case against former president Rodrigo Duterte, an ICC-accredited lawyer said Tuesday.
Applications for arrest warrants remain sealed, said Gilbert Andres, who serves as the common legal representative of victims in Duterte’s bloody war on drugs, but it is logical to expect such warrants could be issued in the future.
Andres said that under ICC rules, any application for an arrest warrant is confidential and known only to the Office of the Prosecutor and the judges of the Pre-Trial Chamber.
The public would only become aware of any warrants once they are transmitted to the relevant state authorities.
Among those identified as alleged co-perpetrators are dela Rosa and Go; former Philippine National Police chiefs Oscar Albayalde, Camilo Cascolan and Vicente Danao; former Justice secretary Vitaliano Aguirre II; former National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) director Dante Gierran; and former Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) director Isidro Lapeña.
Andres said ICC arrest warrants are not covered by Philippine extradition rules, since the ICC is an international organization and not a state.
Instead, the surrender of suspects may be carried out under Republic Act 9851, the Philippine International Humanitarian Law Act, which allows the government to cooperate with international tribunals investigating or prosecuting individuals for international crimes.
He noted that this framework was already applied in Duterte’s own surrender to the ICC in March last year and could similarly apply to other officials if warrants are issued.
On the possibility that sitting lawmakers could be subject to arrest, Andres emphasized that the Senate should not serve as a safe haven.
While arrests inside the Senate might be avoided as a matter of courtesy, he said senators could still be arrested once outside Senate premises if valid ICC warrants exist.
“No individual should be shielded from accountability for international crimes by virtue of position or office,” he said.
Andres also addressed the recent release of a lesser redacted ICC document naming the alleged co-perpetrators.
He said the document, which was originally filed in July 2025 in heavily redacted form, was released in a less redacted version after prosecutors assessed that revealing the names would not endanger potential victims or witnesses.
The lawyer said the disclosure provides important context to the charges against Duterte, outlining the prosecution’s theory of a “common plan” behind an alleged systematic and widespread attack on civilians.
It also offers a preview of how the prosecution intends to argue crimes against humanity before the court, identifying indirect co-perpetrators who allegedly played key roles alongside Duterte.
Clarifying legal terminology, Andres distinguished “co-conspirators,” a concept under Philippine domestic law, from “indirect co-perpetrators,” defined under Article 25 of the Rome Statute, which applies to individuals who orchestrate or enable crimes without directly committing them.
He rejected claims that the release of names was politically motivated, stressing that ICC judges do not consider political factors in their proceedings.
The clarification comes as the ICC prepares for the Feb. 23 confirmation of charges hearing against Duterte.
Meanwhile, the Office of the Prosecutor at the ICC has informed Pre-Trial Chamber I that it will take no position on a request from Duterte’s defense team to disqualify the external legal representatives for the victims in his case.
In a public redacted filing dated Feb. 16, Deputy Prosecutor Mame Mandiaye Niang confirmed the prosecution’s neutral stance on the “Defense Request for the Disqualification of the External Legal Representatives for the Victims.”
The one-page response, submitted in compliance with a Chamber order, also included a significant disclosure regarding the evidence the prosecution intends to use in the upcoming proceedings.
The filing noted that the Office of the Prosecutor will not rely on two specific pieces of evidence — kept redacted in the public version — during the confirmation of charges hearing, nor does it intend to use the same material at trial.
The Prosecution classified the document as confidential, and argued that the classification was necessary because the filing contains “sensitive information which could impact the security of prosecution witnesses and ongoing investigations,” and that it corresponds to a defense filing with the same confidentiality level.
Earlier, Duterte’s defense team filed a request seeking the disqualification of three lawyers representing victims of the Philippine drug war, citing alleged conflicts of interest that they said could compromise the fairness of the proceedings.
In a public redacted filing dated Feb. 11, the defense asked Pre-Trial Chamber I to revoke the appointments of Joel Butuyan, Gilbert Andres, and Nicolene Arcaina, the latter recently appointed as case manager for the victims’ legal team.
The defense claimed that Arcaina’s previous employment at CenterLaw Philippines — where she worked with Butuyan and Andres — overlapped with a period in which the organization had contact with a government official involved in the case.
The defense argued that Butuyan and Andres had access to the official’s case materials before inquiries were raised on Jan. 30 and allegedly provided “evasive” responses when asked whether they or their associates had been in contact with the official or represented individuals connected to the Duterte case.
Butuyan responded on Feb. 3 that he was “not under any obligation” to answer.
Even if no formal impediment to representation is found, the defense maintained that Arcaina’s dual roles as case manager and former associate of the official created an inherent conflict, allowing outside individuals to access potentially exculpatory material.
“The resulting web creates an objective appearance of bias incompatible with the integrity of the proceedings,” the filing stated.
The defense also criticized Butuyan and Andres for not disclosing relevant facts to the Chamber or taking steps to terminate Arcaina’s appointment, arguing that they actively promoted her role.
All three lawyers were appointed by the Chamber on Jan. 26 alongside a counsel from the Office of Public Counsel for Victims, following a Registry report whose proposed names were initially redacted.
The defense requested that the Chamber immediately suspend the external lawyers’ access to the case record pending a decision on their disqualification and revoke their appointments.
Visible, not so visible
Of the two sitting senators named in the ICC document, Go has remained visible, publicly rejecting the ICC allegations and calling the charges “entirely unfounded, one-sided and unfair.”
Go continues to serve in the Senate, attending to legislative work and public duties.
In contrast, dela Rosa, who served as PNP chief when Duterte was president, has been in hiding since rumors spread of an arrest warrant being issued against him.
He has not regularly attended Senate sessions since November 2025, even if there is no confirmed ICC arrest warrant against him.