Does the Senate Have an Obligation to Surrender Sen. Bato dela Rosa? | ABOGADO

0:05 [music] >> They stood at the front lines of law, leadership, and public service. Attorney Karen Jimeno, sharp, steady, a lawyer and educator, turns complex issues into clear insight. Attorney Mike Toledo, seasoned, fearless, a strategist and communicator, whose voice has shaped public understanding [music] of law and governance. Together, they make the law accessible, connecting

0:52 principles with real-life questions. Confronting the issues that define our nation. This is Abogado. Good evening and welcome to Abogado. Where we examine the law at the point where constitutional power, international justice, and democratic institutions collide. I'm Attorney Mike Toledo. And I'm Attorney Karen [music] Jimeno. Tonight, a confrontation involving constitutional power, institutional authority, and the reach of international law has placed the Senate [music] itself under intense scrutiny. Inside one of the country's highest democratic institutions,

1:39 questions are now being raised about accountability, jurisdiction, and the limits of constitutional protection. Let's take a closer look. No one is above the law, but what happens when the law comes from an international court? After the ICC issued an arrest warrant [music] against Senator Ronald Bato dela Rosa over killings linked to drug war. The Senate placed him under protective custody. Some say the Senate is [music] defending its independence. Others argue it is shielding one of its own from accountability. Can parliamentary privilege override an ICC arrest warrant? Or does the Senate have an [music] obligation not to obstruct it? Tonight, we confront a

2:26 defining question. Does the Senate have an obligation to surrender Senator Bato dela Rosa? Joining us tonight is attorney Mel Santa Maria, one of the country's most [music] recognized legal educators and constitutional law commentators. A former dean of the Far Eastern University Institute of Law and a long-time professor at the Ateneo School of Law. Dean Mel has remained active in major constitutional debates including issues involving the ICC, crimes against humanity, and executive accountability. And also with us is attorney Salvador Paolo Panelo Jr., managing partner of Panelo Law Office and one of the most

3:12 visible lawyers defending Vice President Sara Duterte. Attorney Paolo currently serves as counsel in her perjury complaint and has emerged as a prominent legal voice in the Duterte camp's constitutional and political battles. Attorney Espaňero, good evening and welcome to Abogado. Nice to be here. Good evening. Thank you for having us. Yeah, it's going to be an interesting discussion, especially with everything that happened this week. That's true. One thing for sure, partner, we will not run of run out of issues as the things are unfolding before our eyes. And before we begin, let's first look at how tonight's discussion will unfold. We begin with the opening statements.

3:57 Each guest delivers a focused 2-minute statement laying out their perspective on the proposition. The conversation then unfolds through two key subtopics. For each subtopic, the guests take turns presenting their insights in 2-minute segments. Even if they share the same stand, they are encouraged to highlight different angles, supporting arguments, or real-world applications. After both have spoken, we move into the open exchange, a 6-minute free-flowing discussion where the guests engage each other directly, ask questions, and expand on their points. Once both subtopics have been explored, we proceed to closing reflections, where each guest

4:44 is given 2 minutes to summarize their key messages. Finally, the hosts step in with their own questions. In this 6-minute segment, the guests respond, clarify, and deepen the discussion, ensuring critical issues are surfaced even if the guests are aligned in position. >> [music] >> And now we begin with opening perspectives. On May 11th, the ICC unsealed an arrest warrant against Senator Ronald Dela Rosa, or Bato, for crimes against humanity allegedly committed during the Duterte administration's anti-drug campaign. That same day, tensions

5:31 erupted inside the Senate after authorities attempted to serve the warrant, prompting the chamber to place the senator under protective custody. Now, my dear Dean Mel, from your legal perspective, when the subject of an ICC warrant is a sitting senator in the case of Senator Bato uh does the Senate have a constitutional obligation to surrender him or only a duty not to obstruct lawful processes? You have 2 minutes, Dean. The Senate has a duty to surrender surrender Senator Bato. You know, in our in our constitutional setup, you have the executive, judiciary, and the legislature. They have That is the dispersal of powers, no? The executive

6:19 executes the law, peace and order, foreign policy. The legislature makes laws and impeachment trials. So, nakikita na natin doon 'yung delineation ng poder nila. So, pagdating ng pag-i-issue ng warrant of arrest at saka pagse-serve ng warrant of arrest, alam natin kung sino dapat gumawa noon. Ang dapat gumawa noon executive. And so, therefore, kung titingnan natin, if there should be a balancing of respect, dapat ang mga in favor of the executive because that is their job. So, dapat alam na ng alam na ng legislature na dapat gawin nila 'yon. Ngayon, ang tanong eh, is that warrant of arrest valid, 'yung ICC warrant of arrest? Of course, it is valid. Mag-umpisa tayo sa international law. Crime against humanity, genocide,

7:04 piracy, that's international law. And our Constitution says that we accept the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land. So, therefore, in 2009, gumawa tayo ng tulay a legal bridge, and that is Republic Act 9851. 9851 says in Section 17 that kung inuusig na ini-imbestigahan na ang isang taong pinaratanganan ng isang krimen against humanity pwede nang ipahintulot ng gobyerno natin na sila na ang mag-usig at sila na ang mag-imbestiga. At kung kinakailangan, we could also deliver the suspect them. So remember this a republic at 98 98 51 existed even prior to the Rome statute.

7:51 So even without the Rome statute it will exist independently. So therefore can recognize an already existing investigation already conducting an investigation. So already now Yes so therefore so therefore we because our government recognizes that jurisdiction then we recognize this processes the ICC it's a redundancy. You don't have to do it again. Okay thank you Dean Mel and you'll have time later to further discuss that when you go to the next

8:37 topic. I can even mention the senators that actually pushed and sponsored this and they are now the same senators are actually not following it. >> Like who? Later. >> [laughter] [laughter] >> Okay attorney Paolo parliamentary institutions are designed to protect legislative independence but when that protection intersects with allegations of crimes against humanity where should constitutional boundaries be drawn and do you agree that the the Senate can

9:23 can refuse to surrender Senator Bato dela Rosa? Well for starters constitutional boundaries should be drawn by the Supreme Court not by the executive not by the legislative and I think in this context, in this situation, to be fair to the Senate, I think they were forced into this hand. Um as we know, there are pending petitions for habeas corpus since last year. We filed those on March 12th, the day after the former president was brought to the Hague. And they've been pending for now almost 14 months. So, the Supreme Court could have have given guidance a long time ago, and this could have been avoided. If they told

10:08 the if they ruled on the petitions and said, "This is how you execute an ICC warrant," then we wouldn't be here. But there's no guidance yet from the Supreme Court. So, for the petitions for habeas corpus, the government, the executive, has capitalized on the silence to propagate the same constitutional violations that they did to the former president, now to Senator bato. It's forced, number one, the Senate to adopt Senate Resolution number 44, where they condemn extra-judicial renditions. And they've called for the protection of all Filipinos from extra-judicial renditions and to call for

10:54 their right to avail of legal remedies within a reasonable time prior to extradition or surrender. So, since since this is the situation and to make matters worse, bato, they were forced into to taking this principled stand to take him into protective custody precisely to allow him to avail of his legal remedies before Philippine courts. And for me, this is basic cuz the Constitution says persons are protected against unlawful arrest. And for us, that means an arrest warrant should be issued by a Philippine judge, not by an ICC warrant. So, for us, this means that before an ICC warrant is

11:40 implemented, it should first go through confirmation from the local court. Mhm. When we return, we examine the ICC's authority after [music] the Philippines withdrew from the Rome Statute. Does withdrawal end jurisdiction >> [music] >> or merely end membership? You're watching Abogado. I'm Welcome [music] back. You're still watching Abogado. Tonight we ask, does the Senate have an obligation to [music] surrender Senator Ronald dela Rosa? Still with us are Dean Mel Santa Maria and Attorney Paolo Panel Jr.

12:25 Now, the Philippines withdrew from the Rome Statute in 2019. Yet, the ICC maintains that it retains jurisdiction over alleged crimes committed while the country was still a state party, relying in the clear provisions of Article 1272 of said treaty. Meanwhile, and we touched on this earlier on, Republic Act 9851 allows Philippine cooperation with international tribunals involving genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. Now, Dean Dean Mel, and and and and and and and and by the way, even the pre-trial chamber in its decision said that they have jurisdiction.

13:11 >> Yeah. So, early on, I guess that's also important to point out. Now, Dean Mel, does Article 1272 clearly preserve ICC jurisdiction? In other words, once they have acquired jurisdiction, over said alleged acts committed while they were still members or does the withdrawal create a constitutional and procedural gap that domestic law must address? None. Okay. Because because I'm very categorical. Okay. But Cayetano versus Panganiban, our Supreme Court already decided the same demarcation line March 2019. The Supreme Court said everything that happened prior to March 2019, the ICC has jurisdiction. Now, let's go to Article 127. 127 provides

13:58 that even if a a state withdrew from the from the Rome Statute, it does not negate its obligation prior to which withdrawal in relation to all liabilities and crimes that has occurred prior to its withdrawal. That is very categorical. So, in short, when we when we when we ratified that that that treaty, make commitment tayo. There we know that there is a residual obligation after withdrawal. So, it to you. It to you you residual obligation. We have to comply with that residual obligation even after we have terminated. Now,

14:43 and they shall pray Article 59. Now, now I can get on. You have to You have to go to the to the courts. What a problem you are on. What a problem you are on. But of course, the complimentary provision has exceptions too. Has exceptions. If it is useless, if the local courts if the local remedies have already been exhausted and what I'm going to do here then you could go straight to international tribunal. I don't know what I'm going to do here. In November 2021, there was a request for deferral none Duterte government for the administration. In short, the Duterte government recognized the jurisdiction of the ICC. They asked for a deferral of investigation which was granted. Which was granted and by of the next year, something ICC nothing is happening. I should have nothing is happening because they didn't investigate. You

15:30 might go away. So, it's it's the it's the government. So, therefore we have to go in the way of ICC. So, therefore you complement section 59 out of the way now. And so therefore something ICC ICC doing something wrong. Resolution on jurisdiction in the Philippines. In the Philippines and therefore I am the only ICC warrant of arrest here. Thank you so much Dean Mel and later I want to ask you more about that complementary principle in relation to article 59 of the Rome Statute. Attorney Paolo, what is the legal status of an ICC arrest warrant here in the Philippines? Is it immediately enforceable? Or even under Republic Act 9851

16:15 or must it first go through a local court in order to be enforceable? Yeah, our position is that it's not enforceable immediately. You have to go through the courts as required by article 59 of the Rome Statute itself. And this coincides with our constitutional requirements that before you arrest somebody you have to comply with the requirements of article three section two of the Constitution. A judge should determine personally probable cause after examining witnesses and so and so forth. So, for us you can't automatically implement a warrant of arrest. And I recall that while

17:02 the last year when the there were discussions on the petitions for habeas corpus, the DOJ position was that RA 9851 gives it two options. One, extradition which requires it to go through the local courts and surrender which they deemed the executive option. But, as we've all established today, um the RA 9851 was passed with the Rome Statute in mind. Um the Rome Statute wasn't signed yet, but the deliberations will show that that was the design. It was supposed to uh put a bridge to to the Rome Statute to the ICC. So, if surrender um is actually a technical term, extradition is a technical term. Extradition means

17:48 transferring one person from one country to another country. Surrender means transferring uh a person from one country to an international court, specifically the ICC. And this is defined in the Rome Statute itself. So, when you say surrender, it only means that you have to comply with the rules on surrender, which Article 59 says, you should promptly bring this person before local judicial authority first before you go to surrender. Okay, thank you so much, Attorney Paulo. And tama na now we're opening this for discussion. And I wanted to connect you where we ended when it comes to Article 59 of the Rome Statute, where it does say there that

18:33 when you have a person being arrested in a custodial state, that you have to bring them to a local judicial authority, which as lawyers would interpret to be our local courts. >> Yes. But then you mentioned that because well, I don't know the principle of complementarity, then but it didn't apply to you. So, like for example, we are if if we say that the Philippines is not willing and able to prosecute the crimes against humanity that is the subject matter of this case, then but it but it might be getting um um well, I don't know what I mean Article 59, which still clearly states that you have to bring the person arrested to a local judicial authority. >> Because we have already exhausted all remedies under local under under the

19:19 local jurisdiction. Our complimentary law is to give a chance to the to the to our to domestic law to to exert their kind of justice. But one and a half because at that point in time who willing on the third day administration of the firmament so that I'm investigate. But absolutely nothing happened. I'm sure I'm going to get rid of this in the third day administration and investigate it. So therefore you could see the uselessness of it all. So I'm going to I see I see you now. I'm going to go. The crime against humanity, genocide, piracy They're customary international law. And in international law there are four

20:05 sources of international law, treaty customary international law, general principles of international law, and statements of well-renowned authorities. There is no hierarchy. They can exist together. They can exist independently. So even if Rome statute RA 9851 directs itself to customary international law. And as a matter of fact it could exist independently. Number two You should have been the judiciary sets boundaries. Of course not. The constitution sets boundaries. That's why we have respect. to the executive's action. But you know what I'm going to legislate to we give

20:51 difference to the legislative action as well as the judiciary. Silence is also a signal that something can be done. >> [laughter] >> But yeah, you said that no you complementarity principle. Do you agree though? Do you agree that there was really failure? That because that that's the only time

21:36 it it it applies no that you didn't is when it is shown that the local courts the local jurisdiction can no longer function as such. Is it true? Do you agree with that? Well, I recall that at the time the the Philippine government was being represented by Solicitor General Guevara and I read their submissions and they had proof that they had over 300 ongoing investigations and court cases. So that was their proof that hey, we're doing our job. You shouldn't meddle with our process here with our laws with how we want to punish these crimes. So I don't agree that the investigations were going nowhere. I

22:22 mean for example Kian delos Santos or Now, if you're talking about something a case similar to what was filed there which in the ICC which comprises of like a systematic design for the drug war to to to do extrajudicial killings, then they should file one here. The complainants should file one here and I'm sure that the Marcos government is a very willing will very willingly pursue do because now as we know my gal up and I see that political so there's no reason why the Philippine government

23:07 should not assert its sovereignty and its power to look into these crimes and prosecute them. How would you still say that under this government there's a failure to prosecute? Okay, let us contextualize you can Ian de los Santos who are these people? They are like you and me ordinary people. Look at the the crime against you humanity can Duterte and all the co-perpetrators they are big time people with power at that point in time. Do not compare Ian de los Santos with

23:53 his with his powerful people. >> a victim. Right. So therefore you cannot that is also contextualizing complementarity. Who are the people? What do they do? How much power do they have? Does the system allow redress of grievance against these people? So you know you have to contextualize that that is it is not a simple case of looking at the provision and interpreting it in isolation. You have to contextualize. Number two Jurisdiction is already attached. Bato has already been declared a co-perpetrator. That's it. And we cannot relinquish jurisdiction and all that. We saw the affirmative

24:40 confirmation of the confirmation of the charges of Duterte and in the dispositive portion now they are there. They are black and white. So it's useless talking about this because now I see see Bato as a co-perpetrator. >> So Dean Mel the only part I don't agree with would be you principle of complementarity as a reason to disregard the requirement of the Rome Statute when it comes to enforcing an ICC warrant of arrest because it is part of the Rome Statute Article 59 to bring an arrested person in a custodial state before a judicial authority. That was indeed the steps that they have to make sure or validate that this is the same person named in the warrant that is being arrested. So, Marasa akin iba issue in

25:26 the complementarity. Complementarity is what gives the ICC the power or the jurisdiction to investigate and therefore pursuant to that to issue the warrant and therefore when you're already enforcing then you follow the steps under Article 59. Another angle is probably Article 59 is not is no longer applicable because we have withdrawn at this point in time. Kaya nga ito 'yung sinasabi ko. The The Republic Act 9851 can stand in itself because it is connected to customary international law. And when you talk about customary international law, then you can talk about crime against humanity. Kasi na nagiging structure nagiging structure international law must be applied in a very uh progressive and liberal way because basta ginawa mo 'yung crime against

26:11 humanity ang hirap talaga manghuli. It is so hard to capture a person who was so powerful. And as a matter of fact, that has been reflected in the affirmation of jurisdiction. Sabi, "We cannot we cannot let Duterte go kasi sa Pilipinas ang laki pa ng kanyang uh financial, political influence. So, so if you look at decisions, they are deciding it in a certain context, not in isolation. Okay. Mhm. Attorney Paula, quick rebuttal. Well, RA 9851 based on the deliberations is supposed to apply to uh international court that has jurisdiction. Kasi nga iba when it came out hindi but I owe party to the Rome statute. So, the discussion done

26:56 including Senator Kiko Pangilinan, somebody asked him. I think it was Senator One of one Senator was asking, what is the net effect if we pass this law without becoming a party to the Rome statute. I'm sorry I'm agreement in that is what I we cannot transfer jurisdiction to a court that has no jurisdiction that one applicable treaty. So, second since we've already withdrawn, we're talking about now arresting somebody and delivering it delivering him to to a court that no longer has jurisdiction on us and the one and say say to section 17 RA 9851.

27:49 The origin of a law is intention. The perfection of the law is its expression in the statute. We do not need the deliberation to tell us what it means. What's ambiguous about that? The deliberation will only be considered if ambiguous and statute it is not ambiguous. I will say just one just one short rebuttal. Ambiguity is the proof of that is that it's taken the

28:36 Supreme Court now 14 months deliberating [laughter] on this issue. Well, I thought Silence. You cannot infer from silence any ambiguity. Maybe it's just the usual tiredness of the Supreme Court. But you cannot impute anything from that This is a writ of habeas corpus. You cannot impute anything from silence. You cannot impute something that is against public policy from silence. That is absurd. Okay. Okay exactly. Exactly. Okay, thank you so much, attorneys. We'll definitely [music] talk about this more. Up next, parliamentary privilege and Senate custody. When does institutional protection preserve legislative independence and when does it begin to

29:23 obstruct justice? You're watching Abogado. Welcome back and thanks for joining us. You're still watching Heated Debates only here in Abogado. Now, we turn to the constitutional powers of the Senate itself. Article 6, Section 11 grants lawmakers immunity from arrest only for offenses punishable by not more than 6 years imprisonment. Prison correctional, if I'm not mistaken, no? Crimes against humanity under RA 9851, on the other hand, carry penalties far

30:11 beyond that threshold. Still, the Senate placed Senator De la Rosa under this concept, which up to now I do not understand, concept of protective custody after ICC linked arrest efforts inside the chamber. This raises difficult constitutional questions. Is protective custody a valid exercise of institutional authority or an unconstitutional shield against lawful arrest? Dean Mel, does parliamentary privilege have any constitutional application here at all given the gravity of the alleged offense and the penalties attached to crimes against humanity? Absolutely none. This This

30:56 parliamentary privilege is totally without basis in law, without basis in the constitution. If we say this is traditional, but you know, you cannot weaponize tradition and make that tradition as the means to give a person who just committed a crime against humanity a sanctuary. You cannot do that. You cannot make this building a hideout. Our Our building of the Senate on the basis of tradition. So yeah, absurd that is. There is none. It is the the The That That building is for public service, not for Senator Mel. Right? There is absolutely no basis.

31:44 Well, thank you very much, Dean. Public property, right? So, it's not supposed to protect anyone. Anyway, that's another topic altogether. Now, Attorney Paulo, where does the Senate derive the power to place one of its members under protective custody? And if authorities are serving a warrant, can preventing access amount to what you call obstruction of justice? Right. No, I I agree with Dean Mel that they're not supposed to do that or they they don't have the power to do that under normal circumstances. But again, as I said earlier, this is not normal circumstances. This is a situation where

32:29 for the first time ever an ICC warrant was issued one first against a former president and now a sitting senator. And we're still lacking guidance or waiting for guidance from from the Supreme Court. So, as I said, I feel like they were forced into this hand. And they're not asking they're not really asking they're not protecting Bato from account from facing accountability. They're asking they're simply asking for Bato, Senator Bato, to be given his legal remedies. As the Senate resolution number 44 said, a reasonable time prior to surrender to avail of and exhaust his legal remedies before Philippine courts, which is recognized by Article 59 of the Rome

33:16 Statute anyway. So, for me, it's a principled stand. It's justified, but normally as as as as far as the obstruction of justice is concerned, I saw the press conference of Senate President Alan Peter Cayetano this afternoon, and he said that despite promises from the NBI, the actual ICC warrant as transmitted to the Peace PCTC hasn't been presented to the Senate. So, as far as they're concerned, while their position is we will only recognize a local warrant, even the ICC warrant itself hasn't been presented. So, their position is, and I agree with them, that there's no obstruction of

34:02 justice by trying to prevent the service of this warrant or the arrest of Senator Bato. Okay. So, I Since we finished both of your statements here, we now will open this again for another discussion, but I'd like to throw in the views that were also exclaimed or expressed publicly. Like for example, DILG Secretary John Vic Mulyana said that the ICC warrant of arrest that Senator Trillanes or former Senator Trillanes was holding in the Senate is an unenforceable document. And in the past, in last year's arrest of former President Duterte, when there was a Senate hearing afterwards that was conducted, uh then

34:49 Justice Secretary Boying Remulla said that the government still does not recognize ICC jurisdiction and that their basis for the arrest was the Interpol red notice and our obligations to the Interpol. So, given that stand of the government based on their statements, other public statements, it appears that in this case, hindi napigilan si Senator Bato dela Rosa na umalis from the Senate or kaya siya pinoprotektahan din ng Senate is because as far as they're concerned, there was no valid warrant for them to allow Senator dela Rosa to be arrested. So, in question could for example you know you know you know the statements of government at the position nila. Din Mel, kung meron namang RA 9851 or even if we can use the customary law as our

35:38 basis to say na in forcing a warrant bakit hindi na lang maging clear ang ating gobyerno about that? >> Yeah, the government was very clear. Mhm. Kung napakinggan natin si the Department of Justice Polo Martinez kaninang umaga, he was saying, "We have all along since the Republic Act 9851 was our basis." So, saan niyo saan niyo nakukuha 'yung walang position ng government? Kung sinabi niya kanina, "Expressly just today, May 14, 20 26, Polo Martinez categorically stated, "We our position all along was Republic Act 9851." And he is speaking and he is with the Department of Justice. And we should give deference and great weight to a spokesperson of the Department of Justice. Kung nakakalubuan man tayo,

36:24 doon tayo papaling. 'Di ba? So, so wala there is no problem. There is no problem. Kaya hindi ko na There is no problem. I cannot see where that that's coming. Oh follow. Speaking of DOJ spokespersons, actually see DOJ spokesperson Miko Clavano at that time. The former president is Article 59 of the Rome Statute. At ang DOJ daw ang competent judicial authority. You know the position you know about the petition for corpus. But the RA 9851 is number

37:10 one. Number two Um Marcos government and ICC and they shall not turn back because no matter what the clear and clear recognition of ICC. So they said they will they will cooperate because of our obligations to the Interpol. But what did we find out during this petition for habeas corpus? What we found out was that the arrest warrant from the ICC was emailed from an ICC email address to Interpol Manila. Now Interpol Manila is that's the PCTC. Mhm. other words

37:58 Interpol officials. It was just a request from an ICC email address to Interpol Manila composed officials. So even their excuse of complying with Interpol obligations is not true. It's a farce. You know the deal. I'm putting the deal I'm putting the deal. Authentic by the document. ICC >> Dean Mel, I have a question. Arrest warrant because the visible figure last Monday was former Senator Trillanes and that's why on the plenary of Senate people are asking is he already the

38:43 process server for the ICC? But uh in general representative from ICC that you In this particular case, it's the Department of Justice. Remember that NBI is under the Department of Justice. Kaya so it's a government entity that is the representative of the government and there it is so it is so useless for for anybody to even, you know, create confusion on that. But that DOJ Mhm. Okay, Attorney Paolo. Who should serve it? For for me, it should be somebody from the government number one, but

39:29 The actually you got to get my owner money and arrest warrant from a local court. But I got to get that support that post do more you discuss on your validity ICC warrant. You know you got to get because for us Dean Mel has said RA 9851 customary international law better for us of course constitution remains supreme in the Philippines. [clears throat] Yes. No warrant of arrest should issue unless by a by a judge. >> Yes. You got to get it. Qualified by your judge. We what is are we cannot distinguish what is not distinguished by local don't

40:16 >> So you're saying local judge or foreign judge? Of course, because I could not even pretend that I am better than they. Republic Act 98 51 the crime against humanity so that probable cause cannot interpret the Constitution in a vacuum. You must interpret the Constitution in the light in the light

41:02 of what is happening today. Otherwise, otherwise a statue in a museum. With all due respect, the judicial power is vested in the Supreme Court and such lower courts that may be created by law. Obviously, ICC is not one of those. And I disagree. Because Republic Act 98 51 precisely, we recognize an international tribunal. Actually, para lang i-compare sa constitutional requirements natin. Yung mga ginamit na basehan to issue the warrant of arrest and to deny the interim relief request were Rappler articles, newspaper articles, hearsay

41:49 evidence. Estrada versus Ombudsman Sinabi ng Corte Suprema in the level of preliminary investigation hearsay is acceptable. Yes, pero dapat corroborated, Your Your Honor. >> [laughter] >> Substantive evidence ang level nila. Substantive evidence must matter as a probable cause. So, it was a finding of the judges there. precisely because you republic at 98 international tribunal

42:41 But thank you so much attorney. When [music] we return closing reflections on our central question. Does the Senate have an obligation to surrender one of its own? This is abogado. Welcome back and you're still watching Abogado. And for those who just tuned in, unfortunately for you cuz [music] you just missed really a very heated but intellectual discussion on this particular issue. Now, from ICC [music] jurisdiction and treaty withdrawal to parliamentary privilege and Senate custody, tonight's discussion has tested

43:27 the constitutional limits of accountability itself. At the center of the controversy is no longer only Senator De la Rosa. It is the larger question of how democratic institutions respond when international criminal law reaches the political establishment. We now ask for closing reflections. Dean Mel your final statement. Well, we just witnessed what happened in the Senate. Uh-huh. And what happened in the Senate is a manifestation of everything that is sick in the system. Now, we saw for example tradition being weaponized to give sanctuary to a person suspected of committing a crime. We see, for example, accountability being viewed as an attack. And we see, for example,

44:13 uh right or wrong being submerged to loyalty. And we see, for example, it mirrors what happened mirrors a feudalistic mentality where you have to associate yourself with power to be able to get justice, not innocence. Why why we why did we feel disappointed and frustrated?

44:59 You know, I mean, that is the psychological effect. That's the point. That's the whole That That is the message of what we witnessed last night. It's a feudalistic It's what is sick in the system. It mirrors a legal It mirrors justice which is not there but only they're wrapped in complexities which only which only the rich and the powerful can navigate.

45:50 Attorney Paulo, your closing reflection. Yeah. So, for me, it's not about evading accountability. It's about asserting sovereignty. The point is that a Filipino accused of committing a heinous crime against fellow Filipinos in the Philippines should be decided based on Philippine law, Philippine rules of evidence, and by fellow Filipinos as judges. We shouldn't outsource our justice to strangers to our system of government, our evidence, our culture, and the harsh realities that shape the decisions during the drug war.

46:36 I've been following the ICC because I need to because of the petitions for habeas corpus. I'm here to tell you I'm I'm I'm not a veteran lawyer compared to to Dean Mel, of course. I've been practicing for close to 15 years, and I can tell you that 90% of the time um the judges here that I encounter are fair. And they rule based on evidence, they're not influenced, they're not compromised. That's why I'm still practicing.

47:30 Pero proud akong maging Filipino uh, lawyer because I know while the our system is imperfect it's working. Okay, thank you so much. Dean Mel and Attorney Paolo and uh few seconds na lang. Partner, I'll give you the opportunity for your own closing statement. Sino yung mga senators >> RA 9851 >> [laughter] >> Okay. >> [music]

48:17 >> For helping us navigate one of the most consequential constitutional questions facing the country today. Because in the end the issue is not only whether international law can reach a city center. It is whether democratic institutions remain [music] accountable when power itself is under scrutiny. And in a constitutional democracy the rule of law is tested [music] most not when it confronts the powerless but when it confronts the powerful. This is Abogado. Good night.