BATO’S 3 A.M. GHOST WARRANT NIGHTMARE

How a blurry screenshot on Remulla’s phone triggered the most desperate Supreme Court filing of 2025

By Louis ‘Barok‘ C. Biraogo — November 15, 2025

1. “VERY URGENT” = Code for “I’m Having a Panic Attack”

One blurry screenshot. One “third-party source.” One Ombudsman waving his phone around on a late-night radio show like it’s the Shroud of Turin. And suddenly Senator Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa is sprinting to the Supreme Court with a 25-page “Very Urgent Manifestation” begging for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) so he won’t be kidnapped by the International Criminal Court (ICC) bogeyman. This isn’t a legal pleading. This is a grown man screaming because he saw a shadow.

**When the only thing standing between you and The Hague is a teddy bear named TRO.**

2. Sovereignty: The Magical Word That Makes Dead Bodies Disappear

Bato’s favorite incantation? SOVEREIGNTY. Say it three times and poof — thousands of extrajudicial killings vanish! Except the Rome Statute, Article 127(2) laughs in his face:

“Withdrawal shall not prejudice in any way the continued consideration of any matter which was already under consideration…”

Translation: You can leave the club, but you can’t erase the crimes you committed while you were a member. The ICC’s jurisdiction over the Philippine “drug war” (2011–2019) is ironclad. Sovereignty isn’t a “Get Out of The Hague Free” card, Senator.

3. Due Process? Or Just Due Terror?

Bato claims surrender to the ICC would violate his due process rights under Article III, Section 1 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. Let’s compare, shall we? Philippine Constitution (Art. III, §1) Rome Statute (Arts. 58, 60, 67) One short sentence 40+ pages of accused’s rights Local judges who take selfies with politicians Independent international judges Warrant? Sometimes optional Every single step judicially controlled

Even our own Supreme Court already ruled in Pangilinan v. Cayetano (G.R. No. 238875, 06 April 2021) that withdrawal does not erase obligations incurred while we were ICC members. So spare us the crocodile tears, Senator. You’re not afraid of missing due process. You’re afraid of getting due process — in a court that can’t be texted “pakiusap lang po.”

4. Witness Protection Is Suddenly a “Misuse of Funds”?

Bato also wants the Court to stop the Department of Justice (DOJ) from using the Republic Act No. 6981 Witness Protection Program to help ICC witnesses. Because apparently, protecting people brave enough to testify about mass murder is a waste of taxpayer money. The audacity deserves its own national holiday.

5. Three Ways This Supreme Court Drama Can End (Place Your Bets)

Option A: Instant Trash Bin The Court laughs, dismisses the petition, and reminds everyone the Philippines is not a retirement home for the untouchable.
Option B: Kabuki Delay A “narrow” TRO is issued “for further study” — giving Bato a few more sleepless weeks before reality bites.
Option C: National Suicide Note The Court fully sides with Bato and declares the Philippines an official safe haven for crimes against humanity. (We’ll change the country motto to “Impunity Guaranteed or Your Money Back.”)

FINAL VERDICT FROM THE DEPTHS

To the Honorable Justices: Dismiss this circus immediately. Anything less makes the Supreme Court a supporting actor in the longest-running tragedy of impunity.
To Senator Bato: Stop hiding behind ghost warrants and fake sovereignty. Pack light. The Hague has terrible Wi-Fi, but excellent justice. The hammer is coming. Even rocks crack eventually.

Key Citations

Marcelo, Elizabeth. “Bato Seeks SC Help in Stopping Arrest.” Philstar.com, 14 Nov. 2025. Accessed 14 Nov. 2025.
International Criminal Court. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. United Nations, 17 July 1998.
Pangilinan, Francis “Kiko” N., et al. v. Cayetano, Alan Peter S., et al. G.R. No. 238875, 16 Mar. 2021. Lawphil Project. Accessed 14 Nov. 2025.
Congress of the Philippines. Republic Act No. 6981: Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Act. 24 April 1991.
Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines. The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines.
Carpio, Antonio T., et al. Separate Opinion in Pangilinan v. Cayetano. Supreme Court of the Philippines, 6 April 2021.