SC explains why it junked Bato dela Rosa's TRO plea

The Supreme Court explained on Monday why it denied the request of Senator Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa for a temporary restraining order.

In Darlene Cay’s report on “Saksi”, dela Rosa’s camp failed to obtain a TRO and status quo ante order to prevent him from being arrested on the basis of an arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court (ICC) and not a Philippine court.

In its decision, the SC said the senator failed to show that he clearly had a right to be protected by a TRO issued by the high court.

The SC said this right is anchored on legal questions that the court has yet to decide on– which it includes as to whether the ICC warrant can be served even though the Philippine is no longer part of the Rome Statute. .

The decision also said the alleged threats against dela Rosa’s rights are “more imagined than real”.

It added that aside from dela Rosa being given protective custody by the Senate, President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. himself said on May 13 that there is no directive to arrest him.

The SC added that there were unverified reports and allegations in the very urgent manifestation that the dela Rosa camp submitted to which the court said it cannot issue a TRO or SQAO since these were based on mere speculation.

The court said it only decided on the issues of the provisional remedy and not the constitutional issues in dela Rosa’s main petition.

Dela Rosa’s wife, Nancy, appealed to the SC that it should not be “an accessory” that would send her husband to The Hague.

She said surrendering her husband is tantamount to admitting that the SC is weak and thatb Philippine courts are unable to try his case.

Nancy added Bato is the victim of politics.

On the government’s view, there are no longer impediments preventing the ICC warrant to be served but dela Rosa’s camp believe otherwise.

“Provisional remedy lang ang dineny. Wala pong ruling na pwede nang iimplementa ang warrant… Pinangungunahan nila yung Korte Suprema na wala pa ngang desisyon on the merits of the case eh,” said Israelito Torreon, the senator’s lawyer.

He said they have filed a manifestation on the SC decision.

Meanwhile, 58 members of the Mayors for Good Governance urged the Senate not to be a shelter for absenteeism and cover ups.

In a statement, the group maintained that an elected official who avoids responsibility should not be given protection.

"Nananawagan kami sa ating mga senador: ang Senado ay hindi dapat maging kanlungan ng absenteeism at pagtatakipan. Hindi dapat pinoprotektahan ang isang halal na opisyal na umiiwas sa kanyang mga responsibilidad habang patuloy na tumatanggap ng sahod mula sa taumbayan," the group said.

It added, "Ang mga mambabatas mismo ang dapat manguna sa pagsunod sa batas. Lalo na ayon sa diwa kung bakit nilikha ang mga batas: para sa pananagutan, integridad, at kapakanan ng sambayanang Pilipino."

(We ask our senators: the Senate should not be a shelter for absenteeism and cover ups. An elected official who avoids responsibilities while continuing to receive his salary from his countrymen should not be protected.

Lawmakers themselves should be the first to obey the law. Particularly based on the spirit on why the law was created: for liability, integrity, and the welfare of the Filipino people.)

Before attending the May 11 session, Dela Rosa disappeared for six months before reappearing and voting to replace Senator Tito Sotto as Senate President.

Dela Rosa was criticized for continuing to receive his salary during his prolonged and unexplained absence.

In an interview with GMA News, dela Rosa said he no longer claimed his salary in the last two months out of shame.

The senator’s whereabouts are currently unknown and is considered “armed and dangerous” by the National Bureau of Investigation.

GMA News is attempting to reach dela Rosa for his side on the matter. —RF, GMA News