Solgen Berberabe defends Du30 arrest, chides Bato plea
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) will once again stand as counsel for government officials in the petition before the Supreme Court challenging the arrest and turnover of former President Rodrigo Duterte to the International Criminal Court (ICC), where he faces charges of crimes against humanity of murder over his bloody antidrug campaign.
The OSG’s return comes eight months after the office, then led by Menardo Guevarra, recused itself from representing the officials who facilitated Duterte’s arrest and turnover, citing the agency’s “consistent” stance that the ICC had no jurisdiction over the Philippines.
In its manifestation filed on Dec. 1, the office, now headed by Solicitor General Darlene Berberabe, said it had earlier withdrawn from the case filed by Duterte and Sen. Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa upon the former president’s arrest in March—a move that was approved by the Supreme Court on April 2.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) had since stood as counsel for the respondent government officials: former Executive Secretary Lucas Bersamin; former Justice Secretary and now Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla; Interior Secretary Jonvic Remulla; former Philippine National Police chiefs Rommel Marbil and Nicolas Torre III; former Foreign Secretary Enrique Manalo; and Armed Forces of the Philippines chief of staff Gen. Romeo Brawner Jr.
‘Warrant’ on Dela Rosa
Earlier in November, after reports surfaced that an ICC warrant had already been issued against Dela Rosa, a former PNP chief and coperpetrator in Duterte’s case, the senator’s lawyer sought relief from the high court, reiterating its earlier plea for a temporary restraining order (TRO) barring the government from enforcing any such warrant.
In a statement on Tuesday, Berberabe explained her office’s decision to again represent the government, stressing the OSG’s role as statutory counsel of the republic and that “it is our foremost duty to appear and represent the interest of the government, especially in cases of utmost importance.”
“Our decision to enter anew our appearance in this case is based on our appreciation of the totality of the facts, including those that have unfolded since March 2025 (the time that OSG recused from this and other related cases) and our understanding of the law as it should apply to those facts,” she said.
‘Speculative’
The OSG also responded to Dela Rosa’s plea for injunctive relief against his possible arrest, calling it “another attempt at their failed bid to preempt” the executive branch.
“Stripped to its essentials, the manifestation is but a preemptive measure to prevent respondents from acting on the alleged ICC arrest warrant issued against Senator Dela Rosa,” the OSG said, noting that the relief sought is based on a “speculative and unrealized government action” that is not ripe for adjudication.
‘No clear legal right’
The OSG argued that despite Ombudsman Remulla’s public pronouncement about the supposed ICC warrant, there has yet to be any official government declaration confirming the existence of a warrant or diffusion order against Dela Rosa, who has stopped attending the sessions and hearings in the Senate since last month.
“At this stage, therefore, Senator Dela Rosa has no clear legal right that needs court protection because his fear of impending arrest and the supposed violation of his right as a consequence thereof, while imaginable, do not find anchor in any established fact,” it said.
Absent an actual arrest warrant, the OSG asserted that Dela Rosa’s plea “has no leg to stand on” and that the Supreme Court “cannot properly intervene, much less grant the relief being sought.”
“His claim that he will be arrested and surrendered is, at this juncture, pure conjecture in much the same way that the manner and procedure in the enforcement of such arrest and surrender is speculative,” it added. —WITH A REPORT FROM INQUIRER RESEARCH
