The fugitive
The continuing “telenovela” of Sen. Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa reminds me of the 1993 blockbuster movie “The Fugitive,” starring Harrison Ford as Dr. Richard Kimble, a respected physician wrongly convicted of murdering his wife and condemned to death. He escaped from a police van that was bringing him to prison. Dr. Kimble became a “fugitive from justice” because he tried to evade serving his death sentence.
MUCH LIKE THIS THRILLER, the public became transfixed by the mystery surrounding the senator’s whereabouts, his attempts to evade arrest, and the government’s growing determination to catch him. However, unlike the fictional Dr. Kimble, the legal issue surrounding the flesh-and-bone Dela Rosa is far more legally complicated.
Following the Supreme Court’s 9-5-1 denial of his plea for interim relief, the Department of Justice and the Office of the Solicitor General publicly dubbed him a “fugitive from justice.” Yet, contrary to popular impression, Dela Rosa has not been judicially declared one in the strict legal sense.
Indeed, the Court’s 9-5-1 vote refrained from declaring him a fugitive to avoid prejudging the substantive matters in the still pending petitions. This avoidance is important for at least two reasons.
First, in Vallacar v. Yanson (Nov. 25, 2025, per J Samuel H. Gaerlan, en banc), the Court defined a fugitive from justice as one who “not only flees after conviction to avoid punishment [like the fictional Dr. Kimble], but also … those who, after being charged, flee to avoid prosecution.”
More importantly, the Court emphasized that the “… indispensable element is the intent to evade prosecution or punishment” with the knowledge of the accused that a warrant of arrest has been issued against him/her.
For that status of “fugitive” to attach, it is necessary for the court that issued the warrant, either upon motion, or on its own—and after assessment of the circumstances of the case—to declare the accused as a fugitive from justice.
Second, such a judicial declaration carries legal consequences, principally, the application of the “fugitive disentitlement doctrine.” Under this principle, a fugitive “can no longer participate in the proceedings, and cannot seek any judicial relief.” In a ponencia I humbly penned (Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines v. People, April 14, 2004), “… a fugitive from justice loses his standing in court and is not entitled to seek relief from the judiciary.” Such disentitlement embraces both the right to appeal and the right to file motions and other pleadings seeking affirmative relief.
STILL, I AM OF THE OPINION that Dela Rosa may be lawfully arrested notwithstanding the absence of a formal judicial declaration that he is a fugitive from justice. The enforceability of a warrant and the juridical consequences of the fugitive status are distinct legal matters. One concerns the State’s authority to secure custody under a warrant, while the other refers to the procedural disabilities that arise from the deliberate evasion of the lawful process.
To stress, while he remains subject to lawful arrest under the International Criminal Court (ICC) warrant, he does not suffer the full legal consequences that ordinarily accompany a formal finding of being a fugitive from justice. Even so, the surrounding circumstances should be scrutinized.
The ICC arrest warrant, publicly announced on May 11, 2026, was widely reported by the media and unquestionably known to the senator, who openly resisted submission to the authorities.
Three days later—and despite his absence for six months after seeking and finding refuge within the Senate premises—Dela Rosa quietly slipped away once more in the dead of night. More tellingly, his wife Nancy publicly admitted that he had “escaped,” while close political allies repeatedly declined to disclose his whereabouts.
Taken together, these circumstances strongly suggest, at the very least, an intent to evade the lawful enforcement and, in the words of “Vallacar,” “undermine and frustrate the administration of justice.” Whether these acts would ultimately suffice to justify a formal declaration of fugitive status remains for the Court to determine in due course.
NONETHELESS, THE AUTHORITIES MUST DO WHAT THE LAW REQUIRES THEM: enforce the warrant and exhaust lawful means to secure his custody. Whether the ICC warrant is lawful or not will be determined in the courtroom, not in flight. Unless and until a competent court declares the warrant invalid, law enforcers should proceed with its enforcement under the long-settled legal presumption that official duties have been regularly performed.
May I close by returning to the image of “The Fugitive.” Unlike Dr. Kimble, whose flight was driven by a desperate effort to prove his innocence and catch the real killer, the case of Dela Rosa chronicles a once-feared police chief fearfully fleeing from the very machinery of law he once commanded with uncompromising ferocity.
In a just and humane society, no one is above the law. The accused are entitled to due process, while the victims deserve steadfast justice. Impunity has no place, not at all.
