The Senator’s Shifting Position

Manila, Philippines – A prominent Philippine House leader has publicly questioned the apparent contradiction in Senator Bato dela Rosa’s recent actions. Dela Rosa, while advocating for the compulsory attendance of Cabinet officials at a Senate inquiry, previously invoked what he termed inter-parliamentary courtesy to avoid participation in a House committee investigation. This earlier investigation, known as the Quad Committee’s inquiry, focused on allegations of extrajudicial killings during the nation’s war on drugs.

Now, Dela Rosa is pushing for subpoenas to compel government executives to testify before the Senate foreign affairs committee. These officials are being summoned in connection with the investigation into the arrest and potential handover of former President Rodrigo Duterte to the International Criminal Court (ICC) for alleged crimes against humanity.

House Assistant Majority Leader Jude Acidre, representing the Tingog Party-List, articulated concerns that Dela rosa appeared to be demanding a level of deference that he himself was unwilling to extend to the executive branch. At a press conference on Friday, April 4, Acidre stated: ‘Di po natin pinuwersa. Hinintay po natin ‘yung kapwa nating mambababatas na voluntarily magappear sa House. Pero hindi natin naririnig ‘yung pareho kay Sen. Bato. (We did not force them. We waited for our fellow lawmaker to voluntarily appear before the House. … But we don’t hear the same from Sen. Bato.)

The Drug War Probe and Inter-Parliamentary Courtesy

Dela Rosa, who formerly served as the Philippines’ police chief and spearheaded Duterte’s controversial anti-illegal drugs campaign, had declined to participate in the Quad Committee hearings examining the violent crackdown on suspected drug offenders.

Dela Rosa had consistently maintained that he would not attend the hearings. As early as June 2024, he publicly asserted that inter-parliamentary courtesy is an enshrined practice and tradition among legislative chambers that ought to be respected.

The Quad Committee acknowledged the senator’s decision, clarifying that the invitation was merely an opportunity for him to address questions and provide clarification regarding his involvement in the so-called war on drugs.

Acidre emphasized this point,stating,Ginalang ng house of Representatives ang [inter]-parliamentary courtesy by not insisting on the presence of Sen. Dela Rosa [to answer] questions regarding his role as chief PNP sa panahon ng EJK. (The House of Representatives respected inter-parliamentary courtesy by not insisting on Sen. Dela Rosa’s presence to answer questions regarding his role as PNP chief during the time of EJKs.) “EJK” being a local term for extrajudicial killings.

Acidre further noted, Mahirap naman na sila, sa pagkakataon ngayon, ay ibabalewala ang pag invoke ng co-equal branch ang executive privilege. (It would be difficult for them,at this point in time,to simply ignore the invocation of executive privilege by a co-equal branch.)

Executive Privilege and the Senate Investigation

The Senate foreign relations committee, led by Senator Imee Marcos, sought to issue subpoenas to compel high-ranking officials to testify after they refused invitations to appear at the second hearing on Thursday, April 3. This request came after Executive Secretary Lucas Bersamin,in a letter to the panel,invoked executive privilege and the sub judice rule,citing concerns related to national security and diplomatic sensitivities.

Malacañang Palace, the official residence and principal workplace of the President of the Philippines, also argued that the invited officials had already been present at the initial hearing, where Dela Rosa could have posed his inquiries. However, dela Rosa was absent from that initial hearing.

While executive privilege is not explicitly codified in the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, it is indeed upheld in legal precedent as an implied power rooted in the separation of powers doctrine. This privilege allows the executive branch to withhold sensitive facts from other branches of government. The ultimate determination of the validity of the privilege rests with the courts. This is very similar to the way executive privilege works in the United States, where Presidents from both parties have invoked it, leading to court battles over the scope of its power.

Dela Rosa also accused Malacañang of disrespecting the Senate’s role as a co-equal branch responsible for checks and balances. Senator Marcos went further,suggesting that the officials’ absence and the invocation of executive privilege constituted a cover-up.

Senate President chiz Escudero, though, cautioned against issuing subpoenas without legal review, warning that such action could potentially trigger a constitutional crisis. As I said, I don’t want to create a constitutional crisis by issuing a subpoena if there is an invocation of executive privilege. Our resort shoudl be with the court, he stated during a media forum on Thursday.

Acidre emphasized that while inter-parliamentary courtesy and executive privilege could be invoked, a careful balance was necessary.Addressing dela Rosa’s actions, he stated: Kung hindi niya kaya magawa, ‘wag na niya ituro ‘yung iba. (If he can’t do it, he shouldn’t point fingers at others.)

Duterte’s ICC case: A Flashpoint

The backdrop to these political maneuverings is the ongoing case against former President Duterte at the International Criminal Court. Duterte is currently detained in The Hague, Netherlands, facing charges of crimes against humanity in connection with his drug war campaign. Government data indicates that over 6,000 deaths occurred during this period.

These charges also stem from Duterte’s actions during his tenure as mayor of Davao City, where he was known for his hardline approach to crime.

A hearing to confirm the charges against Duterte is scheduled for September 23. In preparation, his defense team intends to seek an interim release and challenge the ICC’s jurisdiction, aiming to have the case dismissed. This mirrors the legal battles often seen in U.S. courts when international law intersects with domestic politics.

Implications for the Philippines, Echoes in the U.S.

The situation in the Philippines highlights the delicate balance between legislative oversight, executive power, and international accountability. The invocation of executive privilege, the debate over inter-parliamentary courtesy, and the ongoing ICC investigation all contribute to a complex political landscape. For U.S. readers, this case offers a parallel to domestic debates regarding the scope of presidential power, congressional investigations, and the role of international courts like the ICC.The U.S.has historically had a complex relationship with the ICC, refusing to become a member while sometimes cooperating with its investigations.

The pursuit of justice for alleged human rights violations in the Philippines continues to face significant hurdles. The upcoming months will be critical as Duterte’s legal team challenges the ICC’s jurisdiction and as the Philippine Senate grapples with the issue of executive privilege.

Key Players in the Philippine Political Drama

Extrajudicial Killings in the Philippines: A Deeper Look

The core of the controversy stems from the accusations of extrajudicial killings during rodrigo Duterte’s “war on drugs.” Human rights organizations and international bodies have raised serious concerns about the methods employed and the scale of the violence. According to