Team DailyPedia
A tense interview between veteran broadcast journalist Ces Drilon and lawyer-singer Jimmy Bondoc, legal counsel of Senator Ronald dela Rosa, became a trending topic on social media following their discussion about the International Criminal Court (ICC) arrest warrant against the senator.
Bondoc appeared on One News’ ‘The Big Story,’ where he was interviewed by Drilon regarding the implementation of the ICC warrant tied to Dela Rosa’s alleged involvement in the Duterte administration’s controversial “war on drugs.”
It can be recalled that Dela Rosa resurfaced during a Senate plenary session on May 11 after reportedly avoiding public appearances for months amid fears of arrest. Days later, on May 13, chaos allegedly erupted at the Senate compound as the senator reportedly left the premises with the help of allies, including Robin Padilla, according to circulating CCTV footage and reports online.
During the interview, Bondoc argued that Dela Rosa should be tried in the Philippines if there were allegations against him.
Drilon then challenged the lawyer on why victims supposedly sought justice through the ICC instead of local courts.
“Sino po ang gusto niyo tanungin namin, out of fairness, kung bakit hindi dito sa Pilipinas kilitisin, sino po ang gusto niyo tanungin namin?” Drilon asked.
“Ang gobyerno po. This is the people of the Philippines…,” Bondoc replied.
Drilon cited statements allegedly made by Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla, also known as Boying Remulla, saying the government could not provide justice to victims domestically.
“Even the former justice secretary himself, Boying Remulla, who’s now Ombudsman, he himself said, hindi po kaya ng gobyerno. This is why the victims have gone to the ICC. For justice. Hindi ho kaya dito,” Drilon said.
Bondoc insisted that the Philippines had already withdrawn from the Rome Statute, but Drilon countered that the alleged crimes happened before the country’s withdrawal from the ICC treaty.
The interview became more heated when the discussion shifted to the serving of the ICC arrest warrant.
Bondoc claimed authorities failed to properly serve the warrant and argued that lawyers could receive such documents on behalf of their client.
“That is the purpose of the lawyer,” Bondoc said, after Drilon questioned how authorities could personally serve the warrant when Dela Rosa had allegedly fled.
Drilon laughed at the statement, prompting Bondoc to call her out.
“We are his legal counsel. Ma’am, I hope you don’t ridicule us Ma’am, we’re doing our best…” Bondoc said.
Drilon clarified that she was reacting to the apparent contradiction between requesting personal service and Dela Rosa allegedly avoiding authorities.
“No, I’m not, you’re saying you want to personally serve but he ran away,” she responded.
The clip quickly circulated online, drawing mixed reactions from netizens. Some praised Drilon for what they described as her tough questioning, while others criticized her for repeatedly interrupting Bondoc during the interview.
Several online users also questioned Bondoc’s statement that lawyers could receive arrest warrants for clients.
One X user wrote: “In what planet is this allowed? Sure, the lawyer of the accused may be present when — and only when — the subject of the arrest warrant elects to surrender himself to the proper authorities, but saying that the warrant should be handed over to the lawyer??? Crazy in so many levels!”
Another commented: “Rules of the DDS Court yata ang nabasa ni Jimmy Bondoc. Where on earth do you need to serve an arrest warrant to a lawyer? Nakakahiya!”
A separate user added: “Na-confuse ata ni attorney [ang] arrest warrant sa subpoena. Nasa Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure po, an arrest requires physical custody of the accused person.”
Former Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio also weighed in on the issue, explaining the concept of “universal jurisdiction” in crimes against humanity cases.
“‘Yung crime against humanity, tinatawag natin ‘yang crime with universal jurisdiction. Ibig sabihin niyan, any country, where the person is found who is charged with crime against humanity, can be charged in that country,” Carpio explained in a separate interview.
He further rejected claims that local court warrants were necessary before authorities could act on an ICC request.
“‘Yung sinasabi nila na walang jurisdiction dahil wala pang warrant of arrest from a local court, hindi totoo’ yan, dahil this is a crime of universal jurisdiction,” he added.
Dela Rosa remains accused by the International Criminal Court of crimes against humanity linked to the anti-drug campaign implemented during the administration of former president Rodrigo Duterte.
