Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla criticized statements made by lawyer Jimmy Bondoc regarding the service of an arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC) against Sen. Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa.
In a statement, Remulla said an arrest warrant cannot be accepted by a lawyer on behalf of an accused person because it must be personally served by authorities during the actual arrest.
According to the Ombudsman, legal counsel may receive certain documents, such as subpoenas, but arrest warrants follow a different legal process that requires personal service to the individual named in the warrant.
Remulla made the remarks in response to Bondoc’s position that the warrant could instead be served through the senator’s legal team.
The Ombudsman also questioned Bondoc’s understanding of criminal procedure, suggesting that the lawyer may have been absent when the subject was discussed in law school.
Bondoc serves as legal counsel for dela Rosa, who is facing an ICC warrant in connection with the previous administration’s anti-drug campaign.
The issue gained attention after Bondoc argued that authorities could coordinate with the senator’s camp regarding the warrant. However, the position drew criticism from several observers and was also contradicted by statements from the National Bureau of Investigation.
Earlier, NBI officials explained that arrest warrants are implemented through established law enforcement procedures and that authorities are required to serve them directly on the subject of the operation.
The exchange between Remulla and Bondoc highlights differing interpretations regarding the proper handling and service of arrest warrants, particularly those linked to ICC proceedings involving former officials of the previous administration.
The discussion continues as authorities and legal representatives debate the procedures surrounding the implementation of the warrant against dela Rosa.
