MISLEADING: SC Justice Leonen favors Dela Rosa’s Escape

A Facebook post claims that Supreme Court Justice Marvic Leonen supports Sen. Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa’s escape by stressing that the senator ‘did not fight back’ and only ran after seeking protection in the Senate. 

CLAIM:

Leonen purportedly sided with Dela Rosa’s departure to avoid arrest and reasoned that the senator could not demand for protection unless he had been detained or voluntarily surrendered. 

RATING: MISLEADING

CONCLUSION: 

Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice’s concurring opinion is about the denial of the temporary restraining order filed by Dela Rosa’s camp last May 11, 2026, which frames Leonen’s legal position as approval of the senator’s alleged escape.

THE FACTS:

• Senator Bato Dela Rosa, on May 11, filed an Urgent Manifestation to present his arrest following reports that the International Criminal Court (ICC) had issued an arrest warrant against him over alleged crimes against humanity linked to the Duterte administration’s anti-drug campaign. 
• In a vote of 9-5-1, the senator’s prayer for a temporary restraining order and/or status quo ante order was denied during the special session held by the High Court on May 20. 
• In his separate concurring opinion, Senior Associate Justice Leonen discussed the ruling and explained that a temporary restraining order should not be issued to prevent an arrest before it occurs.
• Leonen explained further that if Dela Rosa was placed under arrest or voluntarily surrendered, legal remedies could be used, such as a writ of habeas corpus, to challenge the legality of his arrest, further allowing the court to examine the legality of such arrest. 

• The Supreme Court also clarified that Dela Rosa has failed to submit evidence that grave injustice and irreparable injury will arise if the TRO was not issued, leading to the denial of the request. 

THE BOTTOMLINE: 

Leonen’s legal reasoning centers around when and how Dela Rosa could challenge the arrest through court and appropriate judicial proceedings. His arguments do not imply that he endorsed the senator’s alleged departure. The post circulating online confused Leonen’s arguments with justification for the senator’s escape.