The International Criminal Court last week unsealed an arrest warrant accusing Dela Rosa, Duterte and other alleged co-perpetrators of committing the “crime against humanity of murder” during the Philippines’ crackdown on illegal drugs.

Dela Rosa, who briefly remained inside the Philippine Senate last week while contesting the warrant, petitioned the Supreme Court to block government efforts to detain him.

In a filing dated May 16, Solicitor-General Darlene Berberabe argued that Dela Rosa had effectively placed himself “outside the protection of the law” and urged the court to dismiss his petition.

“Until he submits himself to lawful authorities, he must be deemed a fugitive from justice and should not be allowed to seek any relief from the courts,” the filing said.

Authorities said Dela Rosa quietly left the Senate building on Thursday, and his whereabouts were not immediately known.

The Philippine justice department said on Friday that authorities would defer serving the ICC warrant until the Supreme Court ruled on Dela Rosa’s petition, unless officials determined he was attempting to leave the country.

The Supreme Court did not immediately comment on the government filing.

Dela Rosa has argued the ICC warrant is invalid because the Philippines withdrew in 2019 from the Rome Statute, the treaty that established the court.
Berberabe said in the filing that withdrawal from the treaty “does not relieve a state party from cooperating in proceedings already initiated before the ICC.”

The ICC prosecutor opened a preliminary examination into the Philippines’ anti-drug campaign in 2018 after rights groups and activists alleged widespread extrajudicial killings during Duterte’s presidency.
Thousands of people, including suspected drug users and low-level dealers, were killed during the campaign launched after Duterte took office in 2016, according to human rights organizations.

Duterte was arrested in March last year and transferred to The Hague, where he remains in detention awaiting trial before the ICC.

Dela Rosa served as chief of the Philippine National Police from 2016 to 2018 before entering politics. He was elected to the Senate in 2019 and retained his seat in the 2025 midterm elections.

Anthony James Kazmierczak, 55, pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court to one count of assaulting a United States officer in connection with the Jan. 27 incident, in which prosecutors said he sprayed Omar with apple cider vinegar from a syringe during a public event focused on immigration enforcement policies.

The Justice Department said Kazmierczak acknowledged during a hearing before U.S. District Judge Joan Ericksen that he had planned the assault in advance and acted because he disagreed with Omar’s positions on immigration and federal enforcement actions.

The attack occurred as Omar criticized the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency’s operations in Minnesota and discussed fatal shootings involving federal agents in Minneapolis. Authorities said the liquid sprayed on Omar’s clothing and skin was later confirmed through laboratory analysis to contain acetic acid.

Omar was not injured.Security personnel subdued Kazmierczak after he shouted and gestured toward Omar during the event, according to officials. He was later arrested, while the town hall resumed after a temporary disruption.Omar, a Somali-born Muslim lawmaker who arrived in the United States as a refugee child and became a U.S. citizen in 2000, has frequently been the target of political attacks and threats linked to her outspoken criticism of Republican immigration policies and U.S. foreign policy.

President Donald Trump has repeatedly criticized Omar publicly and on social media, including remarks questioning her place in the United States and calling for punitive action against her. Civil rights advocates and political analysts have warned that increasingly hostile rhetoric directed at elected officials has contributed to a broader rise in political intimidation and violence across the country.

The Justice Department did not immediately disclose a sentencing date. Federal assault charges involving attacks on elected officials can carry prison terms and financial penalties depending on the severity of the offense and intent established by prosecutors.

The complaint, lodged in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, names reporter Sarah Fitzpatrick and challenges an article published on Friday that cited anonymous sources describing what it called “conspicuous inebriation” and erratic availability during Patel’s tenure.

Patel denied the allegations in comments to Reuters, calling the report “a lie” and accusing the publication of knowingly printing false information despite receiving prior denials. “They were given the truth before they published, and they chose to print falsehoods anyway,” he said.

The article, which was later retitled online, reported that early meetings had been rescheduled due to late-night drinking and that Patel was frequently unreachable, delaying investigative decisions. The report included denials from the White House, the Department of Justice and Patel himself.

In a statement, The Atlantic said it stands by its reporting and would “vigorously defend” against what it described as a meritless lawsuit.The lawsuit alleges the publication acted with “actual malice,” a legal standard requiring public figures to prove that false information was knowingly published or recklessly disregarded.

Patel’s filing argues that editors failed to adequately consider detailed rebuttals provided before publication and did not allow sufficient time for response.Legal experts note that U.S. defamation law sets a high threshold for public officials.

Deanna Shullman said proving actual malice is difficult and that failing to obtain comment alone is generally insufficient to meet the standard.The complaint also references a letter sent by Patel’s attorney, Jesse Binnall, shortly before publication requesting more time to respond to multiple allegations.

The lawsuit claims the article was published without addressing those objections.The case adds to a series of legal actions by figures linked to the administration of Donald Trump against media organizations, though courts have previously dismissed several similar defamation claims.