The Running Man
The Running Man
Amiel Gerald A. Roldan™
November 6, 2026
No verified reports exist of casualties in any encounter during the ongoing manhunt for Sen. Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa; the claim is unsubstantiated against the public record.
As of early November 2026, Philippine authorities (PNP, DILG, NBI) continue a nationwide manhunt for the senator under an ICC arrest warrant related to alleged crimes against humanity (murder as an indirect co-perpetrator) linked to the Duterte-era drug war. Dela Rosa went into hiding after briefly resurfacing at the Senate in May 2026 (where a shooting incident occurred but produced no casualties), has been declared “armed and dangerous,” and faces a ₱50-million bounty. Officials have repeatedly warned of the *risk* of high casualties if force is used against alleged armed protectors (with DILG Secretary Jonvic Remulla citing figures as high as hundreds or even 10,000 in a worst-case scenario resembling Marawi-scale violence), while simultaneously directing maximum restraint, professionalism, human-rights compliance, and preference for peaceful surrender. The PNP has explicitly denied any “shoot-to-kill” order and stressed operational secrecy, tip verification, and avoidance of bloodshed. No official or credible independent reporting documents actual encounters resulting in deaths or injuries between parties in the manhunt itself.
Analytical deduction
The user’s statement (“allegedly there were already several casualties in the encounter between parties”) functions as a rumor or anticipatory claim rather than a verified event. It collapses the *prospective* risk repeatedly articulated by officials into an unconfirmed *actual* outcome. This pattern is common in high-stakes, high-visibility fugitive operations involving former security officials: informational fog, operational secrecy, political polarization (Duterte-era legacies, ICC legitimacy debates, institutional loyalty questions within the PNP), and social-media amplification generate casualty narratives in advance of evidence. The May 2026 Senate incident already demonstrated how quickly unverified death claims can circulate and be debunked. Recursive examination of the available record—official statements through 4–5 November 2026, consistent emphasis on restraint, absence of body counts, hospital reports, or confirmed firefights—yields a null result on casualties. The “allegation” therefore lacks empirical grounding and risks functioning as disinformation that could escalate tensions or prejudice due process.
Relational and recursive framing
The manhunt sits at the intersection of domestic enforcement capacity, international criminal accountability, and residual elite networks from the prior administration. Dela Rosa’s prior role as PNP chief creates institutional friction (loyalty tests, PMA ties, firearms still unaccounted for). Officials’ dual messaging—bounty + “no mercy” rhetoric alongside repeated appeals for peaceful surrender and restraint—reflects a calculated attempt to manage both legal obligation and the practical danger of armed confrontation in Mindanao or elsewhere. Recursively, any actual casualty event would immediately reconfigure the narrative: it would test the PNP’s claim of professionalism, potentially radicalize supporters, invite further ICC or human-rights scrutiny, and alter the political cost-benefit calculus for the Marcos administration. Conversely, prolonged non-resolution without violence sustains a state of suspended legitimacy in which the fugitive status itself becomes a political symbol. The absence of casualties to date is therefore not merely a factual null; it is a contingent achievement of restraint under conditions that officials themselves describe as highly combustible.
A conclusion
In rigorous terms, the claim of “several casualties” in encounters during the Sen. Bato manhunt is, on the evidence available as of 6 November 2026, unsupported and appears to extrapolate from publicly voiced risk assessments rather than from documented events. The operation remains characterized by intensified tracking, a substantial bounty, explicit rejection of lethal-force directives, and official preference for non-violent resolution—precisely to avert the very outcomes the allegation asserts have already occurred. Recursively, the statement itself participates in the information environment surrounding the manhunt: it illustrates how prospective danger is transmuted into alleged fact, thereby potentially influencing public perception, operational security, and political pressure. A truth-seeking assessment must therefore hold the distinction between risk and realization: until independently verified reports of casualties emerge, the claim remains an unsubstantiated allegation that sits outside the corroborated public record. The deeper structural tension—between the demand for accountability under an international warrant and the practical difficulties of enforcing it against a well-connected former security chief—continues unresolved, with the avoidance of bloodshed still the stated operational priority.
The core jurisdictional challenges for the ICC in the Philippines situation (Situation in the Republic of the Philippines) center on the effects of the country’s withdrawal from the Rome Statute, the temporal scope of jurisdiction, complementarity, and related enforcement/sovereignty issues.
These have been extensively litigated, with the Court ultimately affirming its authority over alleged crimes committed while the Philippines was a State Party.
1. Temporal Jurisdiction and the Effect of Withdrawal (Article 127)
The Philippines ratified the Rome Statute effective 1 November 2011 and deposited its notice of withdrawal on 17 March 2018. Under Article 127(1), withdrawal takes effect one year later (17 March 2019). The key provision is Article 127(2):
- A withdrawing State is not discharged from obligations arising while it was a Party.
- Withdrawal “shall not affect any cooperation with the Court in connection with criminal investigations and proceedings… which were commenced prior to the date on which the withdrawal became effective, nor shall it prejudice in any way the continued consideration of any matter which was already under consideration by the Court prior to the date on which the withdrawal became effective.”
Challenge raised by the Defence (including in the Duterte case): The formal investigation was only authorized by the Pre-Trial Chamber in September 2021—after withdrawal took effect. Therefore, the Court allegedly lacked jurisdiction to authorize or continue the investigation because the Philippines was no longer a State Party at the critical moment of “exercise” of jurisdiction. Critics further argue that a mere preliminary examination (opened publicly in February 2018) does not qualify as a “matter under consideration” sufficient to trigger residual jurisdiction under Article 127(2).
Court’s resolution:
- Pre-Trial Chamber I (23 October 2025) and the Appeals Chamber (majority decision, 22 April 2026) rejected these arguments.
- The preliminary examination, initiated while the Philippines was still a Party, constituted a “matter already under consideration.”
- Jurisdiction exists over crimes committed on Philippine territory between 1 November 2011 and 16 March 2019 (inclusive). The Court distinguished the existence of jurisdiction (tied to the period of State Party status) from its exercise, reading Articles 12, 13, 15, and 127 together in light of the Statute’s object and purpose (ending impunity). Allowing withdrawal to extinguish ongoing scrutiny of alleged crimes already under examination would undermine the treaty’s effectiveness.
This residual/continuing jurisdiction is consistent with the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (Article 70) regarding the consequences of termination of a treaty for existing situations.
2. Complementarity (Article 17)
The ICC is a court of last resort. It may only exercise jurisdiction if national authorities are unwilling or unable genuinely to investigate or prosecute.
Challenge: Philippine authorities and supporters of the former administration have argued that domestic processes (investigations, limited prosecutions of lower-level officers) satisfy complementarity, rendering ICC action improper. Sovereignty concerns are frequently invoked—claims that the ICC is interfering in internal affairs or that only Philippine courts have legitimate authority post-withdrawal.
ICC position and practical reality: The Office of the Prosecutor has consistently found a lack of genuine national proceedings against those most responsible (high-level officials). Domestic outcomes have been extremely limited relative to the scale of alleged killings (estimates of thousands to tens of thousands). The principle does not require the ICC to defer indefinitely when national efforts appear focused on shielding higher-level actors or are otherwise not genuine. This remains a live tension, especially in domestic political discourse and pending Supreme Court petitions in the Philippines challenging cooperation with ICC warrants.
3. Ratione Materiae and Personal Jurisdiction
The charges focus on crimes against humanity (primarily murder under Article 7(1)(a)), requiring a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population. For individuals such as former President Rodrigo Duterte and Sen. Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa (alleged as an indirect co-perpetrator or under other modes of liability during his tenure as PNP chief), the Court has found reasonable/substantial grounds linking them to the alleged policy and operations within the temporal window. Challenges to modes of liability, evidence of a “policy,” or the characterization of the drug war as an “attack” continue at the trial stage but do not negate the foundational jurisdictional findings already upheld on appeal.
4. Enforcement and Domestic Legal Friction
Even with affirmed ICC jurisdiction, practical challenges persist:
- The Philippines is no longer obligated to cooperate as a State Party for *new* matters, but residual obligations apply to pre-existing ones.
- Enforcement of arrest warrants depends on national authorities (as occurred with Duterte’s surrender in 2025). For figures still at large (e.g., dela Rosa as of late 2026), this creates political and operational friction, including debates over the legal force of ICC warrants under Philippine constitutional and statutory law.
- Pending Supreme Court cases in the Philippines continue to litigate the enforceability of the warrants and related cooperation duties, reflecting ongoing sovereignty arguments.
Broader Context and Implications
These challenges are not unique to the Philippines (similar issues arose regarding Burundi and other withdrawals), but the case has tested the boundaries of residual jurisdiction more sharply because of the gap between the preliminary examination and formal authorization. The Appeals Chamber’s 2026 confirmation of jurisdiction largely settled the core legal question for this Situation, clearing the path for Duterte’s trial (scheduled to open 30 November 2026) and related proceedings.
Critics (including some international criminal lawyers) continue to question whether the preliminary examination stage is robust enough to “lock in” jurisdiction against subsequent withdrawal, arguing it creates uncertainty for States considering ratification or withdrawal. Supporters emphasize that the opposite interpretation would allow States to immunize themselves mid-scrutiny, defeating the Statute’s purpose.
In summary, the primary jurisdictional hurdles—withdrawal timing, the status of preliminary examinations under Article 127(2), and complementarity—have been resolved by the ICC in favor of continued authority over the relevant period and persons. Residual political, enforcement, and domestic constitutional challenges remain active, particularly regarding cooperation and the practical arrest of remaining suspects.
Conclusion: The ICC has jurisdiction.
The Philippines was an ICC member from November 1, 2011, until March 16, 2019. It withdrew effective March 17, 2019.
Under Article 127 of the Rome Statute, withdrawal does not erase jurisdiction over crimes committed while the country was still a member. The ICC’s preliminary examination began in 2018 (before withdrawal), so the Court retained authority.
Both the Pre-Trial Chamber (October 2025) and Appeals Chamber (April 2026) rejected challenges arguing otherwise.
Bottom line: The ICC can prosecute alleged crimes against humanity from the drug war for the period the Philippines was a State Party. The main jurisdictional objections have failed.**Next steps (as of 6 November 2026):**
Duterte case
- Trial opens 30 November 2026 at the ICC in The Hague (Trial Chamber III).
- He must appear daily.
- First day: Confirm he understands the charges → enter plea (guilty or not guilty) → opening statements (Prosecution, then victims’ lawyers).
- Witnesses begin after opening statements.
- Hearings use shorter sessions with breaks for health reasons.
- Trial continues into 2027.
Bato dela Rosa
- ICC arrest warrant remains active.
- Philippine authorities are intensifying the manhunt (₱50 million bounty, tracker teams nationwide). He is still at large.
- His case cannot move to full trial until he is arrested and surrendered to the ICC.
- Domestic Supreme Court petitions challenging the warrant are still pending.
Immediate focus: Duterte’s trial starts in about three weeks. The manhunt for Bato continues in parallel.
Only one other person has a confirmed public ICC arrest warrant.
Confirmed warrants
- Rodrigo Duterte — In ICC custody. Trial starts 30 November 2026.
- Sen. Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa — Active warrant (unsealed May 2026). Still at large. Manhunt ongoing.
Named as alleged co-perpetrators (but no public warrants)
The prosecution has named these people in its trial brief as alleged co-perpetrators with Duterte:
- Sen. Christopher “Bong” Go
- Former PNP chief Oscar Albayalde
- Former Manila Police District director Vicente Danao
- Former Justice Secretary Vitaliano Aguirre II
- Former NBI Director Dante Gierran
- Former PDEA chief Isidro Lapeña
- Former PNP chief Camilo Cascolan (deceased in 2023)
Important: Being named in the prosecution’s documents does **not** mean an arrest warrant has been issued. The ICC has not publicly confirmed warrants against any of them. The Pre-Trial Chamber has also stated that references to co-perpetrators do not amount to a finding of their individual criminal responsibility.
Current status
As of 6 November 2026, only Duterte and Bato have confirmed ICC warrants. The others remain free, with no public arrest warrants issued against them.
About the author
Amiel Gerald A. Roldan (born 1972, Mandaluyong City, Philippines) is a multidisciplinary Filipino visual artist, printmaker, painter, independent curator, researcher, writer, and cultural worker whose practice has unfolded since the mid-to-late 1990s. He is not primarily defined by discrete artworks but by sustained engagement with the full ecology of Philippine contemporary art: production, exhibition-making, documentation, pedagogy, criticism, artist development, and the often-invisible labor that sustains cultural infrastructure.
Educated in Studio Painting (BA Fine Arts and Certificate of Fine Arts) at the University of the Philippines Diliman (roughly 1993–1998), Roldan’s practice quickly expanded beyond painting into printmaking, photography, installation, writing, and curatorial work. Early recognition included an Honourable Mention from the Art Association of the Philippines (1995) and international print exhibitions: the 1996 Japan-Asia Print Exhibition at the Fukuoka Prefectural Museum and the 4th Triennial Mondiale d’Estampes Petit Format in Chamalières, France (1998). His prints from this period addressed socially charged subjects, including HIV/AIDS work beginning around 1995, and titles such as Mga OCWs Galing Pinas, Karaoke Queen, Mga Tinikling Dancers ng Pinas, Wealth, Liberate, Permanence, and Abundance. These works treat printmaking as a vehicle for social commentary, cultural documentation, and reflection on Filipino identity, marginality, labor, and everyday experience.
A pivotal chapter came with the 2003–2004 Asian Cultural Council (ACC) Starr Foundation Fellowship. Roldan spent approximately ten months in the United States, working in association with the International Studio and Curatorial Program (ISCP) in New York—where he was among the early Filipino participants—and the Experimental Printmaking Institute in Pennsylvania. He also held a Chashama studio residency in Tribeca. The fellowship enabled observation of contemporary practices, dialogue with international artists and curators, and production of new work that linked local concerns with global contexts. More recently, his piece Bridges Beyond Borders (representing cultural collaboration and exchange) was selected as visual identity for the ACC Global Alumni Network, underscoring a two-way circulation of ideas rather than one-directional “representation” of the Philippines abroad.
Key contributions to Philippine art can be understood across interconnected dimensions:
1. Printmaking as socially engaged practice — Roldan has consistently used the medium for questions of identity, migration, popular culture, inequality, and Filipino lived experience, situating the print within a tradition that functions simultaneously as aesthetic object, document, and argument.
2. Artist-curator continuum — He has organized and curated exhibitions, documented practices, and supported artist development with institutions and spaces including Hiraya Gallery, Jorge B. Vargas Museum, Kulay Diwa Art Galleries (where he served in curatorial/directorial roles), Cultural Center of the Philippines, NCCA-related projects, Imahica Art, Gallerie Anna, and others. He has collaborated with figures such as Roberto Chabet, Brenda Fajardo, and international artists (e.g., from Studio One in Canberra, as well as practitioners from Sri Lanka, Malaysia, and Korea). More recently he has worked as program/marketing director and consultant curator for art fairs and spaces (including involvement with Manila Bang Show 2024 and MOCAF 2024). For Roldan these activities are not peripheral administration but forms of creative and intellectual labor.
3. Independent curatorial culture — He founded or leads Independent Curatorial Manila (ICM), conceived as an independent/voluntary curatorial service and guide for emerging Filipino artists. This reflects a commitment to pathways outside strictly institutional structures in an ecosystem heavily reliant on informal networks, galleries, independent spaces, and personal relationships.
4. International exchange and cultural memory — Beyond the ACC fellowship, his practice emphasizes postcolonial discourse, cultural memory, social inequality, politics, religion, faith, denial, courage, and everyday Filipino life. Writing, research, archiving, and annotation form integral parts of the work; recent reflective essays (including “Cultural Workers: Not Creative?” associated with a 2025 group exhibition at ILOMOCA) explicitly challenge hierarchies that privilege object-making over documentation, facilitation, pedagogy, marketing, and infrastructure-building.
5. Art as research and infrastructure — Roldan’s trajectory is circular rather than linear: artist → researcher → curator → writer → organizer → archivist → facilitator → artist. Making exhibitions possible, mentoring, documenting overlooked histories, building counter-archives, and writing critically about the conditions of art production are treated as artistic acts in their own right. This challenges romantic notions of the solitary artist and reframes the cultural worker as central to the art ecology.
Works are held in collections including the Singapore National Gallery / Singapore Museum, Luciano Benetton Collection (Imago Mundi / Venice), Rockefeller-related holdings, Lisa H. Mackie Collection, Philippine Department of Health collection, and the Experimental Printmaking Institute. Solo exhibitions include Memoirs of Pipay (Hiraya Gallery, 1996/2000), Pasintabi (Kulay Diwa, early 2000s), and Creating Identities (UP CFA Corridor Gallery, 2014), among others; group shows span Philippine institutions and international print platforms.
In one concise framing: Amiel Gerald Roldan is an artist-curator-cultural worker whose practice connects art-making with memory, social inquiry, international dialogue, independent curation, and the construction of cultural infrastructure. His potential legacy resides equally in the artworks produced, the ideas articulated in writing and reflection, and the often-invisible relational and organizational labor that helps other artists and artworks circulate. In a Philippine contemporary art field shaped by limited institutional resources and dense interpersonal networks, that third dimension—the work of making the ecology function—may prove among the most consequential.
Recent group show at ILOMOCA
https://www.facebook.com/share/v/16qUTDdEMD
https://www.linkedin.com/safety/go?messageThreadUrn=urn%3Ali%3AmessageThreadUrn%3A&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pressenza.com%2F2025%2F05%2Fcultural-workers-not-creative-ilomoca-may-16-2025%2F&trk=flagship-messaging-android
Chashama at 40 Worth Open Studios
https://chashama.org/event/40-worth-open-studios-phase-1/
Asian Cultural Council Alumni Global Networkhttps://alumni.asianculturalcouncil.org/?fbclid=IwdGRjcAPlR6NjbGNrA-VG_2V4dG4DYWVtAjExAHNydGMGYXBwX2lkDDM1MDY4NTUzMTcyOAABHoy6hXUptbaQi5LdFAHcNWqhwblxYv_wRDZyf06-O7Yjv73hEGOOlphX0cPZ_aem_sK6989WBcpBEFLsQqr0kdg
Amiel Gerald A. Roldan™ started Independent Curatorial Manila™ as a nonprofit philanthropy while working for institutions simultaneously early on.
The Independent Curatorial Manila™ or ICM™ is a curatorial services and guide for emerging artists in the Philippines. It is an independent/voluntary services entity and aims to remain so. Selection is through proposal and a prerogative temporarily. Contact above for inquiries.
https://www.instagram.com/tv/ChiTnSEl1VN/?stkn=MWhwZmV2ZWxvYjA1NA==
LanguageLoginCreate connection,Value conversation.For youWho we areMeet the teamICM cultureHow to applyStoriesContact usLanguageManage your cookie preferencesPrivacy & Cookie PoliciesTerms of useGlobal code of conduct & ethicsAll rights reserved Amiel Gerald Roldan® 2026***Disclaimer:This work is my original writing unless otherwise cited; any errors or omissions are my responsibility.The views expressed here are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of any organization or institution.Furthermore, the commentary reflects my personal interpretation of publicly available data and is offered as fair comment on matters of public interest. It does not allege criminal liability or wrongdoing by any individual.
Comments