PANELO LAW OFFICE

08/01/2026

We confirm the filing, on January 5, 2026, of petitioner Veronica Duterte’s Memorandum in the consolidated habeas corpus petitions for former President Rodrigo Roa Duterte (“FPRRD”) in G.R. Nos. 278763, 278768, and 278798, urging the Supreme Court to repel one of the gravest assaults to the Constitution in our nation’s history.

The respondents shamelessly sacrificed national sovereignty and the rule of law for political retribution, by unlawfully arresting and detaining a former President without a warrant and due process, and surrendering him to a foreign tribunal without jurisdiction - all while lying about Interpol involvement to cover their treason.

The Supreme Court now stands at the precipice. Will it exercise judicial restraint, abdicate its duty, and reward such abuses, allowing the Executive to trade sovereignty for political scores, and to treat the Constitution as optional when inconvenient? Or will it reaffirm its duty to safeguard the Constitution, declare the rendition illegal, and direct the respondents to reverse their injustice to FPRRD?

We remain hopeful that the Supreme Court will be true to its mandate as the last bulwark of the Constitution; and will choose the side of history that defends the rule of law and the Filipino people, and not the politicians who betray them. A beloved former President languishing in foreign captivity, and his beleaguered nation, await.

SALVADOR PAOLO A. PANELO, JR.
Counsel for Veronica “Kitty” Duterte
Managing Partner, Panelo Law Office
January 8, 2026

22/12/2025

20/12/2025

Thank you Politiko Talks and Bilyonaryo for having me on the show, and for the lively discussion on current events. More power!

17/12/2025

The PANELO LAW OFFICE confirmed that it filed an Urgent Motion to Resolve and to Direct Respondents to Facilitate the Immediate Return of former President Rody Duterte before the Supreme Court on November 18, 2025, seeking prompt resolution of the consolidated habeas corpus petitions that have been pending since March 12, 2025.

Filed on behalf of Kitty Duterte, the motion covers G.R. Nos. 278763, 278768, and 278798 that question the legality of Duterte’s arrest and transfer to the International Criminal Court. The filing reiterates that habeas corpus is a constitutional remedy designed to provide immediate judicial protection against unlawful restraint and that prolonged delay weakens judicial review and the protection of individual liberty.

After the urgent motion was filed, the Supreme Court, in an En Banc resolution dated November 11, 2025, but released only on November 28, 2025, required all parties to submit their respective memoranda within a non-extendible period of 30 days and identified the constitutional and legal questions it intends to resolve, placing the petitions under active judicial review. For Veronica Duterte’s camp, the deadline is on December 29, 2025.

The Supreme Court identified key issues for determination, including whether the controversy remains justiciable despite Duterte’s detention abroad, whether Philippine officials acted within the bounds of law in carrying out directives related to the ICC, and whether recognized exceptions to mootness apply. The Court also directed the parties to address whether the ICC may validly exercise jurisdiction over Duterte despite the Philippines’ withdrawal from the Rome Statute.

The resolution further requires discussion on whether Republic Act No. 9851 remains applicable after withdrawal, whether the principle of complementarity was properly applied or waived by the Executive, and whether any obligation to cooperate with the ICC continued after withdrawal. The Court likewise raised whether its intervention would encroach on executive authority in matters of foreign relations.

On the core habeas corpus issues, the Supreme Court ordered the parties to fully address whether a writ should issue. These include whether Duterte’s arrest complied with domestic and international law, whether the Interpol communication relied upon was a red notice or a diffusion, whether such notices have the force of a domestic warrant of arrest, and whether Duterte was arrested and surrendered without a warrant issued by a Philippine court as required under the Constitution. The Court also raised whether Duterte’s detention lacks legal authority, whether his constitutional and statutory rights were violated, and whether Section 17 of Republic Act No. 9851 validates the procedure used in his arrest and surrender. The parties were also directed to inform the Court of any developments relevant to the case.

The urgent motion highlighted the consequences of continued delay, citing concerns over Duterte’s condition while in foreign custody and stressing the need for timely judicial action to prevent further harm. It also underscored the importance of clear judicial guidance to avoid similar situations involving other Filipino citizens, including Senator Ronald Bato Dela Rosa.

To address arguments that the case has become moot, the motion cited jurisprudence affirming the continuing reach of habeas corpus even when a detainee is held outside the country, so long as the officials responsible remain within the Court’s jurisdiction and have the capacity to undo the alleged wrong.

Soon after the En Banc resolution, the Office of the Solicitor General entered its appearance as counsel for the State in the related petition for certiorari filed by Duterte and Senator dela Rosa. On December 4, 2025, Solicitor General Darlene Berberabe all but confirmed in an interview that the OSG will also represent the government in the habeas corpus petitions filed by Duterte’s children.

Reacting to the OSG’s entry into the case, Atty. Salvador Paolo Panelo, Jr. of the Panelo Law Office stated, “It does not matter who represents the government because you can’t defend the indefensible. Treason can’t be disguised as international cooperation, and submission to the Constitution can’t be optional. Former Solicitor General Menardo Guevarra got it right the first time.”

With the Supreme Court having defined the issues and required comprehensive memoranda from all parties, the consolidated habeas corpus cases have entered a decisive phase. The review now places the legality of the former president’s arrest, detention, and surrender squarely before the Court, with implications for constitutional protections, executive authority, and the scope of judicial oversight.

17/12/2025

Panelo Sr. 🤝 Panelo Jr.

12/12/2025

ON THE AFFIDAVIT OF RAMIL MADRIAGA AND THE PLUNDER COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST VP SARA DUTERTE

These are nothing more than the work of the same insidious forces responsible for the extralegal rendition of former President Rodrigo Roa Duterte to the Hague, and the failed impeachment bid against Vice President Sara Duterte. These perpetrators, once bitter rivals now bound in an unholy alliance for mutual political survival, aim to dismantle the Duterte legacy, and thwart Vice President Duterte’s unassailable path to the Presidency.

Having been humiliated by the Supreme Court’s resounding rejection of their meritless impeachment complaint on procedural and constitutional grounds, they now resort to this plunder complaint, fully aware that Vice President Duterte, as an impeachable officer under the 1987 Constitution, can only be removed through the impeachment process. This flagrant “bending of the law” which is designed to weaponize the clearly partisan Ombudsman – exposes their brazen agenda: not justice, but the subversion of democratic institutions to eliminate a formidable opponent they cannot defeat at the ballot box.

The Madriaga affidavit, riddled with nonsensical narratives from a man with a checkered and criminal past, is a malicious fabrication designed to smear Vice President Duterte with unsubstantiated tales of illicit funds and dealings. This surely perjured affidavit, suspiciously timed for release just before today's plunder complaint filing, reeks of political desperation.

The plunder complainants, self-proclaimed anti-corruption advocates, have curiously yet to demand accountability for President Ferdinand Marcos, Jr., whose administration has presided over what many of their own allies decry as the most corrupt budget in Philippine history, with billions, if not trillions, lost to ghost, overpriced, and substandard flood control projects. Their hypocrisy is laid bare: they decry graft while enabling it, all to advance a purely political agenda aimed at subverting the sovereign choice of the electorate.

Filipinos have endured and rejected their brand of governance and politics: a toxic mix of elitism, division, and self-serving machinations that prioritizes power over progress. The Filipino people will see through these vile maneuvers, and far from weakening her, these attacks will only fortify Vice President Duterte’s resolve with the support of a nation that demands better.

08/12/2025

There is no option to bypass local courts in surrendering an accused to the ICC.

05/12/2025

Also, we are not naive. We know bringing PRRD home won’t be easy. But what can’t happen is for the Supreme Court to fold its arms and say nothing can be done. That would reward this government for their illegal acts, and for purposely evading judicial review. It should not fall on the Supreme Court or the petitioners to figure out how to secure PRRD’s release. The government engineered this problem, so it’s on them to fix it.

03/12/2025

After the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) entered its appearance as counsel for the State in the petition for certiorari of former President Rodrigo R. Duterte (FPRRD) and Senator Bato dela Rosa, Solicitor General Darlene Berberabe all but confirmed in an interview yesterday evening with “Agenda” on Bilyonaryo that the OSG will also represent the government in the habeas corpus petitions filed by FPRRD’s children.

Our reaction: It does not matter who represents the government because you cannot defend the indefensible. Treason cannot be disguised as international cooperation, and submission to the Constitution cannot be optional. Former Solicitor General Menardo Guevarra got it right the first time.

03/12/2025

Join our team, and practice law as it should be. We are looking for principled, diligent, and articulate young lawyers and bar candidates, with a dash of audacity.

Please send your applications to [email protected], attention to Salvador Paolo A. Panelo, Jr., Managing Partner.

03/12/2025

In Villavicencio v. Lukban, our Supreme Court declared that habeas corpus respondents cannot evade the writ by simply relocating the detained, and held that the place of confinement is immaterial as long as the respondents are within the Court’s jurisdiction. It asserted that the writ can compel them to return the subjects because the capacity to commit injustice entails the obligation to undo it.