PH🏛️ PoliticsLean Progressive6 hr. ago

Ombudsman: Padilla ‘ignores’ summons on raps over Dela Rosa ‘escape’

Senator Robin Padilla has failed to respond to a summons from the Office of the Ombudsman regarding allegations that he assisted Senator Bato Dela Rosa in evading arrest. The Ombudsman, Jesus Crispin Remulla, stated that Padilla ignored the 15-day deadline to submit a counter-affidavit, and the investigation will proceed without his input. Dela Rosa was wanted by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) under an International Criminal Court warrant, but he avoided capture by securing protective custody through Senate procedures. On May 13, a shooting occurred between Senate security personnel and NBI agents, prompting Dela Rosa to flee with Padilla's assistance. The Criminal Investigation and Detection Group concluded that Dela Rosa's departure with Padilla was a deliberate, pre-planned effort to evade authorities.

Senator Robinhood Padilla has reportedly ignored a summons from the Office of the Ombudsman to respond to a complaint alleging his involvement in the escape of Senator Ronald "Bato" Dela Rosa in May. According to Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla, Padilla has not addressed the summons issued by the anti-graft body following a June 3 complaint filed by the group Tindig Pilipinas. The complaint alleges that Padilla, along with Senator Alan Peter Cayetano and former Senate sergeant-at-arms Ma. O. Aplasca, obstructed justice by aiding Dela Rosa's evasion of arrest. On June 23, Assistant Ombudsman Moreno Generoso requested that Padilla, Cayetano, and Aplasca submit their responses within a strict 15-day window. However, as of late July, Padilla has not responded to the summons, according to Remulla, who stated that the Ombudsman would proceed with the case without Padilla's counter-affidavit. Cayetano, meanwhile, has submitted his counter-affidavit in response to the allegations. Remulla confirmed that Cayetano's submission was received, though he declined to comment on its content, stating that he does not micromanage individual cases. Aplasca, on the other hand, has requested an extension for her response, which the Ombudsman has granted. The alleged escape took place on May 11 when National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) agents attempted to arrest Dela Rosa using an International Criminal Court warrant. Dela Rosa had gone into hiding for over six months before resurfacing in the Senate. Despite the warrant, Dela Rosa evaded capture and sought protective custody from the Senate, which was granted by Cayetano. Tensions escalated on May 13 when a confrontation occurred between NBI agents and Senate security personnel at the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) Complex in Pasay City, where the Senate is located. This led to a shooting incident. Following this, Dela Rosa disappeared once again, this time leaving the Senate premises with Padilla in his vehicle during the early hours of May 14. The Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG) has concluded that Dela Rosa's departure with Padilla was not a simple act of transportation but rather a well-coordinated effort to evade detection. The CIDG described the movement as a "highly coordinated, preplanned logistical maneuver specifically executed to avoid detection while escaping the Senate premises." The Tindig Pilipinas complaint outlines three key actions attributed to Cayetano, Padilla, and Aplasca. It claims that these individuals obstructed justice under Presidential Decree No. 1829, as their actions allegedly hindered the enforcement of legal processes and the performance of legal duties. Padilla's legal team has claimed that the senator submitted a counter-affidavit to the Ombudsman on July 9. However, Assistant Ombudsman Mico Clavano stated that the submission does not appear in their records. Clavano emphasized that the Ombudsman would rely solely on their internal systems for processing the case. During the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, Padilla challenged a witness regarding a separate case against him. He questioned the witness about the status of the case, suggesting that facing legal challenges promptly is essential. His remarks were made in the context of the ongoing investigation into his potential role in Dela Rosa's escape. The situation highlights the growing scrutiny surrounding high-profile figures in Philippine politics. The Ombudsman's decision to proceed without Padilla's input underscores the gravity of the allegations and the need for swift judicial action. Meanwhile, the legal battle continues, with the outcome likely to influence future political dynamics in the country.

How each side covered it

The same event, grouped by the political lean of the outlets covering it.

How each side covered it

Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and your personalized For You feed.

Become a Supporter

Covered around the world

The same event as reported in other countries.

Covered around the world

Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and your personalized For You feed.

Become a Supporter

Claims check

Key factual claims, and how many sources assert vs dispute each.

Claims check

Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and your personalized For You feed.

Become a Supporter

3 reports

Philippine Daily InquirerIndependentCenterFactual 85Objective 783 days ago

Ombudsman: Padilla ‘ignores’ summons on raps over Dela Rosa ‘escape’

Bias read (Center): The article presents factual developments surrounding legal proceedings involving high-profile politicians without overtly endorsing or criticizing any side. While the subject matter involves political figures and legal accusations, the framing remains neutral, focusing on procedural aspects and the

Why factuality (85): The article reports on the Ombudsman's claim that Senator Padilla ignored a summons related to allegations of aiding Senator Dela Rosa's 'escape.' It references specific dates, officials involved, and procedural actions taken by the Ombudsman. While no primary source is available, the information al

Why objectivity (78): The tone remains neutral, reporting facts as they are presented by the Ombudsman. However, there is subtle emphasis on Padilla's non-response, which may imply a judgment on his behavior. The article avoids overt emotional language but presents the situation in a way that highlights the consequences

Philippine Daily InquirerIndependentCenter6 hr. ago

Ombudsman: No record yet of Padilla’s reply in Bato escape raps

Senator Robinhood Padilla has not yet provided a formal reply to an obstruction of justice complaint related to his alleged involvement in Senator Ronald 'Bato' Dela Rosa's escape from the Senate. According to Assistant Ombudsman Mico Clavano, Padilla's submission of a counter-affidavit does not appear in the Ombudsman's records, despite claims from Padilla's team that it was filed on July 9. Meanwhile, Dela Rosa was arrested by NBI agents on May 11 using an ICC warrant but escaped with the assistance of Padilla, who transported him in his vehicle. The Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG) has determined that Dela Rosa's movement was part of a planned operation to evade capture.

Bias read (Center): The article presents factual information regarding the legal proceedings involving Senator Robinhood Padilla and Senator Ronald 'Bato' Dela Rosa without overtly favoring either side. It includes statements from both Padilla's representatives and the Ombudsman's office, providing a balanced view of a

Philippine Daily InquirerIndependentProgressive2 days ago

Ombudsman: Robin ‘ignored’ summons in Bato ‘escape’ probe

Senator Robinhood Padilla is facing allegations of ignoring a summons from the Office of the Ombudsman regarding his alleged involvement in the 'escape' of Senator Ronald 'Bato' dela Rosa in May. The Ombudsman, Jesus Crispin Remulla, stated that Padilla has not responded to the summons, which was issued on June 3, and the deadline for a response has expired. While other individuals involved, such as Senate Sergeant-at-arms Mao Aplasca, have taken steps to address the matter, Padilla has yet to provide a counter affidavit. During the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, Padilla questioned a witness about a case filed against him, suggesting potential conflict of interest. The situation highlights ongoing legal and procedural challenges within the Senate and the Ombudsman's office.

Bias read (Progressive): The article frames Senator Robinhood Padilla's actions in a manner that suggests potential misconduct or evasion, aligning with a critical perspective towards high-profile politicians. The emphasis on Padilla's failure to respond to the Ombudsman's summons and his questioning of a witness during a严肃

Keep the news honest.

ObjectiveNews is reader-funded and ad-free — we show you the bias instead of hiding it. Support independent journalism for €5/month.

Become a Supporter

Ombudsman: Padilla ‘ignores’ summons on raps over Dela Rosa ‘escape’

How each side covered it

progressive

center

conservative

How each side covered it

Covered around the world

Covered around the world

Claims check

Claims check

3 reports

Keep the news honest.

Related stories

Highlights: Day 5 of Sara Duterte impeachment trial | July 14, 2026

NBI probes funding ‘irregularities’ in 2019 SEA Games Clark complex

Lotoc: Actual sedition not required to charge inciting to sedition vs VP Duterte

Duterte impeachment trial: Senate junks bid vs AMLC report

Ombudsman: Romualdez keeps trying to leave PH as we prepare plunder rap

Abalos, other secretaries visit flood, quake victims in Mindanao