“Kaufman Warns: ‘Pag si Remulla ang nag-leak, siya ang mauunang makasuhan’ — A Twist BBM Did Not Expect.”
The latest tremor in the political landscape didn’t come from Congress, the ICC, or Bato’s camp—
it came from PRRD Lead Counsel Nicolas Kaufman, who publicly warned:
“I do not believe that Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla would be so remiss as to dice with prosecution at the ICC for contempt, by leaking the existence of a highly confidential arrest warrant for a suspect.”
Translation?
Kapag mali ang leak, hindi si Bato ang unang masasabon — kundi mismong si Remulla.
And this lands like a seismic wave because:
🔵 Remulla himself talked about a ‘warrant’ before government agencies confirmed anything
Publicly.
Casually.
In interviews.
But ICC warrants are TOP SECRET until served.
Meaning —
binuksan niya ang isang kahong hindi niya dapat galawin.
That’s the problem.
Kung tama ang sinabi niya, he exposed confidential information.
Kung mali naman, he misled the nation.
Either way, walang panalo.
🔵 Kaufman’s statement is not just a warning — it’s a shield for Bato
By saying:
“I do not believe Remulla would risk contempt…”
Kaufman is subtly telling the ICC:
“Kung may nag-leak, hindi kami.”
And:
“Kung nag-leak man, tingnan niyo kung sino ang nagsalita nang maaga.”
Brilliant and brutal.
🎧 Stream Buwaya sa Congreso on Spotify, Amazon Music, Itunes, Youtube and Facebook today.
https://open.spotify.com/album/7GkurDB4gUdWB9TlxRpcvP?si=m8jDgQQ_Qxe_kARwO2TwTQ
Apple Music: https://music.apple.com/us/artist/politikanta-minute/1851182606
🔵 Why this matters politically
The Marcos administration wanted to position Remulla as the “expert voice” on ICC matters.
But his interviews created:
✔ confusion
✔ panic
✔ misinformation
✔ premature speculation
✔ and now… possible ICC contempt exposure
Imagine this headline (which is now literally circulating):
“Ombudsman Remulla, posibleng mauna pa kaysa kay Bato.”
Not because of crimes —
but because of a technical leak.
This is the danger of reckless messaging in an administration built more on PR than precision.
🔵 The contrast
Under Duterte:
✔ Legal strategy was airtight
✔ Messaging was coordinated
✔ Lawyers and agencies moved in sync
✔ Walang mauuna dahil walang nagpapalusot ng sensitive info
Today:
A single interview creates international legal vulnerabilities.
This is why Duterte-era loyalists are shaking their heads:
“Hindi ito mangyayari dati.”
🔵 What happens next?
If ICC decides to review the leak:
— They will track the source
— Identify who spoke prematurely
— Determine if there was contempt
— Decide if penalties apply
And because ICC procedures are strict,
kahit ‘small leak’ ay considered serious violation.
Meaning:
Kung may consequence,
Remulla really might face it BEFORE Bato.
📖 Bible Reflection — Proverbs 21:23
“Whoever keeps his mouth and tongue keeps himself out of trouble.”
Some officials should take notes.
Especially those who talk too soon.
🎧 Stream Sa Gitna ng Uhaw on Spotify, Amazon Music, Itunes, Youtube and Facebook today.
https://open.spotify.com/album/63hbCvGl6brB4nhEcK1z1q?si=Xj-xKgidTEOZ1WLY6Pcckw
Apple Music: https://music.apple.com/gb/album/sa-gitna-ng-uhaw/1858077981
TIDAL: https://tidal.com/album/478344566/track/478344575
Deezer: https://www.deezer.com/us/album/868511842
‘Warrant sa Phone’: Kapag Maling Info ay Ginawang Breaking News
Nov 16, 2025 02:10 AM
A curious situation unfolded when DOJ Sec. Boying Remulla announced that the ICC arrest warrant for Sen. Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa was “in his phone.” No document shown, no file presented — just a verbal claim.
But hours later, the International Criminal Court (ICC) spokesperson from The Hague broke the silence:
There is no warrant. None issued. None transmitted.
This contradiction casts a long shadow over the credibility of the claim.
Was it a misunderstanding?
A premature statement?
Or an attempt to create noise amid national controversies?
In an era where every word from public officials is scrutinized, accuracy is essential. The public deserves clarity, not improvisation.
And when the ICC itself rejects the existence of the warrant, the burden shifts back to the source of the claim.
In an era where every word from public officials is scrutinized, accuracy is essential. The public deserves clarity, not improvisation.
And when the ICC itself rejects the existence of the warrant, the burden shifts back to the source of the claim.
Truth must stand on evidence, not on the battery life of someone’s phone.
