Show me the law on "Senate Protective Custody"

It is my honor and privilege to concur with my former DOLE boss, former Senate president (for three times) former senator for 24 years, former secretary of Justice and former DOLE secretary Franklin M. Drilon, that there is no such "animal" as Senate Protective Custody in the annals of our legal system, to justify the momentary avoidance of arrest by the NBI operatives who were on official mission to enforce the International Criminal Court warrant of arrest of Senator Ronald Dela Rosa.

In a broadcast interview with Atty. Mike Toledo and Atty. Karen Jimeno over Bilyonaryo program "Abogado". The legal luminary, Atty. Frank Drilon, Bar third-placer in 1969, declared that there is no such thing as Senate Protective Custody. That term "protective custody" is only used by the Department of Justice in connection with the Witness Protection Program.

My research generated information that this term is being used by agencies and organizations tasked with the administration of justice, the management of prisons and custody of prisoners. According to AI and Wikipedia, protective custody is a type of imprisonment whose primordial purpose is to protect the person under custody from being harmed, attacked, kidnapped, or assassinated by other prisoners who might be hired to eliminate such a prisoner who might have known too much.

Maximum security prisons like that of Riker’s Island off New York in the U.S., Kamiti Maximum Security Prison in Kenya, Black Dolphin Prison in Russia, Gitarama Central Prison in Rwanda, and Carcel Barrios in El Salvador, use the term protective custody to provide special care for jailed government operatives who are vital witness and are government assets planted in prisons so as to spy on the more notorious and savage rascals and scoundrels inside.

Leading prison centers all over the world hold in custody infamous serial killers, hardened criminals, notorious guns-for-hire, and leaders of syndicate involved in drugs and organized crime rings. Prison authorities would usually recruit prisoners who could be convinced to act as agents of the prison officials in exchange for a special protective mantle. Other prisoners who come from wealthy and influential families would make special confidential requests for protective custody so that they could be defended from harm, attack, and aggression from other detained convicts.

Having laid down the foregoing premises, I submit that the Philippine Senate does not have the power, much less the legal basis to justify the brief but highly-questionable coddling of a fugitive from justice. Senators Leila de Lima, Sonny Trillanes and even the late Juan Ponce Enrile were also incumbent senators when there were warrants of arrests for the crimes of which they were charged. The Senate never accorded this concocted term "protective custody".

A duly-elected senator who took his oath to serve the people, defend and protect the Constitution, and uphold the law of the land, a former PNP Chief and a PMA graduate should be the first one to demonstrate a sterling example of respecting the rule of law. He should be the last one to display a gross disrespect of the law. If a lady like De Lima, a very old rich senator like Enrile, a fellow PMAer like Trillanes faced the music and cooperated with legal authorities and respected the legal processes even when all fair and honest Filipinos knew that the charges were trumped up in the case of de Lima, why can’t he do the same.

And the Senate president who was a brilliant Ateneo student, a former speaker and congressman many times over, a former DFA secretary and a son of a man of honor and integrity, should have known better than to allow a fugitive from justice to escape from the fold of international law. No, Mr. SP, there is no such thing as Senate Protective Custody. If there is any, then show us the law.