G.R. No.
159618 February 1, 2011
BAYAN MUNA, (as represented by Rep. SATUR
OCAMPO, Rep. CRISPIN BELTRAN, and Rep. LIZA L.
MAZA, Petitioner,)
vs.
ALBERTO ROMULO, (in his capacity as Executive
Secretary, and BLAS F. OPLE, in his capacity as Secretary
of Foreign Affairs, Respondents.)
The Case
• This petition1 for certiorari, mandamus and prohibition under Rule 65
assails and seeks to nullify the Non-Surrender Agreement concluded by
and between the Republic of the Philippines (RP) and the United States of
America (USA).
THE FACTS
• In 2000, the Republic of the Philippines, through Charge d’Affaires Enrique A. Manalo, signed the
Rome Statute which, by its terms, is “subject to ratification, acceptance or approval” by the signatory
states.
In 2003, via Exchange of Notes with the US government, the Republic of the Philippines, represented
by then DFA Secretary Ople, finalized a non-surrender agreement which aimed to protect certain
persons of the RP and US from frivolous and harassment suits that might be brought against them in
international tribunals.
Petitioner imputes grave abuse of discretion to respondents in concluding and ratifying the Agreement
and prays that it be struck down as unconstitutional, or at least declared as without force and effect.
ISSUE:
• 1. Did respondents abuse their discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction in concluding the RP-US Non Surrender Agreement in
contravention of the Rome Statute?
•
2. Is the agreement valid, binding and effective without the concurrence
by at least 2/3 of all the members of the Senate?
HELD:
• According to Art. 1 of the Statute, the jurisdiction of the ICC is to “be complementary to national criminal
jurisdictions [of the signatory states].” the Rome Statute expressly recognizes the primary jurisdiction of states,
like the RP, over serious crimes committed within their respective borders, the complementary jurisdiction of
the ICC coming into play only when the signatory states are unwilling or unable to prosecute.
Also, under international law, there is a considerable difference between a State-Party and a signatory to a
treaty. Under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a signatory state is only obliged to refrain from
acts which would defeat the object and purpose of a treaty. The Philippines is only a signatory to the Rome
Statute and not a State-Party for lack of ratification by the Senate. Thus, it is only obliged to refrain from acts
which would defeat the object and purpose of the Rome Statute. Any argument obliging the Philippines to
follow any provision in the treaty would be premature. And even assuming that the Philippines is a State-Party,
the Rome Statute still recognizes the primacy of international agreements entered into between States, even
when one of the States is not a State-Party to the Rome Statute.
HELD:
• The right of the Executive to enter into binding agreements without the necessity of subsequent
Congressional approval has been confirmed by long usage. From the earliest days of our history,
we have entered executive agreements covering such subjects as commercial and consular
relations, most favored-nation rights, patent rights, trademark and copyright protection, postal
and navigation arrangements and the settlement of claims. The validity of these has never been
seriously questioned by our courts.
Executive agreements may be validly entered into without such concurrence. As the President
wields vast powers and influence, her conduct in the external affairs of the nation is, as Bayan
would put it, “executive altogether.” The right of the President to enter into or ratify binding
executive agreements has been confirmed by long practice.
