Scribd
Upload
7K views1 page

Bayan Muna V Romulo Digest

[1] The respondents did not abuse their discretion in concluding the RP-US Non Surrender Agreement as it does not contravene or undermine the Rome Statute. The Agreement complements the Statute by recognizing states' primary jurisdiction over crimes within their borders, with the ICC having complementary jurisdiction only when states are unwilling or unable to prosecute. [2] As a signatory but not state party to the Rome Statute, the Philippines is only obliged to refrain from acts defeating the Statute's object and purpose. Additionally, the Statute recognizes the primacy of international agreements between states, even if one state is not a party. [3] The Executive has long entered executive agreements without Senate approval

Uploaded by

Gracia Sullano
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
7K views1 page

Bayan Muna V Romulo Digest

[1] The respondents did not abuse their discretion in concluding the RP-US Non Surrender Agreement as it does not contravene or undermine the Rome Statute. The Agreement complements the Statute by recognizing states' primary jurisdiction over crimes within their borders, with the ICC having complementary jurisdiction only when states are unwilling or unable to prosecute. [2] As a signatory but not state party to the Rome Statute, the Philippines is only obliged to refrain from acts defeating the Statute's object and purpose. Additionally, the Statute recognizes the primacy of international agreements between states, even if one state is not a party. [3] The Executive has long entered executive agreements without Senate approval

Uploaded by

Gracia Sullano
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
  • Case Overview

CASE DIGEST: BAYAN MUNA v. ALBERTO ROMULO.

G.R. No. 159618; February 1, 2011.

FACTS: In 2000, the RP, 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 RP, 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: The Agreement does not contravene or undermine, nor does it differ from, the Rome Statute.
Far from going against each other, one complements the other. As a matter of fact, the principle of
complementarity underpins the creation of the ICC. 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.

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. DISMISSED.

You might also like