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.