BAYAN MUNA v.

ALBERTO ROMULO

G.R. No. 159618, 1 February 2011, EN BANC (Velasco, Jr., J.)

On 2003, then Ambassador Ricciardone sent US Embassy Note to DFA proposing the terms of the non-
surrender bilateral agreement bet USA and RP. The RP, represented by then DFA Sec. Ople, agreed with
the US proposals. Such Agreement provides that current or former government officials or employees or
military personnel of one party present in the territory of the other shall not be surrendered to any
international tribunal, absent the express consent of the first party, and unless such tribunal has been
established by the UN Security Council. Bayan Muna imputes grave abuse of discretion to respondents
and prays that the Agreement be struck down as unconstitutional.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the Agreement was contracted validly

2. Whether the Agreement, which has not been submitted to the Senate for concurrence, contravenes
the Rome Statute and other treaties

RULING:

1. Yes. Under the Doctrine of Incorporation, as expressed in Art II of the 1987 Constitution, the
Philippines adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land.
An exchange of notes falls into the category of inter-governmental agreements, which is an
internationally accepted form of international agreement. Hence, the Non-Surrender Bilateral
Agreement in the exchange note is a recognized mode of concluding a legally binding international
written contract among nations.

2. No. An act of the executive branch with a foreign government must be afforded great respect. This
authority of the President to enter into executive agreements without the concurrence of legislators is
provided by the inviolable doctrine of separation of powers among the legislative, executive and judicial
branches of the government. Thus, absent any clear contravention of the law, the courts should exercise
utmost caution in declaring any executive agreement invalid.