ABSTRACT

From 2000 to 2008, Bilateral Immunity Agreements have been the bane of the
International Criminal Court (ICC). From its inception, foundation and until the
change of government administration, the authority of the ICC and its enabling treaty,
the Rome Statute, have received an increasing level of antagonism from the United
States of America. From a reception in the 1990s to the aggression in the early 2000s,
the conduct of the US towards the Rome Statute and the ICC has declined to outright
hostility. Clearly, the US did not favor this new participant in the playground of the
international community. This paper seeks to discuss one of the consequences of this
previous cold relationship: the Bilateral Immunity Agreement between the Philippines
and the United States of America.

Admittedly, the Philippines is a minor player in the international arena, but it

has been put in a bind as a result of the initial US reaction to the ICC. The country
has openly professed its support to the causes of both parties, but in doing so it may
have unknowingly violated the generally accepted principles of international law,
other treaty obligations, and its own domestic laws. Bayan Muna vs. Alberto Romulo
is a recent Philippine Supreme Court decision that upheld the validity of the
controversial Bilateral Immunity Agreement between the Philippines and the United
States of America. The decision of the Supreme Court might seem logically sound, but
a closer look at the historical and legal background of America’s relationship with the
ICC shows the contrary.

This thesis seeks to tackle this decision and the confusion it creates in
interpreting the contested executive agreement in relation to the Philippines’ treaty
obligations and a recently passed law from Congress. The decision will be
respectfully critiqued, and the legal implications of upholding its validity in the
Philippine jurisdiction will be outlined and presented. The paper aims to shed light on
this relatively unknown case to inform the reader of the legal ties surrounding the
Philippines and the United States and their relationship to the Rome Statute of the
ICC. A detailed reading of the case is significant as information about the legal gaps
it produces gives the Philippines all the more reason to join the call of the ICC to end
impunity.