BAYAN MUNA v ALBERTO ROMULO

GR. 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/S:

• 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?
• Is the agreement valid, binding and effective without the concurrence by at least 2/3 of
all the members of the Senate?

RULING:

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.”
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.