BAYAN MUNA V ROMULO

G.R. No. 159618

Facts:

Petitioner Bayan Muna is a duly registered party-list group established to

represent the marginalized sectors of society. Respondent Blas F. Ople, now
deceased, was the Secretary of Foreign Affairs during the period material to
this case. Respondent Alberto Romulo was impleaded in his capacity as then
Executive Secretary.

Having a key determinative bearing on this case is the Rome Statute

establishing the International Criminal Court (ICC) with “the power to
exercise its jurisdiction over persons for the most serious crimes of
international concern and shall be complementary to the national criminal
jurisdictions.” The serious crimes adverted to cover those considered grave
under international law, such as genocide, crimes against humanity, war
crimes, and crimes of aggression.

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:

Whether or not the RP-US NON SURRENDER AGREEMENT is void ab initio for
contracting obligations that are either immoral or otherwise at variance with
universally recognized principles of international law.

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 [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.