CASE DIGEST OF

G.R. No. 159618

BAYAN MUNA, as represented by Rep. SATUR OCAMPO, Rep. CRISPIN BELTRAN, and
Rep. LIZA L. MAZA, Petitioner,
vs.
ALBERTO ROMULO, in his capacity as Executive Secretary, and BLAS F. OPLE, in his
capacity as Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Respondents.

DOCTRINE:

CERTIOTARI is a writ of a higher court to a lower court to send all the documents in a case to it
so the higher court can review the lower court's decision. The Supreme Court grants certiorari
when it decides, at the request of a party challenging the decision of a lower court, to review the
merits of the case. At least four justices must vote to grant certiorari in a case.

MANDAMUS has always been regarded as an extraordinary legal remedy granted by courts of
appellate jurisdiction directed to some corporation, officer, or inferior court, requiring the
performance of a particular duty therein specified, which duty results from the official station of
the party to whom the writ is directed or from operation of some law. It has been the practice of
any court under any sovereignty to grant this extraordinary writ of mandamus if "there is another
plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary courts of law."

FACTS:

1. Petitioner Bayan Muna is a duly registered party-list group representing marginalized

sectors. Respondent Blas F. Ople was former Secretary of the Department of Foreign
Affairs [DFA] during the period material to this case but died due to heart attack in
Taoyuan City, Taiwan. Respondent Alberto Romulo was impleaded in his capacity as
then Executive Secretary.

2. Through Charge d’Affaires Enrique A. Manalo, the Reublic o the Philippines [RP] signed
the Rome Statute on December 28, 2000, which, by its terms, is "subject to ratification,
acceptance or approval" by the signatory states. Only 92 out of the 139 signatory
countries appear to have completed the ratification, approval and concurrence process
during the filing of instant petition where the philippines is no included.

NOTES:

● The Rome Statute establishes 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.

3. Then Ambassador Francis J. Ricciardone sent US Embassy Note No. 0470 to the DFA
on May 9, 2003 proposing the terms of the non-surrender bilateral agreement between
the USA and the RP.

On May 13, 2003, through Exchange of Notes No. BFO-028-037 [E/N BFO-028-037],
the RP, represented by DFA Secretary Ople, agreed with and accepted the US
proposals embodied under the US Embassy Note and put in effect the agreement with
the US government. In esse, it aims to protect what is referred to and defines as
"persons" of the RP and US from frivolous and harassment suits that might be brought
against them in international tribunals. It is reflective of the increasing pace of the
strategic security and defense partnership between the two countries. Similar bilateral
agreements have also been effected by and between the US and 33 other countries by
May 2, 2003.

NOTES:

● BFO - Basic Formal Ontology Beat frequency oscillator makes the "dots" and
"dashes" of the Morse code signal audible, sounding like different length "beeps"
in the speaker. A listener who knows Morse code can decode this signal to get
the text message.
● Esse - In essential nature or essence

The Agreement appositely provides that:

1. For purposes of this Agreement, "persons" are current or former Government

officials, employees (including contractors), or military personnel or nationals of
one Party.

2. Persons of one Party present in the territory of the other shall not, absent the
express consent of the first Party,

(a) be surrendered or transferred by any means to any international

tribunal for any purpose, unless such tribunal has been established by the
UN Security Council, or

(b) be surrendered or transferred by any means to any other entity or third

country, or expelled to a third country, for the purpose of surrender to or
transfer to any international tribunal, unless such tribunal has been
established by the UN Security Council.
 3. When the [US] extradites, surrenders, or otherwise transfers a person of the
Philippines to a third country, the [US] will not agree to the surrender or transfer
of that person by the third country to any international tribunal, unless such
tribunal has been established by the UN Security Council, absent the express
consent of the Government of the Republic of the Philippines [GRP].

4. When the [GRP] extradites, surrenders, or otherwise transfers a person of the

[USA] to a third country, the [GRP] will not agree to the surrender or transfer of
that person by the third country to any international tribunal, unless such tribunal
has been established by the UN Security Council, absent the express consent of
the Government of the [US].

5. This Agreement shall remain in force until one year after the date on which one
party notifies the other of its intent to terminate the Agreement. The provisions of
this Agreement shall continue to apply with respect to any act occurring, or any
allegation arising, before the effective date of termination.

4. Ambassador Ricciardone replied in his letter of October 28, 2003, in response to a query
of then Solicitor General Alfredo L. Benipayo on the status of the non-surrender
agreement, that the exchange of diplomatic notes constituted a legally binding
agreement under international law, and that under US law, the said agreement did not
require the advice and consent of the US Senate.

5. The petitioner attributes grave abuse of discretion to respondents in concluding and

ratifying the agreement and expects that it be deemed as unconstitutional, or at least
declared as without force and effect. Respondents then question petitioner’s standing to
maintain a suit and counter that the agreement, being in the nature of an executive
agreement, does not require Senate concurrence for its efficacy. And for reasons
detailed in their comment, respondents assert the constitutionality of the agreement.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the respondents gravely abused discretion by concluding the RP-US Non
Surrender Agreement.

2. Whether or not the RP-US Non Surrender Agreement is void ab initio for the
contravention of the Rome Statue and other treaties, and for not being submitted to
Senate for ratification.

HELD:

1. THERE IS NO GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AND THE AGREEMENT IS NOT IN

CONTRAVENTION WITH THE ROMAN STATUE.
 By constitutional decree and by the nature of his or her office, the President, as head of
state and government, is the sole organ and authority in the external affairs of the
country. The Constitution vests in the President the power to enter into international
agreements, subject, in appropriate cases, to the required concurrence votes of the
Senate. But 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.

Moreover, in contrary to petitioner’s pretense, 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. As aptly pointed out by respondents and admitted by
petitioners, the jurisdiction of the ICC is to "be complementary to national criminal
jurisdictions [of the signatory states]." [See Article 1 and Article 98, Section 2 of the
Roman Statute]

2. SENATE CONCURRENCE IS NOT REQUIRED IN THE RATIFICATION OF THE

AGREEMENT.

Article 2 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties defines a treaty as "an
international agreement concluded between states in written form and governed by
international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related
instruments and whatever its particular designation." International agreements may be in
the form of (1) treaties that require legislative concurrence after executive
ratification; or (2) executive agreements that are similar to treaties, except that
they do not require legislative concurrence and are usually less formal and deal
with a narrower range of subject matters than treaties.

Under international law, there is no difference between treaties and executive

agreements in terms of their binding effects on the contracting states concerned, as long
as the negotiating functionaries have remained within their powers. Neither, on the
domestic sphere, can one be held valid if it violates the Constitution. Authorities are,
however, agreed that one is distinct from another for accepted reasons apart from the
concurrence-requirement aspect.

Petitioner parlays the notion that the Agreement is of dubious validity, partaking as it
does of the nature of a treaty; hence, it must be duly concurred in by the Senate.
Petitioner takes a cue from Commissioner of Customs v. Eastern Sea Trading, in which
the Court reproduced the following observations made by US legal scholars:
"[I]nternational agreements involving political issues or changes of national policy and
those involving international arrangements of a permanent character usually take the
 form of treaties [while] those embodying adjustments of detail carrying out well
established national policies and traditions and those involving arrangements of a more
or less temporary nature take the form of executive agreements."

The categorization of subject matters that may be covered by international agreements

mentioned in Eastern Sea Trading is not cast in stone. There are no hard and fast rules
on the propriety of entering, on a given subject, into a treaty or an executive agreement
as an instrument of international relations. As may be noted, almost half a century has
elapsed since the Court rendered its decision in Eastern Sea Trading. Since then, the
conduct of foreign affairs has become more complex and the domain of international law
wider, as to include such subjects as human rights, the environment, and the sea.

In fact, in the US alone, the executive agreements executed by its President from 1980
to 2000 covered subjects such as defense, trade, scientific cooperation, aviation, atomic
energy, environmental cooperation, peace corps, arms limitation, and nuclear safety,
among others.

The Court need not overelaborate the issue anent to the validity and effectivity of the
agreement without the concurrence by at least two-thirds of all the members of the
Senate. The Court has, in Eastern Sea Trading, as reiterated in Bayan, given recognition
to the obligatory effect of executive agreements without the concurrence of the Senate.
The right of the Executive to enter into binding agreements without the necessity of
subsequent Congressional approval has been confirmed by long usage.

RULING: This petition is bereft of merit.

WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari, mandamus and prohibition is hereby DISMISSED
for lack of merit. No costs.