Pangilinan v. Cayetano, GR 238875 Mar.

16, 2021
Facts:
On march 15, 2018, the Philippines announced that it was withdrawing from the International
Criminal Court (ICC). President Duterte claimed that the country never became a state party to
the Rome statute since the treaty was not published in the official gazette.
ON march 2018 the Philippines formally submitted its notice of withdrawal from the ICC to the
United Nations (UN). It deposited the Note verbale to the United Nations’ Secretary-General
Guteres. The latter received the notification and on March 18, 2019, the assembly of state parties
President Mr. O-Gon kwon made a press release by which he reiterated his regret regarding the
withdrawal of the Philippines, effective as of 17 March 2019, from the Rome statute. He
expressed hope that the country rejoins the treaty in the future.
Petitioner contention:
The president Duterte’s Unilateral withdrawal from the Rome statute transgressed legislative
prerogatives. That the protection of human rights will be weakened for without the treaty, the
judiciary will not be able to fulfills its mandate to protect human rights.
Respondent contention:
That the withdrawal was valid for having complied with the Rome statute, which requires only a
written notification of withdrawal. That the decision to withdraw from the Rome Statute “was an
act to protect national sovereignty from interference and to preserve the judiciary’s
independence” and that the right being protected under the Rome Statute are adequately
safeguarded by domestic laws.
Issue:
Whether the philippines’ withdrawal from the Rome Statute through a Note Verbale delivered to
the Secretary-General of the United Nations is valid, binding, and effectual.
Ruling:
Yes, Art 127 of the Rome Statute provides a mechanism on how a state party may withdraw
from it:
1. A State Party may, by written notification addressed to the Secretary-General of the
United Nations, withdraw from this Statute. The withdrawal shall take effect one year after the
date of receipt of the notification unless the notification specifies a later date.
2. A State shall not be discharged, by reason of its withdrawal, from the obligations
arising from this Statute while it was a Party to the Statute, including any financial obligations
which may have accrued. Its withdrawal shall not affect any cooperation with the Court in
connection with criminal investigations and proceedings in relation to which the withdrawing
State had a duty to cooperate and which were commenced prior to the date on which the
withdrawal became effective, nor shall it prejudice in any way the continued consideration of
any matter which was already under consideration by the Court prior to the date on which the
withdrawal became effective.
The president’s withdrawal from the statute was in accordance with the mechanism provided in
the treaty. The Rome Statute itself contemplated and enabled a state’s party withdrawal. A state
party and its agents cannot be faulted for merely acting within what the Rome statute expressly
allows.
Conclusion:
Petition Dismissed for being moot.