G.R. No.

159618, February 1, 2011

Bayan Muna
vs
Alberto Romulo,

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:
1. 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?

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

RULING:
As a matter of fact, the principle of complementarity underpins the creation of the ICC. 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. 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. 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. The validity of these has never been seriously questioned by our
courts. 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. DISMISSED.