G.R. No. 159618 - Bayan Muna Vs Romulo

Title
Bayan Muna vs. Romulo

Case
G.R. No. 159618
Decision Date
Feb 1, 2011
The case "Bayan Muna v. Romulo" involves the validity of the Non-
Surrender Agreement between the Philippines and the USA, with the
petitioner arguing that it violates the Constitution and the Rome Statute,
while the court rules in favor of the respondents, stating that the
agreement is valid and does not contravene the Rome Statute.
Facts:
The case "Bayan Muna v. Romulo" (G.R. No. 159618) was decided on February 1,
2011, by the Philippine Supreme Court.
Petitioners: Bayan Muna, represented by Representatives Satur Ocampo, Crispin
Beltran, and Liza L. Maza.
Respondents: Alberto Romulo (Executive Secretary) and Blas F. Ople (Secretary of
Foreign Affairs).
The dispute centered on the Non-Surrender Agreement between the Republic of the
Philippines (RP) and the United States of America (USA).
The agreement, concluded via diplomatic notes on May 13, 2003, aimed to protect
officials, employees, and military personnel from being surrendered to international
tribunals without their government's consent.
Petitioners argued the agreement violated the Philippine Constitution and the Rome
Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), which the Philippines had signed
but not ratified.
The lower court had not ruled on the matter, prompting the petitioners to seek a
direct ruling from the Supreme Court.
Issue:
Did the RP President and the DFA Secretary gravely abuse their discretion in
concluding the RP-US Non-Surrender Agreement, given that the Philippines had
already signed the Rome Statute of the ICC, pending Senate ratification?
Does the Non-Surrender Agreement constitute an act that defeats the object and
purpose of the Rome Statute and contravenes the obligation of good faith inherent
in the signature of the President on the Rome Statute?
Is the RP-US Non-Surrender Agreement void ab initio for contracting obligations that
are either immoral or otherwise at variance with universally recognized principles of
international law?
Is the Non-Surrender Agreement valid, binding, and effective without the
concurrence of at least two-thirds of all the members of the Senate?
Ruling:
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for lack of merit.
The Court ruled that the Non-Surrender Agreement was valid and did not
contravene the Rome Statute.
The Court held that the agreement did not require Senate concurrence to be
effective.
Ratio:
Locus Standi: The Court affirmed that the petitioners had standing to sue as
concerned citizens raising issues of transcendental importance.
Validity of the Agreement: The Court noted that the agreement was concluded
through an exchange of diplomatic notes, a recognized form of international
agreement under international law.
Doctrine of Incorporation: The Court integrated generally accepted principles of
international law into Philippine law, finding that the agreement did not require
Senate concurrence as it was an executive agreement, not a treaty.
Rome Statute: The Court held that the Non-Surrender Agreement did not
undermine the Rome Statute. The Statute recognizes the primary jurisdiction of
national courts over international crimes, with the ICC's jurisdiction being
complementary.
National Jurisdiction: The agreement reinforced the primacy of national
jurisdiction and did not preclude the Philippines from prosecuting crimes under its
national laws.
Signatory Status: The Philippines was only a signatory to the Rome Statute and
not a State-Party, as the Senate had not ratified it. Thus, the Philippines was only
obliged to refrain from acts that would defeat the object and purpose of the Rome
Statute.
Morality and International Law: The Court rejected the argument that the
agreement was immoral or at variance with international law principles, stating it
was an assertion of the Philippines' desire to try and punish crimes under its
national law.
Prosecution Assurance: The agreement ensured that individuals could be
prosecuted either in the Philippines or the USA, or with the consent of both
countries, before the ICC.
Presidential Authority: The Court held that the President acted within her
constitutional authority in entering into the agreement. The power to enter into
international agreements is vested in the President, and executive agreements do
not require Senate concurrence.
Consistency with International Law: The agreement did not amend or repeal
any existing law but was consistent with the Philippines' obligations under
international law.

G.R. No. 159618 - Bayan Muna Vs Romulo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. 159618 - Bayan Muna Vs Romulo

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. 159618 - Bayan Muna Vs Romulo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Title

Bayan Muna vs. Romulo

You might also like