622 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Pimentel, Jr. vs. Office of the Executive Secretary

*
G.R. No. 158088. July 6, 2005.

SENATOR AQUILINO PIMENTEL, JR., REP. ETTA ROSALES,

PHILIPPINE COALITION FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF
THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT, TASK FORCE
DETAINEES OF THE PHILIPPINES, FAMILIES OF VICTIMS
OF INVOLUNTARY DISAPPEARANCES, BIANCA HACINTHA
R. ROQUE, HARRISON JACOB R. ROQUE, AHMED
PAGLINAWAN, RON P. SALO, LEAVIDES G. DOMINGO,
EDGARDO CARLO VISTAN, NOEL VILLAROMAN, CELESTE
CEMBRANO, LIZA ABIERA, JAIME ARROYO, MARWIL
LLASOS, CRISTINA ATENDIDO, ISRAFEL FAGELA, and
ROMEL BAGARES,

_______________

* EN BANC.

623

VOL. 462, JULY 6, 2005 623

Pimentel, Jr. vs. Office of the Executive Secretary

petitioners, vs. OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY,

represented by HON. ALBERTO ROMULO, and the
DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, represented by HON.
BLAS OPLE, respondents.

Actions; Judicial Review; Parties; Locus Standi; Mandamus; To be

given due course, a petition for mandamus must have been instituted by a
party aggrieved by the alleged inaction of any tribunal, corporation, board
or person which unlawfully excludes said party from the enjoyment of a
legal right; The Court will exercise its power of judicial review only if the
case is brought before it by a party who has the legal standing to raise the
constitutional or legal questions; “Legal standing” means a personal and
substantial interest in the case such that the party has sustained or will
sustain direct injury as a result of the government act that is being
challenged.—A petition for mandamus may be filed when any tribunal,
corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully neglects the performance of
an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office,
trust, or station. We have held that to be given due course, a petition for
mandamus must have been instituted by a party aggrieved by the alleged
inaction of any tribunal, corporation, board or person which unlawfully
excludes said party from the enjoyment of a legal right. The petitioner in
every case must therefore be an aggrieved party in the sense that he
possesses a clear legal right to be enforced and a direct interest in the duty
or act to be performed. The Court will exercise its power of judicial review
only if the case is brought before it by a party who has the legal standing to
raise the constitutional or legal question. “Legal standing” means a personal
and substantial interest in the case such that the party has sustained or will
sustain direct injury as a result of the government act that is being
challenged. The term “interest” is material interest, an interest in issue and
to be affected by the decree, as distinguished from mere interest in the
question involved, or a mere incidental interest.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; International Law; Rome Statute of
the International Criminal Court; Only Senator Pimentel has the legal
standing to file the instant suit since the other petitioners, even as they
maintain their standing as advocates and defenders of human rights, and as
citizens of the country, have not shown that they have sustained or will
sustain a direct injury from the non-

624

624 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Pimentel, Jr. vs. Office of the Executive Secretary

transmittal of the signed text of the Rome Statute to the Senate—the Rome
Statute is intended to complement national criminal laws and courts and
sufficient remedies are available under our national laws to protect our
citizens against human rights violations and petitioners can always seek
redress for any abuse in our domestic courts.—The question in standing is
whether a party has alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the
controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the
presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for
illumination of difficult constitutional questions. We find that among the
petitioners, only Senator Pimentel has the legal standing to file the instant
suit. The other petitioners maintain their standing as advocates and
defenders of human rights, and as citizens of the country. They have not
shown, however, that they have sustained or will sustain a direct injury from
the non-transmittal of the signed text of the Rome Statute to the Senate.
Their contention that they will be deprived of their remedies for the
protection and enforcement of their rights does not persuade. The Rome
Statute is intended to complement national criminal laws and courts.
Sufficient remedies are available under our national laws to protect our
citizens against human rights violations and petitioners can always seek
redress for any abuse in our domestic courts.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Legislators have the standing
to maintain inviolate the prerogatives, powers and privileges vested by the
Constitution in their office and are allowed to sue to question the validity of
any official action which they claim infringes their prerogatives as
legislators.—As regards Senator Pimentel, it has been held that “to the
extent the powers of Congress are impaired, so is the power of each member
thereof, since his office confers a right to participate in the exercise of the
powers of that institution.” Thus, legislators have the standing to maintain
inviolate the prerogatives, powers and privileges vested by the Constitution
in their office and are allowed to sue to question the validity of any official
action which they claim infringes their prerogatives as legislators. The
petition at bar invokes the power of the Senate to grant or withhold its
concurrence to a treaty entered into by the executive branch, in this case, the
Rome Statute. The petition seeks to order the executive branch to transmit
the copy of the treaty to the Senate to allow it to exercise such authority.
Senator Pimentel,

625

VOL. 462, JULY 6, 2005 625

Pimentel, Jr. vs. Office of the Executive Secretary

as member of the institution, certainly has the legal standing to assert such
authority of the Senate.
International Law; Treaties; Presidency; In our system of government,
the President, being the head of state, is regarded as the sole organ and
authority in external relations and is the country’s sole representative with
foreign nations.—In our system of government, the President, being the
head of state, is regarded as the sole organ and authority in external relations
and is the country’s sole representative with foreign nations. As the chief
architect of foreign policy, the President acts as the country’s mouthpiece
with respect to international affairs. Hence, the President is vested with the
authority to deal with foreign states and governments, extend or withhold
recognition, maintain diplomatic relations, enter into treaties, and otherwise
transact the business of foreign relations. In the realm of treaty-making, the
President has the sole authority to negotiate with other states. Nonetheless,
while the President has the sole authority to negotiate and enter into treaties,
the Constitution provides a limitation to his power by requiring the
concurrence of 2/3 of all the members of the Senate for the validity of the
treaty entered into by him. Section 21, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution
provides that “no treaty or international agreement shall be valid and
effective unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the Members of the
Senate.”
Same; Same; Same; The participation of the legislative branch in the
treaty-making process was deemed essential to provide a check on the
executive in the field of foreign relations.—The participation of the
legislative branch in the treaty-making process was deemed essential to
provide a check on the executive in the field of foreign relations. By
requiring the concurrence of the legislature in the treaties entered into by the
President, the Constitution ensures a healthy system of checks and balance
necessary in the nation’s pursuit of political maturity and growth.
Same; Same; Same; The signing of the treaty and the ratification are
two separate and distinct steps in the treaty-making process—the signature
is primarily intended as a means of authenticating the instrument and as a
symbol of the good faith of the parties, usually performed by the state’s
authorized representative, while ratification is the formal act by which a
state confirms and accepts the provisions of a treaty concluded by its
representative, and is generally held

626

626 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Pimentel, Jr. vs. Office of the Executive Secretary

to be an executive act, undertaken by the head of the state or of the

government.—Petitioners’ arguments equate the signing of the treaty by the
Philippine representative with ratification. It should be underscored that the
signing of the treaty and the ratification are two separate and distinct steps in
the treaty-making process. As earlier discussed, the signature is primarily
intended as a means of authenticating the instrument and as a symbol of the
good faith of the parties. It is usually performed by the state’s authorized
representative in the diplomatic mission. Ratification, on the other hand, is
the formal act by which a state confirms and accepts the provisions of a
treaty concluded by its representative. It is generally held to be an executive
act, undertaken by the head of the state or of the government. Thus,
Executive Order No. 459 issued by President Fidel V. Ramos on November
25, 1997 provides the guidelines in the negotiation of international
agreements and its ratification. It mandates that after the treaty has been
signed by the Philippine representative, the same shall be transmitted to the
Department of Foreign Affairs. The Department of Foreign Affairs shall
then prepare the ratification papers and forward the signed copy of the treaty
to the President for ratification. After the President has ratified the treaty, the
Department of Foreign Affairs shall submit the same to the Senate for
concurrence. Upon receipt of the concurrence of the Senate, the Department
of Foreign Affairs shall comply with the provisions of the treaty to render it
effective.
 Same; Same; Same; Petitioners’ submission that the Philippines is
bound under treaty law and international law to ratify the treaty which it
has signed is without basis—it is the ratification that binds the state to the
provisions thereof; There is no legal obligation to ratify a treaty, but it goes
without saying that the refusal must be based on substantial grounds and
not on superficial or whimsical reasons; The President has the discretion
even after the signing of the treaty by the Philippine representative whether
or not to ratify the same.—Petitioners’ submission that the Philippines is
bound under treaty law and international law to ratify the treaty which it has
signed is without basis. The signature does not signify the final consent of
the state to the treaty. It is the ratification that binds the state to the
provisions thereof. In fact, the Rome Statute itself requires that the signature
of the representatives of the states be subject to ratification, acceptance or
approval of the signatory states. Ratification is the act by which the
provisions of a treaty are for-

627

VOL. 462, JULY 6, 2005 627

Pimentel, Jr. vs. Office of the Executive Secretary

mally confirmed and approved by a State. By ratifying a treaty signed in its

behalf, a state expresses its willingness to be bound by the provisions of
such treaty. After the treaty is signed by the state’s representative, the
President, being accountable to the people, is burdened with the
responsibility and the duty to carefully study the contents of the treaty and
ensure that they are not inimical to the interest of the state and its people.
Thus, the President has the discretion even after the signing of the treaty by
the Philippine representative whether or not to ratify the same. The Vienna
Convention on the Law of Treaties does not contemplate to defeat or even
restrain this power of the head of states. If that were so, the requirement of
ratification of treaties would be pointless and futile. It has been held that a
state has no legal or even moral duty to ratify a treaty which has been signed
by its plenipotentiaries. There is no legal obligation to ratify a treaty, but it
goes without saying that the refusal must be based on substantial grounds
and not on superficial or whimsical reasons. Otherwise, the other state
would be justified in taking offense.
Same; Same; Same; It is within the authority of the President to refuse
to submit a treaty to the Senate or, having secured its consent for its
ratification, refuse to ratify it.—It should be emphasized that under our
Constitution, the power to ratify is vested in the President, subject to the
concurrence of the Senate. The role of the Senate, however, is limited only
to giving or withholding its consent, or concurrence, to the ratification.
Hence, it is within the authority of the President to refuse to submit a treaty
to the Senate or, having secured its consent for its ratification, refuse to
ratify it. Although the refusal of a state to ratify a treaty which has been
signed in its behalf is a serious step that should not be taken lightly, such
decision is within the competence of the President alone, which cannot be
encroached by this Court via a writ of mandamus. This Court has no
jurisdiction over actions seeking to enjoin the President in the performance
of his official duties. The Court, therefore, cannot issue the writ of
mandamus prayed for by the petitioners as it is beyond its jurisdiction to
compel the executive branch of the government to transmit the signed text
of Rome Statute to the Senate.

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court. Mandamus.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

628

628 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Pimentel, Jr. vs. Office of the Executive Secretary

     H. Harry L. Roque, Jr. and Joel Ruiz Butuyan for petitioners.
     The Solicitor General for respondents.

PUNO, J.:

This is a petition for mandamus filed by petitioners to compel the

Office of the Executive Secretary and the Department of Foreign
Affairs to transmit the signed copy of the Rome Statute of the
International Criminal Court to the Senate of the Philippines for its
concurrence in accordance with Section 21, Article VII of the 1987
Constitution.
The Rome Statute established the International Criminal Court
which “shall have the power to exercise its jurisdiction over persons
for the most serious crimes of international concern x x x and 1shall
be complementary to the national criminal jurisdictions.” Its
jurisdiction covers the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity,
2
war crimes and the crime of aggression as defined in the Statute.
The Statute was opened for signature by all states in Rome on July
17, 1998 and had remained open for signature until December 31,
2000 at the United Nations Headquarters in New York. The
Philippines signed the Statute on December 28, 2000 through
Charge d’ Affairs Enrique A. Manalo of the Philippine Mission to
3
the United Nations. Its provisions, however, require that it be
subject to ratification, acceptance or approval of the signatory
4
states.
Petitioners filed the instant petition to compel the respondents—
the Office of the Executive Secretary and the Department of
Foreign Affairs—to transmit the signed text of the treaty to the
Senate of the Philippines for ratification.
_______________

1 Article 1, Rome Statute.

2 Article 5, Rome Statute.
3 Annex “B” of Petition, Rollo, p. 101.
4 Article 25, Rome Statute.

629

VOL. 462, JULY 6, 2005 629

Pimentel, Jr. vs. Office of the Executive Secretary

It is the theory of the petitioners that ratification of a treaty, under

both domestic law and international law, is a function of the Senate.
Hence, it is the duty of the executive department to transmit the
signed copy of the Rome Statute to the Senate to allow it to exercise
its discretion with respect to ratification of treaties. Moreover,
petitioners submit that the Philippines has a ministerial duty to ratify
the Rome Statute under treaty law and customary international law.
Petitioners invoke the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
enjoining the states to refrain from acts which would defeat the
object and purpose of a treaty when they have signed the treaty prior
to ratification unless they have
5
made their intention clear not to
become parties to the treaty.
The Office of the Solicitor General, commenting for the
respondents, questioned the standing of the petitioners to file the
instant suit. It also contended that the petition at bar violates the rule
on hierarchy of courts. On the substantive issue raised by
petitioners, respondents argue that the executive department has no
duty to transmit the Rome Statute to the Senate for concurrence.
A petition for mandamus may be filed when any tribunal,
corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully neglects the
performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a

_______________

5 Article 18, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties reads:

Article 18

Obligation not to defeat the object and purpose of a treaty prior to its entry into force
A State is obliged to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose of a treaty
when:

(a) it has signed the treaty or has exchanged instruments constituting the treaty subject to
ratification, acceptance or approval, until it shall have made its intention clear not to
become a party to the treaty; or
(b) it has expressed its consent to be bound by the treaty, pending the entry into force of
the treaty and provided that such entry into force is not unduly delayed.
 630

630 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Pimentel, Jr. vs. Office of the Executive Secretary

duty resulting from an office, trust, or station.6 We have held that to

be given due course, a petition for mandamus must have been
instituted by a party aggrieved by the alleged inaction of any
tribunal, corporation, board or person which unlawfully excludes
said party from the enjoyment of a legal right. The petitioner in
every case must therefore be an aggrieved party in the sense that he
possesses a clear legal right to be7
enforced and a direct interest in
the duty or act to be performed. The Court will exercise its power
of judicial review only if the case is brought before it by a party who
has the legal standing to raise the constitutional or legal question.
“Legal standing” means a personal and substantial interest in the
case such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as
a result of the government act that is being challenged. The term
“interest” is material interest, an interest in issue and to be affected
by the decree, as distinguished from mere interest in the question
8
involved, or a mere incidental interest.
The petition at bar was filed by Senator Aquilino Pimentel, Jr.
who asserts his legal standing to file the suit as member of the
Senate; Congresswoman Loretta Ann Rosales, a member of the
House of Representatives and Chairperson of its Committee on
Human Rights; the Philippine Coalition for the Establishment of the
International Criminal Court which is composed of individuals and
corporate entities dedicated to the Philippine ratification of the
Rome Statute; the Task Force Detainees of the Philippines, a
juridical entity with the avowed purpose of promoting the cause of
human rights and human rights victims in the country; the Families
of Victims of Involuntary Disappearances, a juridical entity duly
organized and existing pursuant to Philippine Laws with the avowed
purpose of promoting the cause of families and vic-

_______________

6 Section 3, Rule 65, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

7 Legaspi vs. Civil Service Commission, 150 SCRA 530 (1987).
8 Joya vs. Presidential Commission on Good Government, 225 SCRA 568 (1993).

631

VOL. 462, JULY 6, 2005 631

Pimentel, Jr. vs. Office of the Executive Secretary
tims of human rights violations in the country; Bianca Hacintha
Roque and Harrison Jacob Roque, aged two (2) and one (1),
respectively, at the time of filing of the instant petition, and suing
under the doctrine of inter-generational rights enunciated in the case
9
of Oposa vs. Factoran, Jr.; and a group of fifth year working law
students from the University of the Philippines College of Law who
are suing as taxpayers.
The question in standing is whether a party has alleged such a
personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that
concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon
which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult
10
constitutional questions.
We find that among the petitioners, only Senator Pimentel has
the legal standing to file the instant suit. The other petitioners
maintain their standing as advocates and defenders of human rights,
and as citizens of the country. They have not shown, however, that
they have sustained or will sustain a direct injury from the non-
transmittal of the signed text of the Rome Statute to the Senate.
Their contention that they will be deprived of their remedies for the
protection and enforcement of their rights does not persuade. The
Rome Statute is intended to complement national criminal laws and
courts. Sufficient remedies are available under our national laws to
protect our citizens against human rights violations and petitioners
can always seek redress for any abuse in our domestic courts.
As regards Senator Pimentel, it has been held that “to the extent
the powers of Congress are impaired, so is the power of each
member thereof, since his office confers a right to participate in the
11
exercise of the powers of that institution.” Thus, legislators have
the standing to maintain inviolate the

_______________

9 224 SCRA 792 (1993).

10 Gonzales vs. Narvasa, 337 SCRA 733 (2000).
11 Del Mar vs. Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation, 346 SCRA 485
(2000).

632

632 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Pimentel, Jr. vs. Office of the Executive Secretary

prerogatives, powers and privileges vested by the Constitution in

their office and are allowed to sue to question the validity of any
official action which they claim infringes their prerogatives as
legislators. The petition at bar invokes the power of the Senate to
grant or withhold its concurrence to a treaty entered into by the
executive branch, in this case, the Rome Statute. The petition seeks
to order the executive branch to transmit the copy of the treaty to
the Senate to allow it to exercise such authority. Senator Pimentel,
as member of the institution, certainly has the legal standing to
assert such authority of the Senate.
We now go to the substantive issue.
The core issue in this petition for mandamus is whether the
Executive Secretary and the Department of Foreign Affairs have a
ministerial duty to transmit to the Senate the copy of the Rome
Statute signed by a member of the Philippine Mission to the United
Nations even without the signature of the President.
We rule in the negative.
In our system of government, the President, being the head of
state, is regarded as the sole organ and authority in external relations
12
and is the country’s sole representative with foreign nations. As
the chief architect of foreign policy, the President acts as the
country’s mouthpiece with respect to international affairs. Hence,
the President is vested with the authority to deal with foreign states
and governments, extend or withhold recognition, maintain
diplomatic relations, enter into treaties, and otherwise transact the
13
business of foreign relations. In the realm of treaty-making, the
President has the sole authority to negotiate with other states.
Nonetheless, while the President has the sole authority to
negotiate and enter into treaties, the Constitution provides a

_______________

12 Cortes, The Philippine Presidency: A Study of Executive Power (1966), p. 187.

13 Cruz, Philippine Political Law (1996 Ed.), p. 223.

633

VOL. 462, JULY 6, 2005 633

Pimentel, Jr. vs. Office of the Executive Secretary

limitation to his power by requiring the concurrence of 2/3 of all the

members of the Senate for the validity of the treaty entered into by
him. Section 21, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution provides that
“no treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective
unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the Members of the
Senate.” The 1935 and the 1973 Constitution also required the
concurrence by the legislature to the treaties entered into by the
executive. Section 10 (7), Article VII of the 1935 Constitution
provided:

Sec. 10. (7) The President shall have the power, with the concurrence of
two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate, to make treaties x x x.

Section 14 (1) Article VIII of the 1973 Constitution stated:

Sec. 14. (1) Except as otherwise provided in this Constitution, no treaty
shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by a majority of all the
Members of the Batasang Pambansa.

The participation of the legislative branch in the treaty-making

process was deemed essential14to provide a check on the executive in
the field of foreign relations. By requiring the concurrence of the
legislature in the treaties entered into by the President, the
Constitution ensures a healthy system of checks and balance 15
necessary in the nation’s pursuit of political maturity and growth.
In filing this petition, the petitioners interpret Section 21, Article
VII of the 1987 Constitution to mean that the power to ratify treaties
belongs to the Senate.
We disagree.
Justice Isagani Cruz, in his book on International Law, describes
the treaty-making process in this wise:

_______________

14 Cortes, supra note 12, p. 189.

15 Bayan vs. Zamora, 342 SCRA 449 (2000).

634

634 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Pimentel, Jr. vs. Office of the Executive Secretary

The usual steps in the treaty-making process are: negotiation, signature,

ratification, and exchange of the instruments of ratification. The treaty may
then be submitted for registration and publication under the U.N. Charter,
although this step is not essential to the validity of the agreement as
between the parties.

Negotiation may be undertaken directly by the head of state but he

now usually assigns this task to his authorized representatives. These
representatives are provided with credentials known as full powers,
which they exhibit to the other negotiators at the start of the formal
discussions. It is standard practice for one of the parties to submit a
draft of the proposed treaty which, together with the counter-
proposals, becomes the basis of the subsequent negotiations. The
negotiations may be brief or protracted, depending on the issues
involved, and may even “collapse” in case the parties are unable to
come to an agreement on the points under consideration.
If and when the negotiators finally decide on the terms of the
treaty, the same is opened for signature. This step is primarily
intended as a means of authenticating the instrument and for the
purpose of symbolizing the good faith of the parties; but,
significantly, it does not indicate the final consent of the state in
cases where ratification of the treaty is required. The document is
ordinarily signed in accordance with the alternat, that is, each of the
several negotiators is allowed to sign first on the copy which he will
bring home to his own state.
Ratification, which is the next step, is the formal act by which a
state confirms and accepts the provisions of a treaty concluded by its
representatives. The purpose of ratification is to enable the
contracting states to examine the treaty more closely and to give
them an opportunity to refuse to be bound by it should they find
it inimical to their interests. It is for this reason that most
treaties are made subject to the scrutiny and consent of a de-

635

VOL. 462, JULY 6, 2005 635

Pimentel, Jr. vs. Office of the Executive Secretary

partment of the government other than that which negotiated

them.

xxx
The last step in the treaty-making process is the exchange of the
instruments of ratification, which usually also signifies the effectivity of the
treaty unless a different date has been agreed upon by the parties. Where
ratification is dispensed with and no effectivity clause is embodied in the
16
treaty, the instrument is deemed effective upon its signature. [emphasis
supplied]

Petitioners’ arguments equate the signing of the treaty by the

Philippine representative with ratification. It should be underscored
that the signing of the treaty and the ratification are two separate
and distinct steps in the treaty-making process. As earlier discussed,
the signature is primarily intended as a means of authenticating the
instrument and as a symbol of the good faith of the parties. It is
usually performed by the state’s authorized representative in the
diplomatic mission. Ratification, on the other hand, is the formal act
by which a state confirms and accepts the provisions of a treaty
concluded by its representative. It is generally held to be an
executive act, undertaken by the head of the state or of the
17
government. Thus, Executive Order No. 459 issued by President
Fidel V. Ramos on November 25, 1997 provides the guidelines in
the negotiation of international agreements and its ratification. It
mandates that after the treaty has been signed by the Philippine
representative, the same shall be transmitted to the Department of
Foreign Affairs. The Department of Foreign Affairs shall then
prepare the ratification papers and forward the signed copy of the
treaty to the President for ratification. After the President has
ratified the treaty, the Department of Foreign Affairs shall submit
the same to the Senate for concurrence. Upon receipt of the con-

_______________

16 Cruz, International Law (1998 Ed.), pp. 172-174.

17 Bayan vs. Zamora, supra note 15.

636

636 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Pimentel, Jr. vs. Office of the Executive Secretary

currence of the Senate, the Department of Foreign Affairs shall

comply with the provisions of the treaty to render it effective.
Section 7 of Executive Order No. 459 reads:

Sec. 7. Domestic Requirements for the Entry into Force of a Treaty or an

Executive Agreement.—The domestic requirements for the entry into force
of a treaty or an executive agreement, or any amendment thereto, shall be as
follows:

A. Executive Agreements.

i. All executive agreements shall be transmitted to the

Department of Foreign Affairs after their signing for the
preparation of the ratification papers. The transmittal shall
include the highlights of the agreements and the benefits
which will accrue to the Philippines arising from them.
ii. The Department of Foreign Affairs, pursuant to the
endorsement by the concerned agency, shall transmit the
agreements to the President of the Philippines for his
ratification. The original signed instrument of ratification
shall then be returned to the Department of Foreign Affairs
for appropriate action.

B. Treaties.

i. All treaties, regardless of their designation, shall comply

with the requirements provided in sub-paragraph[s] 1 and
2, item A (Executive Agreements) of this Section. In
addition, the Department of Foreign Affairs shall submit
the treaties to the Senate of the Philippines for concurrence
in the ratification by the President. A certified true copy of
the treaties, in such numbers as may be required by the
Senate, together with a certified true copy of the ratification
instrument, shall accompany the submission of the treaties
to the Senate.
 ii. Upon receipt of the concurrence by the Senate, the
Department of Foreign Affairs shall comply with the
provision of the treaties in effecting their entry into force.

Petitioners’ submission that the Philippines is bound under treaty

law and international law to ratify the treaty which it has signed is
without basis. The signature does not signify the

637

VOL. 462, JULY 6, 2005 637

Pimentel, Jr. vs. Office of the Executive Secretary

final consent of the state to the treaty. It is the ratification that binds
the state to the provisions thereof. In fact, the Rome Statute itself
requires that the signature of the representatives of the states be
subject to ratification, acceptance or approval of the signatory states.
Ratification is the act by which the provisions of a treaty are
formally confirmed and approved by a State. By ratifying a treaty
signed in its behalf, a state expresses its willingness to be bound by
the provisions of such treaty. After the treaty is signed by the state’s
representative, the President, being accountable to the people, is
burdened with the responsibility and the duty to carefully study the
contents of the treaty and ensure that they are not inimical to the
interest of the state and its people. Thus, the President has the
discretion even after the signing of the treaty by the Philippine
representative whether or not to ratify the same. The Vienna
Convention on the Law of Treaties does not contemplate to defeat or
even restrain this power of the head of states. If that were so, the
requirement of ratification of treaties would be pointless and futile.
It has been held that a state has no legal or even moral duty to ratify
18
a treaty which has been signed by its plenipotentiaries. There is no
legal obligation to ratify a treaty, but it goes without saying that the
refusal must be based on substantial grounds and not on superficial
or whimsical reasons.
19
Otherwise, the other state would be justified
in taking offense.
It should be emphasized that under our Constitution, the power
to ratify is vested in the President, subject to the concurrence of the
Senate. The role of the Senate, however, is limited only to giving or
20
withholding its consent, or concurrence, to the ratification. Hence,
it is within the authority of the President to refuse to submit a treaty
to the Senate or, having secured its consent for its ratification, refuse
to ratify

_______________

18 Salonga and Yap, Public International Law (5th Edition), p. 138.

19 Cruz, International Law, supra note 16, p. 174.
 20 Bayan vs. Zamora, supra note 15.

638

638 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Pimentel, Jr. vs. Office of the Executive Secretary

21
it. Although the refusal of a state to ratify a treaty which has been
22
signed in its behalf is a serious step that should not be taken lightly,
such decision is within the competence of the President alone,
which cannot be encroached by this Court via a writ of mandamus.
This Court has no jurisdiction over actions seeking to enjoin the
23
President in the performance of his official duties. The Court,
therefore, cannot issue the writ of mandamus prayed for by the
petitioners as it is beyond its jurisdiction to compel the executive
branch of the government to transmit the signed text of Rome
Statute to the Senate.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.

          Davide, Jr., Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago,

Austria-Martinez, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna, Tinga,
Chico-Nazario and Garcia, JJ., concur.
          Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio and Corona, JJ., On Official
Leave.

Petition dismissed.

Notes.—A categorical recognition by the Executive Branch that

the IRRI enjoys immunities accorded to international organizations
is a determination which is considered a political question
conclusive upon the Courts. (Callado vs. International Rice
Research Institute, 244 SCRA 210 [1995])
The Warsaw Convention is as much a part of Philippine Law as
the Civil Code, Code of Commerce and other municipal special
laws, and the provisions therein contained, specifically on the
limitation of carrier’s liability, are operative in

_______________

21 Cruz, International Law, supra note 16, p. 174.

22 Salonga and Yap, supra note 18.
23 See Severino vs. Governor-General, 16 Phil. 366 (1910).

639

VOL. 462, JULY 6, 2005 639

Pimentel, Jr. vs. Office of the Executive Secretary
 the Philippines but only in appropriate situations. (Philippine
Airlines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 255 SCRA 48 [1996])
While sovereignty has traditionally been deemed absolute and
all-encompassing on the domestic level, it is however subject to
restrictions and limitations voluntarily agreed to by the Philippines,
expressly or impliedly, as a member of the family of nations.
(Tañada vs. Angara, 272 SCRA 18 [1997])

——o0o——

640

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.