Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 251 views

    Bayan Muna V Romulo G.R. No. 159618

    Uploaded by

    KYLE DAVID
    This case concerns the validity of a non-surrender agreement between the Philippines and the United States that aims to protect certain persons from prosecution by international tribunals like the International Criminal Court. The petitioner claims the agreement is unconstitutional while respondents argue it is valid. The court rules that the agreement does not contradict the Rome Statute establishing the ICC, as the statute recognizes complementarity between national and international jurisdictions. As the Philippines has only signed and not ratified the Rome Statute, it is only obliged not to undermine the statute's object and purpose. The court also finds the executive has the authority to enter binding agreements without congressional approval based on historical precedent.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Bayan Muna V Romulo G.R. No. 159618

    Uploaded by

    KYLE DAVID
    251 views3 pages
    This case concerns the validity of a non-surrender agreement between the Philippines and the United States that aims to protect certain persons from prosecution by international tribunals like the International Criminal Court. The petitioner claims the agreement is unconstitutional while respondents argue it is valid. The court rules that the agreement does not contradict the Rome Statute establishing the ICC, as the statute recognizes complementarity between national and international jurisdictions. As the Philippines has only signed and not ratified the Rome Statute, it is only obliged not to undermine the statute's object and purpose. The court also finds the executive has the authority to enter binding agreements without congressional approval based on historical precedent.

    Original Description:

    CASE DIGEST

    Original Title

    Bayan Muna v Romulo

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case concerns the validity of a non-surrender agreement between the Philippines and the United States that aims to protect certain persons from prosecution by international tribunals like the International Criminal Court. The petitioner claims the agreement is unconstitutional while respondents argue it is valid. The court rules that the agreement does not contradict the Rome Statute establishing the ICC, as the statute recognizes complementarity between national and international jurisdictions. As the Philippines has only signed and not ratified the Rome Statute, it is only obliged not to undermine the statute's object and purpose. The court also finds the executive has the authority to enter binding agreements without congressional approval based on historical precedent.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    251 views3 pages

    Bayan Muna V Romulo G.R. No. 159618

    Uploaded by

    KYLE DAVID
    This case concerns the validity of a non-surrender agreement between the Philippines and the United States that aims to protect certain persons from prosecution by international tribunals like the International Criminal Court. The petitioner claims the agreement is unconstitutional while respondents argue it is valid. The court rules that the agreement does not contradict the Rome Statute establishing the ICC, as the statute recognizes complementarity between national and international jurisdictions. As the Philippines has only signed and not ratified the Rome Statute, it is only obliged not to undermine the statute's object and purpose. The court also finds the executive has the authority to enter binding agreements without congressional approval based on historical precedent.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 3

    BAYAN MUNA V ROMULO

    G.R. No. 159618

    Facts:

    Petitioner Bayan Muna is a duly registered party-list group established to


    represent the marginalized sectors of society. Respondent Blas F. Ople, now
    deceased, was the Secretary of Foreign Affairs during the period material to
    this case. Respondent Alberto Romulo was impleaded in his capacity as then
    Executive Secretary.

    Having a key determinative bearing on this case is the Rome Statute


    establishing 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.

    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:

    Whether or not the RP-US NON SURRENDER AGREEMENT is void ab initio for
    contracting obligations that are either immoral or otherwise at variance with
    universally recognized principles of international law.

    Ruling:

    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. According to Art. 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.

    Also, under international law, there is a considerable difference between a


    State-Party and a signatory to a treaty. 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. Any argument obliging
    the Philippines to follow any provision in the treaty would be premature. 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. From the earliest days of our history, we have entered executive
    agreements covering such subjects as commercial and consular relations,
    most favored-nation rights, patent rights, trademark and copyright
    protection, postal and navigation arrangements and the settlement of
    claims. The validity of these has never been seriously questioned by our
    courts.

    You might also like