Bayan Muna vs Executive Secretary

7/24/2019 Bayan Muna vs Executive Secretary

1/11

Bayan Muna v. Alberto Romulo (in his capacity as executive secretary), Supreme Court of the Philippines, !ebruary "#

SUMMARY

On 1 February 2011, the Supreme Court of the Philippines ismisse a !laim by "ayan Muna #$the petitioner%&, a$uly re'istere party(list 'roup set up to represent the mar'inali)e se!tors of so!iety%, *hi!h sou'ht to nullify the+on(Surrener A'reement #$the A'reement%& !on!lue bet*een the Republi! of the Philippines an the UniteStates of Ameri!a

A!!orin' to the petitioner, the A'reement !ontra-ene the obli'ations of the Philippines uner the Rome Statuteof the .nternational Criminal Court #.CC&, *hi!h ha been si'ne #but not ratifie& by the Philippines /hepetitioner also ar'ue that the A'reement *as -oi ab initio be!ause it !reate obli'ations that *ere immoral orthat *ere !ontrary to uni-ersally re!o'ni)e prin!ipals of international la*

Re'arin' the petitioner%s first ar'ument, the Supreme Court !on!lue that the A'reement i not unermine or!ontra-ene the Rome Statute On the !ontrary, the Court hel that the A'reement an the Rome Statute!omplemente ea!h other an thus !onforme to the .CC%s $prin!iple of !omplementarity% /he Court ae that

it is abunantly !lear to us that the Rome Statute epressly re!o'ni)es the primary urisi!tion of states, li3e theRP 4Republi! of the Philippines5, o-er serious !rimes !ommitte *ithin their respe!ti-e borers, the!omplementary urisi!tion of the .CC !omin' into play only *hen the si'natory states are un*illin' or unable toprose!ute #p 26&

Re'arin' the petitioner%s se!on ar'ument, namely that the A'reement *as immoral be!ause $it lea-es !riminalsimmune from responsibility for unima'inable atro!ities that eeply sho!3 the !ons!ien!e of humanity% #p 72&, theCourt also isa'ree .t state that the A'reement $is an assertion by the Philippines of its esire to try an punish!rimes uner its national la*% an that it $is a re!o'nition of the prima!y an !ompeten!e of the !ountry%s ui!iaryto try offenses uner its national !riminal la*s an ispense usti!e fairly an ui!iously% #p 77& /he Court i not!on!ur *ith the petitioner%s opinion that the A'reement *oul allo* Ameri!ans an Filipinos to !ommit 'ra-einternational !rimes *ith impunity /he Court eplaine that people *ho may ha-e !ommitte a!ts penali)euner the Rome Statute !an be prose!ute an punishe in the Philippines or in the US8 or *ith the !onsent ofthe RP 4Republi! of the Philippines5 or the US, before the .CC, assumin'9 that all the formalities ne!essary tobin both !ountries to the Rome Statute ha-e been met

.t also state

:ith the -ie* *e ta3e of thin's, there is nothin' immoral or -iolati-e of international la* !on!epts in the a!t of thePhilippines of assumin' !riminal urisi!tion pursuant to the +on(Surrener A'reement o-er an offense!onsiere !riminal by both Philippine la*s an the Rome Statute #p 7;&

.nternational A'reements8 limitations on so-erei'nty /he RP, by enterin' into the A'reement, oes therebyabi!ate its so-erei'nty, abi!ation bein' one by its *ai-in' or abanonin' its ri'ht to see3 re!ourse throu'h the

Rome Statute of the .CC for errin' Ameri!ans !ommittin' international !rimes in the !ountry As it *ere, theA'reement is but a form of affirman!e an !onfirmation of the Philippines% national !riminal urisi!tion +ational!riminal urisi!tion bein' primary, it is al*ays the responsibility an *ithin the prero'ati-e of the RP either toprose!ute !riminal offenses e of the US, as the term is unerstoo in the A'reement, uner ournational !riminal usti!e system8 or it may opt not to eer!ise its !riminal urisi!tion o-er its errin' !iti)ens or o-erUS =persons> !ommittin' hi'h !rimes in the !ountry an efer to the se!onary !riminal urisi!tion of the .CCo-er them .n the same breath, the US must eten the same pri-ile'e to the Philippines *ith respe!t to =persons>of the RP !ommittin' hi'h !rimes *ithin US territorial urisi!tion "y their nature, treaties an internationala'reements a!tually ha-e a limitin' effe!t on the other*ise en!ompassin' an absolute nature of so-erei'nty "ytheir -oluntary a!t, nations may e!ie to surrener or *ai-e some aspe!ts of their state po*er or a'ree to limitthe eer!ise of their other*ise e!lusi-e an absolute urisi!tion /he usual unerlyin' !onsieration in thispartial surrener may be the 'reater benefits eri-e from a pa!t or a re!ipro!al unerta3in' of one !ontra!tin'

party to 'rant the same pri-ile'es or immunities to the other "ayan Muna, as represente by Rep. Satur$campo, et al. v. Alberto Romulo, in his capacity as %xecutive Secretary, et al. &.R. 'o. *+, !ebruary, "#.

.nternational A'reements8 treaties an ee!uti-e a'reements Uner international la*, there is no ifferen!ebet*een treaties an ee!uti-e a'reements in terms of their binin' effe!ts on the !ontra!tin' states !on!erne,as lon' as the ne'otiatin' fun!tionaries ha-e remaine *ithin their po*ers ?o*e-er, a treaty has 'reater =i'nity>than an ee!uti-e a'reement, be!ause its !onstitutional effi!a!y is beyon oubt, a treaty ha-in' behin it theauthority of the Presient, the Senate, an the people8 a ratifie treaty, unli3e an ee!uti-e a'reement, ta3es


2/11

pre!een!e o-er any prior statutory ena!tment Petitioner, in this !ase, ar'ues that the +on(Surrener A'reementbet*een the Philippines an the US is of ubious -aliity, parta3in' as it oes of the nature of a treaty8 hen!e, itmust be uly !on!urre in by the Senate Petitioner relies on the !ase, Commissioner of Customs - @astern Sea/rain', in *hi!h the Court state international a'reements in-ol-in' politi!al issues or !han'es of national poli!yan those in-ol-in' international arran'ements of a permanent !hara!ter usually ta3e the form of treaties8 *hilethose emboyin' austments of etail !arryin' out *ell establishe national poli!ies an traitions an thosein-ol-in' arran'ements of a more or less temporary nature ta3e the form of ee!uti-e a'reements A!!orin' topetitioner, the sube!t of the A'reement oes not fall uner any of the sube!t(!ate'ories that are enumerate inthe @astern Sea /rain' !ase that may be !o-ere by an ee!uti-e a'reement, su!h as !ommer!ial!onsularrelations, most(fa-ore nation ri'hts, patent ri'hts, traemar3 an !opyri'ht prote!tion, postal an na-i'ationarran'ements an settlement of !laims /he Supreme Court hel, ho*e-er, that the !ate'ori)ation of sube!tmatters that may be !o-ere by international a'reements mentione in @astern Sea /rain' is not !ast in stone/here are no har an fast rules on the propriety of enterin', on a 'i-en sube!t, into a treaty or an ee!uti-ea'reement as an instrument of international relations /he primary !onsieration in the !hoi!e of the form ofa'reement is the parties% intent an esire to !raft an international a'reement in the form they so *ish to furthertheir respe!ti-e interests /he matter of form ta3es a ba!3 seat *hen it !omes to effe!ti-eness an binin' effe!tof the enfor!ement of a treaty or an ee!uti-e a'reement, as the parties in either international a'reement ea!hlabor uner the pa!ta sunt ser-ana prin!iple "ayan Muna, as represente by Rep. Satur $campo, et al. v.Alberto Romulo, in his capacity as %xecutive Secretary, et al. &.R. 'o. *+, !ebruary , "#


3/11

Senator Auilino Pimentel, -r. et al. vs. $ffice of the %xecutive Secretary represente by /on. AlbertoRomulo, 0epartment of !orei1n Affairs represente by /on. Blas $ple

B R +o 1D0DD Euly , 200

FAC/S

On Euly 16, 1GGD, the Rome Statute *as opene for si'nature at its hea


4/11

'2C$3AS vs. R$M43$

!AC5S6

?erein responent, Kan!e Corporal Haniel Smith, is a member of the Unite States Arme For!es ?e *as!har'e *ith the !rime of rape !ommitte a'ainst a Filipina, Su)ette S +i!olas

Pursuant to the Lisitin' For!es A'reement #LFA& bet*een the Republi! of the Philippines an the Unite States,the Unite States, at its re


5/11

Kan!e Corporal Haniel Smith, member of the US Arme For!es, *as foun 'uilty beyon reasonable oubt of the!rime of rape in the R/C of Ma3ati /he !ourt orere Smith etaine at the Ma3ati City Eail until further orers

On He!ember 1G an 22, 200, Philippine Forei'n Affairs Se!retary Alberto Romulo an US Ambassaor ristieenney ee!ute a'reements that pursuant to the LFA, Smith be returne to the US military !ustoy an beetaine at the first floor, Ro*e "uilin', US @mbassy Compoun

Petitioner Eo-ito Salon'a, et al !hallen'e the -aliity of the sai a'reements !ontenin' that the Philippinesshoul ha-e !ustoy of Smith be!ause, first of all, the LFA is -oi an un!onstitutional sin!e it -iolates Art Llll,Se! 2 of the !onstitution

.s the LFA !onstitutionalJ Brantin' that it is !onstitutional, Are the Romulo(enney A'reements in a!!oran!e*ith the pro-isions of the LFA itselfJ

SUBB@S/@H A+S:@R

/he SC rule /he Lisitin' For!es A'reement #LFA& bet*een the Republi! of the Philippines an the UniteStates, entere into on February 10, 1GGD, is !onstitutional, but the Romulo(enney A'reements of He!ember 1Gan 22, 200 are H@CKAR@H not in a!!oran!e *ith the LFA

LFA is Constitutional

/he SC rule that =the LFA *as uly !on!urre in by the Philippine Senate an has been re!o'ni)e as a treatyby the Unite States,> an =the fa!t that #it& *as not submitte for a-i!e an !onsent of the Unite States oesnot etra!t from its status as a binin' international a'reement or treaty re!o'ni)e by the sai State>

Se!tion 2, Arti!le L..., 1GD6 Constitution pro-ies that =forei'n military bases, troops, or fa!ilities shall not beallo*e in the Philippines e!ept uner a treaty uly !on!urre in by the Senate an, *hen the Con'ress sore

/he issue, the Court sai, is =*hether or not the presen!e of the US Arme For!es in Philippine territory pursuantto the LFA is allo*e $uner a treaty uly !on!urre in by the Senate an re!o'ni)e as a treaty by the other!ontra!tin' State%> =.t is,> the Court rule =/he LFA, *hi!h is the instrument a'ree upon to pro-ie for the ointRP(US military eer!ises, is simply an implementin' a'reement to the main RP(US Mutual Hefense /reaty,> theCourt hel -isit fellesterblo'spot!om /he RP(US Mutual Hefense /reaty of Au'ust 70, 1G1 *as si'ne anuly ratifie *ith the !on!urren!e of both the Philippine Senate an the Unite States Senate

Romulo(enney A'reements not in a!!or *ith the LFA itself

/he Court ho*e-er rule that =the Romulo(enney A'reements of He!ember 1G an 22, 200, *hi!h area'reements on the etention of the a!!use in the Unite States @mbassy, are not in a!!or *ith the LFA itselfbe!ause su!h etention is not =by Philippine authorities> Arti!le L, Se!tion 10 of the LFA pro-ies that =the!onfinement or etention by Philippine authorities of the Unite States personnel shall be !arrie out in fa!ilities

a'ree on by appropriate Philippines an Unite States authorities .7 (Su8ette 'icolas y Sombilon 9s. AlbertoRomulo, &.R. 'o. :+++, !ebruary , "##)

H.SS@+/.+B OP.+.O+

.n his issent, Chief Eusti!e Puno maintaine his -ie* in the earlier !ase of "ayan - amora that the LFA fallsshort of the re


6/11

Pharmaceutical an /ealth Care Association of the Philippines v 0uue 222

!acts

Petition for !ertiorari see3in' to nullify the Re-ise .mplementin' Rules an Re'ulations #R.RR& of @O 1 #Mil3Coe& Petitioner !laims that the R.RR is not -ali as it !ontains pro-isions that are not !onstitutional an 'o

beyon *hat it is suppose to implement Mil3 Coe *as issue by Presient Cory A


7/11

be applie to omesti! !onfli!ts (Pharmaceutical ; /ealth Care Assn. of the Phil. v. /ealth Secretary 0uue,et al., &.R. 'o. :


8/11

Secretary of -ustice vs. /on. Ralph C. 3antion

Fa!ts

On Eanuary 17, 1G66 PH 10G *as issue pres!ribin' the Pro!eure of the @traition of Persons *ho ha-e!ommitte Crimes in a Forei'n Country /he He!ree is foune on /he Ho!trine of .n!orporation uner the

Constitution Art .., Se! 2 of the 1GD6 Philippine Constitution

On +o-ember 17, 1GG; Eusti!e Se!retary Fran3lin Hrilon si'ne in Manila the @traition /reaty "et*een theBo-ernment of the Philippines an the Bo-ernment of USA .t *as ratifie by the Senate

On Eune 1D, 1GGG, the Hepartment of Eusti!e re!ei-e from the Hepartment of Forei'n Affairs of U S a re


9/11

=/he o!trine of in!orporation is applie *hene-er muni!ipal tribunals are !onfronte *ith situations in *hi!hthere appears to be a !onfli!t bet*een a rule of international la* an the pro-isions of the !onstitution or statute ofthe lo!al state

=@fforts shoul first be eerte to harmoni)e them, so as to 'i-e effe!t to both sin!e it is to be presume thatmuni!ipal la* *as ena!te *ith proper re'ar for the 'enerally a!!epte prin!iples of international la* in

obser-an!e of the in!orporation !lause in the abo-e !ite !onstitutional pro-ision

=.n a situation, ho*e-er, *here the !onfli!t is irre!on!ilable an a !hoi!e has to be mae bet*een a rule ofinternational la* an a muni!ipal la*, urispruen!e i!tates that muni!ipal la* shoul be uphel by the muni!ipal!ourts, for the reason that su!h !ourts are or'ans of muni!ipal la* an are a!!orin'ly boun by it in all!ir!umstan!es

=/he fa!t that international la* has been mae part of the la* of the lan oes not pertain to or imply the prima!yof international la* o-er national or muni!ipal la* in the muni!ipal sphere /he o!trine of in!orporation, asapplie in most !ountries, e!rees that rules of international la* are 'i-en e


10/11

the lan, su!h as the Republi! of the Philippines, both statutes an treaties may be in-aliate if they are in

!onfli!t *ith the !onstitution

A'& 3A03A0 9S. C$M%3%C

Fa!ts

Petitioner is a national or'ani)ation *hi!h represents the lesbians, 'ays, biseuals, an trans('eners .t file apetition for a!!reitation as a party(list or'ani)ation to publi! responent ?o*e-er, ue to moral 'rouns, thelatter enie the sai petition /o buttress their enial, COM@K@C !ite !ertain bibli!al an


11/11

Documents

Bayan Muna vs Executive Secretary