7/24/2019 Chapter E 17-19

1/5

Pimentel v. Office of the Executive Secretary

FACTS:

The Rome Statute established the ICC which shall have the power to exercise its jurisdiction

over persons for the most serious crimes of international concern xxx and shall be

complementary to the national criminal jurisdictions. The Philippines, throughCharge d

Affairs Enrique A. Manalo of the Philippine Mission to the UN, signed the Rome Statute on Dec.

28, 2000. Its provisions, however, require that it be subject to ratification, acceptance or approval

of the signatory states. Petitioners now file this petition to compel the Office of the President to

transmit the signed copy of the Rome Statute to the Senate for its concurrence.

ISSUE:

o Whether or not the Executive Secretary and the DFA have a ministerial duty to transmit

to the Senate the copy of the Rome Statute

HELD:

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 and is the countrys sole representative with foreign nations. Asthe chief architect of foreign policy, the President acts as the countrys 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 themembers 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 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 ofthe legislature in the treaties entered into by the President, the Constitution ensures a healthy

7/24/2019 Chapter E 17-19

2/5

system of checks and balance necessary in the nations pursuit of political maturity and growth.

Signing vs. Ratification of Treaty

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 intendedas a means of authenticating the instrument and as a symbol of the good faith of the parties. It isusually performed by the states 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 headof the state or of the government .

Purpose of Ratification

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 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. Afterthe treaty is signed by the states 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 hasthe 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 dutyto 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 takingoffense.

President has the Power to Ratify Treaties

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 ofthe 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 ofmandamus. 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 thegovernment to transmit the signed text of Rome Statute to the Senate.

7/24/2019 Chapter E 17-19

3/5

Lim v. Executive Secretary

Facts:

Petition for certiorari and prohibition as well as a petition-in-intervention

Pursuant to the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) signed in 1999, personnel from the armed forces ofthe United States of America started arriving in Mindanao to take partin "Balikatan 02-1 on January2002. The Balikatan 02-1 exercises involves the simulation of joint military maneuvers pursuant tothe Mutual Defense Treaty, a bilateral defense agreement entered into by the Philippines and theUnited States in 1951. The exercise is rooted from the international anti-terrorism campaigndeclared by President George W. Bush in reaction to the 3 commercial aircrafts hijacking thatsmashed into twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City and the Pentagon building inWashington, D.C. allegedly by the al-Qaeda headed by the Osama bin Laden that occurred onSeptember 11, 2001. Arthur D. Lim and Paulino P. Ersando as citizens, lawyers and taxpayers fileda petition for certiorari and prohibition attacking the constitutionality of the joint exercise. Partylists

Sanlakas and Partido Ng Manggagawa as residents of Zamboanga and Sulu directly affected by theoperations filed a petition-in-intervention.

The Solicitor General commented the prematurity of the action as it is based only on a fear offuture violation of the Terms of Reference and impropriety of availing of certiorari to ascertain aquestion of fact specifically interpretation of the VFA whether it is covers "Balikatan 02-1 and noquestion of constitutionality is involved. Moreover, there is lack of locus standi since it does notinvolve tax spending and there is no proof of direct personal injury.

Issue:

Conflict arises then between the fundamental law and our obligations arising from

international agreements.Philip Morris, Inc. v. Court of Appeals: Withal, the fact that international law has been made part ofthe law of the land does not by any means imply the primacy of international law over national law inthe municipal sphere. Under the doctrine of incorporation as applied in most countries, rules ofinternational law are given a standing equal, not superior, to national legislation.From the perspective of public international law, a treaty is favored over municipal law pursuant tothe principle of pacta sunt servanda. Hence, "[e]very treaty in force is binding upon the parties to itand must be performed by them in good faith." Further, a party to a treaty is not allowed to "invokethe provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty."Our Constitution espouses the opposing view as stated in section 5 of Article VIII: The SupremeCourt shall have the following powers: xxx(2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court

may provide, final judgments and order of lower courts in:(A) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executiveagreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is inquestion.

Ichong v. Hernandez: provisions of a treaty are always subject to qualification oramendment by a subsequent law, or that it is subject to the police power of the StateGonzales v. Hechanova: our Constitution authorizes the nullification of a treaty, not only when itconflicts with the fundamental law, but, also, when it runs counter to an act of Congress.

7/24/2019 Chapter E 17-19

4/5

The foregoing premises leave us no doubt that US forces are prohibited / from engaging in anoffensive war on Philippine territory.

WHO vs Aquino Case Digest

Diplomatic Immunity,Political Question,Suits against International Agencies

Facts:

Dr. Leonce Verstuyft was assigned by WHO to its regional office in Manila as Acting

Assistant Director of Health Services. His personal effects, contained in twelve

(12) crates, were allowed free entry from duties and taxes. Constabulary Offshore ActionCenter (COSAC) suspected that the crates containlarge quantities of highly dutiable

goods beyond the official needs ofVerstuyft. Upon application of the COSAC officers,

Judge Aquino issued a search warrant for the search and seizure of the personal effects

of Verstuyft.

Secretary of Foreign Affairs Carlos P. Romulo advised Judge Aquino that Dr. Verstuyft is

entitled to immunity from search in respect for his personal baggage as accorded to

members of diplomatic missions pursuant to the Host Agreement and requested that the

search warrant be suspended. The Solicitor General accordingly joined Verstuyft for the

quashal of the search warrant but respondent judge nevertheless summarily denied the

quashal. Verstuyft, thus, filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the SC. WHO

joined Verstuyft in asserting diplomatic immunity.

Issue:

Whether or not personal effect of Verstuyft can be exempted from search and seizure

under the diplomatic immunity.

Held:

Yes. The executive branch of the Phils has expressly recognized that Verstuyft is entitled

to diplomatic immunity, pursuant to the provisions of the Host Agreement. The DFA

formally advised respondent judge of the Philippine Government's official position. The

http://policasedigests.blogspot.com/2015/02/who-vs-aquino-case-digest.htmlhttp://policasedigests.blogspot.com/2015/02/who-vs-aquino-case-digest.htmlhttp://policasedigests.blogspot.com/search/label/Diplomatic%20Immunityhttp://policasedigests.blogspot.com/search/label/Diplomatic%20Immunityhttp://policasedigests.blogspot.com/search/label/Political%20Questionhttp://policasedigests.blogspot.com/search/label/Political%20Questionhttp://policasedigests.blogspot.com/search/label/Political%20Questionhttp://policasedigests.blogspot.com/search/label/Suits%20against%20International%20Agencieshttp://policasedigests.blogspot.com/search/label/Suits%20against%20International%20Agencieshttp://policasedigests.blogspot.com/search/label/Suits%20against%20International%20Agencieshttp://policasedigests.blogspot.com/search/label/Suits%20against%20International%20Agencieshttp://policasedigests.blogspot.com/search/label/Political%20Questionhttp://policasedigests.blogspot.com/search/label/Diplomatic%20Immunityhttp://policasedigests.blogspot.com/2015/02/who-vs-aquino-case-digest.html

7/24/2019 Chapter E 17-19

5/5

Solicitor General, as principal law officer of the gorvernment, likewise expressly affirmed

said petitioner's right to diplomatic immunity and asked for the quashal of the search

warrant.

It is a recognized principle of international law and under our system of separation ofpowers that diplomatic immunity is essentially a political question and courts should

refuse to look beyond a determination by the executive branch of the government,

and where the plea of diplomatic immunity is recognized and affirmed by the executive

branch of the government as in the case at bar, it is then the duty of the courts to accept

the claim of immunity upon appropriate suggestion by the principal law officer of the

government, the Solicitor General in this case, or other officer acting under his discretion.

Courts may not so exercise their jurisdiction by seizure and detention of property, as to

embarass the executive arm of the government in conducting foreign relations.

The Court, therefore, holds the respondent judge acted without jurisdiction and with

grave abuse of discretion in not ordering the quashal of the search warrant issued by him

in disregard of the diplomatic immunity of petitioner Verstuyft.(World Health

Organization vs. Aquino, G.R. No. L-35131, November 29, 1972, 48 SCRA 243)