Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 53 views

    Bayan V Romulo Case Digest PDF Free

    Uploaded by

    Bae Irene
    The Supreme Court dismissed Bayan Muna's petition to nullify the Non-Surrender Agreement between the Philippines and the US. The Court found that the agreement did not contravene or undermine the Rome Statute that the Philippines had signed. As a signatory and not a state party, the Philippines was only obliged to not defeat the object and purpose of the Rome Statute. The Court also found that the agreement was a valid executive agreement that did not require Senate concurrence, as the President has the authority to enter into such agreements on foreign affairs.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    Bayan V Romulo Case Digest PDF Free

    Uploaded by

    Bae Irene
    53 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court dismissed Bayan Muna's petition to nullify the Non-Surrender Agreement between the Philippines and the US. The Court found that the agreement did not contravene or undermine the Rome Statute that the Philippines had signed. As a signatory and not a state party, the Philippines was only obliged to not defeat the object and purpose of the Rome Statute. The Court also found that the agreement was a valid executive agreement that did not require Senate concurrence, as the President has the authority to enter into such agreements on foreign affairs.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Pdfcoffee.com Bayan v Romulo Case Digest PDF Free

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Supreme Court dismissed Bayan Muna's petition to nullify the Non-Surrender Agreement between the Philippines and the US. The Court found that the agreement did not contravene or undermine the Rome Statute that the Philippines had signed. As a signatory and not a state party, the Philippines was only obliged to not defeat the object and purpose of the Rome Statute. The Court also found that the agreement was a valid executive agreement that did not require Senate concurrence, as the President has the authority to enter into such agreements on foreign affairs.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    53 views2 pages

    Bayan V Romulo Case Digest PDF Free

    Uploaded by

    Bae Irene
    The Supreme Court dismissed Bayan Muna's petition to nullify the Non-Surrender Agreement between the Philippines and the US. The Court found that the agreement did not contravene or undermine the Rome Statute that the Philippines had signed. As a signatory and not a state party, the Philippines was only obliged to not defeat the object and purpose of the Rome Statute. The Court also found that the agreement was a valid executive agreement that did not require Senate concurrence, as the President has the authority to enter into such agreements on foreign affairs.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    BAYAN v Romulo

    G.R. No. 159618 1 February 2011 Velasco JR., J.


    Art. II – Sec. 2 Created by: Perez, Ana Margarita
    Petitioners Respondents
    BAYAN MUNA, as represented by Rep. Saturn Alberto Romulo, in his capacity as Executive
    Ocampo, Rep. Crispin Beltran, and Rep. Liza L. Secretary, and Blas F. Ople, in his capacity as
    Maza Secretary of Foreign Affairs
    Recit Ready Summary
    The petitioner BAYAN MUNA, a ‘duly registered party-list group set up to represent the marginalized
    sectors of society, sought to nullify the Non-Surrender Agreement concluded between the Republic of
    the Philippines and the United States of America. They claimed that the agreement contravened the
    obligations of the Philippines under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), which
    had been signed (but not ratified) by the Philippines. The petitioner also argued that the Agreement
    was void ab initio because it created obligations that were immoral or that were contrary to
    universally recognized principals of international law. Alberto Romulo, Executive Secretary, argued
    that the Non-Surrender Agreement was constitutional and valid because it was in the nature of an
    executive agreement.
    Facts of the Case
    1. On December 28, 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.
    2. On May 9, 2003, then Ambassador Francis J. Ricciardone sent US Embassy Note No. 0470 to
    the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) proposing the terms of the non-surrender bilateral
    agreement (Agreement, hereinafter) between the USA and the RP.
    3. On May 13, 2003, via Exchange of Notes with the US government, the RP, represented by then
    DFA Secretary Blas F. 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.
    4. In response to a query of then Solicitor General Alfredo L. Benipayo on the status of the non-
    surrender agreement, Ambassador Ricciardone replied in his letter of October 28, 2003 that
    the exchange of diplomatic notes constituted a legally binding agreement under international
    law; and that, under US law, the said agreement did not require the advice and consent of the
    US Senate.
    5. Bayan Muna was an organization that represented the ‘marginalized sectors of society’. It
    brought a petition against the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and the Executive Secretary, alleging
    grave abuse of their discretion for having concluded the Non-Surrender Agreement on the
    basis that it undermined the Rome Statute, violated internationally accepted principles of
    international law, and that there was a lack of similar legislation in the United States that
    would punish the crimes covered by the Rome Statute.
    6. Bayan Muna requested that the Non-Surrender Agreement be struck down as
    unconstitutional, or declared to be without force and effect. Alberto Romulo, Executive
    Secretary, argued that the Non-Surrender Agreement was constitutional and valid because it
    was in the nature of an executive agreement, which did not require Senate concurrence.
    Issue Ruling
    1. W/N the respondents gravely abused their discretion in concluding the No.
    RP-US Non Surrender Agreement in contravention of the Rome Statute
    2. W/N the agreement is valid, binding and effective without the
    concurrence by at least 2/3 of all the members of the Senate Yes.
    Rationale / Analysis / Basis
    1. 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.
    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.
    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.
    2. International agreements may be in the form of treaties that require legislative concurrence
    after executive ratification; or executive agreements that are similar to treaties but except do
    not require legislative concurrence and are usually less formal and deal with a narrower
    range of subject matters than treaties.
    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.
    Based from the constitution and by the nature of Office of the President, as head
    of state and government, is the sole organ and authority in the external affairs of the
    country. The Constitution vests in the President the power to enter into international
    agreements, subject, in appropriate cases, to the required concurrence votes of the
    Senate. In thus agreeing to conclude the Agreement thru E/N BFO-028-03, then President
    Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, represented by the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, acted within the
    scope of the authority and discretion vested in her by the Constitution. The President––by
    ratifying, thru her deputies, the non-surrender agreement––did nothing more than
    discharge a constitutional duty and exercise a prerogative that pertains to her office.
    Disposition
    The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for lack of merit.

    You might also like