Bayan Muna vs. Romulo

Facts:

Bayan Muna, as represented by Rep. Satur Ocampo, Rep. Crispin Beltran, and Rep. Liza L. Maza, G.R. No. 159618, February 01, 2011, Supreme Court En Banc, Velasco Jr., J., writing for the Court. Petitioners (party-list representatives of Bayan Muna) sought to annul the Government’s RP–US Non‑Surrender Agreement executed by exchange of diplomatic notes (E/N BFO‑028‑03) dated May 13, 2003, and to restrain respondents Alberto Romulo (then Executive Secretary) and Blas F. Ople (then Secretary of Foreign Affairs) from giving effect to it.

The petition proceeded by Rule 65 (certiorari, mandamus and prohibition). Petitioners alleged the Agreement was concluded without Senate concurrence, violated or frustrated the object and purpose of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC)—to which the Philippines was a signatory (signed Dec. 28, 2000) but not yet a State‑Party—and amounted to grave abuse of discretion, abdication of sovereignty and an immoral undertaking. They asked the Court to declare the Agreement void and unenforceable.

On May 9 and 13, 2003 the U.S. Embassy proposed and the DFA accepted an exchange of notes defining “persons” (current or former government officials, employees including contractors, military personnel or nationals) and agreeing, without the sending State’s consent, not to surrender such persons to international tribunals (except tribunals established by the UN Security Council). The Agreement also contained reciprocity clauses and a one‑year termination rule. Respondents defended the Agreement as an executive agreement valid under international practice and domestic precedent, contending it did not require Senate concurrence; they also disputed petitioner’s standing and asserted constitutionality.

The petition reached the Supreme Court En Banc by Rule 65. The Court heard and resolved standing first, then addressed the Agreement’s form and validity, its relation to the Rome Statute and RA 9851 (Republic Act No. 9851, the Philippine Act on Crimes Against International...(Pro-only)

Issues:

• Do petitioners have locus standi to challenge the RP–US Non‑Surrender Agreement?
• Was the Agreement validly concluded by exchange of diplomatic notes and did it require Senate concurrence to be effective?
• Does the Agreement defeat the object and purpose of the Rome Statute or otherwise contravene the Philippines’ obligations under that instrument?
• Is the Agreement void ab initio for immorality or because it is at variance with generally accepted principles of international law (including RA 9851)?
• Did respondents commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to la...(Pro-only)

Ruling:

• (Pro-only)

Ratio:

• (Pro-only)

Doctrine:

• (Pro-only)