G.R. No. 238875 - Pangili vs. Cayetano

On July 17, 1998, the Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal Court (ICC) was adopted; it entered into force on July 1, 2002.
The Philippines took part in the drafting and negotiations since 1996; signed the Rome Statute on December 28, 2000 under President Estrada, signifying intent to be bound subject to constitutional processes.
Before Senate concurrence to the Rome Statute, Congress enacted Republic Act No. 9851 (Dec. 11, 2009), the Philippine Act on Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law, Genocide, and Other Crimes Against Humanity, which domesticated and even expanded many Rome Statute offenses, jurisdictional rules, victims’ protections, and command responsibility.
On August 23, 2011, the Senate concurred with accession to the Rome Statute (Senate Resolution No. 546, 17-1 vote); the instrument of ratification was deposited on August 30, 2011; the Statute took effect domestically on November 1, 2011.

President Duterte assumed office on June 30, 2016; complaints relating to alleged extrajudicial killings and the “war on drugs” were filed with the ICC (Sabio complaint, April 24, 2017; Trillanes/Alejano supplemental communication, June 6, 2017).
On February 8, 2018, ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda announced a preliminary examination on the Philippines situation.

Executive withdrawal from the Rome Statute and subsequent international acts

On March 15, 2018, the Philippines announced it was withdrawing from the ICC; on March 16, 2018, the Philippines submitted a Note Verbale to the UN Secretary-General notifying withdrawal per Article 127; the UN received it on March 17, 2018.
The ICC and UN acknowledged receipt and indicated withdrawal would take effect one year after receipt (March 17, 2019), consistent with Article 127(1).
On March 18, 2019, the President of the Assembly of States Parties publicly noted, with regret, the Philippines’ withdrawal effective March 17, 2019.

G.R. No. 238875 (May 16, 2018): Senators Pangilinan, Drilon, Aquino, De Lima, Hontiveros, and Trillanes filed a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus challenging unilateral withdrawal as unconstitutional; prayed that the withdrawal be declared void and that respondents be compelled to notify the UN SG of cancellation of the withdrawal and to submit the issue to the Senate.
G.R. No. 239483 (June 13, 2018): Philippine Coalition for the ICC (PCICC) and individual petitioners asserted injury to rights to life, security, and dignity; argued Senate concurrence is required for withdrawal; sought nullification of the withdrawal and directive to rescind the Note Verbale.
G.R. No. 240954 (Aug. 14, 2018): Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) filed a Petition raising similar grounds and reliefs; moved for consolidation and participation in oral arguments.
Petitioners alternatively invoked taxpayers’ and citizens’ standing and the transcendental importance of the issues; Senator Pangilinan manifested the pendency of Senate Resolution No. 289 (“sense of the Senate” that withdrawal requires Senate concurrence), noting it was not calendared for adoption.

Respondents (Executive Secretary, DFA, and Permanent Mission) argued lack of locus standi (individual senators not representing Senate as a body; citizens lacking concrete injury), impropriety of Rule 65 (no judicial or quasi-judicial act), political question, and that the Constitution does not require Senate concurrence for withdrawal.
Respondents maintained compliance with Article 127 withdrawal mechanics, asserted protection of sovereignty and judiciary’s independence, and argued domestic law sufficiently protects human rights (e.g., R.A. 9851).
Oral arguments were held on Aug. 28, Sept. 4, and Oct. 9, 2018; memoranda were submitted thereafter.

Notable contextual facts relevant to justiciability and institutional dynamics

The Senate did not pass any resolution requiring concurrence for withdrawal for the Rome Statute; Senate Resolution No. 546 contained no condition that future withdrawal also needed Senate concurrence.
Several other Senate concurrence resolutions for other treaties historically included withdrawal-concurrence conditions; none existed here.
The ICC publicly recognized the Philippines’ withdrawal as effective on March 17, 2019, creating a supervening event post-filing of the Petitions.

Whether the Petitions present an actual, ripe, justiciable controversy or are moot due to completed and accepted withdrawal.
Whether petitioners have legal standing (individual senators, citizens/taxpayers, associations) and whether transcendental importance excuses defects.
Whether resort to the Supreme Court violated the hierarchy of courts or fell within recognized exceptions.
Whether the questions present political issues non-justiciable by the Court.
Whether Rule 65 Petitions for Certiorari and Mandamus are proper vehicles given the nature of the challenged acts.

Whether the Philippines complied with Article 127 requisites for withdrawal from the Rome Statute.
Whether the Executive may unilaterally withdraw from a treaty, specifically:

Whether legislative action or Senate concurrence is required to effect withdrawal.
Whether the withdrawal violated any statute, legislative authorization, or prerogative.
Whether statutes or Senate-imposed conditions can limit unilateral withdrawal.

Whether the Philippines’ withdrawal places it in breach of its international obligations, including pacta sunt servanda.
Effect of withdrawal on ICC jurisdiction over acts prior to the effective date.

Whether withdrawal diminishes protection of human rights under domestic and international law, and whether this is a justiciable question.