Case Digest (G.R. No. 238875)
Facts:
Senators Francis "Kiko" N. Pangilinan, Franklin M. Drilon, Paolo Benigno "Bam" Aquino IV, Leila M. De Lima, Risa Hontiveros, and Antonio 'Sonny' F. Trillanes IV v. Alan Peter S. Cayetano, Salvador C. Medialdea, Teodoro L. Locsin, Jr., and Salvador S. Panelo; Philippine Coalition for the International Criminal Court (PCICC), et al. v. Office of the Executive Secretary, Department of Foreign Affairs, and the Permanent Mission of the Republic of the Philippines to the United Nations; and Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Office of the Executive Secretary, Department of Foreign Affairs, and the Permanent Mission of the Republic of the Philippines to the United Nations, G.R. Nos. 238875, 239483, 240954, March 16, 2021, the Supreme Court En Banc, Leonen, J., writing for the Court.The antecedents: the Philippines participated in drafting and signed the Rome Statute in 2000; Congress later enacted Republic Act No. 9851 (the Philippine Act on Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law, Genocide, and Other Crimes Against Humanity) on December 11, 2009, which reproduced and in some respects broadened Rome Statute provisions. The Senate gave concurrence to the Rome Statute by Senate Resolution No. 546 on August 23, 2011; the Philippines deposited its instrument of ratification on August 30, 2011, and the statute took domestic effect on November 1, 2011.
Under the Duterte administration, preliminary examinations at the International Criminal Court (ICC) into alleged atrocities in the "war on drugs" commenced in 2017–2018. On March 15–16, 2018 the Executive announced and transmitted a Notice of Withdrawal (Note Verbale) from the Rome Statute to the United Nations Secretary‑General; the Secretary‑General received it on March 17, 2018, making the withdrawal operative one year later. The ICC and its Assembly of States Parties publicly acknowledged the Philippines' action.
Challenging the Executive’s unilateral withdrawal, three sets of petitioners filed Rule 65 petitions in the Supreme Court: the six senators (filed May 16, 2018; G.R. No. 238875), the PCICC and individual members (filed June 7, 2018; G.R. No. 239483), and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (filed August 14, 2018; G.R. No. 240954). They sought declarations that the Notice of Withdrawal was invalid or void ab initio and mandamus compelling the Executive to revoke the withdrawal and submit the matter to the Senate; primary contentions were that withdrawal required Senate concurrence under Article VII, Section 21 of the Constitution and that withdrawal diminished international protection of human rights.
Respondents, through the Office of the Solicitor General, answered that (a) petitioners lacked standing; (b) the acts were political or discretionary and thus non-justiciable; (c) the Rome Statute’s own Article 127 only required written notification to the UN Secretary‑General (which the Philippines complied with); and (d) domestic law (notably RA ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Do the consolidated petitions present a justiciable controversy (including whether they are moot or ripe, timely filed, and brought by parties with standing; whether they violate hierarchy of courts; whether they raise political questions; and whether petitions for certiorari and mandamus under Rule 65 are proper)?
- Was the Philippines’ withdrawal from the Rome Statute by Note Verbale valid, binding, and effective (including whether the Philippines complied with the Rome Statute’s requisites for withdrawal, whether the Executive may unilaterally withdraw, whether legislative action is required, whether withdrawal violated any statute or legislative prerogative, and whether Senate concurrence of two‑thirds is required for withdrawal)?
- Does the Philippines’ withdrawal breach obligations under international law?
- Will withdrawal diminish the Filipino pe...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)