Title
Supreme Court
Pangili vs. Cayetano
Case
G.R. No. 238875
Decision Date
Mar 16, 2021
The Philippines withdrew from the ICC in 2018; petitioners challenged the unilateral withdrawal, but the Supreme Court dismissed the case as moot, upholding presidential authority in foreign policy.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 155849)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Background
    • Treaty and statutory developments
      • December 28, 2000 – Philippines signs the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC).
      • July 1, 2002 – Rome Statute enters into force internationally.
      • December 11, 2009 – RA 9851 ("Philippine Act on Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law, Genocide, and Other Crimes Against Humanity") enacted, replicating many Rome Statute provisions.
      • August 23, 2011 – Senate Resolution No. 546 (17–1 vote) concurs in accession; August 30, 2011 – instrument of ratification deposited; November 1, 2011 – Rome Statute enters into force in the Philippines.
    • Withdrawal and petitions
      • February 8, 2018 – ICC Prosecutor opens preliminary examination of alleged crimes in Philippines’ drug war.
      • March 15–17, 2018 – President Duterte announces and formally notifies UN Secretary-General of Philippines’ one-year withdrawal from the Rome Statute under Article 127(1).
      • May 16 – August 14, 2018 – Three petitions for certiorari and mandamus filed:
        • G.R. No. 238875 by six senators;
        • G.R. No. 239483 by Philippine Coalition for the ICC and individuals;
        • G.R. No. 240954 by Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
  • Procedural history
    • July 6, 2018 – Office of the Solicitor General files consolidated comment.
    • August 28, September 4, and October 9, 2018 – Oral arguments conducted.
    • March 17, 2019 – UN Secretary-General receives withdrawal notice; ICC Assembly President regrets withdrawal effective March 17, 2019.
    • March 16, 2021 – Supreme Court decision dismissing petitions promulgated.

Issues:

  • Justiciability
    • Actual, live controversy and ripeness
    • Standing of senators, coalition, and IBP
    • Mootness due to completed withdrawal
    • Political-question doctrine
    • Proper use of Rule 65 certiorari and mandamus
  • Validity of withdrawal
    • Compliance with Rome Statute Article 127 procedures
    • President’s unilateral power to terminate treaties: scope and limits
    • Effect of RA 9851 and Senate concurrence on withdrawal authority
    • Requirement (if any) of two-thirds Senate concurrence for withdrawal
  • International-law consequences
    • Breach of treaty obligations under international law
    • Continued ICC jurisdiction over acts prior to effective withdrawal
    • Impact on protection of human rights domestically and abroad

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.