Case Digest (G.R. No. 158088) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In G.R. No. 158088, decided en banc on July 6, 2005, petitioners Senator Aquilino Pimentel, Jr., Representative Loretta Ann “Etta” Rosales, the Philippine Coalition for the Establishment of the International Criminal Court, Task Force Detainees of the Philippines, Families of Victims of Involuntary Disappearances, a group of young law students, and individual child petitioners filed an original petition for mandamus in the Supreme Court of the Philippines. They sought to compel the Office of the Executive Secretary, represented by Alberto Romulo, and the Department of Foreign Affairs, represented by Blas Ople, to transmit to the Senate a copy of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which the Philippines had signed on December 28, 2000 through Charge d’Affaires Enrique A. Manalo but had not ratified. Petitioners argued that under Section 21, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, it was the exclusive duty of the Exe Case Digest (G.R. No. 158088) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Background of the Rome Statute
- The Rome Statute establishes the International Criminal Court with jurisdiction over genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and aggression (Art. 1, 5).
- Opened for signature from July 17, 1998 to December 31, 2000; the Philippines signed on December 28, 2000.
- The petition for mandamus
- Petitioners (Senator Pimentel, Rep. Rosales, human-rights groups, victims’ families, students) sought to compel the Executive Secretary and DFA to transmit the signed Statute to the Senate for concurrence under Sec. 21, Art. VII, 1987 Constitution.
- They argued ratification is a Senate function, invoking domestic law, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (Art. 18), and customary international law.
- Respondents’ position and procedural history
- The Office of the Solicitor General challenged petitioners’ standing and argued the executive has no duty to transmit the Statute to the Senate.
- Petitioners filed under Rule 65 mandamus; the Court undertook a standing and substantive review.
Issues:
- Legal standing for mandamus
- Does each petitioner possess a “clear legal right” and “direct interest” to enforce the transmission duty?
- Which petitioners, if any, are “aggrieved” parties under jurisprudence on standing?
- Existence of ministerial duty to transmit
- Does the executive owe a ministerial duty to send the signed Rome Statute to the Senate absent the President’s signature?
- How do constitutional provisions and executive practice distinguish signature from ratification?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)