Title
Bayan Muna vs. Romulo
Case
G.R. No. 159618
Decision Date
Feb 1, 2011
Bayan Muna challenged the RP-US Non-Surrender Agreement, arguing it undermines the Rome Statute and sovereignty. The Supreme Court upheld its validity, ruling it as an executive agreement not requiring Senate concurrence, consistent with international law.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 159618)

Rome Statute Framework

The Rome Statute establishes the ICC’s complementary jurisdiction over genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and aggression. It states the ICC’s jurisdiction is complementary to national jurisdictions and requires State consent for surrender under Article 98(2) when inconsistent with other international agreements. The Philippines signed but has not ratified the Statute; the USA is neither a signatory nor a State-Party.

RP-US Non-Surrender Agreement

Through Exchange of Notes BFO-028-03, the Philippines agreed that Philippine or American officials, employees, contractors, military personnel, or nationals present in the other’s territory would not be surrendered to international tribunals outside those established by the UN Security Council, nor transferred to third countries for such surrender, without the sending State’s consent.

Procedural Issue: Locus Standi

Bayan Muna’s party-list representatives asserted standing as concerned citizens on a matter of transcendental public importance, a stance the Court deemed sufficient under its liberalized standing jurisprudence, particularly for cases of grave abuse of discretion involving constitutional questions.

Substantive Issue 1: Validity of the Agreement’s Form

An exchange of diplomatic notes is an internationally recognized form of executive agreement under the doctrine of incorporation (Const. Art. II, Sec. 2). It does not require Senate concurrence, as it is not a treaty but an executive agreement.

Substantive Issue 2: Senate Concurrence Requirement

Treaties require two-thirds Senate concurrence (Const. Art. VII, Sec. 21). Executive agreements do not. The Court affirmed longstanding practice that executive agreements—whether by exchange of notes, protocols, or formal agreements—are binding without legislative approval, provided they do not contravene the Constitution.

Substantive Issue 3: Consistency with the Rome Statute

The Agreement does not conflict with the Rome Statute’s principle of complementarity, which recognizes a State’s primary jurisdiction over serious crimes and allows ICC involvement only when States are unwilling or unable genuinely to prosecute. Article 98(2) expressly contemplates derogation by other international agreements requiring State consent.

Substantive Issue 4: Sovereignty and Jurisdiction

Far from abdicating Philippine sovereignty, the Agreement affirms national jurisdiction as primary. It merely commits each country to seek its own consent before surrendering its nationals, preserving reciprocal immunities recognized in international law and consistent with policy of cooperation and amity (Const. Art. II, Sec. 2).

Substantive Issue 5: Moral and International Law Considerations

The Agreement does not immunize serious offenders from national prosecution. Under RA 9851, the Philippines must prosecute or may choose to surrender persons to international courts “if another cour

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.

About Privacy Terms