Case Summary (G.R. No. 238875)
Justiciability and Mootness
The Court emphasized that it exercises judicial power only over actual, live controversies: disputes with definite facts, direct injury, and relief that the Court can grant. Because the Philippines had completed all steps for withdrawal and the ICC accepted it, there was no ongoing controversy to resolve. The withdrawal was a fait accompli, rendering any judicial declaration or mandamus futile. Accordingly, the petitions were moot.
Standing and Hierarchy of Courts
Senators claimed injury to the Senate’s treaty-concurrence prerogative, but the Senate as a collegial body never adopted the proposed Resolution No. 289 (requiring its concurrence for withdrawal), and thus no institutional right was shown. Civil society petitioners and the IBP alleged impacts on human rights, but failed to demonstrate direct, material, and substantial injury; they also did not establish special reasons for third-party or taxpayers’ suits. The Court held that only parties with personal stake and injury can invoke judicial review.
Political Question Doctrine and Judicial Restraint
Treaty withdrawal touches on foreign affairs, a domain primarily entrusted to the executive. Although not automatically unreviewable, the Court will refrain from deciding matters that lack judicially manageable standards or are premature, to preserve separation of powers. Here, petitioners sought to substitute the Court’s policy judgment for that of the President in external relations—an inappropriate intrusion into a political question.
Executive Powers and Treaty Withdrawal
Under the 1987 Constitution, the President is “the sole organ of the nation in its external relations” and may negotiate, ratify, and enforce treaties. However, the President’s discretion is bounded by the Constitution and existing laws. Treaties must not contravene the Constitution; a treaty inconsistent with a law must yield to the statute. In cases where a treaty itself conflicts with the Constitution or domestic statutes, the President may withdraw to uphold the fundamental law.
Legislative Prerogatives in Treaty Withdrawal
Article VII, Section 21 requires Senate concurrence for treaties to become valid and effective domestically. Drawing on comparative doctrines (Youngstown framework, mirror principle), the Court recognized that withdrawal procedures should mirror legislative involvement in treaty entry. When treaties are adopted with minimal Senate participation, the President retains broader discretion; but where legislative imprimatur or statute underlies entry, withdrawal demands legislative action.
Guidelines for Future Treaty Withdrawal
The Court established that:
- The President may unilaterally withdraw treaties deemed repugnant to the Constitution or statutes, subject to good-faith judgment and judicial review for grave abuse of discretion.
- Withdrawal is impermissible if the treaty was entered into pursuant to an express legislative directive or implemented by statute—legislation must be repealed first.
- Withdrawal cannot override a Senate concurrence conditioned on its agreement to the termination; any such condition, once adopted, binds the executive.
Domestic Implementation of International Crimes Law
Republic Act No. 9851 (2009), enacted two years before the Senate’s concurrence to the Rome Statute, criminalizes genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and includes broader protections (e.g., child-soldier recruitment under age 18, expanded definitions of torture, global jurisdiction over Filipino nationals). It implements “complementarity” within do
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 238875)
Procedural History
- On March 15–17, 2018, the Philippines announced and formally notified its withdrawal from the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC).
- May 16, 2018: Senators Pangilinan et al. filed G.R. No. 238875 (Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus).
- June 13, 2018: Philippine Coalition for the ICC and individual members filed G.R. No. 239483.
- August 14, 2018: Integrated Bar of the Philippines filed G.R. No. 240954.
- Consolidation of the three petitions; oral arguments held on August 28, September 4, and October 9, 2018.
- March 16, 2021: En banc decision issued dismissing all consolidated petitions as moot.
Facts
- 2000: President Estrada signed the Rome Statute (subject to Senate concurrence).
- 2002: Rome Statute entered into force internationally; domestic Senate concurrence pending.
- 2009: RA 9851 (Philippine Act on Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law, Genocide, and Other Crimes Against Humanity) enacted, replicating many Rome Statute provisions.
- 2011: Senate, by Resolution 546, concurred in Philippines’ accession; instrument of ratification deposited; Statute entered into force domestically November 1, 2011.
- 2017–2018: ICC preliminary examination into alleged drug-war killings commenced; on March 15–17, Philippines withdrew from Rome Statute per Article 127.
- 2019: ICC Assembly of States Parties noted withdrawal effective March 17, 2019.
Issues
- Justiciability:
• Is there an actual, live controversy?
• Have petitioners shown direct, material, and substantial injury? - Standing:
• Do individual senators have standing absent official Senate action?
• Can citizens’ and associations’ general human-rights claims suffice? - Procedural vehicle:
• Are petitions for certiorari and mandamus under Rule 65 proper?
• Do these invoke the Court’s expanded certiorari jurisdiction (grave abuse of discretion)? - Merits of wi