Case Summary (G.R. No. 238875)
Petitioners and Remedies Sought
The petitions, filed respectively in May, June, and August 2018, sought: (a) a declaration that the Philippines’ withdrawal from the Rome Statute (the treaty establishing the International Criminal Court, “ICC”) was invalid or ineffective because done without Senate concurrence required by Article VII, Section 21 of the 1987 Constitution; and (b) writs of mandamus directing the Executive to cancel, revoke, or withdraw the Instrument/Notice of Withdrawal filed with the United Nations Secretary‑General.
Key Dates and Procedural History
Material dates include: signature of the Rome Statute (Dec. 28, 2000); passage into Philippine law of Republic Act No. 9851 (Dec. 11, 2009); Senate concurrence to accession (Senate Resolution No. 546) and deposit of instrument of ratification (Aug. 23 and Aug. 30, 2011 respectively); commencement of the Duterte administration (June 30, 2016); ICC preliminary examination initiated (Feb. 8, 2018); announcement of withdrawal (Mar. 15, 2018); formal Note Verbale deposited with the UN Secretary‑General’s Chef de Cabinet (Mar. 16, 2018) and received by the Secretary‑General (Mar. 17, 2018); ICC/Assembly of States Parties commentary and confirmation of withdrawal’s effective date (withdrawal took effect one year after receipt, i.e., Mar. 17, 2019). The consolidated petitions were argued and the Supreme Court resolved the matters by dismissing the petitions as moot.
Applicable Constitutional and Treaty Law
The Court applied the 1987 Constitution (notably Article II, Section 2 — incorporation of generally accepted principles of international law — and Article VII, Section 21 — requirement of two‑thirds Senate concurrence for a treaty or international agreement to be “valid and effective” domestically). Relevant international instruments and rules included the Rome Statute (Article 127 on withdrawal) and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Domestic implementing law included Republic Act No. 9851 (Philippine law punishing genocide, war crimes, and other crimes against humanity).
Issues Presented for Resolution
The Court framed the central questions as: whether the petitions are justiciable (standing, timeliness, political question doctrine, proper procedural vehicle); whether the Executive complied with the Rome Statute’s withdrawal requisites and whether the Executive may unilaterally withdraw from treaties; whether withdrawal breached international obligations; and whether withdrawal diminished protection of human rights in the Philippines.
Justiciability and the Court’s Threshold Approach
The Court reiterated that judicial review requires an actual, live controversy involving rights that are legally demandable and enforceable, and that the Court must exercise prudential restraint in matters that would intrude on foreign relations or create diplomatic confusion. The expanded certiorari jurisdiction of Article VIII, Section 1(2) (judicial review for grave abuse of discretion by any branch) does not dispense with the requirement of a justiciable controversy, nor does it convert Rule 65 into a blanket procedure for any constitutional issue.
Standing, Mootness, and Political‑Question Analysis
The Court found multiple procedural defects: petitioners failed to demonstrate direct, material, and substantial injury-in-fact; the petitions were moot because the Executive had completed the withdrawal steps required by Article 127 and the UN/ICC acknowledged the withdrawal; the Senate as a collegial body had not acted to assert the prerogative petitioners claimed (Senate Resolution No. 289 had not been adopted or calendared); associations failed to establish third‑party standing or special reasons why members could not bring suit; taxpayer‑suit allegations lacked proof of illegal expenditure; and the remedies sought (certiorari and mandamus under Rule 65) were inappropriate for the Executive’s discretionary foreign‑relations acts. The political question doctrine and the principle of separation of powers counseled restraint where the Senate had not confronted the Executive’s action and where the issue risked affecting foreign relations without a live, justiciable dispute.
Compliance with Rome Statute Withdrawal Procedure (Article 127)
The Court found that the Philippines complied with the Rome Statute’s textual withdrawal procedure: the government announced its decision (Mar. 15, 2018), deposited a written Note Verbale with the UN Secretary‑General’s Chef de Cabinet (Mar. 16, 2018), and the Secretary‑General received it (Mar. 17, 2018). Under Article 127(1) the withdrawal became effective one year after receipt unless a later date was specified; the ICC and Assembly of States Parties recognized and acknowledged the withdrawal, confirming that the requisite steps were consummated and that the situation was thus not correctible by this Court’s finite jurisdiction.
The Court’s Framework on Presidential Authority to Withdraw from Treaties
The Court adopted a calibrated framework (informed by comparative concepts such as the “mirror principle” and the Youngstown categories but tailored to the Philippine constitutional structure) to evaluate unilateral Executive withdrawal from treaties: (1) the President has leeway to withdraw where the treaty is bona fide deemed contrary to the Constitution or a statute, because the President must ensure faithful execution of the Constitution and laws; (2) the President cannot unilaterally withdraw where the treaty or agreement was entered into pursuant to explicit congressional imprimatur (for example a statute that implements or affirms the treaty) — in such cases withdrawal requires legislative sanction or repeal; and (3) the President cannot unilaterally withdraw where the Senate, in concurring, expressly conditioned its concurrence on its concurrence for any subsequent withdrawal (i.e., where the Senate has imposed a need for its concurrence on withdrawal).
Application of the Framework to the Rome Statute and RA 9851
The Court observed that Republic Act No. 9851 (2009) was enacted prior to Senate concurrence to the Rome Statute and that RA 9851 replicated and in some respects expanded upon Rome Statute provisions (broader definitions of certain crimes, command responsibility, extraterritorial jurisdiction for Filipino nationals, procedures for victim protection and reparations). Because RA 9851 manifested legislative involvement and substantive enactment addressing atrocity crimes, it bears on the calculus for unilateral executive action. Nonetheless, the Court concluded that in the specific posture of these petitions the Executive’s withdrawal was not shown to be prohibited by legislative imprimatur or by a Senate condition requiring concurrence for withdrawal: the Senate did concur to accession in Resolution No. 546 but did not, in that concurrence, attach a requirement that withdrawal likewise obtain Senate concurrence, and Senate Resolution No. 289 (proposing such a rule) had not been adopted.
International‑Law Consequences and Pacta Sunt Servanda
The Court recognized the international‑law principle pacta sunt servanda (treaties are to be performed in good faith) and Article 46 of the Vienna Convention (internal law cannot normally be invoked to invalidate consent to treaty obligations). It held, however, that compliance with the Rome Statute’s withdrawal procedure (Article 127) meant the Executive did not violate pacta sunt servanda by following the treaty’s own withdrawal mechanism; furthermore, Article 127(2) preserves obligations and cooperation duties that arose while the State party was a party — withdrawal does not discharge obligations for conduct while the State remained a party and does not affect pending proceedings initiated before withdrawal became effective.
Effect of Withdrawal on Domestic Protection of Human Rights
The Court found no lesser protection of human rights in the domestic legal order as a result of withdrawal: domestic laws, especially RA 9851, remain in force and provid
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 238875)
Procedural Posture and Disposition
- Nature of action: Consolidated petitions for certiorari and mandamus under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure (G.R. Nos. 238875, 239483, 240954).
- Reliefs sought: (a) declare the Philippines' withdrawal from the Rome Statute invalid or ineffective for lack of Senate concurrence; (b) compel the Executive to notify the UN Secretary-General cancelling, revoking, or withdrawing the Instrument of Withdrawal.
- Dates of filing: G.R. No. 238875 filed May 16, 2018; G.R. No. 239483 filed June 7, 2018; G.R. No. 240954 filed August 14, 2018.
- Decision: En banc Decision, authored by Justice Leonen, dated March 16, 2021—consolidated petitions DISMISSED for mootness.
- Concurrence: Chief Justice Peralta and Justices Perlas-Bernabe, Caguioa, Gesmundo, Hernando, Carandang, Lazaro-Javier, Inting, Zalameda, M. Lopez, Delos Santos, Gaerlan, Rosario, and J. Lopez concurred.
Parties and Core Allegations
- Petitioners in G.R. No. 238875: Six incumbent senators (Pangilinan, Drilon, Aquino IV, De Lima, Hontiveros, Trillanes) challenging unilateral executive withdrawal from the Rome Statute as unconstitutional and as usurping Senate prerogative requiring two-thirds concurrence.
- Petitioners in G.R. No. 239483: Philippine Coalition for the ICC and individual members alleging impairment of rights to life, personal security and dignity, asserting that withdrawal reduces remedies and was done without required Senate concurrence.
- Petitioner in G.R. No. 240954: Integrated Bar of the Philippines asserting interest in rule of law and members' rights.
- Respondents: Executive officials—the Office of the Executive Secretary (Medialdea), Department of Foreign Affairs (Cayetano), and the Philippine Permanent Mission to the UN (Locsin) represented by the Office of the Solicitor General in consolidated comment.
- Respondents’ core defenses: lack of petitioner standing; political question/justiciability; withdrawal complied with Rome Statute Article 127 (written notification); mandamus improper because withdrawal discretionary; domestic safeguards (RA 9851) protect human rights.
Factual Background (Concise Chronology)
- 1996 onward: Philippines participated in establishment of ICC; Philippines active in Drafting Committee.
- December 28, 2000: Philippines, through President Estrada, signed the Rome Statute (signified intent to be bound subject to domestic steps).
- July 1, 2002: Rome Statute entered into force internationally.
- December 11, 2009: Republic Act No. 9851 (Philippine Act on Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law, Genocide, and Other Crimes Against Humanity) enacted—replicating many Rome Statute provisions.
- February–August 2011: President Aquino sent Rome Statute to Senate; Senate passed Resolution No. 546 (17–1) on August 23, 2011; instrument of ratification deposited on August 30, 2011; Rome Statute entered into force domestically November 1, 2011.
- April 24–June 2017: Communications/complaints filed with ICC relating to alleged abuses during Duterte's "war on drugs"; February 8, 2018, ICC Prosecutor commenced preliminary examination.
- March 15–17, 2018: Philippines announced withdrawal (March 15), submitted Notice of Withdrawal via Note Verbale (March 16), UN Secretary-General received the Note (March 17).
- March 19–20, 2019: Assembly of States Parties and ICC issued statements noting withdrawal effective March 17, 2019 and expressing regret.
Legal and Constitutional Framework Applied
- Article VII, Section 21, 1987 Constitution: "No treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate."
- Article II, Section 2 (incorporation clause): "adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land."
- Rome Statute: international treaty establishing ICC; Article 1 (complementarity), Article 25 (individual criminal responsibility), Article 28 (command responsibility), Article 127 (withdrawal mechanism), Articles 121–123 (amendments).
- Republic Act No. 9851 (2009): domestic statute criminalizing international crimes, replicating and in several respects expanding Rome Statute provisions; provides jurisdictional reach, protections for victims and accused, command responsibility, exclusive original jurisdiction to regional trial courts, and designation of special courts.
- Rule 65, Rules of Court: certiorari and mandamus requisites; distinction between certiorari under Rule 65 and expanded certiorari jurisdiction under Article VIII, Section 1(2) of the Constitution (grave abuse of discretion).
Issues Framed by the Court
- Justiciability:
- Whether consolidated petitions present an actual, justiciable controversy.
- Timeliness of petitions.
- Standing/locus standi of petitioners (senators, individuals, associations).
- Whether petitioners violated hierarchy of courts.
- Whether the issues are political questions.
- Properness of Rule 65 (certiorari/mandamus) as procedural vehicles.
- Substance of withdrawal:
- Whether the Philippines complied with requisites for withdrawal from Rome Statute.
- Whether the Executive can unilaterally withdraw from a treaty:
- Valid grounds for withdrawal.
- Necessity of legislative action.
- Violation of legislative acts/prerogatives.
- Whether withdrawal requires two-thirds Senate concurrence.
- International obligations and human-rights protection:
- Whether withdrawal breaches international obligations.
- Whether withdrawal reduces Filipino people's protection under international law and whether that is justiciable.
Court’s Findings on Justiciability and Mootness
- Threshold rules reiterated: courts decide only actual, live controversies; judicial restraint required; avoid advisory opinions.
- The Rome Statute withdrawal mechanism (Article 127): requires written notification; withdrawal takes effect one year after receipt unless later date specified; withdrawal does not absolve obligations accrued while party.
- Factual finding: Philippines announced withdrawal March 15, 2018; deposited Note Verbale March 16, 2018; UN Secretary-General received notice March 17, 2018; all requisite acts of withdrawal under Rome Statute were completed.
- ICC/Assembly acknowledgement: ICC/Assembly publicly acknowledged withdrawal and set effective date (March 17, 2019); President of Assembly of States Parties expressed regret and stated withdrawal took effect.
- Mootness conclusion: because the withdrawal was consummated and acknowledged by international depositary/ICC, the petitions filed after those acts were moot when filed; there was no state of affairs correctible by the Court that would yield practical relief.
- Practical consequence: this Court could not meaningfully reverse completed international acts nor compel external recognition of a reversal; attempting to do so would require rewriting treaty terms (beyond Court’s competence).
Standing (Locus Standi) Analysis
- Senators (G.R. No. 238875):
- Principle: individual legislators have standing to protect institutional prerogatives, but that standing presupposes an actual institutional conflict or action by the collegial body.
- Court’s fact-specific finding: the Senate had not adopted a resolution conclusively asserting that the Senate's concurrence was required for withdrawal; Senate Resolution No. 289 (seeking that termination/withdrawal concurred by Senate) was not calendared/voted upon and therefore had no legal effect.
- Petitioners-senators had earlier co-authored a Resolution and acknowledged Senate action was needed, which undermined claim of intra-chamber confrontation.
- Result: petitioners-senators lacked the necessary institutional basis to claim impaired Senate prerogative; their individual standing did not suffice under these circumstances.
- Citizens/individual petitioners and associations (G.R. Nos. 239483, 240954):
- Standing requires personal and substantial interest, injury-in-fact directly traceable to challenged act and redressable by court.
- Petitioners failed to show actual or imminent direct injury due to withdrawal; generalized fears of diminished remedies were speculative.
- Taxpayer suit claims rejected: no showing of illegal disbursement or unconstitutional tax expenditure.
- Association standing (PCICC, IBP): to represent members must show (1) injury-in-fact to association; (2) close relation to the third party members; (3) hindrance to members’ ability to protect their own interests. Petitioners failed to establish special reasons or representational authority showing why members could not sue themselves.
- Result: lack of standing for individual petitioners and associations.
Appropriateness of Reliefs and Procedural Vehicles
- Writ of certiorari (Rule 65):
- Purpose: remedy for acts of tribunals/officers exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions acting without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.
- President’s withdrawal is an executive/diplomatic act, not judicial/quas