Case Summary (G.R. No. 158088)
Petition Background
Petitioners allege that under Section 21, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution and customary international law (Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties), the executive must submit the Rome Statute for Senate ratification. They contend that the Senate holds exclusive power to ratify treaties and that non‐transmittal thwarts both domestic and international obligations.
Treaty Details and Signature
The Rome Statute, establishing the International Criminal Court with jurisdiction over genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and aggression, opened for signature in Rome on July 17, 1998, and closed December 31, 2000, in New York. The Philippines, through Charge d’Affaires Enrique A. Manalo, signed the Statute on December 28, 2000. Signature alone does not bind a state; ratification, acceptance, or approval remains necessary.
Procedural Posture and Respondents’ Arguments
Petition for mandamus filed under Rule 65, Section 3, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The Solicitor General challenges standing and asserts that neither the Office of the Executive Secretary nor the Department of Foreign Affairs has a ministerial duty to forward a treaty they have not ratified. Respondents further maintain that mandamus cannot override executive discretion in foreign affairs.
Jurisdiction and Standing
Mandamus requires a petitioner to demonstrate a clear legal right and direct interest. The Court found only Senator Pimentel to be “aggrieved” because the power of the Senate to concur in treaties directly affects each member’s prerogatives. Other petitioners lacked proof of direct injury from non‐transmittal and thus lacked standing.
Constitutional Framework of Treaty-Making
The President, as sole organ in foreign relations, possesses exclusive authority to negotiate and enter into treaties. The 1987 Constitution curtails this power by mandating concurrence of two‐thirds of all Senate members for treaty validity (Section 21, Article VII). Historical constitutions similarly framed legislative participation as a check on executive treaty‐making.
Executive Order No. 459 Guidelines
Under EO 459 (November 25, 1997), after signature the Department of Foreign Affairs prepares ratification papers for the President. Only upon Presidential ratification does DFA submit the treaty, with ratification instrument, to the Senate for concurrence. Concurrence then triggers entry into force in the Philippines.
Distinction Between Signature and Ratification
Signature authenticates a treaty text and evidences good faith negotiations but does not reflect the state’s final consent. Ratification is the formal executive act by which a state confirms treaty o
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 158088)
Facts and Procedural History
- Petitioners sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Office of the Executive Secretary and Department of Foreign Affairs to transmit the signed Rome Statute to the Senate for concurrence.
- The Rome Statute, which establishes the International Criminal Court (ICC) with jurisdiction over genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and aggression, was opened for signature from July 17, 1998 to December 31, 2000.
- The Philippines, through Charge d’Affaires Enrique A. Manalo, signed the Statute on December 28, 2000.
- Petitioners argued that transmission to the Senate is required under Section 21, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution before any ratification.
- The Solicitor General challenged petitioners’ standing and asserted that the Executive has no ministerial duty to transmit the signed text.
Petitioners and Their Allegations
- Senator Aquilino Pimentel, Jr., Congresswoman Loretta Rosales, human‐rights groups, families of disappeared persons, individual minors suing under inter‐generational rights, and law students as taxpayers jointly filed the petition.
- They claimed a ministerial duty on the Executive branch to forward the Rome Statute to the Senate for its decision on ratification.
- Petitioners cited the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (Article 18) to argue that signing incurs an obligation not to defeat the object and purpose of the treaty pending ratification.
- They maintained that under both domestic and international law, ratification is a Senate function and withholding transmission impairs that function.
Respondents’ Position
- The Office of the Solicitor General questioned the legal standing of most petitioners and argued non‐justiciability due to hierarchy of courts.
- On the merits, respondents contended the Executive Secretary and DFA have no ministerial duty to transmit the treaty absent the President’s signature.
- They asserted the President, as sole organ in foreign affairs, may decide whether to submit any treaty to the Senate.
Legal Framework on Mandamus
- Rule 65, Sectio