G.R. No.

159618

Bayan Muna v Alberto Romulo

Facts:
On December 28, 2000, the RP, through Charge d’Affaires Enrique A. Manalo, signed the Rome
Statute which, by its terms, is “subject to ratification, acceptance or approval” by the signatory
states. As of the filling of the instant petition, the Philippines was not among the 92 out of the 139
signatory countries that appear to have completed the ratification, approval and concurrence
process.

On May 9, 2003, then Ambassador Francis J. Ricciardone sent US Embassy Note No. 0470 to the
Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) proposing the terms of the non-surrender bilateral agreement
between the USA and the RP.

In response to a query of then Solicitor General Alfredo L. Benipayo on the status of the non-
surrender agreement, Ambassador Ricciardone replied in his letter of October 28, 2003 that the
exchange of diplomatic notes constituted a legally binding agreement under international law; and
that, under US law, the said agreement did not require the advice and consent of the US Senate.

Issue:
1. Whether or not the RP-US Non-Surrender Agreement is void ab initio for contracting
obligations that are either immoral or otherwise at variance with universally recognized
principles of international law.

Ruling:
1. No. The Agreement does not contravene or undermine, nor does it differ from, the Rome
Statute. Far from going against each other, one complements the other. As a matter of fact,
the principle of complementarity underpins the creation of the ICC. As pointed out in the
Article 1 of the Rome Statute, the jurisdiction of the ICC is to “be complementary to
national criminal jurisdictions [of the signatory states].” It is also abundantly clear that the
Rome Statute expressly recognizes the primary jurisdiction of states, like the RP, over
serious crimes committed within their respective borders, the complementary jurisdiction
of the ICC coming into play only when the signatory states are unwilling or unable to
prosecute.

For perspective, what the Agreement contextually prohibits is the surrender by either party
of individuals to prosecute the crime under its existing laws. With the view the Court take
of things, there is nothing immoral or violative of international law concepts in the act of
the Philippines of assuming criminal jurisdiction pursuant to the non-surrender agreement
over an offense considered criminal by both Philippine laws and the Rome Statute.