G.R. No.

238875
Senators Francis "Kiko" N. Pangilinan, Franklin M. Drilon, Paolo Benigno "Bam" Aquino Iv, Leila M. De
Lima, Risa Hontiveros, And Antonio 'Sonny' F. Trillanes Iv, Petitioners,
vs.
Alan Peter S. Cayetano, Salvador C. Medialdea, Teodoro L. Locsin, Jr., And Salvador S. Panelo,
Respondents.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
G.R. No. 239483
Philippine Coalition For The International Criminal Court (PCICC), Loretta Ann P. Rosales, Dr., Aurora
Corazon A. Parong, Evelyn Balaisserrano, Jose Noel D., Olano, Rebecca Desiree E., Lozada, Ed Eliza P.
Hernandez, Analiza T. Ugay, Niza – Concepcion Arazas, Gloria Ester Catibayan-Guarin, Ray Paolo "Arpee"
J. Santiago, Gilbert Teruel Andres, And Axle P. Simeon, Petitioners,
vs.
Office Of The Executive Secretary, Represented By Hon. Salvador Medialdea, The Department Of Foreign
Affairs, Represented By Hon. Alan Peter Cayetano, And The Permanent Mission Of The Republic Of The
Philippines To The United Nations, Represented By Hon. Teodoro Locsin, Jr., Respondents.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
G.R. No. 240945
Integrated Bar Of The Philippines, Petitioner,
vs.
Office Of The Executive Secretary, Represented By Hon. Salvador C. Medialdea, The Department Of
Foreign Affairs, Represented By Hon. Alan Peter Cayetano And The Permanent Mission Of The Republic
Of The Philippines To The United Nations, Represented By Hon. Teodoro Locsin, Jr., Respondents.

Facts
On March 15, 2018, the Philippines announced that it was withdrawing from the International Criminal
Court. President Duterte claimed that the country never became a state party to the Rome Statute since
the treaty was not published in the Official Gazette.

On March 16, 2018, the Philippines formally submitted its Notice of Withdrawal from the International
Criminal Court to the United Nations. Enrique Manalo, the Permanent Representative of the Republic of
the Philippines to the United Nations in New York, deposited the Note Verbale to Maria Luiza Ribeiro
Viotti, Chef de Cabinet of the United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres.

On March 17, 2018, the Secretary-General of the United Nations received the notification from the
Philippine government.

On May 16, 2018, Senators Pangilinan, Drilon, Aquino, De Lima, Hontiveros, and Trillanes IV filed a Petition
for Certiorari and Mandamus, assailing the executive's unilateral act of withdrawing from the Rome
Statute for being unconstitutional. They argue that as a treaty that the Philippines validly entered into,
the Rome Statute "has the same status as an enactment of Congress," as "a law in the Philippines." They
claim that the President "cannot repeal a law." They aver that the country's withdrawal from a treaty
requires the concurrence of at least two-thirds of the Senate.
Meanwhile, on June 13, 2018, the Philippine Coalition for the Establishment of the International Criminal
Court, and its members, Loretta Ann P. Rosales, Dr. Aurora Corazon A. Parong, Evelyn Balais-Serrano,
among others, also filed a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus. They assert that their rights to life,
personal security, and dignity were impaired by the withdrawal from the Rome Statute. Citing a decision
of the South African High Court, they also claim that the ratification of and withdrawal from a multilateral
treaty require the Senate's concurrence. According to them, contrary to the President's assertion, the
Rome Statute is effective in Philippine jurisdiction by virtue of the Constitution's incorporation clause,
despite lack of publication.

Petitioners pray that the notification of withdrawal be declared "invalid or ineffective" or "void ab initio"
and that the executive, through the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Philippine Permanent Mission
to the United Nations, be required to notify the Secretary-General of the United Nations that the notice
is cancelled, revoked, or withdrawn.1

On July 6, 2018, the Office of the Solicitor General filed its Consolidated Comment to the Petitions with
the following averments:
1) Petitioners in G.R. No. 238875 do not have locus standi as they do not represent "the official
stand of the Senate as a body. Neither do the petitioners in G.R. No. 239483 have standing to question
"the wisdom of the President's sovereign power to withdraw from the Rome Statute, absent any proof of
actual or immediate danger of sustaining a direct injury as a result of said withdrawal;

2) A Rule 65 petition is improper because the acts of the President complained of were not in the
exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial powers. Moreover, mandamus cannot lie against a discretionary act
of a president, much less an act which is not enjoined as a duty, such as the ratification of a treaty;

3) Petitions do not present a justiciable controversy because the withdrawal from a treaty is a
political question, being a policy determination delegated to the "wisdom of the executive". Specifically,
the President is the "sole organ of the nation in its external relations, and its sole representative with
foreign nations”. Respondents assert that the Constitution does not expressly require Senate concurrence
in withdrawing from a treaty.

Further, Respondents maintain that the –

1) withdrawal was valid for having complied with the Rome Statute, which requires only a written
notification of withdrawal;

2) decision to withdraw from the Rome Statute "was an act to protect national sovereignty from
interference and to preserve the judiciary's independence," which was necessary given Prosecutor
Bensouda's preliminary examination. This allegedly violates the complementarity principle under the
Rome Statute;

3) rights being protected under the Rome Statute are adequately safeguarded by domestic laws.
The withdrawal's only effect, they say, is that the "Philippines will no longer be under the jurisdiction of
the International Criminal Court.

Respondents pray that the consolidated Petitions be denied for lack of merit.

1On August 14, 2018, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines filed its own Petition,24 and an Omnibus Ex-Parte Motion for
Consolidation and for Inclusion in the Oral Arguments
Issues
1) Whether or not petitioners have sufficiently discharged their burden of showing that this case is
justiciable.

2) Whether or not the Philippines' withdrawal from the Rome Statute through a Note Verbale delivered to
the Secretary-General of the United Nations is valid, binding, and effectual.

3) Whether or not the Philippines' withdrawal from the Rome Statute places the Philippines in breach of
its obligations under international law.

4) whether or not the Philippines' withdrawal from the Rome statute will diminish the Filipino people's
protection under international law; and even if it does, whether or not this is a justiciable question.

Court’s Decision
1) Whether or not petitioners have sufficiently discharged their burden of showing that this case is
justiciable.
No. Petitioners insist that the protection of human rights will be weakened, yet their contentions are mere
surmises. Ample protection for human rights within the domestic sphere remains formally in place. It is a
canon of adjudication that "the court should not form a rule of constitutional law broader than is required
by the precise facts to which it is applied."

Contrary to petitioners' claim, these cases do not deal with the results of the ongoing preliminary
examination by Prosecutor Bensouda. Article 127 of the Rome Statute covers that. Neither at issue here
is whether a future president may decide to re-enter the Rome Statute and secure the requisite Senate
concurrence. It is possible that whatever the results in these cases are a future administration under a
new president can make that decision.

The Petitions are moot. They fail to present a persisting case or controversy that impels this Court's
review. In resolving constitutional issues, there must be an "existing case or controversy that is
appropriate or ripe for detem1ination, not conjectural or anticipatory.

On March 19, 2019, the International Criminal Court itself, through Mr. O-Gon Kwon, the president of the
Assembly of States Parties, announced the Philippines' departure from the Rome Statute effective March
1 7, 2019. Any discussion on the Philippines’ withdrawal is, at this point, a merely a matter of theory.

2) Whether or not the Philippines' withdrawal from the Rome Statute through a Note Verbale delivered to
the Secretary-General of the United Nations is valid, binding, and effectual.
Yes. Article 127 of the Rome Statute provides mechanisms on how a state party may withdraw from it:
1. A State Party may, by written notification addressed to the Secretary-General of the United
Nations, withdraw from this Statute. The withdrawal shall take effect one year after the date of
receipt of the
notification, unless the notification specifies a later date.

2. A State shall not be discharged, by reason of its withdrawal, from the obligations arising from
this Statute while it was a Party to the Statute, including any financial obligations which may have
accrued. Its
 withdrawal shall not affect any cooperation with the Court in connection with criminal
investigations and proceedings in relation to which the withdrawing State had a duty to cooperate
and which were commenced prior to the date on which the withdrawal became effective, nor shall
it prejudice in any way the continued consideration of any matter which was already under
consideration by the Court prior to the date on which the withdrawal became effective.

The President's withdrawal from the Rome Statute was in accordance with the mechanism provided in
the treaty. The Rome Statute itself contemplated and enabled a State Party's withdrawal. A state party
and its agents cannot be faulted for merely acting within what the Rome Statute expressly allows.

3) Whether or not the Philippines' withdrawal from the Rome Statute places the Philippines in breach of
its obligations under international law.
No. The Philippines was committed to meet its obligations under the Rome Statute until its withdrawal
took effect on March 17, 2019. Any and all governmental acts up to March 17, 2019 may be taken
cognizance of by the International Criminal Court.

Withdrawing from the Rome Statute does not discharge a state party from the obligations it has incurred
as a member, Article 127(2) provides:
A State shall not be discharged, by reason of its withdrawal, from the obligations arising from this
Statute while it was a Party to the Statute, including any financial obligations which may have
accrued. Its withdrawal shall not affect any cooperation with the Court in connection with criminal
investigations and proceedings in relation to which the withdrawing State had a duty to cooperate
and which were commenced prior to the date on which the withdrawal became effective, nor shall
it prejudice in any way the continued consideration of any matter which was already under
consideration by the Court prior to the date on which the withdrawal became effective. (Emphasis
supplied)

It has been opined that the principles of law in the Rome Statute are generally accepted principles of
international law. Assuming that this is true and considering the incorporation clause, the Philippines'
withdrawal from the Rome Statute would be a superfluity thus, ultimately ineffectual. The Philippines
would remain bound by obligations expressed in the Rome Statute.

4) Whether or not the Philippines' withdrawal from the Rome statute will diminish the Filipino people's
protection under international law; and even if it does, whether or not this is a justiciable question.
No. This fear of imagined diminution of legal remedies must be assuaged. The Constitution, which
embodies our fundamental rights, was in no way abrogated by the withdrawal. A litany of statutes that
protect our rights remain in place and enforceable.

Republic Act No. 9851, or the Philippine Act on Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law, Genocide,
and Other Crimes Against Humanity, echoes the substantive provisions of the Rome Statue. It was signed
into law on December 11, 2009, two years before the Senate concurred with the Rome Statute. Republic
Act No. 9851 covers rights similarly protected under the Rome Statute.

Further, Chapter VII, Section 15 of Republic Act No. 9851 enumerates the applicable sources of
international law. that guide its interpretation and implementation:
SECTION 15. Applicability of International Law. -- In the application and interpretation of
this Act, Philippine courts shall be guided by the following sources:
 (a) The 1948 Genocide Convention;
(b) The 1949 Geneva Conventions I-IV, their 1977 Additional Protocols I and II, and their
2005 Additional Protocol Ill;
(c) The 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of
Armed, Conflict, its Protocol and its 1999 Second Protocol;
(d) The 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child and its 2000 I Optional Protocol on the
Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict;
(e) The rules and principles of customary international law;
(f) The judicial decisions of international courts and tribunals;
(g) Relevant and applicable international human rights instruments;
(h) Other relevant international treaties and contentions ratified or acceded to by the
Republic of the Philippines;
(i) Teachings of the most highly qualified publicists and authoritative commentaries on
the foregoing sources as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of international
law.

Philippines also remained as state party to these international conventions and human rights instruments:
(a) The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;
(b) The International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights;
(c) The Convention Against Torture;
(d) The Convention on the Discrimination Against Women; an Elimination of Discrimination; and
(e) The Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.

Thus, Petitioners’ concern that the country’s withdrawal from the Rome Statute abjectly and reversibly
subverts our basic human rights appears to be baseless and purely speculative. All told, the consolidated
Petitions are dismissed for failing to demonstrate justiciability.

ker
09112021