BAYAN MUNA v.

ALBERTO ROMULO
G.R. No. 159618; February 1, 2011

FACTS:

The petitioner BAYAN MUNA, a ‘duly registered party-list group set up to

represent the marginalized sectors of society, sought to nullify the Non-
Surrender Agreement concluded between the Republic of the Philippines and
the United States of America. They claimed that the agreement contravened the
obligations of the Philippines under the Rome Statute of the International
Criminal Court (ICC), which had been signed (but not ratified) by the Philippines.
The petitioner also argued that the Agreement was void ab initio because it
created obligations that were immoral or that were contrary to universally
recognized principals of international law such as genocide, crimes against
humanity, war crimes, and crimes of aggression.

The respondent, Alberto Romulo, Executive Secretary, argued that the Non-
Surrender Agreement was constitutional and valid because it was in the nature
of an executive agreement.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the RP-US Non-Surrender Agreement is valid, binding and

effective without the concurrence by at least 2/3 of all the members of the
Senate?

RULING:  

Yes. The RP-US Non-Surrender Agreement is valid, binding and effective

without the concurrence by at least 2/3 of all the members of the Senate. The
right of the Executive to enter into binding agreements without the necessity
of subsequent Congressional approval has been confirmed by long usage.
This authority of the President to enter into executive agreements without the
concurrence of the Legislature has traditionally been recognized in Philippine
jurisprudence.