G.R. No.

159618 February 1, 2011

BAYAN MUNA, as represented by Rep. SATUR OCAMPO, Rep. CRISPIN BELTRAN, and Rep.
LIZA L. MAZA, Petitioner,
vs.
ALBERTO ROMULO, in his capacity as Executive Secretary, and BLAS F. OPLE, in his
capacity as Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Respondents.
VELASCO, JR., J.:

FACTS: In 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.

In 2003, via Exchange of Notes with the US government, the RP, represented by then DFA
Secretary Ople, finalized a non-surrender agreement which aimed to protect certain persons of
the RP and US from frivolous and harassment suits that might be brought against them in
international tribunals.

Petitioner imputes grave abuse of discretion to respondents in concluding and ratifying the
Agreement and prays that it be struck down as unconstitutional, or at least declared as without
force and effect.

ISSUE: [whether or not respondents abuse their discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction in concluding the RP-US Non Surrender Agreement in contravention of the
Rome Statute?

HELD: 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. According to Art. 1 of the
Statute, the jurisdiction of the ICC is to “be complementary to national criminal jurisdictions [of
the signatory states].” 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.

Also, under international law, there is a considerable difference between a State-Party and a
signatory to a treaty. Under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a signatory state is
only obliged to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose of a treaty. The
Philippines is only a signatory to the Rome Statute and not a State-Party for lack of ratification
by the Senate. Thus, it is only obliged to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and
purpose of the Rome Statute. Any argument obliging the Philippines to follow any provision in
the treaty would be premature. And even assuming that the Philippines is a State-Party, the
Rome Statute still recognizes the primacy of international agreements entered into between
States, even when one of the States is not a State-Party to the Rome Statute.