G.R. No. 238875, March 16, 2021
SENATORS FRANCIS “KIKO” N. PANGILINAN, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. ALAN PETER S. CAYETANO, ET AL., RESPONDENTS. [CONSOLIDATED WITH G.R. No. 239483 AND G.R. No. 240954]

FACTS

The Philippines signed the Rome Statute (establishing the International Criminal Court or ICC) in 2000. The Senate concurred in the ratification via Resolution No. 546 on August 23, 2011. The instrument of ratification was deposited on August 30, 2011, and the treaty entered into force for the Philippines on November 1, 2011. Prior to this, Republic Act No. 9851 (the Philippine Act on Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law, Genocide, and Other Crimes Against Humanity) was signed into law in 2009, replicating many of the Rome Statute’s provisions. Following communications filed with the ICC regarding alleged crimes in the Philippines, and the ICC Prosecutor’s announcement of a preliminary examination on February 8, 2018, President Rodrigo Roa Duterte announced the country’s withdrawal from the ICC on March 15, 2018. The formal Notice of Withdrawal was submitted via Note Verbale to the United Nations Secretary-General on March 16, 2018, and was received on March 17, 2018. Petitioners, including Senators and various groups, filed suits arguing the withdrawal was invalid without Senate concurrence and seeking to compel the executive to revoke it.

ISSUE

Whether the withdrawal of the Philippines from the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court is invalid for lack of the concurrence of at least two-thirds of all members of the Senate.

RULING

The Petitions were dismissed. The withdrawal was completed and effective upon its receipt by the UN Secretary-General on March 17, 2018, rendering the Petitions moot. The Court held that the President, as the primary architect of foreign policy, has the authority to withdraw from treaties, but this authority is not absolute. The President may unilaterally withdraw from a treaty if it is unconstitutional or contrary to a prior statute. However, the President may not unilaterally withdraw: (a) when the Senate, in its resolution of concurrence, imposed the condition that its concurrence is also required for withdrawal; or (b) when the withdrawal itself would be contrary to an existing statute or to a legislative authority that impelled the treaty’s entry. In this case, the Senate’s concurrence (Resolution No. 546) did not contain a condition requiring its consent for withdrawal. Furthermore, the Court found that the withdrawal was not contrary to Republic Act No. 9851, as the statute is independent of the treaty and provides for the domestic prosecution of the same crimes. The Court also noted that the Senate itself had not acted to assert its prerogative, as a resolution expressing the need for its concurrence (Senate Resolution No. 249) remained unacted upon.