Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Facts : This is a petition of Senator Aquilino Pimentel and the other parties to ask the
Supreme Court to require the Executive Department to transmit the Rome Statute
which established the International Criminal Court for the Senate’s concurrence in
accordance with Sec 21, Art VII of the 1987 Constitution.
Petitioners contend that that ratification of a treaty, under both domestic law and
international law, is a function of the Senate. That under the treaty law and customary
international law, Philippines has a ministerial duty to ratify the Rome Statute.
Respondents on the other hand, questioned the legal standing of herein petitioners and
argued that executive department has no duty to transmit the Rome Statute to the
Senate for concurrence.
Issues : Whether or not petitioners have the legal standing to file the instant suit.
Whether or not the Executive Secretary and the Department of Foreign Affairs have the
ministerial duty to transmit to the Senate the copy of the Rome Statute signed by the
Philippine Member to the United Nations even without the signature of the President.
Ruling : Only Senator Pimentel has a legal standing to the extent of his power as
member of Congress. Other petitioners have not shown that they have sustained a
direct injury from the non-transmittal and that they can seek redress in our domestic
courts.
The President has the sole authority to negotiate and enter into treaties, the
Constitution provides a limitation to his power by requiring the concurrence of 2/3 of all
the members of the Senate for the validity of the treaty entered into by him. Section 21,
Article VII of the 1987 Constitution provides that “no treaty or international agreement
shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the Members
of the Senate.” The participation of the legislative branch in the treaty-making process
was deemed essential to provide a check on the executive in the field of foreign
relations.
It should be emphasized that under the Constitution the power to ratify is vested in the
President subject to the concurrence of the Senate. The President has the discretion
even after the signing of the treaty by the Philippine representative whether or not to
ratify a treaty.
The signature does not signify final consent, it is ratification that binds the state to the
provisions of the treaty and renders it effective.
Senate is limited only to giving or withholding its consent, concurrence to the
ratification. It is within the President to refuse to submit a treaty to the Senate or having
secured its consent for its ratification, refuse to ratify it. Such decision is within the
competence of the President alone, which cannot be encroached by this court via writ
of mandamus,