On July 17 1998, the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of

an International Criminal Court adopted the Rome Statute. The treaty entered into force on 1 July 2002.
6 Currently, there are 138 signatories and 123 State Parties.

The Philippines, through then President Joseph Ejercito Estrada, signed the Rome Statute on December
28, 2000.

On February 28, 2011, President Benigno S. Aquino III sent the treaty to the Philippine Senate for
concurrence. On August 23, 2011, the Philippine Senate voted 17-1 in favor of concurrence. The
Philippines officially notified the UN Secretary General of its accession to the Rome Statute on August
30, 2011.The Rome Statute took effect for the Philippines on November 1, 2011, pursuant to Article 126,
paragraph 2 of the Statute.

On March 17 2018, the Republic of the Philippines, exercising its sovereign prerogative under Article
127, paragraph 1 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), deposited with the
United Nations (UN) Secretary General its written notification of withdrawal from the Statute .The
decision of the Philippines to withdraw from the Rome Statute was made in accordance with the
Constitutionally-bestowed, comprehensive, and exclusive prerogative of the President as Head of State
and Government to conduct the country's foreign affairs, including entering into treaties and,
necessarily, terminating the same.

The unilateral act of the President of withdrawing from the ICC without Senate concurrence is
necessarily constitutional based on the following grounds:

1. The absence of any provision limiting the power of the President to unilaterally withdraw
doesn’t make his act unconstitutional.

The only Constitutional limitation to the President's power to enter into treaties is found
in Section 21, Article VII, which requires the concurrence by at least two-thirds of all Members
of the Senate for the treaty's validity and effectiveness. There is nothing in the Constitution
which requires the Senate's concurrence to the President's decision to terminate or withdraw
from treaties.

In deciding to withdraw from the Rome Statute, the President acted pursuant to the
Constitutional mandate for an independent foreign policy, giving paramount consideration to
national sovereignty and national interest. The power to withdraw from the Rome Statute is
constitutionally lodged with the President.

2. The president is bestowed with Residual Powers which gives him a plenitude of authority
Inherent to the duties of his office.

E.O 292, Section 20 provides that, unless Congress provides otherwise, the
President shall exercise such other powers and functions vested in the President which
are provided for under the laws and which are not specifically enumerated above, or
which are not delegated by the President in accordance with law.

As explained in the Marcos vs. Manglapus case, the 1987 Constitution imposes
limitations on the exercise of specific powers of the President, it maintains intact what is
 traditionally considered as within the scope of "executive power." Corollarily, the
powers of the President cannot be said to be limited only to the specific powers
enumerated in the Constitution. In other words, executive power is more than the sum
of specific powers so enumerated.

It has been advanced that whatever power inherent in the government that is
neither legislative nor judicial has to be executive.

3. The Constitution, in clear and unambiguous terms, has given the President, as the head of the
State and government, the exclusive prerogative to conduct the country's foreign affairs and
serve as sole representative to foreign nations.

Section 1, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution confers the Executive power upon the
President. In the exercise of this power, the President, acting in many capacities, assumes a
plenitude of authority. The pursuit of foreign relations is one of the principal functions of the
President.

The Supreme Court has consistently recognized such authority in its rulings, declaring
the President as the sole organ of the nation in its external relations, and its sole representative
with foreign nations. In BAYAN (Bagong Alyansang Makabayan) v. Zamora, the Supreme Court
pronounced that:

“ By constitutional fiat and by the intrinsic nature of his office, the President, as head of State, is
the sole organ and authority in the external affairs of the country. In many ways, the President is
the chief architect of the nation's foreign policy; his "dominance in the field of foreign relations
is (then) conceded." Wielding vast powers and influence, his conduct in the external affairs of
the nation, ... , is "executive altogether."

Indeed, the decision to withdraw from a treaty is tacitly an executive function. Had the
framers of the Constitution intended to put a limitation on the power to withdraw from a treaty,
they would have expressly required Senate participation in such act. But, they did not. Had it
likewise been intended that treaty process be a legislative act, limiting the powers of the
Executive to negotiating and signing, such process would have been provided under Article VI of
the Constitution on the Legislative department, instead of Article VII on the Executive
department.

Concomitantly, in Saguisag v. Ochoa, .Jr. quoting the ruling in Vinuya v. Romulo, the
Supreme Court held thus:

It is quite apparent that if, in the maintenance of our international relations, embarrassment -
perhaps serious embarrassment - is to be avoided and success for our aims achieved,
congressional legislation which is to be made effective through negotiation and inquiry within
the international field must often accord to the President a degree of discretion and freedom
from statutory restriction which would not be admissible where domestic affairs alone involved.
Moreover, he, not Congress, has the better opportunity of knowing the conditions which prevail
 in foreign countries, and especially is this true in time of war. He has his confidential sources of
information. He has his agents in the form of diplomatic, consular and other officials ....

As the chief architect of foreign policy, the President has the sole prerogative, as well as
the constitutional duty, to determine when the conduct of foreign relations already impinges on
the nation's sovereignty. Thus, the withdrawal from the Rome Statute was an act to protect
national sovereignty from interference and preserve the judiciary's independence. In fact, even
with the withdrawal from the Rome Statute, the Philippine Government affirms its
commitments, both under international and domestic law, to promote and protect human
rights.

4. It is in keeping with the Doctrines of Separation of power and Checks and balances

We should also at Article VII, Section 21 of the Constitution as a boundary on the

participation of the Legislative. Truly, separation of powers is a fundamental principle in our
system of government. It obtains not through express provision but by actual division in our
Constitution. Each department of the government has exclusive cognizance of matters within its
jurisdiction, and is supreme within its own sphere.

Indeed, in keeping with the system of checks and balances, the Senate's role in treaties
is confined to giving its concurrence when the Executive enters into one. Since the power to
conduct the country's foreign relations lies with the President, the decision to withdraw from a
treaty did not violate the system of checks and balances.

The withdrawal from a treaty will not bring about new obligations to the country. By
doing so the Executive instead regains the country's sovereignty, which was parted with when
the treaty was ratified.

Moreover, while law making is within the province of the legislative, the power to act as
chief architect of foreign affairs lies with the President. Therefore, the fact that treaties and
international agreements form part of the law of the land does not equate the process of
entering into treaties to lawmaking or the process of withdrawing therefrom to law repeal.
In fact, the Supreme Court held in Pimentel v. Executive Secretary that "it is within the
authority of the President to refuse to submit a treaty to the Senate or, having secured its
consent for its ratification, refuse to ratify it." Clearly, Senate concurrence to the ratification of a
treaty is not an exercise of legislative power but is a check on the executive power.

The withdrawal of the President doesn’t necessarily need Senate Concurrence because
the provisions of the Constitution must be construed with complete acceptance based on the
postulate that the framers and the people mean what they say. The president has the been
lodged by our Mother law with the prerogative to withdraw from a treaty, hence, Senate
Concurrence is just required for its accession.