Aquilino Pimentel vs Executive Secretary

Facts:
The Rome Statute established the International Criminal Court which shall have the power to
exercise its jurisdiction over persons for the most serious crimes of international concern xxx and
shall be complementary to the national criminal jurisdictions. Its jurisdiction covers the crime of
genocide,
crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression as defined in the Statute. The
Statute was opened for signature by all states in Rome on July 17, 1998 and had remained open
for signature until December 31, 2000 at the United Nations Headquarters in New York. The
Philippines signed the Statute on December 28, 2000 through Charge d Affairs Enrique A.
Manalo of the Philippine Mission to the United Nations. Its provisions, however, require that it be
subject to ratification, acceptance or approval of the signatory states.
Petitioners filed the instant petition to compel the respondents the Office of the Executive
Secretary and the Department of Foreign Affairs to transmit the signed text of the treaty to the
Senate of the Philippines for ratification.
It is the theory of the petitioners that ratification of a treaty, under both domestic law and
international law, is a function of the Senate. Hence, it is the duty of the executive department to
transmit the signed copy of the Rome Statute to the Senate to allow it to exercise its discretion
with respect to ratification of treaties. Moreover, petitioners submit that the Philippines has a
ministerial duty to ratify the Rome Statute under treaty law and customary international law.
Petitioners invoke the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties enjoining the states to refrain
from acts which would defeat the object and purpose of a treaty when they have signed the treaty
prior to ratification unless they have made their intention clear not to become parties to the treaty.
Issue:
1.Whetherornotthepetitionershavelegalstandingtothecase.
2. Whether the Executive Secretary and the Department of Foreign Affairs have a ministerial
duty to transmit to the Senate the copy of the Rome Statute signed by a member of the Philippine
Mission to the United Nations even without the signature of the President.
Ruling:
1. We find that among the petitioners, only Senator Pimentel has the legal standing to file the

instant suit. The other petitioners maintain their standing as advocates and defenders of human
rights, and as citizens of the country. They have not shown, however, that they have sustained or
will sustain a direct injury from the non- transmittal of the signed text of the Rome Statute to the
Senate. Their contention that they will be deprived of their remedies for the protection and
enforcement of their rights does not persuade. The Rome Statute is intended to complement
national criminal laws and courts. Sufficient remedies are available under our national laws to
protect our citizens against human rights violations and petitioners can always seek redress for
any abuse in our domestic courts.
As regards Senator Pimentel, it has been held that to the extent the powers of Congress are
impaired, so is the power of each member thereof, since his office confers a right to participate in
the exercise of the powers of that institution. Thus, legislators have the standing to maintain
inviolate the prerogatives, powers and privileges vested by the Constitution in their office and are
allowed to sue to question the validity of any official action which they claim infringes their
prerogatives as legislators. The petition at bar invokes the power of the Senate to grant or
withhold its concurrence to a treaty entered into by the executive branch, in this case, the Rome
Statute. The petition seeks to order the executive branch to transmit the copy of the treaty to the
Senate to allow it to exercise such authority. Senator Pimentel, as member of the institution,
certainly has the legal standing to assert such authority of the Senate.
2.We rule in the negative.
In our system of government, the President, being the head of state, is regarded as the sole organ
and authority in external relations and is the countrys sole representative with foreign nations. As
the chief architect of foreign policy, the President acts as the countrys mouthpiece with respect to
international affairs. Hence, the President is vested with the authority to deal with foreign states
and governments, extend or withhold recognition, maintain diplomatic relations, enter into
treaties, and otherwise transact the business of foreign relations. In the realm of treaty-making,
the President has the sole authority to negotiate with other states.
Nonetheless, while 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.
Justice Isagani Cruz, in his book on International Law, describes the treaty-making process in this
wise:

The usual steps in the treaty-making process are: negotiation, signature, ratification, and
exchange of the instruments of ratification. The treaty may then be submitted for registration and
publication under the U.N. Charter, although this step is not essential to the validity of the
agreement as between the parties.
Negotiationmay be undertaken directly by the head of state but he now usually assigns this task
to his authorized representatives. These representatives are provided with credentials known as
full powers, which they exhibit to the other negotiators at the start of the formal discussions. It is
standard practice for one of the parties to submit a draft of the proposed treaty which, together
with the counter-proposals, becomes the basis of the subsequent negotiations. The negotiations
may be brief or protracted, depending on the issues involved, and may even collapse in case the
parties are unable to come to an agreement on the points under consideration.
If and when the negotiators finally decide on the terms of the treaty, the same is opened for
signature. This step is primarily intended as a means of authenticating the instrument and for the
purpose of symbolizing the good faith of the parties; but, significantly, itdoesnotindicatethe
finalconsentofthestateincaseswhereratificationofthetreatyisrequired. The document is
ordinarily signed in accordance with the alternat, that is, each of the several negotiators is
allowed to sign first on the copy which he will bring home to his own state.
Ratification, which is the next step, is the formal act by which a state confirms and accepts the
provisions of a treaty concluded by its representatives. Thepurposeofratificationistoenable
thecontractingstatestoexaminethetreatymorecloselyandtogivethemanopportunityto
refusetobeboundbyitshouldtheyfinditinimicaltotheirinterests.Itisforthisreason
thatmosttreatiesaremadesubjecttothescrutinyandconsentofadepartmentofthe
governmentotherthanthatwhichnegotiatedthem.
Petitioners arguments equate the signing of the treaty by the Philippine representative with
ratification. It should be underscored that the signing of the treaty and the ratification are two
separate and distinct steps in the treaty-making process. As earlier discussed, the signature is
primarily intended as a means of authenticating the instrument and as a symbol of the good faith
of the parties. It is usually performed by the states authorized representative in the diplomatic
mission. Ratification, on the other hand, is the formal act by which a state confirms and accepts
the provisions of a treaty concluded by its representative. It is generally held to be an executive
act, undertaken by the head of the state or of the government. Thus, Executive Order No. 459
issued by President Fidel V. Ramos on November 25, 1997 provides the guidelines in the
negotiation of international agreements and its ratification. It mandates that after the treaty has
been signed by the Philippine representative, the same shall be transmitted to the Department of

Foreign Affairs. The Department of Foreign Affairs shall then prepare the ratification papers and
forward the signed copy of the treaty to the President for ratification. After the President has
ratified the treaty, the Department of Foreign Affairs shall submit the same to the Senate for
concurrence. Upon receipt of the concurrence of the Senate, the Department of Foreign Affairs
shall comply with the provisions of the treaty to render it effective.
It should be emphasized that under our Constitution, the power to ratify is vested in the President,
subject to the concurrence of the Senate. The role of the Senate, however, is limited only to giving
or withholding its consent, or concurrence, to the ratification. Hence, 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. Although the refusal of a state to ratify a treaty which has been
signed in its behalf is a serious step that should not be taken lightly such decision is within the
competence of the President alone, which cannot be encroached by this Court via a writ of
mandamus. This Court has no jurisdiction over actions seeking to enjoin the President in the
performance of his official duties. The Court, therefore, cannot issue the writ of mandamus
prayed for by the petitioners as it is beyond its jurisdiction to compel the executive branch of the
government to transmit the signed text of Rome Statute to the Senate.