Facts : This is a petition for mandamus to compel the Office of the Executive Secretary and the Department of Foreign Affairs to transmit (even without the signature of the President) the signed copy of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) to the Senate of the Philippines for its concurrence or ratification - in accordance with Section 21, Article 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.
Held : 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.
Petitioners’ interpretation of the Constitution is incorrect. The power to ratify treaties does not belong to the Senate.
Under E.O. 459, the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) prepares the ratification papers and forward the signed copy to the President for ratification. After the President has ratified it, DFA shall submit the same to the Senate for concurrence.
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,
Thus, the petition is DISMISSED.
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.
Held : 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.
Petitioners’ interpretation of the Constitution is incorrect. The power to ratify treaties does not belong to the Senate.
Under E.O. 459, the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) prepares the ratification papers and forward the signed copy to the President for ratification. After the President has ratified it, DFA shall submit the same to the Senate for concurrence.
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,
Thus, the petition is DISMISSED.
