w e d n e s d a y , a u g u s t 1 3 , 2 0 0 8

Sen. Pimentel vs Executive Secretary , G.R. No.

158088 , July 6, 2005
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
Matisa - Public
International
Law
case digest of Public International Law,
class discussions, etc....
blog archive
2008 (26)
October (1)
September (7)
August (4)
Aug 26 (2)
Aug 13 (1)
Sen. Pimentel vs
Executive Secretary ,
G.R. No. 15...
Aug 06 (1)
July (7)
June (7)
about me
matisa
simple ....but can be a little bit
harsh sometimes heheheh
View my complete profile
Posted by matisa at 5:20 AM
Newer Post Older Post
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.
1 comment:
Post a Comment
Home
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

(^oo^) bad girl (^oo^) said...
Good good good......
August 13, 2008 at 5:30 AM