WIGBERTO E. TAÑADA, ET AL.
vs.
EDGARDO ANGARA, ET AL.

Facts:

As the WTO opens its access to foreign markets, major trading partners, experienced through reduction of tariffs on its exports specifically on agricultural and industrial products. It further associates with exporting and more investment in the country. The signatory Senators viewed this agreement as a “free market” system since there would be more investment and exporting activities with in the member countries. The “Filipino First Policy” of the Constitution was set aside as it gives way to foreign trading. Thus, this petition.


Issue:

Whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the Senate in giving its concurrence of the WTO agreement.

Ruling:

By the doctrine of incorporation, the country is bound by generally accepted principles of international law, which are considered automatically part of our own laws. In its Declaration of Principles and state policies, the Constitution “adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land, and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation and amity, with all nations.

With WTO, the sovereignty of the state cannot in fact and reality be considered as absolute because it is a regulation of commercial relations among nations. The Senate only did their part in the valid exercise of authority. It remains as the only viable structure for multilateral trading and the veritable forum for the development of international trade law. Its alternative is isolation, stagnation if not economic self-destruction. Thus, the people are allowed, through their duly elected officers to make their free choice.

Petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

PIMENTEL, JR.
vs.
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

FACTS :

The Rome Statute established the International Criminal Court which “shall have the power to exercise its jurisdition 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 Philippines signed the Statute on December 28, 2000. Its provisions, however, require that it be subject to ratification, acceptance or approval of the signatory states.

Hence this petition for mandamus filed by petitioners to compel the Office of the Executive Secretary and the Department of Foreign Affairs to transmit the signed copy of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court to the Senate of the Philippines for its concurrence in accordance with Sec. 21, Art. VII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.
Petitioners contend that ratification of a treaty, under domestic law and international law, is a function of the Senate and 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. Respondents, however argue that it has no duty to transmit the copy of Rome Statute to Senate for concurrence.

ISSUE :

Whether or not the Executive Secretary and the DFA have a ministerial duty to transmit to the Senate the copy of the Rome Statute.

RULING :

In our system of government, the President, being the head of the state, is regarded as the sole organ and authority in external relations and is the country’s sole representative with foreign nations. As chief architect of foreign policy, the President acts as the country’s 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 business of foreign relations. In the realm of treaty-making, the President has the sole authority to negotiate with other states.

Petition is dismissed.