Scribd
Upload
78 views3 pages

Pimentel V Executive Secretary G.R. No. 158088

The Supreme Court ruled that the executive branch does not have a ministerial duty to transmit the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court to the Senate for concurrence. While the Constitution requires Senate concurrence for treaties to be valid, the power to ratify treaties belongs solely to the President as head of state. The process of treaty making involves separate steps of negotiation, signature, ratification, and exchange of instruments. The President's signature on a treaty does not constitute ratification, which is the formal act of a state's acceptance requiring Presidential action. An executive order also stipulates that treaties must be ratified by the President before Senate concurrence. Therefore, the President has discretion whether to submit a treaty to the Senate or rat

Uploaded by

KYLE DAVID
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
78 views3 pages

Pimentel V Executive Secretary G.R. No. 158088

The Supreme Court ruled that the executive branch does not have a ministerial duty to transmit the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court to the Senate for concurrence. While the Constitution requires Senate concurrence for treaties to be valid, the power to ratify treaties belongs solely to the President as head of state. The process of treaty making involves separate steps of negotiation, signature, ratification, and exchange of instruments. The President's signature on a treaty does not constitute ratification, which is the formal act of a state's acceptance requiring Presidential action. An executive order also stipulates that treaties must be ratified by the President before Senate concurrence. Therefore, the President has discretion whether to submit a treaty to the Senate or rat

Uploaded by

KYLE DAVID
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

PIMENTEL V EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

G.R. No. 158088

Facts:

On 28 December 2000, the Philippines signed the Rome Statute through


Charge d’ Affairs Enrique A. Manalo of the Philippine Mission to the United
Nations (PMUN). The Rome Statue established the International Criminal
Court which provides “shall have the power to exercise its jurisdiction over
persons for the most serious crimes of international concerns…”. However,
the treaty’s provisions require that it be subject to ratification, acceptance,
or approval of the signatory states.

Petitioners filed an instant petition compelling respondents to transmit the


signed text of the treaty to the Senate for ratification. It is on the theory
that ratification of a treaty is a function of the Senate. Hence, the duty of the
executive it to sign the same and transmit it thereafter to the Senate for
concurrence.

The OSG, representing respondents, contends that the executive department


has no duty to transmit the said treaty to the Senate for concurrence.

Issue:

Whether the respondents have the ministerial duty to transmit the copy of
the subject treaty to the Senate signed by a member of the PMUN even
without the signature of the President for concurrence.
Ruling:

No. The President, being the head of the Sate, is regarded as the sole organ
and authority in external relations with foreign nations. In the realm of
treaty-making, the President has the sole authority to negotiate with other
states.

Although it is correct that the Constitution, in Article VII, Section 21,


provides for the concurrence of 2/3 of all members of the Senate for
validating a treaty and is deemed essential to provide check on the
executive’s foreign relations, it is not absolute. The power to ratify does not
belong to the Senate.

The process of treaty making: negotiation, signature, ratification, and


exchange of the instruments of ratification. Petitioner’s arguments equate
the signing of the treaty by the Phil. representative with ratification.
However, it should be noted that signature and ratification is two separate
steps. Signature is for authentication, on the other hand, ratification is the
formal act of acceptance. the latter is generally an executive act undertaken
by the head of the state.

Moreover, under E.O. 459, issued by Pres. Ramos, provides for guidelines in
the negotiation of international agreements and its ratification. The said
Order provides that a treaty, after it was signed by the representative of the
State, shall be subject to ratification by the President. before the Senate can
concur it, the President must ratify it first.

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 role of
the latter is limited only to giving consent to the ratification. Hence, the
President has the authority to refuse to submit a treaty to the Senate,
and/or refuse to ratify it.

You might also like