MANILA, Philippines — Opposition senators yesterday questioned before the Supreme Court (SC) the move of Malacañang to withdraw the country’s membership in the International Criminal Court (ICC).
In a 17-page petition, Senators Francis Pangilinan, Franklin Drilon, Paolo Benigno Aquino, Leila de Lima, Risa Hontiveros and Antonio Trillanes IV asked the SC to invalidate the decision of the executive branch due to lack of necessary concurrence from the Senate.
The Senate minority sought issuance of an order compelling the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) and the Philippine Permanent Mission to the United Nations to revoke the notice sent last March for withdrawal of the Philippine government’s signature from the Rome Statute.
The senators alleged that the action of the Palace violated the Constitution, which requires ratification of treaties and international agreements by the Senate.
Petitioners specifically cited Article VII Section 21 of the 1987 Constitution, which states that “entering into treaty or international agreement requires participation of Congress, that is, through concurrence of at least two-thirds of all the members of the Senate.”
They argued that the Office of the President and the DFA committed grave abuse of discretion in withdrawing the country’s membership in the ICC without the concurrence of the Senate.
The senators further argued that the Rome Statute is a treaty validly entered into by the Philippines and which has the same status as a law enacted by Congress. Because of this status, the withdrawal from the Rome Statute would require approval of Congress.
“The Executive cannot abrograte or repeal a law. In the same vein, the executive cannot unilaterally withdraw from a treaty or international agreement because such withdrawal is equivalent to a repeal of a law,” the petitioners argued.
Petitioners further alleged that the respondents committed usurpation of legislative powers which is punishable under the Revised Penal Code.
They cited the case of South Africa, which had notified the ICC of its intention to withdraw from the treaty.
The move was challenged by opposition figures in South Africa before its high court which eventually ruled on Feb. 22, 2017 that President Jacob Zuma and his Cabinet’s ICC notification of withdrawal dated Oct. 16, 2016 was premature, procedurally irrational and that the government could not make the decision without the approval of Parliament.
“Given that the instrument of withdrawal received by the Secretary-General of the United Nations on March 17, 2018 is inconsistent with the Philippine Constitution, the Honorable Court must order the Executive Department to carry out its cancellation, revocation or withdrawal, similar to the case of South Africa,” the senators stressed.
“This is necessary to implement the constitutional requirement that a treaty withdrawal needs the concurrence of at least two-thirds of all the members of the Senate,” they added.
Palace: No basis
Malacañang has maintained that the petition challenging President Duterte’s decision to withdraw from the ICC has no legal basis.
“Good luck to them. I don’t think there is legal basis. The President remains the chief architect of foreign policy,” presidential spokesman Harry Roque said in a chance interview yesterday.
“This is not a matter that can be cured by certiorari. In order for it to be covered by certiorari, there should be grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excessive jurisdiction. You cannot allege that on matters of foreign affairs,” he added.
Roque said he had filed about four petitions questioning foreign policies but they ended up being dismissed by the court. – With Alexis Romero