Skip to main content

Senate approval required for ICC withdrawal was insisted by the Petitioner


Drilon wants de Lima to argue ICC case before SC? Image combined credit to Radyo Agila and Pinoy Trending News

Last Tuesday, the counsels of the Philippine Coalition for the International Criminal Court declared that the administration of Duterte started withdrawal from the Rome Statue of the ICC is invalid because of lack of agreement from the Senate.

It is stated in the Article VII, Section 21 of the 1987 Constitution that no arrangement or international agreement shall be valid and effective except if conceded in by at least two-thirds of all the members of the Senate.

The silence of the Constitution on the upper chamber’s part in the withdrawal of a treaty during the oral contentions on the solidified petitions testing the withdrawal from the international council was raised by associate Justices Lucas Bersamin, Noel Tijam and Francis Jardeleza.

“We’re all very clear now that the language of the Constitution particularly Article VII, Section 21 relates only to ratification. It does not mention at all the termination or withdrawal of the state party to the treaty it accedes to,” Bersamin said.

The Section 101 of Senate Rule 36 does not additionally give strategy to end or withdraw any of the treaty.


The advices of the petitioner contended that since the Rome Statute is a bargain truly went into by the Philippines and has a vague status from a law ordered by the Congress, withdrawal from the Rome Statute needs the endorsement of no less than two-thirds of all members from the Senate.



Lucas Bersamin, Francis Jardeleza, Noel Tijam. Image credit to Rappler
Lawyer Gilbert Andres said that, “If the Senate concurs by two-thirds of votes of all its members so it’s valid and effective under our constitutional mechanism. Hence, the reverse is also true. If the president withdraws from a treaty such as the Rome Statute then it also needs the concurrence of the Senate.”


PCICC lead direct Romel Bagares said that the “silence there of the text does not mean that the converse cannot be said as a principle that is also applicable,” amid the prior interpellation with Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio.


Bagares also included, "The demonstration of pulling back from the arrangement isn't the sole territory of the president on the grounds that in the simultaneousness to the [approval] of the bargain, activity has been shared to the Senate.

The absence of Senate agreement in the end of the arrangement is additionally one of the principle contentions raised by the other solicitor made out of restriction legislators Francis Pangilinan, Franklin Drilon, Bam Aquino, Leila de Lima, Risa Hontiveros and Antonio Trillanes IV. 


With 17 confirmed votes from the upper house and one negative vote courtesy Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile affirmed  that the approval of the Rome Statute and the settlement which set up the ICC in April 2011, Approved by Benigno Aquino III. 


****

Dear avid readers, what do you think of this article? Please share your thoughts in the comment section below.

Source: PhilStar and The Daily Sentry

Comments

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Popular posts from this blog

Try harder, Jover! Anti-Duterte blogger writes a trashy open letter to Atty. Glenn Chong

Jover Laurio of Pinoy Ako Blog and Atty. Glenn Chong, photos from Rappler In one of her latest blogs, the anti-Duterte blogger Jover Laurio of Pinoy Ako Blog (PAB) seem to steal Atty. Glenn Chong's thunder after writing an open letter for the latter which  —  by the looks of it  —  is lacking substance and therefore of poor quality or in other words, trashy. Colloquial term like 'Luh' and 'Uzi' which she later defined as 'Usisero' has been used by its writer in an open letter meant for a professional lawyer. How funny is that? In addition, her demeanor or approach on the said letter is just too much to take, specifically on the last part of it. Laurio, a social media personality that became quite familiar to some netizens due to her non-stop criticisms to the Duterte administration, is admired by the president's detractors because they see her as a beacon of hope for being vocal for her dissent. Some, on the other hand, strongly b...

Who’s irresponsible? Paolo Duterte vilifies Robredo over unverified facts on dr*g war.

Paolo “Pulong” Duterte and Leni Robredo / Composite photos from Manila Bulletin and positivelyfilipino.com Former Davao City Mayor Paolo “Pulong” Duterte takes a swipe at Vice President Leni Robredo for impulsively unveiling a list outlining personalities and organizations allegedly linked to unseat his father, President Rodrigo Duterte and destabilize the government. The younger Duterte, on Monday, shared an article previously written by former Cabinet Secretary Rigoberto ‘Bobi’ Tiglao in a Facebook post, lambasting VP Leni for making accusations against her own government based on patently false data about the President’s War On Dr*gs. “Teka, sino irresponsible? Look who’s talking! NAUNSA KA FVP? APIL APILON SAD KA NO? TRABAHO DIHA OI”, Pulong posted. Duterte also added ancient Greek Philosopher Plato’s quote, which read, “Wise men speak because they have something to say; FOOLS because they have to say something.” Paolo “Pulong” Duterte / Phoot from u...

SC to hear plea for gay marriage

THE Supreme Court (SC) en banc has released guidelines for next week’s oral arguments on a plea from gays and lesbians to allow same-sex marriage in the Philippines. A petition for certiorari was filed by Jesus Nicardo Falcis 3rd, who had sought the high court’s intervention to rule as null and void Executive Order (EO) 209 or the Family Code of the Philippines. (Photos credits to Owner) The oral arguments are set for Tuesday, June 19. The civil registrar general is the respondent in the petition lodged by LGBTS Christian Church Inc., Reverend Crescencio Agbayani Jr., Marlon Felipe and Maria Arlyn Ibañez. Fernando Perito, a lawyer, is the intervenor. In a four-page advisory, the court stated that the respondent and the petitioners should argue on: “A. Whether or not the petition and/or the petition in intervention is properly the subject of the exercise of the court’s power of judicial review; “B. Whether or not the right to marry and the right ...