1) Philippine unilateral withdrawal by note verbal, is not valid, binding and effectual from the POV of

constitutional law.

a) It is invalid because it bypasses the two step-procedure for Philippine membership through
international criminal court. Without senate accession, go’ve cannot go directly

Art 125, without valid

b) Acta contraire principle, withdrawal and accession requires parallel action

part of the checks and balance,

c) treaties embody a shared responsibility between the two bodies of the gov, Sec 21, of 1987
Consit, vote of 2/3 of the senate, give valid and binding effect to the treaty, a treaty already transformed
into law, cannot be undone by a unilateral act of the president. Only the Senate can undo its own act
unless it is voided by the courts.

Senate resolution 546 stands a binding law

Shared responsibility is also present in the distinction between a treaty and executive agreement,
as EA is only a continuation of an existing policy or an extant treaty. The Rome Statute is a treaty
unlike an executive agreement subject to the Constitutional procedures of accession and withdrawal.

Textual variances, 1935 consitution, 1973 departs from the , 1987 prohibitory and non despotic
principle of the constitution, there is no positive nor plenary grant to the president of such powers over
the monolopy, to preven unilateral treaty making. It cannot be automatically implied, that foreign
relations is not the sole powers, section 21 of Article 7. Republican concept of checks and balance and
deconcentration of powers of one branch.

Treaty has the same status of a law, elevated to the same rank and must be secured by the same
guarantee of fidelity and permanence of a law. Since a treaty is part of the law of the land
Treaties must require approval, the decision to exit affect legal rights and obligation in as much as the
repeal and modification of a local statute does.

breach of pacta sunt servanda, Secretary vs Lation, repudiation under personal circumstance

-Pimentel vs Executive Secretary, must be based on substantial and superficial and whimsical, given
the baseless and unprecedent attacks, to place my person, that the PH, guard against such acts which
the senate concurrence comes in

Under the president is the chief enforcer of the laws enacted by congress, is a violation of the
separation of powers, as it goes into the wisdom of the law

Even assuming that the treaty may be withdrawn, the executive have no cogent or factual basis
to actually withdraw other the president’s whimsical / arbitrary.
RA 9851, pursuant to principle complementarity

IL
Preliminary examination of the prosecutor is valid — aut dedere aut judicare principle is violated,
erasing citizens protection under international law

II) Withdrawal cuts or erases the protections provided by IL and citizens for violation of fudnamental
rights
1) parallel of their right to enforce rights under the Rome Statute, not ordinary crimes but these are
crimes, these are crimes against humanity, war crimes, genocide, concerning greatly the I Commu,
prohibition against these crimes I crimes are jus cogens, imprescriptible, universal subject to the aut
dedere aut judicare.
KNOWING such gravity, there is a need for the right to effective remedies against these crimes.
Provided in various International Instruments, article 2 paragraph 3 of ICCPR, of which we are party
to.
THERE IS A NEED of a parallel means, the ICC is the means to enforce that right. 2nd para of sec 17 of
RA 9851, in the interest of justice, the relevant Fil auth may dispense with the investigation or
prosecution of a crime punishable under this act if another court or another international tribunal is
already conducting the invest/ prosec, in fact the ICC, in Prosecutor vs Germane Katangga: if a state
party does not prosecute or investigate a crime, the case is adminssible before the Tribunal.

Congress is a collegial body,

Intent of the 48 that

Which is why this remedy is unjustly deprived and abolished from the Filipino people.

Within the ambit of the court, justiciable question

these remedies are only present if the citizens file cases

Head of State - Organ that operate at the present

Senate concurrence is a check on foreign policy, we should not expand a power not there.
Uganda, Congo, possible for countries to involve even without rati from Rome Statute

Francisco vs House of Representatives

INTERPOLATION

May a president withdraw from a treaty based on a capricious whim?

May a president withdraw a withdrawal?
May a president withdraw from a treaty because human rights are weaponized?

Repeal, Bayan Muna vs Romulo: Court has held that an EA cannot be used to amend a treaty which is a
product of joint acts of the executive and the senate? so much so for the greater act of repealing it
completely. Are you aware of the hierarchy of legislative acts affecting the efficacy of laws, repeal and
abrogation are certainly in a much higher degree than mere amendment or modification?

If the president cannot modify a treaty by entering into a unilateral act or treaty much less can he be
allowed to abrogate a treaty without such concurrence from the senate

Under the executive pow, is vested with the president? Under oath of office, the president must
faithfully and consentiously execute the laws? Also under Sec 17, shall ensure the laws shall be
faithfully be executed? The president primary is to execute the law? Where is legislative power vested?
Can a congress pass, a law to without president?

Yes.

Benefits of legislative deliberation applies similarly, acts of congress

If two laws, lex superiori deragat, the later law prevails.

Saguisag versus Ochoa, the status of a treaty is equivalent to municipal law? If a domestic law passed
by congress is inconsistent with a treaty?

Since a treaty is

Tax treaties are concurred by the senate, out of Revenue Code, Visiting forces carve out XPN, a treaty
can amend a prior law?

To faithfully execute a treaty? You sworn to implement the treaty nor abrogate the treaty or repeal the
treaty by himself. You cannot do anything that can prevent the implementation of the treaty.

Textual. Decision based on the actual words of the written law, if the meaning of the words is 
unambiguous. Since a law is a command, then it must mean what it meant to the lawgiver, 
and if the meaning of the words used in it have changed since it was issued, then textual 
analysis must be of the words as understood by the lawgiver, which for a constitution would 
be the understanding of the ratifying convention or, if that is unclear, of the drafters. Some 
Latin maxims: A verbis legis non est recedendum. From the words of the law there is not any 
departure. 5 Coke 118. Noscitur à sociis. Meaning of words may be ascertained by 
associated words. 3 T.R. 87.

1. Historical. Decision based less on the actual words than on the understanding 
revealed by analysis of the history of the drafting and ratification of the law, for 
constitutions and statutes, sometimes called its legislative history, and for judicial 
edicts, the case history. A textual analysis for words whose meanings have changed 
therefore overlaps historical analysis. It arises out of such Latin maxims as Animus 
hominis est anima scripti. Intention is the soul of an instrument. 3 Bulst. 67.

2. Functional. Also called structural. Decision based on analysis of the structures the 
law constituted and how they are apparently intended to function as a coherent, 
harmonious system. A Latin maxim is Nemo aliquam partem recte intelligere potest 
antequam totum perlegit. No one can properly understand a part until he has read the 
whole. 3 Coke Rep. 59.

3. Doctrinal. Decision based on prevailing practices or opinions of legal professionals, 
mainly legislative, executive, or judicial precedents, according to the meta­doctrine 
of stare decisis, which treats the principles according to which court decisions have 
been made as not merely advisory but as normative. Some Latin maxims 
are: Argumentum à simili valet in lege. An argument from a like case avails in law. 
Coke, Littleton, 191. Consuetudo et communis assuetudo ... interpretatur legem 
scriptam, si lex sit generalis. Custom and common usage ... interpret the written law, if 
it be general. Jenk. Cent. 273. Cursus curiæ est lex curiæ. The practice of the court is 
the law of the court. 3 Buls. 53. Judiciis posterioribus fides est adhibenda. Credit is to 
be given to the latest decisions. 13 Coke 14. Res judicata pro veritate accipitur. A thing
adjudicated is received as true. Coke, Littleton, 103.

4. Prudential. Decision based on factors external to the law or interests of the parties 
in the case, such as the convenience of overburdened officials, efficiency of 
 governmental operations, avoidance of stimulating more cases, or response to political 
pressure. One such consideration, avoidance of disturbing a stable body of practices, 
is also the main motivation for the doctrinal method. It also includes such 
considerations as whether a case is "ripe" for decision, or whether lesser or 
administrative remedies have first been exhausted. A Latin maxim is Boni judicis est 
lites dirimere. The duty of a good judge is to prevent litigation. 4 Coke 15.

5. Equitable. Also called ethical. Decision based on an innate sense of justice, 
balancing the interests of the parties, and what is right and wrong, regardless of what 
the written law might provide. Often resorted to in cases in which the facts were not 
adequately anticipated or provided for by the lawgivers. Some scholars put various 
balancing tests of interests and values in the prudential category, but it works better to 
distinguish between prudential as balancing the interests and values of the legal 
system from equitable as balancing the interests and values of the parties. It arises out 
of the Latin maxim, Æquitas est perfecta quædam ratio quæ jus scriptum interpretatur 
et emendat; nulla scriptura comprehensa, sed sola ratione consistens. Equity is a sort 
of perfect reason which interprets and amends written law; comprehended in no code, 
but consistent with reason alone. Coke, Littleton, 24.

6. Natural. Decision based on what is required or advised by the laws of nature, or 
perhaps of human nature, and on what is physically or economically possible or 
practical, or on what is actually likely to occur. This has its origin in such ancient Latin 
maxims as: Jura naturæ sunt immutabilia. The laws of nature are unchangeable. 
Jacob. 63.Impossibilium nulla obligatio est. There is no obligation to do impossible 
things. D. 50, 17, 185. Lex non cogit ad impossibilia. The law does not compel the 
impossible. Hob. 96. Lex neminem cogit ad vana seu inutilia peragenda. The law 
requires no one to do vain or useless things. 5 Coke 21. Legibus sumptis desinentibus,
lege naturæ utendum est. Laws of the state failing, we must act by the law of nature. 2 
Rol. Rep. 98.

Can the senate repeal the treaty by 2/3?

Tax XPN can only be voted by majority? Simple majorit 13, 7 votes in the Senate, only a majority of
the quorum.

No treaty or international agreement shall be valid

Constitutional oversight since the constitution must not construed, 1 year period
Is there a withdrawal of the withdrawal? In order to go back to the treaty it requires, is there a
constitutional oversight?

For GOV
Quentissential, Tanade vs Cuenco citing Baker vs Carr
Tañada v. Cuenco puts it, political questions refer "to those questions which, under the Constitution, are
to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary
authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of government." Thus, if an issue is
clearly identified by the text of the Constitution as matters for discretionary action by a particular
branch of government or to the people themselves then it is held to be a political question. In the classic
formulation of Justice Brennan in Baker v. Carr, "[p]rominent on the surface of any case held to involve
a political question is found a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a
coordinate political department; or a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for
resolving it; or the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for
non-judicial discretion; or the impossibility of a court’s undertaking independent resolution without
expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government; or an unusual need for
unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made; or the potentiality of embarrassment
from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on the one question."

If there is a political solution, legally and constitutionally to defer to such solution?

REPUBLIC ACT N0. 9745 AN ACT PENALIZING TORTURE AND OTHER CRUEL, INHUMAN
AND DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT AND PRESCRIBING PENALTIES
THEREFOR

Art 124 Arbitrary periods, 9871, are our courts functioning? Writ of amparo denied by the courts?