13/05/2026
WITH DUE RESPECT…. jJust an honest and unbiased take....
What is the Rome Statute?
The Rome Statute is a foundational treaty that established the International Criminal Court (ICC), empowered to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression.
It was adopted on July 17, 1998 during the Diplomatic Conference in Rome, Italy, and it became effective—binding, and operational—only on July 1, 2002.
The Philippines signed the instrument of ratification of the Rome Statute through former President Joseph Estrada on December 28, 2000, thereby manifesting the State’s formal and express intent to be bound by the treaty.
Thereafter, the Philippines secured Senate concurrence on August 23, 2011 through Senate Resolution No. 57, as required under Section 21, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution, to wit:
“SECTION 21. No treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate.”
What is the effect of the Philippines’ signing and concurrence of the Rome Statute internationally?
By virtue of its signing and Senate concurrence, the Philippines becomes a State Party to the Rome Statute and assumes binding international obligations to uphold international justice. Consistent with the principles of comity and pacta sunt servanda, this commitment was further operationalized through Republic Act No. 9851, entitled “AN ACT DEFINING AND PENALIZING CRIMES AGAINST INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW, GENOCIDE AND OTHER CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY, ORGANIZING JURISDICTION, DESIGNATING SPECIAL COURTS, AND FOR RELATED PURPOSES,” dated December 11, 2009.
Republic Act No. 9851 incorporates the core principles of the Rome Statute, criminalizing genocide, other war crimes, and crimes against humanity.
What is the effect of the Philippines’ signing and concurrence of the Rome Statute domestically?
In the adoption of treaties, the Philippines adheres to the Doctrine of Transformation pursuant to Section 21, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution. Under this doctrine, treaties become part of the law of the land and are accorded an “equal legal tier” with statutes enacted by Congress. Likewise, treaties such as the Rome Statute—once adopted through the Doctrine of Transformation—are deemed to have the status of domestic law, albeit subordinate to the Constitution, in accordance with controlling Supreme Court jurisprudence.
It should be emphasized that treaties, including the Rome Statute, may be modified or even overridden by subsequent domestic legislation, consistent with the principle lex posterior derogat priori (Lao Ichong v. Hernandez, G.R. No. L-7859, 1957).
What is the effect of the Philippines’ withdrawal from the ICC?
Former President Rodrigo Roa Duterte effectively withdrew from the ICC on March 17, 2019, notwithstanding the absence of Senate concurrence, in view of the Rome Statute’s withdrawal mechanism.
An effective withdrawal from the International Criminal Court does not erase criminal responsibility for acts committed while the State was still a Party to the Rome Statute. Pursuant to Article 127 of the Rome Statute, the Court retains jurisdiction over crimes committed prior to the withdrawal’s effective date and may continue ongoing investigations and prosecutions.
Indeed, in Pangilinan v. Cayetano (G.R. No. 238875), the Supreme Court clarified that exiting a treaty does not extinguish obligations or accountability for acts committed when the country remained a State Party.
What is an ICC warrant of arrest?
An ICC warrant of arrest is a binding judicial order issued by the Pre-Trial Chamber authorizing the detention of individuals suspected of having committed grave international crimes, including war crimes, genocide, or crimes against humanity. It is issued upon a finding of reasonable grounds to believe that the person bears criminal responsibility, with the purpose of securing attendance, preventing obstruction of justice, and averting further offenses.
Does R.A. 9851 allow local enforcement agencies to serve an ICC warrant of arrest and arrest an individual accused of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression?
NO. Nothing in the provisions of R.A. 9851 expressly authorizes arrest solely on the basis of an ICC warrant of arrest.
Under Section 17, Article VII of Republic Act No. 9851, it is stated:
“In the interest of justice, the relevant Philippine authorities may dispense with the investigation or prosecution of a crime punishable under this Act if another court or international tribunal is already conducting the investigation or undertaking the prosecution of such crime. Instead, the authorities may surrender or extradite suspected or accused persons in the Philippines to the appropriate international court, if any, or to another State pursuant to the applicable extradition laws and treaties.”
Clearly, the statute contemplates surrender or extradition under the applicable extradition laws and treaties.
What is the applicable law if the Philippines remains a State Party to the ICC?
Assuming, arguendo, that the Philippines remains a Party to the Rome Statute, Article 59 provides the governing framework on the ex*****on of arrest warrants, including requests for provisional arrest, arrest, and surrender. Specifically:
“Article 59
Arrest proceedings in the custodial State
1. A State Party which has received a request for provisional arrest or for arrest and surrender shall immediately take steps to arrest the person in question in accordance with its laws and the provisions of Part 9.
2. A person arrested shall be brought promptly before the competent judicial authority in the custodial State which shall determine, in accordance with the law of that State, that: (a) The warrant applies to that person;
(b) The person has been arrested in accordance with the proper process; and
(c) The person’s rights have been respected.
3. The person arrested shall have the right to apply to the competent authority in the custodial State for interim release pending surrender.
4. In reaching a decision on any such application, the competent authority in the custodial State shall consider whether, given the gravity of the alleged crimes, there are urgent and exceptional circumstances to justify interim release and whether necessary safeguards exist to ensure that the custodial State can fulfil its duty to surrender the person to the Court. It shall not be open to the competent authority of the custodial State to consider whether the warrant of arrest was properly issued in accordance with article 58, paragraph 1 (a) and (b).
5. The Pre-Trial Chamber shall be notified of any request for interim release and shall make recommendations to the competent authority in the custodial State. The competent authority in the custodial State shall give full consideration to such recommendations, including any recommendations on measures to prevent the escape of the person, before rendering its decision.
6. If the person is granted interim release, the Pre-Trial Chamber may request periodic reports on the status of the interim release.
7. Once ordered to be surrendered by the custodial State, the person shall be delivered to the Court as soon as possible.”
What is the applicable law to effect arrest if the Philippines is no longer a State Party to the Rome Statute?
It is respectfully submitted that, notwithstanding the Philippines’ cessation as a State Party, the Rome Statute may still be invoked as the applicable legal framework for enforcing an ICC arrest warrant issued in relation to matters within the Court’s jurisdiction.
In light of the ruling in Pangilinan v. Cayetano, to wit:
“A state party withdrawing from the Rome Statute must still comply with this provision. Even if it has deposited the instrument of withdrawal, it shall not be discharged from any criminal proceedings. Whatever process was already initiated before the International Criminal Court obliges the state party to cooperate.”
Accordingly, until the withdrawal took effect on March 17, 2019, the Philippines remained obligated to meet its commitments under the Rome Statute. Any and all governmental acts up to March 17, 2019 may be considered in the context of the Philippines’ continuing obligations under the Rome Statute before that date.
Given the Philippines’ continuing responsibility to the ICC for governmental acts up to March 17, 2019, the procedure articulated under Article 59 of the Rome Statute in arresting individuals for crimes against humanity—among other covered offenses—should be observed for purposes of compliance with an ICC-issued arrest warrant.
Thus, consistent with Article 59: “A State Party which has received a request for provisional arrest or for arrest and surrender shall immediately take steps to arrest the person in question in accordance with its laws and the provisions of Part 9
