CHINA NATIONAL MACHINERY & EQUIPMENT CORP V HON CESAR STA.

MARIA
G. R. No. 185572, February 7, 2012
Facts:
On September 14, 2002, petitioner China National Machinery & Equipment
Corp.(CNMEG), entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the North
Railways Corporation(Northrail), for the conduct of a feasibility study on a possible
railway line from Manila to San Fernando La Union. A year after, they executed a
Contract Agreement for the construction of the railway. Subsequently, to finance
the said project, the Philippine contracted a loan agreement with the EXIM Bank.
In the complaint, respondents alleged that the Contract Agreement and the
Loan Agreement were void for being contrary to the Constitution, RA 9184, PD 1445
and EO 292.
CNMEG argue that it was an agent of the Chinese government and that the
Northrail Project is under an executive agreement, thus immune from suit.
Issue: Whether or not CNMEG is entitled to immunity, precluding it from being
sued before the local court.
Ruling: No.
The determining factor on this case is the Rome Statute establishing the
International Criminal Court (ICC) with the power to exercise its jurisdiction over
persons for the most serious crimes of international concern , which shall be
complementary to the national criminal jurisdictions. The serious crimes adverted
to cover those considered grave under international law, such as genocide, crimes
against humanity, war crimes, and crimes of aggression.
Relying on the doctrine of incorporation, as expressed in Section 2, Article II
of the Constitution, the Philippines adopts the generally accepted principles of
international law and international jurisprudence as part of the law of the land and
adheres to the policy of peace, cooperation, and amity with all nations. An
exchange of notes falls into the category of inter-governmental agreements,
which is an internationally accepted form of international agreement.
As described by the Solicitor General, the non-surrender agreement is an
assertion by the Philippines of its desire to try and punish crimes under its national
law. It is a recognition of the primacy and competence of the countrys judiciary to
try offenses under its national criminal laws and dispense justice fairly and
judiciously.

The Court ruled that persons who may have committed acts penalized under
the Rome Statute can be prosecuted and punished in the Philippines or in the US;
or with the consent of the RP or the US, before the ICC, assuming that all the
formalities necessary to bind both countries to the Rome Statute have been met.
For perspective, what the Agreement contextually prohibits is the surrender
by either party of individuals to international tribunals, like the ICC, without the
consent of the other party, which may desire to prosecute the crime under its
existing laws. With the view we take of things, there is nothing immoral or violative
of international law concepts in the act of the Philippines of assuming criminal
jurisdiction pursuant to the non-surrender agreement over an offense considered
criminal by both Philippine laws and the Rome Statute.