There are three arguments posited by the reporters in claiming that the reservations are already

superseded. First is the recognition of incompatibility between the reservations and the signing of the
Rome Statue and RA 9851. The latest act of the Philippine government provide for a greater intent to
follow the international practice of condemning genocide and this would be a contributing factor in
realizing that as the international regime changes, there is a change with the intent of the Philippines
making the withdrawal of the reservation plausible.
Second, as earlier mentioned, the VCLT provides that a withdrawal must be formulated in writing. It is
the opinion of the reporters that both signing and the enactment of a law are forms of writing that
would substantially comply with the requirement of the VCLT coupled with the intent already discussed.
Since there is intent to comply fully with the convention and the act of writing, there is already a
withdrawal acceptable.
Finally, there is recognition that the reservation is the one in conflict with the Rome Statue as well as the
RA 9851 by Congress. Since the latter acts are also made through the sovereign capacity of the state,
then the state has a capacity to overturn a previous act by an act that is the same capacity and effect.
The latest act would be controlling because being the capacities on equal footing it would be deemed
that it negated the previous act.