Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
'
'
''''''''''''' '''''''DEAN'SEDFREY'CANDELARIA'
PUBLIC
INTERNATIONAL
LAW
SHARING IS A GOOD
THING!
'
2A'||'2015'
SALVADOR'ENRIQUEZ,'in'his'capacity'as'Secretary'of'Budget'and'
Management;' CARIDAD' VALDEHUESA,' in' her' capacity' as'
National' Treasurer;' RIZALINO' NAVARRO,' in' his' capacity' as'
Secretary' of' Trade' and' Industry;' ROBERTO' SEBASTIAN,' in' his'
capacity' as' Secretary' of' Agriculture;' ROBERTO' DE' OCAMPO,' in'
his' capacity' as' Secretary' of' Finance;' ROBERTO' ROMULO,' in' his'
capacity' as' Secretary' of' Foreign' Affairs;' and' TEOFISTO' T.'
GUINGONA,'in'his'capacity'as'Executive'Secretary,'respondents.'
1. Taada'v.'Angara'
TOPIC:'Reconciling'Treaty'obligations'with'Constitutional'Policies'
Treaties/Laws''
'
World' Trade' Organization' (WTO)' ~' ' General' Agreements' on' Trade' and'
Tariffs'(GTAA)'
o HISTORYto'hasten'recovery'after'WWII,'three'institutions'were'
sought'to'be'established:'the'IMF,'World'Bank,'and'International'
Trade'Organization.'The'ITO'unlike'the'IMF'and'WB'never'took'off'
for'a'variety'of'reasons'including'nonPratification'by'the'US.'What'
remained' was' the' General' Agreements' on' Trade' and' Tariffs'
(GATT)' which' is' a' collection' of' treaties' governing' access' to' the'
economies' of' treaty' adherents.' However,' the' problem' was' the'
absence' of' AN' INSTITUTIONALIZED' BODY' administering' the'
agreements' or' a' system' of' dispute.' THUS,' after' 50' years' of'
negotiation,'the'WTO'became'this'administering'body.''
Ponente:'PANGANIBAN,'J.:'
PETITION'IN'BRIEF:'
G.R.'No.:'118295''May'2,'1997'
Petitioner:''
Respondents:''
'
FACTS:'
'
April'15,'1994:'Rizalino'Navarro'(Sec'of'DTI)'signed'in'Marrakesh,'Morroco,'
the' Final' Act' ' Embodying' results' of' the' Uruguay' round' of' multilateral'
Negotiations'
o He' signed' not' only' the' agreement' proper' (WTO' +' Annexes)' but'
also' the' (1)' Ministerial' decisions' and' declarations' and' (2)'
Understanding'and'Commitments'in'Financial'Services.'
August'12'and'13'1994:'the'President'sent'letters'to'Senate'submitting'the'
Uruguay'Final'Act'for'concurrence'
December' 9,' 1994:' President' certified' necessity' for' immediate'
concurrence'
December' 14,' 1994:' Senate' concurred' through' resolution' 97' the'
ratification'of'the''WTO'agreement'
December'16,'1994:'President'signed'the'Instrument'of'Ratification'
o Agreement'Establishing'WTO'+'agreements'included'in'ANNEXES'
1,'2'&'3''only'
December'29,'1994:''Petition'was'filed'
ISSUES/HELD:'
1.
2.
W/N' court' has' jurisdiction?' Yes,' otherwise' walang' case' na' Tanada' v.'
Angara,'duh!'Wont'discuss,'he'doesnt'ask'this'
W/N'WTO'violates'letter,'spirit'and'intent'of'the'Constitutional'mandate'
of'Economic'Nationalism?'NO'(LIS'MOTA'OF'CASE)'
'
Article'II'(Principles'and'Policies),'Sec'19'TT'The'State'shall'develop'a'selfP
reliant' and' independent' national' economy' effectively' controlled' by'
Filipinos.'
Article'XII'(Natl'Econ'and'Patrimony),'Sec'10' TP'The'Congress'shall'enact'
measures' that' will' encourage' the' formation' and' operation' of' enterprises'
whose' capital' is' wholly' owned' by' Filipinos.' x' x' x' In' the' grant' of' rights,'
privileges,'and'concessions'covering'the'national'economy'and'patrimony,'
the'State'shall'give'preference'to'qualified'Filipinos.'
Article'XII,'Sec'12'TT'The'State'shall'promote'the'preferential'use'of'Filipino'
labor,'domestic'materials'and'locally'produced'goods,'and'adopt'measures'
that'help'make'them'competitive.'
Petitioner' asserts' that' these' sacred' constitutional' principles' are'
desecrated' by' the' WTO' provisions' in' Article' 2' (par' 1' and' 2)' and' the'
corresponding'annexes''
o They' provide' for' national' treatment' and' party' provisions'
which'place'nationals'and'products'of'member'countries'on'the'
same'footing'as'Filipinos'and'local'products,"'in'contravention'of'
the'"Filipino'First"'policy'of'the'Constitution.'
'
4.
W/N' WTO' intrudes' on' the' power' of' SC' to' promulgate' rules' concerning'
pleadings,'practice'and'procedure?'NO,'same'arguments'as'above'
5.
W/N' Concurrence' was' only' in' WTO' agreement' and' not' in' other'
documents'contained'in'the'final'act?'NO,'see'below.''
'
As' seen' from' the' facts,' Secretary' Navarro' signed' the' Final' ACT' (WTO'
Agreement'+'annexes)''+'ministerial'declarations'and'understanding'AND'
financial'services'commitment.''
Since'the'senate'concurred'only'to'the'WTO'agreement'alone'is'in'effect'a'
rejection'of'the'Final'ACT'
SC:'
o Final' actprotocol' de' cloture,' is' the' instrument' which' records'
the'winding'up'of'the'proceedings'and'signed'by'plenipotentiaries'
attending' the' conference;' not' a' treaty' but' a' summary' of'
proceeding''
'
'
3.
W/N' WTO' unduly' limits,' restricts,' impairs' legislative' power' such' as'
power'to'tax?'It'limits,'but'it'is'valid.''
'
SC:'(1)'Sovereignty'it'limited'by'international'law'and'treaties'
By' the' doctrine' of' incorporation,' the' country' is' bound' by'
generally' accepted' principles' of' international' law,' which' are'
considered'to'be'automatically'part'of'our'own'laws.''
o One'of'the'oldest'and'most'fundamental'rules'in'international'law'
is.pacta. sunt. servanda.' international' agreements' must' be'
performed' in' good' faith.' "A' treaty' engagement' is' not' a' mere'
moral' obligation' but' creates' a' legally' binding' obligation' on' the'
parties' .' .' .' A' state' which' has' contracted' valid' international'
obligations'is'bound'to'make'in'its'legislations'such'modifications'
as' may' be' necessary' to' ensure' the' fulfillment' of' the' obligations'
undertaken.'
o 'By' their' voluntary' act,' nations' may' surrender' some' aspects' of'
their' state' power' in' exchange' for' greater' benefits' granted' by' or'
derived'from'a'convention'or'pact.'
o The' sovereignty' of' a' state' therefore' cannot' in' fact' and' in' reality'
be'considered'absolute.'Certain'restrictions'enter'into'the'picture:'
(1)'limitations'imposed'by'the'very'nature'of'membership'in'the'
family'of'nations'and'(2)'limitations'imposed'by'treaty'stipulations'
SC:'(2)'UN'Charter'and'Other'treaties'limit'sovereignty'
o Many' treaties' cited' where' Philippines' effectively' agreed' to' limit'
exercise'of'powers'of'taxation,'eminent'domain,'and'police'power'
o The' point' is,' sovereignty' may' be' waived' without' violating' the'
constitution' based' on' rationale' that' Philippines' adopt' the'
generally' accepted' principles' of' international' law' as' part' of' the'
land'
o
o
o
o
By'signing'said'Final'Act,'Secretary'Navarro'as'representative'of'
the'Republic'of'the'Philippines'undertook:'
(a)'to'submit,'as'appropriate,'the'WTO'Agreement'for'
the'consideration'of'their'respective'competent'
authorities'with'a'view'to'seeking'approval'of'the'
Agreement'in'accordance'with'their'procedures;'and'
(b)'to'adopt'the'Ministerial'Declarations'and'Decisions.'
The'ministerial'decisions'were'deemed'adopted'without'need'or'
ratification'
The'Understanding'on'commitments'in'financial'services'does'not'
apply'to'Philippines'
The' senate' was' likewise' well' aware' of' what' is' was' concurring' in'
as'shown'by'the'deliberations'
'
DISPOSITIVE:'WHEREFORE,'the'petition'is'DISMISSED'for'lack'of'merit.'
SO'ORDERED.'
'
2. Mijares'v.'Ranada'
Topic:'Enforcement'of'Foreign'Judgment'
Treaties/Laws:'
Alien'Tort'Act'(this'wasnt'discussed'in'case,'I'just'put'a'Wikipedia'entry'at'
the'end'just'in'case'he'asks)'
Sec.'48,'Rule'39'of'Rules'of'Court'
Philippine'Constitution,'Art'II,'Sec.'2'
'
G.R.'No.'139325.''April'12,'2005'
Petitioners:'PRISCILLA'C.'MIJARES,'LORETTA'ANN'P.'ROSALES,'HILDA'B.'NARCISO,'SR.'
MARIANI'DIMARANAN,'SFIC,'and'JOEL'C.'LAMANGAN'in'their'behalf'and'on'behalf'
of' the' Class' Plaintiffs' in' Class' Action' No.' MDL' 840,' United' States' District' Court' of'
Hawaii,'.
Respondents:'HON.'SANTIAGO'JAVIER'RANADA,'in'his'capacity'as'Presiding'Judge'of'
Branch' 137,' Regional' Trial' Court,' Makati' City,' and' the' ESTATE' OF' FERDINAND' E.'
MARCOS,''
Ponente:'TINGA,'J.:'
'
FACTS:'
The' petitioners' in' this' case' are' prominent' victims' of' human' rights'
violations' who,' deprived' of' the' opportunity' to' directly' confront' the' man'
who' once' held' absolute' rule' over' this' country,' have' chosen' to' do' battle'
instead'with'the'earthly'representative,'his'estate.'The'clash'has'been'for'
now'interrupted'by'a'trial'court'ruling,'seemingly'comported'to'legal'logic,'
that' required' the' petitioners' to' pay' a' whopping' filing' fee' of' over' Four'
Hundred' SeventyPTwo' Million' Pesos' (P472,000,000.00)' in' order' that' they'
be'able'to'enforce'a'judgment'awarded'them'by'a'foreign'court.'''
On'9'May'1991,'a'complaint'was'filed'with'the'United'States'District'Court'
(US' District' Court),' District' of' Hawaii,' against' the' Estate' of' former'
Philippine'President'Ferdinand'E.'Marcos'(Marcos'Estate).'The'action'was'
brought' forth' by' ten' Filipino' citizens' who' each' alleged' having' suffered'
human' rights' abuses' such' as' arbitrary' detention,' torture' and' rape' in' the'
hands'of'police'or'military'forces'during'the'Marcos'regime.'
The' Alien' Tort' Act' was' invoked' as' basis' for' the' US' District' Courts'
jurisdiction' over' the' complaint,' as' it' involved' a' suit' by' aliens' for' tortious'
violations'of'international'law.''
These'plaintiffs'brought'the'action'on'their'own'behalf'and'on'behalf'of'a'
class' of' similarly' situated' individuals,' particularly' consisting' of' all' current'
civilian' citizens' of' the' Philippines,' their' heirs' and' beneficiaries,' who'
between' 1972' and' 1987' were' tortured,' summarily' executed' or' had'
disappeared' while' in' the' custody' of' military' or' paramilitary' groups.'
Plaintiffs' alleged' that' the' class' consisted' of' approximately' ten' thousand'
(10,000)'members;'hence,'joinder'of'all'these'persons'was'impracticable.'
The'institution'of'a'class'action'suit'was'warranted'under'Rule' 23(a)' and'
(b)(1)(B)' of' the' US' Federal' Rules' of' Civil' Procedure,' the' provisions' of'
which' were' invoked' by' the' plaintiffs.' Subsequently,' the' US' District' Court'
certified'the'case'as'a'class'action'and'created'three'(3)'subPclasses'of'(a)'
torture,' (b)' summary' execution' and' (c)' disappearance' victims.' Trial'
ensued,' and' subsequently' a' jury' rendered' a' verdict' and' an' award' of'
compensatory'and'exemplary'damages'in'favor'of'the'plaintiff'class.'''
3'February'1995,'the'US'District'Court,'presided'by'Judge'Manuel'L.'Real,'
rendered' a' Final' Judgment'(Final. Judgment)' awarding' the' plaintiff' class' a'
total'of'One'Billion'Nine'Hundred'Sixty'Four'Million'Five'Thousand'Eight'
Hundred'Fifty'Nine'Dollars'and'Ninety'Cents'($1,964,005,859.90).''
On'20'May'1997,'the'present'petitioners'filed'Complaint'with'the'Regional'
Trial' Court,' City' of' Makati' (Makati' RTC)' for' the' enforcement' of' the' Final.
Judgment.'' They' alleged' that' they' are' members' of' the' plaintiff' class' in'
whose'favor'the'US'District'Court'awarded'damages.''
On'5'February'1998,'the'Marcos'Estate'filed'a'motion'to'dismiss,'raising,'
among'others,'the'nonTpayment'of'the'correct'filing'fees.''It'alleged'that'
petitioners'had'only'paid'Four'Hundred'Ten'Pesos'(P410.00)'as'docket'and'
filing' fees,' notwithstanding' the' fact' that' they' sought' to' enforce' a'
monetary' amount' of' damages' in' the' amount' of' over' Two' and' a' Quarter'
Billion'US'Dollars'(US$2.25'Billion).'''
Judge' Santiago' Javier' Ranada' of' the' Makati' RTC' issued' the' subject' Order'
dismissing'the'complaint'without'prejudice.'Respondent'judge'opined'that'
contrary' to' the' petitioners' submission,' the' subject' matter' of' the'
complaint' was' indeed' capable' of' pecuniary' estimation,' as' it' involved' a'
judgment' rendered' by' a' foreign' court' ordering' the' payment' of' definite'
sums'of'money,'allowing'for'easy'determination'of'the'value'of'the'foreign'
judgment.' On' that' score,' Section' 7(a)' of' Rule' 141' of' the' Rules' of' Civil'
Procedure' would' find' application,' and' the' RTC' estimated' the' proper'
amount' of' filing' fees' was' approximately' Four' Hundred' Seventy' Two'
Million'Pesos,'which'obviously'had'not'been'paid.'
The'Commission'on'Human'Rights'(CHR)'was'permitted'to'intervene'in'this'
case.' It' urged' that' the' petition' be' granted' and' a' judgment' rendered,'
ordering'the'enforcement'and'execution'of'the'District'Court'judgment'in'
accordance'with'Section'48,'Rule'39'of'the'1997'Rules'of'Civil'Procedure.'
For' the' CHR,' the' Makati' RTC' erred' in' interpreting' the' action' for' the'
execution'of'a'foreign'judgment'as'a'new'case,'in'violation'of'the'principle'
that' once' a' case' has' been' decided' between' the' same' parties' in' one'
country'on'the'same'issue'with'finality,'it'can'no'longer'be'relitigated'again'
in'another'country.The'CHR'likewise'invokes'the'principle'of'comity,'and'of'
vested'rights.'
'
ISSUES/HELD:'
I.' Filing' Fees?' CORRECT,' incapable' of' pecuniary' estimation,' enforcement' of'
judgment.'(copy'pasted'from'CivPro'digest)''
II.'Basis'for'enforcement'of'foreign'judgment?'Sec.'48,'Rule'39'RoC'and'Consti,'Art'II,'
Sec.'2.'
'
RATIO:'
I.'Filing'Fees:'(CIVPRO)'
SECTION'7'(A)'RULE'141'IS'APPLICABLE'ONLY'IF'IT'IS'A'MONEY'CLAIM'NOT'BASED'
ON'JUDGEMENT'
Sec'7'(a)'states:'For'filing'an'action'or'a'permissive'counterclaim'or'
money'claim'against'an'estate'not'based'on'judgment...'
The'provision'of'the'law'does'not'make'any'distinction'between'a'local'
judgment'and'a'foreign'judgment,'and'where'the'law'does'not'distinguish,'
we'shall'not'distinguish'
Petitioners''complaint'may'have'been'lodged'against'an'estate,'but'it'is'
clearly'based'on'a'judgment,'the'Final.Judgment'of'the'US'District'Court,'
being'so'Section7'(a)'R'141'is'not'applicable''
SUBJECT'MATTER'OF'AN'ENFORCEMENT'OF'A'FOREIGN'JUDGEMENT'CASE'IS'THE'
FOREIGN'JUDGEMENT'
W/N'a'case'is'capable'of'pecuniary'estimation''
Generally'to'determine'w/n'a'claim'is'capable'of'pecuniary'estimation,'you'
have'to'look'at'its'primary'issue.'
If'it'is'primarily'for'the'recovery'of'a'sum'of'money'claim'then'it'is'capable'
of'pecuniary'estimation'but'if'the'money'claim'is'just'incidental'or'is'just'a'
consequence,'such'a'case'may'not'be'estimated'in'terms'of'money''
If'[the'case]'is'primarily'for'the'recovery'of'a'sum'of'money,'the'claim'is'
considered'capable'of'pecuniary'estimation''(Singsong.v..Isabela.Sawmill.
and.Raymundo.v..Court.of.Appeals)'
Examples:'Specific'performance'of'a'contract,'case'for'support,'annulment'
of'judgement'or'to'foreclose'a'mortgage'(Lapitan.v..Scandia)'
'However'the'court'said'that,'in'this'case,'even'if'the'subject'matter'is'
the'foreign'judgement,'there'is'no'denying'that'the'enforcement'of'the'
foreign'judgment'will'necessarily'result'in'the'award'of'a'definite'sum'of'
money.'Thus'it'is'it'is'capable'of'pecuniary'estimation'
APPLICABLE'FILING'FEE'
Rule'141'section'7(b)'(I'think'the'fees'were'updated/increased'by'SC'thus'
the'rule'says'P600'rather'than'P410'which'was'paid'by'the'petitioners)'
o (b)'For'filing'
1. Actions'where'the'valueof'the'subject'matter'cannot'be'
estimated'P'P'600.00'
2. Special'civil'actions'except'judicial'foreclosure'which'shall'be'
governed'by'paragraph'(a)'above'P'P'600.00'
3. All'other'actions'not'involving'property''T'P'600.00'
Sec'7'bP1'contended'by'the''petitioner'is'not'applicable'since'the'US'
District'Court'judgment'is'one'capable'of'pecuniary'estimation'
But'Sec7Pa'contended'by'the'respondents'is'not'also'applicable'since'this'
case'is'based'on'a'judgment'
Thus'SC'said'Sec7bP3''(others)'is'applicable'which'has'the'same'fees'as'
Sec7bP1'paid'by'the'petitioner'
Court'who'has'jurisdiction'to'hear'cases'for'enforcement'of'foreign'
judgements:'RTC''(see'BP'129'Sec'19'&33)'
1. Sec.'19.'Jurisdiction.in.civil.cases.''Regional'Trial'Courts'shall'
exercise'exclusive'original'jurisdiction:'
xxx'
(6)'In'all'cases'not'within'the'exclusive'jurisdiction'of'any'court,'
tribunal,'person'or'body'exercising'jurisdiction'or'any'court,'
tribunal,'person'or'body'exercising'judicial'or'quasiPjudicial'
functions.''
2. Section'33'jurisdiction'for'MTCs''
It'only'involves'cause'of'action'or'subject'matter'
pertaining'to'an'assertion'of'rights'and'interests'over'
property'or'a'sum'of'money'
But'a'mentioned'above,'subject'matter'of'an'action'to'
enforce'a'foreign'judgment'is'the'foreign'judgment'itself,'
and'the'cause'of'action'arising'from'the'adjudication'of'
such'judgment''
Since'MTCs'have'no'jurisdiction,'RTC'has'jurisdiction'
3.
'
II.'ENFORCEMENT'OF'FOREIGN'JUDGMENT'
The'rules'of'comity,'utility'and'convenience'of'nations'have'established'a'
usage'among'civilized'states'by'which'final'judgments'of'foreign'courts'of'
competent' jurisdiction' are' reciprocally' respected' and' rendered'
efficacious'under'certain'conditions'that'may'vary'in'different'countries.''
This' principle' was' prominently' affirmed' in' the' leading' American' case' of'
Hilton& v.& Guyot' and' expressly' recognized' in' our' jurisprudence' beginning'
with' Ingenholl& v.& Walter& E.& Olsen& && Co.' The' conditions' required' by' the'
Philippines' for' recognition' and' enforcement' of' a' foreign' judgment' were'
originally'contained'in'Section' 311' of' the' Code' of' Civil' Procedure,' which'
was'taken'from'the'California'Code'of'Civil'Procedure'which,'in'turn,'was'
derived' from' the' California' Act' of' March' 11,' 1872.' Remarkably,' the'
procedural'rule'now' outlined' in' Section' 48,' Rule' 39' of' the' Rules' of' Civil'
Procedure' has' remained' unchanged' down' to' the' last' word' in' nearly' a'
century.'Section'48'states:'
SEC.'48.'''''''Effect'of'foreign'judgments.''The'effect'of'a'judgment'of'a'tribunal'of'a'foreign'
country,'having'jurisdiction'to'pronounce'the'judgment'is'as'follows:'
a) In' case' of' a' judgment' upon' a' specific' thing,' the' judgment' is' conclusive' upon' the'
title'to'the'thing;'
b) In'case'of'a'judgment'against'a'person,'the'judgment'is'presumptive'evidence'of'a'
right'as'between'the'parties'and'their'successors'in'interest'by'a'subsequent'title;'
'
In' either' case,' the' judgment' or' final' order' may' be' repelled' by' evidence' of' a' want' of'
jurisdiction,'want'of'notice'to'the'party,'collusion,'fraud,'or'clear'mistake'of'law'or'fact.'
'
For'an'action'in.rem,'the'foreign'judgment'is'deemed'conclusive'upon'the'
title'to'the'thing,'while'in'an'action'in'personam,.the'foreign'judgment'is'
presumptive,' and' not' conclusive,' of' a' right' as' between' the' parties' and'
their'successors'in'interest'by'a'subsequent'title.'
However,' in' both' cases,' the' foreign' judgment' is' susceptible' to'
impeachment'in'our'local'courts'on'the'grounds'of'want'of'jurisdiction'or'
notice'to'the'party,'collusion,'fraud,'or'clear'mistake'of'law'or'fact.'
'Thus,' the' party' aggrieved' by' the' foreign' judgment' is' entitled' to' defend'
against'the'enforcement'of'such'decision'in'the'local'forum.'It'is'essential'
that'there'should'be'an'opportunity'to'challenge'the'foreign'judgment,'in'
order'for'the'court'in'this'jurisdiction'to'properly'determine'its'efficacy.'
Consequently,' the' party' attacking' a' foreign' judgment' has' the' burden' of'
overcoming'the'presumption'of'its'validity.'
The'rules'are'silent'as'to'what'initiatory'procedure'must'be'undertaken'
in'order'to'enforce'a'foreign'judgment'in'the'Philippines.'But'there'is'no'
question'that'the'filing'of'a'civil'complaint'is'an'appropriate'measure'for'
such'purpose.''
As' stated' in' Section' 48,' Rule' 39,' the' actionable' issues' are' generally'
restricted' to' a' review' of' jurisdiction' of' the' foreign' court,' the' service' of'
personal'notice,'collusion,'fraud,'or'mistake'of'fact'or'law.''
The' limitations' on' review' is' in' consonance' with' a' strong' and' pervasive'
policy'in'all'legal'systems'to'limit'repetitive'litigation'on'claims'and'issues.'
Otherwise' known' as' the' policy' of' preclusion,' it' seeks' to' protect' party'
expectations' resulting' from' previous' litigation,' to' safeguard' against' the'
harassment' of' defendants,' to' insure' that' the' task' of' courts' not' be'
increased'by'neverPending'litigation'of'the'same'disputes.'
There' have' been' attempts' to' codify' through' treaties' or' multilateral'
agreements'the'standards'for'the'recognition'and'enforcement'of'foreign'
judgments,' but' these' have' not' borne' fruition.' The' members' of' the'
European'Common'Market'accede'to'the'Judgments.Convention,'signed'in'
1978,'which'eliminates'as'to'participating'countries'all'of'such'obstacles'to'
recognition'such'as'reciprocity'and'rvision.au.fond.'The'most'ambitious'of'
these'attempts'is'the'Convention&on&the&Recognition&and&Enforcement&of&
Foreign&Judgments&in&Civil&and&Commercial&Matters,'prepared'in'1966'by'
the'Hague'Conference'of'International'Law.'While'it'has'not'received'the'
ratifications'needed'to'have'it'take'effect,'it'is'recognized'as'representing'
current' scholarly' thought' on' the' topic.' Neither' the' Philippines' nor' the'
United'States'are'signatories'to'the'Convention.'
Yet' even' if' there' is' no' unanimity' as' to' the' applicable' theory' behind' the'
recognition' and' enforcement' of' foreign' judgments' or' a' universal' treaty'
rendering' it' obligatory' force,' there' is' consensus' that' the' viability' of' such'
recognition'and'enforcement'is'essential.''
Salonga,' whose' treatise' on' private' international' law' is' of' worldwide'
renown,'points'out:'
o Whatever' be' the' theory' as' to' the' basis' for' recognizing' foreign'
judgments,'there'can'be'little'dispute'that'the'end'is'to'protect'
the'reasonable'expectations'and'demands'of'the'parties.'Where'
the'parties'have'submitted'a'matter'for'adjudication'in'the'court'
of' one' state,' and' proceedings' there' are' not' tainted' with'
irregularity,' they' may' fairly' be' expected' to' submit,' within' the'
state'or'elsewhere,'to'the'enforcement'of'the'judgment'issued'by'
the'court.'
There' is' also' consensus' as' to' the' requisites' for' recognition' of' a' foreign'
judgment' and' the' defenses' against' the' enforcement' thereof.' As' earlier'
discussed,'the'exceptions'enumerated'in'Section'48,'Rule'39'have'remain'
unchanged'since'the'time'they'were'adapted'in'this'jurisdiction'from'long'
standing' American' rules.' The' requisites' and' exceptions' as' delineated'
under'Section'48'are'but'a'restatement'of'generally'accepted'principles'of'
international' law.' Section' 98' of' The' Restatement,' Second,' Conflict' of'
Laws,'states'that'a' valid' judgment' rendered' in' a' foreign' nation' after' a'
fair' trial' in' a' contested' proceeding' will' be' recognized' in' the' United'
States,''
o the' term' valid' brings' into' play' requirements' such' notions' as'
valid'jurisdiction'over'the'subject'matter'and'parties.''
o The'notion'that'fraud'or'collusion'may'preclude'the'enforcement'
of'a'foreign'judgment'finds'affirmation'with'foreign'jurisprudence'
and'commentators,''
o as' well' as' the' doctrine' that' the' foreign' judgment' must' not'
constitute'a'clear'mistake'of'law'or'fact.''
o public' policy' as' a' defense' to' the' recognition' of' judgments'
serves' as' an' umbrella' for' a' variety' of' concerns' in' international'
practice'which'may'lead'to'a'denial'of'recognition.'
The' viability' of' the' public' policy' defense' against' the' enforcement' of' a'
foreign'judgment'has'been'recognized'in'this'jurisdiction.'
o This' defense' allows' for' the' application' of' local' standards' in'
reviewing' the' foreign' judgment,' especially' when' such' judgment'
creates'only'a'presumptive'right,'as'it'does'in'cases'wherein'the'
judgment'is'against'a'person.'
There' is' no' obligatory' rule' derived' from' treaties' or' conventions' that'
requires' the' Philippines' to' recognize' foreign' judgments,' or' allow' a'
procedure'for'the'enforcement'thereof.'''
However,'generally'accepted'principles'of'international'law,'by'virtue'of'
the'incorporation'clause'of'the'Constitution,'form'part'of'the'laws'of'the'
land'even'if'they'do'not'derive'from'treaty'obligations.'
o The' classical' formulation' in' international' law' sees' those'
customary'rules'accepted'as'binding'result'from'the'combination'
two' elements:' (1)' the' established,' widespread,' and' consistent'
practice' on' the' part' of' States;' and' (2)' a' psychological' element'
known'as'the'opinion&juris&sive&necessitates'(opinion'as'to'law'or'
necessity).' Implicit' in' the' latter' element' is' a' belief' that' the'
practice' in' question' is' rendered' obligatory' by' the' existence' of' a'
rule'of'law'requiring'it.'
As' earlier' demonstrated,' there' is' a' widespread' practice' among' states'
accepting' in' principle' the' need' for' such' recognition' and' enforcement,'
albeit' subject' to' limitations' of' varying' degrees.' The' fact' that' there' is' no'
binding' universal' treaty' governing' the' practice' is' not' indicative' of' a'
widespread'rejection'of'the'principle,'but'only'a'disagreement'as'to'the'
imposable' specific' rules' governing' the' procedure' for' recognition' and'
enforcement.'
Aside'from'the'widespread'practice,'it'is'indubitable'that'the'procedure'for'
recognition' and' enforcement' is' embodied' in' the' rules' of' law,' whether'
statutory'or'jurisprudential,'adopted'in'various'foreign'jurisdictions.'In'the'
Philippines,'this'is'evidenced'primarily'by'Section'48,'Rule'39'of'the'Rules'
of' Court' which' has' existed' in' its' current' form' since' the' early' 1900s.'
Certainly,' the' Philippine' legal' system' has' long' ago' accepted' into' its'
jurisprudence' and' procedural' rules' the' viability' of' an' action' for'
enforcement' of' foreign' judgment,' as' well' as' the' requisites' for' such' valid'
enforcement,'as'derived'from'internationally'accepted'doctrines.'''
The' procedure' and' requisites' outlined' in' Section' 48,' Rule' 39' derive' their'
efficacy' not' merely' from' the' procedural' rule,' but' by' virtue' of' the'
incorporation'clause'of'the'Constitution.''The'Supreme'Court'is'obliged,'as'
are'all'State'components,'to'obey'the'laws'of'the'land,'including'generally'
accepted' principles' of' international' law' which' form' part' thereof,' such' as'
those' ensuring' the' qualified' recognition' and' enforcement' of' foreign'
judgments.'
Thus,'relative'to'the'enforcement'of'foreign'judgments'in'the'Philippines,'
it'emerges'that'there'is'a'general'right'recognized'within'our'body'of'laws,'
and'affirmed'by'the'Constitution,'to'seek'recognition'and'enforcement'of'
foreign' judgments,' as' well' as' a' right' to' defend' against' such' enforcement'
on' the' grounds' of' want' of' jurisdiction,' want' of' notice' to' the' party,'
collusion,'fraud,'or'clear'mistake'of'law'or'fact.'
POINT' OF' THIS' WHOLE' DISCUSSION:' PHILIPPINES' RECOGNIZES' FOREIGN'
JUDGMENTS' ON' THE' BASIS' OF' INTERNATIONAL' COMITY,' GENERALLY'
ACCEPTED'PRINCIPALS'OF'INTL'LAW,'INCLUSION'CLAUSE'OF'1987'CONSTI'
(Art.'II,'Sec.'2),'Sec.'48,'Rule'39'of'Rules'of'Court.''
'
WHAT'HAPPENED'TO'CASE?'
Use' Php410' as' docket' fees' because' its' an' action' incapable' of' pecuniary'
estimation'
Rules' of' Court' promote' reasonableness,' to' ask' for' 42M' worth' of' docket'
fees'is'excessive'and'wouldnt'promote'justice'blahblah'
'
WHEREFORE,'the'petition'is'GRANTED.'The'assailed'orders'are'NULLIFIED'and'SET'
ASIDE,' and' a' new' order' REINSTATING' Civil' Case' No.' 97P1052' is' hereby' issued.' No'
costs.'
SO'ORDERED.'
.
ALIEN'TORT'ACT:'(source:'Wikipedia)&
'
Public'International'Law'
1. Bayan'v.'Zamora'(RK)'
Sources'of'International'Law:'Treaties'
'
[G.R.'No.'138570.'October'10,'2000]
BAYAN'(Bagong'Alyansang'Makabayan),'a'JUNK'VFA'MOVEMENT,'BISHOP'TOMAS'MILLAMENA'(Iglesia'Filipina'Independiente),'BISHOP'
ELMER'BOLOCAN'(United'Church'of'Christ'of'the'Phil.),'DR.'REYNALDO'LEGASCA,'MD,'KILUSANG'MAMBUBUKID'NG'
PILIPINAS,'KILUSANG'MAYO'UNO,'GABRIELA,'PROLABOR,'and'the'PUBLIC'INTEREST'LAW'CENTER,'petitioners,*
vs.*EXECUTIVE'SECRETARY'RONALDO'ZAMORA,'FOREIGN'AFFAIRS'SECRETARY'DOMINGO'SIAZON,'DEFENSE'SECRETARY'
ORLANDO'MERCADO,'BRIG.'GEN.'ALEXANDER'AGUIRRE,'SENATE'PRESIDENT'MARCELO'FERNAN,'SENATOR'FRANKLIN'
DRILON,'SENATOR'BLAS'OPLE,'SENATOR'RODOLFO'BIAZON,'and'SENATOR'FRANCISCO'TATAD,*respondents.*
G.R.'No.'138572.'October'10,'2000]'
PHILIPPINE'CONSTITUTION'ASSOCIATION,'INC.(PHILCONSA),'EXEQUIEL'B.'GARCIA,'AMADOGAT'INCIONG,'CAMILO'L.'SABIO,'AND'RAMON'
A.'GONZALES,'petitioners,*vs.*HON.'RONALDO'B.'ZAMORA,'as'Executive'Secretary,'HON.'ORLANDO'MERCADO,'as'
Secretary'of'National'Defense,'and'HON.'DOMINGO'L.'SIAZON,'JR.,'as'Secretary'of'Foreign'Affairs,'respondents'
[G.R.'No.'138587.'October'10,'2000]'
TEOFISTO'T.'GUINGONA,'JR.,'RAUL'S.'ROCO,'and'SERGIO'R.'OSMEA'III,'petitioners,*vs.*JOSEPH'E.'ESTRADA,'RONALDO'B.'ZAMORA,'
DOMINGO'L.'SIAZON,'JR.,'ORLANDO'B.'MERCADO,'MARCELO'B.'FERNAN,'FRANKLIN'M.'DRILON,'BLAS'F.'OPLE'and'
RODOLFO'G.'BIAZON,'respondents*
[G.R.'No.'138680.'October'10,'2000]'
INTEGRATED'BAR'OF'THE'PHILIPPINES,'Represented'by'its'National'President,'Jose'Aguila'Grapilon,'petitioners,*vs.*JOSEPH'EJERCITO'
ESTRADA,'in'his'capacity'as'President,'Republic'of'the'Philippines,'and'HON.'DOMINGO'SIAZON,'in'his'capacity'as'
Secretary'of'Foreign'Affairs,'respondents.['
G.R.'No.'138698.'October'10,'2000]'
JOVITO'R.'SALONGA,'WIGBERTO'TAADA,'ZENAIDA'QUEZONdAVENCEA,'ROLANDO'SIMBULAN,'PABLITO'V.'SANIDAD,'MA.'SOCORRO'I.'
DIOKNO,'AGAPITO'A.'AQUINO,'JOKER'P.'ARROYO,'FRANCISCO'C.'RIVERA'JR.,'RENE'A.V.'SAGUISAG,'KILOSBAYAN,'
MOVEMENT'OF'ATTORNEYS'FOR'BROTHERHOOD,'INTEGRITY'AND'NATIONALISM,'INC.'(MABINI),'petitioners,*vs.*THE'
EXECUTIVE'SECRETARY,'THE'SECRETARY'OF'FOREIGN'AFFAIRS,'THE'SECRETARY'OF'NATIONAL'DEFENSE,'SENATE'PRESIDENT'
MARCELO'B.'FERNAN,'SENATOR'BLAS'F.'OPLE,'SENATOR'RODOLFO'G.'BIAZON,'AND'ALL'OTHER'PERSONS'ACTING'THEIR'
CONTROL,'SUPERVISION,'DIRECTION,'AND'INSTRUCTION'IN'RELATION'TO'THE'VISITING'FORCES'AGREEMENT'
(VFA),'respondents.'
BUENA,'J.:'
FACTS:'
Brief'History:'
March!14,!1947,!US!and!PH!forged!the!RP8US!Military!Bases!Agreement'
August!30,!1951,!US!and!PH!entered!into!a!Mutual!Defense!Treaty!'
RP8US!Military!Bases!Agreement!expired!in!1991\'
o the!PH!Senate!rejected!the!proposed!RP8US!Treaty!of!Friendship,!
Cooperation!and!Security!in!Sept!16,!1991!which!would!have!extended!
presence!of!US!military!bases!in!the!PH.!'
July!18,!1997,!US!(represented!by!Kurt!Campbell,!Defense!Deputy!Assistant!
Secretary)!and!PH!(Rodolfo!Severino!Jr.,!DFA!undersecretary)!met!to!discuss!the!
possible!elements!of!the!Visiting!Forces!Agreement!(VFA)'
This!resulted!to!a!series!of!conferences!and!negotiations!which!culminated!on!
January!12!and!13,!1998.!Then!President!Fidel!Ramos!approved!the!VFA,!which!was!
respectively!signed!by!DFA!Secretary!Domingo!Siazon!and!US!Ambassador!Thomas!
Hubbard!'
October!5,!1998,!President!Joseph!Estrada,!through!DFA!Secretary,!ratified!the!VFA.!'
October!6,!1998,!President!transmitted!to!the!Senate!for!concurrence!pursuant!to!
Section'21,'Article'VII'of'the'1987'Constitution.!The!VFA!was!referred!to!the!
committee!on!National!Defense!and!Security!for!recommendation!and!hearing'
'
May!3,!1999,!the!committee!submitted!Propose!Senate!Resolution!No!443!
recommending!concurrence!of!the!Senate!to!the!VFA'
May!27,!1999,!proposed!Senate!Resolution!No.!443!was!approved!by!the!Senate!via!
2/3!vote!of!its!members'
June!1,!1999,!the!VFA!officially!entered!into!force!after!Exchange'of'Notes!between!
Secretary!Siazon!and!US!Ambassador!Hubbard.!*!see#case#for#full#text#of#VFA'
'
The'Present'Action'
Via!these!consolidated!petitions!for!certiorari!and!prohibition,!petitioners!8!as!
legislators,!non8governmental!organizations,!citizens!and!taxpayers!8!assail!the!
constitutionality!of!the!VFA!and!impute!to!herein!respondents!grave!abuse!of!
discretion!in!ratifying!the!agreement.'
'
ISSUES*:'
1. Do!petitioners!have!legal!standing!as!concerned!citizens,!taxpayers,!or!legislators!to!
question!the!constitutionality!of!the!VFA?'
2. Is!the!VFA!governed!by!the!provisions!of!Section!21,!Article!VII!or!of!Section!25,!
Article!XVIII!of!the!Constitution?!
3. Does!the!VFA!constitute!an!abdication!of!Philippine!sovereignty?!
a.!Are!Philippine!courts!deprived!of!their!jurisdiction!to!hear!and!try!offenses!
committed!by!US!military!personnel?!
b.!Is!the!Supreme!Court!deprived!of!its!jurisdiction!over!offenses!punishable!
by!reclusion!perpetua!or!higher?!
4. Does!the!VFA!violate:!
a.!the!equal!protection!clause!under!Section!1,!Article!III!of!the!Constitution?!
b.!the!Prohibition!against!nuclear!weapons!under!Article!II,!Section!8?!
c.!Section! 28! (4),! Article! VI! of! the! Constitution! granting! the! exemption! from!
taxes!and!duties!for!the!equipment,!materials!supplies!and!other!properties!
imported!into!or!acquired!in!the!Philippines!by,!or!on!behalf,!of!the!US!Armed!
Forces?!
HELD/RATIO:'
1. Petitioners'Bayan'Muna,'etc.'have'no'standing.!!!
A!party!bringing!a!suit!challenging!the!Constitutionality!of!a!law!must!show!not!only!
that!the!law!is!invalid,!but!that!he!has!sustained!or!is!in!immediate!danger!of!
sustaining!some!direct!injury!as!a!result!of!its!enforcement,!and!not!merely!that!he!
suffers!thereby!in!some!indefinite!way.!!Petitioners!have!failed!to!show!that!they!
are!in!any!danger!of!direct!injury!as!a!result!of!the!VFA.!
As!taxpayers,!they!have!failed!to!establish!that!the!VFA!involves!the!exercise!by!
Congress!of!its!taxing!or!spending!powers.!A!taxpayers!suit!refers!to!a!case!where!
the!act!complained!of!directly!involves!the!illegal!disbursement!of!public!funds!
1!
Public'International'Law'
2.
Sources'of'International'Law:'Treaties'
derived!from!taxation.!!Before!he!can!invoke!the!power!of!judicial!review,!he!must!
specifically!prove!that!he!has!sufficient!interest!in!preventing!the!illegal!
expenditure!of!money!raised!by!taxation!and!that!he!will!sustain!a!direct!injury!as!a!
result!of!the!enforcement!of!the!questioned!statute!or!contract.!It!is!not!sufficient!
that!he!has!merely!a!general!interest!common!to!all!members!of!the!
public.!!Clearly,!inasmuch!as!no!public!funds!raised!by!taxation!are!involved!in!this!
case,!and!in!the!absence!of!any!allegation!by!petitioners!that!public!funds!are!being!
misspent!or!illegally!expended,!petitioners,!as!taxpayers,!have!no!legal!standing!to!
assail!the!legality!of!the!VFA.!
Similarly,!the!petitioner8legislators!(Tanada,!Arroyo,!etc.)!do!not!possess!the!
requisite!locus!standi!to!sue.!In!the!absence!of!a!clear!showing!of!any!direct!injury!
to!their!person!or!to!the!institution!to!which!they!belong,!they!cannot!sue.!!The!
Integrated!Bar!of!the!Philippines!(IBP)!is!also!stripped!of!standing!in!these!cases.!
The!IBP!lacks!the!legal!capacity!to!bring!this!suit!in!the!absence!of!a!board!
resolution!from!its!Board!of!Governors!authorizing!its!National!President!to!
commence!the!present!action.!
Notwithstanding,'in'view'of'the'paramount'importance'and'the'constitutional'
significance'of'the'issues'raised,'the'Court'may'brush'aside'the'procedural'barrier'
and'takes'cognizance'of'the'petitions.'
'
APPLICABLE'CONSTITUTIONAL'PROVISION'
'
Petitioners!argue!that!Section!25,!Article!XVIII!is!applicable!considering!that!the!
VFA!has!for!its!subject!the!presence!of!foreign!military!troops!in!the!Philippines.!'
Respondents,!on!the!contrary,!maintain!that!Section!21,!Article!VII!should!apply!
inasmuch!as!the!VFA!is!not!a!basing!arrangement!but!an!agreement!which!involves!
merely!the!temporary!visits!of!United!States!personnel!engaged!in!joint!military!
exercises.'
o Section'21,'Article'VII88!No!treaty!or!international!agreement!shall!be!
valid!and!effective!unless!concurred!in!by!at!least!two8thirds!of!all!the!
Members!of!the!Senate.'
o Section'25,'Article'XVIII!after!the!expiration!in!1991!of!the!Agreement!
between!the!Republic!of!the!Philippines!and!the!United!States!of!America!
concerning!Military!Bases,!foreign!military!bases,!troops,!or!facilities!shall!
not!be!allowed!in!the!Philippines!except!under!a!treaty!duly!concurred!in!
by!the!senate!and,!when!the!Congress!so!requires,!ratified!by!a!majority!
of!the!votes!cast!by!the!people!in!a!national!referendum!held!for!that!
purpose,!and!recognized!as!a!treaty!by!the!other!contracting!State.'
SC:'Section!25,!Art!XVIII,!not!section!21,!Art.!VII,!applies,!as!the!VFA!involves!the!
presence!of!foreign!military!troops!in!the!Philippines.'
'
The!Constitution!contains!two!provisions!requiring!the!concurrence!of!
the!Senate!on!treaties!or!international!agreements.!Section!21,!Article!VII!
reads:![n]o!treaty!or!international!agreement!shall!be!valid!and!effective!
unless!concurred!in!by!at!least!two8thirds!of!all!the!Members!of!the!
Senate.!Section!25,!Article!XVIII,!provides:[a]fter!the!expiration!in!1991!
of!the!Agreement!between!the!Republic!of!the!Philippines!and!the!United!
States!of!America!concerning!Military!Bases,!foreign!military!bases,!
troops,!or!facilities!shall!not!be!allowed!in!the!Philippines!except!under!a!
treaty!duly!concurred!in!by!the!Senate!and,!when!the!Congress!so!
requires,!ratified!by!a!majority!of!the!votes!cast!by!the!people!in!a!
national!referendum!held!for!that!purpose,!and!recognized!as!a!treaty!by!
the!other!contracting!State.!
Section'21,'Article'VII'deals'with'treaties'or'international'agreements'in'
general,!in!which!case,!the!concurrence!of!at!least!two8thirds!(2/3)!of!all!
the!Members!of!the!Senate!is!required!to!make!the!treaty!valid!and!
binding!to!the!Philippines.!This!provision!lays!down!the!general!rule!on!
treaties.!All#treaties,#regardless#of#subject#matter,#coverage,#or#particular#
designation#or#appellation,#requires#the#concurrence#of#the#Senate#to#be#
valid#and#effective.#
In'contrast,'Section'25,'Article'XVIII'is'a'special'provision'that'applies'to'
treaties'which'involve'the'presence'of'foreign'military'bases,'troops'or'
facilities'in'the'Philippines.!Under!this!provision,!the!concurrence!of!the!
Senate!is!only!one!of!the!requisites!to!render!compliance!with!the!
constitutional!requirements!and!to!consider!the!agreement!binding!on!
the!Philippines.!Sec#25#further#requires#that#foreign#military#bases,#
troops,#or#facilities#may#be#allowed#in#the#Philippines#only#by#virtue#of#a#
treaty#duly#concurred#in#by#the#Senate,#ratified#by#a#majority#of#the#votes#
cast#in#a#national#referendum#held#for#that#purpose#if#so#required#by#
Congress,#and#recognized#as#such#by#the#other#contracting#state.#
On!the!whole,!the!VFA'is'an'agreement'which'defines'the'treatment'of'
US'troops'visiting'the'Philippines.!It!provides!for!the!guidelines!to!govern!
such!visits!of!military!personnel,!and!further!defines!the!rights!of!the!US!
and!RP!government!in!the!matter!of!criminal!jurisdiction,!movement!of!
vessel!and!aircraft,!import!and!export!of!equipment,!materials!and!
supplies.!
Undoubtedly,!Section'25,'Article'XVIII,'which'specifically'deals'with'
treaties'involving'foreign'military'bases,'troops,'or'facilities,'should'
apply'in'the'instant'case.!To!a!certain!extent,!however,!the!provisions!of!
Section'21,'Article'VII'will'find'applicability!with!regard!to!determining!
2!
Public'International'Law'
3.
Sources'of'International'Law:'Treaties'
the!number'of'votes!required!to!obtain!the!valid!concurrence!of!the!
Senate.!
o It!is!specious!to!argue!that!Section!25,!Article!XVIII!is!inapplicable!to!mere!
transient!agreements!for!the!reason!that!there!is!no!permanent!placing!
of!structure!for!the!establishment!of!a!military!base.!The!Constitution!
makes!no!distinction!between!transient!and!permanent.!We!find!
nothing!in!Section!25,!Article!XVIII!that!requires!foreign!troops!or!facilities!
to!be!stationed!or!placed!permanently!in!the!Philippines.!!When!no!
distinction!is!made!by!law;!the!Court!should!not!distinguish.!We'do'not'
subscribe'to'the'argument'that'Section'25,'Article'XVIII'is'not'
controlling'since'no'foreign'military'bases,'but'merely'foreign'troops'
and'facilities,'are'involved'in'the'VFA.!The!proscription!covers!foreign!
military!bases,!troops,!or!facilities.!Stated!differently,!this!prohibition!is!
not!limited!to!the!entry!of!troops!and!facilities!without!any!foreign!bases!
being!established.!The'clause'does'not'refer'to'foreign'military'bases,'
troops,'or'facilities'collectively'but!treats!them!as!separate!and!
independent!subjects,!such!that!three!different!situations!!are!
contemplated!!a!military!treaty!the!subject!of!which!could!be!either!(a)!
foreign!bases,!(b)!foreign!troops,!or!(c)!foreign!facilities!'any'of'the'
three'standing'alone'places'it'under'the'coverage'of'Section'25,'Article'
XVIII.'
'
WERE'REQUIRMENTS'OF'SEC'25,'ART'XVIII'COMPLIED'WHEN'SENATE'GAVE'
CONCURRENCE'TO'VFA?'YES'
'
Section!25,!Article!XVIII!disallows!foreign!military!bases,!troops,!or!facilities!in!the!
country,!unless!the!following!conditions!are!sufficiently!met:!(a)!it!must!be!under!a!
treaty;!(b)!the!treaty!must!be!duly!concurred!in!by!the!Senate!and,!when!so!
required!by!Congress,!ratified!by!a!majority!of!the!votes!cast!by!the!people!in!a!
national!referendum;!and!(c)!recognized!as!a!treaty!by!the!other!contracting!
state.!!There'is'no'dispute'as'to'the'presence'of'the'first'two'requisites'in'the'case'
of'the'VFA.'The!concurrence!handed!by!the!Senate!through!Resolution!No.!18!is!in!
accordance!with!the!Constitution,!as!there!were!at!least!16!Senators!that!
concurred.!
As'to'condition'(c),!the!Court!held!that!the!phrase!recognized'as'a'treaty!means!
that!the!other!contracting!party!accepts!or!acknowledges!the!agreement!as!a!
treaty.!To'require'the'US'to'submit'the'VFA'to'the'US'Senate'for'concurrence'
pursuant'to'its'Constitution,'is'to'accord'strict'meaning'to'the'phrase.!Well8
entrenched!is!the!principle!that!the!words!used!in!the!Constitution!are!to!be!given!
their!ordinary!meaning!except!where!technical!terms!are!employed,!in!which!case!
the!significance!thus!attached!to!them!prevails.!Its!language!should!be!understood!
in!the!sense!they!have!in!common!use.!
'
Moreover,!it'is'inconsequential'whether'the'United'States'treats'the'VFA'only'as'an'
executive'agreement!because,!under!international!law,!an'executive'agreement'is'as'binding'
as'a'treaty.!To!be!sure,!as!long!as!the!VFA!possesses!the!elements!of!an!agreement!under!
international!law,!the!said!agreement!is!to!be!taken!equally!as!a!treaty.!
a.
A'treaty,!as!defined!by!the!Vienna!Convention!on!the!Law!of!Treaties,!is!an!
international!instrument!concluded!between!States!in!written!form!and!governed!
by!international!law,!whether!embodied!in!a!single!instrument!or!in!two!or!more!
related!instruments,!and!whatever!its!particular!designation.!There!are!many!
other!terms!used!for!a!treaty!or!international!agreement,!some!of!which!are:!act,#
protocol,#agreement,#compromis#d#arbitrage,#concordat,#convention,#declaration,#
exchange#of#notes,#pact,#statute,#charter#and#modus#vivendi.!All!writers,!from!Hugo!
Grotius!onward,!have!pointed!out!that!the!names!or!titles!of!international!
agreements!included!under!the!general!term!treaty*have!little!or!no!legal!
significance.!Certain!terms!are!useful,!but!they!furnish!little!more!than!mere!
description.!
b. Article'2(2)'of!the!Vienna!Convention!provides!that!the!provisions!of!paragraph!1!
regarding!the!use!of!terms!in!the!present!Convention!are!without!prejudice!to!the!
use!of!those!terms,!or!to!the!meanings!which!may!be!given!to!them!in!the!internal!
law! of! the! State.! Thus,' in' international' law,' there' is' no' difference' between'
treaties'and'executive'agreements'in'their'binding'effect'upon'states'concerned,'
as' long' as' the' negotiating' functionaries' have' remained' within' their'
powers'International'law'continues'to'make'no'distinction'between'treaties'and'
executive'agreements:'they'are'equally'binding'obligations'upon'nations.'
The'records'reveal'that'the'US'Government,'through'Ambassador'Hubbard,'has'
stated'that'the'US'has'fully'committed'to'living'up'to'the'terms'of'the'VFA.!For!as!
long!as!the!US!accepts!or!acknowledges!the!VFA!as!a!treaty,!and!binds!itself!further!
to!comply!with!its!treaty!obligations,!there!is!indeed!compliance!with!the!mandate!
of!the!Constitution.!
Worth'stressing'too,!is!that!the!ratification!by!the!President!of!the!VFA,!and!the!
concurrence!of!the!Senate,!should!be!taken!as!a!clear!and!unequivocal!expression!
of!our!nations!consent!to!be!bound!by!said!treaty,!with!the!concomitant!duty!to!
uphold!the!obligations!and!responsibilities!embodied!thereunder.!!Ratification!is!
generally!held!to!be!an!executive!act,!undertaken!by!the!head!of!the!state,!through!
which!the!formal!acceptance!of!the!treaty!is!proclaimed.!A!State!may!provide!in!its!
domestic!legislation!the!process!of!ratification!of!a!treaty.!In!our!jurisdiction,!the!
power!to!ratify!is!vested!in!the!President!and!not,!as!commonly!believed,!in!the!
legislature.!The!role!of!the!Senate!is!limited!only!to!giving!or!withholding!its!
consent,!or!concurrence,!to!the!ratification.!
With!the!ratification!of!the!VFA!it!now!becomes!obligatory!and!incumbent!on!our!
part,!under!principles!of!international!law!(pacta!sunt!servanda),!to!be!bound!by!
the!terms!of!the!agreement.!Thus,!no!less!than!Section!2,!Article!II!declares!that!the!
3!
Public'International'Law'
Sources'of'International'Law:'Treaties'
Philippines!adopts!the!generally!accepted!principles!of!international!law!as!part!of!
the!law!of!the!land!and!adheres!to!the!policy!of!peace,!equality,!justice,!freedom,!
cooperation!and!amity!with!all!nations.!
!
4.
ON'GRAVE'ABUSE'OF'DISCRETION!
As!regards!the!power!to!enter!into!treaties!or!international!agreements,!the!
Constitution!vests!the!same!in!the!President,!subject!only!to!the!concurrence!of!at!
least!two8thirds!vote!of!all!the!members!of!the!Senate.!In!this!light,!the!negotiation!
of!the!VFA!and!the!subsequent!ratification!of!the!agreement!are!exclusive!acts!
which!pertain!solely!to!the!President,!in!the!lawful!exercise!of!his!vast!executive!
and!diplomatic!powers!granted!him!no!less!than!by!the!fundamental!law!itself.!Into#
the#field#of#negotiation#the#Senate#cannot#intrude,#and#Congress#itself#is#powerless#
to#invade#it'
onsequently,!the!acts!or!judgment!calls!of!the!President!involving!the!VFA8
specifically!the!acts!of!ratification!and!entering!into!a!treaty!and!those!necessary!or!
incidental!to!the!exercise!of!such!principal!acts!8!squarely!fall!within!the!sphere!of!
his!constitutional!powers!and!thus,!may!not!be!validly!struck!down,!much!less!
calibrated!by!this!Court,!in!the!absence!of!clear!showing!of!grave!abuse!of!power!or!
discretion.'
Even!if!he!erred!in!submitting!the!VFA!to!the!Senate!for!concurrence!under!the!
provisions!of!Section!21!of!Article!VII,!instead!of!Section!25!of!Article!XVIII!of!the!
Constitution,!still,!the!President!may!not!be!faulted!or!scarred,!much!less!be!
adjudged!guilty!of!committing!an!abuse!of!discretion!in!some!patent,!gross,!and!
capricious!manner.'
Corollarily,!the!Senate,!in!the!exercise!of!its!discretion!and!acting!within!the!limits!
of!such!power,!may!not!be!similarly!faulted!for!having!simply!performed!a!task!
conferred!and!sanctioned!by!no!less!than!the!fundamental!law.'
For!the!role!of!the!Senate!in!relation!to!treaties!is!essentially!legislative!in!
[57]
character; !the!Senate,!as!an!independent!body!possessed!of!its!own!erudite!
mind,!has!the!prerogative!to!either!accept!or!reject!the!proposed!agreement,!and!
whatever!action!it!takes!in!the!exercise!of!its!wide!latitude!of!discretion,!pertains!to!
the!wisdom!rather!than!the!legality!of!the!act.!'
True!enough,!rudimentary!is!the!principle!that!matters!pertaining!to!the!wisdom!of!
a!legislative!act!are!beyond!the!ambit!and!province!of!the!courts!to!inquire.'
In!fine,!absent!any!clear!showing!of!grave!abuse!of!discretion!on!the!part!of!
respondents,!this!Court8!as!the!final!arbiter!of!legal!controversies!and!staunch!
sentinel!of!the!rights!of!the!people!8!is!then!without!power!to!conduct!an!incursion!
and!meddle!with!such!affairs!purely!executive!and!legislative!in!character!and!
nature.!'
*Issues'as'enumerated'in'the'case.'
'
NOTE:'SC'did'not'answer'issues'no.'3a,b,'and'4a,'b,'c'
'
WHEREFORE,! in! light! of! the! foregoing! disquisitions,! the! instant! petitions! are! hereby!
DISMISSED.!
SO'ORDERED.'
2. Lim'v.'Executive'Secretary'(RC)'
Topic:!Treaty!Interpretation,!examine!the!!
Treaties/Laws:!
Mutual!Defense!Treaty!(MDT)!!Bases!Agreement!
Visiting!Forces!Agreement!(VFA)!!replaced!the!Bases!Agreement!when!it!expired!
Vienna!Convention!on!the!Law!of!Treaties!(just!Articles!31!and!32,!in!ratio!part)!
UN!Charter!!
Philippine!Constitution!
'
G.R.'No.'151445''''''April'11,'2002!
Petitioner:! ARTHUR' D.' LIM' and' PAULINO' R.' ERSANDO,! SANLAKAS' and' PARTIDO' NG'
MANGGAGAWA,!petitioner8intervenors!
Respondents:! HONORABLE' EXECUTIVE' SECRETARY' as' alter' ego' of' HER' EXCELLENCEY'
GLORIA' MACAPAGALdARROYO,' and' HONORABLE' ANGELO' REYES' in' his' capacity' as'
Secretary'of'National'Defense'
!
FACTS:!
This!case!involves!a!petition!for!certiorari!and!prohibition!as!well!as!a!petition8in8
intervention,!praying!that!respondents'be'restrained'from'proceeding'with'the'sod
called' "Balikatan' 02d1"! and! that! after! due! notice! and! hearing,! that! judgment! be!
rendered! issuing! a! permanent! writ! of! injunction! and/or! prohibition' against' the'
deployment' of' U.S.' troops' in' Basilan' and' Mindanao' for' being' illegal' and' in'
violation'of'the'Constitution.!
Beginning!January!2002,!personnel!from!the!armed!forces!of!the!United!States!of!
America! started! arriving! in! Mindanao! to! take! part,! in! conjunction! with! the!
Philippine!military,!in!"Balikatan!0281."!These!so8called!"Balikatan"!exercises!are!the!
largest! combined' training' operations' involving' Filipino' and' American' troops.! In!
theory,!they!are!a!simulation'of'joint'military'maneuvers'pursuant'to'the'Mutual'
Defense'Treaty,!a!bilateral!defense!agreement!entered!into!by!the!Philippines!and!
the!United!States!in!1951.!
Prior! to! 2002,! the! last! "Balikatan"! was! held! in! 1995.! In! the! meantime,! the!
respective! governments! of! the! two! countries! agreed! to! hold! joint! exercises! on! a!
reduced! scale.! The! lack! of! consensus! was! eventually! cured! when! the! two! nations!
4!
Public'International'Law'
Sources'of'International'Law:'Treaties'
concluded!the!Visiting!Forces!Agreement!(V!FA)!in!1999.!
The! entry! of! American! troops! into! Philippine! soil! is! proximately' rooted' in' the'
international' antidterrorism' campaign' declared' by' President' George' W.' Bush! in!
reaction!to!the!tragic!events!that!occurred!on!9/11.!!
On! February! 1,! 2002,! petitioners! Arthur! D.! Lim! and! Paulino! P.! Ersando! filed! this!
petition! for! certiorari! and! prohibition,! attacking! the! constitutionality! of! the! joint!
exercise! in! their! capacity! as! citizens,! lawyers! and! taxpayers.! They! were! joined!
subsequently! by! SANLAKAS! and! PARTIDO! NG! MANGGAGAWA,! both! party8Iist!
organizations!whose!members!reside!in!Zamboanga!and!Sulu,!who!filed!a!petition8
in8intervention!on!February!11,!2002.!
On!February!71!2002!the!Senate!conducted!a!hearing!on!the!"Balikatan"!exercise!
wherein!Vice8President!Teofisto!T.!Guingona,!Jr.,!who!is!concurrently!Secretary!of!
Foreign.!Affairs,!presented!the!Draft!Terms!of!Reference!(TOR).!Five!days!later,!he!
approved! the! TOR,! which! we! quote! hereunder:! (at! end! of! digest! if! you! want! to!
look)!
!
ISSUE/HELD:!
I.!W/N!petitioners!have!standing?!YES'(minor'issue'in'grey)'
II.!W/N!the!Balikatan!Exercises!fall!within!the!purview!of!the!Visiting!Forces!Agreement?!YES'
III.!W/N!VFA!sanctions!actual!combat?!NO'
!
!
RATIO:!
I.!STANDING:!YES'THEY'HAVE'STANDING'bec.'of'the'importance'of'the'issue'
Anent! their! locus# standi,# the! Solicitor! General! argues! that! first,# they! may! not! file!
suit! in! their! capacities! as,! taxpayers! inasmuch! as! it! has! not! been! shown! that!
"Balikatan! 0281! "! involves! the! exercise! of! Congress'! taxing! or! spending! powers.!
Second,# their! being! lawyers! does! not! invest! them! with! sufficient! personality! to!
initiate!the!case,!citing!our!ruling!in!Integrated* Bar* of* the* Philippines* v.* Zamora.#
Third,!Lim!and!Ersando!have!failed!to!demonstrate!the!requisite!showing!of!direct!
personal!injury.!We'agree.!
It!is!also!contended!that!the!petitioners!are!indulging!in!speculation.!The!Terms!of!
Reference! are! clear! as! to! the! extent! and! duration! of! "Balikatan! 0281,"! the! issues!
raised! by! petitioners! are! premature,! as! they! are! based! only! on! a! fear! of! future#
violation!of!the!Terms!of!Reference.!Even!petitioners'!resort!to!a!special!civil!action!
for!certiorari!is!assailed!on!the!ground!that!the!writ!may!only!issue!on!the!basis!of!
established!facts.!
Given'the'primordial'importance'of'the'issue'involved,'it'will'suffice'to'reiterate'
our'view'on'this'point'in'a'related'case:'
o In!view!of!the!paramount!importance!and!the!constitutional!significance!
'
of!the!issues!raised!in!the!petitions,!this!Court,!in!the!exercise!of!its!sound!
discretion,!brushes!aside!the!procedural!barrier!and!takes!cognizance!of!
the!petitions,!
o Gonzales' vs.' COMELEC,' Daza' vs.' Singson,' and' Basco' vs.' Phil,'
Amusement'and'Gaming'Corporation,!where!we!emphatically!held:!
Considering!however!the!importance!to!the!public!of!the!case!at!bar,!and!
in! keeping! with! the! Court's' duty,' under' the' 1987' Constitution,' to'
determine'whether'or'not'the'other'branches'of'the'government'have'
kept'themselves'within'the'limits'of'the'Constitution'and'the'laws'that'
they' have' not' abused' the' discretion' given' to' them,! the! Court! has!
brushed! aside! technicalities! of! procedure! and! has! taken! cognizance! of!
this!petition.!xxx'!
o Kilosbayan' vs.' Guingona,' Jr.,! this! Court! ruled! that! in! cases! of!
transcendental! importance,! the' Court' may' relax' the' standing'
requirements'and'allow'a'suit'to'prosper'even'where'there'is'no'direct'
injury'to'the'party'claiming'the'right'of'judicial'review.!
Primary'concern'of'this'case'is'the'INTERPRETATION'of'the'VFA.!
!
II.!FALL!WITHIN!VFA?!YES'
At! any! rate,! petitioners'! concerns! on! the! lack! of! any! specific! regulation! on! the!
latitude!of!activity!US!personnel!may!undertake!and!the!duration!of!their!stay!has!
been!addressed!in!the!Terms!of!Reference.!
The! first! of! these! is! the! Mutual' Defense' Treaty! (MDT,! for! brevity).! The! MDT! has!
been!described!as!the!"core"!of!the!defense!relationship!between!the!Philippines!
and! its! traditional! ally,! the! United! States.! Its! aim! is! to! enhance! the! strategic! and!
technological! capabilities! of! our! armed! forces! through! joint! training! with! its!
American!counterparts;!the!"Balikatan"!is!the!largest!such!training!exercise!directly!
supporting!the!MDT's!objectives.!It!is!this'treaty'to'which'the'VFA'adverts'and'the'
obligations'thereunder'which'it'seeks'to'reaffirm.'
The!lapse!of!the!USdPhilippine' Bases' Agreement' in' 1992' and' the' decision' not' to'
renew'it'created'a'vacuum'in'USdPhilippine'defense'relations,'that'is,'until'it'was'
replaced' by' the' Visiting' Forces' Agreement.! On! October! 10,! 2000,! by! a! vote! of!
eleven!to!three,!this!Court!upheld!the!validity!of!the!VFA.!!
The!VFA!provides!the!"regulatory!mechanism"!by!which!"United!States!military!and!
civilian! personnel! [may! visit]! temporarily! in! the! Philippines! in! connection! with!
activities! approved! by! the! Philippine! Government."! It! is! the! VFA! which! gives'
continued'relevance'to'the'MDT'despite'the'passage'of'years.'Its'primary'goal'is'
to' facilitate' the' promotion' of' optimal' cooperation' between' American' and'
Philippine'military'forces!in!the!event!of!an!attack!by!a!common!foe.!
The!VFA!permits!United!States!personnel!to!engage,!on!an!impermanent!basis,!in!
5!
Public'International'Law'
Sources'of'International'Law:'Treaties'
"activities,"' the' exact' meaning' of' which' was' left' undefined.! (MAIN' PROBLEM)!
The!expression!is!ambiguous,!permitting!a!wide!scope!of!undertakings!subject!only!
to!the!approval!of!the!Philippine!government.!The!sole!encumbrance!placed!on!its!
definition!is!couched!in!the!negative,!in!that!United!States!personnel!must!"abstain'
from'any'activity'inconsistent*with*the*spirit*of'this*agreement,*and*in*particular,*
from*any*political*activity."#All!other!activities,!in!other!words,!are!fair!game.!
We! are! not! left! completely! unaided.! The! Vienna' Convention' on' the' Law' of'
Treaties,! which! contains! provisos! governing! interpretations! of! international!
agreements,!state:!
SECTION!3.!INTERPRETATION!OF!TREATIES!
Article*31'
General#rule#of#interpretation!
1.! A! treaty! shall! be! interpreted' in' good' faith' ill' accordance' with' the' ordinary'
meaning'to'be'given'to'the'tenus'of'the'treaty'in'their'context'and'in'the'light'of'
its'object'and'purpose.'
2.! The! context! for! the! purpose! of! the! interpretation! of! a! treaty! shall! comprise,! in!
addition!to!the!text,!including!its!preamble!and!annexes:!
(a)! any! agreement! relating' to' the' treaty' which' was' made' between' all'
the'parties'in'connexion'with'the'conclusion'of'the'treaty;'
(b)!any!instrument'which'was'made'by'one'or'more'parties'in'connexion!
with!the!conclusion!of!the!treaty!and!accepted'by'the'other'parties'as'an'
instrument'related'to'the'party'.'
3.!There!shall!be!taken!into!account,!together!with!the!context:!
(a)! any! subsequent' agreement' between' the' parties' regarding' the'
interpretation'of'the'treaty!or!the!application!of!its!provisions;!
(b)! any' subsequent' practice' in' the' application' of' the' treaty' which'
establishes'the'agreement'of'the'parties'regarding'its'interpretation;!
(c)! any! relevant' rules' of' international' law' applicable' in' the' relations!
between!the!parties.!
4.!A!special!meaning!shall!be!given!to!a!term!if!it!is!established!that!the!parties!so!
intended.!
*
Article*32'
Supplementary#means#of#interpretation!
Recourse' may' be' had' to' supplementary' means' of' interpretation,' including' the'
preparatory'work'of'the'treaty'and'the'circumstances'of'its'conclusion,!in!order!to!
confirm! the! meaning! resulting! from! the! application! of! article! 31,! or! to! determine!
the!meaning!when!the!interpretation!according!to!article!31!:!
(a)!leaves!the!meaning!ambiguous!or!obscure;!or!
(b)!leads!to!a!result!which!is!manifestly!absurd!unreasonable.!
!
It'is'clear'from'the'foregoing'that'the'cardinal'rule'of'interpretation'must'involve'
an' examination' of' the' text,' which' is' presumed' to' verbalize' the' parties''
'
intentions.!The!Convention!likewise!dictates!what!may!be!used!as!aids!to!deduce!
the! meaning! of! terms,! which! it! refers! to! as! the! context! of! the! treaty,! as! well! as!
other!elements!may!be!taken!into!account!alongside!the!aforesaid!context.!!
After!studied!reflection,!it!appeared!farfetched!that!the!ambiguity!surrounding!the!
meaning! of! the! word! .'activities"! arose! from! accident.! In! our! view,! it' was'
deliberately'made'that'way'to'give'both'parties'a'certain'leeway'in'negotiation.!
In! this! manner,! visiting! US! forces! may! sojourn! in! Philippine! territory! for! purposes!
other!than!military.!As!conceived,!the!joint!exercises!may!include!training!on!new!
techniques!of!patrol!and!surveillance!to!protect!the!nation's!marine!resources,!sea!
search8and8rescue!operations!to!assist!vessels!in!distress,!disaster!relief!operations,!
civic! action! projects! such! as! the! building! of! school! houses,! medical! and!
humanitarian!missions,!and!the!like.!
!
III.!WHAT!IS!AUTHORIZED!BY!VFA?!No'combat!''
Granted!that!"Balikatan!0281"!is!permitted!under!the!terms!of!the!VFA,!what!may!
US!forces!legitimately!do!in!furtherance!of!their!aim!to!provide!advice,!assistance!
and! training! in! the! global! effort! against! terrorism?! Differently! phrased,! may!
American! troops! actually! engage! in! combat! in! Philippine! territory?! The! Terms! of!
Reference!are!explicit!enough.!Paragraph'8'of'section'I!stipulates!that!US!exercise!
participants!may!not*engage!in!combat'"except*in*self?defense."#!
The!target!of!"Balikatan!0281!I"!the!Abu!Sayyaf,!cannot!reasonably!be!expected!to!
sit!idly!while!the!battle!is!brought!to!their!very!doorstep.!They!cannot!be!expected!
to!pick!and!choose!their!targets!for!they!will!not!have!the!luxury!of!doing!so.!!
The!indirect!violation!is!actually!petitioners'!worry,!that!in!reality,!"Balikatan!0281!"!
is!actually!a!war!principally!conducted!by!the!United!States!government,!and!that!
the!provision!on!self8defense!serves!only!as!camouflage!to!conceal!the!true!nature!
of!the!exercise.!A!clear!pronouncement!on!this!matter!thereby!becomes!crucial.!
Neither'the'MDT'nor'the'VFA'allow'foreign'troops'to'engage'in'an'offensive'war'
on' Philippine' territory.! We! bear! in! mind! the! salutary! proscription! stated! in! the!
Charter'of'the'United'Nations,!to!wit:!
!
Article!2!
The!Organization!and!its!Members,!in!pursuit!of!the!Purposes!stated!in!Article!1,!shall!act!
in!accordance!with!the!following!Principles.!
xxx!!!!!!xxx!!!!!!xxx!!!!!!xxx!
4.' All' Members' shall' refrain' in' their' international' relations' from' the' threat' or' use' of'
force' against' the' territorial' integrity' or' political' independence!of!any!state,!or!in!any!
other!manner!inconsistent!with!the!Purposes!of!the!United!Nations.!
6!
Public'International'Law'
Sources'of'International'Law:'Treaties'
In! the! same! manner,! both' the' Mutual' Defense' Treaty' and' the' Visiting' Forces'
Agreement,' as' in' all' other' treaties' and' international' agreements' to' which' the'
Philippines'is'a'party,'must'be'read'in'the'context'of'the'1987'Constitution.!Thus,!
in!the!Declaration!of!Principles!and!State!Policies,!Article!II,!it!is!provided!that:!
xxx!!!!!!xxx!!!!!!xxx!!!!!!xxx!
SEC.! 2.! The! Philippines! renounces! war! as! an! instrument! of! national! policy,! adopts! the!
generally! accepted! principles! of! international! law! as! part! of! the! law! of! the! land! and!
adheres!to!the!policy!of!peace,!equality,!justice,!freedom,!cooperation,!and!amity!with!
all!nations.!
xxx!!!!!!xxx!!!!!!xxx!!!!!!xxx!
SEC.!7.!The!State!shall!pursue!an!independent!foreign!policy.!In!its!relations!with!other!
states! the! paramount! consideration! shall! be! national! sovereignty,! territorial! integrity,!
national!interest,!and!the!right!to!self8!determination.!
SEC.!8.!The!Philippines,!consistent!with!the!national!interest,!adopts!and!pursues!a!policy!
of!freedom!from!nuclear!weapons!in!the!country.!
xxx!!!!!!xxx!!!!!!xxx!!!!!!xxx!
!
'
given!a!standing!equal,!not!superior,!to!national!legislation.!
From!the!perspective!of!public!international!law,!a!treaty!is!favored!over!municipal!
law!pursuant!to!the!principle!of!pacta#sunt#servanda.#Hence,!"[e]very!treaty!in!force!
is! binding! upon! the! parties! to! it! and! must! be! performed! by! them! in! good! faith."!
Further,!a!party!to!a!treaty!is!not!allowed!to!"invoke!the!provisions!of!its!internal!
law!as!justification!for!its!failure!to!perform!a!treaty."!
Our!Constitution!espouses!the!opposing!view.!Witness!our!jurisdiction!as!I!stated!in!
section!5!of!Article!VIII:!
!
The!Supreme!Court!shall!have!the!following!powers:!
xxx!!!!!!xxx!!!!!!xxx!!!!!!xxx!
(2)! Review,! revise,! reverse,! modify,! or! affirm! on! appeal! or! certiorari,# as! the! law! or! the!
Rules!of!Court!may!provide,!final!judgments!and!order!of!lower!courts!in:!
(A)! All! cases! in! which! the! constitutionality# or# validity# of# any# treaty,# international# or#
executive# agreement,# law,! presidential# decree,! proclamation,! order,! instruction,!
ordinance,!or!regulation!is!in!question.!
The!Constitution!also!regulates!the!foreign!relations!powers!of!the!Chief!Executive!
when! it! provides! that! "[n]o! treaty! or! international! agreement! shall! be! valid! and!
effective! unless! concurred! in! by! at! least! two8thirds! of! all! the! members! of! the!
Senate."!Even!more!pointedly,!the!Transitory'Provisions'state:!
Sec.! 25.! After! the! expiration! in! 1991! of! the! Agreement! between! the! Republic! of! the!
Philippines!and!the!United!States!of!America!concerning!Military!Bases,!foreign!military!
bases,! troops! or! facilities! shall! not! be! allowed! in! the! Philippines! except! under! a! treaty!
duly! concurred! in! by! the! Senate! and,! when! the! Congress! so! requires,! ratified! by! a!
majority!of!the!votes!cast!by!the!people!in!a!national!referendum!held!for!that!purpose,!
and!recognized!as!a!treaty!by!the!other!contracting!state.!
!
!
In!Ichong*v.*Hernandez,#we!ruled!that!the!provisions'of'a'treaty'are'always'subject'
to' qualification' or' amendment' by' a' subsequent' law,' or' that' it' is' subject' to' the'
police'power'of'the'State.!!
In! Gonzales* v.* Hechanova,! the! Court! has! ruled! our! Constitution! authorizes! the!
nullification! of! a! treaty,! not! only! when! it! conflicts! with! the! fundamental! law,! but,#
also,#when#it#runs#counter#to#an#act#of#Congress.!
The! foregoing! premises! leave! us! no' doubt' that' US' forces' are' prohibited' /' from'
engaging'in'an'offensive'war'on'Philippine'territory.'
Yet'a'nagging'question'remains:'are'American'troops'actively'engaged'in'combat'
alongside' Filipino' soldiers' under' the' guise' of' an' alleged' training' and' assistance'
exercise?! Contrary! to! what! petitioners! would! have! us! do,! we! cannot! take! judicial!
notice! of! the! events! transpiring! down! south,! as! reported! from! the! saturation!
coverage! of! the! media.! As! a! rule,! we' do' not' take' cognizance' of' newspaper' or'
electronic'reports'per*se,*not'because'of'any'issue'as'to'their'truth,'accuracy,'or'
impartiality,' but' for' the' simple' reason' that' facts' must' be' established' in'
accordance'with'the'rules'of'evidence.!!
It!is!all!too!apparent!that!the!determination!thereof!involves!basically!a!question#of#
fact.# On! this! point,! we! must! concur! with! the! Solicitor! General! that! the! present!
subject!matter!is!not!a!fit!topic!for!a!special!civil!action!for!certiorari.#We!have!held!
in!too!many!instances!that!questions!of!fact!are!not!entertained!in!such!a!remedy.!
The! sole! object! of! the! writ! is! to! correct! errors! of! jurisdiction! or! grave! abuse! of!
discretion:! The! phrase! "grave! abuse! of! discretion"! has! a! precise! meaning! in! law,!
7!
Public'International'Law'
Sources'of'International'Law:'Treaties'
denoting!abuse!of!discretion!"too!patent!and!gross!as!to!amount!to!an!evasion!of!a!
positive! duty,! or! a! virtual! refusal! to! perform! the! duty! enjoined! or! act! in!
contemplation!of!law,!or!where!the!power!is!exercised!in!an!arbitrary!and!despotic!
manner!by!reason!of!passion!and!personal!hostility."!
In!this!connection,!it!will!not!be!amiss!to!add!that!the!Supreme!Court!is!not!a!trier!
of!facts.!
From!the!facts!obtaining,!we!find!that!the!holding!of!"Balikatan!0281"!joint!military!
exercise!has!not!intruded!into!that!penumbra!of!error!that!would!otherwise!call!for!
correction! on! our! part.! In! other! words,! respondents! in! the! case! at! bar! have! not!
committed!grave!abuse!of!discretion!amounting!to!lack!or!excess!of!jurisdiction.!
'
WHEREFORE,! the! petition! and! the! petition8in8intervention! are! hereby! DISMISSED! without!
prejudice! to! the! filing! of! a! new! petition! sufficient! in! form! and! substance! in! the! proper!
Regional!Trial!Court.!
SO'ORDERED.!
!
THIS!IS!THE!VFA:!
I.!POLICY!LEVEL!
1.! The! Exercise! shall! be! consistent! with! the! Philippine! Constitution! and! all! its! activities! shall! be! in!
consonance!with!the!laws!of!the!land!and!the!provisions!of!the!RP8US!Visiting!Forces!Agreement!(VFA).!
2.!The!conduct!of!this!training!Exercise!is!in!accordance!with!pertinent!United!Nations!resolutions!against!
global!terrorism!as!understood!by!the!respective!parties.!
3.! No! permanent! US! basing! and! support! facilities! shall! be! established.! Temporary! structures! such! as!
those!for!troop!billeting,!classroom!instruction!and!messing!may!be!set!up!for!use!by!RP!and!US!Forces!
during!the!Exercise.!
4.!The!Exercise!shall!be!implemented!jointly!by!RP!and!US!Exercise!Co8Directors!under!the!authority!of!
the!Chief!of!Staff,!AFP.!In!no!instance!will!US!Forces!operate!independently!during!field!training!exercises!
(FTX).!AFP!and!US!Unit!Commanders!will!retain!command!over!their!respective!forces!under!the!overall!
authority!of!the!Exercise!Co8Directors.!RP!and!US!participants!shall!comply!with!operational!instructions!
of!the!AFP!during!the!FTX.!
5.!The!exercise!shall!be!conducted!and!completed!within!a!period!of!not!more!than!six!months,!with!the!
projected!participation!of!660!US!personnel!and!3,800!RP!Forces.!The!Chief!of!Staff,!AFP!shall!direct!the!
Exercise! Co8Directors! to! wind! up! and! terminate! the! Exercise! and! other! activities! within! the! six! month!
Exercise!period.!
6.! The! Exercise! is! a! mutual! counter8terrorism! advising,! assisting! and! training! Exercise! relative! to!
Philippine! efforts! against! the! ASG,! and! will! be! conducted! on! the! Island! of! Basilan.! Further! advising,!
assisting! and! training! exercises! shall! be! conducted! in! Malagutay! and! the! Zamboanga! area.! Related!
activities!in!Cebu!will!be!for!support!of!the!Exercise.!
7.! Only! 160! US! Forces! organized! in! 128man! Special! Forces! Teams! shall! be! deployed! with! AFP! field,!
commanders.!The!US!teams!shall!remain!at!the!Battalion!Headquarters!and,!when!approved,!Company!
Tactical!headquarters!where!they!can!observe!and!assess!the!performance!of!the!AFP!Forces.!
8.!US!exercise!participants!shall!not!engage!in!combat,!without!prejudice!to!their!right!of!self8defense.!
9.! These! terms! of! Reference! are! for! purposes! of! this! Exercise! only! and! do! not! create! additional! legal!
'
obligations!between!the!US!Government!and!the!Republic!of!the!Philippines.!
!
II.!EXERCISE!LEVEL!
1.!TRAINING!
a.!The!Exercise!shall!involve!the!conduct!of!mutual!military!assisting,!advising!and!training!of!RP!and!US!
Forces! with! the! primary! objective! of! enhancing! the! operational! capabilities! of! both! forces! to! combat!
terrorism.!
b.!At!no!time!shall!US!Forces!operate!independently!within!RP!territory.!
c.!Flight!plans!of!all!aircraft!involved!in!the!exercise!will!comply!with!the!local!air!traffic!regulations.!
2.!ADMINISTRATION!&!LOGISTICS!
a.! RP! and! US! participants! shall! be! given! a! country! and! area! briefing! at! the! start! of! the! Exercise.! This!
briefing!shall!acquaint!US!Forces!on!the!culture!and!sensitivities!of!the!Filipinos!and!the!provisions!of!the!
VF!A.!The!briefing!shall!also!promote!the!full!cooperation!on!the!part!of!the!RP!and!US!participants!for!
the!successful!conduct!of!the!Exercise.!
b.!RP!and!US!participating!forces!may!share,!in!accordance!with!their!respective!laws!and!regulations,!in!
the!use!of!their!resources,!equipment!and!other!assets.!They!will!use!their!respective!logistics!channels.!
c.!Medical!evaluation!shall!be!jointly!planned!and!executed!utilizing!RP!and!US!assets!and!resources.!
d.!Legal!liaison!officers!from!each!respective!party!shall!be!appointed!by!the!Exercise!Directors.!
3.!PUBLIC!AFFAIRS!
a.!Combined!RP8US!Information!Bureaus!shall!be!established!at!the!Exercise!Directorate!in!Zamboanga!
City!and!at!GHQ,!AFP!in!Camp!Aguinaldo,!Quezon!City.!
b.! Local! media! relations! will! be! the! concern! of! the! AFP! and! all! public! affairs! guidelines! shall! be! jointly!
developed!by!RP!and!US!Forces.!
c.! Socio8Economic! Assistance! Projects! shall! be! planned! and! executed! jointly! by! RP! and! US! Forces! in!
accordance! with! their! respective! laws! and! regulations,! and! in! consultation! with! community! and! local!
government!officials.!
Contemporaneously,!Assistant!Secretary!for!American!Affairs!Minerva!Jean!A.!Falcon!and!United!States!
Charge#d'#Affaires#Robert!Fitts!signed!the!Agreed!Minutes!of!the!discussion!between!the!Vice8President!
4
and!Assistant!Secretary!Kelly. !
3. Pimentel'v.'Executive'Secretary'(JG)'
TOPIC:!Treaty!Ratification;!the!power!to!ratify!a!treaty!is!vested!in!the!President,!subject!to!
the!concurrence!of!the!Senate!
!
Treaties/Laws:'
Rome!Statute!
Section!21,!Article!VII!of!the!1987!Constitution!
Executive! Order! No.! 459! ! Guidelines! in! the! Negotiation! of! International!
Agreements!and!Its!Ratification!
!
G.R.!No.:!158088!
!
8!
Public'International'Law'
Sources'of'International'Law:'Treaties'
Petitioners:! Senator! Aquilino! Pimentel,! Jr.,! Rep.! Etta! Rosales,! Philippine! Coalition! For! The!
Establishment! Of! The! International!Criminal! Court,! Task! Force! Detainees! Of! The!
Philippines,!Families! Of! Victims! Of! Involuntary! Disappearances,! Bianca! Hacintha! R.! Roque,!
Harrison! Jacob! R.! Roque,!Ahmed! Paglinawan,! Ron! P.! Salo,!! Leavides! G.! Domingo,!
Edgardo!Carlo!Vistan,!Noel!Villaroman,!Celeste!Cembrano,!Liza!Abiera,!Jaime!Arroyo,!Marwil!
Llasos,!!Cristina!Atendido,!Israfel!Fagela,!And!Romel!Bagares,!!!!
!
Respondents:! Office! Of! The! Executive! Secretary,! represented! by! Hon.! Alberto! Romulo,! and!
the!Department!Of!Foreign!Affairs,!represented!by!Hon.!Blas!Ople!!
July!6,!2005!
Ponente:!Puno,!J.!!
FACTS:'
The!Rome' Statute!established!the!International!Criminal!Court,!which!shall!have!
the! power! to! exercise! its! jurisdiction! over! persons! for! the! most! serious! crimes! of!
international! concern! xxx! and! shall! be! complementary! to! the! national! criminal!
jurisdictions.!!
o Its! jurisdiction! covers! the! crime! of! genocide,! crimes! against! humanity,!
war!crimes!and!the!crime!of!aggression!as!defined!in!the!Statute.!!
o The! Statute! was! opened! for! signature! by! all! states! in! Rome! on! July! 17,!
1998! and! had! remained! open! for! signature! until! December! 31,! 2000! at!
the!United!Nations!Headquarters!in!New!York.!!
o The!Philippines!signed!the!Statute!on!December!28,!2000!through!Charge#
d# Affairs!Enrique! A.! Manalo! of! the! Philippine! Mission! to! the! United!
Nations.!!
o Its! provisions,! however,! require! that! it! be! subject! to! ratification,!
acceptance!or!approval!of!the!signatory!states.!
Petitioners!filed!a!petition!for!mandamus!to!compel!the!respondents!!the!Office!
of!the!Executive!Secretary!and!the!Department!of!Foreign!Affairs!!to!transmit'the'
signed' text' of' the' treaty' to' the' Senate! of! the! Philippines! for! ratification! for! its!
concurrence!in!accordance!with!Sec.!21,!Art.!VII!of!the!1987!Philippine!Constitution.!
o Section!21,!Article!VII!of!the!1987!Constitution!provides!that!no!treaty!or!
international! agreement! shall! be! valid! and! effective! unless! concurred! in!
by!at!least!two8thirds!of!all!the!Members!of!the!Senate.!!The!1935!and!
the!1973!Constitution!also!required!the!concurrence!by!the!legislature!to!
the!treaties!entered!into!by!the!executive.!
Petitioners!contention:!(not!accepted!by!the!SC)!
o The! ratification! of! a! treaty,! under! both! domestic! law! and! international!
law,!is!a!function!of!the!Senate.!!!
'
Hence,! it! is! the! duty! of! the! executive! department! to! transmit!
the!signed!copy!of!the!Rome!Statute!to!the!Senate!to!allow!it!to!
exercise!its!discretion!with!respect!to!ratification!of!treaties.!!!
o The! Philippines! has! a! ministerial! duty! to! ratify! the! Rome! Statute! under!
treaty!law!and!customary!international!law.!!!
o Petitioners! invoke! the! Vienna! Convention! on! the! Law! of! Treaties!
enjoining! the! states! to! refrain! from! acts! which! would! defeat! the! object!
and! purpose! of! a! treaty! when! they! have! signed! the! treaty! prior! to!
ratification! unless! they! have! made! their! intention! clear! not! to! become!
parties!to!the!treaty.!
Respondents!contention:!
o The! executive! department! has! no! duty! to! transmit! the! Rome! Statute! to!
the!Senate!for!concurrence.!!
!
ISSUES/HELD:'
Whether! the! Executive! Secretary! and! the! Department! of! Foreign! Affairs! have!
a!ministerial!duty! to! transmit! to! the! Senate! the! copy! of! the! Rome! Statute! signed! by! a!
member! of! the! Philippine! Mission! to! the! United! Nations! even! without! the! signature! of! the!
President!!NO!
In! our! system! of! government,! the! President,! being! the! head! of! state,! is! the!
countrys!sole!representative!with!foreign!nations.!!As!the!chief!architect!of!foreign!
policy,!the!President!acts!as!the!countrys!mouthpiece!with!respect!to!international!
affairs.!!Hence,!the!President!is!vested!with!the!authority!to!deal!with!foreign!states!
and! governments,! extend! or! withhold! recognition,! maintain! diplomatic! relations,!
enter!into!treaties,!and!otherwise!transact!the!business!of!foreign!relations.!!In!the!
realm! of! treaty8making,! the! President! has! the! sole! authority! to! negotiate! with!
other!states.!
Nonetheless,! the! Constitution! provides! a! limitation! to! the! Presidents! power! by!
requiring!the!concurrence!of!2/3!of!all!the!members!of!the!Senate!for!the!validity!
of!the!treaty!entered!into!by!him.!
o By!requiring!the!concurrence!of!the!legislature!in!the!treaties!entered!into!by!
the! President,! the! Constitution! ensures! a! healthy! system! of! checks! and!
balance!necessary!in!the!nations!pursuit!of!political!maturity!and!growth.!
The! court! described! the! treaty8making! process,! according! to! Justice! Isagani! Cruz!
book!on!International!Law!
o The! usual! steps! in! the! treaty8making! process! are:!! negotiation,!
signature,! ratification,! and! exchange! of! the! instruments! of!
ratification.!
Petitioners! equate! the! signing! of! the! treaty! by! the! Philippine! representative! with!
ratification,!which!are!two!separate!and!distinct!steps!in!the!treaty8making!process.!
9!
Public'International'Law'
Sources'of'International'Law:'Treaties'
The!signature,!performed!by!the!states!authorized!representative!in!the!diplomatic!
mission,!is!primarily!intended!as!a!means!of!authenticating!the!instrument!and!as!a!
symbol! of! the! good! faith! of! the! parties.!! Ratification,! on! the! other! hand,! is! the!
formal! act! executive! in! nature,! undertaken! by! the! head! of! the! state! or! of! the!
government.!
Thus,!the!President'has'the'discretion'even'after'the'signing'of'the'treaty'by'the'
Philippine' representative' whether' or' not' to' ratify' the' same.! The! Vienna!
Convention!on!the!Law!of!Treaties!does!not!contemplate!to!defeat!or!even!restrain!
this!power!of!the!head!of!states.!!If!that!were!so,!the!requirement!of!ratification!of!
treaties!would!be!pointless!and!futile.!
Executive' Order' No.' 459' provides' the' guidelines' in' the' negotiation' of'
international' agreements' and' its' ratification.'' It' mandates' that' after' the' treaty'
has'been'signed'by'the'Philippine'representative,'the'same'shall'be'transmitted'
to' the'Department' of' Foreign' Affairs.'' The' latter' shall' then' prepare' the'
ratification'papers'and'forward'the'signed'copy'of'the'treaty'to'the'President'for'
ratification.''
o Section!7!of!Executive!Order!No.!459!reads:!
Sec.! 7.!! Domestic! Requirements! for! the! Entry! into! Force! of! a!
Treaty! or! an! Executive! Agreement.! !The! domestic!
requirements!for!the!entry!into!force!of!a!treaty!or!an!executive!
agreement,!or!any!amendment!thereto,!shall!be!as!follows:!
!A.!!!!!!Executive!Agreements.!
!!!!!!!!!! i.!!!!!!!! All! executive! agreements! shall! be!
transmitted!to!the!Department!of!Foreign!Affairs!after!
their! signing! for! the! preparation! of! the! ratification!
papers.!!The!transmittal!shall!include!the!highlights!of!
the!agreements!and!the!benefits!which!will!accrue!to!
the!Philippines!arising!from!them.!
!!
!!!!!!!!!! ii.!!!!!!! The! Department! of! Foreign! Affairs,!
pursuant! to! the! endorsement! by! the! concerned!
agency,! shall! transmit! the! agreements! to! the!
President! of! the! Philippines! for! his! ratification.!! The!
original!signed!instrument!of!ratification!shall!then!be!
returned! to! the! Department! of! Foreign! Affairs! for!
appropriate!action.!
B.!!!!!!Treaties.!
!!!!!!!!!!i.!!!!!!!!All!treaties,!regardless!of!their!designation,!
shall! comply! with! the! requirements! provided! in! sub8
paragraph[s]! 1! and! 2,! item! A! (Executive! Agreements)!
'
!
The!signature!does!not!signify!the!final!consent!of!the!state!to!the!treaty.!!It!is!the!
ratification!that!binds!the!state!to!the!provisions!thereof.!!Under'our'Constitution,'
the'power'to'ratify'is'vested'in'the'President,'subject'to'the'concurrence'of'the'
Senate.'!The!role!of!the!Senate,!however,!is!limited!only!to!giving!or!withholding!its!
consent,!or!concurrence,!to!the!ratification.!Such!power!of!the!President!cannot!be!
encroached! by! this! Court!via!a! writ! of!mandamus! and! the! courts! have! no!
jurisdiction!over!actions!seeking!to!enjoin!the!President!in!the!performance!of!his!
official!duties.!!
Therefore,! the! court! cannot! issue! the! writ! of!mandamus!prayed! for! by! the!
petitioners! as! it! is! beyond! its! jurisdiction! to! compel! the! executive! branch! of! the!
government!to!transmit!the!signed!text!of!Rome!Statute!to!the!Senate.!
!
DISPOSITIVE:!Petition!is!dismissed.!
!
4. Sps.'Constantino'v.'Hon.'Rosario'(CG)'
G.R.'No.'106064'October'13,'2005!
TOPIC:'Powers!of!the!President!to!enter!into!debt8relief!contracts!with!foreign!creditors;!
Qualified!Political!Agency!
RELEVANT'LAWS:'Article!7,!Section!20!of!the!Constitution;!R.A.!No.!245!as!amended!by!Pres.!
Decree!(P.D.)!No.!142,!s.!1973,!entitled!An#Act#Authorizing#the#Secretary#of#Finance#to#Borrow#
to#Meet#Public#Expenditures#Authorized#by#Law,#and#for#Other#Purposes!
Petitioners:!Spouses!Renato!Constantino,!Jr.!and!Lourdes!Constantino!and!their!minor!
children!Renato!Redentor,!Anna!Marika!Lissa,!Nina!Elissa,!and!Anna!Karmina,!Freedom!From!
Debt!Coalition,!and!Filomeno!Sta.!Ana!III!
!
Respondents:!Hon.!Jose!B.!Cuisia,!in!his!capacity!as!Governor!of!the!Central!Bank,!Hon.!
10!
Public'International'Law'
Sources'of'International'Law:'Treaties'
Ramon!del!Rosario,!in!his!capacity!as!Secretary!of!Finance,!Hon.!Emmanuel!V.!Pelaez,!in!his!
capacity!as!Philippine!Debt!Negotiating!Chairman,!and!the!NATIONAL!TREASURER!
Ponente:!Tinga,!J.!
This!Petition#for#Certiorari,#Prohibition#and#Mandamus!assails!said!contracts!which!
were!entered!into!pursuant!to!the!Philippine!Comprehensive!Financing!Program!for!
1992!(Financing!Program)!
It!seeks!to!enjoin!respondents!from!executing!additional!debt8relief!contracts!
pursuant!thereto!and!also!urges!the!Court!to!issue!an!order!compelling!the!
Secretary!of!Justice!to!institute!criminal!and!administrative!cases!against!
respondents'for!acts,!which!circumvent!or!negate!the!provisions!Art.!XII!of!the!
Constitution!
Facts'
The!Financing!Program!began!during!the!term!of!former!President!Corazon!Aquino!
to!manage!the!countrys!external!debt!problem!through!a!negotiation8oriented!
debt!strategy!involving!cooperation!and!negotiation!with!foreign!creditors!
Pursuant!to!this!strategy,!the!Aquino!government!entered!into!six!(6)!restructuring!
agreements!(198681991):!3!with!representatives!of!foreign!creditor!governments,!
and!another!3!with!commercial!bank!creditors!
On!28!February!1992,!the!Philippine!Debt!Negotiating!Team,!chaired!by!respondent!
Pelaez,!negotiated!an!agreement!with!the!countrys!Bank!Advisory!Committee,!
representing!all!foreign!commercial!bank!creditors,!on!the!Financing!Program,!
which!respondents!characterized!as!"a!multi8option!financing!package.!
The!Program!was!scheduled!to!be!executed!on!24!July!1992!by!respondents!in!
behalf!of!the!Republic.!!
Petitioners!alleged!that!even'prior'to'the'execution'of'the'Program'respondents'
had'already'implemented'its'"buyback'component"!when!on!15!May!1992,!the!
Philippines!bought!back!P1.26!billion!of!external!debts!pursuant!to!the!Program!
The!petition'sought'to'enjoin'the'ratification'of'the'Program,!but!the!Court!did!
not!issue!any!injunctive!relief.!Hence,!it!came!to!pass!that!the!Program!was!signed!
in!London!as!scheduled.!
The!petition'still'has'to'be'resolved'though'as'petitioners'seek'the'annulment'"of'
any'and'all'acts'done'by'respondents,!their!subordinates!and!any!other!public!
officer!pursuant!to!the!agreement!and!program!in!question.!Even'after'the'
signing'of'the'Program,'respondents'themselves'acknowledged'that'the'
remaining'principal'objective'of'the'petition'is'to'set'aside'respondents'actions.'
Petitioners!characterize!the!Financing!Program!as!a!package!offered!to!the!
countrys!foreign!creditors!consisting!of!two!debt8relief!options:!!
o The!first!option!was!a!cash!buyback!of!portions!of!the!Philippine!foreign!
debt!at!a!discount.!!
'
The!second!option!allowed!creditors!to!convert!existing!Philippine!debt!
instruments!into!any!of!three!kinds!of!bonds/securities!(New!money!
bonds!w/!58yr!grace!period!and!178yr!maturity,!Interest8reduction!bonds!
w/!258yr!maturity!or!Principal8collateralized!interest8reduction!bonds!
with!258yr!maturity)!
According!to!the!respondents!the!Financing!Program!would!cover!about!U.S.!$5.3!
billion!of!foreign!commercial!debts!and!it!was!expected!to!deal!comprehensively!
with!the!commercial!bank!debt!problem!of!the!country!and!pave!the!way!for!the!
countrys!access!to!capital!markets.!
They!add!that!the!Program!carried!three!basic!options!from!which!foreign!bank!
lenders!could!choose,!namely:!to!lend!money,!to!exchange!existing!restructured!
Philippine!debts!with!an!interest!reduction!bond;!or!to!exchange!the!same!
Philippine!debts!with!a!principal!collateralized!interest!reduction!bond.!
Issues/Ruling'
'(1)'WON'the'debtdrelief'contracts'entered'into'pursuant'to'the'Financing'Programs'was'
beyond'the'scope'of'the'powers'granted'to'the'President'under'Section'20,'Article'VII'of'
the'Constitution''NO,'the'Constitution'does'not'prohibit'the'President'from'so'doing,'and'
it'is'in'RA'245'
The!language!of!the!Constitution!is!simple!and!clear!as!it!is!broad.!It'allows'the'
President'to'contract'and'guarantee'foreign'loans.'It!makes!no!prohibition!on!the!
issuance!of!certain!kinds!of!loans!or!distinctions!as!to!which!kinds!of!debt!
instruments!are!more!onerous!than!others.''
The!plain,!clear!and!unambiguous!language!of!the!Constitution!should!be!construed!
in!a!sense!that!will!allow!the!full!exercise!of!the!power!provided!therein!
The!only!restriction!that!the!Constitution!provides,!aside!from!the!prior!
concurrence!of!the!Monetary!Board,!is!that!the!loans'must'be!subject'to'
limitations'provided'by'law.''
In!this!regard,!we!note!that!Republic'Act'(R.A.)'No.'245!as!amended!by!Pres.!
Decree!(P.D.)!No.!142,!s.!1973,!entitled!An#Act#Authorizing#the#Secretary#of#Finance#
to#Borrow#to#Meet#Public#Expenditures#Authorized#by#Law,#and#for#Other#
Purposes,#allows!foreign!loans!to!be!contracted!in!the!form!of,!inter#alia,!bonds.!
Thus:!
!The!Secretary!of!Finance,!with!the!approval!of!the!President!
of!the!Philippines,!after!consultation!with!the!Monetary!Board,!is!
authorized!to!borrow!from!time!to!time!on!the!credit!of!the!Republic!of!
the!Philippines!such!sum!or!sums!as!in!his!judgment!may!be!necessary,!
and!to!issue!therefor!evidences!of!indebtedness!of!the!Philippine!
Government.!
Such#evidences#of#indebtedness#may#be#of#the#following#types:#
#
#
xxx#
o
11!
Public'International'Law'
Sources'of'International'Law:'Treaties'
c.#Treasury#bonds,#notes,#securities#or#other#evidences#of#indebtedness#
having#maturities#of#one#year#or#more#but#not#exceeding#twentyKfive#years#
from#the#date#of#issue.#(Emphasis#supplied.)#
Under!the!foregoing!provisions,!sovereign'bonds'may'be'issued'not'only'to'
supplement'government'expenditures'but'also'to'provide'for'the'purchase,'
redemption,'or'refunding'of'any'obligation,'either'direct'or'guaranteed,'of'the'
Philippine'Government.!
The!law8making!authority!has!promulgated!a!law!ordaining!an!automatic!
appropriations!provision!for!debt!servicing!by!virtue!of!which!the!President'is'
empowered'to'execute'debt'payments'without'the'need'for'further'
appropriations.''
Debt!service!is!not!included!in!the!General!Appropriation!Act,!since!authorization!
therefor!already!exists!under!RA!Nos.!4860!and!245,!as!amended,!and!PD!1967.!'
Precisely!in!the!light!of!this!subsisting!authorization!as!embodied!in!said!Republic!
Acts!and!PD!for!debt!service,!Congress'does'not'concern'itself'with'details'for'
implementation'by'the'Executive,'but'largely'with'annual'levels'and'approval'
thereof'upon'due'deliberations'as'part'of'the'whole'obligation'program'for'the'
year.!!
Specific!legal!authority!for!the!buyback!of!loans!is!established!under!Section!2!of!
Republic!Act!(R.A.)!No.!240,!viz:!
Sec.#2.#The#Secretary#of#Finance#shall#cause#to#be#paid#out#of#any#moneys#
in#the#National#Treasury#not#otherwise#appropriated,#or#from#any#sinking#
funds#provided#for#the#purpose#by#law,#any#interest#falling#due,#or#
accruing,#on#any#portion#of#the#public#debt#authorized#by#law.#He#shall#
also#cause#to#be#paid#out#of#any#such#money,#or#from#any#such#sinking#
funds#the#principal#amount#of#any#obligations#which#have#matured,#xxx#or,#
if#redeemed#prior#to#maturity,#such#portion#of#the#face#value#as#is#
prescribed#by#the#terms#and#conditions#under#which#such#obligations#were#
originally#issued.#
The!afore8quoted!provisions!of!law!specifically'allow'the'President,'thru'its'alter'
ego,'to'predterminate'debts'without'further'action'from'Congress!
The!fact!that!the!Constitution!does!not!explicitly!bar!the!President!from!exercising!
a!power!does!not!mean!that!he!or!she!does!not!have!that!power!
It!is!inescapable!from!the!standpoint!of!reason!and!necessity!that!the'authority'to'
contract'foreign'loans'and'guarantees'without'restrictions'on'payment'or'
manner'thereof'coupled'with'the'availability'of'the'corresponding'
appropriations,'must'include'the'power'to'effect'payments'or'to'make'payments'
unavailing'by'either'restructuring'the'loans'or'even'refusing'to'make'any'
payment'altogether.'
'
More!fundamentally,!when!taken!in!the!context!of!sovereign!debts,!a!buyback!is!
simply!the!purchase!by!the!sovereign!issuer!of!its!own!debts!at!a!discount.!Clearly!
then,!the!objection!to!the!validity!of!the!buyback!scheme!is!without!basis'
(2)'WON'this'power'can'be'delegated'd'YES,'it'is'within'the'realm'of'the'expertise'of'the'
Department'of'Finance;'Doctrine'of'Qualified'Political'Agency;'Lack'of'showing'that'the'
President'countermanded'DOFs'orders,'deemed'presidential'approval'
Petitioners!stress!that!unlike!other!powers,!which!may!be!validly!delegated!by!the!
President,!the!power!to!incur!foreign!debts!is!expressly!reserved!by!the!
Constitution!in!the!person!of!the!President.!They!argue!that!the!gravity!by!which!
the!exercise!of!the!power!will!affect!the!Filipino!nation!requires!that!the!President!
alone!must!exercise!this!power.!They!submit!that!the!requirement!of!prior!
concurrence!of!an!entity!specifically!named!by!the!Constitution!!the!Monetary!
Board!!reinforces!the!submission!that!not!respondents!but!the!President!"alone!
and!personally"!can!validly!bind!the!country.'
This!sort!of!constitutional!interpretation!would!negate!the!very!existence!of!
cabinet!positions!and!the!respective!expertise,!which!the!holders!thereof!are!
accorded!and!would!unduly!hamper!the!Presidents!effectivity!in!running!the!
government.!
The!evident!exigency!of!having!the!Secretary!of!Finance!implement!the!decision!of!
the!President!to!execute!the!debt8relief!contracts!is!made'manifest'by'the'fact'that'
the'process'of'establishing'and'executing'a'strategy'for'managing'the'
governments'debt'is'deep'within'the'realm'of'the'expertise'of'the'Department'
of'Finance,!primed!as!it!is!to!raise!the!required!amount!of!funding,!achieve!its!risk!
and!cost!objectives,!and!meet!any!other!sovereign!debt!management!goals.!!
Necessity'thus'gave'birth'to'the'doctrine'of'qualified'political'agency,!later!
adopted!in!Villena#v.#Secretary#of#the#Interior!from!American!jurisprudence!
Inevitably,!it!fell!upon!the!Secretary!of!Finance,!as!the!alter#ego!of!the!President!
regarding!"the!sound!and!efficient!management!of!the!financial!resources!of!the!
Government,"!to!formulate!a!scheme!for!the!implementation!of!the!policy!publicly!
expressed!by!the!President!herself.!
The!decision'to'contract'or'guarantee'foreign'debts'is'of'vital'public'interest,!but!
only!akin!to!any!contractual!obligation!undertaken!by!the!sovereign,!which!arises!
not!from!any!extraordinary!incident,!but!from!the!established!functions!of!
governance.!
The!Secretary'of'Finance'or'any'designated'alter*ego'of'the'President'is'bound'to'
secure'the'latters'prior'consent'to'or'subsequent'ratification'of'his'acts.!In!the!
matter!of!contracting!or!guaranteeing!foreign!loans,!the!repudiation'by'the'
President'of'the'very'acts'performed'in'this'regard'by'the'alter*ego'will'definitely'
have'binding'effect.!!
12!
Public'International'Law'
Sources'of'International'Law:'Treaties'
Notably!though,!petitioners!do!not!assert!that!respondents!pursued!the!Program!
without!prior!authorization!of!the!President!or!that!the!terms!of!the!contract!were!
agreed!upon!without!the!Presidents!authorization.!Congruent!with!the!avowed!
preference!of!then!President!Aquino!to!honor!and!restructure!existing!foreign!
debts,!the'lack'of'showing'that'she'countermanded'the'acts'of'respondents'leads'
us'to'conclude'that'said'acts'carried'presidential'approval.!
It!bears!emphasis!that!apart!from!the!Constitution,!there!is!also!a!relevant!statute,!
R.A.'No.'245,'that'establishes'the'parameters'by'which'the'alter*ego'may'act'in'
behalf'of'the'President'with'respect'to'the'borrowing'power.!This!law!expressly'
provides'that'the'Secretary'of'Finance'may'enter'into'foreign'borrowing'
contracts.!This!law!neither!amends!nor!goes!contrary!to!the!Constitution!but!
merely!implements!the!subject!provision!in!a!manner!consistent!with!the!structure!
of!the!Executive!Department!and!the!alter#ego#doctine.!!
(3)'WON'the'Financing'Program'violates'several'constitutional'policies'and'the'contracts'
executed'or'to'be'executed'pursuant'thereto'were'or'will'be'done'by'respondents'with'
grave'abuse'of'discretion'amounting'to'lack'or'excess'of'jurisdiction'd'NO'
Petitioners!allege!that!the!Financing!Program!violates!the!constitutional!state!
policies!to!promote!a!social!order!thus,!the!contracts!executed!or!to!be!executed!
pursuant!thereto!were!or!would!be!tainted!by!a!grave!abuse!of!discretion!
amounting!to!lack!or!excess!of!jurisdiction.!
Respondents!cite!the!following!in!support!of!the!propriety!of!their!acts:!!
(1)!A!Department!of!Finance!study!showing!that!as!a!result!of!the!implementation!
of!voluntary!debt!reductions!schemes,!the!countrys'debt'stock'was'reduced'by'
U.S.'$4.4'billion'as'of'December'1991;!
(2)!Revelations'made'by'independent'individuals!made!in!a!hearing!before!the!
Senate!Committee!on!Economic!Affairs!indicating!that!the!assailed!agreements!
would!bring!about!substantial!benefits!to!the!country;!and!!
(3)!The'Joint'LegislativedExecutive'Foreign'Debt'Councils'endorsement'of'the'
approval'of'the'financing'package!containing!the!debt8relief!agreements!and!
issuance!of!a!Motion!to!Urge!the!Philippine!Debt!Negotiating!Panel!to!continue!
with!the!negotiation!on!the!aforesaid!package.!!
Even!with!these!justifications,!respondents!aver!that!their!acts!are!within!the!arena!
of!political!questions,!which!the!judiciary'must'leave'without'interference'lest'the'
courts'substitute'their'judgment'for'that'of'the'official'concerned'and'decide'a'
matter'which'by'its'nature'or'law'is'for'the'latter'alone'to'decide.''
Assuming!the!accuracy!of!the!article!written!by!Jude!Esguerra!(which!the!
petitioners!used!to!support!their!claim)!regarding!the!Buyback!and!Securitization!
Agreement!that,!at!the!worst8case!scenario,!it!will!yield!a!$1.638M!flow!out!of!the!
country,!the!court!can!make!no!conclusion!other!than!that!respondents!efforts!
were!geared!towards!debt8relief!with!marked!positive!results!and!towards!
achieving!the!constitutional!policies!which!petitioners!so!hastily!declare!as!having!
been!violated!by!respondents.!!
Moreover,!the!policies!set!by!the!Constitution!as!litanized!by!petitioners!are!not!a!
panacea!that!can!annul!every!governmental!act!sought!to!be!struck!down.!!
(4)'WON'petitioners'had'locus*standi**YES,'as'citizens'of'the'Philippines'and'as'taxpayers.'
Also,'as'this'issue'is'of'paramount'public'interest,'it'is'but'just'for'the'court'to'take'
cognizance'of'the'case.'
Conclusion'
The!raison#d#etre#of!the!Financing!Program!is!to!manage!debts!incurred!by!the!
Philippines!in!a!manner!that!will!lessen!the!burden!on!the!Filipino!taxpayersthus!
the!term!"debt8relief!agreements."!The!measures!objected!to!by!petitioners!were!
not!aimed!at!incurring!more!debts!but!at!terminating!pre8existing!debts!and!were!
backed!by!the!know8how!of!the!countrys!economic!managers!as!affirmed!by!third!
party!empirical!analysis.!
That!the!means!employed!to!achieve!the!goal!of!debt8relief!do!not!sit!well!with!
petitioners!is!beyond!the!power!of!this!Court!to!remedy.!!
The!exercise!of!the!power!of!judicial!review!is!merely!to!checknot!supplantthe!
Executive,!or!to!simply!ascertain!whether!he!has!gone!beyond!the!constitutional!
limits!of!his!jurisdiction!but!not!to!exercise!the!power!vested!in!him!or!to!
determine!the!wisdom!of!his!act.!!
In!cases!where!the!main!purpose!is!to!nullify!governmental!acts!whether!as!
unconstitutional!or!done!with!grave!abuse!of!discretion,!there!is!a!strong!
presumption!in!favor!of!the!validity!of!the!assailed!acts.!The!heavy!onus!is!in!on!
petitioners!to!overcome!the!presumption!of!regularity.!
Dispositive*Portion:*
WHEREFORE!the!petition!is!hereby!DISMISSED.!No!costs.!
'
5. Abaya'v.'Ebdane'(RL)'
TOPIC:!Exchange#Notes#are#executive#agreements#and#are#binding#among#the#states.!
TREATIES/LAWS:'
EO' 40' ' Consolidating! Procurement! Rules! and! Procedures! for! All! National!
Government! Agencies,! GOCCs! and! Government! Financial! Institutions,! and!
Requiring!the!Use!of!the!Government!Procurement!System'
RA' 9184' ' An! Act! for! the! Modernization,! Standardization! and! Regulation! of! the!
Procurement!Activities!of!the!Government!and!for!Other!Purposes!
Exchange'of'Notes'!this!constitutes!an!executive!agreement!
!
G.R.'No.'167919.'February'14,'2007.'
13!
Public'International'Law'
Sources'of'International'Law:'Treaties'
Petitioners:!PLARIDEL!M.!ABAYA,!COMMODORE!PLARIDEL!C.!GARCIA!(retired)!and!PMA!59!
FOUNDATION,!INC.,!rep.!by!its!President,!COMMODORE!CARLOS!L.!AGUSTIN!(retired)!
Respondents:!HON.!SECRETARY!HERMOGENES!E.!EBDANE,!JR.,!in!his!capacity!as!Secretary!of!
the!DEPARTMENT!OF!PUBLIC!WORKS!and!HIGHWAYS,!HON.!SECRETARY!EMILIA!T.!BONCODIN,!
in! her! capacity! as! Secretary! of! the! DEPARTMENT! OF! BUDGET! and! MANAGEMENT,! HON.!
SECRETARY!CESAR!V.!PURISIMA,!in!his!capacity!as!Secretary!of!the!DEPARTMENT!OF!FINANCE,!
HON.!TREASURER!NORMA!L.!LASALA,!in!her!capacity!as!Treasurer!of!the!Bureau!of!Treasury,!
and!CHINA!ROAD!and!BRIDGE!CORPORATION!
Ponente:'Callejo,'Sr.,'J.'
FACTS:'
The! Government! of! Japan! and! the! Government! of! the! Philippines,! through! their!
respective! representatives,! Mr.! Yoshihisa! Ara,! Ambassador! Extraordinary! and!
Plenipotentiary! of! Japan! to! the! Republic! of! the! Philippines,! and! then! Secretary! of!
Foreign!Affairs!Domingo!L.!Siazon,!reached!an!understanding!concerning!Japanese!
loans!to!be!extended!to!the!Philippines.!!
These! loans! were! aimed! at! promoting! our! countrys! economic! stabilization! and!
development!efforts.!
The!Exchange!of!Notes!consisted!of!two!documents:!!
o A! Letter! from! the! Government! of! Japan,! signed! byAra,! addressed! to!
Siazon,! confirming! the! understanding! reached! between! the! two!
governments!concerning!the!loans!to!be!extended!by!the!Government!of!
Japan!to!the!Philippines;!and!
o A! document! denominated! as! Records! of! Discussion! where! the! salient!
terms!of!the!loans!were!reiterated!and!the!said!terms!were!accepted!by!
the!Philippine!delegation.!!
o Both!of!them!signed!the!Records!of!Discussion!as!representatives!of!their!
Governments.!
The!Exchange!of!Notes!provided!that!the!loans!to!be!extended!by!the!Japan!to!the!
Philippines!consisted!of!two!loans:!Loan!I!and!Loan!II.!!
The!Exchange!of!Notes!stated!in!part:!
o A! loan! worth! Y79,861,000,000! (Loan! I)! will! be! extended,! in! accordance!
with!the!relevant!laws!and!regulations!of!Japan!to!the!Philippines!by!the!
Japan! Bank! for! International! Cooperation! (JBIC)! to! implement! the!
projects!enumerated!in!the!List!A,!which!included!the!Arterial'Road'Links'
Development' Project,! Cordillera! Road! Project,! Philippines8Japan!
Friendship!Highway!Mindanao!Section!Rehabilitation!Project,!etc.!
o The! Loan! I! will! be! made! available! by! loan! agreements! to! be! concluded!
between!the!Phils!and!JBIC.!
An!agreement!was!reached!between!both!Governments,!as!shown!in!the!Exchange!
of!Notes!between!the!representative.!
'
The!Philippines!obtained!from!and!was!granted!a!loan!by!the!JBIC,!Loan'Agreement'
No.'PHdP204'dated!December!28,!1999.!
Under! the! terms! and! conditions! of! the! Loan! JBIC! agreed! to! lend! the! Philippine!
Government! an! amount! not! exceeding! Y! 15,384,000,000! as! principal! for! the!
implementation!of!the!Arterial!Road!Links!Development!Project!(Phase!IV).!
o The! amount! shall! be! used! for! the! purchase! of! goods! and! services!
necessary!for!the!implementation!of!the!project.!
Phase! IV! includes! the! Catanduanes! Circumferential! Road,! which! was! further!
dividided!in!4!packages:!
o CP!I:!San!Andres!(Codon)8Virac8Jct.!Bato8!Viga!Road!8!79.818!kms!
o CP!II:!Viga8Bagamanoc!Road!8!10.40!kms.!
o CP!III:!Bagamanoc8Pandan!Road!8!47.50!kms.!
11
o CP!IV:!Pandan8Caramoran8Codon!Road!8!66.40!kms. !
Subsequently,!the!DPWH!caused!the!publication!of!the!"Invitation!to!Prequalify!and!
to! Bid"! for! the! implementation! of! the! CP! I! project! in! two! leading! national!
newspapers! (Manila! Times! and! Manila! Standard)! on! November! 22! and! 29,! and!
December!5,!2002.!
23!foreign!and!local!contractors!responded!to!the!invitation!but!only!8!contractors!
were!eligible!to!bid,!one!withdrew,!so!a!total!of!7!contractors.!
Prior! to! the! opening! of! the! respective! bid! proposals,! it! was! announced! that! the!
Approved!Budget!for!the!Contract!(ABC)!was!P738,710,563.67.!
The!result!of!the!bidding!revealed!the!following!3!lowest!bidders:!
Name!of!Bidder!
P952,564,821.71!
28.95%!
P1,099,926,598.11!
48.90%!
P1,125,392,475.36!
52.35%!
The!bid!of!private!respondent!China!Road!&!Bridge!Corporation!was!corrected!from!
the! original! P993,183,904.98! (with! variance! of! 34.45%! from! the! ABC)! to!
P952,564,821.71! (with! variance! of! 28.95%! from! the! ABC)! based! on! their! letter!
clarification!dated!April!21,!2004.!!
Mr.! Hedifume! Ezawa,! Project! Manager! of! the! Catanduanes! Circumferential! Road!
Improvement! Project! (CCRIP),! in! his! Report,! recommended! the! award! of! the!
contract!to!private!respondent!China!Road!&!Bridge!Corporation.!
The!BAC!of!the!DPWH,!with!the!approval!of!then!Acting!Secretary!Soriquez,!issued'
the'assailed'Resolution'No.'PJHLdAd04d012!dated!May!7,!2004!recommending'the'
14!
Public'International'Law'
Sources'of'International'Law:'Treaties'
award' in' favor' of' private' respondent' China' Road' &' Bridge' Corporation! of! the!
contract!under!JBIC!Loan!Agreement!No.!PH8P204.!!
!On!September!29,!2004,!a!Contract!of!Agreement!(COA)!was!entered!into!by!and!
between! the! DPWH! China! Road! &! Bridge! Corporation! for! the! implementation! of!
the!CP!I!project.!
The! petitioners! mainly! seek! to! nullify! the! Resolution! and! they! seek! to! annul! the!
COA!entered!into!by!DPWH!and!China!Road!&!Bridge!Corporation.!
'
ISSUES/HELD:'
'
1. W/N' Petitioners' have' standing' to' file' the' instant' PetitionYES,' they' possess' locus*
standi*to'file'the'present'suit'as'taxpayers.'
Locus#standi!!a!right!of!appearance!in!a!court!of!justice!on!a!given!question."!!
o a! partys! personal! and! substantial! interest! in! a! case! such! that! he! has!
sustained!or!will!sustain!direct!injury!as!a!result!of!the!governmental!act!
being!challenged.!!
o "Interest"!!material!interest,!an!interest!in!issue!affected!by!the!decree,!
as! distinguished! from! mere! interest! in! the! question! involved,! or! a! mere!
incidental!interest.!
The! prevailing! doctrine! in! taxpayers! suits! is! to! allow' taxpayers' to' question'
contracts' entered' into' by' the' national' government' or' GOCCs' allegedly' in'
contravention'of'law.!
o !A!taxpayer!is!allowed!to!sue!where!there'is'a'claim'that'public'funds'are'
illegally' disbursed,' or' that' public' money' is' being' deflected' to' any'
improper' purpose,' or' that' there' is' a' wastage' of' public' funds' through'
the'enforcement'of'an'invalid'or'unconstitutional'law.!!
o He!need!not!be!a!party!to!the!contract!to!challenge!its!validity.!!
The!petitioners!are!suing!as!taxpayers.!!
o They!have!sufficiently!demonstrated!that!taxpayers!money!would!be!or!
is!being!spent!on!the!project!considering!that!the!Philippine!Government!
is!required!to!allocate!a!peso8counterpart!therefor.!!
o The!respondents!themselves!admit!that!appropriations!for!these!foreign8
assisted! projects! are! composed! of! the! loan! proceeds! and! the! peso8
counterpart.!!
o The!counterpart!funds!refer!to!the!component!of!the!project!cost!to!be!
financed! from! government8appropriated! funds,! as! part! of! the!
governments!commitment!in!the!implementation!of!the!project.!
!
2. W/N' the' Resolution' and' the' COA' are' validYES,' Resolution' No.' PJHLdAd04d012' is'
valid.'As'a'corollary,'the'subsequent'contract'is'likewise'valid.'
'
!
Brief#History#of#Philippine#Procurement#Laws#(I#dont#think#this#is#important,#but#we#can#never#
be#too#sure#with#Cande.#HAHA)#
The#US#Philippine#Commission#(1901),#through#various#statutes#(Act#No.#22,#74,#82,#
etc),# introduced# the# American# practice# of# public# bidding# mainly# for# the# making# of#
contracts# for# public# works# and# the# purchase# of# office# supplies# for# the# use# of# the#
Govt.#
On# February# 3,# 1936,# Pres.# Manuel# L.# Quezon# issued# EO* No.* 16* declaring* as* a*
matter* of* general* policy* that* government* contracts* for* public* service* or* for*
furnishing* supplies,* materials* and* equipment* to* the* government* should* be*
subjected*to*public*bidding.##
The#Revised#Administrative#Code#of#1917#subsequently#improved#public#bidding.#
Pres.# Diosdado# Macapagal# up# to# PGMA# issued# various# EOs# and# PDs,# which#
reiterated# the# need# for# public# bidding# when# dealing# with# government# projects.#
These#included#procurement#laws#and#guidelines.#
PGMA! (Oct.! 2001)! issued! EO! 40,! the! law! mainly! relied! upon! by! the! respondents,!
entitled! Consolidating! Procurement! Rules! and! Procedures! for! All! National!
Government! Agencies,! GOCCs! and! Government! Financial! Institutions,! and!
Requiring!the!Use!of!the!Government!Procurement!System.!It!repealed,!amended!
or! modified! all! executive! issuances,! orders,! rules! and! regulations! or! parts! thereof!
inconsistent!therewith.!!
She! signed! into! law! RA! 9184! (January! 2003)! which! expressly! repealed,! among!
others,!those!EOs!and!PDs!issued!by!the!former!presidents.!
(End#of#History)#
EO'40,'not'RA'9184,'is'applicable'to'the'procurement'process'undertaken'for'the'
CP' I' project.' RA' 9184' cannot' be' given' retroactive' application.' (Petitioners!insist!
RA!9184!is!the!applicable!process)'
o It! is! not! disputed! that! the! Invitation! to! Prequalify! and! to! Bid! for! its!
implementation!was!published!in!two!leading!national!newspapers.'
o At!the!time,!the!law!in!effect!was!EO!40.!'
o On!the!other!hand,!RA!9184!took!effect!two!months!later'
The!procurement!process!of!CP!I!is!covered!by!EO!40!(sec.!1)'
o shall# apply# to# see# procurement# of# (a)# goods,# supplies,# materials# and#
related#service;#(b)#civil#works#xxx#
The!procurement!process!involves!the!following!steps:!#
o (1)!pre8procurement!conference;!#
o (2)!advertisement!of!the!invitation!to!bid;!#
o (3)!pre8bid!conference;!#
o (4)!eligibility!check!of!prospective!bidders;!#
o (5)!submission!and!receipt!of!bids;!#
15!
Public'International'Law'
Sources'of'International'Law:'Treaties'
o (6)!modification!and!withdrawal!of!bids;!#
o (7)!bid!opening!and!examination;!#
o (8)!bid!evaluation;!#
o (9)!post!qualification;!#
o (10)!award!of!contract!and!notice!to!proceed.#
Clearly!then,!when!the!Invitation!to!Prequalify!and!to!Bid!for!the!implementation!of!
the!CP!I!project!was!published,!the!procurement!process!had!already!commenced!
and!the!application!of!EO!40!to!the!procurement!process!for!the!CP!I!project!had!
already!attached.#
RA! 9184! cannot! be! applied! retroactively! as! there! was! no! express! provision! that!
provides!for!such.#
Further,!the!Transitory!Clause!(Sec.!77)!of!the!IRR8A!for!the!applicability!of!RA9184!
provides!that:#
o if! the! advertisement! of! the! invitation! for! bids! was! issued! prior! to! the!
effectivity! of! RA! 9184,! such! as! in! the! case! of! the! CP! I! project,! the!
provisions! of! EO! 40! and! its! IRR,! and! PD! 1594! and! its! IRR! in! the! case! of!
national! government! agencies,! and! RA! 7160! and! its! IRR! in! the! case! of!
local!government!units,!shall!govern.#
The! IRR8A! covers! only! fully! domestically8funded! procurement! activities! from!
procurement!planning!up!to!contract!implementation!and!that!it!is!expressly!stated!
that! IRR8B! for! foreign8funded! procurement! activities! shall! be! subject! of! a!
subsequent!issuance.#
o !Nonetheless,!there!is!no!reason!why!the!policy!behind!Section!77!of!IRR8
A!cannot!be!applied!to!foreign8funded!procurement!projects!like!the!CP!I!
project.!#
o It! would! be! incongruous,! even! absurd,! to! provide! for! the! prospective!
application!of!RA!9184!with!respect!to!domestically8funded!procurement!
projects! and,! on! the! other! hand,! as! urged! by! the! petitioners,! apply! RA!
9184!retroactively!with!respect!to!foreign8funded!procurement!projects.!!
Under' EO' 40,' the' award' of' the' contract' to' private' respondent' China' Road' &'
Bridge'Corporation'is'valid.'
Nonetheless,! EO! 40! expressly! recognizes! as! an! exception! to! its! scope! and!
application!those!government!commitments!with!respect!to!bidding!and!award!of!
contracts! financed! partly! or! wholly! with! funds! from! international! financing!
institutions!as!well!as!from!bilateral!and!other!similar!foreign!sources.!
In! relation,! Sec.' 4' of' RA' 4860! was! correctly! cited! by! the! respondents,! authorizes'
the'President,'in'the'contracting'of'any'loan,'credit'or'indebtedness'thereunder,'
"when' necessary,' agree' to' waive' or' modify' the' application' of' any' law' granting'
preferences'or'imposing'restrictions'on'international'competitive'bidding!x!x!x."!
o The! said! provision! of! law! further! provides! that! "the' method' and'
'
procedure'in'the'comparison'of'bids'shall'be'the!subject'of'agreement'
between'the'Philippine'Government'and'the'lending'institution."!
The! procurement! of! goods! and! services! for! the! CP! I! project! is! governed' by' the'
corresponding'loan'agreement!entered!into!by!the!government!and!the!JBIC,!i.e.,!
Loan!Agreement!No.!PH8P204.!!
o It! is! stipulated! that! the' procurement' of' goods' and' services' for' the'
Arterial' Road' Links' Development' Project' (Phase' IV),' of' which' CP' I' is' a'
component,'is'to'be'governed'by'the'JBIC'Procurement'Guidelines.!!
It!is!clear!that!the!JBIC!Procurement!Guidelines!proscribe'the'imposition'of'ceilings'
on'bid'prices'and'it'enjoins'the'award'of'the'contract'to'the'bidder'whose'bid'has'
been'determined'to'be'the'lowest'evaluated'bid.'!
Since!these!terms!and!conditions!are!made!part!of!Loan!Agreement!No.!PH8P204,'
the'government'is'obliged'to'observe'and'enforce'the'same'in'the'procurement'
of'goods'and'services'for'the'CP'I'project.!!
As! shown! earlier,! private! respondent! China! Road! &! Bridge! Corporations! bid! was!
the!lowest!evaluated!bid.!
o In! accordance! with! the! JBIC! Procurement! Guidelines,! therefore,! it! was!
correctly!awarded!the!contract!for!the!CP!I!project.!
Even! if! RA! 9184! were! to! be! applied! retroactively,! the! terms! of! the! Exchange! of!
Notes!and!Loan!Agreement!would!still!govern!the!procurement!for!the!CP!I!project.!
!
International*Law*Part!!!*(SUPER*IMPORTANT)'
SUBdISSUE:' W/N' the' Loan' Agreement' constitutes' an' international' agreementYES,' the'
exchange'of'notes'is'an'executive'agreement,'hence'binding'among'the'contracting'parties.*
The!petitioners,!in!order!to!place!the!procurement!process!undertaken!for!the!CP!I!
project!within!the!ambit!of!RA!9184,!assert!that!Loan!Agreement!is!neither!a!treaty,!
an!international!agreement!nor!an!executive!agreement.!!
They! cite! EO! 459! dated! November! 25,! 1997! where! the! three! agreements! are!
defined!in!this!wise:!
o International# agreement! ! shall! refer! to! a! contract! or! understanding,!
regardless! of! nomenclature,! entered! into! between! the! Philippines! and!
another!government!in!written!form!and!governed!by!international!law,!
whether! embodied! in! a! single! instrument! or! in! two! or! more! related!
instruments.!
o Treaties!!international!agreements!entered!into!by!the!Philippines!which!
require!legislative!concurrence!after!executive!ratification.!This!term!may!
include!compacts!like!conventions,!declarations,!covenants!and!acts.!
o Executive#agreements!!similar!to!treaties!except!that!they!do!not!require!
legislative!concurrence.!!
The!petitioners!mainly!argue!that!Loan!Agreement!No.!PH8P204!does!not!fall!under!
16!
Public'International'Law'
Sources'of'International'Law:'Treaties'
any!of!the!three!categories!because!to!be!any!of!the!three,!an!agreement!had!to!be!
one!where!the!parties!are!the!Philippines!as!a!State!and!another!State.!!
o The! JBIC,! the! petitioners! maintain,! is! a! Japanese! banking! agency,! which!
presumably! has! a! separate! juridical! personality! from! the! Japanese!
Government.!
The'Court'holds'that'Loan'Agreement'No.'PHdP204'taken'in'conjunction'with'the'
Exchange' of' Notes' between' the' Japanese' Government' and' the' Philippine'
Government'is'an'executive'agreement.'
The! Loan! Agreement! was! executed! by! and! between! the! JBIC! and! the! Philippine!
Government!pursuant!to!the!Exchange!of!Notes!executed!by!the!two!Governments!
representatives.!
The! Exchange' of' Notes' expressed' that' the' two' governments' have' reached' an'
understanding! concerning! Japanese! loans! to! be! extended! to! the! Philippines! and!
that!these!loans!were!aimed!at!promoting!our!countrys!economic!stabilization!and!
development!efforts.!
Under! the! circumstances,' the' JBIC' may' well' be' considered' an' adjunct' of' the'
Japanese'Government.!!
o Further,! the' Loan' is' indubitably' an' integral' part' of' the' Exchange' of'
Notes.!!
o It! forms! part! of! the! Exchange! of! Notes! such! that! it! cannot! be! properly!
taken!independent!thereof.!
As! defined! by! the! United! Nations! Treaty! Collection,! An! "exchange* of* notes"! is! a!
record' of' a' routine' agreement' that' has' many' similarities' with' the' private' law'
contract.!!
o It!consists!of!the!exchange!of!two!documents,!each!of!the!parties!being!in!
the!possession!of!the!one!signed!by!the!representative!of!the!other.!!
o Under! the! usual! procedure,! the! accepting! State! repeats! the! text! of! the!
offering!State!to!record!its!assent.!!
o The!signatories!of!the!letters!may!be!government!Ministers,!diplomats!or!
departmental!heads.!!
o The! technique! of! exchange! of! notes! is! frequently! resorted! to,! either!
because!of!its!speedy!procedure,!or,!sometimes,!to!avoid!the!process!of!
legislative!approval.!!
It! is! stated! that' "treaties,' agreements,' conventions,' charters,' protocols,'
declarations,' memoranda' of' understanding,' modus' vivendi' and' exchange' of'
notes"'all'refer'to'"international'instruments'binding'at'international'law."!!
o Although!these!instruments!differ!from!each!other!by!title,!they!all!have!
common!features!and!international' law' has' applied' basically' the' same'
rules'to'all'these'instruments.!
o These'rules'are'the'result'of'long'practice'among'the'States,'which'have'
'
accepted' them' as' binding' norms' in' their' mutual' relations' and' are'
regarded'as'international'customary'law.''
o To!codify!these!rules,!two!conventions!were!had:!
The! 1969! Vienna! Convention! on! the! Law! of! Treaties! (! 1969!
VCLT),! which! contains! rules! for! treaties! concluded! between!
States.!!
The! 1986! Vienna! Convention! on! the! Law! of! Treaties! between!
States! and! International! Organizations! (1986! VCLT)! which! has!
still! not! entered! into! force,! added! rules! for! treaties! with!
international!organizations!as!parties.!!
Both!the!1969!and!1986!VCLTs!do!not!distinguish!between!the!
different!designations!of!these!instruments.!!
An' exchange' of' notes' is' considered' a' form' of' an' executive' agreement,' which'
becomes' binding' through' executive' action' without' the' need' of' a' vote' by' the'
Senate'or'Congress.!
o The! following! disquisition! by! Francis! B.! Sayre,! former! US! High!
Commissioner!to!the!Philippines,!entitled!"The!Constitutionality!of!Trade!
Agreement! Acts,"! quoted! in! Commissioner# of# Customs# v.# Eastern# Sea#
Trading,!is!apropos:!
o Agreements'concluded'by'the'President'which'fall'short'of'treaties'are'
commonly'referred'to'as'executive'agreements'and!are!no!less!common!
in! our! scheme! of! government! than! are! the! more! formal! instruments! !
treaties!and!conventions.!They!sometimes'take'the'form'of'exchange'of'
notes'and'at'other'times'that'of'more'formal'documents'denominated'
"agreements"'or'"protocols".!x!x!x!
Under! the! fundamental! principle' of' international' law' of' pacta* sunt* servanda,'
which!is,!in!fact,!embodied!in!Section!4!of!RA!9184,!provides!that!"[a]ny#treaty#or#
international# or# executive# agreement# affecting# the# subject# matter# of# this# Act# to#
which# the# Philippine# government# is# a# signatory# shall# be# observed,"! the! DPWH,! as!
the! executing! agency! of! the! projects! financed! by! Loan! Agreement! No.! PH8P204,!
rightfully! awarded! the! contract! for! the! implementation! of! civil! works! for! the! CP! I!
project!to!private!respondent!China!Road!&!Bridge!Corporation.!
!
DISPOSITIVE:!Petition!is!DISMISSED.!
6. Pharmaceutical'v.'DOH'(EM)'
Pharmaceutical!and!Health!Care!Association!of!the!Philippines,!petitioner!
vs.!
17!
Public'International'Law'
Sources'of'International'Law:'Treaties'
Health!Secretary!Francisco!Duque!III;!Health!Undersecretaries!Dr.!Ethelyn!Nieto,!Dr.!
Margarita!Galon,!Atty.!Alexander!Padilla!&!Dr.!Jade!Del!Mundo,!and!Assistant!
Secretaries!Dr.!Mario!Villaverde,!Dr.!David!Lozada,!and!Dr.!Nemesio!Gako,!respondents!
Note:#DOH!deemed!impleaded!as!respondent!since!the!named!respondents!issued!the!
RIRR!in!their!capacity!as!officials!of!the!said!executive!agency!
G.R.!No.!173034!October!9,!2007!
!!
Austria8Martinez,!J.!
!!
This!is!a!petition!for!certiorari!seeking!to!nullify!A.O.!200680012!Revised!Implementing!
Rules!and!Regulations!(RIRR)!of!E.O.!51!"The!Milk!Code"
Petitioner!posits!that!the!RIRR!is!not!valid!as!it!contains!unconstitutional!provisions!
that!go!beyond!the!law!it!seeks!to!implement
!!
Facts:!
E.O.!51!or!the!Milk!Code
o Issued!by!President!Cory!Aquino!on!1986!through!her!legislative!powers!under!
the!Freedom!Constitution
o In!its!preamble,!it!stated:!it!seeks!to!give!effect!to!Art.!11!of!the!International!
Code!of!Marketing!of!Breastmilk!Substitutes!(ICMBS),!a!code!adopted!by!the!
World!Health!Assembly!(WHA)!in!1981
198282006!8!the!WHA!adopted!several!resolutions!to!the!effect!that!
breastfeeding!!should!be!supported,!promoted!and!protected;!nutrition!
and!health!claims!are!not!permitted!for!breastmilk!substitutes
1990!8!Philippines!ratified!the!International!Covenant!on!the!Rights!of!the!Child!(CRC)
o Art.!24!8!State!Parties!should!take!appropriate!measures!to!diminish!infant!and!
child!mortality,!and!ensure!that!all!segments!of!society,!specially!parents!and!
children,!are!informed!of!the!advantages!of!breastfeeding
May!15,!2006
o DOH!issued!herein!assailed!RIRR!which!was!to!take!effect!July!7,!2006
June!28,!2006
o Petitioner,!representing!its!members!that!are!manufacturers!of!breastmilk!
substitutes,!filed!the!Petition!for!Certiorari!and!Prohibition!with!Prayer!for!the!
Issuance!of!a!TRO!or!Writ!of!Preliminary!Injunction
o Main!issue!raised:!respondents!acted!with!GADALEJ!in!violating!the!
Constitution!through!the!RIRR's!provisions
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
August!15,!2006!
o TRO!was!granted
June,!2007
o June!19!8!case!was!set!for!oral!arguments!on!this!day
Issues:!
WON!the!petitioner!is!a!real!party8in8interest
WON!the!RIRR!is!unconstitutional
WON!the!RIRR!is!in!accord!with!E.O.!51
WON!pertinent!international!agreements!entered!into!by!the!Philippines!are!part!of!
the!law!of!the!land!and!may!be!implemented!by!the!DOH!through!the!RIRR;!If!in!the!
affirmative,!whether!the!RIRR!is!in!accord!with!such!agreements;
WON!sections!4,!5(w),!22,!32,!47,!and!52!of!the!RIRR!violate!due!process
WON!Section!13!of!the!RIRR!on!Total!Effect!provides!sufficient!standards
!!
Held:!this!petition!is!partly#imbued!with!merit!
!!
Ratio:!
CONSTITUTIONALITY/'INTERNATIONAL'LAW'PART'
Here,!the!court!will!determine!if!pertinent!international!instruments!adverted!to!by!
respondents!are!part!of!the!law!of!the!land
The!following!instruments!were!invoked!by!the!respondents
o CRC
o International!Covenant!on!Economic,!Social,!and!Cultural!Rights!(ICESCR)
o Convention!on!the!Elimination!of!All!Forms!of!Discrimination!against!Women!
(CEDAW)
These!instruments!provide!that:
o Steps!must!be!taken!by!State!Parties!to!diminish!infant!and!child!morality!and!
inform!the!society!of!the!advantages!of!breastfeeding,!ensure!the!health!and!
well8being!of!families,!and!ensure!that!women!are!provided!with!services!and!
nutrition!in!connection!with!pregnancy!and!lactation
o No'specific!provisions!regarding!the!use!or!marketing!of!breastmilk!substitutes
WHA!and!ICMBS!are!the!ones!that!have!specific!provisions!regarding!the!use!or!
marketing!of!breastmilk!substitutes
The!Constitution!provides!two!ways!by!which!international!law!can!become!part!of!the!
sphere!of!domestic!law
o Transformation'
'
June!5!8!court!issued!an!Advisory!(Guidance!for!Oral!Arguments)!setting!out!the!
following!issues:
!!
requires!that!international!law!can!be!transformed!through!a!
constitutional!mechanism!such!as!local!legislation
Treaties!become!part!of!the!law!of!the!land!through!transformation!
pursuant!to!Art.!VII,!Section!21!of!the!Constitution:!"no!treaty!or!
18!
Public'International'Law'
o
Sources'of'International'Law:'Treaties'
international!agreement!shall!be!valid!and!effective!unless!concurred!in!
by!at!least!2/3!of!all!the!members!of!the!Senate"
Incorporation'd'this!applies!when,!by!mere!constitutional!declaration,!
international!law!is!deemed!to!have!the!force!of!domestic!law
This!is!made!through!Art.!2,!Section!2!!of!the!Constitution:!the!
Philippines..adopts'the'generally'accepted'principles'of'international'
law'as'part'of'the'law'of'the'land
The!ICMBS!and!WHA!resolutions!are!not'treaties!as!they!have!not!been!concurred!in!by!
at!least!2/3!of!the!Senate!
o However,!the!ICMBS!which!was!adopted!by!the!WHA!in!1981!had!been!
transformed!into!domestic!law!through'local'law!(the!Milk!Code)!that!has!force!
and!effect!of!law!in!this!jurisdiction!and!not!the!ICMBS#per#se#(transformation)
o The!Milk!Code!is!almost!a!verbatim!reproduction!of!the!ICMBS!
BUT!it!did!not!adopt!the!provision!in!the!ICMBS!absolutely!prohibiting!
advertising!or!other!forms!of!promotion!to!the!general!public!of!
products!within!the!scope!of!the!ICMBS
Instead,!the!Milk!Code!expressly!provides!that!advertising,!promotion,!
or!other!marketing!materials!may!be!allowed!if!such!materials!are!duly!
authorized!and!approved!by!the!Inter8Agency!Committee
Mijares!v.!Ranada!provides!that
o Generally!accepted!principles!of!international!law,!by!virtue!of!the!
incorporation!clause!of!the!Constitution,!forms!part!of!the!laws!of!the!land!even!
if!they!do!not!derive!from!treaty!obligations
WHA!resolutions!have!not!been!embodied!in!any!local!legislation.!But!have!they!
attained!customary!status?
o The!World!Health!Organization!(WHO)8!one!of!the!international!specialized!
agencies!allied!with!the!UN
o Under!the!WHO!Constitution,!it!is!the!WHA!which!determines!the!policies!of!
the!WHO,!and!has!the!power!to!adopt!regulations!concerning!"advertising!and!
labelling!of!biological,!pharmaceutical!and!similar!products!moving!in!
international!commerce"!and!to!"make!recommendations!to!members!with!
respect!to!any!matter!within!the!competence!of!the!Organization"
Regulations,!along!with'conventions'and'agreements,!duly!adopted!by!the!WHA!bind'
members'states
o Art.!19!8conventions!and!agreements(with!respect!to!any!matter!within!the!
competence!of!the!organization)!...shall!come!into!force!for!each!member!
when!accepted!by!it!in!accordance!with!its!constitutional!processes
o Art.!20!8!each!member!undertakes!that!it!will...take!action!relative!to!the!
acceptance!of!such!convention!or!agreement
o Art.!21!8!the!Health!Assembly!shall!have!the!authority!to!adopt!regulations!
regarding!certain!matters
o Art.!22!8!regulations!adopted!pursuant!to!Article!21!shall!come!into!force!for!all!
members!after!due!notice!has!been!given!of!their!adoption
On!the!other!hand,!under!Art.!23,!recommendations!of!the!WHA!do'not'come!into!
force!for!members!in!the!same!way!those!regulations!and!conventions!and!agreements!
under!Arts.!19822!do.
o Former!Senior!Legal!Officer!of!WHO,!Sami!Shubber,!stated!the!WHA!
recommendations!are!generally!not!binding,!but!carry!moral!and!political!
weight!as!they!constitute!the!judgement!on!a!health!issue!of!the!collective!
membership!of!the!highest!international!in!the!filed!or!health
o Even!the!ICMBS!itself!was!adopted!as!a!mere!resolution
They!are!norms!of!general!or!customary!international!law!which!are!
binding!of!all!states
e.g.!Pacta#sunt#servanda,!good!faith,!due!process
O'Connell!holds!that!these!are!binding!because!they'are'"basic'to'legal'
systems'generally"'
Customary!rules!are!binding,!they!have!two!requisites
State!practice!8!established,!widespread,!and!consistent!practice!of!the!
part!of!States
Opinio#juris8!psychological!element;!belief!that!the!practice!in!question!
is!rendered!obligatory!
Material!factor:!how!states!behave
Psychological!or!subjective!factor:!why!they!behave!the!way!they!do;!
belief!that!a!certain!form!of!behavior!is!obligatory
Its!introduction!reads:!the!code!is!in!the!form!of!a!recommendations!
rather!than!a!regulation
The!WHA!resolution!adopting!the!ICMBS!and!subsequent!WHA!resolutions!
urging!member!states!to!implement!the!ICMBS!are!merely!recommendatory!
and!not!legally!binding
Thus,'while'the'provisions'adopted'of'the'Milk'Code'are'binding'
having'been'translated'into'domestic'law,'the'subsequent'WHA'
resolutions'(providing!for!exclusive!breastfeeding!from!086!months,!
continued!breastfeeding!up!to!24!months,!and!absolutely!prohibiting!
advertisements!and!promotions!of!breatstmilk!substitutes)'which'have'
not'been'adopted'into'domestic'law,'are'not'binding
Fr.!Bernas!defines!customary!international!law!as!
o General!and!consitent!practice!of!states!followed!by!them!from!a!sense!of!legal!
obligation
o Two!elements
'
WHA!resolutions!are!known!to!be!"soft!law"
19!
Public'International'Law'
o
o
o
Sources'of'International'Law:'Treaties'
Soft!law!does!not!fall!into!any!of!the!sources!on!international!law!in!Art.!38(1)!
of!the!ICJ!statute
It!is!however,!an!expression!of!non8binding!norms,!principles,!and!practices!that!
influence!state!behaviour
Certain!declarations!of!the!UN!General!Assembly!fall!under!this!category,!most!
notably,!the!UN!Declaration!on!Human!Rights!which!was!cited!by!this!court!
several!times
Here,!respondents!failed'to!establish!that!the!provisions!of!the!pertinent!WHA!
resolutions!are!customary!international!law!which!may!be!deemed!part!of!the!law!of!
the!land
o Consequently,!legislation!is!necessary!to!transform!the!provisions!of!the!WHA!
resolutions!into!domestic!law
o The!provisions!of!the!WHA!resolutions!cannot'be!considered!as!part!of!the!law!
of!the!land!that!can!be!implemented!by!executive!agencies!without!the!need!of!
a!law!enacted!by!the!legislature.
!!
OTHER'ISSUES:'
''
WON'the'petitioner'is'the'real'party'in'interest?'Yes.'
An!association!has!standing!to!file!suit!for!its!workers!despite!its!lack!of!direct!interest.!
An!organization!has!standing!to!assert!the!concerns!of!its!constituents.!(Exec!Sec!vs!CA)
The!Court!has!rules!that!an!association!has!the!legal!personality!to!represent!
itsmembers!because!the!results!of!the!case!will!affect!their!vital!interests.!
(PurokBagong!Silang!Association!Inc.!vs.!Yuipco)8In!the!petitioners!Amended!Articles!of!
Incorporation,!it!states!that!the!association!
is!formed!to!represent!directly!or!through!approved!representatives!the!
pharmaceutical!and!health!care!industry!before!the!Philippine!Government!and!any!of!
its!agencies,!the!medical!professions!and!the!general!public.
Therefore,!the!petitioner,!as!an!organization,!has!an!interest!in!fulfilling!its!avowed!
purpose!of!representing!members!who!are!part!of!the!pharmaceutical!and!healthcare!
industry.!Petitioner!is!duly!authorized!to!bring!to!the!attention!of!the!government!
agencies!and!courts!any!grievance!suffered!by!its!members!which!are!directly!affected!
by!the!assailed!RIRR.
''
WON'the'DOH'has'the'power'to'implement'the'WHA'Resolutions'under'the'Revised'
Administrative'Code'even'in'the'absence'of'a'domestic'law?''
Only!the!provisions!of!the!Milk!Code.!(as!per!the!discussion!above)8Section!3,!Chapter!
1,!Title!IX!of!the!RAC!of!1987!provides!that!the!DOH!shall!define!the!national!health!
policy!and!can!issue!orders!and!regulations!concerning!the!implementation!of!
established!health!policies.8A.O.!No!2005!80014!which!provides!the!national!policy!on!
infant!and!young!child!feeding,!does!not!declare!that!as!part!of!its!policy,!the!
advertisement!or!promotion!of!breastmilk!substitutes!should!be!absolutely!prohibited.
8Only!the!provisions!of!the!Milk!Code,!but!not!those!of!the!subsequent!WHA!
Resolutions,!can!be!validly!implemented!by!the!DOH!through!the!subject!RIRR.!
!!
WON'the'provisions'of'the'RIRR'being'in'accordance'with'the'Milk'Code?'Not'all'of'
them'
!!
Assailed!provisions:![1]!extending!the!coverage!to!young!children;![2]!imposing!
exclusive!breastfeeding!for!infants!from!086!months;![3]!imposes!an!absolute!ban!on!
advertising!and!promotion!for!breastmilk!substitutes;![4]!requiring!additional!labeling!
requirements;![5]!prohibits!the!dissemination!of!information!on!infant!formula;![6]!
forbids!milk!manufacturers!and!distributors!to!extend!assistance!in!research!and!
continuing!education
!Although!the!DOH!has!the!power!under!the!Milk!Code!
to!control!information!regarding!breastmilk!vis88vis!breastmilk!substitutes,!this!power!
is!not!absolute!because!it!has!no!power!to!impose!an!
absolute!prohibition!in!the!marketing,!promotion!and!advertising!of!breastmilk!
substitutes.!
Several!provisions!of!the!Milk!Code!attest!to!the!fact!that!such!power!to!control!
information!is!not!absolute.8Sections!11!and!4(f)!of!the!RIRR!are!clearly!violative!of!the!
Milk!Code!because!such!provisions!impose!an!absolute!
prohibition!on!advertising,!promotion!andmarketing!of!breastmilk!substitutes,!which!
is!not!provided!for!in!the!Milk!Code.!Section!46!is!violative!of!the!Milk!Code!because!
the!DOH!has!exceeded!its!authority!in!imposing!such!fines!or!sanctions!when!the!Milk!
Code!does!not!do!so!.Other!assailed!provisions!are!in!accordance!with!the!Milk!Code.
!!
WON'Section'13'of'the'RIRR'providing'a'sufficient'standard?'Yes.'
!!
Questioned!provision,!in!addition!to!Section!26!of!Rule!VII!provide!labeling!
requirements!for!breastmilk!substitutes!found!to!be!in!consonance!with!theMilk!Code
The!provisions!in!question!provide!reasonable!means!of!enforcing!related!provisions!in!
the!Milk!Code.
!!
WON'Section'57'of'the'RIRR'repeals'existing'laws?dSection'in'question'only'repeals'
orders,'issuances'and'rules'and'regulations,'not'laws.''
''
The!provision!is!valid!as!it!is!within!the!DOHs!rule8making!power.
An!administrative!agency!has!quasi8legislative!or!rule8making!power.!However,!such!
power!is!limited!to!making!rules!and!regulation!subjected!to!the!boundaries!set!by!the!
'
20!
Public'International'Law'
Sources'of'International'Law:'Treaties'
granting!statute!and!the!Constitution.!The!power!is!also!subject!to!the!doctrine!of!non8
delegability!and!separability!of!powers.!
The!power,!which!
includes!amending,!revising,!altering!or!repealing,!is!granted!to!allow!!for!flexibility!in!
the!implementation!of!the!laws.
!!
WON'Section'4,'5(w),'11,'22,'32,'47'and'52'violates'the'due'process'clause'of'the'
Constitution?'
!!
Despite!the!fact!that!the!present!Constitution!enshrines!free!enterprise!as!a!
policy,!it!nonetheless!reserves!to!the!government!the!power!to!intervene!whenever!
necessary!to!promote!the!general!welfare
Free!enterprise!does!not!call!for!the!removal!of!protective!regulations.
It!must!be!clearly!explained!and!!proven!by!competent!evidence!just!exactly!how!
such!protective!regulation!would!result!in!the!restraint!of!trade
In!the!instant!case,!petitioner!failed!to!show!how!the!aforementioned!section!shamper!
the!trade!of!breastmilk!substitutes.!They!also!failed!to!establish!that!these!activities!
are!essential!and!indispensable!to!their!trade.
!!
Dispositive'Portion:'The'Petition'is'Partially'Granted.'Only'sections'4(f),'11'and'46'
of'A.O.'2006d0014'are'declared'null'and'void'for'being'ultra'vires.'The'TRO'islifted'
insofar'as'the'rest'of'the'provisions'of'A.O.'2006d0012'is'concerned.!'
7. North'Cotabato'v.'GRP'Peace'Panel'(NO)'
TOPIC:!Territorial!sovereignty;!Treaty/Agreement!Obligations;!Unilateral!Declaration!
!
G.R.'No.'183591'
Petitioner:! THE' PROVINCE' OF' NORTH' COTABATO,' duly' represented' by' GOVERNOR' JESUS'
SACDALAN'and/or'VICEdGOVERNOR'EMMANUEL'PIOL'
Respondent:! THE' GOVERNMENT' OF' THE' REPUBLIC' OF' THE' PHILIPPINES' PEACE' PANEL' ON'
ANCESTRAL' DOMAIN' (GRP),' represented' by' SEC.' RODOLFO' GARCIA,' ATTY.' LEAH'
ARMAMENTO,' ATTY.' SEDFREY' CANDELARIA,' MARK' RYAN' SULLIVAN' and/or' GEN.'
HERMOGENES' ESPERON,' JR.,' the' latter' in' his' capacity' as' the' present' and' dulydappointed'
Presidential' Adviser' on' the' Peace' Process' (OPAPP)' or' the' sodcalled' Office' of' the'
Presidential'Adviser'on'the'Peace'Process.'
J.#CarpioKMorales!
!
Facts:'
'
On! August! 5,! 2008,! the! Government! of! the! Republic! of! the! Philippines! (GRP)! and! the!
MILF,! were! scheduled! to! sign! a! Memorandum! of! Agreement! on! the! Ancestral! Domain!
(MOA8AD)!Aspect!of!the!GRP8MILF!Tripoli!Agreement!on!Peace!of!2001!in!Kuala!Lumpur,!
Malaysia.!
The! GRP! is! created! by! virtue! of! E.O.! No.! 3! series! of! 2001,! it! requires! a! policy!
framework! for! peace,! including! the! systematic! approach! and! the! administrative!
structure!for!carrying!out!the!comprehensive!peace!process.!
The! MILF! is! a! rebel! group! which! was! established! in! March! 1984! when,! under! the!
leadership! of! the! late! Salamat! Hashim,! it! splintered! from! the! Moro! National!
Liberation!Front!(MNLF)!then!headed!by!Nur!Misuari.!
This! peace! negotiation! document! is! the! product! of! the! long! peace! process! talks!
which!started!in!1996.!!
The! process! went! well! until! the! early! 2000s! when! the! MILF! attacked! several!
municipalities!which!prompted!President!Estrada!to!call!for!an!all8out8war!against!
the!MILF.!
President! Arroyo! asked! the! Government! of! Malaysia! through! Prime! Minister!
Mahathir!Mohammad!to!help!convince!the!MILF!to!return!to!the!negotiating!table,!
the!MILF!eventually,!decided!to!meet!with!the!GRP.!
Formal!peace!talks!between!the!parties!were!held!in!Tripoli,!Libya!from!June!20822,!
2001,!the!outcome!of!which!was!the!GRP8MILF!Tripoli!Agreement!on!Peace!(Tripoli!
Agreement! 2001)! containing! the! basic! principles! and! agenda! on! the! following!
aspects!of!the!negotiation:!Security,!Rehabilitation,!and!Ancestral'Domain.!
A!second!round!of!peace!talks!was!held!in!Cyberjaya,!Malaysia!on!August!587,!2001!
which! ended! with! the! signing! of! the!Implementing! Guidelines! on! the! Security!
Aspect!of! the! Tripoli! Agreement! 2001! leading! to! a! ceasefire! status! between! the!
parties.!
This! was! followed! by! the! Implementing! Guidelines! on! the! Humanitarian!
Rehabilitation!and!Development!Aspects!of!the!Tripoli!Agreement!2001,!which!was!
signed!on!May!7,!2002!at!Putrajaya,!Malaysia.!
The!signing!of!the!MOA8AD!between!the!GRP!and!the!MILF!did!not!materialize!because!
of!the!petitions,!and!the!SC!issued!a!Temporary!Restraining!Order.!
The!motions!were!invoking!the!right!to!information,!exclusion!of!Zamboanga!from!
the!MOA8AD,!and!that!the!MOA8AD!be!declared!unconstitutional.!
What!is!this!MOA8AD?!
The!MOA8AD!includes!not!only!four!earlier!agreements!between!the!GRP!and!MILF,!
but! also! two! agreements! between! the! GRP! and! the! MNLF:! the! 1976! Tripoli!
Agreement,! and! the! Final! Peace! Agreement! on! the! Implementation! of! the! 1976!
Tripoli! Agreement,! signed! on! September! 2,! 1996! during! the! administration! of!
President!Fidel!Ramos.!
21!
Public'International'Law'
Sources'of'International'Law:'Treaties'
Under!its!Terms!of!Reference,!it!identifies!the!organic!act!for!the!creation!of!ARMM!
and!the!Indigenous!Peoples!Rights!Act,!and!several!international!law!instruments!8!
the! ILO! Convention! No.! 169! Concerning! Indigenous! and! Tribal! Peoples! in!
Independent! Countries! in! relation! to! the! UN! Declaration! on! the! Rights! of! the!
Indigenous!Peoples,!and!the!UN!Charter,!among!others.!
#
Concepts#and#Principles#
"Bangsamoro' people"! as! the!natives! or! original! inhabitants!of! Mindanao! and! its!
adjacent!islands!including!Palawan!and!the!Sulu!archipelago!at#the#time#of#conquest#
or# colonization,!and! their! descendants!whether! mixed! or! of! full! blood,!including!
their! spouses.! (Basically! it! includes! not! only! Moros! but! all! indigenous! peoples! of!
Mindanao!and!its!adjacent!islands)!
"Bangsamoro' homeland,"! the! ownership! of! which! is! vested! exclusively! in! the!
Bangsamoro!people!by!virtue!of!their!prior!rights!of!occupation.!Both!parties!to!the!
MOA8AD! acknowledge! that! ancestral! domain! does! not! form! part! of! the! public!
domain.!
The!MOA8AD!goes!on!to!describe!the!Bangsamoro!people!as!"the!First!Nation'!with!
defined!territory!and!with!a!system!of!government!having!entered!into!treaties!of!
amity!and!commerce!with!foreign!nations."!(The!term!first!nation,!in!Canada,!refers!
to!the!Indians)!!
"Bangsamoro'Juridical'Entity"!(BJE)!to!which!it!grants!the!authority!and!jurisdiction!
over!the!Ancestral!Domain!and!Ancestral!Lands!of!the!Bangsamoro.!
!
Territory#
The!territory!of!the!Bangsamoro!homeland!is!described!as!the!land!mass!as!well!as!
the! maritime,! terrestrial,! fluvial! and! alluvial! domains,! including! the! aerial! domain!
and! the! atmospheric! space! above! it,! embracing! the! Mindanao8Sulu8Palawan!
geographic!region.!
The!core!of!the!BJE!is!defined!as!the!present!geographic!area!of!the!ARMM!8!thus!
constituting! the! following! areas:! Lanao! del! Sur,! Maguindanao,! Sulu,! Tawi8Tawi,!
Basilan,!and!Marawi!City.!Significantly,!this!core!also!includes!certain!municipalities!
of!Lanao!del!Norte!that!voted!for!inclusion!in!the!ARMM!in!the!2001!plebiscite!
Outside!of!this!core,!the!BJE!is!to!cover!other!provinces,!cities,!municipalities!and!
barangays,! which! are! grouped! into! two! categories,! Category! A! and! Category! B.!
(This!categories!mark!the!difference!of!time!frames!for!signing!the!plebiscite,!A!!
12!months!and!B!!25!years!from!the!signing!of!the!MOA8AD)!
!
Resources!
'
The!MOA8AD!states!that!the!BJE!is!free!to!enter!into!any!economic!cooperation!and!
trade!relations!with!foreign!countries!and!shall!have!the!option!to!establish!trade!
missions!in!those!countries.!
The! sharing! between! the! Central! Government! and! the! BJE! of! total! production!
pertaining!to!natural!resources!is!to!be!75:25!in!favor!of!the!BJE.!
The!BJE!may!modify'or'cancel!the!forest!concessions,!timber!licenses,!contracts!or!
agreements,! mining! concessions,! Mineral! Production! and! Sharing! Agreements!
(MPSA),!Industrial!Forest!Management!Agreements!(IFMA),!and!other!land!tenure!
instruments!granted! by! the! Philippine! Government,! including! those! issued! by! the!
present!ARMM.!
!
Governance#
The!MOA8AD!describes!the!relationship!of!the!Central!Government!and!the!BJE!as!
"associative,"! characterized!by! shared! authority! and! responsibility.! And! it! states!
that! the! structure! of! governance! is! to! be! based! on! executive,! legislative,! judicial,!
and! administrative! institutions! with! defined! powers! and! functions! in! the!
Comprehensive!Compact.!
The! MOA8AD! provides! that! its!provisions! requiring! "amendments! to! the! existing!
legal!framework"!shall!take!effect!upon!signing!of!the!Comprehensive!Compact!and!
upon!effecting!the!aforesaid!amendments,!with!due!regard!to!the!nondderogation'
of' prior' agreements!and! within! the! stipulated! timeframe! to! be! contained! in! the!
Comprehensive!Compact.!
The! Solicitor! General! argues! that! there! is! no! justiciable! controversy! that! is! ripe! for!
judicial!review!
The! MOA8AD! remains! to! be! a! proposal! that! does! not! automatically! create! legally!
demandable! rights! and! obligations! until! the! list! of! operative! acts! required! have!
been!duly!complied!with.!
!
Issues:'
1.! Whether! or! not! the! issue! is! considered! moot! and! academic,! thereby! divesting! the! court!
from!ruling!on!it.!
No.!MOA8AD!did!not!push!through!because!of!the!TRO.!
2.!!Whether!or!not!the!right!to!information!of!public!concern!is!violated.!
Yes.!
3.!Whether!or!not!the!MOA8AD!is!unconstitutional.!
Yes.!
'
Ratio:'
Mootness#
22!
Public'International'Law'
o
Sources'of'International'Law:'Treaties'
The!non8signing!of!the!MOA8AD!and!the!eventual!dissolution!of!the!GRP!Peace!Panel!did!
not!moot!the!present!petitions.!It!bears!emphasis!that!the!signing!of!the!MOA8AD!did!
not!push!through!due!to!the!Court's!issuance!of!a!Temporary!Restraining!Order!
Respondents!insist!that!the!present!petitions!have!been!rendered!moot!and!it!has!
only!become!a!mere!list!of!concessions.'
Given! its!nomenclature,! the!need! to! have! it! signed! or! initialed!by! all! the! parties!
concerned! on! August! 5,! 2008,! and! the!far8reaching! Constitutional! implications!of!
these!"consensus!points,"!foremost!of!which!is!the!creation!of!the!BJE.!
It! is! also! imbued! with! public! interest! involving! a! significant! part! of! the! country's!
territory!and!the!wide8ranging!political!modifications!of!affected!LGUs.!
In! the! present! controversy,!the! MOA8AD! is! a!significant! part! of! a! series' of'
agreements!necessary!to!carry!out!the!Tripoli!Agreement!2001.!
The!MOA8AD!which!dwells!on!the!Ancestral!Domain!Aspect!of!said!Tripoli!
Agreement!is!the!third!such!component!of!the!2001!and!2002!talks.!
Surely,!the!present!MOA8AD!can!be!renegotiated!or!another!one!will!be!
drawn!up'to' carry' out' the' Ancestral' Domain' Aspect' of' the' Tripoli'
Agreement' 2001,!in!another!or!in!any!form,!which!could!contain!similar!
or!significantly!drastic!provisions.!
A'decision'on'the'merits'in'the'present'petitions''is'needed'to'formulate'
controlling'principles'to'guide'the'bench,'the'bar,'the'public'and,'most'
especially,' the' government' in' negotiating' with' the' MILF' regarding'
Ancestral'Domain.'
'
Right#to#Information#
o Art.!III!Sec.!7.!The!right!of!the!people!to!information!on!matters!of!public!concern!shall!
be! recognized.! Access! to! official! records,! and! to! documents,! and! papers! pertaining! to!
official!acts,!transactions,!or!decisions,!as!well!as!to!government!research!data!used!as!
basis!for!policy!development,!shall!be!afforded!the!citizen,!subject!to!such!limitations!as!
may!be!provided!by!law.!
Undoubtedly,! the! MOA8AD! subject! of! the! present! cases! is! of! public! concern,!
involving! as! it! does! the! sovereignty! and! territorial! integrity! of! the! State,! which!
directly!affects!the!lives!of!the!public!at!large.!
The! preambulatory! clause! of! E.O.! No.! 3! declares! that! there! is! a! need! to! further!
enhance! the! contribution! of! civil! society! to! the! comprehensive! peace! process! by!
institutionalizing!the!people's!participation.!
In! fine,! E.O.! No.! 3! establishes! petitioners'! right! to! be! consulted! on! the! peace!
agenda,!as!a!corollary!to!the!constitutional!right!to!information!and!disclosure.!
The! PAPP! committed! grave! abuse! of! discretion! when! he! failed! to! carry! out! the!
pertinent! consultation.! The! furtive! process! by! which! the! MOA8AD! was! designed!
'
and!crafted!runs!contrary!to!and!in!excess!of!the!legal!authority,!and!amounts!to!a!
whimsical,!capricious,!oppressive,!arbitrary!and!despotic!exercise!thereof.!
!
Constitutionality!(Ill!skip!the!other!rations!na)!
Associative!relationship!
o On!the!Associative!relationship!between!the!BJE!and!the!Government!
Keithner! and! Reisman! states! that,[! a]n! association! is! formed! when! two! states! of!
unequal! power! voluntarily! establish! durable! links.! In! the! basic! model,! one' state,!
the! associate,! delegates! certain! responsibilities! to! the! other,! the! principal,! while!
maintaining!its!international!status!as!a!state.!i.e.!US8Federate!States!of!Micronesia!
Micronesia!has!the!capacity!to!conduct!foreign!affairs!in!their!own!name!and!right,!
such! capacity! extending! to! matters! such! as! the! law! of! the! sea,! marine! resources,!
trade,!banking,!postal,!civil!aviation,!and!cultural!relations.!
In!international!practice,!the!"associated!state"!arrangement!has!usually!been!used!
as! a! transitional! device! of! former! colonies! on! their! way! to! full! independence.! i.e.!
Grenada!
o MOA8AD! contains! many! provisions! which! are! consistent! with! the! international! legal!
concept!of!association!
The!BJE's!capacity!to!enter!into!economic!and!trade!relations!with!foreign!countries!
The! commitment! of! the! Central! Government! to! ensure! the! BJE's! participation! in!
meetings!and!events!in!the!ASEAN!and!the!specialized!UN!agencies.!
BJE's! right! to! participate!in! Philippine! official! missions! bearing! on! negotiation! of!
border!agreements,!environmental!protection,!and!sharing!of!revenues!pertaining!
to! the! bodies! of! water! adjacent! to! or! between! the! islands! forming! part! of! the!
ancestral!domain.!
Resembles!the!right!of!the!governments!of!Micronesia!and!the!Marshall!Islands!to!
be!consulted!by!the!U.S.!government!on!any!foreign!affairs!matter!affecting!them.!
!
o The!concept!of!association!is!not!recognized!under!the!present!Constitution!
It!also!implies!the!recognition!of!the!associated#entity!as!a!state.!!
The! Constitution,! however,! does! not! contemplate! any! state! in! this! jurisdiction!
other! than! the! Philippine! State,! much! less! does! it! provide! for! a! transitory! status!
that!aims!to!prepare!any!part!of!Philippine!territory!for!independence.!
Even! the! mere! concept! of! the! MOA8AD! requires! amendment! of! constitutional!
provisions.! Specifically! Art.! X! Sec.! 1! (Political! subdivision,! provinces,! cities,!
municipalities,! and! barangays)! and! Sec.! 15! (ARMM! be! created,! xxx! within! the!
framework! of! this! Constitution! and! the! national! sovereignty! as! well! as! territorial!
integrity!of!the!Republic!of!the!Philippines)!
!
!
23!
Public'International'Law'
Sources'of'International'Law:'Treaties'
Bangsamoro!Juridical!Entity!
o The! BJE! is! a! far! more! powerful! entity! than! the! autonomous! region! recognized! in! the!
Constitution!
BJE'is'a'state'in'all'but'name'as'it'meets'the'criteria'of'a'state'laid'down'in'the'
!
Montevideo' Convention, namely,! a!permanent! population,! a!defined! territory,!
a!government,!and!a!capacity!to!enter!into!relations!with!other!states!
Even!assuming!arguendo!that!the!MOA8AD!would!not!necessarily!sever!any!portion!
of!Philippine!territory,!the!spirit!animating!it!8!which!has!betrayed!itself!by!its!use!of!
the!concept!of!association!8!runs!counter!to!the!national!sovereignty!and!territorial!
integrity!of!the!Republic.!
The! municipalities! of! Lanao! del! Norte! which! voted! for! inclusion! in! the! ARMM!
during!the!2001!plebiscite!8!Baloi,!Munai,!Nunungan,!Pantar,!Tagoloan!and!Tangkal!
8! are! automatically! part! of! the! BJE! without! need! of! another! plebiscite.! These!
municipalities!voted!for!the!inclusion!in!the!ARMM!and!not!in!the!BJE.!
!
Indigenous#peoples#
o Article! X,! Section! 3! of! the! Organic! Act! of! the! ARMM! is! a! bar! to! the! adoption! of! the!
definition!of!"Bangsamoro!people"!used!in!the!MOA8AD.!
The!Organic!act!of!ARMM!distinguishes!between!the!two,!!
(a)!Tribal!peoples.!These!are!citizens!whose!social,!cultural!and!economic!
conditions! distinguish! them! from! other! sectors! of! the! national!
community;!and!
!
(b)!Bangsa! Moro! people.! These! are! citizens! who! are!believers! in!
Islam!and!who! have! retained! some! or! all! of! their! own! social,! economic,!
cultural,!and!political!institutions."!
!
o Respecting! the! IPRA,! it! lays! down! the! prevailing! procedure! for! the! delineation! and!
recognition! of! ancestral! domains.! The! MOA8AD's! manner! of! delineating! the! ancestral!
domain!of!the!Bangsamoro!people!is!a!clear!departure!from!that!procedure.!
Under!the!MOAdAD,![t]he!Bangsamoro!homeland!and!historic!territory!refer!to!the!
land!mass!as!well!as!the!maritime,!terrestrial,!fluvial!and!alluvial!domains,!and!the!
aerial! domain,! the! atmospheric! space! above! it,! embracing! the! Mindanao8Sulu8
Palawan!geographic!region.!
Under! IPRA,! a! petition! must! be! initiated! by! the! NCIP! with! the! consent! of! the! IPs,!
the! delineation! will! be! in! coordination! with! the! community! concerned,! it! will!
require!the!proof!including!the!testimony!of!elders!or!community!under!oath,!and!
other!documents!directly!or!indirectly!attesting!to!the!possession!or!occupation!of!
the!area,!etc.!
'
Article' II,' Section' 2' of' the' Constitution' states' that' the' Philippines' "adopts' the'
generally'accepted'principles'of'international'law'as'part'of'the'law'of'the'land."!
In! Mejoff# v.# Director# of# Prisons,! the! court,! held! that! the! Universal! Declaration! of!
Human!Rights!(UDHR)!is!part!of!the!law!of!the!land.!!
International!law!has!long!recognized!the!right!to!self8determination!of!"peoples,"!
understood! not! merely! as! the! entire! population! of! a! State! but! also! a! portion!
thereof.!This!was!emphasized!in!the!case!of!Quebec!when!it!seceded!from!Canada.!
The! International! Covenant! on! Civil! and! Political! Rights! and! the! International!
Covenant!on!Economic,!Social!and!Cultural!Rights!which!state,!in!Article!1!of!both!
covenants,! that! all! peoples,! by! virtue! of! the! right! of! self8determination,! "freely!
determine! their! political! status! and! freely! pursue! their! economic,! social,! and!
cultural!development."!
A! distinction! should! be! made! between! the! right! of! internal! and! external! self8
determination.!
In!a!Reference!!Re!the!Secession!of!Quebec,!
!Right! to! self8determination! of! a! people! is! normally! fulfilled!
through!internal'selfddetermination'8!a! people's! pursuit! of! its! political,!
economic,! social! and! cultural! development! within! the! framework! of! an!
existing!state.!!
!
A! right' to' external' selfddetermination! (which! in! this! case! potentially!
takes!the!form!of!the!assertion!of!a!right!to!unilateral!secession)!arises!in!
only!the!most!extreme!of!cases!and,!even!then,!under!carefully!defined!
circumstances.!!
!
The!Canadian!court!ultimately!denied!the!secession!of!Quebec!because!it!
was! not! under! colonial! rule! as! contemplated! in! external! self8
determination! and! they! were! free! to! pursue! political! and! economic!
choices.!
In! REPORT! OF! THE! INTERNATIONAL! COMMITTEE! OF! JURISTS! ON! THE! LEGAL!
ASPECTS!OF!THE!AALAND!ISLANDS!QUESTION,!Sweden!presented!to!the!League!of!
Nations!the!question!whether!the!inhabitants!of!the!island!should!be!determined!if!
it! should! remain! under! Finnish! rule! or! be! incorporated! with! Sweden.! The! Court!
Held:!
The! right! of! disposing! of! national! territory! is! essentially! an!
attribute! of! the! sovereignty! of! every! State.! Positive!
International! Law! does! not! recognize! the! right! of! national!
groups,! as! such,! to! separate! themselves! from! the! State! of!
which!they!form!part!by!the!simple!expression!of!a!wish!
24!
Public'International'Law'
o
Sources'of'International'Law:'Treaties'
In! September! 13,! 2007,! the! UN! General! Assembly! adopted! the! United! Nations!
Declaration! on! the! Rights! of! Indigenous! Peoples! (UN! DRIP)! through! General! Assembly!
Resolution!61/295.!!
Under!Art.!3!of!such!declaration!acknowledge!the!right!of!self8determination,!
Under!Art.!5!its!exercise!shall!include!the!right!to!autonomy!or!self8government!in!
matters!relating!to!their!internal!and!local!affairs.'!
Under! Art.! 26,! Indigenous! peoples! have! the! right! to! the! lands,! territories! and!
resources! which! they! have! traditionally! owned,! occupied! or! otherwise! used! or!
acquired.!
The!UN!DRIP,!while!upholding!the!right!of!indigenous!peoples!to!autonomy,!does!
not!obligate!States!to!grant!indigenous!peoples!the!near8independent!status!of!an!
associated!state.!
Even!under!Art.!46!of!the!said!declaration,!recognizes!that!it!cannot!be!construed!
as!authorizing!or!encouraging!any!action!which!would!dismember!or!impair,!totally!
or! in! part,! the! territorial! integrity! or! political! unity! of! sovereign! and! independent!
States.!
It! is,! therefore,! clear! that! the! MOA8AD! contains! numerous! provisions! that! cannot!
be!reconciled!with!the!Constitution!and!the!laws!as!presently!worded.!
!
By!the!time!these!changes!are!put!in!place,!the!MOA8AD!itself!would!be!counted!among!
the!"prior!agreements"!from!which!there!could!be!no!derogation.!
The! provision! in! question! states,! "with! due! regard! to! non! derogation! of!
prior!agreements!and!within!the!stipulated!timeframe!to!be!contained!in!
the!Comprehensive!Compact."!
Plainly,!stipulation8paragraph!7!on!GOVERNANCE!is!inconsistent!with!the!
limits!of!the!President's!authority!to!propose!constitutional!amendments,!
it! being! a! virtual! guarantee! that! the! Constitution! and! the! laws! of! the!
Republic!of!the!Philippines!will!certainly!be!adjusted!to!conform!to!all!the!
"consensus!points"!found!in!the!MOA8AD.Hence,!it!must!be!struck!down!
as!unconstitutional.!
'
Does! the! MOA8AD! give! rise! to! an! internationally! binding! agreement! or! a! binding!
unilateral!declaration?!NO!
!
The! contention! was! that! the! inclusion! of! foreign! dignitaries! and! presence! of! other!
nations! for! the! signing! in! Kuala! Lumpur! gave! rise! to! an! internationally! binding!
agreement.!
In! the! Lom' Accord' case,! the! Defence! argued! that! the! Accord! created!
an!internationally' binding!obligation! not! to! prosecute! the! beneficiaries! of! the!
amnesty! provided! therein,!citing,! among! other! things,! the! participation! of! foreign!
dignitaries! and! international! organizations! in! the! finalization! of! that! agreement.!
This!was!however!denied,!it!held:!
The! non8contracting! signatories! of! the! Lom! Agreement!
were!moral! guarantors!of! the! principle! that,! in! the! terms! of!
Article! XXXIV! of! the! Agreement,! "this! peace! agreement! is!
implemented!with!integrity!and!in!good!faith!by!both!parties".!
The!moral!guarantors!assumed!no!legal!obligation.!
The! Lom! Agreement! created! neither! rights! nor! obligations! capable! of! being!
regulated!by!international!law.!An!agreement!such!as!the!Lom!Agreement!which!
brings!to!an!end!an!internal!armed!conflict!no!doubt!creates!a!factual!situation!of!
restoration!of!peace!that!the!international!community!acting!through!the!Security!
Council! may! take! note! of.! That,! however,! will! not! convert! it! to! an! international!
agreement! which! creates! an! obligation! enforceable! in! international,! as!
distinguished!from!municipal,!law.!
Similarly,! that! the! MOA8AD! would! have! been! signed! by! representatives! of! States!
and! international! organizations! not! parties! to! the! Agreement! would! not! have!
sufficed!to!vest!in!it!a!binding!character!under!international!law.!
!
Concern!has!been!raised!that!the!MOA8AD!would!amount!to!a!unilateral!declaration!of!
the!Philippine!State,!binding!under!international!law.!
In!the!Nuclear!tests!case(Australia!v.!France),!When!it!is!the!intention!of!the!State!
making! the! declaration! that! it! should! become! bound! according! to! its! terms,! that!
intention!confers!on!the!declaration!the!character!of!a!legal!undertaking,!the!State!
being!thenceforth!legally!required!to!follow!a!course!of!conduct!consistent!with!the!
declaration.!
The!requisites!are!(1)!With!an!intent!to!be!bound,!even!though!not!made!within!the!
context!of!international!negotiations,!(2)!with!an!intent!to!be!bound,!even!though!
not!made!within!the!context!of!international!negotiations!and!(3)!not!to!give!legal!
effect! to! those! statements! would! be! detrimental! to! the! security! of! international!
intercourse.!
25!
Public'International'Law'
Sources'of'International'Law:'Treaties'
The!present!case!does!not!amount!to!such!binding!declaration;!the!Philippine!panel!
did! not! draft! the! same! with! the! clear! intention! of! being! bound! thereby! to! the!
international!community!as!a!whole!or!to!any!State,!but!only!to!the!MILF.!
While! there! were! States! and! international! organizations! involved,! one! way! or!
another,!in!the!negotiation!and!projected!signing!of!the!MOA8AD,!they!participated!
merely!as!witnesses!or,!in!the!case!of!Malaysia,!as!facilitator.!
WHEREFORE,!respondents'!motion!to!dismiss!is!DENIED.!The!main!and!intervening!petitions!
are!GIVEN!DUE!COURSE!and!hereby!GRANTED.!
8. Bayan'Muna'v.'Romulo'(MT)'
Topic:!Treaties!
Treaty/'Law:!Rome!Statute!&!RP8US!Non8Surrender!Agreement!
G.R.!No.!159618!February!1,!2011!
Petitioner:!BAYAN!MUNA,!as!represented!by!Rep.!SATUR!OCAMPO,!Rep.!CRISPIN!BELTRAN,!
and!Rep.!LIZA!L.!MAZA!
Respondent:!ALBERTO!ROMULO,!in!his!capacity!as!Executive!Secretary,!and!BLAS!F.!OPLE,!in!
his!capacity!as!Secretary!of!Foreign!Affairs!
Ponente:!VELASCO,!JR.,!J.:!
!
Facts:''
This!petition!for!certiorari,!mandamus!and!prohibition!under!Rule!65!assails!and!
seeks!to!nullify!the!Non8Surrender!Agreement!concluded!by!and!between!the!
Republic!of!the!Philippines!(RP)!and!the!United!States!of!America!(USA).!
Petitioner!Bayan!Muna!is!a!duly!registered!party8list!group!established!to!represent!
the!marginalized!sectors!of!society.!!
Rome'Statute'of'the'International'Criminal'Court'
!
Having!a!key!determinative!bearing!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#x!x!x!and#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.!
On!December!28,!2000,!the!RP,!through!Charge!dAffaires!Enrique!A.!Manalo,!
signed!the!Rome!Statute!which,!by!its!terms,!is!"subject!to!ratification,!acceptance!
or!approval"!by!the!signatory!states.!
RPdUS'NondSurrender'Agreement'
On!May!9,!2003,!then!Ambassador!Francis!J.!Ricciardone!sent!US!Embassy!Note!No.!
0470!to!the!Department!of!Foreign!Affairs!(DFA)!proposing!the!terms!of!the!non8
surrender!bilateral!agreement!(Agreement)!between!the!USA!and!the!RP.!
'
Via!Exchange!of!Notes!No.!BFO8028803 !dated!May!13,!2003!(E/N!BFO8028803,!
hereinafter),!the!RP,!represented!by!then!DFA!Secretary!Ople,!agreed!with!and!
accepted!the!US!proposals!embodied!under!the!US!Embassy!Note!adverted!to!and!
put!in!effect!the!Agreement!with!the!US!government.!The!Agreement!aims!to!
protect!what!it!refers!to!and!defines!as!"persons"!of!the!RP!and!US!from!frivolous!
and!harassment!suits!that!might!be!brought!against!them!in!international!tribunals.!
It!is!reflective!of!the!increasing!pace!of!the!strategic!security!and!defense!
partnership!between!the!two!countries.!!
In!response!to!a!query!of!then!Solicitor!General!Alfredo!L.!Benipayo!on!the!status!of!
the!non8surrender!agreement,!Ambassador!Ricciardone!replied!in!his!letter!of!
October!28,!2003!that!the!exchange!of!diplomatic!notes!constituted!a!legally!
binding!agreement!under!international!law;!and!that,!under!US!law,!the!said!
agreement!did!not!require!the!advice!and!consent!of!the!US!Senate.!
In!this!proceeding,!petitioner!imputes!grave!abuse!of!discretion!to!respondents!in!
concluding!and!ratifying!the!Agreement!and!prays!that!it!be!struck!down!as!
unconstitutional,!or!at!least!declared!as!without!force!and!effect.!
For!their!part,!respondents!question!petitioners!standing!to!maintain!a!suit!and!
counter!that!the!Agreement,!being!in!the!nature!of!an!executive!agreement,!does!
not!require!Senate!concurrence!for!its!efficacy.!And!for!reasons!detailed!in!their!
comment,!respondents!assert!the!constitutionality!of!the!Agreement.!
The'Issues/'held:'
The!foregoing!issues!may!be!summarized!into!two:!!
1. WON!the!Agreement!was!contracted!validly,!which!resolves!itself!into!the!question!
of!whether!or!not!respondents!gravely!abused!their!discretion!in!concluding!it
YES!
2. WON!the!Agreement,!which!has!not!been!submitted!to!the!Senate!for!concurrence,!
contravenes!and!undermines!the!Rome!Statute!and!other!treatiesNO'!
!
Ratio:!This!petition!is!bereft!of!merit.!
Validity'of'the'RPdUS'NondSurrender'Agreement'
Petitioners!initial!challenge!against!the!Agreement!relates!to!form,!its!threshold!
posture!being!that!E/N!BFO8028803!cannot!be!a!valid!medium!for!concluding!
the!Agreement.!
Petitioners!contention!is!untenable.!One!of!these!is!the!doctrine!of!incorporation,!
as!expressed!in!Section!2,!Article!II!of!the!Constitution,!wherein!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!inter8governmental!agreements, which!is!an!internationally!accepted!
26!
Public'International'Law'
Sources'of'International'Law:'Treaties'
form!of!international!agreement.!The!United!Nations!Treaty!Collections!(Treaty!
Reference!Guide)!defines!the!term!as!follows:!
An!"exchange!of!notes"!is!a!record!of!a!routine!agreement,!that!has!many!
similarities!with!the!private!law!contract.!The!agreement!consists!of!the!exchange!
of!two!documents,!each!of!the!parties!being!in!the!possession!of!the!one!signed!by!
the!representative!of!the!other.!Under!the!usual!procedure,!the!accepting!State!
repeats!the!text!of!the!offering!State!to!record!its!assent.!The!signatories!of!the!
letters!may!be!government!Ministers,!diplomats!or!departmental!heads.!The!
technique!of!exchange!of!notes!is!frequently!resorted!to,!either!because!of!its!
speedy!procedure,!or,!sometimes,!to!avoid!the!process!of!legislative!approval.!
In!another!perspective,!the!terms!"exchange!of!notes"!and!"executive!agreements"!
have!been!used!interchangeably,!exchange!of!notes!being!considered!a!form!of!
executive!agreement!that!becomes!binding!through!executive!action.!!
Senate'Concurrence'Not'Required'
Article!2!of!the!Vienna!Convention!on!the!Law!of!Treaties!defines!a!treaty!as!"an!
international!agreement!concluded!between!states!in!written!form!and!governed!
by!international!law,!whether!embodied!in!a!single!instrument!or!in!two!or!more!
related!instruments!and!whatever!its!particular!designation.!International!
agreements!may!be!in!the!form!of!(1)!treaties!that!require!legislative!concurrence!
after!executive!ratification;!or!(2)!executive!agreements!that!are!similar!to!treaties,!
except!that!they!do!not!require!legislative!concurrence!and!are!usually!less!formal!
and!deal!with!a!narrower!range!of!subject!matters!than!treaties.!
Under!international!law,!there!is!no!difference!between!treaties!and!executive!
agreements!in!terms!of!their!binding!effects!on!the!contracting!states!concerned,!
as!long!as!the!negotiating!functionaries!have!remained!within!their!powers.!
Neither,!on!the!domestic!sphere,!can!one!be!held!valid!if!it!violates!the!
Constitution.!
The!Court!has!given!recognition!to!the!obligatory!effect!of!executive!agreements!
without!the!concurrence!of!the!Senate:!
x!x!x![T]he!right!of!the!Executive!to!enter!into!binding!agreements!without!the!
necessity!of!subsequent!Congressional!approval!has!been!confirmed!by!long!usage.!
From!the!earliest!days!of!our!history,!we!have!entered!executive!agreements!
covering!such!subjects!as!commercial!and!consular!relations,!most!favored8nation!
rights,!patent!rights,!trademark!and!copyright!protection,!postal!and!navigation!
arrangements!and!the!settlement!of!claims.!The!validity!of!these!has!never!been!
seriously!questioned!by!our!courts.!
The'Agreement'Not'in'Contravention'of'the'Rome'Statute'
It!is!the!petitioners!next!contention!that!the!Agreement!undermines!the!
establishment!of!the!ICC!and!is!null!and!void!insofar!as!it!unduly!restricts!the!ICCs!
jurisdiction!and!infringes!upon!the!effectivity!of!the!Rome!Statute.!Petitioner!posits!
'
that!the!Agreement!was!constituted!solely!for!the!purpose!of!providing!individuals!
or!groups!of!individuals!with!immunity!from!the!jurisdiction!of!the!ICC;!and!such!
grant!of!immunity!through!non8surrender!agreements!allegedly!does!not!
legitimately!fall!within!the!scope!of!Art.!98!of!the!Rome!Statute.!!
Contrary!to!petitioners!pretense,!the!Agreement!does!not!contravene!or!
undermine,!nor!does!it!differ!from,!the!Rome!Statute.!Far!from!going!against!each!
other,!one!complements!the!other.!As!a!matter!of!fact,!the!principle!of!
complementarity!underpins!the!creation!of!the!ICC.!As!aptly!pointed!out!by!
respondents!and!admitted!by!petitioners,!the!jurisdiction!of!the!ICC!is!to!"be!
!
complementary!to!national!criminal!jurisdictions![of!the!signatory!states]." Art.!1!of!
the!Rome!Statute!pertinently!provides:!
Article!1.!The!Court.!An!International!Crimininal!Court!("the!Court")!is!hereby!
established.!It!x!x!x!shall!have!the!power!to!exercise!its!jurisdiction!over!persons!for!
the!most!serious!crimes!of!international!concern,!as!referred!to!in!this!Statute,!
and!shall!be!complementary!to!national!criminal!jurisdictions.!The!jurisdiction!and!
functioning!of!the!Court!shall!be!governed!by!the!provisions!of!this!Statute.!!
The!foregoing!provisions!of!the!Rome!Statute,!taken!collectively,!argue!against!the!
idea!of!jurisdictional!conflict!between!the!Philippines,!as!party!to!the!non8
surrender!agreement,!and!the!ICC;!or!the!idea!of!the!Agreement!substantially!
impairing!the!value!of!the!RPs!undertaking!under!the!Rome!Statute.!Ignoring!for!a!
while!the!fact!that!the!RP!signed!the!Rome!Statute!ahead!of!the!Agreement,!it!is!
abundantly!clear!to!us!that!the!Rome!Statute!expressly!recognizes!the!primary!
jurisdiction!of!states,!like!the!RP,!over!serious!crimes!committed!within!their!
respective!borders,!the!complementary!jurisdiction!of!the!ICC!coming!into!play!only!
when!the!signatory!states!are!unwilling!or!unable!to!prosecute.!
Given!the!above!consideration,!petitioners!suggestionthat!the!RP,!by!entering!
into!the!Agreement,!violated!its!duty!required!by!the!imperatives!of!good!faith!and!
breached!its!commitment!under!the!Vienna!Convention!to!refrain!from!performing!
any!act!tending!to!impair!the!value!of!a!treaty,!e.g.,!the!Rome!Statutehas!to!be!
rejected!outright.!For!nothing!in!the!provisions!of!the!Agreement,!in!relation!to!the!
Rome!Statute,!tends!to!diminish!the!efficacy!of!the!Statute,!let!alone!defeats!the!
purpose!of!the!ICC.!Lest!it!be!overlooked,!the!Rome!Statute!contains!a!proviso!that!
enjoins!the!ICC!from!seeking!the!surrender!of!an!erring!person,!should!the!process!
require!the!requested!state!to!perform!an!act!that!would!violate!some!
international!agreement!it!has!entered!into.!!
Moreover,!under!international!law,!there!is!a!considerable!difference!between!a!
State8Party!and!a!signatory!to!a!treaty.!Under!the!Vienna!Convention!on!the!Law!of!
Treaties,!a!signatory!state!is!only!obliged!to!refrain!from!acts!which!would!defeat!
the!object!and!purpose!of!a!treaty,!whereas!a!State8Party,!on!the!other!hand,!is!
legally!obliged!to!follow!all!the!provisions!of!a!treaty!in!good!faith.!
27!
Public'International'Law'
Sources'of'International'Law:'Treaties'
In!the!instant!case,!it!bears!stressing!that!the!Philippines!is!only!a!signatory!to!the!
Rome!Statute!and!not!a!State8Party!for!lack!of!ratification!by!the!Senate.!Thus,!it!is!
only!obliged!to!refrain!from!acts,!which!would!defeat!the!object!and!purpose!of!the!
Rome!Statute.!Any!argument!obliging!the!Philippines!to!follow!any!provision!in!the!
treaty!would!be!premature.!
Furthermore,!a!careful!reading!of!said!Art.!90!would!show!that!the!Agreement!is!
not!incompatible!with!the!Rome!Statute.!Specifically,!Art.!90(4)!provides!that!"[i]f!
the!requesting!State!is!a!State!not!Party!to!this!Statute!the!requested!State,!if!it!is!
not!under!an!international!obligation!to!extradite!the!person!to!the!requesting!
State,!shall!give!priority!to!the!request!for!surrender!from!the!Court.!x!x!x"!In!
applying!the!provision,!certain!undisputed!facts!should!be!pointed!out:!first,!the!US!
is!neither!a!State8Party!nor!a!signatory!to!the!Rome!Statute;!and!second,!there!is!an!
international!agreement!between!the!US!and!the!Philippines!regarding!extradition!
or!surrender!of!persons,!i.e.,!the!Agreement.!Clearly,!even!assuming!that!the!
Philippines!is!a!State8Party,!the!Rome!Statute!still!recognizes!the!primacy!of!
international!agreements!entered!into!between!States,!even!when!one!of!the!
States!is!not!a!State8Party!to!the!Rome!Statute.!
Sovereignty'Limited'by'International'Agreements'
Petitioner!next!argues!that!the!RP!has,!through!the!Agreement,!abdicated!its!
sovereignty!by!bargaining!away!the!jurisdiction!of!the!ICC!to!prosecute!US!
nationals,!government!officials/employees!or!military!personnel!who!commit!
serious!crimes!of!international!concerns!in!the!Philippines.!!
We!are!not!persuaded.!As!it!were,!the!Agreement!is!but!a!form!of!affirmance!and!
confirmance!of!the!Philippines!national!criminal!jurisdiction.!National!criminal!
jurisdiction!being!primary,!as!explained!above,!it!is!always!the!responsibility!and!
within!the!prerogative!of!the!RP!either!to!prosecute!criminal!offenses!equally!
covered!by!the!Rome!Statute!or!to!accede!to!the!jurisdiction!of!the!ICC.!Thus,!the!
Philippines!may!decide!to!try!"persons"!of!the!US,!as!the!term!is!understood!in!
the!Agreement,!under!our!national!criminal!justice!system.!Or!it!may!opt!not!to!
exercise!its!criminal!jurisdiction!over!its!erring!citizens!or!over!US!"persons"!
committing!high!crimes!in!the!country!and!defer!to!the!secondary!criminal!
jurisdiction!of!the!ICC!over!them.!
!As!to!"persons"!of!the!US!whom!the!Philippines!refuses!to!prosecute,!the!country!
would,!in!effect,!accord!discretion!to!the!US!to!exercise!either!its!national!criminal!
jurisdiction!over!the!"person"!concerned!or!to!give!its!consent!to!the!referral!of!the!
matter!to!the!ICC!for!trial.!In!the!same!breath,!the!US!must!extend!the!same!
privilege!to!the!Philippines!with!respect!to!"persons"!of!the!RP!committing!high!
crimes!within!US!territorial!jurisdiction.!
Nothing!in!the!Constitution!prohibits!such!agreements!recognizing!immunity!from!
jurisdiction!or!some!aspects!of!jurisdiction!(such!as!custody),!in!relation!to!long8
'
recognized!subjects!of!such!immunity!like!Heads!of!State,!diplomats!and!members!
of!the!armed!forces!contingents!of!a!foreign!State!allowed!to!enter!another!States!
territory.!!
To!be!sure,!the!nullity!of!the!subject!non8surrender!agreement!cannot!be!
predicated!on!the!postulate!that!some!of!its!provisions!constitute!a!virtual!
abdication!of!its!sovereignty.!Almost!every!time!a!state!enters!into!an!international!
agreement,!it!voluntarily!sheds!off!part!of!its!sovereignty.!The!Constitution,!as!
drafted,!did!not!envision!a!reclusive!Philippines!isolated!from!the!rest!of!the!world.!
It!even!adheres,!as!earlier!stated,!to!the!policy!of!cooperation!and!amity!with!all!
nations.!
By!their!nature,!treaties!and!international!agreements!actually!have!a!limiting!
effect!on!the!otherwise!encompassing!and!absolute!nature!of!sovereignty.!By!their!
voluntary!act,!nations!may!decide!to!surrender!or!waive!some!aspects!of!their!state!
power!or!agree!to!limit!the!exercise!of!their!otherwise!exclusive!and!absolute!
jurisdiction.!The!usual!underlying!consideration!in!this!partial!surrender!may!be!the!
greater!benefits!derived!from!a!pact!or!a!reciprocal!undertaking!of!one!contracting!
party!to!grant!the!same!privileges!or!immunities!to!the!other.!!
Agreement'Not'Immoral/Not'at'Variance'with'Principles'of'International'Law'
Petitioner!urges!that!the!Agreement!be!struck!down!as!void!ab#initio!for!imposing!
immoral!obligations!and/or!being!at!variance!with!allegedly!universally!recognized!
principles!of!international!law.!The!immoral!aspect!proceeds!from!the!fact!that!
the!Agreement,!as!petitioner!would!put!it,!"leaves!criminals!immune!from!
responsibility!for!unimaginable!atrocities!that!deeply!shock!the!conscience!of!
humanity;!x!x!x!it!precludes!our!country!from!delivering!an!American!criminal!to!
the![ICC]!x!x!x."!
The!Court!is!not!persuaded.!Suffice!it!to!state!in!this!regard!that!the!non8surrender!
agreement,!as!aptly!described!by!the!Solicitor!General,!"is!an!assertion!by!the!
Philippines!of!its!desire!to!try!and!punish!crimes!under!its!national!law.!x!x!x!The!
agreement!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."!
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,!for!the!nonce,!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!
28!
Public'International'Law'
Sources'of'International'Law:'Treaties'
jurisdiction!pursuant!to!the!non8surrender!agreement!over!an!offense!considered!
criminal!by!both!Philippine!laws!and!the!Rome!Statute.!
No'Grave'Abuse'of'Discretion'
Petitioners!final!point!revolves!around!the!necessity!of!the!Senates!concurrence!in!
the!Agreement.!And!without!specifically!saying!so,!petitioner!would!argue!that!the!
non8surrender!agreement!was!executed!by!the!President,!thru!the!DFA!Secretary,!
in!grave!abuse!of!discretion.!
By!constitutional!fiat!and!by!the!nature!of!his!or!her!office,!the!President,!as!head!
of!state!and!government,!is!the!sole!organ!and!authority!in!the!external!affairs!of!
the!country.!The!Constitution!vests!in!the!President!the!power!to!enter!into!
international!agreements,!subject,!in!appropriate!cases,!to!the!required!
concurrence!votes!of!the!Senate.!But!as!earlier!indicated,!executive!agreements!
may!be!validly!entered!into!without!such!concurrence.!As!the!President!wields!vast!
powers!and!influence,!her!conduct!in!the!external!affairs!of!the!nation!is,!as!Bayan!
would!put!it,!"executive!altogether."!The!right!of!the!President!to!enter!into!or!
ratify!binding!executive!agreements!has!been!confirmed!by!long!practice.!
In!thus!agreeing!to!conclude!the!Agreement!thru!E/N!BFO8028803,!then!President!
Gloria!Macapagal8Arroyo,!represented!by!the!Secretary!of!Foreign!Affairs,!acted!
within!the!scope!of!the!authority!and!discretion!vested!in!her!by!the!Constitution.!
At!the!end!of!the!day,!the!Presidentby!ratifying,!thru!her!deputies,!the!non8
surrender!agreementdid!nothing!more!than!discharge!a!constitutional!duty!and!
exercise!a!prerogative!that!pertains!to!her!office.!
Agreement'Need'Not'Be'in'the'Form'of'a'Treaty'
On!December!11,!2009,!then!President!Arroyo!signed!into!law!Republic!Act!No.!
(RA)!9851,!otherwise!known!as!the!"Philippine!Act!on!Crimes!Against!International!
Humanitarian!Law,!Genocide,!and!Other!Crimes!Against!Humanity."!Sec.!17!of!RA!
9851,!particularly!the!second!paragraph!thereof,!provides:!
Section!17.!Jurisdiction.!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.!!
A!view!is!advanced!that!the!Agreement#amends!existing!municipal!laws!on!the!
States!obligation!in!relation!to!grave!crimes!against!the!law!of!nations,!i.e.,!
genocide,!crimes!against!humanity!and!war!crimes.!Relying!on!the!above8quoted!
statutory!proviso,!the!view!posits!that!the!Philippine!is!required!to!surrender!to!the!
proper!international!tribunal!those!persons!accused!of!the!grave!crimes!defined!
under!RA!9851,!if!it!does!not!exercise!its!primary!jurisdiction!to!prosecute!them.!
'
The!basic!premise!rests!on!the!interpretation!that!if!it!does!not!decide!to!prosecute!
a!foreign!national!for!violations!of!RA!9851,!the!Philippines!has!only!two!options,!to!
wit:!(1)!surrender!the!accused!to!the!proper!international!tribunal;!or!(2)!surrender!
the!accused!to!another!State!if!such!surrender!is!"pursuant!to!the!applicable!
extradition!laws!and!treaties."!But!the!Philippines!may!exercise!these!options!only!
in!cases!where!"another!court!or!international!tribunal!is!already!conducting!the!
investigation!or!undertaking!the!prosecution!of!such!crime;"!otherwise,!the!
Philippines!must!prosecute!the!crime!before!its!own!courts!pursuant!to!RA!9851.!
Moreover,!consonant!with!the!foregoing!view,!citing!Sec.!2,!Art.!II!of!the!
Constitution,!where!the!Philippines!adopts,!as!a!national!policy,!the!"generally!
accepted!principles!of!international!law!as!part!of!the!law!of!the!land,"!the!Court!is!
further!impressed!to!perceive!the!Rome!Statute!as!declaratory!of!customary!
international!law.!In!other!words,!the!Statute!embodies!principles!of!law!which!
constitute!customary!international!law!or!custom!and!for!which!reason!it!assumes!
the!status!of!an!enforceable!domestic!law!in!the!context!of!the!aforecited!
constitutional!provision.!As!a!corollary,!it!is!argued!that!any!derogation!from!the!
Rome!Statute!principles!cannot!be!undertaken!via!a!mere!executive!agreement,!
which,!as!an!exclusive!act!of!the!executive!branch,!can!only!implement,!but!cannot!
amend!or!repeal,!an!existing!law.!The!Agreement,!so!the!argument!goes,!seeks!to!
frustrate!the!objects!of!the!principles!of!law!or!alters!customary!rules!embodied!in!
the!Rome!Statute.!
Moreover,!RA!9851!clearly:!(1)!defines!and!establishes!the!crimes!against!
international!humanitarian!law,!genocide!and!other!crimes!against!humanity;!(2)!
provides!penal!sanctions!and!criminal!liability!for!their!commission,!and!(3)!
establishes!special!courts!for!the!prosecution!of!these!crimes!and!for!the!State!to!
exercise!primary!criminal!jurisdiction.!Nowhere!in!RA!9851!is!there!a!proviso!that!
goes!against!the!tenor!of!the!Agreement.!
The!view!makes!much!of!the!above!quoted!second!par.!of!Sec.!17,!RA!9851!
as!requiring!the!Philippine!State!to!surrender!to!the!proper!international!tribunal!
those!persons!accused!of!crimes!sanctioned!under!said!law!if!it!does!not!exercise!
its!primary!jurisdiction!to!prosecute!such!persons.!This!view!is!not!entirely!correct,!
for!the!above!quoted!proviso!clearly!provides!discretion!to!the!Philippine!State!on!
whether!to!surrender!or!not!a!person!accused!of!the!crimes!under!RA!9851.!The!
statutory!proviso!uses!the!word!"may."!It!is!settled!doctrine!in!statutory!
construction!that!the!word!"may"!denotes!discretion,!and!cannot!be!construed!as!
having!mandatory!effect.Thus,!the!pertinent!second!pararagraph!of!Sec.!17,!RA!
9851!is!simply!permissive!on!the!part!of!the!Philippine!State.1avvphi1!
Besides,!even!granting!that!the!surrender!of!a!person!is!mandatorily!required!when!
the!Philippines!does!not!exercise!its!primary!jurisdiction!in!cases!where!"another!
court!or!international!tribunal!is!already!conducting!the!investigation!or!
29!
Public'International'Law'
Sources'of'International'Law:'Treaties'
undertaking!the!prosecution!of!such!crime,"!still,!the!tenor!of!the!Agreement!is!not!
repugnant!to!Sec.!17!of!RA!9851.!Said!legal!proviso!aptly!provides!that!the!
surrender!may!be!made!"to!another!State!pursuant!to!the!applicable!extradition!
laws!and!treaties."!!
Likewise,!the!Philippines!and!the!US!already!have!an!existing!extradition!treaty,!i.e.,!
RP8US!Extradition!Treaty,!which!was!executed!on!November!13,!1994.!The!
pertinent!Philippine!law,!on!the!other!hand,!is!Presidential!Decree!No.!1069,!issued!
on!January!13,!1977.!Thus,!the!Agreement,!in!conjunction!with!the!RP8US!
Extradition!Treaty,!would!neither!violate!nor!run!counter!to!Sec.!17!of!RA!9851.!
The!US!has!already!enacted!legislation!punishing!the!high!crimes!mentioned!
earlier.!In!fact,!as!early!as!October!2006,!the!US!enacted!a!law!criminalizing!war!
crimes.!Section!2441,!Chapter!118,!Part!I,!Title!18!of!the!United!States!Code!
Annotated!(USCA)!provides!for!the!criminal!offense!of!"war!crimes"!which!is!similar!
to!the!war!crimes!found!in!both!the!Rome!Statute!and!RA!9851!
Similarly,!in!December!2009,!the!US!adopted!a!law!that!criminalized!genocide.!
Despite!the!lack!of!actual!domestic!legislation,!the!US!notably!follows!the!doctrine!
of!incorporation.!As!early!as!1900,!the!esteemed!Justice!Gray!in!The!Paquete!
!
Habana case!already!held!international!law!as!part!of!the!law!of!the!US.!Thus,!a!
person!can!be!tried!in!the!US!for!an!international!crime!despite!the!lack!of!
domestic!legislation.!!
This!rule!finds!an!even!stronger!hold!in!the!case!of!crimes!against!humanity.!It!has!
been!held!that!genocide,!war!crimes!and!crimes!against!humanity!have!attained!
the!status!of!customary!international!law.!Some!even!go!so!far!as!to!state!that!
these!crimes!have!attained!the!status!of!jus!cogens.!
Customary!international!law!or!international!custom!is!a!source!of!international!
law!as!stated!in!the!Statute!of!the!ICJ.!It!is!defined!as!the!"general!and!consistent!
practice!of!states!recognized!and!followed!by!them!from!a!sense!of!legal!obligation.!
In!order!to!establish!the!customary!status!of!a!particular!norm,!two!elements!must!
concur:!State!practice,!the!objective!element;!and!opinio!juris!sive!necessitates,!the!
subjective!element.!
State!practice!refers!to!the!continuous!repetition!of!the!same!or!similar!kind!of!acts!
or!norms!by!States.!It!is!demonstrated!upon!the!existence!of!the!following!
elements:!(1)!generality;!(2)!uniformity!and!consistency;!and!(3)!duration.!While,!
opinio!juris,!the!psychological!element,!requires!that!the!state!practice!or!norm!"be!
carried!out!in!such!a!way,!as!to!be!evidence!of!a!belief!that!this!practice!is!rendered!
obligatory!by!the!existence!of!a!rule!of!law!requiring!it."!
"The!term!jus!cogens!means!the!compelling!law."Corollary,!"a!jus!cogens!norm!
holds!the!highest!hierarchical!position!among!all!other!customary!norms!and!
principles.!As!a!result,!jus!cogens!norms!are!deemed!"peremptory!and!non8
derogable."!When!applied!to!international!crimes,!"jus!cogens!crimes!have!been!
'
deemed!so!fundamental!to!the!existence!of!a!just!international!legal!order!that!
states!cannot!derogate!from!them,!even!by!agreement."!
These!jus!cogens!crimes!relate!to!the!principle!of!universal!jurisdiction,!i.e.,!"any!
state!may!exercise!jurisdiction!over!an!individual!who!commits!certain!heinous!and!
widely!condemned!offenses,!even!when!no!other!recognized!basis!for!jurisdiction!
exists.!"The!rationale!behind!this!principle!is!that!the!crime!committed!is!so!
egregious!that!it!is!considered!to!be!committed!against!all!members!of!the!
international!community!and!thus!granting!every!State!jurisdiction!over!the!crime.!
Therefore,!even!with!the!current!lack!of!domestic!legislation!on!the!part!of!the!US,!
it!still!has!both!the!doctrine!of!incorporation!and!universal!jurisdiction!to!try!these!
crimes.!Consequently,!no!matter!how!hard!one!insists,!the!ICC,!as!an!international!
tribunal,!found!in!the!Rome!Statute!is!not!declaratory!of!customary!international!
law.!More!than!eight!(8)!years!have!elapsed!since!the!Philippine!representative!
signed!the!Statute,!but!the!treaty!has!not!been!transmitted!to!the!Senate!for!the!
ratification!process.!
Further,!the!Rome!Statute!itself!rejects!the!concept!of!universal!jurisdiction!over!
the!crimes!enumerated!therein!as!evidenced!by!it!requiring!State!consent.!Even!
further,!the!Rome!Statute!specifically!and!unequivocally!requires!that:!"This!Statute!
!
is!subject!to!ratification,!acceptance!or!approval!by!signatory!States. These!clearly!
negate!the!argument!that!such!has!already!attained!customary!status.!
In!light!of!the!above!consideration,!the!position!or!view!that!the!challenged!RP8US!
Non8Surrender!Agreement!ought!to!be!in!the!form!of!a!treaty,!to!be!effective,!has!
to!be!rejected.!
Dispositive'Portion:!WHEREFORE,!the!petition!for!certiorari,!mandamus!and!prohibition!is!
hereby!DISMISSED!for!lack!of!merit.!No!costs.!
SO!ORDERED!
9. China'National'Machinery'v.'Santamaria'(RK)'
TOPIC:!(1)!STATE!Immunity;!(2)!Executive!Agreement!
Treaties/Laws:!
Theories!of!State!Immunity!
PIL:!Request!from!foreign!office!of!state!for!immunity!
Waiver!of!Immunity!~!The!Foreign!Sovereign!Immunities!Act!of!1976!of!US!
Definition!of!Treaty,!Executive!Agreement!(and!requisites)!
!
RE:!NORTHRAIL!PROJECT!
G.R.'No.'185572'February'7,'2012!
Petitioner:!CHINA!NATIONAL!MACHINERY!&!EQUIPMENT!CORP.!(GROUP),!
30!
Public'International'Law'
Sources'of'International'Law:'Treaties'
Respondents:! HON.! CESAR! D.! SANTAMARIA,! in! his! official! capacity! as! Presiding! Judge! of!
Branch! 145,! Regional! Trial! Court! of! Makati! City,! HERMINIO! HARRY! L.! ROQUE,! JR.,! JOEL! R.!
BUTUYAN,! ROGER! R.! RAYEL,! ROMEL! R.! BAGARES,! CHRISTOPHER! FRANCISCO! C.! BOLASTIG,!
LEAGUE! OF! URBAN! POOR! FOR! ACTION! (LUPA),! KILUSAN! NG! MARALITA! SA! MEYCAUAYAN!
(KMM8LUPA!CHAPTER),!DANILO!M.!CALDERON,!VICENTE!C.!ALBAN,!MERLYN!M.!VAAL,!LOLITA!
S.! QUINONES,! RICARDO! D.! LANOZO,! JR.,! CONCHITA! G.! GOZO,! MA.! TERESA! D.! ZEPEDA,!
JOSEFINA!A.!LANOZO,!and!SERGIO!C.!LEGASPI,!JR.,!KALIPUNAN!NG!DAMAYANG!MAHIHIRAP!
(KADAMAY),!EDY!CLERIGO,!RAMMIL!DINGAL,!NELSON!B.!TERRADO,!CARMEN!DEUNIDA,!and!
EDUARDO!LEGSON!
Ponente:!SERENO,!J.:#
'
FACTS:'
August' 30,' 2003:! ' Export! and! Import! Bank! of! China! (hereinafter# EXIM! Bank),! and!
the! Dept.! of! Finance! entered! into! a! MOU,! wherein! China! agreed! to! extend!
Preferential! Buyers! Credit! to! the! Philippine! Government! to! finance! the! Northrail!
Project.! The! Chinese! Govt! designated! EXIM! Bank! as! the! lender,! while! the!
Philippine!Govt!named!DOF!as!the!borrower.!!
o AMT:!Not!exceeding!USD!400,000,000!
o Period:!Payable!in!20!Years!
o Grace!period:!5!years!
o Rate:!3%!per!annum!
October' 1,' 2003:' Ambassador! Wang! Chungui! wrote! a! letter! to! DOF! of! CNMEGs!
designation!as!the!Prime!Contractor!for!the!Northrail!Project.!
December'30,'2003:'Northrail!and!CNMEG!executed!a!Contract!Agreement!for!the!
construction! of! Section! 1,! Phase! 1! of! the! North! Luzon! Railway! System! from!
Caloocan!to!Malolos!on!a!turnkey!basis!
o Contract'price:!'USD!421,050,000!
February' 26,' 2004:! Philippine! Govt! and! EXIM! Bank! entered! into! a! counterpart!
financial! agreement! ! Buyer! Credit! Load! Agreement! No.! BLA! 04055,! where! EXIM!
Bank! agreed! to! extend! Preferential! Buyers! Credit! in! the! amount! of! USD!
400,000,000! in! favor! of! the! Philippines! to! finance! the! construction! of! Phase! 1,! of!
the!Northrail!Project!
'
RTC! set! the! case! for! hearing! on! the! issuance! of! injunctive! reliefs,!
prompting! CNMEG! to! file! an! Urgent! Motion! for! Reconsideration! of! this!
order.!!
o Before! the! RTC! could! rule! on! this,! CNMEG! filed! a! motion! to! dismiss! the!
case!arguing!the!RTC!did!not!have!jurisdiction!over!it.!!
CNMEG! argued! that! the! trial! court! did! not! have! jurisdiction!
over(1)! its! person,! as! it! was! an! agent! of! the! Chinese! Govt,!
making!it!immune!from!suit,!and!!
(2)!the!subject!matter,!as!the!Northrail!Project!was!a!product!of!
an!executive!agreement!
!
May' 15,' 2007:' RTC! issued! omnibus! order! denying! CNMEGs! motion! to! dismiss!
eventually!prompting!CNMEG!to!elevat!case!to!the!CA.!!
April'4,'2008:'CA!dismissed!the!petition!
THUS,'CNMEG!filed!the!instant!Petition!for!Review!on!Certiorari!dated!January!21,!
2009!
o
!
ISSUES''
1. WON!CNMEG!is!entitled!to!immunity,!precluding!it!from!being!sued!before!a!local!
court!
2. WON! the! Contract! Agreement! is! an! executive! agreement,! such! that! it! cannot! be!
questioned!by!or!before!a!local!court!
'
HELD:'
'
On'the'issue'of'Immunity'
1. Two'conflicting'concepts'of'sovereign'immunity'
classical'or'absolute'theory'88!a!sovereign!cannot,!without!its!consent,!be!made!a!
respondent!in!the!courts!of!another!sovereign!
newer' or' restrictive' theory! 88! the! immunity! of! the! sovereign! is! recognized! only!
with! regard! to! public! acts! or! acts!jure# imperii!of! a! state,! but! not! with! regard! to!
private!acts!or!acts!jure#gestionis!
o The!restrictive!theory!came!about!because!of!the!entry!of!sovereign!states!into!
purely! commercial! activities! remotely! connected! with! the! discharge! of!
governmental!functions.!!
JUSMAG' v' NLRC:! Court! affirmed! the! Philippines! adherence! to! the! restrictive!
theory!
31!
Public'International'Law'
2.
Sources'of'International'Law:'Treaties'
immunity! cannot! be! extended! to! commercial,! private! and! proprietary! acts! (jure#
gestionis)!
CNMEG'is'engaged'in'a'proprietary'activity'
The!parties!executed!the!Contract!Agreement!for!the!purpose!of!constructing!the!
Luzon! Railways.! However,! the! Contract! Agreement! must! not! be! read! in! isolation!
because! it! does! not! on! its! own! reveal! whether! the! construction! of! the! Luzon!
railways!was!meant!to!be!a!proprietary!endeavor.!!
The! Contract! of! Agreement! must! be! construed! in! conjunction! with! 3! other!
documents:!(1)!the!MOU!between!Northrail!and!CNMEG,!(b)!Letter!of!Ambassador!
Wang,!and!(c)!the!Loan!Agreement.!!
o Memorandum!of!Understanding!dated!14!September!2002!
1. The!Memorandum!of!Understanding!dated!14!September!2002!shows!that!
CNMEG! sought! the! construction! of! the! Luzon! Railways! as! a! proprietary!
venture!(see#full#text#for#all#relevant#parts#of#the#MOU)!
APPROVAL! PROCES:! xxx! As! soon! as! possible! after! completion! and!
presentation! of! the! Study! the! parties! shall! commence! the!
preparation! and! negotiation! of! the! terms! and! conditions! of! the!
Contract!!
2. Clearly,!it'was'CNMEG'that'initiated'the'undertaking,!and!not!the!Chinese!
government.! The! Feasibility! Study! was! conducted! not! because! of! any!
diplomatic! gratuity! from! or! exercise! of! sovereign! functions! by! the! Chinese!
government,!but!was!plainly!a!business!strategy!employed!by!CNMEG!with!
a!view!to!securing!this!commercial!enterprise.!
o Letter!Dated!1!OCT!2003!
1. That! CNMEG,! and! not! the! Chinese! government,! initiated! the! Northrail!
Project! was! confirmed! by! Amb.! Wang! in! his! letter! dated! 1! October! 2003!
(see#full#text#for#all#relevant#parts#of#the#Letter)!
CNMEG! already! signed! an! MOU! with! the! North! Luzon! Railways!
Corporation! last! September! 14,! 2000! during! the! visit! of! Chairman! Li!
Peng.! Such! being! the! case,! they! have! already! established! an! initial!
working!relationship!with!your!North!Luzon!Railways!Corporation!
2. Thus,! the! desire! of! CNMEG! to! secure! the! Northrail! Project! was! in! the!
ordinary!or!regular!course!of!its!business!as!a!global!construction!company.!
The! use! of! the! term! "state! corporation"! to! refer! to! CNMEG! was! only!
descriptive! of! its! nature! as! a! government8owned! and/or! 8controlled!
corporation,! and! its! assignment! as! the! Primary! Contractor! did! not!
imply!that!it!was!acting!on!behalf!of!China!!
o The!Loan!Agreement!
1. CNMEG! claims! immunity! on! the! ground! that! the! Aug! 30! MOU! on! the!
financing!of!the!Northrail!Project!was!signed!by!the!Philippine!and!Chinese!
3.
'
governments,! and! its! assignment! as! the! Primary! Contractor! meant! that! it!
was!bound!to!perform!a!governmental!function!on!behalf!of!China.!
2. However,! the! Loan! Agreement! belies! this! reasoning.! (see# full# text# for# all#
relevant#parts#of#the#loan#agreement)!
Thus,!it!is!clear!from!the!foregoing!provisions!that!the!Northrail!Project!
was!a!purely!commercial!transaction!
Thus! piecing! together! the! above! would! reveal! the! desire! of! CNMEG! to! construct!
the!Luzon!Railways!in!pursuit!of!purely!commercial!activity!performed!in!ordinary!
course!of!its!business.!!
CNMEG'failed'to'adduce'evidence'that'it'is'immune'from'suit'under'Chinese'Law!
Courts! ruling! in! Deutsche' Gesellschaft' Fur' Technische' Zusammenarbeit' (GTZ)' v.'
CA:!
o The!mere!entering!into!a!contract!by!a!foreign!state!with!a!private!party!cannot!
be!the!ultimate!test.!Such!an!act!can!only!be!the!start!of!the!inquiry.!!
o The!logical!question!is!whether!the!foreign!state!is!engaged!in!the!activity!in!the!
regular!course!of!business.!
1. If!not,!the!particular!act!or!transaction!must!then!be!tested!by!its!nature.!
if! the! act! is! in! pursuit! of! a! sovereign! activity,! or! an! incident! thereof,!
then!it!is!an!act!jure!imperii!
o The! principle! of! state! immunity! from! suit,! whether! a! local! state! or! a! foreign!
state,!is!reflected!in!Section!9,!Article!XVI!of!the!Constitution,!which!states!that!
"the!State!may!not!be!sued!without!its!consent."!!
1. IF!the!suit!is!against!the!STATE!itself,!the!only!necessary!inquiry!is!whether!
said!State!had!consented!to!be!sued.!
2. IF!it!is!against!a!States!agency,!then!see!below:!
o State! immunity! from! suit! may! be! waived! by! general! or! special! law.! The! special!
law! can! take! the! form! of! the! original! charter! of! the! incorporated! government!
agency!
32!
Public'International'Law'
1.
2.
3.
4.
Sources'of'International'Law:'Treaties'
Thus,!the!agency!can!simply!invoke!its!charter!and!claim!exemption.!
Also,!the!court!can!simply!check!the!charter!and!sue.!!
However,! if! the! agency! fails! to! invoke! exemption! from! its! national! law! or!
charter,! We' adhere' to' the' rule' that' in' the' absence' of' evidence' to' the'
contrary,'foreign'laws'on'a'particular'subject'are'presumed'to'be'the'same'
as'those'of'the'Philippines,'and'following'the'most'intelligent'assumption'
we' can' gather,' GTZ' is' akin' to' a' governmental' owned' or' controlled'
corporation' without' original' charter' which,' by' virtue' of' the' Corporation'
Code,'has'expressly'consented'to'be'sued.''
o Applying!GTZ!v.!CA!to!the!present!case,!it!is!readily!apparent!that!CNMEG!cannot!
claim! immunity! from! suit,! even! if! it! contends! that! it! performs! governmental!
functions!
1. Its! designation! as! the! Primary! Contractor! does! not! automatically! grant! it!
immunity!
2. Although!CNMEG!claims!to!be!a!government8owned!corporation,!it!failed!to!
adduce!evidence!that!it!has!not!consented!to!be!sued!under!Chinese!law.!
o THUS,in!the!absence!of!evidence!to!the!contrary,!CNMEG!is!to!be!presumed!to!
be!a!government8owned!and!8controlled!corporation!without!an!original!charter.!
As! a! result,! it! has! the! capacity! to! sue! and! be! sued! under! Section! 36! of! the!
Corporation!Code.!
CNMEG'failed'to'present'a'certification'from'the'DFA!
the! determination! by! the! Executive! that! an! entity! is! entitled! to! sovereign! or!
diplomatic!immunity!is!a!political!question!conclusive!upon!the!courts!
'
The! question! now! is! whether! any! agency! of! the! Executive! Branch! can! make! a!
determination!of!immunity!from!suit,!which!may!be!considered!as!conclusive!upon!
the! courts.! The! SC! emphasized' DFAs' competence! and! authority! to! provide! such!
necessary!determination!
o The! DFAs! function! includes,! among! its! other! mandates,! the! determination! of!
persons!and!institutions!covered!by!diplomatic!immunities!
Moreover,!this!authority!is!exclusive'to!the!DFA!
o In!the!case!at!bar,!CNMEG!offers!the!Certification!executed!by!the!Economic!and!
Commercial!Office!of!the!Embassy!of!the!Peoples!Republic!of!China,!stating!that!
the!Northrail!Project!is!in!pursuit!of!a!sovereign!activity.!
1. However,! this! is! not! the! kind! of! certification! that! can! establish! CNMEGs!
entitlement!to!immunity!from!suit,!as!Holy!See!unequivocally!refers!to!the!
determination!of!the!"Foreign!Office!of!the!state!where!it!is!sued!
o Further,! CNMEG! also! claims! that! its! immunity! from! suit! has! the! executive!
endorsement! of! both! the! OSG! and! the! Office! of! the! Government! Corporate!
Counsel!(OGCC)!
1. BUT,!determination!by!the!OSG,!or!by!the!OGCC!for!that!matter,!does!not!
inspire!the!same!degree!of!confidence!as!a!DFA!certification.!
Agreement' to' submit' dispute' to' arbitration' may' be' construed' as' implicit' waiver' of'
immunity'from'suit!
In!the!United!States,!The'Foreign'Sovereign'Immunities'Act'of'1976!provides!for!a!
waiver! by! implication! of! state! immunity.! The! law! provides! that! agreement! to!
submit! to! arbitration! in! a! foreign! country! is! construed! as! an! implicit! waiver! of!
immunity!of!suit.!
Although!there!is!no!similar!law!in!the!Philippines,!there!is!reason!to!apply!the!legal!
reasoning!behind!the!waiver!in!this!case.!
The!Conditions!of!Contract!in!the!Contract!Agreement!provides!for!Settlement' of'
Disputes'and'Arbitration!
From! all! the! foregoing,! it! is! clear! that! CNMEG! has! agreed! that! it! will! not! be! afforded!
immunity!from!suit.!Thus,!the!courts!have!the!competence!and!jurisdiction!to!ascertain!
the!validity!of!the!Contract!Agreement.!
!
ON'EXECUTIVE'AGREEMENT..'
Article! 2(1)! of! the! Vienna! Convention! on! the! Law! of! Treaties! (Vienna! Convention)!
defines!a!treaty!as!follows:'
[A]n! international! agreement! concluded! between! States! in! written! form! and!
governed!by!international!law,!whether!embodied!in!a!single!instrument!or!in!two!
or!more!related!instruments!and!whatever!its!particular!designation.'
5.
6.
1.
33!
Public'International'Law'
2.
3.
4.
Sources'of'International'Law:'Treaties'
The!first!and!the!third!requisites!do!not!obtain!in!the!case!at!bar.'
o CNMEG#is#neither*a*government*nor*a*government*agency.'
1. The! Contract! Agreement! was! not! concluded! between! the! Philippines! and!
China,!but!between!Northrail!and!CNMEG'
2. Northrail!is!a!government8owned!or!8controlled!corporation,!while!CNMEG!
is!a!corporation!duly!organized!and!created!under!the!laws!of!the!Peoples!
Republic!of!China'
Both! Northrail! and! CNMEG! entered! into! the! Contract! Agreement! as!
entities! with! personalities! distinct! and! separate! from! the! Philippine!
and!Chinese!governments,!respectively.'
3. Neither! can! it! be! said! that! CNMEG! acted! as! agent! of! the! Chinese!
government'
Amb.!Wang,!in!his!letter!dated!1!October!2003,!described!CNMEG!as!a!
"state!corporation'
o The#Contract#Agreement#is#to#be#governed#by#Philippine#law.'
54
1. Article! 2! of! the! Conditions! of! Contract, !which! under! Article! 1.1! of! the!
Contract! Agreement! is! an! integral! part! of! the! latter,! states:! The! contract!
shall! in! all! respects! be! read! and! construed! in! accordance! with! the! laws! of!
the!Philippines'
2. Since!the!Contract!Agreement!explicitly!provides!that!Philippine!law!shall!be!
applicable,! the! parties! have! effectively! conceded! that! their! rights! and!
obligations!thereunder!are!not!governed!by!international!law.'
It!is!therefore!clear!from!the!foregoing!reasons!that!the!Contract!Agreement!does!not!
partake! of! the! nature! of! an! executive! agreement.! It! is! merely! an! ordinary! commercial!
contract!that!can!be!questioned!before!the!local!courts.'
'
!
WHEREFORE,! the! instant! Petition! is!DENIED.! Petitioner! China! National! Machinery! &!
Equipment!Corp.!(Group)!is!not!entitled!to!immunity!from!suit,!and!the!Contract!Agreement!
is! not! an! executive! agreement.! CNMEGs! prayer! for! the! issuance! of! a! TRO! and/or! Writ! of!
Preliminary! Injunction! is! DENIED! for! being! moot! and! academic.! This! case! is! REMANDED! to!
the!Regional!Trial!Court!of!Makati,!Branch!145,!for!further!proceedings!as!regards!the!validity!
of!the!contracts!subject!of!Civil!Case!No.!068203.!
!
!
!
34!
vocation of catching and bringing in fresh fish, have been recognized as exempt,
with their cargoes and crews, from capture as prizes of war.
The would cite the following agreements/orders/edicts:
o Henry IV and King of France: Concerning Safety of Fishermen (1400 and 1403)
o Emperor Charles V and Francis L of France (1521)
o French and Dutch Edicts (1538)
o Louis XIV and Holland and the Dutch (1675)
o France and England and US during the War of Independence (1779)*
o US and Mexico (1846)*
All these were made during times of conflict between the various countries
recognizing the vulnerability of its citizens and their need to continue on fishing
for livelihood. They all made exempt fishing vessels exempt from capture as
prizes of war. It was repeatedly said that citizens shouldnt suffer unduly during
such times and should be allowed to provide livelihood for themselves.
The only exception of this long-standing practice being the capture of French and
Dutch vessels by the English during the French Revolution. Lord Stowell (the guy
who issued the order to capture) stated:
o The exemption of fishing vessels was only a rule of comity and not of legal
decision.
o Comity was used synonymously with courtesy or goodwill and no court in
England at the time had made any decision exempting such.
The US SC went on to say that international law is part of our law and must be
ascertained and administered by the courts of justice. Where there is no treaty
and no controlling executive or legislative act or judicial decision, resort must be
had to the customs and usage of civilized nations, and as evidence of these, to
the works of jurists and commentators who by years of labor, research, and
experience have made themselves peculiarly well acquainted with the subject of
which they treat. Such works are resorted to by judicial tribunals, not for the
speculations of their authors concerning what the law ought to be, but for
trustworthy evidence of what the law really is.
The review of precedence and authorities demonstrates that at the present day,
by the general consent of the civilized nations of the world, and independently
of any express treaty or other public act, it is an established rule of international
law, founded on considerations of humanity to a poor and industrious order of
men, and of mutual convenience of belligerent states, that coast fishing vessels,
with their implements and supplies, cargoes and crews, unarmed and honestly
pursuing their calling are exempt for capture as prizes of war.
Whatever the may have been its origins whether usage or ordinances it has
become the law of the sea only by concurrent sanction of those nations who may
be said to constitute the commercial world. Many of the usages which prevail,
and which have the force of law, doubtless originated in the positive
prescriptions of some single state, which were at first of limited effect, but
which, when generally accepted, became of universal obligation.
1
Unilateral action carried to an extreme and based upon conflicting principles could
produce complete chaos, while insistence upon the multilateral approach alone
can lead to the situation which has prevailed since the failure of the two Geneva
Law of the Sea Conferences to reach agreement upon the breadth of the territorial
sea and fishing zones.
Hence, what is required is a judicious mix of the two approaches, taking into
account the complex set of inter-related and sometimes conflicting political,
economic and legal considerations, both national and international, and based
upon the imperatives of time itself.
they shall be exercised by all States with reasonable regard to the interests of
other States in their exercise of the freedom of the high seas.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not Iceland is entitled to claim preferential rights? YES
2. Whether or not it may unilaterally exclude the U.K. fishing vessels from all fishing
activity in the waters beyond the limits agreed to in the 1961 Exchange of Notes? NO
HELD/RATIO:
Essentially, the Court held that:
o Iceland is entitled to preferential rights
o However, its legislation in 1972 was illegal; Iceland was not entitled
unilaterally to exclude United Kingdom fishing vessels
o The two governments were under mutual obligations to negotiate an
equitable solution
o The preferential rights of Iceland and the established rights of the U.K. as
well as the interests of other States should be taken into account in the
negotiations.
There can be no doubt of the exceptional dependence of Iceland on its fisheries.
That exceptional dependence was explicitly recognized by the U.K. in the Exchange
of Notes of March 11, 1961.
The preferential rights of the coastal State come into play only at the moment
when an intensification in the exploitation of fishery resources makes it imperative
to introduce some system of catch-limitation and sharing of those resources, to
preserve the fish stocks in the interests of their rational and economic
exploitation. This situation appears in the present case.
The concept of preferential rights is not incompatible with the exclusion of all
fishing activities of other States. A coastal State entitled to preferential rights is
not free, unilaterally and according to its own uncontrolled discretion, to
determine the extent of those rights.
Accordingly, the fact that Iceland is entitled to claim preferential rights does not
justify its claim to unilaterally exclude U.K. fishing vessels from all fishing activity in
the waters.
The provisions of the Icelandic Regulations of 1972 and the manner of their
implementation disregard the fishing rights of UK. Icelands unilateral action thus
constitutes an infringement of Article 2 of the 1958 Geneva Convention on the
High Seas, which requires that all States, including coastal States, in exercising
their freedom of fishing, pay reasonable regard to the interests of other States.
The most appropriate method for the solution of the dispute is negotiation. Its
objective should be the delimitation of the rights and interests of the Parties, the
preferential rights of the coastal State on the one hand, and the rights of the other
5
State (i.e. UK) on the other, to balance and regulate equitably questions such as
those of catch-limitation, share allocations and related restrictions concerning
areas closed to fishing, number and type of vessels allowed and forms control of
the agreed provisions. The obligation to negotiate flows form the very nature of
the respective rights of the Parties and is in accordance with the provisions of the
UN Charter concerning peaceful settlement of disputes.
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
1953 Resolution which declares the inconsistency of the policy of the South
African Government with the principles contained in the Charter of the UN
and with its obligations
Report of the Committee on the South West Africa
11 trust territories agreements
Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the GA in 1948
Draft Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the IL Commission Covenant
on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
Declaration on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination adopted
by the GA of the UN in 1963
Regional treaties and declarations, particularly the European Convention for
the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
The Charter of the Organization of American States
The American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man
The Draft Declaration of International Rights and Duties
The initiate the law-making process by taking us across the threshold into the
realm of law
Sometimes they may even create law, imperfect as it may be
In the case of the Declaration of Legal Principles concerning Outer Space, some
particular elements should be taken into consideration
1. The interpretation attached to it by member States of the UN, particularly those
that play a leading part in the exploration and use of outer space
Representatives of US and the Soviet Union declared that their governments
would respect the principles of the Declaration
Similar statements were made by representatives of other Member States
Almost all members of the UN attached to it a importance
By expressing their will to be bound by the provisions of the document, they
consented to be so bound, thus question of form ceases to be of essence
2. The Declaration of 1963 was preceded by other resolutions adopted by the UN.
They reflected a certain trend of development of the law in statu nascendi.
3. The practice that had grown from the very day a man-made satellite reached
outer space.
For instance, the freedom to launch objects into outer space for purposes not
affecting rights or legitimate interests of other States. Since no consent was
sought or no protest or objection was raised, it can be argued that this
practice has developed with a real consensus omnium
It can be viewed as offering full evidence of a general consent (tacitus
consensus) of States
In the formation of customary law or custom, it may be added that today
time travels much faster and makes institutions mature at a much quicker
speed than ever before
It cannot be denied, therefore, that in the light of these facts, the Declaration of 1963 is
to be viewed as the culmination of a certain process. Its great value and strength is that
it has created a framework for the law of tomorrow.
The 1969 Resolution condemned South Africa for its refusal to comply with
resolution 264 (1969) and, inter alia, called upon States to refrain from all dealings
with South Africa in respect of Namibia
Issue: Whether any of these resolutions were decisions in the sense that they give
rise to legal obligations upon Member States within the meaning of Article 25
Discussion:
1. GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION 2145 (1966)
General Rule: GA possesses recommendatory rather than mandatory powers
o Exceptions: Admission of new members, approval of the budget and the
apportionment of expenses
UK Government: It could not accept the opinion because the exceptions are
not of relevance in the present context. The GA has no general competence
of an executive character, and with the exceptions referred to above, there is
no basis in the Charter for the attribution to it of a competence to adopt
resolutions which are other than recommendatory in effect
But it can pass resolutions which are legally operative, even if it is necessary
to ask for the assistance of the Security Council in making them legally
effective
According to the Court, the mandate was validly terminated but the
cooperation of the SC was needed to make it effective, in so far as securing
the withdrawal of South Africa was concerned
GAs determination of facts or legal situations, on the other hand, are not
binding in themselves or by themselves; but they have full legal validity in the
sense that they apply the rules of the Charter in particular cases
On this view, the determination made by the GA that South Africa has not
complied with the obligations of the Mandate establishes the condition of a
legal rule, in this case, the other party may consider the treaty terminated
Judge Fitzmaurice takes a contrary view saying that the lack of Charter
powers means that the Assembly has no power to terminate the mandate
o In the Voting Procedure Case, the court had found that the Assembly
could not depart from its own voting rules, even though unanimity has
been required under the League Council
o He also suggests that a dangerous precedent would be set if the
Assembly were, under some treaty, to accept an arrangement whereby
it was to exercise certain powers reserved in the Charter to the Security
Council
o The Assembly therefore cannot take executive action, it cannot purport
to revoke the mandate by pointing to an alleged executive power to this
effect under the Mandate
If art 25 applied only to Chap 7, one might perhaps expected to see it located in
that chapter
Moreover, there is some strength to the view that Art 48 and 49 achieve a binding
effect for Chap 7 decisions; and that if Art 25 refers to Chap 7 alone, then it is
superfluous
It is less easy to see in the wording of Chap 7 any opportunities for decision
Art 33 (2) provides that the SC may call upon parties to settle their dispute by
certain peaceful means listed in Art 33 (1)
This phrase is stronger than the phrase recommend used in Art 36 or 37
However, the Council is in effect requiring the parties to note an obligation, which
they have already accepted under Art 33 (1)
To note is that it is in reality comparatively rare for UN members to identify
themselves as parties to a dispute, and voluntarily to abstain from voting
The protection of Art 27 (3) in relation to Chap 6 is more apparent than real
The Travaux Preparatoires
When the Co-ordination Committee prepared the final draft of Art 25, it changed
the wording so as to make it clear that members would only be obliged to carry
out those Council decisions that are legally mandatory
The main controversy concerned whether the obligation to carry out decisions of
the SC was limited to decisions taken under Chap 6-8
By implication, therefore, the travaux provide some evidence that Art 25 was not
intended to be limited to Chap 7, or inapplicable to Chap 6
Subsequent Practice
Corfu Channel Incident in 1947
o The UK submitted a draft resolution recommending the dispute be referred
to the ICJ
o Before and after the adoption of this resolution, the question arose as to
whether Art 25 applied to a recommendation under Art 36
o UK contended that the Court had jurisdiction in the case under Art 36 (1) of
its Statute. It claimed that its dispute with Albania was such a matter since
the SC resolution adopted under Art 36 of the Charter was binding upon the
parties by virtue of Albanias acceptance of all the obligations of a Member
State and in conformity with Art 25
o In Shawcross statement in the Corfu Channel Case, he asserted that
recommendations under Chap 6 of this Charter, relating to methods of
settling disputes which endanger peace, are binding
o Albania insisted the opposite, and said that Art 25 could only apply to
decisions of the Council taken under Chap 7; and that therefore the SC
resolution could not provide for an indirect form of compulsory jurisdiction
o Albania, even though contending that the Court had no jurisdiction, still
voluntarily accepted to the Court
NB: 7 judges in a separate opinion stated that they could not accept that a
recommendation under Art 36 of the Charter could involve the compulsory
jurisdiction of the Court
Greek Frontier Incidents Question
o US proposed the establishment of a commission of investigation and good
offices
o Albania, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia, who were parties involved in the dispute,
objected, stating that Chap 6 could not give rise to actions which were
binding upon Members
o US, however, drew the distinction between conciliation and investigation
o While conciliation might imply voluntary will on the part of those who oppose
each other, Art 34 must be understood to give the SC the right to investigate
a dispute, regardless of WON the State being investigated approves
o If the power to decide on an investigation under Art 34 were not a binding
decision within Art 25, the peaceful settlement tasks of the UN would be
frustrated
o The outcome was inconclusive, the US draft vote failing to be adopted
because of a Soviet veto
Kashmir Dispute
o A SC resolution in 1951 calling for a plebiscite was rejected by India on the
grounds that it was a mere recommendation under Chap 6
o Other SC members merely asserted that SC resolutions, validly concluded,
were binding decisions upon the membership
o The matter was never clearly resolved
o India also complained that a draft resolution of 1957, urging demilitarization
failed to appreciate that resolutions under Chap 6 had no binding effect
o No opposition was specifically voiced to Indias view, and a resolution was
adopted calling for a plebiscite and demilitarization
Trieste Case
o Both the travaux preparatoires and the wording of the Charter lead one in
the direction that the application of Art 25 is not limited to Chap 7
resolutions, excluding Chap 6 resolutions
o Clearly, some resolutions passed under Chap 7 are never intended to be
binding, they are meant to be mere recommendations
o The binding or non-binding nature of those resolutions turns not upon
whether they are to be regarded as Chap 6 or Chap 7 resolutions but upon
whether the parties intended them to be decisions or recommendations
o Decisions to investigate could perhaps have this operative effect, though
recommendations under Art 36 or 37 would not
On the Namibia case
o UK, in reaching the conclusion that the SC can only bind members when it has
made a determination under Art 39, did not in its public statement deal with
these considerations
10
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
3.
Its Government also had decided not to avail itself of the right, under Art 66
of the Courts Statute, to submit a written or oral presentation in the Namibia
case
Therefore, there exists yet no published, closely reasoned analysis of the legal
conclusions which it has reached on this case
Although this may be subsequent practice
The extent to which the understanding is well founded in the Charter is
more open to debate than this statement allows
The UK, interestingly, is essentially adopting a teleological posture here,
placing the main weight of its argument not on the letter of the Charter, or
the travaux, but rather on the operational understanding which best allows
the SC to carry out its business
In the drafting of resolutions, Chap 7 resolutions are to be regarded as
capable of binding, while Chap 6 resolutions are not
Article 25 operates in respect of Chap 7 but not Chap 6
Art 25 is not confined to decisions in regard to enforcement action but
applies to the decisions of the SC adopted in accordance with the Charter
In ensuing the vote, the SC, by a vote of 10 in favour and Australia abstaining,
approved the 3 instruments on Trieste and formally accepted the responsibilities
devolving upon it under them
The court clearly regarded Chap 6-8 and 12 as lex specialis while Art 24 contained
the lex generalis
Resolutions validly adopted under Art 24 were binding on the membership as a
whole
12
Alien Tort Statuteestablished jurisdiction for anyone with a colorable claim under
international law; the idea is that if you commit such a heinous crime, then any tribunal
should be able to try you because the whole world would agree how bad the crime was
The US courts eventually ruled in favor of Filartigas, rewarding them roughly $10.4
million. Torture was clearly a violation of international law and the US did have
jurisdiction over the case since claim was lodged when both parties were inside the US.
Additionally, Pena had sought to dismiss the case based on forum non conveniens
saying that Paraguay was a more convenient location for the trial, but did not succeed.
Third, there are many instances to be found decided where the right of a nation to
legislate for waters more or less landlocked or land embraced although beyong
the three mile limit has been admitted.
It seems therefore without laying down the proposition that the Moray Firth is for
every purpose within the territorial sovereignty, it can at least be clearly said that
the appellant cannot make out his proposition that it is inconceivable that the
British Legislature should attempt for fishery regulation to legislate against all and
sundry is such a place.
It is therefore of opinion that the conviction was right, that both questions should
be answered in the affirmative, and that appeal should be dismissed.
PILCaseDigest:JurisdictionofStates
JURISDICTIONOVERPERSONS&ECONOMICACTIVITIES
(ii)ImmunityfromJurisdiction
A.
StateImmunityandActofState
1. Sandersv.Veridiano(NO)
TOPIC:JurisdictionalImmunity
G.R.No.L46930
Petitioner:DALESANDERS,ANDA.S.MOREAU,JR
Respondent:HON.REGINOT.VERIDIANOII,asPresidingJudge,BranchI,Courtof
First Instance of Zambales, Olongapo City, ANTHONY M. ROSSI and RALPH L.
WYERS
J.Cruz
Doctrine: Official acts of agents of another state(provided that they are granted
immunity) are covered by such priviledge; In order for a state to be sued it must
consenttoit.
Sanderswas,atthetimetheincidentinquestionoccurred,thespecialservices
directoroftheU.S.NavalStation(NAVSTA)inOlongapoCity,whileMoreauwas
thecommandingofficeroftheSubicNavalBase.
Respondents were both employed as gameroom attendants in the special
servicesdepartmentoftheNAVSTA,theformerhavingbeenhiredin1971and
the latter in 1969. They were informed that they are now just part time
employees. They protested to the U.S. Department of Defense which ordered
theirreinstatementtofulltimestatuswithbackwages.
Sanders sent a letter to Moreau disagreed with this recommendation and
reportedthatResponderstendtoalienatetheircoworkersandweredifficultto
supervise.
Beforethegrievancehearingwaswasstarted,aletterpurportedlycomingfrom
MoreauasthecommandinggeneraloftheU.S.NavalStationinSubicBaywas
sent to the Chief of Naval Personnel explaining the change of the private
respondent's employment status and requesting concurrence therewith, but
thiswassignedbyMoore,bydirection.
Respondents filed a case in the CFI for damages. Sanders and Moreau filed a
motion to dismiss arguing that the court has no jurisdiction because the said
actswereperformedinthedischargeoftheirduties.
The trial court ruled in favor of the respondent and ordered a writ of
preliminaryattachmenttothepropertiesofMoreau.Hencethispetition.
RRV:
RossiandWyersaregameroomattendants,theywereregularemployeesbutwere
revertedtoparttimeemployees.RossiandWyersappealedsuchdecisionwhichwas
granted and order a reinstatement of the two. Sanders wrote a letter to Moreau
whowasthecommandingofficeroftheSubicNavalBase,explaininghisgrievanceto
the decision. Before a grievance meeting was commenced, a letter was sent,
purportedly from Moreau, ordered the reversal of the decision. Rossi and Wyers
filed a case for damages in the CFI. The issue is whether Sanders were acting in
officialcapacitywhichgrantsthemimmunity.ThecourtruledinfavororSanders,it
reasonedthattheletterswrittenwerewithinhisofficialcapacity.Hewastoreport
to his superior about personnel under his supervision. Assuming arguendo that it
wasnot,hehadtherighttoreacttocriticismsimpugneddirectlyuponhim.
Issue:
Facts:
Whetherthepetitionerswereactingofficialcapacitieswhichmeritsthemthegrant
ofjurisdictionalimmunity.YES
Ratio:
o
Themereallegationthatagovernmentfunctionaryisbeingsuedinhispersonal
capacity will not automatically remove him from the protection of the law of
publicofficersand,ifappropriate,thedoctrineofstateimmunity.
Themereinvocationofofficialcharacterwillnotsufficetoinsulatehim
fromsuabilityandliabilityforanactimputedtohimasapersonaltort
committedwithoutorinexcessofhisauthority.
Baerv.Tizon,Syquiav.AlmedaLopez,UnitedStatesofAmericav.Ruiz,
consistentlyheldthattheUShasnotconsentedtobesuedandthesuit
couldnotprosperbecausetheactscomplainedofwerecoveredbythe
doctrineofstateimmunity
1
PILCaseDigest:JurisdictionofStates
o Inthepresentcasethattheactsofthepetitionerswereperformedbythemin
thedischargeoftheirofficialduties.Sanders,asdirectorofthespecialservices
department of NAVSTA, undoubtedly had supervision over its personnel,
including the private respondents, and had a hand in their employment, work
assignments,discipline,dismissalandotherrelatedmatters.
ItisnotdisputedthattheletterSandershadwrittenwasinfactareply
to a request from his superior, the other petitioner, for more
informationregardingthecaseoftheprivaterespondents.
Even in the absence of such request, he still was within his rights in
reacting to the hearing officer's criticismin effect a direct attack
againsthimthatSpecialServiceswaspracticing"anautocraticform
ofsupervision.
Giventheofficialcharacteroftheabovedescribedletters,wehavetoconclude
thatthepetitionerswere,legallyspeaking,beingsuedasofficersoftheUnited
Statesgovernment
Astheyhaveactedonbehalfofthatgovernment,andwithinthescope
of their authority, it is that government, and not the petitioners
personally,thatisresponsiblefortheiracts.
There should be no question by now that such complaint cannot
prosperunlessthegovernmentsoughttobeheldultimatelyliablehas
givenitsconsentto'besued.
The SC , in a line of cases, upheld the doctrine of state immunity as
applicable not only to our own government but also to foreign states
soughttobesubjectedtothejurisdictionofourcourts.
Itwouldseemonlyproperforthecourtsofthiscountrytorefrainfrom
taking cognizance of this matter and to treat it as coming under the
internal administration of the said base.(Parties in this case were
AmericansandNavalBaseemployees)
WHEREFORE,thepetitionisGRANTED.ThechallengedordersdatedMarch8,1977,
August 9,1977, and September 7, 1977, are SET ASIDE. The respondent court is
directed to DISMISS Civil Case No. 2077O. Our Temporary restraining order of
September26,1977,ismadePERMANENT.Nocosts.
RPUSBaseTreaty,ArtIII(immunity)
Petitioners:UnitedStatesofAmericaandabunchofotherpeople
Respondents:wholebunchofpeeps
SUMMARYof4consolidatedcases(HELD):
G.R.No.76607(Barbershopbidding)
There was a bidding war on a barbershop concession inside Clark Airbase. The
onesthatlostthebiddingfiledasuitagainsttheUSofficers.Theyfiledmotionto
dismissbecausetheywereimmunefromsuitsincetheywereemployeesofthe
US Air Force. Lower court denied motion because there was a commercial
transaction.(NOTIMMUNE.CommercialTransaction.Remandedfortrialonfacts
ofthecase)
G.R.No.79470(Peeinsoup)
CookwasdismissedfromRecreationalCenterRestoinCampJohnHaybecause
he peed into the soup he served. US said, dismiss because US officers enjoy
immunity. Lower court denied because although he was an officer he acted
beyondhisdutiesamountingtoillegalactsdoneinbadfaithandthattherewasa
CBAinvolvedinemployment.(NOTIMMUNE.Therestowasaproprietaryactivity
andnotanofficialactoftheState.TheCBAagreement,acontract,wasawaiver
ofimmunity.ButtheSCsaidthattheywerenotliable,itwasclearthecookpeed
insoupandtherewasaproperinvestigationanddueprocessforcook)
G.R.No.80018(Buybust)
Airforce Officers catch barracksboy in a buybust operation, which led to his
dismissal.Civilcaseagainsttheofficers,theydidnthaveUSlawyerssotheygot
localcounselatfirstandfiledanswers.WhenUSgovernmentfinallygottothem
filed for motion to dismiss. Lower court denied because immunity is only for
criminal cases and not civil and that the US officers had already submitted
answerstothecourt.(IMMUNE,asfortheissueonfilingofanswers,immunity
cannotbewaivedbycounselitmustbeembodiedinaninstrument)
G.R.No.80258(dogbiting/theft)
2. USv.Guinto(RC)
Topics:DoctrineofStateImmunity
Treaties:
PILCaseDigest:JurisdictionofStates
there because they had tried to evade capture. The motion to dismiss was
deniedbecausethefactsofthecaseshouldbeventilatedintrialssinceoneset
of them alleges that the US officers were exceeding their authority and doing
illegalshiz.(REMANDEDtodeterminewhichfactswerecorrect,ifinthecourse
oftheirdutiesthenIMMUNE)
concessionaires,biddersandBase,sothatswhyRespondentscouldbesued.So
thatswhyitwasappealed.
G.R.No.79470,
Facts:(youcanskipthis.Oknasummaries)
These cases have been consolidated because they all involve the doctrine of state
immunity.TheUnitedStatesofAmericawasnotimpleadedinthecomplaintsbelow
but has moved to dismiss on the ground that they are in effect suits against it to
which it has not consented. It is now contesting the denial of its motions by the
respondentjudges.
G.R.No.76607,
theprivaterespondentsaresuingseveralofficersoftheU.S.AirForcestationed
inClarkAirBaseinconnectionwiththebiddingconductedbythemforcontracts
forbarberservicesinthesaidbase.
The bidding was won by Ramon Dizon, over the objection of the private
respondents, who claimed that he had made a bid for four facilities, including
theCivilEngineeringArea,whichwasnotincludedintheinvitationtobid.
respondents complained to the Philippine Area Exchange (PHAX). The latter,
throughitsrepresentatives,petitionersYvonneReevesandFredericM.Smouse
explainedthattheCivilEngineeringconcessionhadnotbeenawardedtoDizon
as a result of the bidding. Dizon was already operating this concession, then
knownastheNCOclubconcession,andtheexpirationofthecontracthadjust
beenextended
respondents filed a complaint in the court below to compel PHAX and the
individual petitioners to cancel the award to defendant Dizon, to conduct a
rebiddingforthebarbershopconcessionsandtoallowtheprivaterespondents
by a writ of preliminary injunction to continue operating the concessions
pendinglitigation.
petitioners filed a motion to dismiss and opposition to the petition for
preliminaryinjunctiononthegroundthattheactionwasineffectasuitagainst
the United States of America, which had not waived its nonsuability. The
individual defendants, as official employees of the U.S. Air Force, were also
immunefromsuit.
Lower Court noted that there was a commercial transaction between the
Fabian Genove filed a complaint for damages against petitioners n for his
dismissal as cook in the U.S. Air Force Recreation Center at the John Hay Air
Station in Baguio City. It had been ascertained after investigation that Genove
hadpouredurineintothesoupstockusedincookingthevegetablesservedto
theclubcustomers.
Respondent,asclubmanager,suspendedhimandthereafterreferredthecase
to a board of arbitrators conformably to the collective bargaining agreement
betweentheCenteranditsemployees.Theboardunanimouslyfoundhimguilty
andrecommendedhisdismissal.
On March 13, 1987, the defendants, joined by the United States of America,
movedtodismissthecomplaint,allegingthatLamachia,asanofficeroftheU.S.
AirForcestationedatJohnHayAirStation,wasimmunefromsuitfortheacts
done by him in his official capacity. They argued that the suit was in effect
againsttheUnitedStates,whichhadnotgivenitsconsenttobesued.
LowerCourtdeniedthemotionbecausealthoughrespondentswereUSofficers,
theyactedbeyondtheirdutiestakingthemoutofthemantleofimmunity.So
USisappealingthistoo.
G.R.No.80018,
Luis Bautista, who was employed as a barracks boy in Camp O' Donnell, an
extension of Clark Air Base, was arrested following a buybust operation
conductedbytheindividualpetitionersherein,officersoftheU.S.AirForceand
special agents of the Air Force Office of Special Investigators (AFOSI). On the
basisoftheswornstatementsmadebythem,aninformationforviolationofR.A.
6425,otherwiseknownastheDangerousDrugsAct,wasfiledagainstBautistain
theRegionalTrialCourtofTarlac.
The abovenamed officers testified against him at his trial. As a result of the
filingofthecharge,Bautistawasdismissedfromhisemployment.Hethenfiled
acomplaintfordamagesagainsttheindividualpetitionershereinclaimingthat
itwasbecauseoftheiractsthathewasremoved.
Atfirst,thepetitionersonlyhadlocalcounselandwereabletosubmitanswers
andaskforextensionssincetheywerentadequatelyrepresentedbyUScounsel.
FinallyUScounselwereabletogettothemand
3
PILCaseDigest:JurisdictionofStates
The ground invoked was that the defendants were acting in their official
capacity when they did the acts complained of and that the complaint against
themwasineffectasuitagainsttheUnitedStateswithoutitsconsent.
ThemotionwasdeniedbytherespondentjudgeinhisorderdatedSeptember
11, 1987, which held that the claimed immunity under the Military Bases
Agreementcoveredonlycriminalandnotcivilcases.Moreover,thedefendants
hadcomeunderthejurisdictionofthecourtwhentheysubmittedtheiranswer.
G.R.No.80258,
acomplaintfordamageswasfiledbytheprivaterespondentsagainsttheherein
petitioners (except the United States of America), for injuries allegedly
9
sustainedbytheplaintiffsasaresultoftheactsofthedefendants. Thereisa
conflict of factual allegations here. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants
beatthemup,handcuffedthemandunleasheddogsonthemwhichbitthemin
several parts of their bodies and caused extensive injuries to them. The
defendantsdenythisandclaimtheplaintiffswerearrestedfortheftandwere
bitten by the dogs because they were struggling and resisting arrest, The
defendants stress that the dogs were called off and the plaintiffs were
immediatelytakentothemedicalcenterfortreatmentoftheirwounds.
In a motion to dismiss the complaint, the United States of America and the
individuallynameddefendantsarguedthatthesuitwasineffectasuitagainst
theUnitedStates,whichhadnotgivenitsconsenttobesued.Thedefendants
were also immune from suit under the RPUS Bases Treaty for acts done by
themintheperformanceoftheirofficialfunctions.
Lower court judge denied saying: the defendants certainly cannot correctly
arguethattheyareimmunefromsuit.Theallegations,ofthecomplaintwhichis
soughttobedismissed,hadtobehypotheticallyadmittedandwhateverground
the defendants may have, had to be ventilated during the trial of the case on
the merits. The complaint alleged criminal acts against the individuallynamed
defendantsandfromthenatureofsaidactsitcouldnotbesaidthattheyare
ActsofState,forwhichimmunityshouldbeinvoked.
ISSUE/RATIO:
CANSTATEIMMUNITYBEINVOKED?
ONSTATEIMMUNITY:(JUSTREADTHISPART)
The rule that a state may not be sued without its consent, now expressed in
ArticleXVI,Section3,ofthe1987Constitution,isoneofthegenerallyaccepted
principles of international law that we have adopted as part of the law of our
landunderArticleII,Section2.
Even without such affirmation, we would still be bound by the generally
acceptedprinciplesofinternationallawunderthedoctrineofincorporation.
DoctrineofstateimmunityisbasedonthejustificationgivenbyJusticeHolmes
that"therecanbenolegalrightagainsttheauthoritywhichmakesthelawon
whichtherightdepends."Thereareotherpracticalreasonsfortheenforcement
ofthedoctrine.Inthecaseoftheforeignstatesoughttobeimpleadedinthe
localjurisdiction,theaddedinhibitionisexpressedinthemaximparinparem,
non habet imperium. All states are sovereign equals and cannot assert
jurisdictionoveroneanother.Acontrarydispositionwould,inthelanguageofa
celebratedcase,"undulyvexthepeaceofnations."
It is also applicable to complaints filed against officials of the state for acts
allegedlyperformedbytheminthedischargeoftheirduties.Theruleisthatif
the judgment against such officials will require the state itself to perform an
affirmative act to satisfy the same, such as the appropriation of the amount
neededtopaythedamagesawardedagainstthem,thesuitmustberegardedas
against the state itself although it has not been formally impleaded. In such a
situation,thestatemaymovetodismissthecomplaintonthegroundthatithas
beenfiledwithoutitsconsent.
The doctrine is sometimes derisively called "the royal prerogative of
dishonesty"becauseoftheprivilegeitgrantsthestatetodefeatanylegitimate
claimagainstitbysimplyinvokingitsnonsuability.
Infact,thedoctrineisnotabsoluteanddoesnotsaythestatemaynotbesued
underanycircumstance.Onthecontrary,therulesaysthatthestatemaynot
be sued without its consent, which clearly imports that it may be sued if it
consents.
Theconsentofthestatetobesuedmaybemanifestedexpresslyorimpliedly.
Expressconsentmaybeembodiedinagenerallaworaspeciallaw.Consentis
impliedwhenthestateentersintoacontractorititselfcommenceslitigation.
ThegenerallawwaivingtheimmunityofthestatefromsuitisfoundinActNo.
3083,underwhichthePhilippinegovernment"consentsandsubmitstobesued
upon any moneyed claim involving liability arising from contract, express or
implied,whichcouldserveasabasisofcivilactionbetweenprivateparties.
GR: When the government enters into a contract, it is deemed to have
descended to the level of the other contracting party and divested of its
4
PILCaseDigest:JurisdictionofStates
sovereign immunity from suit with its implied consent. E: Express consent is
effected only by the will of the legislature through the medium of a duly
enacted statute. We have held that not all contracts entered into by the
government will operate as a waiver of its nonsuability; distinction must be
madebetweenitssovereignandproprietaryacts.
GR: Waiver is also implied when the government files a complaint, thus
opening itself to a counterclaim. E: As for the filing of a complaint by the
government, suability will result only where the government is claiming
affirmativerelieffromthedefendant.
InthecaseoftheUnitedStatesofAmerica,thecustomaryruleofinternational
law on state immunity is expressed with more specificity in the RPUS Bases
Treaty.ArticleIIIthereofprovidesasfollows:
It is mutually agreed that the United States shall have the rights,
powerandauthoritywithinthebaseswhicharenecessaryforthe
establishment,use,operationanddefensethereoforappropriate
for the control thereof and all the rights, power and authority
withinthelimitsoftheterritorialwatersandairspaceadjacentto,
or in the vicinity of, the bases which are necessary to provide
accesstothemorappropriatefortheircontrol.
AccdgtoCaseLaw:
o Baerv.Tizon:Theinvocationofthedoctrineofimmunityfromsuitofa
foreignstatewithoutitsconsentisappropriate.
o Raquizav.Bradford:'Itiswellsettledthataforeignarmy,permittedto
marchthroughafriendlycountryortobestationedinit,bypermission
of its government or sovereign, is exempt from the civil and criminal
jurisdictionoftheplace.'
o Syquia v. Almeda Lopez, where plaintiffs as lessors sued the
Commanding General of the United States Army in the Philippines,
seekingtherestorationtothemoftheapartmentbuildingstheyowned
leasedtotheUnitedStatesarmedforcesstationedintheManilaarea.
Court said: 'It is clear that the courts of the Philippines including the
Municipal Court of Manila have no jurisdiction over the present case
for unlawful detainer. The question of lack of jurisdiction was raised
and interposed at the very beginning of the action. The U.S.
Governmenthasnotgivenitsconsenttothefilingofthissuitwhichis
essentiallyagainsther,thoughnotinname.Moreover,thisisnotonlya
case of a citizen filing a suit against his own Government without the
latter's consent but it is of a citizen firing an action against a foreign
Theproceedingsariseoutofcommercialtransactionsoftheforeignsovereign,
its commercial activities or economic affairs. It does not apply where the
contractrelatestotheexerciseofitssovereignfunctions.
The other petitioners in the cases before us all aver they have acted in the
discharge of their official functions as officers or agents of the United States.
However, this is a matter of evidence. The charges against them may not be
summarily dismissed on their mere assertion that their acts are imputable to
theUnitedStatesofAmerica,whichhasnotgivenitsconsenttobesued.Infact,
thedefendantsaresoughttobeheldanswerableforpersonaltortsinwhichthe
United States itself is not involved. If found liable, they and they alone must
satisfythejudgment.
HELD:
G.R.No.80018(Buybustoperation)
PILCaseDigest:JurisdictionofStates
does such answer come under the implied forms of consent as earlier
discussed.
G.R.No.80258(dogbiting/theft)
The contradictory factual allegations in this case deserve in our view a closer
studyofwhatactuallyhappenedtotheplaintiffs.Lackingthisinformation,this
Courtcannotdirectlydecidethiscase.Theneededinquirymustfirstbemadeby
thelowercourtsoitmayassessandresolvetheconflictingclaimsoftheparties
onthebasisoftheevidencethathasyettobepresentedatthetrial.Onlyafter
it shall have determined in what capacity the petitioners were acting at the
timeoftheincidentinquestionwillthisCourtdetermine,ifstillnecessary,if
thedoctrineofstateimmunityisapplicable.
G.R.No.76607,(barbershopbidding)
G.R.No.79470(peeinsoup),
privaterespondentGenovewasemployedasacookintheMainClublocatedat
theU.S.AirForceRecreationCenter,alsoknownastheOpenMessComplex,at
John Hay Air Station. As manager of this complex, petitioner Lamachia is
responsible for eleven diversified activities generating an annual income of $2
million. Under his executive management are three service restaurants, a
cafeteria, a bakery, a Class VI store, a coffee and pantry shop, a main cashier
cage,anadministrativeoffice,andadecentralizedwarehousewhichmaintainsa
stock level of $200,000.00 per month in resale items. He supervises 167
employees, one of whom was Genove, with whom the United States
governmenthasconcludedacollectivebargainingagreement.
From these circumstances, the Court can assume that the restaurant services
offered at the John Hay Air Station partake of the nature of a business
enterprise undertaken by the United States government in its proprietary
capacity.SuchservicesarenotextendedtotheAmericanservicemenforfree.
Neitherdoesitappearthattheyareexclusivelyofferedtotheseservicemen;on
the contrary, it is well known that they are available to the general public as
well,includingthetouristsinBaguioCity,manyofwhommakeitapointtovisit
JohnHayforthisreason.
The consequence of this finding is that the petitioners cannot invoke the
doctrine of state immunity to justify the dismissal of the damage suit against
them by Genove. Such defense will not prosper even if it be established that
they were acting as agents of the United States when they investigated and
later dismissed Genove. For that matter, not even the United States
governmentitselfcanclaimsuchimmunity.Thereasonisthatbyenteringinto
the employment contract with Genove in the discharge of its proprietary
functions,itimpliedlydivesteditselfofitssovereignimmunityfromsuit.
While suable, the petitioners are nevertheless not liable. It is obvious that the
claimfordamagescannotbeallowedonthestrengthoftheevidencebeforeus,
whichwehavecarefullyexamined.
3. Chuidianv.SB(JG)
TOPIC:ActsofStatecarriedoutwithinitswonterritorycannotbechallengedinthe
courtsofotherStates.
G.R.No.139941.January19,2001
Petitioner:VicenteChuidian
Respondents:SandiganbayanandtheRepublicofthePhilippines
Ponente:YnaresSantiago,J.
FACTS:
HeallegedlyinducedPhilippineExportandForeignLoanGuaranteeCorporation
(PHILGUARANTEE), the Board of Investments (BOI) and the Central Bank, to
6
PILCaseDigest:JurisdictionofStates
execute a loan guarantee of $25Million USD in favor of the Asian Reliability
Company, Incorporated (ARCI), of which 98% was owned by the former
sometimeinSeptember1980.
In1987,thegovernmentfiledbeforetheSandiganbayanacomplaintagainstthe
Marcos spouses, several government officials, cronies of the Marcoses
(includingChuidian),seekingforthereconveyanceoftheillgottenwealth.
Fouryearslater,Chuidianfiledamotiontolifttheattachmentandamotionto
requiretheRepublictodeposittheL/Cinaninterestbearingaccount,towhich
theRepublicopposed.
o The Republic alleged that Chuidians absence was not the only
groundfortheattachmentand,therefore,hisbelatedappearance
before the Sandiganbayan is not a sufficient reason to lift the
attachment.Moreover, allowing the foreign judgment as a basis
for the lifting of the attachment would essentially amount to an
abdication of the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan to hear and
decidetheillgottenwealthcaseslodgedbeforeitindeferenceto
thejudgmentofforeigncourts.
TheSandiganbayandeniedthetwomotionsfiledbyChuidian.
exchange for which the government would assume certain liabilities of PNB,
includingtheL/CofChuidian.
WiththeadventoftheAquinoadministration,thePCGGsequesteredtheassets
ofChuidian,includingtheL/C.Becauseofthis,ChuidianfiledbeforetheUnited
StatesDistrictCourt,CentralDistrictofCalifornia,anactionagainstPNBseeking,
amongothers,tocompelPNBtopaytheproceedsoftheL/C.
o
The Federal Court rendered judgment ruling:(1) in favor of PNB excusing the
said bank from making payment on the L/C; and (2) in Chuidians favor by
denying intervenor Philguarantees action to set aside the settlement
agreement.
Pursuant to the rehabilitation plan for PNB, a Deed of Transfer was executed
providing for the transfer to the government of certain assets of PNB in
TheSandiganbayandeclaredthenationalgovernmentastheprincipalobligorof
the L/C even though the liability remained in the books of the PNB for
accountingandmonitoringpurposes.
ISSUE/HELD:
W/N the favorable judgment of the United States District Court brought by
petitioner Chuidian against PNB could be used as basis to lift the order of
attachmentandcompelPNBtopaytheL/C?NO
PILCaseDigest:JurisdictionofStates
RATIO:
Petitioner cites the favorable judgment by the United States District Court in
civilcasebroughtbypetitionerChuidianagainstPNBtocompelthelattertopay
the L/C.However, while it is true that the US District Court ruled in favor of
Chuidian by denying intervenor Philguarantees action to set aside the
settlementagreement,italsosaidthat:
o
In1986,PNB/ManilareceivedanorderfromthePCGGorderingPNBtofreeze
any further drawings on the L/C.The freeze order has remained in effect and
wasfollowedbyasequestrationorderissuedbythePCGG.
o
ChuidianarguesthatthefactthattheL/Cwasissuedpursuanttoasettlement
inCalifornia,thatthenegotiationsforwhichoccurredinCalifornia,andthattwo
ofthepaymentsweremadeatPNB/LA,compelstheconclusionthattheactof
prohibitingpaymentoftheL/CoccurredinLosAngeles.
o
The Court is not convinced with this argument. The L/C was issued in
Manila, such was done at the request of a Philippine government
instrumentalityforthebenefitofaPhilippinecitizen.TheL/Cwastobe
performed in the Philippines, all significant events relating to the
issuanceandimplementationoftheL/CoccurredinthePhilippines,the
L/CagreementprovidedthattheL/Cwastobeconstruedaccordingto
lawsofthePhilippines,andthePhilippinegovernmentcertainlyhasan
interestinpreventingtheL/Cfrombeingremittedinthatitwouldbe
the release of funds that are potentially illgotten gains.Accordingly,
the Court finds that the PCGG orders are acts of state that must be
respectedbythisCourt,andthusPNBisexcusedfrommakingpayment
on the L/C as long as the freeze and sequestration orders remain in
effect.
PetitionersownevidencestrengthensthegovernmentspositionthattheL/Cis
under the jurisdiction of the Philippine government and that the U.S. Courts
recognizetheauthorityoftheRepublictosequesterandfreezesaidL/C.Hence,
theforeignjudgmentsrelieduponbypetitionerdonotconstituteabartothe
Republics action to recover whatever alleged illgotten wealth petitioner may
haveacquired.
DISPOSITIVE:
ThepetitionisDISMISSED.ThePNBisdirectedtoremittotheSandiganbayan
the proceeds of Letter of Credit in the amount of U.S. $4.4 million, to be placed
underspecialtimedepositwiththeLandBankofthePhilippines,fortheaccountof
Sandiganbayan in escrow for the person or persons, natural or juridical, who shall
eventually be adjudged lawfully entitled thereto, the same to earn interest at the
currentlegalbankrates.
4. Dayritv.PhilPharmawealth(CG)
Petitioners: The Department of Health, Secretary Manuel M. Dayrit, Usec. Ma.
MargaritaGalonandUsec.AntonioM.Lopez
Respondent:Phil.Pharmawealth,Inc.,
G.R.No.169304March13,2007
Topic:StateImmunity(WhenitcannotbeinvokedbyGovernmentOfficials)
ApplicableLaw:Rule58oftheROC,Section3,ArticleXVIofthe1987Constitution
FACTS:
Phil.Pharmawealth,Inc.(respondent)isadomesticcorporationengagedinthe
business of manufacturing and supplying pharmaceutical products to
governmenthospitalsinthePhilippines
Secretary of Health Romualdez, Jr. issued A.O. 27 (1998), outlining the
guidelines and procedures on the accreditation of government suppliers for
pharmaceuticalproducts.
PILCaseDigest:JurisdictionofStates
It was amended by A.O. No. 10 (2000), providing for additional guidelines for
accreditation of drug suppliers aimed at ensuring that only qualified bidders
cantransactbusinesswithpetitionerDOH
InMay 2000,respondent submitted to DOH a request for the inclusion of
additional items in its list of accredited drug products, including the antibiotic
PenicillinGBenzathine.
Based on the schedule provided by DOH, the processing of and release of the
resultofrespondentsrequestweredueonSeptember2000
In September 2000, petitioner DOH, through petitioner Lopez, chairperson of
the prequalifications, bids and awards committee, issued an Invitation for
Bidsfortheprocurementof1.2millionunitsvialsofPenicillinGBenzathine
Despite the lack of response from DOH regarding respondents request for
inclusion of additional items in its list of accredited products, respondent
submitteditsbidforthePenicillinGBenzathinecontract
When the bids were opened onOctober 11, 2000, only two companies
participated, with respondent submitting the lower bid atP82.24 per unit,
comparedtoCathay/YSSLaboratories(YSS)bidofP95.00perunit
In view, however, of the nonaccreditation of respondents Penicillin G
Benzathineproduct,thecontractwasawardedtoYSS
Respondentthusfiledacomplaintforinjunction,mandamusanddamageswith
prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and/or TRO with
theRTC of Pasig City praying,inter alia, that the TC nullify the award of the
contracttoYSSLaboratories,Inc.anddirectDOH,Romualdez,GalonandLopez
to declare Pharmawealth as the lowest complying responsible bidder for the
Benzathine contract, and that they accordingly award the same to plaintiff
companyandadjudgedefendantsRomualdez,GalonandLopezliable,jointly
andseverallytoplaintiff,for[thethereinspecifieddamages].
IntheirComment,DOH,Romualdez,Jr.whowaslatersucceededbyDayrit,and
Usecs Galon and Lopez argued for the dismissal of the complaint for lack of
merit in view of the express reservation made by petitioner DOH to accept or
reject any or all bids without incurring liability to the bidders, positing that
governmentagencieshavesuchfulldiscretion
PetitionerssubsequentlyfiledaManifestation and Motion to Dismiss praying
for the outright dismissalof the complaint based on the doctrine of state
immunity.
To
petitioners
motion
to
dismiss,
respondent
filed
its
comment/oppositioncontending, in the main, that the doctrine of state
immunity is not applicable considering that individual petitioners are being
ISSUE:
WONthepetitionerscaninvokeStateImmunityNO
RULING:
As regards petitioner DOH, the defense of immunity from suit will not avail
despite it being an unincorporated agency of the government, for the only
causes of action directed against it are preliminary injunction and
mandamus.
Under Section 1, Rule 58of the Rules of Court, preliminary injunction may be
directedagainstapartyoracourt,agencyoraperson.
Moreover,thedefenseofstateimmunityfromsuitdoesnotapplyincausesof
action,whichdonotseektoimposeachargeorfinancialliabilityagainstthe
State.
The rule that a state may not be sued without its consent, now embodied in
Section3,ArticleXVIofthe1987Constitution,isoneofthegenerallyaccepted
principlesofinternationallaw,whichwehavenowadoptedaspartofthelawof
theland.
Whilethedoctrineofstateimmunityappearstoprohibitonlysuitsagainstthe
statewithoutitsconsent,itisalsoapplicabletocomplaintsfiledagainstofficials
ofthestateforactsallegedlyperformedbytheminthedischargeoftheirduties.
Thesuitisregardedasoneagainstthestatewheresatisfactionofthejudgment
againsttheofficialswillrequirethestateitselftoperformapositiveact,suchas
theappropriationoftheamountnecessarytopaythedamagesawardedagainst
them.
According to Shauf vs CA, the State authorizes only legal acts by its officers.
Therefore,unauthorizedactsofgovernmentofficialsorofficersarenotactsof
theState.Anactionagainstthoseofficialsisnotasuitagainstastatewithinthe
ruleofimmunityoftheStatefromsuit.
9
PILCaseDigest:JurisdictionofStates
Hence,theruledoesnotapplywherethepublicofficialischargedinhis
officialcapacityforactsthatareunauthorizedorunlawfulandinjurious
totherightsofothers.Neitherdoesitapplywherethepublicofficialis
clearlybeingsuednotinhisofficialcapacitybutinhispersonalcapacity,
although the acts complained of may have been committed while he
occupiedapublicposition.
Inthepresentcase,suingindividualpetitionersintheirpersonalcapacitiesfor
damages in connection with their allegedact of illegally abusing their official
positions to make sure that plaintiff Pharmawealth would not be awarded the
Benzathinecontract,whichwasdoneinbadfaithandwithfullknowledgeofthe
limitsandbreadthoftheirpowersgivenbylawispermissible.
Anofficerwhoexceedsthepowerconferredonhimbylawcannothidebehind
thepleaofsovereignimmunityandmustbeartheliabilitypersonally.
It bears stressing, however, that the statements in the immediately foregoing
paragraph in no way reflect a ruling on the actual liability of petitioners to
respondent.Themereallegationthatagovernmentofficialisbeingsuedinhis
personalcapacitydoesnotautomaticallyremovethesamefromtheprotection
of the doctrine of state immunity.Neither, on the other hand, does the mere
invocation of official character suffice to insulate suchofficialfromsuability
and liability for an act committed without or inexcess of his or her
authority.These are matters of evidencewhich should be presented and
provenatthetrial.(IMPORTANTDOCTRINE)
SUMMARY:TESDAenteredintoacontractwithPROVIfortheprintingandencoding
of PVCs. PROVI alleged that out of TESDAs liability of P39.47M, TESDA only paid
P3.7M as evidenced by PROVIs Statement of Account. PROVI filed a case against
TESDAintheRTC,whichissuedawritofpreliminaryattachmentagainstthelatters
properties. The CA reversed the decision. The SC affirmed the CAs decision. As a
government instrumentality, it cannot be sued without its consent. The Contract
enteredintowasinlieuofitsgovernmentalfunctions;hence,therewasnowaiverof
immunityfromsuitbyTESDA.Further,TESDAsfundsarepublicincharacter,hence
theyareexemptfromattachmentorgarnishment.
FACTS:
WHEREFORE,thepetitionisDENIED.TheassailedDecisiondatedMay12,2005and
ResolutiondatedAugust9,2005issuedbytheCourtofAppealsareAFFIRMED.
5. ProfessionalVideov.TESDA(RL)
PROFESSIONALVIDEOv.TESDA(RL)
TOPIC:ImmunityfromsuitofTESDAasagovernmentinstrumentality.
G.R.No.155504June26,2009
Petitioner:ProfessionalVideo,Inc.(PROVI)
Respondent:TechnicalEducationandSkillsDevelopmentAuthority(TESDA)
Ponente:BRION,J.:
Agreement Project: PVC ID Card Issuance (the Contract) for the printing and
encodingofPVCcards.
o PROVIwastoprovideTESDAwiththesystemandequipmentbasedon
theproposal.
o TESDA would pay PROVI the amount of P39,475,000 within 15 days
afterTESDAsacceptanceofthecontractedgoodsandservices.
OnAugust24,2000,theyexecutedanAddendumtotheContractwhoseterms
bound PROVI to deliver 100% of the supplies to TESDA (includes security foils,
securitydiewithTESDAseal,IDcards,etc)
10
PILCaseDigest:JurisdictionofStates
o PROVIwouldalsoinstallandmaintainacertainnumberofprintersand
scanners.
o TESDA in turn undertook to pay PROVI 30% of the total cost of the
supplieswithinthirty(30)daysafterreceiptofthecontractedsupplies,
with the balance payable within thirty (30) days after the initial
payment.
PROVIallegedthatoutofTESDAsliabilityofP39.47M,TESDAonlypaidP3.7M
asevidencedbyPROVIsStatementofAccount.Thisremainedunpaiddespite
thedemandletterssentbyPROVI.
PROVI filed with the RTCacomplaintforsumofmoneywithdamagesagainst
TESDA and additionally prayed for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
attachment/garnishmentagainstTESDA.
o GRANTED and issued a writ of preliminary attachment against the
properties of TESDA not exempt from execution in the amount of
P35,000,000.00
RATIO:
1.
TESDA filed a MTQ the Writ of Attachment, arguing mainly that public funds
cannotbethesubjectofgarnishment.
o DENIEDbytheRTC.
TESDA filed a Petition for Certiorari with the CA to question the RTC orders,
imputingGADALEJontheRTC.
o CAruledinfavorofTESDA:
TESDAs funds are public in nature and, therefore, exempt
fromgarnishment;and
TESDAspurchaseofthePVCcardswasanecessaryincidentof
itsgovernmentalfunction
o CADENIEDPROVIsMR.
2.
ISSUE:W/NthewritofattachmentagainstTESDAanditsfunds,tocoverPROVIs
claimagainstTESDA,isvalid.NO.TESDAisanagencyofthegovernment,henceit
cannotbesuedwithoutitsconsent.
PROVIarguesthatwhenTESDAenteredintoapurelycommercialcontractwith
PROVI, TESDA went to the level of an ordinary private citizen and could no
longerusethedefenseofstateimmunityfromsuit.
TESDAclaimsthatitenteredtheContractandAddendumintheperformanceof
itsgovernmentalfunction;hence,TESDAisimmunefromsuit.
UnderRA7796,whichcreatedTESDA,aswellastheconstitutionalaffirmation
that [T]he State affirms labor as a primary social economic force, and shall
protect the rights of workers and promote their welfare; that [T]he State
shall protect and promote the right of all citizens to quality education at all
levels, and shall take appropriate steps to make such education accessible to
all;inordertoaffordprotectiontolaborandpromotefullemploymentand
equalityofemploymentopportunitiesforall.,TESDAsroleinthegovernment
cannotbecontested.
Itisanunincorporatedinstrumentalityofthegovernment,directlyattachedto
theDOLEthroughtheparticipationoftheSecretaryofLaborasitsChairman,for
the performance of governmental functions i.e., the handling of formal and
nonformaleducationandtraining,andskillsdevelopment.
As an unincorporated instrumentality operating under a specific charter, it is
equippedwithbothexpressandimpliedpowers,andallStateimmunitiesfully
applytoit.
PILCaseDigest:JurisdictionofStates
o asuitagainsttheRepublicbyname;
o asuitagainstanunincorporatedgovernmentagency;
o asuitagainstagovernmentagencycoveredbyacharterwithrespect
totheagencysperformanceofgovernmentalfunctions;and
o a suit that on its face is against a government officer, but where the
ultimateliabilitywillfallonthegovernment.
Inthepresentcase,thewrit of attachment was issued against a government
agencycoveredbyitsowncharter.
o TESDA performs governmental functions, and the issuance of
certifications is a task within its function of developing and
establishingasystemofskillsstandardization,testing,andcertification
inthecountry.
o From this function, the core reason for the existence of state
immunityapplies(i.e.,thepublicpolicyreasonthattheperformance
ofgovernmentalfunctioncannotbehinderedordelayedbysuits,nor
can these suits control the use and disposition of the means for the
performanceofgovernmentalfunctions).
PROVI argues that TESDA can be sued because it has effectively waived its
immunitywhenitenteredintoacontractwithPROVIforacommercialpurpose.
o SC agrees with TESDA that the purchasing of PVC cards by TESDA is
withinthegovernmentalfunctionsgiventoit.
o That TESDA sells the PVC cards to its trainees for a fee does not
characterize the transaction as industrial or business; the sale cannot
beconsideredseparatelyfromTESDAsgeneralgovernmentalfunctions,
astheyareundertakeninthedischargeofthesefunctions.
MobilPhilippinesv.CustomsArrastreServices:thefactthata
noncorporate government entity performs a function
proprietaryinnaturedoesnotnecessarilyresultinitsbeing
suable.Ifsaidnongovernmentalfunctionisundertakenasan
incident to its governmental function, there is no waiver
therebyofthesovereignimmunityfromsuitextendedtosuch
governmententity.
3.
EvenassumingthatTESDAenteredintoaproprietarycontractwithPROVIand
thereby gave its implied consent to be sued, TESDAs funds are still public in
natureandcannotbethevalidsubjectofawritofgarnishmentorattachment.
o TESDAfunds,beingsourcedfromtheTreasury,aremoneysbelonging
to the government, or any of its departments, in the hands of public
officials.
o Republic v. Villasor: public funds cannot be the object of garnishment
proceedings even if the consent to be sued had been previously
grantedandthestateliabilityadjudged.
o TradersRoyalBankv.IntermediateAppellateCourt:Beingpublicfunds,
the deposits are not within the reach of any garnishment or
attachmentproceedings.
As pointed out by TESDA in its Memorandum, the garnished funds constitute
TESDAs lifeblood whose withholding via a writ of attachment, even on a
temporarybasis,wouldparalyzeTESDAsfunctionsandservices.
o These funds also include TESDAs Personal Services funds from which
salariesofTESDApersonnelaresourced.
4.
PROVIhasnotshownthatitisentitledtothewritofattachment.
Evenwithoutthebenefitofanyimmunityfromsuit,theattachmentofTESDA
funds should not have been granted, as PROVI failed to prove that TESDA
fraudulentlymisappliedorconvertedfundsallocatedundertheCertificateas
toAvailabilityofFunds.
Jurisprudenceteachesusthattheruleontheissuanceofawritofattachment
mustbeconstruedstrictlyinfavorofthedefendant.
o Thus,theapplicantsaffidavitmustcontainstatementsclearlyshowing
thatthegroundrelieduponfortheattachmentexists.
Section1(b),Rule57oftheRulesofCourt,thatPROVIreliedupon,appliesonly
wheremoneyorpropertyhasbeenembezzledorconvertedbyapublicofficer,
an officer of a corporation, or some other person who took advantage of his
fiduciarypositionorwhowillfullyviolatedhisduty.
o PROVI,inthiscase,neverentrustedanymoneyorpropertytoTESDA.
While the Contract Agreement is supported by a Certificate as to
Availability of Funds (Certificate) issued by the Chief of TESDAs
Accounting Division, this Certificate does not automatically confer
ownershipoverthefundstoPROVI.
12
PILCaseDigest:JurisdictionofStates
o Absent any actual disbursement, these funds form part of TESDAs
public funds, and TESDAs failure to pay PROVI the amount stated in
the Certificate cannot be construed as an act of fraudulent
misapplicationorembezzlement.
The Labor Arbiter held that there was illegal dismissal and ordered all the
petitionerstopayUSD3,600representinghersalaryfor3months
ThisdecisionwasaffirmedbytheNLRC
ThepetitionersfiledsuitintheCAcontendingthat
DISPOSITIVE:WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,weherebyDENYthepetitionfiled
bypetitionerProfessionalVideo,Inc.,andAFFIRMtheCAsDecision.
The dismissal was valid for her failure to meet the perfromance rating
withinthe1yearperiodrequiredunderKuwait'scivilservicelaws
CAaffirmedtheNLRCdecision
The CA said that under the law, a private employment agency shall
assume all responsibilities for the implementation of the contract of
employment of an overseas worker, hence, it can be sued jointly and
severally with the foreign principal for any violation of the recruitment
agreement
6. ATCIv.Echin(EM)
ATCI Overseas Corporation, Amalia G. Ikdal, and Ministry of Public HealthKuwait
(MPHK),petitioners
vs.
Ma.JosefaEchin,respondent
October11,2010
CarpioMorales,J.
Facts:
EchinwashiredbyACTIinbehalfofMPHK
o
forthepositionofMedicalTechnologist
undera2yearcontract,
denominatedasaMemorandumofAgreement
withamonthlysalaryof1,200USD
Allnewlyhiredemployeesundergoaprobationaryperiodof1year
Echin was deployed on February 17, 2000 BUT was terminated from
employment on February 11, 2001, she not having ALLEGEDLY passed the
probationaryperiod
Asherrequestforreconsiderationwasdenied,shereturnedtothePhilippines
onMarch17,2001
On July 27, 2001, Echin filed with the NLRC a complaint for illegal dismissal
againstATCI,representedbyIkdal(alsoapetitioner)andMPHK
However,petitionermaintainsthattheyshouldnotbeheldliablebecausethe
employment contract specifically said that the employment shall be governed
bytheCivilServiceLawandRegulationsofKuwait
TheyalsoarguethatevenassumingPhilippinelaborlawsapply,giventhatthe
foreignprincipalisagovernmentagencywhichisimmunefromsuit,petitioner
ATCIcannotlikewisebeheldliable
TheMOA
o
Issue:WONATCIandIkdalmaybeheldliable?
Held:Yes
Ratio:
PetitionerATCI,asaprivaterecruitmentagency,cannotevaderesponsibilityfor
themoneyclaimsofOFWswhichitdeploysabroadbyjustsayingthatitsforeign
principalisimmunefromsuity
In providing for the joint and solidary liability of private recruitment agencies
with their foreign principals, RA 8042 precisely affords the OFWs with a
recourse
13
PILCaseDigest:JurisdictionofStates
o ItisinlinewiththepolicyoftheStatetoprotectandalleviatetheplight
oftheOFWs
o
However, they must submit a copy of the pertinent Kuwaiti labor laws
duly authenticated and translated by Embassy officials thereat, as
requiredbytheRules
WithregardtoIkdal'sjointandsolidaryliabilityasacorporateofficer,thesame
isinodertoofollowingtheexpressprovisionofRA8042onMoneyClaims
o
Theliabilityoftheprincipalandtherecruitmentagencyshallbejointand
several.....thecorporateofficers..asthecasemaybe,shallbejointlyand
solidarilyliablewiththecorporationorpartnership
The party invoking the application of foreign law has the burden of
provingthelaw,underthedoctrineofprocessualpresumption,whichin
thiscase,petitionersfailedtodischarge
Ininternationallaw,thepartwhowantstohaveaforeignlawappliedto
adisputeorcasehastheburdenofprovingtheforeignlaw
G.R.No.124772,August14,2007
Respondent:Sandiganbayan,Officecoholdings.
Unfortunately for petitioner, it failed to prove the pertinent Saudi laws they
mustnotonlybealleged,THEYMUSTBEPROVEN
o
Whereaforeignlawisnotplead,orevenifpleaded,isnotproved,
thepresumptionisthattheforeignlawisthesameasours
ToproveKuwaitilaw,petitionersjustsubmittedtheff:
MOAbetweenrespondentandMPHK
Atranslatedcopy
Terminationlettertorespondentstatingthatshedidnotpassthe
probationterms
Toallowthepetitionerstosimplyinvokeimmunityfromsuitofitsforeign
principalortowaitforthejudicialdeterminationoftheforeignprincipal's
liabilityrendersthelawonjointandsolidaryliabilityinutile
Respondent'sletterofreconsideration
7. Gunigundov.SB(NO)
Petitioner:PCGG,representedbyChairmanGunigundo
Ponente:J.Tinga
FACTS:
CriminalproceedingswereinstitutedinthePhilippinestolocate,sequesterand
seekrestitutionoftheillgottenwealthoftheMarcoses
o
On7April1986,theOfficeoftheSolicitorGeneral(OSG)wrotetheFederal
Office for Police Matters in Berne, Switzerland, requesting assistance for
thelatterofficeto:
(a) ascertain and provide the OSG with information about the ill
gotten fortune of the Marcoses, the names of the depositors and
thebanksandamountsinvolved;and
TheOfficeoftheDistrictAttorneyinZurichissuedanOrderdirectingtheSwiss
BanksinZurichtofreezetheaccounts,includingthoseofOfficecoHoldings.
o Officeco appealed the Order of the District Attorney to the Attorney
General of the Canton of Zurich, who affirmed the Order of the District
Attorney. Officeco further appealed to the Swiss Federal Court which
likewisedismissedtheappeal.
14
PILCaseDigest:JurisdictionofStates
Inlate1992,OfficecoaskedtheOSGandthePCGGtoofficiallyadvisetheSwiss
government to unfreeze Officecos assets. The PCGG required Officeco to
presentcountervailingevidencetosupportitsrequest.
Instead, Officeco filed the complaint in 1994, which prayed for the PCGG and
theOSGtoofficiallyadvisetheSwissgovernmenttoexcludefromthefreezeor
sequestrationordertheaccountofOfficeco.
o ThePCGGfiledamotiontodismisswhichwasdeniedbytheSandiganbayan.
TheMotionforReconsiderationwasalsodenied.
ISSUE:
WhetherornottheSandiganbayanerredinnotdismissingthecaseforreasonsof
(1)resjudicata;
(2)lackofjurisdictiononaccountoftheactofstatedoctrine;
(3)lackofcauseofactionforbeingprematureforfailuretoexhaustadministrative
remedies;and
(4) lack of cause of action for the reason that mandamus does not lie to compel
performance of a discretionary act, there being no showing of grave abuse of
discretiononthepartofpetitioners.
ActofStateDoctrine
Held:
ResJudicata
PetitionersarguethatthedecisionoftheSwisscourtofdenyingOfficecos
appeal, and the freeze order of the District Attorney in Zurich where
conclusiveonOfficecosrights
o Thusarelitigationwillviolateresjudicata
RequisitesofResJudicata:
1)Theformerjudgmentorordermustbefinal;
(2)Itmustbeajudgmentororderonthemerits,thatis,itwasrendered
after a consideration of the evidence or stipulations submitted by the
partiesatthetrialofthecase;
(3) It must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the
subjectmatterandtheparties;and
(4)Theremustbe,betweenthefirstandsecondactions,identityofparties,
ofsubjectmatterandofcauseofaction.
The first three elements above are present in this case, we rule that the
fourthelementisabsent.Hence,resjudicatadoesnotapplytopreventthe
SandiganbayanfromproceedingwithCivilCaseNo.0164
Petitionersinterestistorecoverillgottenwealth,whereverthesamemay
be located. The interest of the Swiss court, on the other hand, is only to
settle the issues raised before it, which include the propriety of the legal
assistanceextendedbytheSwissauthoritiestothePhilippinegovernment.
Petitionersclaimthatthecaseineffectseeksajudicialreviewofthelegalityor
illegalityoftheactsoftheSwissgovernment.
o act of state doctrine courts of one country will not sit in
judgment on the acts of the government of another in due
deference to the independence of sovereignty of every sovereign
state.
o CitingUnderhillv.Hernandez:
PILCaseDigest:JurisdictionofStates
authorities of his own state to persuade them to champion his
claimindiplomacyorbeforeaninternationaltribunal
Contrary to Petitioners assertion, the Sandiganbayan will only review and
examinetheproprietyofmaintainingPCGGspositionwithrespecttoOfficecos
accounts with BTAG for the purpose of further determining the propriety of
issuingawritagainstthePCGGandtheOSG.
ExhaustionofRemedy
Petitioners allege that Officeco failed to exhaust the remedies available under
Secs.5and6ofthePCGGRulesandRegulations
However, the provisions refer only to sequestration orders, freeze orders and
hold orders issued by the PCGG in the Philippines. They do not apply to those
issuedinanothercountry
MandamusofaDiscretionaryact
Petitioner contend that the complaint is for mandamus but the act sought by
Officecoisdiscretionaryinnatureandaddthattheydidnotcommitgraveabuse
ofdiscretionindenyingOfficecosrequesttounfreezeitsaccount.
TherealissueiswhetherOfficecoscomplaintbeforetheSandiganbayanstates
acauseofaction,notwhetherornotmandamuswilllie.
o
Officeco actually sent several requests (4) to the PCGG asking
them to remove them from the list of companies whose assets
werefrozeninSwitzerland.
o
NeitherthePCGGnortheOSGrepliedtotherequestsofOfficeco
within15daysasrequiredbylaw,andtheinactionisequivalent
toadenialoftheserequests.
This inaction resulted in a cause of action because they
hadnootherchoicebuttoresorttojudicialremedies.
B. DiplomaticandConsularImmunity
1. Minucherv.CA(MT)
Facts:
OnAugust1988,petitionerfiledwiththeRTCacomplaintfordamagesagainst
respondent,ArthurScalzoJr.
PetitionerallegedthathewasalaborattachoftheEmbassyofIraninthePhils.
And that he met respondent, then connected with the American Emabassy,
through Jose Inigo, informer belonging to the military intelligence community
whom he had various business transaction like the buying and selling carpets
andcaviar(thiswillbethesametransactionshewillhavewiththerespondent).
So they met. Respondent was purportedly interested in buying caviar and
carpets too. On this same occasion, petitioner told respondent that he had
problemswithhisvisaandalongwithhiswifesandsoughtrespondentshelp.
RespondentofferedhishelpandpresentedhimselfasanagentoftheDEA(drug
enforcementagency)oftheUSEmbassyinManila.
Respondent bought caviar and said that the fee for the visas were $2000.
Further,orderedmorecaviarandboughtacarpetworth$24,000.
It turned out that respondent had an elaborate plan to frame petitioner and
AbbasTorabianforallegedherointrafficking.
SomeAmericanandFilipinopoliceofficersarrestedthemandbroughtthemto
CampCrameintheirunderwear(howunfortunatehuhu).
Private respondent and his companions took three suitcases and papers, his
wallet,thekeystohiscarandhishouse,the$24,000earlierdeliveredtohim.
They were handcuffed together for three days and were not given food and
water.
Theywereaskedtoconfessforpossessionofheroinorelsetheywouldbejailed
orevenexecutedbyIranianterrorists.
Consequently,theywerechargedfortheviolationoftheDangerousDrugsAct
of 1972 in the RTC of Pasig. Respondent testified for the prosecution of the
samecase.
Petitioner alleged that respondent falsely testified against him and also avers
that charges of unlawful arrest, robbery, estafa and swindling have been filed
againsttherespondent.
Petitioner therefore prays for actual and compensatory damages: $24,000 for
thePersiancarpet,$2000forthefeeshegaveforthevisas,moraldamagesP5M,
exemplarydamagesforP100k,andatleastP200kforlitigationfeeshespenton
forthecriminalcasesfiledagainsthimandthiscivilcase.
On September 1988, private respondents counsel, filed a special appearance
(civprohehe)andmotionallegingthereinthatsincerespondentisanagentof
theDEAoftheUSandtheactsandomissionscomplainedwereperformedby
himintheperformanceofhisofficialfunctionsandthatthecaseisnowunder
16
PILCaseDigest:JurisdictionofStates
study with the Department of State and Justice in Washington DC for the
purposeofdeterminingwhatdefenseswouldbeappropriate.
Moving on On June 1990, private respondent filed a motion to dismiss the
caseonthegroundofaDIPLOMATICNOTEissuedbytheUSEmbassybyDonald
Woodward,ViceconsuloftheUSadvisingtheDFAoftheRPthatArthurScalzo
wasamemberofadiplomaticmission,whichisbasicallyanofficialfunctionand
raises the ART 39(2) of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which
providesthatrespondentretainsimmunityfromcivilsuitforactsperformedin
theexerciseofhisfunctions.
The RTC then denied the dismissal but the CA reversed the decision thus this
petition
2. RepublicofIndonesiav.Vinzon(RK)
THE REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA, HIS EXCELLENCY AMBASSADOR SOERATMIN, and
MINISTER COUNSELLOR AZHARI KASIM,petitioners, vs.JAMES VINZON,
doing business under the name and style of VINZON TRADE AND
SERVICES,respondent.
Facts:
Issue:WONthecaseagainsttherespondentmustbedismissedbasedondiplomatic
immunity?
Held&Ratio:NO.Forthereasonsbelow:
Respondent claimed that such dismissal was arbitrary and unfair, and filed a suit.
Citing that a sovereign state is immune from suit, petitioners filed a motion to
dismiss. They also said that Soeratmin and kasim are diplomatic agents and enjoy
immunity.
RespondetclaimedthatIndonesiaexpresslywaiveditsimmunityfromsuit,citinga
provision in the Maintenance Agreement any legal action arising out of this
maintenance agreement shall be settled according to the laws of the Philippines
andbythepropercourtofMakatiCity,Philippines.
RTCandCAruledinfavorofrespondenthencethispetition.
Issue:WoNCAerredinrulingthatpetitionershavewaivedtheirimmunitybasedon
theabovementionedprovisionintheagreement
Ruling:PETITIONGRANTED
Ratio
17
PILCaseDigest:JurisdictionofStates
Immunity of a sovereign is recognized with regard to public acts acts jure
imperiibutnotwithregardtoprivateactsjuregestionis.
Ex:ConductofapublicbiddingfortherepairofaWharfataUSNavalstation
jureimperiii
Ex:Hiringacookintherecreationcenterofcampjohnhayjuregestionis
Inpresentcase
o Mereenteringintoacontractdoesnotimmediatelyclassifyitasoneor
theother
o We must ask is foreign state engaged regularly in conduct of a
business? in this case, it is not, and thus it seems as if the act is in
pursuitofasovereignactivity,andthusanactjureimperii.
o Petitioner:maintenanceisnolongerasovereignfunction
Courtdisagrees:itisclearthatIndonesiawsactinginpursuitof
a sovereign activity when it entered into contract with
respondent
onedoesnotmerelyestablishadiplomaticmissionandleaveit
at that, such establishment encompasses maintenance and
upkeep
Withregardtoprovisioninmaintenanceagreement
o Notnecessarily/explicitlyawaiver.
o Could apply when sovereign sues in local courts, or otherwise expressly
waives
o ApplicabilityofPhilLawscanalsomeanrecognitionofimmunity
Waivermustbeexplicit,clear,andunequivocal
3. Nicolasv.Romulo(RC)
Topic:DanielSmithcase,VFAisvalidtreaty,custodyofUStroops
Treaties:
VFA
RomuloKennedyAgreementof2006
Petitioner:SuzetteNicolasetal
Respondent:AlbertoRomulo,actingasSecretaryofForeignAffairs,etal.
SUMMARY:
Daniel Smith was convicted of the Rape of Suzette Nicolas. After conviction during
his appeal, he was taken from Makati Jail by authorities and placed in US custody
pursuant to the RomuloKennedy Agreement. So question, where should he be
detained.Accdg.topetitioner,theVFAisvoidsotheUSshouldntbeabletakehim
outofjail.
SC said that VFA is valid based on previous rulings in Bayan v Zamora. It is merely
implementing the MDT. So looking at VFA, the proper procedure is that upon
conviction the US and Philippine authorities have to agree where the convicted
should serve his sentence. The RomuloKennedy Agreement is invalid because it
doesnt follow this provision of the VFA. When US and Phils agree the service of
sentenceshouldbedoneunderPhilippineAuthority(ArtVSec10ofVFA).
Also,explainedMedellinvTexascase(endofdigest).
FACTS
Thesearepetitionsforcertiorari,etc.asspecialcivilactionsand/orforreviewof
the Decision of the Court of Appeals in Lance Corporal Daniel J. Smith v. Hon.
BenjaminT.Pozon,etal.,inCAG.R.SPNo.97212,datedJanuary2,2007.
Respondent Lance Corporal (L/CPL) Daniel Smith is a member of the United
StatesArmedForces.Hewaschargedwiththecrimeofrapecommittedagainst
aFilipina,petitionerherein,sometimeonNovember1,2005,asfollows:
st
PILCaseDigest:JurisdictionofStates
prejudice.
PursuanttoVFA,theUS,atitsrequest,wasgrantedcustodyofdefendantSmith
pendingtheproceedings.Duringthetrial,whichwastransferredfromtheRTC
of Zambales to the RTC of Makati for security reasons, the United States
Government faithfully complied with its undertaking to bring defendant Smith
tothetrialcourteverytimehispresencewasrequired.
RTCofMakatiAcquittedtheothermen.FoundSmithguilty,sentencinghimto
reclusionperpetua.PursuanttoVFA,Smithshallservehissentenceinfacilities
to be agreed upon by the US and Philippine authorities. Pending such
agreementheistoserveitinMakatiCityJail.
OnDecember29,2006,however,defendantSmithwastakenoutoftheMakati
jail by a contingent of Philippine law enforcement agents, purportedly acting
under orders of the Department of the Interior and Local Government, and
brought to a facility for detention under the control of the United States
government,providedforundernewagreementsbetweenthePhilippinesand
theUnitedStates,referredtoastheRomuloKenneyAgreementwhichstates:
o The Government of the Republic of the Philippines and the
GovernmentoftheUnitedStatesofAmericaagreethat,inaccordance
with the Visiting Forces Agreement signed between our two nations,
Lance Corporal Daniel J. Smith, United States Marine Corps, be
returnedtoU.S.militarycustodyattheU.S.EmbassyinManila
o The Department of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Philippines
and the Embassy of the United States of America agree that, in
accordance with the Visiting Forces Agreement signed between the
two nations, upon transfer of Lance Corporal Daniel J. Smith, United
States Marine Corps, from the Makati City Jail, he will be detained at
the first floor, Rowe (JUSMAG) Building,U.S.Embassy Compoundina
roomofapproximately10x12squarefeet.Hewillbeguardedround
the clock by U.S. military personnel. The Philippine police and jail
authorities,underthedirectsupervisionofthePhilippineDepartment
ofInteriorandLocalGovernment(DILG)willhaveaccesstotheplaceof
detentiontoensuretheUnitedStatesisincompliancewiththeterms
oftheVFA.
ISSUE/HELD:
Who gets custody? Status Quo, DFA has to conduct talks because the Romulo
KennedyAgreementisvoidforbeingcontrarytoVFA.
AccdgtoPetitioner:PhilippinesbecauseVFAisvoid.COURT:VFAisconstitutional
RATIO:
VFA
TheprovisionoftheConstitutionisArt.XVIII,Sec.25whichstates:
Sec. 25. After the expiration in 1991 of the Agreement between the
Philippines and the United States of America concerning Military Bases,
foreign military bases, troops, or facilities shall not be allowed in the
Philippines except under a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate and,
when the Congress so requires, ratified by a majority of the votes cast by
thepeopleinanationalreferendumheldforthatpurpose,andrecognized
asatreatybytheothercontractingState.
The provision is thus designed to ensure that any agreement allowing the
presenceofforeignmilitarybases,troopsorfacilitiesinPhilippineterritoryshall
be equally binding on the Philippines and the foreign sovereign State
involved.Theideaistopreventarecurrenceofthesituationinwhichtheterms
andconditionsgoverningthepresenceofforeignarmedforcesinourterritory
werebindinguponusbutnotupontheforeignState.
Applying the provision to the situation involved in these cases, the question is
whetherornotthepresenceofUSArmedForcesinPhilippineterritorypursuant
totheVFAisallowedunderatreatydulyconcurredinbytheSenatexxxand
recognizedasatreatybytheothercontractingState.
o Bayan v. Zamora, the VFA was duly concurred in by the Philippine
Senate and has been recognized as a treaty by the United States as
attested and certified by the duly authorized representative of the
UnitedStatesgovernment.
o VFA and the RPUS Mutual Defense Treaty of August 30, 1951. This
earlieragreementwassignedanddulyratifiedwiththeconcurrenceof
boththePhilippineSenateandtheUnitedStatesSenate
RPUS military exercises for the purpose of developing the
capability to resist an armed attack fall squarely under the
provisions of the RPUS Mutual Defense Treaty. The VFA,
which is the instrument agreed upon to provide for the joint
RPUSmilitaryexercises,issimplyanimplementingagreement
tothemainRPUSMilitaryDefenseTreaty.
Accordingly, as an implementing agreement of the RPUS
Mutual Defense Treaty, the provision of Art. XVIII, Sec. 25 of
19
PILCaseDigest:JurisdictionofStates
theConstitution,iscompliedwithbyvirtueofthefactthatthe
presence of the US Armed Forces through the VFA is a
presence allowed under the RPUS Mutual Defense
Treaty. Since the RPUS Mutual Defense Treaty itself has
beenratifiedandconcurredinbyboththePhilippineSenate
andtheUSSenate,thereisnoviolationoftheConstitutional
provisionresultingfromsuchpresence.
TheVFAbeingavalidandbindingagreement,thepartiesarerequiredasamatter
ofinternationallawtoabidebyitstermsandprovisions.
Applying, however, the provisions of VFA, the Court finds that there is a different
treatmentwhenitcomestodetentionasagainstcustody.Themomenttheaccused
has to be detained, e.g., after conviction, the rule that governs is the following
provisionoftheVFA:
Sec. 10. The confinement or detention by Philippine authorities of
United States personnel shall be carried out in facilities agreed on by
appropriate Philippines and United States authorities. United States
personnel serving sentences in the Philippines shall have the right to
visitsandmaterialassistance.
ArticleV
CriminalJurisdiction
xxx
6. The custody of any United States personnel over whom the
Philippines is to exercise jurisdiction shall immediately reside with
United States military authorities, if they so request, from the
commission of the offense until completion of all judicial
proceedings. United States military authorities shall, upon formal
notification by the Philippine authorities and without delay, make such
personnel available to those authorities in time for any investigative or
judicial proceedings relating to the offense with which the person has
been charged. In extraordinary cases, the Philippine Government shall
presentitspositiontotheUnitedStatesGovernmentregardingcustody,
whichtheUnitedStatesGovernmentshalltakeintofullaccount.Inthe
eventPhilippinejudicialproceedingsarenotcompletedwithinoneyear,
the United States shall be relieved of any obligations under this
paragraph. The one year period will not include the time necessary to
appeal.Also,theoneyearperiodwillnotincludeanytimeduringwhich
scheduled trial procedures are delayed because United States
authorities,aftertimelynotificationbyPhilippineauthoritiestoarrange
forthepresenceoftheaccused,failtodoso.
o
Thereisadifferencebetweencustodyduringthetrialanddetentionafter
conviction, because they provided for a specific arrangement to cover
detention. And this specific arrangement clearly states not only that the
detentionshallbecarriedoutinfacilitiesagreedonbyauthoritiesofboth
parties, but also that the detention shall be by Philippine
authorities. Therefore, the RomuloKenney Agreements of December 19
and22,2006,whichareagreementsonthedetentionoftheaccusedinthe
UnitedStatesEmbassy,arenotinaccordwiththeVFAitselfbecausesuch
detentionisnotbyPhilippineauthorities.
Respondents should therefore comply with the VFA and negotiate with
representativesoftheUnitedStatestowardsanagreementondetention
facilitiesunderPhilippineauthoritiesasmandatedbyArt.V,Sec.10ofthe
VFA.
WHEREFORE, the petitions are PARTLY GRANTED, and the Court of Appeals
DecisioninCAG.R.SPNo.97212datedJanuary2,2007isMODIFIED.TheVisiting
Forces Agreement (VFA) between the Republic of the Philippines and the United
States, entered into on February 10, 1998, is UPHELD as constitutional, but the
RomuloKenney Agreements of December 19 and 22, 2006 are DECLARED not in
accordance with the VFA, and respondent Secretary of Foreign Affairs is hereby
ordered to forthwith negotiate with the United States representatives for the
appropriate agreement on detention facilities under Philippine authorities as
20
PILCaseDigest:JurisdictionofStates
provided in Art. V, Sec. 10 of the VFA, pending which the status quo shall be
maintaineduntilfurtherordersbythisCourt.
NOTE:Caseception:Medellinv.Texaswhichheldthattreatiesenteredintobythe
UnitedStatesarenotautomaticallypartoftheirdomesticlawunlessthesetreaties
areselfexecutingorthereisanimplementinglegislationtomakethemenforceable.
(importantbits)
First,theVFAisaselfexecutingAgreement,asthattermisdefinedinMedellinitself,
because the parties intend its provisions to be enforceable, precisely because the
Agreement is intended to carry out obligations and undertakings under the RPUS
Mutual Defense Treaty. As a matter of fact, the VFA has been implemented and
executed,withtheUSfaithfullycomplyingwithitsobligationtoproduceL/CPLSmith
beforethecourtduringthetrial.
Secondly,theVFAiscoveredbyimplementinglegislation,namely,theCaseZablocki
Act, USC Sec. 112(b), inasmuch as it is the very purpose and intent of the US
Congress that executive agreements registered under this Act within 60 days from
their ratification be immediately implemented. The parties to these present cases
donotquestionthefactthattheVFAhasbeenregisteredundertheCaseZablocki
Act.
Finally, the RPUS Mutual Defense Treaty was advised and consented to by the US
Senate.
Accordingly,therearethreetypesoftreatiesintheAmericansystem:
1.Art.II,Sec.2treatiesTheseareadvisedandconsentedtobytheUSSenatein
accordancewithArt.II,Sec.2oftheUSConstitution.
2. ExecutiveCongressional Agreements: These are joint agreements of the
PresidentandCongressandneednotbesubmittedtotheSenate.
3. Sole Executive Agreements. These are agreements entered into by the
President.TheyaretobesubmittedtoCongresswithinsixty(60)daysofratification
undertheprovisionsoftheCaseZablockiAct,afterwhichtheyarerecognizedbythe
Congressandmaybeimplemented.
21
IMMUNITY'FROM'JURISDICTION'
A.'STATE'IMMUNITY'
1. The'Tate'Letter'(MR)'
26'Dept.'of'State'Bull.'(MR)'
984!(1952)!
!
A! letter! from! the! Acting! Legal! Adviser,! Jack! B.! Tate,! to! the! United! States!
Department!of!Justice,!May!18,!1952.!
!
Note:& The& point& is& really& to& discuss& the& 2& kinds& of& sovereign& immunity& (absolute&
and&restrictive)&and&to&say&that&the&Departments&policy&is&to&follow&the&restrictive&
theory.&&
!
2'conflicting'concepts'of'sovereign'immunity:'
1.
2.
3.
classical!or!absolutea!sovereign!cannot,!without!its!consent,!be!made!
a!respondent!in!the!courts!of!another!sovereign!
newer! or! restrictiveimmunity! of! the! sovereign! is! recognized! with!
regard!to!sovereign!or!public!acts!(jure!imperii),!but!not!with!respect!to!
private!acts!(jure!gestionis)!
matter!where!proponents!of!both!theories!are!in!agreementsovereign!
immunity!should!not!be!claimed!or!recognized:!!
in! actions! with! respect! to! real! property! (except! diplomatic! and!
consular!property)!
or!with!respect!to!disposition!of!the!property!of!a!deceased!person!
even!though!a!foreign!sovereign!is!the!beneficiary!!
!
Countries' that' tend' to' decide' in' favor' of' absolute' theory:! US,! British!
Commonwealth,! Czechoslovakia,! Estonia,! Poland,! Brazil,! Chile,! China,! Hungary,!
Japan,!Luxembourg,!Norway,!Portugal!!
Countries'that'tend'to'decide'in'favor'of'restrictive'theory:!Belgium,!Italy,!Egypt,!
Switzerland,!France,!Austria,!Greece,!Romania,!Peru,!Denmark!!
restrictive! theory! and! the! views! of! writers,! at! least! in! civil! law! countries,! are! a!
major!factor!in!the!development!of!the!law.!!
!
Of! related! interest! is! the! fact! that! 10! of! the! 13! countries! cited! as! supporters! of!
the!classical!theory!have!ratified!the! Brussels' Convention' of' 1926,!under!which!
immunity!for!government!owned!merchant!vessels!is!waived.!US,!which!is!not!a!
party!to!the!convention,!has!also!followed!a!policy!of!not!claiming!immunity!for!
its!public!owned!or!operated!vessels.!It!is!noteworthy!that!these!10!countries!plus!
the! US! have! relinquished! an! important! part! of! the! immunity! which! they! claim!
under!the!classical!theory.!There!is!thus!now!little!acceptance!for!the!continued!
full!acceptance!of!the!absolute!theory!of!sovereign!immunity.!!
!
The!Department!feels!that!the!widespread!and!increasing!practice!on!the!part!of!
governments!engaging!in!commercial!activities!makes!necessary!a!practice!which!
will!enable!persons!doing!business!with!them!to!have!their!rights!determined!in!
the! courts.! For! these! reasons! it' will' hereafter' be' the' Departments' policy' to'
follow'the'restrictive'theory'in'considering'requests'of'foreign'governments'for'
a'grant'of'sovereign'immunity.''
!
A!shift!in!policy!by!the!executive!branch!cannot!control!the!courts.!But!there!have!
been! indications! that! at! least! some! Justices! of! the! SC! feel! that! in! this! matter!
courts! follow! the! branch! of! the! government! charged! with! responsibility! for! the!
conduct!of!foreign!relations.!!
Countries'that'tend'to'decide'in'favor'of'either:!Netherlands,!Sweden,!Argentina!
!
A!trend!toward!the!restrictive!theory!has!become!more!and!more!evident!since!
its!development.!Furthermore,!there!is!a!school!of!influential!writers!favoring!the!
!
Victory!charted!a!ship!to!Comisaria!(a!branch!of!the!Ministry!of!Commerce!of!
the! Spanish! Government)! for! a! voyage! from! Alabama! to! Spain! to! carry!
surplus! wheat! purchased! by! the! Spanish! Government! under! an! Agricultural!
Commodities! Agreement! (agreement)! with! the! US! pursuant! to! the! US!
Agricultural!Trade!Development!and!Assistance!Act!(act).!!
The!charter!agreement!contained!an!arbitration!clause:!should!dispute!arise,!
it! shall! be! referred! to! 3! persons! in! New! York,! commercial! men,! one! to! be!
1!
appointed! by! each! party! and! the! third! to! be! appointed! by! the! two! chosen.!
Their!decision!shall!be!final!and!for!the!purpose!of!enforcing!award,!may!be!
made!a!rule!of!court.!!
The!ship!was!damaged!while!discharging!cargo!at!Spanish!ports!which!were!
allegedly! unsafe! for! a! vessel! of! that! size,! so! Victory! filed! suit! to! compel!
arbitration!under!the!US!Arbitration!Act:!Sec.!4!states!that!parties!aggrieved!
by! the! failure! or! refusal! of! another! party! to! arbitrate! pursuant! to! an!
arbitration! agreement! may! petition! the! US! district! court! to! issue! order!
directing!that!arbitration!proceed!as!provided!for!in!the!agreement.!!
Victory! secured! an! ex! parte! order! from! the! District! Court.! Service! of! its!
petition! was! made! by! registered! mail! to! Comisaria.! Comisaria! moved! to!
vacate!the!service!because!Court!lacked!in!personam!jurisdiction!because!of!
(a)!extraterritorial!service!and!(b)'sovereign'immunity'from'suit'to'which'it'
was'entitled,'being'a'branch'of'the''Spanish'government.'
'
Held&by&District&Court&&
Victorys! motion! to! compel! arbitration! granted.! By! entering! into! the!
arbitration! agreement,! both! parties! consented! to! the! jurisdiction! of!
courts! in! New! York.! And' being' a' commercial' operation,' sovereign'
immunity'was'not'available.''
'
Judgment&of&the&Court&
Jack! Tate! (see! Tate! Letter)! announced! that! the! Department! would!
adhere! to! the! restrictive! theory! of! sovereign! immunity.! However,! it!
offers!no!guidelines!or!criteria!for!differentiating!a!private!from!a!public!
act!
Some!criteria!from!the!past:!
a
by!naturesovereign!acts!are!only!those!activities!which!could!not!
be! performed! by! individuals;! but! this! only! postpones! the! difficulty!
for! particular! contracts! in! some! instances! may! be! made! only! by!
States!!
a
by! purpose! of! transactionjure! imperii! are! those! in! which! the!
object!of!the!performance!is!public!in!character;!but!this!criterion!is!
purely!arbitrary!
purpose! of! the! restrictive! theoryto! try! to! accommodate! the! interest! of!
individuals!doing!business!with!foreign!governments!having!their!legal!rights!
determined!by!the!courts,!with!the!interest!of!foreign!Governments!in!being!
free!to!perform!certain!political!acts!without!undergoing!the!embarrassment!
or!hindrance!of!defending!the!propriety!of!such!acts!before!foreign!courts!!
Sovereign! immunity! is! a! derogation! from! the! normal! exercise! of! state!
jurisdiction! so! we! are! disposed! to! deny! a! claim! of! sovereign! immunity! that!
has! not! been! recognized! and! allowed! by! the! State! Department! unless! it! is!
plain!that!the!activity!falls!within!one!of!the!categories!of!strictly!political!or!
public!acts!!
Such!acts!are!general!limited!to:!!
a
internal!administrative!acts,!such!as!expulsion!of!alien!
a
legislative!acts!such!as!nationalization!
a
acts!concerning!armed!forces!
a
acts!concerning!diplomatic!activity!
a
public!loans!
Should! diplomacy! require! enlargement! of! these! categories,! the! State!
Department! can! file! a! suggestion! of! immunity! with! the! court.! Should! it!
require! contraction,! Department! can! issue! new! or! clarifying! policy!
pronouncement!
The! Comisarias! chartering! of! Victorys! ship! is! not! strictly! a! public! act! but!
more!a!private!commercial!act.!It!has!all!the!earmarks!of!such:!
a
executed!for!Comisaria!by!the!head!of!its!commercial!division!
a
wheat! ! was! consigned! to! and! shipped! by! private! commercial!
concern!
a
inclusion!of!the!arbitration!clause!!
The! French! CA! dismissed! a! claim! of! sovereignty! by! the! governmental!
charterer! which! had! agreed! to! arbitration,! pointing! out! that! even! if! you!
broaden!the!view!to!say!that!purchase!of!wheat!was!to!help!feed!the!people!
of!Spain,!it!still!remains!commercial!activity!
Comisaria! does! not! claim! that! wheat! will! be! used! for! the! public! services! of!
Spain.! Presumptively,! the! wheat! will! be! sold! to! Spanish! nationals.! The!
purchasing!activity!was!through!private!channels!of!trade!
In! New! York! and! Cuoa! Mail! v.! Republic! of! Korea,! we! held! that! wartime!
transportation! of! rice! to! civilian! and! military! personnel! is! not! a! public! act,!
and!so!the!peacetime!transportation!of!wheat!for!presumptive!resale!is!not!a!
public!act!!
Generally,! purchasing! activity! by! a! State! instrumentality,! particularly! for!
resale!to!nationals,!is!a!commercial!or!private!activity!
District!court!affirmed.!!
!
2!
3. Gov't'of'the'Democratic'Rep.'of'the'Congo'v.'Venne'(RS)''
Supreme!Court!of!Canada,!1972!
TOPIC:! State! Immunity;! Congos! entry! into! a! contract! with! a! Canadian! architect!
for!sketching!its!pavilion!is!a!public!act.!
Appellant:!The!Congo!
a!Yes,!it!was!an!act!made!pursuant!to!its!sovereign!capacity.!Therefore,!The!Congo!
can! invoke! sovereign! immunity! and! could! not! be! impleaded! in! the! Courts! of!
Quebec.!
!
Appellee:!Venne,!the!Canadian!architect!
Ponente:!Ritchie,!J.!!
FACTS:'
Appeal!from!a!judgment!of!the!CA!of!Province!of!Quebec,!which!dismissed!an!
appeal!from!a!judgment!of!the!Superior!Court!of!Montreal,!which!disallowed!
the!appellants!(The!Congo)!claim!that,!by!reason!of!its!sovereign!immunity,!
it!could!not!be!imp!leaded!in!the!courts!of!Quebec.!
Venn!!an!architect!who!claims!to!have!been!retained!between!Feb!1965!and!
March!1966,!on!behalf!of!The!Congo!for!the!purpose!of!making!preliminary!
studies!and!preparing!sketches!in!relation!to!the!national!pavilion!which!The!
Congo!proposed!to!build!at!Expo!67!(ie,!Canadas!main!celebration!for!its!
centennial! year,! held! in! 1967).! Venne! was! hired! by! duly! accredited!
diplomatic!representatives!of!The!Congo.!
Vennes! declaration! incorporated! an! unsigned! copy! of! a! contract,! pursuant!
to!which!he!claims!to!have!been!employed,!and!also!certain!sketches!of!the!
proposed!pavilion!which!he!claims!to!have!furnished!to!The!Congo.!
Venne! prepared! a! bill! of! $20,000! for! services! rendered! which! he!
subsequently!reduced!to!$12,000!and!which!was!not!paid!because!the!Congo!
decided!not!to!proceed!with!the!pavilion.!
Venne!sued!The!Congo.!
Superior!Court!of!Montreal!decided!in!favor!of!Venne!
CA!of!Quebec!affirmed,!thereby!dismissing!The!Congos!appeal.!CA!accepted!
the!trial!Judges!finding!that!when!the!Congo!employed!Venne!to!prepare!the!
sketches! of! the! national! pavilion! which! it! proposed! to! build! at! a! duly!
authorized! international! exhibition,! it! was! not! performing! a! public! act! of! a!
sovereign!state!but!rather!one!of!a!purely!private!nature!(thus,!not!immune).!
!
ISSUES/HELD:'
W/N! The! Congos! act! of! employing! Venne! for! the! construction! of! a! national!
pavilion!constituted!a!public!act.!
Considered! from! the! point! of! view! of! the! architect,! the! contract! may! be!
deemed! a! purely! commercial! one,! but,! even! if! the! theory! of! restrictive!
sovereign!immunity!were!applicable,!the!questions!to!be!determined!would!
not! be! whether! the! contractor! was! engaged! in! a! private! act! of! commerce,!
but!whether'or'not'the'Congo,'acting'as'a'visiting'sovereign'state'through'
its' duly' accredited' diplomatic' representatives,' was' engaged' in' the'
performance'of'a'public'sovereign'act'of'State.'
Ponente! pointed! out! the! significance! of! the! fact! that! Venne! was! employed!
not! only! by! the! duly! accredited! diplomatic! representatives,! but! also! by! the!
representative!of!the!Dept.!of!Foreign!Affairs!(DFA)!of!The!Congo.'
o This!makes!it!plain!that!in!preparing!for!the!construction!of!its!national!
pavilion,!a'department'of'the'Govt'of'a'foreign'state,'together'with'
its' duly' accredited' diplomatic' representatives,' were' engaged' in' the'
performance' of' a' public' sovereign' act' of' State! on! behalf! of! their!
country! and! that! the! employment' of' Venn' was' a' step' taken' in' the'
performance'of'that'sovereign'act.'
o Therefore,' The' Congo' could' not' be' impleaded' in' the' courts' of'
Quebec'even'if'the'so[called'restrictive'sovereign'immunity'had'been'
adopted'in'the'Canadian'Courts.'
As!an!aside,!there!is!a!suggestion!in!the!CAs!decision!that!the!onus!probandi!
lies! upon! the! Sovereign! to! show! that! the! act! was! a! public! one! if! it! is! to! be!
granted!sovereign!immunity.'
o But!the!ponentes!view!is!that!the!question'of'whether'the'contract'in'
question' was' a' public' act! done! on! behalf! of! a! sovereign! State! for!
State! purposes,! is! one! which! should' be' decided' on' the' record' as' a'
whole' without' placing' the' burden' of' rebutting' any' presumption' on'
either'party.'
Allan&Construction&Ltd.&V.&Got&of&Venezuela:'
o Facts:! Plaintiff! was! hired! by! Venezuela! for! the! construction! of! a!
pavilion! in! the! same! Expo! 67.! However,! Venezuela! planned! to!
incorporate!in!the!pavilion!a!restaurant!with!the!right!to!sell!alcoholic!
liquor!and!to!sell!the!products!of!Venezuela.'
o Held:!Venezuelas!contract!with!the!plaintiff!was!a!commercial!one.'
3!
In' the' case' of' The' Congo,' there' is' no' such' plan' to' incorporate' a'
commercial' venture.' Therefore,' the' case' law' in' Allan& Construction'
Ltd.'does'not'apply'in'this'case.'
US!cases!referred!to!by!the!CA!decision:'
o Tate& Letter:! it! will! hereafter! be! the! [State]! Departments! policy! to!
follow! the! restrictive! theory! of! sovereign! immunity! in! the!
consideration! of! requests! of! foreign! governments! for! a! grant! of!
sovereign!immunity.'
o Victory& Transport& Inc.& v.& Commisaria& General& de& Abastecimientos& y&
Transportes:!'
This! case! was! cited! as! an! example! of! an! independent! judicial!
acceptance!of!the!theory!of!restrictive!sovereign!immunity'
!the!court!must!decide!for!itself!whether!it!is!the!established!
policy!of!the!State!Department!to!recognize!claims!of!immunity!
of!this!type!(i.e.,!restrictive!sovereign!immunity).'
o It!is!thus!clear!that!in!the!US,!the!question!to!be!answered!is!whether!
it! is! the! established! policy! of! the! State! Department! to! recognize! the!
immunity!claimed!in!any!particular!case.'
o As!no!such!question!arises!in!Canada,!the!ponente!takes!tea!view!that!
cases! concerning! sovereign! immunity! decided! in! the! US! Courts! in!
those!years!are!of!little!or!no!authority!in!Canada.'
'
o
DISPOSITIVE:! Judgment! appealed! from! is! reversed.! The! Congo! cannot! be! imp!
leaded!in!the!Court!of!Quebec.!
4. In'Re:'PNB'v'USDC'(JG)''
TOPIC:!Acts!of!State!doctrine!
Petitioner:!Philippine!National!Bank!
Respondents:! United! States! District! Court! for! the! District! of! Hawaii;! Maximo!
Hilao;!Estate!of!Ferdinand!Marcos;!Imelda!R.!Marcos;!Ferdinand!R.!Marcos,!Jr.!
Ponente:!Canby,!Circuit!J.!!
!
FACTS:!
On! one! side! is! a! class! of! plaintiffs! who! obtained! a! large! judgment! in! the!
federal! district! court! in! Hawaii! against! the! Marcos! estate! for! human! rights!
violations!by!the!Marcos!regime.!
The!Republic!of!the!Philippines,!on!the!other!hand,!sought!forfeiture!of!the!
Marcos!estates!assets!on!the!ground!that!they!were!stolen!by!Marcos!from!
the!Philippine!government!and!its!people.!
There!was!an!attempt!by!the!class!plaintiffs!to!get!the!assets!of!the!Marcos!
estate!located!in!Swiss!banks.!!
o The! Swiss! assets! were! frozen! by! the! Swiss! government! at! the!
request!of!the!Republic.!!
o The! class! plaintiffs! obtained! an! injunction! from! the! district! court!
requiring! the! Swiss! banks! to! hold! the! assets! for! the! benefit! of! the!
class!plaintiffs.!
It! was! held! that! the! injunction! violated! the! act! of! state!
doctrine.!
Accordingly,! a! writ! of! mandamus! was! issued! directing! the! dismissal! of! the!
district!courts!order.!!
Thereafter,! the! Swiss! government! released! the! funds! frozen! in! Switzerland!
for!transfer!to!the!PNB!in!escrow!pending!determination!of!proper!disposal!
by!a!competent!court!in!the!Philippines.!!
o The!PNB!deposited!the!funds!in!Singapore.!
o The! Philippine! Supreme! Court! subsequently! held! that! the! assets!
were!forfeited!to!the!Republic!of!the!Philippines.!
The! district! court! then! issued! orders! that! triggered! this! present! petition! for!
mandamus.!
o It!ruled!that!the!Philippine!SC!had!violated!the!due!process!by!
any!standard!and!its!judgment!was!entitled!to!no!deference.!!
o It! further! ordered! that! any! transfer! of! monies,! without! first!
appearing! and! showing! cause! to! the! court! as! to! how! such!
transfer! might! occur! without! violating! the! Courts! injunction,!
shall!be!considered!contempt.!!
o It!issued!an!Order!to!Show!Cause!against!PNB,!which!was!not!a!
party!to!the!litigation,!requiring!the!Bank!to!show!cause!why!it!
should! not! be! held! in! contempt! for! violating! the! courts!
injunction!against!transfer!of!assets!by!the!estate.!!
The! Bank! then! filed! the! present! petition! for! mandamus,! seeking! to! restrain!
the!district!court!from!enforcing!its!Order!to!Show!Cause!and!from!pursuing!
discovery!against!the!Bank!officer.!!
!
ISSUE/HELD:'
W/N' the' entire' proceeding' against' the' Bank' for' its' transfer' of' funds' violated'
the'act'of'state'doctrine.'['YES'
4!
!
RATIO:'
The!Act!of!State!doctrine!
Every! sovereign! state! is! bound! to! respect! the! independence! of! every! other!
sovereign!state,!and!the!courts!of!one!country!will!not!sit!in!judgment!on!the!
acts! of! government! of! another,! done! within! its! own! territory.! Redress! of!
grievances!by!reason!of!such!acts!must!be!obtained!through!the!means!open!
to!be!availed!of!by!sovereign!powers!as!between!themselves.!!
The! doctrine! reflects! the! strong! sense! of! the! Judicial! Branch! that! its!
engagement!in!the!task!of!passing!on!the!validity!of!foreign!acts!of!state!may!
hinder!the!conduct!of!foreign!affairs.!
The!district!courts!orders!in!issue!violated!this!principle.!
o In! order! to! obtain! assets! from! the! PNB,! or! to! hold! the! Bank! in!
contempt!for!the!transfer!of!those!assets!to!the!Republic,!the!district!
court! necessarily! (and! expressly)! held! invalid! the! forfeiture! judgment!
of!the!Philippine!Supreme!Court.!We!conclude!that!this!action!of!the!
district!court!violated!the!act!of!state!doctrine.!
The!class!plaintiffs!in!the!district!court!argue!that!the!act!of!state!doctrine!is!
directed! at! the! executive! and! legislative! branches! of! foreign! governments,!
and!does!not!apply!to!judicial!decisions.!
o Although!the!act!of!state!doctrine!is!normally!inapplicable!to!court!
judgments! arising! from! private! litigation,! there! is! no! inflexible! rule!
preventing! a! judgment! sought! by! a! foreign! government! from!
qualifying!as!an!act!of!state.!
o There! is! no! question! that! the! judgment! of! the! Philippine! SC! gave!
effect!to!the!public!interest!of!the!Philippine!government.!!
The!forfeiture!action!was!not!a!mere!dispute!between!private!parties;!it!was!
an! action! initiated! by! the! Philippine! government! pursuant! to! its! statutory!
mandate!to!recover!property!allegedly!stolen!from!the!treasury.!
o We!have!earlier!characterized!the!collection!efforts!of!the!Republic!
to!be!governmental.!
o The! subject! matter! of! the! forfeiture! action! thus! qualifies! for!
treatment!as!an!act!of!state.!!
The! class! plaintiffs! next! argue! that! the! act! of! state! doctrine! is! inapplicable!
because!the!judgment!of!the!Philippine!SC!did!not!concern!matters!within!its!
own!territory.!
o Generally,!the!act!of!state!doctrine!applies!to!official!acts!of!foreign!
sovereigns!performed!within!their!own!territory.!!
The! act! of! the! Philippine! Supreme! Court! was! not! wholly! external,!
however.!
Its! judgment,! which! the! district! court! declared! invalid,! was!
issued! in! the! Philippines! and! much! of! its! force! upon! the!
Philippine! Bank! arose! from! the! fact! that! the! Bank! is! a!
Philippine!corporation.!!
Even! assuming! that! the! assets! are! no! in! Singapore,! this! fact! does! not!
preclude!the!application!of!the!act!of!state!doctrine.!!
o It!is!to!be!applied!pragmatically!and!with!reference!to!the!underlying!
considerations!of!the!case.!!
The! District! Court! is! thus! directed! to! refrain! from! further! actions! regarding!
the!controversy.!
o
It!does!not!cover!commercial!activity.!
It!does!not!apply!in!cases!of!death/destruction/damage!to!property!within!
Canadas!territory,!or!to!criminal!proceedings,!or!to!actions!involving!
succession.!
No!immunity!if!the!transactions!are!commercial!in!nature.!
Military!properties!are!also!immune.!
The!rights!may!be!waived!through!a!voluntary!submission!to!the!jurisdiction!
of!the!courts!or!by!some!other!expressions!of!consent.!
Injunction!or!specific!performance!reliefs!will!not!be!granted!to!foreign!states!
unless!Canada!consents!to!it.!
6. Il'Congreso'del'Partido'(CG)''
Facts:'
In!Feb!1973,!a!contract!for!sale!of!128,!935!tons!sugar!was!made!between!a!
Cuban!state!trading!enterprise,!Empresa!Exportadora!de!Acuzar!(Cubazucar),!
as!sellers!and!a!Chilean!company,!Industria!Azucarera!Nacional!SA!(Iansa)!
One! shipment! was! made,! which! was! 10,476! tons,! carried! by! Playa! Larga,! a!
Cuban!flag!vessel,!and!operated!by!Mambisa!!
Playa!Larga!was!chartered!for!voyage!to!Chile!by!Cubzucar!
5!
Iansa,!in!turn,!sold!the!sugar!to!another!Chilean!company!
The!other!shipment!was!of!10,890!tons!carried!on!Marble!Islands,!which!was!
Liechtenstein!corporation!with!a!Somali!flag.!It!was!chartered!to!Mambisa!on!
a!demise!charter!and!subachartered!by!Mambisa!to!Cubazucar!for!the!voyage!
to!Chile!
While!Playa!Larga!was!discharging!its!cargo,!a!coup!detat!took!place!in!Chile!
The!take!over!of!President!Pinochet!was!strongly!disapproved!by!Cuba,!thus!
diplomatic!relations!between!Chile!and!Cuba!were!terminated!
Due! to! this,! Playa! Larga! was! ordered! by! Mambisa,! which! was! instructed! by!
the! Cuban! Government,! to! leave! and! join! Marble! Islands! carrying! with! it!
7,907!tons!of!sugar!not!yet!discharged!
Playa!Larga!met!Marble!Islands!at!sea!and!both!of!them!proceeded!to!Peru!
Chilean!authorities,!through!their!embassy,!requested!discharge!at!that!port,!
but!both!masters!refused,!and!went!back!to!Cuba!
Marble! Islands! also! intends! to! return! to! Cuba! but! was! arrested! at! the!
Panama!Canal!on!the!application!of!Iansa.!It!broke!arrest!and!sailed!west!for!
North! Vietnam.! In! the! course! of! its! voyage,! its! ownership! and! flag! were!
transferred!to!the!Republic!of!Cuba.!!
Its!cargo!was!sold!to!another!Cuban!state!enterprise,!Alimport!
Note:! Mambisa,! Cubazucar! and! Alimport! are! all! state! trading! enterprises.!
Meaning,!they!have!independent!legal!existence!and!are!not!departments!of!
the!Cuban!state.!It!is!not!claimed!that!it!would!be!entitled!to!state!immunity.!
But! it! is! subject! to! direction! and! control! by! the! Cuban! government.! State!
controlled!enterprises,!with!legal!personality,!ability!to!trade!and!enter!into!
contracts!of!private!law,!though!wholly!subject!to!the!control!of!their!state,!
are!a!wellaknown!feature!of!modern!commercial!scene.!
Issue:! WON! a! plea! of! state! immunity! can! be! raised! as! to! deny! jurisdiction! of!
courts!of!other!states!as!to:!
&
As&to&Playa&Larga&
1.
2.
Playa!Larga!!NO!
Marble!Islands!!YES!
!
Ruling:'
Generally,!the!basis!on!which!one!state!is!considered!immune!from!territorial!
jurisdiction! of! courts! of! another! state! is! par! in! parem,! which! means! that!
the! sovereign! or! governmental! acts! of! one! state! are! not! matters! on! which!
the!courts!of!other!states!will!adjudicate!
However,! exception! to! this! is! the! restrictive' theory,! which! arises! from! the!
willingness! of! states! to! enter! into! commercial,! or! other! private! law,!
transactions!with!individuals.!
It!appears!to!have!two!main!foundations:!(1)!it!is!necessary!in!the!interest!of!
justice! to! individuals! having! such! transactions! with! states! to! allow! them! to!
bring! such! transactions! before! the! courts;! and! (2)! to! require! a! state! to!
answer!a!claim!based!on!such!transactions!does!not!involve!a!challenge!to!or!
inquiry!into!any!act!of!sovereignty!or!governmental!act!of!that!state!
The! restrictive! theory! does! not! and! could! not! deny! capability! of! a! state! to!
resort!to!sovereign!or!governmental!action.!It!merely!asserts!that!acts!done!
within!the!trading!or!commercial!activity!are!not!immune!
Thus,! the! court! first! needs! to! characterize! the! activity! into! which! the!
defendant!state!has!entered!
TEST:! Whether! state! immunity! should! be! granted! or! not,! the! court' must!
consider' the' whole' context' in' which' the' claim' against' the' state' is' made,!
with! a! view! to! deciding' whether' the' relevant' acts' on' which' the' claim' is'
based' should,' in' that' context,' be' considered' as' fairly' within' an' area' of'
activity:!(1)!trading!or!commercial!or!otherwise!of!a!private!law!character,!in!
which! the! state! has! chosen! to! engage;! or! (2)! whether! the! relevant! acts!
should!be!considered!as!having!been!done!outside!that!area!and!within!the!
sphere!of!governmental!or!sovereign!activity!
As!it!appears!from!the!case,!the!appellants!are!able!to!show!that!Playa!Larga!
was!engaged!in!trade!with!the!consent,!if!not!with!the!active!participation,!of!
the! Republic! of! Cuba.! Thus,! they! were! doing! business! with! a! foreign!
government.!
However,' it' is' the' opinion' of' this' judge' that' the' decision' not' to' complete'
the'unloading'or'the'discharging'was'NOT'a'political'decision'taken'by'the'
government'of'Cuba'for'political'and'non[commercial'reasons'
Everything!done!by!the!Republic!of!Cuba!in!relation!to!Playa!Larga!could!have!
been!done,!and,!so!far!as!evidence!goes,!was!done,!as!owners!of!the!ship'
It! did! not! exercise,! and! had! no! need! to! exercise,! sovereign! powers! and!
invoked!no!governmental!authority'
All! the! documents,! such! as! the! bills! of! lading,! were! carried! out! (legally! or!
illegally)!as!trading!operations!governed!by!contract!and!by!private!law'
The!Republic!of!Cuba!never!entered!into!these!operations'
As&to&Marble&Islands&
6!
The! acts! of! the! Republic! of! Cuba! were! and! remained! in! their! nature! purely!
governmental!
There! was! no! purely! commercial! obligation! involved! and! the! vessel! never!
entered! the! trading! area! (remained! at! sea)! and! never! entered! into!
commercial!relations!
7. Trendtex'Trading'Corp'v.'Central'Bank'of'Nigeria'(CG)''
Facts:'
The! Central! Bank! of! Nigeria! issued! a! letter! of! credit! drawn! on! the! Midland!
Bank!in!London!in!favor!of!the!plaintiff,!to!pay!for!cement!sold!by!the!plaintiff!
to!an!English!company!
The!bank!assured!the!plaintiff!that!the!letter!of!credit!was!reliable!
The! plaintiffs! purchased! the! cement,! sold! it! to! the! English! company,! and!
shipped!it!to!Nigeria.!!
However,! the! bank! refused! to! pay,! and! the! plaintiff! brought! this! action! on!
the!letter!of!credit!
!
Issue:'WON!the!Bank,!as!an!arm!or!department!of!the!Nigerian!Government,!was!
entitled!to!sovereign!immunity!a!NO!
!
Ruling:'
The! doctrine! of! absolute! immunity! has! been! abandoned,! and! has! been!
replaced!by!the!doctrine!of!restrictive!immunity'
This!doctrine!gives!immunity!to!acts!of!a!governmental!nature,!described!in!
Latin! as! jure& imperil,! but! no! immunity! to! acts! of! a! commercial! nature,! jure&
gestionis'
The!modern!rule!of!international!law!is!if!the!dispute!concerns,!for!instance,!
the!commercial!transactions!of!a!foreign!government!(whether!carried!on!by!
its!own!departments!or!agencies!or!by!setting!up!separate!legal!entities),!and!
it! arises! properly! within! the! territorial! jurisdiction! of! our! courts,! there! is! no!
ground!for!granting!immunity'
The!European!Community!as!well!adopts!the!doctrine!of!restrictive!immunity'
In!this!case,!the!original!contracts!for!cement!were!made!by!the!Ministry!of!
Defense!of!Nigeria,!and!that!the!cement!was!for!the!building!of!barracks!for!
the!army'
The!contracts!of!purchase!were!acts!of!governmental!nature!!jure&imperii!!
and!not!of!a!commercial!nature!!jure&gestionis'
'
Conclusion'
In! my! opinion,! the! plea! of! sovereign! immunity! does! not! avail! the! Central!
Bank!of!Nigeria.!I!would!allow!the!appeal,!accordingly.'
'
Separate'Opinions'(Justices'Stephenson'and'Shaw)'
There!is!not!enough!evidence!that!the!Central!Bank!of!Nigeria!is!an!alter!ego!
of!the!Nigerian!Government'
But!nonetheless,!immunity!will!not!shield!it!from!liability'
The! new! restrictive! rule! is! more! in! consonance! with! justice! since! strict!
adherence! to! the! absolute! rule! based! on! a! perverse! notion! of! sovereign!
dignity!will!in!fact!only!disserve!international!comity!rather!than!promote!the!
same'
'
B.'DIPLOMATIC'AND'CONSULAR'IMMUNITY'
1. Vienna'Convention'on'Diplomatic'Relations'(RL)'
Head!of!the!Mission!!person!charged!by!the!sending!state!with!the!duty!of!
acting!in!that!capacity!
Diplomatic!Agent!!head!of!the!mission!or!a!member!of!the!diplomatic!staff!
of!the!mission!
Establishment!of!diplomatic!relations!between!states!takes!place!by!mutual!
consent.!
The! receiving! state! may! at! any! time! without! having! to! explain! its! decision,!
notify!the!sending!state!that!the!head!of!the!mission!or!any!member!of!the!
diplomatic!staff!is!persona!non!grata.!
7!
The! receiving! state! is! under! a! special! duty! to! take! all! appropriate! steps! to!
protect!the!premises!of!the!mission!against!any!intrusion!or!damage!and!to!
prevent! any! disturbance! of! the! peace! of! the! mission! or! impairment! of! its!
dignity.!
The!premises!of!the!mission,!their!furnishings!and!other!property!and!means!
of!transport!of!the!mission!shall!be!IMMUNE!from:!
o Search!
o Requisition!
o Attachment!
o Execution.!
The! sending! state! and! the! head! of! the! mission! shall! be! exempt! from! all!
national,!regional!or!municipal!dues!and!taxes,!except:!
o Indirect!taxes,!dues!on!immovable!property,!estate!duties,!dues!and!
taxes! on! private! income,! charges! levied! for! specific! services,!
registration!and!court/record!fees,!and!the!like.!
The!ff!shall!be!inviolable:!
o Premises!of!the!mission!
o Archives!and!documents!of!the!mission!
o Official!correspondence!of!the!mission!
The!diplomatic!bag!shall!not!be!opened!or!detained!
o Diplomatic!carrier!(enjoys!personal!inviolability)!
o Person!of!a!diplomatic!agent!
Not!liable!to!any!form!or!arrest!or!detention!
o Private!residence!of!a!diplomatic!agent!
Diplomatic! agent! enjoys! immunity! from! the! criminal! jurisdiction! of! the!
receiving!state,!as!well!as!civil!and!administrative!jurisdiction!
Immunity!may!be!waived!by!the!sending!state,!EXPRESSLY.!
Members! of! the! family! of! a! diplomatic! agent! and! members! of! the!
administrative! and! technical! staff! of! the! mission,! as! well! as! their! family!
members,!who!are!not!nationals!of!the!receiving!state!shall!enjoy!the!same!
immunities!and!privileges!
Establishment! of! consular! relations! between! states! takes! place! by! mutual!
consent.!
The!ff!shall!be!inviolable:!
o Premises!of!the!consular!
Unless! the! head! gives! consent! in! cases! of! fire! or! other!
disaster!requiring!prompt!action!
o Archives!and!documents!
o Official!correspondence!!
The!consular!bag!shall!not!be!opened!or!detained!
Unless! competent! authorities! have! serious! reason! to!
believe! that! something! other! than! the! correspondence! is!
contained!therein!(may!request!that!the!bag!be!opened)!
o Consular!carrier!(enjoys!personal!inviolability)!
Consular! premises! are! be! exempt! from! all! national,! regional! or! municipal!
dues!and!taxes,!except:!
o Indirect!taxes,!dues!on!immovable!property,!estate!duties,!dues!and!
taxes! on! private! income,! charges! levied! for! specific! services,!
registration!and!court/record!fees,!and!the!like.!
Consular! officers! enjoys! immunity! from! the! criminal! jurisdiction! of! the!
receiving!state,!!
o Except!in!the!case!of!a!grave!crime!and!pursuant!to!a!decision!by!the!
competent!judicial!authority;!
o As!well!as!civil!and!administrative!jurisdiction!
Unless! the! civil! action! arises! out! of! a! contract! concluded!
was!done!not!in!his!official!capacity/scope!of!his!authority!
Or!a!third!party!for!damage!arising!from!an!accident!
3. US'v'Iran'(QN)'
ICJ!Reports!1980,!p.!3!
(This!case!actually!involves!a!twoapart!story.!The!digest!will!follow!the!way!it!was!
discussed!in!the!case.)!
2. Vienna'Convention'on'Consular'Relations'(RL)'
Part!1!
Facts:!
The!case!talks!about!the!events!in!the!movie,!Argo.!Watch!it.!Astig!yun.!
8!
(Not!in!McRae)!In!1979,!the!Iranian!Revolution!took!place.!It!overthrew!the!
Shah! (Emperor)! Mohammad! Reza! Pahlavi,! and! installed! Ayatollah! Khomeini!
as!the!new!leader!of!Iran.!The!Shah!went!on!exile!to!the!US.!
In! November! 4,! 1979,! armed! militant! students! attacked! and! seized! the! US!
Embassy! in! Tehran.! They! took! those! inside! as! their! hostages,! including! 2!
American! private! individuals.! They! also! ransacked! the! property! and! the!
archives.!
During! the! 3ahour! attack,! no! police! or! military! unit! from! the! Iranian!
government!came!to!stop!the!attack.!
There!was!no!indication!that!the!actions!of!the!militants!were!under!orders!
from! the! Iranian! government.! Thus,! the! acts! by! the! militants! cannot! be!
imputable!to!the!Iranian!State.!
(The! following! day,! the! US! Consulates! at! Tabriz! and! Shiraz! were! also!
ransacked!by!militants.)!
!
Held:!
!
Issue:' Despite!the!acts!not!being!imputable!to!the!Iranian!State,!did!it!have!any!
responsibility!with!regard!to!the!events!which!transpired?!
!
Held:'YES'
Iran!has!the!obligation!to!take!appropriate!steps!to!ensure!the!protection!of!
the! US! Embassy! and! Consulates,! their! staffs,! their! archives,! their! means! of!
communication,!and!the!freedom!of!movement!of!their!staffs.!
The! 1961! Vienna! Convention! on! Diplomatic! Relations! imposes! upon! the!
receiving! State! the! special! duty! to! protect! the! premises! of! the! diplomatic!
mission! (Art.! 22)! and! to! protect! the! person! of! a! diplomatic! agent! (Art.! 29).!
Art.!24!protects!the!archives!and!documents!of!the!embassy.!
These! obligations! are! also! in! the! 1963! Vienna! Convention! on! Consular!
Relations.!
The!inaction!by!the!Iranian!Government!thus!constituted!a!clear!and!serious!
violation!of!Irans!obligation!under!the!1961!and!1963!Vienna!Conventions.!
!
Part!2!
Facts:!
At! a! press! conference! the! following! day,! the! Iranian! Foreign! Minister,! Mr.!
Yazdi,!announced!that!the!actions!of!the!students!enjoys!the!endorsement!
and! support! of! the! government,! because! America! herself! is! responsible! for!
this!incident.!
On! November! 17,! 1979,! Ayatollah! Khomeini! issued! a! decree! asserting! that!
the!US!Embassy!was!a!center!of!espionage!and!conspiracy!and!that!people!
there!did!not!enjoy!international!diplomatic!respect.!
The! same! decree! also! proclaimed! that! the! American! Embassy! and! the!
hostages!would!remain!as!they!are!until!the!US!hands!over!the!deposed!Shah!
back!to!Iran.!
The! actions! of! the! Ayatollah! and! the! rest! of! the! Iranian! Government! thus!
turned! the! continued! occupation! of! the! Embassy! and! detention! of! the!
hostages!into!acts!of!the!State.!The!militants!became!agents!of!the!state.!
These!acts!thus!resulted!in!additional!and!continuing!breaches!by!Iran!of!its!
obligations!under!the!1961!and!1963!Vienna!Conventions.!
o The! conventions! forbid! agents! of! the! receiving! State! to! enter! the!
premises!of!a!mission!without!consent!or!to!undertake!any!search,!
requisition,!attachment!or!like!measure!in!the!premises.!
o Art.! 29! of! the! 1961! Vienna! Convention! forbids! the! arrest! or!
detention!of!a!diplomatic!agent.!
o Iran! also! violated! the! obligation! to! preserve! the! inviolability! of! the!
archives!and!documents!of!diplomatic!missions.!It!also!breached!its!
obligation!to!provide!for!freedom!of!movement!and!communication!
of!the!diplomatic!staff.!!
In!the!continuation!of!the!detention!of!the!diplomatic!staff,!Iran!was!also!in!
violation!of!the!fundamental!principles!in!the!UN!Charter!and!the!Universal!
Declaration!of!Human!Rights.!
The! Court! further! reiterated! the! gravity! of! the! situation! because! it! was! a!
state!itself,!and!not!just!certain!individuals,!which!violate!international!law.!
(The!Court!also!mentioned!that!the!American!military!incursion!into!Iranian!
territory!in!April!1980,!while!this!case!was!pending,!tended!to!undermine!the!
respect!for!the!judicial!process.!However,!it!did!not!rule!on!the!legality!of!the!
operation!since!it!was!not!at!issue!in!the!current!case.!
!
The'Courts'Final'Ruling:!
13! votes! to! 2:! the! Islamic! Republic! of! Iran! has! violated! and! is! still! violating!
obligations!it!owes!to!the!USA.!
13!votes!to!2:!The!Islamic!Republic!of!Iran!thus!have!a!responsibility!towards!
the!USA!
9!
Unanimously:! Iran! must! immediately! take! all! steps! to! redress! the! situation!
by:!
o Immediately! terminating! the! unlawful! detention! of! the! US!
diplomatic!and!consular!staff!
o Ensuring!that!the!said!persons!have!the!necessary!means!of!leaving!
Iran,!including!means!of!transport!
o Immediately! placing! in! the! hand! of! the! protecting! Power! the!
premises,!property,!archives!and!documents!of!the!US!Embassy!and!
Consulates!
Unanimously:!no!member!of!the!US!diplomatic!or!consular!staff!may!be!kept!
in!Iran!to!be!subjected!to!any!form!of!judicial!proceeding!or!to!participate!as!
a!witness!
12! votes! to! 3:! Iran! is! obliged! to! make! a! reparation! to! the! US! for! the! injury!
caused!by!the!events!
14! votes! to! 1:! The! form! and! amount! of! reparation! shall! be! settled! by! the!
Court!in!a!subsequent!procedure,!if!US!and!Iran!fail!to!agree.!
'
An'Act'Respecting'Diplomatic'and'Consular'Privileges'and'Immunities'in'Canada'
If! it! appears! to! the! Sec! of! State! for! External! Affairs! that! the! Canadian!
diplomatic/consular! post! enjoys! lesser! rights! than! those! conferred! by!
Canadian! Law! to! the! post! of! that! country,! he! may! withdraw! some! or! all! of!
the!privileges!and!immunities!conferred!to!their!post!in!Canada.!
The!same!may!be!restored.!
If! there! is! a! question! as! to! a! persons! status! or! entitlement! to! the! said!
privileges,!a!certificate!from!the!Sec!shall!constitute!conclusive!proof!of!the!
facts!so!stated.!
!
ISSUE/HELD:!W/N'the'leaving'of'the'diplomatic'staff'temporarily'terminates'his'
diplomatic'immunityNO.'It'ceases'when'he'leaves'the'country'permanently.!
RATIO:'
5. Re'Regina'and'Palacios'(RL)'
(1984)'
Topic:!Temporary!departure!is!not!tantamount!to!losing!ones!immunity!
Treaties/Laws:'Vienna!Convention!on!Diplomatic!Relations!
!
FACTS:'
!
A!Nicaraguan!diplomatic!staff!has!been!residing!in!Ottawa!with!his!wife!and!
child.!
July!12,!1983,!he!was!advised!that!Nicaragua!had!terminated!his!duties!at!his!
mission.!
July!16,!1983,!he!left!Canada!for!a!temporary!visit!to!the!US.!
When!he!returned,!he!was!detained!by!the!police!and!later!on!was!issued!a!
search!warrant.!
He! was! then! arrested! for! possession! of! cocaine! as! well! as! prohibited!
weapons!(2!revolvers)!and!careless!storage!of!ammunition.!
The!counsel!for!the!Republic!of!Nicaragua!contends!that!Palacios!has!lost!his!
immunity!when!he!left!the!country!to!visit!the!US.!
The! lower! court! ruled! that! according! to! the! Convention,! the! words! leaves!
the! country! must! be! interpreted! to! be! permanently! leaving! the! country! in!
order!for!him!to!lose!his!diplomatic!immunity.!
The! personal! inviolability! of! diplomats! has! been! recognized! by! all! legal!
systems!since!the!earliest!times.!
o Such!immunity!is!meant!to!ensure!the!efficient!performance!of!the!
functions!of!diplomatic!missions!as!representing!States.!
The!immunities!recognized!by!CIL!were!considered!to!be!incorporated!in!the!
domestic!law!of!Canada!by!the!SC!of!Canada.!
Under! customary! rules,' immunity' is' not' limited' in' time' to' the' dates' on'
which'the'diplomat'takes'up'his'duties'and'relinquishes'them.!
o It! extends' to' protect' them' from' the' time' he' enters' the' host'
country!for!the!purpose!of!taking!up!his!duties!and'for'a'reasonably'
time' after' their' termination!in!order!to!enable!him!to!wind!up!his!
affairs!and!leave!the!country.!
o Reasonable! time! is! measured! by! the! time! required! to! permit! the!
diplomat!to!move!permanently!from!the!host!country!either!to!his!
home!country!or!to!another!foreign!posting.!
In! interpreting! the! treaty! which! states! that! privileges! and! immunities! shall!
normally! cease! at! the! moment! he' leaves' the' country,' or' on' expiry' of' a'
reasonable'period'in'which'to'do'so:!
10!
o
o
Use! the! effectiveness' principle! which! requires! the! court! to! read! a!
treaty! as! a! whole! to! ascertain! its! purpose! and! intent! and! to! give!
effect!thereto!
It' is' without' doubt' that' the' phrase' leaves' the' country' refer' to'
permanent'departure'from'the'host'country.!
It!would!require!the!clearest!possible!language!in!the!convention!to!
compel! the! conclusion! that! a! diplomat! would! have! any! lesser!
protection!under!it!and!could!lose!his!immunity!by!a!temporary!visit!
outside! the! country! before! he! was! ready! or! required! to! leave! the!
country!permanently.!
AREAS'NOT'SUBJECT'TO'THE'JURISDICTION'OF'
INDIVIDUAL'STATES'
A.'HIGH'SEAS'
1. UNCLOS'(Art.'87,'97,'101)'(RL)'
Art.'87!!The!High!Seas!are!open!to!all!States,!whether!coastal!or!landalocked.!
6. Diplomatic'Bag'(RL)'
The! Nigerian! Ministry! of! External! Affairs! delivered! notes,! informing! the! US!
embassy!that!it!will!conduct'careful'searches,'without'distinction,'of'goods'
and'persons'entering'Nigeria.!
view
This! is! in! lieu! of! their! purpose! of! combating! the! importation! of! Nigerian!
currency.!
No'packages,'documents'or'articles'are'immune!from!search.!
The!US'Embassy,!in!a!note,!protested'and'objected!to!this,!stating!that:!
o IL! governing! diplomatic! relations! prohibits' any' interference' with'
official'correspondence!and!diplomatic!pouches!
o Nigeria!is!a!party!to!the!Vienna!Convention!on!Diplomatic!Relations!
and!as!such!adheres!to!the!provisions!laid!therein.!
o As! regards! consular! communications,! IL! does' not' permit' the'
receiving'state'to'detain'any'pouch'nor'to'request'the'opening'of'
the' same,!unless!its!authorities!have!serious!reason!to!believe!that!
the! pouch! contains! something! other! than! the! correspondence! and!
such!must!be!done!with!the!consent!of!the!sending!state!
o Further,! in! the! bilateral! consular! convention! between! the! US! and!
the! Federal! Military! Government,! the! consular' correspondence'
shall' be' INVIOLABLE! and! the! authorities! of! the! territory! shall! not!
examine!or!detain!it.'
o The!measure!to!be!taken!by!Nigeria!is!contrary!to!IL.'
Allowable'acts'of!states!(freedom!of):!
o Navigation!
o Overaflight!
o Fishing!
o Research!
o Laying!of!Submarine!Cables!and!Pipelines!
o Construction!of!Artificial!Islands!
!
Art.' 97!!In!case!of!collisions!in!the!high!seas,!penal!or!disciplinary!proceedings!
can!only!be!instituted!against!the!master!of!the!vessel!before!the:!(1)!flag!state;!
or!(2)!state!of!which!he!is!a!national!
In!disciplinary'matters,!only!the!state!which!issued!the!masters!certificate!or!
certificate!of!competence!or!license!may!withdraw!the!same!
Only!the!flag!state!may!order!the!arrest'or'detention!of!the!ship/vessel!
!
Art.'101!!Piracy!
Illegal' act' of' violence/detention' or' any' act' of' depredation! committed! for!
private! ends! by! the! crew! or! the! passengers! of! a! private! ship! or! aircraft!
directed! on' the' high' seas! against! another! vessel! or! person/property! on!
board;! or' against! any! ship/aircraft/person/property! in! a' place' outside' the'
jurisdiction'of'any'state!
Any!act!of!voluntary' participation!in!the!operation!of!the!ship/aircraft!with!
knowledge!of!such!fact!that!it!is!a!pirate!ship/aircraft!
Inciting'or'intentionally'facilitating!the!acts!above!
11!
A!number!of!armed!Chinese!nationals!were!cruising!in!two!Chinese!junks.!
They! pursued! and! attacked! a! cargo! junk,! also! a! Chinese! vessel! on! the! high!
seas.!
The!master!of!the!cargo!junk!attempted!to!escape!and!a!chase!ensued!until!
two!ships,!Hang!Sang!and!Shui!Chow,!approached!the!scene.!
The! command! of! the! two! latter! ships! intervened! and! the! pursuers! were!
eventually!taken!in!charge.!
They!were!brought!as!prisoners!to!HK!and!indicted!for!the!crime!of!robbery.!
The!jury!found!them!guilty!but!the!HK!Full!court!acquitted!them,!arriving!at!
the!conclusion!that!robbery!was!necessary!to!support!conviction.!
'
ISSUE/HELD:! W/N! actual! robbery! is! an! essential! element! of! the! crime! of! piracy!
jure! gentium! or! a! frustrated! attempt! to! commit! piratical! robbery! is! not! equally!
piracy!jure!gentiumNO,!it!is!not!an!element!of!piracy!and!it!is!equally!piracy!jure!
gentium.!
'
RATIO:'
(Note& that& the& HK& courts& decision& was& final,& but& this& matter& was& referred& to& a&
Judicial&Committee&for&hearing&and&consideration)&
Actual'robbery'is'NOT'an'essential'element'in'the'crime.'
A' frustrated' attempt' to' commit' piratical' robbery' is' equally' piracy' jure'
gentium.'
Although!the!act!was!committed!outside!the!territorial!jurisdiction!of!HK,!the!
pirates!may!nonetheless!be!tried!therein.!
Having! committed! the! said! crime,! they! have! placed! themselves! beyond! the!
protection!of!any!state.!
They!are!no!longer!nationals!of!a!certain!state,!rather!they!are!hostis&humani&
generis;!and!as!such,!they!are!justiciable!by!any!state!anywhere.!
B.'DEEP'SEA'BED'
1. UN' Declaration' of' Principles' and' UNCLOS' (Art.' 133[159)'
(QN)'
UN' Declaration' of' Principles' Governing' the' Sea[Bed' and' the' Ocean' Floor,' and'
the'Subsoil'Thereof,'beyond'the'limits'of'National'Jurisdiction!
th
General!Assembly!Resolution!2749!(25 !Session)!on!Dec.!17,!1970!
!
1.
The! seaabed! and! ocean! floor,! and! the! subsoil! thereof,! beyond! the! limits! of!
national! jurisdiction,! as! well! as! the! resources! of! the! area,! are! the! common!
heritage!of!mankind.!
2. The!area!shall!not!be!subject!to!appropriation!by!any!State!or!person,!and!no!
State!shall!claim!or!exercise!sovereignty!over!it.!
3. No! State! or! person! shall! claim,! exercise! or! acquire! rights! to! the! area! or! its!
resources! which! are! incompatible! with! the! international! regime! or! the!
principles!of!this!Declaration.!
4. All!exploration!and!exploitation!activities!with!regard!to!the!resources!of!the!
area!shall!be!governed!by!the!international!regime.!
5. The!area!shall!be!open!to!use!exclusively!for!peaceful!purposes!by!all!States,!
coastal!or!landalocked,!in!accordance!with!the!international!regime.!
6. States! shall! act! in! the! area! in! accordance! with! the! applicable! principles! of!
international! law! in! the! interest! of! maintaining! international! peace! and!
security!and!promoting!international!cooperation!and!mutual!understanding.!
7. The! exploration! of! the! area! and! the! exploitation! of! its! resources! shall! be!
carried!out!for!the!benefit!of!mankind!as!a!whole,!regardless!of!geographical!
location! of! States,! and! taking! into! consideration! the! interests! and! needs! of!
developing!countries.!
8. The!area!shall!be!reserved!exclusively!for!peaceful!purposes.!
9. An! international! regime! governing! the! area! and! its! resources! should! be!
established! by! an! international! treaty! of! universal! character,! generally!
agreed! upon.! It! should! also! provide! for! the! orderly! and! safe! development!
and! management! of! the! area! and! its! resources,! and! ensure! the! equitable!
sharing! of! states,! taking! into! consideration! the! needs! of! the! developing!
countries.!
10. States! shall! promote! international! cooperation! in! scientific! research!
exclusively!for!peaceful!purposes:!
a. By!participation!in!international!programs!
b. Through!effective!publication!of!research!
c. By! cooperation! in! measures! to! strengthen! research! capabilities! of!
developing!countries!
d. No!such!activity!shall!form!the!legal!basis!for!any!claims!with!respect!
to!any!part!of!the!area!or!its!resources.!
11. States! shall! take! appropriate! measures! for! and! shall! cooperate! in! the!
adoption! and! implementation! of! international! rules,! standards! and!
procedures!for:!
a. Prevention!of!pollution!
12!
b.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Protection! and! conservation! of! the! natural! resources! of! the! area!
and! prevention! of! damage! to! the! flora! and! fauna! of! the! marine!
environment!
In! their! activities! in! the! area,! States! shall! pay! due! regard! to! the! rights! and!
legitimate!interests!of!coastal!States!in!the!region!of!such!activities.!Coastal!
states!shall!be!consulted!with!respect!to!activities.!
Nothing!herein!shall!affect:!
a. The!legal!status!of!waters!superjacent!(above!or!overlying)!the!area,!
or!the!airspace!above!
b. The! rights! of! coastal! States! with! respect! to! measures! to! prevent,!
mitigate!or!eliminate!grave!and!imminent!danger!to!their!coastline!
from!pollution!or!threat!thereof!resulting!from!any!activities!in!the!
area!
Every! State! shall! have! the! responsibility! to! ensure! that! its! activities! in! the!
area,! undertaken! by! its! government! or! its! agents,! shall! be! carried! out! in!
conformity!with!the!international!regime!to!be!established.!
Disputes!relating!to!activities!in!the!area!shall!be!resolved!using!the!measures!
in! Article! 33! of! the! UN! Charter! and! such! procedures! for! settling! disputes!
agreed!upon!in!the!international!regime!to!be!established.!
'
1982'UNCLOS'
Part'XX'
'
The!international!regime!mentioned!in!the!UN!Declaration!above!is!now!
embodied!in!Part!XX!of!the!1982!UNCLOS.!It!basically!restates!everything!said!in!
the!declaration.!
!
Some!provisions!not!included!in!the!UN!Declaration:!
Article!156!established!the!International!SeaaBed!Authority!
o All!States!Parties!to!the!UNCLOS!are!members!of!the!Authority!
o Its!seat!shall!be!in!Jamaica!
Article!157!says!that!the!Authority!is!the!organization!through!which!
States!Parties!shall!organize!and!control!activities!in!the!Area!
Article!158!!The!Authority!shall!have!an!Assembly,!a!Council,!and!a!
Secretariat.!
Article!159!!The!Assembly,!consisting!of!all!members!of!the!Authority!
with!one!vote!each,!shall!resolve!questions!relating!to!the!Area.!
!
2. Deep'Sea'Bed'Hard'Mineral'Resources'Act'(NO)'
Sec.!102!Licenses!for!exploration!and!permits!for!commercial!recovery!
!
!
(a) Administrator!shall!issue!to!applicants!who!are!eligible!therefor!licenses!
for!exploration!and!permits!for!commercial!recovery.!
(b) Authorizes! the! holder! to! engage! in! the! exploration! or! commercial!
recovery,as!the!case!maybe,!consistent!with!the!provisions!of!this!act.!
!
(2)!Licenses!or!permit!issued!shall!be!exclusive!with!respect!to!the!holder.!
!
(3)!It!recognizes!the!right!of!the!holder!to!recover!hard!mineral!resources,!and!to!
own,!transport,!use!and!sell!hard!mineral!resources!recovered!under!the!permit!
and!in!accordance!with!the!requirements!of!this!act.!
!
(4)! In! case! of! interference! with! the! exploration! and! commercial! recovery! by!
nationals! of! other! states,! the! Secretary! of! State! shall! use! all! peaceful! means! to!
resolve!the!controversy.!
!
(a) The!administrator!may!not!issue:!
After! the! date! on! which! an! international! agreement! is! ratified!
by!and!enters!into!force!with!respect!to!the!US,!unless!it!is!not!
inconsistent!with!the!agreement!
Which! is! in! conflict! with! a! pending! application,! an! existing!
license,!which!a!reciprocating!state!has!submitted.!
!
(b) Any!exploration!license!before!July!1,!1981,!or!any!commercial!recovery!
to!commence!before!January!1,!1988.!
(c) Any! permit! or! license! or! approve! the! transfer! of! a! license! or! permit!
except!to!a!US!citizen.!
!
3. 3rd'UN'Conference'on'the'Law'of'the'Sea'(NO)'
Bernard'H.'Oxman.'
'
This!happened!on!Feb!27!to!April!4!in!New!York!and!from!July!28!to!August!29,!
1980.! At! the! end! of! the! New! York! session,! they! issued! a! second! revision! of! the!
Informal!Composite!Negotiating!Text!(ICNT).!
!
II.!First!Committee:!Deep!Seabed!Mining!
13!
!
The! committee! discussed! institutional! and! nonainstitutional! issues.! ! It! also!
discussed! the! objective! of! the! parallel! system,! the! objective! of! such! is! to! give!
states!and!private!companies!sponsored!by!states!on!the!one!hand!and!the!new!
international! Enterprise! and! its! partners! on! the! other! hand,! a! genuine!
opportunity!to!mine!the!deep!seabed.!
!
One!of!the!elements!of!settlement!is!that!the!parallel!system!would!be!subject!to!
review!after!about!20!years.!Another!element!is!an!interim!limitation!on!the!rate!
of!expansion!of!production!of!minerals!from!seabed!nodules.!
!
The!new!International!SeaaBed!Authority!would!administer!the!system!and!adopt!
necessary! nondiscriminatory! ground! rules! and! regulation,! including! matters! of!
environmental!protection!and!safety.!!
!
Basically! they! discussed! how! to! grant! the! licenses! for! seabed! mining.! The! body!
will!be!composed!of!36!members!from!different!nations.!The!voting!process!when!
it!comes!to!decisions!where!special!protection!for!the!interest!of!the!minority!is!
not! needed! requires! a! 2/3! vote.! For! decisions! requiring! additional! assurance! a!
vote!of!!of!the!members!present!is!required.!
!!
4. Analysis'of'the'Deep'Seabed'Mining'Provisions'of'the'Law'
of'the'Sea'Convention'(NO)'
S.'Houston'Lay'
I.
Introduction!
!
President! Reagan! withdrew! the! US! delegation! in! the! negotiation! of! the! LOS.!
During!an!interview!he!stated!that!the!deep!seabed!mining!section!did!not!meet!
the!U.S.!objectives.!His!said!that!their!concerns!were:!!
(a)! there! are! provisions! that! would! deter! future! development! of! deep! seabed!
resources;!!
(b)! the! decision! making! process! which! does! not! give! the! US! and! other! states!
reflect!or!protect!their!interests;!!
(c)! amendments! without! prior! US! approval! which! is! incompatible! with! their!
approach!to!treaties;!!
!
(d)! Mandatory! transfer! of! private! technology! and! the! possibility! of! national!
liberation!movements!share;!and!!
(e)! absence! of! assure! access! for! future! deep! seabed! mining.! Despite! these!
objections!the!convention!was!adopted!anyways.!
!
II.
US!beef(problems)!with!Deep!Seabed!mining!regime!
!
Reagan! referred! to! it! as! discouraging! investment! in! mining! and! as! having! a!
deleterious! effect! upon! freeamarket! economics.! US! argue! that! the! pertinent!
articles! of! the! LOS! indicate! that! the! Authority! is! provided! broad! discretionary!
powers!that!amount!to!the!establishment!of!an!economic!cartel.!Their!viewpoint!
is! the! policies! are! not! economically! sound,! most! especially! the! controls! on!
production.!
!
The! US! is! also! faced! with! the! constant! threat! of! being! outvoted! in! the!
International!Seabed!Authority!(ISA).!The!one!nation!one!vote!principle!is!based!
on! the! sovereign! equality! of! states.! They! further! argue! that! the! US! is! not!
guaranteed!with!a!seat!in!the!council!while!soviet!states!are!guaranteed!at!least!3!
seats.!
!
To! conclude! this! section,! it! is! clear! that! the! US! and! other! industrialized! nations!
are!fearful!that!the!council!may!always!outvote!them.!The!US!is!not!guaranteed!a!
seat!on!the!council.!The!council!is!the!omnipotent!executive!organ!of!the!ISA!and!
controls!all!aspects!f!deep!seabed!mining.!
!
In!conclusion,!the!US!cannot!sign!a!treaty!that!would!force!private!companies!to!
give!away!their!most!valuable!assets,!especially!when!such!assets!may!eventually!
end!up!with!national!liberation!movements.!Most!importantly,!without!the!LOS,!
US!companies!can!mine!the!seabed!in!accordance!with!customary!international!
law,!protect!their!technology,!recoup!their!investment,!and!preclude!national!
liberation!movements!from!sharing!the!benefits!of!seabed!mining.!
C.'OUTER'SPACE'
1. Treaty' on' Principles' Governing' the' Activities' of' States' in'
the'Exploration'and'Use'of'Outer'Space'(NO)'
Article!I!
14!
The! exploration! and! use! of! outer! space,! including! the! moon! and! other! celestial!
bodies,! shall! be! carried! out! for! the! benefit! and! in! the! interests! of! all! countries,!
irrespective! of! their! degree! of! economic! or! scientific! development,! and! shall! be!
the!province!of!all!mankind.!
persons! by! such! object! or! its! component! parts! on! the! Earth,! in! air! space! or! in!
outer!space,!including!the!Moon!and!other!celestial!bodies.!
If!a!State!Party!to!the!Treaty!has!reason!to!believe!that!an!activity!or!experiment!
planned! by! it! or! its! nationals! in! outer! space,! including! the! Moon! and! other!
celestial! bodies,! would! cause! potentially! harmful! interference! with! activities! of!
other!States!Parties!in!the!peaceful!exploration!and!use!of!outer!space,!including!
the!Moon!and!other!celestial!bodies,!it!shall!undertake!appropriate!international!
consultations!before!proceeding!with!any!such!activity!or!experiment.!
Article!IV!
States!Parties!to!the!Treaty!undertake!not!to!place!in!orbit!around!the!Earth!any!
objects! carrying! nuclear! weapons! or! any! other! kinds! of! weapons! of! mass!
destruction,!install!such!weapons!on!celestial!bodies,!or!station!such!weapons!in!
outer!space!in!any!other!manner.!
Convention!on!International!Liability!for!Damage!Caused!by!Space!Objects!
The! Moon! and! other! celestial! bodies! shall! be! used! by! all! States! Parties! to! the!
Treaty! exclusively! for! peaceful! purposes.! The! establishment! of! military! bases,!
installations! and! fortifications,! the! testing! of! any! type! of! weapons! and! the!
conduct!of!military!maneuvers!on!celestial!bodies!shall!be!forbidden.!The!use!of!
military!personnel!for!scientific!research!or!for!any!other!peaceful!purposes!shall!
not! be! prohibited.! The! use! of! any! equipment! or! facility! necessary! for! peaceful!
exploration!of!the!Moon!and!other!celestial!bodies!shall!also!not!be!prohibited.!
(this!article!is!full!codal!so!what!I!did!is!I!summarized!articles!he!had!checks!and!
underlines!on!and!also!ill!put!a!summary!of!important!points!below)!
Article!II!
Outer! space,! including! the! moon! and! other! celestial! bodies,! is! not! subject! to!
national!appropriation!by!claim!of!sovereignty,!by!means!of!use!or!occupation,!or!
by!any!other!means.!
!
Article!V!
Article!IX!
!
!
Article!1!
!
States!Parties!to!the!Treaty!shall!immediately!inform!the!other!States!Parties!to!
the! Treaty! or! the! SecretaryaGeneral! of! the! United! Nations! of! any! phenomena!
they! discover! in! outer! space,! including! the! Moon! and! other! celestial! bodies,!
which!could!constitute!a!danger!to!the!life!or!health!of!astronauts.!
!
Article!VII!
Article!2!
!
Each! State! Party! to! the! Treaty! that! launches! or! procures! the! launching! of! an!
object!into!outer!space,!including!the!Moon!and!other!celestial!bodies,!and!each!
State!Party!from!whose!territory!or!facility!an!object!is!launched,!is!internationally!
liable!for!damage!to!another!State!Party!to!the!Treaty!or!to!its!natural!or!juridical!
!
Damage:! means! loss! of! life,! personal! injury! or! other! impairment! of!
health;!or!loss!of!or!damage!to!property!of!States!or!of!persons!natural!
or!juridical,!or!property!of!international!governmental!organizations.!
Launching:!includes!attempted!launching.!
Launching!state!means:!!
1. State! which! launches! or! procures! the! launching! of! a! space!
object.!
2. State!from!whose!territory!or!facility!a!space!object!is!launched.!
Space!object:!includes! component! parts! of! a! space! object! as! well! as! its!
launch!vehicle!and!parts!thereof.!
A! launching! state! shall! be! absolutely! liable! to! pay! compensation! for!
damage! caused! by! its! space! object! on! the! surface! of! the! earth! or! to!
aircraft!flight.!
Article!5!
Whenever!two!or!more!states!jointly!launch!a!space!object!they!shall!be!
jointly!and!severally!liable!for!any!damage!caused!
15!
Article!8!
A!state!which!suffers!damage!or!whose!natural!or!juridical!persons!suffer!
damage,!may!present!to!a!launching!state!a!claim!for!compensation!for!
such!damage.!
If!the!state!of!nationality!has!not!presented!a!claim,!another!state!may!in!
respect! of! damage! sustained! in! its! territory! by! any! natural! or! juridical!
person,!present!a!claim!to!a!launching!state.!
If! neither! the! state! of! nationality! nor! the! state! in! whose! territory! the!
damage!was!sustained!has!presented!a!claim!or!notified!its!intention!of!
presenting!a!claim,!another!state!may!in!respect!of!damage!sustained!by!
its!permanent!residents,!present!a!claim!to!a!launching!state.!
Article!15!
The! claims! commission! shall! be! composed! of! three! members:! one!
appointed!by!the!claimant!state,!one!appointed!by!the!launching!state!
and! the! third! member! by! the! Chairman,! to! be! chosen! by! both! parties!
jointly.! Each! party! shall! make! it! appointment! within! two! mos! of! the!
request!for!the!establishment!of!the!claims!commission.!
Summary:!
Outer'Space'
Is!not!subject!to!national!appropriation.!
Only!open!to!scientific!exploration.!!
No!nuclear!weapons!are!allowed!to!be!placed!on!orbit.!
Astronauts!are!entitled!to!emergency!landing.!!
!
There! is! national! responsibility! for! national! activities! in! outer! space;!
state! parties! must! require! authorization! for! nonagovernmental!
activities.!
Jurisdiction!over!the!space!vessels!retained!by!the!flag!state.!!!
There!is!absolute!liability!for!damages!caused!by!space!objects.!
3. Legal'Status'of'Geostationary'Orbit'[GO]'(RK)'
Realm!of!the!Satellites;!approx.!35,000!Km!up!there!
SUMMARY:!Basically,!it!reiterates!the!present!trend!that!the!GO!is!part!of!outer!
space! (as! opposed! to! the! Bogota! Declaration).! As! such,! it! is! governed! by! Outer!
Space! Treaty.! (NO! ONE! OWNS! IT).! Nevertheless,! the! author! considers! GO! as!
having!a!special!legal!status.!What!is!this?!Simply,!in!addition!to!having!a!general!
legal! status! as! part! of! outer! space,! it! has! a! special! legal! status! because! it! is!
!
important,! limited,! and! natural! resource! that! must! be! utilized! efficiently! and!
economically.!!
Introduction'
What!is!the!legal!status!of!geostationary!orbit!(hereinafter&GO)?!!
It!depends!on!whether!it!is!part!of!outer!space!or!not.!!
Outer!Space!Treaty!(1962):!YES'
Bogota!Declaration!(1976):!NO'
What!is!the!implication?!
If!part!of!outer!space,!no!body!owns!it;!heritage!of!mankind.!
If! not! part! of! outer! space,! it! would! be! subject! to! jurisdiction! of! a!
certain!State!
So!far,!no!agreement.!This!paper!discusses!the!legal!status!of!GO.!
GO'as'a'part'of'outer'space'
Two!Arguments!
Bogota!Declaration:!GO!is!part!of!earth!linked!to!it!by!gravity.!Thus,!
not!part!of!outer!space.!
ITU! Convention:! Satellites! affected! not! only! be! earths! gravity! but!
also!that!of!the!moon,!sun,!and!that!of!other!forces.!Likewise,!other!
NonaGOs! (those! higher! in! altitude)! are! also! affected! by! earths!
gravity!but!are!clearly!in!outer!space.!!
Bottomline:!NO!DEFINITION!OF!OUTER!SPACE!
COPUOS!(UN!Committee!on!Peaceful!Use!of!Outer!Space)!tried!to!define:!
1967not! possible! at! the! present! time! to! identify! precisely!
definition!of!outer!space!
1977joined!GO!issue!with!their!agenda!to!define!outer!space.!!
Functionalist!v.!Spatialist!
F:! Atmosphere! is! continuum;! regulate! based! on! purpose! or!
nature!of!flight!
S:! Stressed! need! for! clear! demarcation! between! airspace! and!
outer!space.!!(this!is!the!more!accepted!trend)!
QUESTION:!AT!WHAT!HEIGHT?!!
So!far,!no!agreement!on!the!answer.!
Though! no! agreement! between! spatialists! on! the! height,! they! consider!
GO!as!part!of!outer!space,!thus,!governed!by!outer!space!treaty!
All!satellites!use!the!radio!frequencies!allocated!so!space!services!in!
the!Radio!regulations!
Both! US! and! USSR! (super! space! powers)! agree! that! GO! is! in! outer!
space!
16!
'
17!
JURISDICTION OF STATES
COMPILATION OF PHILIPPINE CASES
the regulations of sea-use rights or enacting statutes to comply with the treatys terms
to delimit maritime zones and continental shelves.
G.R. No.: 187167
TERRITORY
1. Magallona v. Executive Secretary
TOPIC: Territory in International Law; Modes of Acquisition of Sovereignty over Territory
Treaties/Laws:
Republic Act No. 9522 - adjusting the countrys archipelagic baselines and
classifying the baseline regime of nearby territories.
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III)
Art. I of the 1987 Philippine Constitution
RECIT-READY:
Pursuant to UNCLOS III which prescribes the water-land ratio, length, and contour of
baselines of archipelagic States like the Philippines, Congress enacted R.A. 9522 in 2009.
R.A. 9522 shortened one baseline, optimized the location of some basepoints around
the Philippine archipelago and classified adjacent territories, namely, the Kalayaan
Island Group (KIG) and the Scarborough Shoal, as regimes of islands whose islands
generate their own applicable maritime zones. Petitioners are questioning the
constitutionality of R.A. 9522, contending that it reduces Philippine maritime territory
and violates Art. I of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, embodying the terms of the
Treaty of Paris and ancillary treaties that Philippine territory embraces the islands
and all the waters within the rectangular area delimited in the Treaty of Paris. In
upholding the constitutionality of R.A. 9522, the Supreme Court held that baseline laws
(such as R.A. 9522) are statutory mechanisms for UNCLOS III States parties to delimit
with precision the extent of their maritime zones and continental shelves. This gives
notice to the international community of the scope of the maritime space and
submarine areas within which States parties exercise treaty-based rights, namely, the
exercise of sovereignty over territorial waters, the jurisdiction to enforce customs, fiscal,
immigration, and sanitation laws in the contiguous zone, and the right to exploit the
living and non-living resources in the exclusive economic zone, and continental shelf.
Also, UNCLOS III and its ancillary baselines laws play no role in the acquisition,
enlargement or, as petitioners claim, diminution of territory. Under traditional
international law typology, States acquire (or conversely, lose) territory through
occupation, accretion, cession and prescription, not by executing multilateral treaties on
Petitioner: Prof. Merlin M. Magallona, Akbayan Party-List Rep. Risa Hontiveros, Prof. Harry C.
Roque, Jr., And University Of The Philippines College Of Law Students, Alithea Barbara Acas,
Voltaire Alferes, Czarina May Altez, Francis Alvin Asilo, Sheryl Balot, Ruby Amor Barraca, Jose
Javier Bautista, Romina Bernardo, Pagasa Buenaventura, Edan Marri Caete, Vann Dela Cruz,
Rene Delorino, Paulyn May Duman, Sharon Escoto, Rodrigo Fajardo III, Girlie Ferrer, Raoulle Osen
Ferrer, Carla Regina Grepo, Anna Marie Cecilia Go, Irish Kay Kalaw, Mary Ann Joy Lee, Maria Luisa
Manalaysay, Miguel Rafael Musngi, Michael Ocampo, Jaklyn Hanna Pineda, William Ragamat,
Maricar Ramos, Enrik Fort Revillas, James Mark Terry Ridon, Johann Frantz Rivera IV, Christian
Rivero, Dianne Marie Roa, Nicholas Santizo, Melissa Christina Santos, Cristine Mae Tabing,
Vanessa Anne Torno, Maria Ester Vanguardia, and Marcelino Veloso III
Respondents: Hon. Eduardo Ermita, In His Capacity As Executive Secretary, Hon. Alberto Romulo,
In His Capacity As Secretary Of The Department Of Foreign Affairs, Hon. Rolando Andaya, In His
Capacity As Secretary Of The Department Of Budget And Management, Hon. Diony Ventura, In His
Capacity As Administrator Of The National Mapping & Resource Information Authority, And Hon.
Hilario Davide, Jr., In His Capacity As Representative Of The Permanent Mission Of The Republic Of
The Philippines To The United Nations
Petitioners contentions
o RA 9522 reduces Philippine maritime territory and violates Art. I of
the 1987 Philippine Constitution, embodying the terms of the Treaty
of Paris and ancillary treaties
o RA 9522 opens the countrys waters landward of the baselines to
maritime passage by all vessels and aircrafts, undermining Philippine
sovereignty and national security, contravening the countrys
nuclear-free policy, and damaging marine resources, in violation of
relevant constitutional provisions
Respondents contentions
o RA 9522 complies with the terms of UNCLOS III, preserving
Philippine territory over the KIG or Scarborough Shoal.
o RA 9522 does not undermine the countrys security, environment
and economic interests or relinquish the Philippines claim over
Sabah.
o Respondents also question the normative force, under international
law, of petitioners assertion that what Spain ceded to the United
States under the Treaty of Paris were the islands and all the
waters found within the boundaries of the rectangular area drawn
under the Treaty of Paris.
ISSUES/HELD:
Whether RA 9522 is unconstitutional - NO
I. RA 9522 is a Statutory Tool to Demarcate the Countrys Maritime Zones and
Continental Shelf Under UNCLOS III, not to Delineate Philippine Territory
Baseline laws such as RA 9522 are enacted by UNCLOS III States parties to
mark-out specific basepoints along their coasts from which baselines are
drawn, either straight or contoured, to serve as geographic starting points to
measure the breadth of the maritime zones and continental shelf. Article 48 of
UNCLOS III on archipelagic States like ours could not be any clearer:
IV. UNCLOS III and RA 9522 not Incompatible with the Constitutions Delineation of
Internal Waters
The Philippines exercises sovereignty over the body of water lying landward of
the baselines, including the air space over it and the submarine areas
underneath. The fact of sovereignty, however, does not preclude the
operation of municipal and international law norms subjecting the territorial
sea or archipelagic waters to necessary, if not marginal, burdens in the
interest of maintaining unimpeded, expeditious international navigation,
consistent with the international law principle of freedom of navigation. Thus,
domestically, the political branches of the Philippine government, in the
competent discharge of their constitutional powers, may pass legislation
designating routes within the archipelagic waters to regulate innocent and sea
lanes passage. Indeed, bills drawing nautical highways for sea lanes passage
are now pending in Congress.
DISPOSITIVE: Petition is Dismissed.
participated in, was still part of piracy. Though conspiracy wasnt proved on his part, he
was given a lesser responsibility, an accomplice.
Facts
In March 2, 1991, M/T Tabangao, a cargo vessel owned by the PNOC Shipping
and Transport Corporation, loaded with kerosene, gasoline, and oil, worth P40.4M
was sailing off the coast of Mindoro near Silonay Island.
The vessel was suddenly boarded by seven fully armed pirates led by Emilio
Changco (Emilio), older brother of accused-appellant Cecilio Changco (Cecilio). They
detained the crew and took complete control of the vessel.
Loyola ordered 3 crewmembers to paint over, the name "M/T Tabangao" and
PNOC logos of the vessel with the name "Galilee," with registry at San Lorenzo,
Honduras.
The crew was forced to sail to Singapore, all the while sending misleading radio
messages to PNOC that the ship was undergoing repairs.
PNOC reported the disappearance of the vessel to the Philippine Coast Guard and
secured the assistance of the Philippine Air Force and the Philippine Navy.
However, search and rescue operations yielded negative results.
March 9, 1991 the ship arrived in SG to wait for another vessel, which failed to
arrive. With this, they went back to the Philippines and arrived on March 20
March 28, 1991 "M/T Tabangao" again sailed to SG's shoreline where another
vessel called "Navi Pride" anchored beside it.
March 30, 1991 Emilio ordered the crew of "M/T Tabangao" to transfer the
vessel's cargo to the hold of "Navi Pride". Hiong supervised the crew of "Navi Pride"
in receiving the cargo and the transfer was completed.
April 8, 1991 "M/T Tabangao" arrived at Batangas, but the vessel remained at sea
April 10, 1991 the members of the crew were released in three batches with the
stern warning not to report the incident to government authorities until April 12,
1991, otherwise they would be killed
April 12, 1991 the Chief Engineer and the members of the crew, called PNOC to
report the incident. The crewmembers were brought to the Coast Guard Office for
investigation, and to NBI where they executed sworn statements.
Tulin, Hiong, and Cecilio were arrested in separate days in Batangas.
Infante, Jr. and Loyola were arrested by chance at Aguinaldo Hi-way by NBI agents
as the latter were pursuing the mastermind, who managed to evade arrest.
October 24 1991, an Information charging qualified piracy or violation of PD No.
532 (piracy in Philippine Waters) was filed against accused-appellants. Upon
arraignment, accused-appellants pleaded not guilty to the charge.
Tulin, Infante, Jr., and Loyola, maintained the defense of denial, and disputed the
charge, and the transfer of any cargo from "M/T Tabangao" to the "Navi Pride."
They said that they merely worked for Libo-on as crew of the vessel.
Cecilio categorically denied the charge. But he testified that he is the younger
brother of Emilio.
Hiong, also known as Ramzan Ali, adduced evidence that he studied in Sydney,
Australia, and was later employed at Navi Marine Services, Pte., Ltd. as Port
Captain. The company was engaged in the business of trading petroleum, and
owned four vessels, one of which was "Navi Pride."
Hiongs story was a long one. But basically, he acted as the broker of the pirates in
Singapore. He was the ship agent for the sale of the cargo in SG. He did not join the
actual piracy, hence, he was only convicted as an accomplice. (See ruling 4)
Hiong went to the Philippines to discuss the matter with Emilio, who laid out the
details of the new transfer, this time with "M/T Polaris" as contact vessel.
Issues/Ruling:
(1) What are the legal effects and implications of the fact that a non-lawyer
represented accused-appellants during the trial? PROCEEDINGS ARE STILL VALID
BECAUSE THERE WAS A VALID WAIVER OF RIGHTS MADE BY THE ACCUSEDAPPELLANTS.
Tulin, Loyola, Infante, and Cecilio narrate that Mr. Posadas entered his
appearance as counsel for all of them.
In the course of the proceedings, TC discovered that Mr. Posadas was not a
member of the Philippine Bar.
However, the record reveals that a manifestation was executed by accusedappellants February 11, 1991, stating that they were adopting the evidence
adduced when they were represented by a non-lawyer
Such waiver of the right to sufficient representation during the trial as
covered by the due process clause shall only be valid if made with the full
assistance of a bona fide lawyer
During the trial, accused-appellants, as represented by Atty. Abdul Basar,
made a categorical manifestation that said accused-appellants were apprised
of the nature and legal consequences of the subject manifestation, and that
they voluntarily and intelligently executed the same
They also affirmed the truthfulness of its contents when asked in open court
(2) What are the legal effects and implications of the absence of counsel during the
custodial investigation? EVIDENCE OBTAINED IS INADMISSIBLE.
In this case, the uncounselled extrajudicial confessions of accused-appellants,
without a valid waiver of the right to counsel, are inadmissible and whatever
information is derived therefrom shall be regarded as likewise inadmissible in
evidence against them.
However, regardless of the inadmissibility of the subject confessions, there is
sufficient evidence to convict accused-appellants with moral certainty
(3) Did the trial court err in finding that the prosecution was able to prove beyond
reasonable doubt that accused-appellants committed the crime of qualified piracy?
NO, THERE ARE WITNESSES, AND THEIR ALIBI WOULD NOT SUFFICE
The Prosecution presented to the Court an array of witnesses, officers and
members of the crew of the "M/T Tabangao" no less, who identified and pointed to
the said Accused as among those who attacked and seized, the "M/T Tabangao" on
March 2, 1991, and the said discharge of the cargo for the price of $500K on March
29 and 30
We also agree with the trial court's finding that accused-appellants' defense of
denial is not supported by any hard evidence but their bare testimony.
TCs evaluation of the credibility of a testimony is accorded the highest respect
Conspiracy issue was resolved by saying that even though they had different tasks,
as long as the accused all had the same objective, each would be liable as if
everyone had participated in all the acts (Criminal Law, really)
(4) Did Republic Act No. 7659 obliterate the crime committed by accused-appellant
Hiong?
Hiong argues that he can no longer be convicted of piracy in Philippine waters
under PD No. 532 because it was superseded by RA 7659
He reasons out that PD 532 has been rendered "superfluous or duplicitous"
because both Article 122 of the RPC, and PD 532 punish piracy committed in
Philippine waters.
He maintains that in order to reconcile the two laws, the word "any person"
mentioned in Section 1 [d] of PD 532 must be omitted such that PD 532 shall only
apply to offenders who are members of the complement or to passengers of the
vessel, whereas RA 7659 shall apply to offenders who are neither members of the
complement or passengers of the vessel, hence, excluding him from the coverage
of the law.
RA 7659 neither superseded nor amended the provisions on piracy under PD 532.
There is no contradiction between the two laws. There is likewise no ambiguity and
hence, there is no need to construe or interpret the law.
All the PD did was to widen the coverage of the law, in keeping with the intent to
protect the citizenry as well as neighboring states from crimes against the law of
nations.
As regards the contention that the TC did not acquire jurisdiction over Hiong since
the crime was committed outside Philippine waters, suffice it to state that
unquestionably, the attack on and seizure of "M/T Tabangao" and its cargo were
committed in Philippine waters
Although PD 532 requires that the attack and seizure of the vessel and its cargo be
committed in Philippine waters, the disposition by the pirates of the vessel and its
cargo is still deemed part of the act of piracy, hence, the same need not be
committed in Philippine waters.
Moreover, piracy falls under Title One of Book Two of the Revised Penal Code. As
such, it is an exception to the rule on territoriality in criminal law. The same
principle applies even if Hiong, in the instant case, were charged, not with a
violation of qualified piracy under the penal code but under a special law, PD 532
which penalizes piracy in Philippine waters.
It is likewise, well-settled that regardless of the law penalizing the same, piracy is
a reprehensible crime against the whole world
However, does this constitute a violation of accused-appellant's constitutional right
to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him on the
ground that he was convicted as an accomplice under Section 4 of PD 532 even
though he was charged as a principal by direct participation under Section 2 of said
law?
TC found that there was insufficiency of evidence showing that Hiong directly
participated in the attack and seizure and that his act was indispensable to it.
But the finding by the TC that Hiongs participation was one, which aided or
abetted Emilio and his band of pirates in the disposition of the stolen cargo under
PD 532 was upheld
The ruling of the trial court is within well-settled jurisprudence that if there is lack
of complete evidence of conspiracy, the liability is that of an accomplice and not
as principal. Any doubt as to the participation of an individual in the commission of
the crime is always resolved in favor of lesser responsibility.
The record discloses that Hiong aided the pirates in disposing of the stolen
cargo. He profited therefrom by buying the hijacked cargo for Navi Marine
Services. He even tested the quality and verified the quantity of the petroleum
products, connived with Navi Marine Services personnel in falsifying the General
Declarations and Crew List to ensure that the illegal transfer went through,
undetected by Singapore Port Authorities, and supplied the pirates with food, beer,
and other provisions for their maintenance while in port
Dispositive Portion
WHEREFORE, finding the conviction of accused-appellants justified by the
evidence on record, the Court hereby AFFIRMS the judgment of the trial court in toto.
SO ORDERED.
Vitug, Panganiban, Gonzaga-Reyes, and Sandoval-Gutierrez, JJ., concur.
Pursuant to the RP-US Extradition Treaty, USA sent to the Philippine Government
Note Verbale and accompanied by duly authenticated documents requesting the
extradition of Mark B. Jimenez a.k.a. Mario Batacan Crespo.
The SFA transmitted the documents to the SOJ for appropriate action.
Upon learning of the request for his extradition, Jimenez sought and was granted a
TRO by the RTC of Manila.
o
The TRO prohibited the Department of Justice (DOJ) from filing with the RTC a
petition for his extradition.
The validity of the TRO was assailed by the SOJ.
o The Court dismissed the Petition of the SOJ but reconsidered and reversed its
decision.
o It held that Jimenez was bereft of the right to notice and hearing during the
evaluation stage of the extradition process.
o This Resolution has become final and executory.
The USA, through the DOJ, filed with the RTC the appropriate Petition for
Extradition.
o It alleged that Jimenez was the subject of an arrest warrant issued by the US
District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
o The warrant had been issued in connection with the following charges:
conspiracy to defraud the US, tax evasion, wire fraud, false statements and
illegal campaign contributions.
o In order to prevent the flight of Jimenez, the Petition prayed for the issuance
of an order for his immediate arrest.
Jimenez filed before the RTC an Urgent Manifestation/Ex-Parte Motion, which
prayed that the application for an arrest warrant be set for hearing.
RTC granted the Motion of Jimenez and set the case for hearing.
The USA manifested its reservations on the procedure adopted by the trial court
allowing the accused in an extradition case to be heard prior to the issuance of a
warrant of arrest.
After the hearing, the court required the parties to submit their respective
memoranda.
o Jimenez sought an alternative prayer: that in case a warrant should issue, he
be allowed to post bail in the amount of P100,000.
o The alternative prayer of Jimenez was also set for hearing.
o The court issued an order, directing the issuance of a warrant for his arrest
and fixing bail for his temporary liberty at P 1M in cash.
After he had surrendered his passport and posted the required cash bond, Jimenez
was granted provisional liberty.
MAIN ISSUE: W/N the Court committed GADALEJ in allowing Jimenez to post for bail
YES. (Please see sub-issues)
SUB-ISSUE/HELD 1: W/N the present petition was filed prematurely in the SCNO.
The SC can take cognizance of cases where exceptional circumstances are present.
The SC has original jurisdiction, concurrent with that of the RTC and CA, over
petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto and habeas corpus,
and it entertains direct resort in cases where special and important reasons or
exceptional and compelling circumstances justify the same.
In the interest of justice and to settle once and for all the important issue of bail in
extradition proceedings, the SC deem it best to take cognizance of the present
case.
Such proceedings constitute a matter of first impression over which there is no
local jurisprudence to guide lower courts.
1.
2.
3.
e.
f.
g.
4.
5.
There is no requirement to notify and hear the accused before the issuance of
warrants of arrest.
Jimenez contends that there are special circumstances that are compelling enough for
the Court to grant his request for provisional release on bail.
(1) Alleged Disenfranchisement and (2) Anticipated Delay
o While his extradition was pending, Jimenez was elected as a member of the
House of Representatives.
o He claims that his detention will disenfranchise his Manila district of 600,000
residents.
o In People v. Jalosjos, the Court has already debunked the disenfranchisement
argument stating that the voters elected him with full awareness of the
limitations on his freedom of action.
o It must be noted that even before Jimenez ran for and won, it was already of
public knowledge that the United States was requesting his extradition.
o His constituents were or should have been prepared for the consequences of
the extradition case against their representative.
o Respondent Jimenez further contends that because the extradition
proceedings are lengthy, it would be unfair to confine him during the
pendency of the case.
o SC is not overruling the possibility that petitioner may, in bad faith, unduly
delay the proceedings but this is another matter that is not at issue in this case.
o Thus, any further discussion of this point would be merely anticipatory and
academic.
In any event, it is settled that bail may be applied for and granted by the trial
court at anytime after the applicant has been taken into custody and prior to
judgment, even after bail has been previously denied.
In the present case, the extradition court may continue hearing evidence on the
application for bail, which may be granted in accordance with the guidelines in
this Decision.
2.
3.
4.
5.
there is no flight risk and no danger to the community; and (b) there exist special,
humanitarian or compelling circumstances. The grounds used by the highest court
in the requesting state for the grant of bail therein may be considered, under the
principle of reciprocity as a special circumstance. In extradition cases, bail is not a
matter of right; it is subject to judicial discretion in the context of the peculiar
facts of each case.
6. Potential extraditees are entitled to the rights to due process and to fundamental
fairness. Due process does not always call for a prior opportunity to be heard. A
subsequent opportunity is sufficient due to the flight risk involved. Indeed,
available during the hearings on the petition and the answer is the full chance to be
heard and to enjoy fundamental fairness that is compatible with the summary
nature of extradition.
7. xxx
8. We realize that extradition is essentially an executive, not a judicial, responsibility
arising out of the presidential power to conduct foreign relations and to implement
treaties. Thus, the Executive Department of government has broad discretion in
its duty and power of implementation.
9. xxx
10. At bottom, extradition proceedings should be conducted with all deliberate speed
to determine compliance with the Extradition Treaty and Law; and, while
safeguarding
basic
individual
rights,
to
avoid
the
legalistic contortions, delays and technicalities that may negate that purpose.
DISPOSITIVE: WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED xxx The RTC of Manila is directed to
conduct the extradition proceedings before it, with all deliberate speed pursuant to the
spirit and the letter of our Extradition Treaty with the United States as well as our
Extradition Law
held that Judge Olalia did not err. Extradition is not a criminal proceeding but is an
administrative proceeding. Although the court in Puruganan ruled that bail only applies
to criminal proceeding, the decision was revised taking into consideration the various
treaty obligations of the Philippines in international law that uphold human rights.
Among the rights involved is the right to liberty. Although our extradition law does not
provide a grant for bail to an extraditee, it neither prohibits an application for bail.
Extradition proceeding is sui generis and partakes of an administrative nature. However,
extradition bears all the earmarks of a criminal proceeding. A potential extraditee may
be detained and arrested. While the Philippines must honor its extradition obligation to
HK, it should not diminish Munozs right to life, liberty, and due process which are
guaranteed not only by the constitution but also by the various international covenants
to which the Philippines is a party. Thus, Munoz is entitled to bail, provided that he
proves with clear and convincing evidence that he is not a flight risk. Case was
remanded to the trial court to see if there is clear and convincing evidence that Munoz
is not a flight risk.
FACTS:
An Agreement for the Surrender of Accused and Convicted Persons was entered
into by the Republic of the Philippines (hereinafter PHL) and then British Crown
Colony of Hong Kong (hereinafter HK) which took effect in 1997.
Private respondent Munoz was charged in HK for 3 counts of accepting an
advantage as agent and 7 counts of conspiracy to defraud. Warrants of arrest
were issued by HK court against Munoz in 1997 and 1999 and if convicted, faces jail
term of 7 to 14 years for each charge
Upon receipt of request for provisional arrest by PHL through the DOJ, the NBI filed
with the RTC an application for provisional arrest and the same was granted in Sept
23, 1999. On same date, NBI agents arrested and detained Munoz.
Initially, Munoz filed with the CA a petition questioning the validity of the order of
arrest in which the CA declared such as void. But, the SC reversed this and declared
the order of arrest valid. This decision became final and executor in April 2001.
Meanwhile, as early as Nov 22, 1999, HK has filed with the RTC of Manila a petition
for extradition of Munoz. In the same case, a petition for bail was filed by Munoz.
Judge Bernardo, Jr. (a.k.a Mr. NBA Fantasy) denied the petition for bail but upon
reconsideration, Judge Olalia granted bail subject to certain conditions on Oct. 30,
2001.
An urgent motion to vacate the order was denied by Judge Olalia, hence this instant
Petition.
o Petitioner HK contended that Judge Olalia committed GADAJEL and that there is
nothing in the constitution or statutory law providing that a potential extraditee
has a right to bail, the right being limited solely to criminal proceeding
o Private Respondent maintained that right to bail extends to prospective
extraditee and that extradition is a harsh process resulting in a prolonged
deprivation of liberty
ISSUES: (1) Whether the right to bail extends to a prospective extraditee (considering
that extradition is an administrative case and right to bail involves criminal cases).
HELD: YES, Case Dismissed
RATIO:
The court has previously ruled in Govt of USA v. Puraganan that the constitutional
provision on bail does not apply to extradition proceedings; it is available only in
criminal proceedings. The SC in that case reasoned:
o The use of word conviction in the constitution applies only to persons arrested
and detained for violation of Philippine criminal laws. Court does not render a
judgment of conviction in extradition
o The right to bail flows from the presumption of innocence in favour of every
accused before judgement. The presumption of innocence is not an issue in
extradition thus it follows that right to bail is not contemplated
HOWEVER, the court took note of the current trends in international law which
gives primacy on the worth of the individual person and the sanctity of human rights.
o There is growing importance of the individual in PIL
o Higher value is given to human rights in the international sphere
o There is corresponding duty of countries to observe these universal human rights
in treaty obligations
o There is the duty of the courts to balance the rights of the individual under our
constitution and the law on extradition on the other.
THUS, the court in light of the various international treaties re-examined the ruling
in Puragan.
o First, deprivation of liberty is not limited to criminal proceedings. Respondents in
admin cases such as deportation and quarantine have likewise been detained.
o Second, Philippine jurisprudence prior to Puragan has not limited the exercise to
bail to criminal proceedings only. There have been cases where right to bail was
granted in admin cases mostly deportation proceedings.
If bail can be granted in deportation cases, we see no justification why it should
not also be allowed in extradition cases.
o The court applied the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which the
constitution says is part of the law of the land
o Also, the right of an extraditee to apply for bail must be viewed in the light of
various treaty obligations of PHL. What is important is that the right to liberty
must not be impaired.
Extradition is the removal of an accused from PHL with the object of placing him at
the disposal of foreign authorities to enable the requesting state or govt to hold him
in connection with any criminal investigation directed against him or the execution
of a penalty imposed on him under penal or criminal law of the requesting state.
o It is a right of a foreign power created by a treaty
o It is NOT A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING even if the potential extraditee is a criminal
in another state
o IT IS SUI GENERIS tracing its existence on treaty obligation between states
It is neither a trial nor a civil action. It is merely administrative in character.
While ostensibly administrative, extradition bears all earmark of criminal process.
o Potential extraditee is subject to arrest, prolonged restraint of liberty, and forced
to transfer to the demanding state
o Extradition is characterized by (a) deprivation of liberty and (b) the means
employed to attain purpose of extradition is the machinery of criminal law
Records show that Munoz was arrested on Sept 23, 1999 and remained
incarcerated until Dec 20, 2001, a period of over 2 years without having been
convicted of any crime. This is a serious deprivation of his fundamental right to
liberty by any standard!
While the Philippines must honor its obligation under the extradition treaty, it
should not diminish a potential extraditees right to life, liberty and due process
which are guaranteed not only by the constitution but also by international
conventions to which the PHL is party thereto.
While our extradition law does not provide for the grant of bail to an extraditee,
neither is there a prohibition. Constitutional provision on due process however
guarantees this right.
o Since this is not a criminal proceeding where there is a presumption of innocence
and that in extradition proceedings, there is a presumption that an extraditee is
a fugitive from justice, Munoz (the prospective extraditee) has the burden of
proof of showing that he is not a flight risk and should be granted bail.
o An extradition proceeding being sui generis the standard of proof required is
clear and convincing evidence which is below proof beyond reasonable doubt
but above preponderance of evidence.
Thus Munoz must prove by clear and convincing evidence that he is not a flight risk
and will abide with all the orders and processes of extradition court.
Issue:
Whether the petitioners were acting official capacities which merits them the grant of
jurisdictional immunity. YES
Ratio:
o
Even in the absence of such request, he still was within his rights in
reacting to the hearing officer's criticismin effect a direct attack
against him-that Special Services was practicing "an autocratic
form of supervision.
o
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The challenged orders dated March 8,1977,
August 9,1977, and September 7, 1977, are SET ASIDE. The respondent court is directed
to DISMISS Civil Case No. 2077-O. Our Temporary restraining order of September
26,1977, is made PERMANENT. No costs.
Title to Territory
1.
Facts:
st
Origin of dispute: the visit paid to the Island of Palmas on Jan 21 1906, by
general Leonard Wood who was then governor of the province of Moro.
US position: base their claim on the titles of discovery, of recognition by treaty
and of contiguity i.e. titles relating to acts or circumstances leading to the
acquisition of sovereignty; they have however not established the fact that
sovereignty so acquired was effectively displayed at any time.
Netherlands position: found their claim to sovereignty essentially on the title
of peaceful and continuous display of state authority over the island. Since this
title would in international law prevail over a title of acquisition of sovereignty
not followed by actual display of state authority, it is necessary to ascertain in
the first place, whether the contention of the Netherlands is sufficiently
established by evidence, and if so, for what period of time.
Issue: Who has sovereignty over the island Netherlands or USA?
Held and Ratio: Netherlands for the reasons below:
The islands of palmas is identical with an island designated by this or a similar
name , which has formed, at least since 1700, successively a part of two of the
native states of the island of Sangi.
These native states were from 1677 onwards connected with the East India
Company and thereby with the Netherlands, by contracts of suzerainty (form
of dependency), which conferred upon the suzerain such powers as would
justify his considering the vassal State as part of his territory.
Acts characteristic of state authority exercised either by the vassal state or by
the suzerain power in regard precisely to the Island of Palmas have been
established as occurring at different epochs between 1700 and 1898, as well as
in the period between 1898 and 1906.
The acts of indirect or direct display of the Netherlands sovereignty at Palmas,
th
th
especially in the 18 and 19 centuries are not numerous, and there are
considerable gaps in the evidence of continuous display.
It may suffice that such display existed in 1898, and had already existed as
continuous and peaceful before that date long enough to enable any power
who might have considered herself as possessing sovereignty over the island,
or having claim to sovereignty, to have according to local conditions, as a
reasonable possibility for ascertaining the existence of a state of things
contrary to her real or alleged rights.
It is not necessary that the display of sovereignty should be established as
having begun at a precise epoch; it suffices that it had existed at the critical
period preceding the year 1898.
Since the moment when the Spaniards, in withdrawing from the Moluccas in
1666, made express reservations as to the maintenance of their sovereign
rights, up to the contestation made by the US in 1906, no contestation or other
2.
Facts:
July 10, 1931: the Norwegian Govt published a proclamation declaring that it
had proceeded to occupy certain territories in Eastern Greenland.
The Danish Govt contended that Eastern Greenland was subject to the
sovereignty of Denmark and on those grounds brought before the Permanent
Court of International Justice a suit against Norway.
th
th
In the course of the 19 century and the early years of the 20 century the
coasts of Greenland were entirely explored. For the purposes of the present
case, it is only necessary to note of 2 dates: in 1822 the Scottish whaler
Scoresby made the first landing by a European in the territory covered by the
Norwegian declaration of occupation and about 1900, thanks to the voyages of
the American Peary, the insular characted of Greenland was established. It is
admitted by the Norway that from the time of Scoresbys landing the East
Coast forms part of the known portion of Greenland.
1863: the Danish Govt granted to Mr. Tayler, an Englishman, an exclusive
concession for 30 yrs to enable him to establish on the East Coast of Greenland
stations for the purpose of trading with the natives, hunting, fishing or working
nay metalliferous or other mineral bearing mines there discovered or engaging
in any other business which he may consider to his advantage.this led to no
practical result.
Practice of Danish Govt in concluding bilateral commercial conventions or
when participating in multilateral conventions relating to economic
questionssuch as those concluded since 1921 under the auspices of the
League of Nationshas been to secure the insertion of a stipulation excepting
Greenland from the operation of the convention.
Norwegians actions: 1930; the Norwegian Govt conferred police powers on
certain Norwegian nationals for the inspection of the Norwegian hunting
stations in Eastern Greenland.
Norwegian Standpoint: the land is terra nullius meaning no one owns it.
Danish arguments: (you can use this in the ratio too) Denmark has claimed and
exercised sovereign rights over Greenland as a whole for a long time and has
obtained thereby a valid title to sovereignty. It is not necessary that
sovereignty over Greenland should have existed throughout the period during
which the Danish Govt maintains that it was being.
1
3.
Facts:
Brief Background: Morocco claimed that it had legal ties with Western Sahara
at the time of colonization of Spain in 1884.
Before going into issue the court needs to answer question 1: was Western
Sahara terra nullius(a territory belonging to no one)?
It shows that in the case of such territories the acquisition of sovereignty was
not generally considered as effected unilaterally through occupation of terra
nullius by original title but through agreements concluded with local rulers.
Such agreements with local rulers, whether or not considered as an actual
cession of the territory, were regarded as derivative roots of title, and not
original titles obtained by occupation of terra nullius.
Western Sahara was inhabited by peoples which if nomadic were socially and
politically organized in tribes and under chiefs competent to represent them.
Spain did not proceed on the basis that it was establishing its sovereignty on
terra nullius.
4.
have acquired dominion over the territory through the contract of 1878. The
Philippines also argued that the sovereignty of the sultan of sulu was not
extinguished by the unilateral act of Britain extending her protectorate over
the territory in 1888, nor because the territory was subject of an international
agreement between Spain, the US and Great Britain. Furthermore, the
Philippine government a satisfactory settlement of sabah question should
include a just and fair settlement of the proprietary claims of the heirs of the
Sultan of Sulu.
In August 1977, in the ASEAN heads of Government meeting, President Marcos
declared that the Philippines is taking definite steps to eliminate one of the
burdens of ASEANthe Philippine claim to Sabah.
Latest news in 1993: President Ramos and Prime Minister Mahathir reached an
understanding on normalizing the relations between the two countries despite
the Sabah questions. This understanding resulted in a surge in trade and
investment between the two countries. Active cooperation on Mindanao and
Sabah are being pursued by both countries through the Brunei Darussalam
Indonesia Malaysia Philippines East ASEAN Growth Area and bilateral
programs, such as cooperation on border crossing and patrol and assistance to
Muslim Filipinos and to Filipinos in Malaysia, more particularly in Sabah.
5.
(not really a case more two articles that I consolidated na lang kaya mej mahaba)
Introduction
A foreign policy to be set for the Philippines involves the national territory of
the Phils with vast potential for economic resources.
It involves the maintenance of peace with immediate neighbors. Such policy to
be valid must also be in accordance with the general principles of international
law.
Geographical setting
Surrounded by ten littoral states: China, Taiwan, Phils, Indonesia, Brunei,
Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, Kampuchea and Vietnam.
The Paracels, a group of islands on the south east of China are claimed by
China and Vietnam. Some one hundred miles to the south of Paracels area
group of islands is called the Spratleys. Some of these are occupied by the
Philippines, Vietnam, Taiwan and China.
Nothing has been positively initiated to prevent unnecessary conflict until Jan
1990The first workshop: Managing Potential conflicts in the south china
sea in Bali. The objective was to elicit academic papers into some kind of
policy inputs to resolve the dispute.
Upon the suggestion of the Philippine participants the next workshop was held
in Bandung in 1991 attended by the representatives from the China, Taiwan
and Vietnam. A proposal was made by Indonesia with support of the
Philippines that an institutional mechanism be organized on an unofficial
status through which all issues can be ventilated periodically.
Each claimant state was given the opportunity to state the legal basis of their
territorial claims in the area. A joint statement was issued on July 1991 urging
the participants to recommend their respective governments to set aside in
the meantime territorial and jurisdictional claims and agree to explore areas of
cooperation.
Similar subjects were discussed in the third workshop held in Yogyakarta,
Indonesia on June 1992. The proposal of setting up an institutional mechanism
again failed to get a unanimous support. Even the suggestion to hold an official
conference was not favored.
It was during this workshop that the Chinese participants were confronted by
the Vietnamese participants on a law enacted on Feb 1992 by China declaring
its territorial waters and contiguous zone which eventually claimed sovereignty
over all the islands, waters, seabed and airspace stretching 12 nautical miles
from the coast of all the islands on the South China Sea. Under the said law,
foreign military ships must get approval from Beijing before entering China
waters.
ASEAN Reaction
The ASEAN council of foreign ministers, in their meeting in Manila in July
1992, issued a declaration that the disputes in the South China Sea must be
settled by peaceful means.
Claim of China
As early as the second century BC Chinese discoveries were claimed of the
Xisha and Nansha islands.
After the WW1, China was the only claimant of the Spratleys. The Chinese
th
claimed sovereignty over the Spratleys since the 13 century through
expeditions sent by the Yuan Govt in 1923.
The Chinese admit that there is no actual occupation and control of the totally
uninhabited islands. The Xisha and Nansha islands are very far away from the
mainland. One cannot expect to exercise in history actual occupation and
effective control over these islands. It was only on Feb 1992 when China
passed a law enclosing the Nansha islands within the territorial sea.
The Claim of Taiwan
The claim of Taiwan is the same as Chinas.
The Claim of Vietnam
The claim to the Paracels is primarily based on the state succession relying on
the dissolution of the French sovereignty in Indochina and on historical
grounds.
Upon the dissolution of its Indochina empire in 1954, France allegedly ceded
its control over the Paracels to Vietnam but retained its claim to the Sparetlys.
In 1959 and the later years, Vietnam continued to assert sovereignty over the
Paracels seizing fishing vessels of China in the area.
Vietnam also awarded oil explorations contracts to eight foreign companies in
the disputed area of the two island groups.
The Philippine Claim
Shortly after gaining independence from the US in 1946, the Philippines
asserted its claim to the Spratlys before the UN General Assembly.
On May 1956, Tomas Cloma, a Filipino navigator and his associates claimed
ownership by discovery and occupation of the territory identified as the
Freedom Land consisting of about 33 islands, cays, sandbars, and coral reefs on
the Spratlys.
3
The next option is to bring the matter to an arbitration body upon agreement
by both states.
The most feasible is to bring the case to the international tribunal of the law of
the sea. Recently china manifested its willingness to settle the issue applying
the provisions of the UN convention on the law of the sea. China is already a
state party to the convention.
6.
Basis of RP Claim:
x x x Uti Possidetis Juris and Occupation (p.7)
What is Uti Possidetis?
o It means literally, As you possess, you shall continue to possess.
(citing
Sovereignty
over
Certain
Frontier
Lands
Belgium/Netherlands)
What is its origin?
o The proceedings concerning the Award rendered by the King of Spain
in 1891 where it stated that: when Spanish colonies proclaimed their
independence, they adopted the principle of constitutional and
international law of which they gave the name uti possidetis juris of
1810 for the purpose of laying down the rule that the boundaries of
the newly established republics should be the frontiers of the Spanish
provinces which they were succeedingestablishing an absolute rule
that in law no territory of the former Spanish America was without
ownersThese territories, although not occupied in fact, were by
common agreement considered as being occupied in law by the new
republics from the very beginning.
ICJ in El Salvador Honduras Boundary Dispute:
o GR: TITLE > POSSESSION; As between the one possessing title (uti
possidetis) or one having possession (effective control or
administration), the one having title shall have preferential rights.
EX: IF territory unclear, TITLE < POSSESSION; BUT, when
the title does not indicate with exact precision the extent
of territory claimed, effective control could help in proving
ownership
ICJ in Palau case: one having effective control or occupation has sovereignty
over territory in the absence of clear title
B.
Airspace
1.
State Control of Airspace over the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous
Zone (p. 16-17) (RK)
th
2.
(c) No state aircraft of a contracting State shall fly over the territory of another State or
land thereon without authorization by special agreement or otherwise, and in
accordance with the terms thereof.
(d) The contracting States undertake, when issuing regulations for their state aircraft,
that they will have due regard for the safety of navigation of civil aircraft.
Article 4 - Misuse of civil aviation
Each contracting State agrees not to use civil aviation for any purpose inconsistent with
the aims of this Convention.
Chapter II - Flight over territory of Contracting States
Article 5 - Right of non-scheduled flight
Each contracting State agrees that all aircraft of the other contracting States,
being aircraft not engaged in scheduled international air services shall have the right,
subject to the observance of the terms of this Convention, to make flights into or in
transit non-stop across its territory and to make stops for non-traffic purposes without
the necessity of obtaining prior permission, and subject to the right of the State flown
over to require landing. Each contracting State nevertheless reserves the right, for
reasons of safety of flight, to require aircraft desiring to proceed over regions which are
inaccessible or without adequate air navigation facilities to follow prescribed routes, or
to obtain special permission for such flights.
Such aircraft, if engaged in the carriage of passengers, cargo, or mail for
remuneration or hire on other than scheduled international air services, shall also,
subject to the provisions of Article 7, have the privilege of taking on or discharging
passengers, cargo, or mail, subject to the right of any State where such embarkation or
discharge takes place to impose such regulations, conditions or limitations as it may
consider desirable.
C.
2.
Fisheries Case, Judgment of Dec. 18, 1951, ICJ (p. 19-25) (RK)
the preferential rights of the coastal State on the one hand, and the rights of
the other State (i.e. UK) on the other, to balance and regulate equitably
questions such as those of catch-limitation, share allocations and related
restrictions concerning areas closed to fishing, number and type of vessels
allowed and forms control of the agreed provisions. The obligation to
negotiate flows form the very nature of the respective rights of the Parties and
is in accordance with the provisions of the UN Charter concerning peaceful
settlement of disputes.
3.
Article10
Bays
1. This article relates only to bays the coasts of which belong to a single State.
2. For the purposes of this Convention, a bay is a well-marked indentation whose
penetration is in such proportion to the width of its mouth as to contain land-locked
waters and constitute more than a mere curvature of the coast. An indentation shall not,
however, be regarded as a bay unless its area is as large as, or larger than, that of the
semi-circle whose diameter is a line drawn across the mouth of that indentation.
3. For the purpose of measurement, the area of an indentation is that lying between the
low-water mark around the shore of the indentation and a line joining the low-water
mark of its natural entrance points. Where, because of the presence of islands, an
indentation has more than one mouth, the semi-circle shall be drawn on a line as long as
the sum total of the lengths of the lines across the different mouths. Islands within an
indentation shall be included as if they were part of the water area of the indentation.
4. If the distance between the low-water marks of the natural entrance points of a bay
does not exceed 24 nautical miles, a closing line may be drawn between these two lowwater marks, and the waters enclosed thereby shall be considered as internal waters.
5. Where the distance between the low-water marks of the natural entrance points of a
bay exceeds 24 nautical miles, a straight baseline of 24 nautical miles shall be drawn
within the bay in such a manner as to enclose the maximum area of water that is
possible with a line of that length.
6. The foregoing provisions do not apply to so-called "historic" bays, or in any case
where the system of straight baselines provided for in article 7 is applied.
Article12
Roadsteads
Roadsteads which are normally used for the loading, unloading and anchoring of ships,
and which would otherwise be situated wholly or partly outside the outer limit of the
territorial sea, are included in the territorial sea.
Article15
Delimitation of the territorial sea between States
with opposite or adjacent coasts
Where the coasts of two States are opposite or adjacent to each other, neither of the
two States is entitled, failing agreement between them to the contrary, to extend its
territorial sea beyond the median line every point of which is equidistant from the
nearest points on the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial seas of each of
the two States is measured. The above provision does not apply, however, where it is
necessary by reason of historic title or other special circumstances to delimit the
territorial seas of the two States in a way which is at variance therewith.
SECTION 3. INNOCENT PASSAGE
Article45
Innocent passage
1. The regime of innocent passage, in accordance with Part II, section 3, shall apply in
straits used for international navigation:
(a) excluded from the application of the regime of transit
passage under article 38, paragraph 1; or
(b) between a part of the high seas or an exclusive
economic zone and the territorial sea of a foreign State.
2. There shall be no suspension of innocent passage through such straits.
Article89
Invalidity of claims of sovereignty over the high seas
No State may validly purport to subject any part of the high seas to its sovereignty.
4.
Topic: Test for classification of a strait as a highway for international navigation; Safe
passage of vessels passing innocently
Treaties: Generally accepted principles of international law that states innocent passage
thru straits is a right recognized by intl law.
ICJ 1949 REP.4
Petitioner: United Kingdom of Britain
Respondent: Albania
ANTECEDENT FACTS:
Greece and Albania are disputing territory along the Corfu Channel (not really
discussed in case). Greek claims it because of historical and cultural
significance. Albania claims it using baselines as their basis (from what I
understood). Because of this Albania has been very uptight when it comes to
passage thru the Channel
May 1946, an Albanian battery fired at 2 British Cruisers (Orion and Superb).
Firing ceased when the cruisers were out of range. Luckily neither ship was
7
5.
6.
7.
8.
Topic: drawing baselines for coastal and mid-ocean archipelagoes; effect of baselines on
sovereignty
Treaty: UNCLOS, Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act (Canadian legislation)
38 Intl J. 476 (1983)
(Its unclear who are parties. Not discussed in the materials)
SUMMARY OF ARTICLE:
Introduction:
Canada passed the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act that imposes
sanctions on vessels passing thru those waters violating standards imposed by
Canada to protect the ecology. The US protested to such measures,
emphasizing questions on the extent of territorial sea, the exclusive economic
zone, passage thru international straits and the outer limit of continental shelf.
Article 234 of UNCLOS permits coastal states to adopt and enforce nondiscriminatory laws and regulations for the prevention, reduction and control
of marine pollution from vessels in ice-covered areas within the limits of the
exclusive economic zone. The Arctic Waters Act seeks to assert only the limited
jurisdiction required to achieve the specific purpose of environmental
protection, this is separate from the total bundle of jurisdiction that
constitutes sovereignty.
8
they form a single political and economic unit. The 1982 Law of the
Sea made straight baselines applicable to this kind of archipelago.
Canada is saying that is a Coastal Archipelago with the islands in the Northern
Passage/Arctic Waters
The close-link between the islands and mainland is being questioned because
of the area of the water separating them. But according to the Fisheries Case,
the close-link is to be liberally construed.
BUT THE MAIN CONCERN IS WHAT FOLLOWS
On the effect of allowing Canada to draw straight baselines
EXPANDS THE COASTAL STATES JURISDICTION OVER WHAT WOULD HAVE
BEEN HIGH SEAS
o This concern was rendered practically inutile with the advent of the
200-mile exclusive economic zone. Because of this only a small part
of the Canadian coastline is actually enhanced
WILL IMPEDE NAVIGATION BY ENHANCING THE SREA OF INTERNAL WATERS
AND THEREBY CLOSING OFF AREAS THRU WHICH OTHERWISE THERE WOULD
BE A RIGHT OF SAFE PASSAGE
o It is provided in the 1958 Convention on the Territorial Sea and
Contiguous Zone that where the use of straight baselines has the
effect of enclosing as internal waters areas previously regarded as
territorial seas or high seas, a right of innocent passage remains in
those waters. This also exists in the 1982 Law of the Sea and is taken
to represent a position of generally accepted in customary intl law.
o This isnt really a concern though because the waters involved have
never been use for international navigation because they are frozen
most of the time.
o However, practice could eventually change this if the passage is
going to used in the future. Until then Canada is still ok doing this
9.
10. 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea (p. 52a-b) (JG)
1.
Article 76
Definition of the Continental Shelf
The continental shelf of a coastal State
comprises the sea-bed and subsoil of the submarine areas that
extend beyond its territorial sea throughout the natural
prolongation of its land territory
o to the outer edge of the continental margin, or
o to a distance of 200 nautical miles from the baselines
from which the breadth of the territorial sea is
measured
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Continental Shelf
1.
North Sea Continental Shelf Cases (Federal Republic of Germany v. Denmark; Federal
Republic of Germany v. Netherlands)
8 Intl. Leg. Mat. 340
1969, International Court of Justice
TOPIC: Jurisdiction Over Adjacent Maritime Seas; Continental Shelf
Petitioner: Federal Republic of Germany
Respondents: Denmark and Netherlands
FACTS: (copied from previous digest by RC)
Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands had made lateral line agreements
delimiting the North Sea continental shelves.
Denmark and the Netherlands said that the equidistant-special circumstances
principle in Article 6(2) of Geneva Convention applied. By applying this,
Germany will have a smaller portion.
Germany argued that the doctrine of just and equitable share applied.
ICJ ruled against Germany. But also stated that the equidistant rule was only
customary international law that was not crystallized by the Geneva
Convention.
ISSUE/HELD:
Whether or not the equidistant principle is necessary in the field of delimitation of the
accepted doctrine of the exclusive appurtenance of the continental shelf to the nearby
coastal State, and therefore having a priori character to juristic inevitability. - NO
N.B. a priori means relating to reasoning or knowledge that proceeds from theoretical
deduction
RATIO:
The doctrine of just and equitable share appears to be wholly inconsistent
with what the Court considers as the most fundamental of all the rules of law
relating to the continental shelf o that the rights of the coastal State in respect of the area of the
continental shelf that constitutes a natural prolongation of its land
territory into and under the sea exist ipso facto and ab initio, by
virtue of its sovereignty over the land, and as an extension of it in an
exercise of sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring the seabed
and exploiting its natural resources
o in short, there is an inherent right. In order to exercise it, no special
legal process has to be gone through.
o The right does not depend on its being exercised
It is exclusive in the sense that if the coastal State does
not choose to explore or exploit the areas of the shelf
appertaining to it, that is its own affair, but no one else
may also do it without its express consent.
The equidistant-special circumstances rule, as maintained by Denmark and the
Netherlands, should govern, because
o The use of this method is not in the nature of a merely conventional
obligation, but is part of a corpus of general international law, which
is binding on the Federal Republic of Germany automatically and
independently of any special assent, direct or indirect, given by the
latter.
o This involves both a positive law and a more fundamentalist aspect
As a matter of positive law, it is based on the work done by
the international legal bodies, on State practice, and on
the influence attributed to the Geneva Convention itself.
These various factors have cumulatively evidenced of the
opinion juris sive necessitates, requisite for the formation
of new rules of customary international law.
In its fundamentalist aspect, the view is based on the
natural law of the continental shelf, in the sense that the
equidistant principle is seen as a necessary expression in
the field of delimitation of the accepted doctrine of the
exclusive appurtenance of the continental shelf to the
nearby coastal State, and therefore as having an a priori
character to juristic inevitability.
The a priori argument starts from the position that the right of the coastal
State in its continental shelf area is based on its sovereignty over the land
domain, of which the shelf area is the natural prolongation into and under
11
the sea. The Court accepts that the coastal States rights exist ipso facto and ab
initio without any question of there having to be made a good claim to the
area concerned, or of any apportionment of the continental shelf between
different States.
Denmark and the Netherlands claim that the test of appurtenance must be
closer proximity, all those parts of the shelf being considered as appurtenant
to a particular coastal State which are (but only if they are) closer to it than
they are to any point on the coast of another State.
o However, the Court said that there seems to be no necessary and no
complete identity between the notions of adjacency and proximity;
and therefore the question of which parts of the continental shelf
adjacent to a coastline bordering more than one State fall within
the appurtenance of which of them, remains an open one, not to be
determined exclusively on the basis of proximity.
What confers the ipso jure title which international law attributes to the
coastal State in respect of its continental shelf, is the fact that the submarine
areas concerned may be deemed to be actually part of the territory over which
the coastal State already has dominion in the sense that although covered
with water, they are a prolongation or continuation of that territory, an
extension of it under the sea.
o Whenever a given submarine area does not constitute a natural
extension of the land territory of a coastal State, even though that
area may be closer to it than it I to the territory of any other State, it
cannot be regarded as appertaining to that State.
In the present case, although both sides relied on the prolongation principle
and regarded it as fundamental, they interpreted it quite differently. Both
interpretations appear to the Court to be incorrect
o Denmark and the Netherlands identified natural prolongation with
closest proximity and argued that it called for an equidistance line
o The Federal Republic seemed to think it implied the notion of just
and equitable share, although the connection is distinctly remote.
As regards equidistance, it clearly cannot be identified with natural
prolongation or extension, since the method would frequently cause areas
which are the natural prolongation or extension of the territory of one State to
be attributed to another, when the configuration of the latters coast makes
the equidistance line swing out laterally across the formers coastal front,
cutting it off from areas situated directly before that front.
o In the Norwegian Trough case, the Court held that the shelf areas in
the North Sea separated from the Norwegian coast by the 80-100
kilometers of the Trough cannot in any physical sense be said to be
adjacent to it, nor to be its natural prolongation.
The conclusion drawn by the Court is that the notion of equidistance as being
logically necessary, in the sense of being an inescapable a priori
accompaniment of basic continental shelf doctrine, is incorrect.
o The Court cannot accept the view that there is a rule of law ascribing
certain areas to a State as a matter of inherent and original right,
without also admitting the existence of some rule by which those
areas can be obligatorily delimited.
2.
Article 234
Ice-covered Areas
Coastal States
have the right to adopt and enforce non-discriminatory laws and regulations
o for the prevention, reduction and control of marine pollution
from vessels in ice-covered areas within the limits of the
exclusive economic zone
where particularly severe climatic conditions and the
presence of ice covering such areas for most of the year
create obstructions or exceptional hazards to navigation
and pollution of the marine environment could cause
major harm to or irreversible disturbance of the ecological
balance.
o Such laws and regulations shall have due regard to navigation and
the protection and preservation of the marine environment
based on the best available scientific evidence.
3.
12
ISSUE:
Whether or not the mere natural fact of adjacency of a shelf or zone produces legal
effect, which could be a basis for a title conferred on the State - NO
HELD:
Canada concentrated its efforts on deducing these other rules of maritime
delimitation from the concept of geographic adjacency, since it was convinced
that this concept constituted the basis of the title of the coastal State to the
partial extension of its jurisdiction to the continental shelf and the waters of
which it formed the bed
Regarding adjacency, the Chamber acknowledges that in most cases this
concept can be related with the ability to express the link between a States
sovereignty and its sovereign rights to adjacent submerged land.
It should not be forgotten, however, that legal title to certain maritime or
submarine areas is always and exclusively the effect of a legal operation.
That boundary results from a rule of law, and not from any intrinsic merit in
the purely physical fact. In the Chambers opinion, it is therefore correct to say
that international law confers on the coastal State a legal title to an adjacent
continental shelf or to a maritime zone adjacent to its coasts; it would not be
correct to say that international law recognizes the title conferred on the State
by the adjacency of that shelf or that zone as if the mere natural fact of
adjacency produced legal consequences.
The Court in the North Sea Continental Shelf cases refused to imply any
fundamental or inherent rule, the ultimate effect of which would be to
prohibit any State (otherwise than by agreement) from exercising continental
shelf rights in respect of areas closer to the coast of another State.
o At that time, the Court stressed that the submarine areas
appertaining to the coastal State were not always those closest to its
coasts.
4.
5.
Coastal States
have the right to adopt and enforce non-discriminatory laws and regulations
o for the prevention, reduction and control of marine pollution
from vessels in ice-covered areas within the limits of the
exclusive economic zone
where particularly severe climatic conditions and the
presence of ice covering such areas for most of the year
create obstructions or exceptional hazards to navigation
and pollution of the marine environment could cause
major harm to or irreversible disturbance of the ecological
balance.
o Such laws and regulations shall have due regard to navigation and
the protection and preservation of the marine environment
based on the best available scientific evidence.
13
B.
d.
WON Iceland and UK are under a duty to examine together in good faith the
existence and extent of that need and to negotiate for the establishment of such a
regime for the fisheries of the area - YES
Ruling:
Preferential Rights for the Coastal State
The coastal State had the faculty of claiming preferential fishing rights in any area of
the high seas adjacent to its exclusive fishing zone when it is scientifically
established that a special situation or condition and makes the exploitation of the
living resources of the high seas on that area of fundamental importance to the
economic development of the coastal State or the feeding of its population
Special conditions are defined as (1) the fisheries and the economic development of
the coastal state are so manifestly interrelated that, in consequence, that State is
greatly dependent on the living resources of the high seas; or (2) it becomes
necessary to limit the total catch of a stock or stocks of fish in such areas
This will be implemented by agreement between the States concerned, either
bilateral or multilateral, and, in case of disagreement, through the means for the
peaceful settlement of disputes provided for in Art 33 of the UN Charter
There can be no doubt of exceptional dependence of Iceland on its fisheries
The preferential rights of the coastal State come into play only at the moment when
an intensification in the exploitation of fishery resources makes it imperative to
introduce some System of catch-limitation and sharing of those resources, to
preserve the fish stocks in the interests of their rational and economic exploitation
Discussion of Issues (a) to (c)
The concept of preferential rights is not compatible with the exclusion of all fishing
activities of other States
A coastal State entitled to preferential rights is not free, unilaterally and according
to its own uncontrolled discretion, to determine the extent of those rights
It only implies a certain priority, but cannot imply the extinction of the concurrent
rights of other States, which are also engaged in fishing in the waters in question
The fact that Iceland is entitled to preferential rights does not suffice to justify its
claim unilaterally to exclude UKs fishing vessels from all activity in the waters
beyond the limits agreed to in the 1961 Exchange of Notes
UK also established their dependence on the Icelandic waters for centuries and
proved that the waters in question constitute the most important of the Applicants
distant-water fishing grounds for demersal species
A coastal States exceptional dependence on fisheries may relate not only to the
livelihood of its people but to its economic development as well
If UK would be deprived access to those waters, the UK vessels would be diverted at
economic levels to other fishing grounds in the North Atlantic and it would have
very serious adverse consequences
Even Iceland acknowledges the existence of the interests of UK since time
immemorial
Icelands unilateral action constitutes an infringement of the principle enshrined in
Article 2 of the 1958 Geneva Convention on the High Seas which requires that all
States, including coastal States, in exercising their freedom of fishing, pay
reasonable regard to the interests of other States
Its necessary that the preferential fishing rights of Iceland, as a State specially
dependent on coastal fisheries, be reconciled with the traditional fishing rights of
UK
The preferential rights of the coastal State and the established rights of other
States were considered as, in principle, continuing to co-exist
Preferential right is not an absolute one. It is limited according to the extent of its
special dependence on the fisheries and by its obligations to take account of the
rights of other States and the needs of conservation
Both parties have the obligation to keep under review the fishery resources in the
disputed waters and to examine together, the measures required for the
conservation and development, and equitable exploitation, of those resources,
taking into account any international agreement in force between them
Issue (d)
Most appropriate method for the solution of the dispute is clearly that of
negotiation
Its objective should be delimitation of the rights and interests of the parties, the
preferential rights of the coastal State and the rights of UK, to balance and regulate
equitably questions such as those of catch-limitation, share allocations and related
restrictions
It need detailed scientific knowledge of the fishing grounds
Negotiations are required in order to define or delimit the extent of those rights
It is not a matter of finding simply an equitable solution, but an equitable solution
derived from the applicable law
2.
The exclusive economic zone is an area beyond and adjacent to the territorial sea,
subject to the specific legal regime established in this Part, under which the rights and
jurisdiction of the coastal State and the rights and freedoms of other States are governed
by the relevant provisions of this Convention.
Article 56
Rights, jurisdiction and duties of the coastal State in the exclusive economic zone
1. In the exclusive economic zone, the coastal State has:
(a) sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting, conserving and
managing the natural resources, whether living or non-living, of the waters
superjacent to the seabed and of the seabed and its subsoil, and with regard to
other activities for the economic exploitation and exploration of the zone, such
as the production of energy from the water, currents and winds;
(b) jurisdiction as provided for in the relevant provisions of this Convention
with regard to:
15
3.
1.
States, acting through the competent international organization or general
diplomatic conference, shall establish international rules and standards to prevent,
reduce and control pollution of the marine environment from vessels and promote the
adoption, in the same manner, wherever appropriate, of routeing systems designed to
minimize the threat of accidents which might cause pollution of the marine
environment, including the coastline, and pollution damage to the related interests of
coastal States. Such rules and standards shall, in the same manner, be re-examined from
time to time as necessary.
2.
States shall adopt laws and regulations for the prevention, reduction and
control of pollution of the marine environment from vessels flying their flag or of their
registry. Such laws and regulations shall at least have the same effect as that of generally
accepted international rules and standards established through the competent
international organization or general diplomatic conference.
3.
States which establish particular requirements for the prevention, reduction
and control of pollution of the marine environment as a condition for the entry of
foreign vessels into their ports or internal waters or for a call at their off-shore terminals
shall give due publicity to such requirements and shall communicate them to the
competent international organization. Whenever such requirements are established in
identical form by two or more coastal States in an endeavour to harmonize policy, the
communication shall indicate which States are participating in such cooperative
arrangements. Every State shall require the master of a vessel flying its flag or of its
registry, when navigating within the territorial sea of a State participating in such
4.
Coastal States may, in the exercise of their sovereignty within their territorial
sea, adopt laws and regulations for the prevention, reduction and control of marine
pollution from foreign vessels, including vessels exercising the right of innocent passage.
Such laws and regulations shall, in accordance with Part II, section 3, not hamper
innocent passage of foreign vessels.
5.
Coastal States, for the purpose of enforcement as provided for in section 6,
may in respect of their exclusive economic zones adopt laws and regulations for the
prevention, reduction and control of pollution from vessels conforming to and giving
effect to generally accepted international rules and standards established through the
competent international organization or general diplomatic conference.
6. (a) Where the international rules and standards referred to in paragraph 1 are
inadequate to meet special circumstances and coastal States have reasonable grounds
for believing that a particular, clearly defined area of their respective exclusive economic
zones is an area where the adoption of special mandatory measures for the prevention
of pollution from vessels is required for recognized technical reasons in relation to its
oceanographical and ecological conditions, as well as its utilization or the protection of
its resources and the particular character of its traffic, the coastal States, after
appropriate consultations through the competent international organization with any
other States concerned, may, for that area, direct a communication to that organization,
submitting scientific and technical evidence in support and information on necessary
reception facilities. Within 12 months after receiving such a communication, the
organization shall determine whether the conditions in that area correspond to the
requirements set out above. If the organization so determines, the coastal States may,
for that area, adopt laws and regulations for the prevention, reduction and control of
pollution from vessels implementing such international rules and standards or
navigational practices as are made applicable, through the organization, for special
areas. These laws and regulations shall not become applicable to foreign vessels until 15
months after the submission of the communication to the organization.
(b) The coastal States shall publish the limits of any such particular, clearly defined area.
(c) If the coastal States intend to adopt additional laws and regulations for the same area
for the prevention, reduction and control of pollution from vessels, they shall, when
submitting the aforesaid communication, at the same time notify the organization
thereof. Such additional laws and regulations may relate to discharges or navigational
practices but shall not require foreign vessels to observe design, construction, manning
or equipment standards other than generally accepted international rules and standards;
they shall become applicable to foreign vessels 15 months after the submission of the
communication to the organization, provided that the organization agrees within 12
months after the submission of the communication.
16
7.
The international rules and standards referred to in this article should include
inter alia those relating to prompt notification to coastal States, whose coastline or
related interests may be affected by incidents, including maritime casualties, which
involve discharges or probability of discharges.
Article123
Cooperation of States bordering enclosed or semi-enclosed seas
States bordering an enclosed or semi-enclosed sea should cooperate with each other in
the exercise of their rights and in the performance of their duties under this Convention.
To this end they shall endeavour, directly or through an appropriate regional
organization:
(a) to coordinate the management, conservation, exploration and exploitation of the
living resources of the sea;
(b) to coordinate the implementation of their rights and duties with respect to the
protection and preservation of the marine environment;
(c) to coordinate their scientific research policies and undertake where appropriate joint
programmes of scientific research in the area;
(d) to invite, as appropriate, other interested States or international organizations to
cooperate with them in furtherance of the provisions of this article.
Criminal Jurisdiction
1.
ISSUES/HELD: W/N Turkey has jurisdiction to try the criminal caseYES, Turkey has
jurisdiction. There is nothing in IL that prohibits Turkey from assuming jurisdiction to
try the case.
RATIO:
France claims that there is a need for Turkey to point to some title to
jurisdiction recognized by IL in favor of the latter. Turkey, on the other hand,
argues that Art. 15 of the Convention of Lausanne allows it jurisdiction
whenever such jurisdiction does not come into conflict with a principle of IL.
o The ICJ agrees with Turkey.
IL imposes a restriction upon a State to exercise its power in any form in the
territory of another State if there is no permissive rule, which would otherwise
allow it to do so.
o This means that jurisdiction is territorial and that it cannot be
exercised by a State outside its territory.
o However, it does not follow that IL prohibits a State from exercising
jurisdiction in its own territory, in respect of any case which relates
to acts which have taken abroad, and in which it cannot rely on
some permissive rule of IL.
o As such, if there is no prohibitive rule that exists, States have the
discretion to try such cases.
o Turkey need not prove to France that there is a principle of IL that
exists, which would allow it to exercise jurisdiction over the matter.
Further, while it is true thatapart from certain special cases which are
defined by ILvessels on the high seas are subject to no authority except
that of the States whose flag they fly, it does not follow that a State can
never on its own territory exercise jurisdiction over acts which have occurred
on board a foreign ship on high seas.
o What occurs on board a vessel on the high seas must be regarded as
if it occurred on the territory of the State whose flag the ship flies.
o If therefore, a guilty act committed on the high seas produces its
effects on a vessel flying another flag or in a foreign territory, the
same principles must be applied as if the territories of two different
states were concerned.
17
2.
In this case, the crimes dealt with are not crimes under Israel law alone, but
are in essence offences against the law of nations.
The case also reiterated that the UNGA has already passed a resolution
declaring genocide to be a crime against the law of nations, and has been
consistently reaffirmed by the UN.
As such, one who commits genocide, which is a crime against the law of
nations, becomes a hostis humani generis (enemy to all mankind) and places
himself beyond the protection of any state.
It follows then that under the principles of IL, the jurisdiction to try such
crimes is universal.
Hence, Israel has the jurisdiction to try Eichmann for the crime he has
committed.
TOPIC: Genocide as a crime against the law of nations; Hostis Humani Generis; Universal
jurisdiction
1962
Petitioner: Government of Israel through its Atty. General
Respondent: Eichmann
FACTS: (Not in McRae)
Eichmann, a high-ranking general of Hitler, played a central role in the
persecution of the Jews in WWII.
He escaped to Argentina after the war and was abducted by Israeli agents.
He was then tried before a court in Israel for the crimes he allegedly
committed, particularly that of genocide.
Counsel of Eichmann now assails the jurisdiction of the Israeli Court on the
ground that there was no wrong done to the State of Israel.
ISSUES/HELD: W/N Israel has jurisdiction to try the case even if the crime was
committed elsewhere?YES. The jurisdiction to try crimes under IL is universal.
RATIO:
(Note: The excerpt in McRae is more of the development on how genocide was
considered as a crime under IL, which gave a universal jurisdiction to States to try such
cases)
Grotis (Father of IL) raised the question of ones right to punish.
o It is the moral duty of every state to enforce the natural right to
punish, possessed by victims of the crime whoever they may be,
against criminal whose acts have violated in extreme form the law
of nature or the law of nations.
o This laid the foundations for the future definition of the crime
against humanity as a crime under the law of nations and to
universal jurisdiction in such crimes.
Hyde (another author) said that: in order to justify the criminal prosecution by
a State of an alien on account of an act committed and consummated by him
in a place outside of its territory it needs to be established that there is a
close and definite connection between the act and the prosecutor on which is
commonly acknowledged to excuse the exercise of jurisdiction.
3.
With respect to serious crimes under international law as specified in Principle 2(1),
national judicial organs may rely on universal jurisdiction even if their national legislation
does not specifically provide for it.
(e) any other connection between the requesting state and the alleged
perpetrator, the crime, or the victim;
(f) the likelihood, good faith, and effectiveness of the prosecution in
the requesting state;
2. A state, in the exercise of universal jurisdiction, may, for purposes of prosecution, seek
judicial assistance to obtain evidence from another state, provided that the requesting
state has a good faith basis and that the evidence sought will be used in accordance with
international due process norms.
(g) the fairness and impartiality of the proceedings in the requesting state;
Principle 5 -- Immunities
With respect to serious crimes under international law, the official position of any
accused person, whether as head of state or government or as a responsible
government official, shall not relieve such person of criminal responsibility nor mitigate
punishment.
Principle 6 -- Statutes of Limitations
Statutes of limitations or other forms of prescription shall not apply to aerious crimes
specified in Principle 2(1).
Principle 7 -- Amnesties
1. Amnesties are generally inconsistent with the obligation of states to provide
accountability for crimes specified in Principle in 2(1).
2. The exercise of universal jurisdiction with respect to serious crimes under
international law as specified in Principle 2(1) shall not be precluded by amnesties which
are incompatible with the international legal obligations of the granting state.
Principle 8 -- Resolution of Competing National Jurisdictions
Where more than one state has or may assert jurisdiction over a person and where the
state that has custody of the person has no basis for jurisdiction other than the principle
of universality, that state or its judicial organs shall, in deciding whether to prosecute or
extradite, base their decision on an aggregate balance of the following criteria:
(a) multilateral or bilateral treaty obligations;
2. A state which refuses to extradite on the basis of this Principle shall, when permitted
by international law, prosecute the individual accused of a serious crime or extradite
such person to another state where this can be done without exposing him or her to the
risks referred to in paragraph 1.
Principle 11 -- Adoption of National Legislation
A state shall, where necessary, enact national legislation to enable the exercise of
universal jurisdiction and the enforcement of these Principles.
Principle 12 -- Inclusion of Universal Jurisdiction in Future Treaties
In all future treaties, and in protocols, concerned with serious crimes under international
law, states shall include provisions for universal jurisdiction.
Principle 13 -- Strengthening Accountability and Universal Jurisdiction
1. National judicial organs shall construe national law in a manner that is consistent with
these Principles.
2. Nothing in these Principles shall be construed to limit the rights and obligations of a
state to prevent or punish, by lawful means recognized under international law, the
commission of crimes under international law.
3. These Principles shall not be construed as limiting the continued development of
universal jurisdiction in international law.
Principle 14 -- Settlement of Disputes
1. Consistent with international law and the Charter of the United Nations, states should
settle their disputes arising out of the exercise of universal jurisdiction by all available
means of peaceful settlement of disputes and in particular by submitting the dispute to
the International Court of Justice.
2. Pending the determination of the issue in dispute, a state seeking to exercise universal
jurisdiction shall not detain the accused person nor seek to have that person detained by
another state unless there is a reasonable risk of flight and no other reasonable means
can be found to ensure that person's eventual appearance before the judicial organs of
the state seeking to exercise its jurisdiction.
4.
5.
(I dont think this is relevant. This is the old law eh. Nonetheless)
It talks about the procedure on how requisition for the surrender of a fugitive
criminal of a foreign state, who is believed to be in Canada, should be made; as
well as the procedure on how a Canadian fugitive may be extradited.
o The Ministry of Justice is the key figure to whom the requisition must
be addressed.
o He determines the offence and the proceedings that should be taken
to try the fugitive, and may refuse to order for the surrender of said
fugitive.
o If there is an existing extradition arrangement between Her Majesty
and another State, and the crime is not listed, it is still within the
authority of the Minister to issue a warrant for the surrender to the
other State any offender from that other State.
6.
20
7.
8.
9.
TOPIC:
DEC. 12, 1984
Petitioner: US, on behalf of UK
Respondent: Doherty
FACTS:
Doherty participated in a Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA) (its a rebel
group) organized ambush of a British Army convoy wherein a British soldier
was shot and killed.
He was arrested and charged with murder and related offenses.
After completion of the trial but before the issuance of the verdict, Doherty
escaped prison and fled to the US.
UK sought to extradite him pursuant to the Treaty of Extradition between US
and UK.
Doherty contended that his conduct was not an extraditable offense under the
Treatys political offense exception.
ISSUES/HELD: W/N Doherty may be extradited based on his conducts.NO, the US
Court said that his acts were political in nature, hence it denied the extradition
request. (Acts which are political in nature is not a ground for extradition)
RATIO:
Operative factors identified by the court to determine w/n it would fall
under the political offense exception:
o Nature of the act
o Context in which it is committed
o Status of the party committing the act
o Nature of the organization on whose behalf it is committed
o Particularized circumstances of the place where the act takes place
The court concluded that Dohertys actions fell w/in the exception because
they:
o Took place in the area where change was to be effected
o Did not clearly violate the Geneva Convention & International Law
o Were directed in furtherance of military objectives
o Were not aimed at civilians.
PIRAs structure and internal system illustrated its political character
Excludes from the scope of political offense exception serious offenses typically
committed by terrorists
Narrows the application of the political offense exception to extradition
Article 1
o None of the following offenses shall be regarded as an offense of a political
character
Offense within the scope of the Convention for the Suppression of
Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft
Offense within the scope of the Convention for the Suppression of
Unlawful Acts against the safety of Civil Aviation
Offense within the scope of the Convention of the Prevention and
Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons,
including Diplomatic Agents
Offense within the scope of the International Convention against the
Taking of Hostages
Murder
Manslaughter
Maliciously wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm
Kidnapping, abduction, false imprisonment or unlawful detention,
including the taking of a hostage
The following offenses relating to explosives
Causing of an explosion likely to endanger life or property
Conspiracy to cause such explosion
Making or possession of an explosive substance by a person
who intends either himself or through another person to
endanger life or cause serious damage to property
Following offenses relating to firearms
Possession or ammunition with the intention to endanger life
Use of firearm with intent to resist or prevent the arrest or
detention
Damaging property with intent to endanger life or with reckless
disregard as to whether the life of another would thereby be
endangered
Attempt to commit any of the foregoing offenses
21
Article 2
o Prosecution for the offense for which extradition is requested has become
barred by lapse of time according to the law of the requesting party
Article 3
o A person arrested shall be set at liberty upon the expiration of 60 days from
the date of his arrest if a request for his extradition shall not have been
received.
Article 4
o This treaty shall apply to any offense committed before or after this
supplementary treaty enters into force except offenses not considered an
offense under the laws of both Parties at the time of commission
Article 5
o This supplementary treaty shall form an integral part of the Extradition
treaty and shall apply
To U.K.
To U.S.
Article 6
o This supplementary treaty shall be subject to ratification
o Only after ratification may this treaty come into force
10. Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft: The
Tokyo Convention of 1963 (p. 121-122) (EM)
Two objectives of the convention
To ensure that, the case of offense against penal law committed on board aircraft,
there will always be a jurisdiction in which a suspected offender may be tried, and
To authorize the aircraft commander and other to take certain steps such as
restraint of persons who commit, or are about to commit on board an aircraft an
offense which jeopardizes the safety of the aircraft or persons or property therein
Dual Rules:
The convention applies if the offense or other act takes place on board of any
aircraft registered in a contracting state while it is in flight or on the surface of the
high seas or in any other area outside the territory of any state the power of the
aircraft commander will not apply to offenses committed or about to be committed
by a person on board in the airspace of the state of registration, or over the high
seas, or any other area outside the territory of any state
Uniform Rule on jurisdiction in the Rome Draft:
The state of registration may exercise jurisdiction over both offenses and acts
committed on board an aircraft. "Acts" pertain to civil violations of air regulations.
11. Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of
Civil Aviation (p. 123-127) (EM)
Article 1
Any person commits an offence if he unlawfully and intentionally
o Performs an act of violence against a person on board an aircraft
o Destroys an aircraft
o Places a device in an aircraft that is likely to endanger the latter
o Destroys or damages air navigation facilities
o Communicates information which he knows to be false, thereby
endangering the aircraft's safety
Any person also commits an offense if he:
o Attempts to commit any of the above
o Is an accomplice to the offenses above
Article 2
Aircraft is in flight - at any time from the moment its external doors are closed
following embarkation until the moment when any such door is opened for
disembarkation
Aircraft in service - from the beginning of the preflight preparation of the aircraft
until 24 hours after any landing
Article 3
Each of the offenses in Article 1 is punishable by severe penalties
Article 4
This convention shall not apply to aircraft used in military, customs or polic services
This convention applies when (1) the aircraft is outside the territory of the State of
registration, (2) the offender is found in the territory other than the State of
registration
22
Article 5
Each Contracting State shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its
jurisdiction over the offences when (1) the offence is committed within their
jurisdiction, (2) when the offense is committed in an aircraft registered in that
State, (3) when the aircraft lands on the territory of the State and the offender is
still on board, (4) when the offence is committed against a staff who has their
principal place as the State
Sherman Act was supplemented in 1914by the Federal Trade Commission Act and
the Clayton Act - these three statutes form the antitrust legislation for the
promotion of competition in open markets
Since many great monopolies do not operate merely within the territory of one
State, the antitrust law has been given an extraterritorial application
Chapter 1: The Territorial Principle of Jurisdiction
Article 6
A Contracting State must take the offender into custody, make preliminary factual
enquiries
Article 7
The State, if no extradition is contemplated, must submit the offender's case to
competent authorities for prosecution
Article 8 (impt.)
The offences shall be deemed to be included as extraditable offences in any
extradition treaty existing between Contracting States. Contracting States
undertake to include the offences as extraditable offences in every extradition
treaty to be concluded between them
If a contracting State which makes extradition conditional on the existence of a
treaty receives a request for extradition from another Contracting State with which
rrrre5t55rit has no extradition treaty, it may at its option consider this Convention
as the legal basis for extradition in respect of the offences. Extradition shall be
subject to other conditions provided by law of the requested State.
Contracting States which do not make extradition conditional on the existence of a
treaty shall recognize the offences as extraditable offences between themselves
subject to the conditions provided by the law of the requested State.
B.
State practice is against the idea that extraterritorial jurisdiction is a matter just
left to the discretion of each Sovereign State and not governed by international
law
Extraterritoriality of jurisdiction us not a matter of sovereign discretion
The countervailing principle limiting extraterritorial jurisdiction: extraterritorial
jurisdiction may not be exercised in a way contradicting local law at the place
where the alleged offense was committed
Local law must be preferred
More difficult question: when there is no direct collision between the local and
external laws BUT the act, though unlawful for the external law, was perfectly
lawful in the place where it was done
Local law must still be preferred since a person should not be put in jeopardy of a
criminal law to which he has never owed allegiance to
However, there are certain exceptions:
o A State may exercise jurisdiction if the unlawful act done in another
country is affecting it ("common crime")
Civil Jurisdiction
1.
2.
The Passive Personality Principle - a State claims the right to punish aliens for
committed abroad to the injury of their own nationals (sometimes called the
"protection principle")
The Security Principle - a State may exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction over
crimes of aliens directed against its security, credit, political independence, or
territorial integrity
The universality principle - suppression of crime is an interest common to all States
and to all humankind
Extensions of the territorial principle - applies when different elements of the
offence take place in different State
o Subjective territorial principle - jurisdiction of a State to prosecute and
punish crimes commenced within the State by completed or consummated
abroad
o Objective territorial principle - jurisdiction of the State to prosecute and
punish crimes commenced without the State but consummated within its
territory
Lotus case - many countries regard offences as having been committed in their
territory "if one of the constituent elements of the offence, and more especially its
effects, have taken place there"
"effects" - those effects which are a constituent element in the crime
3.
4.
5.
(a) the conduct and its effect are constituent elements of activity to which the rule
applies
(b) the effect within the territory is substantial and
(c) it occurs as a direct and primarily intended result of the conduct outside the
territory.
Article 7
In the event of there being concurrent jurisdiction of two or more States so as to create
a conflict with respect to the conduct of any person:
(a) no State shall require conduct within the territory of another State which is
contrary to the law of the latter, and
(b) each State shall, in applying its own law to conduct in another State, pay due
respect to the major interests and economic policies of such other State.
Note:
Anti-Trust regulation by which a State is entitled to prescribe rules governing the
conduct outside of its territory which threatens its security as a State (Protective
principle) is applicable only in the most exceptional circumstances.
3.
2.
Resolution adopted by the ILA: Extraterritorial application of the Antitrust Legislation (p. 138-139) (NO)
379 U.S.
J. Douglas
Facts:
Omar, S.A. is an Uruguayan company seeking a $10,000 credit from a regulated
investment company.
When the IRS investigated, it revealed that Omar possibly owed the US a large
amount of taxes.
o Omar maintained several accounts in New York
o The lawyer contended that the transactions have no tax
liability because Omar was not a personal holding
company.
o He added that if the IRS continues the such action, Omar
might liquidate and send the money out the US
IRS issued a jeopardy assessment against Omar totaling to $19,300,000.00 and
filed a case in the District court of New York.
o It impleaded Omar as well as several banks including the
First National City Bank(Citibank)
Omar liquidated a large part of its securities and sent out its funds. Some were
transferred to Citibank in Uruguay and deposited there on the day when the
complaint was filed.
NY District court froze the account until jurisdiction could be obtained over
Omar.
24
Citibank contests the authority of the Court on the ground that it lacks
jurisdiction because the accounts situs is in Montevideo(Uruguay) and
personal jurisdiction over Omar was not obtained.
Issue:
WON the creditor (US) may by injunction protect whatever rights the debtor(Omar) may
have against respondent(Citibank) who is before the court on personal service. Yes
Held:
Citibank argues that the US can assert only those rights that Omar has against
Citibank in New York and under NY law and that a depositor in a foreign branch
has an action against the head office only when there has been a demand and
wrongful refusal at the foreign branch.
The opportunity to make that collection should not be lost merely because
Omar has not made the agreed-upon demand on Citibank at the time and
place and manner in the contract.
Citibank(Respondent) has actual control and practical control over its
branches; it is organized under federal statutes which authorizes it to be sued
or to sue, defend as one entity and not branch by branch.
o The branch bank is therefore within the reach of the in
personam order by the Court as are those of the home
office.
o Once personal jurisdiction has been acquired, the court has
the authority to order it(Citibank) to freeze property under
its control, whether within or without the country.
The temporary injunction is appropriate to prevent further dissipation of
assets.
o If its was beyond the courts jurisdiction, foreign tax payers facing
jeopardy assessments may simply transfer funds abroad before
personal service on the tax payer could be made.
o
Dispositive: We conclude that this temporary injunction is a reasonable measure to
preserve status quo pending service of process on Omar and an adjudication on merits.
CA decision is reversed.
25
RESPONSIBILITYOFSTATES(Pt.I)
A. GENERALPRINCIPLESOFRESPONSIBILITY
1. ILCDraftArticlesonSR(Arts.14)(RC)
ExamplesofInternationalcrimesanddelicts:
breachofinternationalobligation
Topic:GeneralPrinciplesofStateResponsibility
committinganactrecognizedasacrimebytheinternationalcommunity
committingaggression
Summary:
impedingtherighttoselfdetermination
actsofslavery,genocide,apartheid
actsendangeringtheenvironment
B. RESPONSIBILITYFORACTSAFFECTINGINDIVIDUALS
I. TRADITIONALINTERNATIONALLIABILITY
1. USv.Mexico(RC)
2. SecondReportonSR(RC)
Topic:InternationallyWrongfulAct
3. ILCDraftArticlesonSR(Arts.58and19)(RC)
Topic:StateResponsibility,actofjudiciaryisdirectgovernmentalresponsibility
FACTS:
B.E. Chattin was an American citizen working for the Southern Pacific Railroad
Company of Mexico as a passenger conductor. He was arrested for allegedly
pocketingmoneyfrompassengersinsteadofremittingthemtothecompany.
Thereafter, he proceeded to trial and was found guilty. He was imprisoned but
was able to escape when there was rebellion. He returned to the US and now
claims damages against Mexican state for having been deprived of due process
andbeingtreatedinhumanely.
Topic:AttributionofStateResponsibility.
ISSUE:W/NMexicoisliabletopay$50,000asdamagestoChattin?YES!
TheStateisresponsibleforactsdonebyitsORGANSwhen:
Theorganwasactingwithinitscapacity
RATIO:
Evidence and court records showed that Chattin was indeed deprived of due
process.Whenhewenttotrial,hewasnotallowedtoconfronthisaccusers.The
accusers only had to submit anonymous testimony. Furthermore, his trial was
delayed.Hehadbeenimprisonedforafewmonthsbeforehesawtheinsideof
thecourtroom.Lastly,thetrialhadonlylastedlikeaday.
1
Mexicoisliablebecauseitisthestate'sresponsibilitytoensurethatitsjudiciary
keepsupwiththeinternationalstandards.
Criticism#4:TheDeclarationpaysscantregardtoeconomicrights.
II. INTERNATIONALPROTECTIONOFHUMANRIGHTS
1. UDHR(pleaselookattheoriginaltext )
2. UDHRAT35:WesternPasseorAliveandUniversal(JG)
Since the adoption by the UN General Assembly of the Universal Declaration of
HumanRightsin1948,therehavebeenmanycriticismsandopinionsagainstits
th
statusandvalidity.Onthe35 yearoftheDeclarationandinviewofthefactthat
itcontinuestoserveasacornerstonefortheactivitiesbothoftheUNandofthe
most nongovernmental organizations in the field of human rights, it seems
timelytoassessthevalidityofthesecompetingperspectives.
Criticism #1: Third World participation in the drafting of the Declaration was
negligible
UDHRDefense:Despitethefactthatthedevelopmentoftheprotectionofsuch
rightscamemuchlater,itequallyprioritizeseconomic,social,andculturalrights.
Criticism #5: The Declaration does not take adequate account of the traditions
andneedsoftheThirdWorld.
UDHR Defense: Efforts are bring undertaken to the effect that in the
implementation of human rights, methods used should take into account the
traditions and culture of each society as well as of its legal system. Moreover,
contributiontotheimplementationofinternationalstandardsonhumanrightsat
the domestic level may also be made through various bodies such as human
rightscommissions,peoplesorganizations,andvillagetribunals.
UDHRDefense:ThecontributionbytheThirdWorldwasbynomeansnegligible.
Indeed,themainproponentswereChile,Cuba,andPanama.AttheGAin1948,
Egypt, Ethiopia, Liberia, Afghanistan, the Philippines, Thailand, India, and
Pakistan,aswellasalloftheCentralandLatinAmericanStateswereamongthe
48votinginfavoroftheDeclaration.
Criticism #2: The Declarations philosophical roots are exclusively Western and
itsvaluesarethereforeinapplicabletoothersocieties.
3. CharteroftheUN(Art.2)
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Art. 1,
shallactinaccordancewiththeffPrinciples:
xxx
7.NothingcontainedinthepresentChartershallauthorizetheUNtointervenein
matterswhichareessentiallywithinthedomesticjurisdictionofanystateorshall
require Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present
2
Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement
measuresunderChapterVII.
4. SouthWestAfricaCases(CG)
(Ethiopiav.SouthAfrica);(Liberiav.SouthAfrica)
DissentingOpinionofJudgeTanaka
Issue:WONthepolicyofracialdiscriminationorseparatedevelopmentisperse
incompatible with the wellbeing and social progress of the inhabitants, or
whetherthepolicyofapartheidisillegalandconstitutesabreachoftheMandate
YES
Discussion:
1.
2.
WhatisApartheid?
The status, rights, duties, opportunities and burdens of the population are
determinedandallottedarbitrarilyonthebasisofrace,colorandtribe,ina
pattern which ignores the needs and capabilities of the groups and
individuals affected, and subordinates the interest and rights of the great
majorityofthepeopletothepreferencesoftheminority
From the standpoint of the Applicants, the violation of the norm of non
discrimination is established if there exists a simple fact of discrimination
withoutregardtotheintentofoppressiononthepartoftheMandatory
Meanwhile,therespondentdoesnotrecognizetheexistenceofthenormof
nondiscriminationofanabsolutecharacterandseekstoprovethenecessity
ofgroupdifferentiationintheadministrationofadiversecommunity
PrincipleofEquality
Mostfundamentalprinciplesofmoderndemocracyandisthestartingpoint
ofallotherliberties
Itisphilosophicallyrelatedtotheconceptsoffreedomandjustice
Allhumanbeingsaspersonshaveanequalvalueinthemselves,thattheyare
theaimitselfandnotmeansforothers,andthat,therefore,slaveryisdenied
Thisidea,however,doesnotexcludethedifferenttreatmentofpersonsfrom
the consideration of the differences of factual circumstances such as sex,
age,language,religion,etc.
Theremustbereasonabledistinctions
3.
RelativeEquality
Theprincipletotreatequallywhatareequalandunequallywhatareunequal
Adifferenttreatmentispermittedwhenitcanbejustifiedbythecriterionof
justice,whichlogicallyexcludesarbitrariness
4.
WhyApartheidisviolativeofthebasicrightsagainstdiscrimination
Forthis,freedomofchoiceofoccupationsshallbeconsidered
There are certain jobs specifically reserved for Europeans or the Whites,
whileNativesareconfinedtounskilledlabor
This, itself, is a form of discrimination because they contend that some
Whites,ingeneral,donotdesiretoserveundertheauthorityoftheNatives
onthehierarchyofindustrialsystems
It is admitted that there is friction, conflict and animosity, and it cannot be
prevented,butitmustbeovercome,notapproved
To take into consideration the psychological effect upon the Whites who
wouldbesubjectedtothesupervisionoftheNativesifaceilingdidnotexist,
thatisnothingelsebutthejustificationorofficialrecognitiononthepartof
theWhitepopulationwhichdoesharmtothedignityofman
Furthermore,individualswhocouldhaveadvancedbytheirpersonalmeritsif
there existed no ceiling are unduly deprived of their opportunity for
promotion
Respondenttriestojustifythisasanecessarysacrificeforthemaintenance
ofsocialsecurity,butitisunjusttorequireasacrificeforthesakeofsocial
securitywhenthisisofsuchimportanceashumiliationofthedignityofthe
personality
Summary:
Theprincipleofequalitybeforethelawrequiresthatwhatareequalareto
betreatedequallyandwhataredifferentaretobetreateddifferently
All human beings, notwithstanding the differences in their appearance and
other minor points, are equal in their dignity as persons. Accordingly, from
thepointofviewofhumanrightsandfundamentalfreedoms,theymustbe
treatedequally.
The principle of equality does not mean absolute equality, but recognizes
relative equality, namely different treatment proportionate to concrete
individualcircumstances.Differenttreatmentmustnotbegivenarbitrarily;it
requires reasonableness, or must be in conformity with justice, as in the
3
5. InterAmericanCourtofHR(RL)
ThomasBuergenthal
(1982)
[SalientpointsoftheArticle]
TheCourtwasestablishedbytheAmericanConventiononHRwhichentered
intoforcein1978
It has been ratified by 17 out of 29 member states of the Organization of
AmericanStates(OAS).
Ithas7judges,witharegulartermof6years,nominatedandelectedbythe
stateparties.
The President, Vice President and another judge, who is designated by the
President,composethePermanentCommission.
o ItactsastheCourtsbureauordirectorate,andassistsandadvisesthe
Presidentintheexerciseofhisfunctions.
Jurisdiction:
o CONTENTIOUS JURISDICTION the jurisdiction to decide disputes
involving charges that a state party has violated the HR guaranteed by
theConvention.
o ADVISORY JURISDICTION empowers the court to interpret the
convention and other HR instruments at the request of OAS member
states.
o Its power to decide a case referred to it is conditioned on the
acceptanceofitsjurisdictionbythestatespartiestothedispute;being
meresignatorytotheconventionisinsufficient.
o A state that ratifies the convention is deemed ipso facto to have
accepted the right of any person/group or persons, or any non
governmental entity legally recognized in one or more OAS member
statestofileapetitionwiththeCommission.
But, both states must recognize the competence of the
Commissiontoreceiveandexamineinterstatecomplaints.
o Amicablesettlementsarepreferred.
JudgmentsandPreliminaryDecisions:
o It has the power to enter a declaratory judgment and to award
damages.
o It has the power to grant an extraordinary remedy in the nature of a
temporaryinjunctionincases(1)pendingbeforetheCourtand(2)for
cases being dealt with by the Commission that have not yet been
referredtotheCourtforadjudication.
EnforcementofJudgments:
o The Convention does not establish a formal procedure to enforce the
rulingsoftheCourtagainstrecalcitrantstates.
Thecourtmayalsoissueadvisoryopinions.
NATIONALIZATION
Nationalization,expropriationorrequisitioningshallbebasedongroundsor
reasons of public utility, security or the national interest which are
recognizedasoverridingpurelyindividualorprivateinterests,bothdomestic
andforeign.
Ownershallbepaidappropriatecompensationinaccordancewiththerules
in force in the State taking such measures in the exercise of its sovereignty
andinaccordancewithinternationallaw.
When question of compensation gives rise to a controversy, the national
jurisdictionoftheStatetakingsuchmeasuresshallbeexhausted.However,
upon agreement, settlement may be made through arbitration or
internationaladjudication.
2. UNResolution3171(EM)
1.
2.
SupportstheeffortsofdevelopedStatesandthoseundercolonialandracial
denomination, or foreign occupation to regain effective control over their
naturalresources.
3.
AND
4.
5.
EmphasizesthatactionsaimedatcoercingotherStatesareviolationsofthe
UNCharter
6.
EmphasizesthedutyofStatestorefrainfrommilitary,political,oreconomic
coercion.
7.
Recognizes that one of the most effective ways for developing States to
protect their natural resources is through establishing, promoting, or
strengtheningtheirmachineriesforcooperation
3. CharterofEconomicRights&DutiesofStates(EM)
Economic,politicalandotherrelationsamongStatesshallbegovernedby:
a.
Sovereignty,territorialintegrityandpoliticalindependenceofStates
b.
SovereignequalityofallStates
c.
Nonaggression
d.
Nonintervention
e.
Mutualandequitablebenefit
f.
Peacefulcoexistence
g.
Equalrightsandselfdeterminationofpeoples
h.
Peacefulsettlementofdisputes
i.
Remedyingofinjusticebroughtaboutbyforceandwhichdepriveanationof
thenaturalmeansforitsnormaldevelopment
j.
Fulfillmentingoodfaithofinternationalobligations
k.
Respectforhumanrightsandfundamentalfreedoms
l.
Noattempttoseekhegemonyandspheresofinfluence
m. Promotionofinternationalsocialjustice
n.
Internationalcooperationfordevelopment
o.
Freeaccesstoandfromtheseabylandlockedcountries
Article2
-
EveryStatehasandshallfreelyexercisefullpermanentsovereigntyoverall
itswealth,naturalresources,andeconomicactivities
Libyaopposedthispractice,sayingthatwasinvolvedweresovereignacts
ofLibya,thusnotsubjecttoarbitration
The president of the ICJ appointed Dupuy to be the sole arbitrator in the
proceedings,which,however,Libyadidnotgoto
EachStatehastheright
Issue: WON the issues in this case may be subject to arbitration; WON there
wasabreachofcontractonthepartofLibya
Held:Yes,casemaybesubjecttoarbitration;Yes,Libyabreacheditsobligations
underthecontract
Tonationalize,expropriate,ortransferownershipofforeignproperty,
in which case APPROPRIATE COMPENSATION should be paid by the
Stateadoptingsuchmeasures
Ratio:
On jurisdiction for arbitration the 14 deeds of concession were
internationalizedcontracts
-
This supported the conclusion that the nature of the deeds of concession
madeitaninternationalizedcontract
4. ProposedAmendmenttoArt.2(EM)
In this amendment, it was proposed that appropriate compensation be
changedtojustcompensation.However,thisproposalwasrejectedbyavote
of19infavorvs87against.
5. Dispute
Between
Texaco
Overseas
Petroleum
Company/California Asiatic Oil Company and Govt of
LibyanArabRepublic(EM)
Facts:
-
In 1973 and 1974, Libya issued decrees nationalizing all of the rights,
interests, and property, of Texaco Overseas Petroleum Company (TOPCO)
andCaliforniaAsiaticOilCompany(CAOC)inLibyathathadbeengrantedto
themunder14deedsofconcession
In response to such action, TOPCO and CAOC requested for arbitration and
thusappointedanarbitrator.
However,Libyarefusedtosubmittoarbitration.
Subsequently,thepresidentoftheInternationalCourtofJusticeappointeda
solearbitratortohearthedispute
OnBreachofContract
-
Aninternationalizedcontracthaseffectsandconsequencesontherightsof
the parties they may enter into arbitration if their rights in the contracts
are breached. This gives the party a specific, but limited, international
capacity
The injured parties were entitled to restitutio in integrum and that the
sovereign State was obliged to perform in accordance with its contractual
obligations
ThetribunalalsosaidthattheUNGeneralAssembliesregardingpermanent
sovereigntyovernaturalwealthandresourcescouldnotbeusedbytheState
toviolateitscontractualobligationsincommercialtransactions.
RESPONSIBILITYOFSTATES(Pt.II)
C. RESPONSIBILITYFORENVIRONMENTALHARM
1. TrailSmelterArbitration(NO)
Facts:
A smelter (for lead and zinc) was started by the American Auspices in
1896andlatertakenoverbyaCanadiancompanyin1906.
o In 1925 and 1927 two stacks were erected to increase the
output.
o From 1925 to 1931 damages to Washington was due to the
sulphurdioxidefromtheTrailSmelter
Issue:
1.
Facts
2. CorfuChannelCase(NO)
Held:
noStatehastherighttouseorpermittheuseofitsterritory
in such a manner as to cause injury by fumes in or or to the
territoryofanotherorthepropertiesorpersonstherein,when
the case is of serious consequence and the injury is
establishedbyclearandconvincingevidence
ThetribunalholdsthatCanadaisresponsibleininternationallawforthe
conductofTrailSmelter
Futuredamages
SolongasthepresentconditionintheColumbiaRiverprevails,Canada
isshallberequiredtorefrainfromcausingfurtherdamage.
o Thedamagereferredtoanditsextentbeingsuchaswouldbe
recoverableunderthedecisionsofthecourtsoftheUSinsuits
betweenprivateindividuals.
The tribunal decided to impose a regime or measure of control which
shallremaininforceunlessanduntilmodified.
o
A State owes at all times the duty to protect other States against
injuriousactsbyindividualsfromwithinitsjurisdiction
The difficulty rises when it comes to determining the pro subjecta
materiethatisdeemedtobeaninjuriousact.
o Howevertherehasbeenyetacasethatbroughtintoattention
airpollutionthemostanalogouscaseiswaterpollutiondecided
byUSlaw.
o Ittookintoconsiderationsuchdecisions,whichmayserveasa
guideininternationallaw.
nd
OnOctober22 ,1946,twoBritishcruisersandtwodestroyers,coming
from the south, entered the North Corfu Strait. The channel they were
following, which was in Albanian waters, was regarded as safe: it had
beensweptin1944andchecksweptin1945.
One of the destroyers, the Saumarez, when off Saranda, struck a mine
andwasgravelydamaged.
The other destroyer, the Volage, was sent to her assistance and, while
towingher,struckanothermineandwasalsoseriouslydamaged.Forty
fiveBritishofficersandsailorslosttheirlives,andfortytwootherswere
wounded.
Issue
DeanCandelaria1213
1.
WhetherornotAlbaniashouldbeheldliable.Yes
Held
The court draws the conclusion that the laying of the minefield that
caused the explosions could not have been accomplished without the
knowledgeoftheAlbaniangovernment.
o If Albania had been of the British operation and warned the
Britishvesselsoftheexistenceofaminefieldherresponsibility
wouldbeinvolved
TheobligationsincumbentuponAlbaniawastonotify,forthebenefitof
shippingingeneral,theexistenceofaminefieldinAlbanianwaterandin
warningtheBritishwarshipsapproaching
3. StockholmPrinciples(NO)
SeefulltextinMcRaebutherearetheimportantprovisions
Principle4
Manhasaspecialresponsibilitytosafeguardandwiselymanagetheheritageof
wildlife and its habitat, which are now gravely imperilled by a combination of
adverse factors. Nature conservation, including wildlife, must therefore receive
importanceinplanningforeconomicdevelopment.
Principle5
Thenonrenewableresourcesoftheearthmustbeemployedinsuchawayasto
guard against the danger of their future exhaustion and to ensure that benefits
fromsuchemploymentaresharedbyallmankind.
Principle6
DeanCandelaria1213
Thedischargeoftoxicsubstancesorofothersubstancesandthereleaseofheat,
insuchquantitiesorconcentrationsastoexceedthecapacityoftheenvironment
to render them harmless, must be halted in order to ensure that serious or
irreversible damage is not inflicted upon ecosystems. The just struggle of the
peoplesofillcountriesagainstpollutionshouldbesupported.
Principle11
TheenvironmentalpoliciesofallStatesshouldenhanceandnotadverselyaffect
thepresentorfuturedevelopmentpotentialofdevelopingcountries,norshould
they hamper the attainment of better living conditions for all, and appropriate
steps should be taken by States and international organizations with a view to
reachingagreementonmeetingthepossiblenationalandinternationaleconomic
consequencesresultingfromtheapplicationofenvironmentalmeasures.
Principle16
Demographic policies which are without prejudice to basic human rights and
whicharedeemedappropriatebyGovernmentsconcernedshouldbeappliedin
those regions where the rate of population growth or excessive population
concentrations are likely to have adverse effects on the environment of the
humanenvironmentandimpededevelopment.
Principle20
Scientific research and development in the context of environmental problems,
bothnationalandmultinational,mustbepromotedinallcountries,especiallythe
developing countries. In this connection, the free flow of uptodate scientific
information and transfer of experience must be supported and assisted, to
facilitate the solution of environmental problems; environmental technologies
should be made available to developing countries on terms which would
encouragetheirwidedisseminationwithoutconstitutinganeconomicburdenon
thedevelopingcountries.
Principle21
States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the
principlesofinternationallaw,thesovereignrighttoexploittheirownresources
pursuant to their own environmental policies, and the responsibility to ensure
that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the
environmentofotherStatesorofareasbeyondthelimitsofnationaljurisdiction.
Principle22
Statesshallcooperatetodevelopfurthertheinternationallawregardingliability
andcompensationforthevictimsofpollutionandotherenvironmentaldamage
2
4. StatementbyJABeesley(NO)
TheCanadiangovernmentconsidersprinciple21reflectscustomaryinternational
lawandprinciple22assecondaryconsequentialprinciplereflectsanexistingduty
ofstates.Italsoconsidersthedutytoinformstatesoftheenvironmentalimpact
oftheiractionsbeyondtheirjurisdictionasatertiaryconsequentialprinciple.
6. TheFreedomoftheSeas(NO)
Theexistinglawofthesearestsontwotraditionalconcepts,thehighseaswhere
freedomoftheseasprevailandtheterritorialseawhichisunderthesovereignty
ofthecoastalstate.Ononehand,shipshavebeenontheexclusivejurisdictionof
the flag state while the other the coastal states have jurisdiction over the ship
whatever the flag is. While the prevention and control of marine pollution is a
universal concern, it nevertheless falls naturally within the category of coastal
states. The general distinction between global and coastal interest is neither
absolutenorallembracing.
DeanCandelaria1213
Ofallpollutantsofthesea,oilhasreceivedthegreatestpublicityinrecentyears.
Large quantities of oil have been regularly dumped into the sea by tankers and
othershipsinthecourseofdeballastingandtankcleaningoperations.
The first efforts to stop pollution by oil discharge was made at a conference in
Washington, however, it failed to achieve ratification. A second conference
convened in London and later became the 1954 London Convention for the
PreventionofPollutionoftheSeabyOilwhichcameintoforcein1958.
The London convention prohibited the intentional discharge of oil and oily
mixturesintotheseawithincertainzonesextendinggenerally50milesfromland.
These zones encompassed both territorial and high seas. Violations of the
convention were made punishable only under the laws of the flag state of the
offendingship,exceptthatthecoastalstateremainedfreetotakeenforcement
actionagainstallshipswithinitsterritorialsea.
In 1958, the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organization (IMCO), a
second conference on oil pollution was held at London in 1962 amending the
1954 convention. The most notable revision was the extension of prohibited
zonesfrom50100milesandareductionoftheclassesofshipsexemptedfrom
thesaidconvention.
The convention was however not without defect. The central defect relates to
enforcement and involves problems of both detection and jurisdiction. For
instance, the detection of a particular oil discharge created posed the
enforcement with great difficulty. A further problem was whether or not a
particular discharge exceeded the limits under the convention. Finally, the
convention does not make compulsory the adoption of techniques and use of
equipmentthatcouldeliminatethedischargeofoil.
The1954LondonConventionandthe1958GenevaConventionsontheHighSeas
on the Continental Shelf were the only multilateral agreements directed to the
problemofoilpollutionuntil1969.The1969BrusselsConferencewasprompted
bythe1967TorreyCanyondisaster.
BrusselsConference
Aspublicinternational,theInternationalConventionRelatingtoInterventionon
the High Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution Casualties was born. The convention
providesthatstatesmaytakesuchmeasureonthehighseasasmaybenecessary
to protect their coastline or related interests from pollution of the sea by oil,
followinguponamaritimecasualtywhichmayreasonablybeexpectedtoresult
inmajorharmfulconsequences.
Suchconventionrelatestooilpollutiononly,whereasCanadaurgedthatitshould
3
2.
Inareportofpanelofexpertsonthedisposalofradioactivewastesinfreshwater
statedthatItisageneralruleofinternationallawthatastatemustnotabuseits
rightsunderinternationallawbyallowingalterationofthenaturalconditionsof
its own territory to the disadvantage of natural conditions of the territory of
anotherstate.
Generalpolicyobjectives:provideimprovedknowledgeformanagement
of the resources of the biosphere, encourage and support to the
planning and management of development to achieve maximum
benefits, assist all countries to deal with their environmental problems
and provide assistance with a view of the enhancement and
preservationoftheenvironment
Particular policy objectives: Anticipate and prevent threat to human
health, detect and prevent serious threats to the health of the ocean,
improve the quality of water for human use, help governments in
improving the quality of life, prevent the loss of productive soil, help
governmentinmanagingforestresources,anticipatedisasters,helpgain
publicawareness
What is required in the new legal order for the seas is a better balance of
interests,abalancebetweenexploitationandconservation,asbetweenfreeseas
and clean seas, as between peaceful uses and strategic considerations, and as
betweencoastalinterestsandflaginterests.
Principle24
9. EuropeanEnvironmentalLaw(MT)
DeanCandelaria1213
Principle13
10. RioDeclarationonEnvironmentandDevelopment(MT)
AdoptedonJune141992
Principle2
States have in accordance with the charter of the UN and the principles of
internationallaw,thesovereignrighttoexploittheirownresourcespursuant
totheirownenvironmentalanddevelopmentpolicies,andtheresponsibility
to ensure activities and within their jurisdiction or control do not cause
damagetotheenvironmentofotherstatesorofareasbeyondthelimitsof
nationaljurisdiction.
Principle14
Principle6
Thespecialsituationandneedsofdevelopingcountries,particularlytheleast
developedandthosemostenvironmentallyvulnerable,shallbegivenspecial
priority. International actions in the field of environment and development
shouldalsoaddresstheinterestsandneedsofallcountries.
D. INTERNATIONALCLAIMS
1. North American Dredging Co. of Texas v. United Mexican
States(MT)
Principle12
States should cooperate to promote supportive and open international
economic system that would lead to economic growth and sustainable
development in all countries, to better address the problems of
environmental degradation. Trade policy measures for environmental
purposes should not constitutes a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable
discriminationoradisguisedrestrictiononinternationaltrade.
DeanCandelaria1213
Statesshallimmediatelynotifyotherstatesofanynaturaldisastersorother
emergencies that are likely to produce sudden harmful effects on the
environmentofthosestates.Everyeffortshallbemadebytheinternational
communitytohelpstatessoafflicted.
Principle18
Principle16
Principle3
Statesshalldevelopnationallawregardingliabilityandcompensationforthe
victims of pollution and other environmental damage. States shall also
cooperate in an expeditious and more determined manner to develop
further international law regarding liability and compensation for adverse
effectsofenvironmentaldamagecausedbyactivitieswithintheirjurisdiction
orcontroltoareasbeyondtheirjurisdiction.
Facts:
beensufferedbyclaimantforbreachesofacontractfordredgingattheport
of Salina Cruz, which contract was entered into between the claimant and
thegovtofMexico(1912).
ThecontractwassignedatMexico.ThegovtofMexicowaspartytoit.Ithad
foritssubjectmatterservicestoberenderedbytheclaimantinMexico.
Art 18 (the basis of contention of this whole case) (also called the Calvo
clause)incorporatedbyMexicoasanindispensibleprovision,notseparable
fromtheotherprovisionsofthecontractswassubscribedtobytheclaimant
forthepurposeofsecuringtheawardofthecontract.
Its translation is as follows: The contractor and all persons who as
employeesorinanyothercapacity,maybeengagedintheexecutionofthe
work under this contract either directly or indirectly shall be considered as
Mexicans in all matters, within the Republic of Mexico, concerning the
execution of such work and the fulfillment of the contract. They shall not
claim, nor shall they have, with regard to the interests of the business
connectedwiththiscontract,anyotherrightsormeanstoenforcethesame
than those granted by the laws of the republic to Mexicans, nor shall they
enjoyanyotherrightsthanthoseestablishedinfavorofMexicans.Theyare
consequentlydeprivedofanyrightsasaliensandundernoconditionsshall
the intervention of foreign diplomatic agents be permitted, in any matter
relatedtothiscontract.
Basically, it says, that the corporation agreed to have no other rights or
meansofenforcementthanthoseconferreduponMexicansandthatunder
no conditions shall the intervention of foreign diplomatic agents be
permittedinanymatterrelatingtothecontract.
2. IntheSubsequentInternationalFisheriesCo.Case(MT)
(NielsensDissent)
Issue&Held:Isthecorporationboundbythecalvoclause?YES
Ratio:
The commission decides that the case as presented is not within its
jurisdictionandmotionoftheMexicanagenttodismississustainedandthe
case is hereby dismissed without prejudiced to the claimant to pursue his
remedieselsewhere
Each case involving application of a valid clause partaking of the nature of
thecalvoclausewillbedecidedonitsownmerits.Whereaclaimisbasedon
DeanCandelaria1213
ThisisadissenttothedecisionmadeintheDredgingcaseoftheUSagainst
Mexico.
The commissions discussion of the restriction on interposition was
characterized by failure of recognition and application of fundamental
principlesoflawwithrespecttoseveralsubjects.Amongthemare:
1. The nature of international law as a law between nations whose
operationisnotcontrolledbyactsofprivateindividuals.
2. The nature of international reclamation as a demand of a govt for
redressfromanothergovtandnotaprivatelitigation.
3. A remarkable confusion between substantive rules of international law
that a nation may invoke in behalf of itself or its nationals against
another nation, and jurisdictional questions before international
6
DeanCandelaria1213
havetheeffecteitherofmakingofmodifyinginternationallawwithrespect
todiplomaticprotection
Except by expatriation a private person can by no act of his own forfeit or
destroy his govts right to protect him. His acts may of course give rise to
considerations of policy which may influence the attitude of his govt with
respecttohisappealforassistance
It was the duty of the commission to give effect to the clearly expressed
intent of article 5 of the arbitration agreement. The intent and clear legal
effect of that article is that claims shall not be dismissed for failure of
claimants to resort to local remedies. Therefore to reject the claim was to
nullify the clear intent and legal effect of provisions by which two govts
stipulated that claims should not be rejected on the ground that there had
notbeenaresorttolegalremedies.Aclaimantsrighttoprotectionfromhis
govtisdeterminedbythelawofthatgovt.
3. TheTattler(USv.GreatBritain)(MT)
Facts:
This is a claim for $2,028 with interest on account of a seizure of the said
schoonerTattleranditsdetentionforsixdaysbytheCanadianauthoritiesin
Liverpool(onchargeofallegedviolationofCanadianfisherieslawsandofthe
treatyof1818betweentheUSandGB)
The owners of the schooner entered into the following undertaking: in
consideration of the release of the American schooner Tattler (on payment
offineof$500)weherebyguaranteehisMajestyKingEdward,hissuccessors
andassignsandallwhomitdoesormayconcern,againstallclaimsmade
ortobemadeonaccountoforinrespecttosuchdetentionherebywaiving
allsuchclaimsandrighttolibelorotherwisebeforeanycourtortribunalin
respecttosaiddetentionortosuchoranysuchclaimsorlossordamagein
thepremises.
Thepaymentwasunderprotest.
Issue:WONtheclaimiswaivable?
HeldandRatio:withrespecttotheYES.WithrespecttotheUSgovtNO.
Ithasbeenobjectedthattherenunciationofandtheguaranteeagainstany
claimsarenotbindinguponthegovtoftheUSwhichpresentstheclaim.
InthiscaseonlytherightoftheUSissupportingisthatofitsnationalwho
waivedhisrightandconsequentlyinpresentingthisclaimbeforethetribunal
itcanrelyonnolegalgroundotherthanthosewhichwouldhavebeenopen
toitsnational.
Forthesereasons,thistribunaldecidesthattheclaimmustbedismissed.
4. ThePanezys(Estoniav.Lithuania)(MT)
Pleasebearwithmethefactsofthecaseinmcraearereallylongandconfusing.
Facts:
In1892,acompanywasfoundedatSt.PetersburgunderthenameFirst
Company of Secondary Railways in Russia. They were allowed to
constructrailwaysundertheirstatutesandanimperialdecree.
Then the Bolshevist revolution took place. Almost immediately
afterwards,adecreeoftheCentralExecutiveCommitteeconcerningthe
nationalization of banks placed in the hands of the Soviet Govt, the
shares, assets and liabilities of companies existing in Russia. Among
thesecompanieswastheFirstCompanyofSecondaryRailways.
Political events them followed: Lithuania proclaimed itself an
independentstate,thesamethinghappenedinEstoniaandsomedays
later, the Treaty of BrestLitovsk between Germany and her allies and
Russia confirmed the abandonment of Russian sovereignty over the
former Baltic provinces and Lithuania which however remained in the
occupationofGermantroops.
Furthermore, the Bolshevist leaders hurried on measures intended to
establish the communist Soviet regime confiscating private property
throughoutRussianterritory.Adecreewaspromulgateddeclaringtobe
the property of the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic all
industrialandcommercialundertakingsinSovietRussiaincludingallthe
undertakings of private and secondary railway companies, whether in
operationorunderconstruction.
Shortlyafterwards asecond Soviet decree was promulgated which was
designed to supplement the preceding decree, particularly with regard
to railways. The boards of former private railways which now became
thepropertyoftheRepublicwereabolishedandreplacedbyasocalled
liquidationcommissionforeachline.
Somemonthslater,athirdSovietdecreewhichprovidesthattheshares
and foundation shared of joint stock companies the undertakings of
DeanCandelaria1213
whichhavebeennationalizedorsequestratedareannulledevenincases
where such undertakings have not yet passed under the control of
governmental boards and where they have been leased to the former
ownersrentfree.
The Lithuanian Govt took possession of the PanevezysSventziany
railwaywhichwassituatedinterritorywhichhadbecomepartofthe
state of Lithuania. Months later,the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet
Republic signed its first treaty with the new Baltic states: the treaty of
TartuwithEstoniasometreatiesfollowedafterbutnotrelevanttothe
case.
Inthepresentcase(sorryforthelongbutnecessarybuildup),theTreaty
of Tartu concluded between the Soviet Republic and Estonia merits
specialattentionforthereasonthat,itcontainsdetailedprovisionsasto
thefateofprivatepropertysituatedinEstonianterritoryparticularlyas
topropertyofjointstockcompanies.
Under Art. 11 of which the meaning and translation are disputed
between the parties, Russia renounces all the rights of the Russian
Treasury to the movable and immovable property of individuals, which
previously did not belong to her, in so far as such property may be
situatedinEstonianterritory.Allsuchpropertybecamethepropertyof
Estonia and was freed from obligations as the date of nationalizing the
banks.
Further, an article supplementary provides that the Russian Govt will
hand over to the Estonian Govt the shares of those joint stock
companieswhichhadundertakingsinEstonianterritory,insofarassuch
shares may be at the disposal of the Russian Govt as a result of the
decree of the Central Executive Committee. But the treaty points out
that the above mentioned shares shall only confer on Estonia rights in
respectofthoseundertakingsofthejointstockcompanieswhichmaybe
situated in Estonian territory and that in no case shall rights of Estonia
extend to undertakings of the same companies outside the confers of
Estonia. The treaty then expressly mentions the First Co. of Secondary
Railwaysasincludedamongstthesejointstockcompanies.
Aftercomingintoforceofthetreaty..theyweredirectedtoholdgeneral
meetingsiftheydidnotdosothenallthepowersoftheboardwouldbe
heldastohavelapsedandthatcuratorsappointedbythecourtswould
undertaketheadministration
8
DeanCandelaria1213
Issue:WONEstioniangovtshouldhavefirstexhausteditsremediesinLithuanian
CourtsandnotautomaticallymoveituptotheICJ?
HeldandRatio:Theyshouldveexhaustedtheirremediesfirst.
tribunals.ThequestionastowhetherornottheLithuaniancourtshave
jurisdictiontoentertainaparticularsuitdependsonLithuanianlawand
isonewhichtheLithuaniancourtsalonecanpronounceafinaldecision.
Until it has been clearly shown that Lithuanian courts have no
jurisdictiontoentertainasuitbytheEsimenecompanyastoitstitleto
the PanevezysSaldutiskis railway, the court cannot accept the
contentionoftheEstionianagentthattheruleastoexhaustionoflocal
remediesdoesnotapply.
Alsotheruleofinternationallawastoexhaustionoflocalremedieshas
neverbeenheldtorequirethataclaimantshouldbeboundtoinstitute
proceedings on a point on which the highest court has already given a
decision.
Important to note that the Estonian Company has not instituted any
legal proceedings before the Lithuanian Courts in order to establish its
titletothePanevezysSaldutikisrailway.
Thecourtthendeclaresthattheobjectionregardingthenonexhaustion
oftheremediesaffordedbymunicipallawiswellfoundedanddeclares
thattheclaimpresentedbytheEstonianGovtcannotbeentertained.
waslaterextraditedtotheU.S.,wherehewasheldataninternmentcampuntil
theendofthewar.AllhispossessionsinGuatemalawereconfiscated.Afterhis
release,helivedouttherestofhislifeinLiechtenstein.
LiechtensteinofferedNottebohmprotectionagainstthe government of
Guatemala and sued Guatemala in the International Court of Justice. Basically,
LiechtensteinissayingthatbecauseofNottebohmsnaturalization,Liechtenstein
isentitledtoclaimfromGuatemalainhisbehalf.
However,thegovernmentofGuatemalaarguedthatNottebohmdidnot
gainLiechtensteincitizenshipforthepurposesofinternationallaw.
ISSUE:
The issue here is the admissibility of Liechtensteins application but in
ordertodeterminethis,thequestionwhichtheICJneedstoansweriswhether
thenationalityconferredonNottebohmbyLiechtensteinthroughnaturalization
canbevalidlyinvokedagainstGuatemala.
HELD:NO
5. NottebohmCase(Liechtensteinv.Guatemala)(RK)
Liechtenstein claims restitution and compensation on the ground that
Guatemala had acted towards the person and property of Mr. Friedrich
Nottebohm (naughty bum), a citizen of Liechtenstein, in a manner contrary to
internationallaw.
FACTS:
NottebohmwasborninGermany,andwasaGermancitizen,althoughh
elivedinGuatemalasince1903,andconductedaprosperousbusinessthere,but
never became acitizen ofGuatemala.In 1939,he appliedto becomea citizenof
Liechtenstein.
Theapplicationwasapprovedeventhougharequirementwasthat he
be in residence there for at least 3 years, but there was an exception and he
becameacitizenofLiechtenstein.
When hetried toreenter Guatemala in1943, he was refused entry
(probably because of his original German citizenship and becauseofWWII).He
DeanCandelaria1213
Basically,foraclaimofaStateinbehalfofanaturalizedcitizentoprosper,
there must be a meaningful connection between the State and the
Naturalizedcitizen.Meaningfulconnectionisaquestionoffactanddecided
onacasetocasebasis.
Thus,theclaimsubmittedbytheGovernmentofthePrincipalityofLiechtenstein
isInadmissible.
DeanCandelaria1213
for
damages
for
the
expropriation
of
corporation.
Overview:
Belgium (P) brought an action for damages against Spain (D) on the
ground that its nationals as shareholders of the Barcelona Traction Co.,
incorporatedandregisteredinCanada,hadbeenseriouslyharmedbyactionsof
Spain(D)resultinginexpropriation.
The Barcelona Traction, Light, and Power Co. was incorporated and
registered in Canada for the purpose of developing and operating electrical
powerinSpain(D).
After the Spanish Civil War, the company was declared bankrupt by a
Spanishcourtanditsassetswereseized.
After the Canadian interposition ceased, Belgium (P) brought an action
for damages against Spain (D) for what it termed expropriation of the assets of
theTractionCo.onthegroundthatalargemajorityofthestockofthecompany
wasownedbyBelgian(P)nationals.
Spain (D) raised the preliminary objection that Belgium (P) lacked
standing to bring suit for damages to a Canadian company.
Issue:
Does the state of the shareholders of a company have a right of
diplomatic protection if the state whose responsibility is invoked is not the
nationalstateofthecompany?
Outcome:
No. In order for a state to bring a claim in respect of the breach of an
obligation owed to it, it must first establish its right to do so. This right is
predicated on a showing that the defendant state has broken an obligation
toward the national state in respect of its nationals. In the present case it is
thereforeessentialtoestablishwhetherthelossesallegedlysufferedbyBelgian
(P)shareholdersinBarcelonaTractionweretheconsequenceoftheviolationof
obligationsofwhichtheyarebeneficiaries.
11
Canadaeventuallydeclaredthecompanybankruptaswell.
BelgiumsuddenlychallengedthelegalityoftheactionofSpanishGovernment
indeclaringthecompanybankruptcausingprejudicetoitscitizens.
Issue:
W/NBelgiumhasjusstandi?NO
Ratio:
Municipal law has always considered that corporations and its stockholders
separate entities. And then International Law has only recognized the
nationalityofthecompanytointerveneonbehalfofit.
The Nationality of the the company is Canadian (it was incorporated there,
and its principal office is there), not Belgian. It is irrelevant that there are
Belgian shareholders. Only Canada can intervene in behalf of the
corporation.Canadahasa'genuineconnection'withthecorporation.
Analysis:
JustbecauseCanadadidnotexercisethis'right',thereisnorationaletoallow
Belgiumtotakeover.Theremustexistalegalbasisforastatetointervenein
behalfofacorporation.
Fortheabovereasons,theCourtisoftheopinionthatBelgium(P)lacks
standingtobringthisaction.
Rule:
8. BancoNacionalDeCubav.Sabbatino(RC)
Topic:ActofStateDoctrine
Facts:
Acompany,CAV(CompaniaAzucareraVertientesCamagueydeCuba)owned
by American citizens was affected by this policy implemented by the
PresidentofCuba.
CAV had previously had a contract to ship sugar to New York. The
contract/sugarwasforciblyexpropriatedCubaandthethebillsofexchange
evidencingthetransactionwasassignedtoBancoNational.
7. BarcelonaTraction:TheJusStandiofBelgium(RC)
Topic:jusstandiofState,NottebohmCaseisinapplicable
Facts:
NottebohmcaseistheonewiththeGermanguywhoappliedforcitizenship
with Liechtenstein to avoid some tax laws in Guatemala. In this case the
"genuine link" theory was applied. (the article calls this case impertinent, I
don'treallygettheconnectionthough,itwasjustmentionedinthearticle)
DeanCandelaria1213
12
WhenthesugararrivedandthebillswerepresentedtoUSbuyer.Thelatter
refusedtopay.SoitwentbeforetheUScourts.
Issue:
W/N the Cuban policy is against the principles of IL? Yeah... but we shouldn't
judge
W/NtheUSCourtscanoverturnsuchpolicyandcompeltheequaltreatmentof
Americans?NO
This law says that the US will withdraw any assistance to foreign governments
whenthey:
nationalize or expropriate or seize ownership of control property owned by US
citizenorcorporationwith50%USownership
takesstepstorepudiateornullifycontractsownedbyUScitizenorcorporation
with50%USownership
Ratio:
***BasicallyexactlywhatCubawiththeCAVcompany.
TheActofStateDoctrinetellsusthateverysovereignstateshouldrespectthe
acts done by another sovereign state within its territory. This is ultimately
rooted in the principle that all states are equal and that they exercise
jurisdiction over their territory. Corollary, the judiciary should not get
involved in questions best answered by executive or legislative prerogative
andarebestaddressedbyforeignpolicy.
Petitioner:AlfredDunhillofLondon,Inc.
DISSENTOFJUSTICEWHITE(Candeincludeditinthereading):
TheUSshouldnotfollowblindlytheActofStateDoctrine.Thereisnorulein
ILthatitshouldstrictlyfollowed.
10. AlfredDunhillv.Cuba(JG)
TOPIC:InternationalClaims;ActofStatedoctrine
96S.Ct.1854(1976),425U.S.682,48L.Ed.2d301
Respondents:RepublicofCuba,etal.
Ponente:White,J.
FACTS:
9. ForeignAssistanceAct(RC)
Theyeartheabovedecisionwaspassed,theUScameupwiththislaw.
Instead of directly addressing the issue, the US basically cut all ties with Cuba
aftertheBancoNationalincident.
DeanCandelaria1213
TheDistrictCourtheldthat:
o Withrespecttotheshipmentsmadeafterthedateofintervention,
the interventors were accordingly entitled to collect from the
importersallamountsdueandunpaid.
o Astotheaccountsowingatthetimeoftheintervention,theformer
ownerswereentitledtocollectthemfromtheimporters.
ThisisbecausetheUnitedStatescourtswillnotgiveeffect
to foreign government confiscations without compensation
ofpropertylocatedintheUnitedStates,andthesitusofthe
accountsreceivablewaswiththeimporterdebtors.
Hence, the importerdebtors had mistakenly paid the sums
ofmoneytotheinterventorsinthebeliefthattheywere
fully discharging trade debts in the ordinary course of their
business.
Sincetherewasamistakeinpaymentbytheimporters,thelatterclaimsthat
theyareentitledtorecoverthesepaymentsfromtheinterventorsbyway
ofcounterclaimandsetoff.
o Theinterventorsclaimthattheirrefusaltopaytheobligationwas
anactofstate,whichshallnotbequestionedinothercourts.
TheDistrictCourtheldthat:
o First,thesitusoftheobligationwasdeemedsituatedintheU.S.and
hence remained unaffected by any confiscatory act by the Cuban
Government.
o Second,nothinghadoccurredwhichqualifiedasanactofstate.
The importers were accordingly held entitled to set off their mistaken
payments to the interventors for preintervention shipments against the
amountsduefromthemfortheirpostinterventionpurchases.
o Faber and Saks, because they owed more than the interventors
wereobligatedtoreturntothemweresatisfiedcompletelybythe
righttosetoff.
o ButDunhillwasentitledtomorefromtheinterventors.
ContrarytotheDistrictCourt,theCourtofAppealswasoftheviewthatthe
mistaken payments by the importers to the interventors gave rise to a
quasicontractualobligationtorepaythesesums.IthadasitusinCuba,and
hadbeenextinguishedbyaconductthatwasdeemedtobeanactofstate.
Hence, the act of state doctrine was said to bar the affirmative judgment
awardedtoDunhilltotheextentthatitsclaimexceededitsdebt.
o Hence,thispetitionforcertiorarifiledbyDunhill.
DeanCandelaria1213
ISSUE/HELD:
WhetherthestatementbycounselfortheRepublicofCubaconstitutedanactof
state. NO. The statement that Dunhill cannot recover mistaken payments by
wayofsetoffisnotanactofstate.
RATIO:
11. ButtesGasandOilCo.v.Hammer(JG)
TOPIC:ActsofState
[1981]3W.L.R.787(H.L.)
Petitioner:ButtesGas&OilCo.andAnother
Respondents:HammerandAnother
FACTS:
Threestates,theEmiratesofSharjah,UmmAlQaiwain(UAQ),andtheState
ofIranareinvolvedinthiscase.
14
TheyarelayingclaimoncertainportionsoftheAbuMisa,whichisaportion
oftheArabianGulf.
o ThewatersoftheArabianGulfarelessthan200metersindepth,and
so potentially have continental shelf status of some coastal state or
states.
o The Gulf contains a number of islands and there may be conflicting
claimswithregardtotheboundarylines.
TwoCalifornianoilexplorationcorporationsweregrantedoilconcessionsin
theGulf.
o One was granted by the ruler of UAQ to Occidental (defendants),
andtheothertoButtes(plaintiffs)bytherulerofSharjah.
o Theareaindisputewasrichinoil.
It is being contended by Occidental and Dr. Hammer (defendants) that the
grant given to Buttes was unlawful since it was by virtue of a backdated
decreemadebytheRulerofSharjah.
o In the decree, it was declared that the territorial sea of Sharjah
would be extended to 12 miles (from an original width of 3 miles)
from the baselines around its coasts and islands, by virtue of
Sharjahsrightsoverthecontinentalshelf.
o This backdated decree allowed the Emirates of Sharjah to obtain
theoilbearingdepositstherefrom.
Occidental and Dr. Hammer allege that Buttes committed conspiracy with
Sharjahandinducedthelattertobackdatethedecreeinordertowrongfully
andfraudulentlymanipulatethegrantingoftheconcessionairetoButtes,to
defraud,cheatandcauseinjurytoOccidental.
Thereafter, UAQ terminated the concession it granted to Occidental, the
latternowhavingnomorerightstoexploitthedeposits.
In an action for damages against Buttes, Occidental alleges that the
agreementsamongthethreestateswhichdeterminedtheirboundariesand
interestsoverthedisputedareaareunlawfulandvoid.
Fortheirpart,ButtesandMr.Boretasubmitthefollowingargumentsthat:
o Thedoctrineofsovereignimmunityapplies,insofarasthisexcludes
actions concerning property which is in the ownership, possession
or control of a foreign sovereign state, or in which a foreign state
claimsaninterest;and
o TheEnglishcourtswillnotentertainactions:
DeanCandelaria1213
ISSUE/HELD:
Whetherornottheactofstatedoctrineapplies,suchthattheEnglishcourtscan
notexercisejurisdictionovertransactionsofforeignsovereignstatesYES.There
existsinEnglishlawamoregeneralprinciplethatthecourtswillnotadjudicate
uponthetransactionsofforeignsovereignstates.
InDukeofBrunswickv.KingofHanoverthecourtheldthattherearetwo
important elements: (1) sovereign immunity ratione personae; and (2)
immunityfromjurisdictionrationemateriae.
o It is the second that is relevant; it clearly states that the courts in
England will not adjudicate upon acts done abroad by virtue of
sovereignauthority.
InUnderhillv.HernandeztheUSSupremeCourtheldthat:
Every sovereign state is bound to respect the independence of every
other sovereign state, and the courts of one country will not sit in
judgmentontheactsofthegovernmentofanotherdonewithinitsown
territory.Redressofgrievancesbyreasonofsuchactsmustbeobtained
through the means open to be availed of by sovereign powers as
betweenthemselves.
15
Itisawellestablishedprincipleoflawthatthetransactionsofindependent
states between each other are governed by other laws than those which
municipalcourtsadminister.(Cookv.Sprigg)
To permit the validity of the acts of one sovereign state to be reexamined
and perhaps condemned by the courts of another would very certainly
imperil the amicable relations between governments and vex the peace of
nations.(Oetjenv.CentralLeatherCo.)
DeanCandelaria1213
16
RESPONSIBILITYOFSTATES
ResponsibilityforActsAffectingIndividuals
1. Marcosv.Manglapus(JG)
Marcosv.Manglapus(I)
Treaties/Laws:
TheUniversalDeclarationofHumanRights
TheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights
The1987Constitution
G.R.No.:88211September15,1989
Petitioner:FerdinandE.Marcos,ImeldaR.Marcos,FerdinandR.Marcos,Jr.,IreneM.
Araneta, Imee Manotoc, Tomas Manotoc, Gregorio Araneta, Pacifico E. Marcos,
Nicanor Yniguez, and Philippine Constitution Association, represented by its
President,ConradoF.Estrella
Respondents: Honorable Raul Manglapus, Catalino Macaraig, Sedfrey Ordonez,
Miriam DefensorSantiago, Fidel Ramos, Renato De Villa, in their capacity as
Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Executive Secretary, Secretary of Justice, Immigration
Commissioner,SecretaryofNationalDefenseandChiefofStaff,respectively
Ponente:Cortes,J.
FACTS:
InFebruary1986,MarcoswasoustedfrompresidencybymeansofthePeople
Power.
o HewasforcedintoexileinHawaii.
After 3 years, Marcos, now dying, prays that he and his family be allowed to
returntothecountry.
Aquino barred the Marcoses from returning due to possible threats and
followingsuperveningevents:
o FailedManilaHotelcoupin1986ledbyMarcosleaders
o Channel7takenoverbyrebelsandloyalists
o PlanofMarcosestoreturnwithmercenariesabroadacharteredplaneofa
Lebanesearmsdealer
o Honasansfailedcoup
o Communistinsurgencymovements
o SecessionistmovementsinMindanao
o Devastatedeconomydueto
Accumulatedforeigndebt
PlunderofnationbyMarcosandhiscronies
Petitioners
1. Filed a petition for mandamus and prohibition to order respondents to
issue them travel documents and prevent implementation of the
PresidentsdecisiontobarMarcosesfromreturning.
2. Arequestioning:
a. IfthepresidenthasthepowertobarthereturnofMarcoses.
i. Theyaskifsuchisapoliticalquestion.
b. Assuming that the President has the power to bar the return of the
Marcoses
i. Is there a clear and present danger to national security, public
safetyorpublichealth?
ii. Ifso,wastheredueprocess?
iii. Is the Presidents determination (that the return of former
PresidentMarcosandhisfamilyisaclearandpresentdangerto
national security, public safety or public health) a political
question?
iv. HavetherespondentsestablishedthattheCourtmayinquireas
towhetherthereturnofformerPresidentMarcosandhisfamily
isaclearandpresentdangertonationalsecurity,publicsafetyor
publichealth?
3. Areclaimingthat:
a. Such act deprives them of their right to life, liberty, and property
withoutdueprocessandequalprotectionofthelaws.
b. Such act deprives them of their right to travel, which according to
Constitutionmayonlybeimpairedbyacourtorder.
c. Eveninternationallawsprovidefortheirrighttoreturn.
i. TheUniversalDeclarationofHumanRightsprovide:
1. Therighttofreedomofmovementandresidencewithin
thebordersofeachstate;
2. Therighttoleaveanycountry,includinghisown,andto
returntohiscountry.
ii. TheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRightsprovide:
1. The right to liberty, movement, and freedom to choose
hisresidence;
2. The right to be free to leave any country, including his
own
3. That these shall not be subject to any restrictions except
those which are provided by law and are necessary to
protect national security, public order, public health or
Fortheirpart,therespondentsclaimthat
1. Thequestionofwhetherornotpetitionershavetherighttoreturnto
the Philippines and reside therein is a political question which also
involves the States right to security and safety, and which only the
Presidentcandetermine.
2. Thesuperveningeventsmentionedcanendangernationalsecurityand
publicsafety.
3. Article II of the Constitution provides that the State has the duty to
maintainpeaceandorderandprotectrightsofthepeopleandpromote
thegeneralwelfarefortheenjoymentbyallthepeopleoftheblessings
ofdemocracy.
1.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
3.
ISSUES/HELD:
1.
2.
Whether or not the right to travel is similar to the right to return to ones
countryNO
a. International laws distinguish the right to freedom of movement and
residence from the right to leave any country including his own and to
returntohiscountry.
b. TherighttoreturntoonescountryisnotguaranteedbytheBillofRights
but only incorporated by virtue of the Constitutions adoption of
internationallawsaspartofthelawsoftheland.
Whether it is within the Presidents power to ban deposed dictators from
returningtothecountry.YES
a. Separationofpowerdictatesthateachdepartmenthasexclusivepowers.
b. AlthoughtheConstitutionprovidesforthetasksofthepresident,thislistis
notexclusive.
i. There are residual and discretionary powers not stated in the
Constitutionwhichincludethepowertoprotectthegeneralwelfareof
thepeople.
ii. As the head of the State, the President is obliged to protect the
people,promotetheirwelfare,andadvancenationalinterest.(Art.II,
Secs.45oftheConstitution).
iii. Residualpowersdictatethat
Whether the President in banning the deposed dictator from returning acted
withgraveabuseofdiscretionamountingtolackorexcessofjurisdictionNO
a. There exists factual bases from the pleadings filed by the parties, from
their oral arguments, and the facts revealed during the briefing in
chambers by the Chief of Staff of the AFP and the National Security
Adviser,forthePresidenttoconcludethatitwasinthenationalinterestto
barthereturnoftheMarcosestothePhilippines.
b. It is the duty of the President to take preemptive measures for the self
preservationofthecountryandprotectionofthepeople.
DISPOSITIVE:Wherefore,thePresidentdidnotactarbitrarilyorwithgraveabuseof
discretionindeterminingthatthereturnofformerPresidentMarcosandhisfamily
at the present time and under present circumstances poses a serious threat to
national interest and welfare and in prohibiting their return to the Philippines.
PetitionisDismissed.
MARCOSv.MANGLAPUS(II)
Treaties/Laws:
TheUniversalDeclarationofHumanRights
TheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights
The1987Constitution
G.R.No.:88211October27,1989
Petitioner:FerdinandE.Marcos,ImeldaR.Marcos,FerdinandR.Marcos,Jr.,IreneM.
Araneta, Imee Manotoc, Tomas Manotoc, Gregorio Araneta, Pacifico E. Marcos,
Nicanor Yniguez, and Philippine Constitution Association, represented by its
President,ConradoF.Estrella
b.
c.
d.
FACTS:
InSeptember28,1989,MarcosdiedinHonolulu.
Aquino made a statement to the effect that the remains of Marcos will not be
allowedtobebroughttothecountryintheinterestofthesafetyofthosewho
willreactconflictinglytothedeathofMarcosandforthetranquilityofthestate
andorderofthesociety.
This will hold until the government, whether present or succeeding, decides
otherwise.
On October 2, 1989, petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the
followingarguments:
o Barringtheirreturnwoulddenythemtheirinherentrightascitizensto
return to their country of birth and all other rights guaranteed by the
ConstitutiontoallFilipinos
o The President has no power to bar a Filipino from his own country; if
shehas,sheactedarbitrarily.
o Thereisnobasisforbarringtheirreturn.
3.
Thepetitionersfailedtoshowanycompellingreasontowarrantreconsideration.
ThedeathofMarcos,althoughitmaybeviewedasasuperveningevent,hasnot
changedfactualscenarioduringthetimetheCourtrendereditsdecision.
a. Thethreatstothegovernmentarestillpresent.
b. Mrs. Marcos even made a statement claiming that it is Mr. Marcos, not
Mrs.Aquino,whoisthelegalPresidentofthePhilippines,anddeclared
thatthemattershouldbebroughttoallcourtsoftheworld.
ThePresidenthasunstatedresidualpowersimpliedformthegrantofexecutive
power.
a. Enumerations are merely for specifying principal articles implied in the
definition, leaving the rest to flow from the general grant of executive
DISPOSITIVE:MotionforReconsiderationisdeniedforlackofmerit.
DeanCandesnotes:
Application of the UDHR and ICCPR on the right to return of the Marcoses form
Hawaii even if the Bill of Rights did not specify this right. However, the Court held
that the GRP did not act arbitrarily in determining that the return of the Marcoses
underthecircumstancesthenexistingposedaseriousthreattonationalinterestand
welfare.
2. ISAvQuisumbing(CG)
Topic:Discrimination
Petitioner:INTERNATIONALSCHOOLALLIANCEOFEDUCATORS(ISAE)
Respondents: HON. LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING in his capacity as the Secretary of
LaborandEmployment;HON.CRESENCIANOB.TRAJANOinhiscapacityastheActing
Secretary of Labor and Employment; DR. BRIAN MACCAULEY in his capacity as the
Superintendent of International SchoolManila; and INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL,
INC.,respondents.
Summary: IS pays its teachers who are foreignhires, a higher salary than its local
hires, whether the latter are Filipino or not (most are Filipino, but some are
American). It justifies this under the dislocation factor to attract them to teach
here,andtocompensatethemforthesignificanteconomicdisadvantagesinvolved
in coming here. The Teachers Union cries discrimination. Court held that it is
actually discriminatory and the classification was not a reasonable one. Even
according to international law, there must be equal pay for equal work. And it
cannot be said that they are given higher salaries to entice them or compensate
them for their dislocation or limited tenure because they already enjoy benefits
(housing,etc.)notbeingenjoyedbylocalhires.
TheActingSecretaryofLaborfoundthatthesenonFilipinolocalhiresreceived
thesamebenefitsastheFilipinolocalhires:Thecompensationpackagegivento
localhireshasbeenshowntoapplytoall,regardlessofrace.Truthtotell,there
areforeignerswhohavebeenhiredlocallyandwhoarepaidequallyasFilipino
localhires.
TheActingSecretaryupheldthepointofhireclassificationforthedistinctionin
salaryratesforthesamereasonsISgave.
HealsosaidthattheEqualProtectionClauseiscannotbeinvokedastherewasa
reasonable classification based on substantial distinctions and that it applies
equallytoallmembersofthesameclass
Facts:
The same decree authorizes IS to employ its own teaching and management
personnelselectedbyiteitherlocallyorabroad
Such personnel being exempt from otherwise applicable laws and regulations
attendingtheiremployment,exceptlawsthathavebeenorwillbeenactedfor
theprotectionofemployees
Issue: WON the act of giving more salaries foreignhires than the localhires cry
discriminationYES
Accordingly, IS hires both foreign and local teachers as members of its faculty,
classifyingintoforeignorlocalhires
Ruling:
TheSchoolgrantsforeignhirescertainbenefitsnotaccordedlocalhires.These
include housing, transportation, shipping costs, taxes, and home leave travel
allowance. Foreignhires are also paid a salary rate twentyfive percent (25%)
morethanlocalhires.
TheConstitution
Article on Social Justice and Human Rights exhorts Congress to "give highest
prioritytotheenactmentofmeasuresthatprotectandenhancetherightofall
peopletohumandignity,reducesocial,economic,andpoliticalinequalities."
TheSchooljustifiesthedifferenceontwo"significanteconomicdisadvantages"
foreignhireshavetoendure,namely:(a)the"dislocationfactor"and(b)limited
tenure.
When negotiations for a new CBA were held on June 1995, IS Alliance of
Educators (ISAE), a legitimate labor union and the collective bargaining
representative of all faculty membersof IS, contested the difference in salary
rates,whicheventuallycausedadeadlockbetweentheparties
ThefailureoftheNationalConciliationandMediationBoardtobringtheparties
toacompromisepromptedthe(DOLE)toassumejurisdictionoverthedispute
Thereafter, the DOLE Acting Secretary, Trajano, issued an Order resolving the
parityandrepresentationissuesinfavorofIS
Similarly, the Labor Codeprovides that the State shall "ensure equal work
opportunitiesregardlessofsex,raceorcreed."
TheSchooldisputestheseclaimsandgivesabreakdownofitsfacultymembers,
numbering38inall,withnationalitiesotherthanFilipino,whohavebeenhired
locallyandclassifiedaslocalhires.
TheCivilCode
The very broad Article 19 of the Civil Code requires every person, "in the
exerciseofhisrightsandintheperformanceofhisduties,[to]actwithjustice,
giveeveryonehisdue,andobservehonestyandgoodfaith."
LaborCode
Article248declaresitanunfairlaborpracticeforanemployertodiscriminatein
regard to wages in order to encourage or discourage membership in any labor
organization.
TheSchoolcannotinvoketheneedtoenticeforeignhirestoleavetheirdomicile
to rationalize the distinction in salary rates without violating the principle of
equalworkforequalpay.
The dislocation factor and limited tenure affecting foreignhires are already
adequately compensated by certain benefits accorded them which are not
enjoyedbylocalhires,suchashousing,transportation,shippingcosts,taxesand
homeleavetravelallowances.
These relations are not merely contractual but are so impressed with public
interest that labor contracts, collective bargaining agreements included, must
yieldtothecommongood
InternationalLaw
Generalprinciplesoflawincludeprinciplesofequity,i.e.,thegeneralprinciples
offairnessandjustice,basedonthetestofwhatisreasonable.
WHEREFORE,thepetitionisGIVENDUECOURSE.ThepetitionisherebyGRANTEDIN
PART. The Orders of the Secretary of Labor and Employment dated June 10, 1996
andMarch19,1997,areherebyREVERSEDandSETASIDEinsofarastheyupholdthe
practice of respondent School of according foreignhires higher salaries than local
hires.
3. RepublicvSB(RL)
a.....Remunerationwhichprovidesallworkers,asaminimum,with:
i.....Fair wages and equal remuneration for work of equal value
without distinction of any kind, in particular women being
guaranteed conditions of work not inferior to those enjoyed by
men,withequalpayforequalwork;
xxx.
Theforegoingprovisionsimpregnablyinstitutionalizeinthisjurisdictionthelong
honored legal truism of "equal pay for equal work." Persons who work with
substantially equal qualifications, skill, effort and responsibility, under similar
conditions,shouldbepaidsimilarsalaries.
ThisruleappliestotheSchool,its"internationalcharacter"notwithstanding.
Thereisnoevidenceproved,astotheirdefense,thatforeignhiresperform25%
moreefficientlyoreffectivelythanthelocalhires.
Both groups have similar functions and responsibilities, which they perform
undersimilarworkingconditions.
TOPIC:RightsoftheFilipinosareprotectedunderILduringtheinterregnumperiod.
[G.R.No.104768.July21,2003]
Petitioner:RepublicofthePhilippines
Respondent: Sandiganbayan, Major General Josephus Q. Ramas and Elizabeth
Dimaano
Ponente:CARPIO,J.:
SUMMARY:
AftertheEDSARevolution,Pres.AquinocreatedthePCGG,whichthereafter
created an AFP AntiGraft Board. It investigated various reports of alleged
unexplainedwealthofMaj.Gen.Ramas.Asearchwarrantwasissuedwhichallowed
the authorities to seize items (equipments, money, etc) from Dimaanos house in
Batangas (alleged mistress of Ramas). The PCGG then filed a case in the SB against
RamasandDimaanoforviolationoftheAntiGraftandCorruptPracticesAct.Ramas
andDimaanofiledtheirMTDbasedonRepublicv.Migrino,whichheldthatthePCGG
doesnothavejurisdictiontoinvestigateandprosecutemilitaryofficersbyreasonof
mere position held without a showing that they are subordinates of Marcos. SB
dismissedthecomplaintbutorderedthatthemonies,equipmentetcbereturnedto
Dimaano. It remanded the case to the OMB for appropriate action. PCGG argues
(amongothers)thatthesearchandseizurewaslegalbecausethetwocannotinvoke
theirexclusionaryright,astherewasnoBillofRightsorConstitutioninforceatthe
timeoftheseizure.
The SC held that the ICCPR and the UNDHR remained in force during the
interregnum period. The revolutionary government did not repudiate such
obligations of the Philippines; hence, the respondents rights are protected under
these treaties. Furthermore, the authorities exceeded their authority by seizing
items,whichwerenotparticularlydescribedinthewarrant.
FACTS:(oksnayungsummaryforfacts)
Pres.CoryAquinoissuedEO1creatingthePCGG.
o PCGG is primarily tasked to recover all illgotten wealth of former
Marcos,hisfamilyandcronies.
The PCGG, through Chairman Salonga, created an AFP AntiGraft Board (AFP
Board) tasked to investigate reports of unexplained wealth and corrupt
practicesbyAFPpersonnel,whetherintheactiveserviceorretired.
The AFP Board investigated various reports of alleged unexplained wealth of
respondentMajorGeneralRamas(Ramas).
It issued a Resolution on its findings and recommendation on the reported
unexplained wealth of Ramas, and concluded that a prima facie case exists
against him. It further recommended that he be tried for the violation of the
AntiGraftandCorruptPracticesAct(RA1379).
Someofthefindingsstatedintheresolution:
o HeownsahouseinLaVistaworthP700,000.
o Military equipment/items and communication facilities were found in
the premises of Elizabeth Dimaanos (his alleged mistress, as stated in
theaffidavitsofcertainMilitaryUnits)houseinBatangas.
o The team was also able to confiscate money in the amount of
P2,870,000.00 and $50,000 US Dollars in the house of Elizabeth
Dimaano.
o Sworn statement disclosed that Elizabeth Dimaano had no visible
means of income and is supported by Ramas for she was formerly a
meresecretary.
o Takingintototheevidence,ElizabethDimaanocouldnothaveusedthe
itemsseizedinherhousewithouttheconsentofrespondentasgeneral
oftheAFP.
It is also impossible for Elizabeth Dimaano to claim that she owns the
themoneyforshehadnovisiblesourceofincome.
o ThemoneywasneverdeclaredintheSALNofRamasastheseareallill
gottenandunexplainedwealth.
Thus,PCGGfiledapetitionforforfeitureunderRA1379againstRamas.
BeforeRamascouldanswerthepetition,thenSolGenChavezfiledanAmended
ComplaintnamingtheRepublicofthePhilippines,representedbythePCGG,as
plaintiff and Ramas as defendant. It also impleaded Elizabeth Dimaano
(Dimaano)ascodefendant.
o xxx alleged that Ramas acquired funds, assets and properties
manifestly out of proportion to his salary as an army officer and his
other income from legitimately acquired property by taking undue
advantage of his public office and/or using his power, authority and
influence as such officer of the AFP and as a subordinate and close
associateofthedeposedPresidentFerdinandMarcos.
It also alleged that the AFP Board found reasonable grounds to believe such
allegation and prayed for the forfeiture of Ramas properties, funds and
equipmentinfavoroftheState.
RamasfiledanAnswercontendingthathispropertyconsistedonlyofahousein
La Vista. He denied ownership of any mansion in Cebu City and the cash,
communications equipment and other items confiscated from the house of
Dimaano.
DimaanofiledherownAnsweradmittingheremploymentasaclerktypistinthe
office of Ramas and claimed ownership of the monies, communications
equipment,etcseizedfromherhouse.
ThecasewassetfortrialbyNovemberof1988.
Petitionerfromthenonstartedaskinfordefgermentofhearingduetoitslackof
preparation,absenceofwitnessesanddocuments,amongotherreasons.On
o SB noted that petitioner had already delayed the case for over a year
mainlybecauseofitsmanypostponements.
Ramas and Dimaano eventually filed their MTD based on Republic v. Migrino
which held that the PCGG does not have jurisdiction to investigate and
prosecute military officers by reason of mere position held without a showing
thattheyaresubordinatesofMarcos.
SB dismissed the complaint but ordered that the monies, equipment etc be
returnedtoDimaano.ItremandedthecasetotheOMBforappropriateaction.
AMRwasfiledbutthesamewasdismissed.
o
ISSUES:
st
rd
3 ISSUE(IMPT!):W/NtheSearchandSeizurewaslegalNOTLEGAL.
nd
Based on the findings of the SB and the records of this case, the SC finds that
petitionerhasonlyitselftoblamefornoncompletionofthepresentationofits
evidence.
The Sandiganbayan gave petitioner more than sufficient time to finish the
presentationofitsevidence.Itoverlookedpetitionersdelaysandyetpetitioner
Petitioner wants the Court to take judicial notice that the raiding team
conductedthesearchandseizurefivedaysafterthesuccessfulEDSArevolution.
o It argues that a revolutionary government was operative at that time
and asserts that the revolutionary government effectively withheld
the operation of the 1973 Constitution which guaranteed private
respondentsexclusionaryright.
o It also argues that the exclusionary right arising from an illegal search
applies only beginning 2 February 1987, the date of ratification of the
1987Constitution.
o Petitioner contends that all rights under the Bill of Rights had already
revertedtoitsembryonicstageatthetimeofthesearch.
o Therefore,thegovernmentmayconfiscatethemoniesanditemstaken
from Dimaano and use the same in evidence against her since at the
time of their seizure, private respondents did not enjoy any
constitutionalright.
SC:Petitionerispartlyrightinitsarguments.
The resulting government was indisputably a revolutionary government bound
by no constitution or legal limitations except treaty obligations that the
revolutionary government, as the de jure government in the Philippines,
assumedunderinternationallaw.
Thecorrectissuesare:
o W/NtherevolutionarygovernmentwasboundbytheBillofRightsof
the1973Constitutionduringtheinterregnum;and
o W/N the protection accorded to individuals under the International
CovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights(Covenant)andtheUniversal
DeclarationofHumanRights(Declaration)remainedineffectduring
theinterregnum.
SC:theBillofRightsunderthe1973ConstitutionwasNOToperativeduringthe
interregnum.
o However,the protection accorded to individuals under the Covenant
andtheDeclarationREMAINEDINEFFECTduringtheinterregnum.
DISPOSITIVE:WHEREFORE,thepetitionforcertiorariisDISMISSED.Thequestioned
Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan, remanding the records of this case to the
Ombudsmanforsuchappropriateactionastheevidencemaywarrant,andreferring
thiscasetotheCommissioneroftheBureauofInternalRevenueforadetermination
ofanytaxliabilityofrespondentElizabethDimaano,areAFFIRMED.
4. CBEmployeesvBSP(EM)
CentralBankEmployeesAssociation,petitioner
BangkoSentralngPilipinas,andtheExecutiveSecretary,respondents
December15,2004G.R.148208
Puno,J.:
RA7653(TheNewCentralBankAct)tookeffectin1993
o Created the new BSP and abolished the old Central Bank of the
Philippines
In 2001, petitioner CB Employees Association filed a petition against herein
respondentstorestrainthemfromfurtherimplementingthelastprovisionin
Sec.15(c),Art.IIofthislaw
o "..The compensation and wage structure of employees whose positions
fall under salary grade 19 and below shall be in accordance with the
ratesprescribedbyRA6758."
o Theyallegedthatitisunconstitutional
Hestatedthattherewas"actualandrealdifferentiation"
Issue:WONtheprovisoinissueviolatestheEqualProtectionClause
Held:YES
Facts:
TheSG,onbehalfoftheExecutiveSecretary,alsodefendsthevalidityof
theprovision
Ratio:
1.
OnLocalLaw
They argue that this violates the EPC, a classic case of class
legislationwithnosubstantialdistinctions
Theconceptof"relativeconstitutionality"
TheEqualProtectionClause
Theirsubarguments
Suchprovisowasnotintendedbytheoriginalframersofthelaw
Enactmentofthelawsexemptingrankandfileemployeesofthe
GSIS, LBP, DBP, and SSS, etc. from the coverage of the SSL made
theprovisoviolativeoftheEPC
GSIS, LBP, DBP, and SSS employees are ALL exempt from the
coverage of the SSL; As such, the rankandfile employees of CB
arediscriminatedupon
Whilesuchexemptionisaprivilege,itbeinggrantedtoothersand
not to the employees in this case is clearly arbitrary and
unreasonable
ResponseofRespondentBSP
o They argue that the proviso is constitutional if construed in harmony
with the other provisions of the same law such as the "fiscal and
administrativeautonomy"oftheBSP
TheDefenseoftheSolicitorGeneral
OnEqualProtectionundertheInternationalLens
U.S.Jurisprudencehasgonebeyondthestatic"rationalbasistest"
Meanshadtobeshown"necessarytoachievestatutoryends"and
not"merelyreasonablyrelated"
extendstoeconomic,social,andculturalrightsundertheICESCR(e.g.
Righttosocialsecurity)
Art.7oftheICESCRguaranteestherightofeveryonetotheenjoyment
of just and [favorable] conditions of work, which ensures, among
others,
OnEqualProtectioninEurope
OnEqualityunderInternationalLaw
Aclassificationmaybestruckdownifitspurposeoreffectviolates
therighttoequalprotection
"..ifthechallengetothestatuteispremisedonthedenialofafundamental
humanrights,ortheperpetuationofprejudiceagainstpersonsfavoredbythe
Constitutionwithspecialprotection,judicialscrutinyoughttobemorestrict"
Thefollowingconventionsprohibitdiscrimination
InternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights(ICCPR)
Thisclassificationinthiscaseisakintoadistinctionbasedoneconomic
classandstatus
ConventionontheRightsoftheChild(CRC)
5. SecofNatlDefensev.Manalo(NO)
Equalityisalsoenshrinedinalotofregionalinstruments
Petitioner:SecretaryofNationalDefense;Chiefofstaff,AFP
Defense;Chiefofstaff,AFP
Ponente:CJPuno
The United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) held that the
provisions on nondiscrimination in the ICCPR go beyond the rights in
the Covenant but also to other civil and political rights, and even
Facts:
Respondent:RaymondandReynaldoManalo
G.R.No.180906/7October2008
CADecisionbeingappealed
1.
TheManalobrothersfiled,on23August2007,aPetitionforProhibition,
Injunction,andTemporaryRestrainingOrder(TRO)againstpetitionersand
theirofficersfromdeprivingthemoftheirrighttolibertyandotherbasic
rights.
TheWritofAmparowasapprovedonAug24,2007andpetitioners
filedMotiontoTreatExistingPetitionasAmparoPetition.
2.
TheCArenderedadecisioninfavoroftheManalobrothersandorderedthe
currentpetitionersto:
TofurnishtheManalosandCAofallofficialandunofficialreports
oftheinvestigationundertakeninconnectionwiththeircase,
exceptthosealreadyonfile.
Toconfirminwritingthepresentplacesofofficialassignmentof
M/SgtHilarioakaRollieCastilloandDonaldCaigas
TocausetobeproducedtothisCourtallmedicalreports,records
andcharts,reportsofanytreatmentgivenorrecommendedand
medicinesprescribed,ifany,tothepetitioners,toincludealistof
medicaland(sic)personnel(militaryandcivilian)whoattendedto
themfromFebruary14,2006untilAugust12,2007withinfivedays
fromnoticeofthisdecision.
Itonatalaga
Feb.14,2006RaymondandReynaldoManalo,brothersand
hereinrespondents,wereabductedbyelementsofthemilitary
(AFPandCitizenArmedForceGeographicalUnitorCAFGU)from
theirhouseinBuholnaMangga,SanIldefonso,Bulacan.
TheabductorswerelookingforacertainBestre.Manalobrotherswere
suspectedofbeingmembersoftheNPA
ThewhiteL300vanwasdrivenbyM/Sgt.RizalHilarioakaRollieCastillo
Thebrotherswererepeatedlybeatenandtorturedandquestionedabout
theirknowledgeoftheNPA.
Sometimeinthethirdweekofdetention,Raymondattemptedto
escape.HediscoveredthattheywereinFortMagsaysay(Palayan,
NuevaEcija).Hewashoweverrecapturedandtortured.Detention
inFortMagsaysaylastedfor3andahalfmonths.
Oneday,RizalHilariotooktheManalobrotherstoPinaud,San
Ildefonso,Bulacanandthenbeatenup.Theyremainedtherefor
oneortwoweeks.
ThenbroughttoSapang,SanMiguel,BulacantomeetMaj.Gen.
JovitoPalparan,CommandingGeneral,7thInfantryDivision.
o Gen.PalparantoldtheManalobrothertotelltheirparents
tonotgotoralliesandhearingsregardingtheir
disappearance.Instead,theyshouldhelpinthecaptureof
Bestre.
o Respondentswerethenbroughttotheirparentshouseto
deliverPalparansmessage.Theirparentsagreedoutof
fear.
ManalobrothersweregivenmedicinenamedAlive.Gen.Palparansaid
thatthiswouldmakethemfeelbetter,buttherealeffectwasdrowsiness
andaheavyfeelingafterwakingup.
After3monthsinSapang,RaymondwasbroughttoCampTecson.Hewas
orderedtocleanoutsidethebarracksoftheArmyRangers.
o MetSherlynCadapan,aUPstudentwhowasalsoabducted,
torturedandrapedbythemilitary.
ReynaldowasbroughttoCampTecsonaweeklater.Othercaptives(Karen
EmpeoandManuelMerino)alsoarrived.
o Allthecaptiveswerechainedeverynight.Theyweretoldthattheir
familieswouldbekillediftheyescaped.
o Cadapan,EmpeoandMerinowouldlateronbekilled.Merino
wouldevenbeburned.
o November22,2006thecaptivesweretransferredtoacampof
the24thInfantryBattalioninLimay,Bataan.Theywerecontinually
beatenandmadetodochores.
o Here,respondentswitnessedhowsoldierskilledanoldman
suspectedofharboringtheNPAandalsoofanAetawhowas
subsequentlyburned.
ThecaptiveswerethenbroughttoZambales,inasafehousenearthesea.
TheywerebroughtbacktoLimayonJune2007byCaigas,thecommander
ofthe24thInfantryBattalion.
June13,2007RespondentswerebroughttoPangasinantofarmtheland
ofCaigas.Here,theystartedtosavetheirearningstoaidintheirescape.
Whentheysaved1000pesos,theywereabletoacquireacellphone.
August13,2007ReynaldoandRaymondManalowereabletoescapeand
boardabusboundforManila.
Therespondentswereabletocorroborateeachothersaffidavits.
Dr.BenitoMolinoalsocorroboratedtheaccountsoftheManalobrothers.
Hespecializesinforensicmedicine.Heconductedamedicalexamonthe
respondents
Aftertheirescape.Thescarsandwoundsofrespondentswereconsistent
withtheiraccountofphysicalinjuriesinflictedonthem.Hefollowedthe
IstanbulProtocolinthemedicalexam.
Petitionersalsosubmittedaffidavits
Gen.PalparanandM/Sgt.Hilariofiledtheiraffidavitslate.
Lt.Col.RubenJimenez,ProvostMarshallandwitnessforthepetitioner,
conductedaninvestigationonMay29,2006,from8amto10pm.
All6persons(CAFGUmembers)implicatedintheabductiondeniedthe
allegation.Theyhadalibis(somewerebuildingachapel,somewerejustat
home)
DiscoveredthatKaBestreisactuallyRolandoManalo,elderbrotherof
therespondents.
Recommendationwasforthedismissalofthecase.
Issue:
WONtheprivilegeofthewritofamparowasproperlygiven
Dispositive:Petitiondismissed.CAdecisionreaffirmed.
AmparoliterallymeansprotectioninSpanish
o Amparothuscombinestheprinciplesofjudicialreviewderived
fromtheU.S.withthelimitationsonjudicialpowercharacteristicof
thecivillawtraditionwhichprevailsinMexico.
o Itenablescourtstoenforcetheconstitutionbyprotecting
individualrightsinparticularcases,butpreventsthemfromusing
thispowertomakelawfortheentirenation
Thisconceptevolvedintothe(1)amparolibertadfortheprotectionof
personalfreedom,equivalenttothehabeascorpuswrit;(2)amparocontra
leyesforthejudicialreviewoftheconstitutionalityofstatutes;(3)amparo
casacionforthejudicialreviewoftheconstitutionalityandlegalityofa
judicialdecision;(4)amparoadministrativoforthejudicialreviewof
administrativeactions;and(5)amparoagrariofortheprotectionof
peasantsrightsderivedfromtheagrarianreformprocess
InLatinAmericancountries,exceptCuba,thewritofamparohasbeen
constitutionallyadoptedtoprotectagainsthumanrightsabusesespecially
committedincountriesundermilitaryjuntas.
InthePhilippines,whilethe1987Constitutiondoesnotexplicitlyprovidefor
thewritofamparo,severaloftheaboveamparoprotectionsare
guaranteedbyourcharter.ThesecondparagraphofArticleVIII,Section1
ofthe1987Constitution,theGraveAbuseClause,providesforthejudicial
powertodeterminewhetherornottherehasbeenagraveabuseof
discretionamountingtolackorexcessofjurisdictiononthepartofany
branchorinstrumentalityoftheGovernment.TheClauseaccordsasimilar
generalprotectiontohumanrightsextendedbytheamparocontraleyes,
amparocasacion,andamparoadministrativo.Amparolibertadis
comparabletotheremedyofhabeascorpusfoundinseveralprovisionsof
the1987Constitution.
Held:
Wasthegrantproper?YES
HistoryoftheAmparoRule
PromulgatedinOctober24,2007.FirsttimethattheSupremeCourt
exerciseditsexpandedpowerinthe1987Constitutiontopromulgaterules
toprotectthepeoplesconstitutionalrights(life,liberty,property)
Coverageofwhichisconfinedto:
TheadoptionoftheAmparoRuleisaresultofthetwodayNational
ConsultativeSummitonExtrajudicialKillingsandEnforcedDisappearances
sponsoredbytheCourtonJuly1617,2007.
o ItwasanexerciseforthefirsttimeoftheCourtsexpandedpower
topromulgaterulestoprotectourpeoplesconstitutionalrights
Extralegalkillingskillingscommittedwithoutdueprocessofthe
law
Enforceddisappearancesanarrest,detentionorabductionbythe
government;refusaloftheStatetodisclosethefateor
whereaboutsplaceshimoutsidetheprotectionofthelaw
Itconstitutesaninvasionofbothbodilyandpsychological
integrity as the dignity of the human person includes the
exerciseoffreewill
AmparoliterallymeansprotectioninSpanish.WritofAmparooriginated
inMexico(YucatanState).EventuallyincorporatedintotheMexican
Constitutionin1847.SpreadacrosstheWesternhemisphereandeventually
tothePhilippines.
Note:Theconstialsoguaranteesagainsttorture
Providesforswiftreliefbecauseofthesummarynatureofitsproceedings.
Onlysubstantialevidenceisrequired.
There is still a threat to the life, liberty, and a violation of their right to
securityoftheManalobrothersbecausetheircaptors,whomtheyescaped
from,stillremainatlarge.
o
RighttosecurityisinArt.III,Sec.2ofthe1987Constitution.
Itistherighttoenjoymentoflife.
GuaranteeofprotectionofonesrightbytheGovernment
Thewritofamparo,thisrightisbuiltintotheguarantees
oftherighttolifeandlibertyunderArticleIII,Section1of
the1987Constitutionandtherighttosecurityofperson
underArticleIII,Section2.
Righttosecurityofpersonscanexistindependentlyofthe
right to liberty. (the court cited several cases here,
Delgado Paez v. Colombia; Bwaya v. Zambia; Bahamonde
v.EquatorialGuinea)
Threewaysofexercisingrighttosecurity:
o
Freedomfromfear.
Everyonehastherighttolife,libertyandsecurity
ofperson.
Itistherighttosecurityofpersonastheword
securityitselfmeansfreedomfromfear.
InternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights(ICCPR),
Art.9(1)
Freedomfromfearistherightandanythreattothe
rights to life, liberty or security is the actionable
wrong.Fearisastateofmind,areaction;threatisa
stimulus,acauseofaction.(PHisasignatorytoboth
conventions)
o
Guaranteeofbodilyandpsychologicalintegrityorsecurity.
ELKsandEDsinvolvePhysicaltorture,force,andviolence
areasevereinvasionofbodilyintegrity.
The continuing threat on the life of the Manalo brothers is apparent. This
threat vitiates their free will because they are forced to limit their
movements and activities. Threats to liberty, security, and life are
actionablethroughapetitionforawritofamparo.
The military failed to provide protection for the respondents. They were
even the ones who actually tortured them. The oneday investigation
conductedbyJimenezwaslimited,superficialandonesided.
Insum,weconcludethatrespondentsrighttosecurityasfreedomfrom
threatisviolatedbytheapparentthreattotheirlife,libertyandsecurityof
person. Their right to security as a guarantee of protection by the
government is likewise violated by the ineffective investigation and
protectiononthepartofthemilitary.
6. Reyesv.CA(MT)
Facts:
Thiscaseisapetitionforreviewoncertiorariofthedecisionandresolutionof
thecourtofappeals.
Nov30,2007petitionerwasamongthosearrestedintheManilaPeninsulaHotel
siege. Petitioner among with 50 others were brought to Camp Crame to await
inquestproceedings.
Dec12007uponrequestoftheDILG,respondentDOJSecRaulGonzalesissued
a Hold Departure Order (HDO) No. 45 ordering respondent Commissioner of
immigration to include in the HDO list of the Bureau of Immigration and
Departation(BID)thenameofthepetitionerand49others.
Dec22007afterfindingprobablecauseagainstpetitionerand36othersforthe
crimeofrebellion.TheDOJfiledtheinformationbeforetheRTCofMakatiCity.
Dec132007theRTCissuedanorderdismissingthechargeforrebellionagainst
petitioner and 17 others for lack of probable cause. The trial court said that
there wasnt enough evidence to substantiate that they were part of the
rebellion.
Dec182007petitionerscounselAtty.FranciscoChavezwrotetheDOJsecretary
requesting the lifting of the HDO in view of the dismissal of the criminal case
againstthepetitioner.
Jan 3 2008petitioner filed a petition claiming that despite the dismissal of his
criminalcasehisnamestillstandsintheHDOlistthatwhenheflewtoHKthe
BID officers still questioned but he was still able to leave for HK. In short,
nahhassle siya petitioner further maintained that the immediate recourse to
the SC to the availment of the writ of amparo is exigent as the continued
restrainttohisrighttotravelisillegal.
Jan 24 2008respondent represented by the OSG said that the secretary of
justicehadtherighttoissuetheHDO.
RTCdismissedthepetitionforwritofamparoandCAaffirmed.
Petitionermaintainsthatthewritofamparodoesnotonlyexclusivelyapplyto
situationsofextrajudicialkillingsandenforceddisappearancesbutencompasses
the whole gamut of liberties protected by the Constitution. Petitioner argues
that[liberty]includestherighttoexistandtherighttobefreefromarbitrary
personalrestraintorservitudeandincludestherightofthecitizenstobefreeto
usehisfacultiesinalllawfulways.Partoftherighttolibertyguaranteedbythe
Constitutionistherightofapersontotravel.
Issue: WON petitioners right to liberty has been violated by the issuance of the
HDO?
Held&Ratio:NO.Forthereasonsstatedbelow:
Section1oftheRuleontheWritofAmparoprovides:
Section1.
Petition.The petition for a writ of amparo is a remedy
availabletoanypersonwhoserighttolife,libertyandsecurityisviolatedor
threatenedwithviolationbyanunlawfulactoromissionofapublicofficial
or employee, or of a private individual or entity. The writ shall cover
extralegalkillingsandenforceddisappearancesorthreatsthereof.
Secretary of National Defense et al. v. Manalo et al.: mentions only extralegal
killingsandenforcedisappearances.
Tapuz v. Del Rosario: lays down the basic principle of the writ of amparo: It is
intended to address violations of or threats to the rights to life, liberty or
security,asanextraordinaryandindependentremedybeyondthoseavailable
under the prevailing Rules, Neither is it a writ that we shall issue on
amorphousanduncertaingrounds.
Thecasewentonstatingwhateachrightswereandhowweareasignatoryof
theUDHRandthatwehaveobligedourselvestocomplywithit.
Point is: The right to travel refers to the right to move from one place to
another.AswehavestatedinMarcosv.Sandiganbayan,xxxapersonsrightto
travel is subject to the usual constraints imposed by the very necessity of
safeguardingthesystemofjustice.Insuchcases,whethertheaccusedshouldbe
permitted to leave the jurisdiction for humanitarian reasons is a matter of the
courtssounddiscretion.
Here, the restriction on petitioners right to travel as a consequence of the
pendencyofthecriminalcasefiledagainsthimwasnotunlawful.Petitionerhas
alsofailedtoestablishthathisrighttotravelwasimpairedinthemannerandto
theextentthatitamountedtoaseriousviolationofhisrighttolife,libertyand
security,forwhichthereexistsnoreadilyavailablelegalrecourseorremedy.
Canlasetal.v.NapicoHomeownersAssociationIXIII,Inc.etal.,this
Court ruled that: This new remedy of writ of amparo which is made
availablebythisCourtisintendedfortheprotectionofthehighestpossible
rightsofanyperson,whichishisorherrighttolife,libertyandsecurity.The
Courtwillnotspareanytimeoreffortonitspartinordertogivepriorityto
petitionsofthisnature.However,theCourtwillalsonotwasteitsprecious
timeandeffortonmattersnotcoveredbythewrit.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. The assailed Decision of the CA
datedFebruary4,2008inCAG.R.No.00011isherebyAFFIRMED.
SOORDERED.
7. Rubricov.GMA(AC)
G.R.No.183871||18February2010
PONENTE:Velasco,Jr.,J.
NATURE:PetitionforReviewonCertiorariofCAdecision
PROCEDURALBACKGROUND:
SupremeCourt:OriginalActionforaPetitionfortheWritofAmparo
CourtofAppeals:UponorderoftheSupremeCourt,theCourtofAppealssummarily
heard the Original Action for Petition of Amparo. Thereafter, the Court of Appeals
issuedapartialjudgmentwhichisthesubjectofthepresentPetitionforReviewon
Certiorari.
HELD:No.
FACTS:
On03April2007,LourdesRubrico,chairofUgnayanngMaralitaparasaGawa
Adhikan, was abducted by armed men belonging to the 301st Air Intelligence
andSecuritySquadron(AISS)basedinLipaCity.
o Shewasbroughttoanddetainedattheairbasewithoutcharges.
o Shewasreleasedaweekafterrelentlessinterrogation,butonlyaftershe
signedastatementthatshewouldbeamilitaryasset.
Despiteherrelease,shewastailedonatleast2occasions.Hence,Lourdesfileda
complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman a criminal complaint for
kidnapping and arbitrary detention and grave misconduct against Cuaresma,
Alfaro, Santana, and Jonathan (military/police heads), but nothing has
happened.
Meanwhile,thehumanrightsgroupKarapatanconductedaninvestigationwhich
indicated that men belonging to the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) led
theabductionofLourdes.
Basedonsuchinformation,Rubricofiledapetitionforthewritofamparowith
theSupremeCourton25October2007.
o She prayed that respondents be ordered to desist from performing any
threatening act against the security of petitioners and for the
Ombudsman to immediately file an information for kidnapping qualified
withtheaggravatingcircumstanceofgenderoftheoffendedparty.
RATIO:
DOCTRINEOFCOMMANDRESPONSIBILITYandTHEWRITOFAMPARO
Doctrine of Command Responsibility has little, if at all, bearing in amparo
proceedings [C]ommand responsibility, as a concept defined, developed, and
appliedunderinternationallaw,haslittle,ifatall,bearinginamparoproceedings.
The evolution of the command responsibility doctrine finds its context in the
developmentoflawsofwarandarmedcombats.AccordingtoFr.Bernas,command
responsibility, in its simplest terms, means the responsibility of commanders for
crimes committed by subordinate members of the armed forces or other persons
subject to their control in international wars or domestic conflict. In this sense,
command responsibility is properly a form of criminal complicity. The Hague
Conventions of 1907 adopted the doctrine of command responsibility,
foreshadowing the presentday precept of holding a superior accountable for the
atrocitiescommittedbyhissubordinatesshouldheberemissinhisdutyofcontrol
over them. As then formulated, command responsibility is an omission mode of
individual criminal liability, whereby the superior is made responsible for crimes
committedbyhissubordinatesforfailingtopreventorpunishtheperpetrators.
ThereisnoPhilippinelawthatprovidesforcriminalliabilityundertheDoctrineof
Command Responsibility While there are several pending bills on command
responsibility,thereisstillnoPhilippinelawthatprovidesforcriminalliabilityunder
that doctrine. It may plausibly be contended that command responsibility, as legal
basis to hold military/police commanders liable for extralegal killings, enforced
disappearances,orthreats,maybemadeapplicabletothisjurisdictiononthetheory
thatthecommandresponsibilitydoctrinenowconstitutesaprincipleofinternational
law or customary international law in accordance with the incorporation clause of
the Constitution. Still, it would be inappropriate to apply to these proceedings the
doctrine of command responsibility, as the CA seemed to have done, as a form of
criminal complicity through omission, for individual respondents criminal liability, if
therebeany,isbeyondthereachofamparo.Inotherwords,theCourtdoesnotrule
insuchproceedingsonanyissueofcriminalculpability,evenifincidentallyacrimeor
aninfractionofanadministrativerulemayhavebeencommitted.
Reluctanceoftheamparopetitionersortheirwitnessestocooperateoughtnotto
poseahindrancetothepoliceinpursuing,onitsowninitiative,theinvestigationin
questiontoitsnaturalend[T]herighttosecurityofpersonsisaguaranteeofthe
protectionofonesrightbythegovernment.Andthisprotectionincludesconducting
effectiveinvestigationsofextralegalkillings,enforceddisappearances,orthreatsof
the same kind. The nature and importance of an investigation are captured in the
Velasquez Rodriguez case, in which the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights
pronounced:[Thedutytoinvestigate]mustbeundertakeninaseriousmannerand
notasamereformalitypreordainedtobeineffective.Aninvestigationmusthavean
objective and be assumed by the State as its own legal duty, not a step taken by
privateintereststhatdependsupontheinitiativeofthevictimorhisfamilyorupon
offerofproof,withoutaneffectivesearchforthetruthbythegovernment.
DISPOSITIVE:
The Supreme Court partially granted the petition for review. It issued a decision as
follows:
Affirming the dropping of former President Gloria MacapagalArroyo from the
petition;
AffirmingthedismissaloftheamparocaseasagainstGen.HermogenesEsperon,and
P/Dir. Gen. Avelino Razon, insofar as it tended, under the command responsibility
principle, to attach accountability and responsibility to them, as then AFP Chief of
StaffandthenPNPChief,fortheallegedenforceddisappearanceofLourdesandthe
ensuing harassments allegedly committed against petitioners. The dismissal of the
petitionwithrespecttotheOmbudsmanisalsoaffirmedforfailureofthepetitionto
allege ultimate facts as to make out a case against that body for the enforced
disappearanceofLourdesandthethreatsandharassmentthatfollowed;and
Directing the incumbent Chief of Staff, AFP, or his successor, and the incumbent
DirectorGeneral of the PNP, or his successor, to ensure that the investigations
already commenced by their respective units on the alleged abduction of Lourdes
Rubricoandtheallegedharassmentsandthreatssheandherdaughtersweremade
to endure are pursued with extraordinary diligence as required by Sec. 17 of the
Amparo Rule. The Chief of Staff of the AFP and DirectorGeneral of the PNP are
directedtoordertheirsubordinateofficials,inparticular,todothefollowing:
(a) Determine based on records, past and present, the identities and locations of
respondents Maj. Darwin Sy, a.k.a. Darwin Reyes, Jimmy Santana, Ruben Alfaro,
Capt. Angelo Cuaresma, and one Jonathan; and submit certifications of this
determinationtotheOMBUDSMANwithcopyfurnishedtopetitioners,theCA,and
thisCourt;
(b)PursuewithextraordinarydiligencetheevidentiaryleadsrelatingtoMaj.Darwin
SyandtheToyotaRevovehiclewithPlateNo.XRR428;and
(c) Prepare, with the assistance of petitioners and/or witnesses, cartographic
sketchesofrespondentsMaj.Sy/Reyes,JimmySantana,RubenAlfaro,Capt.Angelo
Cuaresma,andacertainJonathantoaidinpositivelyidentifyingandlocatingthem.
The investigations shall be completed not later than six (6) months from receipt of
the Decision; and within thirty (30) days after completion of the investigations, the
ChiefofStaffoftheAFPandtheDirectorGeneralofthePNParelikewisedirectedto
submitafullreportoftheresultsoftheinvestigationstotheCourt,theCA,theOMB,
andpetitioners.
TheSupremeCourtaccordinglyreferredthecasebacktotheCAforthepurposeof
monitoringtheinvestigationsandtheactionsoftheAFPandthePNP.
SOURCE:HUMANWRONGS.orgIeditedthedigesttoo.Itsalegitwebsite.
8. BOACv.Cadapan(RK)
GR18446162,184495,187109|May31,2011
SUMMARY: Cadapan,Empeno,andMerinowereabductedbyarmedmenbelieved
tobemembersofthemilitary.Apetitionforhabeascorpuswasfiledbutwasinitially
deniedforlackofconvincingevidence.AnMRandapetitionforAmparowaslater
filed because a new witness, Raymond Manalo (the guy from Manalo v DND),
testified.TheCAissuedanordertoreleasethethree.Threecaseswereelevatedto
the SC. The one relevant here was a certiorari from a resolution of the CA denying
motiontociteforcontemptrespondentsforfailuretoexecutetheorderofrelease.
SC said that while command responsibility does not apply in Amparo (Rubrico v.
GMA), it can be loosely applied in order to determine the superior capable of
enforcing order of release. Hence, CA erred by not specifically naming respondent
officersandorderingthemtoIMMEDIATELYrelease.
FACTS:
ThebackgroundofthiscaseistheabductionofSherlynCadapan,KarenEmpeno,
andManueplMerino(googlethem).
o OnJune26,2006theywereabductedinSanMiguel,Hagonoy,Bulacanby
armedmenandwereherdedontoajeep(RTF597).
On July 17, 2006, petition for habeas corpus was filed in SC impleading then
GeneralsRomeoTolentinoandJovitoPalparan(Gen.Palparan),Lt.Col.Rogelio
Boac (Lt. Col. Boac), Arnel Enriquez and Lt. Francis Mirabelle Samson (Lt.
Mirabelle)asrespondents.
A writ was issued returnable to the CA where trial ensued. Witnesses were
calledbybothsidesandonMarch29,2007,thepetitionforhabeascorpuswas
dismissedbyCA.
o HabeasCorpusnotproperbecauseitpresupposesthatrespondentshave
actualcustodyofthepersons.(Atthispoint,thepetitionerswerenotable
to prove clearly and convincingly that respondents had in their custody
the3abductees).
MRwasfiled.PendingMRsresolution,aWRITOFAMPAROdatedOctober24,
2007,withprayerforinspectionandproductionoofdocumentswasfiledinSC
it impleaded the same respondents + Pres GMA, Esperon Jr. (AFP CoS), Razon
WHEREFORE,inCAG.R.SPNO.95303(HabeasCorpuscase),theMotion
forReconsiderationisGRANTED.Accordingly,inbothCAG.R.SPNO.
95303(HabeasCorpuscase)andinCAG.R.SPNO.00002(Amparocase),
therespondentsaretherebyorderedtoimmediatelyRELEASE,orcause
therelease,fromdetentionthepersonsofSher[lyn]Cadapan,Karen
EmpeoandManuelMerino.
(PNP),AntoladoandCaigas.WritwasissuedreturnabletotheCA.Amparoand
MRonHabeasCorpuswereconsolidated.
Thistime,petitionerscalledinRaymondManalo(fromtheManalaov.DNDcase
Consti2)andAdoracionPaulinoasadditionalwitnesses.
o RaymondManalo,whohimselfwasabductedbutlaterescaped,testified
thathepersonallymetthethreeabducteesinCampTecson.Allofthem
weretransferredtoCampLimayandlatertoasafehouseinZambales.
TheCAgrantedMRontheHabeasCorpusonSeptember17,2008andordered
theimmediatereleaseofthethreeintheAmparoCase.
ISSUE: Essentially,theconsolidatedpetitionspresentthreeprimaryissues,viz:
a) whetherthetestimonyofRaymondManaloiscredible;
b) whether the chief of the AFP, the commanding general of the Philippine
Army, as well as the heads of the concerned units had command
responsibility over the abduction and detention of Sherlyn, Karen and
Merino;and
c)
whetherthereisaneedtofileamotionforexecutiontocausethereleaseof
theaggrievedparties.
HELD: I will only discuss the second issue on Command Responsibility. Strictly
speaking,NO
RATIO:
Rubricov.Macapagal(seepreviouscase)
o Theevolutionofthecommandresponsibilitydoctrinefindsitscontextin
the development of laws of war and armed combats. According to Fr.
Bernas, "command responsibility," in its simplest terms, means the
"responsibility of commanders for crimes committed by subordinate
membersofthearmedforcesorotherpersonssubjecttotheircontrolin
internationalwarsordomesticconflict."
o In this sense, command responsibility is properly a form of criminal
complicity.
An Amparo proceeding is not criminal, civil or administrative. It is a remedy
designed to direct specified courses of action to government agencies to
safeguardtheconstitutionalrighttolife,liberty,andsecurity
o It determines responsibility or ate least accountability for enforced
disappearances
o Responsibility the extent the actors have been established by
substantial evidence to have participated in whatever way, by action or
omission, in an enforced disappearance, as a measure of the remedies
this Court shall craft, among them, the directive to file the appropriate
criminal and civil cases against the responsible parties in the proper
courts.
o Accountabilitythe measure of remedies that should be addressed to
thosewhoexhibitedinvolvementintheenforceddisappearancewithout
bringingtheleveloftheircomplicitytothelevelofresponsibilitydefined
above; or who are imputed with knowledge relating to the enforced
disappearance and who carry the burden of disclosure; or those who
carry,buthavefailedtodischarge,theburdenofextraordinarydiligence
intheinvestigationoftheenforceddisappearance
Rubrico categorically denies application of command responsibility in Amparo
casestodeterminecriminalliability.
o However,itrecognizesapreliminaryyetlimitedapplicationofcommand
responsibilitytoinstancesofdeterminingtheresponsibleoraccountable
individuals/entitiesthataredutyboundtoabateanytransgression.
9. Biraogov.TruthCommission(RC)
Topic:
Treaty/Law:
EONo.1(CreatedTruthCommission)
G.R.No.192935December7,2010
Petitioner:LOUIS"BAROK"C.BIRAOGO,
Respondent:THEPHILIPPINETRUTHCOMMISSIONOF2010
G.R.No.193036
Petitioner:REP.EDCELC.LAGMAN,REP.ETAL
Respondent:EXECUTIVESECRETARYPAQUITON.OCHOA,JR.ETAL
SUMMARY:
PNoy created the Philippine Truth Commission to basically investigate the
crimescommittedbymembersoftheGMAadministration.ThePetitioners
assailtheconstitutionalityofEONo1.TheSCstruckitdownforaviolating
theequalprotectionclause.
FACTS:
For consideration before the Court are two consolidated cases both of which
essentially assail the validity and constitutionality of Executive Order No. 1,
dated July 30, 2010, entitled "Creating the Philippine Truth Commission of
2010."
SenatorBenignoSimeonAquinoIIIdeclaredhisstaunchcondemnationofgraft
and corruption with his slogan, "Kung walang corrupt, walang mahirap." The
Filipinopeople,convincedofhissincerityandofhisabilitytocarryoutthisnoble
objective,catapultedthegoodsenatortothepresidency.
EXECUTIVEORDERNO.1CREATINGTHEPHILIPPINETRUTHCOMMISSIONOF2010
bodysetuptotryandpunishthoseresponsibleforcrimesagainsthumanity.
A form of a reconciliatory tribunal is the Truth and Reconciliation
CommissionofSouthAfrica,theprincipalfunctionofwhichwastohealthe
wounds of past violence and to prevent future conflict by providing a
catharticexperienceforvictims.
The PTC is a far cry from South Africas model. The latter placed more
emphasison reconciliation than on judicial retribution, whilethe marching
orderofthePTCistheidentificationandpunishmentofperpetrators.
Aquino in his inaugural speech: "To those who talk about reconciliation, if
they mean that they would like us to simply forget about the wrongs that
they have committed in the past, we have this to say: There can be no
reconciliationwithoutjustice.Whenweallowcrimestogounpunished,we
giveconsenttotheiroccurringoverandoveragain."
ISSUE/HELD:
LegalStandingofthePetitioners
The Court, however, finds reason in Biraogos assertion that the petition covers
matters of transcendental importance to justify the exercise of jurisdiction by the
Court.Thereareconstitutionalissuesinthepetitionwhichdeservetheattentionof
thisCourtinviewoftheirseriousness,noveltyandweightasprecedents.Wherethe
issues are of transcendental and paramount importance not only to the public but
also to the Bench and the Bar, they should be resolved for the guidance of
all.Undoubtedly,theFilipinopeoplearemorethaninterestedtoknowthestatusof
the Presidents first effort to bring about a promised change to the country. The
Courttakescognizanceofthepetitionnotduetooverwhelmingpoliticalundertones
thatclothetheissueintheeyesofthepublic,butbecausetheCourtstandsfirminits
oathtoperformitsconstitutionaldutytosettlelegalcontroversieswithoverreaching
significancetosociety.
PowerofthePresidenttoCreatetheTruthCommission
TheChiefExecutivespowertocreatetheAdhocInvestigatingCommitteecannotbe
doubted. Having been constitutionally granted full control of the Executive
Department, to which respondents belong, the President has the obligation to
ensurethatallexecutiveofficialsandemployeesfaithfullycomplywiththelaw.With
AO298asmandate,thelegalityoftheinvestigationissustained.Suchvalidityisnot
affected by the fact that the investigating team and the PCAGC had the same
composition, or that the former used the offices and facilities of the latter in
conductingtheinquiry.
corruptioninvirtuallyalladministrationsprevioustothatofformerPresidentArroyo.
Theequalprotectionclauseisaimedatallofficialstateactions,notjustthoseofthe
legislature.Itsinhibitionscoverallthedepartmentsofthegovernmentincludingthe
political and executive departments, and extend to all actions of a state denying
equalprotectionofthelaws,throughwhateveragencyorwhateverguiseistaken.
PoweroftheTruthCommissiontoInvestigate
The distinction between the power to investigate and the power to adjudicate was
delineatedbytheCourtinCariov.CommissiononHumanRights.59Thus:
The legal meaning of "investigate" is essentially the same: "(t)o follow up step by
stepbypatientinquiryorobservation.Totraceortrack;tosearchinto;toexamine
and inquire into with care and accuracy; to find out by careful inquisition;
examination; the taking of evidence; a legal inquiry;" "to inquire; to make an
investigation," "investigation" being in turn described as "(a)n administrative
function,theexerciseofwhichordinarilydoesnotrequireahearing.2AmJ2dAdmL
Sec.257;xxaninquiry,judicialorotherwise,forthediscoveryandcollectionoffacts
concerningacertainmatterormatters."
Inthelegalsense,"adjudicate"means:"Tosettleintheexerciseofjudicialauthority.
Todeterminefinally.Synonymouswithadjudgeinitsstrictestsense;"and"adjudge"
means:"Topassonjudicially,todecide,settleordecree,ortosentenceorcondemn.
xx.Impliesajudicialdeterminationofafact,andtheentryofajudgment."
Finally,nowhereinExecutiveOrderNo.1canitbeinferredthatthefindingsofthe
PTC are to be accorded conclusiveness. Much like its predecessors, the Davide
Commission, the Feliciano Commission and the Zenarosa Commission, its findings
would, at best, be recommendatory in nature. And being so, the Ombudsman and
the DOJ have a wider degree of latitude to decide whether or not to reject the
recommendation. These offices, therefore, are not deprived of their mandated
dutiesbutwillinsteadbeaidedbythereportsofthePTCforpossibleindictmentsfor
violationsofgraftlaws.
Applyingthesepreceptstothiscase,ExecutiveOrderNo.1shouldbestruckdownas
violative of the equal protection clause. The clear mandate of the envisioned truth
commissionistoinvestigateandfindoutthetruth"concerningthereportedcasesof
graft and corruption during the previous administration only. The intent to single
outthepreviousadministrationisplain,patentandmanifest.Mentionofithasbeen
madeinatleastthreeportionsofthequestionedexecutiveorder.
Decision
TheissuethatseemstotakecenterstageatpresentiswhetherornottheSupreme
Court,intheexerciseofitsconstitutionallymandatedpowerofJudicialReviewwith
respect to recent initiatives of the legislature and the executive department, is
exercising undue interference. Is the Highest Tribunal, which is expected to be the
protector of the Constitution, itself guilty of violating fundamental tenets like the
doctrineofseparationofpowers?Timeandagain,thisissuehasbeenaddressedby
the Court, but it seems that the present political situation calls for it to once again
explainthelegalbasisofitsactionlestitcontinuallybeaccusedofbeingahindrance
tothenationsthrusttoprogress.
WHEREFORE, the petitions are GRANTED. Executive Order No. 1 is hereby declared
UNCONSTITUTIONAL insofar as it is violative of the equal protection clause of the
Constitution.
ViolationoftheEqualProtectionClause
As also prayed for, the respondents are hereby ordered to cease and desist from
carryingouttheprovisionsofExecutiveOrderNo.1.
RESPONSIBILITYOFSTATES(Pt.II)
ResponsibilityforEnvironmentalHarm
1. DENRv.ConcernedResidentsofManilaBay(JG)
TOPIC: Responsibility of States; Ministerial acts of government agencies can be
compelledbyMandamus
G.R.No.:17194748December18,2008
Petitioner: Metropolitan Manila Development Authority, Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Department of Education, Culture and
Sports,Department of Health, Department of Agriculture, Department of Public
Works and Highways, Department of Budget and Management, Philippine Coast
Guard, Philippine National Police Maritime Group, and Department of the Interior
andLocalGovernment
Respondents:ConcernedResidentsofManilaBay,representedandjoinedbyDivina
V. Ilas, Sabiniano Albarracin, Manuel Santos, Jr., Dinah dela Pea, Paul Dennis
Quintero, Ma. Victoria Ilenos, Donna Caloza, Fatima Quitain, Venice Segarra, Fritzie
Tangkia,SarahJoelleLintag,HannibalAugustusBobis,FelimonSantiaguel,andJaime
AgustinR.Oposa
Ponente:Velasco,Jr.,J.
FACTS:
ManilaBayisaplacewithaproudhistoricpast,oncebrimmingwithmarine
life and, for so many decades in the past, a spot for different contact
recreation activities, but now a dirty and slowly dying expanse mainly
because of the abject official indifference of people and institutions that
couldhaveotherwisemadeadifference.
OnJanuary29,1999,respondentsConcernedResidentsofManilaBayfiled
a complaint before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Imus, Cavite against
severalgovernmentagencies,amongthemthepetitioners,forthecleanup,
rehabilitation,andprotectionoftheManilaBay.
The complaint alleged that the water quality of the Manila Bay had fallen
way below the allowable standards set by law, specifically Presidential
DecreeNo.(PD)1152orthePhilippineEnvironmentCode.
o Thecomplaintstated:
. . . [The] reckless, wholesale, accumulated and ongoing acts of
omission or commission [of the defendants] resulting in the clear
and present danger to public health and in the depletion and
contaminationofthemarinelifeofManilaBay,[forwhichreason]
ALLdefendantsmustbeheldjointlyand/orsolidarilyliableandbe
collectivelyorderedtocleanupManilaBayandtorestoreitswater
quality to class B waters fit for swimming, skindiving, and other
formsofcontactrecreation.
DeanCandelaria1213
Intheirindividualcausesofaction,respondentsallegedthatthecontinued
neglectofpetitionersinabatingthepollutionoftheManilaBayconstitutes
aviolationof,amongothers:EHSA
(1)Respondents'constitutionalrighttolife,health,andabalanced
ecology;
(2)TheEnvironmentCode(PD1152);
(3)ThePollutionControlLaw(PD984);
(4)TheWaterCode(PD1067);
(5)TheSanitationCode(PD856);
(6)TheIllegalDisposalofWastesDecree(PD825);
(7)TheMarinePollutionLaw(PD979);
(8)ExecutiveOrderNo.192;
(9)TheToxicandHazardousWastesLaw(RepublicActNo.6969);
(10)CivilCodeprovisionsonnuisanceandhumanrelations;
(11)TheTrustDoctrineandthePrincipleofGuardianship;and
(12)InternationalLaw
TherespondentsprayedthatpetitionersbeorderedtocleantheManilaBay
andsubmittotheRTCaconcertedconcreteplanofactionforthepurpose.
TheRTCOrderedPetitionerstoCleanUpandRehabilitateManilaBay
The DENR, DPWH, MMDA, PCG, PNP Maritime Group and five other
executivedepartmentsandagenciesfileddirectlywiththeSupremeCourta
petitionforreviewunderRule45.
o Petitioners asserted that the cleaning of the Manila Bay is not a
ministerialactwhichcanbecompelledbymandamus.
The CA denied petitioners' appeal and affirmed the Decision of the RTCin
toto,stressingthatthetrialcourt'sdecisiondidnotrequirepetitionerstodo
tasksoutsideoftheirusualbasicfunctionsunderexistinglaws.
ISSUE/HELD:
WhetherornotthecleaningorrehabilitationoftheManilaBayisaministerialactof
petitionersthatcanbecompelledbymandamus.YES
Generally, the writ ofmandamuslies to require the execution of a
ministerialduty.
o A ministerial duty is one that "requires neither the exercise of
officialdiscretionnorjudgment."
o It connotes an act in which nothing is left to the discretion of the
personexecutingit.
o It is a "simple, definite duty arising under conditions admitted or
provedtoexistandimposedbylaw."
o Mandamusisavailabletocompelaction,whenrefused,onmatters
involving discretion, but not to direct the exercise of judgment or
discretiononewayortheother.
It is the duty of petitioners to comply with and act according to the clear
mandateofthelawwhichdoesnotrequiretheexerciseofdiscretion.
o Petitioners are without discretion, for example, to decide on
whether or not to alleviate the problem of solid and liquid waste
disposal; in other words, it is their ministerial duty to attend to
suchservices.
o A perusal of other petitioners' respective charters or like enabling
statutes and pertinent laws would yield this conclusion: these
government agencies are enjoined, as a matter of statutory
obligation, to perform certain functions relating directly or
indirectly to the cleanup, rehabilitation, protection, and
preservationoftheManilaBay.Theyareprecludedfromchoosing
nottoperformtheseduties.
(1)TheDENR,underExecutiveOrderNo.(EO)192,istheprimaryagency
responsible for the conservation, management, development, and
properuseofthecountry'senvironmentandnaturalresources.Sec.19
ofthePhilippineCleanWaterActof2004(RA9275),ontheotherhand,
designatestheDENRastheprimarygovernmentagencyresponsiblefor
itsenforcementandimplementation,moreparticularlyoverallaspects
ofwaterqualitymanagement.
(2)The MWSS, under Sec. 3 of RA 6234, is vested with jurisdiction,
supervision, and control over all waterworks and sewerage systems in
the territory comprising what is now the cities of Metro Manila and
severaltownsoftheprovincesofRizalandCavite.
(3)Under RA 9275, the LWUA, as attached agency of the
DPWH, is tasked with providing sewerage and sanitation
facilities, inclusive of the setting up of efficient and safe
collection, treatment, and sewage disposal system in the
different parts of the country. In relation to the instant
petition, the LWUA is mandated to provide sewerage and
sanitationfacilitiesinLaguna,Cavite,Bulacan,Pampanga,and
BataantopreventpollutionintheManilaBay. AT
(4)TheDepartmentofAgriculture(DA),pursuanttotheAdministrative
Code of 1987 (EO 292), is designated as the agency tasked to
promulgate and enforce all laws and issuances respecting the
conservation and proper utilization of agricultural and fishery
resources.
DeanCandelaria1213
(5)TheDPWH,astheengineeringandconstructionarmofthenational
government, is tasked under EO 292, to provide integrated planning,
design, and construction services for, among others, flood control and
water resource development systems in accordance with national
development objectives and approved government plans and
specifications.
(6)The PCG, in accordance with Sec. 5 (p) of PD 601, or the Revised
CoastGuardLawof1974,andSec.6ofPD979, ortheMarinePollution
Decreeof1976,shallhavetheprimaryresponsibilityofenforcinglaws,
rules, and regulations governing marine pollution within the territorial
watersofthePhilippines.
(7)When RA 6975 or the Department of the Interior and Local
Government (DILG) Act of 1990 was signed into law on December 13,
1990, the PNP Maritime Group was tasked to "perform all police
functions over the Philippine territorial waters and rivers." Under Sec.
86,RA6975,thepolicefunctionsofthePCGshallbetakenoverbythe
PNPwhenthelatteracquiresthecapabilitytoperformsuchfunctions.
(8)In accordance with Sec. 2 of EO 513, the PPA is mandated "to
establish, develop, regulate, manage and operate a rationalized
nationalportsysteminsupportoftradeandnationaldevelopment
(9)The MMDA, as earlier indicated, is dutybound to put up and
maintain adequate sanitary landfill and solid waste and liquid disposal
system as well as other alternative garbage disposal systems. It is
primarily responsible for the implementation and enforcement of the
provisions of RA 9003, which would necessary include its penal
provisions,withinitsareaofjurisdiction.
(10)TheDepartmentofHealth(DOH),underArticle76ofPD1067(the
Water Code), is tasked to promulgate rules and regulations for the
establishmentofwastedisposalareasthataffectthesourceofawater
supplyorareservoirfordomesticormunicipaluse.
(11)The Department of Education (DepEd), under the Philippine
Environment Code (PD 1152), is mandated to integrate subjects on
environmentaleducationinitsschoolcurriculaatalllevels. UnderSec.
118 of RA 8550, the DepEd, in collaboration with the DA, Commission
on Higher Education, and Philippine Information Agency, shall launch
and pursue a nationwide educational campaign to promote the
2
Alltold,theaforementionedenablinglawsandissuancesareinthemselves
clear,categorical,andcompleteastowhataretheobligationsandmandate
of each agency/petitioner under the law. We need not belabor the issue
thattheirtasksincludethecleanupoftheManilaBay.
InternationalClaims
1. Vinuyav.Romulo(CG)
G.R.No.162230
April28,2010
Petitioners: ISABELITA C. VINUYA, VICTORIA C. DELA PEA, HERMINIHILDA
MANIMBO, LEONOR H. SUMAWANG, CANDELARIA L. SOLIMAN, MARIA L.
QUILANTANG, MARIA L. MAGISA, NATALIA M. ALONZO, LOURDES M. NAVARO,
FRANCISCA M. ATENCIO, ERLINDA MANALASTAS, TARCILA M. SAMPANG, ESTER M.
PALACIO, MAXIMA R. DELA CRUZ, BELEN A. SAGUM, FELICIDAD TURLA, FLORENCIA
M. DELA PEA, EUGENIA M. LALU, JULIANA G. MAGAT, CECILIA SANGUYO, ANA
ALONZO, RUFINA P. MALLARI, ROSARIO M. ALARCON, RUFINA C. GULAPA, ZOILA B.
MANALUS, CORAZON C. CALMA, MARTA A. GULAPA, TEODORA M. HERNANDEZ,
FERMINB.DELAPEA,MARIADELAPAZB.CULALA,ESPERANZAMANAPOL,JUANITA
M. BRIONES, VERGINIA M. GUEVARRA, MAXIMA ANGULO, EMILIA SANGIL, TEOFILA
R.PUNZALAN,JANUARIAG.GARCIA,PERLAB.BALINGIT,BELENA.CULALA,PILARQ.
GALANG, ROSARIO C. BUCO, GAUDENCIA C. DELA PEA, RUFINA Q. CATACUTAN,
FRANCIAA.BUCO,PASTORAC.GUEVARRA,VICTORIAM.DELACRUZ,PETRONILAO.
DELACRUZ,ZENAIDAP.DELACRUZ,CORAZONM.SUBA,EMERINCIANAA.VINUYA,
LYDIA A. SANCHEZ, ROSALINA M. BUCO, PATRICIA A. BERNARDO, LUCILA H.
PAYAWAL, MAGDALENA LIWAG, ESTER C. BALINGIT, JOVITA A. DAVID, EMILIA C.
MANGILIT, VERGINIA M. BANGIT, GUILLERMA S. BALINGIT, TERECITA PANGILINAN,
MAMERTA C. PUNO, CRISENCIANA C. GULAPA, SEFERINA S. TURLA, MAXIMA B.
TURLA, LEONICIA G. GUEVARRA, ROSALINA M. CULALA, CATALINA Y. MANIO,
DeanCandelaria1213
MAMERTAT.SAGUM,CARIDADL.TURLA,etal.Intheircapacityandasmembersof
the"MalayaLolasOrganization"
Respondents: THE HONORABLE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY ALBERTO G. ROMULO, THE
HONORABLE SECRETARY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS DELIA DOMINGOALBERT, THE
HONORABLE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE MERCEDITAS N. GUTIERREZ, and THE
HONORABLESOLICITORGENERALALFREDOL.BENIPAYO
Ponente:delCastillo,J.
Summary:SothisisacasebeingbroughtbytheMalayaLolas,anorganization
establishedforthepurposeofprovidingaidtothevictimsofrapebytheJapanesein
WWII.PetitionersarguethattherespondentscommittedGADALEJinnotespousing
theirclaims.TheCourtsaidthatthisisapurelypoliticalquestion.Theexecutive
departmenthasthediscretiontoassesstheforeignpolicyrelationsinespousingthe
claimsofthevictim.Therehasalreadybeenatreatysoitispresumedthatitis
alreadyenoughforthereparationsandapology.Theycannotdisturbanymorethe
claims,asitwouldbeinimicaltoourforeignpolicyinterests.Also,thepetitionersare
askingthecourtstocompeltherespondentstoespousetheirclaims.Thecourtheld
thattheonlymeansavailableforindividualstobringaclaimwithintheinternationallegal
systemhasbeenwhentheindividualisabletopersuadeagovernmenttobringaclaimonthe
individualsbehalf.Itisnottheindividualanymore,butthestate,thatwouldenforceitsrights,
onceitspersuaded.Sinceinthiscase,theexecutivedepartmentthinkstheTreatyshouldnt
bedisturbedanymore,theydonthavethepowertocompeltherespondentstobackthem
up.(SorryIfounditreallyhardtoshortenthecase.Everythingseemedimportant.Butitseasy
readnamanandinteresting!)
Facts:
This is an original Petition forCertiorariunder Rule 65 of the Rules of Court with an
application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction against the
Office of the Executive Secretary, the Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs
(DFA),theSecretaryoftheDepartmentofJustice(DOJ),andtheOfficeoftheSolicitor
General(OSG).
Petitioners are all members of the MALAYA LOLAS, a nonstock, nonprofit
organization registered with the SEC, established for the purpose of providing
aid to the victims of rape by Japanese military forces in thePhilippinesduring
theSecondWorldWar(WWII).
Petitioners narrate that during WWII, the Japanese army attacked villages and
systematically raped the women as part of the destruction of the village. Their
communitieswerebombed,houseswerelootedandburned,andcivilianswerepublicly
tortured,mutilated,andslaughtered.
Petitioners claim that since 1998, they have approached the Executive Department
through the DOJ, DFA, and OSG, requesting assistance in filing a claim against the
Japaneseofficialsandmilitaryofficerswhoorderedtheestablishmentofthecomfort
womenstationsinthePhilippines.
3
However, officials of the Executive Department declined to assist the petitioners, and
tookthepositionthattheindividualclaimsofthecomfortwomenforcompensationhad
already been fully satisfied byJapans compliance with the Peace Treaty between
thePhilippinesandJapan.
Petitionersarguments
Petitioners argue that the general waiver of claims made by the Philippine
governmentintheTreatyofPeacewithJapanisvoid.Theyclaimthatthecomfortwomen
systemestablishedbyJapan,andthebrutalrapeandenslavementofpetitionersconstituteda
crimeagainsthumanity,sexualslavery,andtorture.Theyallegethattheprohibitionagainst
theseinternationalcrimesisjuscogensnormsfromwhichnoderogationispossible;assuch,
in waiving the claims of Filipina comfort women and failing to espouse their complaints
againstJapan, the Philippine government is in breach of its legal obligation not to afford
impunity for crimes against humanity.Finally, petitioners assert that the Philippine
governmentsacceptanceoftheapologiesmadebyJapanaswellasfundsfromtheAsian
WomensFund(AWF)werecontrarytointernationallaw.
RespondentsArguments
RespondentsmaintainthatallclaimsofthePhilippinesanditsnationalsrelativetothe
warweredealtwithintheSanFranciscoPeaceTreatyof1951andthebilateralReparations
Agreementof1956. Inaddition,respondentsarguethattheapologiesmadebyJapanhave
beensatisfactory,andthatJapanhadaddressedtheindividualclaimsofthewomenthrough
theatonementmoneypaidbytheAsianWomensFund.
HistoricalBackground
TherewasaverylonghistoryaboutComfortWomen,howitcameabout,andhow
theJapaneseenslavedthosewomensexually.Butinessence,theyrapedaLOTfrom
Korea,China,IndonesiaandthePhilippines.Venerealdiseasesspreadout.Soalotof
countries, after the war, supported the claim that these women had that Japan
shouldmaketheirpublicapology,andmakereparations.UNalsoissuedresolutions
that these are grave violations of human rights and humanitarian laws. They
recommendedthatJapanshouldmakereparationsandpublicapologytoeachvictim
in writing. Some of Japanese authorities (Prime Minister, Chief Cabinet Secretary,
etc.)madestatementsaboutJapanbeingapologeticandremorsefulaboutthis.The
Asian Womens Fund (AWF) was established by the Japanese government in 1995,
which represented governments concrete attempt to address its moral
responsibilitybyofferingmonetarycompensationtovictimsofthecomfortwomen
system.
Issues/Ruling:
DeanCandelaria1213
a.WONtheExecutiveDepartmentcommittedgraveabuseofdiscretioninnotespousing
petitionersclaimsforofficialapologyandotherformsofreparationsagainstJapanNO
From a Domestic Law Perspective, the Executive Department has the exclusive
prerogativetodeterminewhethertoespousepetitionersclaimsagainstJapan.(Political
QuestionDoctrine)
It is wellestablished that "the conduct of the foreign relations of our government is
committed by the Constitution to the executive and legislative'the political'
departmentsofthegovernment,andtheproprietyofwhatmaybedoneintheexercise
ofthispoliticalpowerisnotsubjecttojudicialinquiryordecision."
To be sure, not all cases implicating foreign relations present political questions, and
courts certainly possess the authority to construe or invalidate treaties and executive
agreements.
However,thequestionwhetherthePhilippinegovernmentshouldespouseclaimsofits
nationals against a foreign government is a foreign relations matter, the authority for
which is demonstrably committed by our Constitution not to the courts but to the
politicalbranches.
Inthiscase,theExecutiveDepartmenthasalreadydecidedthatitistothebestinterestof
thecountrytowaiveallclaimsofitsnationalsforreparationsagainstJapanintheTreaty
ofPeaceof1951.
Thewisdomofsuchdecisionisnotforthecourtstoquestion.Neithercouldpetitioners
hereinassailthesaiddeterminationbytheExecutiveDepartmentviatheinstantpetition
forcertiorari.
InthecaseofUSv.CurtissWrightExportCorp.,theUSSupremeCourtheldthat[t]he
President is the sole organ of the nation in its external relations, and its sole
representativewithforeignrelations.
This rulinghas beenincorporatedin ourjurisprudencethroughBayan v. Executive
SecretaryandPimentel v. Executive Secretary;its overreaching principle was, perhaps,
bestarticulatedin(nowChief)JusticePunosdissentinSecretaryofJusticev.Lantion
The Executive Department has determined that taking up petitioners cause would be
inimical to our countrys foreign policy interests, and could disrupt our relations
withJapan,therebycreatingseriousimplicationsforstabilityinthisregion.
Indeed, except as an agreement might otherwise provide, international settlements
generally wipe out the underlying private claims, thereby terminating any recourse
underdomesticlaw.
Thepracticeofsettlingclaimsbymeansofapeacetreatyiscertainlynotnew.Dames&
Moore v. Regan states that theUShas repeatedly exercised its sovereign authority to
settletheclaimsofitsnationalsagainstforeigncountries.Butitisalsoundisputedthatthe
UnitedStateshassometimesdisposedoftheclaimsofitscitizenswithouttheirconsent,
or even without consultation with them, usually without exclusive regard for their
interests,asdistinguishedfromthoseofthenationasawhole.
RespondentsexplainthattheAlliedPowersconcludedthePeaceTreatywithJapannot
necessarilyforthecompleteatonementofthesufferingcausedbyJapaneseaggression
4
during the war, not for the payment of adequate reparations, but for security
purposes.The treaty sought to prevent the spread of communism in Japan, which
occupiedastrategicpositionintheFarEast.
Thus,thePeaceTreatycompromisedindividualclaimsinthecollectiveinterestofthefree
world.
AsthestatementofthechiefUnitedStatesnegotiator,JohnFosterDulles,makesclear,it
was well understood thatleaving open the possibility of future claims would be an
unacceptable impediment to a lasting peace.Thus,fromamunicipallawperspective,
certiorariwillnotlie.
Asageneralprincipleandparticularlyhere,wheresuchanextraordinarylengthoftime
haslapsedbetweenthetreatysconclusionandourconsiderationtheExecutivemust
begivenamplediscretiontoassesstheforeignpolicyconsiderationsofespousingaclaim
againstJapan,fromthestandpointofboththeinterestsofthepetitionersandthoseof
the Republic, and decide on that basis if apologies are sufficient, andwhether further
stepsareappropriateornecessary.
(b)WONtherespondentscanbecompelledtoespousetheirclaimsforofficialapologyand
otherformsofreparationsagainstJapanbeforethe(ICJ)andotherinternationaltribunals
NO
Though,perhapsdesirable,neitherstatepracticenoropiniojurishasevolvedinsucha
direction.
Ifitisadutyinternationally,itisonlyamoralandnotalegalduty,andthereisnomeans
ofenforcingitsfulfillment.
We fully agree that rape, sexual slavery, torture, and sexual violence are morally
reprehensibleaswellaslegallyprohibitedundercontemporaryinternationallaw.
However, petitioners takequite a theoretical leap in claiming that these proscriptions
automatically imply that that the Philippines is under a nonderogable obligation to
prosecute international crimes, particularly since petitioners do not demand the
imputationofindividualcriminalliability,butseektorecovermonetaryreparationsfrom
the state of Japan. Absent the consent of states, an applicable treaty regime, or a
directivebytheSecurityCouncil,thereisnononderogabledutytoinstituteproceedings
againstJapan.
Indeed,precisely because of states reluctance to directly prosecute claims
against another state, recent developments support the modern trend to
empower individuals to directly participate in suits against perpetrators of
internationalcrimes.
Nonetheless,notwithstanding an array of General Assembly resolutions calling for the
prosecutionofcrimesagainsthumanityandthestrongpolicyargumentswarrantingsuch
arule,thepracticeofstatesdoesnotyetsupportthepresentexistenceofanobligation
toprosecuteinternationalcrimes.
Ofcourseacustomarydutyofprosecutionisideal,butwecannotfindenoughevidence
to reasonably assert its existence.To the extent that any state practice in this area is
widespread,itisinthepracticeofgrantingamnesties,immunity,selectiveprosecution,
ordefactoimpunitytothosewhocommitcrimesagainsthumanity.
Even the invocation ofjus cogensnorms anderga omnesobligations will not alter this
analysis.Evenifwesidestepthequestionofwhetherjuscogensnormsexistedin1951,
petitionershavenotdeignedtoshowthatthecrimescommittedbytheJapanesearmy
violatedjuscogensprohibitionsatthetimetheTreatyofPeacewassigned,orthatthe
dutytoprosecuteperpetratorsofinternationalcrimesisanergaomnesobligationorhas
attainedthestatusofjuscogens.
The Latin phrase, erga omnes, has since become one of the rallying cries of those
sharingabeliefintheemergenceofavaluebasedinternationalpublicorder.
However,asissooftenthecase,therealityisneithersoclearnorsobright.Whateverthe
relevance of obligationserga omnesas a legal concept, its full potential remains to be
realizedinpractice.
Withregardtojuscogens,theILCconcludedruefullyin1963thatthereisnotasyetany
generallyacceptedcriterionbywhichtoidentifyageneralruleofinternationallawas
havingthecharacterofjuscogens.
Inacommentaryaccompanyingthedraftconvention,theILCindicatedthattheprudent
courseseemstobetoxxxleavethefullcontentofthisruletobeworkedoutinState
practiceandinthejurisprudenceofinternationaltribunals.
5
Thus,whiletheexistenceofjuscogensininternationallawisundisputed,noconsensus
existsonitssubstance,beyondatinycoreofprinciplesandrules.
Needlesstosay,ourgovernmentshouldtaketheleadinprotectingitscitizensagainst
violation of their fundamental human rights.Regrettably, it is not within our power
toorderthe Executive Department to take up the petitioners cause.Ours is only the
powertourgeandexhorttheExecutiveDepartmenttotakeuppetitionerscause.
WHEREFORE,thePetitionisherebyDISMISSED.
DeanCandelaria1213
RESOLUTIONOFDISPUTES
A. USEOFFORCE
I. General
1. OntheRightsofWarandPeace(CG)
Fromthelawofnatureorlawofthenations,allkindsofwararenottobe
condemned
Certain formalities, attending war, were introduced by the law of nations,
whichformalitieswerenecessarytosecurethepeculiarprivilegesarisingout
ofthelaw
Thus, there is a distinction between a war with the usual formalities of the
law of nations, which is called just or perfect, and an informal war, which
doesnotforthatreasonceasetobejust,oragreeabletoright
Bythelawofthenations,saysLivy,provisionismadetorepelforcebyarms
And Florentinus declares, that the law of the nations allows us to repel
violenceandinjury,inordertoprotectourpersons
ArticleII
The entry into force in virtue of the present Protocol, of the Treaty of Paris of
1928inreciprocalrelationsbetweenthePartiestothepresentProtocolshallbe
valid independently of the entry into force of the Treaty of Paris of 1928 as
providedinArticleIIIofthelastnamedTreaty
ArticleIII
2. GeneralTreatyfortheRenunciationofWar(CG)
BriandKelloggPact1928
ItshallcomeintoforcebetweentheContractingPartiesaftertheratification
ofthesaidTreatyofParisof1928bythecompetentlegislativebodiesofthe
respectiveContractingParties
ThepresentProtocolshallberatifiedbythecompetentlegislativebodiesof
the Contracting Parties, in conformity with the requirements of their
respectiveconstitutions
TheinstrumentsofratificationshallbedepositedbyeachoftheContracting
PartieswiththeGovernmentoftheUSSRwithinoneweekoftheratification
ofthepresentProtocolbytherespectiveparties
The date of deposit shall be the date the present Protocol will come into
forcebetweenthosetwoParties
USSRshallnotifythedepositofseveralratificationstoallthesignatoriesto
thepresentProtocol
ArticleIV
TogiveeffecttoArticleIoftheProtocol,eachoftheHighContractingParties
shall immediately notify the Government of the USSR and all the other
partiesthroughthediplomaticchannel
ArticleV
Importantprovisions
ArticleI
DeanCandelaria1213
ThisshallbeopenfortheaccessionoftheGovernmentsofallcountries
NotificationshallbemadeinthenameoftheUSSR,andimmediatelyshallbe
putintoforce
ArticleVI
TheentryintoforceoftheTreatyofParis,betweentheaccedingStateandall
theotherpartiestothesaidProtocol,shall,beeffectedinthewaylaiddown
inArticleIVoftheProtocol
TheProtocolhasbeendrawnupinasinglecopy,anauthenticcopyofwhich
shall be communicated by the Govt of USSR to each of the signatory or
accedingState
Annex
3. UNCharter(Arts.2,3942)(CG)
ArticleII
3.Allmembersshallsettletheirinternationaldisputesbypeacefulmeansinsuch
amannerthatinternationalpeaceandsecurity,andjustice,arenotendangered
4.AllMembersshallrefrainintheirinternationalrelationsfromthethreatoruse
offorceagainsttheterritorialintegrityorpoliticalindependenceofanystate,or
inanyothermannerinconsistentwiththePurposesoftheUN
CHAPTERVII
Action with respect to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of
aggression
Article39
ArticleI
The High Contracting Parties declare in their names that they condemn
recoursetowarforthesolutionofinternationalcontroversies,andrenounce
itasaninstrumentofnationalpolicyintheirrelationswithoneanother
ArticleII
Settlementofresolutionofdisputesshallneverbesoughtexceptbypacific
means
ArticleIII
The Security Council (SC) shall determine the existence of any threat to
peace,oractofaggression
Andshallmakerecommendations,ordecidewhatmeasuresshallbetakenin
accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international
peaceandsecurity
ThepresentTreatyshallberatifiedbytheHighContractingPartiesasnamed
inthePreambleandshalltakeeffectassoonasdepositedatWashington
It shall be the duty of the Govt of the USA to furnish each Govt named in
thePreambleandeveryGovtadheringtothisTreatywithacertifiedCopyof
the Treaty and of every instrument of ratification or adherence and shall
notifysuchgovtsimmediatelyuponthedepositwithitofeachinstrumentof
ratificationoradherence
DeanCandelaria1213
Article40
To prevent aggravation of the situation, the SC may call upon the parties
concernedtocomplywithsuchprovisionalmeasuresasitdeemsnecessary
ordesirable
It shall be without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties
concerned
The SC shall duly take account of failure to comply with such provisional
measures
Article41
TheSCmaydecidewhatmeasuresnotinvolvingtheuseofarmedforceare
to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the
MembersoftheUNtoapplysuchmeasures
b.
Itmayincludepartialorcompleteinterruptionofeconomicrelationsandof
rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication,
andtheseveranceofdiplomaticrelations
c.
d.
Article42
e.
If the measures provided for in Article 41 are inadequate, it may take such
actionnecessarytomaintainorrestoreinternationalpeaceandsecurity
Itmayincludedemonstrations,blockade,andotheroperationsbyair,sea,or
landforcesofMembersoftheUN
f.
g.
4. GAResolution:DefinitionofAggression(CG)
ArticleI
ArticleII
ThefirstuseofarmedforceincontraventionoftheChartershallconstitute
prima facie evidence of an act of aggression although the SC may in
conformity with the Charter conclude that a determination that an act of
aggression has been committed would not be justified in the light of other
relevant circumstances including the fact that the acts concerned or their
consequencesarenotofsufficientgravity
BombardmentbytheAFofaStateagainstaterritoryofanotherStateor
theuseofanyweaponsbyaStateagainsttheterritoryofanotherState
TheblockadeofpostsorcoastsofaStatebytheAFofanotherState
AnattackbytheAFofaStateontheland,seaorairforces,marineorair
flectsofanotherState
The use of AF of one State, which are within the territory of another
StatewiththeagreementofthereceivingState,incontraventionofthe
conditions provided for in the agreement or any extension of their
presenceinsuchterritorybeyondtheterminationoftheagreement
TheactionofaStateinallowingitsterritory,whichithasplacedatthe
disposalofanotherState,tobeusedbythatotherStateforperpetrating
anactofaggressionagainstathirdState
The sending by or on behalf of a State of the armed bands, groups,
irregulars or mercenaries, which carry out acts of armed force against
anotherStateofsuchgravityastoamounttotheactslistedabove,orit
substantialinvolvementtherein
Article4
ActsenumeratedabovearenotexhaustiveandtheSCmaydetermineotheracts
thatconstituteaggression
Article5
Noconsiderationofwhatevernaturemayserveasjustificationforaggression
Awarofaggressionisacrimeagainstinternationalpeace.Aggressiongives
risetointernationalresponsibility
No territorial acquisition or special advantage resulting from aggression are
orshallberecognizedaslawful
Article6
ArticleIII
DeanCandelaria1213
Article7
Nothinginthisdefinition,andinparticulararticle3,couldprejudicetheright
to selfdetermination, freedom and independence, as derived from the
Charter, of peoples forcibly deprived of that right and referred to in the
Declaration on Principles of IL concerning Friendly Relations and Co
operationamongStatesinaccordancewiththeCharteroftheUN
Northerightofthesepeoplestostruggletothatendandtoseekandreceive
support, in accordance with the Principles of the Charter and in conformity
withtheabovementionedDeclaration
Article8
FactorsUnderminingArticle2(4)
The ambitious projects were founded on an invalid premise: that the Security
Council (SC) would be able to discharge its responsibility as the UNs principal
organforworldpeacekeeping
Important Doctrine: What killed Art 2(4) was the wide disparity between the
norms it sought to establish and the practical goals the nations are pursuing in
defenseoftheirnationalinterest.Solongastherearenationswhichislikelyto
beforaverylongtimetheirpursuitofthenationalinterestwillcontinue;and
wherethatinteresthabituallyrunscountertoastatedinternationallegalnorm,it
isthelatterwhichwillbendandbreak.
(TheArticlewasVERYlong!Itsabitwalangkwenta,Ithink?ItjustsaysthatArt
2(4)isobsolete.Itwasveryidealistictobeginwith,soitwasneveractuallyused
bycountriessayfordisputes.)
Introduction
25yrsago,theAlliednationsgatheredatSFointhewarmingglowofvictory
and signed a solemn treaty giving effect to their determination to save
succeedinggenerations
DeanCandelaria1213
UnderChap7,itistheSCwhichmustdecidedwhetherathreattothepeace
exists, or whether aggression has been committed, and if so, what, if any,
collectivestepsbytheworldorganizationwouldbestremedythesituation
SC,however,inallbutproceduralmatters,canonlyactwiththeassentof9
members,includingtheaffirmativevoteofatleasttheabstentionofeachof
theBigFive
The essential prerequisite for UN collective action the unanimity of the
greatPowerswasseentobeanillusion
WiththeexceptionoftheUNactionindefenseofSouthKorea,ithasnever
beenpossibletoinvokethesecollectiveenforcementprovisions
This paucity of actions under Chap 7 does not, unfortunately, denote a
peacefulworldcommunity.Inthe25yearssincetheSFoConference,there
havebeensome100separateoutbreaksofhostilitybetweenstatesandthe
fact that on only one of these occasions has the UN been able to mount a
collective enforcement action indicates why, for security, nations have
increasinglyfallenbackontheirownresourcesandonmilitaryandregional
alliances
AsChap7wasseentorust,increasingusebegantobemadeofArts51,52,
and 53, which set out the rights of states themselves, under certain
4
Thechangingnatureofwarfare
The great wars of the past, up to the time of the SFo Conference, were
generallyinitiatedbyorganizedincursionsoflargemilitaryformationsofone
stateontotheterritoryofanother,etc
It was to aggression of this kind that the drafters of Art 51 addressed
themselves
However,modernwarfarehasconvenientlybypassedthesepractices
Ittendsinstead,toproceedalongtworadicallydifferentlines,onetoosmall
andtheothertoolargetobeencompassedeffectivelybyArticle51
Firstisthewarsofagitation,infiltrationandsubversioncarriedonbyproxy
throughnationalliberationmovements
And second, nuclear wars involving instantaneous use, in a first strike, of
weaponsofnearparalyzingdestructiveness
TheLebanonCrisisof1958
TheEffectofSmallScaleWarfareonArticle2(4)
Ittakestheformofruralandurbanhitandrunoperationsbysmallbandsof
fighters,sometimesnotinuniformandoftenlightlyarmed
Article51,however,doesnotrecognizetheexistenceofthesenewermodes
ofaggression,orattempttodealwiththenewproblemsofcharacterization
whichtheycreateforinternationallaw
Example is the BenesMasaryk Government of Czechoslovakia, when it
appearedtoavailitselfofWesterneconomicassistanceundertheMarshall
DeanCandelaria1213
ThisparticularMiddleEastCrisisdaredupintwostages:Firstbeingthecivil
war which sought to overthrow the proWestern regime of President
Chamoun; Second, the annihilation of the proWestern monarchy of Iraq,
which led to the prophylactic dispatch of US troops to Lebanon and British
forcestotheKingdomofJordan
InMay,theLebaneseGovernmentlodgedacomplaintwiththeSC,alleging
that a situation had arisen the continuance of which was likely to
endangerthemaintenanceofinternationalpeaceandsecurityandthatthis
situation of civil insurrection had arisen from the intervention of the
UnitedArabRepublic(UAR)intheinternalaffairsofLebanon
Specifically,IARwasguiltyofinterventionintheLebanesecivilwarbythe
supplyofarmsonalargescaletosubversives,bytraininginsubversioninthe
territoryoftheUARofelementsfromLebanon,etc.
However,noneofthesechargesamountedtoanarmedattack
The SC indicated confidence that there is nothing from the Lebanese
Governmentwhichwouldleadthemtosaythereismassiveinfiltration
However, US proclaimed that a ruthlessness of aggressive purposes which
tiny Lebanon cannot combat without support from friendly nations was
alreadytakingplace,thusitalreadyneedsinterventionfromthem
It was against such indirect aggression that the US invoked the collective
selfdefenseexceptiontoArticle2(4)
5
ButtheSwedishGovernmentdoesnotconsiderthatthisconditionhasbeen
fulfilledinthepresentcase,nordoestheGovernmentconsiderthatthereis
aninternationalconflictintermsofArticle51
The Lebanese crisis illustrates 2 problems inherent in applying Art 51: (1)
howisthefactofanarmedattacktobeestablished?And(2)howtodefine
armed attack in a way relevant to the modern conditions of indirect,
limitedwarfarewithoutbroadeningittothepointatwhichdisproportionate
armedforcecanbeusedundertheguiseofselfdefenseagainstimaginedor
slightprovocation
Iftheuseofforceistobepermittedinselfdefensebywayofexceptionto
the general prohibition in Art 2(4), there must be some machinery for
determiningwhetherthatexceptionappliesinparticularinstances
TheEffectofPotentialNuclearWarfareonArticle2(4)
Takenliterally,Art2(4)and52togetherseemtorequireaStatetoawaitan
actual nuclear strike against its territory before taking forceful
countermeasures
Art51,however,permitstheuseofselfdefensebynationsonlyintheevent
ofanarmedattack
According to Professor McDougal, Art 51 cannot be taken to read that a
militaryresponseinselfdefenseispermittedif,andonlyif,anarmedattack
hasactuallyoccurred.Itwouldbeagainstreasonandnature,particularlyin
theageofjets,rocketsandnuclearweapons.
HegoestoarguethatArt51shouldbeinterpretedtomeanthatastatemay
use military force when it regards itself as intolerably threatened by the
activitiesofanother
Maybedoctrineofnecessity,customaryinternationallawandhumanreason
mayallowthesepreemptivestrikes
McDougal says that this is not only applicable in cases of apprehended
nuclear attack, but against any threatening activities, including
conventionalmilitaryonesthatdonotraisethesamethreatofcatastrophic
destruction
RegionalEnforcementandArticle2(4)
Art52and53oftheCharterhavebeeninterpretedtolegitimatetheuseof
force by regional organizations in their collective selfinterest, and,
DeanCandelaria1213
specifically,theroleandprimacyofregionalorganizationsinsettlingdisputes
betweenmembers
This has played an important role in the growth of international violence
overthepast25years
These regional organizations developed tight codes of loyalty and have not
hesitatedtoenforcethemagainstmemberssuspectedofdeviation
Intended to supplement the UN peacekeeping system, the regional
organizations have too often instead become instruments of violence,
erodingtheArticle2(4)injunction
The first and preferred tactic of the regionalists was to establish a total
exceptionwithintheCharterforregionalorganizations,removingthemfrom
the jurisdiction of UN organs, giving them primacy in peacekeeping, and a
freechoiceofpeacefulormilitarymeansofenforcement
The now Art 51 of the Charter permits collective selfdefense against an
armedattackunlessaSecurityCouncilresolutionprohibitsit,thusreversing,
in situations of self defense, the requirement for prior SC approval before
armedforceisdeployed
However, Art 5153 have melded to produce an increasingly frequently
assertedrightofregionalorganizationstotakethelawintotheirownhands,
toactmilitarilywithoutSCapprovalevenintheabsenceofanactualarmed
attack,andtoexcludetheUNfromjurisdictionoverdisputes
TheWayAhead
Theprohibitionagainsttheuseofforceinrelationsbetweenstateshasbeen
erodedbeyondrecognition,principallyby3factors:
o Theriseofwarsofnationalliberation
o Therisingthreatofwarsoftotaldestruction
o Theincreasingauthoritarianismofregionalsystemsdominatedbya
superpower
These may be traced back to the lack of congruence between the
international legal norm of Art 2(4) and the perceived national interest of
states,especiallythesuperpowers
TwoworldsmayemergefromtheashesofArt2(4)
First is a world of peacefully coexisting superpowerdominated regional
spheres
The other is the world that could arise from the ruins of Art 2(4) in which
redefined national interest is no longer calculated in integers amenable to
military manipulation and in which, consequently, the national interest is
6
6. TheLegalityofProdemocraticInvasion(RL)
OscarSchachter
DeanCandelaria1213
II. ConceptsofSelfDefenseandSelfProtection
1. UNCharter(Art.51)(RL)
MemberStatesshallhavetheinherentrightofindividualorcollectiveself
defence if an armed attack occurs, until the Security Council has taken
measuresnecessarytomaintaininternationalpeaceandsecurity.
MeasurestakenbytheStatesshallbeimmediatelyreportedtotheSecurity
Council and shall not affect the authority and responsibility of the Security
Counciltomaintainorrestoreinternationalpeaceandsecurity.
2. TheRightofStatestoUseArmedForce(RL)
OscarSchacter
TheUNcharteroutlawedwar,except:
o Forceusedinselfdefensewhenanarmedattackoccurs;and
o Armed action authorized by the UN SC as an enforcement
measure.
Reality, however, seems to mock the effect of these exceptions since
warsstilltakeplace,countriesareinvaded,armedforceisusedtotopple
governments,seizeterritories,etc.
The obligations of the Charter then are but mere rhetoric or cover for
aggression.
On the meaning of Art 2(4): The words force, threat of force and
intervention are subjected to different interpretations. (below are
examples)
o Force: can be used in a wide sense to embrace all types of
coercion,mayitbeeconomic,politicalandpsychologicalaswell
asphysical.
o Threatofforce:thepreponderanceofmilitarystrengthinsome
states and their political relations with potential target states
mayjustifiablyleadtoaninferenceofathreatofforceagainst
thepoliticalindependenceofthetargetstate.
OnRecoveringTerritory:ItisarguedthatStatesuseofforcetoclaima
territorythattheybelieveisrightfullytheirsamountstoselfdefense.
o But the use of force to take back what has been unlawfully
takenfromthemshouldnotbeallowed.
o Theymustresorttopeacefulmeans.
Onhumanitarianintervention:Incasesoflargescaleatrocitiesoracute
deprivation, armed intervention by outside states would be justifiable
exception to the use of force, invoking territorial integrity and the
overridingneedtoactintheinterestofbasichumanitarianvalues.
o Thisisallowedonlyifpeacefulmeasuresareunavailable.
o Butadifferentpositionistakenwhenastatehasusedforceto
rescueorprotectitsownnationalsinimminentperilofinjuryin
aforeigncountry.
Elements to allow the use of force for this case: (1)
imminent threat of injury to nationals; (2) a failure or
inabilityonthepartoftheterritorialsovereignaspect
to protect them; and (3) measures of protection
strictly confined to the object of protecting them
againstinjury.
o Examplecited:theattemptoftheUStorescuethehostagesin
Tehran.
W/npeacefulmeanswerealreadyexhaustedandw/n
the hostages were in imminent danger of losing their
livesorsufferingseriousinjuries?
DeanCandelaria1213
III. TheLegalityofReprisals
1. The Legal Implications of Israels 1982 Invasion into
Lebanon(EM)
LEGALIMPLICATIONSOFISRAELS1982INVASIONINTOLEBANON
TheinitialgoalsofIsraelsinvasionweretopushthePLOoutofrangeofIsraels
northernsettlementsandtoestablisha25milebufferzonealongtheLebanese
Israeliborder.Israelviewsitsactionsasalegitimateactofselfdefense.ThePLO
claimsthatthegoalofIsraelsinvasionwastodestroythePalestinianmovement
foranindependentPalestinianState.
The Lebanese government has been unable to govern the actions of the PLO
based in its territory. Lebanon characterized Israels invasion as a violation of
territorial sovereignty and called for the withdrawal of all foreign forces from
Lebanesesoil.
ThePalestinianIsraeliConflict
UNvotedtopartitionBritishMandatePalestineinto2separatestates:Israel
JewishstateandPalestineArabstate.
TheplanwasdesignedtoalleviatetensionsandhostilitiesbetweentheArabsand
Jews.The1948warcompelledthousandsofPalestinianstorelocateinLebanon
andotherArabstates.
PLO formed and declared itself the official representative of the Palestinian
people.TheaimofPLOwastoprovidethePalestinianpeoplewithahomeland.
AnagreementwasreachedbetweentheLebanesegovernmentandthePLO.This
DeanCandelaria1213
TheIsraeliPLOhostilitiesinLebanonareunusual.IsraeldidnotinvadeLebanon
to fight the Lebanese government. Instead, it sought to vanquish the PLO from
Lebanesesoil.
LebanonsStateResponsibility
Under the principle of international law, each State has the right to political
independence and territorial sovereignty. The concept of sovereignty
encompasses2aspectsofindependence:
1.
2.
If it can be successfully argued that the PLO actions were not attributable to
Lebanon under the direct responsibility doctrine, Lebanese responsibility might
stillbevicariouslyimputed.
VicariousResponsibility
TheprincipleofvicariousresponsibilityfocusesontheStatesdelict,thatis,the
failuretopreventorpunishthosepersons,actingwithintheStatessovereignty,
whocommitahostileactagainstaforeignState.
IftheStatehasfailedtopreventaninjuriousact,theinjuredStateisentitledto
duesatisfactionpunishmentoftheoffendersorreparationsfortheharmdone.
LebanonhasfailedtopreventanythreatsofinjuriousactsdirectedtoIsrael.Nor
has Lebanon punished those persons responsible for committing these acts.
Lebanon,therefore,shouldbeconsidereddelinquent.
OnedutyinternationallyimposedonaStateistheprohibitionagainstthethreat
oruseofforceagainsttheterritorialsovereigntyofanotherState.PriortoIsraels
1982invasion,noLebanesearmy,actingonbehalfoftheLebanesegovernment,
hadphysicallyenteredIsraeliterritory.
Therearegenerally2theoriestoimputeresponsibilitytoaStateforaviolationof
aninternationallyimposedduty:
1.
2.
VicariousorIndirectresponsibilityfocusesonprivateactswhichmay
beimputedtotheState
DeanCandelaria1213
ResponsibilityBasedonFaultunderthis,aStatedoesnotautomaticallyincur
responsibilityforhostileactsofpersonscommittedfromitsterritory.IftheState
was unaware of such conduct or knew but was unable to prevent the hostile
activities,theStatewouldnotincurresponsibility.
Absolute Vicarious responsibility State is liable for hostile acts from its soil,
even if these acts are caused by private individuals not acting on behalf of the
State. The States mere tolerance of the use of its territory as either a base of
operations or a point of departure for incursions into the territory of another
State is an international delinquency for which the State will be held absolutely
responsible.
10
Lebanonarguablyshouldbeareitherdirectorvicariousresponsibilityforinjuries
to Israel caused by the Lebanese based PLO. Neither theory has the pragmatic
forcetoprovidesecurityorcompensationtoIsraelnorjustifysubsequentIsraeli
actions.
TheUNCharterappearstoalteranycustomarylegitimacyforforcefulreprisals.
Theprohibitionagainsttheuseofforceandtheneedtosettledisputespeacefully
supporttheviewthatretaliatoryreprisalsamountingtotheuseofforceareno
longerpermitted.
AStatewhichsupportsortoleratesarmedbandswithinitsterritoryisgenerally
held to be an aggressor if these armed bands either threaten or already have
committedanarmedattackagainstanotherState.Lebanonhasgivensanctuary
tothePLO.
Aggression in the Form of an Armed Attack the hostile action must attain a
certaingravitytojustifyaforcefulexerciseofselfdefense.
DeanCandelaria1213
IfthePalestinianIsraeliconflictisviewedasonecontinuousconflict,thetotality
ofallhostilitiesmaybeconsideredanarmedattackwhichhascausedserious
injuryorprovocationtoIsrael.
A defending state would not have to wait for an armed attack to occur.
Anticipatory selfdefense legitimizes the recourse to force in the face of an
imminentthreatofanarmedattack.
IsraelandthePLOhavebeenengagedinhostilitiesformanyyears.ThePLOarms
buildupsuggestedanimminentattackagainstIsrael.
The Israel invasion into Lebanon would be legitimate only if necessary and
proportionatetotheharmalreadysuffered.
Proportionalityrequiresthattheforceusedbeproportionatetotheillegalact
orthreat.Significanceofthisprincipleisbasedontheneedtocontrolapossible
destructivenaturaltemptationtoexceedtheforcenecessarytorepelorremove
thedanger.
IfthePalestinianIsraeliconflictwereviewedasonecontinuousconflict,Israels
invasion would then appear proportionate and reasonable under the
Nadelstichtaktikdoctrine.Israelwouldthusbejustifiedinremovingthethreatto
itspoliticalandterritorialsovereigntyposedbythePLO.
ProposalsforaPeacefulResolution
Anylegalsolutionmustencompassthelegalrightsofallthepartiesinvolved.
1.
Lebanonssovereigntymustberestored
2.
Israelssecurityinterestsasasovereignintheinternationalcommunity
mustbeprotected
3.
Palestinianrighttoselfdetermination,asguaranteedbyArt.1(2)ofUN
Charter,mustbefulfilled
11
B. JUDICIALANDARBITRALSETTLEMENT
1.
2.
I. ICJ
1. UNCharter(Art.2,33,9296)(EM)
Art.2
3.AllMembersshallsettletheirinternationaldisputesbypeacefulmeansinsuch
amannerthatinternationalpeaceandsecurity,andjustice,arenotendangered.
Art.33
1.Thepartiestoanydispute,thecontinuanceofwhichislikelytoendangerthe
maintenanceofinternationalpeaceandsecurity,shall,firstofall,seekasolution
by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement,
resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their
ownchoice.
Article95
NothinginthepresentChartershallpreventMembersoftheUnitedNationsfrom
entrusting the solution of their differences to other tribunals by virtue of
agreementsalreadyinexistenceorwhichmaybeconcludedinthefuture.
Article96
a.
b.
Other organs of the United Nations and specialized agencies, which may
atanytimebesoauthorizedbytheGeneralAssembly,mayalsorequest
advisoryopinionsoftheCourtonlegalquestionsarisingwithinthescope
oftheiractivities.
2. The Security Council shall, when it deems necessary, call upon the parties to
settletheirdisputebysuchmeans.
CHAPTERXIV:THEINTERNATIONALCOURTOFJUSTICE
Article92
The International Court of Justice shall be the principal judicial organ of the
UnitedNations.ItshallfunctioninaccordancewiththeannexedStatute,whichis
basedupontheStatuteofthePermanentCourtofInternationalJusticeandforms
anintegralpartofthepresentCharter.
Article93
1.
AllMembersoftheUnitedNationsareipsofactopartiestotheStatuteof
theInternationalCourtofJustice.
2.
AstatewhichisnotaMemberoftheUnitedNationsmaybecomeaparty
to the Statute of the International Court of Justice on conditions to be
determined in each case by the General Assembly upon the
recommendationoftheSecurityCouncil.
Article94
DeanCandelaria1213
2. UNat50:ATimetoReform(NO)
The UN was mainly done to do reform especially on the field of peace. UN still
rests on its security roles, though the original need for a system of collective
securityisnowovershadowedbytheneedtopreventorsettlelocalandinternal
conflicts.
The other major need is for promotion of economic development to secure the
charters aim of promoting social progress and better standards of life in larger
freedom.
If the UN did not exist there would be a need to develop something very much
likeitonthebasisoftheseneedsaloneandthenthereisaspreadofissuesthat
12
UNSC
UNGA
Between1946and1990,atotalof646SecurityCouncilresolutionswerepassed,
with another 201 falling victim to the veto. The council is at the very center of
internationalsecurityaffairs.
A GA that occupies more of the stage and reorders its work to make it more
focused and resultsoriented will allow smaller states have a meaningful role in
international governance. There has been some progress with the theme
debates,butmuchmorecouldbedoneastheAssemblyreemergesastheplace
wheregovernmentscometogethertosolvecommonproblems
Amoreseriousconcernisthecompositionofthecouncil.Itisnotreasonableto
suggestthatthefivewinnersofthesecondWorldWarwiththeassistanceof10
additional, rotating member states comprise a representative, legitimate or
authoritativevoiceforaUNmembershipof185.
The author suggests that it is time to set aside the veto. He said that we to be
realistic and recognize that the veto will not relinquish it readily or during a
periodoftransitionorturmoil.
Secretariat
The overhaul should include agreement that the permanent five would not use
their veto selection of a secgen and that candidates from the five could be
considered.
Globalreform
AnEconomicSecurityCouncil
Theauthorsuggestedaconferencewhichwouldallowmembersampletimefora
thoroughpreparatoryprocesstostudyUNreformsaswellasitsorgans.
Anyagendaforreformofinternationalcooperationcannotbecompletewithout
advancingtheargumentforbettergovernanceoftheeconomy.DuringtheDavos
forum it repeatedly mentioned globalization and its role in economic growth.
EvenintheforumitsentamessagethatrevitalizingECOSOCwillnotsuffice.
3. LegalcontributionoftheUNSystem(NO)
Some commentators, while endorsing the need for a mechanism such as the
Economic Security Council (ESC) proposed by the Commission on Global
Governance,drawbackfromhousingsuchacrucialgroupundertheumbrellaof
theUnitedNations.
As envisaged, the ESC would comprise the major economies of the world. Also,
thereshouldbebalancedrepresentationamongtheworldmainregionstobring
inawider,morerepresentativeconstituency;smallerstatescouldbegivenarole.
Itwillmeetonceayearattheleveloffinanceministers.
TrusteeshipCouncil
DeanCandelaria1213
I.
LawmakingintheUNSystem
Not a legislative body, rather, their objectives would be carried out mainly
through recommendations aimed at coordinating the actions of their
memberstates.
Although they are not legislatures, most UN organs have acted much like
parliamentary bodies in their proceedings. Member states as well as UN
organsprovidedforsolutionstotheworldsproblemsthroughnewlawand
legalregimes.
ThemostobviouslawinstrumentinlawmakingintheUNisthemultilateral
normcreatingtreaty.Hundredshavebeenconcluded;theywereinitiated,
13
DeanCandelaria1213
II.
SeveralfactorsraisequestionsastotheILCsrole.Foronething,themajor
traditional subjects of customary law have been codified except for state
responsibility.
TakingtheUNsystemasawhole,alargeareaofinternationalregulationhas
been developed by specialized agencies. The techniques are of particular
interest since they significantly relax the tradition principle that no state is
bound without its consent. Moreover, in practice, texts that are only
recommendatory have as much effect as formal rules in channeling state
conduct.(SeeCodexAlimentariusasanexample)
Interpretingandapplyingthelaw
Thereareimportantexceptions;thesearerelatedmainlytotheUNCharter
provisionsandtosomemajortreaties.Themostvirulentcontroversieshave
involved the competence and powers of the UNSC and GA, especially in
respecttodomesticmatters.Otherdebatesinvolvedobligationsofstatesin
regard to the use of force, intervention, selfdetermination and human
rights.
The issue has revived interest in the possibility of utilizing the International
Courttorenderadvisoryopinionsonthepoliticalorgansinterpretation.An
14
Itispossible,thoughrare,fortheissueoflegalitytoberaisedinthecourtby
a state in a contentious case against another state. Libya did so in 1992
against UK, and US this was about the economic sanctions against Libya
becauseofitsrefusaltosurrenderterrorists.Thiswashoweverdeniedbythe
court.JudgeLachs,referredtoChartermentionsoftheICJthatcorroborates
itsroleasthegeneralguardianoflegalitywithinthesystem.
Inanexceptionalcase,theCourtoranadhocbodycouldbeausefulmeans
to resolve doubts and perhaps check ill considerations of the majority. The
mainreasonforthisistoavoidlosingrespectofitsdecisionsbecauseitmay
beperceivedtobeimproperlymotivated.TherearesuggestionsbyThomas
Franck and other political organs that the criteria be determinancy,
consistency and coherence. However, at a closer look they are problematic
standards for UN political bodies which take into consideration national
interestsandvaluesatstake.
ItisinterestingtonotethatUNorganinterpretationsfall,bylarge,intotwo
categories. One, perhaps the more common, lays stress on the aims of the
institutionasexpressedinthecharter.Theotherarguesmainlyonthebasis
ofpracticeandprecedence.
III.
ComplianceandEnforcement
Someprominentinternationallawyersdismissivelyreferredtoenforcement
asapoliticalmatteroutsideofthelaw.However,attitudesbegantochange
asgovernmentsweregraduallyimpelledtotakemoreseriouslypreceptsthat
they had adopted. In large part, this change transpired because public
sentiments on certain areas (i.e. Human Rights) were brought to bear on
governments.
DeanCandelaria1213
UNhasappliedseveraltacticsforcompliances.Wecangetaclearerviewof
thewholearraybyclassifyingtheminseveralcategories.
Firstarereportingandsupervisionproceduresinaparticulartreaty.Ithasa
patterofcharacteristicssuchasperiodicreports;areviewcommitteeanda
committeenotingdiscrepancies.Italsohasinvestigationsforthesupervision
part,itismainlydepictedintwoexamples.Theseareadhoccommitteeson
designatedissuesandusageofspecialrapporteurs.
Secondisfacilitative,whereintheUNhelpsthestatecarryoutitsobligation
suchastheUNpeacekeepingforces.
FourthisthenonmilitaryenforcementactionbytheUNSCsuchasimposing
economic sanctions. However it might have a backlash because it will most
likely affect the citizenry and not the regime (See Special Rapporteur Vitit
MuntharbornsreportonNorthKoreaforanindepthstudy).
FifthisuseofarmedforcepursuanttoChapterVIIoftheUNCharter,asin
thecaseofIraqduringdesertstorm.
This paper also discussed during this time the UN was considering and
studyingthepossibilityofcreatingapermanentinternationalcriminalcourt.
IV.
PatternsandPolitics
ThedevelopmentofhumanrightsintheUNsystemisofparticularinterestin
an overview. Human rights conventions were not widely ratified but
15
Another concept is the law of peace and security which greatly affected
internationallaw.SuchistheraisondetreoftheUNcharter.Mainlyonthis
aspectpoliticsastotheUNSCwithregardtothevetopowerisapparent.
There are also other fields such as economic law, private law and
transparencyoftheUNsystemwhosegrowthanddirectionasitstandsnow
isattributabletopolitics
TheauthorpositsanarchitecturalmetaphorontheUNlegalsystem.
OnthegroundfloorDemandsandgoalsofthegovernments
nd
Onthe2 FloorActivitiesoflegalcharacter(formationandinvokinglegal
norms)
rd
On the 3 Floor Broad policy goals, aspirations and ideals that influence
governmentsandactors.
DeanCandelaria1213
16
RESOLUTIONOFDISPUTES
1. DelMontev.CA(RL)
TOPIC:OnlypartiestotheAgreementareboundbythearbitrationclause
[G.R.No.136154.February7,2001]
Thatpetitionersknowinglyandsurreptitiouslycontinuedtodealwiththe
theminbadfaithbyinvolvingdisinterestedthirdparties.
Privaterespondentsclaimedthattheyhadexhaustedallpossibleavenuesforan
amicableresolutionandsettlementoftheirgrievancesbuttonoavail.
PetitionersfiledaMotiontoSuspendProceedingsinvokingthearbitrationclause
intheirAgreementwithprivaterespondents.
o The trial court deferred consideration of said motion as the grounds
allegeddidnotconstitutethesuspensionoftheproceedings.
PetitionersfiledanMR,whichwasdenied.
TheCAaffirmedtheTCsdecision.
o
Ponente:BELLOSILLO,J.
ISSUE:W/Nthedisputebetweenthepartieswarrantsanordercompellingthemto
submit to arbitration.NO. Some of the petitioners are NOT bound by the
arbitrationclauseoftheAgreement.
FACTS:
DeanCandelaria1213
2. LMPowerv.Capitol(EM)
LMPowerEngineeringCorporation,petitioner
vs.
CapitolIndustrialConstructionGroups,Inc.,respondent
G.R.No.141833,March26,2003
Panganiban,J.
Facts:
OnApril1985,CapitoltookoversomeoftheworkcontractedtoLMpower
o
Aftercompletion,LMpowerbilledCapitolintheamountofP6,711,813.90
o
Capitolrefusedtopayastheycontestedtheamountbilledthem
Capitolalsocitedtheterminationclausethis,accordingtoCapitoltoset
off the cost of the work that LM power failed to undertake due to
terminationortakeover
LMPowerthenfiledacaseintheRTCforcollectionoftheamountrepresenting
thebalancedueit
o
RTCdeniedthemotiononthegroundthatthedisputedidnotinvolvethe
interpretationorimplementationoftheagreementthus,notcoveredby
thearbitralclause
Onthemerits,RTCruledthatthetakeoverofCapitolwasnotequivalent
toatermination,butameremodification,thusorderingCapitoltopay
CA reversed the decision of the RTC and ordered the referral of the case to
arbitration
o
DISPOSITIVE:ThepetitionisDENIED.
DeanCandelaria1213
LMpowerallegedlywasnotabletofinishit
CAsaidthattheissueofwhetherornotrespondent'stakeoverofsome
workitemshadbeenintendedtobeaterminationoftheoriginalcontract
underLetterKofthesubcontractwasarbitrable
Issues:
2
Musttheyresorttoarbitrationfirst?
WONrequirementsforarbitrationwerecompliedwith?
Held:YES
Ratio:
FirstIssue
The instant case involves technical discrepancies that are better left to an
arbitralbody
Arbitralclause
o
Ifwereviewthefacts,thefollowingquestionsareraised:(1)wasthereatake
over/termination?(2)maytheexpensesincurredbyCapitolinthetakeoverbe
setoffagainstwhatitowedLMPower?(3)Howmuchweretheadvancesand
thebillables?
Theresolutionofthesequestionsliesintheinterpretationoftheprovisionsof
theagreement
Consistentwiththepolicyofencouragingalternativedisputeresolutions,courts
shallliberallyconstruearbitrationclausesanydoubtshallberesolvedinfavor
ofarbitration
SecondIssue
LMpowerarguedthatthefailuretofileaformalrequestforarbitrationwiththe
Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC) precludes the latter to
acquirejurisdictionoverthematter.ItevencitedthecaseofTescotobolsterits
position
TheCourtdoesnotagree
o
Today,recoursetotheCIACmaybedonewheneveracontractcontainsa
clauseforthesubmissionofafuturecontroversytoarbitration
Clearly,thereisnomoreneedtofilearequestwiththeCIACinordertovestit
withjurisdictiontodecideaconstructiondispute
Thearbitralclauseoftheagreementisacommitmentonthepartoftheparties
tosubmittoarbitrationthedisputescoveredtherein
WHEREFORE,thePetitionisDENIED
3. Frabellev.Philamlife(NO)
G.R.No.158560
Petitioners:FRABELLEFISHINGCORPORATION
Respondent: THE PHILIPPINE AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, PHILAM
PROPERTIESCORPORATIONandPERFREALTYCORPORATION
Ponente:J.SandovalGutierrez
Facts:
The Court sided with Capitol the dispute arose from the parties incongruent
positions on whether certain provision of their agreement could be applied to
thefacts
PhilamPropertiesCorporation,PhilippineAmericanLifeInsuranceCompany,and
PERF Realty Corporation (respondents) entered into a Memorandum of
Agreementtocontributecash,propertyandservicesfortheconstructionofthe
Philamlifetower.
On December 6, 1996 respondents executed a Deed of Assignment, assigning
their rights and obligations with regard to the construction and subsequent
th
ownershipofUnit38B(38 floor)toFrabelleproperties(Frabelle).
o Frabelle,inturn,assignedtoFrabelleFishingCorporation(FrabelleFishing),
petitionerherein,itsrights,obligationsandinterestsoverUnitNo.38B.
o FrabelleFishingandrespondentsexecutedaMemorandumofAgreement
(1998 MOA) to fund the construction of designated office floors in
PhilamlifeTower.
ThereweredifferentrulesduringthetimeofTesco
DeanCandelaria1213
Thedisputestartedwhenpetitionerfoundmaterialconcealmentonthepartof
respondentsregardingcertaindetailsinthe1996DOAand1998MOA.
o Therewerealsoviolationsofcontractualobligationssuchas:
The nonconstruction of a partition wall between Unit No. 38B
andtherestofthefloorarea;
Thereductionofthenetusablefloorareafromfourhundredsixty
eight (468) square meters to only three hundred fifteen (315)
squaremeters.
FrabelleFishingreferredthemattertothePhilippineDisputeResolutionCenter,
Inc. (PDRCI) for arbitration but respondents refused to submit to PDRCIs
jurisdiction.
PetitionersthensubmittedtheircasewiththeHousingandLandUseRegulatory
Board (HLURB) for reformation of instrument, specific performance and
damagesagainstrespondents.
o HLURB denied respondents plea for dismissal and scheduled a
preliminaryhearing
o RespondentsprayedforaTROandrestrainingorderwiththeCA
CAgrantedrespondentsprayerandheldthattheHLURB
hadnojurisdictionforreformation;RTCshouldhavebeen
theproperbodytohearit.
II.
WhetherornottheHLURBhasjurisdiction.NO.
Petitioner claimed that the terms of the contract are not clear and
prayedthattheyshouldbereformedtoreflectthetruestipulationsof
theparties
o Petitionerscomplaintnecessarilyfallsunderthejurisdictionof
the Regional Trial Court pursuant to Section 1, Rule 63 of the
1
1997RulesofCivilProcedure
SECTION1.Whomayfilepetition.Anypersoninterestedunderadeed,will,contractorotherwritten
instrument,whoserightsareaffectedbyastatute,executiveorderorregulation,ordinance,oranyother
governmental regulation may, before breach or violation thereof, bring an action in the appropriate
RegionalTrialCourttodetermineanyquestionofconstructionorvalidityarising,andforadeclarationof
hisrightsordutiesthereunder.
An action for the reformation of an instrument, to quiet title to real property or remove clouds
therefrom,ortoconsolidateownershipunderArticle1607oftheCivilCode,maybebroughtunderthis
Rule.
DeanCandelaria1213
Whetherornotpartiesshouldresorttoarbitration.Yes
Paragraph4.2ofthe1998MOAmandatesthatanydisputebetweenor
amongthepartiesshallfinallybesettledbyarbitrationconductedin
accordance with the Rules of Conciliation and Arbitration of the
InternationalChamberofCommerce.
It bears stressing that such arbitration agreement is the law between
theparties.Theyare,therefore,expectedtoabidebyitingoodfaith
ThisCourthaspreviouslyheldthatarbitrationisoneofthealternative
methods of dispute resolution that is now rightfully vaunted as the
wave of the future in international relations, and is recognized
worldwide.
Issue/Held
I.
4. Gonzalesv.Hon.Pimentel(MT)
(actuallythisismoreofaremlawcasebutilljustfocusonwhatsrelatedtopil)
Facts:
ThisisaconsolidationoftwopetitionsrootedinthesamedisputedAddendum
contractenteredintobytheparties.
FocusingonGR167994,itstemmedfromthepetitiontocompelarbitrationfiled
by respondent ClimaxArimco before the RTC of Makati City on March 2000
whilethecomplaintforthenullificationoftheAddendumContractwaspending
before the DENR Panel of Arbitrators. On 23 March 2000, ClimaxArimco had
sent Gonzales a Demand for Arbitration pursuant to Clause 19.1 of the
Addendum Contract and also in accordance with Sec. 5 of R.A. No. 876. The
petition for arbitration was subsequently filed and ClimaxArimco sought an
ordertocompelthepartiestoarbitratepursuanttothesaidarbitrationclause.
4
OnApril2000,Gonzalesfiledamotiontodismisswhichhehoweverfailedtoset
for hearing. On May 2000, he filed an Answer with Counterclaim, questioning
the validity of the Addendum Contract containing the arbitration clause.
GonzalesallegedthattheAddendumContractcontainingthearbitrationclause
isvoidinviewofClimaxArimcosactsoffraud,oppressionandviolationofthe
Constitution. Thus, the arbitration clause, Clause 19.1, contained in the
AddendumContractisalsonullandvoidabinitioandlegallyinexistent.
ClimaxArimco basically got respondent Judge Pimentel to set the case for
arbitration.HegrantedthemotionofClimaxArimcoanddirectedthepartiesto
arbitration.
GonzalesthusfiledtheRule65petitionassailingtheOrdersdated13February
2001 and 7 March 2005 of Judge Pimentel. Gonzales contends that public
respondentJudgePimentelactedwithgraveabuseofdiscretioninimmediately
ordering the parties to proceed with arbitration despite the proper, valid, and
timely raised argument in his Answer with Counterclaim that the Addendum
Contract,containingthearbitrationclausenullandvoid.
Issue: WON respondent Judge Pimentel acted with grave abuse of discretion in
orderingthepartiestoproceedwitharbitration?
Held&Ratio:NOforthereasonsbelow:
Judge Pimentel acted in accordance with the procedure prescribed in R.A. No.
876whenheorderedGonzalestoproceedwitharbitrationandappointedasole
arbitrator after making the determination that there was indeed an arbitration
agreement.Ithasbeenheldthataslongasacourtactswithinitsjurisdictionand
doesnotgravelyabuseitsdiscretionintheexercisethereof,anysupposederror
committed by it will amount to nothing more than an error of judgment
reviewable by a timely appeal and not assailable by a special civil action of
certiorari.
R.A.No.876alsoexpresslyauthorizesarbitrationofdomesticdisputes.Foreign
arbitration, as a system of settling commercial disputes of an international
character,waslikewiserecognizedwhenthePhilippinesadheredtotheUnited
NationsConventionontheRecognitionandtheEnforcementofForeignArbitral
Awards of 1958, under the 10 May 1965 Resolution No. 71 of the Philippine
Senate,givingreciprocalrecognitionandallowingenforcementofinternational
arbitration agreements between parties of different nationalities within a
contracting state. The enactment of R.A. No. 9285 on 2 April 2004 further
institutionalized the use of alternative dispute resolution systems, including
arbitration,inthesettlementofdisputes.
DeanCandelaria1213
Disputes do not go to arbitration unless and until the parties have agreed to
abide by the arbitrators decision. Necessarily, a contract is required for
arbitration to take place and to be binding. R.A. No. 876 recognizes the
contractual nature of the arbitration agreement, thus: Sec. 2. Persons and
matterssubjecttoarbitration.Twoormorepersonsorpartiesmaysubmit to
the arbitration of one or more arbitrators any controversy existing, between
thematthetimeofthesubmissionandwhichmaybethesubjectofanaction,
orthepartiestoanycontractmayinsuchcontractagreetosettlebyarbitration
a controversy thereafter arising between them. Such submission or contract
shallbevalid,enforceableandirrevocable,saveuponsuchgroundsasexistat
lawfortherevocationofanycontract.
ThespecialproceedingunderSec.6ofR.A.No.876recognizesthecontractual
nature of arbitration clauses or agreements. It provides: Sec. 6. Hearing by
court.Apartyaggrievedbythefailure,neglectorrefusalofanothertoperform
underanagreementinwritingprovidingforarbitrationmaypetitionthecourt
foranorderdirectingthatsucharbitrationproceedinthemannerprovidedfor
insuchagreement.Fivedaysnoticeinwritingofthehearingofsuchapplication
shallbeservedeitherpersonallyorbyregisteredmailuponthepartyindefault.
Thecourtshallheartheparties,anduponbeingsatisfiedthatthemakingofthe
agreement or such failure to comply therewith is not in issue, shall make an
order directing the parties to proceed to arbitration in accordance with the
terms of the agreement. If the making of the agreement or default be in issue
the court shall proceed to summarily hear such issue. If the finding be that no
agreement in writing providing for arbitration was made, or that there is no
default intheproceeding thereunder, theproceeding shall be dismissed. If the
finding be that a written provision for arbitration was made and there is a
default in proceeding thereunder, an order shall be made summarily directing
thepartiestoproceedwiththearbitrationinaccordancewiththetermsthereof.
ThejurisdictionofthecourtsinrelationtoSec.6ofR.A.No.876aswellasthe
nature of the proceedings therein was expounded upon in La Naval Drug
Corporation v. Court of Appeals. There it was held that R.A. No. 876 explicitly
confinesthecourtsauthorityonlytothedeterminationofwhetherornotthere
is an agreement in writing providing for arbitration. In the affirmative, the
statute ordains that the court shall issue an order summarily directing the
partiestoproceedwiththearbitrationinaccordancewiththetermsthereof.If
the court, upon the other hand, finds that no such agreement exists, the
proceedingshallbedismissed.Thecitedcasealsostressedthattheproceedings
aresummaryinnature.
5
DeanCandelaria1213