You are on page 1of 11

Bayan Muna vs Romulo 4.

When the [GRP] extradites, surrenders, or otherwise transfers a person of the [USA] to a third
G. R. No. 159618, February 01, 2011 country, the [GRP] will not agree to the surrender or transfer of that person by the third country to
any international tribunal, unless such tribunal has been established by the UN Security Council,
Facts: Petitioner Bayan Muna is a duly registered party-list group established to represent the absent the express consent of the Government of the [US].
marginalized sectors of society. Respondent Blas F. Ople, now deceased, was the Secretary of
Foreign Affairs during the period material to this case. Respondent Alberto Romulo was 5. This Agreement shall remain in force until one year after the date on which one party notifies
impleaded in his capacity as then Executive Secretary. the other of its intent to terminate the Agreement. The provisions of this Agreement shall continue
to apply with respect to any act occurring, or any allegation arising, before the effective date of
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court termination.

Having a key determinative bearing on this case is the Rome Statute establishing the International In response to a query of then Solicitor General Alfredo L. Benipayo on the status of the non-
Criminal Court (ICC) with “the power to exercise its jurisdiction over persons for the most serious surrender agreement, Ambassador Ricciardone replied in his letter of October 28, 2003 that the
crimes of international concern x x x and shall be complementary to the national criminal exchange of diplomatic notes constituted a legally binding agreement under international law; and
jurisdictions.” The serious crimes adverted to cover those considered grave under international that, under US law, the said agreement did not require the advice and consent of the US Senate.
law, such as genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes of aggression. 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.
On December 28, 2000, the RP, through Charge d’Affaires Enrique A. Manalo, signed the Rome
Statute which, by its terms, is “subject to ratification, acceptance or approval” by the signatory
states. As of the filing of the instant petition, only 92 out of the 139 signatory countries appear to Issue: Whether or not the RP-US NON SURRENDER AGREEMENT is void ab initio for
have completed the ratification, approval and concurrence process. The Philippines is not among contracting obligations that are either immoral or otherwise at variance with universally recognized
the 92. principles of international law.
RP-US Non-Surrender Agreement
Ruling: The petition is bereft of merit.
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 non-surrender bilateral Validity of the RP-US Non-Surrender Agreement
agreement (Agreement, hereinafter) between the USA and the RP.
Via Exchange of Notes No. BFO-028-037 dated May 13, 2003 (E/N BFO-028-03, hereinafter), the Petitioner’s initial challenge against the Agreement relates to form, its threshold posture being that
RP, represented by then DFA Secretary Ople, agreed with and accepted the US proposals E/N BFO-028-03 cannot be a valid medium for concluding the Agreement.
embodied under the US Embassy Note adverted to and put in effect the Agreement with the US
government. In esse, 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 Petitioners’ contention––perhaps taken unaware of certain well-recognized international
international tribunals.8 It is reflective of the increasing pace of the strategic security and defense doctrines, practices, and jargons––is untenable. One of these is the doctrine of incorporation, as
partnership between the two countries. As of May 2, 2003, similar bilateral agreements have been expressed in Section 2, Article II of the Constitution, wherein the Philippines adopts the generally
effected by and between the US and 33 other countries. accepted principles of international law and international jurisprudence as part of the law of the
land and adheres to the policy of peace, cooperation, and amity with all nations. An exchange of
notes falls “into the category of inter-governmental agreements,” which is an internationally
The Agreement pertinently provides as follows: accepted form of international agreement. The United Nations Treaty Collections (Treaty
Reference Guide) defines the term as follows:
1. For purposes of this Agreement, “persons” are current or former Government officials,
employees (including contractors), or military personnel or nationals of one Party. 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
2. Persons of one Party present in the territory of the other shall not, absent the express consent parties being in the possession of the one signed by the representative of the other. Under the
of the first Party, 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
(a) be surrendered or transferred by any means to any international tribunal for any purpose, technique of exchange of notes is frequently resorted to, either because of its speedy procedure,
unless such tribunal has been established by the UN Security Council, or or, sometimes, to avoid the process of legislative approval.

(b) be surrendered or transferred by any means to any other entity or third country, or expelled to In another perspective, the terms “exchange of notes” and “executive agreements” have been
a third country, for the purpose of surrender to or transfer to any international tribunal, unless such used interchangeably, exchange of notes being considered a form of executive agreement that
tribunal has been established by the UN Security Council. becomes binding through executive action. On the other hand, executive agreements concluded
by the President “sometimes take the form of exchange of notes and at other times that of more
formal documents denominated ‘agreements’ or ‘protocols.’” As former US High Commissioner to
3. When the [US] extradites, surrenders, or otherwise transfers a person of the Philippines to a the Philippines Francis B. Sayre observed in his work, The Constitutionality of Trade Agreement
third country, the [US] will not agree to the surrender or transfer of that person by the third country Acts:
to any international tribunal, unless such tribunal has been established by the UN Security Council,
absent the express consent of the Government of the Republic of the Philippines [GRP].
The point where ordinary correspondence between this and other governments ends and Government is a kind of a treaty.
agreements – whether denominated executive agreements or exchange of notes or otherwise –
begin, may sometimes be difficult of ready ascertainment. x x x HELD:The Loan Agreement No. PH-204 taken in conjunction with the Exchange of Notes dated
It is fairly clear from the foregoing disquisition that E/N BFO-028-03––be it viewed as the Non- December 27, 1999 between the Japanese Government and the Philippine Government is an
Surrender Agreement itself, or as an integral instrument of acceptance thereof or as consent to executive agreement.
be bound––is a recognized mode of concluding a legally binding international written contract An “exchange of notes” is a record of a routine agreement that has many similarities with the
among nations. 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.
Agreement Not Immoral/Not at Variance …treaties, agreements, conventions, charters, protocols, declarations, memoranda of
with Principles of International Law understanding, modus vivendi and exchange of notes all are refer to international instruments
binding at international law.
Although these instruments differ from each other by title, they all have common features and
Petitioner urges that the Agreement be struck down as void ab initio for imposing immoral international law has applied basically the same rules to all these instruments. These rules are
obligations and/or being at variance with allegedly universally recognized principles of the result of long practice among the States, which have accepted them as binding norms in
international law. The immoral aspect proceeds from the fact that the Agreement, as petitioner their mutual relations. Therefore, they are regarded as international customary law.
would put it, “leaves criminals immune from responsibility for unimaginable atrocities that deeply That case was dismissed by the SCORP last Feb. 14 2007.
shock the conscience of humanity; x x x it precludes our country from delivering an American
criminal to the [ICC] x x x.”63
What the petitioners wanted was that Foreign funded projects also undergo the procurement
process.
The above argument is a kind of recycling of petitioner’s earlier position, which, as already The dismissal of the case somehow gave justification for the delay of the implementing rules for
discussed, contends that the RP, by entering into the Agreement, virtually abdicated its foreign funded projects (IRR-B) of the procurement law If we recall the decision of the Abaya vs
sovereignty and in the process undermined its treaty obligations under the Rome Statute, contrary Ebdane was used by the DOJ when the DOTC Secretary was asking for an opinion from the
to international law principles. former, during the ZTE controversy.as ruled by the Supreme Court in Abaya v. Ebdane, an
exchange of notes is considered a form of an executive agreement, which becomes binding
The Court is not persuaded. Suffice it to state in this regard that the non-surrender agreement, as through executive action without need of a vote by the
aptly described by the Solicitor General, “is an assertion by the Philippines of its desire to try and Senate and that (like treaties and conventions, it is an international instrument binding at
punish crimes under its national law. x x x The agreement is a recognition of the primacy and international law,
competence of the country’s judiciary to try offenses under its national criminal laws and dispense The second issue involves an examination of the coverage of Republic Act No. 9184, otherwise
justice fairly and judiciously.” known as the “Government Procurement Reform Act”. Section 4 of the said Act provides that it
shall
Petitioner, we believe, labors under the erroneous impression that the Agreement would allow apply to: … the Procurement of infrastructure Projects, Goods and Consulting Services,
Filipinos and Americans committing high crimes of international concern to escape criminal trial regardless of source of funds, whether local or foreign, by all branches and instrumentalities of
and punishment. This is manifestly incorrect. Persons who may have committed acts penalized government, its departments, offices and agencies, including government-owned and/or -
under the Rome Statute can be prosecuted and punished in the Philippines or in the US; or with controlled corporations and local government units, subject to the provisions of Commonwealth
the consent of the RP or the US, before the ICC, assuming, for the nonce, that all the formalities Act No. 138. Any treaty or international or executive agreement affecting the subject matter of this
necessary to bind both countries to the Rome Statute have been met. For perspective, what the Act to which the Philippine government is a signatory shall be observed.
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 Commissioner of Customs & Collector of Customs vs Eastern Sea Trading
crime under its existing laws. With the view we take of things, there is nothing immoral or violative
of international law concepts in the act of the Philippines of assuming criminal jurisdiction pursuant October 29, 2011 3 SCRA 351 – Political Law – Constitutional Law – Treaties vs Executive
to the non-surrender agreement over an offense considered criminal by both Philippine laws and Agreemen
the Rome Statute.
FACTS:Eastern Sea Trading (EST) was a shipping company which imports from Japan onion and
Plaridel M. Abaya vs. Hon. Secretary Hermogenes E. Ebdane, Jr. garlic into the Philippines. In 1956, the Commissioner of Customs ordered the seizure and
forfeiture of the import goods because EST was not able to comply with Central Bank Circulars
FACTS:On May 7, 2004 Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) of the Department of Public Works 44 and 45. The said circulars were pursuant to Executive Order 328. On the other hand, EO 328
and Highways (DPWH) issued a Resolution No. PJHL-A-04-012. It was approved by DPWH was the implementing law of the Trades and Financial Agreements, an executive agreement,
Acting Secretary Florante Soriquez. This resolution recommended the award to China Road & entered into between the Philippines and Japan. The said executive agreement states, among
Bridge Corporation of the contract for the implementation of civil works for Contract Package No. others, that all import transactions between Japan and the Philippines should be invoiced in dollar.
I (CP I), which consists of the improvement/rehabilitation of the San Andres-Virac-Jct. Bago-Viga In this case, the said items imported by EST from Japan were not invoiced in dollar.
road, with the lengt of 79.818 kilometers, in the island province of Catanduanes.
This Loan Agreement No. PH-204 was executed by and between the JBIC and the Philippine
Government pursuant to the exchange of Notes executed by and between Mr. Yoshihisa Ara, EST questioned the validity of the said EO averring that the executive agreement that the EO was
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Japan to the Philippines, and then Foreign implementing was never concurred upon by the Senate. The issue was elevated to the Court of
Affairs Secretary Siazon, in behalf of their respective governments. Tax Appeals and the latter ruled in favor of EST. The Commissioner appealed.

ISSUE:Whether or not the Loan Agreement No. PH-204 between the JBIC and the Philippine ISSUE: Whether or not the Executive Agreement is subject to the concurrence by the Senate.
HELD: No, Executive Agreements are not like treaties which are subject to the concurrence of at Public International Law: G. R. No. 175608 June 8, 2007 DEPARTMENT O BUDGET AND
least 2/3 of the members of the Senate. Agreements concluded by the President which fall short MANAGEMENT PROCUREMENT SERVICE (DBM-PS) and the inter-Agency Bids and
of treaties are commonly referred to as executive agreements and are no less common in our Awards Committee (IABAC), petetioners VS. KOLONWEL TRADING, respondent.
scheme of government than are the more formal instruments — treaties and conventions. They
sometimes take the form of exchanges of notes and at other times that of more formal documents FACTS :This is a petition for review, with a prayer for temporary restraining order to nullify and
denominated ‘agreements’ or ‘protocols’. set aside the Order dated Dec. 04, 2006 of the Manila RTC.

The point where ordinary correspondence between this and other governments ends and In the middle of 2005, DepEd requested the services of the DBM-PS to undertake procurement
agreements — whether denominated executive agreements or exchanges of notes or otherwise project which is to be jointly funded by the World Bank (WB), thru the Second Social Expenditure
— begin, may sometimes be difficult of ready ascertainment. It would be useless to undertake to Management Program (SEMP2) of the RP-IBRD Loan Agreement No. 7118-PH and the Asian
discuss here the large variety of executive agreements as such, concluded from time to time. Development Bank (ABD) thru SEDIP Loan No. 1654-PHI. In October 2005, the DBM-PS called
Hundreds of executive agreements, other than those entered into under the trade- agreements for a bidding for the supply of the Makabayan textbooks and teachers manuals. Of the entities,
act, have been negotiated with foreign governments. . . . It would seem to be sufficient, in order foreign and local, only eleven (11) bidders submitted, including private respondent Kolonwel.
to show that the trade agreements under the act of 1934 are not anomalous in character, that they
are not treaties, and that they have abundant precedent in our history, to refer to certain classes
of agreements heretofore entered into by the Executive without the approval of the Senate. Following the bid and the book content/body evaluation process, DBM committee issued a
resolution disqualifying, among others, Kolonwel for “failure in cover stock testing “. Kolonwel was
informed of this and subsequently filed with RTC Manila a special civil action for certiorari with a
They cover such subjects as the inspection of vessels, navigation dues, income tax on shipping prayer for TRO. In support of its TRO application, Kolonwel alleged, among other things, that the
profits, the admission of civil aircraft, customs matters, and commercial relations generally, supply-awardees were rushing with the implementation of the void supply contracts to beat the
international claims, postal matters, the registration of trade-marks and copyrights, etc. Some of closing-date deadline. After summary hearing, the Manila RTC issued a 20-day TRO, and later
them were concluded not by specific congressional authorization but in conformity with policies issued a decision wherein Resolution 001-2006-A of the DBM was annulled and set aside. Hence
declared in acts of Congress with respect to the general subject matter, such as tariff acts; while this petition.
still others, particularly those with respect to the settlement of claims against foreign governments,
were concluded independently of any legislation.
ISSUE : Whether or not the foreign loan agreements (Loan No. 7118-PH) with international
financial institutions, partake of an executive or international agreement and shall govern the
SECRETARY OF JUSTICE v. LANTION procurement of goods necessary to implement the project.
322 SCRA 160
HELD: This issue has been affirmatively answered in the case of Abaya. In that case, the court
FACTS: Secretary Of Justice Franklin Drilon, representing the Government of the Republic of declared that the RP-JBIC loan agreement was to be of governing application over the CP I project
the Philippines, signed in Manila the “extradition Treaty Between the Government of the and that the JBIC Procurement Guidelines, as stipulated in the loan agreement.
Philippines and the Government of the U.S.A. The Philippine Senate ratified the said Treaty. Under the fundamental international law principle of pacta sunt servanda, the RP, as borrower,
On June 18, 1999, the Department of Justice received from the Department of Foreign Affairs bound itself to perform in good faith its duties and obligation under Loan No. 7118-PH. Applying
U.S Note Verbale No. 0522 containing a request for the extradition of private respondent Mark this postulate, the IABAC was legally obliged to comply with, or accord primacy to, the WB
Jiminez to the United States. Guidelines on the conduct and implementation of the bidding/procurement process in question.
On the same day petitioner designate and authorizing a panel of attorneys to take charge of and
to handle the case. Pending evaluation of the aforestated extradition documents, Mark Jiminez
through counsel, wrote a letter to Justice Secretary requesting copies of the official extradition Pharmaceutical and Health Care Association of the Philippines vs. Duque
request from the U.S Government and that he be given ample time to comment on the request
after he shall have received copies of the requested papers but the petitioner denied the request Facts: Named as respondents are the Health Secretary, Undersecretaries, and Assistant
for the consistency of Article 7 of the RP-US Extradition Treaty stated in Article 7 that the Secretaries of the Department of Health (DOH). For purposes of herein petition, the DOH is
Philippine Government must present the interests of the United States in any proceedings deemed impleaded as a co-respondent since respondents issued the questioned RIRR in their
arising out of a request for extradition. capacity as officials of said executive agency.1Executive Order No. 51 (Milk Code) was issued by
President Corazon Aquino on October 28, 1986 by virtue of the legislative powers granted to the
president under the Freedom Constitution. One of the preambular clauses of the Milk Code states
that the law seeks to give effect to Article 112 of the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk
ISSUE:Whether or not treaty stipulations must take precedence over an individual’s due process Substitutes (ICMBS), a code adopted by the World Health Assembly (WHA) in 1981. From 1982
rights to 2006, the WHA adopted several Resolutions to the effect that breastfeeding should be
supported, promoted and protected, hence, it should be ensured that nutrition and health claims
HELD:The human rights of person and the rights of the accused guaranteed in the Constitution are not permitted for breastmilk substitutes.In 1990, the Philippines ratified the International
should take precedence over treaty rights claimed by a contracting party, the doctrine of Convention on the Rights of the Child. Article 24 of said instrument provides that State Parties
incorporation is applied whenever municipal tribunals are confronted with situation where there is should take appropriate measures to diminish infant and child mortality, and ensure that all
conflict between a rule of the international law and the constitution. Efforts must first be made in segments of society, specially parents and children, are informed of the advantages of
order to harmonize the provisions so as to give effect to both but if the conflict is irreconcilable, breastfeeding. On May 15, 2006, the DOH issued herein assailed RIRR which was to take effect
the municipal law must be upheld. The fact that international law has been made part of the law on July 7, 2006.
of the land does not pertain to or imply the primacy of international law over municipal law in the
municipal speher. In states where the constitution is the highest law of the land, both statutes and Issue: Whether Administrative Order or the Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations (RIRR)
treaties may be invalidated if they are in conflict with the constitution. issued by the Department of Health (DOH) is not constitutional;
Held: YES, under Article 23, recommendations of the WHA do not come into force for consistent practice on the part of States; and a psychological element known as the opinion juris
members,in the same way that conventions or agreements under Article 19 and regulations sive necessitates (opinion as to law or necessity). Implicit in the latter element is a belief that the
under Article 21 come into force. Article 23 of the WHO Constitution reads: practice in question is rendered obligatory by the existence of a rule of law requiring it. (Mijares
Article 23. The Health Assembly shall have authority to make recommendations to Members v. Ranada, G.R. No. 139325, April 12, 2005, 455 SCRA 397).
with respect to any matter within the competence of the Organization
for an international rule to be considered as customary law, it must be established that such rule Q— Give examples of soft law.
is being followed by states because they consider it obligatory to comply with such rules

Under the 1987 Constitution, international law can become part of the sphere of domestic law ANS: Certain declarations and resolutions of the UN General Assembly fall under this
either category. (Louis Henkins, et al., International Law, Cases and Materials, 2nd Ed.). The UN
Declaration of Human Rights is an example. This was applied in Government of Hongkong
By transformation or incorporation. The transformation method requires that an international law Special Administrative Region v. Olalia; Mejoff v. Director of Prisons; 90 Phil. 70 (1951); Mijares
be transformed into a domestic law through a constitutional mechanism such as local legislation. v. Ranada; Shangri-la International Hotel Management.
The incorporation method applies when, by mere constitutional declaration, international law is
deemed to have the force of domestic law. RULING: his is a significant proposition, as it acknowledges that the procedure and requisites
outlined in Section 48, Rule 39 derive their efficacy not merely from the procedural rule, but by
Consequently, legislation is necessary to transform the provisions of the WHA Resolutions into virtue of the incorporation clause of the Constitution. Rules of procedure are promulgated by the
domestic law. The provisions of the WHA Resolutions cannot be considered as part of the law of Supreme Court,[70] and could very well be abrogated or revised by the high court itself. Yet the
the land that can be implemented by executive agencies without the need of a law enacted by Supreme Court is obliged, as are all State components, to obey the laws of the land, including
the legislature generally accepted principles of international law which form part thereof, such as those
ensuring the qualified recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments.[71]
[G.R. No. 139325. April 12, 2005]
Thus, relative to the enforcement of foreign judgments in the Philippines, it emerges that there is
PRISCILLA C. MIJARES, LORETTA ANN P. ROSALES, HILDA B. NARCISO, SR. MARIANI a general right recognized within our body of laws, and affirmed by the Constitution, to seek
DIMARANAN, SFIC, and JOEL C. LAMANGAN in their behalf and on behalf of the Class recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, as well as a right to defend against such
Plaintiffs in Class Action No. MDL 840, United States District Court of Hawaii, petitioners, enforcement on the grounds of want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud,
vs. HON. SANTIAGO JAVIER RANADA, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of Branch 137, or clear mistake of law or fact.
Regional Trial Court, Makati City, and the ESTATE OF FERDINAND E. MARCOS, through
its court appointed legal representatives in Class Action MDL 840, United States District The preclusion of an action for enforcement of a foreign judgment in this country merely due to
Court of Hawaii, namely: Imelda R. Marcos and Ferdinand Marcos, Jr., respondents. an exhorbitant assessment of docket fees is alien to generally accepted practices and principles
in international law. Indeed, there are grave concerns in conditioning the amount of the filing fee
FACTS: on the pecuniary award or the value of the property subject of the foreign decision. Such
pecuniary award will almost certainly be in foreign denomination, computed in accordance with
Invoking the Alien Tort Act, petitioners Mijares, et al.*, all of whom suffered human rights the applicable laws and standards of the forum.[72] The vagaries of inflation, as well as the
violations during the Marcos era, obtained a Final Judgment in their favor against the Estate of relative low-income capacity of the Filipino, to date may very well translate into an award
the late Ferdinand Marcos amounting to roughly 1.9 Billion U.S. Dollars in compensatory and virtually unenforceable in this country, despite its integral validity, if the docket fees for the
exemplary damages for tortuous violations of international law in the US District Court of Hawaii. enforcement thereof were predicated on the amount of the award sought to be enforced. The
This Final Judgment was affirmed by the US Court of Appeals. theory adopted by respondent judge and the Marcos Estate may even lead to absurdities, such
as if applied to an award involving real property situated in places such as the United States or
Scandinavia where real property values are inexorably high. We cannot very well require that
As a consequence, Petitioners filed a Complaint with the Regional Trial Court of Makati for the the filing fee be computed based on the value of the foreign property as determined by the
enforcement of the Final Judgment, paying Php 410.00 as docket and filing fees based on Rule standards of the country where it is located.
141, Section 7(b) where the value of the subject matter is incapable of pecuniary estimation.
The Estate of Marcos however, filed a MTD alleging the non-payment of the correct filing fees.
The Regional Trial Court of Makati dismissed the Complaint stating that the subject matter was WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed orders are NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE,
capable of pecuniary estimation as it involved a judgment rendered by a foreign court ordering and a new order REINSTATING Civil Case No. 97-1052 is hereby issued. No costs.
the payment of a definite sum of money allowing for the easy determination of the value of the
foreign judgment. As such, the proper filing fee was 472 Million Philippine pesos, which [GR No. 182498, Jun 22, 2010 ]
Petitioners had not paid.
GEN. AVELINO I. RAZON v. MARY JEAN B. TAGITIS
Q — May generally accepted principles of international law form part of the law of the land
even if they do not derive from treaty obligations? Explain. FACTS: Engineer Morced N. Tagitis (Tagitis), a consultant for the World Bank and the Senior
Honorary Counselor for the Islamic Development Bank (IDB) Scholarship Programme, together
ANS: Yes. Generally accepted principles of international law, by virtue of the incorporation with Arsimin Kunnong (Kunnong), an IDBscholar, arrived in Jolo by boat in the early morning of
clause of the Constitution, form part of the laws of the land even if they do not derive from treaty October 31, 2007 from a seminar in Zamboanga City. They immediately checked-in at ASY
obligations. The classical formulation in international law sees those customary rules accepted Pension House. Tagitis asked Kunnong to buy him a boat ticket for his return trip the following day
as binding result from the combination of two elements: the established, widespread, and to Zamboanga. When Kunnong returned from this errand, Tagitis was no longer around.
Kunnong looked for Tagitis and even sent a text message to the latter’s Manila-based secretary, There was no direct evidence indicating how the victim actually disappeared. The direct
who advised Kunnong to simply wait for Tagitis’ return. On November 4, 2007, Kunnong evidence at hand only shows that Tagitis went out of the ASY Pension House after depositing
and Muhammad Abdulnazeir N. Matli, a UP professor of Muslim studies and Tagitis’ fellow his room key with the hotel desk and was never seen nor heard of again. The undisputed
student counselor at the IDB, reported Tagitis’ disappearance to the Jolo Police Station. More conclusion, however, from all concerned – the petitioner, Tagitis’ colleagues and even the police
than a month later, or on December 28, 2007, the respondent, May Jean Tagitis, through her authorities – is that Tagistis disappeared under mysterious circumstances and was never seen
attorney-in-fact, filed a Petition for the Writ of Amparo (petition) directed against Lt. Gen. again.
Alexander Yano, Commanding General, Philippine Army; Gen. Avelino I. Razon, Chief, Philippine
National Police (PNP); Gen. Edgardo M.Doromal, Chief, Criminal Investigation and Detention RELATED CONCEPT: Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Group (CIDG); Sr. Supt. Leonardo A. Espina, Chief, Police Anti-Crime and Emergency Response; recognizes every human beings inherent right to life, while Article 9 thereof ordains that
Gen. Joel Goltiao, Regional Director, ARMM-PNP; and Gen. Ruben Rafael, Chief, Anti-Terror everyone has the right to liberty and security. The right to life must be protected by law while the
Task Force Comet (collectively referred to as “petitioners”), with the Court of Appeals (CA). On right to liberty and security cannot be impaired except on grounds provided by and in
the same day, the CA immediately issued the Writ of Amparo and set the case for hearing accordance with law. This overarching command against deprivation of life, liberty and security
on January 7, 2008. without due process of law is also embodied in our fundamental law.

On March 7, 2008, the CA issued its decision confirming that the disappearance of Tagitis was an The budding jurisprudence on amparo blossomed in Razon, Jr. v. Tagitis when this Court
“enforced disappearance” under the United Nations (UN) Declaration on the Protection of defined enforced disappearances. The Court in that case applied the generally accepted
All Persons from Enforced Disappearances. The CA ruled that when military intelligence principles of international law and adopted the International Convention for the Protection of All
pinpointed the investigative arm of the PNP(CIDG) to be involved in the abduction, the missing- Persons from Enforced Disappearances definition of enforced disappearances, as "the arrest,
person case qualified as an enforced disappearance. Hence, the CA extended the privilege of the detention, abduction or any other form of deprivation of liberty by agents of the State or by
writ to Tagitis and his family, and directed the petitioners to exert extraordinary diligence and persons or groups of persons acting with the authorization, support or acquiescence of the
efforts to protect the life, liberty and security of Tagitis, with the obligation to State, followed by a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty or by concealment of the
provide monthly reports of their actions to the CA. At the same time, the CA dismissed the petition fate or whereabouts of the disappeared person, which place such a person outside the
against the then respondents from the military, Lt. Gen Alexander Yano and Gen. Ruben Rafael, protection of the law."
based on the finding that it was PNP-CIDG, not the military that was involved. On March 31, 2008,
the petitioners moved to reconsider the CA decision, but the CA denied the motion in its
Resolution dated April 9, 2008. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed a petition for review with the CHINA NATIONAL MACHINERY & EQUIPMENT CORP V. SANTAMARIA (2012)
Supreme Court.
FACTS: In September 2002, petitioner CNMEG entered into a memorandum of understanding
ISSUE: Whether or not the privilege of the Writ of Amparo should be extended to Engr. Morced (MOU) with North Luzon Railways Corp (Northrail) to conduct a feasibility study on a construction
Tagitis. of a railway line from Manila to La Union (Northrail Project) 1. Subsequently, Export Import Bank
of China (EXIM Bank) and Department of Finance entered into a MOU whereby China will extend
a preferred buyerâs credit to the Philippines to finance the Northrail Project. EXIM is to loan DOF
RULING: $400 million payable in 20 years with a 5-year grace period at the rate of 3% per annum 2. In
December 2003, Northrail and CNMEG executed a contract for the construction of Phase I of the
The disappearance of Engr. Morced Tagitis is classified as an enforced disappearance, thus the Northrail Project. The contract price was pegged at $421,050,000 3. The Philippine Government
privilege of the Writ of Amparo applies. then obtained a loan from EXIM for $400,000 to finance the project 4. Respondents, filed a
complaint for annulment of contract, alleging that the contract was void for being a. Contrary to
Under the UN Declaration enforced disappearance as "the arrest, detention, abduction or any the Constitution b. Government Procurement Reform Act (RA 9184) c. Government Auditing Code
other form of deprivation of liberty by agents of the State or by persons or groups of persons (PD 1445) d. Administrative Code
acting with the authorization, support or acquiescence of the State, followed by a refusal to
acknowledge the deprivation of liberty or by concealment of the fate or whereabouts of the ISSUES:
disappeared person, which place such a person outside the protection of the law." Under this
definition, the elements that constitute enforced disappearance are essentially fourfold: 1. WON CNMEG is entitled to immunity

(a) arrest, detention, abduction or any form of deprivation of liberty; 2. WON the contract agreement is an executive agreement

(b) carried out by agents of the State or persons or groups of persons acting with the HELD:
authorization, support or acquiescence of the State;
1. No. CNMEG is engaged in proprietary activity Theories on Sovereign Immunity: According to
(c) followed by a refusal to acknowledge the detention, or a concealment of the fate of the the classical or absolute theory, a sovereign cannot, without its consent, be made a respondent
disappeared person; in the courts of another sovereign. According to the newer or restrictive theory, the immunity of
the sovereign is recognized only with regard to public acts or acts jure imperii of a state, but not
(d) placement of the disappeared person outside the protection of the law. with regard to private acts or acts jure gestionis.

Since the Philippines adheres to the restrictive theory, it is crucial to ascertain the legal
nature of the act involved whether the entity claiming immunity performs governmental, as
opposed to proprietary, functions. The restrictive application of State immunity is proper only when PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT VS. SANDIGANBAYAN
the proceedings arise out of commercial transactions of the foreign sovereign, its commercial
activities or economic affairs. CAB: The Memorandum of Understanding dated 14 September G.R. No. 125788
2002 between Northrail and CNMEG; the letter of Amb. Wang dated 1 October 2003 addressed
to Sec. Camacho; and the Loan Agreement show that CNMEG is engaged in a proprietary activity.
FACTS: Petitioner PCGG filed in the Sandiganbayan a case for re-conveyance, reversion,
accounting, restitution and damages (Civil Case No. 0009) against Manuel H. Nieto, Jose L. Africa,
1. The Memorandum of Understanding dated 14 September 2002 shows that CNMEG Roberto S. Benedicto, Potenciano Illusorio, Juan Ponce Enrile and Ferdinand E. Marcos, Jr.,
sought the construction of the Luzon Railways as a proprietary venture. (Whereas clauses). It was alleging, in substance, that said defendants acted as “dummies of the late strongman and devised
CNMEG that initiated the undertaking, and not the Chinese government. The Feasibility Study “schemes and stratagems” to monopolize the telecommunications industry. Annexed to the
was conducted not because of any diplomatic gratuity from or exercise of sovereign functions by complaint is a listing of the assets of defendants Nieto and Africa, among which are their shares
the Chinese government, but was plainly a business strategy employed by CNMEG with a view to of stock in private respondent Aerocom Investors and Managers, Inc. (Aerocom).
securing this commercial enterprise.
After a year, the PCGG sought to sequester Aerocom under a writ of sequestration which was
2. The desire of CNMEG to secure the Northrail Project was in the ordinary or regular served and received “under protest” by Aerocom’s president. Then Aerocom filed a complaint
course of its business as a global construction company. The implementation of the Northrail against the PCGG urging the Sandiganbayan (Civil Case No. 0044) to nullify the same on the
Project was intended to generate profit for CNMEG, with the Contract Agreement placing a ground that it was served on Aerocom beyond the 18-month period from the ratification of the
contract price of USD 421,050,000 for the venture. The use of the term "state corporation" to refer 1987 Constitution. Then, Aerocom filed a Manifestation and Motion praying that the
to CNMEG was only descriptive of its nature as a government-owned and/or -controlled Sandiganbayan direct the PCGG to release and distribute the dividends pertaining to the shares
corporation, and its assignment as the Primary Contractor did not imply that it was acting on behalf of Aerocom in all corporations where it owns shares of stock. PCGG opposed the release of the
of China in the performance of the latterâs sovereign functions dividends on the argument that “the fact that plaintiff Aerocom is mentioned in Annex A of the
complaint filed in Civil Case No. 0009 is a clear indication that the shares thereof are likewise
3. The Loan agreement specifically states that the execution of the contract agreement sequestered.”
constitutes private and commercial acts done and performed for commercial purposes under
Philippine laws Even assuming arguendo that CNMEG performs governmental functions, such Sandiganbayan ordered the PCGG to release the dividends pertaining to Aerocom except the
claim does not automatically vest it with immunity. The logical question is whether the foreign state dividends on the sequestered shares of stock registered in the names of Nieto and Africa. This is
is engaged in the activity in the regular course of business. If the foreign state is not engaged on the ground that the complaint in Civil Case No. 0009 does not show that Aerocom was itself
regularly in a business or trade, the particular act or transaction must then be tested by its nature. sequestered. Aerocom, being a corporation, has a separate and distinct juridical personality from
If the act is in pursuit of a sovereign activity, or an incident thereof, then it is an act jure imperii, its stakeholders.
especially when it is not undertaken for gain or profit.
ISSUE: Whether Sandiganbayan erred in ordering the PCGG to release the dividends of Aerocom,
APPLICATION OF GTZ CASE: it is readily apparent that CNMEG cannot claim with exception as to the sequestered shares of stock of Nieto and Africa.
immunity from suit, even if it contends that it performs governmental functions. Its designation as
the Primary Contractor does not automatically grant it immunity, just as the term "implementing
agency" has no precise definition for purposes of ascertaining whether GTZ was immune from RULING: Sandiganbayan did not err in ordering the PCGG to release the dividends of Aerocom.
suit. Although CNMEG claims to be a government-owned corporation, it failed to adduce evidence The PCGG failed to file the corresponding judicial action against Aerocom within then period
that it has not consented to be sued under Chinese law. Thus, following this Court’s ruling in provided for in the Constitution. The fact that Aerocom was mentioned in the complaint of the
Deutsche Gesellschaft, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, CNMEG is to be presumed to PCGG in Civil Case No. 0009 and in Annex A thereof cannot justify the sequestration of the
be a government-owned and -controlled corporation without an original charter. As a result, it has dividends pertaining to Aerocom, as it was not impleaded as party-defendant.There is no existing
the capacity to sue and be sued under Section 36 of the Corporation Code. CNMEG failed to sequestration in this case, as the writ issued against Aerocom is invalid. The suit in Civil Case No.
present a certification from DFA: In Public International Law, when a state or international agency 0009 against Nieto and Africa as shareholders in Aerocom is not and cannot ipso facto be a suit
wishes to plead sovereign or diplomatic immunity in a foreign court, it requests the Foreign Office against the unimpleaded Aerocom itself without violating the fundamental principle that a
of the state where it is sued to convey to the court that said defendant is entitled to immunity. CAB: corporation has a legal personality distinct and separate from its stockholders. Failure to implead
CNMEG offers the Certification executed by the Economic and Commercial Office of the Embassy these corporations as defendants and merely annexing a list of such corporations to the
of the People’s Republic of China, stating that the North rail Project is in pursuit of a sovereign complaints is a violation of their right to due process for it would be in effect disregarding their
activity. Surely, this is not the kind of certification that can establish CNMEG’s entitlement to distinct and separate personality without a hearing.
immunity from suit, as Holy See unequivocally refers to the determination of the "Foreign Office
of the state where it is sued." UNDERHILL V. HERNANDEZ (1897) 168 U.S. 250

2. Article 2(1) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (Vienna Convention) defines a FACTS: In an 1892 revolution, General Hernandez deposed the existing Venezuelan government
treaty as follows: An international agreement concluded between States in written form and and took control of Ciudad Bolivar, where Pl Underhill, an American citizen, lived and ran a
governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related waterworks system for the city. Underhill applied to Hernandez, requesting a passport to leave the
instruments and whatever its particular designation. An executive agreement is similar to a treaty, city. Hernandez initially refused, but ultimately granted it. When Underhill finally got back to the
except that the former (a) does not require legislative concurrence; (b) is usually less formal; and U.S. he brought an action to recover damages caused by his detention in Venezuela, for alleged
(c) deals with a narrower range of subject matters. To be considered an executive agreement, the confinement to his own house, and for certain alleged assaults and affronts by soldiers of
following three requisites provided under the Vienna Convention must nevertheless concur: (a) Hernandez's army.
the agreement must be between states; (b) it must be written; and (c) it must be governed by
international law. The first and the third requisites do not obtain in the case at bar.
ISSUE: Apply the Act of State Doctrine: violates customary international law. Even in a situation whereby international law has been
Ask: Does the outcome of the case turn on whether the court gives validity to the public act of a violated, the clear implication of past cases is that the Act of State Doctrine is applicable because
foreign state? the Act of State doctrine does not deprive the courts of jurisdiction once acquire over a case. The
damages of adjudicating the propriety of such expropriation acts, regardless of whether the State
REASONING: Court determined that Hernandez had acted in his official capacity as a military Department has it did in this case, asserted that the act violated international law are too far-
commander so his actions were those of the Venezuelan government. The Court therefore refused reaching for the judicial branch to attempt. Hence the judgment of the court of appeals is reverse
to hear the claim against based on the Act of State Doctrine. The Court reasoned, "Every and the case remanded back to the district court.
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 the government of another, done within Dissent: (White, J). American courts are not required by the Act of State Doctrine to decide cases
its own territory. Redress of grievances by reason of such acts must be obtained through the in disregard of international law and of the rights of litigants to a full determination on the merits.
means open to be availed of by sovereign powers as between themselves." Also, it didn’t matter
that it was a revolution, and that the commander may not have had recognition at the time as the
leader from outside the territory. What matters is that he succeeded and is now recognized as Discussion: Even in the diversity of citizenship cases, the Court concluded that the Act of State
such. Notes • Court will not let case proceed in U.S. why? ○ Use the int'l reasoning - we should Doctrine must be determined according to federal rather than state law. The court also made it
judge another country's actions if they have justification for it within their own laws. Govt actor, clear that it is constrained to make it clear that an issue concerned with a basic choice regarding
and it occurred in Venezuela. Therefore we should apply their law. Why apply U.S. law? U.S. can the competence and function of the judiciary and national executive in ordering our relationships
make a jurisdictional claim because c victim is American, but b/c of act of state doctrine, we should with other members of the international community must be treated exclusively as an aspect of
leave it up to Venezuela to deal with. federal law.

The Act of State Doctrine is like a Choice of Law principle: RELATED CONCEPT: In Sabbatino, the court held that If a transaction takes place in one
- It is like a choice of law principle because the court is exercising jurisdiction over the foreign jurisdiction and the forum is in another, the court merely declines to adjudicate or makes applicable
state but it is applying the law of the foreign state rather than domestic law. its own law to parties or property before it. The refusal of one country to enforce the penal laws
of another is a typical example of an instance when a court will not entertain a cause of action
The decision in Underhill v. Hernandez strongly indicates that the doctrine had its origins in arising in another jurisdiction. The court further held that one nation must recognize the act of the
notions of sovereign equality and was based on the view that international law imposed limits on sovereign power of another, so long as it has jurisdiction under international law, even if it is
the ability of States to exercise jurisdiction over other States. improper according to the internal law of the latter state. The court held that the justification for
applying the doctrine would be weaker in cases where the relevant rules of international law are
Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, clear or where the government which performed the act is no longer in existence. Therefore, the
376 U.S. 398 (1964) court further held that:

“rather than laying down or reaffirming an inflexible and all-encompassing rule in this case, we
Synopsis of Rule of Law. The judiciary, in line with the Act of State Doctrine will not examine the
decide only that the Judicial Branch will not examine the validity of a taking of property within its
validity of a taking of property within its own territory by a foreign sovereign government recognized
own territory by a foreign sovereign government, extant and recognized by this country at the time
by this country in the absence of international agreements to the contrary, even if the taking
of suit, in the absence of a treaty or other unambiguous agreement regarding controlling legal
violates customary international law.
principles, even if the complaint alleges that the taking violates customary international law.”

Facts: The case arose when Cuba nationalized its sugar industry, taking control of sugar
refineries and other companies in the wake of the Cuban revolution. The case involved a claim Although the Sabbatino decision was reached by a nearly unanimous Supreme Court, confusion
arose which presently surrounds the doctrine. Congress expressed its displeasure about the
by Cuba for the purchase price of a cargo of sugar which had been expropriated by the Cuban
decision by enacting legislation 22 U.S.C. § 2370 – the Second Hickenlooper Amendment. This
government, and then, sold to a US commodity broker (Farr, Whitlock & Co.). In addition to the legislation requires US courts not to refuse on act of State grounds “to make a determination on
Cuban claim, Farr was faced with a claim from the receivers of the original owner (Sabbatino) the merits giving effect to the principles of international law” in cases involving claims to property
who argued that the Cuban expropriation was contrary to international law. Both the District expropriated by foreign States after 1958.
Court and the Court of Appeals found for Sabbatino, holding that the Act of State doctrine was
inapplicable where the relevant foreign act was in violation of international law. However, the Tolentino v. The Board of Accountancy
Supreme Court reversed this decision. Justice Harlan applied the Act of State doctrine and held
that US courts could not question the validity of the Cuban expropriations even if the plaintiff G. R. No. L-3062 September 28, 1951
alleged a violation of international law..
Facts: Commonwealth Act No. 3105 was enacted. Section 16-A thereof, as amended by
Commonwealth Act No. 342, authorized accountants to practice their profession under a trade
Issue: Does the judiciary have the authority to examine the validity of a taking of property within name. Assailing the constitutionality of the aforementioned provision, plaintiff, an accountant, filed
its own territory by a foreign sovereign even if the taking violated international law? an action for declaratory relief in the CFI of Manila on the ground advanced that the assailed
provision is a class legislation since by its terms it excludes persons engaged in other callings or
Held: (Harlan, J). No. The judiciary, in line with the Act of State Doctrine will not examine the professions from adopting, acquiring or using a trade name in connection with the practice of such
validity of a taking of property within its own territory by a foreign sovereign government recognized callings or professions. Included as defendants are Robert Orr Ferguson, and Hans Hausamann,
by this country in the absence of international agreements to the contrary, even if the taking
foreign accountants practicing their profession in the Philippines under the trade name “Fleming international tribunal, the State is the sole claimant. Therefore, the State is the sole judge to decide
and Williamson.” whether its protection in favor of those petitioners will be granted, to what extent it is granted, and
when will it cease. It is a discretionary power and the exercise of which may be determined by
Issue: Whether plaintiff has sufficient cause of action to question the constitutionality of consideration of a political or other nature. Moreover, in the invocation of jus cogens norms and
Commonwealth Act No. 342? erga omnes obligation of the Philippines, the petitioners failed to show that the crimes committed
by the Japanese army violated jis cogens prohibitions at the time the Treaty of Peace was signed,
or that the duty to prosecute perpetrators of international crimes in an erga omnes obligation or
Held: No, plaintiff has no sufficient cause of action. Plaintiff’s main objection centers on the has attained the status of jus cogens. DISPOSITION, petition is dismissed.
exclusive character of the law which extends its benefits only to those engaged in the profession
of accountancy. It is obvious that he seeks the declaratory relief not for his own personal benefit,
or because his rights or prerogatives as an accountant, or as an individual, are adversely affected,
but rather for the benefit of persons belonging to other professions or callings, who are not parties
to this case. He does not claim having suffered any prejudice or damage to him or to his rights or
prerogatives as an accountant by the use of the disputed name by the defendants. His complaint
is rather addressed against the propriety of the use of said trade name by the defendants because
it is misleading and is liable to defraud the public. Plaintiff, therefore, has no actual justiciable
controversy against the herein defendants which may give him the right to secure relief by
asserting the unconstitutionality of the law in question. In order that an action for declaratory relief
may be entertained, it must be predicated on the following requisite facts or conditions: (1) there
must be a justiciable controversy; (2) the controversy must be between persons whose interests
are adverse; (3) the party seeking declaratory relief must have a legal interest in the controversy;
and (4) the issue involved must be ripe for judicial determination. These requisite facts are wanting
and, therefore, the complaint must fail for lack of sufficient cause of action.

VINUYA VS. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

GR No. 162230 / Aug 12 2014 / J. Bersamin

FACTS: Petitioners are all members of the MALAYA LOLAS, a non-stock, non-profit organization
registered with the SEC for the purpose of providing aid to the victims of rape by Japanese military
forces in the Philippines during the WWII. They claim that they were “comfort women” at that time
and have greatly suffered because of that. In 1998, they have approached the Executive
Department through the DOJ, DFA, and OSG and requested assistance in filing a claim against
the Japanese officials and military officers who ordered the establishment of the “comfort women”
stations in the Philippines. However, the officials declined on that ground that the individual claims
had already been satisfied by Japan’s compliance with the San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1951
and the bilateral Reparations Agreement of 1956 between Japan and the Philippines. The
petitioners argue that the general waiver of claims made by the Philippine government in the
Treaty of Peace with Japan is void because the comfort women system constituted acrime against
humanity, sexual slavery, and torture. The same was prohibited under the jus cogens norms from
which no derogation is possible. Thus, such waiver was a breach against the government’s
obligation not to afford impunity for crimes against humanity. In addition, they claim that
the Philippine government’s acceptance of the apologies made by Japan as well as funds for the
AWF were contrary to international law.

ISSUE: Was the refusal of the Executive Department to espouse petitioners’ claims against
Japan valid?

RULING: Yes, it was valid. It has the exclusive prerogative for such determination. So much so,
the Philippines is not under any international obligation to espouse petitioner’s claim. Given the
extraordinary length of time that has lapsed between the treaty’s conclusion, the Executive
Department had the ample time to assess the foreign policy considerations of espousing a claim
against Japan, from the standpoint of both the interests of the petitioners and those of the
Republic, and decide on that basis if apologies are sufficient, and whether further steps
are appropriate or necessary. Under international law, the only means available for individuals to
bring a claim within the international legal system has been when the individual is able to persuade
a government to bring a claim on the individual’s behalf. When this happens, in the eye of the
Baker v. Carr, two SET members supposed to come from the minority were filled in by the NP. Tañada assailed
369 U.S. 186 (1962) this process before the Supreme Court. So did Macapagal because he deemed that if the SET
would be dominated by NP senators then he, as a member of the Liberalista Party will not have
any chance in his election contest. Senator Mariano Cuenco et al (members of the NP) averred
Brief Fact Summary: Appellants brought suit, challenging malapportionment of state that the Supreme Court cannot take cognizance of the issue because it is a political question.
legislatures under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Cuenco argued that the power to choose the members of the SET is vested in the Senate alone
and the remedy for Tañada and Macapagal was not to raise the issue before judicial courts but
Synopsis of Rule of Law: An apportionment case may be reviewed on Fourteenth Amendment rather to leave it before the bar of public opinion.
grounds, so long as these grounds are independent from political question elements.
ISSUE: Whether or not the issue is a political question.
Facts: Plaintiff sued the Secretary of State of Tennessee for the legislature’s failure to redraw
legislative voting districts since 1901. He alleged that such a failure was a violation of HELD: No. The SC took cognizance of the case and ruled that the issue is a justiciable question.
Tennessee’s Constitution because they were supposed to do so every ten years. He argued The term Political Question connotes what it means in ordinary parlance, namely, a question of
that populations had shifted greatly since then and as a result equal protection rights were policy. It refers to those questions which, under the Constitution, are to be decided by the people
violated. He claimed to be personally injured because his vote, which occurred in a city, was in their sovereign capacity; or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to
diluted due to the entrance of much of the population into the city. He sought a court order the legislative or executive branch of the government. It is concerned with issues dependent upon
which would disallow future elections until the correct redistricting had been undertaken. The the wisdom, not legality, of a particular measure.
district court did not agree and held that such a decision belonged to the state legislature. More
precisely, the court held that the question before the court was a political one and was not In this case, the issue at bar is not a political question. The Supreme Court is not being asked
justiciable. Plaintiff appealed. by Tañada to decide upon the official acts of Senate. The issue being raised by Tañada was
whether or not the elections of the 5 NP members to the SET are valid – which is a judicial
Issue: Is it possible to bring a mal apportionment claim without raising a non justiciable political question. Note that the SET is a separate and independent body from the Senate which does not
issue? perform legislative acts.

Held: Yes. Reversed and remanded. In the past, apportionment challengers have generally But how should the gridlock be resolved?
based their challenge on the Guaranty Clause of Art. IV, Section: 4 of the Constitution. These
claims are non justiciable as they address issues solely directed to the political branches of the The nomination of the last two members (who would fill in the supposed seat of the minority
government by the Constitution. This is a separation of powers issue. In Baker v. Carr, the claim members) must not come from the majority party. In this case, the Chairman of the SET,
is that the Appellants are being denied equal protection of the laws by being underrepresented apparently already appointed members that would fill in the minority seats (even though those will
in the state legislature. The Supreme Court rules that the equal protection challenge in this case come from the majority party). This is still valid provided the majority members of the SET (referring
is separable from the political questions. to those legally sitting) concurred with the Chairman. Besides, the SET may set its own rules in
situations like this provided such rules comply with the Constitution.
Dissent: In a vigorous dissent, Justice Felix Frankfurter (J. Frankfurter) argues the political
question is inseparable from the equal protection claim and that the Supreme Court has
effectively overturned a century of apportionment jurisprudence. In particular, the dissent argues
that the Supreme Court has opened up all state districting to judicial oversight.

Discussion: Baker v. Carr is the first of the cases developing the Supreme Court’s “one person,
one vote” legislation. This line of cases helped equalize representation between country and city
dwellers in an increasingly urbanized nation.

G.R. No. L-10520 February 28, 1957

LORENZO M. TAÑADA and DIOSDADO MACAPAGAL, petitioners,


vs.
MARIANO JESUS CUENCO, FRANCISCO A. DELGADO, ALFREDO CRUZ, CATALINA
CAYETANO, MANUEL SERAPIO, PLACIDO REYES, and FERNANDO HIPOLITO in his
capacity as cashier and disbursing officer ,respondents.

After the 1955 national elections, the membership in the Senate was overwhelmingly occupied by
the Nacionalista Party. The lone opposition senator was Lorenzo Tañada who belonged to the
Citizen’s Party. Diosdado Macapagal on the other hand was a senatorial candidate who lost the
bid but was contesting it before the Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET). But prior to a decision the
SET would have to choose its members. It is provided that the SET should be composed of 9
members comprised of the following: 3 justices of the Supreme Court, 3 senators from the majority
party and 3 senators from the minority party. But since there is only one minority senator the other
United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. Section 25, Article XVIII disallows foreign military bases, troops, or facilities in the country, unless
the following conditions are sufficiently met, viz: (a) it must be under a treaty; (b) the treaty must
United States Supreme Court be duly concurred in by the Senate and, when so required by congress, ratified by a majority of
299 U.S. 304 (1936) the votes cast by the people in a national referendum; and (c) recognized as a treaty by the other
contracting state.

Brief Fact Summary: The Defendant, Curtiss-Wright (Defendant), a weapons manufacturer, There is no dispute as to the presence of the first two requisites in the case of the VFA. The
was convicted of selling arms to warring nations in South America in violation of an Executive concurrence handed by the Senate through Resolution No. 18 is in accordance with the provisions
Order that was made pursuant to a Joint Resolution of Congress. of the Constitution . . . the provision in [in §25, Article XVIII] requiring ratification by a majority of
the votes cast in a national referendum being unnecessary since Congress has not required it.
Synopsis of Rule of Law: The non-delegation doctrine does not bar Congress from delegating
great authority and discretion to the President of the United States (the President) in the conduct It is inconsequential whether the United States treats the VFA only as an executive agreement
of foreign affairs. because, under international law, an executive agreement is as binding as a treaty.

Facts: Congress passed a resolution authorizing the President to stop the sale of arms to Pimentel v. Executive Secretary
countries involved in the Chaco border dispute. That same day, President Roosevelt issued an
executive order prohibiting munitions sales to warring countries involved in the Chaco border G.R. No. 158088 July 6, 2005
dispute. In 1936, an indictment was issued alleging that Curtiss-Wright Export Co. (defendant)
illegally sold arms to Bolivia, a country engaged in the Chaco border dispute. The transaction
was in violation of the congressional resolution and the President’s executive order. The district FACTS:
court issuing the indictment held for Curtiss-Wright, ruling that the indictment was not supported
by sufficient information to charge Curtiss-Wright. The United States government (plaintiff) 1. The petitioners filed a petition for mandamus to compel the Office of the Executive Secretary
appealed directly to the United States Supreme Court. and the Department of Foreign Affairs to transmit the signed copy of the Rome Statute of the
International Criminal Court to the Senate of the Philippinesfor its concurrence pursuant to Sec.
Issue: May Congress delegate law-making authority to the President in matters of foreign affairs? 21, Art VII of the 1987 Constitution.

Held: Yes, the President has broad authority to conduct foreign affairs. 2. The Rome Statute established the Int'l Criminal Court which will have jurisdiction over the most
serious crimes as genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and crimes of aggression as
defined by the Statute. The Philippines through the Chargie du Affairs in UN. The provisions of
Discussion: There is a fundamental difference in the role of government in foreign affairs and the Statute however require that it be subject to ratification, acceptance or approval of the
domestic affairs. The federal government has both constitutional and inherent authority to conduct signatory state.
foreign affairs as it sees fit. The President is the United States’ sole representative to foreign
nations. In order to achieve the United States’ foreign policy aims, the President is better able than
Congress to judge conditions that exist in foreign nations and is afforded substantial discretion 3. Petitioners contend that ratification of a treaty, under both domestic and international law, is a
and wide latitude in those decisions. The President has confidential information as well as function of the Senate, hence it is the duty of the Executive Department to transmit the signed
consular, diplomatic and foreign affairs officers to help in his decision. copy to the senate to allow it to exercise its discretion.

BAYAN V. ZAMORA, ISSUE: Whether or not the Exec. Secretary and the DFA have the ministerial duty to transmit to
the Senate the copy of the Rome Statute signed by a member of the Philippine mission to the U.N.
even without the signature of the President.
G.R. NO. 138570, OCTOBER 10, 2000
HELD: NO.
FACTS: The United States panel met with the Philippine panel to discussed, among others, 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. Thereafter, 1. The President as the head of state is the sole organ and authorized in the external relations
President Fidel Ramos approved the VFA, which was respectively signed by Secretary Siazon and he is also the country's sole representative with foreign nations, He is the mouthpiece with
and United States Ambassador Thomas Hubbard. Pres. Joseph Estrada ratified the VFA on respect to the country's foreign affairs.
October 5, 1998 and on May 27, 1999, the senate approved it by (2/3) votes
2. In treaty-making, the President has the sole authority to negotiate with other states and enter
ISSUE: Was the VFA unconstitutional? into treaties but this power is limited by the Constitution with the 2/3 required vote of all the
members of the Senate for the treaty to be valid. (Sec. 21, Art VII).
RULING: [The Court DISMISSED the consolidated petitions, held that the petitioners did not
commit grave abuse of discretion, and sustained the constitutionality of the VFA.] 3. The legislative branch part is essential to provide a check on the executive in the field of foreign
relations, to ensure the nation's pursuit of political maturity and growth.
NO, the VFA is not unconstitutional.
Dames & Moore v. Regan,
453 U.S. 654 (1981)
Brief Fact Summary: As a result of the return of Americans held hostage in Iran, the President HELD: The President has the power to receive ambassadors, which, according to the court,
of the United States Ronald Reagan (President Reagan) ratified an executive agreement contains the implied power to make agreements concerning the recognition foreign governments
requiring all legal claims between the governments of either the United States or Iran and the “The authority is not limited to a determination of the government to be recognized. It includes
nationals of the other to be suspended and resolved through a Claims Tribunal. the power to determine the policy which is to govern the question of recognition.” Because the
Litvinov assignment was a part of the agreement of recognition of the Soviet Government, it was
Synopsis of Rule of Law: A systematic, unbroken, executive practice, long pursued to the within the power of the president to make this agreement alone. President concluded an
knowledge of the Congress and never before questioned may be treated as actions taken in agreement on his own authority, and Congress tacitly consented.
pursuance of Congress’ consent.
CASE SYNOPSIS: Petitioner, the United States, sought review on a writ of certiorari from a
Facts: In 1979 American embassy personnel were seized and held hostage in Iran. In response decision of the Supreme Court of New York dismissing its suit to recover the assets of the New
President of the United States Jimmy Carter (President Carter), acting pursuant to the York branch of a nationalized Russian insurance company.
International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”), froze Iranian assets in the United
States. In 1981 the hostages were released pursuant to an executive agreement (the FACTS: Petitioner, the United States, challenged the state of New York's dismissal of its suit to
“Agreement”) that (1) terminated legal claims between the government of each party and the recover the assets of a New York branch of a Russian insurance company. Respondent, the
nationals of the other and (2) brought about the transfer of all Iranian assets held in the United state of New York, lay claim to the assets under its state law after the revolutionary Russian
States by American banks. After taking office, President Reagan issued an Executive Order government nationalized the insurance company.
ratifying the Agreement, thereby suspending Dames & Moore’s legal claims with the Iranian
government. DISCUSSION:

Issue: Does the President have the authority to transfer Iranian assets and to void legal claims
against Iran?  The Court held that the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution preempted
respondent from deciding questions affecting international foreign relations.
Held: Yes. Congress has implicitly approved the practice of claim settlement by executive
agreement.  The Court recognized a declaration by the Soviet Commissariat that the extraterritorial
The Presidents’ actions with regard to the transfer of assets were taken pursuant to specific assets of former Russian insurance companies constituted the property of the Union of Soviet
congressional authorization under the IEEPA. Although the IEEPA itself did not authorize the Socialist Republics.
presidential suspension of legal claims, Congress implicitly approved the practice of claim
settlement by executive agreement. For example, Congress enacted the International Claims  The president of the United States had the power to conduct foreign affairs without the
Settlement Agreement Act of 1949. Moreover, Congress has frequently amended the same act
consent of the Senate, as he did in this case by negotiating the Litvinov Agreement to settle
to provide for problems arising out of settlement agreements. Thus, Congress has demonstrated
liability claims between American and Soviet nationals by passing the Soviet government's
its acceptance of the President’s claim settlement authority.
vested rights to the insurance company's property to petitioner.

Discussion: The Court emphasized the narrowness of this ruling, limiting its decision to the facts
of the case.  Therefore, respondent had no right to the assets.

United States v. Pink  The Court reversed.

United States Supreme Court


315 U.S. 203 (1942) CONCLUSION: The Court reversed the lower court's judgment, holding that respondent, the state
of New York, was barred by the Supremacy Clause of the constitution from seizing the assets of
FACTS: a state branch of a nationalized Russian insurance company because, under the terms of an
international agreement negotiated by the president of the United States, rights to such assets
were vested in the federal government.
In 1907, the New York branch of the First Russian Insurance Co. (FRIC) was organized under the
former Russian government. In 1919, the newly created Russian government nationalized
Russian insurance companies, including FRIC, and canceled all company debts and shareholder
rights. FRIC continued to do business in New York until 1925, when the Supreme Court of New
York ordered that Pink (defendant), the New York Superintendent of Insurance, take control of
FRIC’s assets. After Pink paid FRIC’s U.S. creditors, there remained a balance of more than
$1,000,000. In 1931, the New York Court of Appeals ordered Pink to use the balance to first pay
FRIC’s foreign creditors who had previously filed attachments, then pay any surplus to FRIC’s
board of directors. This action was stayed, however, due to a claim on FRIC’s assets by the United
States (plaintiff). In 1933, the United States recognized the new Russian government and
accepted Russia’s Litvinov Assignment regarding certain claims. The United States, in honoring
the Litvinov Assignment, sued Pink to recover the remaining assets under Pink’s control.

ISSUE: Why was the Litvinov assignment valid?

You might also like