ICHONG VS.

HERNANDEZ

FACTS:

Republic Act No. 1180 (An Act to Regulate the Retail Business) prohibits persons, not citizens of the
Philippines, and associations, partnerships, or corporations the capital of which are not wholly owned by
citizens of the Philippines, from engaging directly or indirectly in the retail trade.

Petitioner (for and in his own behalf and on behalf of other alien residents, corporations and partnerships
adversely affected) attacks the constitutionality of the Act, contending that, among others that, the Act
violates international and treaty obligations of the Republic of the Philippines.

Solicitor-General and the Fiscal of the City of Manila contend that the Act was passed in the valid
exercise of the police power of the State and that no treaty or international obligations are infringed.

HELD:
1) The United Nations Charter imposes no strict or legal obligations regarding the rights and freedom of
their subjects;

2) the Declaration of Human Rights contains nothing more than a mere recommendation, or a common
standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations;

3) The Treaty of Amity between the Republic of the Philippines and the Republic of China of April
18, 1947 only guarantees equality of treatment to the Chinese nationals "upon the same terms as the
nationals of any other country.” But even supposing that the law infringes upon the said treaty, the
treaty is always subject to qualification or amendment by a subsequent law and the same may never
curtail or restrict the scope of the police power of the State.

GUERRERO'S TRANSPORT SERVICES, INC. VS. BLAYLOCK TRANSPORTATION SERVICES

EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION-KILUSAN (BTEA-KILUSAN)

FACTS:

United States Naval Base authorities (Subic, Zambales) conducted a public bidding for a five-year
contract for the right to operate and/or manage the transportation services inside the naval base, where
Santiago Guerrero won over Blaylock Transport Services, whose 395 employees are members of
respondent union BTEA-KILUSAN.

BTEA-KILUSAN, when Guererro refused to employ the members of the former concessionaire, filed a
complaint with the NLRC to compel GUERRERO'S TRANSPORT to employ its members pursuant to Article
I, Section 2 of the RP-US Base Agreement, which was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, there being no
employer-employee relationship between the parties.

On appeal, NLRC issued a Resolution ordering petitioner, among others, "to absorb all the complainants
who filed their applications on or before the deadline" set by petitioner except those who may have
derogatory records with the U. S. Naval Authorities in Subic, Zambales.

Upon a motion for execution, respondent Labor Arbiter De los Reyes ordered the reinstatement of 129
individuals "to their former or substantially equivalent positions without loss of seniority and other rights and
privileges."

Petitioner and respondents, during the pendency of this petition, entered into a compromise agreement
wherein they agreed to submit to the Office of the Secretary of Labor the determination of the members to
be reinstated.
HELD:
1) A treaty has two (2) aspects — as an international agreement between states, and as municipal law
for the people of each state to observe.

2) As part of the municipal law, Section 6 of Article 1 of the Philippine-U.S. Labor Agreement enters
into and forms part of the contract between petitioner and U.S. Naval Base authorities. In view of said
stipulation, the new contractor, is therefore, bound to give "Priority" to the employment of qualified
employees of the previous contractor.

PEOPLE VS. GOZO

FACTS:

Loreta Gozo brought a house and lot located inside the United States Naval Reservation within the
territorial jurisdiction of Olongapo City. She demolished the house and built another one in its place, without
a building permit from the City Mayor of Olongapo City, having told by one Ernesto Evalle, an assistant in
the City Mayor's office, as well as by her neighbors in the area, that such building permit was not necessary.

Juan Malones (building and lot inspector of the City Engineer's Office, Olongapo City) together with
Patrolman Ramon Macahilas of the Olongapo City police force apprehended four carpenters working
on the house of the accused and later on charged Gozo with violation of Municipal Ordinance No. 14, S. of
1964 with City Fiscal's Office.

City Court of Olongapo City and CFI Zambales found Gozo guilty of violating Municipal Ordinance No.
14, Series of 1964.

Gozo, on appeal put in the validity of such an ordinance according to the constitution or at the very least
its applicability to her in view location of her dwelling within the naval base.

HELD:
1) Nothing is better settled than that the Philippines being independent and sovereign, its authority may
be exercised over its entire domain. There is no portion thereof that is beyond its power.

2) Principle of auto-limitation: It is to be admitted that any state may, by its consent, express or implied,
submit to a restriction of its sovereign rights. There may thus be a curtailment of what otherwise is a
power plenary in character. A state then, if it chooses to, may refrain from the exercise of what otherwise
is illimitable competence. But, they retain their status as native soil. They are still subject to its authority.
Its jurisdiction may be diminished, but it does not disappear. Hence, US Naval Reservation are not and
cannot be a foreign territory.

3) The carrying out of the provisions of the Bases Agreement is the concern of the contracting parties
alone. Whether, therefore, a given case which by the treaty comes within the United States jurisdiction
should be transferred to the Philippine authorities is a matter about which the accused has nothing to
do or say.

BAYAN MUNA VS. ALBERTO ROMULO

FACTS:

Rome Statute establishes the International Criminal Court (ICC) with "the power to exercise its jurisdiction
over persons for the most serious crimes of international concern . . . and shall be complementary to the
national criminal jurisdictions."
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 have completed the ratification, approval and
concurrence process. The Philippines is not among the 92.

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 agreement (Agreement, hereinafter)
between the USA and the RP. Via Exchange of Notes 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.

RP-US Non-Surrender 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.

Petitioner Bayan Muna (registered party-list group established to represent the marginalized sectors of
society) imputes grave abuse of discretion to respondents in concluding and ratifying the RP-US Non-
Surrender Agreement and prays that it be struck down as unconstitutional, or at least declared as without
force and effect.

HELD:
1) Doctrine of incorporation (Section 2, Article II of the Constitution) provides that 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.

2) Exchange of notes falls "into the category of inter-governmental agreements," which is an

internationally accepted form of international agreement. 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.

3) 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. 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.'"

4) 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.

5) 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.

6) Categorization of subject matters that may be covered by international agreements mentioned

in Eastern Sea Trading is not cast in stone. There are no hard and fast rules on the propriety of
entering, on a given subject, into a treaty or an executive agreement as an instrument of international
relations. The primary consideration in the choice of the form of agreement is the parties' intent and
desire to craft an international agreement in the form they so wish to further their respective interests.
DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT PROCUREMENT SERVICE (DBM-PS) AND THE
INTER-AGENCY BIDS AND AWARDS COMMITTEE (IABAC) VS. KOLONWEL TRADING

FACTS:

Core of the controversy are the bidding and the eventual contract awards for the supply and delivery of
some 17.5 million copies of Makabayan (social studies) textbooks and teachers manuals, a project of the
Department of Education (DepEd), funded by WB through SEMP2, IBRD through Loan No. 7118-PH, and
ADB through SEDIP Loan No. 1654-PHI.

DBM-PS Inter-Agency Bids and Awards Committee (IABAC) called for a bidding for the supply of the
Makabayan textbooks and manuals, divided into three (3) lots, to wit: Lot 1 for Sibika Grades 1-3; Lot 2 for
HeKaSi Grades 4-6 and Lot 3 for Araling Panlipunan Years I-IV.

IABAC, via Resolution (Res.) No. 001-2006 dated March 9, 2006, resolved "to recommend to the [WB]
and the [ADB] failure of bids for all lots in view of the abovementioned disqualifications, non-compliance
and reservations of [DepEd] "Issues of "Conflict of interest" with respect to Watana and Vibal," failure in
cover stock testing " for Kolonwel and DepEd's "reservation".

WB, through its Regional Senior Economist, Ms. Rekha Menon, disagreed, for stated reasons, with the
IABAC's finding of conflict of interest on the part of Vibal and Watana, but upheld the disqualification of all
the other bidders.

Kolonwel seeks to nullify IABAC Res. Nos. 001-2006 and 001-2006-A and to set aside the contract awards
in favor of Vibal and Watana, alleging, among other things, that the supply-awardees were rushing with the
implementation of the void supply contracts to beat the loan closing-date deadline.

Manila RTC issued its assailed Order annulling IABAC Resolution No. 001-2006-A and All subsequent
actions of the respondents resulting from its issuance.

Petitioners urge the annulment of the assailed RTC Order dated December 4, 2006, on jurisdictional
ground under Sec. 55 in relation to Secs. 57 and 58 of R.A. No. 9184, which provides that Court action
may be resorted to only after the protests contemplated in this Article shall have been completed. Cases
that are filed in violation of the process specified in this article shall be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The
[RTC] shall have jurisdiction over final decisions of the head of the procuring entity.

HELD:
1) Section 4 of R.A. No. 9184 provides that any treaty or international or executive agreement affecting
the subject matter of this Act to which the Philippine government is a signatory shall be observed.

2) In Abaya, supra, the Court answered in the affirmative the question as to whether or not foreign loan
agreements with international financial institutions, such as Loan No. 7118-PH, partake of an executive
or international agreement within the purview of the Section 4 of R.A. No. 9184.

3) Under the fundamental international law principle of pacta sunt servanda, which is in fact embodied
in the afore-quoted Section 4 of R.A. No. 9184, the RP, as borrower, bound itself to perform in good
faith its duties and obligation under Loan No. 7118-PH. Applying this postulate in the concrete to this
case, the IABAC was legally obliged to comply with, or accord primacy to, the WB Guidelines on the
conduct and implementation of the bidding/procurement process in question.
THE COMMISSIONER OF VS. EASTERN SEA TRADING

FACTS:

Respondent Eastern Sea Trading (consignee of several shipments of onion and garlic coming from Japan
and others from Hongkong) was charged for violating Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 as none of
the shipments had the certificate required by the said circulars.

Collector of Customs of Manila rendered a decision on September 4, 1956, declaring said goods forfeited
to the Government and directing that the amounts of said bonds be paid, by said principal and surety, jointly
and severally, to the Bureau of Customs, within thirty (30) days from notice.

Court of Tax Appeals reversed the decision of the Commissioner of Customs and ordered that the
aforementioned bonds be cancelled and withdrawn, upon the premise that the seizure and forfeiture of the
goods imported from Japan cannot be justified under Executive Order No. 328, owing to the fact that our
Senate had not concurred in the making of said executive agreement. The concurrence of said House of
Congress is required by our fundamental law in the making of "treaties" which are, however, distinct and
different from "executive agreements", which may be validly entered into without such concurrence.

HELD:

1) Treaties are formal documents which require ratification with the approval of two-thirds of the Senate.
Executive agreements become binding through executive action without the need of a vote by the
Senate or by Congress.

2) The right of the Executive to enter into binding agreements without the necessity of subsequent
Congressional approval has been confirmed by long usage. The validity of these has never been
seriously questioned by our courts.

3) Agreements with respect to the registration of trade-marks have been concluded by the
Executive. Postal conventions regulating the reciprocal treatment of mail matters, money orders,
parcel post, etc., have been concluded by the Postmaster General with various countries under
authorization by Congress beginning with the Act of February 20, 1792. Ten executive agreements
were concluded by the President pursuant to the McKinley Tariff Act of 1890 and nine such agreements
were entered into under the Dingley Tariff Act of 1897.

4) International agreements involving political issues or changes of national policy and those involving
international arrangements of a permanent character usually take the form of treaties.

5) International agreements embodying adjustments of detail carrying out well-established national

policies and traditions and those involving arrangements of a more or less temporary nature usually
take the form of executive agreements.

6) United States Supreme Court has expressly recognized the validity and constitutionality of executive
agreements entered into without Senate approval."
BAYAN VS. ZAMORA

FACTS:

The Visiting Forces Agreement was forged between the RP and the USA for the use of installations in the
Philippine territory by the US military personnel to strengthen their defense and security relationship.
President Joseph E. Estrada ratified the VFA, and then transmitted to the Senate his letter of ratification
and the VFA for concurrence pursuant to Section 21, Art. VII of the 1987 Constitution. The Senate
subsequently approved the VFA by a 2/3 vote of its members.

Petitioners (legislators, non-governmental organizations, citizens and taxpayers) assailed the

constitutionality of the VFA and imputed to respondents grave abuse of discretion in ratifying the agreement.

HELD:
1) Ratification, by the President, of the VFA and the concurrence of the Senate should be taken as
a clear an unequivocal expression of our nation's consent to be bound by said treaty, with the
concomitant duty to uphold the obligations and responsibilities embodied thereunder. With the
ratification of the VFA, which is equivalent to final acceptance, and with the exchange of notes between
the Philippines and the United States of America, it now becomes obligatory and incumbent on our
part, under the principles of international law, to be bound by the terms of the agreement.

2) Section 2, Article II of the Constitution, declares that the 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.

3) Article 26 of the UN Convention provides that "Every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it
and must be performed by them in good faith." This is known as the principle of pacta sunt servanda
which preserves the sanctity of treaties and have been one of the most fundamental principles of
positive international law, supported by the jurisprudence of international tribunals.

PHILIP MORRIS, INC. VS. FORTUNE TOBACCO CORPORATION

FACTS:

Petitioners Philip Morris et al (US companies not doing business in the Philippines) are registered owners
of "MARK VII", "MARK TEN", and "LARK" under Philippine Patents Office (PPO). On the claim that an
infringement of their respective trademarks had been committed, they filed a Complaint for Infringement of
Trademark and Damages against respondent Fortune Tobacco Corporation, a company organized in the
Philippines, which manufactures and sells cigarettes using the trademark "MARK ".

Trial Court dismissed the complaint and counterclaim after making a finding that the petitioners have no
legal standing and [respondent] did not commit trademark infringement against the [petitioners].

CA, while ruling for petitioners on the matter of their legal capacity to sue in this country for trademark
infringement, nevertheless affirmed the trial court's decision on the underlying issue of respondent's liability
for infringement

HELD:
1) Sec. 37 of R.A. No. 166 (Trademark Law). Rights of Foreign Registrants- Persons who are nationals
of, domiciled in, or have a bona fide or effective business or commercial establishment in any foreign
country, which is a party to an international convention or treaty relating to marks or tradenames on the
repression of unfair competition to which the Philippines may be a party, shall be entitled to the benefits
and subject to the provisions of this Act. Tradenames of persons described in the first paragraph of this
 section shall be protected without the obligation of filing or registration (sic) whether or not they form
parts of marks.

2) SECTION 21-A. Any foreign corporation or juristic person to which a mark or trade-name has been
registered or assigned under this Act may bring an action hereunder for infringement, . . ., whether or
not it has been licensed to do business in the Philippines under Act [No. 1495] or the Corporation Law,
at the time it brings complaint: Provided, That the country of which the said foreign corporation or juristic
person is a citizen or in which it is domiciled, by treaty, convention or law, grants a similar privilege to
corporate or juristic persons of the Philippines. (Superseded by Section 160 of R.A. No. 8293)

HELD (in vs. CA):

1) Following universal acquiescence and comity, our municipal law on trademarks regarding the
requirement of actual use in the Philippines must subordinate an international agreement inasmuch
as the apparent clash is being decided by a municipal tribunal.

2) Under the doctrine of incorporation as applied in most countries, rules of international law are given
a standing equal, not superior, to national legislative enactments. The fact that international law has
been made part of the law of the land does not by any means imply the primacy of international law
over national law in the municipal sphere.

THE PROVINCE OF NORTH COTABATO VS. THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES PEACE PANELON ANCESTRAL DOMAIN (GRP)

FACTS:

Memorandum of Agreement on the Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD) was scheduled to be signed by the
Government of the Republic of the Philippines and the MILF in August 05, 2008. Used as reference in the
birth of this MOA-AD are the Tripoli Agreement, organic act of ARMM, IPRA Law, international laws such
as ILO Convention 169, the UN Charter etc., and the principle of Islam i.e compact right entrenchment (law
of compact, treaty and order). The body is divided into concepts and principles, territory, resources, and
governance. It then mentions for the first time the "Bangsamoro Juridical Entity" (BJE) to which it grants the
authority and jurisdiction over the Ancestral Domain and Ancestral Lands of the Bangsamoro.

Said MOA was a result of various agreements entered into by and between the government and the MILF
starting in 1996. However, in 1999 and in the early of 2000, the MILF attacked a number of municipalities
in Central Mindanao. In March 2000, they took the hall of Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte; hence, then Pres.
Estrada declared an all-out war-which tolled the peace negotiation.

Pres. Arroyo continued the negotiation regarding peace in Mindanao. MILF was hesitant; however, this
negotiation proceeded when the government of Malaysia interceded. Formal peace talks resumed and
MILF suspended all its military actions.

Five cases bearing the same subject matter were consolidated by this court.

HELD:
1) In international law, the right to self-determination has long been recognized which states that people
can freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural
development. As a general rule, subject only to limited and exceptional cases, recognizes that the right
of disposing national territory is essentially an attribute of the sovereignty of every state.

2) There are the internal and external self-determination: (a) internal, meaning the self-pursuit of man
and the external which takes the form of the assertion of the right to unilateral secession. This principle
of self-determination is viewed with respect accorded to the territorial integrity of existing states; (b)
 external self-determination is only afforded in exceptional cases when there is an actual block in the
meaningful exercise of the right to internal self-determination.

3) On matters relative to indigenous people, international law states that indigenous peoples situated
within states do not have a general right to independence or secession from those states under
international law, but they do have rights amounting to what was discussed above as the right to internal
self-determination; have the right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their internal
and local affairs, as well as ways and means for financing their autonomous functions; have the right
to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used
or acquired.

4) While the MOA-AD would not amount to an international agreement or unilateral declaration
binding on the Philippines under international law, respondents' act of guaranteeing amendments is,
by itself, already a constitutional violation that renders the MOA-AD fatally defective. The grave abuse
lies not in the fact that they considered, as a solution to the Moro Problem, the creation of a state within
a state, but in their brazen willingness to guarantee that Congress and the sovereign Filipino people
would give their imprimatur to their solution.

AUGUSTO BENEDICTO SANTOS III vs. NORTHWEST ORIENT AIRLINES and COURT OF APPEALS

FACTS:

Article 28(1) of the Warsaw Convention reads as follows: “An action for damage must be brought at the
option of the plaintiff, in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, either before the court of the
domicile of the carrier or of his principal place of business, or where he has a place of business through
which the contract has been made, or before the court at the place of destination.”

Augusto (minor and PH resident) purchased from Northwest Orient Airlines (NOA) (foreign corporation
with principal office in Minnesota, USA and licensed to do business in PH), a round trip ticket in San
Francisco, USA for his flight from SF to MNL via Tokyo and back. The scheduled departure date from Tokyo
was 12/20/1986. No date was specified for his return to SF. Despite previous confirmation and re-
confirmation, he was informed when he checked in that he had no reservation for his flight from Tokyo to
MNL. He therefore had to be wait-listed. Thus, he sued NOA for damages.

NOA moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, it contended that the complaint could be instituted only in the
territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, before: 1. the court of the domicile of the carrier; 2. the court
of its principal place of business; 3. the court where it has a place of business through which the contract
had been made; 4. the court of the place of destination; and contended that PH was not its domicile nor
was this its principal place of business. Neither was the ticket issued in this counter nor the destination MNL
but SF, USA.

RTC, affirmed by CA, dismissed the case. Hence, this petition.

HELD:
1) The Convention is a treaty commitment voluntarily assumed by the Philippine government and, as
such, has the force and effect of law in this country. On September 23, 1955, President Ramon
Magsaysay issued Proclamation No. 201, declaring our formal adherence to the Warsaw Convention,
"to the end that the same and every article and clause thereof may be observed and fulfilled in good
faith by the Republic of the Philippines and the citizens thereof."

2) On the question of constitutionality based on equal protection clause violation, Supreme Court held that
treaty which is the subject matter of this petition was a joint legislative executive act. The presumption
is that it was first carefully studied and determined to be constitutional before it was adopted and given
the force of law in this country.
3) Rebus Sic Stantibus doctrine constitutes an attempt to formulate a legal principle which would justify
nonperformance of a treaty obligation if the conditions with relation to which the parties contracted have
changed so materially and so unexpectedly as to create a situation in which the exaction of performance
would be unreasonable. The key element of this doctrine is the vital change in the condition of the
contracting parties that they could not have foreseen at the time the treaty was concluded.

4) But the more important consideration is that the treaty has not been rejected by the Philippine
government. The doctrine of rebus sic stantibus does not operate automatically to render the
treaty inoperative. There is a necessity for a formal act of rejection, usually made by the head of State,
with a statement of the reasons why compliance with the treaty is no longer required.