RJBM - POLITICAL LAW REVIEW

Public International Law

1. PHARMACEUTICAL HEALTHCARE VS DOH The international instruments pointed out by the

SEC DUQUE respondents, UNRC, ICESR, CEDAW, are deemed
part of the law of the land and therefore the DOH
may implement them through the RIRR.

FACTS:
Customary international law is deemed
incorporated into our domestic system. Custom or
- On October 28, 1986, Executive Order No. 51 customary international law means “a general and
(Milk Code) was issued by President Corazon consistent practice of states followed by them from
Aquino by virtue of the legislative powers granted a sense of legal obligation (opinio juris).
to the president under the Freedom Constitution.
Under the 1987 Constitution, international law can
- The Milk Code states that the law seeks to give become part of the sphere of domestic law either
effect to Article 112 of the International Code of by transformation or incorporation.
Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes (ICMBS), a
code adopted by the World Health Assembly
The transformation method requires that an
(WHA) in 1981.
international law be transformed into a domestic
law through a constitutional mechanism such as
- From 1982 to 2006, the WHA adopted several local legislation.
Resolutions to the effect that breastfeeding should
be supported, promoted and protected, hence, it
“Generally accepted principles of international law”
should be ensured that nutrition and health claims
refers to norms of general or customary
are not permitted for breastmilk substitutes.
international law which are binding on all states.

- The Philippines ratified the International

The Milk Code is a verbatim reproduction of the
Convention on the Rights of the Child. Article 24 of
(ICMBS), but it did not prohibit advertising or
said instrument provides that State Parties should
other forms of promotion to the general public of
take appropriate measures to diminish infant and
products. Instead, the Milk Code expressly
child mortality, and ensure that all segments of
provides that advertising, promotion, or other
society, specially parents and children, are
marketing materials may be allowed if such
informed of the advantages of breastfeeding.
materials are duly authorized and approved by the
Inter-Agency Committee (IAC).
- The DOH issued RIRR which was to take effect on
July 7, 2006.
In this regard, the WHA Resolutions adopting the
ICMBS are merely recommendatory and legally
- a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the non-binding. This may constitute “soft law” or non-
Rules of Court was filed, seeking to nullify Revised binding norms, principles and practices that
Implementing Rules and Regulations of The “Milk influence state behavior.
Code,” assailing that the RIRR was going beyond
the provisions of the Milk Code, thereby amending
Respondents have not presented any evidence to
and expanding the coverage of said law.
prove that the WHA Resolutions, although signed
by most of the member states, were in fact
ISSUE: Whether or not respondents officers of the enforced or practiced by at least a majority of the
DOH acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or member states and obligatory in nature.
with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction, and in violation of the
The provisions of the WHA Resolutions cannot be
provisions of the Constitution in promulgating the
considered as part of the law of the land that can
RIRR
be implemented by executive agencies without the
need of a law enacted by the legislature.
RULING:
On the other hand, the petitioners also failed to
The Supreme Court PARTIALLY GRANTED the explain and prove by competent evidence just
petition. Sections 4(f), 11 and 46 of Administrative exactly how such protective regulation would result
Order No. 2006-0012 dated May 12, 2006 are in the restraint of trade.
declared NULL and VOID for being ultra vires.
Since all the regulatory provisions under the Milk
The Department of Health and respondents are Code apply equally to both manufacturers and
PROHIBITED from implementing said provisions. distributors, the Court sees no harm in the RIRR.
Except Sections 4(f), 11 and 46, the rest of the
RJBM - POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Public International Law

provisions of the RIRR are in consonance with the valid and effective unless concurred in by at least
objective, purpose and intent of the Milk Code. two-thirds of all the members of the Senate.”
Thus, treaties or conventional international law
FACTS: must go through a process prescribed by the
Constitution for it to be transformed into municipal
Petitioner assails the RIRR for allegedly going law that can be applied to domestic conflicts.
beyond the provisions of the Milk Code, thereby
amending and expanding the coverage of said law.
The defense of the DOH is that the RIRR
implements not only the Milk Code but also various
international instruments regarding infant and
young child nutrition. It is respondents' position
that said international instruments are deemed
part of the law of the land and therefore the DOH
may implement them through the RIRR.
The Court held that the ICMBS and WHA
Resolutions are not treaties as they have not been
concurred in by at least two-thirds of all members
The Court however held that the international
of the Senate as required under Section 21, Article
instruments invoked by respondents, namely, (1)
VII of the 1987 Constitution.
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the
Child; (2) The International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; and (3) the
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination Against Women, only provide in
general terms that steps must be taken by State
Parties to diminish infant and child mortality and
inform society of the advantages of breastfeeding,
ensure the health and well-being of families, and However, according to the Court, the ICMBS which
ensure that women are provided with services and was adopted by the WHA in 1981 had been
nutrition in connection with pregnancy and transformed into domestic law through local
lactation; however, they do not contain specific legislation, the Milk Code. Consequently, it is the
provisions regarding the use or marketing of Milk Code that has the force and effect of law in
breastmilk substitutes. The international this jurisdiction and not the ICMBS per se. The Milk
instruments that have specific provisions regarding Code is almost a verbatim reproduction of the
breastmilk substitutes are the ICMBS and various ICMBS, but the Court noted that the Milk Code did
WHA Resolutions. not adopt the provision in the ICMBS absolutely
prohibiting advertising or other forms of promotion
to the general public of products within the scope
of the ICMBS. Instead, the Milk Code expressly
provides that advertising, promotion, or other
marketing materials may be allowed if such
materials are duly authorized and approved by the
Inter-Agency Committee (IAC).
Under the 1987 Constitution, international law can
become part of the sphere of domestic law either
by transformation or incorporation. The
transformation method requires that an
international law be transformed into a domestic
law through a constitutional mechanism such as
local legislation. The incorporation method applies
when, by mere constitutional declaration, Section 2, Article II of the 1987 Constitution
international law is deemed to have the force of provides that the Philippines renounces war as an
domestic law. instrument of national policy, adopts the generally
accepted principles of international law as part of
the law of the land and adheres to the policy of
peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation and
amity with all nations. The provisions embodies
the incorporation method.

Treaties become part of the law of the land

through transformation pursuant to Article VII,
Section 21 of the Constitution which provides that
“[n]o treaty or international agreement shall be
RJBM - POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Public International Law

Generally accepted principles of international law, notable is the UN Declaration of Human Rights,
by virtue of the incorporation clause of the which this Court has enforced in various cases,
Constitution, form part of the laws of the land even specifically, Government of Hongkong Special
if they do not derive from treaty obligations. The Administrative Region v. Olalia, Mejoff v. Director
classical formulation in international law sees those of Prisons, Mijares v. Rañada and Shangri-la
customary rules accepted as binding result from International Hotel Management, Ltd. v.
the combination of two elements: the established, Developers Group of Companies, Inc.
widespread, and consistent practice on the part of
States; and a psychological element known as the
opinion juris sive necessitates (opinion as to law or
necessity). Implicit in the latter element is a belief
that the practice in question is rendered obligatory
by the existence of a rule of law requiring it.

The Court stressed that for an international rule to

be considered as customary law, it must be
established that such rule is being followed by
states because they consider it obligatory to
comply with such rules (opinio juris). However,
according to the Court, the respondents have not
“Generally accepted principles of international law” presented any evidence to prove that the WHA
refers to norms of general or customary Resolutions, although signed by most of the
international law which are binding on all states, member states, were in fact enforced or practiced
i.e., renunciation of war as an instrument of by at least a majority of the member states;
national policy, the principle of sovereign neither have respondents proven that any
immunity, a person's right to life, liberty and due compliance by member states with said WHA
process, and pacta sunt servanda, among others. Resolutions was obligatory in nature. Respondents
The concept of “generally accepted principles of failed to establish that the provisions of pertinent
law” has also been depicted in this wise: WHA Resolutions are customary international law
that may be deemed part of the law of the land.
Consequently, legislation is necessary to transform
Customary international means “a general and the provisions of the WHA Resolutions into
consistent practice of states followed by them from domestic law. The provisions of the WHA
a sense of legal obligation [opinio juris].” This Resolutions cannot be considered as part of the
statement contains the two basic elements of law of the land that can be implemented by
custom: the material factor, that is, how states executive agencies without the need of a law
behave, and the psychological or subjective factor, enacted by the legislature.
that is, why they behave the way they do. The
initial factor for determining the existence of
custom is the actual behavior of states. This
includes several elements: duration, consistency,
and generality of the practice of states. Once the
existence of state practice has been established, it
becomes necessary to determine why states
behave the way they do. Do states behave the way May the DOH may implement the provisions of the
they do because they consider it obligatory to WHA Resolutions by virtue of its powers and
behave thus or do they do it only as a matter of functions under the Revised Administrative Code
courtesy? Opinio juris, or the belief that a certain even in the absence of a domestic law?
form of behavior is obligatory, is what makes
practice an international rule. Without it, practice
is not law.

It is propounded that WHA Resolutions may Section 3, Chapter 1, Title IX of the Revised
constitute “soft law” or non-binding norms, Administrative Code of 1987 provides that the
principles and practices that influence state DOH shall define the national health policy and
behavior. “Soft law” does not fall into any of the implement a national health plan within the
categories of international law set forth in Article framework of the government's general policies
38, Chapter III of the 1946 Statute of the and plans, and issue orders and regulations
International Court of Justice. It is, however, an concerning the implementation of established
expression of non-binding norms, principles, and health policies.
practices that influence state behavior. Certain
declarations and resolutions of the UN General
Assembly fall under this category. The most
RJBM - POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Public International Law

breastmilk substitute as separate and distinct

product categories.

The crucial issue was whether the absolute

prohibition on advertising and other forms of
promotion of breastmilk substitutes provided in
some WHA Resolutions has been adopted as part
of the national health policy. Section 4(h) of the Milk Code defines infant
formula as “a breastmilk substitute x x x to satisfy
the normal nutritional requirements of infants up
to between four to six months of age, and adapted
to their physiological characteristics”; while under
Section 4(b), bottle-fed complementary food refers
to “any food, whether manufactured or locally
prepared, suitable as a complement to breastmilk
Respondents submit that the national policy on or infant formula, when either becomes insufficient
infant and young child feeding is embodied in A.O. to satisfy the nutritional requirements of the
No. 2005-0014, dated May 23, 2005. Basically, the infant.” An infant under Section 4(e) is a person
Administrative Order declared the following policy falling within the age bracket 0-12 months. It is
guidelines: (1) ideal breastfeeding practices, such the nourishment of this group of infants or children
as early initiation of breastfeeding, exclusive aged 0-12 months that is sought to be promoted
breastfeeding for the first six months, extended and protected by the Milk Code.
breastfeeding up to two years and beyond; (2)
appropriate complementary feeding, which is to
start at age six months; (3) micronutrient
supplementation; (4) universal salt iodization; (5)
the exercise of other feeding options; and (6)
feeding in exceptionally difficult circumstances.
Indeed, the primacy of breastfeeding for children is
emphasized as a national health policy. However, But there is another target group. Breastmilk
nowhere in A.O. No. 2005-0014 is it declared that substitute is defined under Section 4(a) as “any
as part of such health policy, the advertisement or food being marketed or otherwise presented as a
promotion of breastmilk substitutes should be partial or total replacement for breastmilk,
absolutely prohibited. Hence, the Court held that whether or not suitable for that purpose.” This
the national policy of protection, promotion and section conspicuously lacks reference to any
support of breastfeeding cannot automatically be particular age-group of children. Hence, the
equated with a total ban on advertising for provision of the Milk Code cannot be considered
breastmilk substitutes. The Milk Code does not exclusive for children aged 0-12 months. In other
contain a total ban on the advertising and words, breastmilk substitutes may also be
promotion of breastmilk substitutes but instead intended for young children more than 12 months
specifically creates an IAC which will regulate said of age. Therefore, by regulating breastmilk
advertising and promotion. A total ban policy could substitutes, the Milk Code also intends to protect
be implemented only pursuant to a law amending and promote the nourishment of children more
the Milk Code passed by the constitutionally than 12 months old. Evidently, as long as what is
authorized branch of government, the legislature. being marketed falls within the scope of the Milk
The Court emphasized that only the provisions of Code as provided in Section 3, then it can be
the Milk Code, but not those of subsequent WHA subject to regulation pursuant to said law, even if
Resolutions, can be validly implemented by the the product is to be used by children aged over 12
DOH through the subject RIRR. months.

To resolve the question of whether the labeling

The Court held that the Sec. 3 of the Milk Code's requirements and advertising regulations under
coverage is not limited only to children 0-12 the RIRR are valid, the Court had to discuss the
months old. Section 3 of the Milk Code. The nature, purpose, and depth of the regulatory
coverage of the Milk Code is not dependent on the powers of the DOH, as defined in general under
age of the child but on the kind of product being the 1987 Administrative Code, and as delegated in
marketed to the public. The law treats infant particular under the Milk Code. Health is a
formula, bottle-fed complementary food, and legitimate subject matter for regulation by the
DOH (and certain other administrative agencies) in
RJBM - POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Public International Law

exercise of police powers delegated to it. The the proscription of milk manufacturers’
sheer span of jurisprudence on that matter participation in any policymaking body (Section
precludes the need to further discuss it.. However, 4(i)), classes and seminars for women and children
health information, particularly advertising (Section 22); the giving of assistance, support and
materials on apparently non-toxic products like logistics or training (Section 32); and the giving of
breastmilk substitutes and supplements, is a donations (Section 52) would unreasonably
relatively new area for regulation by the DOH. The hamper the trade of breastmilk substitutes.
1987 Administrative Code tasked respondent DOH Petitioner has not established that the proscribed
to carry out the state policy pronounced under activities are indispensable to the trade of
Section 15, Article II of the 1987 Constitution, breastmilk substitutes. Petitioner failed to
which is “to protect and promote the right to demonstrate that the aforementioned provisions of
health of the people and instill health the RIRR are unreasonable and oppressive for
consciousness among them.” To that end, it was being in restraint of trade.
granted under Section 3 of the Administrative
Code the power to “(6) propagate health
information and educate the population on
important health, medical and environmental
matters which have health implications.” When it
comes to information regarding nutrition of infants
and young children, however, the Milk Code
specifically delegated to the Ministry of Health In fine, the Court held that except Sections 4(f),
(hereinafter referred to as DOH) the power to 11 and 46, the rest of the provisions of the RIRR
ensure that there is adequate, consistent and are in consonance with the objective, purpose and
objective information on breastfeeding and use of intent of the Milk Code, constituting reasonable
breastmilk substitutes, supplements and related regulation of an industry which affects public
products; and the power to control such health and welfare and, as such, the rest of the
information. Further, DOH is authorized by the Milk RIRR do not constitute illegal restraint of trade nor
Code to control the content of any information on are they violative of the due process clause of the
breastmilk vis-à-vis breastmilk substitutes, Constitution.
supplement and related products. The DOH is also
authorized to control the purpose of the
information and to whom such information may be
disseminated under Sections 6 through 9 of the 2. BAYAN MUNA VS ROMULO DIGEST
Milk Code to ensure that the information that FACTS: In 2000, the RP, through Charge d’Affaires
would reach pregnant women, mothers of infants, Enrique A. Manalo, signed the Rome Statute
and health professionals and workers in the health which, by its terms, is “subject to ratification,
care system is restricted to scientific and factual acceptance or approval” by the signatory states.
matters and shall not imply or create a belief that
bottlefeeding is equivalent or superior to In 2003, via Exchange of Notes with the US
breastfeeding. It bears emphasis, however, that government, the RP, represented by then DFA
the DOH's power under the Milk Code to control Secretary Ople, finalized a non-surrender
information regarding breastmilk vis-a-vis agreement which aimed to protect certain persons
breastmilk substitutes is not absolute as the power of the RP and US from frivolous and harassment
to control does not encompass the power to suits that might be brought against them in
absolutely prohibit the advertising, marketing, and international tribunals.
promotion of breastmilk substitutes.
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.

ISSUE: [1] Did respondents abuse

Nonetheless, the Court held that the framers of the their discretion amounting to lack or excess
constitution were well aware that trade must be of jurisdiction in concluding the RP-US Non
subjected to some form of regulation for the public Surrender Agreement in contravention of the
good. Despite the fact that “our present Rome Statute?
Constitution enshrines free enterprise as a policy, [2] Is the agreement valid, binding and
it nonetheless reserves to the government the effective without the concurrence by at least
power to intervene whenever necessary to 2/3 of all the members of the Senate?
promote the general welfare. Free enterprise does
not call for removal of ‘protective regulations’. It
must be clearly explained and proven by HELD: The Agreement does not contravene or
competent evidence just exactly how such undermine, nor does it differ from, the Rome
protective regulation would result in the restraint Statute. Far from going against each other, one
of trade. In this case, petitioner failed to show that complements the other. As a matter of fact, the
RJBM - POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Public International Law

principle of complementarity underpins the The Non-surrender Agreement aims to protect

creation of the ICC. According to Art. 1 of the what it refers to and defines as persons of the
Statute, the jurisdiction of the ICC is to “be Philippines and the US from frivolous and
complementary to national criminal jurisdictions harassment suits that might be brought against
[of the signatory states].” the Rome Statute them in international tribunals. It provides that the
expressly recognizes the primary jurisdiction of persons of one party present in the territory of the
states, like the RP, over serious crimes committed other shall not, absent the express consent of the
within their respective borders, the complementary first party be surrendered or transferred by any
jurisdiction of the ICC coming into play only when means to any international tribunal for any
the signatory states are unwilling or unable to purpose or by any means to any other entity or
prosecute. third country or expelled to a third country for the
purpose of surrender to or transfer to any
Also, under international law, there is a international tribunal, unless such tribunal has
considerable difference between a State-Party and been established by the UN Security Council. When
a signatory to a treaty. Under the Vienna the US/Philippines extradites, surrenders, or
Convention on the Law of Treaties, a signatory otherwise transfers a person of the Philippines/US
state is only obliged to refrain from acts which to a third country, the US/Philippines will not agree
would defeat the object and purpose of a treaty. to the surrender or transfer of that person by the
The Philippines is only a signatory to the Rome third country to any international tribunal, unless
Statute and not a State-Party for lack of such tribunal has been established by the UN
ratification by the Senate. Thus, it is only obliged Security Council, absent the express consent of
to refrain from acts which would defeat the object the Government of the US/Philippines.
and purpose of the Rome Statute. Any argument
obliging the Philippines to follow any provision in Petitioners argue that the Exchange of Notes BFO-
the treaty would be premature. And even 028-03 cannot be a valid medium for concluding
assuming that the Philippines is a State-Party, the an agreement, that it cannot partake the nature of
Rome Statute still recognizes the primacy of a treaty without being ratified by the Senate, that
international agreements entered into between the Non-surrender Agreement does not fall under
States, even when one of the States is not a State- any subject-categories enumerated in a previous
Party to the Rome Statute. case, and that the Non-surrender Agreement
infringes the effectivity of the Rome Statute
The right of the Executive to enter into binding insofar as it unduly restricts the ICC’s jurisdiction.
agreements without the necessity of subsequent
Congressional approval has been confirmed by Issues
long usage. From the earliest days of our history, 1) Can the Non-surrender Agreement be validly
we have entered executive agreements covering concluded through exchanges of notes? Is the
such subjects as commercial and consular Non-surrender Agreement a violation of the
relations, most favored-nation rights, patent obligation of the Philippines under the Rome
rights, trademark and copyright protection, postal Statute?
and navigation arrangements and the settlement
of claims. The validity of these has never been Held
seriously questioned by our courts. The Petition is denied for lack of merit.

Executive agreements may be validly entered into Ratio

without such concurrence. As the President wields 1) An exchange of notes falls into the category of
vast powers and influence, her conduct in the inter-governmental agreements which is an
external affairs of the nation is, as Bayan would internationally accepted form of international
put it, “executive altogether.” The right of the agreement. It as a record of routine agreement
President to enter into or ratify binding executive that has many similarities with the private law
agreements has been confirmed by long contract. The agreement consists of 2
practice. DISMISSED. documents, each of the parties being in the
possession of the one signed by the
representative of the other. Under the usual
Bayan Muna v. Romulo and Ople procedure, the accepting State repeats the text
of the offering State to record its assent. The
Facts signatories of the letters may be government
Then US Ambassador Francis Ricciardone sent US ministers, diplomats or departmental heads.
Embassy Note 0470 to the DFA proposing the The technique of exchange of notes is
terms of the Non-surrender Bilateral Agreement frequently resorted to, either because of its
between the Philippines and the US. Via Exchange speedy procedure, or sometimes to avoid the
of Notes BFO-028-03, the Philippines, through Sec. process of legislative approval. The terms
Ople, agreed and accepted the US proposals exchanges of notes and executive agreements
embodied under the US Embassy Note and put in have been used interchangeably, the former
effect the Non-surrender Agreement with the US being a form of executive agreement that
government. becomes binding through executive action.
RJBM - POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Public International Law

The categorization of subject matters that may and defer to the ICC. As to persons of the US
be covered by international agreements whom the Philippines refuses to prosecute, the
mentioned in Eastern Sea Trading case is not country would in effect accord discretion to the
cast in stone. There are no hard and fast rules US to exercise wither its national criminal
on the propriety of entering, on a given jurisdiction or consent to the referral of the
subject, into a treaty or executive agreement matter to the ICC for trial. By their nature,
as an instrument of international relations. The international agreements actually have a
primary consideration in the choice of the form limiting effect on the otherwise encompassing
of agreement is the parties’ intent and desire nature of sovereignty. By their voluntary act,
to craft an international agreement in the form nations may decide to surrender or waive some
they so wish to further their respective aspects of their state power. In this partial
interests. surrender, greater benefits are derived from a
pact or reciprocal undertaking. Evidently,
There is no difference between treaties and there is as yet, no overwhelming consensus, let
executive agreements in terms of their binding alone prevalent practice, among the different
effects on the contracting parties, as long as countries in the world that the prosecution of
the negotiating functionaries have remained internationally recognized crimes should be
within their powers. The right of the Executive handled by a particular international criminal
to enter into binding agreements without the court.
necessity of subsequent Congressional
approval has been confirmed by long usage,
the validity of which has never been seriously
Rome Statute – This establishes the
questioned by the Court. The President as head
International Criminal Court with the power to
of state and government is the sole organ and
exercise jurisdiction over persons for the most
authority in the external affairs of the country.
serious crimes of international concern and
The Constitution vests in the President the
shall be complementary to the national criminal
power to enter into international agreements,
jurisdiction. Under the Vienna Convention on
subject to the required concurrence votes of
the Law of Treaties:
the Senate. But agreements may be validly
1) State Party – is legally obliged to follow all
entered into without such concurrence as the
the provisions of a treaty in good faith
President wields vast powers and influence; her
2) Signatory State – is only obliged to refrain
conduct in the external affairs of the nation is
from acts which would defeat the object
executive altogether. The President by ratifying
and purpose of a treaty.
through her deputies the Non-surrender
agreement, did nothing more than discharge a
As of writing the ponencia, the Philippines is
constitutional duty and exercise a prerogative
only a signatory state to the Rome Statute and
that pertains to the Office.
not a State Party for lack of ratification by the
Senate. Any argument obliging the Philippines
2) The Non-surrender agreement does not
to follow any provision in the treaty would be
undermine the Rome Statute. The jurisdiction
premature.
of the ICC is to be complementary to national
criminal jurisdiction of signatory states. It is
Treaty – international agreement concluded
the duty of every State to exercise its criminal
between States in written form and governed
jurisdiction over those responsible for
by international law, whether embodied in a
international crimes. The primary jurisdiction
single instrument or in two or more related
over the so-called international crimes rests, at
instruments and whatever its particular
the first instance, with the State where the
designation. International agreements may be
crime was committed; secondarily with the ICC
in the form of 1) treaties that require
in appropriate situations. The Non-surrender
legislative concurrence after executive
agreement does not violate the Philippines’
ratification or 2) executive agreements that are
duty required by the imperatives of good faith
similar to treaties, except that they do not
to refrain from performing any act tending to
require legislative concurrence and are usually
impair the Rome Statute.
less formal and deal with a narrower range of
subject matters that treaties.
The Philippines has not abdicated its
sovereignty by bargaining away the jurisdiction
Sources of International Law
of the ICC to prosecute US national who
1) International conventions, whether general
commit serious crimes of international
or particular, establishing rules expressly
concerns in the Philippines. The Non-surrender
recognized by the contesting states
agreement is an affirmance of the Philippines’
2) International custome, as evidence of a
national criminal jurisdiction. The Philippines
general practice accepted as law
may decide to try persons of the US under our
3) General principles of law recognized by
national criminal jurisdiction. Or the country
civilized nations
may opt not to exercise its criminal jurisdiction
4) Judicial decisions and teachings of the most
highly qualified publicists of the various
nations
RJBM - POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Public International Law

Affairs during the period material to this case.

Doctrine of incorporation – international law is Respondent Alberto Romulo was impleaded in his
part of our law, and must be ascertained and capacity as then Executive Secretary.
administered by the courts of justice of
appropriate jurisdiction, as often as questions
of right depending upon it are duly presented Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
for their determination. Where there is no
treaty and no controlling executive or
legislative act or judicial decision, resort must Having a key determinative bearing on this case is
be had to the customs and usages of civilized the Rome Statute establishing the International
nations and as evidence of these, to the works Criminal Court (ICC) with “the power to exercise
of jurists and commentators who by years of its jurisdiction over persons for the most serious
labor, research and experience have made crimes of international concern x x x and shall be
themselves peculiarly well acquainted with the complementary to the national criminal
subjects of which they treat. Such works are jurisdictions.” The serious crimes adverted to cover
resorted to by judicial tribunals, not for the those considered grave under international law,
speculations of their authors concerning what such as genocide, crimes against humanity, war
the law ought to be, but for the trustworthy crimes, and crimes of aggression.
evidence of what the law really is.

Customary international law – or international On December 28, 2000, the RP, through Charge
custom is a source of international law as d’Affaires Enrique A. Manalo, signed the Rome
stated in the Statute of the International Court Statute which, by its terms, is “subject to
of Justice, defined as the general and ratification, acceptance or approval” by the
consistent practice of states recognized and
signatory states. As of the filing of the instant
followed by them from a sense of legal
petition, only 92 out of the 139 signatory countries
obligation.
appear to have completed the ratification, approval
1) State practice – the objective element, and concurrence process. The Philippines is not
generality, uniformity and consistency. among the 92.
2) Opinio juris – the subjective element, RP-US Non-Surrender Agreement
requires that the state practice or norm
be carried out in such a way, as to be
On May 9, 2003, then Ambassador Francis J.
evidence of a belief that this practice is
rendered obligatory by the existence of Ricciardone sent US Embassy Note No. 0470 to the
a rule of law requiring it. Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) proposing the
Once the existence of state practice has terms of the non-surrender bilateral agreement
been extablished, it becomes necessary to (Agreement, hereinafter) between the USA and the
determine why states behave the way they RP.
do. Do states behave the way they do Via Exchange of Notes No. BFO-028-037 dated
because they consider it obligatory to May 13, 2003 (E/N BFO-028-03, hereinafter), the
behave thus or do they do it only as a RP, represented by then DFA Secretary Ople,
matter or courtesy? Opinio juris or the agreed with and accepted the US proposals
belief that a certain form of behavior is embodied under the US Embassy Note adverted to
obligatory, is what makes practice
and put in effect the Agreement with the US
international rule. Without it, practice is not
government. In esse, the Agreement aims to
law.
protect what it refers to and defines as “persons”
of the RP and US from frivolous and harassment
Jus cogens – means the compelling law. It suits that might be brought against them in
holds the highest hierarchical position among international tribunals.8 It is reflective of the
all other customary norms and principles. Jus increasing pace of the strategic security and
cogens norms are deemed peremptory and defense partnership between the two countries. As
non-derogable. When applied to international of May 2, 2003, similar bilateral agreements have
crimes, jus cogens crimes have been deemed been effected by and between the US and 33 other
so fundamental to the existence of a just countries.
international legal order that state cannot
derogate from them, even by agreement.
The Agreement pertinently provides as follows:

Facts:
1. For purposes of this Agreement, “persons” are
current or former Government officials, employees
Petitioner Bayan Muna is a duly registered party-
(including contractors), or military personnel or
list group established to represent the
nationals of one Party.
marginalized sectors of society. Respondent Blas F.
Ople, now deceased, was the Secretary of Foreign
RJBM - POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Public International Law

2. Persons of one Party present in the territory of Issue: Whether or not the RP-US NON
the other shall not, absent the express consent of SURRENDER AGREEMENT is void ab initio for
the first Party, contracting obligations that are either immoral or
otherwise at variance with universally recognized
principles of international law.
(a) be surrendered or transferred by any means to
any international tribunal for any purpose, unless
such tribunal has been established by the UN Ruling: The petition is bereft of merit.
Security Council, or

Validity of the RP-US Non-Surrender Agreement

(b) be surrendered or transferred by any means to
any other entity or third country, or expelled to a
Petitioner’s initial challenge against the Agreement
third country, for the purpose of surrender to or
relates to form, its threshold posture being that
transfer to any international tribunal, unless such
E/N BFO-028-03 cannot be a valid medium for
tribunal has been established by the UN Security
concluding the Agreement.
Council.

Petitioners’ contention––perhaps taken unaware of

3. When the [US] extradites, surrenders, or
certain well-recognized international doctrines,
otherwise transfers a person of the Philippines to a
practices, and jargons––is untenable. One of these
third country, the [US] will not agree to the
is the doctrine of incorporation, as expressed in
surrender or transfer of that person by the third
Section 2, Article II of the Constitution, wherein
country to any international tribunal, unless such
the Philippines adopts the generally accepted
tribunal has been established by the UN Security
principles of international law and international
Council, absent the express consent of the
jurisprudence as part of the law of the land and
Government of the Republic of the Philippines
adheres to the policy of peace, cooperation, and
[GRP].
amity with all nations. An exchange of notes falls
“into the category of inter-governmental
4. When the [GRP] extradites, surrenders, or agreements,” which is an internationally accepted
otherwise transfers a person of the [USA] to a form of international agreement. The United
third country, the [GRP] will not agree to the Nations Treaty Collections (Treaty Reference
surrender or transfer of that person by the third Guide) defines the term as follows:
country to any international tribunal, unless such
tribunal has been established by the UN Security
An “exchange of notes” is a record of a routine
Council, absent the express consent of the
agreement, that has many similarities with the
Government of the [US].
private law contract. The agreement consists of
the exchange of two documents, each of the
5. This Agreement shall remain in force until one parties being in the possession of the one signed
year after the date on which one party notifies the by the representative of the other. Under the usual
other of its intent to terminate the Agreement. The procedure, the accepting State repeats the text of
provisions of this Agreement shall continue to the offering State to record its assent. The
apply with respect to any act occurring, or any signatories of the letters may be government
allegation arising, before the effective date of Ministers, diplomats or departmental heads. The
termination. technique of exchange of notes is frequently
resorted to, either because of its speedy
procedure, or, sometimes, to avoid the process of
In response to a query of then Solicitor General
legislative approval.
Alfredo L. Benipayo on the status of the non-
surrender agreement, Ambassador Ricciardone
replied in his letter of October 28, 2003 that the In another perspective, the terms “exchange of
exchange of diplomatic notes constituted a legally notes” and “executive agreements” have been
binding agreement under international law; and used interchangeably, exchange of notes being
that, under US law, the said agreement did not considered a form of executive agreement that
require the advice and consent of the US Senate. becomes binding through executive action. On the
In this proceeding, petitioner imputes grave abuse other hand, executive agreements concluded by
of discretion to respondents in concluding and the President “sometimes take the form of
ratifying the Agreement and prays that it be struck exchange of notes and at other times that of more
down as unconstitutional, or at least declared as formal documents denominated ‘agreements’ or
without force and effect. ‘protocols.’” As former US High Commissioner to
the Philippines Francis B. Sayre observed in his
work, The Constitutionality of Trade Agreement
Acts:
RJBM - POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Public International Law

The point where ordinary correspondence between contextually prohibits is the surrender by either
this and other governments ends and agreements party of individuals to international tribunals, like
– whether denominated executive agreements or the ICC, without the consent of the other party,
exchange of notes or otherwise – begin, may which may desire to prosecute the crime under its
sometimes be difficult of ready ascertainment. x x existing laws. With the view we take of things,
x there is nothing immoral or violative of
It is fairly clear from the foregoing disquisition that international law concepts in the act of the
E/N BFO-028-03––be it viewed as the Non- Philippines of assuming criminal jurisdiction
Surrender Agreement itself, or as an integral pursuant to the non-surrender agreement over an
instrument of acceptance thereof or as consent to offense considered criminal by both Philippine laws
be bound––is a recognized mode of concluding a and the Rome Statute.
legally binding international written contract
among nations.
3. KURODA VS JALANDONI

SHIGENORI KURODA, petitioner, vs. Major

Agreement Not Immoral/Not at Variance
General RAFAEL JALANDONI, Brigadier
with Principles of International Law
General CALIXTO DUQUE, Colonel
MARGARITO TORALBA, Colonel IRENEO
Petitioner urges that the Agreement be struck BUENCONSEJO, Colonel PEDRO TABUENA,
down as void ab initio for imposing immoral Major FEDERICO ARANAS, MELVILLE S.
HUSSEY and ROBERT PORT, respondents.\
obligations and/or being at variance with allegedly
MORAN, C.J.: (1949)\Nature: En Banc
universally recognized principles of international
Decision
law. The immoral aspect proceeds from the fact
that the Agreement, as petitioner would put it, Doctrine: Rules and regulations of the Hague and
“leaves criminals immune from responsibility for Geneva conventions form part of and are wholly
unimaginable atrocities that deeply shock the based on the generally accepted principals of
conscience of humanity; x x x it precludes our international law. They form part of the law of our
country from delivering an American criminal to nation even if the Philippines was not a signatory
the [ICC] x x x.”63 to the conventions embodying them, for our
Constitution has been deliberately general and
extensive in its scope and is not confined to the
The above argument is a kind of recycling of recognition of rules and principles of international
petitioner’s earlier position, which, as already law as contained in treaties to which our
discussed, contends that the RP, by entering into government may have been or shall be a
the Agreement, virtually abdicated its sovereignty signatory.
and in the process undermined its treaty
obligations under the Rome Statute, contrary to Facts:
international law principles. - A Military commission was empaneled under the
authority of Executive Order 68 of the President of
the Philippines, which was issued on July 29, 1947.
The Court is not persuaded. Suffice it to state in This is an act establishing a national war crimes
this regard that the non-surrender agreement, as office and prescribing rules and regulation
aptly described by the Solicitor General, “is an governing the trial of accused war criminals.
assertion by the Philippines of its desire to try and - Shigenori Kuroda, formerly a Lieutenant-General
punish crimes under its national law. x x x The of the Japanese Imperial Army and Commanding
General of the Japanese Imperial Forces in The
agreement is a recognition of the primacy and
Philippines from 1943-1944, is charged before a
competence of the country’s judiciary to try
military commission convened by the Chief of Staff
offenses under its national criminal laws and of the Armed forces of the Philippines with having
dispense justice fairly and judiciously.” unlawfully disregarded and failed "to discharge his
duties as such command, permitting them to
commit brutal atrocities and other high crimes
Petitioner, we believe, labors under the erroneous
against noncombatant civilians and prisoners of
impression that the Agreement would allow
the Imperial Japanese Forces in violation of the
Filipinos and Americans committing high crimes of laws and customs of war".
international concern to escape criminal trial and - Melville Hussey and Robert Port, American
punishment. This is manifestly incorrect. Persons lawyers, were appointed prosecutors in behalf of
who may have committed acts penalized under the USA.
Rome Statute can be prosecuted and punished in - Kuroda challenges the legality of the EO No. 68
the Philippines or in the US; or with the consent of and the personality as prosecutors of Hussey and
the RP or the US, before the ICC, assuming, for Port.
the nonce, that all the formalities necessary to - Kuroda’s arguments were: (1)EO No. is illegal on
bind both countries to the Rome Statute have been the gound that ut wiolates not only the provisions
met. For perspective, what the Agreement of our constitutional law but also our local laws;
RJBM - POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Public International Law

(2) Military Commission has no Jurisdiction to try nations, the United States and Japan, who were
him for acts committed in violation of the Hague signatories to the two Conventions. Such rule and
Convention and the Geneva Convention because principles therefore form part of the law of
the Philippines is not a signatory to the first and our nation even if the Philippines was not a
signed the second only in 1947 and, therefore, he signatory to the conventions embodying
is charged with “crime” not based on law, national them, for our Constitution has been
or international; and (3) Hussey and Port have no deliberately general and extensive in its
personality as prosecutors in this case because scope and is not confined to the recognition
they are not qualified to practice law in Philippines of rules and principles of international law as
in accordance with our Rules of court and the contained in treaties to which our
appointment of said attorneys as prosecutors is government may have been or shall be a
violative of our national sovereignty. signatory.

Issues/Held: (1) WON EO No. 68 is valid and Furthermore when the crimes charged against
constitutional? [Yes it is a valid because it is based petitioner were allegedly committed the Philippines
on the generally accepted principles of was under the sovereignty of United States and
international law which form part of our laws.] thus we were equally bound together with the
(2) WON rules and regulations of the Hague and United States and with Japan to the right and
Geneva Conventions form part of the law of the obligation contained in the treaties between the
nation even if Philippines was not a signatory to belligerent countries.
the conventions embodying them? [Yes, they form
part of our laws.] (3) There is nothing in said executive order which
(3) WON the American lawyers could participate in requires that counsel appearing before said
the prosecution of this case? [Yes, they can.] commission must be attorneys qualified to practice
law in the Philippines in accordance with the Rules
Ratio: (1) The order is valid and constitutional. of Court. Respondent Military Commission is a
Article 2 of our Constitution provides in its section special military tribunal governed by a special law
3, that- The Philippines renounces war as an and not by the Rules of court which govern
instrument of national policy and adopts the ordinary civil court. Secondly, the appointment of
generally accepted principles of international law the two American attorneys is not violative of our
as part of the nation. nation sovereignty. It is only fair and proper that
United States, which has submitted the vindication
In accordance with the generally accepted of crimes against her government and her people
principle of international law of the present day to a tribunal of our nation, should be allowed
including the Hague Convention the Geneva representation in the trial of those very crimes. If
Convention and significant precedents of there has been any relinquishment of sovereignty
international jurisprudence established by the it has not been by our government but by the
United Nation, all those person military or United States Government which has yielded to us
civilian who have been guilty of planning the trial and punishment of her enemies.
preparing or waging a war of aggression and ---
of the commission of crimes and offenses DISSENTING OPINION of Justice Perfecto
consequential and incidental thereto in
violation of the laws and customs of war, of (1) Executive Order No. 68., is null and void
humanity and civilization are held because, through it, the President of the
accountable therefor. Consequently, in the Philippines usurped power expressly vested by the
promulgation and enforcement of Execution Order Constitution in Congress and in the Supreme
No. 68, the President of the Philippines has acted Court.
in conformity with the generally accepted and
policies of international law which are part of our EO No. 68 confers upon military commissions
Constitution. jurisdiction to try all persons charged with war
crimes. It is clearly legislative in nature. The power
to define and allocate jurisdiction for the
The promulgation of said executive order is an
prosecution of person accused of any crime is
exercise by the President of his power as
exclusively vested by the Constitution in Congress.
Commander in chief of all our armed forces as
It also appropriates the sum of P700,000 for the
upheld by this Court in the case of Yamashita vs.
expenses of the National War Crimes office
Styer. Consequently, the President as Commander
established by the said EO No. 68. This constitutes
in Chief is fully empowered to consummate this
another usurpation of legislative power as the
unfinished aspect of war namely the trial and
power to vote appropriations belongs to Congress.
punishment of war criminal through the issuance
and enforcement of Executive Order No. 68.
It provides rules of procedure for the conduct of
trial. This provision on procedural subject
(2) Rules and regulations of the Hague and
constitutes a usurpation of the rule-making power
Geneva conventions form part of and are wholly
vested by Constitution in the Supreme Court.
based on the generally accepted principals of
(2) Respondents suggest that the President issued
international law. In fact, these rules and
EO No. 68 under the emergency powers granted to
principles were accepted by the two belligerent
him by Commonwealth Act No. 600, as amended
RJBM - POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Public International Law

by Commonwealth Act No. 620, and deliberately general and extensive in its scope and
Commonwelath Act No. 671. is not confined to the recognition of rules and
principles of international law as contained in
The above Acts cannot validly be invoked, because treaties to which our government may have been
they ceased to have effect much before Executive or shall be a signatory. Consequently, in the
Order No. 68 was issued on July 29, 1947. Said promulgation and enforcement of Executive Order
Acts had elapsed upon the liberation of the
No. 68, the President of the Philippines had acted
Philippines from the Japanese forces or, at the
in conformity with the generally accepted
latest, when the surrender of Japan was signed in
Tokyo on September 2, 1945. It has never been principles and policies of international law which
the purpose of the National Assembly to extend are part of our Constitution.
the delegation of legislative powers to the
President beyond the emergency created by the
war, as to extend it farther would be violative of Facts:
the express provisions of the Constitution. EO No.
68 is equally offensive to the Constitution because 1. Petitioner Sheginori Kuroda was the former Lt.
it violates the fundamental guarantees of the due General of the Japanese Army and commanding
process and equal protection of the law because it general of the Japanese forces during the
permits the admission of many kinds evidence by occupation (WWII) in the country. He was tried
which no innocent person can afford to get before the Philippine Military Commission for War
acquittal and by which it is impossible to Crimes and other atrocities committed against
determine whether an accused is guilty or not military and civilians. The military commission was
beyond all reasonable doubt. establish under Executive Order 68.

Facts: 2. Petitioner assails the validity of EO 68 arguing it

is unconstitutional and hence the military
Kuroda, Lieutenant General of the Japanese commission did not have the jurisdiction to try him
Imperial Army, was prosecuted for war crimes on the following grounds:
before the Military Commission set up by Executive
- that the Philippines is not a signatory to the
Order No. 68 of the President of the Philippines. Hague Convention (War Crimes)
Kuroda challenged the legality and constitutionality
of the Military Commission and contended that it
lacked jurisdiction to try him for violation of the
3. Petitioner likewise assails that the US is not a
Hague and Geneva Conventions on the Laws of party of interest in the case hence the 2 US
War, since the Philippines was not a signatory to prosecutors cannot practice law in the Philippines.
these conventions.

Issue: Whether or not the established Military Issue: Whether or not EO 68 is constitutional
Commission is legal and constitutional. thus the military tribunal jurisdiction is valid

Held:
HELD:
The court ruled that the Military Commission was
legal and constitutional base on the citation of
Article II, Section 3 of the Philippine Constitution
1. EO 68 is constitutional hence the tribunal has
declaring that “the Philippine adopts the generally jurisdiction to try Kuroda. EO 68 was enacted by
accepted principles of international law as part of the President and was in accordance with Sec. 3,
the law of the nation”. Art. 2 of Constitution which renounces war as an
instrument of national policy. Hence it is in
The court ruled that in accordance with the accordance with generally accepted principles of
generally accepted principles of international law of international law including the Hague Convention
the present day, including the Hague Convention, and Geneva Convention, and other international
the Geneva Convention, and significant precedents jurisprudence established by the UN, including the
of international jurisprudence established by the principle that all persons (military or civilian) guilty
United Nations, all those persons, military or of plan, preparing, waging a war of aggression and
other offenses in violation of laws and customs of
civilian, who had been guilty of planning, preparing
war. The Philippines may not be a signatory to the
or waging a war of aggression and of the
2 conventions at that time but the rules and
commission of crimes and offenses consequential regulations of both are wholly based on the
and incidental thereto, in violation of the laws and generally accepted principles of international law.
customs of war, of humanity and civilization, were They were accepted even by the 2 belligerent
held accountable therefore. Although the nations (US and Japan)
Philippines was not a signatory to the conventions
embodying them, our Constitution has been
RJBM - POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Public International Law

2. As to the participation of the 2 US prosecutors Even if the Philippines was not a signatory to the
in the case, the US is a party of interest because conventions embodying them for our Constitution
its country and people have greatly aggrieved by has been deliberately general and extensive in its
the crimes which petitioner was being charged of. scope and is not confined to the recognition of
rule and principle of international law as
continued inn treaties to which our government
3. Moreover, the Phil. Military Commission is a may have been or shall be a signatory
special military tribunal and rules as to parties and
representation are not governed by the rules of 3) Military Commission is a special military
court but the provision of this special law. tribunal governed by a special law and not by the
Rules of court which govern ordinary civil court.
The appointment of the two American attorneys
Shigenori Kuroda, formerly a Lieutenant-General
is not violative of our nation sovereignty. It is
of the Japanese Imperial Army and Commanding
only fair and proper that United States, which
General of the Japanese Imperial Forces in The
has submitted the vindication of crimes against
Philippines during a period covering 19433 and
her government and her people to a tribunal of
19444 who is now charged before a military
our nation should be allowed representation in
Commission convened by the Chief of Staff of the
the trial of those very crimes. It is of common
Armed forces of the Philippines with having
knowledge that the United State and its people
unlawfully disregarded and failed "to discharge
have been equally if not more greatly aggrieved
his duties as such command, permitting them to
by the crimes with which petitioner stands
commit brutal atrocities and other high crimes
charged before the Military Commission. It can
against noncombatant civilians and prisoners of
be considered a privilege for our Republic that a
the Imperial Japanese Forces in violation of the
leader nation should submit the vindication of the
laws and customs of war" — comes before this
honor of its citizens and its government to a
Court seeking to establish the illegality of
military tribunal of our country.
Executive Order No. 68 of the President of the
Philippines: to enjoin and prohibit respondents
Melville S. Hussey and Robert Port from
participating in the prosecution of petitioner's Facts:
case before the Military Commission and to
Shigenori Kuroda, formerly a Lieutenant-General of
permanently prohibit respondents from
the Japanese Imperial Army and Commanding
proceeding with the case of petitioners.
General of the Japanese Imperial Forces in The
ISSUES: Philippines during Second World War. He was
1) Whether or not E.O. 68 is Constitutional charged before a military commission convened by
2) Whether or not the Military Commission has the Chief of Staff of the Armed forces of the
no Jurisdiction to try petitioner for acts Philippines with having unlawfully disregarded and
committed in violation of the Hague Convention failed to discharge his duties as such command,
and the Geneva Convention because the permitting them to commit brutal atrocities and
Philippines is not a signatory to the first and other high crimes against noncombatant civilians
signed the second only in 1947 and prisoners of the Imperial Japanese Forces in
3) Whether or not Attorneys Hussey and Port violation of the laws and customs of war”. The said
have no personality as prosecution United State military commission was empaneled under the
not being a party in interest in the case.
authority of Executive Order 68 of the President of
the Philippines.
Held:

1) The promulgation of said executive order is an

exercise by the President of his power as Kuroda challenged the validity of Executive Order
Commander in chief of all our armed forces. An 68. His arguments, were as follows:
importance incident to a conduct of war is the
adoption of measure by the military command (1) Executive Order 68 is illegal on the ground that
not only to repel and defeat the enemies but to it violates not only the provisions of our
seize and subject to disciplinary measure those constitutional law but also our local laws.
enemies who in their attempt to thwart or
impede our military effort have violated the law (2) Military Commission has no Jurisdiction to try
of war. The President as Commander in Chief is him for acts committed in violation of the Hague
fully empowered to consummate this unfinished Convention and the Geneva Convention because
aspect of war namely the trial and punishment of the Philippines is not a signatory to the first and
war criminal through the issuance and signed the second only in 1947 and, therefore, he
enforcement of Executive Order No. 68 is charged with “crime” not based on law, national
or international
2) It cannot be denied that the rules and
regulation of the Hague and Geneva conventions (3) Hussey and Port have no personality as
form, part of and are wholly based on the prosecutors in this case because they are not
generally accepted principals of international law. qualified to practice law in Philippines in
RJBM - POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Public International Law

accordance with our Rules of court and the the constitutionality of E.O. No. 68 that created
appointment of said attorneys as prosecutors is the National War Crimes Office and prescribed
violative of our national sovereignty. rules on the trial of accused war criminals. He
contended the Philippines is not a signatory to the
Hague Convention on Rules and Regulations
Issue/s: covering Land Warfare and therefore he is charged
of crimes not based on law, national and
Whether or not Executive Order 68 had violated international.
the provisions of our constitutional law

II. THE ISSUES

Discussions:

The provision of Article 2 Sec 3 states that “The

Philippines renounces war as an instrument of Was E.O. No. 68 valid and constitutional?
national policy, adopts generally accepted
principles of international law as part of the law of
the land, and adheres to the policy of peace, III. THE RULING
equality, justice freedom, cooperation and amity
with all nations”. Every State is, by reason of its
membership in the family of nations, bound by the [The Court DENIED the petition and upheld
generally accepted principles of international law, the validity and constitutionality of E.O. No. 68.]
which are considered to be automatically part of its
own laws.

Ruling/s: YES, E.O. No. 68 valid and

constitutional.
No. Executive Order 68 has not violated the
provision of our constitutional law. The tribunal has
jurisdiction to try Kuroda. This executive order is in Article 2 of our Constitution provides in its
accordance with Article 2 Sec 3, of Constitution. It section 3, that –
is in accordance with generally accepted principles
of international law including the Hague The Philippines renounces
Convention and Geneva Convention, and war as an instrument of national
other international jurisprudence established by policy and adopts the generally
the UN, including the principle that all persons accepted principles of international
(military or civilian) guilty of plan, preparing, law as part of the law of the nation.
waging a war of aggression and other offenses in
violation of laws and customs of war.
In accordance with the generally accepted
principle of international law of the present day
including the Hague Convention the Geneva
The Philippines may not be a signatory to the 2 Convention and significant precedents of
conventions at that time but the rules and international jurisprudence established by the
regulations of both are wholly based on the United Nation all those person military or civilian
generally accepted principles of international law. who have been guilty of planning preparing or
They were accepted even by the 2 belligerent waging a war of aggression and of the commission
nations (US and Japan) of crimes and offenses consequential and
incidental thereto in violation of the laws and
Furthermore, the Phil. Military Commission is a
special military tribunal and rules as to parties and customs of war, of humanity and civilization are
representation are not governed by the rules of held accountable therefor. Consequently in the
promulgation and enforcement of Execution Order
court but the provision of this special law
No. 68 the President of the Philippines has acted in
conformity with the generally accepted and policies
of international law which are part of the our
THE FACTS Constitution.

Petitioner Shigenori Kuroda, xxx xxx xxx

the Commanding General of the Japanese Imperial
Forces in the Philippines during the Japanese
occupation, was charged before the Philippine
Petitioner argues that respondent Military
Military Commission of war crimes. He questioned
Commission has no jurisdiction to try petitioner for
RJBM - POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Public International Law

acts committed in violation of the Hague The petitioners filed a motion to dismiss and
Convention and the Geneva Convention because opposition to the petition for preliminary injunction
the Philippines is not a signatory to the first and on the ground that the action was in effect a suit
signed the second only in 1947. It cannot be against USA which had not waived its non-
denied that the rules and regulation of the Hague suability, but trial court denied the application for
and Geneva conventions form, part of and are a writ of preliminary injunction.
wholly based on the generally accepted principals
of international law. In facts these rules and
principles were accepted by the two belligerent Issues:
nations the United State and Japan who were
signatories to the two Convention. Such rule and
principles therefore form part of the law of our 1. Whether or not the action was in effect a
nation even if the Philippines was not a signatory suit against United States of America.
to the conventions embodying them for our 2. Whether or not the petitioners were
Constitution has been deliberately general and
immune from suit under the RP-US Bases
extensive in its scope and is not confined to the
recognition of rule and principle of international Treaty for acts done by them in the
law as contained in treaties to which our performance of their official duties.
government may have been or shall be a
signatory.

Discussions:

The rule that a state may not be sued without its

consent, is one of the generally accepted principles
4. USA VS GUINTO
of international law that we have adopted as part
Facts: of the law of our land.

The case involves the doctrine of state immunity.

The United States of America was not impleaded in
Even without such affirmation, we would still be
the case at bar but has moved to dismiss on the
bound by the generally accepted principles of
ground that they are in effect suits against it to
international law under the doctrine of
which it has not consented.
incorporation. Under this doctrine, as accepted by
the majority of states, such principles are deemed
incorporated in the law of every civilized state as a
The private respondents are suing several officers condition and consequence of its membership in
of the US Air Force in Clark Air Base in connection the society of nations. Upon its admission to such
with the bidding conducted by them for contracts society, the state is automatically obligated to
for barber services in the said base. Among those comply with these principles in its relations with
who submitted their bids were private respondents other states.
Roberto T. Valencia, Emerenciana C. Tanglao, and
Pablo C. del Pilar.
While the doctrine appears to prohibit only suits
against the state without its consent, it is also
The Bidding was won by Ramon Dizon over the applicable to complaints filed against officials of
objection of the private respondents who claimed the states for acts allegedly performed by them in
that he had made a bid for 4 facilities, including the discharge of their duties. The rule is that if the
the Civil Engineering Area which was not included judgment against such officials will require the
in the invitation to bid. state itself to perform an affirmative act to satisfy
the same, the suit must be regarded as against the
state although it has not been formally impleaded.
The private respondents filed a complaint in the When the government enters into a contract, it is
court below to compel Philippine Area Exchange deemed to have descended to the level of the
(PHAX) and the individual petitioners to cancel the other contracting party and divested of its
award to Dizon, to conduct a rebidding for the sovereign immunity from suit with its implied
barbershop concessions and to allow the private consent.
respondents by a writ of preliminary injunction to
continue operating the concessions pending Rulings:
litigation.
1. The court finds the barbershops subject to
the concessions granted by the US government
to be commercial enterprises operated by
RJBM - POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Public International Law

private persons. They are not agencies of the and conduct a rebidding to allow the private
respondents to continue operating their
United States Armed Forces nor are their
concessions by a writ of preliminary injunction
facilities demandable as a matter of right by pending litigation. To maintain status quo,
the American servicemen. These Respondent court issued an ex parte order to the
establishments provide for the grooming needs petitioners. Petitioners filed a motion for dismissal
and petition to oppose the preliminary injunction.
of their customers. This being the case, the
They contended that the action was in effect a suit
petitioners cannot plead any immunity from against the US Force. Both were denied by the trial
the complaint filed by the private respondents court. A petition for certiorari and prohibition for
preliminary injunction were filed before the
in the court below.
Supreme Court and a TRO was issued.
2. Petitioners states they have acted in the
discharge of their official functions as officers In G.R. No. 79470, Fabian Genove filed a
or agents of the United States. They are complaint for damages against petitioners Anthony
sought to be held answerable for personal torts Lamachia, Wilfredo Belsa, Rose Crtalla and Peter
Orascion for his dismissal as a cook in the US Air
in which the United States itself is not involved.
Force Recreation Center. Belsa, Cartalla and
If found liable, they and they alone must Orascion testified that Genova poured urine into
satisfy the judgment. the soup stock that was served to customers.
Lamachia suspended him and referred the case to
The Court would have directly resolved the claims a board of arbitrators who found Genove guilty and
against the defendants, except for the paucity of recommended his dismissal. Genove then filed an
the record in the case at hand. The evidence of the MS complaint in the RTC of Baguio against the
alleged irregularity in the grant of the barbershop individual petitioners, who moved to dismiss the
concessions is not before the Court. The case in the basis that Lamachia was immune from
respondent court will have to receive that evidence suit as per acts done in his official capacity as an
first, so it can later determine on the basis thereof officer of the US Air Force. The motion was denied
if the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief they seek. by the RTC, so the petitioners filed a petition for
Accordingly, this case must also be remanded to Certiorari and prohibition with preliminary
the court below for further proceedings. injunction before the Supreme Court.

In G.R. No. 80018, the respondent, Louis Bautista,

FACTS: The cases brought before the Supreme was arrested pursuant to RA 6425 (Dangerous
Court are consolidated for they are issues on Drugs Act) in a buy-bust operation conducted by
immunity of the state from being sued. the petitioners, Tomi J. King, Darrel D. Dye and
Stephen F. Bostick, who were officers and special
In G.R. No. 76607 (U.S.A et. al vs. Guinto et. al. agents of the US Air Force and Air Force Office of
Feb. 26, 1990), the private respondents sued Special Investigators. He was charged before the
several officers of the US Air Force regarding a RTC which caused his dismissal as a barracks boy
bidding for barbering services contract. A bid from in Camp O’Donnell, an extension of Clark Air base.
Okinawa Area Exchange was solicited through Bautista then filed a complaint against the
James Shaw, a contracting officer. Private petitioners. The petitioners, in defense, filed a
respondents and concessionaires inside the Clark motion to dismiss the case with the contention that
Air Base, Roberto T. Valencia, Emerenciana C. they were acting in official capacity when the acts
Tanglao and Pablo C. del Pilar, were among the were committed, hence the suit against them is, in
bidders, however, Ramon Dizon won the bidding. effect, a suit against the US. The motion was
The private respondents complained with the denied by the judge, with the contention that the
contention that Dizon also bid for the Civil immunity covers only civil cases that are not
Engineering (CE) area which was not included in criminal under the Military Bases Agreement. Ergo,
the bidding invitation. PHAX or the Philippine Area the petitioners filed a petition for certiorari and
Exchange, to whom the respondents complained prohibition for preliminary injunction. A TRO was
to, represented by petitioners Yvonne Reeves and issued.
Frederick Smouse clarified that the CE area is yet
to be awarded to Dizon because of a previous In G.R. No. 80258, the private respondents, Ricky
solicitation. Dizon was already operating the NCO Sanchez, et. al., filed a complaint for damages
club concession, however, and the contract expiry against the respondents, Major General Michael
of the CE barbershop was extended only until the Carns, et. al., for the extensive injuries allegedly
end of June 1986. Hence, the respondents filed a sustained by the petitioners, who beat them up,
petition, with a prayer to compel PHAX and the handcuffed and unleashed dogs on them who bit
individual petitioners to revoke the award to Dizon, them. The petitioners denied the accusation and
RJBM - POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Public International Law

instead said that the respondents were bitten by private respondent was justifiable under the
dogs because they resisted arrest when they circumstance. Further, the Supreme Court
committed theft, and they were brought to the declared that the petitioners in the other cases
medical center for treatment thereafter. The above, stating that they acted in performance of
petitioners, USA together with Carns et. al., their duties, need evidence. The SC was able to
contended that they are immune against this suit, make certain that the petitioners in G.R. No.
invoking their right under the RP-US Bases Treaty, 80018 were indeed acting in their official capacity,
as they acted in the performance of their official as the state they represent, USA, has not given its
functions. The matter was brought before the consent to be sued. As such, they cannot be sued
Supreme Court after their motion was denied, for acts imputable to their state. However in G.R.
wherein they filed a petition for certiorari and No. 80258, more evidence is needed as the factual
prohibition with preliminary injunction. A TRO was allegations were contradictory. There needs to be
issued. clear, and sufficient evidence that they were in the
vestige of their duty, and did not exceed it. In the
ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioners can use foregoing, the Supreme Court had decided to
State Immunity (Art. XVI, Sec. 3, 1987 make the case be investigated further by the lower
Constitution) as defense. court before proceeding and the final judgment
can be rendered.
RULING: The Supreme Court rendered judgment
as follows: FACTS:
1. In , the petition is DISMISSED and the
respondent judge is directed to proceed with the USA vs. Guinto. On February 24, 1986, the U.S.
hearing and decision of Civil Case No. 4772. The Air Force stationed in Clark Air Base solicited bids
temporary restraining order was LIFTED. for barbershop concessions. Ramon Dizon won the
2. In G.R. No.79470, the petition is GRANTED and bidding. Respondents objected, claiming that Dizon
the Civil Case No.0829-R(298) is DISMISSED. had made a bid for four facilities which includes an
3. In G.R. No80018, the petition is GRANTED and area not included in the bidding. The petitioners
the Civil Case No. 115-C-87 is DISMISSED. The explained that Dizon was already operating the
temporary restraining order is made permanent. concession, and informed the respondents that
4. In G.R. No. 80258, the petition is DISMISSED solicitation for the barber service contracts would
and the respondent judge is directed to proceed be available by the end of June before which the
with the hearing and decision of Civil Case No. respondents would be notified. On June 30, 1986,
4996. The temporary restraining order was the private respondents filed a complaint in court
LIFTED. to compel the Philippine Area Exchange (PHAX)
and the petitioners to cancel the award to Dizon,
Reason: Under Art. XVI, Sec. 3, 1987 Constitution, to conduct a rebidding for the barbershop
“The State may not be sued without its consent.” concessions, and to allow the respondents through
However, this does not mean that at all times, the a writ of preliminary injunction to continue
State may not be sued. There needs to be a operating the concessions pending litigation. The
consideration on if they were indeed acting within court issued an ex parte order directing the
the capacity of their duties, or if they enter into a individual petitioners to maintain the status quo.
contract with a private party. Petitioners then filed a motion to dismiss and
In G.R. No. 76607, the barbershops, subject of the opposed the petition for preliminary injunction,
bidding awarded were commercial enterprises, stating that the action was in effect a suit against
operated by private persons, therefore they are the United States of America which had not waived
not agencies of the US Armed Forces nor part of its non-suability. The defendants who are official
their facilities. Although the barbershops provide employees of the U.S. Air Force were also immune
service to the military, they were for a fee. State from suit. The trial court denied the application for
Immunity cannot be invoked by the petitioners for a writ of preliminary injunction.
the fact that they entered into a contract with a
private party, commercial in nature. In G.R. No. USA v. Rodrigo. Fabian Genove who worked as a
79470, it is in the same principle as in the first cook in the U.S. Air Force Recreation Center at the
case. The petitioner, Lamachia, is a manager of a John Hay Air Station in Baguio City, filed a
privately operated service which generate an complaint for damages against petitioners Anthony
income. The court assumed that they are an Lamachia, Wilfredo Belsa, Rose Cartalla and Peter
individual entity, and the service they offer partake Orascion for his dismissal from work. Belsa,
the nature of a business entered by US in its Cartalla, and Orascion had testified during an
proprietary capacity. Despite this, the court ruled investigation that Genove had poured urine into
in favor of the petitioners as the claim for damages the soup stock used in cooking the vegetables
cannot be allowed on the strength of evidence served to the club customers. As club manager,
before the court. It ruled that the dismissal of the Lamachia suspended Genove and referred the case
RJBM - POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Public International Law

to a board of arbitrators. The board unanimously suit under the RP-US Military Bases Agreement for
found Genove guilty and recommended his acts they did in performing their official
dismissal. Lamachia, et. al., joined by the United functions. The motion to dismiss was denied by the
States of America moved to dismiss the complaint, trial court.
alleging that Lamachia was an officer of the U.S.
Air Force and was thus immune from suit. They ISSUE:
argued that the suit was in effect against the
United States which had not given its consent to
Are the defendants right in invoking the State’s
be sued. The trial court denied the motion, saying
immunity from suit for acts done by them in the
that the defendants went beyond their functions
performance of their official duties?
that brought them out of the protective mantle of
whatever immunities they may have initially had
HELD:
such that the plaintiff’s allegation that the acts
complained of were illegal, done with extreme bad
faith and with preconceived sinister plan to harass USA v. Guinto. The Supreme Court ruled that
and finally dismiss the plaintiff gains significance. the barbershop concessions granted by the United
States government are commercial enterprises
operated by private persons and are not agencies
USA v. Ceballos. Luis Bautista, who was employed
of the United States Armed Forces. All the
as a barracks boy in Camp O’ Donnell, was
barbershop concessionaires were under the terms
arrested following a buy-bust operation conducted
of their contracts and were required to remit fixed
by the petitioners who were special agents of the
commissions to the United States government.
Air Force Office of Special Investigators (AFOSI). A
Thus, the petitioners cannot plead any immunity
charge was filed against Bautista in violation of
from the complaint filed by the private
R.A. 6425 or the Dangerous Drugs Act which
respondents. The Court though could not directly
caused his dismissal from employment. Bautista
resolve the claims against the defendants because
thus filed a complaint for damages against the
the evidence of the alleged irregularity in the grant
petitioners who filed an answer without the
of the barbershop concessions is lacking. This
assistance of counsel or authority from the U.S.
means that the Court must receive the evidence
Department of Justice. The petitioners alleged that
first so it can later determine if the plaintiffs are
they had only done their duty in enforcing the laws
entitled to the relief they seek.
of the Philippines inside the American bases
pursuant to the RP-US Military Bases
Agreement. The law firm representing the USA v. Rodrigo. The restaurant services offered at
defendants filed a motion to withdraw the answer the John Hay Air Station is of the nature of a
and dismiss the complaint on the ground that the business enterprise undertaken by the United
defendants were just acting in their official States government in its proprietary capacity.
capacity and that the complaint against them was Thus, the petitioners cannot invoke the doctrine of
in effect a suit against the United States which did state immunity to justify the dismissal of the
not give its consent to be sued. The motion was damage suit against them by Genove even if it is
denied by the trial court which stated that the established that they were acting as agents of the
claimed immunity under the Military Bases United States when they investigated and later
Agreement covered only criminal and not civil dismissed Genove. Not even the United States
cases and that the defendants had come under the government itself can claim such immunity
jurisdiction of the court when they submitted their because by entering into an employment contract
answer. with Genove, it impliedly divested itself of its
sovereign immunity from suit. But still, the Court
dismissed the complaint against the petitioners
USA v. Vergara. Plaintiffs alleged that they were
since, while suable, the petitioners were found to
beaten up by the defendants, handcuffed, and
be not liable. A thorough investigation established
allowed to be bitten by dogs which caused
beyond doubt that Genove had in fact polluted the
extensive injuries to the plaintiffs. The defendants
soup stock with urine.
denied the claim and asserted that the plaintiffs
were arrested for theft and were bitten by the
dogs because they struggled and resisted arrest. USA v. Ceballos. The court found that
The defendants claimed that the dogs were called the petitioners were only exercising their official
off and the plaintiffs were immediately taken to functions when they conducted the buy-bust
the medical center where they were treated for operation. The petitioners were connected with the
their wounds. The defendants filed a motion to Air Force Office of Special Investigators and were
dismiss the complaint, and argued that the suit assigned to prevent the distribution, possession
was in effect a suit against the United States which and use of prohibited drugs and to prosecute those
had not given its consent to be sued. The guilty of such acts. As such, the petitioners were
defendants stated that there were immune from not acting in their private or unofficial capacity
when they apprehended and later testified against
RJBM - POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Public International Law

the complainant. For discharging their duties as  On July 22, 1986, the petitioners filed a
agents of the United States, they cannot be motion to dismiss and opposition to the petition for
directly prosecuted for acts imputable to their preliminary injunction on the ground that the
principal which has not given its consent to be action was in effect a suit against USA which had
sued. not waived its non-suability
 On July 22, 1986, trial court denied the
application for a writ of preliminary injunction
USA v. Vergara. The Supreme Court found the
factual allegations in this case contradictory and  On Oct. 10, 1988, trial court denied the
petitioners' motion to dismiss
recommended a closer study of what actually
happened to the plaintiffs. The Court found the On the second suit:
record scant of information to indicate if the  Fabian Genove filed a complaint for
defendants were really discharging their official damages against petitioners Anthony Lamachia,
duties or had actually exceeded their authority Wilfredo Belsa, Rose Cartalla and Peter Orascion
when the incident in question occurred. The Court for his dismissal as cook in the US Air Force
then could not directly decide this case and ruled Recreation Center at the John Hay Air Station in
that the required inquiry must first be made by the Baguio City
lower court to assess and resolve the conflicting  It had been ascertained that Genove had
claims of the parties based on the evidence yet to poured urine into the soup stock used in cooking
be presented at the trial. The Court will determine, the vegetables served to the club customers
if it is still necessary, if the doctrine of state  His dismissal was effected on March 5,
immunity is applicable only after the determination 1986 by Col. David C. Kimball, Commander of the
of what capacity the petitioners were acting at the 3rd Combat Support Group, PACAF Clark Air Force
time of the incident in question. Base
 Genove filed a complaint in the RTC of
Facts: Baguio
 The defendants, joined by the United States
 In the 4 consolidated suits, the USA moves of America, moved to dismiss the complaint,
to dismiss the cases on the ground that they are in alleging that Lamachia (the manager) as an officer
effect suits against it which it has not consented of the US Air Force was immune from suit for the
On the first suit: acts done by him in his official capacity; they
argued that the suit was in effect against USA,
 On February 24, 1986, the Western Pacific which had not given its consent to be sued
Contracting Office, Okinawa Area Exchange, US Air
 Motion was denied by respondent judge:
Force, solicited bids for barber services contracts
although acting intially in their official capacities,
through its contracting officer James F. Shaw
the defendants went beyond what their functions
 Among those who submitted their bids were called for; this brought them out of the protective
private respondents Roberto T. Valencia, mantle of whatever immunities they may have had
Emerenciana C. Tanglao, and Pablo C. del Pilar in the beginning
 Bidding was won by Ramon Dizon over the
objection of the private respondents who claimed On the third suit:
that he had made a bid for 4 facilities, including
the Civil Engineering Area which was not included  Luis Bautisa, who was employed as a
in the invitation to bid barracks boy in Camp O'Donnell, an extension of
 The Philippine Area Exchange (PHAX), Clark Air Base, was arrested following a buy-bust
through its representatives petitioners Yvonne operation conducted by the individual petitioners
Reeves and Frederic M. Smouse, upon the private Tomi J. King, Darrel D. Dye and Stephen F.
respondents' complaint, explained that the Civil Bostick, officers of the US Air Force and special
Engineering concession had not been awarded to agents of the Air Force of Special Investigators
Dizon (AFOSI)
 But Dizon was alreayd operating this  Bautista was dismissed from his
concession, then known as the NCO club employment as a result of the filing of the charge
concession  He then filed a complaint for damages
 On June 30, 1986, the private respondents against the individual petitioners, claiming that it
filed a complaint in the court below to compel was because of their acts that he was removed
PHAX and the individual petitioners to cancel the  Defendants alleged that they had only done
award to Dizon, to conduct a rebidding for the their duty in the enforcement of laws of the
barbershop concessions and to allow the private Philippines inside the American bases, pursuant to
respondents by a writ of preliminary injunction to the RP-US Military Bases Agreement
continue operating the concessions pending  The counsel for the defense invoked that
litigation the defendants were acting in their official
 Respondent court directed the individual capacity; that the complaint was in effect a suit
petitioners to maintain the status quo against the US without its consent
RJBM - POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Public International Law

 Motion was denied by respondent judge: G.R. No. L-49112 – 88 SCRA 195 – Political Law –
immunity under the Military Bases Agreement Constitutional Law – Generally Accepted Principles
covered only criminal and not civil cases; of International Law – Police Power
moreover, the defendants had come under the
jurisdiction of the court when they submitted their Agustin is the owner of a Volkswagen Beetle Car.
answer
He is assailing the validity of Letter of Instruction
No 229 which requires all motor vehicles to have
On the fourth suit: early warning devices particularly to equip them
 Complaint for damages was filed by private with a pair of reflectorized triangular early warning
respondents against the petitioners (except USA) devices•. Agustin is arguing that this order is
 According to the plaintiffs, the defendants unconstitutional, harsh, cruel and unconscionable
beat them up, handcuffed the, and unleashed dogs to the motoring public. Cars are already equipped
on them with blinking lights which is already enough to
 Defendants deny this and claim that the provide warning to other motorists. And that the
plaintiffs were arrested for theft and were bitten by mandate to compel motorists to buy a set of
dogs because they were struggling and resisting reflectorized early warning devices is redundant
arrest and would only make manufacturers and dealers
 USA and the defendants argued that the instant millionaires.
suit was in effect a suit against the United States
which had not given its consent to be sued; that ISSUE: Whether or not the said is EO is valid.
they were also immune from suit under the RP-US
Bases Treaty for acts done by them in the HELD: Such early warning device requirement is
performance of their official functions not an expensive redundancy, nor oppressive, for
 Motion to dismiss was denied by the trial car owners whose cars are already equipped with
court: the acts cannot be considered Acts of State, 1) ‘blinking-lights in the fore and aft of said motor
if they were ever admitted by the defendants vehicles,’ 2) ‘battery-powered blinking lights inside
Issue: motor vehicles,’ 3) ‘built-in reflectorized tapes on
front and rear bumpers of motor vehicles,’ or 4)
 Whether or not the suits above are in effect
‘well-lighted two (2) petroleum lamps (the
suits against United States of America without its
consent Kinke) . . . because: Being universal among the
signatory countries to the said 1968 Vienna
 In relation, whether or not the defendants
are also immune from suit for acting within their Conventions, and visible even under adverse
official functions. conditions at a distance of at least 400 meters,
any motorist from this country or from any part of
Holding and Ratio:
the world, who sees a reflectorized rectangular
 1st suit: No. The barbershops concessions early warning device installed on the roads,
are commercial enterprises operated by private highways or expressways, will conclude, without
persons. They are not agencies of the US Armed thinking, that somewhere along the travelled
forces. Petitioners cannot plead immunity. Case portion of that road, highway, or expressway,
should be remanded to the lower court. there is a motor vehicle which is stationary, stalled
 2nd suit: No. The petitioners cannot invoke or disabled which obstructs or endangers passing
the doctrine of state immunity. The restaurants traffic. On the other hand, a motorist who sees any
are commercial enterprises. By entering into the of the aforementioned other built-in warning
employment contract with Genove, it impliedly devices or the petroleum lamps will not
divested itself of its sovereign immunity from suit.
immediately get adequate advance warning
(However, the petitioners are only suable, not
because he will still think what that blinking light is
liable.)
all about. Is it an emergency vehicle? Is it a law
 3rd suit: Yes. It is clear that the petitioners
enforcement car? Is it an ambulance? Such
were acting in the exercise of their official
confusion or uncertainty in the mind of the
functions. For discharging their duties as agents of
the US, they cannot be directly impleaded for acts motorist will thus increase, rather than decrease,
attributable to their principal, which has not given the danger of collision.
its consent to be sued.
 4th suit: The contradictory factual On Police Power
allegations deserve a closer study. Inquiry must
first be made by the lower court. Only after can it The Letter of Instruction in question was issued in
be known in what capacity the petitioners were the exercise of the police power. That is conceded
acting at the time of the incident. by petitioner and is the main reliance of
respondents. It is the submission of the former,
however, that while embraced in such a category,
5. AGUSTIN VS EDU
it has offended against the due process and equal
protection safeguards of the Constitution, although
RJBM - POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Public International Law

the latter point was mentioned only in passing. The an indication of its being non-existent. The latest
broad and expansive scope of the police power decision in point, Edu v. Ericta, sustained the
which was originally identified by Chief Justice validity of the Reflector Law, an enactment
Taney of the American Supreme Court in an 1847 conceived with the same end in view. Calalang v.
decision, as “nothing more or less than the powers Williams found nothing objectionable in a statute,
of government inherent in every sovereignty” was the purpose of which was: “To promote safe transit
stressed in the aforementioned case of Edu v. upon, and avoid obstruction on roads and streets
Ericta thus: “Justice Laurel, in the first leading designated as national roads . . .” As a matter of
decision after the Constitution came into force, fact, the first law sought to be nullified after the
Calalang v. Williams, identified police power with effectivity of the 1935 Constitution, the National
state authority to enact legislation that may Defense Act, with petitioner failing in his quest,
interfere with personal liberty or property in order was likewise prompted by the imperative demands
to promote the general welfare. Persons and of public safety.
property could thus ‘be subjected to all kinds of
restraints and burdens in order to secure the
general comfort, health and prosperity of the
FACTS:
state. Shortly after independence in 1948,
Primicias v. Fugoso reiterated the doctrine, such a
Petitioner, Agustin assails the validity of the Letter
competence being referred to as ‘the power to
of Instruction No. 229 which requires an early
prescribe regulations to promote the health,
warning device to be carried by users of motor
morals, peace, education, good order or safety,
vehicles as being violative of the constitutional
and general welfare of the people.’ The concept
guarantee of due process and transgresses the
was set forth in negative terms by Justice Malcolm
fundamental principle of non-delegation of
in a pre-Commonwealth decision as ‘that inherent
legislative power.
and plenary power in the State which enables it to
prohibit all things hurtful to the comfort, safety
Herein respondent Romeo Edu in his capacity as
and welfare of society.’ In that sense it could be
Land Transportation Commisioner set forth the
hardly distinguishable as noted by this Court in
implementing rules and regulations of the said
Morfe v. Mutuc with the totality of legislative
instruction.
power. It is in the above sense the greatest and
most powerful attribute of government. It is, to Petitioner make known that he "is the owner of a
quote Justice Malcolm anew, ‘the most essential, Volkswagen Beetle Car, Model 13035, already
insistent, and at least illimitable powers,’ properly equipped when it came out from the
extending as Justice Holmes aptly pointed out ‘to assembly lines with blinking lights fore and aft,
all the great public needs.’ Its scope, ever which could very well serve as an early warning
expanding to meet the exigencies of the times, device in case of the emergencies mentioned in
even to anticipate the future where it could be Letter of Instructions No. 229, as amended, as well
done, provides enough room for an efficient and as the implementing rules and regulations in
flexible response to conditions and circumstances Administrative Order No. 1 issued by the land
thus assuring the greatest benefits. In the transportation Commission,"
language of Justice Cardozo: ‘Needs that were
narrow or parochial in the past may be interwoven Furthermore, he contends that the law is "one-
in the present with the well-being of the nation. sided, onerous and patently illegal and immoral
What is critical or urgent changes with the time.’ because [they] will make manufacturers and
The police power is thus a dynamic agency, dealers instant millionaires at the expense of car
suitably vague and far from precisely defined, owners who are compelled to buy a set of the so-
rooted in the conception that men in organizing called early warning device at the rate of P 56.00
the state and imposing upon its government to P72.00 per set." are unlawful and
limitations to safeguard constitutional rights did unconstitutional and contrary to the precepts of a
not intend thereby to enable an individual citizen compassionate New Society [as being] compulsory
or a group of citizens to obstruct unreasonably the and confiscatory on the part of the motorists who
enactment of such salutary measures calculated to could very well provide a practical alternative road
insure communal peace, safety, good order, and safety device, or a better substitute to the
welfare.” specified set of Early Warning Device (EWD)."

It was thus a heavy burden to be shouldered by This instruction, signed by President Marcos, aims
Agustin, compounded by the fact that the to prevent accidents on streets and highways,
particular police power measure challenged was including expressways or limited access roads
clearly intended to promote public safety. It would caused by the presence of disabled, stalled or
be a rare occurrence indeed for this Court to parked motor vehicles without appropriate early
invalidate a legislative or executive act of that warning devices. The hazards posed by these
character. None has been called to our attention, disabled vehicles are recognized by international
RJBM - POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Public International Law

bodies concerned with traffic safety. The

Philippines is a signatory of the 1968 Vienna Ruling
Convention on Road Signs and Signals and the The Supreme Court ruled for the dismissal of the
United Nations Organizations and the said Vienna petition. The statutes in question are deemed not
Convention was ratified by the Philippine unconstitutional. These were definitely in the
Government under PD 207. exercise of police po

ISSUE:
wer as such was established to promote public
WON the LOI 229 is invalid and violated welfare and public safety. In fact, the letter of
constitutional guarantees of due process. instruction is based on the constitutional provision
of adopting to the generally accepted principles of
HELD: international law as part of the law of the land. The
letter of instruction mentions, as its premise and
basis, the resolutions of the 1968 Vienna
NO. The assailed Letter of Instruction was a valid
Convention on Road Signs and Signals and the
exercise of police power and there was no unlawful
discussions on traffic safety by the United Nations
delegation of legislative power on the part of the
- that such letter was issued in consideration of a
respondent. As identified, police power is a state growing number of road accidents due to stalled or
authority to enact legislation that may interfere parked vehicles on the streets and highways.
personal liberty or property in order to promote
the general welfare. In this case, the particular
exercise of police power was clearly intended to AGUSTIN vs EDU
promote public safety.

It cannot be disputed that the Declaration of

Facts:
Principle found in the Constitution possesses
relevance: “The Philippines adopts the generally The letter of instruction providing for an early
accepted principles of international law as part of warning device for motor vehicles is being assailed
the law of the nation.” in the case at bar as being violative of the
constitutional guarantee of due process. Petitioner
Thus, as impressed in the 1968 Vienna Convention contends that they are "infected with arbitrariness
it is not for this country to repudiate a because it is harsh, cruel and unconscionable to
commitment to which it had pledged its word. Our the motoring public;" 13 are "one‐ sided, onerous
country’s word was resembled in our own act of and patently illegal and immoral because [they]
legislative ratification of the said Hague and Vienna will make manufacturers and dealers instant
Conventions thru P.D. No. 207 . millionaires at the expense of car owners who are
compelled to buy a set of the so‐ called early
The concept of Pacta sunt servanda stands in the
warning device at the rate of P 56.00 to P72.00
way of such an attitude which is, moreoever, at
per set." 14 are unlawful and unconstitutional and
war with the principle of international morality.
contrary to the precepts of a compassionate New
Society [as being] compulsory and confiscatory on
Facts
the part of the motorists who could very well
This case is a petition assailing the validity or the
constitutionality of a Letter of Instruction No. 229, provide a practical alternative road safety device,
issued by President Ferdinand E. Marcos, requiring or a better substitute to the specified set of
all vehicle owners, users or drivers to procure early EWD's."
warning devices to be installed a distance away
from such vehicle when it stalls or is disabled. In
compliance with such letter of instruction, the Held:
Commissioner of the Land Transportation Office
issued Administrative Order No. 1 directing the
compliance thereof.
This petition alleges that such letter of instruction Petitioner’s contention is erroneous because the
and subsequent administrative order are unlawful Letter of Instruction was issued in the exercise of
and unconstitutional as it violates the provisions on the police power which is “nothing more or less
due process, equal protection of the law and undue than the powers of government inherent in every
delegation of police power. sovereignty.” In the leading case of Calalang v.
Williams, Justice Laurel identified police power
with state authority to enact legislation that
Issue may interfere with personal liberty or
Whether or not the Letter of Instruction No. 229 property in order to promote the general
and the subsequent Administrative Order issued is
welfare. Persons and property could thus ‘be
unconstitutional
subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens in
order for the general comfort, health and
RJBM - POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Public International Law

prosperity of the state.’ This doctrine was later dealer. This is to prove that they can stir
reiterated again in Primicias v. Fugoso which trouble from afar
referred police power as ‘the power to prescribe 4. Honasan’s failed coup
regulations to promote the health, morals, 5. Communist insurgency movements
peace, education, good order or safety, and 6. secessionist movements in Mindanao
general welfare of the people.’ The concept
7. devastated economy because of
was set forth in negative terms by Justice Malcolm
in a pre-Commonwealth decision as ‘that
inherent and plenary power in the State
1. accumulated foreign debt
which enables it to prohibit all things hurtful 2. plunder of nation by Marcos & cronies
to the comfort, safety and welfare of
society.’ Its scope, ever-expanding to meet the Marcos filed for a petition of mandamus and
exigencies of the times, even to anticipate the
prohibition to order the respondents to issue them
future where it could be done, provides enough
room for an efficient and flexible response to their travel documents and prevent the
conditions and circumstances thus assuring the implementation of President Aquino’s decision to
greatest benefits. In the language of Justice
bar Marcos from returning in the Philippines.
Cardozo: ‘Needs that were narrow or parochial in
the past may be interwoven in the present with the Petitioner questions Aquino’s power to bar his
well-being of the nation. What are critical or urgent return in the country. He also questioned the claim
changes with the time.’ The police power is thus a
dynamic agency, suitably vague and far from of the President that the decision was made in the
precisely defined, rooted in the conception that interest of national security, public safety and
men in organizing the state and imposing upon its
health. Petitioner also claimed that the President
government limitations to safeguard constitutional
rights did not intend thereby to enable an acted outside her jurisdiction.
individual citizen or a group of citizens to obstruct
unreasonably the enactment of such salutary According to the Marcoses, such act deprives them
measures calculated to communal peace, safety, of their right to life, liberty, property without due
good order, and welfare.”
process and equal protection of the laws. They also
said that it deprives them of their right to travel
6. MARCOS VS MANGLAPUS which according to Section 6, Article 3 of the
constitution, may only be impaired by a court
Facts:
order.
Former President Ferdinand E. Marcos was
Issue:
deposed from the presidency via the non-violent
“people power” revolution and was forced into 1. Whether or not, in the exercise of the
exile. Marcos, in his deathbed, has signified his powers granted by the Constitution, the
President may prohibit the Marcoses from
wish to return to the Philippines to die. But
returning to the Philippines.
President Corazon Aquino, considering the dire 2. Whether or not the President acted
consequences to the nation of his return at a time arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
when the stability of government is threatened
when she determined that the return of the
from various directions and the economy is just Marcoses to the Philippines poses a serious
beginning to rise and move forward, has stood threat to national interest and welfare and
decided to bar their return.
firmly on the decision to bar the return of Marcos
and his family.
Decision:
Aquino barred Marcos from returning due to
No to both issues. Petition dismissed.
possible threats & following supervening events:
Ratio:
1. failed Manila Hotel coup in 1986 led by
Marcos leaders Separation of power dictates that each department
2. channel 7 taken over by rebels & loyalists has exclusive powers. According to Section 1,
3. plan of Marcoses to return w/ mercenaries
Article VII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, “the
aboard a chartered plane of a Lebanese arms
RJBM - POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Public International Law

executive power shall be vested in the President of basis for the President to conclude that it was in
the Philippines.” However, it does not define what the national interest to bar the return of the
is meant by “executive power” although in the Marcoses in the Philippines. It is proven that there
same article it touches on exercise of certain are factual bases in her decision. The supervening
powers by the President, i.e., the power of control events that happened before her decision are
over all executive departments, bureaus and factual. The President must take preemptive
offices, the power to execute the laws, the measures for the self-preservation of the country
appointing power to grant reprieves, commutations & protection of the people. She has to uphold the
and pardons… (art VII secfs. 14-23). Although the Constitution.
constitution outlines tasks of the president, this list
is not defined & exclusive. She has residual & Facts:
discretionary powers not stated in the Constitution
which include the power to protect the general
After Ferdinand Marcos was deposed from the
welfare of the people. She is obliged to protect the presidency, he and his family fled to Hawaii. Now
people, promote their welfare & advance national in his deathbed, petitioners are asking the court to
order the respondents to issue their travel
interest. (Art. II, Sec. 4-5 of the Constitution).
documents and enjoin the implementation of the
Residual powers, according to Theodore Roosevelt, President’s decision to bar their return to the
dictate that the President can do anything which is Philippines. Petitioners contend under the provision
of the Bill of Rights that the President is without
not forbidden in the Constitution (Corwin, supra at
power to impair their liberty of abode because only
153), inevitable to vest discretionary powers on a court may do so “within the limits prescribed by
the President (Hyman, American President) and law.” Nor, according to the petitioners, may the
President impair their right to travel because no
that the president has to maintain peace during law has authorized her to do so.
times of emergency but also on the day-to-day
operation of the State.
Issue:
The rights Marcoses are invoking are not absolute.
Does the president have the power to bar the
They’re flexible depending on the circumstances.
Marcoses from returning to the Philippines?
The request of the Marcoses to be allowed to
return to the Philippines cannot be considered in
Ruling:
the light solely of the constitutional provisions
guaranteeing liberty of abode and the right to The President has the obligation, under the
Constitution to protect the people, promote their
travel, subject to certain exceptions, or of case law welfare and advance national interest.
which clearly never contemplated situations even
remotely similar to the present one. It must be This case calls for the exercise of the President’s
treated as a matter that is appropriately addressed power as protector of the peace. The president is
not only clothed with extraordinary powers in
to those residual unstated powers of the President
times of emergency, but is also tasked with day-
which are implicit in and correlative to the to-day problems of maintaining peace and order
paramount duty residing in that office to safeguard and ensuring domestic tranquility in times when no
foreign foe appears on the horizon.
and protect general welfare. In that context, such
request or demand should submit to the exercise The documented history of the efforts of the
Marcoses and their followers to destabilize the
of a broader discretion on the part of the President
country bolsters the conclusion that their return at
to determine whether it must be granted or this time would only exacerbate and intensify the
denied. violence directed against the state and instigate
more chaos.
For issue number 2, the question for the court to
The State, acting through the Government, is not
determine is whether or not there exist factual
precluded from taking preemptive actions against
RJBM - POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Public International Law

threats to its existence if, though still nascent they The petitioners further assert that under
are perceived as apt to become serious and direct international law, the right of Mr. Marcos and his
protection of the people is the essence of the duty family to return to the Philippines is guaranteed.
of the government.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
The Supreme Court held that the President did not
provides:
act arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion in
determining the return of the petitioners at the
present time and under present circumstances Article 13. (1) Everyone has the right to freedom
poses a serious threat to national interest and of movement and residence within the borders of
welfare prohibiting their return to the Philippines. each state.
The petition is DISMISSED. (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country,
including his own, and to return to his country.

Likewise, the International Covenant on Civil and

FACTS: Political Rights, which had been ratified by the
Philippines, provides:

February 1986, Ferdinand E. Marcos was deposed

from the presidency via the non-violent “people Article 12
power” revolution and forced into exile. In his 1) Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State
stead, Corazon C. Aquino was declared President shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty
of the Republic under a revolutionary government. of movement and freedom to choose his residence.
2) Everyone shall be free to leave any country,
including his own.
Now, Mr. Marcos, in his deathbed, has signified his 3) The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject
wish to return to the Philipppines to die. But Mrs. to any restrictions except those which are provided
Aquino, considering the dire consequences to the by law, are necessary to protect national security,
nation of his return at a time when the stability of public order (order public), public health or morals
government is threatened from various directions or the rights and freedoms of others, and are
and the economy is just beginning to rise and consistent with the other rights recognized in the
move forward, has stood firmly on the decision to present Covenant.
bar the return of Mr. Marcos and his family. 4) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right
to enter his own country.
Petitioners assert that the right of the Marcoses to
return to the Philippines is guaranteed under the ISSUES:
following provisions of the Bill of Rights, to wit: • Whether or not the President has the power
under the Constitution, to bar the Marcoses from
Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, returning to the Philippines.
liberty, or property without due process of law, nor • Whether or not the President acted arbitrarily or
shall any person be denied the equal protection of with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
the laws. or excess of jurisdiction when she determined that
the return of the Marcose’s to the Philippines poses
a serious threat to national interest and welfare
Section 6. The liberty of abode and of changing the and decided to bar their return.
same within the limits prescribed by law shall not
be impaired except upon lawful order of the court.
Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except HELD:
in the interest of national security, public safety, or SC well-considered opinion that the President has
public health, as may be provided by law. a residual power which justifies her act of banning
the return of the Marcoses and she did not act
arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion in
Furthermore, they contend that the President is determining that the return of former President
without power to impair the liberty of abode of the Marcos and his family at the present time and
Marcoses because only a court may do so “within under present circumstances poses a serious
the limits prescribed by law.” Nor may the threat to national interest and welfare and in
President impair their right to travel because no prohibiting their return to the Philippines.
law has authorized her to do so. They advance the
view that before the right to travel may be
impaired by any authority or agency of the It must be emphasized that the individual right
government, there must be legislation to that involved is not the right to travel from the
effect. Philippines to other countries or within the
Philippines. These are what the right to travel
RJBM - POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Public International Law

would normally connote. Essentially, the right The Constitution declares among the guiding
involved is the right to return to one’s country, a principles that “[t]he prime duty of the
totally distinct right under international law, Government is to serve and protect the people”
independent from although related to the right to and that “[t]he maintenance of peace and order,
travel. Thus, the Universal Declaration of Humans the protection of life, liberty, and property, and the
Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and promotion of the general welfare are essential for
Political Rights treat the right to freedom of the enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of
movement and abode within the territory of a democracy.” [Art. II, Secs. 4 and 5.]
state, the right to leave a country, and the right to
enter one’s country as separate and distinct rights.
More particularly, this case calls for the exercise of
The Declaration speaks of the “right to freedom of
the President’s powers as protector of the peace.
movement and residence within the borders of
The power of the President to keep the peace is
each state” [Art. 13(l)] separately from the “right
not limited merely to exercising the commander-
to leave any country, including his own, and to
in-chief powers in times of emergency or to
return to his country.” [Art. 13(2).] On the other
leading the State against external and internal
hand, the Covenant guarantees the “right to liberty
threats to its existence. The President is not only
of movement and freedom to choose his
clothed with extraordinary powers in times of
residence” [Art. 12(l)] and the right to “be free to
emergency, but is also tasked with attending to
leave any country, including his own.” [Art. 12(2)]
the day-to-day problems of maintaining peace and
which rights may be restricted by such laws as
order and ensuring domestic tranquility in times
“are necessary to protect national security, public
when no foreign foe appears on the horizon. Wide
order, public health or morals or enter qqqs own
discretion, within the bounds of law, in fulfilling
country” of which one cannot be “arbitrarily
presidential duties in times of peace is not in any
deprived.” [Art. 12(4).] It would therefore be
way diminished by the relative want of an
inappropriate to construe the limitations to the
emergency specified in the commander-in-chief
right to return to one’s country in the same
provision. For in making the President
context as those pertaining to the liberty of abode
commander-in-chief the enumeration of powers
and the right to travel.
that follow cannot be said to exclude the
President’s exercising as Commander-in- Chief
The right to return to one’s country is not among powers short of the calling of the armed forces, or
the rights specifically guaranteed in the Bill of suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas
Rights, which treats only of the liberty of abode corpus or declaring martial law, in order to keep
and the right to travel, but it is our well-considered the peace, and maintain public order and security.
view that the right to return may be considered, as
a generally accepted principle of international law
The Court cannot close its eyes to present realities
and, under our Constitution, is part of the law of
and pretend that the country is not besieged from
the land [Art. II, Sec. 2 of the Constitution.]
within by a well-organized communist insurgency,
However, it is distinct and separate from the right
a separatist movement in Mindanao, rightist
to travel and enjoys a different protection under
conspiracies to grab power, urban terrorism, the
the International Covenant of Civil and Political
murder with impunity of military men, police
Rights, i.e., against being “arbitrarily deprived”
officers and civilian officials, to mention only a few.
thereof [Art. 12 (4).]
The documented history of the efforts of the
Marcose’s and their followers to destabilize the
Although the 1987 Constitution imposes limitations country, as earlier narrated in this ponencia
on the exercise of specific powers of the President, bolsters the conclusion that the return of the
it maintains intact what is traditionally considered Marcoses at this time would only exacerbate and
as within the scope of “executive power.” intensify the violence directed against the State
Corollarily, the powers of the President cannot be and instigate more chaos.
said to be limited only to the specific powers
enumerated in the Constitution. In other words,
The State, acting through the Government, is not
executive power is more than the sum of specific
precluded from taking pre- emptive action against
powers so enumerated.
threats to its existence if, though still nascent they
are perceived as apt to become serious and direct.
To the President, the problem is one of balancing Protection of the people is the essence of the duty
the general welfare and the common good against of government. The preservation of the State the
the exercise of rights of certain individuals. The fruition of the people’s sovereignty is an obligation
power involved is the President’s residual power to in the highest order. The President, sworn to
protect the general welfare of the people. It is preserve and defend the Constitution and to see
founded on the duty of the President, as steward the faithful execution the laws, cannot shirk from
of the people. that responsibility.
RJBM - POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Public International Law

We cannot also lose sight of the fact that the diplomatic immunity, pursuant to the provisions of
country is only now beginning to recover from the the Host Agreement. The DFA formally advised
hardships brought about by the plunder of the respondent judge of the Philippine Government's
economy attributed to the Marcoses and their close official position. The Solicitor General, as principal
associates and relatives, many of whom are still law officer of the gorvernment, likewise expressly
here in the Philippines in a position to destabilize affirmed said petitioner's right to diplomatic
the country, while the Government has barely immunity and asked for the quashal of the search
scratched the surface, so to speak, in its efforts to warrant.
recover the enormous wealth stashed away by the
Marcoses in foreign jurisdictions. Then, We cannot It is a recognized principle of international law and
ignore the continually increasing burden imposed under our system of separation of powers
on the economy by the excessive foreign that diplomatic immunity is essentially a political
borrowing during the Marcos regime, which stifles question and courts should refuse to look beyond
and stagnates development and is one of the root a determination by the executive branch of the
causes of widespread poverty and all its attendant government, and where the plea of diplomatic
ills. The resulting precarious state of our economy immunity is recognized and affirmed by the
is of common knowledge and is easily within the executive branch of the government as in the case
ambit of judicial notice at bar, it is then the duty of the courts to accept
the claim of immunity upon appropriate suggestion
by the principal law officer of the government, the
Solicitor General in this case, or other officer
7. WHO VS AQUINO acting under his discretion. Courts may not so
exercise their jurisdiction by seizure and detention
Facts:
of property, as to embarass the executive arm of
the government in conducting foreign relations.
Dr. Leonce Verstuyft was assigned by WHO to its
regional office in Manila as Acting Assistant
The Court, therefore, holds the respondent judge
Director of Health Services. His personal effects,
acted without jurisdiction and with grave abuse of
contained in twelve (12) crates, were allowed free
discretion in not ordering the quashal of the search
entry from duties and taxes. Constabulary
warrant issued by him in disregard of the
Offshore Action Center (COSAC) suspected that
diplomatic immunity of petitioner
the crates “contain large quantities of highly
Verstuyft. (World Health Organization vs.
dutiable goods” beyond the official needs
Aquino, G.R. No. L-35131, November 29,
of Verstuyft. Upon application of the COSAC
1972, 48 SCRA 243)
officers, Judge Aquino issued a search warrant for
the search and seizure of the personal effects
of Verstuyft. Facts: An original action for certiorari and
prohibition to set aside respondent judge's refusal
Secretary of Foreign Affairs Carlos P. Romulo to quash a search warrant issued by him at the
advised Judge Aquino that Dr. Verstuyft is entitled instance of respondents COSAC (Constabulary
to immunity from search in respect for his personal Offshore Action Center) officers for the search and
baggage as accorded to members of diplomatic seizure of the personal effects of petitioner official
missions pursuant to the Host Agreement and of the WHO (World Health Organization)
requested that the search warrant be suspended. notwithstanding his being entitled to diplomatic
The Solicitor General accordingly immunity, as duly recognized by the executive
joined Verstuyft for the quashal of the search branch of the Philippine Government and to
warrant but respondent judge nevertheless prohibit respondent judge from further
summarily denied the quashal. Verstuyft, thus, proceedings in the matter.
filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with
the SC. WHO joined Verstuyft in asserting Issue: WON diplomatic immunity is applicable.
diplomatic immunity.

Issue: Held:

Whether or not personal effect of Verstuyft can be

exempted from search and seizure under the It is a recognized principle of international law and
diplomatic immunity. under our system of separation of powers that
diplomatic immunity is essentially a political
Held: question and courts should refuse to look beyond a
determination by the executive branch of the
Yes. The executive branch of the Phils has government, 8 and where the plea of diplomatic
expressly recognized that Verstuyft is entitled to immunity is recognized and affirmed by the
RJBM - POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Public International Law

executive branch of the government as in the case officer of the gorvernment, likewise expressly
at bar, it is then the duty of the courts to accept affirmed said petitioner's right to diplomatic
the claim of immunity upon appropriate suggestion immunity and asked for the quashal of the search
by the principal law officer of the government, the warrant.
Solicitor General in this case, or other officer
acting under his direction. 9 Hence, in adherence to
the settled principle that courts may not so It recognized principle of international law and
exercise their jurisdiction by seizure and detention under our system of separation of powers that
of property, as to embarrass the executive arm of diplomatic immunity is essentially a political
the government in conducting foreign relations, it question and courts should refuse to look beyond a
determination by the executive branch of
is accepted doctrine that "in such cases the judicial
government, and where the plea of diplomatic
department of (this) government follows the action
immunity is recognized by the executive branch of
of the political branch and will not embarrass the the government as in the case at bar, it is then the
latter by assuming an antagonistic jurisdiction." duty of the courts to accept the claim of immunity
upon appropriate suggestion by the principal law
officer of the government, the Solicitor General in
Facts: this case, or other officer acting under his
discretion. Courts may not so exercise their
jurisdiction by seizure and detention of property,
as to embarass the executive arm of the
Herein petitioner, in behalf of Dr. Verstuyft, was
government in conducting foreign relations.
allegedly suspected by the Constabulary Offshore
Action Center (COSAC) officers of carrying dutiable
goods under the Customs and Tariff Code of the
Philippines. Respondent Judge then issued a The Court, therefore, holds the respondent judge
search warrant at the instance of the COSAC acted without jurisdiction and with grave abuse of
officers for the search and seizure of the personla discretion in not ordering the quashal of the search
effects of Dr. Verstuyft notwithstanding his being warrant issued by him in disregard of the
entitled to diplomatic immunity, as duly recognized diplomatic immunity of petitioner Verstuyft.
by the Executive branch of the government.

The Secretary of Foreign Affairs Carlos P. Romulo

WHO v. AQUINO
advised the respondent judge that Dr. Verstuyft is
November 29, 1972
entitled to immunity from search in respect for his
Teehankee, J.
personal baggage as accorded to members of
Rañeses, Roberto Miguel O.
diplomatic missions pursuant to the Host
(Apologies for the length. The Court had made an
Agreement and further requested for the
efficient disposition of the case.)
suspension of the search warrant. The Solicitor
General accordingly joined the petitioner for the
SUMMARY: Dr. Verstuyft was assigned to Manila
quashal of the search warrant but respondent
by the WHO. He enjoyed diplomatic immunity,
judge nevertheless summarily denied the quashal.
which carried with it exemption from taxation and
local duties. When his personal effects contained in
crates arrived in the Philippines, they were allowed
free access. COSAC subsequently applied for a
search warrant on Dr. Verstuft’s personal effects
Issue:
for alleged violation of R.A. 4712, which Judge
Aquino granted. Foreign Affairs Sec. Romulo
informed Judge Aquino of Dr. Verstufyt’s
Whether or not personal effect of WHO Officer Dr. diplomatic immunity. Nevertheless, Judge Aquino
Verstuyft can be exempted from search and refused to quash the search warrant. The SC
seizure under the diplomatic immunity. nullified the search warrant, stating that Dr.
Verstufyt did enjoy diplomatic immunity, and was
thus free from all customs duties and taxes.

DOCTRINE:
Ruling: 1. It is a recognized principle of international
law and under our system of separation of
powers that diplomatic immunity is
The executive branch of the Phils has expressly essentially a political question and courts
recognized that Verstuyft is entitled to diplomatic should refuse to look beyond a
immunity, pursuant to the provisions of the Host determination by the executive branch of
Agreement. The DFA formally advised respondent the government, and where the plea of
judge of the Philippine Government's official diplomatic immunity is recognized and
position. The Solicitor General, as principal law affirmed by the executive branch of the
RJBM - POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Public International Law

government as in the case at bar, it is then issued an order maintaining the effectivity of the
the duty of the courts to accept the claim of search warrant despite an official plea for
immunity upon appropriate suggestion by diplomatic immunity and the a list of the articles
the principal law officer of the government, brought in by Dr. Verstuyft. Dr. Versuyft special
[the Solicitor General in this case], or other appearance for the purpose of pleading his
officer acting under his direction. Hence, in diplomatic immunity and a motion to quash did not
adherence to the settled principle that move Judge Aquino.
courts may not so exercise their jurisdiction
by seizure and detention of property, as to At the hearing thereof held on May 8, 1972, the
embarrass the executive arm of the OSG appeared and filed an extended comment
government in conducting foreign relations, stating the official position of the executive branch
it is accepted doctrine that "in such cases of the Philippine Government that (a) Verstuyft is
the judicial department of (this) entitled to diplomatic immunity, (b) he did not
government follows the action of the abuse his diplomatic immunity, and (c) that court
political branch and will not embarrass the proceedings in the receiving or host State are not
latter by assuming an antagonistic the proper remedy in the case of abuse of
jurisdiction. diplomatic immunity.

The Philippine Government is bound by the The Solicitor General accordingly joined petitioner
procedure laid down in Article VII of the Verstuyft's prayer for the quashal of the search
Convention on the Privileges and Immunities warrant. The judge still denied the quashal of the
of the Specialized Agencies of the United search warrant. .
Nations for consultations between the Host State
and the United Nations agency concerned to An original action for certiorari and prohibition to
determine, in the first instance the fact of set aside Judge Aquino’s refusal to quash the
occurrence of the abuse alleged, and if so, to search warrant was thereafter filed before the SC.
ensure that no repetition occurs and for other The SC then issued a restraining order.
recourses. This is a treaty commitment voluntarily
assumed by the Philippine Government and as ISSUES: WON Dr. Verstuyft the search warrant
such, has the force and effect of law. should be quashed in view of his diplomatic
immunity.
FACTS: Dr. Leonce Verstuyft, assigned on Dec. 6,
1971 by the WHO from his last station in Taipei to RULING: YES, the search warrant should be
the Regional Office in Manila as Acting Assistant quashed because Dr. Verstuft’s diplomatic
Director of Health Services. He is entitled to immunity
diplomatic immunity, pursuant to the Host
Agreement executed on July 22, 1951 between the RATIO:
Phil. Government and the World Health 1. The executive branch of the Philippine
Organization. Government has expressly recognized that
Dr. Verstuyft is entitled to diplomatic
Diplomatic immunity carries with it, among other immunity, pursuant to the provisions of the
diplomatic privileges and immunities, personal Host Agreement. The DFA formally advised
inviolability, inviolability of the official's properties, respondent judge of the Philippine
exemption from local jurisdiction, and exemption Government's official position that
from taxation and customs duties. accordingly "Dr. Verstuyft cannot be the
subject of a Philippine court summons
Dr. Verstuyft's personal effects entered the without violating an obligation in
Philippines on Jan. 10, 1972. They were allowed international law of the Philippine
free entry from duties and taxes. Government" and asked for the quashal of
the search warrant, since his personal
Judge Aquino issued on March 3, 1972 upon effects and baggages after having been
application of COSAC [Constabulary Offshore allowed free entry from all customs duties
Action Center] officers of a search warrant for and taxes, may not be baselessly claimed
alleged violation of Republic Act 4712 amending to have been "unlawfully imported" in
section 3601 of the Tariff and Customs Code violation of the tariff and customs code as
directing the search and seizure of the dutiable claimed by respondents COSAC officers.
items in said crates. The Solicitor-General, as principal law
officer of the Government, likewise
Upon the protest of Dr. Francisco Dy, WHO expressly affirmed said petitioner's right to
Regional Director for the Western Pacific with diplomatic immunity.
station in Manila, Sec. of Foreign Affairs Carlos P.
Romulo personally wired the judge, informing him (See Doctrine no. 1)
that Dr. Vertuyft is entitled to immunity from
search on the basis of the Host Agreement. 2. Judge Aquino should not have relied on the
suspicions of the COSAC officers regarding
Judge Aquino set the Foreign Affairs Secretary’s the unopened crates which contained Dr.
request for hearing and heard the same, but still Verstuyft’s persona effects rather than on
RJBM - POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Public International Law

the assurance of the OSG that Dr. Verstufyt either of the following:
did not abuse his diplomatic immunity, (a) that R.A. 6734, or parts thereof, violates the
which is based on the official positions of Constitution, and
the highest exec. Officials with the (b) that certain provisions of R.A. No. 6734 conflict
competence and authority on the matter, with the Tripoli Agreement.
namely the Secretaries of Foreign Affairs Petitioner Abbas argues that R.A. No. 6734
and Finance.
unconditionally creates an autonomous region in
Mindanao, contrary to the aforequoted provisions
(See Doctrine no. 2)
of the Constitution on the autonomous region
Hence, even assuming arguendo that Judge which make the creation of such region dependent
Aquino had some ground on which he can upon the outcome of the plebiscite.
base his decision, he should have acceded In support of his argument, petitioner cites Article
to the quashal of the search warrant and II, section 1(1) of R.A. No. 6734 which declares
forwarded his findings to the DFA. that “[t]here is hereby created the Autonomous
Region in Muslim Mindanao, to be composed of
3. There was a clear lack of coordination provinces and cities voting favorably in the
between the various departments involved plebiscite called for the purpose, in accordance
in the subject matter. Such lack of with Section 18, Article X of the Constitution.”
coordination allowed the COSAC to go
Petitioner contends that the tenor of the above
against the determination of the Secretaries
provision makes the creation of an autonomous
of Foreign Affairs and Finance.
region absolute, such that even if only two
This fact is highlighted by Republic Act 75 provinces vote in favor of autonomy, an
enacted since October 21, 1946 to autonomous region would still be created
safeguard the jurisdictional immunity of composed of the two provinces where the
diplomatic officials in the Philippines are favorable votes were obtained.
taken into account. Said Act declares as null
and void writs or processes sued out or The matter of the creation of the autonomous
prosecuted whereby inter alia the person of region and its composition needs to be clarified.
an ambassador or public minister is
arrested or imprisoned or his goods or Held: Thus, under the Constitution and R.A. No
chattels are seized or attached and makes 6734, the creation of the autonomous region shall
it a penal offense for "every person by take effect only when approved by a majority of
whom the same is obtained or prosecuted, the votes cast by the constituent units in a
whether as party or as attorney, and every plebiscite, and only those provinces and cities
officer concerned in executing it" to obtain where a majority vote in favor of the Organic Act
or enforce such writ or process.
shall be included in the autonomous region. The
provinces and cities wherein such a majority is not
Judge Aquino, therefore, acted without
jurisdiction and with grave abuse of attained shall not be included in the autonomous
discretion when he did not quash the search region. It may be that even if an autonomous
warrant. region is created, not all of the thirteen (13)
provinces and nine (9) cities mentioned in Article
DISPOSITIVE: ACCORDINGLY, the writs of II, section 1 (2) of R.A. No. 6734 shall be included
certiorari and prohibition prayed for are hereby therein. The single plebiscite contemplated by the
granted, and the temporary restraining order Constitution and R.A. No. 6734 will therefore be
heretofore issued against execution or determinative of (1) whether there shall be an
enforcement of the questioned search warrant, autonomous region in Muslim Mindanao and (2)
which is hereby declared null and void, is hereby which provinces and cities, among those
made permanent. The respondent court is hereby
enumerated in R.A. No. 6734, shall compromise it.
commanded to desist from further proceedings in
the matter. No costs, none having been prayed
It will readily be seen that the creation of the
for.
autonomous region is made to depend, not on
the total majority vote in the plebiscite, but
The clerk of court is hereby directed to furnish a
copy of this decision to the Secretary of Justice for on the will of the majority in each of the
such action as he may find appropriate with regard constituent units and the proviso underscores
to the matters mentioned in paragraph 3 hereof. this. for if the intention of the framers of the
So ordered. Constitution was to get the majority of the
totality of the votes cast, they could have
simply adopted the same phraseology as that
used for the ratification of the Constitution,
8. ABBAS VS COMELEC
i.e. “the creation of the autonomous region
Facts: The arguments against R.A. 6734 raised by shall be effective when approved by a
petitioners may generally be categorized into majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite
RJBM - POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Public International Law

called for the purpose.” which shall be held not earlier than
It is thus clear that what is required by the ninety (90) days or later than one
Constitution is a simple majority of votes hundred twenty (120) days after the
approving the organic Act in individual approval of this Act: Provided, That
constituent units and not a double majority of only the provinces and cities voting
the votes in all constituent units put together, favorably in such plebiscite shall be
as well as in the individual constituent units. included in the Autonomous Region
More importantly, because of its categorical in Muslim Mindanao. The provinces
language, this is also the sense in which the vote and cities which in the plebiscite do
requirement in the plebiscite provided under not vote for inclusion in the
Article X, section 18 must have been understood Autonomous Region shall remain the
by the people when they ratified the Constitution. existing administrative
determination, merge the existing
Abbas vs. COMELEC regions.
G.R. No. 89651 November 10, 1989
Thus, under the Constitution and R.A. No 6734,
the creation of the autonomous region shall take
effect only when approved by a majority of the
Topics: nature of plebiscite, constitutionality
votes cast by the constituent units in a plebiscite,
of RA 6734
and only those provinces and cities where a
majority vote in favor of the Organic Act shall be
Facts: A plebiscite in thirteen (13) provinces and included in the autonomous region. The provinces
nine (9) cities in Mindanao and Palawan, was and cities wherein such a majority is not attained
scheduled for November 19, 1989, in shall not be included in the autonomous region. It
implementation of RA 6734, entitled "An Act may be that even if an autonomous region is
Providing for an Organic Act for the Autonomous created, not all of the thirteen (13) provinces and
Region in Muslim Mindanao" (Organic Act). These nine (9) cities mentioned in Article II, section 1 (2)
consolidated petitions pray that the Court: (1) of R.A. No. 6734 shall be included therein. The
enjoin the COMELEC from conducting the single plebiscite contemplated by the Constitution
plebiscite; and (2) declare RA 6734, or parts and R.A. No. 6734 will therefore be determinative
thereof, unconstitutional. The arguments against of (1) whether there shall be an autonomous
R.A. 6734 raised by petitioners may generally be region in Muslim Mindanao and (2) which provinces
categorized into either of the following: (a) that and cities, among those enumerated in R.A. No.
R.A. 6734, or parts thereof, violates the 6734, shall compromise it.
Constitution, and (b) that certain provisions of R.A.
No. 6734 conflict with the Tripoli Agreement.
2. The question has been raised as to what this
majority means. Does it refer to a majority of the
Issue: Whether or not certain provisions of the total votes cast in the plebiscite in all the
Organic Act are unconstitutional. constituent units, or a majority in each of the
constituent units, or both?
Held: The petition has no merit and the law is
constitutional. The 1987 Constitution provides: The creation of
the autonomous region shall be effective when
1. Petitioner contends that the tenor of a provision approved by majority of the votes cast by the
in the Organic Act makes the creation of an constituent units in a plebiscite called for the
autonomous region absolute, such that even if only purpose, provided that only provinces, cities and
two provinces vote in favor of autonomy, an geographic areas voting favorably in such
autonomous region would still be created plebiscite shall be included in the autonomous
composed of the two provinces where the region. [Art. X, sec, 18, para, 2]. It will readily be
favorable votes were obtained. there is a specific seen that the creation of the autonomous region is
provision in the Transitory Provisions (Article XIX) made to depend, not on the total majority vote in
of the Organic Act, which incorporates the plebiscite, but on the will of the majority in
substantially the same requirements embodied in each of the constituent units and the proviso
the Constitution and fills in the details, thus: underscores this.

SEC. 13. The creation of the 3. Petitioner avers that not all of the thirteen (13)
Autonomous Region in Muslim provinces and nine (9) cities included in the
Mindanao shall take effect when Organic Act, possess such concurrence in historical
approved by a majority of the votes and cultural heritage and other relevant
cast by the constituent units characteristics. By including areas, which do not
provided in paragraph (2) of Sec. 1 strictly share the same characteristic as the
of Article II of this Act in a plebiscite
RJBM - POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Public International Law

others, petitioner claims that Congress has 6. Every law has in its favor the presumption of
expanded the scope of the autonomous region constitutionality. Based on the grounds raised by
which the constitution itself has prescribed to be petitioners to challenge the constitutionality of R.A.
limited. No. 6734, the Court finds that petitioners have
failed to overcome the presumption. The dismissal
Petitioner's argument is not tenable. The of these two petitions is, therefore, inevitable.
Constitution lays down the standards by which
Congress shall determine which areas should
constitute the autonomous region. Guided by these
constitutional criteria, the ascertainment by
Congress of the areas that share common
attributes is within the exclusive realm of the
legislature's discretion. Any review of this
ascertainment would have to go into the wisdom of Abbas v. COMELEC, 179 SCRA 287
the law.
Facts: Datu Firdausi Abbas, et.al. challenged the
constitutionality of R.A. 6734 on the following
4. Both petitions also question the validity of R.A.
grounds:
No. 6734 on the ground that it violates the 1) R. A. 6734 conflicts with the Tripoli Agreement
constitutional guarantee on free exercise of (what conflicts the case doesn’t say)
religion [Art. III, sec. 5]. The objection centers on 2) R. A. 6734 provides for the unconditional
a provision in the Organic Act which mandates that creation of the ARMM and not through the mode of
should there be any conflict between the Muslim a plebiscite as provided in the Constitution
Code and the Tribal Code on the one had, and the 3) The Constitution provides that ARMM shall be
national law on the other hand, the Shari'ah courts approved by a majority of votes cast in a plebiscite
created under the same Act should apply national by all voters residing in the provinces and cities
law. Petitioners maintain that the islamic law affected, but R.A. 6734 says “by a majority or
(Shari'ah) is derived from the Koran, which makes votes cast by the constituent units in a plebiscite
and only those provinces and cities where a
it part of divine law. Thus it may not be subjected
majority of votes cast in favor of the Organic Act
to any "man-made" national law. Petitioner Abbas
shall be included in the Autonomous Region. R.A.
supports this objection by enumerating possible 6734 thus conflicts the Constitution
instances of conflict between provisions of the 4) R. A. 6734 includes provinces and cities which
Muslim Code and national law, wherein an do not have the same cultural and historical
application of national law might be offensive to a heritage and other relevant characteristics needed
Muslim's religious convictions. for admission to the ARMM
5) R. A. 6734 violates constitutional guarantee on
In the present case, no actual controversy freedom of exercise of religion as some its
between real litigants exists. There are no provisions run counter to the Koran
conflicting claims involving the application of 6) The creation of an Oversight Committee to
national law resulting in an alleged violation of supervise the transfer of power to the ARMM is
contrary to the constitutional mandate that the
religious freedom. This being so, the Court in this
creation of the autonomous region hinges solely on
case may not be called upon to resolve what is
the result of the plebiscite
merely a perceived potential conflict between the 7)R. A. 6734 says “…that only the provinces and
provisions the Muslim Code and national law. cities voting favorably in such plebiscite shall be
included in the ARMM. The provinces and cities
5. According to petitioners, said provision grants which in the plebiscite do not vote for inclusion in
the President the power to merge regions, a power the Autonomous Region shall remain in the
which is not conferred by the Constitution upon the existing administrative regions: Provided however,
President. that the President may, by administrative
determination, merge the existing regions. This
provision, Abbas claims, is contrary to the
While the power to merge administrative regions is
Constitutional mandate that, “No province city,
not expressly provided for in the Constitution, it is
municipality or barangay may be created, divided,
a power which has traditionally been lodged with
merged,abolished or its boundary substantially
the President to facilitate the exercise of the power altered, except in accordance with the criteria
of general supervision over local governments. established with thelocal government code and
There is no conflict between the power of the subject to approval by a majority of the votes cast
President to merge administrative regions with the in a plebiscite in the unitsdirectly affected.” (Art.
constitutional provision requiring a plebiscite in the 10, Sec. 10, 1987 Constitution)
merger of local government units because the
requirement of a plebiscite in a merger expressly Held: Abbas is wrong. Reasons:
applies only to provinces, cities, municipalities or 1) R. A. 6734 as an enactment of Congress, is
barangays, not to administrative regions. superior to the Tripoli Agreement, being a
subsequent law to the Tripoli Agreement (though
RJBM - POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Public International Law

in my opinion it wouldn’t matter if R. A. 6734 was privileges conferred and liabilities enforced””; and,
prior to the Tripoli Agreement) that the equal protection clause “”is not infringed
2) The transitory provisions of R. A. 6734 does by legislation which applies only to those persons
provide for a plebiscite (1 guess nobody reads the falling within a specified class, if it applies alike to
transitory provisions) all persons within such class, and reasonable
3) The framers of the Constitution must have grounds exist for making a distinction between
intended that the majority of votes must come
those who fall within such class and those who do
from each of the constituent units and not all the
not.””
votes of the provinces and cities (I couldn’t
understand how the justices arrived at this
conclusion) For the sake of argument, even if it would be
4) It is not for the Court to decide on the wisdom assumed that a treaty would be in conflict with a
of the law concerning the inclusion of provinces statute then the statute must be upheld because it
and cities which Abbas claims should not be represented an exercise of the police power which,
included in a plebiscite being inherent could not be bargained away or
5) There is no actual controversy yet as to any surrendered through the medium of a treaty.
violation of freedom of religion, only a potential Hence, Ichong can no longer assert his right to
one operate his market stalls in the Pasay city market.
6) The creation of an Oversight Committee is
merely procedural and in fact will aid in the timely
creation of the ARMM
7) The power of the President to merge
administrative regions is inherent in his power of FACTS: Republic Act No. 1180 known as, “An
general supervisionover local governments. Act to Regulate Retail Business” was passed by the
Besides, administrative regions are not territorial Congress. The said RA nationalizes the retail trade
or political regions. Examples of administrative business by prohibiting against persons not
regions are Regions I to XII and the NCR citizens of the Philippines, as well as 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
9. ICHONG VS HERNANDEZ trade with the exception of U.S. citizens and
juridical entities. Aliens are required to present
Lao Ichong is a Chinese businessman who entered registration to the proper authorities a verified
the country to take advantage of business statement concerning their businesses. Now,
opportunities herein abound (then) – particularly in petitioner Lao Ichong, was a Chinese businessman
the retail business. For some time he and his in the markets of Pasay City who seeks to declare
fellow Chinese businessmen enjoyed a “monopoly” the nullification of RA 1180 for it violates the
in the local market in Pasay. Until in June 1954 international and treaty obligations of the Republic
when Congress passed the RA 1180 or the Retail of the Philippines. The said Act is unconstitutional,
Trade Nationalization Act the purpose of which is and to enjoin the Secretary of Finance and all
to reserve to Filipinos the right to engage in the other persons acting under him, particularly city
retail business. Ichong then petitioned for the and municipal treasurers, from enforcing its
nullification of the said Act on the ground that it provisions. He contends that RA 1180 denies to
contravened several treaties concluded by the RP alien residents the equal protection of the laws and
which, according to him, violates the equal deprives of their liberty and property without due
protection clause (pacta sund servanda). He said process of law.
that as a Chinese businessman engaged in the
business here in the country who helps in the ISSUES: Whether or not Republic Act No. 1180 is a
income generation of the country he should be valid exercise of police power.
given equal opportunity.
HELD/RULING: YES. There is no question that the
ISSUE: Whether or not a law may invalidate or Act was approved in the exercise of the police
supersede treaties or generally accepted power, but petitioner claims that its exercise in
principles. this instance is attended by a violation of the
constitutional requirements of due process and
HELD: Yes, a law may supersede a treaty or a equal protection of the laws. Police Power - It has
generally accepted principle. In this case, there is been said the police power is so far - reaching in
no conflict at all between the raised generally scope, and it is almost impossible to limit its
accepted principle and with RA 1180. The equal sweep. It derives its existence from the very
protection of the law clause “”does not demand existence of the State itself, and does not need to
absolute equality amongst residents; it merely be expressed or defined in its scope. It is said to
requires that all persons shall be treated alike, be coextensive with self-protection and survival,
under like circumstances and conditions both as to and as such it is the most positive and active of all
RJBM - POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Public International Law

governmental processes, the most essential, is unconstitutional, and to enjoin the Secretary of
insistent and illimitable. Especially is it so under a Finance and all other persons acting under him,
modern democratic framework where the demands particularly city and municipal treasurers, from
of society and of nations have multiplied to almost enforcing its provisions. Petitioner attacks the
unimaginable proportions; the field and scope of constitutionality of the Act, contending that: (1) it
police power has become almost boundless, just as denies to alien residents the equal protection of
the fields of public interest and public welfare have the laws and deprives of their liberty and property
become almost all-embracing and have without due process of law; (2) the subject of the
transcended human foresight. -x x x x x x x- Act is not expressed or comprehended in the title
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 101 PHIL 1015 menggay thereof; (3) the Act violates international and
Otherwise stated, as we cannot foresee the needs treaty obligations of the Republic of the
and demands of public interest and welfare in this Philippines. In answer, the Solicitor-General and
constantly changing and progressive world, so we the Fiscal of the City of Manila contend that the Act
cannot delimit beforehand the extent or scope of was passed in the valid exercise of the police
police power by which and through which the State power of the State, which exercise is authorized in
seeks to attain or achieve interest or welfare. The the Constitution in the interest of national
Constitution do not define the scope or extent of economic survival.
the police power of the State. The State sets forth
the limitations. The most important limitations are Issue:
the due process clause and the equal protection Whether or not Republic Act 1180 violates the
clause. Due process clause – Art. III, 1987 equal protection of laws.
Constitution. Section 1(1). – No person shall be
deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due Held/Ruling:
process of law, nor any person be denied the equal No. According to the Court, RA 1180 is a valid
protection of the laws. Equal protection clause – exercise of police power. It was also then provided
The equal protection of the law clause is against that police power cannot be bargained away
undue favor and individual or class privilege, as through the medium of a treaty or a contract. The
well as hostile discrimination or the oppression of enactment clearly falls within the scope of the
inequality. It does not demand absolute equality police power of the State. The law does not violate
among residents; it merely requires that all the equal protection clause of the Constitution
persons shall be treated alike, under like because sufficient grounds exist for the distinction
circumstances and conditions both as to privileges between alien and citizen in the exercise of the
conferred and liabilities enforced. -x x x x x x xThe occupation regulated, nor the due process of law
Court resumed holding that the disputed law was clause, because the law is prospective in operation
enacted to remedy a real actual threat and danger and recognizes the privilege of aliens already
to national economy posed by alien dominance and engaged in the occupation and reasonably protects
control of the retail business and free citizens and their privilege. The petition is hereby denied, with
country from dominance and control. The costs against petitioner.
enactment clearly falls within the scope of the
police power of the State, thru which and by which
it protects its own personality and insures its
security and future. The law does not violate the
equal protection clause of the Constitution because
sufficient grounds exist for the distinction between
alien and citizen in the exercise of the occupation
regulated, nor the due process of law clause,
because the law is prospective in operation and
recognizes the privilege of aliens already engaged
in the occupation and reasonably protects their
privilege. -x x x x x x x-

[Petitioner: Lao H. Ichong, in his own behalf and in

behalf of other alien residents, corporations and
partnerships adversely affected by RA 1180
Respondents: Jamie Hernandez, Secretary of
Finance and Marcelino Sarmiento, City Treasurer of
Manila]

Facts:
Petitioner Lao H. Ichong brought this action to
obtain a judicial declaration that Republic Act 1180