1. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE v.

LANTION FACTS: Secretary Of Justice Franklin Drilon, representing the Government of the Republic of the Philippines, signed in Manila the extradition Treaty Between the Government of the Philippines and the Government of the U.S.A. The Philippine Senate ratified the said Treaty. On June 18, 1999, the Department of Justice received from the Department of Foreign Affairs U.S Note Verbale No. 0522 containing a request for the extradition of private respondent Mark Jiminez to the United States. On the same day petitioner designate and authorizing a panel of attorneys to take charge of and to handle the case. Pending evaluation of the aforestated extradition documents, Mark Jiminez through counsel, wrote a letter to Justice Secretary requesting copies of the official extradition request from the U.S Government and that he be given ample time to comment on the request after he shall have received copies of the requested papers but the petitioner denied the request for the consistency of Article 7 of the RP-US Extradition Treaty stated in Article 7 that the Philippine Government must present the interests of the United States in any proceedings arising out of a request for extradition.

RULING: Petition dismissed. The human rights of person, whether citizen or alien , and the rights of the accused guaranteed in our Constitution should take precedence over treaty rights claimed by a contracting state. The duties of the government to the individual deserve preferential consideration when they collide with its treaty obligations to the government of another state. This is so although we recognize treaties as a source of binding obligations under generally accepted principles of international law incorporated in our Constitution as part of the law of the land. The doctrine of incorporation is applied whenever municipal tribunals are confronted with situation in which there appears to be a conflict between a rule of international law and the provision of the constitution or statute of the local state.

Petitioner (Secretary of Justice) is ordered to furnish Mark Jimenez copies of the extradition request and its supporting papers, and to grant him (Mark Jimenez) a reasonable period within which to file his comment with supporting evidence.

Under the Doctrine of Incorporation, rules of international law form part ISSUE: Whether or not to uphold a citizens basic due process rights or the governments ironclad duties under a treaty. of the law of the land and no further legislative action is needed to make such rules applicable in the domestic sphere.

The doctrine of incorporation is applied whenever municipal tribunals are confronted with situations in which there appears to be a conflict between a rule of international law and the provisions of the constitution or statute of the local state.

enactments. Accordingly, the principle lex posterior derogate priori takes effect a treaty may repeal a statute and a statute may repeal a treaty. In states where the Constitution is the highest law of the land, such as the Republic of the Philippines, both statutes and treaties may be invalidated if they are in

Efforts should first be exerted to harmonize them, so as to give effect to both since it is to be presumed that municipal law was enacted with proper regard for the generally accepted principles of international law in observance of the incorporation clause in the above cited constitutional provision.

conflict with the constitution. 2.Tuesday, July 28, 2009 In Re Garcia 2 SCRA 985 Facts: Arturo E. Garcia,has applied for admission to the practice of law in the phils. without submitting to the required bar examinations. In his verified petition, he avers among others that he is a filipino citizen born in bacolod city of filipino parentage. He finished Bachillerato Superior in spain. He was allowed to practice law profession in spain under the provision of the treaty on academic degrees and the exercise of profession between the republic of the phils. Issue: Whether treaty can modify regulations governing admission to the phil. bar. Held: The court resolved to deny the petition. The provision of the treaty on academic degrees between the republic of the phils. and spanish state cannot be invoked by the applicant. said treaty was intende to govern filipino citizens desiring to practice their profession in spain. The treaty could not have been intended to modify the laws and regulations governing admission to the practice of law in the phils., for the reason the executive may not encroach upon the constitutional prerogative of the supreme court

In a situation, however, where the conflict is irreconcilable and a choice has to be made between a rule of international law and a municipal law, jurisprudence dictates that municipal law should be upheld by the municipal courts, for the reason that such courts are organs of municipal law and are accordingly bound by it in all circumstances.

The fact that international law has been made part of the law of the land does not pertain to or imply the primacy of international law over national or municipal law in the municipal sphere. The doctrine of incorporation, as applied in most countries, decrees that rules of international law are given equal standing with, but are not superior to, national legislative

to promulgate rules for admission to the practice of the law in the phils. The power to repeal, alter or supplement such rules being reserved only to the congress of the phils.

Wherefore, the respondent judge is directed to take cognizance of the civil case (3012) and continue the proceedings.

3. Co Kim Chan vs. Valdez Tan Keh 75 PHIL 131

4. LAWYERS LEAGUE FOR A BETTER PHILIPPINES vs. AQUINO(G.R. No. 73748 - May 22, 1986)FACTS: 1.On February 25, 1986, President Corazon Aquino issued Proclamation No. 1 announcingthat she and Vice President Laurel were taking power.2.On March 25, 1986, proclamation No.3 was issued providing the basis of the Aquinogovernment assumption of power by stating that the "new government was installed througha direct exercise of the power of the Filipino people assisted by units of the New ArmedForces of the Philippines." ISSUE: Whether or not the government of Corazon Aquino is legitimate. HELD: Yes.The legitimacy of the Aquino government is not a justiciable matter but belongs to the realmof politics where only the people are the judge.The Court further held that:1.The people have accepted the Aquino government which is in effective control of the entirecountry; 2.It is not merely a de facto government but in fact and law a de jure government; and 3.The community of nations has recognized the legitimacy of the new government 5. Tanada vs Angara, 272 SCRA 18, May 2, 1997 Facts : This is a petition seeking to nullify the Philippine ratification of the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement. Petitioners question the concurrence of herein respondents acting in their capacities as Senators via signing the said agreement. The WTO opens access to foreign markets, especially its major trading partners, through the reduction of tariffs on its exports, particularly agricultural and industrial products. Thus, provides new opportunities for the service sector cost and uncertainty associated with exporting and more investment in the country. These are the predicted benefits as reflected in

FACTS: Petitioner filed a motion for mandamus which prays that the respondent judge be ordered to continue the proceeding which was initiated under the regime of the so-called Republic of the Philippines established during the Japanese military occupation. It is based on the proclamation issued by Gen. Douglas McArthur which had the effect of invalidating and nullifying all judicial proceedings and judgments of the courts of the Philippines. Furthermore, it was contended that the lower courts have no jurisdiction to take cognizance of and continue judicial proceedings pending the court of the defunct republic in the absence of enabling law. ISSUES: Whether the government established in the said Japanese occupation is in fact a de facto government. Whether the judicial acts and proceedings of the courts existing in the Philippines under the Philippine Executive Commission were good and valid even after the liberation or reoccupation of the Philippines by the US Forces. HELD: In political and international law, all acts and proceedings of the legislative, executive and judicial department of a de facto government is valid. Being a de facto government, judicial acts done under its control, when they are not political in nature, to the extent that they effect during the continuance and control of said government remain good. All judgment and judicial proceedings which are not of political complexion were good and valid before and remained as such even after the occupied territory had come again into the power of true and original sovereign.

the agreement and as viewed by the signatory Senators, a free market espoused by WTO. Petitioners on the other hand viewed the WTO agreement as one that limits, restricts and impair Philippine economic sovereignty and legislative power. That the Filipino First policy of the Constitution was taken for granted as it gives foreign trading intervention. Issue : Whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the Senate in giving its concurrence of the said WTO agreement. Held: In its Declaration of Principles and state policies, the Constitution 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. By the doctrine of incorporation, the country is bound by generally accepted principles of international law, which are considered automatically part of our own laws. Pacta sunt servanda international agreements must be performed in good faith. A treaty is not a mere moral obligation but creates a legally binding obligation on the parties. Through WTO the sovereignty of the state cannot in fact and reality be considered as absolute because it is a regulation of commercial relations among nations. Such as when Philippines joined the United Nations (UN) it consented to restrict its sovereignty right under the concept of sovereignty as autolimitation. What Senate did was a valid exercise of authority. As to determine whether such exercise is wise, beneficial or viable is outside the realm of judicial inquiry and review. The act of signing the said agreement is not a legislative restriction as WTO allows withdrawal of membership should this be the political desire of a member. Also, it should not be viewed as a limitation of economic sovereignty. WTO remains as the only viable structure for multilateral trading and the veritable forum for the development of international trade law. Its alternative is isolation, stagnation if not economic self-destruction. Thus, the people be allowed, through their duly elected officers, make their free choice. Petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

6. Case Digest: The Holy See vs. Rosario, Jr. G.R. No. 101949 FACTS: This petition arose from a controversy over a parcel of land consisting of 6,000 square meters located in the Municipality of Paranaque. Said lot was contiguous with two other lots. These lots were sold to Ramon Licup. In view of the refusal of the squatters to vacate the lots sold, a dispute arose as to who of the parties has the responsibility of evicting and clearing the land of squatters. Complicating the relations of the parties was the sale by petitioner of the lot of concern to Tropicana. ISSUE: Whether the Holy See is immune from suit insofar as its business relations regarding selling a lot to a private entity RULING: As expressed in Section 2 of Article II of the 1987 Constitution, we have adopted the generally accepted principles of International Law. Even without this affirmation, such principles of International Law are deemed incorporated as part of the law of the land as a condition and consequence of our admission in the society of nations. In the present case, if petitioner has bought and sold lands in the ordinary course of real estate business, surely the said transaction can be categorized as an act jure gestionis. However, petitioner has denied that the acquisition and subsequent disposal of the lot were made for profit but claimed that it acquired said property for the site of its mission or the Apostolic Nunciature in the Philippines. The Holy See is immune from suit for the act of selling the lot of concern is non-proprietary in nature. The lot was acquired by petitioner as a donation from the Archdiocese of Manila. The donation was made not for commercial purpose, but for the use of petitioner to construct thereon the official place of residence of the Papal Nuncio. The decision to transfer the property and the subsequent disposal thereof are likewise clothed with a governmental character. Petitioner did not sell the lot for profit or gain. It merely wanted to dispose of the same because the squatters living thereon 01 December 1994

made it almost impossible for petitioner to use it for the purpose of the donation.

Whether or not article 256 of the Spanish Penal Code was abrogated with the change from Spanish to American sovereignty Whether or not Perfecto is guilty of libel

7. people v. perfecto G.R. No. L-18463, October 4, 1922 "The important question is here squarely presented of whether article 256 of the Spanish Penal Code, punishing "Any person who, by . . . writing, shall defame, abuse, or insult any Minister of the Crown or other person in authority . . .," is still in force." public law: It is a general principle of the public law that on acquisition of territory the previous political relations of the ceded region are totally abrogated -- "political" being used to denominate the laws regulating the relations sustained by the inhabitants to the sovereign. FACTS: This is a case relating to the loss of some documents which constituted the records of testimony given by witnesses in the Senate investigation of oil companies. The newspaper La Nacion, edited by Mr. Gregorio Perfecto, published an article about it to the effect that "the author or authors of the robbery of the records from the iron safe of the Senate have, perhaps, but followed the example of certain Senators who secured their election through fraud and robbery." Consequently, the Attorney-General, through a resolution adopted by the Philippine Senate, filed an information alleging that the editorial constituted a violation of article 256 of the Penal Code. The defendant Gregorio Perfecto was found guilty in the municipal court and again in the Court of First Instance ofManila. ISSUEs: HELD: It is a general principle of the public law that on acquisition of territory the previous political relations of the ceded region are totally abrogated -"political" being used to denominate the laws regulating the relations sustained by the inhabitants to the sovereign. On American occupation of the Philippines, by instructions of the President to the Military Commander, and by proclamation of the latter, the municipal laws of the conquered territory affecting private rights of person and property and providing for the punishment of crime (e.g. the Spanish Penal Code) were nominally continued in force in so far as they were compatible with the new order of things. Article 256 was enacted by the Government of Spain to protect Spanish officials who were the representatives of the King. But with the change of sovereignty, a new government, and a new theory of government, was set up in thePhilippines. No longer is there a Minister of the Crown or a person in authority of such exalted position that the citizen must speak of him only with bated breath. Said article is contrary to the genius and fundamental principles of the American character and system of government. It was crowded out by implication as soon as the United States established its authority in the PhilippineIslands. "From an entirely different point of view, it must be noted that this article punishes contempts against executive officials, although its terms are broad enough to cover the entire official class. Punishment for contempt of nonjudicial officers has no place in a government based upon American principles. Our official class is not, as in monarchies, an agent of some authority greater than the people but it is an agent and servant of the people themselves. These officials are only entitled to respect and obedience when they are acting within the scope of their authority and jurisdiction. The Americansystem of government is calculated to enforce

respect and obedience where such respect and obedience is due, but never does it place around the individual who happens to occupy an official position by mandate of the people any official halo, which calls for drastic punishment for contemptuous remarks."

safeguarded. The cession did not operate as anextinction or dissolution of corporations. The legal entitysurvived both military occupation and cession. Thecorporate identity and liability of the city was notextinguished. TVA: entitled to proceed to judgment.

8. vilas v. city of manila Vilas v. City of Manila Facts: Vilas, Trigas, and aguado are creditors of Manila as it existedbefore the cession of the Philippine Islands (PI) to the US by thetreaty of Paris. According to them, under its present charter from the Government of the PI is the same juristic person and liableupon the obligations of the old city. PI SC: different entity.Issue: WON notwithstanding the cession of the PI to the US followedby a reincorporation of the city, present municipality liable forobligations of old city. YES The city as now incorporated has succeeded to all of theproperty rights of the old city and to the right to enforceall its causes of action. There is identity of purposebetween Sp and Am charters and substantial identity of municipal powers, area, and inhabitants. nt against liability: ayuntamiento of Manila was acorporation entity created by the Sp government . whenthe sovereignty of Sp ceased, municipality, ceased aswell.--> analogy to doctrine of principal and agent, deathof principal=death of agent er of Municipal Corporations:1.Governmental: exercises by delegation a part of thesovereignty of the state2.Private/Business: mere legal entity or juristic person.Stands for the community in the administration of local affairs wholly beyond the sphere of the publicpurposes for which its governmental powers areconferred reason for presuming their totaldissolution as a mere consequence of militaryoccupation or territorial cession. Kinleys instruction: relinquishment or cessioncannot in any respect impair the property or rights whichby law belong to the peaceful possession of property of all kinds 9. Ichong V. Hernandez Case Digest: Ichong, et. al. vs. Hernandez, etc. and Sarmiento FACTS: R.A. No. 1180 entitled An Act to Regulate the Retail Business was passed that nationalizes the retail trade business by prohibiting against persons not 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 trade with the exception of U.S. citizens and juridical entities. Aliens are required to present registration to the proper authorities a verified statement concerning their businesses. ISSUES: Whether the Act violates international and treaty obligations of the Republic of the Philippines; and Whether the provisions of the Act violates the due process of law RULING: There is no merit in this contention. The UN Charter imposes no strict or legal obligations regarding the rights and freedom of their subjects and the Declaration of Human Rights contains nothing more than a mere recommendation, or a common standard of achievement for all peoples and nations. The Treaty of Amity between China and the Philippines guarantees equality of treatment to the Chinese nationals upon the same terms as the nationals of any other country, and is therefore not violated for all nationals except those of the United States, who are granted special rights by the Constitution are all prohibited from engaging in the retail trade.

A cursory study of the provisions of the law show that it is reasonable as it is made prospective and recognizes the right and privilege of those already engaged in the occupation to continue therein during the rest of their lives. Furthermore, the test of the validity of a law attacked as a violation of due process, is not in its reasonableness but its unreasonableness and the Court found that these provisions are not unreasonable.

2 charges were filed against Look Chaw at the Court of First Instance of Cebu: o unlawful possession of opium o unlawful sale of opium Look Chaw admitted that he had bought these sacks of opium, in Hongkong with the intention of selling them as contraband in Mexico or Vera Cruz, and that, as his hold had already been searched several times for opium, he ordered two other Chinamen to keep the sack. The court ruled that it did not lack jurisdiction, inasmuch as the crime had been committed within its district, on the wharf of Cebu. The court sentenced him to5 years imprisonment, to pay a fine of P10,000, with additional subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvencyxxx It further ordered the confiscation, in favor of the Insular Government. ISSUE: W/N the Philippine court has jurisdiction. HELD: YES. Modified by reducing the imprisonment and the fine imposed to six months and P1,000 GR: mere possession of a thing of prohibited use in these Islands, aboard a foreign vessel in transit, in any of their ports, does NOT constitute a crime triable by the courts of this country, on account of such vessel being considered as an extension of its own nationality EX: when the article, whose use is prohibited within the Philippine Islands, in the present case a can of opium, is landed from the vessel upon Philippine soil, thus committing an open violation of the laws of the land with respect to which, as it is a violation of the penal law in force at the place of the commission of the crime, only the court established in that said place itself had competent jurisdiction, in the absence of an agreement under an international treaty. 11. people v. Wong Cheng The People of the Phil. Island, plaintiffappellantvsWong Cheng (alias Wong Chun),defendant-appellee

10. US v. Look Chaw People v. Look Chaw, 18 Phil. 573 G.R. No.L-5887. December 16, 1910. ARELLANO, C. J.

Lesson: Crimes NOT involving a breach of public order committed on board a public vessel is NOT triable by our courts Laws Applicable: Art. 2 RPC, Opium Law FACTS: Upon arrival of steamship Erroll of English nationality, that it came from Hongkong, and that it was bound for Mexico, via the call ports of Manila and Cebu, 2 sacks of opium where found during the inspection and search of the cargo. o Smaller sack of opium on the cabin near the saloon o larger sack in the hold o Later on, there was also 4 cans of opium found on the part of the ship where the firemen habitually sleep the firemen and crew of foreign vessels, pursuant to the instructions he had from the Manila custom-house, were permitted to retain certain amounts of opium, always provided it should not be taken shore so it was returned

Facts: The appellant, in representation of the Attorney General filed an appeal thaturges the revocation of a demurrer sustained by the Court of First Instance of Manilapresented by the defendant. The defendant, accused of having illegally smokedopium, aboard the merchant vessel Changsa of English nationality while the saidvessel was anchored in Manila Bay two and a half miles from the shores of the city.In the said demurrer the defendant contended the lack of jurisdiction of the lowercourt of the said crime, which resulted to the dismissal of the case. Issue:Whether or not the Philippine courts has jurisdiction over the crime committedby Wong Cheng aboard merchant vessels anchored in our jurisdiction waters? Held: Yes. The crime on the case at bar was committed in our internal waters thushaving our court the right of jurisdiction over the offense committed. The court saidHaving the opium smoked within our territorial limits, even though aboard a foreignm e r c h a n t s h i p , i s a b r e a c h o f t h e p u b l i c o r d e r , b e c a u s e i t c a u s e s s u c h d r u g s t o produce pernicious effects within our territory. Therefore, the demurrer is revokedand court ordered further proceedings 12. DE perio- Santos v. macaraig Santos was an ambassadress sent to Geneva for a mission. On her trip, she bought a discounted ticket which provided that she could bring someone with her so she brought with her her adopted daughter. Some of her coworkers complained because they thought that Santos used government fund to finance her daughters fare. It was later found out that the cost of the said ticket is actually 50% less than the amount that was given to Santos to be used for her expenses for the trip. Nevertheless, because of her refusal to appear before the disciplinary board, she was found guilty of misconduct. Upon her appeal to the Office of the Presidentand after review, Cory issued AO 122 which declared Santos guilty of dishonesty. She was then removed from her post and was replaced. ISSUE: Whether or not Santos was rightfully removed from her post.

HELD: Evidence showed that Santos is not guilty of misconduct or dishonesty. In fact what she did was beneficial to the government for she helped save and lessen the expenses. However, the SC does not have the power to reverse the recall done to Santos. She cannot be reinstated by the SC to her position for the removal power of the president is solely her prerogative. Further, the position held by Santos is primarily confidential. Her position lasts upon the pleasure of the president. When the pleasure turns into displeasure she is not actually removed from her position or office but rather her term merely expires. Also, her position involves foreign relations which is vested solely in the executive. The SC cannot inquire upon the wisdom or unwisdom of the exercise of such prerogative. Thus, the assignment to and recall from posts of ambassadors are prerogatives of the President, for her to exercise as the exigencies of the foreign service and the interests of the nation may from time to time dictate.

13. reyes v. bagatsing Reyes v Bagatsing GR no. 65366, October 25, 1983

Facts Retired Justice Jose B.L. Reyes, in behalf of the Anti-Bases Coalition, sought for a permit from the City of Manila to hold a peaceful march and rally on October 26, 1983 starting from Luneta to the gates of the United States embassy. The objective of the rally was to peacefully protest the removal of all foreign military bases and to present a petition containing such to a representative of the Embassy so it may be delivered to the United States Ambassador. This petition was to initially compel the Mayor of the City of Manila to make a decision on the application for a permit but it was discovered that a denial has already been sent through mail. It also included a provision that if it be held somewhere else, permit may be issued. The respondent mayor alleges that holding the rally in front of the US Embassy is a violation of the resolutions during the Vienna Convention

on Diplomatic Relations adopted in 1961 and of which the Philippines is a signatory. In the doctrine of incorporation, the Philippines has to comply with such generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land. The petitioner, on the other hand, contends that the denial of the permit is a violation of the constitutional right of the freedom of speech and expression. Issue Whether or not the Anti-Bases Coalition should be allowed to hold a peaceful protest rally in front of the US Embassy Ruling The Supreme Court ruled to allow the rally in front of the US Embassy to protect the exercise of the rights to free speech and peaceful assembly and on the ground that there was no showing of the existence of a clear and present danger of a substantive evil that could justify the denial of the permit. These rights are not only assured by our constitution but also provided for in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Between the two generally accepted principles of diplomatic relations and human rights, the former takes higher ground. The right of the freedom of expression and peaceful assembly is highly ranked in the scheme of constitutional values.