1
G.R. No. 81561 January 18, 1991 - His rights under the constitution while under custodial
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee
vs. ANDRE MARTI, accused-appellant.
Facts:
- Appeal from a decision convicting accused-appellant of
violation Dangerous Drugs Act.
- Appellant and his common-law wife, Shirley Reyes,
went to the booth of the "Manila Packing and Export
Forwarders" to send four (4) gift wrapped packages to
a friend (WALTER FIERZ, Mattacketr II) in Zurich,
Switzerland.
- Anita Reyes asked the appellant if she could examine
and inspect the packages but appellant, refused,
assuring her that the packages simply contained
books, cigars, and gloves. Anita relied on the
statement, and the box was sealed.
- Before delivery to the Bureau of Customs and/or
Bureau of Posts, Mr. Job Reyes (proprietor) opened
the boxes for final inspection. Peculiar odor emitted
therefrom. He opened one of the bundles, took
several grams of the contents thereof, reported the
shipment to the NBI and requested a laboratory
examination
- 3 NBI agents, and a photographer, went to the Reyes'
office at Ermita. Reyes brought out the box and
opened it, in the presence of the NBI agents.
- Agents requested assistance from the Manila Post
Office Chief Security. Appellant, was invited while
claiming his mail at the Central Post Office.
Information was filed against appellant
Issues/Contentions:
- Appellant contends that the evidence had been
obtained in violation of his constitutional rights
against unreasonable search and seizure and privacy
of communication hence, inadmissible in evidence
Ruling:
- The evidence was primarily discovered and obtained
by a private person, acting in a private capacity and
without the intervention and participation of State
authorities.
- In the absence of governmental interference, the
liberties guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be
invoked against the State.
- Right against unreasonable search and seizure refers
to the immunity of one's person, whether citizen or
alien, from interference by government, included in
which is his residence, his papers, and other
possessions.
- Intended as a restraint upon the activities of sovereign
authority, and was not intended to be a limitation
upon other than governmental agencies;
- Mr. Job Reyes, the proprietor of the forwarding agency,
who made search/inspection of the packages under
reasonable and a standard operating procedure
- Mere presence of the NBI agents did not convert the
reasonable search effected by Reyes into a
warrantless search and seizure Merely to observe and
look at that which is in plain sight is not a search.
- The liberties guaranteed by Constitution must always
be subject to protection against the state.
- The Bill of Rights governs the relationship between the
individual and the state, not the relation between
individuals, between a private individual and other
individuals.
- Bill of Rights declare some forbidden zones in the
private sphere inaccessible to any power holder.
- The modifications made in 1935 Constitution deviate
in no manner as to whom the restriction or inhibition
against unreasonable search and seizure is directed
against. The restraint stayed with the State and did
not shift to anyone else.
Issues/Contentions:
investigation were not observed.
Ruling:
- Contention is without merit, as law enforcers testified
that accused/appellant was informed of his
constitutional rights. It is presumed that they have
regularly performed their duties
Issues/Contentions:
- he was not the owner of the packages but rather a
certain Michael, a German national, whom appellant
met in a pub, requested him to ship the packages
Ruling:
- Appellant's disclaimer as incredulous, self-serving and
contrary to human experience. Complete stranger
struck in half an hour could not have pushed a man
to entrust the shipment. The Accused, would not
simply accept such undertaking to take custody of
the packages and ship the same from a complete
stranger on his mere say-so"
- Appellant's bare denial is even made more suspect
since he was previously convicted of possession of
hashish by the Kleve Court in the Federal Republic of
Germany including Walter Fierz, also a Swiss national
- If indeed, the German national was the owner of the
merchandise, appellant should have so indicated in
the contract of shipment but did not, hence
presumption that things which a person possesses, or
exercises acts of ownership over, are owned by him.
Appellant is therefore estopped to claim otherwise.
- Decision affirmed.
Velasquez –Rodriguez vs Honduras, Inter-
American Court of Human rights
- It is a principle of international law that every violation
of an international obligation which results in harm
creates a duty to make adequate reparation.
- Reparation of harm brought about by the violation of
an international obligation consists in full restitution
which includes the restoration of the prior situation,
the reparation of the consequences of the violation,
and indemnification for patrimonial and non-
patrimonial damages, including emotional harm
which may be awarded in the case of human rights
violations. Indemnification must be based upon the
principles of equity.
- Indemnification for human rights violations is
supported by international instruments of a universal
and regional character. The Human Rights
Committee, created by the International Covenant of
Civil and Political Rights of the United Nations, has
repeatedly called for, based on the Optional Protocol,
indemnification for the violation of human rights
recognized in the Covenant
- Court has already pointed out the Government's
continuing duty to investigate so long as the fate of a
disappeared person is unknown. The duty to
investigate is in addition to the duties to prevent
involuntary disappearances and to punish those
directly responsible. Court believes, then, that the fair
compensation, described as "compensatory" includes
reparation to the family of the victim of the material
and moral damages they suffered because of the
involuntary disappearance of Manfredo Velásquez.
Oposa v Factoran –
- The right to a balanced and healthful ecology carries
with it the correlative duty to refrain from impairing
the environment. The said right implies, among many
other things, the judicious management and
conservation of the country's forests.
Intergenerational justice and responsibility.

Barcelona Traction Case
- Arose out of the adjudication in bankruptcy in Spain of
Barcelona Traction, a company incorporated in
Canada. Barcelona Traction issued several series of
bonds, principally in sterling. After that war the
Spanish exchange control authorities refused to
authorize the transfer of the foreign currency
necessary for the resumption of the servicing of the
sterling bonds. Subsequently, when the Belgian
Government complained of this, the Spanish
Government stated that the transfers could not be
authorized unless it were shown that the foreign
currency was to be used to repay debts arising from
the genuine importation of foreign capital into Spain
and that this had not been established. Spanish
holders of recently acquired Barcelona Traction
sterling bonds petitioned the court of Reus (Province
of Tarragona) for a declaration adjudging the
company bankrupt, on account of failure to pay the
interest on the bonds. A judgment was given
declaring the company bankrupt and ordering the
seizure of the assets of Barcelona Traction and of two
of its subsidiary companies. Pursuant to this
judgment the principal management personnel of the
two companies were dismissed and Spanish directors
appointed. Shortly afterwards, these measures were
extended to the other subsidiary companies. New
shares of the subsidiary companies were created.
Belgian nationals contended that no judicial notice of
bankruptcy was provided and thus did not enter a
plea of opposition against the bankruptcy judgment.
Its object was to seek reparation for damage alleged
by Belgium to have been sustained by Belgian
nationals, shareholders in the company, as a result of
acts said to be contrary to international law
committed towards the company by organs of the
Spanish State.
- The Court observed that when a State admitted into its
territory foreign investments or foreign nationals it
was bound to extend to them the protection of the
law and assumed obligations concerning the
treatment to be afforded them. But such obligations
were not absolute. In order to bring a claim in respect
of the breach of such an obligation, a State must first
establish its right to do so.
- In the field of diplomatic protection, international law
was in continuous evolution and was called upon to
recognize institutions of municipal law. In municipal
law, the concept of the company was founded on a
firm distinction between the rights of the company
and those of the shareholder. Only the company,
which was endowed with legal personality, could take
action in respect of matters that were of a corporate
character. A wrong done to the company frequently
caused prejudice to its shareholders, but this did not
imply that both were entitled to claim compensation.
Whenever a shareholder's interests were harmed by
an act done to the company, it was to the latter that
he had to look to institute appropriate action. An act
infringing only the company's rights did not involve
responsibility towards the shareholders, even if their
interests were affected.
- Where it was a question of an unlawful act committed
against a company representing foreign capital, the
general rule of international law authorized the
national State of the company alone to exercise
diplomatic protection for the purpose of seeking
redress. No rule of international law expressly
conferred such a right on the shareholder's national
State.
- Possession by the Belgian Government of a right of
protection was a prerequisite for the examination of
2
such problems. Since no jus standi before the Court
had been established, it was not for the Court to
pronounce upon any other aspect of the case.
- A state assumes an obligation concerning the
treatment of foreign investments based on general
international law, once the state admits foreign
investments or foreign nationals into its territory. It is
highly imperative to draw a distinction between those
obligations of a state toward the international
community as a whole and those arising from the
field of diplomatic protection. It is only the party to
whom an international obligation is due can bring a
claim if a breach of an obligation that is the subject of
diplomatic protection occurs. State could make claim
when investment by its nationals abroad were
prejudicially affected in violation of their right of State
itself to have its national enjoy certain treatment.
Such right could only result from a treaty or special
agreement.
- General rule: State of the company can seek redress.
- The general principle of law is that: Corporation has
juridical personality distinct from its shareholders
U.S. v Mexico, 4 RIAA (1926) Neer Claim
- Neer contended that Mexican authorities showed an
unwarrantable lack of diligence or an unwarrantable
lack of intelligent investigation in prosecuting the
culprits; and that therefore the Mexican Government
ought to pay to the claimants the said amount.
- Commission accordingly decides that the claim of the
United States is disallowed. The Commission is
mindful that the task of the local Mexican authorities
was hampered by the fact that the only eyewitness of
the murder was unable to furnish them any helpful
information. There might have been reason for the
higher authorities of the State to intervene in the
matter, as they apparently did. But in the view of the
Commission there is a long way between holding that
a more active and more efficient course of procedure
might have been pursued, on the one hand, and
holding that this record presents such lack of
diligence and of intelligent investigation as
constitutes an international delinquency, on the other
hand.
- It is not for an international tribunal such as this
Commission to decide, whether another course of
procedure taken by the local authorities at Guanacevi
might have been more effective. On the contrary, the
grounds of liability limit its inquiry to whether there is
convincing evidence either (1) that the authorities
administering the Mexican law acted in an
outrageous way, in bad faith, in willful neglect of their
duties, or in a pronounced degree of improper action,
or (2) that Mexican law rendered it impossible for
them properly to fulfil their task.
France v Mexico, (1929) Jean-Baptiste Caire
Claim
- Jean-Baptiste Caire, a French national, was unlawfully
shot and killed at an army barracks in Mexico by two
Mexican army officers, a major and a captain aided
by a few privates, after Caire refused a demand by
one of the officers to pay a sum of money.
- Mexico was internationally responsible for the conduct
of the army officers. Under the doctrine of objective
responsibility (state responsibility for the acts of state
officials or state organs even in the absence of “fault”
on the part of the state), a state is internationally
responsible for acts committed by its officials or
organs outside their competence if the officials or
organs “acted at least to all appearances as

competent officials or organs, or… used powers or
methods appropriate to their official capacity”
- The officers in question consistently conducted
themselves as officers, in this capacity they began by
exacting the remittance of certain sums of money; - Even if a treaty norm and a customary norm relevant
they continued by having the victim taken to a
barracks of the occupying troops; and it was clearly
because of the refusal of M Caire to meet their
repeated demands that they finally shot him.
UK v Albania, Corfu Channel Case
- Two British cruisers and two destroyers entered the
North Corfu Strait. Though the Strait was regarded as
safe, the destroyers struck mines in Albanian waters
and suffered damage. Albanian battery had fired in - There exists in customary law an opinio juris as to the
the direction of two British cruisers. The United
Kingdom Government had protested, stating that
innocent passage through straits is a right recognized
by international law; the Albanian Government had
replied that foreign warships and merchant vessels
had no right to pass through Albanian territorial
waters without prior authorization. UK government
sent a Note to Tirana announcing its intent to sweep
Corfu Channel shortly
- Laying of the minefield could not have been
accomplished without the knowledge of Albania. It
was her duty to notify shipping and especially to warn
the ships proceeding through the Strait of the danger
to which they were exposed. In fact, nothing was
attempted by Alba- nia to prevent the disaster, and - Court finds that in customary international law, there is
these grave omissions involve her international
responsibility
- Passage was innocent both in its principle, since it was
designed to affirm a right which had been unjustly
denied, and in its methods of execution, which were
not unreasonable in view of the firing from the
Albanian battery.
- Court must declare that the action of the British Navy
constituted a violation of Albanian sovereignty
Nicaragua v U.S. (1986) ICJ Rep
- Decides that the United States of America, by certain
attacks on Nicaraguan territory in 1983-1984 and
further by those acts of intervention has acted,
against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its - The laying of mines in the waters of another State
obligation under customary international law not to
use force against another State;
- Court finds it established that, the President of the
United States authorized a United States Government
agency to lay mines in Nicaraguan ports, United
States Government did not issue any public and
official warning to international shipping of the
existence and location of the mines
- It is also established in the Court's view that the
support of the United States for the activities of the
contras took various forms over the years, such as
logistic support the supply of information on the - United States has committed a prima facie violation of
location and movements of the Sandinista troops, the
use of sophisticated methods of communication, etc.
The evidence does not however warrant a finding
that the United States gave direct combat support, if - As regards El Salvador, the Court considers that in
that is taken to mean direct intervention by United
States combat forces. Court ruled that the contras
remain responsible for their acts, in particular the
alleged violations by them of humanitarian law
- The Court concluded that it has to apply the
multilateral treaty reservation in the United States - Court decided (1) that Iran has violated and is skill
declaration, the consequential exclusion of
multilateral treaties being without prejudice either to
other treaties or other sources of law enumerated in
Article 38 of the Statute. In order to determine the
law actually to be applied to the dispute, it has to
3
ascertain the consequences of the exclusion of the
applicability of the multilateral treaties for the
definition of the content of the customary
international law which remains applicable.
to the present dispute were to have exactly the same
content, this would not be a reason for the Court to
take the view that the operation of the treaty process
must necessarily deprive the customary norm of its
separate applicability. Consequently, the Court is in
no way bound to uphold customary rules only in so
far as they differ from the treaty rules which it is
prevented by the United States reservation from
applying.
binding character of such abstention. Opinio juris
may be deduced from, inter alia, the attitude of the
Parties and of States towards certain General
Assembly resolutions, and particularly resolution
2625 (XXV) entitled "Declaration on Principles of
International Law concerning Friendly Relations and
Co-operation among States in Accordance with the
Charter of the United Nations". Consent to such
resolutions is one of the forms of expression of an
opinio juris with regard to the principle of non-use of
force, regarded as a principle of customary
international law, independently of the provisions,
especially those of an institutional kind, to which it is
subject on the treaty-law plane of the Charter.
no rule permitting the exercise of collective self-
defense in the absence of a request by the State
which is a victim of the alleged attack, this being
additional to the requirement that the State in
question should have declared itself to have been
attacked.
- The principle of non-intervention - prohibited
intervention must be one bearing on matters in which
each State is permitted, by the principle of State
sovereignty, to decide freely. Intervention is wrongful
when it uses methods of coercion, particularly force,
either in the direct form of military action or in the
indirect form of support for subversive activities in
another State.
without any warning or notification is not only an
unlawful act but also a breach of the principles of
humanitarian law underlying the Hague Convention.
United States is under an obligation to "respect" the
Conventions and even to "ensure respect" for them,
and thus not to encourage persons or groups
engaged in the conflict in Nicaragua to act in
violation of the provisions of Article 3. This obligation
derives from the general principles of humanitarian
law to which the Conventions merely give specific
expression.
the principle by arming and training the contras,
unless this can be justified as an exercise of the right
of self-defense.
customary international law the provision of arms to
the opposition in another State does not constitute an
armed attack on that State.
U.S. v Iran (1980) ICJ Rep
violating obligations owed by it to the United States;
(2) that these violations engage Iran's responsibility;
(3) that the Government of Iran must immediately
release the United States nationals held as hostages
and place the premises of the Embassy in the hands

of the protecting power; (4) that no member of the
United States diplomatic or consular staff may be - About 45,000 United States nationals left Iran during
kept in Iran to be subjected to any form of judicial
proceedings or to participate in them as a witness;
(5) that Iran is under an obligation to make reparation
for the injury caused to the United States, and (6)
that the form and amount of such reparation, failing
agreement between the parties, shall be settled by
the Court.
- Attributability to the Iranian State of the acts
complained of, and violation by Iran of certain -
Iranian State was under obligation to take appropriate
steps to protect the United States Embassy but did
nothing to prevent the attack, stop it before it
reached its completion or oblige the militants to
withdraw from the premises and release the
hostages. Instead, expressions of approval were
immediately heard from numerous Iranian - The reports that many thousands of Iranians lost their
authorities. Once organs of the Iranian State had thus
given approval to the acts complained of and decided
to perpetuate them as a means of pressure on the
United States, those acts were transformed into acts
of the Iranian State: the militants became agents of
that State, which itself became internationally
responsible for their acts.
Home Missionary Society Claim, U.S. b Great
Britain
- In 1898 the collection of a tax newly imposed on the
natives of the Protectorate and known as the "hut
tax" was the signal for a serious and widespread
revolt in the Ronietta district where Home Missionary
Society had several establishments. In the course of
the rebellion all these missions were attacked, and
either destroyed or damaged, and some of the
missionaries were murdered.
- The contention of the United States Government
before this Tribunal is that the revolt was the result of
the imposition and attempted collection of the "hut
tax"; that it was within the knowledge of the British
Government that this tax was the object of deep
native resentment; that in the face of the native
danger the British Government wholly failed to take
proper steps for the maintenance of order and the
protection of life and property; that the loss of life
and damage to property was the result of this neglect - United States of America had instituted proceedings
and failure of duty, and therefore that it is liable to
pay compensation
- It is a well-established principle of international law
that no government can be held responsible for the
act of rebellious bodies of men committed in violation
of its authority, where it is itself guilty of no breach of
good faith, or of no negligence in suppressing
insurrection. The good faith of the British Government
cannot be questioned, and as to the conditions
prevailing in the Protectorate there is no evidence to
support the contention that it failed in its duty to
afford adequate protection for life and property. On
the contrary the evidence of eye-witnesses proves
that under peculiarly difficult and trying conditions
they did their duty with loyalty and daring, and - Court pints out that the conduct of the militants on
upheld the highest traditions of the British army.
- Missionary Society must have been aware of the
difficulties and perils to which it exposes itself in its
task of carrying Christianity to so remote and
barbarous a people. The contempt for difficulty and
peril is one of the noblest sides of their missionary
zeal
- Claim presented is dismissed.
4
Short v Iran
the four month period of the Islamic revolution in that
country which was accompanied by intense anti-
United States sentiment and acts of violence against
United States owned property and United States
nationals. United States filed case against Iran in
respect of the alleged “wrongful expulsion” from Iran
of a United States national, Alfred Short, with
consequential loss of personal property and
employment income. The issue is whether the facts
invoked by Short as having caused his departure from
Iran are attributable to Iran, either directly, or
indirectly as a result of its deliberate policies, or
whether they reveal a lack of due diligence in
meeting Iran’s international duties towards the
Claimant.
lives in the course of these revolutionary events is an
indicator of the magnitude of the turmoil associated
with the Revolution. Where a revolution leads to the
establishment of a new government, the State is held
responsible for the acts of the overthrown
government insofar as the latter maintained control
of the situation. The successor government is also
held responsible for the acts imputable to the
revolutionary movement which established it, even if
those acts occurred prior to its establishment, as a
consequence of the continuity existing between the
new organization of the State and the organization of
the revolutionary movement. Declarations made by
the leader of the Revolution, Ayatollah Khomeini, are
of anti-foreign and in particular anti-American
sentiment, but the Tribunal notes that these
pronouncements were of a general nature and did not
specify that Americans should be expelled en masse.
Such declarations referred to by the Claimant did not
amount to an authorization to revolutionaries to act
in such a way that the Claimant should be forced to
leave Iran forthwith. Tribunal is of the view that the
Claimant has failed to prove that his departure from
Iran can be imputed to the wrongful conduct of Iran.
The claim is therefore dismissed.
U.S. v Iran
against Iran in a case arising out of the situation at its
Embassy in Tehran and Consulates at Tabriz and
Shiraz, and the seizure and detention as hostages of
its diplomatic and consular staff in Tehran and two
more citizens of the United States. United States, in
its final submissions, requested it to adjudge and
declare, inter alia, that the Iranian Government had
violated its international legal obligations to the
United States and must: ensure the immediate
release of the hostages; afford the United States
diplomatic and consular personnel the protection and
immunities to which they -were entitled. Iran took no
part in the proceedings. It neither filed pleadings nor
was represented at the hearing
that occasion could be directly attributed to the
Iranian State only if it were established that they
were in fact acting on its behalf. However, the Iranian
State--which, as the State to which the mission was
accredited, was under obligation to take appropriate
steps to protect the United States Embassy-did
nothing to prevent the attack, stop it before it
reached its completion or oblige the militants to
withdraw from the premises anti release the
hostages. Court finds, a clear and serious violation of
Iran's obligations to the United States under Vienna

Convention on Diplomatic Relation and Consular
Relations.
- The Court finds that Iran, by committing successive - The Calvo clause is neither upheld by all outstanding
and continuing breaches of the obligations laid upon
it by the Vienna Conventions has incurred
responsibility towards the United States. A$; a - The contested provision, in this case, is part of a
consequence, there is an obligation on the part of the
Iranian State to make reparation for the injury caused
to the United States. Since, however, the breaches
are still continuing, the form and amount of such
reparation cannot yet be determined
Chorgow Factory Case, Germany v Poland PCIJ
- Government of the German Reich, has submitted to
the Permanent Court of International Justice a suit
concerning the reparation due by the Polish
Government for the damage suffered by the
Oberschlesische and the Bayerische in consequence
of the attitude adopted by that Government towards
those Companies in taking possession of the nitrate
factory situated at Chorzów, which attitude has been
declared by the Court in Judgment No. 7 not to have
been in conformity with the provisions of Geneva - A person cannot deprive the government of his nation
Convention
- It is a principle of international law that the reparation
of a wrong may consist in an indemnity
corresponding to the damage which the nationals of
the injured State have suffered as a result of the act
which is contrary to international law. The rules of law
governing the reparation are the rules of international
law in force between the two States concerned, and
not the law governing relations between the State - As the claimant voluntarily entered into a legal
which has committed a wrongful act and the
individual who has suffered damage.
- It is a principle of international law, and even a general
conception of law, that any breach of an engagement
involves an obligation to make reparation. Reparation
must, as far as possible, wipe-¬out all the
consequences of the illegal act and re-establish the
situation which would, in. all probability, have existed
if that act had not been committed.
- Reparation of wrong may consist in an indemnity
corresponding to damages which the nationals of - Appeal interposed by respondents as well as
injured state suffered as a result of the act which is
contrary to international law.
- Reparation is indispensable complement of failure to
apply convention.
- When expropriation is legal, amount of reparation is
the logistical value of property taken at the time of
the expropriation. If illegal, amount of reparation
includes intangible assets (loss profits)
- Policy of our Government which is indeed very
North American Dredgin Company Claim (1926)
- US in behalf of American Dredging Company of Texas,
an American corporation, filed recovery of the sum
with damages against Government of Mexico to
whom American Dredging has contracted with. In
their contract, it states that: Corporation shall be
considered as Mexicans in all matters, within the
Republic of Mexico, concerning the execution of such
work and the fulfilment of this contract. They shall
not claim, nor shall they have, with regard to the
interests and the business connected with this
contract, any other rights or means to enforce the
same than those granted by the laws of the Republic - Aliens within the state of their residence enjoy certain
to Mexicans
- A Calvo clause held to bar claimant from presenting to
his Government any claim connected with the
contract in which it appeared and hence to place any
such claim beyond the jurisdiction of the tribunal. It
appreciates the legitimate desire on the part of
nations to deal with persons and property within their
5
respective jurisdictions according to their own laws
and to apply remedies.
international authorities and by the soundest among
international awards nor is it universally rejected
contract and must be upheld unless it be repugnant
to a recognized rule of international law. What must
be established is not that the Calvo clause is
universally accepted or universally recognized, but
that there exists a generally accepted rule of
international law condemning the Calvo clause and
denying to an individual the right to relinquish to any
extent, large or small, and under any circumstances
or conditions, the protection of the government to
which he owes allegiance. There exists no
international rule prohibiting the sovereign right of a
nation to protect its citizens abroad from being
subject to any limitation whatsoever under any
circumstances. The right of protection has been
limited by treaties between nations in provisions
related to the Calvo clause.
of its undoubted right of applying international
remedies to violations of international law committed
to his damage. Such government frequently has a
larger interest in maintaining the principles of
international law than in recovering damage for one
of its citizens in a particular case, and manifestly
such citizen cannot by contract tie in this respect the
hands of his Government
contract binding itself not to call as to this contract
upon its Government to intervene in its behalf, and as
all of its claim relates to this contract, and as
therefore it cannot present its claim to its
Government for interposition or espousal before this
Commission, the second ground of the notion to
dismiss is sustained.
Chinese Flour Importers Assn. v Price
Stabilization Board
intervenors from a decision of the CFI ordering the
Price Stabilization Corporation (PRISCO) to grant flour
quota allocations to the members of the petitioner
association and other qualified importers pursuant to
the provision of sections 12 and 14 of Republic Act
No. 426 on the basis of their quota allocations for the
years 1948 and 1949, and dismissing the complaint
of the intervenors.
plausible and should be encouraged to give a break
to our countrymen so that they may have greater
share in our local trade, business and commerce,
however, be adopted gradually so as not to cause
injustice and discrimination to alien firms or
businessmen. When the PRATRA decided to ignore
entirely the rights of the old importers, simply
because they are aliens, in complete disregard of this
policy of our Government, these importers have the
right to recur to the sanctuary of justice for redress,
for they too are entitled to certain rights under our
Constitution.
rights and privileges like those enjoyed by its citizens,
such as free access to the courts and the equal
protection of the laws. Nor may aliens be deprived of
life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
Citizens may, of course, be preferred to non-citizen
without violating constitutional guaranties. They are
excluded from the enjoyment of political rights, such

as the right to vote and to hold public office. Other
restrictions may be imposed for reasons of public
policy and in the exercise of the police power.
People v Chan Fook 42 Phil 230
- Chan Fook was prosecuted for the crime of resistance
and disobedience to the public authority, and
sentenced by CFI to two months and one day of
arresto mayor and to pay a fine. Accused, a Chinese - Mexican military forces, under command of officer,
subject, was a passenger of the United States Military
Transport South Bend, which arrived in Manila, he
went to pier no. 1 to get his baggage. After the
search of the baggage in which postcards of an
indecent character were found, a customs agent,
Eugenio M. Cruz, attempted to search the body of the - Commission is of the opinion that the record shows a
accused, to which the latter apparently objected. A
dispute took place between the two. The accused
resisted and struck the secret agent on the stomach.
Defense, contends that once the accused has arrived
at the point of his destination by being allowed to
leave the boat and to land he was beyond the
jurisdiction of the customs authorities, and, therefore,
not liable to search without judicial warrant.
- Court ruled that after the customs authorities have
permitted the accused to land in Manila, he ceased to
be a passenger. It was too late to look for any
contraband. He had already been searched when he
left the boat. The accused had reached his
destination, spending the night in the house where he
had taken lodging. It is not, therefore, reasonable to - Government is not responsible for malicious acts of
believe that when he returned to pier No. 1 the next
day, he had about his body any contraband. Thus the
search made by the agent Cruz appears to be
unreasonable.
- Foreigners in the Philippines are entitled to the benefits
of the individual rights secured by the Philippine Bill
is undeniable. Provisions on life, liberty and property
are universal in their application to all persons within
the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any
differences of race, of color, or of nationality; and the
equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the
protection of equal laws.
Kwong Sing v City of Manila 41 Phil 103
- The validity of Ordinance No. 532 of the city of Manila - Acts of violence committed June 19, 1927, by mob
requiring receipts in duplicate in English and Spanish
duly signed showing the kind and number of articles
delivered by laundries and dyeing and cleaning
establishments, must be decided on this appeal. The
government of the city of Manila possesses the power
to enact Ordinance No. 532 deem necessary and
proper for the sanitation and safety, the furtherance
of the prosperity, and the promotion of the morality,
peace, good order, comfort, convenience, and
general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, and - The facts related above show that in both instances
such others as may be necessary to carry into effect
and discharge the powers and duties conferred by
this chapter. Ordinance No. 532 was enacted, it is
said, to avoid disputes between laundrymen and their
patrons and to protect customers of laundries who
are not able to decipher Chinese characters from
being defrauded. The object of the ordinance was, - The mere fact that an alien has suffered at the hands
accordingly, the promotion of peace and good order
and the prevention of fraud, deceit, cheating, and
imposition. Appellant's claim is, that Ordinance No.
532 savors of class legislation; that it unjustly
discriminates between persons in similar shown special circumstances from which the
circumstances; and that it constitutes an arbitrary
infringement of property rights.
- Court ruled that ordinance invades no fundamental
right, and impairs no personal privilege. The
ordinance is neither discriminatory nor unreasonable
6
in its operation. It applies to all public laundries
without distinction, whether they belong to
Americans, Filipinos, Chinese, or any other nationality.
The very foundation of the police power is the control
of private interests for the public welfare.
Youmans Case, U.S. v United Mexican State,
1926
instead of protecting American citizens attacked by
mob, opened fire on Americans, as a result of which
all were killed either by armed forces or by mob. No
one appeared to have been punished for the crime,
though some prosecutions were begun
lack of diligence in the punishment of the persons
implicated in the crime. There is not sufficient
information before the Commission to warrant us in
undertaking to draw any definite conclusions with
respect to certain cases in which prisoners were
released and other cases in which severe sentences
imposed by the court of first instance were mitigated
by a higher court. It is also pertinent to note touching
this point that some soldiers were arrested but were
not sentenced. Evidence before the Commission does
not disclose whose weapons killed the Americans, bul
the participation of the soldiers with members of the
mob is established. Compensation is due to the
claimant from the Mexican Government
soldiers committed in their private capacity. Awards
have repeatedly been rendered for wrongful acts of
soldiers acting under the command of an officer.
Angangueo can be regarded as acts of soldiers
committed in their private capacity when it is clear
that at the time of the commission of these acts the
men were on duty under the immediate supervision
and in the presence of a commanding officer. Soldiers
inflicting personal injuries or committing wanton
destruction or looting always act in disobedience of
some rules laid down by superior authority.
U.S. v Panama , 6 United Rep, Intl Arb Awards,
308
attending political meeting. No increase of police
force before crowd became unruly. Active police
protection of claimant when attacked. No prosecution
of assailants. Held that neither mere fact of
aggression which could have been averted by
sufficient police force, nor failure, m prevailing
conditions, to institute prosecution against assailants
make government liable for damages under
international law
the police most actively protected the claimant
against his assailants and that in the second instance
the protection was due to the fact, that the
authorities sent reinforcements from Panama City
upon learning that the conditions in Juan Diaz
rendered assistance necessary.
of private persons an aggression, which could have
been averted by the presence of a sufficient police
force on the spot, does not make a government liable
for damages under international law. There must be
responsibility of the authorities arises: either their
behavior in connection with the particular occurrence,
or a general failure to comply with their duty to
maintain order, to prevent crimes or to prosecute and
punish criminals. There were no such circumstances

in the present case. Accordingly a lack of protection - The decision was challenged in 3 principal sets of
has not been established.
Texas Cattle Case; American Mexican Claims
Com. 1948 – Missing (Ate Jen)
Boffolo Claim, Italy v. Venezuela, 10 UN Rep Intl
Arb Awards, 528 (1938)
- A state possesses the general right of expulsion; but
expulsion should only be resorted to in extreme
instances and must be accomplished in the manner
least injurious to the person affected. The state
exercising the power must, when occasion demands,
state the reason of such expulsion before an
international tribunal, an insufficient reason or none
being advanced, accepts the consequences.
Venezuela, by the constitution of 1893, established as
subject to expulsion foreigners having no domicile - Procedural Default Rule - before a state criminal
and notoriously prejudicial to the public order. The
case of Boffolo it appears that he had no domicile in
Venezuela
- The right to expel foreigners is fully held by every
State and is deduced from its very sovereignty.
Boffolo had no domicile in the country, and the fact of
his having been notoriously prejudicial to public order
is a question that the Government is fully competent
to determine, since to it is confided the power to - German consular post was only made aware of the
expel without appeal or revision. It is to be noted that
if it be true that foreigners enjoy the same civil rights
as the natives, this refers solely to those foreigners - January 19, 1999, Germany claims that German
who are domiciled. From the foregoing it appears that
the claim must be dismissed, but without prejudice to
any right the claimant may have to present his claim
in Venezuela courts or elsewhere against persons
guilty of any legal wrong so far as he is concerned.
LAGRAND CASE (GERMANY v. UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA) 27 JUNE 2001
Background:
- Case brought to ICJ pursuant to its jurisdiction provided - Arizona Board of Executive Clemency rejected an
in Article I of Optional Protocol concerning
Compulsory Settlement of Disputes to Vienna
Convention on Consular Relations of 24 April 1963.
- On March 2, 1999, Germany filed in Registry of
Application instituting proceedings against USA for
violations of Vienna Convention on Consular
Relations and provisional measures. The same was - Memorial of Germany: USA prosecuted under its
communicated to US Government entitling them to
appear in Court. Both parties provided time-limits to
file Memorial (Germany) and counter-Memorial (USA)
discussing their respective stand on the case. Both
filed timely.
Prosecution of Walter and Karl LaGrand (Under
US Domestic Laws)
- The two German Nationals moved to US when both
were still young children and had permanent
residence therein. Both were adoptive children of US
national but never acquired nationality of US. They
appeared as US national, did not learn to speak
German (as they were fluent in English).
- The two were apprehended for being involved in armed
bank robbery in Marana, Arizona in the course of
which the bank manager was murdered and another
bank employee seriously injured
- Superior Court of Pitna County, Arizona convicted them
both of murder in the first degree, attempted murder
in the first degree, attempted armed robbery and two
counts of kidnapping. Each was sentenced to death
for first degree murder and to concurrent sentences
of imprisonment for the other charges.
7
proceedings:
1. Appeal to Supreme Court of Arizona – Denied. The
issue of the lack of consular notification, which
had not been raised
at trial, was also not raised
2. Post-conviction relief before Arizona state court –
Denied. The issue of the lack of consular
notification, which had not been raised
at trial, was also not raised
3. Applications for writs of habeus corpus in the
United States District Court for the District of
Arizona – Denied on the basis of Procedural
Default. LaGrands had not shown an objective
external factor that prevented them from raising
the issue of the lack of consular notification
earlier.
defendant can obtain relief in federal court, the claim
must be presented to a state court. If a state
defendant attempts to raise a new issue in a federal
habeus corpus proceeding, the defendant can only do
so by showing cause and prejudice. Cause is an
external impediment that prevents a defendant from
raising a claim and prejudice must be obvious on its
face.
case in June 1992 by the LaGrands themselves, not
the Arizona authorities
Consulate learned that Supreme Court of Arizona
decided that Karl LaGrand to be executed on
February 24, 1999 and Walter on March 3,1999.
Various interventions were made by Germany seeking
to prevent the execution of the LaGrands including
the sending of letter of German Chancellor to US
president. Such letter did not raise the issue of
absence of consular notification, but only opposition
to capital punishment generally.
appeal for clemency of Karl, hence Karl was executed
on February 24
- On March 2, the present case filed in Registry of
Application and provisional measures.
Facts:
domestic laws two German nationals, Karl and Walter
LaGrand, allegedly, without informing the German
government, hence, depriving the latter to render
consular assistance. US applied the doctrine of
procedural default which barred LaGrand from raising
their claims under the Convention. US also failed to
provide measures to ensure that Walter LaGrand was
not executed pending final decision of ICJ nor provide
guarantee that it will not repeat its illegal acts.
During trial, both were provided with counsel by US
Court. Conformity with Convention, however, was not
raised during the trial nor informed the German
consular authorities.
- Germany asked the Court the following:
1. To declare US violating the international legal
obligations, in its own right and in right of
diplomatic protection provided in Articles 36 of
Vienna Convention
2. US should not apply doctrine of procedural
default as to preclude exercise of Art 36.
3. US is obliged to conform with foregoing
international legal obligations any future
detention of or criminal proceedings against
Germans in US territory

4. Declare void the criminal liability imposed on Karl
and Walter LaGrand as it is a violation of
international legal obligation
5. US to provide reparation by giving compensation
for the execution of Karl LaGrand
6. Restore the status quo ante in the case of Walter
LaGrand
7. US to provide guarantee of non-repetition acts
- US Counter-Memorial: US confirmed the breached
obligation and has apologized to Germany, taking
substantial measure aimed at preventing recurrence.
US requested the dismissal of other claims and
submissions.
- US granted the provisional measure, granting 60-day
reprieve, but nevertheless, Governor of Arizona
decided to go forward the execution of Walter as
scheduled.
- ICJ issued summarily provisional measures such as the
delay of execution pending the final decision of the
case, and ordered US to inform the Court of any
measures taken to implement the same. This order
was not complied, Walter was executed as
scheduled.
Article 36 of Vienna Convention:
Par 1 sub a: Consular officers shall be free to
communicate with nationals of the sending State and
to have access to them. Nationals of the sending State
shall have the same freedom with respect to
communication with and access to consular officers of
the sending State;
Par 1 sub b: If he so requests, the competent
authorities of the receiving State shall, without delay,
inform the consular post of the sending State if, within
its consular district, a national of that State is arrested
or committed to prison or to custody pending trial or is
detained in any other manner. Any communication
addressed to the consular post by the person arrested,
in prison, custody or detention shall be forwarded by
the said authorities without delay. The said authorities
shall inform the person concerned without delay of his
rights under this subparagraph;
Par 1 sub c: Consular officers shall have the right to
visit a national of the sending State who is in prison,
custody or detention, to converse and correspond with
him and to arrange for his legal representation. They
shall also have the right to visit any national of the
sending State who is in prison, custody or detention in
their district in pursuance of a judgement.
Nevertheless, consular officers shall refrain from taking
action on behalf of a national who is in prison, custody
or detention if he expressly opposes such action."
Conflicts/Contentions: Procedural Aspect
1. Whether the ICJ has jurisdiction over the case and
the authority to issue Orders
- US argued that:
o Provisional measures issued by ICJ are not
binding and do not furnish a basis for
judicial relief.
o The case is not within the Court's
jurisdiction" under the Optional Protocol
because it "does not concern the
interpretation or application of the Vienna
Convention. US pointed out that there is
distinction between jurisdiction over
treaties and jurisdiction over customary law
and even they contain the same content,
the applicability is separate. Vienna
Convention deals with consular assistance,
not diplomatic protection
8
o Right of the consul to assist an incarcerated
national of his country is within the
jurisdiction of the Court under the Optional
Protocol. But the diplomatic protection on
customary law is not covered.
o That Germany seeks to have the Court play
the role of ultimate court of appeal in
national criminal proceedings
- Germany contended that
o Court has jurisdiction under Article I of the
Optional Protocol (Disputes arising out of
the interpretation or application of the
Convention shall lie within the compulsory
jurisdiction of the International Court of
Justice and may accordingly be brought
before the Court by an application made by
any party to the dispute being a Party to
the present Protocol)
o Germany denies that it requests the Court
to act as an appellate criminal court. It is
merely asking the Court to adjudge and
declare that the conduct of the United
States was inconsistent with its
international legal obligations towards
Germany under the Vienna Convention and
to draw from this failure certain legal
consequences provided for in the
international law of state responsibility.
- Ruling: The Court has jurisdiction.
o Whether it is a customary law, this fact
does not prevent a State party to a treaty,
from taking up the case of one of its
nationals and instituting international
judicial proceedings on behalf of that
national, on the basis of a general
jurisdictional clause in such a treaty.
o Whether US were obliged to comply and did
comply with the Order" necessarily arises
out of the interpretation or application of
the Convention, thus falls within the
jurisdiction of the Court.
o Consequently, where Court has jurisdiction
to decide a case, it also has jurisdiction to
deal with provisional measure requests
which seek to preserve the rights of the
Parties
2. Whether or not ICJ has jurisdiction to order
Assurances of non-repetition
- US argued that: Court has no jurisdiction since
accepting the claim, shall impose additional
obligation different in character from those to
which the US consented to.
- Germany contended the action arises under the
principles of State responsibility, hence, Germany
is entitled to a whole range of remedies.
Questions of State responsibility "are clearly
within the ambit of the Optional Protocol”
- Ruling:
o The Court has jurisdiction. Dispute
regarding the appropriate remedies for the
violation of the Convention is a dispute that
arises out of the interpretation or
application of the Convention
o Though US has apologized, Court
considered that apologies were insufficient
and that in the case of severe penalties, it
would be incumbent upon the US, by means
of its own choice, to allow the review and
reconsideration of the conviction and
sentence of German nationals, by taking
into account the violation of the rights set
forth in the VCCR.

3. Whether or not the provisional measures ordered by
ICJ is invalid as it is inconsistent with principles of
“equality of the parties”, sufficient opportunity to be
heard
- US argued that: Germany's late filing compelled
the Court to respond to its request for provisional
measures ex parte, without full information. That
Germany was in delay for knowing that the two
were German nationals as early as 1992, and yet
asked raised protest only after 6 and half years.
- Germany: Germany acknowledges that delay
may render an application inadmissible, but
maintains that international law does not lay
down any specific time-limit in that regard. It
contended that it was only seven days before it
filed its Application that it became aware of al1
the relevant facts underlying its claim.
- Ruling:
o Notwithstanding its awareness of the
consequences of Germany's filing at such a
late date it nevertheless considered it
appropriate to enter the Order, given that
an irreparable prejudice appeared to be
imminent. Such Order was violated by US,
giving Germany the standing to challenge
the non-compliance.
o Failure of the American authorities to
comply with their obligation, the procedural
default rule had the effect of preventing
"full effect [from being] given to the
purposes for which the rights accorded
under this article are intended", and thus
violated paragraph 2 of Article 36.
4. Whether the conviction of LaGrand is proper as it
has not fully exhaust local remedies
- US – Such breach on legal obligation could have
been remedied at the trial stage, provided it was
raised in a timely fashion. When a person fails to
sue in a national court before a statute of
limitations has expired, the claim is both
procedurally barred in national courts and
inadmissible in international tribunals for failure
to exhaust local remedies. Failure of counsels
does not excuse the non-exhaustion of local
remedies.
- Germany – The rule on local exhaustion only
applies to those remedies which are legally and
practically available. In this case there was no
remedy which the LaGrands could resort to, as
they were unaware of their right.
- Ruling – It is the United States itself which had
failed to carry out its obligation under the
Convention to inform the LaGrand brothers. It
cannot rely on this fact.
5. Whether or not the criminal conviction should be
annulled based on the breach of duty of consular
notification
- US – Neither Germany has shown that its system
requires the annulment of criminal convictions
where there has been a breach of the duty of
consular notification. Practice of Germany in
similar cases has been to do an apology. It would
be contrary to basic principles of administration
of justice and equality of the Parties to apply
against the United States alleged rules that
Germany appears not to accept for itself
- Germany –
- Ruling – Court rejected the contention of US. The
German cases used by US are light offenses, the
same cannot be the basis and it does not follow
that, remedies for violation of the Article must be
identical.
9
Conflicts/Contentions: Substantive Aspect
6. Whether or not US violated an international legal
obligation to inform the German Consular Post
under Article 36, par 1(b), depriving Germany of the
possibility of rendering consular assistance,
ultimately resulted in execution of the LaGrands.
- US acknowledged that "there was a breach of US
obligation to inform the LaGrand brothers that
they could ask that a German consular post be
notified of their arrest and detention
- Germany alleged that they were not notified of
the case.
7. Whether there is violation of Article 36, Par 1 sub a
and c as consequence to the violation of Art 36, par
1(b)
- US contended that the claims regarding
violations of Paragraphs 1(a) and (c) are
misplaced, since the underlying conduct
complained of is the same as the one already
claimed under Paragraph 1(b). Hence, when a
detainee's right to notification without delay is
violated, he or she cannot establish contact with
the consulate, receive visits from consular
officers, nor be supported by adequate counsel.
When the obligation to inform the arrested
person without delay of his or her right to contact
the consulate is disregarded, "the other rights
contained in Article 36 par 1 become in practice
irrelevant, indeed meaningless. Violation of this
right is bound to imply violation of the other
rights.
- Germany alleged that:
o The failure of the United States to inform
the LaGrand brothers of their right to
contact the German authorities, prevented
Germany from exercising its rights under
Art. 36 par 1 (b).
o That by breaching its obligations to inform,
the United States also violated individual
rights conferred on the detainees by Article
36 par 1 (a) and 1(c) causing injury to the
two Germans, and as matter of diplomatic
protection, raising the action on behalf of
the two.
o Had Germany been properly afforded its
rights under the Vienna Convention, it
would have been able to intervene in time
and present a "persuasive mitigation case"
which "likely would have saved" the lives of
the brothers
- Ruling:
o Article 36, paragraph 1, establishes an
interrelated régime designed to facilitate
the implementation of the system of
consular protection: Right of
communication and access under Par 1 (a),
modalities of consular notification under
under Par 1 (b), sets out the measures
consular officers may take in rendering
consular assistance to their nationals in the
custody of the receiving State under Par 1
(c).
o Germany and the LaGrands were in effect
prevented by the breach of the United
States from exercising them.
o Failure of US to comply and take all
measures at its disposal to ensure that
Walter LaGrand is not executed pending the
final decision in the proceedings, falls
within the jurisdiction of the Governor of
Arizona; that the Government of the United
 10
States is consequently under the obligation juridical situation is not altered by the fact that the
to transmit the present Order to the said concessionary contract was negotiated through the
Governor. Hence, under State responsibility good offices of the Council of the League of Nations,
principle, the international responsibility of acting through its rapporteur. The United Kingdom in
a State is engaged by the action of the submitting its dispute with Iran to the League Council,
competent organs and authorities acting in was only exercising its right of diplomatic protection
that State, whatever they may be. in favour of one of its nationals. Thus the Court
o A state that breaches its obligations to arrives at the conclusion that it lacks jurisdiction.
another under the Vienna Convention on
consular relations by failing to inform an Goldberg Case, Germany v Romania, 2 UN Rep
arrested alien of the right to consular Intl Arb awards, 234 (1908)
notification and to provide judicial review of - In July 1914, the applicants, David Goldberg and sons,
the alien’s conviction sentence also violates traders in Braila,Romania bought certain goods (30
individual rights held by the alien under tons of tin) valued at 3229.10 marks of gold, which
international law were shipped to Antwerp, Belgium on July 21, 1914.
- The declaration of war in 1914 prevented the
Decision: ICJ ruled in favor of Germany departure of the ship; the goods remained at the
-Provisional Measures of the ICJ are Binding sender, in whose hands they were requisitioned on
-Art. 36 (1) (b) VCCR entails individual rights for 11 September 1915 by the German military
nationals of the sending State. It offers the authorities. The plaintiffs were not ompensated
individuals and their sending State a new, immediately, but the German commission awarded
procedural way to challenge domestic decisions them on 28 October 1921, an allowance of 22.55 &
violating the VCCR, by exercising the classical legal Paper marks, representing, during the time 532.30
concept of diplomatic protection. Recognizing the Marks gold or a little less than a sixth of the gold
right of individuals to be informed of their right to value of goods requisitioned.
contact their consular authorities is only one step to - They claim today the difference between the
ensure the implementation of the obligations of the compensation received and the value of the seized
receiving State under the convention property.
-The admission of guarantees of non-repetition, general - The German government decided to reject the request.
and specific, as a means of remedy for an The German State Agent invokes the jurisprudence of
international wrongful act can be regarded as the Hague Tribunal. According to its ruling, it is
confirmation of the often neglected function of State necessary for there to have a right to compensation,
responsibility as a means of controlling and ensuring that there was act contrary to international law.
legality in the international legal order. These - In this case, this is a requisition expressly permitted by
guarantees and measures can also take the form of international law act, or by Article 52 of the Hague
obligations of result and may require, under specific Convention of 1907. Goods requisitioned were paid.
circumstances, the domestic legal system to make It cannot therefore have been "act contrary to law.”
considerable efforts in order to be in conformity with - Whether or not David Goldberg should be granted an
the obligations thereby imposed on it additional compensation, despite the fact that the
goods requisitioned have already been paid, thus,
Polgrave Brown’s Case 8 Whitman , p. 854 – could not have been regarded as ‘an act contrary to
Missing (Ate Cynthia) law.’
- Although International law authorizes the State to
Anglo Iranian Case ; UK v Iran, ICJ Rep 23, (1952) make an exception to the principle of respect for the
– PDF private property of aliens when the public interest so
- An agreement was concluded between the requires, it does so on the condition sine qua non
Government of Iran and the Anglo-Iranian Oil that fair payment shall be made for the
Company. In March, April and May, 1951, laws were expropriated or requisitioned property as quickly as
passed in Iran, enunciating the principle of the possible.
nationalism of the oil industry in Iran and establishing - Both as regards expropriation and requisition, the
procedure for the enforcement of this principle. The payment of compensation to individuals who have
result of these laws was a dispute between Iran and been deprived of their property is now considered
the Company. The United Kingdom adopted the case indispensable. The duty to pay compensation has
of the latter, and in virtue of its right of diplomatic either been based upon respect for private property,
protection it instituted proceedings before the Court, or upon the enrichment of the community at the
whereupon Iran disputed the Court's jurisdiction expense of isolated individuals, or classes of
- The jurisdiction depends on the Declarations accepting individuals, by a definite act of appropriation without
the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court made by Iran any fault on the part of the individual.
and by the United Kingdom under Article 36, - In the present case, Goldenberg was awarded an
paragraph 2, of the Statute. These Declarations amount barely reaching the sixth value of the
contain the condition of reciprocity, and as that of expropriated property. He was deprived of 5/6 his
Iran is more limited, it is upon that Declaration that property without compensation. For this reason, the
the Court must base itself. Only treaties subsequent arbitrator fixed to 2696.80 Marks of gold, with
to the ratification come into consideration. In order to interest at 5% from September 11 1915, the
reach an opposite conclusion, special and clearly compensation due to the applicants by the German
estab1ishe:d reasons would be required: but the state.
United Kingdom was not able to produce them. Under
the contract, Iran cannot claim from the United VICTOR BOROVSKY, Petitioner, v. THE
Kingdom any rights which it may claim from the COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION and THE
Company, nor can it be called upon to perform DIRECTOR OF PRISONS, Respondents.
towards the United Kingdom any obligations which it - Victor A. Borovsky, the petitioner, claims to be a
is bound to perform towards the Company. This stateless citizen, born in Shanghai, China, of Russian

parentage. He came to the Philippines in 1936 and
had resided therein ever since. Commissioner of
Immigration, the petitioner was arrested for
investigation as to his past activities and a warrant
for his deportation was issued having been found to
be an undesirable alien, a vagrant and habitual
drunkard. The petitioner cries due process. Ship
which took him to Shanghai, but he was not allowed
to land there because he was not a national of China.
He was therefore brought back to Manila and was
confined to the new Bilibid Prison
- Aliens illegally staying in the Philippines have no right
of asylum therein even if they are "stateless," which
the petitioner claims to be. Foreign nationals, not
enemy, against whom no criminal charges have been
formally made or judicial order issued, may not
indefinitely be kept in detention. The protection
against deprivation of liberty without due process of
law and except for crimes committed against the
laws of the land is not limited to Philippine citizens
but extends to all residents, except enemy aliens,
regardless of nationality. There is no allegation that
the petitioner’s entry into the Philippines was not
lawful; Deportation Board’s findings is that he came
to and lived in this country under legal permit.
- Philippines "adopts the generally accepted principles of
international law as part of the law of Nation." And in
a resolution entitled "Universal Declaration of Human
Rights" and approved by the General Assembly of the
United Nations of which the Philippines is a member,
the right to life and liberty and all other fundamental
rights as applied to all human beings were
proclaimed. It was there resolved that "All human
beings are born free and equal in degree and rights
without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour,
sex, language, religion, political or other opinion,
nationality or social origin, property, birth, or other
status (Art. 2); that "Everyone has the right to an
effective remedy by the competent national tribunals
for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him
by the Constitution or by law" (Art. 8); that "No one
shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or
exile" (Art. 9); etc.
- Premises considered, the writ will issue commanding
the respondents to release the petitioner from
custody, but put under surveillance and bond until
the government is ready to deport him.
LI SENG GIAP & CO., vs. THE DIRECTOR OF
LANDS
- Aliens (not US/Filipino), instituted these proceedings for
the registration in its name in the registry of deeds, of
the three parcels of land described. The Director of
Lands filed an opposition to the said application
alleging as his grounds that the three parcels of land
in question were public lands belonging to the
Government of the United States. CFI denied the
application of the applicant partnership on the ground
that it is an alien, and holding, at the same time, that
the parcels of land it sought to register in its name
are a portion of the public domain.
- The provisions of section 54 of Act No. 926 as well as
those of section 45, paragraph (b), of Act No. 2874
should necessarily be so construed as not to permit
aliens to obtain title to lands in their favor. It should
not be understood, however, that the constitutional
guaranty that no person shall be denied the equal
protection of the laws, is violated thereby, because,
“Every State has a fundamental right to its existence
and development, as also to the integrity of its
territory and the exclusive and peaceable possession
of its dominions which it may guard and defend by all
11
possible means against any attack. Superior to the
law which protects personal liberty, is the supreme
and fundamental right of each State to self-
preservation and the integrity of its dominion and its
sovereignty." It is upon grounds of public policy that
the rights of individuals, particularly of aliens, cannot
prevail against the aforesaid right of the Government
of the Philippine Islands.
Radick v Hutchins 95 US 210
- The petitioner alleges that he is a subject of the
Emperor of Russia, and that he was, in 1864, the
owner of four hundred and fifty (450) bales of cotton
valuing at $50,000.00 which he designed to export
from Texas, where he then resided, to Mexico, and
which were then in transit on their way to
Matamoras; that the defendant Hutchins, claiming to
be a lieutenant-colonel in the army of the
Confederate States, and chief of the cotton office at
Houston in that state, combining with the defendant
Wells and others, had, without warrant of law, by a
public notice, prohibited the exportation of cotton
from the state except upon written permits from his
office.
- That such permits would not be issued except upon
condition that the person desiring to export cotton
should sell to them an equal amount, at a nominal
and arbitrary price, for the benefit of the Confederate
States.
- That being desirous to export and sell his cotton
because of the risk incurred of its destruction or loss
during the war, and knowing that if he should
attempt to send it beyond the frontier of the state
into Mexico, the armed forces of the Confederate
States, provided to carry out the illegal exactions of
the defendants and their confederates, would
capture and confiscate it, he was compelled to
submit and did submit to the condition imposed, and
accordingly delivered to the defendants one-half of
his cotton at a nominal price as a consideration for a
permit to export the other half, but upon a
stipulation, however, insisted upon by himself.
- That he should have the privilege of redeeming the
bales sold and exporting them upon the payment of
such sum as the defendants might demand.
- That afterwards he paid them $ 13,357.00 and in
goods, wares, and merchandise at values in
redemption of the bales and for a permit to export
them.
- He alleges that the amount thus paid was illegally and
oppressively exacted and that he submitted to the
wrong because of the armed forces to support and
enforce it.
- Was there violation of his rights by the respondents?
None.
- If at the time the transaction took place which has
given rise to the present action, the plaintiff was a
subject of the Emperor of Russia, as he alleges, that
fact cannot affect the decision of the case or any
question presented for the court’s consideration. He
was a resident of the State of Texas and engaged in
business. As a foreigner domiciled in the country, he
was bound to obey all the laws of the United States
not immediately relating to citizenship, and was
equally amenable with citizens to the penalties
prescribed for their infraction. He owed allegiance to
the government of the country so long as he resided
within its limits, and can claim no exemption from
the statues passed to punish treason or the giving of
aid and comfort to the insurgent states.
- There is nothing in the allegations showing that the
defendants subjected the plaintiff to any coercion or

duress, which would justify an action against them,
either for the return of the money paid or for the
value of the goods delivered in place of the money,
or for damages of any kind. To constitute the
coercion or duress which will be regarded as
sufficient to make a payment involuntary, there must
be some exacting or receiving the payment over the
person or property of another, from which the latter
has no other means of immediate relief than by
making the payment. As stated by the Court of
Appeals of Maryland, the doctrine established by the
authorities is that “ a payment is not to be regarded
as compulsory unless made to emancipate the
person or property from an actual and existing
duress imposed upon it by the party to whom the -
money is paid.
U.S. v Guatemala, Shufeldt Claim, 1930, 5
Hackworth
- Has P. W. Shufeldt, a citizen of the United States, as - While there is opportunity for the recognition of these
cessionary of the rights of Victor M. Morales I. and
Francisco Nâjera Andrade, the right to claim a
pecuniary indemnification for damages and injuries
which may have been caused to him by the
promulgation of the Legislative Decree of the
Assembly of Guatemala No. 1544, by which it
disapproved the contract of February 4, 1922, for the
extraction of a minimum of seventy-five thousand
quintales of chicle in a defined area in the
Department of Petén. the cession of Nâjera [Andrade]
and Morales in favor of Shufeldt having been made
by contract of 11th February 1922?
- That P. W. Shufeldt has the right to claim pecuniary
indemnification from the Government of Guatemala
and to pay Government of the United States. A
sovereign cannot be permitted to set up one of his
own municipal laws as a bar
- to a claim by a sovereign for a wrong done to the - such as exists where a portion of the inhabitants of a
latter's subject
Sambiaggo Case, (Italy v Venezuela) Venezuela
Arbitration of 1903 p 666 – PDF
- Salvatore Sambiaggio, resident of the parish of San
Joaquin, who claims 5,135.50 bolivars on account of
requisitions and forced loans exacted of him by
revolutionary troops. Commission has before it the
question as to whether the Venezuelan Government
is materially responsible to the claimant, Sambiaggio,
and other Italians established in Venezuela, on
account of damages inflicted upon them by
revolutionary authorities or troops
- Revolutionists are not the agents of government and a
natural responsibility does not exist. Their acts are Tribunal, 1902 – PDF
committed to destroy government and no one should - Government of El Salvador granted to certain persons
be held responsible for the acts of an enemy
attempting his life. The revolutionists (in this case) certain other incidental privileges, the exclusive
were beyond governmental control and the
government cannot be held responsible for injuries
committed by those who have escaped its restraint.
The word " injury " occurring in the protocol imports
legal injury; that is, wrong inflicted on the sufferer and by the grantees as party of the other part.
and wrongdoing by the party to be charged.
- Rules of interpretation
o If two meanings are admissible, that is to be
preferred which is least for the advantage of the
party for whose benefit a clause is inserted;
o the sense which the acceptor of conditions attaches
to them ought rather to be followed than that of the adjudication of the bankruptcy of the Company was
offerer;
o two meanings being admissible, preference is given
to that which the party proposing the clause knew
at the time was held by the party accepting it;
12
o doubtful stipulations should be interpreted in the
least onerous sense for the party obligated;
o conditions not expressed cannot be invoked by the
party who should have clearly expressed them.
o Treaties are to be interpreted generally mutatis
mutandis as statutes and, in the absence of express
language, are not given a retroactive effect.
o The " most-favored-nation " clause contained in the
Italian treaty does not oblige this Commission to
follow, in favor of Italian subjects, the interpretation
made by other Commissions of their protocols.
Bolivar Railway Co. v Ralston, Venezuela Arb, of
1903, p 388
A nation is responsible for the acts of a successful
revolution from the time such revolution began,
because in theory, it represented ab initio a changing
national will, crystallizing in the finally successful
result
cogent facts and arguments by the Government itself
in its public capacity and animated by a broad
national spirit, there is no power vested in this
tribunal to make orders or establish awards not
properly juridical in their character; that this tribunal
can not take into consideration questions of national
policy, but must confine itself to the determination of
whether there has been an international wrong for
which the respondent Government is responsible in
damage, and that it performs its functions best and
safest when it adheres most closely to the principles
established by the law of nations. It has then only to
determine whether there has been negligence in fact
on the part of the respondent Government in such a
way and to such an extent as to make it chargeable
with the losses which this claimant company has
suffered through the demands of the revolutionists.
country have separated themselves from the parent
state and established an independent government.
The validity of its acts, both against the parent state
and its citizens or subjects, depends entirely upon its
ultimate success. If it fails to establish itself
permanently, all such acts perish with it. If it succeed
and become recognized, its acts from the
commencement of its existence are upheld as those
of an independent nation.
U.S.v Great Britain, US – GB Claims Arb 1920
(Neilsen Report) – Supra
Rosa Gelbtrunk Claim, US v El Salvador, Arb
for the period of twenty five years, together with
privilege of steam navigation of the port of El Triunfo.
The grant was in the form of a bilateral contract,
signed by the executive officers on behalf of the
Government of El Salvador as party of the one part
Subsequently, this concession was duly acquired by
the El Salvadoranean Corporation "El Triunfo
Company, Limited", majority of shareholders are US
citizens. Intrigue commenced within the Company,
whose object was to oust the management and
control the American interests. A petition for
presented to the court of first instance. Claim
presented by Rosa Gelbtrunk, an American citizen,
against the Government of El Salvador for an

indemnity for the seizure of property at
Sensuntepeque, El Salvador, by revolutionary troops.
- Tribunal rejected the claim for compensation of
damages caused by revolution. The state to which he
owes allegiance has no right of claim for him as
against the nation in which he is a resident.
- This protocol shall be submitted for approval and
ratification by the Congress of the Republic of
Salvador. When so approved and ratified, the - But there is another and a stronger reason for such
Government of Salvador will immediately notify the
Government of the United States thereof. Unless so
approved and ratified and such notice is given by the
Government of Salvador on or before March 1st,
1902, this protocol shall be deemed null and void;
and the United States will be at liberty to proceed
diplomatically
- A citizen or subject of one nation who, in the pursuit of
commercial enterprise, carries on trade within the
territory and under the protection of the sovereignty
of a nation other than his own, is to be considered as
having cast in his lot with the subjects or citizens of
the State in which he resides and carries on business - The following reasons exist to sustain the responsibility
French Co. of Venezuela Railroad Case, 10 UN
Rep intl Arb awards, 285
- It was one of the claims of the company that the
respondent Government should be awarded to pay
France 18,483.000 bolivar; (1) on the basis that it was
responsible for the company's ruin; (2) that the
company renounce its concession and abandon its
enterprise to the respondent Government, including
all its properties. The umpire failing to find the
respondent Government responsible for the ruin of
the company, the sum claimed cannot be allowed
upon that basis.
- State cannot be held responsible for the acts of
revolutionaries unless the revolution is successful.
- Self-preservation of the state could justify the non-
payment of certain outstanding liabilities.
Kummerov Case , 10 UN Rep Intl arb Award, 361
- In the months of May, June and July 1902, several
properties were taken from the claimant’s ranch by
the revolutionary troops of Venezuela. The witnesses
worked and slept in the place where the events
occurred, and were present at the act of confiscation.
They state expressly that the authors were troops of
the "Libertadora" revolution.
- Whether or not the Government of Venezuela may be - At the beginning of the revolution led by General
held liable for the actions committed by its
revolutionary troops.
- The third article of the protocol of February 13, 1903, is
of the following tenor: The Venezuelan Government
admit their liability in cases where the claim is for
injury to, or a wrongful seizure of, property, and - The acts of a revolution becoming successful are to be
consequently the Commission will not have to decide
the question of liability, but only whether the injury
to, or seizure of, property were wrongful acts, and
what amount of compensation is due. By these
clauses it has been agreed by contract between the
German and Venezuelan Governments that
Venezuela makes itself liable for the property of
German subjects illegally confiscated by authorities
or troops of the Government or authorities or troops - Neutral property taken for the use or service of armies
of the revolution. If the Government of Venezuela
were not liable for the damage caused by the
revolution, this ought to have been expressly
mentioned in Article III, which otherwise would have - Governments like individuals are responsible only for
no meaning.
- Article III of the protocol, which governs the
Commission, does not create a new right which is
burdensome to Venezuela or in contradiction to the
13
law of nations. The law of nations recognizes,
moreover, that those States in which revolutions are
frequent, and whose governments are therefore
subject to frequent changes, are liable for the acts of
revolutionists, provided that the revolutionists are,
because of the means at their command, the
government de facto, so far as the one against which
they are exercising their forces is concerned.
liability — this is, that the General Government * * *
failed in its duty to extend to citizens of the United
States the protection which, both by the law of
nations and the stipulation of said treaty, it was
bound to do. The first duty of every government is to
make itself respected both at home and abroad.
- The confiscation of and damage to property of
foreigners are here simply the means for the support
of revolutions, and have as an object to bring these
to a favorable end, although ordinarily they are only
dedicated to the enrichment of a few revolutionary
partisans.
of the Venezuelan nation as such: (a) It has forbidden
foreigners to mix in political affairs. This has been
decreed anew in Venezuela by the law governing
foreigners. If they take part in a revolutionary
movement they must suffer severe penalties, and
they may even be expelled. They are incapacitated
— not so the Venezuelans — from defending their
property against losses by force of arms or by their
adoption of one of the parties. As a compensation for
this the Government of Venezuela is under obligation
to protect foreigners. If it does not do so, or if it is
impossible for it to do so, there is nothing more just
and equitable than to indemnify the person for the
losses suffered. (b) The confiscation of foreign
property by revolutionists has as a consequence the
enrichment of the national wealth of Venezuela at
the cost of foreign property. The money, the cattle,
the thing taken ought to accumulate somewhere. If
the revolutionists surrender, if a reconciliation with
the party in power is effected, as usually happens, a
general amnesty is decreed. The admissibility of
enriching themselves at the cost of foreigners would
be converted into a policy for the revolutions to
come.
Dix Case, 9 UN Rep Intl Arb awards, 119
Castro against the Government of President Andrade,
Ford Dix, a native-born citizen of the United States,
was engaged in the cattle business in Venezuela,
having leased pastures near Valencia and Miranda.
Revolutionary armies took his cattle.
regarded as the acts of a de facto government. Taking
of neutral property for the use or service of
successful revolutionary armies by functionaries
thereunto authorized gives a right to the owner to
demand compensation from the government
exercising such authority. Governments, like
individuals, are responsible only for the proximate
and natural consequences of their acts.
or functionaries thereunto authorized gives a right to
the owner to demand compensation from the
government exercising such authority
the proximate and natural consequences of their
acts. International as well as municipal law denies
compensation for remote consequences, in the
absence of evidence of deliberate intention to injure.

In my judgment the loss complained of in this item of
Dix's claim is too remote to entitle him to
compensation. The military authorities, under the
exigencies of war, took part of his cattle, and he is
justly entitled to compensation for their actual value.
But there is in the record no evidence of any duress
or constraint on the part of the military authorities to
compel him to sell his remaining cattle to third
parties at an inadequate price. Neither is there any - A dispute has arisen between Greece and Bulgaria
special animus shown against Mr. Dix, nor any
deliberate intention to injure him because of his
nationality. He refers himself to the estimation in
which he was held by General Castro. If the disturbed
state of the country impelled Mr. Dix to sacrifice his
property, he thereby suffered only one of those losses
due to the existence of war for which there is,
unfortunately, no redress.
- Interruption of the ordinary course of business is an
invariable and inevitable result of a state of war. But
incidental losses incurred by individuals, whether
citizens or aliens, by reason of such interruption are
too remote and consequential for compensation by
the Government within whose territory the war exists
Ambatielos Case; Greece v UK, ICJ Rep, 28, 952
- It was alleged that he had suffered considerable loss in
consequence of a contract which he concluded in
1919 with the Government of the United Kingdom
(represented by the Ministry of Shipping) for the
purchase of nine steamships which were then under
construction, and in consequence of certain adverse
judicial decisions in the English Courts in connection
therewith
- Court considers that it has no jurisdiction to go into all
the merits of the present case.
- Court cannot accept an interpretation which would
have a result obviously contrary to the language of
the Declaration and to the continuous will of both
Parties to submit all differences to arbitration of one
kind or another
Estonia v Lithuania, PCIJ
- Estonian Government instituted proceedings before the
Court against the Lithuanian Government owing to - Having determined that the actions of Bulgaria were
the refusal of the latter Government to recognize the
proprietary and concessionary rights claimed by a
Company known as the Esimene Juurdeveo
Raudteede Selts Venemaal in respect of the
Panevezys-Saldutiskis railway, which had been seized
and operated by the Lithuanian Government.
- The question whether or not the Lithuanian courts
have jurisdiction to entertain a particular suit - Restitution was found not to be a suitable form of
depends on Lithuanian law and is one on which the
Lithuanian courts alone can pronounce a final
decision. It is not for this Court to consider the
arguments which have been addressed to it for the
purpose either of establishing the jurisdiction of the - During the second half of 1916 and during 1917,
Lithuanian tribunals by adducing particular provisions
of the laws in force in Lithuania, or of denying the
jurisdiction of those tribunals by attributing a
particular character (seizure jure imperii) to the act of
the Lithuanian Government. Until it has been clearly
shown that the Lithuanian courts have no jurisdiction
to entertain a suit by the Esimene Company as to its
title to the Panevezys-Saldutiskis railway, the Court
cannot accept the contention of the Estonian Agent
that the rule as to the exhaustion of local remedies
does not apply in this case because Lithuanian law
affords no means of redress.
- Estonian company has not instituted any legal
proceedings before the Lithuanian courts in order to
establish its title to the Panevezys-Saldutiskis railway.
14
Court declares that the objection regarding the non-
exhaustion of the remedies afforded by municipal law
is well founded, and declares that the claim
presented by the Estonian Government cannot be
entertained.
Rhodore Forest Claim 3 UN Rep Intl arb Awards
1406 – Missing (Manigbas)
concerning the application of Article 181 of the Treaty
of Neuilly of 1919 to certain forests situated in a
territory ceded by Turkey to Bulgaria in 1913. Article
181 of the Treaty if Neuilly provides that private
rights guaranteed in earlier treaties should not be
affected by transfers of territory made in execution of
the later Treaty. Before the transfer, the Ottoman
Government had granted a concession for the
exploitation of the forests to a certain company, the
owners of which became Greek nationals after the
First World War. Bulgaria refused to recognize the
concession, however, and granted a fresh concession
to another company. During the hearings on the
merits it was argued on behalf of Bulgaria that the
concessionary rights were merely personal
obligations, giving cutting rights in the forests, and
that Greece could not therefore bring an international
claim in respect of them. Appearing before the
Council of the League of Nations, Bulgaria called upon
the State of Necessity founded upon the serious
financial consequences that paying this
compensation would have had for the State and the
economy of the country. The two Government agreed
that the State of necessity would become a legal
basis on which a public debt can be repudiated.
- The tribunal found that Bulgaria had unlawfully
confiscated forests belonging to Greek Nationals. The
arbitrator decided to award damages, rather than
restituto in integrum on the basis that it would be
inappropriate to compel Bulgaria to restore the
disputed forests because it was not likely that the
forests were in the same state as they had been in
1918 and in any event, only some of the
dispossessed owners had made claims.
not in full accordance with the obligations imposed by
the Treaty of Neuilly and that restitution to the
original position would not be possible, the Arbitrator
ordered that Bulgaria should pay damages based on
the value of the exploitation contracts at the date of
actual dispossession in 1918, together with an
equitable rate of interest from that date.
reparation since it would affect the right of others
Finnish Shipowners Claim 3 UN Rep Intl arb
awards, 1484 - PDF
thirteen ships belonging to Finnish ship owners, were
used by the British Government in the service of the
Allies chiefly to the White Sea and France. Four of
them were lost whilst on that service. The Finnish
ship owners, having, failed in their endeavours to be
paid by the British Government for the hire of the
ships and for the value of three of the ships lost—for
the fourth vessel lost they were paid by a Russian
Government Committee set up in London—the Finnish
Government in 1920, through their minister in
London, made claims for compensation, which were
rejected by the British Government. The shipowners
did not appeal to the higher Courts. In 1926, after
that decision of the Board, the Finnish Minister in
London proposed international arbitration. The British
 15
Government, rejecting this proposition, said that the - If there had been no South African war, we hold that
Finnish shipowners, who had a right of recourse the United States Government would have been
- The Finnish Government, although basing their obliged to take up Brown's claim with the
international claim generally on the fact of "taking Government of the Republic and that there would
and using without payment" have expressly excepted have been no ground for bringing it to the attention
as a ground of their claim any contractual relations of Great Britain. The relation of suzerain did not
between the shipowners and the British Government. operate i o render Great Britain liable for the acts
This ground—which, according to the rules accepted complained of.
by the Arbitrator, shall, in consequence, not be taken - For wrongs done to Brown by former State Great
into account when dealing with the question of the Britain not liable, neither as a succeeding State (no
requirements of the local remedies rule being fulfilled undertaking to assume such liability, pending claim
—being the only one which makes a Petition of right instead of liquidated debt; no obligation to take
possible, the remedy of Petition of right is also for this affirmative steps to right those wrongs), nor as a
reason not to be included when there is a question of former suzerain over South African Republic. Claim
this rule being applied to an international claim disallowed.
founded as the one put forward by the Finnish
Government before the Council of the League of Debenture Holders of San Marco Co. 1931, 5 UN
Nations. Rep Intl Arb Awards, 191
- The Arbitrator's decision on the question submitted to - Exhaustion of remedies. Claim for compensation for
him, in consequence of the above considerations, is transport of troops and goods on behalf of
that the Finnish shipowners have exhausted the revolutionary and federal forces, for services and
means of recourse placed at their disposal by British material furnished such forces, and for losses and
law damages resulting from the acts of such forces.
Claimant was the holder of a railroad concession in
Robert E. Brown Case 6 UN Rep Intl Arb Awards connexion with which it had agreed to a Calvo Clause.
120 Claimant had previously exhausted the only available
- Brown, an American citizen, and a mining engineer by local remedy and the domestic tribunal before which
profession, went to South Africa, interested in gold such claim was pending had taken no action thereon
mining prospects devoted particular attention to and made no indication as to when action might be
Witfontein farm. Under the prevailing system taken. While tribunal will not attempt to define with
governing the disposal and acquisition of mining precision what will amount to an undue delay of
rights, the State, being the owner of all minerals, justice, the holding of a case for nine years without
subject to certain preferential rights of the land any action whatever held undue delay. If such delay
proprietors, was accustomed from time to time by were due to volume of litigation, the judicial
proclamation to throw open for the prospecting and machinery itself must be deemed defective. Motion to
location of mining claims specified tracts of land. dismiss disallowed.
Such tracts were thereby formally designated as
public gold fields and, in accordance with the terms Mavrommatic Palestine Concessions PCIJ ser
of the proclamations, any and all persons were A.no 2 at 12 (1924)
privileged to apply for prospecting licenses to be - The Government of the Greek Republic, by an
issued by an official designated as the Responsible application instituting proceedings arising out of the
Clerk of the district. Clerk received a telegram, from alleged refusa1 on the part of the Government of
the seat of government announcing the withdrawal of Palestine, and consequently also on the part of His
the proclamation under which Witfontein had been Britannic Majesty's Government, since the year 1921
thrown open as a public digging. Brown again to recognise to their full extent the rights acquired by
protested and made a tender of the money for the M. Mavrommatis, a Greek subject, under contracts
licences, which was refused. and agreements concluded by him with the Ottoman
- Actual pegging of claims in his behalf on July 19, 1895, authorities in regard to concessions for certain public
was unsupported by any license, and therefore had works to be constructed in Palestine
no legal effect. The alternative demand for damages - The Court realises to the full the importance of the rule
was never liquidated; and that his legal remedies laying down that only disputes which cannot be
were not completely exhausted settled by negotiation should be brought before it. It
- A claimant in a foreign State is not required to exhaust recognises, in fact, that before a dispute can be made
justice in such State when there is no justice to the subject of an action at law, its subject matter
exhaust. There was a real denial of justice, and that if should have been clearly defined by means of
there had never been any war, or annexation by diplomatic negotiations. Nevertheless, in applying
Great Britain, and if this proceeding were directed this rule, the Court cannot dis- regard, amongst other
against the South African Republic, we should have considerations, the views of the States concerned,
no difficulty in awarding damages on behalf of the who are in the best position to judge as to political
claimant. reasons which may prevent the settlement of a given
- This liability never passed to or was assumed by the dispute by diplomatic negotiation.
British Government. Neither in the terms of peace - Upholds the preliminary objection submitted by His
granted at the time of the surrender of the Boer Britannic Majesty's Government in so far as it relates
Forces (answer, p. 192), nor in the Proclamation of to .the claim in respect of the works at Jaffa and
Annexation (answer, p. 191), can there be found any dismisses it in so far as it relates to the claim in
provision referring to the assumption of liabilities of respect of the works at Jerusalem ;
this nature. It should be borne in mind that this was - Reserves this part of the suit for judgment on the
simply a pending claim for damages against certain merits;
officials arid had never become a liquidated debt of - And instructs the President to fix, in accordance with
the former State. Nor is there, properly speaking, any Article 33 of the Rules of Court, the times for the
question of State succession here involved. deposit of further documents of the written
proceedings.

- Done in French and English, the French text being
authoritative
North Sea Continental Shelf (West Germany vs - Court holds that this order is valid and constitutional.
Denmark and West Germany vs Netherlands) ICJ
Feb 20, 1969
- The dispute, which was submitted to the Court on 20
February 1967,r elated to the delimitation of the
continental shelf between the Federal Republic of
Germany and Denmark on the one hand, and
between the Federal Republic of Germany and the
Netherlands on the other. The Parties asked the Court
to state the principles and rules of international law
applicable, and undertook thereafter to carry out the
delimitations on that basis
- Delimitation is a process which involves establishing
the boundaries of an area already, in principle,
appertaining to the coastal State and not the
determination de novo of such an area. Delimitation
in an equitable manner is one thing, but not the same
thing as awarding a just and equitable share of
previously undelimited are, even though in a number
of cases the results may be comparable, or even
identical.
- The basic principles in the matter of delimitation, - It cannot be denied that the rules and regulation of the
deriving from the Truman Proclamation, were that it
must be the object of agreement between the States
concerned and that such agreement must be arrived
at in accordance with equitable principles. The Parties
were under an obligation to enter into negotiations
with a view to arriving at an agreement and not - The
merely to go through a formal process sf negotiation
as a sort of prior condition for the automatic
application of a certain method of delimitation in the
absence of agreement; they were so to conduct
themselves that the negotiations were meaningful,
which would not be the case when one of them
insisted upon its own position without contemplating
any modification of it. This obligation was merely a
special application of a principle underlying all - In customary international law, opinio juris is the
international relations, which was moreover
recognized in Article 33 of the Charter of the United
Nations as one of the methods for the peaceful
settlement of international disputes
- Court's decision being ex aequo et bono. It was
precisely a rule of law that called for the application
of equitable principles, and in such cases as the
present ones the equidistance method could
unquestionably lead to inequity. Although the Parties
intended themselves to apply the principles and rules
laid down by the Court some indication was called for
of the possible ways in which they might apply them. - Actio popularis is a Latin term that means a lawsuit
- Holding that states' frequent or habitual performance
of certain actions does not, by itself, establish opinio
juris. State practice, including that of States whose
interests are specially affected, should have been
both extensive and virtually uniform in the sense of
provision invoked and should be moreover have
occurred in such a way as to show general
recognition that rule of law or legal obligation is
involved.
- The Yogyakarta Principles are a set of principles on the
SHIGENORI KURODA, petitioner, vs. Major
General RAFAEL JALANDONI, et al
- Shigenori Kuroda, formerly a Lieutenant-General of the
Japanese Imperial Army is charged before a military
Commission having unlawfully disregarded and failed
"to discharge his duties as such command, permitting
them to commit brutal atrocities and other high
crimes against noncombatant civilians and prisoners. - The Yogyakarta Principles address the broad range of
Petitioner contends that Philippines is not a signatory
nor an adherent to the Hague Convention on Rules
16
and Regulations covering Land Warfare and therefore
petitioners is charged of 'crimes' not based on law,
national and international."
Article 2 of our Constitution provides in its section 3,
that —The Philippines renounces war as an
instrument of national policy and adopts the
generally accepted principles of international law as
part of the of the nation. In accordance with the
generally accepted principle of international law of
the present day including the Hague Convention the
Geneva Convention and significant precedents of
international jurisprudence established by the United
Nation, all those person military or civilian who have
been guilty of planning preparing or waging a war of
aggression and of the commission of crimes and
offenses consequential and incidental thereto in
violation of the laws and customs of war, of humanity
and civilization are held accountable therefor.
Consequently in the promulgation and enforcement
of Execution Order 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 Constitution.
Hague and Geneva conventions form, part of and are
wholly based on the generally accepted principals of
international law. Such rule and principles therefore
form part of the law of our nation even if the
Philippines was not a signatory to the conventions
change of our form government from
Commonwealth to Republic does not affect the
prosecution of those charged with the crime of
treason committed during then Commonwealth. War
crimes committed against our people and our
government while we were a Commonwealth are
triable and punishable by our present Republic.
Opinio Juris (Opino juris sive necessitates)
second element (along with state practice) necessary
to establish a legally binding custom. Opinio juris
denotes a subjective obligation, a sense on behalf of
a state that it is bound to the law in question. The
custom to be applied must be "accepted as law".
Whether the practice of a state is due to a belief that
it is legally obliged to do a particular act is difficult to
prove objectively. Therefore, opinio juris is an
unsettled and debated notion in international law.
Actio popularis
brought by a third party in the interest of the public
as a whole. It derives from Roman penal law. For
example, it is sometimes used in the context of
genocide and terrorism prosecution under
international law. Action at law of the people.”(1) A
public or universal right to initiate a lawsuit or
prosecution
Yogyakarta Principles – PDF
application of international human rights law in
relation to sexual orientation and gender identity.
The Principles affirm binding international legal
standards with which all States must comply. They
promise a different future where all people born free
and equal in dignity and rights can fulfil that precious
birthright.
human rights standards and their application to
issues of sexual orientation and gender

identity. These include extrajudicial executions,
violence and torture, access to justice, privacy, non-
discrimination, rights to freedom of expression and
assembly, employment, health, education,
immigration and refugee issues, public participation,
and a variety of other rights.
- The Principles affirm the primary obligation of States to
implement human rights. Each Principle is
accompanied by detailed recommendations to
States. The Principles also emphasize, however, that
all actors have responsibilities to promote and
protect human rights. Additional recommendations - By submission of 13 October 1999, the State party
are therefore addressed to the UN human rights
system, national human rights institutions, the
media, non-governmental organizations, and others.
Incorporation Clause in 1987 Constitution
- Section 2. The Philippines renounces war as an
instrument of national policy, adopts the generally
accepted principles of international law as part of the
law of the land and adheres to the policy of peace,
equality, justice, freedom, cooperation, and amity
with all nations.
Piandong v. Philippines, Case No. 869-1999
- On 7 November 1994, Messrs. Piandiong, Morallos and
Bulan were convicted of robbery with homicide and
sentenced to death by the Regional Trial Court of
Caloocan City. The Supreme Court denied the appeal,
and confirmed both conviction and sentence by
judgement of 19 February 1997. Further motions for
reconsideration were denied on 3 March 1998. After - Concerning the claim of lack of legal assistance, the
the execution had been scheduled for 6 April 1999,
the Office of the President, on 5 April 1999, granted a
three month reprieve of execution. No clemency was
however granted and on 15 June 1999, counsel
presented a communication to the Committee under
the Optional Protocol.
- On 23 June 1999, the Committee, acting through its
Special Rapporteur for New Communications, - The State party assures the Committee of its
transmitted the communication to the State party
with a request to provide information and
observations in respect of both admissibility and
merits of the claims, in accordance with rule 91, - Counsel argues that Messrs. Piandiong, Morallos and
paragraph 2, of the Committee’s rules of procedure.
The State party was also requested, under rule 86 of
the Committee's rules of procedure, not to carry out
the death sentence against Messrs. Piandiong,
Morallos andBulan, while their case was under - With regard to the State party's argument that the
consideration by the Committee.
- In the afternoon of 8 July 1999, however, Messrs.
Piandiong, Morallos and Bulan were executed by
lethal injection.
- Concerning the request to the Committee for interim
The complaint
- Counsel states that Messrs Piandiong and Morallos
were arrested on 27 February 1994, on suspicion of
having participated, on 21 February 1994, in the
robbery of passengers of a jeepney in Caloocan City,
during which one of the passengers, a policeman,
was killed. After arriving in the police station, Messrs
Piandiong and Morallos were hit in the stomach in
order to make them confess, but they refused.
During a line up, the eyewitnesses failed to recognize
them as the robbers. The police then placed them in
a room by themselves, and directed the - By adhering to the Optional Protocol, a State party to
eyewitnesses to point them out. No counsel was
present to assist the accused. During the trial,
Messrs. Piandiong, Morallos and Bulan testified under
oath, but the judge chose to disregard their
testimony, because of lack of independent
corroboration. Counsel further complains that the
17
death sentence was wrongly imposed, because the
judge considered that an aggravating circumstance
existed, as the crime was committed by more than
three armed persons. According to counsel, however,
this was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Moreover, counsel states that the judge should have
taken into account the mitigating circumstance of
voluntary surrender, since Messrs. Piandiong,
Morallos and Bulan came with the police without
resisting.
The State party's observations
explains that domestic remedies were exhausted
with the Supreme Court's decision of 3 March 1998,
rejecting the supplemental motions for
reconsideration. The convicts and their counsel could
have filed a communication with the Human Rights
Committee at that date. However, they did not do so,
but instead petitioned the President for clemency. On
6 April 1999, the President granted a 90 days
reprieve, in order to examine the request for pardon.
The request was considered by the Presidential
Review Committee, composed of the Secretary of
Justice, the Executive Secretary and the Chief
Presidential Counsel. After careful study of the case,
the Committee found no compelling reason to
recommend to the President the exercise of
presidential prerogative. The State party explains
that the President's power to grant pardon cannot
reverse nor review the decision by the Supreme
Court.
State party notes that the accused had legal
assistance throughout the trial proceedings and the
appeal. With respect to the right to life, the State
party notes that the Supreme Court has ruled on the
constitutionality of the death penalty as well as the
methods of execution and found them to be
constitutional.
commitment to the Covenant and states that its
action was not intended to frustrate the Committee.
Counsel’s comments
Bulan considered resort to the President as a
domestic remedy necessary for them to exhaust
before presenting their communication to the Human
Rights Committee.
Supreme Court has ruled the death penalty and
method of execution constitutional, counsel argues
that the Supreme Court’s judgement deserves to be
reconsidered.
measures, counsel reiterates that they waited to
present the communication to the Committee, until
all domestic remedies, including the petition for
clemency, had been exhausted. Counsel further
states that it is hard to take the State party’s
expressed commitment to the Covenant seriously, in
the light of the blatant execution of Messrs.
Piandiong, Morallos and Bulan, despite the
Committee’s request not to do so.
The State party’s failure to respect the Committee’s
request for interim measures under its Rule 86
the Covenant recognizes the competence of the
Human Rights Committee to receive and consider
communications from individuals claiming to be
victims of violations of any of the rights set forth in
the Covenant (Preamble and Article 1). Implicit in a
State's adherence to the Protocol is an undertaking

to cooperate with the Committee in good faith so as
to permit and enable it to consider such
communications, and after examination to forward its
views to the State party and to the individual (Article
5 (1), (4)). It is incompatible with these obligations
for a State party to take any action that would
prevent or frustrate the Committee in its
consideration and examination of the
communication, and in the expression of its Views.
- In respect of the present communication, the authors
allege that the alleged victims were denied rights
under Articles 6 and 14 of the Covenant. Having
been notified of the communication, the State party
breaches its obligations under the Protocol, if it
proceeds to execute the alleged victims before the
Committee concludes its consideration and
examination, and the formulation and
communication of its Views. It is particularly
inexcusable for the State to do so after the
Committee has acted under its rule 86 to request
that the State party refrain from doing so.
- The Committee cannot accept the State party’s
argument that it was inappropriate for counsel to
submit a communication to the Human Rights
Committee after they had applied for Presidential
clemency and this application had been rejected.
There is nothing in the Optional Protocol that restricts
the right of an alleged victim of a violation of his or
her rights under the Covenant from submitting a
communication after a request for clemency or
pardon has been rejected, and the State party may
not unilaterally impose such a condition that limits
both the competence of the Committee and the right
of alleged victims to submit communications.
Furthermore, the State party has not shown that by
acceding to the Committee’s request for interim
measures the course of justice would have been
obstructed.
Issues and proceedings before the Committee
- Counsel has claimed that the identification of Messrs.
Piandiong and Morallos by eyewitnesses during the
police line-up was irregular, since the first time
around none of the eyewitnesses recognized them,
upon which they were put aside in a room and
policemen directed the eyewitnesses to point them
out. The Court rejected their claim in this respect, as
it was uncorroborated by any disinterested and
reliable witness. Moreover, the Court considered that
the accused were identified in Court by the
eyewitnesses and that this identification was
sufficient. The Committee recalls its jurisprudence
that it is generally for the courts of States parties,
and not for the Committee, to evaluate the facts and
evidence in a particular case.
- With regard to the other claims, concerning the alleged
ill-treatment upon arrest, the evidence against the
accused, and the credibility of the eyewitnesses, the
Committee notes that all these issues were before
the domestic courts, which rejected them.
- The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5,
paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol to the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is
of the view that it cannot make a finding of a
violation of any of the articles of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Committee
reiterates its conclusion that the State committed a
grave breach of its obligations under the Protocol by
putting the alleged victims to death before the
Committee had concluded its consideration of the
communication.
18
PBM Emp. Org v PBM Co., Inc., 51 SCRA 189
(1973)
- In a democracy, the preservation and enhancement of
the dignity and worth of the human personality is the
central core as well as the cardinal (foremost
importance) article of faith of our civilization. The
inviolable character of man as an individual must be
"protected to the largest possible extent in his
thoughts and in his beliefs as the citadel of his
person.
- The Bill of Rights is designed to preserve the ideals of
liberty, equality and security "against the assaults of
opportunism, the expediency of the passing hour, the
erosion of small encroachments, and the scorn and
derision of those who have no patience with general
principles
- the purpose of the Bill of Rights is to withdraw "certain
subjects from the vicissitudes (changing of
circumstance) of political controversy, to place them
beyond the reach of majorities and officials, and to
establish them as legal principles to be applied by the
courts. One's rights to life, liberty and property, to
free speech, or free press, freedom of worship and
assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be
submitted to a vote; they depend on the outcome of
no elections." 4 Laski proclaimed that "the happiness
of the individual, not the well-being of the State, was
the criterion by which its behaviour was to be judged.
His interests, not its power, set the limits to the
authority it was entitled to exercise
- freedoms of expression and of assembly as well as the
right to petition are included among the immunities
reserved by the sovereign people to protect the ideas
that we abhor or hate more than the ideas we
cherish, not only to protect the minority who want to
talk, but also to benefit the majority who refuse to
listen. The liberties of one are the liberties of all; and
the liberties of one are not safe unless the liberties of
all are protected.
- The rights of free expression, free assembly and
petition, are not only civil rights but also political
rights essential to man's enjoyment of his life, to his
happiness and to his full and complete fulfillment
- While the Bill of Rights also protects property rights,
the primacy of human rights over property rights is
recognized. Property and property rights can be lost
thru prescription; but human rights are
imprescriptible
- In the hierarchy of civil liberties, the rights of free
expression and of assembly occupy a preferred
position as they are essential to the preservation and
vitality of our civil and political institutionsIn the
hierarchy of civil liberties, the rights of free
expression and of assembly occupy a preferred
position as they are essential to the preservation and
vitality of our civil and political institutions sanctity
and the sanction not permitting dubious intrusions.
- superiority of these freedoms over property rights is
underscored by the fact that a mere reasonable or
rational relation between the means employed by the
law and its object or purpose — that the law is
neither arbitrary nor discriminatory nor oppressive —
would suffice to validate a law which restricts or
impairs property rights. 12 On the other hand, a
constitutional or valid infringement of human rights
requires a more stringent criterion, namely existence
of a grave and immediate danger of a substantive
evil which the State has the right to prevent
BRIGIDO R. SIMON, vs. COMMISSION ON HUMAN
RIGHTS

- The extent of the authority and power of the
Commission on Human Rights ("CHR") The petitioners
ask us to prohibit public respondent CHR from further
hearing and investigating CHR Case No. 90-1580,
entitled "Fermo, et al. vs. Quimpo, et al."
- The Commission on Human Rights was created and
powers and functions of the Commission are defined
by the 1987 Constitution, thus: to
- Investigate, on its own or on complaint by any party,
all forms of human rights violations involving civil and
political rights;
- Adopt its operational guidelines and rules of procedure,
and cite for contempt for violations thereof in
accordance with the Rules of Court;
- Provide appropriate legal measures for the protection
of human rights of all persons within the Philippines,
as well as Filipinos residing abroad, and provide for
preventive measures and legal aid services to the
underprivileged whose human rights have been
violated or need protection;
- Exercise visitorial powers over jails, prisons, or
detention facilities;
- Establish a continuing program of research, education,
and information to enhance respect for the primacy
of human rights;
- Recommend to the Congress effective measures to
promote human rights and to provide for
compensation to victims of violations of human
rights, or their families;
- Monitor the Philippine Government's compliance with
international treaty obligations on human rights;
- Grant immunity from prosecution to any person whose
testimony or whose possession of documents or other
evidence is necessary or convenient to determine the
truth in any investigation conducted by it or under its
authority;
- Request the assistance of any department, bureau,
office, or agency in the performance of its functions;
- Appoint its officers and employees in accordance with
law; and
- Perform such other duties and functions as may be
provided by law.
- CHR is not a quasi-judicial body. The most that may be
conceded to the Commission in the way of
adjudicative power is that it may investigate, i.e.,
receive evidence and make findings of fact as regards
claimed human rights violations involving civil and
political rights. But fact finding is not adjudication,
and cannot be likened to the judicial function of a
court of justice, or even a quasi-judicial agency or
official.
- Section 18, Article XIII, of the 1987 Constitution, is a
provision empowering the Commission on Human
Rights to "investigate, on its own or on complaint by
any party, all forms of human rights violations
involving civil and political rights" (Sec. 1).
- Civil rights - (rights) that belong to every citizen of the
state or country, or, in wider sense, to all its
inhabitants, and are not connected with the
organization or administration of the government.
They include the rights of property, marriage, equal
protection of the laws, freedom of contract, etc. Or,
as otherwise defined civil rights are rights
appertaining to a person by virtue of his citizenship in
a state or community. Such term may also refer, in its
general sense, to rights capable of being enforced or
redressed in a civil action. Also quite often mentioned
are the guarantees against involuntary servitude,
religious persecution, unreasonable searches and
seizures, and imprisonment for debt.
- Political rights - the right to participate, directly or
indirectly, in the establishment or administration of
19
government, the right of suffrage, the right to hold
public office, the right of petition and, in general, the
rights appurtenant to citizenship vis-a-vis the
management of government.
- The order for the demolition of the stalls, sari-sari
stores and carinderia of the private respondents
cannot fall within the compartment of "human rights
violations involving civil and political rights" intended
by the Constitution.
- The "preventive measures and legal aid services"
mentioned in the Constitution refer to extrajudicial
and judicial remedies (including a writ of preliminary
injunction) which the CHR may seek from proper
courts on behalf of the victims of human rights
violations. Not being a court of justice, the CHR itself
has no jurisdiction to issue the writ
HON. ISIDRO CARIÑO vs. THE COMMISSION ON
HUMAN RIGHTS
- The issue raised: May the Commission take cognizance
of the case and grant that relief?
- 800 public school teachers, among them members of
the Manila Public School Teachers Association
(MPSTA) and Alliance of Concerned Teachers (ACT)
undertook what they described as "mass concerted
actions" to "dramatize and highlight" their plight
resulting from the alleged failure of the public
authorities to act upon grievances that had time and
again been brought to the latter's attention.
- The threshold question is whether or not the
Commission on Human Rights has the power under
the Constitution to do so; whether or not, like a court
of justice, or even a quasi-judicial agency, it has
jurisdiction or adjudicatory powers over, or the power
to try and decide, or hear and determine, certain
specific type of cases, like alleged human rights
violations involving civil or political rights.
- The Court declares the Commission on Human Rights
to have no such power; and that it was not meant by
the fundamental law to be another court or quasi-
judicial agency in this country, or duplicate much less
take over the functions of the latter.
- The legal meaning of "investigate" is essentially the
same: "(t)o follow up step by step by patient inquiry
or observation. To trace or track; to search into; to
examine and inquire into with care and accuracy;
- Adjudicate " means: "To settle in the exercise of judicial
authority. To determine finally.
EXPORT PROCESSING ZONE AUTHORITY,
petitioner, vs. CHR
- On May 1980, PD. 1980 was issued reserving and
designating certain parcels of land in Cavite for
purposes of development. Eventually, a parcel of
land was sold to the Export Processing Zone
Authority (EPZA). Before EPZA could take possession
of the property, several individuals had entered the
premises and made use of the land for agricultural
purposes without permission. EPZA offered financial
assistance to the intruders to convince them to
depart peacefully from its property. Quitclaims were
signed by those who accepted the offer, including
the private respondents Teresita Valles, Loreto Aledia
and Pedro Ordonez.
- Ten years later, private respondents filed with the CHR
a joint complaint, praying for justice and other reliefs
and remedies against EPZA for violation of their
human rights. This happened when the EPZA
allegedly demolished the former’s residence despite
their showing of a letter postponing the demolition
issued by the Office of the President. Furthermore, it
was alleged that the mediamen covering the
demolition incident have been even beaten up. The

CHR issued an injunction order to stop the acts of
EPZA. However, despite the order, EPZA continued
their demolition acts. The CHR thus issued a second
injunction together with a TRO. EPZA now questions
validity of the issuances.
- Whether or not the Commission on Human Rights
acted in excess of its jurisdiction amounting to grave
abuse of discretion, on the ground that it has no
authority to issue writs of injunction and TRO.
- The Commission on Human Rights acted in excess of
its jurisdiction amounting to grave abuse of
discretion because it has no authority to issue
injunction and TRO. The constitutional provision
directing the CHR “to provide for preventive
measures and legal aid services to whose human - The Court finds that the respondent did not act
rights have been violated or need protection” may
not be construed to confer jurisdiction on the
Commission to issue a restraining order or writ of
injunction for, if that were the intention, the
Constitution would have expressly said so.
Furthermore, the "preventive measures and legal aid
services" mentioned in the Constitution refer to
extrajudicial and judicial remedies (including a
preliminary writ of injunction) which the CHR may
seek from the proper courts on behalf of the victims
of human rights violations. Not being a court of
justice, the CHR itself has no jurisdiction to issue the
writs in question.
A.M. No. 1120-MJ May 5, 1976
DOMINADOR C. BALDOZA, complainant, vs. HON.
JUDGE RODOLFO B. DIMAANO, respondent.
- In a verified letter-complaint dated September 9, 1975,
the Municipal Secretary of Taal, Batangas, charges
Municipal Judge Rodolfo B. Dimaano, of the same
municipality, with abuse of authority in refusing to
allow employees of the Municipal Mayor to examine
the criminal docket records of the Municipal Court to
secure data in connection with their contemplated
report on the peace and order conditions of the said
municipality.
- Respondent, in answer to the complaint, stated that
there has never been an intention to refuse access to
official court records; that although court records are
among public documents open to inspection not only
by the parties directly involved but also by other
persons who have legitimate interest to such
inspection, yet the same is always subject to
reasonable regulation as to who, when, where and
how they may be inspected.
- He further asserted that a court has unquestionably
the power to prevent an improper use or inspection - WHEREFORE, the case against respondent is hereby
of its records and the furnishing of copies therefrom
may be refused where the person requesting is not
motivated by a serious and legitimate interest but
acts out of whim or fancy or mere curiosity or to
gratify private spite or to promote public scandal.
- Respondent significantly observed: “Restrictions are
imposed by the Court for fear of an abuse in the
exercise of the right. For fear that the dirty hands of
partisan politics might again be at play. Some of the
cases filed and decided by the Court after the
declaration of Martial Law and years after the
election still bore the stigma of partisan politics as
shown in the affidavits and testimonies of witnesses.
Without casting aspersion on any particular
individual, it is worth mentioning, that the padlocks
of the door of the Court has recently been tampered
by inserting papers and matchsticks xxx.”
- A careful perusal, scrutiny, and study of the
communications between the complainant and the
respondent, together with the answers filed by the
20
latter, reveal that there is no showing of abuse of
authority on the part of the respondent. The
respondent allowed the complainant to open and
view the docket books of the respondent under
certain conditions and under his control and
supervision. Complainant admitted that he was
aware of the rules and conditions imposed by the
respondent when he went to his office to view his
docket books for the purpose mentioned in his
communication. He also agreed that he is amenable
to such rules and conditions which the respondent
may impose. Under these conditions, therefore, the
Court finds that the respondent has not committed
any abuse of authority.
arbitrarily in the premises. As found by the
Investigating Judge, the respondent allowed the
complainant to open and view the docket books of
respondent certain conditions and under his control
and supervision. It has not been shown that the rules
and conditions imposed by the respondent were
unreasonable. The access to public records
predicated on the right of the people to acquire
information on matters of public concern.
Undoubtedly in a democracy, the public has a
legitimate interest in matters of social and political
significance.
- The New Constitution now expressly recognizes that
the people are entitled to information on matters of
public concern and thus are expressly granted access
to official records, as well as documents of official
acts, or transactions, or decisions, subject to such
limitations imposed by law. The incorporation of this
right in the Constitution is a recognition of the
fundamental role of free exchange of information in a
democracy. There can be no realistic perception by
the public of the nation's problems, nor a meaningful
democratic decision making if they are denied access
to information of general interest. Information is
needed to enable the members of society to cope
with the exigencies of the times. As has been aptly
observed: "Maintaining the flow of such information
depends on protection for both its acquisition and its
dissemination since, if either process is interrupted,
the flow inevitably ceases.” However, restrictions on
access to certain records may be imposed by law.
Thus, access restrictions imposed to control civil
insurrection have been permitted upon a showing of
immediate and impending danger that renders
ordinary means of control inadequate to maintain
order.
dismissed.
David vs Arroyo
Facts:
- 7 consolidated petitions for certiorari and
prohibition allege that in issuing Presidential
Proclamation No. 1017 (PP 1017) which declared
state of national emergency and General Order
No. 5 (G.O. No. 5), calling out the AFP, President
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo committed grave abuse
of discretion. Hence, such issuances are void for
being unconstitutional.
- On March 3, 2006, after all these petitions had
been filed, the President lifted PP 1017 (issued in
Feb 24) through Proclamation 1021
- In their presentation of the factual bases of PP
1017 and G.O. No. 5, respondents stated that the
proximate cause behind the executive issuances
was the conspiracy among some military officers,
leftist insurgents of the New People’s Army (NPA),

and some members of the political opposition in a
plot to unseat or assassinate President Arroyo.
They considered the aim to oust or assassinate the
President and take-over the reigns of government
as a clear and present danger.
- Since the permit to rally was lifted via proc 1017,
rallies were dispersed during which Randolf S.
David was arrested without warrant. CIDG raided
the Daily Tribune offices in Manila, Malaya, and its
sister publication, the tabloid Abante to tell media
outlets not to connive or do anything that would
help the rebels in bringing down this government.
- In G.R. No. 171396, David, et al. assailed PP 1017
on the grounds that
1. it encroaches on the emergency powers of
Congress
2. It is a subterfuge (meaning trick) to avoid the
constitutional requirements for the imposition
of martial law
3. It violates the constitutional guarantees of
freedom of the press, of speech and of
assembly.
Issue:
W/N moot and academic petitions are still subject to
judicial review
Rulings:
- But the power of judicial review does not repose
upon the courts a “self-starting capacity.”23 Courts
may exercise such power only when the following
requisites are present: first, there must be an
actual case or controversy; second, petitioners
have to raise a question of constitutionality; third,
the constitutional question must be raised at the
earliest opportunity; and fourth, the decision of the
constitutional question must be necessary to the
determination of the case itself.
- The “moot and academic” principle is not a magical
formula that can automatically dissuade the courts
in resolving a case. Courts will decide cases,
otherwise moot and academic, if: first, there is a
grave violation of the Constitution;31 second, the
exceptional character of the situation and the
paramount public interest is involved; third, when
constitutional issue raised requires formulation of
controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar,
and the public and fourth, the case is capable of
repetition yet evading review
- All the foregoing exceptions are present here and
justify this Court’s assumption of jurisdiction over
the instant petitions. Petitioners alleged that the
issuance of PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5 violates the
Constitution. There is no question that the issues
being raised affect the public’s interest, involving
as they do the people’s basic rights to freedom of
expression, of assembly and of the press.
Moreover, the Court has the duty to formulate
guiding and controlling constitutional precepts,
doctrines or rules. It has the symbolic function of
educating the bench and the bar, and in the
present petitions, the military and the police, on
the extent of the protection given by constitutional
guarantees.35 And lastly, respondents’ contested
actions are capable of repetition. Certainly, the
petitions are subject to judicial review.
Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network, Inc. -
v Anti-Terrorism Council, 632 SCRA 146 (2010)
- Before the Court are six petitions challenging the
constitutionality of Republic Act No. 9372 (RA 9372),
An Act to Secure the State and Protect our People
from Terrorism, otherwise known as the Human
21
Security Act of 2007, signed into law on March 6,
2007.
Petition
ers
resort
to
certiora
ri is
imprope
r
- Preliminarily, certiorari does not lie against
respondents who do not exercise judicial or quasi-
judicial functions. Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court
Petition
ers lack
locus
standi
- Locus standi or legal standing requires a personal
stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure
that concrete adverseness which sharpens the
presentation of issues upon which the court so
largely depends for illumination of difficult
constitutional questions.
- Petitioner-organizations assert locus standi on the
basis of being suspected communist fronts by the
government, especially the military; whereas
individual petitioners invariably invoke the
transcendental importance doctrine and their status
as citizens and taxpayers.
- Petitioners have not presented any personal stake in
the outcome of the controversy. None of them
faces any charge under RA 9372.
Petition
ers fail
to
present
an
actual
case or
controv
ersy
- By constitutional fiat, judicial power operates only
when there is an actual case or controversy.
- The Court is not unaware that a reasonable certainty of
the occurrence of a perceived threat to any
constitutional interest suffices to provide a basis for
mounting a constitutional challenge. This, however,
is qualified by the requirement that there must
be sufficient facts to enable the Court to
intelligently adjudicate the issues.
- Petitioners obscure allegations of sporadic
surveillance and supposedly being tagged as
communist fronts in no way approximate
a credible threat of prosecution. From these
allegations, the Court is being lured to render
an advisory opinion, which is not its function.
- Without any justiciable controversy, the petitions have
become pleas for declaratory relief, over which the
Court has no original jurisdiction. Then again,
declaratory actions characterized by double
contingency, where both the activity the petitioners
intend to undertake and the anticipated reaction to it
of a public official are merely theorized, lie beyond
judicial review for lack of ripeness.
The possibility of abuse in the implementation of RA
9372 does not avail to take the present petitions out
of the realm of the surreal and merely
imagined. Such possibility is not peculiar to RA 9372
since the exercise of any power granted by law may
be abused. Allegations of abuse must be anchored on
real events before courts may step in to settle
 22
actual controversies involving rights which are by the desire to coerce the government to give in to
legally demandable and enforceable. an unlawful demand.
A facial invalidation of a statute is allowed only - In insisting on a facial challenge on the invocation that
in free speech cases, wherein certain rules of the law penalizes speech, petitioners contend that
constitutional litigation are rightly excepted the element of unlawful demand in the definition of
- Petitioners assail for being intrinsically vague and terrorism must necessarily be transmitted through
impermissibly broad the definition of the crime of some form of expression protected by the free
terrorism under RA 9372 in that terms speech clause.
like widespread and extraordinary fear and panic - The argument does not persuade. What the law seeks
among the populace and coerce the government to to penalize is conduct, not speech.
give in to an unlawful demand are nebulous, leaving
law enforcement agencies with no standard to VICTOR ORQUIOLA and HONORATA ORQUIOLA,
measure the prohibited acts. petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS,
- To be sure, the doctrine of vagueness and the doctrine TANDANG SORA DEVELOPMENT
of overbreadth do not operate on the same plane. Doctrine: No person shall be deprived of
- A statute or act suffers from the defect property without due process of law. Failure to
of vagueness when it lacks comprehensible implead proper parties- in-interest, they cannot
standards that men of common intelligence must be reached by decision as no man shall be
necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its affected by any proceeding to which he is a
application. It is repugnant to the Constitution in two stranger who did not have his day in court. Only
respects: (1) it violates due process for failure to real parties in interest in an action are bound by
accord persons, especially the parties targeted by it, the judgment
fair notice of the conduct to avoid; and (2) it leaves Facts:
law enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying out its  Petition for review seeking the reversal of the CA
provisions and becomes an arbitrary flexing of the decision which dismissed the petition to prohibit
Government muscle. Theoverbreadth doctrine, Judge Vivencio Baclig of the RTC from issuing a writ
meanwhile, decrees that a governmental purpose to of demolition against petitioners, and the sheriff and
control or prevent activities constitutionally subject deputy sheriff from implementing an alias writ of
to state regulations may not be achieved by means execution.
which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby  Pura Kalaw Ledesma was the registered owner of
invade the area of protected freedoms. Lot 689 in Tandang Sora, Quezon City which is
- As distinguished from the vagueness doctrine, the adjacent to certain portions of Lot 707 of the Piedad
overbreadth doctrine assumes that individuals will Estates, registered in the name of Herminigilda
understand what a statute prohibits and will Pedro
accordingly refrain from that behavior, even though  Herminigilda sold the lots to Mariano Lising,
some of it is protected.
registered them in the name of M.B. Lising Realty
- A facial challenge is likewise different from an as-
and subdivided them into smaller lots. Petitioners,
applied challenge.
spouses Victor and Honorata Orquiola, purchased a
- Distinguished from an as-applied challenge which
portion of this Lot 707-A-2
considers only extant facts affecting real litigants,
 In 1969, Pura Kalaw Ledesma filed Civil Case against
a facial invalidation is an examination of the entire
law, pinpointing its flaws and defects, not only on Herminigilda Pedro and Mariano Lising for allegedly
the basis of its actual operation to the parties, but encroaching upon Lot 689. During the pendency of
also on the assumption or prediction that its very the action, Tandang Sora Development Corporation
existence may cause others not before the court to replaced Pura Kalaw Ledesma as plaintiff by virtue
refrain from constitutionally protected speech or of an assignment of Lot 689 Trial continued for three
activities. decades.
Since a penal statute may only be assailed for  On August 21, 1991, the trial court finally adjudged
being vague as applied to petitioners, a limited defendants Pedro and Lising jointly and severally
vagueness analysis of the definition of terrorism liable for encroaching on plaintiffs land and ordered
in RA 9372 is legally impermissible absent to remove the house they constructed on the land
an actual or imminent charge against them they were occupying.
- While Estrada did not apply the overbreadth doctrine,  On April 2, 1998, petitioners received a Special
it did not preclude the operation of the vagueness Order to remove, at their expense, all constructions,
test on the Anti-Plunder Law as applied to the therein including barbed wires and fences, which
petitioner, finding, however, that there was no basis defendants constructed on plaintiffs property, within
to review the law on its face and in its entirety. It fifteen (15) days from notice otherwise, this Court
stressed that statutes found vague as a matter of will issue a writ of demolition against them.
due process typically are invalidated only 'as applied'  Petitioners filed with the CA a petition for prohibition
to a particular defendant. with prayer for a restraining order and preliminary
There is no merit in the claim that RA 9372 injunction alleging that they bought the subject
regulates speech so as to permit a facial parcel of land in good faith and for value, hence,
analysis of its validity they were parties in interest. Since they were not
- From the definition of the crime of terrorism in the impleaded in Civil Case, the writ of demolition
earlier cited Section 3 of RA 9372, the following issued in connection therewith cannot be enforced
elements may be culled: (1) the offender commits an against them because to do so would amount to
act punishable under any of the cited provisions of deprivation of property without due process of law.
the Revised Penal Code, or under any of the  CA dismissed the petition as well as the motion for
enumerated special penal laws; (2) the commission reconsideration, ruling that petitioners were
of the predicate crime sows and creates a condition considered privies who derived their rights from
of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic Lising by virtue of the sale and could be reached by
among the populace; and (3) the offender is actuated the execution order in Civil Case
 23
First Issue: Whether the alias writ of execution may be owner of property which is the Philippine Realty
enforced against petitioners Corporation (PRC).
Ruling: - PRC sold the lot to Remedios Magbanua. Mangahas
-Petitioners submit that Medina Case*** is not and Ramos opposed and instituted Civil Case to
controlling since Medina markedly differs from the
annul the sale and to compel PRC to execute a
present case on major points.
o Timing of acquisition of subject property – Medina contract of sale in their favor. The trial court
acquired prior commencement and conclusion of dismissed the complaint and ordered Mangahas and
case, while present case, petitioners acquired Ramos to vacate.
before the commencement of Civil Case - When Magbanua sought the execution of the judgment
o Basis of Right over the disputed land of the in Civil Case petitioner Medina opposed contending
predecessors-in-interest - In Medina based on that she bought the houses from spouses Ricardo
Titulo de Composicion Con El Estado issued by and Eufrocinia de Guzman (Mangahas and Ramos
the Spanish Government, while petitioners based sold the property to spouses de Guzman), relying
on fully recognized Torrens title.
title from Titulo de Composicion Con El Estado
o In Medina merely relied on the title of her
predecessor-in-interest and tax declarations to .Medina argued that the trial court did not acquire
prove her alleged ownership of the land, while jurisdiction over her, claiming that she was not a
petitioners acquired the registered title in their party in first Civil Case.
own names, while the petitioner - Court ruled that first civil case could be enforced
-In sale of a parcel of land under the Torrens system, against petitioner even though she was not a party
person dealing with the registered property need thereto. Petitioner was privy to the two judgment
not go beyond the certificate of title as he can rely debtors Mangahas and Ramos.
solely on the title and annotations on the title.
Second Issue: Whether petitioners were innocent
Govt. of HK v Olalia, GR 153875, 19 Apr 2007
purchasers for value and builders in good faith
- This case discusses whether the right to bail
Ruling:
guaranteed under the Bill of Rights extends to a
-Buyer in good faith - buys the property of another
prospective extraditee in an extradition proceeding.
without notice that some other person has a right to
- On January 30, 1995, the Republic of the Philippines
or interest in such property.
and the British Colony of Hong Kong signed an
-Buyer for value if he pays a full and fair price at the
“Agreement for the Surrender of Convicted Persons”.
time of the purchase or before he has notice of the
It took effect on June 20, 1997.
claim or interest of some other person in the
- Private respondent Munoz was charged before the
property.
Hong Kong Court with three (3) counts of the offense
-Determination of whether one is a buyer in good faith
of “accepting an advantage as agent” , in violation of
is a factual issue which generally is outside the
Sec. 9 (1)(a) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance,
province of this except if CA failed to take into
Cap.201 of Hong Kong. He also faces seven (7)
account certain relevant facts which, if properly
counts of the offense of conspiracy to defraud,
considered, would justify a different conclusion.
penalized by the common law of Hong Kong.
-CA failed to consider that petitioners purchased the
Warrants of arrest were issued against him. If
subject land in 1964 from Mariano Lising and the
convicted, he faces a jail term of seven (7) to
civil case commenced sometime in 1969. Petitioners
fourteen (14) years for each charge.
could reasonably rely on Mariano Lisings Certificate
- On September 13, 1999, the DOJ received from the
of Title which at the time of purchase was still free
Hong Kong Department of Justice a request for the
from any third party claim. Hence, petitioners are
provisional arrest of Munoz. The RTC branch 19,
buyers in good faith and for value.
Manila issued an Order of Arrest against Munoz. That
-Builder in good faith - one who builds with the belief
same day, the NBI agents arrested and detained him.
that the land he is building on is his, and is ignorant
- Munoz filed a petition for bail which was opposed by
of any defect or flaw in his title. Petitioner spouses
the Government of Hong Kong. After hearing, Judge
acquired the land without knowledge of any defect
Bernardo Jr., issued an Order denying the Petition for
in the title of Mariano Lising. It was only in 1998,
Bail, holding that there is no Philippine law granting
when the sheriff of Quezon City tried to execute the
bail in extradition cases and that private respondent,
judgment in Civil Case which cannot serve as notice
Munoz is a high “flight risk”. Judge Bernardo Jr.,
of such adverse claim to petitioners since they were
inhibited himself from further hearing the case, it
not impleaded therein as parties.
was raffled off to Branch 8 presided by Judge Olalia.
-Petitioners have rights over the subject property and
Munoz filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Order
hence they are proper parties in interest in any
denying his application for bail and this was granted
case, hence they should have been impleaded in
by Olalia. Government of Hong Kong filed an urgent
civil case.
Motion to Vacate the above Order, but was denied
-Failure to implead proper parties in interest, they
by Judge Olalia. Hence, this petition.
cannot be reached by decision as no man shall be
- Whether or not respondent judge (Olalia) acted with
affected by any proceeding to which he is a stranger
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
who did not have his day in court. Only real parties
excess of jurisdiction as there is no provision in the
in interest in an action are bound by the judgment
Constitution granting bail for a potential extradite.
-Demolition of their house on their own titled lot
- No. Bearing in mind the purpose if extradition
tantamounts to a deprivation of property without
proceedings, the premise behind the issuance of the
due process of law.
arrest warrant and the “temporary detention” is the
-Petition granted.
possibility of flight of the potential extraditee. This is
based on the assumption that such extraditee is a
Medina Case
fugitive from justice. Given the foregoing, the
- Benedicta Mangahas and Francisco Ramos occupied
prospective extraditee thus bears the onus probandi
and built houses on the lot without consent of the

of showing that he or she is not a flight risk and
should be granted bail.
- The Philippines along with the other member of the
family of nations, committed to uphold the
fundamental right as well as value the worth and
dignity of every person. Clearly the rights of a
prospective extraditee to apply for bail in this
jurisdiction must be viewed in the light of the various
treaty obligations of the Philippines concerning
respect for the promotion of protection of human
rights. Under these treaties, the presumption lies in
favour of human liberty. Thus, the Phils. should see to
it that the right to liberty of every individual is not
impaired.
- Extradition is not a trial to determine the guilt or
innocence of the potential extraditee nor it is a full-
blown civil action, but one that is merely
administrative in character. Its objective is to prevent
the escape of a person accused or convicted of a
crime and to secure his return to the state from
which he fled, for the purpose of trial or punishment.
It does not necessarily mean that in keeping with its
treaty obligations, the Philippines should diminish a
potential extraditee’s rights to life, liberty and due
process. More so, were these rights are guaranteed,
not only by our Constitution, but also by international
conventions, to which the Philippines is a party. We
should not therefore deprived an extraditee of his
right to apply for bail, provided that a certain
standard for the grant is satisfactorily met.
- SC: The Petition was Dismissed, the case was
remanded to the RTC to determine whether he is
entitled to bail on the basis of clear and convincing
evidence. If not, the trial court should order the
cancellation of his bail bond and his immediate
detention, and thereafter conduct the extradition
proceedings with dispatch.
WATEROUS DRUG CORPORATION and MS. EMMA
CO, petitioners, vs. NLRC and ANTONIA MELODIA
CATOLICO, respondents
Facts:
- Petition assails decision and Resolution of NLRC
sustained the reinstatement and monetary awards in
favor of private
- Catolico was a pharmacist of Waterous Drug
Corporation. She received 2 memos from WATEROUS
Vice President-General Manager Emma R. Co warning
her (1) not to dispense medicine to employees
chargeable to the latter's accounts and (2) not to
negotiate with suppliers of medicine without
consulting the Purchasing Department.
- For the first memo, she explained that her act was
"due to negligence," since fellow employee Irene
Soliven "obtained the medicines in bad faith and
through misrepresentation when she claimed that she
was given a charge slip by the Admitting Dept."
- WATEROUS Control Clerk Eugenio Valdez informed Co - Catolico was denied due process which requires that
that he noticed an irregularity involving Catolico and an employee be apprised of the charge against him,
YSP. Upon verification made to YSP, it was found that
the cost per bottle was indeed overpriced. YSP, Inc.
Accounting Department (Ms. Estelita Reyes) heard and defend himself, and assisted by a
confirmed that the difference represents refund of
jack-up price of ten bottles of Voren tablets which was Catolico was given an opportunity to explain her side,
paid to Ms. Catolico through China Bank check. Ms.
Saldana, Pharmacy Clerk, confirmed that the check
24
was actually received by Ms. Catolico (envelop
already opened).
- Catolico was given chance to explain, however, on 2
February 1990, she was placed on preventive
suspension effective 6 February 1990 to 7 March
1990. Catolico requested access to the file containing
Sales Invoice No. 266 for her to be able to make a
satisfactory explanation. She protested Saldaña's
invasion of her privacy when Saldaña opened an
envelope addressed to Catolico
- Catolico, explained that the check she received from
YSP was a Christmas gift and not a "refund of
overprice."
- On 5 March Waterous notified Catolico of her
termination. Catolico filed before the Office of the
Labor Arbiter a complaint for unfair labor practice,
illegal dismissal, and illegal suspension.
- Labor Arbiter found no proof of ULP against petitioners,
but nevertheless, decided in favor of Catolico since
the dismissal was without just cause and due
process, therefore illegal but disallowed
reinstatement, as it would not be to the best interest
of the parties. She was awarded separation pay and
backwages. NLRC affirmed the findings of the Labor
Arbiter for failure to prove a just cause for Catolico's
dismissal. The check of P640.00 drawn by YSP in
favor of complainant, which her co-employee saw
when the latter opened the envelope is inadmissible
to Sections 2 and 3(1 and 2) of Article III of the
Constitution.
- Petitioner contended that Catolico occupied a
confidential position and that Catolico's receipt of
YSP's check, constituted breach of confidence.
Petitioner also contended that the opening of
envelope addressed to private respondent does not
warrant the application of the constitutional
provisions. WATEROUS was justified in opening an
envelope from one of its regular suppliers as it could
assume that the letter was a business communication
in which it had an interest.
- Catolico objected that the check in issue was given to
her, and she had no duty to turn it over to her
employer since company rules do not prohibit an
employee from accepting gifts from clients, check
being discovered in violation of the constitutional
provision on the right to privacy and communication;
hence, inadmissible in evidence. Finally, Catolico
insists that being merely a pharmacist, she did not
handle "confidential information or sensitive
properties." She was doing the task of a saleslady:
selling drugs and making requisitions when supplies
were low.
Issue: W/N People vs Marti is applicable in the case.
given reasonable time to answer the charge, allowed
ample opportunity (to prepare adequately) to be
representative if the employee so desires. Although
she was dismissed after receipt of her letter and that
of her counsel. No hearing was ever conducted after
the issues were joined through said letters. Evidence

in WATEROUS possession were not, submitted. Hence
Catolico was also unjustly dismissed. It is settled that
the burden is on the employer to prove just and valid
cause for dismissing an employee, and its failure to - Thus, the administrative case amounts to no more
discharge that burden would result in a finding that
the dismissal is unjustified. Catolico's dismissal was
based on hearsay information in Valdez’s statements.
Estelita Reyes never testified nor executed an
affidavit relative to this case. The check evidencing
payment made by the petitioner for the drug was
never presented in evidence, nor was any receipt - Documents and papers are inadmissible in evidence.
from YSP offered by petitioners. The discrepancy in 2
Pos: Voren tablets cost P320.00 per box, vs Voren
tablets at P384.00 per bottle. The difference in price
may then be attributed to the different packaging
used in each purchase order.
- PO was duly approved by the officers.
- The intimacies between husband and wife do not
- Bill of Rights does not protect citizens from
unreasonable searches and seizures perpetrated by
private individuals. However, such an invasion gives
rise to both criminal and civil liabilities.
- Decision affirmed
- The law insures absolute freedom of communication
Zulueta v CA, 253 SCRA 699
Facts:
- Petition to review decision of the CA, affirming the
decision of the RTC which ordered petitioner Cecilia
Zulueta to return documents and papers taken by her
from private respondent's (her husband) clinic
without the latter's knowledge and consent to be - Petition denied.
used as evidence for the legal separation case and
disqualification from practice of medicine filed
against the husband.
- In the presence of her mother, a driver and private
respondent's secretary, she forcibly opened the
drawers and cabinet in her husband's clinic and took
157 documents consisting of private correspondence
between Dr. Martin and his alleged paramours,
greetings cards, cancelled checks, diaries, Dr.
Martin's passport, and photographs.
- Dr. Martin filed action to recover documents before RTC
which held Dr Martin the capital/exclusive owner of
the properties and ordered Cecilia Zulueta to a
immediately return the properties plus nominal and
moral damages; CA affirmed.
Ruling:
- Petitioner contended as basis the case of Alfredo
Martin v. Alfonso Felix, Jr which ruled that the
documents and papers are admissible in evidence.
- SC ruled that it is not applicable since the case against
Atty. Felix, Jr. was for disbarment. Dr. Alfredo Martin,
filed a case and charged that in using the documents
in evidence, Atty. Felix, Jr. committed malpractice or
gross misconduct because of the injunctive order of
the trial court. Court favoured the defense of Atty.
Felix that when he refiled Cecilia's case for legal
separation before Pasig RTC, Manila RTC prohibited
Cecilia from using the documents. This order was
appealed to SC on certiorari, which was granted,
hence set aside temporarily the order of the trial
court, making respondent's request for petitioner to
admit the genuineness and authenticity of the
documents not a malpractice. This TRO was later
lifted; therefore prohibition against the further use of
the documents and papers became effective again.
- Dr. Martin finally admitted the truth and authenticity of
the questioned annexes which was done not thru his
25
counsel but by Dr. Martin himself under oath. Such is
valid evidence against him. The use of it cannot be
treated as malpractice.
than a declaration that his use of the documents and
papers for the purpose of securing Dr. Martin's
admission as to their genuiness and authenticity did
not constitute a violation of the injunctive order of the
trial court and does not establish the admissibility of
the documents and papers in question.
The constitutional injunction declaring "the privacy of
communication and correspondence to be inviolable"
except if there is a "lawful order from the court or
when public safety or order requires otherwise, as
prescribed by law. Any violation renders the evidence
obtained inadmissible for any purpose in any
proceeding.
justify any one of them in breaking the drawers and
cabinets of the other and in ransacking them for any
telltale evidence of marital infidelity. A person, by
contracting marriage, does not shed his/her integrity
or his right to privacy as an individual and the
constitutional protection is ever available to him or to
her.
between the spouses by making it privileged as
neither may testify for or against the other without
the consent while the marriage subsists. Freedom of
communication is different from compulsion for each
one to share what one knows with the other. And this
has nothing to do with the duty of fidelity that each
owes to the other.
Gamboa v Chan, 677 SCRA 385 (2012)
- The state interest of dismantling PAGs far
outweighs the alleged intrusion on the
private life of Gamboa, especially when the
collection and forwarding by the PNP of
information against her was pursuant to a
lawful mandate.
- Former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo
issued Administrative Order No. 275 (A.O.
275) creating the Zeñarosa Commission
(Commission) which was formed to
investigate the existence of private army
groups (PAGs) in the country in view of
eliminating and dismantling them
permanently in the future. Upon conclusion
of its investigation, the Commission
submitted a confidential report to the Office
of the President.
- Marynette Gamboa (Gamboa) was the
Mayor of Dingras, Ilocos Norte. Gamboa
alleged that the Philippine National Police
Ilocos Norte (PNP) conducted surveillance
operation against her and her aides, and
classified her as a PAG coddler. Purportedly
without the benefit of data verification, PNP
forwarded the information gathered on her
to the Commission, causing her inclusion in
the Report’s enumeration of individuals
maintaining PAGs.
- Gamboa’s association with PAG was published
and released in the different forms of media,
publicly tagging her as a PAG coddler.
Alleging that her right to privacy was
violated, Gamboa filed a petition before the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) for the issuance of
writ of habeas data to destroy the

unverified reports from the PNP data base
and restrain PNP from forwarding baseless
reports against her. The RTC ruled that the
inclusion of Gamboa in the report violates
her right to privacy. However, the RTC
dismissed Gamboa’s petition for writ of
habeas data saying that Gamboa failed to
establish the source of the information.
- Whether or not the forwarding of
information or intelligence report by the
PNP to the Commission was an unlawful act
that violated petitioner’s right to privacy.
- Forwarding of information or intelligence
report gathered by the PNP to the
Commission is not an intrusion of petitioner’s
right to privacy
- The Constitution explicitly mandates the
dismantling of private armies and other
armed groups not recognized by the duly
constituted authority. It also provides for the
establishment of one police force that is
national in scope and civilian in character,
and is controlled and administered by a
national police commission.
- Taking into account these constitutional
fiats, it is clear that the issuance of A.O. 275
articulates a legitimate state aim, which is
to investigate the existence of PAGs with
the ultimate objective of dismantling them
permanently. Pursuant to the state interest
of dismantling PAGs, as well as the powers
and functions accorded to the Commission
and the PNP, the latter collected information
on individuals suspected of maintaining
PAGs, monitored them and counteracted
their activities. One of those individuals is
herein petitioner Gamboa.
- This Court holds that Gamboa was able to
sufficiently establish that the data
contained in the Report listing her as a PAG
coddler came from the PNP. Contrary to the
ruling of the trial court, however, the
forwarding of information by the PNP to the
Commission was not an unlawful act that
violated or threatened her right to privacy
in life, liberty or security. The PNP was
rationally expected to forward and share
intelligence regarding PAGs with the body
specifically created for the purpose of
investigating the existence of these
notorious groups. Moreover, the
Commission was explicitly authorized to
deputize the police force in the fulfillment of
the former’s mandate, and thus had the
power to request assistance from the latter.
The fact that the PNP released information
to the Commission without prior
communication to Gamboa and without
affording her the opportunity to refute the
same cannot be interpreted as a violation
or threat to her right to privacy since that
act is an inherent and crucial component of
intelligence gathering and investigation.
Additionally, Gamboa herself admitted that
the PNP had a validation system, which was
used to update information on individuals
associated with PAGs and to ensure that the
data mirrored the situation on the field.
Thus, safeguards were put in place to make
sure that the information collected
maintained its integrity and accuracy.
26
- Whether or not resort to petition for writ of
habeas data was proper
- Petition for writ of ftabeas data is not proper
- In this case, Chan and Fang admitted the
existence of the Report, but emphasized its
confidential nature. That it was leaked to
third parties and the media was regrettable,
even warranting reproach. But it must be
stressed that Gamboa failed to establish
that PNP was responsible for this
unintended disclosure. In any event, there
are other reliefs available to her to address
the purported damage to her reputation,
making a resort to the extraordinary
remedy of the writ of habeas data
unnecessary and improper. Finally, the
Court rules that Gamboa was unable to
prove through substantial evidence that her
inclusion in the list of individuals
maintaining PAGs made her and her
supporters susceptible to harassment and
to increased police surveillance. In this
regard, Chan and Fang sufficiently
explained that the investigations conducted
against her were in relation to the criminal
cases in which she was implicated. As
public officials, they enjoy the presumption
of regularity, which she failed to overcome.
It is clear from the foregoing discussion that
the state interest of dismantling PAGs far
outweighs the alleged intrusion on the
private life of Gamboa, especially when the
collection and forwarding by the PNP of
information against her was pursuant to a
lawful mandate. Therefore, the privilege of
the writ of habeas data must be denied.
MMDA vs CONCERNED RESIDENTS OF MANILA
BAY
- January 29, 1999, concerned residents of Manila Bay
filed a complaint before the RTC Imus, Cavite against
several government agencies for the clean-up,
rehabilitation and protection of the Manila Bay/ The
complaint alleged that the water quality of Manila
Bay is no longer within the allowable standards set
by law (esp. PD 1152, Philippine environment Code).
- DENR testified for the petitioners and reported that the
samples collected from the beaches around Manila
Bay is beyond the safe level for bathing standard of
the DENR. MWSS testified also about MWSS efforts to
reduce pollution along the bay. Philippine Ports
Authority presented as evidence its Memorandum
Circulars on the study on ship-generated waste
treatment and disposal as its Linis Dagat project.
- RTC ordered petitioners to Clean up and rehabilitate
Manila Bay.
- The petitioners appealed arguing that the Environment
Code relate only to the cleaning of the specific
pollution incidents and do not cover cleaning in
general. Raising the concerns of lack of funds
appropriated for cleaning, and asserting that the
cleaning of the bay is not a ministerial act which can
be compelled by mandamus.
- CA sustained the RTC stressing that RTC did not require
the agencies to do tasks outside of their usual basic
functions.
- (1) Whether PD 1152 relate only to the cleaning of
specific pollution incidents.
- The cleaning of the Manila bay can be compelled by
mandamus.
- Petitioners’ obligation to perform their duties as
defined by law, on one hand, and how they are to

carry out such duties, on the other, are two different
concepts. While the implementation of the MMDA’s
mandated tasks may entail a decision-making
process, the enforcement of the law or the very act
of doing what the law exacts to be done is ministerial - Petitioner was the Commanding General of the
in nature and may be compelled by mandamus.
- The MMDA’s duty in the area of solid waste disposal, as
may be noted, is set forth not only in the
Environment Code (PD 1152) and RA 9003, but in its
charter as well. This duty of putting up a proper
waste disposal system cannot be characterized as
discretionary, for, as earlier stated; discretion
presupposes the power or right given by law to public - The law of war imposes on an army commander a duty
functionaries to act officially according to their
judgment or conscience.
- (2) Whether the cleaning or rehabilitation of the Manila
Bay is not ministerial act of petitioners that can be
compelled by mandamus
- Secs. 17 and 20 of the Environment Code Include
Cleaning in General
- Sec. 17 does not in any way state that the government
agencies concerned ought to confine themselves to
the containment, removal, and cleaning operations
when a specific pollution incident occurs. On the
contrary, Sec. 17 requires them to act even in the - Annex to Fourth Hague Convention of 1907, respecting
absence of a specific pollution incident, as long as
water quality “has deteriorated to a degree where its
state will adversely affect its best usage.” This
section, to stress, commands concerned government
agencies, when appropriate, “to take such measures
as may be necessary to meet the prescribed water
quality standards.” In fine, the underlying duty to
27
upgrade the quality of water is not conditional on the
occurrence of any pollution incident.
In re Yamashita, 327 U.S. 1 (1946)
Imperial Japanese Army in the Philippine Islands and
became a prisoner of war. The gist of the charge was
that petitioner had failed in his duty as an army
commander to control the operations of his troops,
"permitting them to commit" specified atrocities
against the civilian population and prisoners of war.
Petitioner was found guilty, and sentenced to death.
to take such appropriate measures as are within his
power to control the troops under his command for
the prevention of acts which are violations of the law
of war and which are likely to attend the occupation
of hostile territory by an uncontrolled soldiery, and he
may be charged with personal responsibility for his
failure to take such measures when violations result.
What measures, if any, petitioner took to prevent,
were questions within the peculiar competence of the
military officers composing the commission, and were
for it to decide.
the laws and customs of war on land. Article I lays
down, as a condition which an armed force must fulfill
in order to be accorded the rights of lawful
belligerents, that it must be "commanded by a person
responsible for his subordinates."