You are on page 1of 11

1.

) BAGONG ALYANSANG MAKABAYAN V ZAMORA


DOCTRINE:
Section 25, Article XVIII disallows foreign military bases, troops, or facilities in the country, unless
the following conditions are sufficiently met, viz:

(a) it must be under a treaty;

(b) the treaty must be duly concurred in by the Senate and, when so required by congress, ratified by
a majority of the votes cast by the people in a national referendum; and

(c) recognized as a treaty by the other contracting state.

- Sec 21 article 7 deals with the visits of military personle while


-Sec 25 Article 18 – no distinguishment of permanent and transient – court does not
distinguish
2.) LIM V EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
DOCTRINE:
From the perspective of public international law, a treaty is favored over municipal law
pursuant to the principle of pacta sunt servanda. Hence, "[e]very treaty in force is binding upon
the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith." Further, a party to a treaty is not
allowed to "invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a
treaty."

- Vienna convention on Law of Treaties- Interpretation must involve an examination of the


text which verbalizes intention of parties
- All activities are allowed that are in pursuance of the VFA this includes the balikatan
exercises

3.) PIMINTEL V EXECUTIVE SECRETARY


DOCTRINE:
The President has the sole authority to negotiate and enter into treaties, the Constitution provides
a limitation to his power by requiring the concurrence of 2/3 of all the members of the Senate for the
validity of the treaty entered into by him. Section 21, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution provides that “no
treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of
all the Members of the Senate.”

- ENRICO MANALO as representative of Executive department cannot act in behalf of the


president acting in “ministerial duty” to transmit the Rome statute to the senate. ONLY the President is
allowed to transmit to the congress. As HEAD OF THE STATE and SOLE ORGAN and AUTHORITY in
external relations and is the countries SOLE REPRESENTATIVES with foreign nations.

4.) PHARMACEUTIVAL V DOH


DOCTRINE:
For an int’l rule to be considered as customary law, it must be established that such rule is being
followed by states because they consider it as obligatory to comply with such rules (opinion juris).
Consequently, legislation is necessary to transform the provisions of the WHA Resolutions into domestic
law. The provisions of the WHA Resolutions cannot be considered as part of the law of the land that can
be implemented by executive agencies without the need of a law enacted by the legislature.
- The respondents failed to prove that some provisions of the WHA are customary
international law that may be deemed part of land thus need to be transformed into
domestic laws. Transformation is needed because executive agencies cannot
consider these as part of law.
- Court will still determine whether the DOH may implement even though not part of
law of land

5.) PROVINCE OF NORTH COTABATO V GRP PEACE PANEL


DOCTRINE:
Signing this MOA would best the BJE the status of an associated state or a status close to it. This
is against our constitution for it does not contemplate a state within our state and that the BJE is a state
all in but the name for it meets all the criteria laid down in the Montevideo convention.
- Concept of association runs counter the national sovereignty and territorial integrity of
the Republic of the Philippines.
Entering Moa would in effect allow the amendment of the constitution which the president is not allowed
to do, the president is only allowed to propose constitutional amendments and cannot guarantee to any
third party that required amendment may prosper

- Grave abuse by the presidential adviser on the peace process, failed to arry out the
pertinent consultation process.

6.) BAYAN MUNA V ROMULO


DOCTRINE:
Philippines adopts generally accepted principles of international law which considers the
Exchange of Notes as part of “Inter governmental agreements”
- Which is accepted form of international agreement

- Interchange of DFA sec BLAS OPLE with Ambassador for the “ Non surrender bi-
lateral agreement”

7.) CHINA NATIONAL MACHINERY V. SANTA MARIA


DOCTRINE:
Agents acting in proprietary function are not granted immunity from suit in local court. Only those
acting as Jus Imperii ( governmental activities) are allowed immunity from suit.

- CNMEG and Northrail is acting in proprietary agents of China, Silent on the legal
nature of the transaction and shows that venture is proprietary (jure gestionis)

8.) DANUBE DAM CASE


DOCTRINE:
The state of necessity is a ground recognized by customary international law for precluding the
wrongfulness of an act not in conformity with an international obligation. It considers moreover
that such ground for precluding wrongfulness can only be accepted on an exceptional basis.
Grounds for state of necessity:
1. It must have been occasioned by an "essential interest" of the State which is the author of
the act conflicting with one of its international obligations;
2. that interest must have been threatened by a "grave and imminent peril";
3. the act being challenged must have been the "only means" of safeguarding that interest;
4. that act must not have "seriously impair[ed] an essential interest" of the State towards
which the obligation existed;
5. and the State which is the author of that act must not have "contributed to the occurrence
of the state of necessity".

9.) REPUBLIC V SANDIGANBAYAN


Doctrine:
The accused are still entitled to protection under the International Convention (convention) and
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (declaration even though at the time of the interregnum
(suspension of normal government) of government. The Philippines being a signatory of the Declaration
accepts the rights therein as generally accepted principles in the country.

10.) PAQUETE HABANA


DOCTRINE:
Customary law that boats are not war prizes

11.) ASYLUM CASES


DOCTRINE:
Protection from operation of regular proceedings was not justified under diplomatic asylum.
Columbia failed to show in cases that asylum is granted unilateraly, these asylum should be agreed upon,
further there was never a case wherein they sought asylum in the same country that is contemplating
crime. Military Rebellion is not a common crime.

12.) NORTH SEA CONTINENTAL SHELF CASE


DOCTRINE:
Even though there is a treaty of usage of equidistance principle as customary law. Customary law
should be 1. Widespread 2. Uniform in practice 3.) General recognition of the rule of law or legal
obligation (opinion juris).

- Not binding to Germany because there is no state practice and opinion juris. And
even if they are they can chose not to be bound by article 6.

13.) NUCLEAR TEST CASES


DOCTRINE:
Even before the court may take case, they must consider wether
1.) Dispute Exists
2.) Analyze claim submitted to it

Declarations may made by unilateral acts concerning legal or factual situations, and
may have the effect of creating legal obligations. The intention of being bound is to be
ascertained by an interpretation of the act.
The binding character of the undertaking results from the terms of the act and is based
on good faith. Interested States are entitled to require that the obligation be respected.

-France already stopped nuclear trials before the court can try the case
14.) NICARAGUA V US
DOCTRINE:
Jurisdiction of the ICJ may be derives from Treaties or Customary Laws.

ICJ determined that the US breached the Principle of non intervention when it used force against
other state when it attacked Nicaragua and supported the activities of the contras that resulted to force

15.) TAÑADA V ANGARA


DOCTRINE:
The sovereignty of a state therefore cannot in fact and in reality be considered absolute.
Certain restrictions enter into the picture: (1) limitations imposed by the very nature of membership in the
family of nations and (2) limitations imposed by treaty stipulations.

Constitution did not pursue Isolationist Policy, cannot shut out foreign investment.
Sovereignty is subject to limitation which the Philippines voluntarily agreed upon.
(Uruguay Round of Multi-Lateral Negotiations)

16.) MIJARES V RANADA


DOCTRINE:
Foreign Judgment may be deemed subsumed under the sec 7(b) (3) in local courts, such
as foreign judgment “ All other actions not involving property”. Undertaking is considered a
generally accepted principle of International Law and obtained as Opinio Juris.

- US district court of Hawaii granting the petitioners 1.9 billion dollars


-
17.) FILAR TIGA V PEÑA
DOCTRINE:
Under alien tort statute grants jurisdiction to hear tort claims brought by an alien
that have been “committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the united states”

HOSTIS HUMANI GENERIS – Enemy of mankind

SUBJECTS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

1) WESTERN SAHARA CASE

DOCTRINE:
Legal ties is applied through “Self determination through the free and genuine expression of the
will of the people of the territory”. Court finds that neither the internal nor the international acts relied upon
by Morocco indicate the existence at the relevant period of either the existence or the international
recognition of legal ties of territorial sovereignty between Western Sahara and the Moroccan State

2.) INTERNATIONAL STATUS OF SOUTH WEST AFRICA


DOCTRINE:
South west Africa is a territory under the mandate and south Africa is Not Competent TO Modify
the international status of south west Africa.
The historical basis of the legal enforcement of the English trust was that it was binding upon the
conscience of the trustee and thus should be enforceable in law.
Nearly every legal system possesses some institution whereby the property and sometimes the
person of those who are not sui juris, such as a minor or disabled person, can be entrusted to some
responsible person as a trustee; the trust has been used to protect the weak and the dependent

3.)LEGAL CONSEQUENCES FOR STATED OF THE CONTINUED PRESENCE OF SOUTH AFRICA IN


NAMIBIA
DOCTRINE:
The determination of the Security Council on the termination of the mandate of south Africa over
Namibia is binding upon south Africa.
The Legal Consequences of recognition of UN is that the State members of were under an
obligation to recognize the illegality of south africas presence and to refrain from any acts implying
recognition of the legality or lending support or assistance to, such presence and administration.

4.)PROVINCE OF NORTH COTABATO


5.) JUDGEMENT OF THE NUREMBERG TRIBUNAL
DOCTRINE:
The international Military tribunal has jurisdiction to commit war criminals for the crimes of
1.) Conspiracy to commit charges under 2,3,4 2.) Crimes against peace 3.) War crimes
4.) Crimes against humanity.

JURISDICTION OF STATES

1.) IN THE MATTER OF THE SOUTH CHINA SEA ARBITRATION

2.) MAGALLONA V EXEC SEC


DOCTRINE:
UNCLOS merely followed the baselines mapped by RA3046. Further the Philippines states
responsible for the proper observance of the UNCLOSIII under pacta sunt servanda.
Under Article 121 of UNCLOS III, any naturally formed area of land, surrounded by
water, which is above water at high tide, such as portions of the KIG, qualifies under the
category of regime of islands, whose islands generate their own applicable maritime zones.

3.) ISLAND OF PALMAS CASE


DOCTRINE:

Palmas could not be granted to the US when the Spaniards did not have title to it.
There is no positive international law that argues the “Principle of Contiguity”, mere proximity
was not an adequate claim to land and such would lead into arbitrary results. INCHOATE title cannot
prevail over a definite title. Peaceful and continuous display of territorial sovereignty is a good title.

-Netherlands has showed documentation and held actual title since 1677
-The Philippines has failed to show documentation proving Spanish sovereignty on the islands
except the document about island discovery

4.) LEGAL STATUS OF EASTERN GREENLAND


DOCTRINE:
Doctrine of INTERTEMPORAL LAW states that the RIGHT must be analyzed through the
application of INTL law as it existed AT THE POINT IN TIME WHEN THE RIGHT AROSE.
Mere discovery, conferring an inchoate title, was not an accepted means of acquiring
sovereignty over a parcel of territory but was in fact effective occupation, or actual occupation and
administration over the territory.

A Country is BOUND by the reply given on its behalf by its minister of foreign affairs, therefore in
this case, the response by the diplomatic representative of a foreign power is Binding upon the minister
- Vienna Convention on the Law of treaties

Sufficient for Denmark to establish sovereignty over Greenland throughout the period

5.)FISHERIES CASE
DOCTRINE
"an existing customary law rule would not apply to a state if it objected to any outside attempts to
apply the rule to itself, at the initial stages and in a consistent manner, and if other states did not object to
her resistance"

- 10 mile rule cannot be considered as a generally accepted principles for there are other nations
that have used different limits. Further Norway has always opposed any attempt to apply it to the
Norwegian coast.
6.) THE WESTERN SAHARA CASE
7.) THE CORFU CHANNEL CASE
DOCTRINE
Ships Conditional on prior authorization conflicts with the generally admitted principles of
states. Wherein warships may use the straits provided that the passage is innocent.

- Operation on November 12/13 was executed contrary to the clearly expressed wish
of the Albanian government, it did not have the consent of the international mine and
clearance organizations and COULDN’T be justified that passage was innocent. (UK
object was to secure mines)
- RIGHT OF INTERVENTION is not in place of international law.

8.) FISHERIES JURISDICTION


DOCTRINE:
In order that a change of circumstances may give rise to the premise calling for the termination
of a treaty, it is necessary that it has resulted in a radical transformation of the extent of the
obligations still to be performed.

- Iceland had not shown radical transformation


9.) SEC OF JUSTICE V LANTION
DOCTRINE:
The rights of the accused guaranteed in our Constitution should take precedence over treaty
rights claimed by a contracting state. The duties of the government to the individual deserve
preferential consideration when they collide with its treaty obligations to the government of another state.
In fact, neither the Treaty nor the Extradition Law precludes the rights of due process
from a prospective extradite.

CONFLICT between MUNICIPAL LAW AND INTERNATIONAL LAW- municipal laws should be
upheld in the municipal courts. The doctrine of incorporation decrees that rules of international law are
given equal standing NOT superior to national legislative enactments.

- Should be given the extradition request and its supporting papers to give him
reasonable time within to file his comment with supporting evidence
- Extradition proceedings poses threat to a prospective extradites liberty as early as
the evaluation stage. (Imminent threat)
-
10.) SEC OF JUSTICE V MUNOZ
DOCTRINE:
Claiming urgency in existing treaties or Philippine legislation defines the meaning or Urgency as
used in the context of a request for Provisional Arrest. THERE IS URGENCY Since offense charged and
the personality of Extraditee, makes hims susceptible to the INCLINATION to FLEE or ESCAPE from
jurisdictionif he were to learn about the impending request for his extradition or DESTROY the evidence
pertinent to the said request for his eventual prosecution

Provisional arrest of respondent are VALID despite the Lack of Authentication


Formal request for extradition and its accompanying documents, and transmitting them
through diplomatic channels, is not only time-consuming but also leakage-prone. There is naturally a
great likelihood of flight by criminals who get an intimation of the pending request for their extradition.

11.) GOVT OF USA V PURGANAN


DOCTRINE:
A cardinal rule in the interpretation of a treaty or a law is to ascertain and give effect to its
INTENT. Since PD 1069 is intended as a guide for the implementation of extradition treaties to which the
Philippines is a signatory, understanding certain postulates of extradition will aid us in properly deciding
the issues raised here. (Postulates are mentioned in the ruling)
- EXTRADITION PROCEEDINGS - no need for court proceedings
- Not criminal in nature but SUI GENERIS
- Both parties have accepted and trusted each others legal and judicial proces.
- Are entered FOR PURPOSE OF SUPPRESSING CRIME by facilitating arrest and
custodial transfer
- Executive Department voluntarily entered the Extradition treaty
PACTA SUNT SERVANDA

-Jimenez motion for case (extradition case) before issuing warrant of arrest. (RP -US extradition
treaty) would render the extradition NUGGATORY- for immedience
- No Bail
12.) RODRIGUEZ V RTC OF MANILA
DOCTRINE:
The cancellation of bail bond may be made only after notice and hearing. Otherwise, the right to
due process of law will be violated.

-Cancellation of bail bond violative of due process amounting to grave abuse of discretion.
- Being granted bail bond shows that he/she has shown evidence that he/she is not a flight risk
- Given to 1.) Not a flight risk 2.) exist special humanitarian and compelling circumstances

13.) GOVERNMENT OF HK V OLALIA


DOCTRINE:
(1) the growing importance of the individual person in public international law who, in the 20th
century, has gradually attained global recognition;
(2) the higher value now being given to human rights in the international sphere;
(3) the corresponding duty of countries to observe these universal human rights in fulfilling
their treaty obligations; and
(4) the duty of this Court to balance the rights of the individual under our fundamental law,
on one hand, and the law on extradition, on the other.

-HK: no right to bail and that bail is only limited to criminal proceedings

- Section 13, Article III of the Constitution provides that the right to bail shall not be impaired.
Even when writ of habeas corpus is suspended
- Right to bail (declaration) and ( convention)

14.) SANDERS V VERIDIANO


DOCTRINE:
Doctrine of Immunity of states “there can be no legal right against the authority which makes
the law on which the right depends.”

PAR IN PAREM NON HABET IMPERIUM


Unduly Vex the peace of nations

Article 2 sec 2- Adopts generally accepted principles of international law

Veridiano was acting in accordance as an officer of the United States therefore cannot be sued.

15.) USA V GUINTO


DOCTRINE:
Immunity of states only to sovereign just imperii (governmental) and not jus gestionis (proprietary)

- Barbershops are not governmental


16.) PROFESSIONAL VIDEO INC V TESDA
DOCTRINE:
Performance of Governmental function cannot be hindered or delayed by suits nor can these
suits control the use and disposition of the means for the performance of governmental function.
= Non suability of states

Tesda performs governmental functions and the issuance of certifications is a task within its
function of developing and establishing a system of skills, standardization, testing and certification in the
country, PROVIDING PVC ID is not a commercial action but rather governmental.

17.) ATCI OVERSEAS CORPORATION V ECHIN


DOCTRINE:
Petitioner ATCI, as a private recruitment agency, cannot evade responsibility for the money
claims of Overseas Filipino workers (OFWs) which it deploys abroad by the mere expediency of
claiming that its foreign principal is a government agency clothed with immunity from suit, or that
such foreign principal’s liability must first be established before it, as agent, can be held jointly and
solidarily liable

- ATCI is liable . RA 8042 affords OFWs with a recourse and assured them of immediate and
sufficient payment of what is due to them
- The Philippines does not take judicial notice of foreign laws, hence, they must not only be
alleged; they must be proven ( under kuwait)

18.) PCGG V SANDIGANBAYAN


DOCTRINE:
International law does not require the application of this doctrine (act of state doctrine)
nor does it forbid the application of the rule even if it is claimed that the act of state in question
violated international law. Moreover, due to the doctrines peculiar nation-to-nation character, in
practice the usual method for an individual to seek relief is to exhaust local remedies and then
repair to the executive authorities of his own state to persuade them to champion his claim
in diplomacy or before an international tribunal.

19.) PINOCHET CASE

20.) US DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR STAFF IN TEHRAN


DOCTRINE:
The Court considered that it should examine the question whether the conduct of the Iranian
Government might be justified by the existence of special circumstances, for the Iranian Minister for
Foreign Affairs had alleged in his two letters to the Court that the United States had carried out criminal
activities in Iran. The Court considered that, even if those alleged activities could be considered as
proven, they would not constitute a defense to the United States’ claims, since diplomatic law provides
the possibility of breaking off diplomatic relations, or of declaring persona non grata members of
diplomatic or consular missions who may be carrying on illicit activities. The Court concluded that the
Government of Iran had recourse to coercion against the United States Embassy and its staff.

21.) HOLY SEE V ROSARIO


DOCTRINE:
The right of a foreign sovereign to acquire property, real or personal, in a receiving state,
necessary for the creation and maintenance of its diplomatic mission, is recognized in the 1961 Vienna
Convention on Diplomatic Relations (Arts. 20-22).

22.) REP OF INDONESIA V VINZON


DOCTRINE:
Immunity of states - Diplomatic mission encompasses its maintenance and upkeep therefore has
not been deemed to have waived its immunity from suit

23.) DEUTSCHE V CA
DOCTRINE:
The principle of state immunity from suit, whether a local state or a foreign state, is reflected in
Section 9, Article XVI (16) of the Constitution,
Which states that the State may not be sued without its consent. State immunity from suit may be
waived by general or special law.
Where suit is filed not against the government itself or its officials but against one of its entities, it
must be ascertained whether or not the State, as the principal that may ultimately be held liable, has
given its consent to be sued.

24.) DFA V NLRC


Doctrine:
Internal organization is immune from local jurisdiction, that is immune from legal writs and
processes
issued
by tribunals for the country where it was found.
- This would make a medium for the Host country to interfere with the functions of the international
organization such as influence, control its policies and decisions of the organization
- Subjections to local jurisdiction would impair the capacity of such body to discharge its
responsibilities impartially on behalf of its member-states.

ADB is immune from suit. Independent of municipal law

25.) WHO V AQUINO


DOCTRINE:
Under international Law and Separation of powers in the Philippines, Diplomatic Immunity is a
political question and courts should refuse to look beyond a determination by the executive branch of the
government. Such deliberation of the courts would undermine the determination of the Executive
Department to recognize and Affirm Diplomatic Immunity of Dr. Verstuyft pursuant to the Host Agreement
between the Philippine Government and the Philippines executed on July 22, 1952.

26.) LASCO v UN
DOCTRINE:
The reason behind the grant of privileges and immunities to international organizations, its
officials and functionaries is to secure them legal and practical independence in fulfilling their duties.
27.) ICMC VS CALLEJA
DOCTRINE:
It is a recognized principle of international law and under our system of separation of powers that
diplomatic immunity is essentially a political question and courts should refuse to look beyond a
determination by the executive branch of the government

28.) LIANG V PEOPLE


DOCTRINE:
Slander could not be possible covered by the immunity agreement because our laws do not allow
the commission of a crime such as defamation. A Public official may be liable in his personal private
capacity for whatever damage he may have caused by his act done with malice or in bad faith or beyond
the scope of his authority or jurisdiction.
- Slander is not part of his Official duty
- No preliminary investigation is requires in cases dealing within METC