KKMD

CASE Doctrines:
Kuroda v. Jalandoni
Kuroda was charged w/ Military Commission for allowing his members to commit brutal atrocities. Kuroda
defensed that Executive Order 68, which created the Military Commission, is unconstitutional because it
violates not only our Constitution but also our local laws. That the Philippines is not a signatory to the Hague
and Geneva Convention on the Rules and Regulations on Land Warfare, therefor Kuroda is being charged of
crimes not based on law.
SC said EO 68 is valid and constitutional because our Constitution in Article II Section III expressly provides
that: The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy and adopts the generally accepted
principles of international law as part of the law of the nations.
The Court emphasized that the Hague and Geneva Convention are among these generally accepted principles
of international law; and that it specifically mandate that: All persons who have been guilty of planning or
waging war of aggression and of the commission of crimes, in violation of the laws, are held accountable
therefor. Thus the Court held that the President in promulgating the Order has acted in conformity with the
accepted principles of International Law.
Pimental v. Office of the Secretary
SC said The President has the sole authority to negotiate and enter into treaties and is also vested with
authority to deal with foreign states. The Constitution on the other hand requires a concurrence of 2/3 of all
the members of the Senate for the validity of the treaty entered by him The participation of the senate in the
treaty has been interpreted by petitioners that the ratification of the treaty belongs to the senate but the
Court disagrees.
The steps in the usual treaty making process according to the book of Justice Isagani Cruz are: negotiation,
signature, ratification and exchange of the instruments of ratification.
Negotiation: may be brief or protracted depending on the issues involved and may even collapse in case no
agreement has been reached upon by the parties. It may be undertaken by the head of state or his authorized
representatives. Once terms of the treaty has been finalized, it is now open for signature.
Signature: intended as a means of authenticating the instrument and for the purpose of symbolizing the good
faith of the parties but it does not indicate the final consent of the state in cases where ratification of the
treaty is required.
Ratification: the formal act by which a state confirms the provisions of a treaty. Its purpose is to enable the
states to examine the treaty more closely and it is for this reason that most treaties are subject to consent of
a department of a government other that. That which negotiated them.
The Rome statute requires the signature of the representative of the state be subject to ratification. After the
signature of the representative, the president has the burden to carefully study the treaty and ensure that
they are not inimical to the interest of the people. Therefore, the President has the discretion whether or not
to ratify the same.
Icong v. Hernandez
The Treaty of Amity between the Republic of the Philippines and the Republic of China guarantees equality of
treatment to the Chinese nationals upon the same terms as the nationals of any other country. But the
nationals of China are not discriminated against because nationals of all other countries, except those of the
United States, who are granted special rights by the Constitution, are all prohibited from engaging in the retail
trade. Even if it would be assumed that a treaty would be in conflict with a statute then the statute must be
upheld because it represented an exercise of the police power which, being inherent could not be bargained
away or surrendered through the medium of a treaty.

KKMD
The enactment clearly falls within the scope of the police power of the State, thru which and by which it
protects its own personality and insures its security and future; that the law does not violate the equal
protection clause of the Constitution.

Razon v. Tagitis
The incorporation method applies when, by mere constitutional declaration, international law is deemed to
have the force of domestic law. In this case, While the Philippines is not yet formally bound by the terms of
the Convention on enforced disappearance (or by the specific terms of the Rome Statute) and has not
formally declared enforced disappearance as a specific crime, the above recital shows that enforced
disappearance as a State practice has been repudiated by the international community, so that the ban on it
is now a generally accepted principle of international law, which we should consider a part of the law of the
land, and which we should act upon to the extent already allowed under our laws and the international
conventions that bind us.
Pharmaceutical and Health Care Association of the PH v. Health Secretary & Undersecretaries
Petitioner assailed the validity of the RIRR of the Milk Code for allegedly going beyond the provisions of the
Milk Code, thereby amending and expanding the coverage of said law. The Milk Code, in this case, was issued
to give effect to Article 11 of the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes (ICMBS), adopted
by the World Health Assembly (WHA) in 1981, to the effect that breastfeeding should be supported, promoted
and protected.
Issue: W/N the pertinent intl agreements entered into by the Phil are part of the law of the land and may be
implemented by DOH through the RIRR. If yes, W/N the RIRR is in accord with intl agreements
SC Ruling: Under the 1987 Constitution, international law can become part of the sphere of domestic law
either by transformation or incorporation:
Transformation method:
- requires that an international law be transformed into a domestic law
- pursuant to Article VII, Section 21 of the Constitution which provides through a constitutional mechanism
such as local legislation 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."
Incorporation method:
- applies when, by mere constitutional declaration, international law is deemed to have the force of
domestic law.
- Section 2, Article II of the 1987 Constitution: The Philippines adopts the generally accepted principles
of international law as part of the law of the land
YES for ICMBS because it was TRANSFORMED INTO DOMESTIC LAW through the Milk Code. The Milk Code is
almost a verbatim reproduction of the ICMBS, but it did not adopt the provision in the ICMBS absolutely
prohibiting advertising or other forms of promotion to the general public of products within the scope of the
ICMBS.
NO for WHA Resolutions. DOH failed to establish that the provisions pertinent WHA resolutions are customary
intl law that may be deemed part of the law of the land. For an intl 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). Unlike the ICBMS whereby legislature enacted most of the provisions
into the law via the Milk Code, the WHA Resolutions have not been adopted as domestic law nor are they
followed in our country as well. WHA Resolutions may be classified as SOFT LAW non-binding norms,
principles and practices that influence state behavior. Soft law is not part of intl law.
Province of North Cotabato v. Government of the PH

KKMD
Rubrico v. Arroyo
Rubrico filed this petition and prayed that a writ of amparo be issued, ordering the individual respondents to
desist from performing any threatening act against the security of the petitioners.
The Hague Conventions of 1907 adopted the doctrine of command responsibility, and as then formulated,
command responsibility is "an omission mode of individual criminal liability," whereby the superior is made
responsible for crimes committed by his subordinates for failing to prevent or punish the perpetrators.
The doctrine has recently been codified in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) to which
the Philippines is signatory. The country is, however, not yet formally bound by the terms and provisions
embodied in this treaty-statute, since the Senate has yet to extend concurrence in its ratification.
It may plausibly be contended that command responsibility, now constitutes a principle of international law or
customary international law in accordance with the incorporation clause of the Constitution. Still, it would be
inappropriate to apply to these proceedings the doctrine of command responsibility as a form of criminal
complicity through omission, for individual respondents criminal liability, if there be any, is beyond the reach
of amparo. In other words, the Court does not rule in such proceedings on any issue of criminal culpability,
even if incidentally a crime or an infraction of an administrative rule may have been committed. Writ of
Amparo does not determine guilt nor pinpoint criminal culpability for disappearances (threats thereof or extrajudicial killings); it only determines responsibility, or at least accountability, for the enforced disappearance
[threats thereof or extra-judicial killings] for purposes of imposing the appropriate remedies to address the
disappearance [or extra- judicial killings].
Abaya v. Ebdane
The Loan Agreement No. PH-204 taken in conjunction with the Exchange of Notes dated December 27, 1999
between the Japanese Government and the Philippine Government is an executive agreement. An exchange
of notes is a record of a routine agreement that has many similarities with the private law contract. The
agreement consists of the exchange of two documents, each of the parties being in the possession of the one
signed by the representative of the other.
treaties, agreements, conventions, charters, protocols, declarations, memoranda of understanding, modus
vivendi and exchange of notes all are refer to international instruments binding at international law. Although
these instruments differ from each other by title, they all have common features and international law has
applied basically the same rules to all these instruments. These rules are the result of long practice among
the States, which have accepted them as binding norms in their mutual relations. Therefore, they are
regarded as international customary law.
Constantino v. Cuisia
Lim v. Macapagal Arroyo
Arthur Lim and Paulino Ersando assailed the validity of Balikatan 02-1. They said that the Balikatan exercises
is not in accordance with the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA), which in turn is a reinforcement of the 1951
MDT between the two nations. They claimed that the MDT only provides for mutual military assistance in case
of armed attack by an external aggressor against the Philippines or the US.
Issue: Whether Balikatan 02-1 activities is covered by the Visiting Forces Agreement
SC Ruling: YES, Balikatan is covered by the VFA. To resolve this, it is necessary to refer to the VFA itself. The
VFA permits United States personnel to engage, on an impermanent basis, in activities, the exact meaning
of which was left undefined.
The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Articles 31 and 32 contains provisos governing interpretations
of international agreements. It clearly provides that the cardinal rule of interpretation must involve an
examination of the text, which is presumed to verbalize the parties intentions. The Convention likewise
dictates what may be used as aids to deduce the meaning of terms, which it refers to as the context of the
treaty, as well as other elements may be taken into account alongside the aforesaid context.

KKMD
It appeared farfetched that the ambiguity surrounding the meaning of the word activities arose from
accident. It was deliberately made that the way to give both parties a certain leeway in negotiation. In this
manner, visiting US forces may sojourn in Philippine territory for purposes other than military.
Republic v. Sandiganbayan
PCGG case. Petitioner asserts that the revolutionary government effectively withheld the operation of the
1973 Constitution, which guaranteed private respondents exclusionary right (from illegal searches only
applies upon ratification of the Constitution). Therefore, the government may confiscate the monies and items
taken from Dimaano and use the same in evidence against her since at the time of their seizure, private
respondents did not enjoy any constitutional right.
The Court held that the Bill of Rights under the 1973 Constitution was not operative during the
interregnum. However, the Court ruled that the protection accorded to individuals under the Covenant and
the Declaration remained in effect during the interregnum. The Declaration, to which the Philippines is also a
signatory, provides in its Article 17(2) that no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property. Although the
signatories to the Declaration did not intend it as a legally binding document, being only a declaration, the
Court has interpreted. the Declaration as part of the generally accepted principles of international law and
binding on the State. Thus, the revolutionary government (the Aquino government) was also obligated under
international law to observe the rights of individuals under the Declaration.
As the de jure government, the revolutionary government could not escape responsibility for the States good
faith compliance with its treaty obligations under international law. The seizure of these items was therefore
void.
Nicaragua v. US
The general rule prohibiting force established in customary law allows for certain exceptions. The exception of
the right of individual or collective self-defense is also established in customary law, which Art. 51 refers to an
inherent right. The Parties agree in holding that whether the response to an attack is lawful depends on the
observance of the criteria of necessity and the proportionality of the measures taken in self-defense. Whether
self-defense be individual or collective, it can only be exercised in response to an armed attack. The Court
does not believe that the concept of armed attack includes assistance to rebels. Furthermore, the Court
finds that in customary international law, there is no ruling 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 should have declared itself to have been attacked.
Mijares v. Ranada
The US Court awarded the victims compensatory and exemplary damages. The present petitioners then filed
this complaint with RTC Makati for the enforcement of Final Judgment.
The Court said that the foreign judgment, despite its award for damages, may be enforced based on
internationally accepted principles and from opinions of foreign experts
Internationally recognized policy of preclusion, as well as the principles of comity, utility and convenience of
nations as the basis for the evolution of the rule calling for the recognition and enforcement of foreign
judgment. Although there were attempts to codify through treaties or multilateral agreements the standards
of recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment, the Philippines is not a signatory to these attempts ->
However, it is recognized as representing scholarly thought on the matter. As Steiner and Vagts, there is a
contemporary resurgence of writing stressing the identity or similarity of the values that systems of public
and private international law seek to further a community interest in common rules on these matters in
national systems.
Morever, Salonga, whose treatise on private international law is of worldwide renown, points out, Whatever
be the theory as to the basis for recognizing foreign judgments, there can be little dispute that the end is to
protect the reasonable expectations and demands of the parties. Where the parties have submitted a matter
for adjudication in the court of one state, and proceedings there are not tainted with irregularity, they may
fairly be expected to submit, within the state or elsewhere, to the enforcement of the judgment issued by the
court.

KKMD
The fact that there is no binding universal treaty governing the practice is not indicative of a widespread
rejection of the principle, but only a disagreement as to the imposable specific rules governing the procedure
for recognition and enforcement. Aside from the widespread practice, it is indubitable that the procedure for
recognition and enforcement is embodied in the rules of law, whether statutory or jurisprudential, adopted in
various foreign jurisdictions. Certainly, the Philippine legal system has long ago accepted into its
jurisprudence and procedural rules the viability of an action for enforcement of foreign judgment, as well as
the requisites for such valid enforcement, as derived from internationally accepted doctrines.
Tanada v. Angara
WTO/GATT aims to make available to the Filipino consumer the best goods and services obtainable anywhere
in the world at the most reasonable prices. Consequently, the question boils down to whether WTO/GATT will
favor the general welfare of the public at large.
The Court notes and appreciates the ferocity and passion by which petitioners stressed their arguments on
this issue. However, while sovereignty has traditionally been deemed absolute and all-encompassing on the
domestic level, it is however subject to restrictions and limitations voluntarily agreed to by the Philippines,
expressly or impliedly, as a member of the family of nations.
One of the oldest and most fundamental rules in international law is pacta sunt servanda international
agreements must be performed in good faith. "A treaty engagement is not a mere moral obligation but
creates a legally binding obligation on the parties . . . A state which has contracted valid international
obligations is bound to make in its legislations such modifications as may be necessary to ensure the
fulfillment of the obligations undertaken." [In the foregoing treaties] the Philippines has effectively agreed to
limit the exercise of its sovereign powers of taxation, eminent domain and police power. The underlying
consideration in this partial surrender of sovereignty is the reciprocal commitment of the other contracting
states in granting the same privilege and immunities to the Philippines, its officials and its citizens. The same
reciprocity characterizes the Philippine commitments under WTO-GATT.
Pimentel v. Romulo
The signing of the treaty and the ratification are two separate and distinct steps in the treaty-making process.
The signature is primarily intended as a means of authenticating the instrument and as a symbol of the good
faith of the parties. It is usually performed by the states authorized representative in the diplomatic mission.
On the other hand, Ratification is the formal act by which a state confirms and accepts the provisions of a
treaty concluded by its representative. It is generally held to be an executive act, undertaken by the head of
the state or of the government.
Western Sahara
Territories inhabited by tribes or peoples having a social and political organization were not regarded as terra
nullius (territory which prior to occupation belonged to no state or which may have been abandoned by a
prior occupant).
The information furnished to the Court shows that at the time of colonization, Western Sahara was inhabited
by peoples which, if nomadic, were socially and politically organized into tribes and under chiefs competent to
represent them.