BBayan v. Zamora (GR No.

138570 October 10, 2000) FACTS: Philippines and the United States of America (USA) forged a military bases agreement the use of installations in the Philippine territory by the US military personnel on March 14, 1947. To further strengthen their defense and security relationship, Philippines and USA entered into a Mutual Defense Treaty on August 30, 1951. The parties agreed to respond to any external armed attack on their territory, armed forces, public vessels and aircraft. The RP-US Military Bases Agreement expired in 1991. However, the defense and security relationship continued in accordance with the Mutual Defense Treaty. Philippines and USA exchanged notes and negotiated the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA). These resulted to a consolidated draft text and a series of conferences, and eventually led to an approval by President Ramos. On October 1998, President Estrada ratified the VFA and acting thru Executive Secretary Zamora this was officially transmitted to the Senate for ratification. It was approved by the Senate. The VFA officially entered into force on June 1, 1999. The contents of the VFA provides for the regulation of the circumstances and conditions under which the US Armed Forces may be present in the Philippines. Petitioners argued that it is a matter of transcendental importance thus they assail the constitutionality of the VFA.

ISSUE: Whether or not the VFA is unconstitutional. RULING: No. Section 25, Article XVIII is a special provision that applies to treaties which involve the presence of foreign military bases, troops or facilities in the Philippines. Therefore, for VFA to be constitutional it must meet the following requisites: 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 votes cast by the people in national referendum; c) recognized as a treaty by the other contracting State. In the case at bar, there is no dispute in the presence of the first two requisites. With regard to the third requisite, an executive agreement is as binding as a treaty pursuant to international law.

Pharmaceutical v DOH Facts: Petition for certiorari seeking to nullify the Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations (RIRR) of E.O. 51 (Milk Code). Petitioner claims that the RIRR is not valid as it contains provisions that are not constitutional and go beyond what it is supposed to implement. Milk Code was issued by President Cory Aquino under the Freedom Constitution on Oct.1986. One of the preambular clauses of the Milk Code states that the law seeks to give effect to Art 11 of the Intl Code of Marketing and Breastmilk Substitutes(ICBMS), a code adopted by the World Health Assembly(WHA). From 1982-2006, The WHA also adopted severe resolutions to the effect that breastfeeding should be supported, hence, it should be ensured that nutrition and health claims are not permitted for breastmilk substitutes. In 2006, the DOH issued the assailed RIRR. 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

Held: Yes for ICBMS. Under 1987 Consti, intl law can become domestic law by transformation (thru constitutional mechanism such as local legislation) or incorporation (mere constitutional declaration i.e treaties) The ICBMS and WHA resolutions were not treaties as they have not been concurred by 2/3 of all members of the Senate as required under Sec, 21, Art 8. However, the ICBMS had been transformed into domestic law through a local legislation such as the Milk Code. No for WHA Resolutions. The Court ruled that 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). The WHO resolutions, although signed by most of the member states, were enforced or practiced by at least a majority of member states. Unlike the ICBMS whereby legislature enacted most of the provisions into the law via the Milk Code, the WHA Resolutions (specifically providing for exclusive breastfeeding from 0-6 months, breastfeeding up to 24 Months and absolutely prohibiting ads for breastmilk substitutes) have not been adopted as domestic law nor are they followed in our country as well. The Filipinos have the option of how to take care of their babies as they see fit. 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.

HELD: No. The MOA-AD is not a document that can bind the Philippines under international law. It would have been signed by the representatives of States and international organizations not the parties to the Agreement. In our system of government, the President, being the head of state, is regarded as the sole organ and authority in external relations and is the country's sole representative with foreign nations. As the chief architect of foreign policy, the President acts as the country's mouthpiece with respect to international affairs. Hence, the President is vested with the authority to deal with foreign states and governments, extend or withhold recognition, maintain diplomatic relations, enter into treaties, and otherwise transact the business of foreign relations. In the realm of treaty-making, the President has the sole authority to negotiate with other states. It is, therefore, clear that the MOA-AD contains numerous provisions that cannot be reconciled with the Constitution and the laws as presently worded.

The Province of North Cotabato v. GRP Peace Panel (GR No. 183591, Oct. 14, 2008) FACTS: The government of the Republic of the Philippines Peace Panel on Ancestral Domain (GRP), represented by its Chairman Rodolfo C. Garcia, and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), represented by its Chairman Mohagber Iqbal, were scheduled to sign the Memorandum of Agreement on the Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD) on the 5th of August 2008. The said signing of the MOA-AD was in line with the GRPMILF Tripoli Agreement on Peace of 2001 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. In the MOA-AD, it grants the Bangsamoro Judicial Entity (BJE) authority and jurisdiction over the Ancestral Domain and Ancestral Lands of the Bangsamoro. However, the signing of the MOA-AD did not take place. Upon the motion of the petitioners, the Supreme Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order to GRP from signing the MOA-AD.
ISSUE: WON by signing of the MOA-AD, the Government of the Philippines would be binding itself.

Bayan Muna v. Romulo (GR No. 159618 Feb. 1, 2011) FACTS: On the 9th of May 2003, then Ambassador Francis J. Ricciardone sent US Embassy Note to the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) proposing the terms of the nosurrender bilateral agreement (Agreement) between the United States (US) and the Republic of the Philippines (RP). Via Exchange of Notes, RP DFA Secretary Blas F. Ople accepted the US proposals and put in effect the Agreement with the US government. The Agreement aims to protect persons from frivolous and harassment suits that might be brought against them in international tribunals. It is reflective of the increasing pace of the strategic security and defense partnership between the two countries. Petitioner Bayan Muna is a duly registered party-list group established to represent the marginalized sector of the society. It imputes grave abuse of discretion to respondents in concluding and ratifying the Agreement and prays that it be declared unconstitutional.

Petitioner contended that exchange of diplomatic notes cannot be a valid medium for concluding the Agreement. Moreover, the Agreement must be duly concurred by the Senate in order for it to be considered a treaty. Respondent contended that exchange of notes falls into an internationally accepted form of international agreement. Ambassador Ricciardone said that the exchange of diplomatic notes constituted a legally binding agreement under the international law, and US law. The said agreement did not require the advice and consent of the US Senate. RULING: Yes. Section 2, Article II of the Philippine Constitution provides that Philippines adopts the generally accepted principles of international law and jurisprudence as part of the law of the land. An exchange of notes falls into the category of intergovernmental agreements. Exchange of notes is being considered a form of executive agreement that becomes binding through executive action. It is clear that the exchange of notes between Ambassador Ricciardone and DFA Secretary Ople can be viewed as the Non-Surrender Agreement itself, or as an integral instrument of acceptance thereof. International Agreements may be in the form of (1) treaties that require legislative concurrence after executive ratificiation; or (2) executive agreements that are similar to

ISSUE: Whether or not the Agreement was validly contracted.

ARGUMENTS:

treaties, except that they do not require legislative concurrence. Under the international law, there is no difference between treaties and executive agreements in terms of their binding effects on the contracting States.