Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
October
10, 2000. 342 SCRA 449
Facts:
On March 14, 1947, the Philippines and the United States of
America forged a Military Bases Agreement which
formalized, among others, the use of installations in the
Philippine territory by United States military personnel. In
view of the impending expiration of the RP-US Military Bases
Agreement in 1991, the Philippines and the United States
negotiated for a possible extension of the military bases
agreement. On September 16, 1991, the Philippine Senate
rejected the proposed RP-US Treaty of Friendship,
Cooperation and Security which, in effect, would have
extended the presence of US military bases in the
Philippines. On July 18, 1997, the United States panel,
headed by US Defense Deputy Assistant Secretary for Asia
Pacific Kurt Campbell, met with the Philippine panel, headed
by Foreign Affairs Undersecretary Rodolfo Severino Jr., to
exchange notes on the complementing strategic interests of
the United States and the Philippines in the Asia-Pacific
region. Both sides discussed, among other things, the
possible elements of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA for
brevity). Thereafter, then President Fidel V. Ramos approved
the VFA, which was respectively signed by public
respondent Secretary Siazon and Unites States Ambassador
Thomas Hubbard. On October 5, 1998, President Joseph E.
Estrada, through respondent Secretary of Foreign Affairs,
ratified the VFA. On October 6, 1998, the President, acting
through respondent Executive Secretary Ronaldo Zamora,
officially transmitted to the Senate of the Philippines, the
Instrument of Ratification, the letter of the President and the
VFA, for concurrence pursuant to Section 21, Article VII of
the 1987 Constitution
Tanada vs Angara
FACTS
The suit was filed to nullify the concurrence of the
Philippines Senate to the Presidents Ratification of the
Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization. It was
contended that the agreement places nationals and products
of member countries on the same footing as Filipinos and
local products in contravention of the Filipino First Policy.
Petitioners maintained that this Agreement was an assault
on the sovereign powers of the Philippines because it meant
that Congress could not pass legislation that would be good
for national interest and general welfare if such legislation
would not conform to the WTO Agreement.
ISSUE
Whether the provisions of the WTO Agreement and its
annexes limit, restrict, or impair the exercise of legislative
power by Congress.
HELD
While sovereignty has traditionally been deemed absolute
and all-encompassing on the domestic level, it is however
subject to limitations and restrictions voluntarily agreed to by
the Philippines 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 xxx. A state which has contracted valid
international obligations is bound to make in its legislation
such modifications as may be necessary to ensure the
fulfillment of the obligations undertaken.
By their inherent nature, treaties really limit or restrict the
absoluteness of sovereignty. By their voluntary act, nations
may surrender some aspects of their state power in
exchange for greater benefits granted by or derived from a
convention or pact. After all, states, like individuals live with
coequals, and in pursuit of mutuality covenanted objectives
Based on the facts obtaining, the Supreme court find that the
holding of Balikatan-02-1 joint military exercise has not
intruded into that penumbra of error that would otherwise call
for the correction on its part.
Constantino vs Cuisia
Facts
Dring the Aquino regime, her administration came up w/ a
scheme to reduce the countrys external debt. The solution
resorted to was to incur foreign debts. Three restructuring
programs were sought to initiate the program for foreign
debts they are basically buyback programs & bondconversion programs). Constantino as a taxpayer and in
behalf of his minor children who are Filipino citizens,
together w/ FFDC averred that the buyback and bondconversion schemes are onerous and they do not constitute
the loan contract or guarantee contemplated in Sec. 20,
Art. 7 of the Constitution. And assuming that the President
has such power unlike other powers which may be validly
delegated by the President, the power to incur foreign debts
is expressly reserved by the Constitution in the person of the
President. They argue that the gravity by which the exercise
of the power will affect the Filipino nation requires that the
President alone must exercise this power. They argue that
the requirement of prior concurrence of an entity specifically
named by the Constitutionthe Monetary Boardreinforces
the submission that not respondents but the President alone
ISSUE:
HELD:
There is no question that the president has borrowing
powers and that the president may contract or guarantee
foreign loans in behalf of this country w/ prior concurrence of
the Monetary Board. It makes no distinction whatsoever and
the fact that a debt or a loan may be onerous is irrelevant.
On the other hand, the president can delegate this power to
her direct subordinates. The evident exigency of having the
Secretary of Finance implement the decision of the
President to execute the debt-relief contracts is made
manifest by the fact that the process of establishing and
executing a strategy for managing the governments debt is
deep within the realm of the expertise of the Department of
Finance, primed as it is to raise the required amount of
funding, achieve its risk and cost objectives, and meet any
other sovereign debt management goals. If the President
were to personally exercise every aspect of the foreign
borrowing power, he/she would have to pause from running
the country long enough to focus on a welter of timeconsuming detailed activitiesthe propriety of
incurring/guaranteeing loans, studying and choosing among
the many methods that may be taken toward this end,
meeting countless times with creditor representatives to
negotiate, obtaining the concurrence of the Monetary Board,
explaining and defending the negotiated deal to the public,
and more often than not, flying to the agreed place of
execution to sign the documents. This sort of constitutional
interpretation would negate the very existence of cabinet
positions and the respective expertise which the holders
thereof are accorded and would unduly hamper the
Presidents effectivity in running the government. The act of
the respondents are not unconstitutional.
Exception
There are certain acts which, by their very nature, cannot be
YES
under Article 23, recommendations of the WHA do not come
into force for members,in the same way that conventions or
agreements under Article 19 and regulations under Article 21
come into force. Article 23 of the WHO Constitution reads:
Article 23. The Health Assembly shall have authority to make
recommendations to Members with respect to any matter
within the competence of the Organization
for an international rule to be considered as customary law, it
must be established that such rule is being followed by
states because they consider it obligatory to comply with
such rules
Under the 1987 Constitution, international law can become
part of the sphere of domestic law either
By transformation or incorporation. The transformation
method requires that an international law be transformed into
a domestic law through a constitutional mechanism such as
local legislation. The incorporation method applies when, by
mere constitutional declaration, international law is deemed
to have the force of domestic law.
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
1. Administrative organization;
2. Creation of sources of revenues;
3. Ancestral domain and natural resources;
4. Personal, family, and property relations;
5. Regional urban and rural planning development;
6. Economic, social, and tourism development;
7. Educational policies;
8. Preservation and development of the cultural heritage;
and
9. Such other matters as may be authorized by law for the
promotion of the general welfare of the people of the region.
Facts:
Petitioner Bayan Muna is a duly registered party-list group
established to represent the marginalized sectors of society.
Respondent Blas F. Ople, now deceased, was the Secretary
of Foreign Affairs during the period material to this case.
Respondent Alberto Romulo was impleaded in his capacity
as then Executive Secretary.
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
Issue:
Whether or not the RP-US NON SURRENDER
AGREEMENT is void ab initio for contracting obligations that
are either immoral or otherwise at variance with universally
recognized principles of international law.
Ruling:
Issues:
Ruling:
The instant Petition is DENIED. Petitioner China National
Machinery & Equipment Corp. (Group) is not entitled to
immunity from suit, and the Contract Agreement is not an
executive agreement. CNMEGs prayer for the issuance of a
TRO and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction is DENIED for being
moot and academic.
The Court explained the doctrine of sovereign
immunity in Holy See v. Rosario, to wit:
There are two conflicting concepts of sovereign immunity,
each widely held and firmly established. According to the
classical or absolute theory, a sovereign cannot, without
its consent, be made a respondent in the courts of
another sovereign. According to the newer or restrictive
theory, the immunity of the sovereign is recognized only
with regard to public acts or acts jure imperii of a state,
but not with regard to private acts or acts jure gestionis.
(Emphasis supplied; citations omitted.)
As it stands now, the application of the doctrine of immunity
from suit has been restricted to sovereign or governmental
activities (jure imperii). The mantle of state immunity cannot
be extended to commercial, private and proprietary acts
(jure gestionis).
Since the Philippines adheres to the restrictive
theory, it is crucial to ascertain the legal nature of the act
involved whether the entity claiming immunity performs
governmental, as opposed to proprietary, functions. As held
in United States of America v. Ruiz
Admittedly, the Loan Agreement was entered into
between EXIM Bank and the Philippine government, while the
Contract Agreement was between Northrail and CNMEG.
Although the Contract Agreement is silent on the classification
of the legal nature of the transaction, the foregoing provisions
of the Loan Agreement, which is an inextricable part of the
entire undertaking, nonetheless reveal the intention of the
parties to the Northrail Project to classify the whole venture as
commercial or proprietary in character.
Thus, piecing together the content and tenor of the
Contract Agreement, the Memorandum of Understanding