CHAPTER VII. IMMUNITIES & PRIVILEGES Holy See v.

Del Rosario, supra

1. State immunity from suit, generally
2. Two conflicting concepts of sovereign immunity
a. Classical or absolute
b. Restrictive
CASE: Holy See v. Rosario, G.R. No. 101949,
December 1, 1994
3. Diplomatic immunity from legal processes and arrests
a. 3 classes of persons who may invoke immunity
from writs, legal processes, and arrests
i. Diplomats
ii. Agents, representatives or officials of states
iii. Officials or representatives of international
organizations
CASE: World Health Organization v.
Aquino, G.R. No. L-35131, November 29,
1972
Minucher v. CA, G.R. No. 142396, February 11,
2003
16. Remedy of complainant for money claim
CASE: EPG Construction v. Vigilar, G.R. No.
131544, March 16, 2001
17. When there is waiver of immunity from suit
18. States entering into a contract
CASE: US v. Ruiz, supra
19. Remedy of labor
20. Immunities and privileges under the Vienna
Convention on Consular Relations and Optional
Protocols
21. Immunities and privileges under the US Foreign
Sovereign Immunities Act

4. Immunity from arrest of heads of state, etc.
CASE: Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000
(Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium),
2002 ICJ 1 (February 14, 2002)
5. Immunity from suit extends to officials of a state
6. Illustrative cases of state immunity from suit
CASES:
Baer v. Tizon, G.R. No. L-24294, May 3, 1974
Sanders v. Veridiano, G.R. No. L-46930, June 10,
1988
22. Counterclaims raised against a suing state
CASE: National City Bank v. Republic of China,
348 U.S. 356 (1955)
23. Meaning of commercial activity
a. Under US FSIA
CASE: Saudi Arabia v. Nelson, 507 U.S. 349
(1993)
24. Where there is waiver of immunity
CASE: Argentina v. Weltower Inc., 504 U.S. 607
(1992)

7. Exceptions (to the doctrine of SIFS) 25. Examples of cases invoking US FSIA
CASES: US v. Reyes , G.R. No. 79253, March 1, CASES:
1993 Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping
Corp., 488 U.S. 428 (1989)
8. Illustrative cases of immunity from acts jure imperii Smith v. US, 508 U.S. 223 (1993)
a. Entering into a contract does not necessarily mean Saudi Arabia v. Nelson, supra
waiver of immunity Yessenin-Volpin v. Novosti Press Agency, 443 F.
CASES: Supp. 849 (1978) (S.D.N.Y. 1978)
Indonesia v. Vinzon, G.R. No. 154705, June 26, Sosa v. Alvarez, 542 U.S. 692 (2004)
2003 Trajano v. Marcos, 978 F.2d 493 (9th Cir. 1992)
Holy See v. Del Rosario, supra
b. State immunity extends only to acts jure imperii
CASE: US v. Ruiz, G.R. No. L-35645, May 22, CHAPTER VIII. LAW OF TREATIES
1985
c. When immunity may be asserted successfully 1. Treaty, in general
CASE: US v. Guinto, G.R. No. 76607, a. Definition
February 26, 1990 b. Aspects
c. Equivalent terms
9. Immunity extends to vessels of foreign ownership d. Definition of common terms

10. Immunity of armed vessels 2. Governing law on treaties

CASE: Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 11 U.S. a. Customary international law; general principles of
116 (1812) law
b. Vienna Conventions on the Law of Treaties
11. International organizations or specialized agencies
3. Treaty and executive agreement differentiated
12. Principle underlying immunity of international CASE: Saguisag v. Ochoa, G.R. No. 212426,
organization January 12, 2016

13. Settlement of disputes involving specialized agencies 4. Power of the President to enter into executive
agreements
14. Executive branch may certify immunity a. Basis
CASE: DFA v. NLRC, G.R. No. 113191, September i. By constitutional fiat
18, 1996 ii. By intrinsic nature of office
CASES:
15. Remedy where SIFS is raised Bayan v. Zamora, G.R. No.
CASE: 138570, October 10, 2000
 Nicolas v. Romulo, G.R. No. 175888, Agustin v. Edu, G.R. No. L-49112, February 2,
February 11, 2009 1979
Saguisag v. Ochoa, supra
15. Treaty cannot nullify law
5. Limitations of President’s power to enter into a. GR: Construe together as statutes in pari materia
executive agreements i. EXC: If there is conflict that cannot be
CASES: reconciled
Gonzales v. Hechanova, G.R. No. L-21897, October b. Treaty always subject to qualification or
22, 1963 amendment by subsequent law; cannot restrict
Suplico v. NEDA, G.R. No. 178830, July 14, 2008 police power
(read also the dissent of J. Carpio re: executive CASE: Cook v. US, 288 U.S. 102 (1933)
agreement does not have the status of municipal law)
16. Treaty violative of the Constitution void
6. President as sole organ in internal relations
CASE: US v. Curtis-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 17. Invalidity and other grounds to excuse from treaty
304 (1936) a. Grounds that vitiate consent, rendering treaty
voidable
7. Treaty-making power of the President b. Ground that render treaty void, i.e., automatically
CASES: invalid
Bayan v. Zamora, supra
Pimentel v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 158088, 18. Excuses from treaty obligations
July 6, 2005 a. Grounds
i. By termination of, or withdrawal from treaty
8. Component parts of treaty as provided for in the treaty itself
a. Title ii. By consent of the contracting states
b. Preamble iii. By concluding another treaty of the same
c. Main body subject matter as the previous treaty
d. Final part iv. By the realization of a treaty’s purpose
v. By the impossibility of performance
9. Steps in treaty-making vi. By the fundamental changes in the
a. Negotiation circumstances from the time the treaty was
b. Signature entered into (rebus sic stantibus)
c. Ratification CASE: Santos v. Northwest Orient
d. Concurrence Airlines, G.R. No. 101538, June 23, 1992
CASE: Pimentel v. Executive Secretary, supra vii. Material breach of the treaty itself
e. Exchange of instruments of ratification viii. By state succession
b. Procedure re invalidity, termination, withdrawal
10. Reservations from, or suspension of operation of treaty, and
consequences thereof: Art. 65-72 of the Vienna
11. Interpretation of treaties Convention
CASES:
Factor v. Laubenheimer, 290 U. S. 276 (1933) 19. Termination of treaty by the President
Wright v. CA, G.R. No. 113213, August 15, 1994 a. Unilateral termination of a treaty by the President
sans the consent of the Senate
12. Binding force of treaty; pacta sunt servanda CASE: Goldwater v. Carter, 444 U.S. 996
a. Legally binding obligation (1979)
b. GR: pacta sunt servanda
i. EXC to pacta sunt servanda 20. Termination of treaty by Congress
CASE: Case Concerning Avena and Other
Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. USA),
Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2004

13. Treaty is self-executing; does not create private rights

a. GR: self-executing;
i. EXC: treaty requires enabling statute
b. GR: Private persons not entitled to claim benefits
flowing from a treaty and to file suits to enforce
them
i. EXC:
CASES:
Kwan v. US, No. 01-1104, November 27,
2001
Guerrero’s Transport Services Inc. v.
Blaylock Services Employees Association-
Kilusan, G.R. No. L-41518 June 30, 1976

14. Doctrine of incorporation

CASES:
Kuroda v. Jalandoni, G.R. No. L-2662, March 26,
1949
Philip Morris v. CA, G.R. No. 91332, July 16, 1993