PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

- A treaty obligation has the force and effect of a statute and is given equal treatment with the latter. But
the constitution may invalidate a treaty inconsistent with it, as it does in case of an unconstitutional
statute. In the case of a conflict between a treaty and a statute, the principle of lex posterior derogat
priori applies- a treaty may repeal a prior statute, and a later statute may repeal an existing treaty (Sec.
of Justice vs. Lantion, 322 SCRA 160, 2000).

- Extradition is the removal of an accused from the Philippines with the object of placing him at the
disposal of foreign authorities to enable the requesting state or government to hold him in connection
with any criminal investigation directed against him or the execution of a penalty imposed on him
under the penal or criminal law of the requesting state or government (see Sec. 2, PD 1069).

- READ: Gov’t. of USA vs. Purganan, September 24, 2002; Secretary of Justice vs. Lantion, 343
SCRA 377).

- A person subject of an extradition request may be extradited for offense committed prior to the entry or
effectivity of the extradition treaty (Wright vs. CA, 235 SCRA 341).

- War may exist without a proclamation to that effect. Actual hostilities may determine the date of the
commencement of war, though no proclamation may have been issued, nod eclaration made, and no
action of the executive or legislative branches of the government had (US Vs. Lagnason, 3 Phil 472).

- Diplomatic immunity is essentially a political question and courts should refuse to look beyond a
determination by the executive branch of the government (WHO vs. Aquino, 48 SCRA 242).

- Consul is not entitled to the privileges and immunities of an ambassador or minister, but is subject
to the laws and regulations of the country to which he is accredited. He may, therefore, be subject of
criminal prosecution (Schneckenberger vs. Moran, 63 Phil 249).

- The slander of a person cannot be treated as falling under the purview of the immunity granted to
international officials who may only enjoy immunity with respect to acts performed by them in
their official capacity. However, the international organizations they represent enjoy absolute
immunity (Liang vs. People, 355 SCRA 125 (2001)).
 ADMINSTRATIVE LAW

- Civil Servants may be removed from office on acts of dishonesty and grave misconduct even if it is
not work-related. The private life of an employee cannot be segregated from his public life, Bernardo
vs. CA, 429 SCRA 285, May 27, 2004).

- Read Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction- Simply mandates that the regular courts, in controversies
involving specialized disputes, defer to the findings or resolutions of administrative tribunals on certain
technical matters. (Conrad & Co., Inc. vs. CA, 246 SCRA 691)

- The precise function of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction is to guide a court in determining
whether the court should refrain from exercising its jurisdiction until, after an administrative agency
has determined some question or some aspect of some question arising in the proceeding before the
court. (Quintos vs. National Stud Farm, 54 SCRA 210)

- Factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies which have acquired expertise in matters entrusted to their
jurisdictions are accorded by the courts not only respect but finality is supported by substantial
evidence. (Katipunan ng Mga Manggagawa sa Daungan vs. Calleja, 278 SCRA 531)

- Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies- Before one resorts to the courts of justice, such
administrative remedies as may be available should first be exhausted. (vda. De Vilanueva v. Ortiz, 103
Phil 875)

- The premature invocation of the intervention of the court is fatal to one’s cause of action. ( Republic
vs. Extelcom, January 15, 2002).

- EXCEPTIONS: (1) issues are purely legal in nature, (2) public interest is involved; (3) extreme
urgency is obvious; or (4) special circumstances warrant immediate or more direct action.
(Indiana Aerospace University vs. CHED, April 4, 2001.)

- (5) where the controverted act is patently illegal or was performed without jurisdiction; (6)
where the respondent is a department secretary whose acts as an alter ego of the President bear
the implied or assumed approval of the latter; (7) where there are circumstances indicating the
urgency of judicial intervention (Mitra vs. Subido, 21 SCRA 127)

- (8) when such remedy is permissive only, warranting the conclusion that the legislature intended
to allow the judicial remedy even though the administrative remedy has not been exhausted
(Corpus vs. Cuaderno, 4 SCRA 749).