MAGALLONA v.

ERMITA
G.R. 187167, August 16, 2011

FACTS: RA 3046 was passed in 1961, demarcating the maritime baselines of the
Philippines as an Archepelagic State pursuant to UNCLOS I of 9158, codifying the
sovereignty of State parties over their territorial sea. It was in the year 2009, when said
act was again amended by RA 9522 to be compliant with the UNCLOS III of 1984. The
requirements complied with are: 1.) to shorten one baseline; 2.) to optimize the location
of some basepoints; and 3.) classify KIG and Scarborough Shoal as ‘regime of islands’.

Due to the said amendments, the petitioners assailed the constitutionality of RA

9522 for it reduces the maritime territory of the Philippines, it opens the country’s waters
to innocent and sea lanes passages hence, undermining the country’s sovereignty, and
the regime of islands would weaken the country’s claim over those territories.

ISSUE: Whether RA 9522 is unconstitutional.

RULING: YES. It is consistent with the Philippine’s national interest. The Philippines, in
passing the said law adopt the interntionally-recognized delimitation of the breadth of
the Philippine’s maritime zones and continental shelf pursuant to United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea III (UNCLOS III). As to the demarcation of maritime
baselines, the conversion of internal waters to archipelagic waters will not risk the
Philippines as affirmed in the Article 49 of the UNCLOS III, an archipelagic State has
sovereign power that extends to the water enclosed by the archipelagic baselines,
regardless their depth or distance from the coast.

HOLY SEE v. ROSARIO

GR No. 101949, December 1, 1994

FACTS: A lot that was donated to the Holy See who exercised sovereignty over the
Vatican City, Rome Italy, for his residence. Said lots were sold to Starbright Enterprises
but the squatter around the lot refused to vacate the lots. Hence, Starbright Enterprises
insists that Holy See should be the one to clear the property. But Holy See refused and
returned the earners money. Starbright then filed a suit for annulment of the sale
against Holy See. Holy See then invoked his immunity from suit granted by the
international law adopted by the Constitution.

ISSUE: Whether Holy See can invoke sovereign immunity.

RULING: YES. In Public International Law, when a state or international agency wishes
to plead sovereign or diplomatic immunity in a foreign court, it requests the Foreign
Office of the state where it is sued to convey to the court that said defendant is entitled
to immunity. In the Philippines, the practice is for the foreign government or the
international organization to first secure an executive endorsement of its claim of
sovereign or diplomatic immunity. But how the Philippine Foreign Office conveys its
endorsement to the courts varies.

In the case at bench, the Department of Foreign Affairs, through the Office of
Legal Affairs moved with this Court to be allowed to intervene on the side of petitioner.
The Court allowed the said Department to file its memorandum in support of petitioner’s
claim of sovereign immunity.

GOVERNMENT OF HONGKONG v. OLALIA

GR No. 153675, April 19, 2007

FACTS:A case was filed against Muñoz for conspiring as agent to defraud others by the
Government of Hongkong. The case was filed with the RTC of Manila where Muñoz
petitioned for bail to the extradition filed by GH. The bail was granted by Judge Olalia.

ISSUE: Whether a prospective extradite may be granted bail.

RULING: YES. The modern trend in public international law is the primacy placed on
the worth of the individual person and the sanctity of human rights which is the
following: (1) the growing importance of the individual person in public international law
who, in the 20th century, has gradually attained global recognition; (2) the higher value
now being given to human rights in the international sphere; (3) the corresponding duty
of countries to observe these universal human rights in fulfilling their treaty obligations;
and (4) the duty of this Court to balance the rights of the individual under our
fundamental law, on one hand, and the law on extradition, on the other.

CNMEG v. SANTAMARIA
GR No, 185572, February 7, 2012

FACTS: CNMEG entered into a Memorandum with Understanding with Northrail for a
feasibility study on a possible railway line from Manila to La Union. The Chinese
government then designated Exim Bank to lend the Philippines to finance the project
payable for 20 years. The construction of the railway was then executed. Due to the
loans acquired by the country, the private respondents filed for the annulment of
contract with the CNMEG for being contrary to the Government Procurement Reform
Act or RA 9184 and other pertinent laws with the RTC of Makati. CNMEG assailed that
the contract agreement is an executive agreement between China and the Philippines,
hence, cannot be questioned by a local court.

ISSUE: Whether the contract is an executive agreement between two sovereign states.
RULING: NO. Executive agreement is similar to a treaty, except that the former (a)
does not require legislative concurrence; (b) is usually less formal; and (c) deals with a
narrower range of subject matters. Despite these differences, to be considered an
executive agreement, the following three requisites provided under the Vienna
Convention must nevertheless concur: (a) the agreement must be between states; (b) it
must be written; and (c) it must governed by international law. The first and the third
requisites do not obtain in the case at bar.

The Contract Agreement was not concluded between the Philippines and China, but
between Northrail and CNMEG. By the terms of the Contract Agreement, Northrail is a
government-owned or -controlled corporation, while CNMEG is a corporation duly
organized and created under the laws of the People’s Republic of China.

PHCAP v. DUQUE
GR No. 173034, October 9, 2007

FACTS: EO No. 51 or also known as the Milk Code was passed to give effect to Article
112 of the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes. The WHA then
adopted several resolutions that breastfeeding must be protected and promoted.
PHCAP, representing manufacturers of breastfeeding substitutes seek to nullify the
RIRR.

ISSUE: Whether ICMBS is a treaty that gives rise to the adaptation of EO No. 51.

RULING: NO. The ICMBS and WHA Resolutions are not treaties as they have not been
concurred in by at least two-thirds of all members of the Senate as required under
Section 21, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution. However, the ICMBS which was
adopted by the WHA in 1981 had been transformed into domestic law through local
legislation, the Milk Code. Consequently, it is the Milk Code that has the force and effect
of law in this jurisdiction and not the ICMBS per se.

The Milk Code is almost a verbatim reproduction of the ICMBS, but it is well to
emphasize at this point that the Code 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. Instead, the Milk Code expressly provides that
advertising, promotion, or other marketing materials may be allowed if such materials
are duly authorized and approved by the Inter-Agency Committee (IAC).