Dean Candelaria’s 2017 PIL Pre-Bar

Notes Q and A

Bayan v. Zamora
What are the requisites for presence of foreign military bases, troops, or facilities
in the Philippines to be constitutional?

Under Art. 18, Sec. 25 of the 1987 Constitution, presence of foreign military bases, troops,
or facilities in the Philippines are allowed provided:

1. It is under a treaty;
2. The treaty is duly concurred in by the Senate and, when so required by Congress,
ratified by a majority votes cast by the people in a national referendum; and
3. The instrument allowing the presence must be recognized as a treaty by the other
contracting state. (Bayan v. Zamora, G.R. No. 138570)

Under international law, is a treaty different from an executive agreement?

No. There is no difference between treaties and executive agreements in their binding effect
upon states concerned, as long as the negotiating functionaries have remained within their
powers. International law continues to make no distinction between treaties and executive
agreements: they are equally binding obligations upon nations. (Bayan v. Zamora, G.R. No.
138570)

Nicolas v. Romulo
Must the United States Senate concur to the Bases Agreement to satisfy the
constitutional requirement that the bases agreement must be recognized as a treaty
by the other contracting state?

No. It was not the intention of the framers of the 1987 Constitution, in adopting Article XVIII,
Sec. 25, to require the other contracting State to convert their system to achieve alignment
and parity with ours. It was simply required that the treaty be recognized as a treaty by the
other contracting State. (Nicolas v. Romulo, G.R. No. 175888)

Lim v. Executive Secretary

What is the principle of pacta sunt servanda?

It provides that every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed
by them in good faith. Thus, a party to the treaty is not allowed to invoke provisions of its
internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty. (Lim v. Executive Secretary,
G.R. No. 151445)

Pimentel v. Executive Secretary

Can the President be compelled by the Senate through a mandamus proceeding to
ratify a treaty?

No. The role of the Senate is limited only to giving or withholding its consent or concurrence
to the ratification. It is still the President who must ratify the treaty. It is subject to his
discretion, and thus not compellable by mandamus proceedings. (Pimentel v. Exec. Secretary,
G.R. 158088)
In treaty-related matters, distinguish “opening for signature” from ratification.

Opening for signature is intended as a means of authenticating the instrument, and for the
purpose of symbolizing the good faith of the parties. Ratification is the formal act by which a
state confirms and accepts the provisions of a treaty concluded by its representatives.
(Pimentel v. Exec. Secretary, G.R. 158088)

Who is/are the only people allowed to negotiate or transact business with foreign
states?

Negotiation may be undertaken directly by the head of state, or his authorized representative.
(Pimentel v. Exec. Secretary, G.R. 158088)

Sps. Renato v. Hon. Rosario

Do buyback and bond-conversion schemes constitute the loan contract or guarantee
contemplated in the Constitution which the President may enter into?

Yes. The language of the Constitution is simple and clear as it is broad. It allows the President
to contract and guarantee foreign loans. It makes no prohibition on the issuance of certain
kinds of loans or distinctions as to which kinds of debt instruments are more onerous than
others. (Sps. Renato v. Hon. Rosario, G.R. No. 106064)

What are the limitations provided under the Constitution on the power of the
President to contract or guarantee foreign loans in behalf of the Republic of the
Philippines?

The only restriction that the Constitution provides, aside from the prior concurrence of the
Monetary Board, is that the loans must be subject to limitations provided by law. (Sps. Renato
v. Hon. Rosario, G.R. No. 106064)

Can the President pre-terminate debts without further action from Congress?

Yes. Republic Act No. 240 specifically allow the President to pre-terminate debts without
further action from Congress. (Sps. Renato v. Hon. Rosario, G.R. No. 106064)

Pharmaceutical v. DOH
Are “soft laws,” such as the World Health Assembly (WHA) resolutions, binding and
obligatory upon the state?

No. The WHA resolutions are only SOFT LAW, and are not binding/obligatory. In the absence
of proof that these resolutions are opinion juris, the executive branch cannot implement them
through the domestic agencies. Legislation is needed in order to transform the
recommendations into domestic law. (Pharmaceutical v. DOH, G.R. No. 173034)

Can international laws become part of the law of the land?

Yes. Under the 1987 Constitution, international law can become a part of the law of the land
either by transformation or incorporation. (Pharmaceutical v. DOH, G.R. No. 173034)

Distinguish the concept of transformation from incorporation.

In transformation, international law is transformed into domestic law through a constitutional

mechanism such as local legislation, while in incorporation, by mere constitutional declaration,
international law is deemed to have the force of domestic law. (Pharmaceutical v. DOH, G.R.
No. 173034)
When do generally accepted principles of international law, by virtue of the
incorporation clause of the Constitution, form part of the laws of the land even if
they do not derive from treaty obligations?

The classical formulation in international law sees those customary rules accepted as binding
result from the combination of two elements:

(1) the established, widespread, and consistent practice on the part of States; and

(2) a psychological element known as the opinion juris sive necessitates (opinion as
to law or necessity) where there is an implicit belief that the practice in question is
rendered obligatory by the existence of a rule of law requiring it. (Pharmaceutical v.
DOH, G.R. No. 173034)

What are General Accepted Principles of International Law?

"Generally accepted principles of international law" refers to norms of general or customary

international law which are binding on all states. They have the character of “jus rationale”
and are “valid through all kinds of human societies.” (Pharmaceutical v. DOH, G.R. No.
173034)

What are customs or customary international law?

As defined by Father Bernas, custom or customary international law means “a general and
consistent practice of states followed by them from a sense of legal obligation [opinio juris].”
(Pharmaceutical v. DOH, G.R. No. 173034)

Do the International Code of Marketing Breastmilk Substitutes (ICMBS) and the

World Health Assembly (WHA) resolutions constitute as treaties?

No. The ICMBS and WHA Resolutions are not treaties as they have not been concurred by at
least two-thirds of all members of the Senate. However, the ICMBS, which was adopted by
the WHA in 1981, has been transformed into domestic law through local legislation, The Milk
Code. Consequently, it is the Milk Code that has force and effect here in this jurisdiction, and
not the ICMBS per se. (Pharmaceutical v. DOH, G.R. No. 173034)

Abaya v. Ebdane
What is an exchange of notes?

Exchange of notes consists of the exchange of two documents, each of the parties being in
the possession of the one signed by the representative of the other. Under the usual
procedure, the accepting State repeats the text of the offering State to record its assent. The
signatories of the letters may be government Ministers, diplomats or departmental heads
(Abaya v. Ebdane, G.R. No. 167919).

Is exchange of notes a form of an executive agreement?

Yes. Exchange of notes is considered a form of an executive agreement, which becomes

binding through executive action without the need of a vote by the Senate or Congress.
Agreements concluded by the President which fall short of treaties are commonly referred to
as executive agreements and are no less common in our scheme of government than are the
more formal instruments – treaties and conventions (Abaya v. Ebdane, G.R. No. 167919).
Province of North Cotabato v. GRP Panel
When do public statements of a state representative may be construed as a
unilateral declaration and binding?

Only when the following conditions are present:

1) The statements were clearly addressed to the international community;

2) The state intended to be bound to that community by its statements; and
3) To not give legal effect to those statements would be detrimental to the security of
international intercourse (Province of North Cotabato v. GRP Panel, G.R. No. 183591).

Are all international agreements signed by state representatives binding under

international law?

No. A peace settlement that is signed by representatives of states and international

organizations does not mean that the agreement is internationalized so as to create
obligations in international law (Province of North Cotabato v. GRP Panel, G.R. No. 183591).

Reservations to the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime
of Genocide
Can a reserving State be regarded as being a party to the Convention while still
maintaining its reservation if the reservation is objected to by one or more of the
parties to the Convention but not by others?

Yes. If the reservation is compatible with the object and purpose of the convention; otherwise,
State can’t be regarded as being a party to the convention (Reservations to the 1948
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide).

When are reservations allowed?

If the Convention doesn’t provide for an article which prohibits reservations, it cannot be
inferred that one is prohibited. To determine the possibility of making reservations, the
following must be considered:

1) Character;
2) Purpose;
3) Provisions;
4) Mode of preparation; and
5) Adoption (Reservations to the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of
the Crime of Genocide).

What is the effect of reservation between the reserving state and the parties who
objected to the reservation and those who accepted it?

The assent will only affect the relationship between the state making the reservation and the
one objecting. It must clearly be assumed that the contracting states are desirous of
preserving intact at least what is essential to the object of the convention. An understanding
between that a State and the reserving State will have the effect that the Convention will
enter into force between them, except for clauses affected by the reservation (Reservations
to the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide).
Fisheries Jurisdiction Case
Can a change of circumstances be a ground for the termination of a treaty?

Yes. International law admits that a fundamental change in circumstances, which prompted
the Parties to accept a treaty, may, under certain conditions afford the Party affected a ground
for invoking the termination or suspension of a treaty. (UK v. Iceland)

Country A has been fishing within an exclusive fishery zone belonging to Country B
for centuries without any issues. Can country B suddenly prohibit Country A to fish
within their area due to mere favorable opportunities on Country B?

No. Since Country B has no prior issues with Country A fishing in the area, the theory of
‘silence leads to consent’ applies. Country A has become a permanent part within the region
and cannot be removed. Silence lead to consent, thus if a state has an issue with a certain
action, it should speak up. (UK v. Iceland)

Does a state have a right to extend its fishery zone from 12 miles to 50 miles?

No. It is a general practice that coastal states can claim exclusive fisheries jurisdiction
between the territorial sea and the high seas is only 12 miles from its baseline. (UK v. Iceland)

Danube Dam Case

Country A agreed with Country B to build a dam project. Construction has begun but
Country A decided to suspend and abandon the project because of intense public
criticism. Is Country A’s act valid?

No. A ‘state of necessity’ is indispensable to allow a country to breach its international

obligations. For a valid ‘state of necessity’, the following conditions must apply:

(1) It must have been occasioned by an "essential interest" of the State which is the
author of the act conflicting with one of its international obligations; 


(2) That interest must have been threatened by a "grave and imminent peril"; 


(3) The act being challenged must have been the "only means" of safeguarding that
interest; 


(4) That act must not have "seriously impaired an essential interest" of the State towards
which the obligation existed; 


(5) The State which is the author of that act must not have 
"contributed to the occurrence
of the state of necessity". (Hungary v. Slovakia)

Is a ‘state of necessity’ a ground to terminate a treaty?

No. It may only be invoked to absolve a state from its responsibility to implement a treaty.
(Hungary v. Slovakia)

Sei Fuji v. California

Can provisions of the UN Charter supersede domestic legislation?

No. A treaty does not automatically supersede local laws which are inconsistent with it unless
the treaty provisions are self- executing. (Sei Fuji v. California)

When can a treaty be self-executing?

In order for a treaty provision to be operative without the aid of implementing legislation and
to have the force and effect of a statute, it must appear that the framers of the treaty intended
to prescribe a rule that, standing alone, would be enforceable in the courts. (Sei Fuji v.
California)

Paquete Habana v. US
Under international law, are fishing vessels pursuing their vocation of catching and
bringing in fresh fish are recognized as exempt, with their cargoes and crews from
capture as prize of war?

Yes, they are exempt. Under international law, coastal fishing vessels pursuing their vocation
of catching & bringing in fresh fish have been recognized as exempt with their cargoes and
crews from capture as prize of war. (Paquete Habana v. US)

What are the requirements to determine if something is customary law?

a) It must be a State practice by a number of different countries; and

b) This practice must be repeated over a period of time. (Paquete Habana v. US)

New Zealand v. France

Is a declaration made through a unilateral act have an effect of creating legal
obligations?

Yes, it is well recognized that declarations made by way of unilateral acts, may have the effect
of creating legal obligations. The intention of being bound is to be ascertained by an
interpretation of the act. The binding character of the undertaking results from the terms of
the act and is based on good faith. Interested states are entitled to require that the obligation
be respected. (New Zealand v. France; Australia v. France)

International Status of South West Africa

What are the 3 general principles common to all institutions of “trust”?

1. The control of the trustee over the property is limited in one way or another; he is not
in the position of the normal complete owner, who can do what he likes with his own,
as he is precluded from administering the property for his own personal benefit;
2. The trustee is under some kind of legal obligation, based on confidence and conscience,
to carry out the trust or mission confided to him for the benefit of some other person
or for some public purposes; and
3. Any attempt by one of these persons to absorb the property entrusted to him into his
own patrimony would be illegal and would be prevented by the law. (International
Status of South West Africa).

What is the Anglo-American Trust?

A: It is akin to the Mandates System wherein trustees are vested with the property and its
management in order that the public or some class of the public may derive benefit or that
some public purpose may be served (International Status of South West Africa).

Diversion of Water from the River Meuse

What is required in order to allow the existence of legal inequality between the
Parties to a treaty freely concluded?

In order to allow the existence of such inequality, the text of the treaty must say so in precise
terms. (Diversion of Water from the River Meuse)
Filartiga v. Pena-Irala
Does deliberate torture perpetrated under color of official authority violates
universally accepted norms of the international law of human rights, regardless the
nationality of the parties?

Yes, an act of torture committed by a state official against one held in detention violates
established norms of the international law of human rights, and hence the law of nations.
(Filartiga v Pena-Irala)

Can members of the UN claim ignorance of what human rights they promised the
Charter?

No, they cannot claim ignorance. The UDHR is an authoritative statement of the international
community. It creates an expectation of adherence. The international consensus surrounding
torture has been manifested in numerous treaties and is also reflected in modern principal
law. (Filartiga v Pena-Irala)

Tanada v. Angara
What may be the consequence of International Laws and Treaties to Philippine
sovereignty?

While sovereignty has traditionally been deemed absolute and all-encompassing on the
domestic level, it is however subject to restrictions and limitations voluntarily agreed by the
Philippines as member of the international community. By the doctrine of incorporation, the
country is bound by generally accepted principles of international law, which are considered
automatically part of our own laws. (Tanada v. Angara, G.R. No. 118295)

Mijares v. Ranada
Is the concept of recognition of foreign judgment recognized in the Philippine
courts?

Yes. Recognition of foreign judgment is one of the generally accepted principles of

international law, which, by virtue of the incorporation clause in the Constitution, form part
of the laws of the land even if they do not derive from treaty obligations. (Mijares v. Ranada,
G.R. No. 139325)

Case concerning rights of nationals of US in Morocco

Does a state lose its statehood upon being a protectorate?

No. States which became a protectorate retains its personality as a State, separate from its
protecting state, under international law. (Case concerning rights of nationals of United States
in Morocco)

Report of the 5th Committee of first assembly of the League of Nations, with reference
to admission to the league of Liechtenstein
Can a de jure State be denied membership to an international organization?

Yes. A de jure state may be denied membership to an international organization if it could not
discharge all international obligations which would be imposed on it by a covenant among the
contracting states. (Report of the 5th Committee of first assembly of the League of Nations,
with reference to admission to the league of Liechtenstein)
Australia v. State of New South Wales
Can a country state invoke immunity from jurisdiction against the country to which
it belongs?

No. Only a sovereign state can invoke international comity which respects the independence
of every other sovereign State. (Australia v. New South Wales, 1923)

Reparations for Injuries suffered in the service of the United Nations

Can the United Nations claim reparation for the injuries suffered by its agent while
in the performance of his duty?

Yes. UN can claim reparation not only in respect of damage caused to itself, but also in respect
of damage suffered by the victim or persons entitled through him. UN should be regarded in
international law as possessing the powers which, even if they are not expressly stated in the
Charter, are conferred upon the UN as being essential to the discharge of its functions.

Texaco v. Libya
Can a private contracting party be regarded as having a personality in international
law?

Yes. Legal international capacity is not solely attributable to a State. A private contracting
party has limited capacity or personality, and is limited to invoke only those rights that he
derives from his contract. (Texaco v. Libya)

Island of Palmas Case

Is discovery enough to establish sovereignty over an island?

No. Discovery is not enough to establish sovereignty; it is at most an ’inchoate’, or incomplete

title. A state must actually exercise sovereignty over that discovered territory. Discovery must
be accompanied by effective control to result to occupation of the land.

Western Sahara Case

Whether occupation was a means of peaceably acquiring sovereignty over territory?

Yes. It is critical for occupation to happen that the territory be terra nullius. Territories
inhabited by tribes or peoples having a social and political organization were not regarded as
terra nullius. (Western Sahara Case, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports, 1975)

Corfu Channel Case

Does territorial sovereignty extend to a State’s waters?

Yes. Such sovereignty must be respected by other States and may not commit certain acts
that represent disrespect or mock the sovereignty of the State inside their territory. (The
Corfu Channel Case, I.C.J. Reports, 1949)

What is an exception to territorial sovereignty with regard to State’s waters?

Safe passage of warships during times of peace between States, so long as it is considered
as innocent passage. (The Corfu Channel Case, I.C.J. Reports, 1949)
Germany v. Denmark
Whether courts should apply the equidistance rule in delimiting their continental
shelves?

No. This is because opinion juris is lacking and therefore it is not customary international law.
(North Sea Continental Shelf Cases, Germany v. Denmark/Holland, 8 I.L.M. 340, 1969)

What is a continental shelf?

An area physically extending the territory of most coastal States into a species of platform. It
is also an extension of the territory of a coastal State seaward because it is an extension of
soil and subsoil. (North Sea Continental Shelf Cases, Germany v. Denmark/Holland, 8 I.L.M.
340, 1969)

The Attorney-General of the Government of Israel v. Eichmann

Can a State have jurisdiction over a person even if the acts were committed
elsewhere?

Yes. When a person commits a crime of universal nature or crimes against the law of nations
such as but not limited to jus cogens, war crimes, mass killing, and genocide. (The Attorney-
General of the Government of Israel v. Eichmann, 36 I.L.R. 277, 1962)

Why can a person be under a State’s jurisdiction even if the act was committed
elsewhere?

This is because he becomes an enemy to all mankind – a hostis humani generis. He places
himself beyond the protection of any state. These crimes, which struck at the whole of
mankind and shocked the conscience of nations, are grave offenses against the law of nations
itself. (The Attorney-General of the Government of Israel v. Eichmann, 36 I.L.R. 277, 1962)

People v. Tulin

Does the Philippine courts have jurisdiction over a crime of piracy committed
outside of the Philippine waters?
Yes. Piracy is an exception to the rule on territoriality in criminal law. Well-settled is the rule
that regardless of the law penalizing the same, piracy is a reprehensible crime against the
whole world. (People v. Tulin, G.R. 111709)

In the Matter of the Requested Extradition of Joseph Patrick Thomas Doherty by the
Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

What are the elements to properly invoke the political offense exception?
For political offense exception to apply, the following shall concur: first, that there be a
political conflict; second, that the offense be committed during the course of and in
furtherance of that struggle.
What are the factors to be considered in determining the application of political
offense exception?

The following must be considered in applying the political offense exception:

a. The nature of the act;
b. The context in which it is committed;
c. The status of the party committing the act;
d. The nature of the organization on whose behalf it is committed;
e. The particularized circumstances of the place where the act takes place.

Secretary of Justice v. Lantion, G.R. 139465, October 17, 2000

What is the nature of an extradition proceeding?

An extradition proceeding is sui generis. It is not a criminal proceeding which will call into
operation all the rights of an accused as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Further, the process
does not involve the determination of the guilt or innocence of an accused. Hence,
constitutional rights that are only relevant to determine the guilt or innocence of an accused
cannot be invoked by an extraditee, especially by one whose extradition papers are still
undergoing evaluation.

Rodriguez v. RTC Manila, G.R. 157977, February 27, 2006

What are the circumstances to be considered before a possible extraditee be

granted bail?
Bail may be granted to a possible extradite only upon a clear and convincing showing that:
first, he will not be a flight risk or a danger to the community; and second, there exist special,
humanitarian and compelling circumstances.

HONG KONG v. OLALIA

Can an extraditee be granted bail?

Yes. The right of a prospective extradite to apply for bail in this jurisdiction must be viewed
in the light of the various treaty obligations of the Philippines concerning respect for the
promotion and protection of human rights. Under these treaties, the presumption lies in favor
of human liberty. Thus, the Philippines should see to it that the right to liberty of every
individual is not impaired. (Government of Hong Kong v. Olalia, G.R. No. 153675)

TRENDTEX v. CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA

What is the doctrine of restrictive immunity?

This doctrine gives immunity to acts of a governmental nature, as jure imperii, but no
immunity to acts of a commercial nature, jure gestionis. (Trendtex v. Central Bank of Nigeria,
A11 E.R. 881, 1997)

DAYRIT v. PHIL. PHARMAWEALTH

Can a public official be sued for an act done in his personal capacity while he
occupied a public position?

No. The rule on state immunity does not apply where the public official is charged where the
public official is clearly being sued not in his official capacity but in his personal capacity,
although eh acts complained of may have been committed while he occupied a public position.
(Dayrit v. Phil. Pharmawealth, G.R. No. 169304)
PROFESSIONAL VIDEO v. TESDA
What are the different suits that the principle of state immunity covers?

The principle of state immunity takes on various forms, namely:

1. A suit against the Republic by name;

2. A suit against an unincorporated government agency;
3. A suit against a government agency covered by a charter with respect to the agency’s
performance of governmental functions; and
4. A suit that on its face is against a government officer, but where the ultimate liability
will fall on the government. (Professional Video v. TESDA, G.R. No. 155504)

Gunigundo v. Sandiganbayan
What is the act of state doctrine?
Every sovereign state is bound to respect the independence of every other state, and the
courts of one country will not sit in judgment on the acts of the government of another, done
within its territory. (Gunigundo v. Sandiganbayan)

Can the Sandiganbayan review the freeze orders of Swiss officials?

No. The Sandiganbayan will not review the freeze orders of Swiss officials, but will only
examine propriety of maintaining PCGG’s position with respect to complainant’s accounts with
BTAG for the purpose of determining propriety of issuing a writ against PCGG and OSG.
(Gunigundo v. Sandiganbayan)

US v. Iran

Will Iran be internationally responsible for allowing the actions of student militants
upon the diplomatic premises of the US?
Yes. The Iranian state was under obligation to protect the premises of the mission, and
breached the same in failing to protect and secure the premises and for even tolerating the
actions of the student militants. Instead, expressions of approval for the attacks were made
by Ayatollah and Iranian officers. (US v. Iran)

Holy See v. Rosario

Is the Holy See a sovereign state?

Yes. (Holy See v. Rosario)

Can the Holy See acquire property?

Yes. The right of a foreign sovereign to acquire property, real or personal, in a receiving state,
necessary for the creation and maintenance of its diplomatic mission, is recognized in the
1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (Arts. 2022). (Holy See v. Rosario)

Can the Holy See be sued for selling its property?

No. The Holy See is immune from suit because the act of selling the lot of concern is non-
proprietary in nature. The act of transferring the property was clothed with governmental
character, not for profit or gain but because the land was impossible to use as an official
residence. (Holy See v. Rosario)
Minucher v. CA

Can a foreign agent, who is not one of those vested with diplomatic immunity, be
immune from suit?
Yes. If the acts giving rise to a suit are those of a foreign government done by its foreign
agent, although not necessarily a diplomatic personage, but acting in his official capacity, the
complaint could be barred by the immunity of the foreign sovereign from suit without its
consent. Suing a representative of a state is believed to be, in effect, suing the state itself.
(Minucher v. CA)

WHO v. Aquino
X was declared by the Executive branch as a person entitled to diplomatic immunity,
including immunity from search. May the judiciary issue a search warrant on the
suspicion that his personal effects contain large quantities of highly dutiable goods?

No. Declarations of the Executive branch upon the status of a person in relation to his
diplomatic immunity may not be assailed or ignored by the other branches of government.
This is based on the principle that determination of diplomatic immunity is a political question,
and is supported by the separation of powers of the branches of government. (WHO v. Aquino,
G.R. No. L-35131, November 29, 1972)

Liang v. People
X is a diplomat who is charged with two counts of oral defamation. May X invoke
diplomatic immunity?

No. Under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, a diplomatic agent enjoys immunity
from criminal jurisdiction of the receiving state except in the case of an action relating to any
professional or commercial activity exercised by the diplomatic agent in the receiving state
outside his official functions. Slandering a person cannot be covered because our laws do not
allow commission of a crime in the name of official duty. (Liang v. People, G.R. No. 125865,
January 28, 2000)

Youmans Case
Can a State be held liable for the acts of its officials who exceed the scope of their
powers and cause damage to foreigners?

No. Under International Law, a state cannot be held liable for the illegal acts of its officials
resulting in damages to foreigners when said officials act beyond the scope of their
competency. (Youmans (USA) v. Mexico, 4. R.I.A.A. 110, November 23, 1926)

Caire Claim Case (EXCEPTION TO ABOVE RULE)

What is the doctrine of objective responsibility under International Law?

Under the doctrine of objective responsibility, a state is internationally responsible for acts
committed by its officials or organs outside their competence if the officials or organs acted
at least to all appearances as competent officials or organs, or used powers or methods
appropriate to their official capacity. (Caire (France) v. Mexico, 5 R.I.A.A. 516, 1929)
North American Dredging Company v. United States of Mexico
What is a Calvo Clause?

It is a stipulation that expressly deprives a foreign private claimant in a contract to request

for diplomatic protection from its state of origin, by treating the foreign private claimant as a
local for the purposes of the contract. (North American Dredging Company v. United States
of Mexico, 4 R.I.A.A. 26)

Does a stipulation including a Calvo Clause preclude all future international

liabilities?

No. Despite the presence of a Calvo Clause in a contract, international liability may still lie
and a private claimant may apply to its own government for legal relief if a State fails to
provide foreign nationals with minimum procedural guarantees for resolving breach of
contract claims against it in its courts. (North American Dredging Company v. United States
of Mexico, 4 R.I.A.A. 26)

Estonia v. Lithuania
What is the test of the right of claim of a State in behalf of a private individual?

The test of the right of claim of a State is the “bond of nationality” which existed at the time
when the injury occurred. It is the bond between the State and the individuals which alone
confers upon the State the right of diplomatic protection. Thus, to be able to make another
State internationally liable, the claiming State must prove that the injured party possess the
nationality of the claiming State. (Estonia v. Lithuania, P.C.I.J. Series A/B, No. 76)

Liechtenstein v. Guatemala
What nationality will prevail in cases of the exercise of protection over an
individual with dual nationalities?

The nationality that has stronger factual ties between the person concerned and one of the
States whose nationality is involved as evidenced by facts such as habitual residence of the
individual, his family ties, his participation in public life, and his attachment to the country.
This is also known as the real and effective nationality test. (“Nottebohm Case” / Liechtenstein
v. Guatemala, I.C.J. Reports 4, 1955)

Belgium v. Spain
What are material elements in determining the nationality of a corporation?

In determining the nationality of a corporation, the “place of incorporation and the location
of the registered office” are material elements. (Belgium v. Spain, I.C.J. Reports 3)

LM Power v. Capitol Industrial Construction

Does the presence of an arbitration clause in an agreement divest courts of
jurisdiction to pass upon the findings of arbitral bodies?

No. The inclusion of an arbitration clause in a contract does not ipso facto divest the courts
of jurisdiction to pass upon the findings of arbitral bodies, because the awards are still
judicially reviewable under certain conditions. (LM Power Engineering Corp., v. Capitol
Industrial Construction, G.R. No. 141833)