1) Philippines entered (signed) into an international commercial agreement.

Can the Philippines later on pull out from said agreement for the reason that the agreement violates the
Philippine Constitution? (25 points)
2) A, a Filipino policeman during the Japanese occupation, acted as a guide to Japanese soldiers in hunting down Filipino guerellas. A didn’t kill Filipinos personally, but the
Japanese did. Can A be tried and found liable for treason after Philippines was liberated by the Americans? (25 points)
3) B, a Filipino, was tried and imprisoned for the crime of theft during the Japanese occupation. After the Americans liberated the Philippines, can B be set free under the doctrine
of jus postliminum? (25 points)
4) After the U.S. liberated Philippines from Japan, can a Japanese soldier in the Philippines be tried and found liable for treason? (25 points)

1. Yes, the Philippines can later pull out from the said agreement for the reason that the agreement
violates the Philippine Constitution. An example would be the rejection of Base Treaty between the
Philippines and U.S.A in 1991. It was claimed that the military presence spawned prostitution and AIDS,
and contended that the accord violates the Philippines' 1987 constitution, notably its ban on the
presence of nuclear weapons.

2. Yes, A can be tried and found liable for treason after Philippines was liberated by the Americans.
This was because even if the Philippines was captured by the Japanese, sovereignty remained under the
U.S.A government. The Japanese merely took over the exercise of acts of sovereignty. A actively
collaborated with the enemy.

Apparently, the ruling is since the U.S.A won, they still had sovereignty has sovereignty over the
Philippines at that time even though we were under the Japanese occupation. Therefore, the Filipinos
still owed allegiance to the U.S.A. If you’re a Filipino and you collaborated with the Japanese, then you
are a traitor and you will be prosecuted for treason for collaborating with the enemy.

3. No, B cannot be set free under the doctrine of jus postliminum. The crime committed by B was
nonpolitical offense. Since what B did was considered a crime under American and Philippine laws, then
he will not be returned to his freedom. There is the concept of jus postliminum.

4. No, a Japanese soldier in the Philippines cannot be tried and found liable for treason after the U.S.
liberated Philippines from Japan. Combatants are not covered by the rule of jus postliminum. Japanese
soldiers owe allegiance to Japan. Combatants are not covered by the law of treason when it comes to
the law of the country they are occupying or when it comes to the laws of their opponent country.

Treason implies betraying the allegiance to the country one owes allegiance to. A combatant
fighting an opponent country does not owe allegiance to the opponent country. Therefore, there is
nothing to betray.

Pacta sunt servanda agreements must be followed.

1. Yes, the Philippines can later pull out from the said agreement for the reason that the agreement
violates the Philippine Constitution. International laws are not upheld more important than the laws of
the nation. International treaties are not superior to the acts of the State (Medellín v. Texas). The
Constitution is the highest law of the land. Supreme Court has the power to invalidate a treaty- Sec. 5(2)
(a), art. VIII, of the 1987 Constitution.
 Posteror derogate prior- a treaty may repeal a statute and a statute may repeal a treaty-will
apply. But if these laws are found in conflict with the constitution, these laws must be stricken out
invalid. Both statutes and treaties may be invalidated if they are in conflict with the constitution.

. Both statutes and treaties may be invalidated if they are in conflict with the constitution. The doctrine
of incorporation is applied whenever local court s are confronted with situations in wheich there a
ppears to be a conflict between a rule of international law and the provisions of the constitution.

Lex posterior derogate priori- the latter law would be considered as amendatory of the reaty, being a
subsequent law.