PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

 Public international law is the body of rules that is legally binding on States and international organizations in their
interactions with other States, international organizations, individuals, and other entities. It covers a range of activities; such
as, diplomatic relations, conduct of war, trade, human rights and sharing of oceanic resources. 

 Traditionally, international law regulated interactions between States. For example, it determined how a State treats
foreign diplomats who are in its country or how international agreements between States are to be regulated.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INTERNATIONAL LAW AND NATIONAL LAW

TWO THEORIES:

1. Monism – International law and domestic law do not constitute distinct legal orders, but are part of the same legal order
- International law is considered superior and always prevail in case of conflict with domestic law

2. Dualism - International law and domestic law are separate and distinct legal orders
- when a conflict arises between them in a particular case before a domestic court, the judge determines whether
domestic law allows the application of International Law in the resolution of the case and which law prevails

*Go to the distinction which body will resolve the conflict.

 If by local court, then the constitution always prevails being the highest law of the land

 If the conflict is with the legislative enactments, then apply the principle of “lex posterior derogate priori” That
which comes last in time, will usually be upheld by the municipal tribunal.

How may international law become a part of domestic law?

 ANS:   Under the 1987 Constitution, international law can become part of the sphere of domestic law either by transformation or
incorporation.

1. DOCTRINE OF INCORPORATION – Rule of International Law automatically becomes part of the national legal system.
- Usually applicable to rules derived from custom.

2. DOCTRINE OF TRANSFORMATION - Rule of International Law only becomes part of the national legal system if it has been
expressly adopted.
- Usually applicable to rules derived from treaties.

            Treaties become part of the law of the land through transformation pursuant to Article VII, Section 21 of the Constitution
which provides that “no treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all
the members of the Senate.” Thus, treaties or conventional international law must go through a process prescribed by the
Constitution for it to be transformed into municipal law that can be applied to domestic conflicts. (Pharmaceutical & Health Care
Assn. of the Phil. v. Health Secretary Duque, et al., G.R. No. 173034, October 19, 2007).

© HUMILITY MAE FRIO 2021

SOURCES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

1. Treaty
2. Custom
3. General Principles of Law
4. Judicial decisions
5. Teachings of publicists
FORMAL SOURCES – create law
MATERIAL SOURCES – identify the substance of obligations
which become law; subsidiary means for the determination of
the rules of law.

I. TREATIES

1. In general: legally binding agreements governed by International Law, made between international legal persons with treaty-
making capacity.

2. Article 2(a) Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT): “Treaty” means an international agreement concluded between
States in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related
instruments and whatever its particular designation.

* The VCLT governs only treaties between States in written form.

*Only the subjects of international law – States, international organizations, and the other traditionally recognized entities – can
conclude treaties under international law. It excludes agreements between States which are governed by municipal law and
agreements between States which are not intended to create legal relations at all.

PACTA SUNT SERVANDA (agreement must be kept) - what has been agreed must be respected
- “Every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith.” (Art. 6 VCLT)

REBUS SIC STANTIBUS – a fundamental change of circumstances which has occurred with regard to those existing at the time of the
conclusion of a treaty, and which was not foreseen by the parties, may be invoked as a ground for terminating or withdrawing from
the treaty if:

*The existence of those circumstances constituted an essential basis of the consent of the parties to be bound by the treaty
*The effect of the change is radically to transform the extent of the obligations still to be performed under the treaty

This does NOT operate automatically:

1. There must be a formal act of rejection usually by the head of state
2. With the statement of the reasons why compliance with the treaty is no longer required

II. CUSTOM

Custom or customary international law means “a general and consistent practice of states followed by them from a sense of legal
obligation (opinion juris)”.

The initial factor for determining the existence of custom is the actual behavior of states. This includes several elements: duration,
consistency, and generality of the practice of states. The required duration can be either short or long. Duration therefore is not the
most important element. More important is the consistency and the generality of the practice.

ELEMENTS:
1. Objective: State practice that is consistent and general
- evidence of substantial uniformity of practice by a substantial number of states. Complete unanimity is not required.

2. Subjective: Opinio juris sive necessitates (opinion of law or necessity)

– the belief that this practice is rendered obligatory by the existence of a rule requiring it; the states concerned must
therefore feel that they are conforming to what amounts to a legal obligation.

INSTANT CUSTOM – a binding rule established by the spontaneous activity of a great number of states and need not be observed for
a considerable period
PERSISTENT OBJECTOR RULE – when a state persistently objects to a rule of customary international law during the formative stage
of that rule, it will not be bound by it.

*Opinio juris or the belief that a certain form of behavior is obligatory, is what makes practice an international rule. Without it,
practice is not law. (Pharmaceutical & Health Care Assn. of the Phil. v. Health Secretary Duque, et al., G. R. No. 173034, October 9,
2007).
 
Q: Is a treaty superior to customary law?
Generally, NO, because they are equal in the hierarchy of international law. Treaties and customary law are usually taken as
complementary with each other. A treaty is generally entered upon into for reasons of establishing a customary law. But a later
treaty may be taken as superior in repealing a prior customary law.

© HUMILITY MAE FRIO 2021

Q: Are there rules of customary law that are superior to treaties?

Yes. When customary law has the status of jus cogens or peremptory norms, they are considered superior than any treaty and
custom.

Q —    May generally accepted principles of international law form part of the law of the land even if they do not derive from
treaty obligations? Explain.

ANS:   Yes. 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: the established, widespread, and consistent
practice on the part of States; and a psychological element known as the opinion juris sive necessitates (opinion as to law or
necessity). Implicit in the latter element is a belief that the practice in question is rendered obligatory by the existence of a rule of
law requiring it. (Mijares v. Ranada, G.R. No. 139325, April 12, 2005, 455 SCRA 397).

Q —    State the concept of the term “generally accepted principles of international law” and give examples.

ANS:  “Generally accepted principles of international law” refers to norms of general or customary international law which are
binding on all states, i.e., renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy, the principle of sovereign immunity, a person’s
right to life, liberty and due process, and pacta sunt servanda, among others.

III. GENERAL PRINCPLES OF LAW

May refer to principles that are common to the major legal systems of the world and principles of International Law.

* General principles of law are subordinate to treaties and custom as their main function is to fill gaps in treaty law and customary
law.

IV. JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1. Judgments of the ICJ and decisions of other international tribunals.

2. Awards by arbitral tribunals.
3. Judgments of municipal courts when they apply international law.

V. TEACHINGS OF PUBLICISTS

Publicists refers to the esteemed writers on international law.

*Judicial decisions and learned writings, as mere subsidiary means, are subordinate to the three (3) primary sources.

UN GA Resolutions Security Council (SC) Resolutions

1. Not legally binding 1. Legally binding

2. BOTH do not constitute an independent source of international law

3. May constitute as material sources of 3. Concerned more with mandatory

international law or serve as evidence of enforcement action against delinquent
existing custom. States by the SC.

DECISION EX AEQUO ET BONO – according to what is equitable and good

- decision not based on law, but based on the judge’s sense of abstract justice

 In the context of arbitration, it refers to the power of the arbitrators to dispense with consideration of the law and consider
solely what they consider to be fair and equitable in the case at hand.
 Art. 38 (2) of the Statute of the ICJ provides that the court may decide the case ex aequo et bono, but only where the
parties agree thereto.
 Article 33 of the UN Commission on International Trade Law’s Arbitration Rules allows the application of the principle if the
parties agree thereto.

*While a judge may not give a decision ex aequo et bono, he/she can use equity to interpret or fill gaps in the law, even when there
is no express authorization to do so. The principle of equity is a general principle common to national legal systems [See River Meuse
case (Netherlands v. Belgium)]

© HUMILITY MAE FRIO 2021

JUS COGENS – “compelling law”
- any source of international law that conflicts with it is rendered void
- no derogation is allowed
- can never be altered by consent of certain States

 All jus cogens rules create obligations erga omnes, but only some rules creating erga omnes obligations are rules of jus
cogens
 Any treaty that goes against jus cogens rules is void; while any breach of erga omnes obligation gives all the states the right
to file a claim against the state responsible for the violation

*Examples: prohibition against genocide; prohibition against the use of force

Art. 53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: “A treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it conflicts with a
peremptory norm of general international law. For the purposes of the present Convention, a peremptory norm of general
international law is a norm accepted and recognized by the international community of States as a whole as a norm from which no
derogation is permitted and which can be modified only by a subsequent norm of general international law having the same
character.”

OBLIGATIONS ERGA OMNES – means “obligation towards all”

- obligations owed to the international community as a whole
- generate a right of standing on the part of all States to invoke responsibility of a State that is in breach
of the obligation

*Applies also in a multilateral treaty. A state party owes such obligation to all other parties in the same treaty in view of their
common values and concern for compliance

 Piracy, genocide, slavery, torture, racial discrimination

 Obligation on the protection of basic human rights
 Obligation relating to the environment of common space
 Obligation relating to self-determination
 Outlawing of acts of aggression
-Was first recognized in the ICJ decision in the Barcelona Traction Case (Belgium v. Spain) ICJ Rep 1970 3 at par 33

*Under the international law of reprisals, the general rule is that only the directly injured State is entitled to act against the violation
of an international obligation by another State.

*Obligations erga omnes are concerned with the enforceability of norms of international law, the violation of which is deemed to be
an offense not only against the State directly affected by the breach, but also against all members of the international community.

SOFT LAW – not binding as such, but considered as having persuasive value
- rules of international law that do not stipulate concrete rights or obligations for the legal persons to whom they are
addressed, or to guidelines, ideas and proposals that may later develop into rules of international law by the action of
custom or treaty.

*Soft law is an expression of non-binding norms, principles and practices that influence state behavior. It does not fall under the
international law set forth in Article 38, Chapter III of the 1946 Statute of the International Court of Justice.
 
*Examples:  Certain declarations and resolutions of the UN General Assembly fall under this category. (Louis Henkins, et al.,
International Law, Cases and Materials, 2nd Ed.). The UN Declaration of Human Rights is an example. This was applied in Government
of Hongkong Special Administrative Region v. Olalia; Mejoff v. Director of Prisons; 90 Phil. 70 (1951); Mijares v. Ranada; Shangri-la
International Hotel Management Ltd. v. Developers Group of Companies Inc.,  G.R. No. 159938, March 31, 2006, 486 SCRA 405).
 
*It is resorted to in order to reflect and respond to the changing needs and demands of constituents of certain international
organizations like the WHO.

GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF TREATY LAW

Where a party to an agreement is just an entity within a state, no binding international law obligation is created notwithstanding
that said agreement includes foreign dignitaries as signatories and that its signing was witnessed by representatives of foreign
nations.

Thus the Memorandum of Agreement on the Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD) between the government of the Republic of the
Philippines and the MILF is not an international binding agreement nor does it constitute a unilateral declaration on the part of the
Government of the Republic of the Philippines because the commitments in the MOA-AD were not addressed to state and not
complying thereto would not be detrimental to the security of international intercourse.

© HUMILITY MAE FRIO 2021

STAGES IN TREATY-MAKING

(1) Negotiation – under the Constitution, in is the President who has the sole authority to conclude treaties, subject only to the
concurrence of at least 2/3 of the members of the Senate. Any other official is competent to negotiate treaties on behalf of the
countries, when properly authorized by the President.

Akbayan vs. Pimentel (2008)

*Treaty negotiations are confidential. They are covered by the Doctrine of Executive Privilege, an exception to the Constitutional
right to information on matters of public concern. Strong and sufficient evidence needed in order to take any on-going treaty
negotiation out of the coverage of the said doctrine.

(2) Adoption of the text - by:

1. Consent of all States participating in the drawing up of a treaty.
2. In an international conference, by vote of at least 2/3 of the States present and voting, unless by the same majority they shall
decide to apply a different rule.

(3) Authentication of the text

1. As provided for in the text or agreed upon by States participating in the drawing up the treaty; or
2. By signature, signature ad referendum, or initialing of the text of the treaty or the Final Act of a conference incorporating
the text of the treaty

(4) Giving of consent to be bound – consent is expressed either by:

1. Signature
2. Exchange of instruments constituting a treaty
3. Ratification, acceptance, approval, or accession
4. Any other means if so agreed upon

Pimentel vs. Executive Secretary (2005)

*It is the President that ratifies treaties. The only role of the Senate is to concur in the ratification of the treaty by the President.

(5) Entry in to force

1. In such manner and upon such date as the treaty may provide or as the negotiating States may agree; or
2. As soon as the consent to be bound by the treaty has been established for all negotiating States.

Effect of an unwritten treaty

-Has legal force
-Convention rules on matters governed by international law independently of convention applies
-Convention rules apply to the relations of states as between themselves under international agreement with other subjects as
parties

Treaty Interpretation
A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their
context and in the light of its object and purpose.

Shall be taken into account together with the context:

a. Any subsequent agreement regarding the interpretation of the treaty and application of its provisions
b. Any subsequent practice in the application of the treaty
c. Any relevant rules of international law applicable

Travaux prepatoires – the “preparatory work” of a treaty that contains its legislative history. It is used as a supplementary means of
interpretation of a treaty.

Restrictions on the subject matter of treaties

1. Jus cogens restrictions – a treaty is void if, at the times of its conclusion, it conflicts with a preemptory norm of general
international law

2. UN Charter restrictions/Principle of Charter Supremacy – in the event of a conflict between the obligations of the members of
the UN under the UN Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the UN Charter
prevail

RESERVATION – a unilateral statement however phrased or named, made by a state, when signing, ratifying, accepting, accepting,
approving or acceding to a treaty, whereby it purports to exclude or to modify the legal effect of certain provisions of the treaty in
their application to the state.

GR: A State may formulate a reservation when signing, ratifying, accepting, approving or acceding to a treaty.
XPNS: 1. The reservation is prohibited by the treaty;
2. The treaty only provides specified reservations which do not include the reservation in question; or
© HUMILITY MAE FRIO 2021
 3. When the reservation is incompatible with the purpose and objective of the treaty.

*Treaty – agreements involving political issues or changes of national policy and those involving international arrangements of a
permanent character.

Art. 27 VCLT: “A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for failure to perform a treaty.”

*Executive agreements – those which embody adjustments of detail carrying out well established national policies and traditions
and those involving arrangements of a more or less temporary nature

 The VFA is only an implementing agreement to the main treaty (the Mutual Defense Treaty), thus the presence of
the US Armed Forces is allowed under the MDT which was ratified and concurred in by both the Philippines and
the US Senate.
 EDCA – the President may enter into an executive agreement on foreign military bases, troops or facilities if:
o It is not the instrument that allows the presence of foreign military bases troops or facilities
o If it merely aims to implement an existing law or treaty. The EDCA is valid without necessity of Senate’s
concurrence as it merely implements those already authorized under the VFA.

INVALIDITY OF TREATIES

1. Consent was expressed in manifest violation of internal law of fundamental importance

2. Failure of a State representative to observe the restrictions specified for his authority
3. Error of fact or situation
4. Fraud by the other negotiating State
5. Corruption of State’s representative
6. Coercion of State’s representative
7. Coercion of State by threat or use of force
8. Conflict of jus cogens

TERMINATION OF TREATIES

1. In conformity with the provision of the treaty or by consent of all parties

2. Conclusion of a later treaty by all parties in the same subject matter
3. Material breach
4. Supervening impossibility if performance
5. Fundamental change of circumstances (rebus sic stantibus)
6. Emergence of jus cogens

SUBJECTS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

I. States 1. Permanent population

2. Defined territory
3. Government
4. Capacity to enter into relation with other States

Recognition of states – it is an act by which a state acknowledges the existence of another state, government, or belligerent
community and indicates its willingness to deal with the entity as such under the rules of international law

Is recognition indispensable for the state to become a state

 Declaratory view
 Constitutive view
Conditions for the recognition of belligerency
 Rebels are willing to observe the laws of war
 Organized civil government
 Conflict is serious and outcome is uncertain
 Rebels occupy a substantial portion of territory
 international organizations
o Auxiliary status of international organizations – it means that at one and the same time a private
institution and a public service organization because the very nature of its work implies cooperation with
the state. It is not an instrumentality of the state; it is neutral and independent but not also strictly private
because it is regulated by international humanitarian law and is treated as auxiliary of the state. i.e. PNRC
as the national society of ICRC and Red Crescent

 individuals
o development in international law gives more importance now to individuals as subjects of international
law

© HUMILITY MAE FRIO 2021

  UN Charter in the in the first part: reaffirms faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and
worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women”
 Universal Declaration of Human Rights
 Treaties: ICCPR – Optional Protocol Article 1 – the committee is competent to receive
communications from individuals accusing state parties which are parties to the present
protocol;
 CEDAW; CAT, Article 21 and 22; European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms; American Convention on Human Rights,
 Rome Statute – the crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and crimes against
aggression are condemned for their effects to individuals first and to the states;

IMMUNITY FROM JURISDICTION

A. STATE OR SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY

1. Doctrine of Absolute Immunity

2. Doctrine of Restrictive Immunity
- Public or governmental acts or acts jure imperii (IMMUNE)
- Private or commercial acts or acts jure gestionis (NOT IMMUNE)

ACT OF STATE DOCTRINE – Every sovereign state is bound to respect the independence of every other sovereign state, and the
courts of one country will not sit in judgment on the acts of the government of another country, done within its own territory.
(Underhill vs. Hernandez, 168 US 250)
- Based on separation of powers

B. DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY

1. Head of Mission (Ambasssador) and Diplomatic Staff

- completely immune from criminal jurisdiction
- immune from civil jurisdiction XPNs: actions relating to (a) private real property; (2) succession under a will; or (c) any
professional or commercial activity outside his official functions
2. Administrative and Technical Staf
- immune from criminal jurisdiction
- immune from civil jurisdiction for acts done in the course of their official functions
3. Service Staff
-immune only with respect to acts performed in the course of their duties
- loss immunity if nationals of the receiving state

C. CONSULAR IMMUNITY

Consular officers are immune from criminal and civil jurisdiction only in respect of acts performed by them in the exercise of
consular functions.

REMEDIES IN CASE OF ABUSE

1. Ask for waiver of immunity

2. Cease to consider the abusive official as a member of the embassy or consulate, if after the Receiving State has declared such
official as persona non grata, the Sending State refused of failed within a reasonable period to recall the official or terminate his
functions.

D. IMMUNITY OF INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

- As may be provided in their respective constitutive treaties or charters

- Their officers only enjoy immunity with respect to acts performed by them in their official capacity

DOCTRINE OF STATE RESPONSIBILITY

- A state incurs international liability when it commits an internationally wrongful act (IWA).

Elements: 1. Unlawful act – includes omission or breach of an international obligation

2. Attributability of the act to the State – includes acts of officers or the State, even if they exceeded the limits of their
competence so long as they acted in their official capacity and used means placed at their disposition.

*In the exercise of remedies by the injured state, there must be the observance of local remedies first.

Is intent necessary to constitute IWA? Two theories:

Objective – IWA regardless of intent
© HUMILITY MAE FRIO 2021
 Subjective – intent and the degree of harm caused should be considered when determining is a state should be held liable
*Majority of the international community subscribes to the objective view

THE MAIN ACTORS CAN BE GROUPED INTO THREE:

1. State and its agents

- Organs of the state
- Ultra vires acts
- While on duty
- Regardless of where the act or omission takes place

2. Private persons and other entities

GR: it will not trigger state responsibility
XPN: If the conduct was directed or controlled by the state, such conduct will be considered an act of the state

*Effective control standard – that state must be shown to have had effective control over the conduct of the private entities
(Nicaragua vs. US case)

*Overall control standard – requires a lower degree of control to bind the state when compared to the effective control test. Indirect
control generated through financial or logistical support could trigger state responsibility.

3. Insurrectionists – that state would not be liable for the acts of the insurrectionary movement but if the movement was able to
overthrow the government then the acts of the movement shall be deemed acts of the state.

*Angry mobs are not in the footing as insurrection.

*In fighting the insurrection the state may be liable for attacks resulting to wanton and unnecessary violence.
* Belligerency – the state is not liable for losses suffered by foreign nationals as the hands of insurrectionist movements where the
home ate of such foreign nationals already recognized the belligerent status of the insurrectionist movement.

CONSEQUENCES:
1. Obligation to make reparations
- official apology
- restitution of property
- monetary compensation
- any combination of the three
2. Countermeasures
- acts of self-help that the injured state may take in response of the unlawful act of another state

CIRCUMSTANCES PRECLUDING WRONGFULNESS (DEFENSES)

1. Consent of the potential victim State
2. Alleged wrongful act is a legitimate countermeasure
3. Force majeure
4. Distress
5. Necessity
6. Self-defense

RIGHT OF DIPLOMATIC PROTECTION – right of a State to take up a matter concerning the ill-treatment of its nationals and file a claim
against the offending State, in respect of the injury that has been perpetrated to itself through the person of one of its nationals.

Requisites: 1. Genuine or effective nationality link

2. Exhaustion of local remedies

UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA (UNCLOS)

© HUMILITY MAE FRIO 2021

 Types Breadth
(from baselines)
1. Territorial Sea 12 nautical miles

2. Contiguous Zone 24 nautical miles

3. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) 200 nautical miles

4. Continental Shelf/Extended Continental Shelf 200 nautical miles, but can extend up to 350 nautical miles

* Archipelagic baselines are established by drawing straight lines that joins the outermost points of the outermost islands and
drying reefs of the archipelago, subject to certain conditions provided in Article 47 of UNCLOS.

Maritime Zones Rights

1. Territorial Sea Sovereignty

2. Contiguous Zone Control necessary to prevent infringement of its customs,

fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations within its
territory and territorial sea and to punish such infringement.

3. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) Sovereign rights to explore and exploit, conserve and manage
the natural resources of the zone, and jurisdiction with regard
to the establishment of artificial islands, the conduct of
marine scientific research, and protection and preservation of
the marine environment.
4. Continental Shelf Sovereign rights to explore and exploit the natural resources
of the shelf.

ACHIPELAGIC WATERS – “The sovereignty of an archipelagic State extends to the waters enclosed by the archipelagic baselines
drawn in accordance with Article 4, described as archipelagic waters, regardless of their depth or distance from the coast.” (Article
49 (1), UNCLOS)

See case: Magallona vs. Ermita (2011)

NAVIGATIONAL RIGHTS OF VESSELS OF OTHER STATES IN ARCHIPELAGIC WATERS

1. Archipelagic Sea Lanes Passage – non-supendable right of navigation and overflight in the normal mode of vessels and aircraft of
other States though the archipelagic waters solely for the purpose of continuous, expeditious and unobstructed transit between one
part of the high seas or EEZ. If an archipelagic State does not designate archipelagic sea lanes or air routes, this right may be
exercised through the routes normally used for international navigation.

2. Innocent Passage – continuous and expeditious passage through the archipelagic waters that is not prejudicial to the peace, good
order or security of the coastal State. It may be suspended in certain specified areas of the archipelagic waters if such suspension is
essential for the protection of the security of the archipelagic State.

INTERNAL WATERS – waters of the bays, rivers and lakes; the ships of other States have no navigational rights in internal waters.

REGIME OF ISLANDS (Art. 121 UNCLOS)

1. An island is naturally formed area of land, surrounded by water, which is above water at high tide.
2. Except as provided for in paragraph 3, the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and the continental
shelf of an island are determined in accordance with the provision of this Convention applicable to other land territory.
3. Rocks which cannot sustain human inhabitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or
continental shelf.

UNCLOS DISPUTE SETTLEMENT PROCEDURES

© HUMILITY MAE FRIO 2021

Art. 266 UNCLOS: “Any dispute concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention shall, where no settlement has been
reached be recourse to section 1, be submitted at the request of any party to the dispute to the court or tribunal having jurisdiction
under this section.”

- compulsory
-can be unilaterally initiated

CHOICE OF PROCEDURE:

1. International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS)

2. International Court of Justice (ICJ)
3. Arbitral Tribunal constituted under Annex VII - *the default procedure in case the State Party did not specify its chosen procedure
4. Special Arbitral Tribunal constitute under Annex VIII

EXTRADITION vs. DEPORTATION

EXTRADITION DEPORTATION

Basis Treaty Inherent in every sovereign State

Subjects Nationals and aliens who are present in the territory of Aliens only
the Requested State

Reason The person sought to be surrendered or extradited is
wanted to stand in the territory of the Requesting State
for a crime he committed there, or he had already been
convicted and he is wanted there for the service of his
sentence.
Presence of alien in the State’s territory is not
conducive for public good and is injurious to the
domestic tranquility of the people.

Destination of Territory of Requesting State At the option of the Commissioner of Immigration,

Extraditee or either to the State whence the alien came, or to
Deportee the foreign port at which he embarked for the
Philippines, or to the country of his nationality, or
to the country which he resided prior to coming to
the Philippines.

EXTRADITION – 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 the penalty imposed on him under the penal or criminal law of the requesting state or government.

Irregular rendition – a practice of some states that is borne out of frustration caused by the unwillingness of a country upon which a
valid extradition request has been made to carry out its international obligation.

Forms of irregular rendition

o Transnational forcible abduction
o Informal surrender/disguised extradition
o Lures – tricked by subterfuge or deception, the fugitive may be lured from an extradition refuge to the
territory of the pursuing state, international waters or to another country permitting extradition to the
pursuing state.

INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS

* Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)

* International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
* International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)

REFUGEES – persons who, owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of
particular social group or political opinion is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to
avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual
residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.

© HUMILITY MAE FRIO 2021

*Not all refugees are stateless persons or not all stateless persons are refugees.

The Contracting States shall NOT impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly
from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened, enter or who are present in their territory without authorization,
provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.
PROHIIBITION OF EXPULSION/REFOULMENT

No Contracting State shall expel or return a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or
freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political
opinion.

The status of refugee is a right under the convention. Once the criteria have been satisfied, states have an obligation to treat the
person as a refugee, there is no discretion.

INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW

*Law of War / Law of Armed Conflict

1949 Geneva Conventions

I – Wounded and Sick Members of the Armed Forces in the Field
II – Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of the Armed Forces at Sea
III – Prisoners of War
IV – Civilians

Protocols:
I – Victims of International Armed Conflict
II – Victims of Non-International Armed Conflict
III- Additional Distinctive Emblem

TYPES OF WAR
1. International Armed Conflict
- State vs. State
- Wars of national liberation
2. Non –international Armed Conflict
- State vs. Non-State organized group (e.g. rebels)

BASIC PRINCPLES

A. PRINCIPLE OF DISTINCTION – commanders must distinguish between combatants or members of the armed forces and everyone
else.
* Use of force can only be used against combatants.
* Members of the armed forces who became sick or injured are no longer legitimate military objectives.
* Captured combatants are entitled to special protection as prisoners of war.
*All acts committed against civilians or civilian property, whether committed in offense or defense, and all indiscriminate attacks are
prohibited.

B. PRINCIPLE OF MILITARY NECESSITY – the use of military force needs to be controlled and it must only be used when necessary.

C. PRINCIPLE OF HUMANITY/MARTENS CLAUSE – acts not expressly prohibited by law are still subject to the test of basic humanity.

D. PRINCIPLE OF PROPORTIONALITY – aims at striking a balance between military necessity and humanity; parties to the conflict are
prohibited from using methods that would cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.

INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

1972 STOCKHOLM DECLARATION

- First international document to recognize the right to healthy environment

PRINCIPLE 21 (now considered part of customary law)

“A State shall ensure that activities within their jurisdiction and control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or
areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.”

PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE (Principle 14, 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development)
“Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing
cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.”

© HUMILITY MAE FRIO 2021

POLITICAL LAW JURISPRUDENCE

CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION VS. EXECUTIVE SECERTARY (GR NO. 83896, February 22, 1991)
A doubtful provision shall be examined in the light of the history of the times and the conditions and circumstances under which the
Constitution was framed.

MANILA PRINCE HOTEL VS. GSIS (February 3, 1997)

Unless the contrary is clearly intended, the provisions of the Constitution should be considered self –executing, as a contrary rule
would give the legislature discretion to determine when, or whether, they shall be effective.

Doctrine of Constitutional Supremacy -  if a law or contract violates any norm of the constitution that law or contract whether
promulgated by the legislative or by the executive branch or entered into by private persons for private purposes is null and void and
without any force and effect. Thus, since the Constitution is the fundamental, paramount and supreme law of the nation, it is
deemed written in every statute and contract.

PROVINCE OF NORTH COTABATO VS. GOVT. OF THE PHILIPPINES (October 14, 2008)
Indeed, Bangsamoro Juridical Entity is a state in all but name as it meets the criteria of a state laid down in the Montevideo
Convention, name, a permanent population; a defined territory; a government; and a capacity to enter into relations with other
states.
Even assuming arguendo that the MOA-AD would not necessarily sever any portion of Philippine territory, the spirit animating it –
which has betrayed itself by its use of the concept of association – runs counter to the national sovereignty and territorial integrity
of the Republic.

MAGALLONA VS. ERMITA (August 16, 2011)

The baselines cannot be drawn from the boundaries or other portions of the rectangular area delineated in the Treaty of Paris, but
from the “outermost islands and drying reefs of the archipelago.”

TANADA VS. ANGARA (May 2, 1997)

While sovereignty has traditionally been deemed absolute and all encompassing on the domestic level, it is however subject to
restrictions and limitations voluntarily agreed to by the Philippines, expressly or impliedly, as a member of the family of nation.
By the doctrine of incorporation, the country is bound by generally accepted principles of international law, which are automatically
part of our own laws.

Declaration of Principles and State Policies

ESPINA VS. ZAMORA (GR NO. 143855, September 21, 2010)

The declaration of principles and state policies under the 1987 Philippine Constitution are not self-executing. Legislative failure to
pursue such policies cannot give rise to a cause of action in the courts.

CALALANG VS. WILLLIAMS (December 2, 1940)

Social justice is neither communism, nor despotism, nor atomism, nor anarchy, but the humanization of laws and the equalization of
social and economic force by the State so that justice in its rational and objectively secular conception may at least be approximated.
The welfare of the people is the supreme law – salus populi est suprema lex

IMBONG VS. OCHOA (April 8, 2014)

In general, the Court does not find the RH Law as unconstitutional insofar as it seeks to provide access to medically-safe, non-
abortifacient, effective, legal, affordable, and quality reproductive healthcare services, methods, devices, and supplies.
As earlier pointed out, however, the religious freedom of some sectors of society cannot be trampled upon in pursuit of what the
law hopes to achieve. After all, the Constitutional safeguard to religious freedom is recognition that man stands accountable to an
authority higher than the State.

PATULOT VS. PEOPLE (January 7, 2019)

Child abuse refers to the maltreatment, whether habitual or not, of the child which includes any of the following:
(1) psychological and physical abuse, neglect, cruelty, sexual abuse and emotional maltreatment;
(2) any act by deeds or words which debases, degrades or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human being;
(3) unreasonable deprivation of his basic needs for survival, such as food and shelter; or
(4) failure to immediately give medical treatment to an injured child resulting in serious impairment of his growth and development
or in his permanent incapacity or death.

ALANIS III VS. CA (November 11, 2011 – Leonen)

The fundamental equality of women and men before the law shall be ensured by the State. This is guaranteed by no less than the
Constitution, a statue, and an international convention to which the Philippines is a party.
In 1980, the Philippines became a signatory to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women
(CEDAW), and is thus now part of the Philippine legal system. As a state party to the Convention, the Philippines bound itself to it.

ANONYMOUS COMPLAINT AGAINS ATTY. UNTIAN (April 1, 2019)

© HUMILITY MAE FRIO 2021

In Anti-Sexual Harassment Law, what it aims to punish is the undue exercise of power and authority manifested through sexually
charged conduct or one filled with sexual undertones.

ESCANDOR VS. PEOPLE (July 6, 2020 - Leonen)

Sexual harassment engenders three-fold liability: criminal, to address the wrong committed against the society itself; civil, to address
the private wrong against the offended party; and administrative, to protect the public service.The criminalization of sexual
harassment was keeping with humanity’s march towards a more refined sense of civilization.
Casual gestures of friendship and camaraderie, done during festive or special occasions and with other people present, do not
constitute sexual harassment.

TOLINGCO VS. COURT OF APPEALS (July 8, 2020 – Leonen)

To restate, sexual harassment can happen to anyone and everyone. To consider women as the weaker sex is discriminatory. To think
that only women can be victims of sexual harassment is discriminatory against men who have suffered the same plight; men who
have been victimized by sexual predators.

SAUDIA VS. REBESENCIO (January 14, 2015)

Saudia’s policy entails the termination of employment of flight attendants who become pregnant. It is clear to us that any individual,
regardless of gender, may be subject to exigencies that limit the performance of functions. However, we fail to appreciate how
pregnancy could be such an impairing occurrence that it leaves no other recourse but the complete termination of the means
through which a woman earns a living.

MMDA VS. CONCERNED RESIDENTS OF MANILA BAY (December 18, 2008)

Judgment was rendered ordering the abovenamed defendant-government agencies to clean up, rehabilitate, and preserve Manila
Bay, and restore and maintain its waters to SB level to make them fit for swimming, skin-diving, and other forms of contact
recreation.

RECAP VS. ERMITA (April 2, 2009)

The CHED’s coverage under RA 7722 is limited to public and private institutions of higher education and degree granting programs in
all public and private post-secondary educational institutions.
The CHED and the PRC have no mandate to supervise review centers that give courses or lectures intended to prepare examinees for
licensure examinations given by the PRC.

COTESCUP VS. SECRETARY OF EDUCATION (October 9, 2018)

Clearly, under the two tests, the K to 12 Law, read and appreciated in its entirety, is complete in all essential terms and conditions
and contains sufficient parameters on the power delegated to the DepEd, CHED and TESDA.

PIMENTEL VS. LEGAL EDUCATION BOARD (September 10, 2019)

The act and practice of the Legal Education Board of excluding, restricting, and qualifying admissions to law schools in violation of
the institutional academic freedom on who to admit via PHILSAT is unconstitutional.
The act and practice of the Legal Education Board of dictating the qualifications and classification of faculty members, dean, and
dean of graduate schools of law in violation of institutional academic freedom on who may teach is unconstitutional.

UP BOARD OF REGENTS VS. AROKIAWSWANY CELINE (August 31, 1999 and December 2, 2002)
Where it was shown that the conferment of an honor or distinction was obtained through fraud, a university has the right to
withdraw the honor or distinction it has conferred.
In this case, the Board of Regents’ decision to withdraw private respondent’s doctorate degree was based on records, including her
admission that she committed the offense.

KMU VS. AQUINO (April 2, 2019 - Leonen)

The increases reflected in the issuances of respondents are reasonably necessary to observe the constitutional mandate of
promoting social justice under the Social Security Act. The public interest involved here refers to the State’s goal of establishing,
developing, promoting, and perfecting a sound and viable tax-exempt social security system.

ESPINA VS. ZAMORA (GR NO. 143855, September 21, 2010)

The 1987 Constitution does not rule out the entry of foreign investments, goods and services. While it does not encourage their
unlimited entry into the country, it does not prohibit them either. In fact, it allows an exchange on the basis of equality and
reciprocity, frowning only on foreign competition that is unfair.
The key, as in all economies in the world, is to strike balance between protecting local businesses and allowing the entry of foreign
investments and services.

REPUBLIC VS. SERENO (May 11, 2018)

The filing of the SALN is so important for purposes of transparency and accountability that failure to comply with such requirement
may result not only in dismissal from the public service but also in criminal liability. Compliance with the Constitutional and statutory
requirement of filing of SALN intimately relates to a person’s integrity.

State Immunity

REPUBLIC VS. NLRC (GR NO. 120385)

© HUMILITY MAE FRIO 2021

Suability does not necessarily mean liability on the part of the particular instrumentality or agency of the government; When the
State gives its consent to be sued, it does not thereby necessarily consent to an unrestrained execution against it. Tersely put, when
the State waives its immunity, all it does, in effect, is to give the other party an opportunity to prove, if it can, that the State has a
liability.

DOH VS. PHIL. PHARMA WEALTH (February 20, 2013)

Implied consent is conceded when the State itself commences litigation, thus opening itself to a counterclaim or when it enters into
a contract. In this situation, the government is deemed to have divested itself of its sovereign immunity.
However, it must be clarified that when a State enters into a contract, the State will be deemed to have impliedly waived its non-
suability only if it has entered into a contract in its proprietary or private capacity.

Separation of Powers/Delegation of Powers

PBOAP VS. DOLE (July 17, 2018 – Leonen)

Our governmental structure rests on the principle of separation of powers. Under our constitutional order, the legislative branch
enacts law, the executive branch implements the law, and the judiciary construes the law. In reality, however, the powers are not as
strictly confined or delineated to each branch.

KMU VS. AQUINO (April 2, 2019)

The president is the head of the executive branch, a co-equal of the judiciary under the Constitution. His or her prerogative is
entitled to respect from other branches of the government. Interbranch courtesy is but a consequence of the doctrine of separation
of powers.

BUREAU OF CUSTOMS VS. TEVES (December 2011)

As expressed in the Latin maxim potestas delegate non delegari potest, which means “what has been delegated, cannot be
delegated.” This doctrine is based on the ethical principle that such delegated power constitutes not only a right but a duty to be
performed by the delegate through the instrumentality of his own judgment and not through the intervening mind of another.

Inherent Powers of the State

SOUTHERN LUZON DRUG CORP. VS. DSWD (April 25, 2017)

Police power is not capable of exact definition, but has been purposely veiled in general terms to underscore its comprehensiveness
to meet all exigencies and provide enough room for an efficient and flexible response to conditions and circumstances, thus assuring
the greatest benefits. Accordingly, it has been described as the most essential, insistent and the least limitable of powers, extending
as it does to all the great public needs.
It is the power vested in the legislature by the Constitution to make, ordain, and establish all manner of wholesome and reasonable
laws, statutes, and ordinances, either with penalties or without, not repugnant to the Constitution, as they shall judge to be for the
good and welfare of the commonwealth, and of the subjects of the same.

MMDA VS. GARIN (April 15, 2005)

There is no syllable in RA 7924 that grants the MMDA police power, let alone legislative power.

NAPOCOR VS. POSADA (March 11, 2015 – Leonen)

The power of eminent domain is an inherent competence of the State. It is essential to a sovereign. Thus, the Constitution does not
explicitly define this power but subjects it to a limitation: that it be exercised only for public use and with payment of just
compensation. However, the manner of its exercise such as which government instrumentality can be delegated with the power to
condemn, under what conditions, and how may be limited by law. RA 8974 (acquisition of right of way for certain governmental
projects) does these, but it should not be read as superseding the power of this Court to promulgate the rules of procedure.

Expropriation undergoes two phases: the first phase determines the proprietary of the action; and the second phase determines the
just compensation to be paid to the landowner.

REPUBLIC VS. GINGOYON (December 19, 2005)

RA 8974 applies in this case, particularly insofar as it requires the immediate payment by the Government of at least the proffered
value of the NAIA 3 facilities to PIATCO and provides certain valuation standards or methods for the determination of just
compensation.
The determination of just compensation could very well be agreed upon by the parties without judicial intervention.

PHILIPPINE SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS VS. COMMISSIONON AUDIT (September 25, 2007)
The true criterion to determine whether a corporation is public or private is found in the totality of the relation of the corporation to
the State. Provinces, chartered cities, and barangays can best exemplify public corporations.

Quasi-public corporations, on the other hand, are private corporations that render public service, supply public wants, or pursue
other eleemosynary objectives. While purposely organized for the gain or benefit of its members, they are required by law to
discharge functions for the public benefit. Examples of these are utility railroad, warehouse, telegraph, telephone, water supply
corporations and transport companies.

© HUMILITY MAE FRIO 2021

CITY OF MANILA VS. PRIETO (July 8, 2019)
A local government unit has no inherent power of eminent domain. Such power is essentially lodged in the legislature although it
may be validly delegated to local government units, other public entities and public utilities.

CITY OF MANILA VS. LAGUIO (April 12, 2005)

Possessory taking occurs when the government confiscates or physically occupies property. Regulatory taking occurs when the
government’s regulation leaves no reasonable economically viable use of the property.

MANOSCA VS. COURT OF APPEALS (January 29, 1996)

Public use has been broadened to include not only uses directly available to the public but also to those which redound to their
indirect benefit; that only a few would actually benefit from the expropriation of the property does not necessarily diminish the
essence and character of public use.

NPC VS. POSADA (March 11, 2015 – Leonen)

It is the State that bears the burden of proving that the taking of private property is for a public purpose. If it fails in discharging this
burden, it must return the property to the private owner, subject to whatever damages were incurred in the course of the taking.

REPUBLIC VS. CA (July 2, 2002)

Once expropriated, change of public use is of no moment. It is well within the rights of the condemnor as owner to alter and decide
its use so long as it still for public use.

ESLABAN VS. DE ONORIO (June 28, 2001)

The value of the property to be expropriated must be determined either as of the date of the taking of the property or the filing of
the complaint, whichever came first.

REPUBLIC VS. KER AND COMPANY LTD. (July 2, 2002)

Fair market value is the price that may be agreed by the parties who are willing but not compelled to enter into a contract of sale.
For the purpose of appraisal, the fair market value of the property is taken into account and such value refers to the highest price in
terms of money which a property will bring if exposed for sale in the public market.

NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION VS. SPOUSES CHIONG (June 20, 2003)

In addition to the market value of the portion taken, he is also entitled to recover for the consequential damage, if any, to the
remaining part of the property. At the same time, from the total compensation must be deducted the value of the consequential
benefits.

BATANGAS POWER CORPORATION VS. BATANGAS CITY (April 28, 2004)

In recent years, the increasing social challenges of the times expanded the scope of state activity, and taxation has become a tool to
realize social justice and the equitable distribution of wealth, economic progress and the protection of local industries as well as
public welfare and similar objectives.

PEPSI COLA VS. MUNICIPALITY OF TANAUAN, LEYTE (February 27, 1976)

Double taxation, in general, is not forbidden by our fundamental law. Double taxation becomes obnoxious only where the taxpayer
is taxed twice for the benefit of the same governmental entity or by the same jurisdiction for the same purpose, but not in a case
where one tax is imposed by the State and the other by the city or municipality.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE VS. ALGUE (February 17, 1988)

Taxes are lifeblood of the government and so should be collected without unnecessary hindrance. On the other hand, such
collection should be made in accordance with law as any arbitrariness will negate the very reason for government itself.

Bill of Rights

BAYAN VS. ERMITA (April 25, 2006)

The Court rules that in view of the maximum tolerance mandated by B.P. No. 880, calibrated preemptive response serves no valid
purpose if it means the same thing as maximum tolerance and is illegal if it means something else.
Accordingly, what is to be followed is and should be that mandated by the law itself, namely, maximum tolerance.

ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (January 28, 2000)

Exit polls and the dissemination of their results through mass media constitute an essential part of the freedoms of speech and of
the press.

TARUC VS BISHOP DELA CRUZ (March 10, 2005)

The expulsion/excommunication of members of a religious institution/organization is a matter best left to the discretion of the
officials, and the laws and canons of said institution/organization. It is not for the courts to exercise control over the church
authorities in the performance of their discretionary and official functions.

ESTRADA VS. ESCRITOR (August 4, 2003)

© HUMILITY MAE FRIO 2021

Should the Court prohibit and punish her conduct where it is protected by the Free Exercise Clause, the Court’s action would be an
unconstitutional encroachment of her right to religious freedom. We cannot therefore simply take a passing look at respondent’s
claim of religious freedom, but must instead apply the “compelling state interest” test.

PEOPLE VS. CABANADA (July 19, 2017)

The Miranda Rights are guaranteed to preclude the slightest use of coercion by the State as would lead the accused to admit
something false, not to prevent him from freely and voluntarily telling the truth.

LAPI VS. PEOPLE (February 13, 2019 – Leonen)

The Court has consistently ruled that any objection involving a warrant of arrest or the procedure for the acquisition by the court of
jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be made before he enters his plea; otherwise, the objection is deemed waived.

An accused may be estopped from assailing the illegality of his arrest if he fails to move for the quashing of the information against
him before his arraignment.

And since the legality of an arrest affects only the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the accused, any defect in the arrest of
the accused may be deemed cured when he voluntarily submits to the jurisdiction of the trial court.

Citizenship

IN RE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF WILLIE YU VS. MIRIAM DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO (January 24, 1989)
Citizenship denotes membership in a political community which is personal and more or less permanent in character. Philippine
citizenship is not a commodity or were to be displayed when required and suppressed when convenient.

VALLES VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (August 9, 2000)

The Philippine law on citizenship adheres to the principle of jus sanguinis. Thereunder, a child follows the nationality or citizenship of
the parents regardless of the place of his/her birth as opposed to the doctrine of jus soli which determines nationality or citizenship
on the basis of place of birth.

POE-LLAMANZARES VS. COMELEC (MARCH 8, 2016)

At the time the petitioner was found in 1968, the majority of the population in Iloilo was Filipino. Other circumstantial evidence of
the nationality of petitioner’s parents are the fact that she was abandoned as an infant in a Roman Catholic Church in Iloilo City. She
also has typical Filipino features: height, flat nasal bridge, straight black hair, almond-shaped eyes and an oval face.

RE: APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION TO THE PHILIPPINE BAR OF VICENTE D. CHING (October 1, 1999)
The phrase “reasonable time” has been interpreted to mean that the election should be made within three (3) years from reaching
the age of majority. Philippine citizenship can never be treated like a commodity that can be claimed when needed and suppressed
when convenient.

DJUMANTAN VS. DOMINGO (January 30, 1995)

Marriage of an alien woman to a Filipino does not make her a Filipino citizen. There is no law guaranteeing aliens married to Filipino
citizens the right to be admitted, much less to be given permanent residency, in the Philippines.
Marriage of an alien woman to a Filipino husband does not ipso facto make her a Filipino citizen and does not excuse her from
failure to depart from the country upon the expiration of her extended stay here as an alien.

BENGZON III VS. HRET (May 7, 2001)

Repatriation results in the recovery of the original nationality. This means that a naturalized Filipino who lost his citizenship will be
restored to his prior status as a naturalized Filipino citizen.
If he was originally a natural-born citizen before he lost his Philippine citizenship, he will be restored to hi former status as a natural-
born Filipino.

CONDON VS. COMELEC (August 10, 2012)

Failure to renounce foreign citizenship in accordance with the exact tenor of Section 5(2) of RA No. 9225 renders a dual citizen
ineligible to run for and thus hold any elective public office.

Legislative Department

SANTIAGO VS. COMELEC (March 19, 1997)

While RA No. 6735 exerted utmost diligence and care in providing for the details in the implementation of initiative and referendum
on national and local legislation thereby giving them special attention, it failed, rather intentionally, to do so on the system of
initiative on amendments to the Constitution.

*RA NO. 6735 cannot be used to amend the Constitution via people’s initiative.

GUEKEKO VS. SANTOS

Term means the time during which the officer may claim to hold the office as of right and fixes the interval after which the several
incumbents shall succeed one another. The tenure represents the term during which the incumbent actually holds the office.
NAVARRO VS. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY (February 10, 2010)

© HUMILITY MAE FRIO 2021

“Gerrymandering” is a term employed to describe an apportionment of representative districts so contrived as to give an unfair
advantage to the party in power. It is the formation of one legislative district out of separate territories for the purpose of favoring a
candidate or a party.
The Constitution proscribes gerrymandering, as it mandates each legislative district to comprise, as far as practicable, a contiguous,
compact and adjacent territory.

ATONG PAGLAUM VS. COMELEC (April 2, 2013)

Political parties can participate in party-list elections provided they register under the party-list system and do not field candidates in
legislative district elections. A political party, whether major or not, that fields candidates in legislative district elections can
participate in party-list elections only through its sectoral wing that can separately register under the party-list system.

A majority of the members of sectoral parties or organizations that represent the “marginalized and underrepresented” sector they
represent. Similarly, a majority of the members of sectoral parties or organizations that lack “well-defined political constituencies”
must belong to the sector they represent.

The nominees of sectoral parties or organizations that represent the “marginalized and underrepresented”, or that represent those
who “lack well-defined political constituencies,” either must belong to their respective sectors, or must have a track record of
advocacy for their respective sectors.

The nominees of national and regional parties or organizations must be bona fide members of such parties or organizations.

PEOPLE VS. JALOSJOS (February 3, 2000)

(a) Membership in Congress does not exempt an accused from statues and rules which apply to validly incarcerated persons; (b) one
rationale behind confinement is public self-defense; (c) it would amount to creation of a privileged class, without justification in
reason; (d) he was provided with an office in the New Bilibid Prison.

OSMENA VS. PENDATUN

Each House of the congress can discipline its members for disorderly conduct or behavior. What constitutes disorderly behavior is
entirely up to Congress to define. Although a member of Congress shall not be held liable in any other place for any speech or
debate in the Congress or in any committee thereof, such immunity, although absolute in its protection of the member of Congress
against suits for libel, does not shield the member against the disciplinary authority of the Congress.

SANTIAGO VS. SANDIGANBAYAN (April 18, 2001)

Each House of Congress inter alia to punish its members for disorderly behavior, and suspend or expel a member by a vote of two-
thirds (2/3) of all its members subject to the qualification that the penalty of suspension, when imposed, should not exceed sixty
(60) days.

ADAZA VS. PACANA

Any member of the Congress may not hold other office or employment in the government during his term without forfeiting his
seat. Forfeiture of the seat in Congress shall be automatic upon the member’s assumption of such office deemed incompatible.

LIBAN VS. GORDON (July 15, 2009)

The PNRC is a non-profit, donor-funded, voluntary, humanitarian organization, whose mission is to bring timely, effective, and
compassionate humanitarian assistance for the most vulnerable without consideration of nationality, race, religion, gender, social
status, or political affiliation.
The office of the PNRC Chairman is not a government office or an office in a government-owned or controlled corporation for
purposes of the prohibition in Section 13, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution.
However, since the PNRC Charter is void insofar as it creates the PNRC as a private corporation, the PNRC should incorporate under
the Corporation Code and register with the SEC if it wants to be a private corporation.

AQUINO VS. COMELEC (September 18, 1995)

The electoral tribunal clearly assumes jurisdiction over all contests relative to the election, returns and qualifications of candidates
for either the Senate or the House only when the latter become members of either the Senate or the House of Representatives. A
candidate who has not taken his oath of office cannot be said to be a member of the House of Representatives.

SENATE VS. ERMITA (April 20, 2006)

Although there is no provision in the Constitution expressly investing either House of Congress with exact power to make
investigations and exact testimony to the end that it may exercise its legislative functions advisedly and effectively, such power is so
far incidental to the legislative function as to be implied. In other words, the power of inquiry – with process to enforce it – is an
essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function.

The investigation must be “in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure” and that the rights of the
persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected.” It follows then that the rights of persons under the Bill of
Rights must be respected, including the right to due process and the right not to be compelled to testify against one’s self.

Sections 21 and 22, therefore, while closely related and complementary to each other, should not be considered as pertaining to the
same power of Congress. One specifically relates to the power to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation, the aim of which is to elicit

© HUMILITY MAE FRIO 2021

information that may be used for legislation, while the other pertains to the power to conduct a question hour, the objective of
which is to obtain information in pursuit of Congress’ oversight function.

TOLENTINO VS. SECRETARY OF FINANCE (October 30, 1995)

While Art. VI, Sec. 24 provides that all appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, bills authorizing increase of the public debt, bills of local
application, and private bills must originate exclusively in the House of Representatives, it also adds, “but the Senate may propose or
concur with amendments.” In the exercise of this power, the Senate may propose an entirely new bill as a substitute measure.

The purpose for which three readings on separate days is required is said to be two-fold: (1) to inform the members of Congress of
what they must vote on and (2) to give them notice that a measure is progressing through the enacting process, thus enabling them
and others interested in the measure to prepare their positions with reference to it.

ASTORGA VS. VILLEGAS

An enrolled bill is the official copy of approved legislation and bears the certifications of the presiding officers of each House. This
where the certifications are valid and are not withdrawn, the contents of the enrolled bill are conclusive upon the courts as regards
the provision of that particular bill.

Executive Department

POE VS. ARROYO (March 29, 2005)

Acting on the protest and considering the Notice of the Death, submitted by the counsel of the protestant Ronald Allan Poe, we also
resolve that Presidential Electoral Tribunal Case No. 002, entitled Ronald Allan Poe a.k.a. Fernando Poe, Jr. vs. Gloria Macapagal-
Arroyo, should be as it is hereby dismissed on the ground that no real party in interest has come forward within the period allowed
by law to intervene in this case or be substituted for the deceased protestant.

ESTRADA VS. ARROYO (March 2, 2001)

Using the totality test, we hold that petitioner resigned as President. The press release was petitioner’s valedictory, his final act of
farewell. His presidency is now in the past tense.
In fine, even if the petitioner can prove that he did not resign, still, he cannot successfully claim that he is a President on leave on the
ground that he is merely unable to govern temporarily. The claim has been laid to rest by Congress and the decision that respondent
Arroyo is the de jure president made by a co-equal branch of government cannot be reviewed by this Court.

IN RE BERMUDEZ (October 24, 1986)

It is equally elementary that incumbent Presidents are immune from suit or from being brought to court during the period of their
incumbency and tenure.

SOLIVEN VS. MAKASIAR (GR NO. 82585, November 14, 1988)

There is nothing in our laws that would prevent the President from waiving the privilege. Thus, if so, minded the President may shed
the protection afforded by the privilege and submit to the court’s jurisdiction. The choice of whether to exercise the privilege or to
waive it, is solely the President’s prerogative. It is a decision that cannot be assumed and imposed by any other person.

BORJAL VS. COURT OF APPEALS (January 14, 1999)

To reiterate, fair commentaries on matters of public interest are privileged and constitute a valid defense in an action for libel or
slander.
The “doctrine of fair comment” means that while in general every discreditable imputation publicly made is deemed false, because
every man is presumed innocent until his guilt is judicially proved, and every false imputation is deemed malicious, nevertheless,
when the discreditable imputation is directed against a public person in his public capacity, it is not necessarily actionable.

In order that such discreditable imputation may be actionable, it must either be a false allegation of fact or a comment based on a
false supposition. If the comment is an expression of opinion, based on established facts, then it is immaterial that the opinion
happens to be mistaken, as long as it might reasonably be inferred from the facts.

TULFO VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES (September 16, 2008)

The exercise of this right or any right enshrined in the Bill of Rights, indeed, comes with an equal burden of responsible exercise of
that right. The recognition of a right is not free license for the one claiming it to run roughshod over the rights of others.

SAEZ VS. MACAPAGAL-ARRROYO (September 25, 2012)

The Court also stresses the rule that the presidential immunity from suit exists only in concurrence with the president’s incumbency.
Conversely, this presidential privilege of immunity cannot be invoked by a non-sitting president even for acts committed during his
or her tenure.

MATIBAG VS. BENIPAYO (April 2, 2002)

An ad interim appointment is a permanent appointment because it takes effect immediately and can no longer be withdrawn by the
President once the appointee has qualified into office. The fact that it is subject to confirmation by the Commission on Appointments
does not alter its permanent character.

The Constitution itself makes an ad interim appointment permanent in character by making it effective until disapproved by the
Commission on Appointments or until the next adjournment of Congress.

© HUMILITY MAE FRIO 2021

The ad interim appointment remains effective until such disapproval or next adjournment, signifying that it can no longer be
withdrawn or revoked by the President. A by-passed appointment can be considered again if the President renews the appointment.

PIMENTEL VS. ERMITA (October 13, 2005)

Ad interim appointments must be distinguished from appointments in an acting capacity. Both of them are effective upon
acceptance. But ad interim appointments are extended only during a recess of Congress, whereas acting appointments may be
extended any time there is a vacancy.

Ad interim appointments are submitted to the Commission on Appointments for confirmation or rejection; acting appointments are
not submitted to the Commission on Appointments.

Acting appointments are way of temporarily filling important offices but, if abused, they can also be a way of circumventing the need
for confirmation by the Commission on Appointments.

IN RE APPOINTMENTS DATED MARCH 30, 1998 OF HON MATEO A. VALENZUELA AND HON. PLACIDO B. VALLARTA AS JUDGES OF THE
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT (Ruling Abandoned)
The appointments of Messrs. Valenzuela and Vallarta were unquestionably made during the period of the ban. Consequently, they
come within the operation of the first prohibition relating to appointments which are considered to be for the purpose of buying
votes of influencing the election.
While the filling of vacancies in the judiciary is undoubtedly in the public interest, there is no showing in this case of any compelling
reason to justify the making of appointments during the period of the ban.

DE CASTRO VS. JBC (March 17, 2010)

Article VII is devoted to the Executive Department, and, among others, it lists the powers vested by the Constitution in the President.
Article VIII is dedicated to the Judicial Department and defines the duties and qualifications of Members of the Supreme Court,
among others.
Had the framers intended to extend the prohibition contained in Section 15, Article VII to the appointments of Members of the
Supreme Court, they could have explicitly done so. They could not have ignored the meticulous ordering of the provisions.

LAGMAN VS. MEDIALDEA (February 19, 2019)

The Congress has the prerogative to extend the martial law and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus as the
Constitution does not limit the period for which it can extend the same.

The Court in the case of Lagman vs. Medialdea, July 4, 2017, explained the only limitations to the exercise of the congressional
authority to extend such proclamation or suspension:
(a) the extension should be upon the President’s initiative;
(b) it should be grounded on the persistence of the invasion or rebellion and the demands of public safety; and
(c) it is subject to the Court’s review of the sufficiency of its factual basis upon the petition of any citizen.

SAGUISAG VS. OCHOA (January 12, 2016)

The right of the Executive to enter into binding agreements without the necessity of subsequent Congressional approval has been
confirmed by long usage. The power of the President to enter into binding executive agreements without Senate concurrence is
already well-established in this jurisdiction.

PANGILINAN VS. CAYETANO (March 16, 2021 – Leonen)

While the Philippine Constitution provides that a vote of 2/3 of all the members of the Senate is required in ratifying a treaty, thus,
vesting the power to withdraw in the President alone.
The President, as primary architect of foreign policy, is subject to the Constitution and existing statute as there were provisions in a
prior law, RA No. 9851, which amended the Rome Statute.

FRANCISCO JR. VS. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (November 10, 2003)

This Court reiterates that the power of judicial review includes the power of review over justiciable issues in impeachment
proceedings. The exercise of judicial restraint over justiciable issues is not an option before this Court. Nor can jurisdiction be
renounced as there is no other tribunal to which the controversy may be referred. Otherwise, this Court would be shirking from its
duty vested under Art. VIII, Sec. 1(2) of the Constitution.

Impeachment proceeding is not a single act. It is a complexus of acts consisting of a beginning, a middle and an end. The beginning
or the initiation is the filing of the complaint and its referral to the Committee on Justice. The middle consists of those deliberative
moments leading to the formulation of the articles of impeachment. The end is the transmittal of the articles of impeachment to the
Senate.

Once an impeachment complaint has been initiated in the foregoing manner, another may not be filed against the same official
within a one year period following Article XI, Section 3(5) of the Constitution.

© HUMILITY MAE FRIO 2021