Tanada vs Angara, 272 SCRA 18, May 2, 1997

Facts : This is a petition seeking to nullify the Philippine ratification of the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement. Petitioners question the concurrence of herein respondents acting in their capacities as Senators via signing the said agreement.

The WTO opens access to foreign markets, especially its major trading partners, through the reduction of tariffs on its exports, particularly agricultural and industrial products. Thus, provides new opportunities for the service sector cost and uncertainty associated with exporting and more investment in the country. These are the predicted benefits as reflected in the agreement and as viewed by the signatory Senators, a “free market” espoused by WTO.

Petitioners on the other hand viewed the WTO agreement as one that limits, restricts and impair Philippine economic sovereignty and legislative power. That the Filipino First policy of the Constitution was taken for granted as it gives foreign trading intervention.

Issue : Whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the Senate in giving its concurrence of the said WTO agreement.

Held: In its Declaration of Principles and state policies, the Constitution “adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land, and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation and amity , with all nations. 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. Pacta sunt servanda – international agreements must be performed in good faith. A treaty is not a mere moral obligation but creates a legally binding obligation on the parties.

Through WTO the sovereignty of the state cannot in fact and reality be considered as absolute because it is a regulation of commercial relations among nations. Such as when Philippines joined the United Nations (UN) it consented to restrict its sovereignty right under the “concept of sovereignty as autolimitation.” What Senate did was a valid exercise of authority. As to determine whether such exercise is wise, beneficial or viable is outside the realm of judicial inquiry and review. The act of signing the said agreement is not a legislative restriction as WTO allows withdrawal of membership should this be the political desire of a member. Also, it should not be viewed as a limitation of economic sovereignty. WTO remains as the only viable structure for multilateral trading and the veritable forum for the development of international trade law. Its alternative is isolation, stagnation if not economic self-destruction. Thus, the people be allowed, through their duly elected officers, make their free choice.
Petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

Secretary of Justice vs Lantion, 322 SCRA 160, Jaabuary 28, 2000

Facts : On June 18, 199 , the Department of Justice received from the Department of Foreign Affairs U.S. Note No. 0522 containing a request for the extradition of private respondent Mark Jimenez. Secretary of Justice then ordered a technical evaluation and assessment of the extradition request.
Pending evaluation, private respondent (Mark Jimenez) through counsel wrote a letter addressed to herein petitioner requesting copies of official extradition request from the US Government. He requested ample time to comment and for the matter to be held in abeyance in the meantime.
Secretary of Justice denied the said request specifically invoking our country’s responsibility to the Vienna Convention on the law of Treaties that “every treaty in force is binding upon parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith.” Extradition is a toll of criminal law enforcement and to be effective must be processed expeditiously.
Particularly in this case is the RP-US Extradition Treaty. Extradition is the process by which persons charged with or convicted of crimes against the law of a State and found in a foreign state are returned by the latter to the former for trial or punishment.
Pacta sunt servanda requires the parties to a treaty to keep their agreement therein in good faith. The observance of our country’s legal duties under a treaty is also compelled by Section 2, Article II of the Constitution.

“ The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy, and adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the nation.”

Under the doctrine of incorporation, rules of international law form part of the law of the land and no further legislative action is needed to make such rules applicable in the domestic sphere.
After the denial of the request letter, Mark Jimenez filed a petition against herein Secretary of Justice. RTC presiding Judge Lantion favored Jimenez. Thus, this petition is now at bar.

Issue: Whether or not respondent Judge Lantion acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the temporary restraining order to herein petitioner in performing his legal duties as Secretary of Justice.

Held : The Extradition Law provides Rules of Court shall apply, thus extradite has the basic right of notice and hearing. The RP-US Extradition Treaty under the Incorporation Clause in case of conflict is not superior over a national law. International law is given equal standing but not superior to national legislative enactment. The principle lex posterior degorat oriori takes effect – a treaty may repeal a statute and a statute may repeal a treaty. In States where the constitution is the highest law of the land, such as the Republic of the Philippines, both statutes and treaties may be invalidated if they are in conflict with the constitution.
Thus, petitioner is ordered to furnish private respondent copies of the extradition request and its supporting papers and to grant him (Jimenez) a reasonable period within which to file his comment and supporting evidence
There was only a void on some provisions of the RP-US Extradition Treaty as regards to the basic due process right of a prospective extradite at the evaluation stage of the extradition proceeding.
RTC’s decision is rendered moot and academic and herein petition is DISMISSED.

J.B.L. Reyes vs Bagatsing , GR No. 65366, October 25, 1983

Facts : Petitioner retired Justice J.B.L Reyes on behalf of the Anti-Bases Coalition sought a permit from the City of Manila to hold a peaceful march and rally starting from the Luneta Park (public park) to the gates of the United States Embassy. There was an assurance in the petition that in the exercise of the constitutional rights to free speech and assembly, all the necessary steps would be taken “to ensure a peaceful march and rally.”
It turned out that the permit was denied by the respondent Mayor. Petitioner was unaware of such denial as it was sent through an ordinary mail.
The reason of refusing the permit was due to “police intelligence reports which strongly militate against the advisability of issuing such permit. To be more specific, reference was made to “persistent intelligence reports affirming the plans of subversive/criminal elements to infiltrate and/or disrupt any assembly or congregations where a large number of people are expected to attend. Mayor suggested, however, that a permit may be issued for the rally if it will be held in Rizal Coliseum or any other enclosed areas where the safety of the participants and general public may be assured. The Mayor also posed the applicability of Ordinance No.7925 of the City of Manila prohibiting the holding and staging of rallies or demonstration within a radius of 500 feet from any foreign mission or chancery in this case the US Embassy. However, there was no proof that the US Embassy was indeed 500 feet away.

Issue : Whether or not the denial of permit to rally by the respondent Mayor is valid.

Held : Even if it can be shown that such condition existed (500 feet away), it does not follow that the respondent could legally act the way he did. Such denial can still be challenged as to the constitutionality of the ordinance.
The Philippines is a signatory to the Vienna Convention which calls for the protection of the premises of a diplomatic mission. But, the denial of permit to rally in front of the US Embassy is only justified in the presence of clear and present danger to life or property of the embassy. This is binding on the Philippines to take appropriate steps to protect the premises of the mission against intrusion or damage and prevent any disturbance of peace or impairment of its dignity. To the extent that the Vienna Convention is a restatement of the generally accepted principles of international law, it should be part of the law of the land. That being the case, if there were a clear and present danger of any intrusion or damage or disturbance of peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity, there would be a justification for the denial of the permit insofar as the terminal point would be the US Embassy - but there was none.
Respondent official was ordered to grant the permit.
Mandatory injunction prayed for is GRANTED. No cost.

Agustin vs Edu, 88 SCRA 195, L- 49112, February 22, 1979

Facts : This is a petition questioning the validity of a Letter of Instruction providing for an early warning device mandatory for motor vehicles. It is assailed in this prohibition proceeding as being violative to the constitutional guarantee of due process in as far as the rules and regulations for its implementation are concerned.
The assailed Letter of Instruction No. 229 of President Ferdinand Marcos aimed to prevent road accidents and in the interest of safety on all streets, highways including expressways. All motorist and motor vehicle owners shall have at all times one pair of early warning device. These hazards posed by such obstructions to traffic have been recognized by international bodies concerned with traffic safety, the 1968 Vienna Convention on Roads and Signs and the United Nations Organization (UN). Philippine Government under P.D. No. 207 ratified the said Vienna convention requiring the installation of road signs and devices.
Herein respondent Edu in his capacity as Land Transportation Commisioner set forth the implementing rules and regulations of the said instruction.

Issue : Whether or not the assailed Letter of Instruction is invalid and violated constitutional guarantees of due process.

Held : The assailed Letter of Instruction was a valid exercise of police power and there was no unlawful delegation of legislative power on the part of the respondent. As identified, police power is a state authority to enact legislation that may interfere personal liberty or property in order to promote the general welfare. In this case, the particular exercise of police power was clearly intended to promote public safety.
It cannot be disputed that the Declaration of Principle found in the Constitution possesses relevance: The Philippines ------ adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the nation.” Thus, as impressed in the 1968 Vienna Convention it is not for this country to repudiate a commitment to which it had pledged its word. Our country’s word was resembled in our own act of legislative ratification of the said Hague and Vienna Conventions thru P.D. No. 207 . The concept of Pacta sunt servanda stands in the way of such an attitude which is, moreoever, at war with the principle of international morality.
In Santiago vs Far Eatern Broadcasting Company , it was held that the constitutionality of the law will not be considered unless the point is specially pleaded, insisted upon and adequately argued. Equal protection is not a talismanic formula at the mere invocation of which a party to a lawsuit can rightfully expect success will crown his efforts. The law is anything but that.
Petition is DISMISSED and the restraining order is lifted.

Kuroda vs Jalandoni, 83 Phil. 195, L-2662, March 26, 1949

Facts : Shigenori Kuroda, a former Lieutenant-General of the Japanese Imperial Army and Commanding General of the Imperial Forces of the Philippines was charged before a Military Commission convened by the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. He had unlawfully disregarded and failed to discharge his duties as a commander to control the operations of members of his command.
Petitioner was duly prosecuted for acts committed in violation of the Hague Convention and the Geneva Convention through the issuance and enforcement of Executive Order No. 68.
Executive Order No. 68 provided the organization of such military commissions, established National War Crimes Office and prescribing rules and regulations governing the trial of accused war criminals.
Attorneys Melville Hussey and Robert Port of the United States of America participated in the prosecution of the case in behalf of the United States of America.

Issue : Whether or not Executive Order No. 68 is legal and constitutional.

Held : This court holds that the Executive Order No. 68 is legal and constitutional as provided in Sec. 3, Art. II of the Constitution, that-

“ The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy, and adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the nation.”

The participation of the two American attorneys although under our law, they are not qualified to practice law is valid and constitutional. Military Commission is a special military tribunal governed by special law not by Rules of the Court, which govern ordinary civil courts. There is nothing in Executive Order No.68 which requires counsels need to be qualified to practice law in the Philippines. In fact, it is common in military tribunals that counsels for the parties are usually military personnel.
Under the doctrine of incorporation, although the Philippines was not a signatory of the Hague and Geneva Conventions, international jurisprudence is automatically incorporated in Philippine law, thus making war crimes punishable in the Philippines.
The Military Commission having been convened by virtue of a valid law, with jurisdiction over the crimes charged which fall under the provisions of Executive Order No 68, and having jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner by having said petitioner in its custody, the court will not interfere with the due process of such Military Commission.
Petition is denied with costs de oficio.

Mejoff vs Director of Prisons, 90 Phil 70, L- 4254 September 26, 1951

Facts : This is a second petition for habeas corpus by herein petitioner.
Mejoff is an alien of Russian decent. He was brought to this country from Shanghai as a secret operative by the Japanese forces. Upon liberation, he was arrested as a Japanese spy. He was deported having been found out that he has no travel documents and his entry here in the Philippines was illegal. The Deportation Board ordered the immigration officials for his deportation on the first transportation to Russia. He was moved in Cebu where two Russian ships were scheduled, but each respective masters of the ship refused to take petitioner due to no authority to do so. Thus, respondent was moved again to Bilibid Prison, Muntinglupa. Since then and until the time this case was initiated he was still detained in the said jail.

Issue : Whether or not an alien’s prolonged detention is unlawful.

Held : Petitioner’s entry here in the Philippines was not illegal since he was brought here by the armed force of the then de facto government.
The Philippines adopts “the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the Nation. ” Thus, in view of this principle the resolution entitled “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” approved by the general assembly of the United Nations , Philippines is a member. This provides the right to life and liberty and all other fundamental rights as applied to all human beings proclaimed without any distinction.
It has been said that the petitioner was engaged in subversive activities. If the only purpose of the detention is to eliminate danger, government is not impotent to deal or prevent any threat. The prolonged detention of herein petitioner is not the only way of government’s keeping our country safe and peaceful.
The writ will issue commanding the respondent to release the petitioner from custody upon terms. The petitioner shall be placed under surveillance of the immigration authorities and insure that he keep peace and be available when the Government is ready to deport him.
No cost will be charged.