Pharmaceutical and Health Care Association of the Philippines vs.Duque III Nature: Special Civil Action in the Supreme Court. Certiorari Petitioner: Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Association of the Philippines Respondents: DOH Sec. Francisco Duque III, DOH Undersecretaries Dr. Ethelyn Nieto, Dr. Margarita Galon, Atty. Alexander Padilla and Dr. Jade Del Mundo; and Asst. Secretaries Dr. Mario Villaverde, Dr. David Lozada and Dr. Nemesio Gako Facts: - Executive Order No. 51 (The Milk Code - TMC) was issued by Pres. Aquino on Oct. 28, 1986 by virtue of the legislative powers granted to her under the Freedom Constitution. (1) One of the preambular clauses of TMC – the law seeks to give effect to Article 11 of the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substituttes (ICMBS), a code adopted by the WHA (World Health Assembly) in 1981. - In 1990, the Philippine ratified the International Convention on the Rights of the Child. Art. 24 of the instrument mandates that States should take measure to diminish infant mortality and should ensure that all segments of society are informed of the advantages of breastfeeding. - From 1982 – 2006, the WHA adopted several resolutions to the effect that breastfeeding should be supported, promoted and protected, hence, it should be ensured that nutrition and health claims are not permitted for breastmilk substitutes. - May 15, 2006 – DOH issues the assailed RIRR (Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations of E.O. 51 or A.O. No. 2006-0012) which was to take effect on July 7, 2006. – The RIRR imposes a ban on all advertisements of breastmilk substitutes - June 28, 2006 – Petitioner filed the present Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with Prayer for the Issuance of a TRO or Writ of Preliminary injunction. - August 15, 2006 – the Court issued a Resolution granting the TRO, enjoining the respondents from implementing the assailed RIRR. - Petitioner assails the RIRR for going beyond the provisions of TMC thereby amending and expanding the coverage of the said law. - DOH meanwhile contends that the RIRR implements not only TMC but also various international instruments regarding infant and young child nutrition. They posit that the said international instruments are deemed part of the law of the land and therefore may be implemented by the DOH in the RIRR. Issue: W/n the RIRR is unconstitutional? Sub-issue(s): W/n the RIRR is in accord with TMC? W/n pertinent international agreements entered into by the Philippines are part of the law of the land and may thus be implemented through an RIRR, if so, is the RIRR in accord with such international agreements? Note: I focused on the parts on international law. The other matters (in case ma’am asks) are at the bottom of the digest. Held: No. However what may be implemented is the RIRR based on the Milk Code which in turn is based on the ICMBS as this is deemed part of the law of the land. The other WHA Resolutions however cannot be imposed as they are not deemed part of the law of the land. Ratio: 1. Are the international instruments referred to by the respondents part of the law of the land? - The various international instruments invoked by respondents are: - - (1) The UN Conventions on the Rights of the Child (2) The International Convenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (3) Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women These instruments only provide general terms of the steps that States must take to prevent child mortality. Hence, they do not have anything about the use and marketing of breastmilk substitutes The ICMBS and other WHA Resolutions however, are the international instruments which have specific provisions on breastmilk substitutes - Under the 1987 Constitution, international law can become part of domestic law in 2 ways: (1) Transformation – an international law is transformed into a domestic law through a constitutional mechanism such as local legislation Treaties become part of law of the land through this method, pursuant to Art 7, Sec 21 – wherein “no treaty or international agreement shall be valid.. unless concurred by at least 2/3 of Senate” The ICMBS and WHA Resolutions are NOT treaties as they haven’t been concurred in by the required 2/3 vote. HOWEVER, the ICMBS has been transformed into domestic law through local legislation that is TMC. Therefore, it is not the ICMBS per se that has the force of law but it’s TMC. o While TMC is almost a verbatim reproduction of the ICMBS, it did not adopt the latter’s provision on the absolute prohibition on advertising of products within the scope of the ICMBS. Instead the MC provides that advertising promotion or other marketing materials may be allowed if such materials are approved by a committee. (2) Incorporation – by mere constitutional declaration, international law is deemed to have the force of domestic law This is found under Art 2, Sec 2 – The Philippines… adopts generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land In Mihares v. Ranada: International law becomes customary rules accepted as binding as a result of two elements: 1.) Established, widespread, and consistent practice on part of the state 2.) Opinion juris sive necessitates (opinion as to law or necessity. Generally accepted principles of international law refer to norms of general or customary international law which are binding on all states, valid through all kinds of human societies, and basic to legal systems generally Fr. Bernas has a definition similar to the one above. Customary international law has two factors: 1.) Material factor – how states behave The consistency and the generality of the practice 2.) Psychological or subjective factor – why they behave the way they do Once state practice has been established, now determine why they behave they do. Is it ouor of courtesy or opinio juris (the belief that a certain type of behavior is obligatory) When a law satisfies the two factors it becomes part of customary international law which is then incorporated into our domestic system 2. Since the WHA Resolutions have not been embodied in any local legislation, have they attained the status of customary law and hence part of our law of the land? - The World Health Organization (WHO) is one of the international specialized agencies of the UN. - According to the WHO Constitution, it’s the WHA which determines the policies of the WHO, the former also has the power to “adopt regulations concerning advertising and labeling of pharmaceutical and similar products” and “to make recommendations to members on any matter within the Organization’s competence” - Note that the legal effect of a regulation as opposed to recommendation is quite different (1) Regulations which are duly adopted by the WHA are binding on member states (2) On the other hand, recommendations of the WHA do not come into force for its members unlike regulations. Rather, they carry moral and political weight as they constitute the judgment on a health issue of the collective membership of the highest body in the field of health. - The WHA resolution adopting the ICMBS and the subsequent WHA resolutions urging states to implement the ICMBS are merely recommendatory and legally non-binding. - Hence, unlike the ICMBS which has become TMC through legislative enactment, the subsequent WHA Resolutions, which provide for exclusive breastfeeding and prohibition on advertisements and promotions of breastmilk have not been adopted as domestic law. - WHA Resolutions have been viewed to constitute “soft law” or non-binding norms, which influence state behavior. Soft law has been noted to be a rapid means of norm creation, in order to reflect and respond to the changing needs and demands of constituents (of the UN.) - As previously discussed, for an international rule to be considered customary law, it must be established that such rule is followed by states because it is considered obligatory (opinio juris). - In the case at bar, respondents have not presented any evidence to prove that the WHA Resolutions are in fact enforced or practice by member states. Further, they failed to establish that provisions of pertinent WHA Resolutions are customary international law that may be deemed part of law of the land. - Hence, legislation is necessary to transform the WHA resolutions into domestic law. They cannot thus be implemented by executive agencies without the need of a law to be enacted by legislature. On other issues: W/n the petitioner is the real party in interest? Yes. - An association has standing to file suit for its workers despite its lack of direct interest of its members are affected by the action. An organization has standing to assert the concerns of its constituents. (Exec Sec vs CA) - The Court has rules that an association has the legal personality to represent its members because the results of the case will affect their vital interests. (Purok Bagong Silang Association Inc. vs. Yuipco) - In the petitioner’s Amended Articles of Incorporation, it states that the association is formed “to represent directly or through approved representatives the pharmaceutical and health care industry before the Philippine Government and any of its agencies, the medical professions and the general public.” - Therefore, the petitioner, as an organization, has an interest in fulfilling its avowed purpose of representing members who are part of the pharmaceutical and health care industry. Petitioner is duly authorized to bring to the attention of the government agencies and courts any grievance suffered by its members which are directly affected by the assailed RIRR. - The petitioner, whose legal identity is deemed fused with its members, should be considered as a legal party-in-interest which stands to be benefited or injured by any judgment in the case. W/n the DOH has the power to implement the WHA Resolutions under the Revised Administrative Code even in the absence of a domestic law? Only the provisions of the Milk Code. (as per the discussion above) - Section 3, Chapter 1, Title IX of the RAC of 1987 provides that the DOH shall define the national health policy and can issue orders and regulations concerning the implementation of established health policies. - A.O. No 2005 -0014 which provides the national policy on infant and young child feeding, does not declare that as part of its policy, the advertisement or promotion of breastmilk substitutes should be absolutely prohibited. - Only the provisions of the Milk Code, but not those of the subsequent WHA Resolutions, can be validly implemented by the DOH through the subject RIRR. W/n the provisions of the RIRR being in accordance with the Milk Code? Not all of them - Assailed provisions: [1] extending the coverage to young children; [2] imposing exclusive breastfeeding for infants from 0-6 months; [3] imposes an absolute ban on advertising and promotion for breastmilk substitutes; [4] requiring additional labeling requirements; [5] prohibits the dissemination of information on infant formula; [6] forbids milk manufacturers and distributors to extend assistance in research and continuing education Although the DOH has the power under the Milk Code to control information regarding breastmilk vis-à-vis breastmilk substitutes, this power is not absolute because it has no power to impose an absolute prohibition in the marketing, promotion and advertising of breastmilk substitutes. Several provisions of the Milk Code attest to the fact that such power to control information is not absolute. - Sections 11 and 4(f) of the RIRR are clearly violative of the Milk Code because such provisions impose an absolute prohibition on advertising, promotion and marketing of breastmilk substitutes, which is not provided for in the Milk Code. Section 46 is violative of the Milk Code because the DOH has exceeded its authority in imposing such fines or sanctions when the Milk Code does not do so. Other assailed provisions are in accordance with the Milk Code. W/n Section 13 of the RIRR providing a sufficient standard? Yes. - Questioned provision, in addition to Section 26 of Rule VII provide labeling requirements for breastmilk substitutes found to be in consonance with the Milk Code - The provisions in question provide reasonable means of enforcing related provisions in the Milk Code. W/n Section 57 of the RIRR repeals existing laws? - Section in question only repeals orders, issuances and rules and regulations, not laws. The provision is valid as it is within the DOH’s rule-making power. - An administrative agency has quasi-legislative or rule-making power. However, such power is limited to making rules and regulation subjected to the boundaries set by the granting statute and the Constitution. The power is also subject to the doctrine of non-delegability and separability of powers. The power, which includes amending, revising, altering or repealing, is granted to allow for flexibility in the implementation of the laws. W/n On Section 4, 5(w), 11, 22, 32, 47 and 52 violates the due process clause of the Constitution (Article III Section 1)? - Despite the fact that the present Constitution enshrines free enterprise as a policy, it nonetheless reserves to the government the power to intervene whenever necessary to promote the general welfare… free enterprise does not call for the removal of protective regulations. It must be clearly explained and proven by competent evidence just exactly how such protective regulation would result in the restraint of trade. - Section 4 – proscription of milk manufacturers’ participation in any policymaking body; Section 22 – classes and seminars for women and children; Section 32 – giving of assistance, support and logistics or training; Section 52 – giving of donations - In the instant case, petitioner failed to show how the aforementioned sections hamper the trade of breastmilk substitutes. They also failed to establish that these activities are essential and indispensable to their trade. Disposition: The Petition is Partially Granted. Only sections 4(f), 11 and 46 of A.O. 2006-0014 are declared null and void for being ultra vires. The TRO is lifted insofar as the rest of the provisions of A.O. 2006-0012 is concerned. LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs COURT OF APPEALS 231 SCRA 292 G.R. No. 110120 March 16, 1994 FACTS On March 8, 1991, the Task Force Camarin Dumpsite of Our Lady of Lourdes Parish, Barangay Camarin, Caloocan City, filed a letter-complaint with the Laguna Lake Development Authority seeking to stop the operation of the 8.6hectare open garbage dumpsite in Tala Estate, Barangay Camarin, Caloocan City due to its harmful effects on the health of the residents and the possibility of pollution of the water content of the surrounding area. The LLDA Legal and Technical personnel found that the City Government of Caloocan was maintaining an open dumpsite at the Camarin area without first securing an Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) from the Environmental Management Bureau (EMB) of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, as required under Presidential Decree No. 1586, and clearance from LLDA as required under Republic Act No. 4850, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 813 and Executive Order No. 927, series of 1983. The LLDA found that the water collected from the leachate and the receiving streams could considerably affect the quality, in turn, of the receiving waters since it indicates the presence of bacteria, other than coliform, which may have contaminated the sample during collection or handling. On December 5, 1991, the LLDA issued a Cease and Desist Order ordering the City Government of Caloocan, Metropolitan Manila Authority, their contractors, (3). Serapio. On September 25. safety. 1993. The City Government of Caloocan filed with the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City an action for the declaration of nullity of the cease and desist order In its complaint. 927. with the assistance of the Philippine National Police. 1992. including the issuance of a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction in relation thereto. as amended by P. its agent and all persons acting for and on its behalf. the LLDA. and (2) the Laguna Lake Development Authority has no power and authority to issue a cease and desist order under its enabling law. Republic Act No. 4850. 813 and Executive Order No. Judge Manuel Jn. hear and decide the action for annulment of LLDA's cease and desist order. 1992. stop and desist from dumping any form or kind of garbage and other waste matter at the Camarin dumpsite. enforced its Alias Cease and Desist Order by prohibiting the entry of all garbage dump trucks into the Tala Estate. from enforcing or implementing its cease and desist order which prevents plaintiff City of Caloocan from dumping garbage at the Camarin dumpsite during the pendency of this case and/or until further orders of the court. and welfare of the residents therein and the sanitation and quality of the water in the area brought about by exposure to pollution caused by such open garbage dumpsite . ISSUE Whether or not the LLDA has the authority to entertain the complaint against the dumping of garbage in the open dumpsite in Barangay Camarin authorized by the City Government of Caloocan which is allegedly endangering the health. since appeal therefrom is within the exclusive and appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals under Section 9. to completely halt. Camarin area being utilized as a dumpsite. the Court of Appeals promulgated its decision holding that: (1) the Regional Trial Court has no jurisdiction on appeal to try. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT On October 16. and other entities. of Batas Pambansa Blg. COURT OF APPEALS On April 30. par. the City Government of Caloocan sought to be declared as the sole authority empowered to promote the health and safety and enhance the right of the people in Caloocan City to a balanced ecology within its territorial jurisdiction. 129. No.D. after hearing the motion to dismiss. series of 1983. issued in the consolidated cases an order denying LLDA's motion to dismiss and granting the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining the LLDA. 984 which.SUPREME COURT Yes. by virtue of its special charter. except in cases where the special law provides for another forum. programs and/or projects are related to those of the LLDA for the development of the region. 4850 and its amendatory laws to carry out and make effective the declared national policy 20 of promoting and accelerating the development and balanced growth of the Laguna Lake area and the surrounding provinces of Rizal and Laguna and the cities of San Pablo. similar to the express grant to the defunct National Pollution Control Commission under Section 7 of P. 4850. Quezon and Caloocan 21 with due regard and adequate provisions for environmental management and control. In carrying out the aforementioned declared policy." 24 (Emphasis supplied) Section 4. the LLDA is mandated. 813 and E. as amended by P. ISSUE Whether or not the LLDA has the power and authority to issue a "cease and desist" order under Republic Act No. 813 and Executive Order No. By its express terms. As a general rule. Pasay. Manila. 927. among others. obviously has the responsibility to protect the inhabitants of the Laguna Lake region from the deleterious effects of pollutants emanating from the discharge of wastes from the surrounding areas. Under such a broad grant and power and authority. To be sure. 927. deterioration and pollution. . the adjudication of pollution cases generally pertains to the Pollution Adjudication Board (PAB). No. as suggested by the City Government of Caloocan. However. It must be recognized in this regard that the LLDA. par. 4850 and its amendatory laws SUPREME COURT Yes. as a specialized administrative agency. authorizes the LLDA to "make. the LLDA. No. and the prevention of undue ecological disturbances. No. series of 1983.O.D. admittedly was not reproduced in P. to pass upon and approve or disapprove all plans.D. series of 1983. is specifically mandated under Republic Act No.D. and projects proposed by local government offices/agencies within the region. and private persons or enterprises where such plans. (d) explicitly authorizes the LLDA to make whatever order may be necessary in the exercise of its jurisdiction. the LLDA was not expressly conferred the power "to issue an exparte cease and desist order" in a language. programs. public corporations. No. preservation of the quality of human life and ecological systems. Republic Act No. alter or modify order requiring the discontinuance or pollution. the US Naval Base authorities in Subic conducted a public bidding for a 5-year contract for the right to operate and/or manage the transportation services inside the naval base. the Sec. there being no employer-employee relationship between the parties. Sec. owneroperator of Guerrero’s Transport Services. Article II. (Guerrero). 2 of the RP-US Base Agreement. The Sec. Upon appeal. & that any non-compliance was attributable to the . alter or modify orders requiring the discontinuance of pollution" is expressly and clearly bestowed upon the LLDA by Executive Order No. of Labor remanded the case to the NLRC.BLAYLOCK TRANSPORTATION SERVICES EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION-KILUSAN (BTEA-KILUSAN). of Labor affirming the NLRC Resolution. This bidding was won by Santiago Guerrero. Section 16 which provides: The State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature. except those who may have derogatory records w/ the US Naval Authorities in Subic. the then incumbent concessionaire doing business under the name of Blayblock Transport Services Blayblock. over Concepcion Blayblock. The case was dismissed by the NLRC upon Guerrero’s MTD on jurisdictional grounds. When Guererro commenced its operations. Blayblock’s 395 employees are members of the union BTEA-KILUSAN (the Union). This is but in consonance with the declared policy of the state "to protect and promote the right to health of the people and instill health consciousness among them. 927. INC. pursuant to Art. Thus." 28 It is to be borne in mind that the Philippines is party to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Alma Conference Declaration of 1978 which recognize health as a fundamental human right. series of 1983. it carries the correlative duty of non-impairment. 1. Guerrero claims that it substantially complied w/ the decision of the Sec. GUERRERO'S TRANSPORT SERVICES. Inc. The NLRC issued a Resolution ordering Guererro to “absorb all complainants who filed their applications on or before the deadline” set by Guerrero. it would be a mistake to draw therefrom the conclusion that there is a denial of the power to issue the order in question when the power "to make. of Labor affirmed. it refused to employ the members of the Union. As a constitutionally guaranteed right of every person. The immediate response to the demands of "the necessities of protecting vital public interests" gives vitality to the statement on ecology embodied in the Declaration of Principles and State Policies or the 1987 Constitution. the Union filed a complaint w/ the NLRC against Guerrero to compel it to employ its members. LABOR ARBITER FRANCISCO M. DE LOS REYES and JOSE CRUZ FACTS In 1972. vs. The Sec. of Labor ordered the absorption of 175 members of the Union subject to 2 conditions. the parties arrived at a Compromise Agreement wherein they agreed to submit to the Sec. of Labor the determination of members of the Union who shall be reinstated by Guerrero. through Labor Arbiter Francisco de los Reyes. RULING YES. and b) that they should pass final screening and approval by the appropriate authorities of the U. It is obviously in recognition of such obligation that Guerrero entered into the aforementioned Compromise Agreement. The agreement is deemed to have superseded the Resolution of the NLRC.individual complainants who failed to submit themselves for processing & examination. 6 of Art. . consistent w/ military requirements. The Union filed a Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution. bound to give "priority" to the employment of the qualified employees of the previous contractor (Blaylock). I of the RP-US Labor Agreement. Pursuant to Sec. Naval Base concerned. In view of said stipulation. of Labor the determination as to who of the members of the Union shall be absorbed or employed by Guerrero. of Labor issued an Order directing the NLRC. The Labor Arbiter ordered the reinstatement of 129 individuals. subject to the following conditions: a) that they were bona fide employees of the Blaylock Transport Service at the time its concession expired. the parties agreed to submit to the Sec. and that such determination shall be considered as final. Under the Compromise Agreement. therefore. in the event certain services are contracted out. ISSUE Whether or not the said members of the Union were entitled to be reinstated by Guerrero. and. the aforesaid provision of the treaty enters into and forms part of the contract between Guerrero and the US Naval Base authorities.S. and as municipal law for the people of each state to observe. the US Armed Forces undertook. The Sec. the new contractor (Guerrero) is. A treaty has 2 aspects — as an international agreement between states. w/c determination shall be final. the US Armed Forces shall require the contractor or concessioner to give priority consideration to affected employees for employment. The order wasn’t appealed so it was declared final & executory Subsequently. As part of the municipal law. to implement the absorption of the 175 members into Guerrero's Transport Services. "to provide security for employment. They form part of the law of our nation even if the Philippines was not a signatory to the conventions embodying them.Kuroda’s arguments were: (1)EO No. formerly a Lieutenant-General of the Japanese Imperial Army and Commanding General of the Japanese Imperial Forces in The Philippines from1943-1944. national or international. This is an act establishing a national war crimes office and prescribing rules and regulation governing the trial of accused war criminals. is charged before a military commission convened by the Chief of Staff of the Armed forces of the Philippines with having unlawfully disregarded and failed to discharge his duties as such command. Guerrero is ordered to submit to and secure from the appropriate authorities of the U. Colonel MARGARITO TORALBA. Facts: . for our Constitution has been deliberately general and extensive in its scope and is not confined to the recognition of rules and principles of international law as contained in treaties to which our government may have been or shall be a signatory. therefore. is illegal on the ground that it violates not only the provisions of our constitutional law but also our local laws. were appointed prosecutors in behalf of USA. naval Base at Subic. MELVILLE S. he is charged with “crime” not based on law. Colonel PEDRO TABUENA.Shigenori Kuroda. upon the parties.\MORAN. petitioner. 68 and the personality as prosecutors of Hussey and Port.S.. and (3) Hussey and Port have no personality as prosecutors in this case because they are not qualified to . respondents. conclusive upon the parties and their privies.. the names of the members of the Union. HUSSEY and ROBERT PORT. vs. American lawyers. Zambales the requisite screening and approval. Major FEDERICOARANAS. For this purpose. Considering that the Compromise Agreement of the parties is more than a mere contract and has the force and effect of any other judgment. SHIGENORI KURODA.Kuroda challenges the legality of the EO No. 1947. it is. (2) Military Commission has no Jurisdiction to try him for acts committed in violation of the Hague Convention and the Geneva Convention because the Philippines is not a signatory to the first and signed the second only in 1947 and. ColonelIRENEO BUENCONSEJO.. the effect and authority of res judicata and is enforceable by execution upon approval by the court.Brigadier General CALIXTO DUQUE. Major General RAFAEL JALANDONI. therefore.A Military commission was empaneled under the authority of Executive Order 68 of the President of the Philippines. which was issued on July 29. Doctrine: Rules and regulations of the Hague and Geneva conventions form part of and are wholly based on the generally accepted principals of international law. permitting them to commit brutal atrocities and other high crimes against noncombatant civilians and prisoners of the Imperial Japanese Forces in violation of the laws and customs of war".Melville Hussey and Robert Port. For it is settled that a compromise has. Such rule and principles therefore form part of the law of our nation even if the Philippines was not a signatory to the conventions embodying them. Respondent Military Commission is a special military tribunal governed by a special law . Article 2 of our Constitution provides in its section 3. they can. Issues/Held: (1) WON EO No.practice law in Philippines in accordance with our Rules of court and the appointment of said attorneys as prosecutors is violative of our national sovereignty. Styer.(2) Rules and regulations of the Hague and Geneva conventions form part of and are wholly based on the generally accepted principals of international law. Furthermore when the crimes charged against petitioner were allegedly committed the Philippines was under the sovereignty of United States and thus we were equally bound together with the United States and with Japan to the right and obligation contained in the treaties between the belligerent countries. 68. they form part of our laws.] (3) WON the American lawyers could participate in the prosecution of this case?[Yes. The promulgation of said executive order is an exercise by the President of his power as Commander in chief of all our armed forces as upheld by this Court in the case of Yamashita vs. these rules and principles were accepted by the two belligerent nations. that.] Ratio: (1) The order is valid and constitutional. Consequently.] (2) WON rules and regulations of the Hague and Geneva Conventions form part of the law of the nation even if Philippines was not a signatory to the conventions embodying them? [Yes. the President as Commander in Chief is fully empowered to consummate this unfinished aspect of war namely the trial and punishment of war criminal through the issuance and enforcement of Executive Order No. 68 is valid and constitutional? [Yes it is a valid because it is based on the generally accepted principles of international law which form part of our laws. for our Constitution has been deliberately general and extensive in its scope and is not confined to the recognition of rules and principles of international law as contained in treaties to which our government may have been or shall be a signatory. of humanity and civilization are held accountable therefor.(3) There is nothing in said executive order which requires that counsel appearing before said commission must be attorneys qualified to practice law in the Philippines in accordance with the Rules of Court. In fact. who were signatories to the two Conventions. In accordance with the generally accepted principle of international law of the present day including the Hague Convention the Geneva Convention and significant precedents of international jurisprudence established by the United Nation. the President of the Philippines has acted in conformity with the generally accepted and policies of international law which are part of our Constitution. in the promulgation and enforcement of Execution Order No. all those person military or civilian who have been guilty of planning preparing or waging a war of aggression and of the commission of crimes and offenses consequential and incidental thereto in violation of the laws and customs of war. the United States and Japan. Consequently.The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy and adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the nation. 68. Ichong then petitioned for the nullification of the said Act on the ground that it contravened several treaties concluded by the RP which. It is only fair and proper that United States.and not by the Rules of court which govern ordinary civil court. He said that as a Chinese businessman engaged in the business here in the country who helps in the income generation of the country he should be given equal opportunity. .” For the sake of argument. For some time he and his fellow Chinese businessmen enjoyed a “monopoly” in the local market in Pasay. if it applies alike to all persons within such class. Until in June 1954 when Congress passed the RA 1180 or the Retail Trade Nationalization Act the purpose of which is to reserve to Filipinos the right to engage in the retail business. being inherent could not be bargained away or surrendered through the medium of a treaty. In this case. under like circumstances and conditions both as to privileges conferred and liabilities enforced”. Hence. it merely requires that all persons shall be treated alike. ISSUE: Whether or not a law may invalidate or supersede treaties or generally accepted principles. there is no conflict at all between the raised generally accepted principle and with RA 1180. that the equal protection clause “is not infringed by legislation which applies only to those persons falling within a specified class. even if it would be assumed that a treaty would be in conflict with a statute then the statute must be upheld because it represented an exercise of the police power which. a law may supersede a treaty or a generally accepted principle. should be allowed representation in the trial of those very crimes. HELD: Yes. and. The equal protection of the law clause “does not demand absolute equality amongst residents. according to him. and reasonable grounds exist for making a distinction between those who fall within such class and those who do not. which has submitted the vindication of crimes against her government and her people to a tribunal of our nation. the appointment of the two American attorneys is not violative of our nation sovereignty. Ichong can no longer assert his right to operate his market stalls in the Pasay city market. violates the equal protection clause (pacta sund servanda). If there has been any relinquishment of sovereignty it has not been by our government but by the United States Government which has yielded to us the trial and punishment of her enemies Lao Ichong vs Jaime Hernandez Constitutional Law – Treaties May Be Superseded by Municipal Laws in the Exercise of Police Power Lao Ichong is a Chinese businessman who entered the country to take advantage of business opportunities herein abound (then) – particularly in the retail business. Secondly. also. the main function of the Executive is to enforce laws enacted by Congress. or writ of error. by providing that the SC may not be deprived “of its jurisdiction to review. In his verified petition. The former may not interfere in the performance of the legislative powers of the latter. by indirectly repealing the same through an executive agreement providing for the performance of the very act prohibited by said laws. certiorari. ordinance. In other words. reverse. not only when it conflicts with the fundamental law. 2011 Constitutional Law – Treaty vs Executive Agreements – Statutes Can Repeal Executive Agreements Then President Diosdado Macapagal entered into two executive agreements with Vietnam and Burma for the importation of rice without complying with the requisite of securing a certification from the Nat’l Economic Council showing that there is a shortage in cereals. also. except in the exercise of his veto power. but. law. . ISSUE: Whether or not RA 3452 prevails over the 2 executive agreements entered into by Macapagal. final judgments and decrees of inferior courts in “All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty. our Constitution authorizes the nullification of a treaty. when it runs counter to an act of Congress. No such justification can be given as regards executive agreements not authorized by previous legislation. In Re: Garcia 2 SCRA 985 Facts: Arturo E. Garcia has applied for admission to the practice of law in the Philippines without submitting to the required bar examinations. but. modify. or executive order or regulation is in question”. because RA 3452 prohibits the importation of rice and corn by “the Rice and Corn Administration or any other government agency. Hechanova authorized the importation of 67000 tons of rice from abroad to the detriment of our local planters. Hence. suffice it to say that the Constitution of the Philippines has clearly settled it in the affirmative. he avers. Gonzales averred that Hechanova is without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction”. or affirm on appeal. as the law or the rules of court may provide. HELD: Under the Constitution. He may not defeat legislative enactments that have acquired the status of laws. Hechanova not only admits. then president of the Iloilo Palay and Corn Planters Association assailed the executive agreements. revise. without completely upsetting the principle of separation of powers and the system of checks and balances which are fundamental in our constitutional set up. Gonzales. the one which is latest in point of time shall prevail. In the event of conflict between a treaty and a statute.Gonzales vs Hechanova On October 29. is not applicable to the case at bar. insists that the contracts adverted to are not treaties. of Filipino parentage. that he is a Filipino citizen born in Bacolod City. As regards the question whether an executive or an international agreement may be invalidated by our courts. among others. the “Balikatan” is the largest such training exercise directly supporting the MDT’s objectives. alter or supplement such rules being reserved only to the Congress of the Philippines. Its aim is to enhance the strategic and technological capabilities of our armed forces through joint training with its American counterparts. and that under the provisions of the Treaty on Academic Degrees and the Exercise of Profession between the RP and Spain.that he had taken and finished in Spain the course of "Bachillerato Superior". Applicant is a Filipino citizen desiring to practice profession in the Philippines. concluded between the RP and Spain could not have been intended to modify the laws and regulations governing admission to the practice of law in the Philippines. He is therefore subject to the laws of his own country and is not entitled to the privileges extended to Spanish nationals desiring to practice in the Philippines. in conjunction with the Philippine military. for the reason that the Executive Department may not encroach upon the constitutional prerogative of the Supreme Court to promulgate rules for admission to the practice of law in the Philippines.” They are a simulation of joint military maneuvers pursuant to the Mutual Defense Treaty a bilateral defense agreement entered into by the Philippines and the United States in 1951. Issue: Whether treaty can modify regulations governing admission to the Philippine Bar. The privileges provided in the treaty invoked by the applicant are made expressly subject to the laws and regulations on the contracting state in whose territory it is desired to exercise the legal profession. and thereafter he was allowed to practice the law profession in Spain. It is this treaty to which the VFA adverts and the obligations thereunder which it seeks to reaffirm. the power to repeal. that he was approved. and the citizens of Spain desiring to practice their profession in the Philippines. selected and qualified by the "Instituto de Cervantes" for admission to the Central University of Madrid where he studied and finished the law course graduating as "Licenciado en derecho". The provision of the treaty on Academic Degrees and Exercise of Profession between the RP and Spain cannot be invoked by the applicant. personnel from the armed forces of the United States of America started arriving in Mindanao to take part. Said treaty was intended to govern Filipino citizens desiring to practice thair profession in Spain. he is entitled to practice the law profession in the Philippines without submitting to the required bar examinations. LIM vs. Held: The court resolved to deny the petition. in “Balikatan 02-1. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY Facts: Beginning January of year 2002. The aforementioned Treaty. . it is necessary to refer to the VFA itself. assisting and training exercise. The assailed Letter of Instruction No. which is presumed to verbalize the parties’ intentions. 229 of President Ferdinand Marcos aimed to prevent road accidents and in the interest of safety on all streets. petitioners Arthur D. In this manner. 2002. All motorist and motor vehicle owners shall have at all times one pair of . Agustin vs Edu. Issue: Whether “Balikatan 02-1” activities covered by the Visiting Forces Agreement? Ruling: To resolve this. civic action projects such as the building of school houses. from any political activity. as well as other elements may be taken into account alongside the aforesaid context. The Convention likewise dictates what may be used as aids to deduce the meaning of terms. on an impermanent basis.” the exact meaning of which was left undefined. and in particular. disaster relief operations. attacking the constitutionality of the joint exercise. the VFA gives legitimacy to the current Balikatan exercises. highways including expressways. February 22.terrorism advising. the joint exercises may include training on new techniques of patrol and surveillance to protect the nation’s marine resources. It is only logical to assume that . 88 SCRA 195.’Balikatan 02-1. in “activities. 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. visiting US forces may sojourn in Philippine territory for purposes other than military. The VFA permits United States personnel to engage. It clearly provides that the cardinal rule of interpretation must involve an examination of the text. sea search-and-rescue operations to assist vessels in distress. L.’activities” arose from accident.49112.On February 1. 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 was deliberately made that way to give both parties a certain leeway in negotiation. Lim and Paulino P. Under these auspices. It appeared farfetched that the ambiguity surrounding the meaning of the word . The sole encumbrance placed on its definition is couched in the negative. Ersando filed this petition for certiorari and prohibition. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. As conceived. which it refers to as the context of the treaty. Articles 31 and 32 contains provisos governing interpretations of international agreements. in that United States personnel must “abstain from any activity inconsistent with the spirit of this agreement. and the like.” falls under the umbrella of sanctioned or allowable activities in the context of the agreement. medical and humanitarian missions.” a “mutual anti. The respondent mayor alleges that holding the rally in front of the US Embassy is a violation of the resolutions during the Vienna . Reyes vs. Our country’s word was resembled in our own act of legislative ratification of the said Hague and Vienna Conventions thru P.D. 65366 October 25. 1983 starting from Luneta to the gates of the United States embassy. GR No.D. J. the particular exercise of police power was clearly intended to promote public safety.L. In this case. Bagatsing. sought for a permit from the City of Manila to hold a peaceful march and rally on October 26. No. police power is a state authority to enact legislation that may interfere personal liberty or property in order to promote the general welfare. The concept of Pacta sunt servanda stands in the way of such an attitude which is. 1983 Retired Justice Jose B. 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. insisted upon and adequately argued. The objective of the rally was to peacefully protest the removal of all foreign military bases and to present a petition containing such to a representative of the Embassy so it may be delivered to the United States Ambassador. 207 . Issue : Whether or not the assailed Letter of Instruction is invalid and violated constitutional guarantees of due process. The law is anything but that. the 1968 Vienna Convention on Roads and Signs and the United Nations Organization (UN). It cannot be disputed that the Declaration of Principle found in the Constitution possesses relevance: The Philippines -----. in behalf of the Anti-Bases Coalition. it was held that the constitutionality of the law will not be considered unless the point is specially pleaded. This petition was to initially compel the Mayor of the City of Manila to make a decision on the application for a permit but it was discovered that a denial has already been sent through mail.adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the nation.L. 207 ratified the said Vienna convention requiring the installation of road signs and devices. Philippine Government under P. No. In Santiago vs Far Eatern Broadcasting Company . 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.early warning device. as impressed in the 1968 Vienna Convention it is not for this country to repudiate a commitment to which it had pledged its word.B. permit may be issued. at war with the principle of international morality.” Thus. It also included a provision that if it be held somewhere else. Reyes. Herein respondent Edu in his capacity as Land Transportation Commisioner set forth the implementing rules and regulations of the said instruction. moreoever. As identified. These hazards posed by such obstructions to traffic have been recognized by international bodies concerned with traffic safety. Petition is DISMISSED and the restraining order is lifted. contends that the denial of the permit is a violation of the constitutional right of the freedom of speech and expression. In the doctrine of incorporation. Our country is signatory of the Vienna Convention. or impairment of its dignity. Ruling : The petition was granted. Thereafter. .S Army. the People’s Court ordered his release but the Board of Commissioners of Immigration declared that the he had entered the country illegally and ordered his deportation. the Philippines has to comply with such generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land. Mejoff vs. if there were clear and present danger of any intrusion or damage.Convention on Diplomatic Relations adopted in 1961 and of which the Philippines is a signatory. That being the case. Directors of Prison. The constitution adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land. The Supreme Court granted the mandatory injunction allowing the proposed march and rally.4254 September 26. It is binding in our laws. on the other hand. Whether or not the Anti-Bases Coalition should be allowed to hold a peaceful protest rally in front of the US Embassy 2. 90 Phil. he was arrested as a Japanese spy by the U. or disturbance of the of the peace of the mission. Issue: Whether or not an alien person who claims to be stateless may indefinitely kept in detention. The petitioner. the authorities moved him to Bilibid where he was detained up to time of petition. The court found that there was no clear and present danger of a substantive evil to a legitimate public interest that would justify the denial of the exercise of the constitutional rights of free speech and peaceably assembly. there would be a justification for the denial of the permit insofar as the terminal point would be the embassy. 70. 1951 Fact:The petitioner was a Russian national who was brought into the country as a secret operative of the Japanese forces. Issues : 1. The second paragraph of its Article 22 that the receiving state is under a special duty to take appropriate steps tp protect the premise of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity. Whether or not the denial of the exercise of the constitutional rights of free speech and peaceably assembly was justified by clear and present danger. L. Upon liberation. After repeated failures to have have him deported. 1975. Sanders disagreed with the hearing officer's report. Foreign nationals. They instituted grievance proceedings to the rules and regulations of the U. of our country is a member. Sanders v." . against whom no charge had been made other than their permission to stay has expired. may not be indefinitely kept in detention for the reason that protection against deprivation of liberty without due process of law and except for crimes committed against the laws of the land is not limited to Philippine citizen citizens but extends to all residents. On October 3.S. Rossi tends to alienate most co-workers and supervisors. The hearing officer recommended for reinstatement of their permanent full-time status. as proclaimed in the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” approved by the General Assembly of the United Nation. Naval Station. the remedy in that case being to impose conditions in the order of release and exact bail in reasonable amount with sufficient sureties. except enemy aliens." b) "Messrs. according to their immediate supervisors.Ruling: The Court decides that an alien who illegally stayed in the Philippines have no right of asylum even if they claimed as stateless. in a letter addressed to petitioner Moreau. Department of Defense. Rossi and Wyers have proven. Private respondent Rossi and Wyer were both employed as game room attendants in the special services department of the NAVSTA. The theory on which the court is given the power to act is that the warrant for his deportation which was not executed is functus officio and the alien is being held without any authority of law. the private respondents were advised that their employment had been converted from permanent full-time to permanent part-time. However. The petition was denied. he was brought by the armed forces of a de facto government whose decrees were law during the occupation." and c) "even though the grievants were under oath not to discuss the case with anyone. The possibility that he might join or aid disloyal elements if turned out at large does not justify prolonged detention. not enemies. Veridiano GR L-46930 (June10. to be difficult employees to supervise.S. Petitioner Moreau was the commanding officer of the Subic Naval Base. 1988) FACTS: Petitioner Sanders was the special services director of the U. Private respondent Rossi is an American citizen with permanent residence in the Philippines. The letter contained the statements that: a ) "Mr. He has the right to life and liberty and all other fundamental rights as applied to human beings. Mejoff entry to our country was not unlawful. (they) placed the records in public places where others not involved in the case could hear. " . the motion was denied on the main ground that the petitioners had not presented any evidence that their acts were official in nature. It is stressed at the outset that the mere allegation that a government functionary is being sued in his personal capacity will not automatically remove him from the protection of the law of public officers and. ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioners were performing their official duties? RULING: Yes. viz. By the same token. So. petitioners argued that the acts complained of were performed by them in the discharge of their official duties and that. the appropriation of the necessary amount to cover the damages awarded. This will require that government to perform an affirmative act to satisfy the judgment. These well-settled principles are applicable not only to the officers of the local state but also where the person sued in its courts pertains to the government of a foreign state. is that "there can be no legal right against the authority which makes the law on which the right depends. However. undoubtedly had supervision over its personnel. including the private respondents. Sanders. Assuming that the trial can proceed and it is proved that the claimants have a right to the payment of damages. the doctrine of state immunity. the court had no jurisdiction over them under the doctrine of state immunity. as Holmes put it. if appropriate. the mere invocation of official character will not suffice to insulate him from suability and liability for an act imputed to him as a personal tort committed without or in excess of his authority. private respondent filed for damages alleging that the letters contained libelous imputations and that the prejudgment of the grievance proceedings was an invasion of their personal and proprietary rights. such award will have to be satisfied not by the petitioners in their personal capacities but by the United States government as their principal.Before the start of the grievance hearings. However. Given the official character of the letters. as in the present case. Thus. the rule is derived from the principle of the sovereign equality of states which wisely admonishes that par in parem non habet imperium and that a contrary attitude would "unduly vex the peace of nations. The practical justification for the doctrine. In the case of foreign states. consequently. as director of the special services department of NAVSTA. it is that government and not the petitioners personally that is responsible for their acts. thus making the action a suit against that government without its consent. a-letter from petitioner Moreau was sent to the Chief of Naval Personnel explaining the change of the private respondent's employment status. the petitioners were being sued as officers of the United States government because they have acted on behalf of that government and within the scope of their authority. e. Whether or not the President acted in grave abuse of discretion in determining the return of the Marcoses? HELD: NO.17 Our adherence to this precept is formally expressed in Article II. Aquino. under our Constitution. considering the dire consequences to the nation of his return at a time when the stability of government is threatened from various directions and the economy is just beginning to rise and move forward. including his own. But Mrs. against being "arbitrarily deprived" thereof [Art. 2 of the Constitution. Sec. No." [Art.Whether or not the ban of Mr. 13(l)] separately from the "right to leave any country. Marcos and family from returning to the Philippines has international precedents? 2. 88211 September 15. of our Constitution. has stood firmly on the decision to bar the return of Mr. The right to return to one's country is not among the rights specifically guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.] However. 13(2). as a generally accepted principle of international law and. 1989 Marcos v. and to return to his country. where we reiterate from our previous charters that the Philippines "adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land. it is distinct and separate from the right to travel and enjoys a different protection under the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights. Marcos and his family. G. i. WHEREFORE.R. Manglapus FACTS: It is a case of a dictator President Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines forced out of office and into exile after causing twenty years of political. II.. 12 (4).] The Declaration speaks of the "right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state" [Art. is part of the law of the land [Art. which treats only of the liberty of abode and the right to travel.] . but it is our well-considered view that the right to return may be considered. Issue: 1 . economic and social havoc in the country and who within the short space of three years seeks to return to the Philippines to die. Section 2. the petition is GRANTED. as steward of the people. HELD: The SC held that it is a settled doctrine of International Law that a state has the right to protect itself and its revenues. The Revised Penal Code leaves no doubt as to its application and enforceability not only within the Philippines. 1950 a customs patrol intercepted five sailing vessels in question on the high seas. 12(l)] and the right to "be free to leave any country. After ordering the vessels to stop. In this case.On the other hand.The President did not act arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion in determining that the return of former President Marcos and his family at the present time and under present circumstances poses a serious threat to national interest and welfare and in prohibiting their return to the Philippines. its interior waters and maritime zone but also outside of its jurisdiction while on Philippine ship. WHILE THE PHILIPPINES IS NOT YET FORMALLY BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THE . 12(4). a right not limited to its own territory but extending to the high seas. the custom officers boarded and found on board their cargoes which were not covered by the required import license. RAZON vs TAGITIS SUMMARY: The incorporation method applies when.] It would therefore be inappropriate to construe the limitations to the right to return to one's country in the same context as those pertaining to the liberty of abode and the right to travel. public health or morals or enter qqqs own country" of which one cannot be "arbitrarily deprived." [Art." [Art. international law is deemed to have the force of domestic law. including his own. the Covenant guarantees the "right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence" [Art. 12(2)] which rights may be restricted by such laws as "are necessary to protect national security. by mere constitutional declaration. Petition is Dismissed Asaali vs Commissioner of Customs 27 scra 313 Territoriality of Philippine Laws On September 10. 2. NO. The five sailing vessels are all of Philippine registry and came to Saudaku British North Borneo. public order. The power involved is the President's residual power to protect the general welfare of the people. It is founded on the duty of the President. ISSUE: Whether or not the interception and seizure by custom officials on the high seas is valid on the contention that the seizure was effected outside our territorial waters. The transformation method requires that an international law be transformed into a domestic law through a constitutional mechanism such as local legislation. and consistent practice on the part of States.we held that: Under the 1987 Constitution. and this Declaration states: Any act of enforced disappearance is an offence to dignity. The incorporation method applies when. Duque III. WHICH WE SHOULD CONSIDER A PART OF THE LAW OF THE LAND. international law is deemed to have the force of domestic law. and observance of. particularly the conventions touching on humans rights. THE ABOVE RECITAL SHOWS THAT ENFORCED DISAPPEARANCE AS A STATE PRACTICE HAS BEEN REPUDIATED BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY. BINDING EFFECT OF UN ACTION ON THE PHILIPPINES The Philippines has neither signed nor ratified the Convention. [G]enerally accepted principles of international law.it was the UN itself that issued the Declaration on enforced disappearance. international law can become part of the sphere of domestic law either by transformation or incorporation. bound by its Charter and by the various conventions we signed and ratified. by mere constitutional declaration. in acting on Amparo cases." Although no universal agreement has been reached on the precise extent of the "human rights and fundamental freedoms" guaranteed to all by the Charter. sex. [Emphasis supplied] In the recent case of Pharmaceutical and Health Care Association of the Philippines v. Under the UN Charter. It is condemned as a denial of the purposes of the Charter of the United Nations and as a grave and flagrant violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and reaffirmed and developed in international instruments in this field. AND WHICH WE SHOULD ACT UPON TO THE EXTENT ALREADY ALLOWED UNDER OUR LAWS AND THE INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS THAT BIND us. by the reality that the Philippines is a member of the UN. so that the country is not yet committed to enact any law penalizing enforced disappearance as a crime. and a psychological element known as the opinion juris sive necessitates (opinion as to law or . language or religion. The classical formulation in international law sees those customary rules accepted as binding result from the combination [of] two elements: the established. [Emphasis supplied] We characterized "generally accepted principles of international law" as norms of general or customary international law that are binding on all states. widespread. by virtue of the incorporation clause of the Constitution. Separately from the Constitution (but still pursuant to its terms). form part of the laws of the land even if they do not derive from treaty obligations. the Philippines pledged to "promote universal respect for. the Court is guided.CONVENTION ON ENFORCED DISAPPEARANCE (OR BY THE SPECIFIC TERMS OF THE ROME STATUTE) AND HAS NOT FORMALLY DECLARED ENFORCED DISAPPEARANCE AS A SPECIFIC CRIME. human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinctions as to race. SO THAT THE BAN ON IT IS NOW A GENERALLY ACCEPTED PRINCIPLE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). Article 3 on the prohibition of torture. international and national judicial decisions. suitable for rare occasions when principles of great and lasting importance are being enunciated. recitals in treaties and other international instruments. barely two years from the adoption of the Declaration. a U.N. or condones… (3) the murder or causing the disappearance of individuals. Article 5 on the right to liberty and security. the practice of international organs. 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 The material sources of custom include State practice.necessity).N. Declaration is. it practices. and "when the alleged criminal is within its territory and it does not proceed to extradite him. in Europe. or tolerate the forced disappearance of persons.which provides that "[a] State violates international law if." Moreover." The court further elaborated on the significance of UN declarations. as a matter of State policy. has applied the Convention in a way that provides ample protection for the underlying rights affected by enforced disappearance through the Convention’s Article 2 on the right to life. in the United States. declarations are significant because they specify with great precision the obligations of member nations under the Charter. We note the following in these respects: First.Sometimes referred to as "evidence" of international law. paragraph 1 on the right to a fair trial." which can be interpreted as establishing universal jurisdiction among the parties to the Inter-American Convention. when the victim is a national of that State. Article 6. Since their adoption. these sources identify the substance and content of the obligations of States and are indicative of the "State practice" and "opinio juris" requirements of international law. and Article 13 on the right to an effective remedy. even in states of emergency or suspension of individual guarantees. the status of the prohibition on enforced disappearance as part of customary international law is recognized in the most recent edition of Restatement of the Law: The Third. encourages. State legislation. "(m)embers can no longer contend that they do not know what human rights they promised in the Charter to promote. according to one authoritative definition." ." One of the key provisions includes the States’ obligation to enact the crime of forced disappearance in their respective national criminal laws and to establish jurisdiction over such cases when the crime was committed within their jurisdiction. permit. the European Convention on Human Rights has no explicit provision dealing with the protection against enforced disappearance. Second. Third. "a formal and solemn instrument. the Organization of American States (OAS) General Assembly adopted the Inter-American Convention on Enforced Disappearance of Persons in June 1994. however. as follows: These U. a pattern of treaties in the same form.State parties undertook under this Convention "not to practice. and resolutions relating to legal questions in the UN General Assembly. has stated that the act of enforced disappearance violates Articles 6 (right to life). the Special Panels for Serious Crimes in Timor-Leste. THE ABOVE RECITAL SHOWS THAT ENFORCED DISAPPEARANCE AS A STATE PRACTICE HAS BEEN REPUDIATED BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY.. . and the act may also amount to a crime against humanity. the Philippines is still merely a signatory and has not yet ratified it. a Declaration creates an expectation of adherence. paragraph 1 of the 1998 Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal Court (ICC) also covers enforced disappearances insofar as they are defined as crimes against humanity. In addition." Thus. WHICH WE SHOULD CONSIDER A PART OF THE LAW OF THE LAND. to which the Philippines is both a signatory and a State Party. and the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia. under the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. cruel. including Sierra Leone Special Court. the implementing legislation of State Parties to the Rome Statute of the ICC has given rise to a number of national criminal provisions also covering enforced disappearance. the UN Human Rights Committee.Accordingly.' but is rather an authoritative statement of the international community. with knowledge of the attack. crimes "committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack against any civilian population. customary international law. SO THAT THE BAN ON IT IS NOW A GENERALLY ACCEPTED PRINCIPLE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW." Indeed. Article 7.e. 7 (prohibition on torture. several commentators have concluded that the Universal Declaration has become. in interpreting Article 2 (right to an effective domestic remedy) of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). a part of binding. Fifth. inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment) and 9 (right to liberty and security of the person) of the ICCPR." While more than 100 countries have ratified the Rome Statute. and "insofar as the expectation is gradually justified by State practice. AND WHICH WE SHOULD ACT UPON TO THE EXTENT ALREADY ALLOWED UNDER OUR LAWS AND THE INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS THAT BIND us. [Citations omitted] Fourth. WHILE THE PHILIPPINES IS NOT YET FORMALLY BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THE CONVENTION ON ENFORCED DISAPPEARANCE (OR BY THE SPECIFIC TERMS OF THE ROME STATUTE) AND HAS NOT FORMALLY DECLARED ENFORCED DISAPPEARANCE AS A SPECIFIC CRIME. a declaration may by custom become recognized as laying down rules binding upon the States. i. in toto. We note that Article 7(1) of the Rome Statute has been incorporated in the statutes of other international and hybrid tribunals. it has been observed that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights "no longer fits into the dichotomy of ‘binding treaty’ against ‘non-binding pronouncement. Avelino I. Espina. 2007. liberty and security that underlie every enforced disappearance." the materials cited above. On March 7.In General Comment No. or on December 28. FACTS: Engineer Morced N. with the Court of Appeals (CA). Gen. Chief. 2007 from a seminar in Zamboanga City. the CA issued its decision confirming that the disappearance of Tagitis was an “ENFORCED DISAPPEARANCE” UNDER THE UNITED NATIONS . Chief. arrived in Jolo by boat in the early morning of October 31. Supt. On November 4. Ruben Rafael. and Gen. Tagitis asked Kunnong to buy him a boat ticket for his return trip the following day to Zamboanga. Chief. On the same day. Gen. provide ample guidance and standards on how. through her attorney-in-fact. Tagitis (Tagitis). Commanding General. thoroughly. May Jean Tagitis. 2008. the UN Human Rights Committee opined that the right to an effective remedy under Article 2 of the ICCPR includes the obligation of the State to investigate ICCPR violations promptly. Alexander Yano. Matli. an IDB scholar. Edgardo M. Although the Amparo Rule still has gaps waiting to be filled through substantive law. ARMM-PNP. filed a Petition for the Writ of Amparo (petition) directed against Lt. 31 that failure to investigate as well as failure to bring to justice the perpetrators of ICCPR violations could in and of itself give rise to a separate breach of the Covenant IN RELATION TO THIS CASE These rulings (based from the case) serve as the backdrop for the Rule on the Writ of Amparo. 2007 . Anti-Terror Task Force Comet (collectively referred to as “petitioners”). Philippine National Police (PNP). Doromal. 2008. They immediately checked-in at ASY Pension House. who advised Kunnong to simply wait for Tagitis’ return. When Kunnong returned from this errand. Sr. the respondent. the Court can provide remedies and protect the constitutional rights to life. and effectively. the CA immediately issued the Writ of Amparo and set the case for hearing on January 7. a UP professor of Muslim studies and Tagitis’ fellow student counselor at the IDB. together with Arsimin Kunnong (Kunnong). Criminal Investigation and Detention Group (CIDG). More than a month later. Tagitis was no longer around. which the Court made effective on October 24. Rights Committee further stated in the same General Comment No. as evidenced primarily by the lack of a concrete definition of "enforced disappearance. Regional Director. 2007. among others. a consultant for the World Bank and the Senior Honorary Counselor for the Islamic Development Bank (IDB) Scholarship Programme. Leonardo A. Kunnong and Muhammad Abdulnazeir N. Gen. Kunnong looked for Tagitis and even sent a text message to the latter’s Manila-based secretary. Chief. Joel Goltiao. through the medium of the Amparo Rule. Razon. 31. Philippine Army. reported Tagitis’ disappearance to the Jolo Police Station. Gen. Police Anti-Crime and Emergency Response. the petitioners moved to reconsider the CA decision. 2008. 2008. Hence. the missing-person case qualified as an enforced disappearance. SUPREME COURT RULINGS: 1. At the same time. is indispensable in an amparo petition. On March 31. Gen Alexander Yano and Gen. Yes. with the obligation to provide monthly reports of their actions to the CA. 2. which addresses a situation of uncertainty – The framers of the Amparo Rule never intended Section 5(c) to be complete in every detail in stating the threatened or actual violation of a victim’s rights. Lt. 3. and directed the petitioners to exert extraordinary diligence and efforts to protect the life. liberty and security of Tagitis. which addresses a situation of uncertainty. 3. while presenting a cause of action showing a violation of the victim’s rights to life. 2. omitting the evidentiary details. the petitioners filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court. however.e. or where the victim is detained. ANSWERS: 1. but the CA denied the motion in its Resolution dated April 9. because these information may . or who actually acted to kidnap. The CA ruled that when military intelligence pinpointed the investigative arm of the PNP (CIDG) to be involved in the abduction. No. Aggrieved. Whether or not the writ of amparo determines guilt nor pinpoint criminal culpability for the alleged enforced disappearance of the subject of the petition for the writ. REQUIREMENTS IN AN AMPARO PETITION The requirement that the pleader must state the ultimate facts must be read in light of the nature and purpose of the proceeding. based on the finding that it was PNP-CIDG. liberty and security through State or private party action.(UN) DECLARATION ON THE PROTECTION OF ALL PERSONS FROM ENFORCED DISAPPEARANCES. Whether or not the presentation of substantial evidence by the petitioner to prove her allegations is sufficient for the court to grant the privilege of the writ. However. the CA dismissed the petition against the then respondents from the military. the petitioner may not be able to describe with certainty how the victim exactly disappeared. As in any other initiatory pleading. the CA extended the privilege of the writ to Tagitis and his family. not the military. In an Amparo petition. that was involved. No. the pleader must of course state the ultimate facts constituting the cause of action. Ruben Rafael. PERTINENT ISSUES: 1. it must contain details available to the petitioner under the circumstances. Whether or not the requirement that the pleader must state the ultimate facts. i. this requirement must be read in light of the nature and purpose of the proceeding. complete in every detail in stating the threatened or actual violation of a victim’s rights. abduct or arrest him or her. The petition should likewise be read in its totality.judicial killings and enforced disappearance cases. and prove the allegations by substantial evidence. while presenting a cause of action showing a violation of the victim’s rights to life. as discussed above. Once a rebuttable case has been proven. and the failure on the part of the investigating authorities to appropriately respond. and prove the allegations by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence required in amparo proceedings – The [characteristics of amparo proceedings] – namely. liberty or security. to determine if the required elements – namely. rather than in terms of its isolated component parts. of being summary and the use of substantial evidence as the required level of proof (in contrast to the usual preponderance of evidence or proof beyond reasonable doubt in court proceedings) – reveal the clear intent of the framers of the Amparo Rule to have the equivalent of an administrative proceeding. of course. in these proceedings. The standard of diligence required – the duty of public officials and employees to observe extraordinary diligence – point. in addressing Amparo situations. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. liberty or security. too. 2. to the extraordinary measures expected in the protection of constitutional rights and in the consequent handling and investigation of extra. the test in reading the petition should be to determine whether it contains the details available to the petitioner under the circumstances. to require the level of specificity. Court of Industrial Relations provided the Court its first opportunity to define the substantial evidence required to arrive at a valid decision in administrative proceedings. and the failure on the part of the investigating authorities to appropriately respond. and the actual or threatened violations of the rights to life. the Amparo petitioner needs only to properly comply with the substance and form requirements of a Writ of Amparo petition. of the disappearance. In this type of situation. To directly quote Ang Tibay: Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla. The rebuttable case. detail and precision that the petitioners apparently want to read into the Amparo Rule is to make this Rule a token gesture of judicial concern for violations of the constitutional rights to life. must show that an enforced disappearance took place under circumstances showing a violation of the victim’s constitutional rights to life. of course. The rebuttable case. must show that an enforced disappearance took place under circumstances showing a violation of the victim’s constitutional rights to life. the respondents must then respond and prove their defenses based on the standard of diligence required. the State or private action. liberty and security through State or private party action. Once a rebuttable case has been proven.purposely be hidden or covered up by those who caused the disappearance. the respondents must then respond and prove their defenses based on the standard of diligence required. The statute provides that ‘the rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law and equity shall not be . Thus. as discussed above. To read the Rules of Court requirement on pleadings while addressing the unique Amparo situation. EVIDENCE REQUIRED IN AN AMPARO PETITION Burden of proof of Amparo petitioner – [T]he Amparo petitioner needs only to properly comply with the substance and form requirements of a Writ of Amparo petition. liberty and security. The landmark case of Ang Tibay v. albeit judicially conducted. liberty or security – are present. among them. ENFORCED DISAPPEARANCES in relation to THE WRIT OF AMPARO The writ of amparo does not determine guilt nor pinpoint criminal culpability for the disappearance. too.’ The obvious purpose of this and similar provisions is to free administrative boards from the compulsion of technical rules so that the mere admission of matter which would be deemed incompetent in judicial proceedings would not invalidate the administrative order. In all these cases. in contrast to testimonies from various witnesses dovetailing on every detail. it determines responsibility. 3. In this sense. too. the burden of extraordinary diligence in the investigation of the enforced disappearance. as . liberty and security. refers to the measure of remedies that should be addressed to those who exhibited involvement in the enforced disappearance without bringing the level of their complicity to the level of responsibility defined above. or those who carry. Accountability. in an enforced disappearance. it determines responsibility. as a measure of the remedies this Court shall craft. minor inconsistencies such as these indicate truthfulness rather than prevarication and only tend to strengthen their probative value. the issuance of the Writ of Amparo is justified by our primary goal of addressing the disappearance. or who are imputed with knowledge relating to the enforced disappearance and who carry the burden of disclosure. Morced N. as its directions and finer points remain to evolve through time and jurisprudence and through the substantive laws that Congress may promulgate – [T]he unique situations that call for the issuance of the writ. or at least accountability. It does not determine guilt nor pinpoint criminal culpability for the disappearance. But this assurance of a desirable flexibility in administrative procedure does not go so far as to justify orders without a basis in evidence having rational probative force. may not at all be the same as the standard measures and procedures in ordinary court actions and proceedings. so that the life of the victim is preserved and his liberty and security are restored. Minor inconsistencies in the testimony should not affect the credibility of the witness – As a rule. Engr. rather. the latter cannot but generate suspicion that the material circumstances they testified to were integral parts of a well thought of and prefabricated story. on the other hand. Tagitis. rather. as well as the considerations and measures necessary to address these situations. the court’s directive to police agencies to undertake specified courses of action to address the disappearance of an individual. The Amparo Rule should be read. as a work in progress. The Amparo Rule should be read. in this case. as a remedy. the directive to file the appropriate criminal and civil cases against the responsible parties in the proper courts. but have failed to discharge. Responsibility refers to the extent the actors have been established by substantial evidence to have participated in whatever way. for the enforced disappearance for purposes of imposing the appropriate remedies to address the disappearance.controlling. for the enforced disappearance for purposes of imposing the appropriate remedies to address the disappearance – [The writ of amparo is] a protective remedy against violations or threats of violation against the rights to life. the Rule on the Writ of Amparo (Amparo Rule) issued by this Court is unique. It embodies. or at least accountability . by action or omission. as its directions and finer points remain to evolve through time and jurisprudence and through the substantive laws that Congress may promulgate. DISPOSITIVE: The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals dated March 7. Tagitis is an enforced disappearance covered by the Rule on the Writ of Amparo. by their nature and purpose. extra-judicial killings and enforced disappearances in this jurisdiction are not crimes penalized separately from the component criminal acts undertaken to carry out these killings and enforced disappearances and are now penalized under the Revised Penal Code and special laws. can set the procedural standards and thereby directly compel the public authorities to act on actual or threatened violations of constitutional rights. 2008 under the following terms: 1. the Supreme Court is not powerless to act under its own constitutional mandate to promulgate “rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights. . increase or modify substantive rights. constitute State or private party violation of the constitutional rights of individuals to life. To state the obvious. The concept of “enforced disappearances” is neither defined nor penalized in this jurisdiction – The Amparo Rule expressly provides that the “writ shall cover extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats thereof. pleading. liberty and security. The records of the Supreme Court Committee on the Revision of Rules (Committee) reveal that the drafters of the Amparo Rule initially considered providing an elemental definition of the concept of enforced disappearance: x x x In the end. As the law now stands. mindful that an elemental definition may intrude into the ongoing legislative efforts. Although the Court’s power is strictly procedural and as such does not diminish. and resolved to do away with a clear textual definition of these terms in the Rule.” We note that although the writ specifically covers “enforced disappearances.” this concept is neither defined nor penalized in this jurisdiction. the determination of what acts are criminal and what the corresponding penalty these criminal acts should carry are matters of substantive law that only the Legislature has the power to enact under the country’s constitutional scheme and power structure. Source of the power of the Supreme Court to act on extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances – Even without the benefit of directly applicable substantive laws on extra-judicial killings and enforced disappearances. The Committee instead focused on the nature and scope of the concerns within its power to address and provided the appropriate remedy therefor. the Committee took cognizance of several bills filed in the House of Representatives and in the Senate on extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances. however. practice and procedure in all courts. through its procedural rules. Recognition that the disappearance of Engineer Morced N. The simple reason is that the Legislature has not spoken on the matter.” since extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances. the legal protection that the Court can provide can be very meaningful through the procedures it sets in addressing extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances.a work in progress. judicial intervention can make a difference – even if only procedurally – in a situation when the very same investigating public authorities may have had a hand in the threatened or actual violations of constitutional rights. The Court. 2. directly responsible for the disclosure of material facts known to the government and to their offices regarding the disappearance of Engineer Morced N.R. through its Chief. 3. Commanding General. Zamboanga City. the PNP and the PNP-CIDG shall initially present to the Court of Appeals a plan of action for further investigation. Ordering Colonel Julasirim Ahadin Kasim impleaded in this case and holding him accountable with the obligation to disclose information known to him and to his “assets” in relation with the enforced disappearance of Engineer Morced N. and for the conduct of proper investigations using extraordinary diligence. The abovementioned directives and those of the Court of Appeals’ made pursuant to this Decision were given to. the aforementioned directives – particularly. Philippine Army. Chief. 6. declaring the government (through the PNP and the PNP-CIDG) and Colonel Julasirim Ahadin Kasim accountable for the enforced disappearance of Engineer Morced N. and General Ruben Rafael. Tagitis. 4. L-13250] October 29. Collector of Internal Revenue vs Antonio Campos Rueda [G. The PNP and the PNP-CIDG shall have one (1) full year to undertake their investigations. whoever may be the incumbent Chiefs of the Philippine National Police and its Criminal Investigation and Detection Group. 8. Tagitis. and were directly enforceable against. the Court of Appeals shall submit its full report for the consideration of this Court at the end of the 4th quarter counted from the finality of this Decision. under pain of contempt from the Supreme Court when the initiatives and efforts at disclosure and investigation constitute less than the extraordinary diligence that the Rule on the Writ of Amparo and the circumstances of this case demand. and the PNP-CIDG. copy furnished the incumbent PNP and PNP-CIDG Chiefs as petitioners and the respondent. with the obligation to show investigation results acceptable to this Court. Referring this case back to the Court of Appeals for appropriate proceedings directed at the monitoring of the PNP and PNP-CIDG investigations. actions and the validation of their results. 7. Tagitis. The Supreme Court likewise affirmed the dismissal of the Amparo petition with respect to General Alexander Yano. Holding the PNP. 5. 1971 . the referral back to and monitoring by the CA – are specific to this case and are not standard remedies that can be applied to every Amparo situation. Without any specific pronouncement on exact authorship and responsibility. Given the unique nature of Amparo cases and their varying attendant circumstances. Anti-Terrorism Task Force Comet. periodically reporting their results to the Court of Appeals for consideration and action. Confirmation of the validity of the Writ of Amparo the Court of Appeals issued. Requiring the Court of Appeals to submit to this Court a quarterly report with its recommendations. through the PNP Chief. with the first report due at the end of the first quarter counted from the finality of this Decision. 383.24. she left intangible properties.96. Such exemption is sufficient to entitle Antonio Rueda to the exemption benefits. The Court of Tax Appeals ruled: (1) Tangier allows a similar law for the exemption of taxes.439.En Banc Facts: Maria Cerdiera is a Spanish national (Filipina married to a Spanish citizen).84 with a total amount of P469. There is no lacking of reciprocity. issued another assessment for estate tax worth P202. These tax liabilities were paid by Antonio Rueda.: (1) There is no reciprocity as it did not meet the requirements mentioned in Section 122 of the National Internal Revenue Code. grants certain exemption of taxes provided that ‘reciprocity’ be met and for reciprocity to be met. Campos Rueda filed an amended tax return wherein the properties worth P396.90 are claimed as exempted from taxes.262. section 122. (3) Respondent demanded the payment of the sums of 239. still pending investigation on the same subject.791.592. The person tasked as administrator of the intangible properties is Antonio Campos Rueda. surcharges. lived in Morocco and died there. Tangier is a mere principality and not a foreign country. (Note: As argued. Respondent.665.40 and inheritance taxed worth P267.48 and inheritance tax worth P187. in relation to the case. Issues: Respondent’s reply to the request for exemption of taxes. In the Philippines.48 with a total amount of P369.308. (2) Respondent denied request for exemption because the law of Tangier is not reciprocal to Section 122 of the National Internal Revenue Code. Later. etc. issued an assessment for estate tax worth P111. pending the investigation of the tax value of the properties. He filed a provisional estate and inheritance tax return on all properties left by her. Tangier must be a foreign country within the meaning of Section 122). The Collector of Internal Revenue asked a question of law: . The Collector of Internal Revenue.402.49 representing deficiency estate and inheritance tax including ad valorem penalties. the respondent. interests and compromise penalties. It further provides that its . It does not admit of doubt that if a foreign country is to be identified with a state.” (2) Tangier is a state. among others. represented by the GRP Peace Panel and the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process (PAPP). 183951. and Marawi City. Tawi-Tawi. In other words. acting through a government functioning under a regime of law. Held: (1) Requisite of Statehood is necessary. 183591. Malaysia. develop. 183893. it is required in line with Pound’s formulation that:“it be a politically organized sovereign community independent of outside control bound by penalties of nationhood. (3) Section 122 does not require that the “foreign country” possess an international personality. Nos. international personality is not a requisite. The BJE is then granted the power to build. (2) Whether acquisition of international personality is required for a ‘foreign country’ to fall within the exemption of Section 122 of the National Internal Revenue Code. & 183962) (14 October 2008) Facts: On 8 August 2008. (4) Supreme Court affirms Court of Tax Appeals ruling. Province of North Cotabato v. (Note: Look at the ruling of the Court of Appeals found in the issue. the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP). legally supreme within its territory. The MOA-AD included. Government of the Republic of the Philippines (G.(1) Whether the requisites of statehood is necessary (sine qua non) for the acquisition of international personality.R.” characterized by shared authority and responsibility. Maguindanao. The MOA-AD also described the relationship of the GRP and the BJE as “associative. Basilan. as well as the municipalities of Lanao del Norte which voted for inclusion in the ARMM in the 2001 plebiscite. a stipulation that creates the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity (BJE). to which the GRP grants the authority and jurisdiction over the ancestral domain and ancestral lands of the Bangsamoro—defined as the present geographic area of the ARMM constituted by Lanao del Sur. and maintain its own institutions. Sulu. The Supreme Court referred the case back to the Court of Tax Appeals to determine whether the alleged law of Tangier did grant the reciprocal tax exemption required by Section 122. 183752. and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) were scheduled to sign the Memorandum of Agreement on the Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD) Aspect of the previous GRP-MILF Tripoli Agreement on Peace of 2001 in Kuala Lumpur. Sec. RA No. comments. Art. W/N there is a violation of the people’s right to information on matters of public concern (1987 Constitution. Art. In fact. 3. RA No. W/N the President has the power to pursue reforms that would require new legislation and constitutional amendments. EO No. YES. which could pervasively and drastically result to the diaspora or displacement of a great number of inhabitants from their total environment. advice. which enumerates the functions and responsibilities of the PAPP. II. The Court then issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) on 4 August 2008. among other things. may validly consider implementing even those policies that require changes to the Constitution. which entails. c. and. 28). Issues and Ruling: 1. directing the public respondents and their agents to cease and desist from formally signing the MOA-AD. it is the duty of the PAPP to conduct regular dialogues to seek relevant information. At least three pertinent laws animate these constitutional imperatives and justify the exercise of the people’s right to be consulted on relevant matters relating to the peace agenda: a. and recommendations from peace partners and concerned sectors of society. Sec. 8371 (IPRA) provides for clear-cut procedure for the recognition and delineation of ancestral domain. is implemented therein. Because although the President’s power to conduct peace negotiations is implicitly included in her powers as Chief Executive and Commander-in-Chief. the Province of North Cotabato sought to compel the respondents to disclose and furnish it with complete and official copies of the MOA-AD. in the course of conducting peace negotiations. or act in any way as if the assent of that body were assumed as a certainty. the stipulation in the MOA-AD that virtually guarantees that necessary changes shall be effected upon the legal framework of the GRP must be struck down as unconstitutional as it is inconsistent with the limits of the President’s authority to propose constitutional amendments. b. 2. A subsequent petition sought to have the City of Zamboanga excluded from the BJE.provisions requiring “amendments to the existing legal framework” shall take effect upon signing of a Comprehensive Compact. is replete with mechanics for continuing consultations on both national and local levels and for a principal forum for consensus-building. invoking its right to information on matters of public concern. as well as to hold a public consultation thereon. Before the signing. 7) under a state policy of full disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest (1987 Constitution. however. III. the observance of the free and . 7160 (Local Government Code of 1991). including public consultation under RA No. she may not unilaterally implement them without the intervention of Congress. The MOA-AD is one peculiar program that unequivocally and unilaterally vests ownership of a vast territory to the Bangsamoro people. YES. 7160 (LGC) requires all national offices to conduct consultations before any project or program critical to the environment and human ecology including those that may call for the eviction of a particular group of people residing in such locality. However. RA No. The inclusion of provisions in the MOA-AD establishing an associative relationship between the BJE and the Central Government is. Art. and despotic exercise thereof. . Carpio-Morales. for judicial compliance and public scrutiny. oppressive. 4. While there is a clause in the MOA-AD stating that the provisions thereof inconsistent with the present legal framework will not be effective until that framework is amended. or the people themselves through the process of initiative. as the clause is worded. Moreover. W/N the GRP can invoke executive privilege. and amounts to a whimsical. it virtually guarantees that the necessary amendments to the Constitution and the laws will eventually be put in place. It illustrates a gross evasion of positive duty and a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined. YES. the same does not cure its defect. Neither the GRP Peace Panel nor the President herself is authorized to make such a guarantee. It cannot be reconciled with the present Constitution and laws. The people’s right to information on matters of public concern under Sec. are unconstitutional. W/N the GRP Peace Panel and the PAPP committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. and RA No. Art. 5. a violation of the Memorandum of Instructions From The President addressed to the government peace panel. 7160. as mandated by EO No. 8371. the associative relationship envisioned between the GRP and the BJE. but the very concept underlying them.prior informed consent of the Indigenous Cultural Communities/Indigenous Peoples (ICC/IP). Not only its specific provisions. itself. for the only way that the Executive can ensure the outcome of the amendment process is through an undue influence or interference with that process. NO. 28. a Constitutional Convention. W/N the MOA-AD is constitutional. 3. NO. The furtive process by which the MOA-AD was designed and crafted runs contrary to and in excess of the legal authority. Respondents effectively waived such defense after it unconditionally disclosed the official copies of the final draft of the MOA-AD. while the policy of public disclosure recognizes the duty of officialdom to give information even if nobody demands. capricious. Upholding such an act would amount to authorizing a usurpation of the constituent powers vested only in Congress. J. namely. 3. The PAPP committed grave abuse of discretion when he failed to carry out the pertinent consultation process. The IPRA does not grant the Executive Department or any government agency the power to delineate and recognize an ancestral domain claim by mere agreement or compromise. for the concept presupposes that the associated entity is a state and implies that the same is on its way to independence. The right to information guarantees the right of the people to demand information. arbitrary. III of the Constitution is in splendid symmetry with the state policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest under Sec. 7. II of the Constitution. This provision is not and cannot on principle or authority be construed as a limitation upon the . Public statements of a state representative may be construed as a unilateral declaration only when the following conditions are present: the statements were clearly addressed to the international community. REAGAN.00 as the income tax paid by him be refunded. The recognized sources of international law establish that the right to self-determination of a people is normally fulfilled through internal self-determination—a people’s pursuit of its political. even then.979. The President has authority. A right to external self-determination (which in this case potentially takes the form of the assertion of a right to unilateral secession) arises only in the most extreme of cases and. Free associations represent a middle ground between integration and independence. as stated in her oath of office. WILLIAM C. that in legal contemplation the sale was made outside Philippine territory and therefore beyond our jurisdictional power to tax. it should be noted.An association is formed when two states of unequal power voluntarily establish durable links. courtesy. The consent was given purely as a matter of comity. unilateral declarations arise only in peculiar circumstances. In the basic model. questioned the payment of the income tax assessed on him by respondent CIR on an amount realized by him on a sale of his automobile to a member of the US Marine Corps. He seeks that an amount of P2. the Philippine Government merely consents that the United States exercise jurisdiction in certain cases. while maintaining its international status as a state. HELD: NO. her mere recommendation need not be construed as an unconstitutional act. under carefully defined circumstances. the state intended to be bound to that community by its statements. By the [Military Bases] Agreement. ISSUE: WON the Clark Field Air Base is a foreign property therefore excluded from thepower of Philippine taxation. social. one state. but simply to recommend proposed amendments or revision. AL vs. delegates certain responsibilities to the other. the associate. That the authority of the President to conduct peace negotiations with rebel groups is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution does not mean that she has no such authority. Plainly. a civilian employee of an American corporation providing technical assistance to the US Air Force in the Philippines. extend to allowing her to change the Constitution. ET. and that not to give legal effect to those statements would be detrimental to the security of international intercourse. the transaction having taken place at the Clark Field Air Base at Pampanga. Such presidential power does not. or expediency over the bases as part of the Philippine territory or divested itself completely of jurisdiction over offenses committed therein. economic. It is his contention. As long as she limits herself to recommending these changes and submits to the proper procedure for constitutional amendments and revision. only to preserve and defend the Constitution.COMMISSIONER OF INTERNALREVENUE FACTS: Petitioner Reagan. the principal. however. and cultural development within the framework of an existing state. Article XII of the Constitution. 1994. ANGARA 272 SCRA 18 Facts: On April 15. . privileges and concessions covering national economy and patrimony” and not to every aspect of trade and commerce. Article II of the Constitution is a "declaration of principles and state policies. but it does not disappear. TAÑADA VS. all of the 1987 Philippines Constitution. respondent Navarro. They are still subject to its authority. They are used by the judiciary as aids or as guides in the exercise of its power of judicial review. Hence the petitioner assailed the WTO Agreement for violating the mandate of the 1987 Constitution to “develop a self-reliant and independent national economy effectively controlled by Filipinos . Bys signing the Final Act. 19. general principles relating to the national economy and patrimony. Issue: Whether the provisions of the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization contravene the provisions of Sec.rights of the Philippine Government. In other words. and Secs. signed in the Final Act Embodying the Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Negotiations. They retain their status as native soil. Art. the Constitution did not intend to pursue an isolationist policy. To that effect. and by the legislature in its enactment of laws. the Philippines agreed to submit the agreement establishing the World Trade Organization that require the Philippines. Secretary of Department of Trade and Industry and a representative of the Philippine government. The State is not precluded from allowing another power to participate in the exercise of jurisdictional right over certain portions of its territory. labor and enterprises. . it recognizes the need for business exchange with the rest of the world on the bases of equality and reciprocity and limits protection of Filipino enterprises only against foreign competition and trade practices that are unfair. services. at the same time. 10 and 12. XII. it by no means follows that such areas become impressed with an alien character. The provisions of Sec. 10 and 12. “to place nationals and products of member-countries on the same footing as Filipinos and local products”. is enforceable only in regard to “the grants or rights. . So it iswith the bases under lease to the American armed forces by virtue of the military bases agreement of 1947. If it does so. They are not and cannot be foreign territory. Art. Held: The court ruled the petition in favor of the respondents." These principles in Article II are not intended to be self-executing principles ready for enforcement through the courts. While the Constitution mandates a bias in favor of Filipino goods. among others. the President ratified and submitted the same to the Senate for its concurrence pursuant to Section21. (to) give preference to qualified Filipinos (and to) promote the preferential use of Filipino labor. domestic materials and locally produced goods”. Its jurisdiction may be diminished. II. Article VII of the Constitution. L-18463. ISSUEs: Whether or not article 256 of the Spanish Penal Code was abrogated with the change from Spanish to American sovereignty Whether or not Perfecto is guilty of libel HELD: It is a general principle of the public law that on acquisition of territory the previous political relations of the ceded region are totally abrogated -. . Gregorio Perfecto. shall defame. in fact. filed an information alleging that the editorial constituted a violation of article 256 of the Penal Code. . there is no basis on the contention that under WTO. . WTO recognizes need to protect weak economies like the Philippines." public law: It is a general principle of the public law that on acquisition of territory the previous political relations of the ceded region are totally abrogated -. No. the Attorney-General. but followed the example of certain Senators who secured their election through fraud and robbery. writing. People v. abuse."political" being used to denominate the laws regulating the relations sustained by the inhabitants to the sovereign. Perfecto G. perhaps." is still in force. or insult any Minister of the Crown or other person in authority . by .On the other hand. FACTS: This is a case relating to the loss of some documents which constituted the records of testimony given by witnesses in the Senate investigation of oil companies. . edited by Mr. . punishing "Any person who.. through a resolution adopted by the Philippine Senate. 1922 "The important question is here squarely presented of whether article 256 of the Spanish Penal Code. local industries will all be wiped out and that Filipino will be deprived of control of the economy. The newspaper La Nacion. October 4."political" being used to denominate the laws regulating the relations sustained by the inhabitants to the sovereign." Consequently.R. The defendant Gregorio Perfecto was found guilty in the municipal court and again in the Court of First Instance of Manila. published an article about it to the effect that "the author or authors of the robbery of the records from the iron safe of the Senate have. May 31. by instructions of the President to the Military Commander. So ordered Macariola v. was set up in the Philippines. but never does it place around the individual who happens to occupy an official position by mandate of the people any official halo. Article 256 was enacted by the Government of Spain to protect Spanish officials who were the representatives of the King. Punishment for contempt of non-judicial officers has no place in a government based upon American principles. The American system of government is calculated to enforce respect and obedience where such respect and obedience is due. Makasiar Facts: When the decision in Civil Case No. No longer is there a Minister of the Crown or a person in authority of such exalted position that the citizen must speak of him only with bated breath. 1982 (En Banc). as in monarchies. But with the change of sovereignty. One of the properties mentioned in the project of partition was Lot 1184. a project of partition was submitted to him which he later approved in an Order dated October 23. and by proclamation of the latter. and a new theory of government. it must be noted that this article punishes contempts against executive officials. 3010 rendered by respondent Hon. an agent of some authority greater than the people but it is an agent and servant of the people themselves. 1863 for lack of an appeal.g." DECISION: To summarize. Asuncion of Court of First Instance of Leyte became final on June 8. Our official class is not. 1963. It was crowded out by implication as soon as the United States established its authority in the Philippine Islands. the Spanish Penal Code) were nominally continued in force in so far as they were compatible with the new order of things. with costs de officio. that all the members of the court are of the opinion. which calls for drastic punishment for contemptuous remarks. that the judgment should be reversed and the defendant and appellant acquitted. J. These officials are only entitled to respect and obedience when they are acting within the scope of their authority and jurisdiction. Among the parties thereto was complainant Bernardita R. a new government.On American occupation of the Philippines. 114 SCRA 77. Judge Elias B. the municipal laws of the conquered territory affecting private rights of person and property and providing for the punishment of crime (e. Said article is contrary to the genius and fundamental principles of the American character and system of government. although for different reasons. Macariola. the result is. although its terms are broad enough to cover the entire official class. "From an entirely different point of view. This lot according to the decision rendered by Judge Asuncion was adjudicated to the plaintiffs . Asuncion. Art. Hence. the lot in question was no longer subject to litigation.A. 12 Rule XVIII of the Civil Service Rules and Canon 25 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics. Arcadio Galapon who earlier purchased Lot1184-E from the plaintiffs Reyes after the finality of the decision in Civil Case No. 1964 Lot 1184-E was sold to Dr. On November 2. 1970. After the investigation. 14. Furthermore. 1 and 5 of the Code of Commerce. 3010. Macariola then filed an instant complaint on August 9. Sec. now Associate Justice of Court of Appeals violated any law in acquiring by purchase a parcel of Lot 1184-E which he previously decided in a Civil Case No.Reyes in equal shares subdividing Lot 1184 into five lots denominated as Lot 1184-A to 1184-E. Issue: Does Judge Asuncion. report and recommendation conducted by Justice Cecilia Munoz Palma of the Court of Appeals. 1968 docketed as Civil Case No. On July 31. 1971 that Judge Asuncion be exonerated. 3010 which he rendered on June 8. 5 of the New Civil Code applies only to operate. Respondent judge purchased a portion of Lot 1184-E on March 6. 5 of the New Civil Code. 3010 and his engagement in business by joining a private corporation during his incumbency as a judge of the CFI of Leyte constitute an "act unbecoming of a judge"? Ruling: No. wherein Judge Asuncion was the president. Judge Asuncion did not buy the lot in question directly from the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. The respondent Judge Asuncion's actuation does not constitute of an "act unbecoming of a judge. Thereafter spouses Asuncion and spouses Galapon conveyed their respective shares and interests in Lot 1184-E to the Traders Manufacturing and Fishing Industries Inc. she recommended on her decision dated March 27. 1963 was already final because none of the parties therein filed an appeal within the reglementary period. 3019. Arcadio Galapon who later sold a portion of Lot 1184-E to Judge Asuncion and his wife Victoria Asuncion. Judge Jose Nepomuceno of the CFI of Leyte rendered a decision dismissing the complaints against Judge Asuncion." But he is reminded to be more discreet in his private and business activities. . H of R. SC ruled that the prohibition in Article 1491 par. the sale or assignment of the property during the pendency of the litigation involving the property. 3010 but from Dr. Sec. the in Civil Case No. 1965. 4234 in the CFI of Leyte against Judge Asuncion with "acts unbecoming a judge" alleging that Judge Asuncion in acquiring by purchase a portion of Lot 1184-E violated Article 1491 par. pars. 3 par. likewise. Article 14 of Code of Commerce must be deemed to have been abrogated because where there is change of sovereignty. ISSUE: 1. is good and valid since it was within the power and competence of the belligerent occupant to promulgate Act No. 7 valid? 2. consequently. SC stated that respondent judge and his wife deserve the commendation for their immediate withdrawal from the firm 22 days after its incorporation realizing that their interest contravenes the Canon 25 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics. By principle of postliminy.A. the political laws of the former sovereign. All judgments of political complexion of the courts during Japanese regime ceased to be valid upon reoccupation of the Islands. H. Art. 65 of the National Assembly of the Republic of the Philippines. There appears no enabling or affirmative act that continued the effectivity of the aforestated provision of the Code of Commerce. The petition for habeas corpus is based on the contention that the Court of Special and Exclusive Criminal Jurisdiction created by Ordinance No. PERALTA v. Effects of Cession. Section 3 of R. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS 75 PHIL 285 FACTS: William Peralta was prosecuted for the crime of robbery and was sentenced to life imprisonment as defined and penalized by Act No. Respondent Judge cannot also be held liable to par. whether compatible or not with those of the new sovereign. unless they are expressly re-enacted by affirmative act of the new sovereign. 7 was a political instrumentality of the military forces of Japan and which is repugnant to the aims of the Commonwealth of the Philippines for it does not afford fair trial and impairs the constitutional rights of the accused. . 65. did the punitive sentence cease to be valid from the time of the restoration of the Commonwealth? HELD: There is no room for doubt to the validity of Ordinance No. Constitutional Law.SC stated that upon the transfer of sovereignty from Spain to the US and later on from the US to the Republic of the Philippines. It is merely a governmental agency. are automatically abrogated. The sentence rendered. 3019 because the business of the corporation in which respondent participated had obviously no relation or connection with his judicial office. Political Law. 14 of the Code of Commerce has no legal and binding effect and cannot apply to the respondent Judge Asuncion. 7 since the criminal jurisdiction established by the invader is drawn entirely from the law martial as defined in the usages of nations. Is the sentence of life imprisonment valid? 3. Is the creation of court by Ordinance No. the sentence which convicted the petitioner of a crime of a political complexion must be considered as having ceased to be valid. L-5 September 17.R. and that there was a change of sovereignty over the Philippines upon the proclamation of the Philippine Republic. Is the petitioner subject to Article 114 of the Revised Penal Code? HELD: The absolute and permanent allegiance of the inhabitants of a territory occupied by the enemy of their legitimate government on sovereign is not abrogated or severed by the enemy occupation because the sovereignty of the government or sovereign de jure is not transferred to the occupier. ISSUE: 1.as such. There is no such thing as suspended allegiance. 1945 FACTS: The respondent judge refused to take cognizance of the proceedings in a civil case which were initiated during the Japanese military occupation on the ground that the proclamation issued by General MacArthur that “all laws. Is the absolute allegiance of the citizens suspended during Japanese occupation? 2. and that the lower courts have no jurisdiction to take cognizance of and continue judicial proceedings pending in the courts of the defunct Republic of the Philippines in the absence of an enabling law granting such authority. MISA 77 PHIL 856 FACTS: Anastacio Laurel filed a petition for habeas corpus contending that he cannot be prosecuted for the crime of treason defined and penalized by the Article 114 of the Revised Penal Code on the grounds that the sovereignty of the legitimate government and the allegiance of Filipino citizens was then suspended. LAUREL v. The petitioner is subject to the Revised Penal Code for the change of form of government does not affect the prosecution of those charged with the crime of treason because it is an offense to the same government and same sovereign people. No. CO KIM CHAM v EUSEBIO VALDEZ TAN KEH G. . regulations and processes of any other government in the Philippines than that of the said Commonwealth are null and void and without legal effect in areas of the Philippines free of enemy occupation and control” had the effect of invalidating and nullifying all judicial proceedings and judgments of the court of the Philippines during the Japanese military occupation. Whether the present courts of the Commonwealth. p. wipe out the effects of acts done by an invader. .” According to that well-known principle in international law. no substantial change was effected in the organization and jurisdiction of the different courts that functioned during the Philippine Executive Commission. which were the same court existing prior to. and the various acts done during the same time by private persons under the sanction of municipal law. and the Commonwealth of the Philippines were reestablished in the Islands. continue in force during military occupation. . He. “does not. The municipal laws of a conquered territory. HELD: 1. therefore. 2. in his work on International Law (Vol. do not look to the Constitution or political institutions of the conqueror. and judicial departments of a de facto government are good and valid. may continue those proceedings pending in said courts at the time the Philippines were reoccupied and liberated by the United States and Filipino forces. Whether or not under the rules of international law the judicial acts and proceedings of the courts during a de facto government are good and valid. . We. and can at his pleasure either change the existing laws or make new ones. . Whether it was the intention of the Gen McArthur to annul and void thereby all judgments and judicial proceedings of the courts established in the Philippines during the Japanese military occupation. and continued during.During the Japanese occupation. and confirmed by the writings of publicists and decisions of courts — in fine. which for one reason or another it is within his competence to do. Such authority and such rules are derived directly from the laws war. administrative acts so done. It is a legal truism in political and international law that all acts and proceedings of the legislative. has all the powers of a de facto government. is one of the incidents of war. except in a very few cases. excepts so far as they are suspended or changed by the acts of conqueror. remain good. the Japanese military occupation of the Philippines. for authority to establish a government for the territory of the enemy in his possession. from the law of nations. . 3. executive. ISSUES: 1. 444): “The right of one belligerent to occupy and govern the territory of the enemy while in its military possession. to the extent that they take effect during the continuance of his control. or the laws which regulate private rights. 2. when they are not of a political complexion. Thus judicial acts done under his control. during its military occupation. . and flows directly from the right to conquer. The doctrine upon this subject is thus summed up by Halleck. . the fact that a territory which has been occupied by an enemy comes again into the power of its legitimate government of sovereignty. as established by the usage of the of the world. nor for the rules by which the powers of such government are regulated and limited. and in the laws they administered and enforced. nevertheless. ” And Taylor in this connection says: “From a theoretical point of view it may be said that the conqueror is armed with the right to substitute his arbitrary will for all preexisting forms of government. are and remain valid after reoccupation of a territory occupied by a belligerent occupant. From the stand-point of actual practice such arbitrary will is restrained by the provision of the law of nations which compels the conqueror to continue local laws and institution so far as military necessity will permit. in practice the invader does not usually take the administration of justice into his own hands. according to the well-known principles of international law all judgements and judicial proceedings. for it would not have been necessary for said proclamation to abrogate them if they were invalid ab initio. 3. but also to administrative or legislative. regulations and processes of the governments established in the Philippines during the Japanese occupation.That not only judicial but also legislative acts of de facto governments. as well as constitutional. is confirmed by the Proclamation issued by General Douglas MacArthur on October 23. legislative. executive and judicial. Taking into consideration the fact that. 2. as above indicated. 1944. it stands to reason that the same courts. in using the phrase “processes of any other government” in said proclamation. which are not of a political complexion. to respect. processes of the Republic of the Philippines or other governmental agencies established in the Islands during the Japanese occupation. If the proceedings pending in the different courts of the Islands prior to the Japanese military occupation had been continued during the Japanese military administration. YES. This enlightened practice is. which are not of a political complexion. of the de facto governments during the Japanese military occupation were good and valid before and remained so after the occupied territory had come again into the power of the titular sovereign. inasmuch as belligerent occupation is essentially provisional. in violation of said principles of international law. the Philippine Executive Commission. this practice has been adopted in order that the ordinary pursuits and business of society may not be unnecessarily deranged. which had become reestablished and conceived of as having in continued existence upon the reoccupation and liberation of the . and the government established by the occupant of transient character. the intention of General Douglas MacArthur. Although in theory the authority of the local civil and judicial administration is suspended as a matter of course as soon as military occupation takes place. but continues the ordinary courts or tribunals to administer the laws of the country which he is enjoined. it should be presumed that it was not. unless absolutely prevented. and the so-called Republic of the Philippines. they (the municipal laws) are not usually abrogated but are allowed to remain in force and to be administered by the ordinary tribunals substantially as they were before the occupation. to refer to judicial processes. so far as possible. to be adhered to on the present occasion. NO. An Executive Order of President McKinley to the Secretary of War states that “in practice. which declares null and void all laws.” Undoubtedly. and could not have been. The phrase “processes of any other government” is broad and may refer not only to the judicial processes. . that “that the decision of the General Court-Martial which convicted the petitioner may be given the same effects as the actuation of the civil courts during the Japanese occupation. February 27.R. Fertig. L-1870. As Taylor graphically points out in speaking of said principles “a state or other governmental entity. and therefore the judgment of said court is null and void for want of jurisdiction. the only officers who have such inherent power by virtue of their position are the President of the Commonwealth and the Chief of Staff of the Philippine Army. According to Article 8 of Commonwealth No. can not appoint a General Court Martial unless expressly empowered by the President to do so.” Ognir vs Director of Prisons G. raising the ground.” . inasmuch as District Commander that appointed or convened it had no authority to do so. was legally appointed or convened Ruling: No. may continue the proceedings in cases then pending in said courts. petitioner Ognir filed for habeas corpus. Issue: Whether or not the General Court-Martial which sentenced the petitioner to life imprisonment. The appointment of Colonel Fertig as Commander of the 10th Military District of Mindanao does not carry with it the power to convene the General Court-Martial. filed a motion for reconsideration. and sentenced to life imprisonment. claiming that his imprisonment is null and void because the said General Court-Martial was not legally constituted.Philippines by virtue of the principle of postliminy. among others. Commanding Officer of the 10th Military District of Mindanao. 408. All other officers such as the Provost Marshall and Commanding Officer of a separate brigade or body of troops. . resumes its old place with its right and duties substantially unimpaired. without necessity of enacting a law conferring jurisdiction upon them to continue said proceedings. . was not legally appointed or convened. Torres. The Judge Advocate General of the Philippine Army and Solicitor Antonio A. 1948 Facts: Convicted by the General Court Martial appointed or convened during the year 1943 by Colonel Wendel W. upon the removal of a foreign military force. No. — and subject to the same exception in case of absolute crushing of the whole fibre and content. and Colonel Fertig may come within the latter category. for violation of the 93rd Article of War of the Philippine Army. The General Court-Martial which sentenced the petitioner to life imprisonment. Such political resurrection is the result of a law analogous to that which enables elastic bodies to regain their original shape upon removal of the external force. PRESIDENT CORAZON C. and that of the General CourtMartial which convicted the petitioner.3 was issued providing the basis of the Aquino government assumption of power by stating that the "new government was installed through a direct exercise of the power of the Filipino people assisted by units of the New Armed Forces of the Philippines." ISSUE: Whether or not the government of Corazon Aquino is legitimate. The Court further held that the people have accepted the Aquino government which is in effective control of the entire country. The legitimacy of the Aquino government is not a justiciable matter but belongs to the realm of politics where only the people are the judge. May 22. \ LAWYERS LEAGUE FOR A BETTER PHILIPPINES AND/OR OLIVER A. The Courts of the Commonwealth legally constituted which were continued during the so-called Philippine Republic. under the International Law. proclamation No. 73748. 1994 .R. and the other courts during the Japanese occupation were legally created by laws which. 1986. the military occupant had the right to promulgate. ET AL. in denying the motion. AQUINO.The court. 1986 FACTS: On February 25.” is untenable. President Corazon Aquino issued Proclamation No. It is not merely a de facto government but in fact and law a de jure government. While the said General Court-Martial was created or convened by an officer having no power or authority to do so. 101949 238 SCRA 524 December 1. LOZANO VS. G. because there is no analogy between the decision of the courts established by the Military Government or the so-called second Republic. 1 announcing that she and Vice President Laurel were taking power. No. The community of nations has recognized the legitimacy of the new government. ruled that: The contention that the proceedings of the General Court-Martial under consideration “may be given effect as the actuation of de facto officers in the same manner as the pronouncement of Civil Tribunals set up during the second Republic. 1986. HELD: Yes.R. On March 25. No. Holy See vs Rosario G. Inc. The Holy See and Msgr. was contiguous to Lot 5-B and 5-D under the name of Philippine Realty Corporation (PRC).Petitioner: The Holy See Respondent: Hon. With this. Rome. subsequently returned the P100. Starbright Sales Enterprises. HELD: The Court held that Holy See may properly invoke sovereign immunity for its non-suability. 2 Art II of the 1987 Constitution. Cirilios. Inc. . Msgr. The same lots were then sold to Tropicana Properties and Development Corporation. Italy. Inc. FACTS: Petition arose from a controversy over a parcel of land. The land was donated by the Archdiocese of Manila to the Papal Nuncio. The subsequent Motion for Reconsideration was also denied hence this special civil action for certiorari was forwarded to the Supreme Court.. ISSUE: Whether or not Holy See can invoke sovereign immunity. Branch 61 and Starbright Sales Enterprises. who exercises sovereignty over the Vatican City. a dispute arose between the two parties because both were unsure whose responsibility was it to evict the squatters from said lots. Cirilios. which represents the Holy See. Lot 5-A. PRC as well as Tropicana Properties and Development Corporation. specific performance and damages against Msgr. registered under the name Holy See. for his residence. the agent. As expressed in Sec. filed a suit for annulment of the sale. Jr. The Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) certified that the Embassy of the Holy See is a duly accredited diplomatic missionary to the Republic of the Philippines and is thus exempted from local jurisdiction and is entitled to the immunity rights of a diplomatic mission or embassy in this Court.000 earnest money. Said lots were sold through an agent to Ramon Licup who assigned his rights to respondents Starbright Sales Enterprises. insists that Holy See should clear the property while Holy See says that respondent corporation should do it or the earnest money will be returned. generally accepted principles of International Law are adopted by our Courts and thus shall form part of the laws of the land as a condition and consequence of our admission in the society of nations. Elidberto Rosario. Cirilos moved to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity from suit. When the squatters refuse to vacate the lots. Respondent Starbright Sales Enterprises Inc. It was noted in Article 31(A) of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations that diplomatic envoy shall be granted immunity from civil and administrative jurisdiction of the receiving state over any real action relating to private immovable property. RTC denied the motion on ground that petitioner already "shed off" its sovereign immunity by entering into a business contract. in his capacity as Presiding Judge of RTC Makati. The Holy See is immune from suit because the act of selling the lot of concern is nonpropriety in nature. through the Presidential Commission on Good Government(PCGG). Ferdinand R. The funds were previously held by the following five account groups. Jr. the petition is hereby GRANTED and the complaints were dismissed accordingly. represented by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG). surely. The lot was acquired through a donation from the Archdiocese of Manila. In view of the foregoing. The treasury notes are frozen at the Central Bank of the Philippines by virtue of thefreeze order issued by the PCGG. 1993 were executed by the Marcos children and then PCGG Chairman Magtanggol Gunigundo for a global settlement of the assets of the Marcos family to identify. on the basis of the Marcoses’ lawful income. and Irene Marcos-Araneta) and Imelda Romualdez Marcos FACTS: Petitioner Republic. Marcos (represented by his estate/heirs: Imelda R.HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN(SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION). petitioner has denied that the acquisition and subsequent disposal of the lot were made for profit but claimed that it acquired said property for the site of its mission or the Apostolic Nunciature in the Philippines. G. 152154 July 15. In addition. . a General Agreement and the Supplemental Agreement dated December 28.Furthermore. cause the inventory of and distribute all assets presumed to be owned by the Marcos family under the conditions contained therein. 2003 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. Before thecase was set for pre-trial. not for a commercial purpose. the petitioner has bought and sold lands in the ordinary course of real estate business. but for the use of petitioner to construct the official place of residence of the Papal Nuncio thereof. collate. it shall be understood that in the case at bar.R. Maria Imelda [Imee]Marcos-Manotoc. Ferdinand E. Petitioner sought the declaration of the aggregate amount of US$356 million (now estimated tobe more than US$658 million inclusive of interest) deposited in escrow in the PNB. using various foreign foundations in certain Swiss banks. filed a petition for forfeiture before the Sandiganbayan. However. the said transaction can be categorized as an act jure gestionis. ISSUE: WON the Swiss funds can be forfeited in favor of the Republic. the petition sought the forfeiture of US$25 million and US$5 million in treasury notes which exceeded the Marcos couple’s salaries. Marcos. Marcos. No. The transfer of the property and its subsequent disposal are likewise clothed with a governmental (non-proprietal) character as petitioner sold the lot not for profit or gain rather because it merely cannot evict the squatters living in said property. other lawful income as well as income from legitimately acquired property. as ill-gotten wealth. ERLINDA MANALASTAS. CORAZON M. MAGDALENA LIWAG.372. PETRONILA O.60 as of 31 January 2002. HERMINIHILDA. VINUYA. The Swiss deposits which were transferred to and are deposited in escrow at the Philippine National Bank in the estimate daggregate amount of US$658.. THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF FOREIGNAFFAIRS DELIA DOMINGO-ALBERT. FELICIDAD TURLA. MARIA L. Besides.RA 1379 raises the prima facie presumption that a property is unlawfully acquired. SOLIMAN. CRISENCIANA C. ESTER C. BANGIT. LEONOR H. QUILANTANG. GUILLERMA S. CANDELARIA L. PALACIO MAXIMA R. VINUYA VS. THE . SUBA. MANIO. CULALA. BALINGIT. GUEVARRA. EMERINCIANA A. MAMERTA C. MAXIMA B.372. VICTORIA M. SAGUM. ROSALINA M. LYDIA A. DELA CRUZ. Herein. the spouses Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos were public officials during the time material to the present case was never in dispute. FLORENCIA M. BALINGIT. ERNARDO.HELD: NO. DAVID. and (2) the extent to which the amount of that money or property exceeds. the legitimate income of the public officer.e.373. LOURDES M. CATALINA Y. whether it be in his name or otherwise. SANCHEZ. PUNO.175. In their capacity and as members of the “Malaya Lolas Organization”. SEC. MAMERTA T. VICTORIA C. hence subject to forfeiture. NATALIA M. Ferdinand E. ZENAIDA P. Marcos as President could not receive "any other emolument from the Government or any of its subdivisions and instrumentalities". PATRICIA A. CARIDAD L. The following acts must be established in order that forfeiture or seizure of the Swiss deposits maybe effected: (1) ownership by the public officer of money or property acquired during his incumbency. MANGILIT. SEFERINA S. MARIA L. The spouses accumulated salary of $304. BUCO.Marcos as President could "not receive during his tenure any other emolument from the Government or any other source. DELA CRUZ. The Republic did not fail to establish a prima facie case for the forfeiture of the Swiss deposits. – versus THE HONORABLE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY ALBERTO G. JOVITA A. under the1935 Constitution. ESTER M. if its amount or value is manifestly disproportionate to the official salary and other lawful income of the public officer who owns it. i. SAGUM. NAVARO. GULAPA. under the 1973 Constitution. BELEN A. MAGISA. TURLA."Their only known lawful income of $304. TURLA. SAMPANG. TURLA. LUCILA H. FRANCISCA M.43 can therefore legally and fairly serve as basis for determining the existence of a prima facie case of forfeiture of the Swiss funds. plus interest. ROMULO. TERECITA PANGILINAN. VINUYA. ATENCIO. were forfeited in favor of the Republic. from which their net worth could be determined. LEONICIA G. ROMULO Leave a comment ISABELITA C. FRANCIA A.BUCO. ALONZO. DELA CRUZ. et al. DELA PEÑA. as required by law. GUEVARRA. PASTORA C. is grossly disproportionate to. VERGINIA M. MANIMBO. DELA PEÑA. DELA CRUZ. Ferdinand E. ROSALINA M. SUMAWANG. Likewise. PAYAWAL.43 should be held as the only known lawful income of the Marcoses since they did not file any Statement of Assets and Liabilities(SAL). TARCILA M. EMILIA C. Over the next five years. and OSG. Hence.R. BENIPAYO G. the Asian Women’s Fund and the Philippine government signed a Memorandum of Understanding for medical and welfare support programs for former comfort women. RULING: . DFA. and (b) compel the respondents to espouse their claims for official apology and other forms of reparations against Japan before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and other international tribunals. non-profit organization registered with the SEC. GUTIERREZ. they have approached the Executive Department through the DOJ.HONORABLE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE MERCEDITAS N. But officials of the Executive Department declined to assist the petitioners. the Secretary of the DFA. 162230. ISSUE: WON the Executive Department committed grave abuse of discretion in not espousing petitioners’ claims for official apology and other forms of reparations against Japan. 1997. Respondents maintain that all claims of the Philippines and its nationals relative to the war were dealt with in the San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1951 and the bilateral Reparations Agreement of 1956. and the OSG. On January 15. these were implemented by the Department of Social Welfare and Development. established for the purpose of providing aid to the victims of rape by Japanese military forces in the Philippines during the Second World War. requesting assistance in filing a claim against the Japanese officials and military officers who ordered the establishment of the “comfort women” stations in the Philippines. this petition where petitioners pray for this court to (a) declare that respondents committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of discretion in refusing to espouse their claims for the crimes against humanity and war crimes committed against them. No. 2010 FACTS: This is an original Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court with an application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction against the Office of the Executive Secretary. Petitioners are all members of the MALAYA LOLAS. Petitioners claim that since 1998. a non-stock. and took the position that the individual claims of the comfort women for compensation had already been fully satisfied by Japan’s compliance with the Peace Treaty between the Philippines and Japan. the Secretary of the DOJ. April 28. and THE HONORABLE SOLICITOR GENERAL ALFREDO L. The President. not legality of a particular measure.Petition lacks merit. the Executive Department has already decided that it is to the best interest of the country to waive all claims of its nationals for reparations against Japan in the Treaty of Peace of 1951. certiorari will not lie. and especially is this true in time of war. not Congress. or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of the government.” are delicate. and courts certainly possess the authority to construe or invalidate treaties and executive agreements. the authority for which is demonstrably committed by our Constitution not to the courts but to the political branches. It is wellestablished that “the conduct of the foreign relations of our government is committed by the Constitution to the executive and legislative–’the political’–departments of the government. from the standpoint of both . and could disrupt our relations with Japan. the Executive Department has the exclusive prerogative to determine whether to espouse petitioners’ claims against Japan. They are and should be undertaken only by those directly responsible to the people whose welfare they advance or imperil. are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity. the question whether the Philippine government should espouse claims of its nationals against a foreign government is a foreign relations matter. It is concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom. From a municipal law perspective. complex. The wisdom of such decision is not for the courts to question. under the Constitution. In this case. and the propriety of what may be done in the exercise of this political power is not subject to judicial inquiry or decision.” One type of case of political questions involves questions of foreign relations. consular and other officials. The Executive Department has determined that taking up petitioners’ cause would be inimical to our country’s foreign policy interests. But not all cases implicating foreign relations present political questions. He has his agents in the form of diplomatic. From a Domestic Law Perspective. Political questions refer “to those questions which. has the better opportunity of knowing the conditions which prevail in foreign countries. He has his confidential sources of information. However. For the to overturn the Executive Department’s determination would mean an assessment of the foreign policy judgments by a coordinate political branch to which authority to make that judgment has been constitutionally committed. thereby creating serious implications for stability in this region. As a general principle. where such an extraordinary length of time has lapsed between the treaty’s conclusion and our consideration – the Executive must be given ample discretion to assess the foreign policy considerations of espousing a claim against Japan. and involve large elements of prophecy. Within the limits prescribed by international law. The term “jus cogens” (literally. Even the invocation of jus cogens norms and erga omnes obligations will not alter this analysis. superseding conflicting treaties and custom. they are obligations erga omnes. EN BANC. All they can do is resort to national law. ROGELIO BOAC. By taking up the case of one of its subjects and by resorting to diplomatic action or international judicial proceedings on his behalf. Should the natural or legal person on whose behalf it is acting consider that their rights are not adequately protected. do not admit derogation. LT. with a view to furthering their cause or obtaining redress. and can be modified only by general international norms of equivalent authority WHEREFORE. et al. In the international sphere. a State is in reality asserting its own right to ensure. v. In view of the importance of the rights involved. ERLINDA T. Essential distinction should be drawn between the obligations of a State towards the international community as a whole. 31 May 2011. CADAPAN. and whether further steps are appropriate or necessary. the former are the concern of all States. 184495. for it is its own right that the State is asserting. et al. or that the duty to prosecute perpetrators of international crimes is an erga omnes obligation or has attained the status of jus cogens. Jus cogens norms are considered peremptory in the sense that they are mandatory. All these questions remain within the province of municipal law and do not affect the position internationally. the Petition is hereby DISMISSED. in the person of its subjects. (Carpio Morales.R. the only means available for individuals to bring a claim within the international legal system has been when the individual is able to persuade a government to bring a claim on the individual’s behalf. J) . Nos. Petitioners have not shown that the crimes committed by the Japanese army violated jus cogens prohibitions at the time the Treaty of Peace was signed. 187109. 184461-62. traditionally. By their very nature. a State may exercise diplomatic protection by whatever means and to whatever extent it thinks fit. “compelling law”) refers to norms that command peremptory authority. all States can be held to have a legal interest in their protection. The term erga omnes (Latin: in relation to everyone) in international law has been used as a legal term describing obligations owed by States towards the community of states as a whole. if means are available.the interests of the petitioners and those of the Republic. they have no remedy in international law. and those arising vis-à-vis another State in the field of diplomatic protection. respect for the rules of international law. and decide on that basis if apologies are sufficient. G. COL. Karen and Merino are in the custody of the military. Col. To the Return were attached affidavits from the respondents. Neither does it partake of a civil or administrative suit. Arnel Enriquez and Lt. spouses Asher and Erlinda Cadapan (Spouses Cadapan) and Concepcion Empeño (Empeño) filed a petition for habeas corpus before the Court (habeas corpus case). Karen and Merino. By Return of the Writ. the respondents in the habeas corpus petition denied that Sherlyn. liberty and security of a person is at stake. Following the abduction of Sherlyn Cadapan (Sherlyn). Karen and Merino in the course of his detention at a military camp. a writ of habeas corpus was issued. except Enriquez.An amparo proceeding is not criminal in nature nor does it ascertain the criminal liability of individuals or entities involved. Since the right to life. returnable to the Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals. Lt. Petitioners moved for a reconsideration of the appellate court’s decision. Karen Empeño (Karen) and Manuel Merino (Merino) by armed men from a house in San Miguel. Boac). Hagonoy. even for a day. who all attested that they do not know Sherlyn. Mirabelle) as respondents. the amparo court does not impute criminal responsibility but merely pinpoint the superiors it considers to be in the best position to protect the rights of the aggrieved party. that they had inquired from their subordinates about the reported abduction and disappearance of the three but their inquiry yielded nothing. . Bulacan. may jeopardize the very rights that these writs seek to immediately protect. They also moved to present newly discovered evidence consisting of the testimonies of Adoracion Paulino. In such application. Sherlyn’s mother-in-law who was allegedly threatened by soldiers. Col. Rather. By Resolution of the Court. Palparan). liberty and security of aggrieved individuals. Rogelio Boac (Lt. The Court of Appeals dismissed the habeas corpus petition there being no strong evidence that the missing persons are in the custody of the respondents. There is no need to file a motion for execution for an amparo or habeas corpus decision. Command responsibility may be loosely applied in amparo cases in order to identify those accountable individuals that have the power to effectively implement whatever processes an amparo court would issue. and Raymond Manalo who allegedly met Sherlyn. Francis Mirabelle Samson (Lt. impleading then Generals Romeo Tolentino and Jovito Palparan (Gen. the proceedings should not be delayed and execution of any decision thereon must be expedited as soon as possible since any form of delay. it is a remedial measure designed to direct specified courses of action to government agencies to safeguard the constitutional right to life. The appellate court went on to direct the PNP to proceed further with its investigation since there were enough leads as indicated in the records to ascertain the truth and file the appropriate charges against those responsible for the abduction and detention of the three. Col. Lt. Rogelio Boac. Being not held for a lawful cause. it found that the three detainees’ right to life. filed their own petition for review also challenging the same Decision of the appellate court only insofar as the amparo aspect is concerned. Razon). The petition impleaded the same respondents in the habeas corpus petition. or cause their release. liberty and security was being violated. Avelino Razon (Gen. with Prayers for Inspection of Place and Production of Documents. on the other hand. As it earlier ruled in the habeas corpus case. Karen and Merino in the amparo case. and ordered the consolidation of the amparo petition with the pending habeas corpus petition. (AFP) Chief of Staff Hermogenes Esperon Jr. the Court issued a writ of amparo returnable to appellate court. Karen and Merino). challenged before this Court. the appellate court granted the Motion for Reconsideration and ordered the immediate release of Sherlyn. Col. Felipe Anotado (Lt. Meanwhile. the appellate court denied the motion. then Armed Forces of the Phil. (Sherlyn. In reconsidering its earlier decision in the habeas corpus case. Esperon) then Phil. the need to immediately release them. they should be immediately released from detention. In the amparo case. Erlinda Cadapan and Concepcion Empeño. et al. with the addition of then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. hence. the appellate court relied heavily on the testimony of Manalo. National Police (PNP) Chief Gen. Lt. Erlinda Cadapan and Concepcion Empeño filed before the appellate court a Motion to Cite Respondents in Contempt of Court for failure of the respondents in the amparo and habeas corpus cases to comply with the directive of the appellate court to immediately release the three missing persons. Col. Anotado) and Donald Caigas.. via petition for review. (Gen. the appellate court deemed it a superfluity to issue any inspection order or production order in light of the release order. By Resolution.During the pendency of the motion for reconsideration. It held that there is now a clear and credible evidence that the three missing persons. In the habeas corpus case. By Resolution. Then President Arroyo was eventually dropped as respondent in light of her immunity from suit while in office. are being detained in military camps and bases under the 7th Infantry Division. Erlinda Cadapan and Empeño filed before this Court a Petition for Writ of Amparo (amparo case). the Decision of the appellate court. ratiocinating . Erlinda Cadapan and Empeño challenged the appellate court’s Resolution denying their motion to cite respondents in contempt. According to Fr. from detention the persons of Sherlyn Cadapan. HELD: Petition DISMISSED. There is no showing that Generals Esperon. Macapagal Arroyo expounded on the concept of command responsibility as follows: The evolution of the command responsibility doctrine finds its context in the development of laws of war and armed combats. Karen and Merino 2." in its simplest terms. means the "responsibility of commanders for crimes committed by subordinate members of the armed forces or other persons subject to their control in international wars or domestic conflict. On the issue of whether a military commander may be held liable for the acts of his subordinates in an amparo proceeding. Whether or not the Armed Forces Chief of Staff then Hermogenes Esperon and the Present Chief of Staff has command responsibility in the enforced disappearance and continued detention of the three aggrieved parties. Bernas. Sherlyn. Razon and Tolentino were even remotely accountable and responsible for the abduction and continued detention of Sherlyn. Whether or not there is a need to file a motion for execution in a Habeas Corpus decision or in an Amparo case to cause the release of the aggrieved parties. Rubrico v. Via a petition for certiorari filed before this Court.” the decision is not ipso facto executory. Neither did the decision become final and executory considering that both parties questioned the Decision/Resolution before the Supreme Court.that while the Court. "command responsibility." In this sense. or cause the release. The use of the term “immediately” does not mean that that it is automatically executory. ISSUES: 1. a brief discussion of the concept of command responsibility and its application insofar as amparo cases already decided by the Court is in order. command responsibility is properly a form . ordered the respondents “to immediately RELEASE. Karen Empeño and Manuel Merino. Karen and Merino. An amparo proceeding is not criminal in nature nor does it ascertain the criminal liability of individuals or entities involved. v. the directive to file the appropriate criminal and civil cases against the responsible parties in the proper courts. Responsibility refers to the extent the actors have been established by substantial evidence to have participated in whatever way. but have failed to discharge. Accountability. As then formulated.” viz: what constitutes “responsibility” x x x. Thus Razon Jr. it is a remedial measure designed to direct specified courses of action to government agencies to safeguard the constitutional right to life. or who are imputed with knowledge relating to the enforced disappearance and who carry the burden of disclosure.of criminal complicity. and thus a substantive rule that points to criminal or administrative liability. in an enforced disappearance. the burden of extraordinary diligence in the and . Neither does it partake of a civil or administrative suit. refers to the measure of remedies that should be addressed to those who exhibited involvement in the enforced disappearance without bringing the level of their complicity to the level of responsibility defined above. underscoring supplied) It bears stressing that command responsibility is properly a form of criminal complicity. emphasis in the original. on the other hand. liberty and security of aggrieved individuals. command responsibility is "an omission mode of individual criminal liability. among them. as a measure of the remedies this Court shall craft. Tagitis defines “accountability. foreshadowing the present-day precept of holding a superior accountable for the atrocities committed by his subordinates should he be remiss in his duty of control over them. for the enforced disappearance…for purposes of imposing the appropriate remedies to address the disappearance… (emphasis and underscoring supplied) Further. The Hague Conventions of 1907 adopted the doctrine of command responsibility. or at least accountability. Tagitis enlightens: [An amparo proceeding] does nor determine guilt nor pinpoint criminal culpability for the disappearance [threats thereof or extrajudicial killings]." whereby the superior is made responsible forcrimes committed by his subordinates for failing to prevent or punish the perpetrators (as opposed to crimes he ordered). by action or omission. Rather. or those who carry. (citations omitted. it determines responsibility. Rubrico. the amparo court does not impute criminal responsibility but merely pinpoint the superiors it considers to be in the best position to protect the rights of the aggrieved party.investigation of the enforced disappearance. As intimated earlier. at the first instance. if there be any. it should. In all these cases. still fail to take all necessary and reasonable measures within their power to prevent or repress the commission . however. is still subject to further investigation by the appropriate government agency. If command responsibility were to be invoked and applied to these proceedings. despite their position. Such identification of the responsible and accountable superiors may well be a preliminary determination of criminal liability which. RA 9851 is thus the substantive law that definitively imputes criminal liability to those superiors who. liberty or security of the aggrieved party. of course. (emphasis in the original. the disappearance and harassments complained of. command responsibility may be loosely applied in amparo cases in order to identify those accountable individuals that have the power to effectively implement whatever processes an amparo court would issue. The Court maintains its adherence to this pronouncement as far as amparo cases are concerned. be only to determine the author who. genocide and other crimes. (emphasis and underscoring supplied) In other words. is accountable for. however. the issuance of the Writ of Amparo is justified by our primary goal of addressing the disappearance. or as a prelude to administrative disciplinary proceedings under existing administrative issuances. 9851 (RA 9851) to include command responsibility as a form of criminal complicity in crimes against international humanitarian law. the determination should not be pursued to fix criminal liability on respondents preparatory to criminal prosecution. so as to enable the Court to devise remedial measures that may be appropriate under the premises to protect rights covered by the writ of amparo. In such application. and has the duty to address. Relatedly. the legislature came up with Republic Act No. recognizes a preliminary yet limited application of command responsibility in amparo cases to instances of determining the responsible or accountable individuals or entities that are duty-bound to abate any transgression on the life. underscoring supplied) Rubrico categorically denies the application of command responsibility in amparo cases to determine criminal liability. at most. so that the life of the victim is preserved and his liberty and security are restored. Gen. Anotado. . Summary proceedings. Mirabelle. Contrary to the ruling of the appellate court. Col. Razon and Tolentino should be dismissed for lack of merit as there is no showing that they were even remotely accountable and responsible for the abduction and continued detention of Sherlyn. Boac. it appears that the responsible and accountable individuals are Lt. Lt. Col. The Solicitor General’s argument that the Rules of Court supplement the Rule on the Writ of Amparo is misplaced. The petitions against Generals Esperon. liberty and security of a person is at stake. Lt. Palparan. Karen and Merino. Suffice it to state that a motion for execution is inconsistent with the extraordinary and expeditious remedy being offered by an amparo proceeding. the Rule dispenses with dilatory motions in view of the urgency in securing the life. rather than weaken. may jeopardize the very rights that these writs seek to immediately protect. For. Arnel Enriquez and Donald Caigas.. The Court finds that the appellate court erred when it did not specifically name the respondents that it found to be responsible for the abduction and continued detention of Sherlyn. There is no need to file a motion for execution for an amparo or habeas corpus decision. 2008 Decision of the appellate court to IMMEDIATELY RELEASE Sherlyn. even for a day. the proceedings should not be delayed and execution of any decision thereon must be expedited as soon as possible since any form of delay. The Rules of Court only find suppletory application in an amparo proceeding if the Rules strengthen. Karen and Merino was not automatically executory. Karen and Merino. As it is. the procedural efficacy of the writ. Karen and Merino. In fine. the appellate court erred in ruling that its directive to immediately release Sherlyn. Since the right to life.of illegal acts or to submit these matters to the competent authorities for investigation and prosecution. For that would defeat the very purpose of having summary proceedings in amparo petitions. are immediately executory without prejudice to further appeals that may be taken therefrom. it bears emphasis. liberty or security of the aggrieved party. there is no need to file a motion for execution for an amparo or habeas corpus decision. from the records. They should thus be made to comply with the September 17.