1.

Tanada vs Angara, 272 SCRA 18, May 2, 1997 Facts : This is a petition seeking to nullify the Philippine ratification of the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement. Petitioners question the concurrence of herein respondents acting in their capacities as Senators via signing the said agreement. The WTO opens access to foreign markets, especially its major trading partners, through the reduction of tariffs on its exports, particularly agricultural and industrial products. Thus, provides new opportunities for the service sector cost and uncertainty associated with exporting and more investment in the country. These are the predicted benefits as reflected in the agreement and as viewed by the signatory Senators, a free market espoused by WTO. Petitioners on the other hand viewed the WTO agreement as one that limits, restricts and impair Philippine economic sovereignty and legislative power. That the Filipino First policy of the Constitution was taken for granted as it gives foreign trading intervention. Issue : Whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the Senate in giving its concurrence of the said WTO agreement. Held: In its Declaration of Principles and state policies, the Constitution adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land, and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation and amity , with all nations. By the doctrine of incorporation, the country is bound by generally accepted principles of international law, which are considered automatically part of our own laws. Pacta sunt servanda international agreements must be performed in good faith. A treaty is not a mere moral obligation but creates a legally binding obligation on the parties. Through WTO the sovereignty of the state cannot in fact and reality be considered as absolute because it is a regulation of commercial relations among nations. Such as when Philippines joined the United Nations (UN) it consented to restrict its sovereignty right under the concept of sovereignty as autolimitation. What Senate did was a valid exercise of authority. As to determine whether such exercise is wise,

beneficial or viable is outside the realm of judicial inquiry and review. The act of signing the said agreement is not a legislative restriction as WTO allows withdrawal of membership should this be the political desire of a member. Also, it should not be viewed as a limitation of economic sovereignty. WTO remains as the only viable structure for multilateral trading and the veritable forum for the development of international trade law. Its alternative is isolation, stagnation if not economic selfdestruction. Thus, the people be allowed, through their duly elected officers, make their free choice. Petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. Tanada vs Angara 272 SCRA 18 May 2, 1997 Facts: On April 15, 1994, the Philippine Government represented by the Secretary of the Department of Trade and Industry signed the final act binding the Philippine Government to submit to its respective competent authorities the WTO (World Trade Organization) Agreements to seek approval for such. On December 14, 1994, Resolution No. 97 was adopted by the Philippine Senate ratifying such WTO Agreement.The present petition was filed assailing the constitutionality of the WTO agreement as it violates Section 19, Article II of the Constitution, providing for the development of a self reliant and independent national economy, and Sections 10 and 12 of Article XII thereof, providing for the Filipino first policy.

Issue: Whether or not Resolution No. 97 ratifying the WTO Agreement is unconstitutional. Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that Resolution No. 97 is not unconstitutional. While the constitution mandates a bias in favor of Filipino goods, services, labor and enterprises, at the same time, 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 interests only against foreign competition and trade practices that are unfair.

In other words, the Constitution did not intend to pursue an isolationalist policy. Furthermore, the constitutional policy of a self-reliant and independent national economy does not necessarily rule out the entry of foreign investments, goods and services. It contemplates neither economic seclusion nor mendicancy in the international community.The Senate, after deliberation and voting, gave its consent to the WTO Agreement, thereby making it a part of the law of the land. The Supreme Court must give due respect to an equal department in government. It presumes its actions as regular and done in good faith unless there is convincing proof and persuasive agreements to the contrary. As a result, the ratification of the WTO Agreement limits or restricts the absoluteness of sovereignty. A treaty engagement is not a mere obligation but creates a legally binding obligation on the parties. A state which has contracted valid international obligations is bound to make in its legislations such modifications as may be necessary to ensure the fulfillment of the obligations undertaken.

The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy, and adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the nation. The participation of the two American attorneys although under our law, they are not qualified to practice law is valid and constitutional. Military Commission is a special military tribunal governed by special law not by Rules of the Court, which govern ordinary civil courts. There is nothing in Executive Order No.68 which requires counsels need to be qualified to practice law in the Philippines. In fact, it is common in military tribunals that counsels for the parties are usually military personnel. Under the doctrine of incorporation, although the Philippines was not a signatory of the Hague and Geneva Conventions, international jurisprudence is automatically incorporated in Philippine law, thus making war crimes punishable in the Philippines. The Military Commission having been convened by virtue of a valid law, with jurisdiction over the crimes charged which fall under the provisions of Executive Order No 68, and having jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner by having said petitioner in its custody, the court will not interfere with the due process of such Military Commission. Petition is denied with costs de oficio. Kuroda vs Jalandoni 83 Phil 171 Facts: Shinegori Kuroda, a former lieutenant-general of the Japanese Imperial Army and commanding general of the Japanese Imperial Forces in the Philippines was charged before the Philippine Military Commission for war crimes. Being the commanding general of the enemy forces during the war period, he was tried for failing to discharge his duties well and permitting the brutal atrocities and other high crimes committed by his men against noncombatant civilians and prisoners of the Japanese forces, in clear violation of the laws and customs of war. Kuroda, in his petition, argues that the Military Commission is not a valid court because the law that created it, Executive Order No. 68, is unconstitutional. He further contends that using as basis the Hague Conventions Rules and Regulations covering Land Warfare for the war crimes committed cannot stand ground as the

2. Kuroda vs Jalandoni, 83 Phil. 195, L-2662, March 26, 1949 Facts : Shigenori Kuroda, a former Lieutenant-General of the Japanese Imperial Army and Commanding General of the Imperial Forces of the Philippines was charged before a Military Commission convened by the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. He had unlawfully disregarded and failed to discharge his duties as a commander to control the operations of members of his command. Petitioner was duly prosecuted for acts committed in violation of the Hague Convention and the Geneva Convention through the issuance and enforcement of Executive Order No. 68. Executive Order No. 68 provided the organization of such military commissions, established National War Crimes Office and prescribing rules and regulations governing the trial of accused war criminals. Attorneys Melville Hussey and Robert Port of the United States of America participated in the prosecution of the case in behalf of the United States of America. Issue : Whether or not Executive Order No. 68 is legal and constitutional. Held : This court holds that the Executive Order No. 68 is legal and constitutional as provided in Sec. 3, Art. II of the Constitution, that-

Philippines was not a signatory of such rules in such convention. Furthermore, he alleges that the United States is not a party of interest in the case and that the two US prosecutors cannot practice law in the Philippines. Issues: 1. Whether or not Executive Order No. 68 is constitutional. 2. Whether or not the US is a party of interest to this case. Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that Executive Order No. 68, creating the National War Crimes Office and prescribing rules on the trial of accused war criminals is constitutional as it is aligned with Sec. 3, Article 2 of the Constitution which states that, The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy and adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the nation. The generally accepted principles of international law includes those formed during the Hague Convention, the Geneva Convention and other international jurisprudence established by the United Nations. These include the principle that all persons, military or civilian, who have been guilty of planning, preparing or waging a war of aggression and of the commission of crimes and offenses in violation of laws and customs of war, are to be held accountable. In the doctrine of incorporation, the Philippines abides by these principles and therefore has a right to try persons that commit such crimes and most especially when it is committed againsts its citizens. It abides with it even if it was not a signatory to these conventions by the mere incorporation of such principles in the constitution.

3.Secretary of Justice vs Lantion, 322 SCRA 160, Jaabuary 28, 2000 Facts : On June 18, 199 , the Department of Justice received from the Department of Foreign Affairs U.S. Note No. 0522 containing a request for the extradition of private respondent Mark Jimenez. Secretary of Justice then ordered a technical evaluation and assessment of the extradition request. Pending evaluation, private respondent (Mark Jimenez) through counsel wrote a letter addressed to herein petitioner requesting copies of official extradition request from the US Government. He requested ample time to comment and for the matter to be held in abeyance in the meantime. Secretary of Justice denied the said request specifically invoking our countrys responsibility to the Vienna Convention on the law of Treaties that every treaty in force is binding upon parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith. Extradition is a toll of criminal law enforcement and to be effective must be processed expeditiously. Particularly in this case is the RP-US Extradition Treaty. Extradition is the process by which persons charged with or convicted of crimes against the law of a State and found in a foreign state are returned by the latter to the former for trial or punishment. Pacta sunt servanda requires the parties to a treaty to keep their agreement therein in good faith. The observance of our countrys legal duties under a treaty is also compelled by Section 2, Article II of the Constitution. The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy, and adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the nation. Under the doctrine of incorporation, rules of international law form part of the law of the land and no further legislative action is needed to make such rules applicable in the domestic sphere. After the denial of the request letter, Mark Jimenez filed a petition against herein Secretary of Justice. RTC presiding Judge Lantion favored Jimenez. Thus, this petition is now at bar. Issue: Whether or not respondent Judge Lantion acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the temporary restraining order to herein petitioner in performing his legal duties as Secretary of Justice.

The United States is a party of interest because the country and its people have been equally, if not more greatly, aggrieved by the crimes with which the petitioner is charged for. By virtue of Executive Order No. 68, the Military Commission is a special military tribunal and that the rules as to parties and representation are not governed by the rules of court but by the very provisions of this special law.

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