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.

”The Senate. Military Commission is a special military tribunal governed by special law not by Rules of the Court. although the Philippines was not a signatory of the Hague and Geneva Conventions. they are not qualified to practice law is valid and constitutional. 83 Phil. Executive Order No. the Constitution did not intend to pursue an isolationalist policy. There is nothing in Executive Order No. Petition is denied with costs de oficio. argues that the Military Commission is not a valid court because the law that created it. 68. goods and services. 68 provided the organization of such military commissions. thereby making it “a part of the law of the land”. that- . It presumes its actions as regular and done in good faith unless there is convincing proof and persuasive agreements to the contrary. which govern ordinary civil courts. Executive Order No. March 26. the ratification of the WTO Agreement limits or restricts the absoluteness of sovereignty. gave its consent to the WTO Agreement. Kuroda vs Jalandoni. Being the commanding general of the enemy forces during the war period. and adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the nation. Under the doctrine of incorporation. 3. 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. 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.” The participation of the two American attorneys although under our law. He had unlawfully disregarded and failed to discharge his duties as a commander to control the operations of members of his command. II of the Constitution. Furthermore. in his petition. 68. The Supreme Court must give due respect to an equal department in government. 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. It contemplates neither “economic seclusion” nor “mendicancy in the international community.In other words. 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. after deliberation and voting. “ The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy. 68 is legal and constitutional as provided in Sec.68 which requires counsels need to be qualified to practice law in the Philippines. international jurisprudence is automatically incorporated in Philippine law. 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. Kuroda. is unconstitutional. Kuroda vs Jalandoni 83 Phil 171 Facts: Shinegori Kuroda. As a result. 1949 Facts : Shigenori Kuroda. In fact. 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. in clear violation of the laws and customs of war. L-2662. The Military Commission having been convened by virtue of a valid law. Issue : Whether or not Executive Order No. Art. the constitutional policy of a “self-reliant and independent national economy” does not necessarily rule out the entry of foreign investments. established National War Crimes Office and prescribing rules and regulations governing the trial of accused war criminals. A treaty engagement is not a mere obligation but creates a legally binding obligation on the parties. 68 is legal and constitutional. thus making war crimes punishable in the Philippines. He further contends that using as basis the Hague Convention’s Rules and Regulations covering Land Warfare for the war crimes committed cannot stand ground as the 2. 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. Held : This court holds that the Executive Order No. 195. with jurisdiction over the crimes charged which fall under the provisions of Executive Order No 68. it is common in military tribunals that counsels for the parties are usually military personnel.

preparing or waging a war of aggression and of the commission of crimes and offenses in violation of laws and customs of war.” Extradition is a toll of criminal law enforcement and to be effective must be processed expeditiously. By virtue of Executive Order No. Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that Executive Order No. 3. “ The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy. The United States is a party of interest because the country and its people have been equally. “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. who have been guilty of planning. 68. He requested ample time to comment and for the matter to be held in abeyance in the meantime. 68. 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. RTC presiding Judge Lantion favored Jimenez. if not more greatly. Whether or not Executive Order No. Furthermore. In the doctrine of incorporation.Secretary of Justice vs Lantion.S. 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. Secretary of Justice then ordered a technical evaluation and assessment of the extradition request. 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 Geneva Convention and other international jurisprudence established by the United Nations.Philippines was not a signatory of such rules in such convention. Jaabuary 28. Article II of the Constitution. After the denial of the request letter. creating the National War Crimes Office and prescribing rules on the trial of accused war criminals is constitutional as it is aligned with Sec.” Under the doctrine of incorporation. 2000 Facts : On June 18. Mark Jimenez filed a petition against herein Secretary of Justice. this petition is now at bar. 3. Pending evaluation. . 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. 2. 322 SCRA 160.” The generally accepted principles of international law includes those formed during the Hague Convention. Whether or not the US is a party of interest to this case. Article 2 of the Constitution which states that. Note No. Issues: 1. 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. private respondent (Mark Jimenez) through counsel wrote a letter addressed to herein petitioner requesting copies of official extradition request from the US Government. the Department of Justice received from the Department of Foreign Affairs U. These include the principle that all persons. aggrieved by the crimes with which the petitioner is charged for. Particularly in this case is the RP-US Extradition Treaty. 199 . Thus. It abides with it even if it was not a signatory to these conventions by the mere incorporation of such principles in the constitution. 0522 containing a request for the extradition of private respondent Mark Jimenez. and adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the nation. are to be held accountable. 68 is constitutional. Pacta sunt servanda requires the parties to a treaty to keep their agreement therein in good faith. Secretary of Justice denied the said request specifically invoking our country’s responsibility to the Vienna Convention on the law of Treaties that “every treaty in force is binding upon parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith. The observance of our country’s legal duties under a treaty is also compelled by Section 2. military or civilian. 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.

The principle lex posterior degorat oriori takes effect – a treaty may repeal a statute and a statute may repeal a treaty. The RP-US Extradition Treaty under the Incorporation Clause in case of conflict is not superior over a national law. both statutes and treaties may be invalidated if they are in conflict with the constitution. . such as the Republic of the Philippines. 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.Held : The Extradition Law provides Rules of Court shall apply. International law is given equal standing but not superior to national legislative enactment. In States where the constitution is the highest law of the land. RTC’s decision is rendered moot and academic and herein petition is DISMISSED. thus extradite has the basic right of notice and hearing. Thus.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful