This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Doctrine of Incorporation:
The Doctrine of Transformation is based upon the perception of two distinct systems of
law operating separately, and maintains that before any rule or principle of international law can have any effect within the domestic jurisdiction, it must be expressly and specifically 'transformed' into municipal law by the use of the appropriate constitutional machinery. This doctrine grew from the procedure whereby international agreements are rendered operative in municipal law by the device of ratification by the sovereign and the idea has developed from this that any rule of international law must be transformed, or specifically adopted, to be valid within the internal legal order. Whereas, the Doctrine of Incorporation holds that international law is part of the municipal law automatically without the necessity for the interposition of a constitutional ratification procedure. CHAPTER 4 CASES: Ichong vs. Hernandez: Treaties May Be Superseded by Municipal Laws in the Exercise of Police Power Facts: Lao Ichong is a Chinese businessman who entered the country to take advantage of business opportunities herein abound (then) – particularly in the retail business. For some time he and his fellow Chinese businessmen enjoyed a “monopoly” in the local market in Pasay. 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. Ichong then petitioned for the nullification of the said Act on the ground that it contravened several treaties concluded by the RP which, according to him, violates the equal protection clause (pacta sund servanda). 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. ISSUE: Whether or not a law may invalidate or supersede treaties or generally accepted principles. HELD: Yes, a law may supersede a treaty or a generally accepted principle. In this case, there is no conflict at all between the raised generally accepted principle and with RA 1180. The equal protection of the law clause “does not demand absolute equality among residents; it merely requires that all persons shall be treated alike, under like circumstances and conditions both as to privileges conferred and liabilities enforced”; and, that the equal protection clause “is not infringed by legislation which applies only to those persons falling within a specified class, if it
ISSUE: Whether or not Boris Mejoff should be released from prison pending his deportation. and none are in sight. 1949. the Board of Commissioners of Immigration on April 5. Hence. . therefore. the authorities removed him to Bilibid Prison at Muntinglupa where he has been confined up to the present time. S. the Government has not found ways and means of removing the petitioner out of the country. Upon liberation he was arrested as a Japanese spy. inasmuch as the Commissioner of Immigration believes it is for the best interests of the country to keep him under detention while arrangements for his departure are being made. it should be said in justice to the deportation authorities. he having been arrested on March 18. declared that Mejoff had entered the Philippines illegally in 1944. MEJOFF VS. being inherent could not be bargained away or surrendered through the medium of a treaty. found that having no travel documents Mejoff was illegally in this country. After the corresponding investigation. Thereafter the People's Court ordered his release. 1948. 1951 FACTS: This is a second petition for habeas corpus by Boris Mejoff." Over two years having elapsed since the decision aforesaid was promulgated. But the Deportation Board taking his case up.applies alike to all persons within such class. 1948. the first having been denied in a decision of this Court of July 30. without inspection and admission by the immigration officials at a designation port of entry and. and the same may never curtail or restrict the scope of the police power of the State. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS 90 PHIL 70 September 26. it ordered that he be deported on the first available transportation to Russia. The treaty is always subject to qualification or amendment by a subsequent law. Army Counter Intelligence Corps. although. and consequently referred the matter to the immigration authorities. 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.” For the sake of argument. "The petitioner Boris Mejoff is an alien of Russian descent who was brought to this country from Shanghai as a secret operative by the Japanese forces during the latter's regime in these Islands. and reasonable grounds exist for making a distinction between those who fall within such class and those who do not. In October 1948 after repeated failures to ship this deportee abroad. The petitioner was then under custody. by U. Ichong can no longer assert his right to operate his market stalls in the Pasay city market. it was through no fault of theirs that no ship or country would take the petitioner.
Premises considered.B. The Mayor also posed the applicability of Ordinance No. by its Constitution (Art. reference was made to “persistent intelligence reports affirming the plans of subversive/criminal elements to infiltrate and/or disrupt any assembly or congregations where a large number of people are expected to attend. Moreover." And in a resolution entitled "Universal Declaration Of Human Rights" and approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations of which the Philippines is a member. however. 1983 Facts : Petitioner retired Justice J. all the necessary steps would be taken “to ensure a peaceful march and rally.” It turned out that the permit was denied by the respondent Mayor. etc. It was there resolved that "All human beings are born free and equal in degree and rights" (Art. except enemy aliens. Issue: . there was no proof that the US Embassy was indeed 500 feet away. Reyes vs Bagatsing .B. regardless of nationality. Sec. 3) the Philippines "adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of Nation. The surveillance shall be reasonable and the question of reasonableness shall be submitted to this Court or to the Court of First Instance of Manila for decision in case of abuse. There was an assurance in the petition that in the exercise of the constitutional rights to free speech and assembly. the right to life and liberty and all other fundamental rights as applied to all human beings were proclaimed.L Reyes on behalf of the Anti-Bases Coalition sought a permit from the City of Manila to hold a peaceful march and rally starting from the Luneta Park (public park) to the gates of the United States Embassy. Petitioner was unaware of such denial as it was sent through an ordinary mail. To be more specific. 1948. 65366. detention or exile" (Art.RULING: The 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 citizens but extends to all residents.. The reason of refusing the permit was due to “police intelligence reports which strongly militate against the advisability of issuing such permit. that a permit may be issued for the rally if it will be held in Rizal Coliseum or any other enclosed areas where the safety of the participants and general public may be assured. that "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest. II. GR No. the writ will issue commanding the respondents to release the petitioner from custody upon these terms: The petitioner shall be placed under the surveillance of the immigration authorities or their agents in such form and manner as may be deemed adequate to insure that he keep peace and be available when the Government is ready to deport him. 9 ). J. October 25. at its plenary meeting on December 10. 1).L.7925 of the City of Manila prohibiting the holding and staging of rallies or demonstration within a radius of 500 feet from any foreign mission or chancery in this case the US Embassy. However. Mayor suggested.
This is binding on the Philippines to take appropriate steps to protect the premises of the mission against intrusion or damage and prevent any disturbance of peace or impairment of its dignity. there would be a justification for the denial of the permit insofar as the terminal point would be the US Embassy . it should be part of the law of the land. Held: Even if it can be shown that such condition existed (500 feet away). It required the use of early Warning Devices (EWD) on motor vehicles. Such denial can still be challenged as to the constitutionality of the ordinance. as well as the implementing rules and regulations were unlawful and unconstitutional.Whether or not the denial of permit to rally by the respondent Mayor is valid. Petitioner alleged that the letter of instructions. ISSUE: Whether the Letter of Instruction were considered valid and constitutional? HELD: YES.Petitioner was an owner of a volkswagen beetle car.model 13035 already properly equipped when it came out from the assembly lines with blinking lights which could serve as an early warning device in case of the emergencies mentioned in Letter of Instructions No 229.229. Respondent official was ordered to grant the permit.Respondent Land Transportation commissioner Romeo Edu issued memorandum circular no 32 pursuant to Letter of Instructions No.as amended. The court held that the letter of Instruction No. AGUSTIN vs EDU 88 SCRA 195 FACTS: This was an original action in the Supreme Court for prohibition. it does not follow that the respondent could legally act the way he did. But. The Philippines is a signatory to the Vienna Convention which calls for the protection of the premises of a diplomatic mission. as amended.229.as amended as well as the implementing rules and regulations were valid and constitutional as a valid measure of police power. as well as the Implementing rules and regulations in Administrative Order No 1 issued by Land transportation Commission. the denial of permit to rally in front of the US Embassy is only justified in the presence of clear and present danger to life or property of the embassy.but there was none. The Vienna Convention on Road signs and signals and the United Nations Organization was ratified by the Philippine local legislation for the installation of road safety signs and . if there were a clear and present danger of any intrusion or damage or disturbance of peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity. That being the case. To the extent that the Vienna Convention is a restatement of the generally accepted principles of international law.
insists that the contracts adverted to are not treaties. Hechanova: Statutes Can Repeal Executive Agreements Facts: 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. Hechanova not only admits. but. but. ISSUE: Whether or not RA 3452 prevails over the 2 executive agreements entered into by Macapagal. by indirectly repealing the same through an executive agreement providing for the performance of the very act prohibited by said laws.between the International law and municipal law in applying the rule municipal law prevails. ordinance. our Constitution authorizes the nullification of a treaty. also. modify. or writ of error. reverse. law. Gonzales vs. because RA 3452 prohibits the importation of rice and corn by “the Rice and Corn Administration or any other government agency. the one which is latest in point of time shall prevail. Gonzales averred that Hechanova is without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction”. without completely upsetting the principle of separation of powers and the system of checks and balances which are fundamental in our constitutional set up. In the event of conflict between a treaty and a statute. or affirm on appeal. As regards the question whether an executive or an international agreement may be invalidated by our courts. . or executive order or regulation is in question”. the main function of the Executive is to enforce laws enacted by Congress. by providing that the SC may not be deprived “of its jurisdiction to review. HELD: Under the Constitution. when it runs counter to an act of Congress. In other words. The former may not interfere in the performance of the legislative powers of the latter. as the law or the rules of court may provide. final judgments and decrees of inferior courts in “All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty. also. then president of the Iloilo Palay and Corn Planters Association assailed the executive agreements.devices. He may not defeat legislative enactments that have acquired the status of laws. suffice it to say that the Constitution of the Philippines has clearly settled it in the affirmative. Hechanova authorized the importation of 67000 tons of rice from abroad to the detriment of our local planters. No such justification can be given as regards executive agreements not authorized by previous legislation. except in the exercise of his veto power. Hence. revise. is not applicable to the case at bar. not only when it conflicts with the fundamental law. Gonzales.It cannot be disputed then that this Declaration of Principle found in the Constitution possesses relevance. certiorari.
Tanada vs Angara 272 SCRA 18 May 2. Issue: Whether the Philippine Government has the jurisdiction to try and convict Kuroda for violating prohibited acts of the war.O. Said executive order also established a National War Crimes Office and prescribed rules and regulations governing the trial of accused war criminals. Resolution No.The present petition was filed assailing the constitutionality of the WTO agreement as it violates Section 19. Jalandoni Facts: Petitioner. we were equally bound together with the US and Japan.” In promulgation and enforcement of E. 1994. These rights and obligations were not erased by our assumption of full sovereignty.Kuroda vs. was charged before a military commission set by Executive Order No. 1997 Facts: On April 15. 68 is legal and constitutional because Article II. Petitioner contended that E. and adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of nation. 68 was illegal and unconstitutional because he cannot be tried fro violation of international conventions. the Philippines was under the sovereignty of the United States and thus. the President of the Philippine exercised his power as commander-in-chief of all armed forces. to the rights and obligations contained in the treaties. he alleged that the participation of two American lawyers in the prosecution was violative of our national sovereignty. Section 3 of the 1935 Constitution explicitly provides that “the Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy. it was in adherence with the generally accepted principles and policies of international law which form part of our Constitution.O. 1994. Ruling: Executive Order No. 68. formerly a Lieutenant-General of the Japanese Army and Commanding General of the Japanese Imperial Forces. No. 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. With regards to the contention about the participation of two American lawyers. 97 was adopted by the Philippine Senate ratifying such WTO Agreement. Article II of the Constitution. like the Geneva and Hague Conventions. Moreover. No. Furthermore. 68 of the President of the Philippines.
thereby making it “a part of the law of the land”. It contemplates neither “economic seclusion” nor “mendicancy in the international community. the Constitution did not intend to pursue an isolationalist policy.providing for the development of a self reliant and independent national economy. and limits protection of Filipino interests only against foreign competition and trade practices that are unfair. 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. 97 is not unconstitutional. A treaty engagement is not a mere obligation but creates a legally binding obligation on the parties. As a result. the ratification of the WTO Agreement limits or restricts the absoluteness of sovereignty. gave its consent to the WTO Agreement. 97 ratifying the WTO Agreement is unconstitutional. Issue: Whether or not Resolution No. The Supreme Court must give due respect to an equal department in government. the constitutional policy of a “self-reliant and independent national economy” does not necessarily rule out the entry of foreign investments. goods and services. after deliberation and voting. it recognizes the need for business exchange with the rest of the world on the bases of equality and reciprocity. Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that Resolution No. services.”The Senate. It presumes its actions as regular and done in good faith unless there is convincing proof and persuasive agreements to the contrary. labor and enterprises. In other words. and Sections 10 and 12 of Article XII thereof. . While the constitution mandates a bias in favor of Filipino goods. providing for the “Filipino first” policy. at the same time. Furthermore.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.