You are on page 1of 6

PIMENTEL vs.

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Facts:
This is a petition of Senator Aquilino Pimentel and the other parties to ask the Supreme Court to
require the Executive Department to transmit the Rome Statute which established the
International Criminal Court for the Senate’s concurrence in accordance with Sec 21, Art VII of
the 1987 Constitution.
It is the theory of the petitioners that ratification of a treaty, under both domestic law and
international law, is a function of the Senate. Hence, it is the duty of the executive department to
transmit the signed copy of the Rome Statute to the Senate to allow it to exercise its discretion
with respect to ratification of treaties. Moreover, petitioners submit that the Philippines has a
ministerial duty to ratify the Rome Statute under treaty law and customary international law.
Petitioners invoke the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties enjoining the states to refrain
from acts which would defeat the object and purpose of a treaty when they have signed the
treaty prior to ratification unless they have made their intention clear not to become parties to the
treaty.[5] The Office of the Solicitor General, commenting for the respondents, questioned the
standing of the petitioners to file the instant suit. It also contended that the petition at bar violates
the rule on hierarchy of courts. On the substantive issue raised by petitioners, respondents
argue that the executive department has no duty to transmit the Rome Statute to the Senate for
concurrence.

Issue:
Whether or not the executive department has a ministerial duty to transmit the Rome Statute (or
any treaty) to the Senate for concurrence.

Ruling:
The petition was dismissed. The Supreme Court ruled that the the President, being the head of
state, is regarded as the sole organ and authority in external relations and is the country’s sole
representative with foreign nations. As the chief architect of foreign policy, the President acts as
the country’s mouthpiece with respect to international affairs. Hence, the President is vested with
the authority to deal with foreign states and governments, extend or withhold recognition,
maintain diplomatic relations, enter into treaties, and otherwise transact the business of foreign
relations. In the realm of treaty-making, the President has the sole authority to negotiate with
other states.
Nonetheless, while the President has the sole authority to negotiate and enter into treaties, the
Constitution provides a limitation to his power by requiring the concurrence of 2/3 of all the
members of the Senate for the validity of the treaty entered into by him. Section 21, Article VII of
the 1987 Constitution provides that “no treaty or international agreement shall be valid and
effective unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate.”
Justice Isagani Cruz, in his book on International Law, describes the treaty-making process in
this wise:
The usual steps in the treaty-making process are: negotiation, signature, ratification, and
exchange of the instruments of ratification. The treaty may then be submitted for registration and
publication under the U.N. Charter, although this step is not essential to the validity of the
agreement as between the parties.

Negotiation may be undertaken directly by the head of state but he now usually assigns this task
to his authorized representatives. These representatives are provided with credentials known as
full powers, which they exhibit to the other negotiators at the start of the formal discussions. It is
standard practice for one of the parties to submit a draft of the proposed treaty which, together
with the counter-proposals, becomes the basis of the subsequent negotiations. The negotiations
may be brief or protracted, depending on the issues involved, and may even “collapse” in case
the parties are unable to come to an agreement on the points under consideration.
If and when the negotiators finally decide on the terms of the treaty, the same is opened for
signature. This step is primarily intended as a means of authenticating the instrument and for the
purpose of symbolizing the good faith of the parties; but, significantly, it does not indicate the
final consent of the state in cases where ratification of the treaty is required. The document is
ordinarily signed in accordance with the alternat, that is, each of the several negotiators is
allowed to sign first on the copy which he will bring home to his own state.
Ratification, which is the next step, is the formal act by which a state confirms and accepts the
provisions of a treaty concluded by its representatives. The purpose of ratification is to enable
the contracting states to examine the treaty more closely and to give them an opportunity to
refuse to be bound by it should they find it inimical to their interests. It is for this reason that most
treaties are made subject to the scrutiny and consent of a department of the government other
than that which negotiated them.
The last step in the treaty-making process is the exchange of the instruments of ratification,
which usually also signifies the effectivity of the treaty unless a different date has been agreed
upon by the parties. Where ratification is dispensed with and no effectivity clause is embodied in
the treaty, the instrument is deemed effective upon its signature.
Petitioners’ arguments equate the signing of the treaty by the Philippine representative with
ratification. It should be underscored that the signing of the treaty and the ratification are two
separate and distinct steps in the treaty-making process. As earlier discussed, the signature is
primarily intended as a means of authenticating the instrument and as a symbol of the good faith
of the parties. It is usually performed by the state’s authorized representative in the diplomatic
mission. Ratification, on the other hand, is the formal act by which a state confirms and accepts
the provisions of a treaty concluded by its representative.
It should be emphasized that under our Constitution, the power to ratify is vested in the
President, subject to the concurrence of the Senate. The role of the Senate, however, is limited
only to giving or withholding its consent, or concurrence, to the ratification. Hence, it is within the
authority of the President to refuse to submit a treaty to the Senate or, having secured its
consent for its ratification, refuse to ratify it. Although the refusal of a state to ratify a treaty which
has been signed in its behalf is a serious step that should not be taken lightly, such decision is
within the competence of the President alone, which cannot be encroached by this Court via a
writ of mandamus. This Court has no jurisdiction over actions seeking to enjoin the President in
the performance of his official duties.

C. "Balikatan 02-1" is actually a war principally conducted by the United States government. not superior. in that United States personnel must "abstain from any activity inconsistent with the spirit of this agreement. which is presumed to verbalize the parties' intentions. D. the distinction between the general rule of interpretation and the supplementary means of interpretation is intended rather to ensure that the supplementary means do not constitute an alternative. International Law v. Bush in reaction to the 3 commercial aircrafts hijacking that smashed into twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City and the Pentagon building in Washington. and in particular. permitting a wide scope of undertakings subject only to the approval of the Philippine government. A clear pronouncement on this matter thereby becomes crucial. the fact that international law has been made part of the law of the land does not by any means imply the primacy of international law over national law in the municipal sphere. lawyers and taxpayers filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition attacking the constitutionality of the joint exercise. are indeed authorized. autonomous method of interpretation divorced from the general rule." The indirect violation is actually petitioners' worry. a treaty is favored over municipal law pursuant to the principle of pacta sunt servanda. as in all other treaties and international agreements to which the Philippines is a party. neither the MDT nor the VFA allow foreign troops to engage in an offensive war on Philippine territory. Executive Secretary Lessons Applicable: Locus Standi. Moreover. 7 and 8 of Article 2: Declaration of Principles and State Policies in this case. Both the history and intent of the Mutual Defense Treaty and the VFA support the conclusion that combat-related activities -as opposed to combat itself -such as the one subject of the instant petition. under the 1987 Constitution. The expression is ambiguous. 2001. Petition and the petition-in-intervention are hereby DISMISSED without prejudice to the filing of a new petition sufficient in form and substance in the proper Regional Trial Court Supreme Court is not a trier of facts Doctrine of Importance to the Public Considering however the importance to the public of the case at bar. Treaties Laws Applicable: Constitution FACTS: Pursuant to the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) signed in 1999. which it refers to as the context of the treaty. Partylists Sanlakas and Partido Ng Manggagawa as residents of Zamboanga and Sulu directly affected by the operations filed a petition-inintervention. that in reality. this Court nevertheless resolves to take cognizance of the instant petition. Ersando as citizens. or of foreign influence in general. Paragraph 8 of section I stipulates that US exercise participants may not engage in combat "except in self-defense. 2. Court of Appeals: “Withal. Thus. The Terms of Reference are explicit enough. the Court has brushed aside technicalities of procedure and has taken cognizance of this petition. Arthur D. ISSUE: W/N the petition and the petition-in-intervention should prosper. Both the Mutual Defense Treaty and the Visiting Forces Agreement. Under the doctrine of incorporation as applied in most countries. To aid in this.Lim v. International Law vs. and that the provision on self-defense serves only as camouflage to conceal the true nature of the exercise. personnel from the armed forces of the United States of America started arriving in Mindanao to take partin "Balikatan 021” on January 2002. from any political activity. Certiorari. The Balikatan 02-1 exercises involves the simulation of joint military maneuvers pursuant to the Mutual Defense Treaty. are fair game. According to Professor Briggs. in other words. Fundamental Law and Municipal Laws Conflict arises then between the fundamental law and our obligations arising from international agreements. In our considered opinion. as well as other elements may be taken into account alongside the aforesaid context. Interpretation of Treaty The VFA permits United States personnel to engage. on an impermanent basis. The sole encumbrance placed on its definition is couched in the negative. a bilateral defense agreement entered into by the Philippines and the United States in 1951. Hence. in "activities. foreign troops are allowed entry into the Philippines only by way of direct exception. allegedly by the al-Qaeda headed by the Osama bin Laden that occurred on September 11. Inc. It is clear from the foregoing that the cardinal rule of interpretation must involve an examination of the text. which enjoins upon the department of the government a becoming respect for each other's act." . The Constitution also regulates the foreign relations powers of the Chief Executive when it provides that "[n]o treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the members of the Senate. and in keeping with the Court's duty. The Solicitor General commented the prematurity of the action as it is based only on a fear of future violation of the Terms of Reference and impropriety of availing of certiorari to ascertain a question of fact specifically interpretation of the VFA whether it is covers "Balikatan 02-1” and no question of constitutionality is involved." Further. Lim and Paulino P. Although courts generally avoid having to decide a constitutional question based on the doctrine of separation of powers. to national legislation." the exact meaning of which was left undefined. rules of international law are given a standing equal. must be read in the context of the 1987 Constitution especially Sec. to determine whether or not the other branches of the government have kept themselves within the limits of the Constitution and the laws that they have not abused the discretion given to them. 25 on Transitory Provisions which shows antipathy towards foreign military presence in the country. Under the salutary proscription stated in Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations. "[e]very treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith. writer on the Convention. there is lack of locus standi since it does not involve tax spending and there is no proof of direct personal injury. v." Even more pointedly Sec. the VFA gives legitimacy to the current Balikatan exercises.” From the perspective of public international law. The meaning of the word “activities" was deliberately made that way to give both parties a certain leeway in negotiation. The exercise is rooted from the international anti-terrorism campaign declared by President George W. Incorporation Clause. Hence. a party to a treaty is not allowed to . HELD: NO. Muncipal Law." All other activities. The Convention likewise dictates what may be used as aids to deduce the meaning of terms. the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties Article 31 SECTION 3 and Article 32 contains provisos governing interpretations of international agreements. Philip Morris.

prohibition and mandamus under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court praying (1) for the nullification. The Petition in Brief Arguing mainly (1) that the WTO requires the Philippines "to place nationals and products of member-countries on the same footing as Filipinos and local products" and (2) that the WTO "intrudes. globalization. 118295 May 2.B. 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. but. ISSUE: Whether the contention of mayor Bagatsing as to denying the application for permit to hold rally was in accordance to the Veinna Convention? HELD: NO. ordinance. Mayor suggested. No. there was no proof that the US Embassy was indeed 500 feet away. 65366. That being the case. also. 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 peaceble assembly. Issue : Whether or not the denial of permit to rally by the respondent Mayor is valid. There was an assurance in the petition that in the exercise of the constitutional rights to free speech and assembly. as members of the Philippine Senate and as taxpayers. To be more specific. it does not follow that the respondent could legally act the way he did. However. Respondent official was ordered to grant the permit." Our Constitution espouses the opposing view as stated in section 5 of Article VIII: “The Supreme Court shall have the following powers: xxx (2) Review. Liberalization. however. To the extent that the Vienna Convention is a restatement of the generally accepted principles of international law.It should be a part of the law of the land. TANADA and ANNA DOMINIQUE COSETENG. all the necessary steps would be taken “to ensure a peaceful march and rally. order. petitioners. on constitutional grounds. Petitioner was unaware of such denial as it was sent through an ordinary mail. the instant petition before this Court assails the WTO Agreement for violating the mandate of the 1987 Constitution to "develop a self-reliant and independent national economy effectively controlled by Filipinos . quantitative restrictions. Petition is GRANTED. 1995 of the World Trade Organization." Simply stated.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. or regulation is in question. domestic materials and locally produced goods. Such denial can still be challenged as to the constitutionality of the ordinance. 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."invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty. J. October 25. Held : Even if it can be shown that such condition existed (500 feet away). 1997 WIGBERTO E. 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. international or executive agreement. not only when it conflicts with the fundamental law. But. of the concurrence of the .” The foregoing premises leave us no doubt that US forces are prohibited / from engaging in an offensive war on Philippine territory. revise. Hernandez: “provisions of a treaty are always subject to qualification or amendment by a subsequent law. modify. GR No. respondents. Reyes vs Bagatsing . The Philippines is a signatory to the Vienna Convention which calls for the protection of the premises of a diplomatic mission.L. denying the application for permit to hold a rally from Luneta to the gates of the United States Embassy. does the Philippine Constitution prohibit Philippine participation in worldwide trade liberalization and economic globalization? Does it proscribe Philippine integration into a global economy that is liberalized. or affirm on appeal or certiorari. . as the law or the Rules of Court may provide. The reason of refusing the permit was due to “police intelligence reports which strongly militate against the advisability of issuing such permit. (to) give preference to qualified Filipinos (and to) promote the preferential use of Filipino labor. .The Constitution adopts the generally accepted principle of International law as part of the law of the land. Hechanova: “our Constitution authorizes the nullification of a treaty.” Ichong v. it should be part of the law of the land. reverse. The Mayor also posed the applicability of Ordinance No. tax exemptions and currency controls. 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. final judgments and order of lower courts in: (A) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty. there would be a justification for the denial of the permit insofar as the terminal point would be the Embassy. limits and/or impairs" the constitutional powers of both Congress and the Supreme Court.B.” It turned out that the permit was denied by the respondent Mayor. Finding market niches and becoming the best in specific industries in a market-driven and export-oriented global scenario are replacing age-old "beggar-thy-neighbor" policies that unilaterally protect weak and inefficient domestic producers of goods and services. The emergence on January 1. abetted by the membership thereto of the vast majority of countries has revolutionized international business and economic relations amongst states. No cost. are ushering in a new borderless world of business by sweeping away as mere historical relics the heretofore traditional modes of promoting and protecting national economies like tariffs. REYES vs BAGATSING 125 SCRA 553 FACTS: This was a petition for mandamus with writ of preliminary injunction to review the decision of the City of Mayor of Manila Ramon Bagatsing. . there would be a justification for the denial of the permit insofar as the terminal point would be the US Embassy . when it runs counter to an act of Congress. EDGARDO ANGARA. deregulated and privatized? These are the main questions raised in this petition for certiorari.but there was none.R.If there were clear and present danger of any intrusion or damage or distribution of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity. vs. G. Mandatory injunction prayed for is GRANTED. law. It has irreversibly propelled the world towards trade liberalization and economic globalization. the third-millennium buzz words. proclamation.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.Veinna Convention is a restatement of the generally accepted principles of international law. import quotas. or that it is subject to the police power of the State” Gonzales v. deregulation and privatization. instruction.That being a case. 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. 1983 Facts : Petitioner retired Justice J. export subsidies. presidential decree.

" Sovereignty Limited byInternational Law and Treaties However. 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 and investments into the country. They do not embody judicially enforceable constitutional rights but guidelines for legislation. Article XII. while sovereignty has traditionally been deemed absolute and all-encompassing on the domestic level. speedy and adequate . it allows an exchange on the basis of equality and reciprocity. and concessions covering the national economy and patrimony. . As held in the leading case of Kilosbayan. 97. the main issue. ." 43 By the doctrine of incorporation. freedom. Article II. justice. the Constitution did not envision a hermit-type isolation of the country from the rest of the world. with all nations. a writ of certiorari grounded on grave abuse of discretion may be issued by the Court under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court when it is amply shown that petitioners have no other plain." These principles in Article II are not intended to be self-executing principles ready for enforcement through the courts. treaties have been used to record agreements between States concerning such widely diverse matters as. . Incorporated vs." 45 By their inherent nature. By their voluntary act. they also commonly agree to limit the exercise of their otherwise absolute rights. as a member of the family of nations. expressly or impliedly. the regulation of commercial relations. and in pursuit of mutually covenanted objectives and benefits. while the Constitution indeed mandates a bias in favor of Filipino goods. the sale or cession of territory. nations may surrender some aspects of their state power in exchange for greater benefits granted by or derived from a convention or pact. 10 and 12. the country is bound by generally accepted principles of international law. Morato. Article XII. 10. the disregard of which can give rise to a cause of action in the courts. states. like individuals. services. of the Constitution. and Secs." in contravention of the "Filipino First" policy of the Constitution. cooperation and amity. Petitioners vigorously argue that the "letter. 44 One of the oldest and most fundamental rules in international law is pacta sunt servanda � international agreements must be performed in good faith. . and by the legislature in its enactment of laws. 10 and 12. While the Constitution does not encourage the unlimited entry of foreign goods. at the same time. and adopt measures that help make them competitive. and adheres to the policy of peace. Epilogue In praying for the nullification of the Philippine ratification of the WTO Agreement. 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. Constitution Does NotRule Out Foreign Competition Furthermore. Procedurally. In its Declaration of Principles and State Policies. goods and services in the development of the Philippine economy. the lease of naval bases. raised by the petition. 24 the principles and state policies enumerated in Article II and some sections of Article XII are not "self-executing provisions. it does not prohibit them either. petitioners summarized the issues as follows: C. treaties really limit or restrict the absoluteness of sovereignty. all of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. the settling of claims.Philippine Senate in the ratification by the President of the Philippines of the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (WTO Agreement. which are worded as follows: Article II DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLESAND STATE POLICIES xxx xxx xxx Sec." We shall now discuss and rule on these arguments. domestic materials and locally produced goods. Second Issue: The WTO Agreementand Economic Nationalism This is the lis mota. . the regulation of conduct of hostilities. the "flagship" constitutional provisions referred to are Sec 19. They allegedly render meaningless the phrase "effectively controlled by Filipinos. which are considered to be automatically part of our own laws. the termination of war. xxx xxx xxx Sec. 12. the Constitution did not intend to pursue an isolationist policy. "A treaty engagement is not a mere moral obligation but creates a legally binding obligation on the parties . Declaration of Principles Not Self-Executing By its very title. Whether the provisions of the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization contravene the provisions of Sec. it is however subject to restrictions and limitations voluntarily agreed to by the Philippines. The Congress shall enact measures that will encourage the formation and operation of enterprises whose capital is wholly owned by Filipinos. The Issues In their Memorandum dated March 11. the formation of alliances. It contemplates neither "economic seclusion" nor "mendicancy in the international community. frowning only on foreign competition that is unfair. petitioners are invoking this Court's constitutionally imposed duty "to determine whether or not there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction" on the part of the Senate in giving its concurrence therein via Senate Resolution No. It did not shut out foreign investments. the constitutional policy of a "self-reliant and independent national economy" 35 does not necessarily rule out the entry of foreign investments. In the grant of rights. the Constitution "adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land. It is petitioners' position that the foregoing "national treatment" and "parity provisions" of the WTO Agreement "place nationals and products of member countries on the same footing as Filipinos and local products. labor and enterprises. spirit and intent" of the Constitution mandating "economic nationalism" are violated by the so-called "parity provisions" and "national treatment" clauses scattered in various parts not only of the WTO Agreement and its annexes but also in the Ministerial Decisions and Declarations and in the Understanding on Commitments in Financial Services. 23 They are used by the judiciary as aids or as guides in the exercise of its power of judicial review. Unquestionably. equality. goods and services. After all. the State shall give preference to qualified Filipinos. 1996. 32 In other words. Thus. 19. 19. xxx xxx xxx Article XII NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY xxx xxx xxx Sec. the laying down of rules governing conduct in peace and the establishment of international organizations. for brevity). The State shall promote the preferential use of Filipino labor. Specifically. live with coequals. In fact." Economic Nationalism Should Be Read withOther Constitutional Mandates to Attain Balanced Development of Economy All told. for example. Article II of the Constitution is a "declaration of principles and state policies. and Secs. Article II. The State shall develop a self-reliant and independent national economy effectively controlled by Filipinos. privileges.

of Filipino parentage. Art VIII. from which it could clearly be discerned that said Treaty was intended to govern Filipino citizens desiring to practice their profession in Spain. Paredes. and 16 thereof. he avers. of Filipino parentage. Reyes. 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 there as "Licenciado En Derecho". in connection with Sections 2. that the privileges provided in the Treaty invoked by the applicant are made expressly subject to the laws and regulations of the contracting State in whose territory it is desired to exercise the legal profession. the alleged impairment of sovereignty in the exercise of legislative and judicial powers is balanced by the adoption of the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land and the adherence of the Constitution to the policy of cooperation and amity with all nations. domestic materials and locally produced goods. he is entitled to practice the law profession in the Philippines without submitting to the required bar examinations. he is entitled to practice the law profession in the Philippines without submitting to the required bar examinations. shall be deemed competent to exercise said professions in the territory of the Other.. . took no part. WHEREFORE. as alleged by petitioners. 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. The Nationals of each of the two countries who shall have obtained recognition of the validity of their academic degrees by virtue of the stipulations of this Treaty. concur. voluntarily and overwhelmingly gave its consent to the WTO Agreement thereby making it "a part of the law of the land" is a legitimate exercise of its sovereign duty and power. products. and the citizens of Spain desiring to practice their professions in the Philippines.. In his verified petition.9. J. that he is a Filipino citizen born in Bacolor City. 1961 IN RE: PETITION OF ARTURO EFREN GARCIA for admission to the Philippine Bar without taking the examination. In his verified petition. The nationals of both countries who shall have obtained degree or diplomas to practice the liberal professions in either of the Contracting States. the lower to repeal. the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. Padilla. that broad constitutional principles require the State to develop an independent national economy effectively controlled by Filipinos.. and that under the provisions of the Treaty on Academic Degrees and the Exercise of Profession between the RP and Spain. . ARTURO EFREN GARCIA. that he had taken and finished in Spain. Phil. (2) Article I of the Treaty. that thereafter he was allowed to practice the law profession in Spain. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC August 15. 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". (See Sec. Applicant is a Filipino citizen desiring to practice the legal profession in the Philippines.remedy in the ordinary course of law. Constitution). J. and Section 1 of Rule 127. issued by competent national authorities. Garcia has applied for admission to the practice of law in the Philippines without submitting to the required bar examinations. So too. and to protect and/or prefer Filipino labor. . and (3) The aforementioned Treaty. and that under the provision of the Treaty of Academic Degrees and the Exercise of Professions between the Republic of the Philippines and the Spanish state. petitioner. Bautista Angelo. SO ORDERED. . Province of Negros Occidental. therefore.. require that before anyone can practice the legal profession in the Philippine he must first successfully pass the required bar examinations. Dizon. there are other equally fundamental constitutional principles relied upon by the Senate which mandate the pursuit of a "trade policy that serves the general welfare and utilizes all forms and arrangements of exchange on the basis of equality and reciprocity" and the promotion of industries "which are competitive in both domestic and foreign markets. That the Senate. the course of "Bachillerato Superior". It is clear. RESOLUTION BARRERA.." thereby justifying its acceptance of said treaty. that he had taken and finished in Spain the course of "Bachillerato Superior". on leave. that he is a Filipino citizen born in Bacolod City.L.: Arturo E.. that he was approved. after deliberation and voting. and thereafter he was allowed to practice the law profession in Spain. which have the force of law. Bengzon. In Re: Garcia 2 SCRA 985 Facts: Arturo E. Concepcion. in its pertinent part. (Emphasis supplied). he avers. De Leon and Natividad. JJ.B. provides . alter or supplement such rules being reserved only to the Congress of the Philippines. . concluded between the Republic of the Philippines and the Spanish State could not have been intended to modify the laws and regulations governing admission to the practice of law in the Philippines. . 13.J. Moreover. the Court resolved to deny the petition on the following grounds: (1) the provisions of the Treaty on Academic Degrees and the Exercise of Professions between the Republic of the Philippines and the Spanish State can not be invoked by applicant.. subject to the laws and regulations of the latter. Under Article 11 thereof. . We find no "patent and gross" arbitrariness or despotism "by reason of passion or personal hostility" in such exercise. that he was approved. among others. After due consideration. J. C. It is true. Labrador. Garcia has applied for admission to the practice of law in the Philippines without submitting to the required bar examinations. 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. But it is equally true that such principles � while serving as judicial and legislative guides � are not in themselves sources of causes of action. J. can practice their professions within the territory of the Other. took no part. among others.

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. Held: The court resolved to deny the petition. . Applicant is a Filipino citizen desiring to practice profession in the Philippines. the power to repeal. 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. The aforementioned Treaty. 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 the citizens of Spain desiring to practice their profession 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. alter or supplement such rules being reserved only to the Congress of the Philippines.Issue: Whether treaty can modify regulations governing admission to the Philippine Bar. The provision of the treaty on Academic Degrees and Exercise of Profession between the RP and Spain cannot be invoked by the applicant. Said treaty was intended to govern Filipino citizens desiring to practice thair profession in Spain.