ADMINISTRATIVE LAW OF THE PHILIPPINES

Administrative Law is that branch of modern law under which the

executive department of the government, acting in a quasi-legislative or
quasi-judicial capacity, interferes with the conduct of the individual for the
purpose of promoting the well-being of the community, as under laws
regulating public interest, professions, trades and callings, rates and prices,
laws for the protection of public health and safety, and the promotion of public
convenience.
The branch of public law that fixes the organization of the government
and determines competence of authorities who execute the law and indicates
to individual remedies for the violations of his rights.
Agency is defined in the Administrative Code as including any
department, bureau, office, commission, authority or officer of the National
Government authorized by law or executive order to make rules, issue
licenses, grant rights or privileges and adjudicate cases, research institutions
with respect to functions; government corporations with respect to functions
regulating private right, privilege, occupation or business; and officials in the
exercise of disciplinary power as provided by law.
In Malaga v. Penachos, Jr. the Supreme Court explained that a government
instrumentality refers to any agency of the National Government not
integrated within the department framework, vested with special functions or
jurisdiction by law, endowed with some if not all corporate powers,
administering special funds, and enjoying operation autonomy, usually
through a charter. In the same case, it was stressed that a chartered
institution refers to any agency organized or operating under a special charter,
vested by law with functions relating.
In Ople v. Torres, GR. No.127685, the Supreme Court held that
Administrative code is a general law and incorporates in a unified document
the major structural, functional and procedural principles of governance. The
code covers both the internal administration, internal organization, personnel
and recruitment, supervision and discipline, and the effects of the functions
performed by administrative officials on private individuals or parties outside
government.
In Peralta VS. CSC, the Supreme Court held that when an administrative or
executive agency renders an opinion or issues a statement of policy, it merely
interprets a pre-existing law; and the administrative interpretation of the
law is at best advisory, for it is the courts that finally determine what the
law means. It has also been held that interpretative regulations need not be
published.

Lupangco v.C.A.

Quasi-judicial is defined as a term applied to the action, discretion, etc., of

public administrative officers or bodies required to investigate facts, or
ascertain the existence of facts, hold hearings, and draw conclusions from
them, as a basis for their official action, and to exercise discretion of a judicial
nature. To expound thereon, quasi-judicial adjudication would mean a
determination of rights, privileges and duties resulting in a decision or order
which applies to a specific situation. This does not cover rules and regulations
of general applicability issued by the administrative body to implement its
purely administrative policies and functions like Resolution No. 105 which was
adopted by the respondent PRC as a measure to preserve the integrity of
licensure examinations.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quasi-legislative power may be defined as the authority delegated
by the law-making body to the administrative body to adopt rules and
regulations intended to carry out the provisions of a law and implement
legislative policy.
In Victoria Milling vs. SSS, there is a distinction between an administrative
rule or regulation and an administrative interpretation of a law whose
enforcement is entrusted to an administrative body. When an
administrative agency promulgates rules and regulations, it "makes"
a new law with the force and effect of a valid law, while when it
renders an opinion or gives a statement of policy, it merely interprets
a pre-existing law. Rules and regulations when promulgated in
pursuance of the procedure or authority conferred upon the
administrative agency by law, partake of the nature of a statute, and
compliance therewith may be enforced by a penal sanction provided
in the law. A rule is binding on the courts so long as the procedure fixed for
its promulgation is followed and its scope is within the statutory authority
granted by the legislature, On the other hand, administrative interpretation of
the law is at best merely advisory, for it is the courts that finally determine
what the law means.

DOCTRINE OF RESPECT FOR ADMINISTRATIVE OR PRACTICAL

CONSTRUCTION
In applying this doctrine, the courts often refer to several factors which
may be regarded as bases of the principle, as factors leading the courts to
give the principle controlling weight in particular instances, or as independent
rules in themselves. These factors are respect due the governmental agencies
charged with administration, their competence, expertness, experience, and
informed judgment and the fact that they frequently are the drafters of the
law they interpret, that the agency is the one on which the legislator must rely
to advise it as to the practical working out of the statute, and practical
application of the statute presents the agency with unique opportunity and the
experiences for discovering deficiencies, inaccuracies, or improvements in the
statute. (Asturias v. Commissioner of Custom)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quasi-judicial power has been defined as the power of the
administrative authorities to make determinations of facts in the performance
of their official duties and to apply the law as they construe it to the facts so
found. The exercise of this power is only incidental to their main function,
which is the enforcement of the law.
Thus, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) may, consistent with
the primordial objective of said department to afford protection to labor, grant
money awards in favor of aggrieved employees and, for the purpose or in the
process, rule upon legal issues raised during the proceedings taken before it.
Its decisions are however reviewable on Certiorari by the Court of Appeals
and, eventually, by the Supreme Court.
In Tadlip v. Borrres, the Supreme Court considered to be part of the quasi-
judicial system a practicing lawyer who was also a provincial adjudicator or a
public officer tasked with the duty of deciding conflicting claims of the parties.
In Megaworld Globus Asia v. DSM Construction, the Supreme Court ruled
that the findings of fact of administrative agencies and quasi-judicial bodies,
which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific
matters, are generally accorded not only respect, but finality when affirmed
by the Court of Appeals.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DUE PROCESS in ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS

The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard or, as
applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain ones side
or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of an action or ruling complained
of.
Due process in an administrative context does not require a trial-type
proceedings similar to those in courts of justice, and need not necessarily
include the right to cross examination. The requirement of notice and
hearing does not connote full adversarial proceedings. Submission of
position papers may be sufficient for as long as the parties thereto are given
the opportunity to be heard.
Notice and Hearing
The right to notice and hearing is essential to due process and its non-
observance will as a rule invalidate the administrative proceedings. Persons
are entitled to be notified of any case affecting their interest so that, if they
are minded, they may claim the right to appear therein and present their
side or refute the position of opposing parties.

FABELLA vs. CA
In administrative proceedings, due process has been recognized to
include the following: (1) the right to actual or constructive notice of the
institution of proceedings which may affect a respondents legal rights; (2) a
real opportunity to be heard personally or with the assistance of counsel, to
present witnesses and evidence in ones favor, and to defend ones
rights; (3) a tribunal vested with competent jurisdiction and so constituted
as to afford a person charged administratively a reasonable guarantee of
honesty as well as impartiality; and (4) a finding by said tribunal which
is supported by substantial evidence submitted for consideration during the
hearing or contained in the records or made known to the parties affected.
In the present case, the various committees formed by DECS to hear the
administrative charges against private respondents did not include a
representative of the local or, in its absence, any existing provincial or national
teachers organization as required by Section 9 of RA 4670. Accordingly,
these committees were deemed to have no competent
jurisdiction. Thus, all proceedings undertaken by them were
necessarily void. They could not provide any basis for the suspension or
dismissal of private respondents. The inclusion of a representative of a
teachers organization in these committees was indispensable to ensure an
impartial tribunal. It was this requirement that would have given
substance and meaning to the right to be heard. Indeed, in any
proceeding, the essence of procedural due process is embodied in the
basic requirement of notice and a real opportunity to be heard.

LUPO vs. Administrative Action Board

The requirements of due process in administrative proceedings and
these are:
(1) The right to a hearing which includes, the right to present one's case and
submit evidence in support thereof;
(2) The tribunal must consider the evidence presented;
(3) The decision must have something to support itself,
(4) The evidence must be substantial, and substantial evidence means such
evidence as a reasonable mind must accept as adequate to support a
conclusion;
(5) The decision must be based on the evidence presented at the hearing, or
at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected;
(6) The tribunal or body or any of its judges must act on its or his own
independent consideration of the law and facts of the controversy, and not
simply accept the views of a subordinate;
(7) The board or body should in all controversial questions, render its decision
in such manner that the parties to the proceeding can know the various issues
involved, and the reason for the decision rendered.

Madenilla vs. CSC

No denial of due process.
"Due process of law implies the right of the person affected thereby
to be present before the tribunal which pronounces judgment upon the
question of life, liberty, and property in its most comprehensive sense; to be
heard, by testimony or otherwise, and to have the right of controverting, by
proof, every material fact which bears on the question of the light in the matter
involved."
The essence of due process is the opportunity to be heard. The presence
of a party is not always the cornerstone of due process. In the case at bar,
any defect was cured by the filing of a motion for reconsideration.
DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA in ADMINISTRATIVE CASES

DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA

San Luis v. Court of Appeals
The rule of res judicata which forbids the reopening of a matter once
judicially determined by the competent authority applies as well to the judicial
and quasi-judicial acts of public, executive or administrative officers and
boards acting within their jurisdiction as to the judgments of courts having
general judicial powers. Indeed, the principle of conclusiveness of prior
adjudications is not confined in its operation to the judgments of what are
ordinarily known as courts, but it extends to all bodies upon whom judicial
powers had been conferred.
Judge Basilla vs. Becamon
 Applying the doctrine of res judicata or bar by prior judgment, the
present administrative case becomes dismissible.
The Court held that applied the principle of res judicata or bar by prior
judgment. Under the said doctrine, a matter that has been adjudicated by a
court of competent jurisdiction must be deemed to have been finally and
conclusively settled if it arises in any subsequent litigation between the same
parties and for the same cause. It provides that a final judgment on the merits
rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive as to the rights of
the parties and their privies; and constitutes an absolute bar to subsequent
actions involving the same claim, demand, or cause of action. Res judicata is
based on the ground that the party to be affected, or some other with whom
he is in privity, has litigated the same matter in the former action in a court
of competent jurisdiction, and should not be permitted to litigate it again. This
principle frees the parties from undergoing all over again the rigors of
unnecessary suits and repetitious trials. At the same time, it prevents the
clogging of court dockets. Equally important, res judicata stabilizes rights and
promotes the rule of law.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION

The doctrine of primary jurisdiction applies where a case is within the
concurrent jurisdiction of the court and an administrative agency but the
determination of the case requires the technical expertise of the
administrative agency. In such a case, although the matter is within the
jurisdiction of the court, it must yield to the jurisdiction of the administrative
case.

Bagonghasa vs. DAR

The doctrine of primary jurisdiction precludes the courts from
resolving a controversy over which jurisdiction was initially lodged with an
administrative body of special competence. The doctrine of primary
jurisdiction does not allow a court to arrogate unto itself authority to resolve
a controversy, the jurisdiction over which is initially lodged with an
administrative body of special competence. The Office of the DAR Secretary is
in a better position to resolve the particular issue of non-issuance of a notice
of coverage.

NESTLE PHILIPPINES, INC. vs. UNIWIDE SALES

Under the doctrine of primary administrative jurisdiction, courts will not
determine a controversy where the issues for resolution demand the exercise
of sound administrative discretion requiring the special knowledge,
experience, and services of the administrative tribunal to determine technical
and intricate matters of fact.
In other words, if a case is such that its determination requires the
expertise, specialized training, and knowledge of an administrative body, relief
must first be obtained in an administrative proceeding before resort to the
court is had even if the matter may well be within the latter's proper
jurisdiction.
The objective of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction is to guide the
court in determining whether it should refrain from exercising its jurisdiction
until after an administrative agency has determined some question or some
aspect of some question arising in the proceeding before the court.

EXCEPTION to doctrine (doctrine of primary jurisdiction)

GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, petitioner, vs.

COMMISSION ON AUDIT
The doctrine of primary jurisdiction would ordinarily preclude us from
resolving the matter, which calls for a ruling to be first made by the Board. It
is the latter that is vested by law with exclusive and original jurisdiction to
settle any dispute arising under RA 8291, as well as other matters related
thereto.
However, both the GSIS and respondents have extensively discussed the
merits of the case in their respective pleadings and did not confine their
arguments to the issue of jurisdiction. Respondents, in fact, submit that we
should resolve the main issue on the ground that it is a purely legal
question. Respondents further state that a remand of the case to the Board
would merely result in unnecessary delay and needless expense for the
parties.

Gregorio Vigilar Sec. of DPWH VS. Arnulfo Aquino

There is a question of law when the doubt or difference arises as to what
the law is on a certain state of facts, and not as to the truth or the falsehood
of alleged facts. Said question at best could be resolved only tentatively by
the administrative authorities. The final decision on the matter rests not with
them but with the courts of justice.

Geraldine Gaw Guy vs. The Board of Commissioners of the Bureau of

immigration
Judicial intervention, however, should be granted in cases where the
claim of citizenship is so substantial that there are reasonable grounds to
believe that the claim is correct in deportation proceeding.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOCTRINE OF FINALITY OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
No resort to courts will be allowed unless administrative action has been
completed and there is nothing left to be done in the administrative
structure.

DOCTRINE OF EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

Whenever there is an available administrative remedy provided by law,
no judicial recourse can be made until all such remedies have been availed
of and exhausted.
The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies applies where a
claim is cognizable in the first instance by an administrative agency alone.
Judicial interference is withheld until the administrative process has been
completed. As stated in Industrial Enterprises, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 184
SCRA 426.
New Sun Valley Homeowners Association v. SB Brgy. Sun Valley
Paraaque
The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is a
cornerstone of our judicial system. The thrust of the rule is that courts must
allow administrative agencies to carry out their functions and discharge their
responsibilities within the specialized areas of their respective competence.
The rationale for this doctrine is obvious. It entails lesser expenses and
provides for the speedier resolution of controversies. Comity and
convenience also impel courts of justice to shy away from a dispute until the
system of administrative redress has been completed.
Arlin Obiasca v. Jeane Basallote
The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies requires that, for
reasons of law, comity and convenience, where the enabling statute indicates
a procedure for administrative review and provides a system of administrative
appeal or reconsideration, the courts will not entertain a case unless the
available administrative remedies have been resorted to and the appropriate
authorities have been given an opportunity to act and correct the errors
committed in the administrative forum.

Orosa v. Roa
The Court ruled that if an appeal or remedy obtains or is available within
the administrative machinery, this should be resorted to before resort can be
made to the courts. While the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
remedies is subject to certain exceptions, these are not present in this case.
EXCEPTIONS:

Republic v. Carlito Lacap

Nonetheless, the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies and the
corollary doctrine of primary jurisdiction, which are based on sound public
policy and practical considerations, are not inflexible rules. There are many
accepted exceptions, such as:
(a) Where there is estoppel on the part of the party invoking the doctrine;
(b) Where the challenged administrative act is patently illegal, amounting
to lack of jurisdiction;
(c) Where there is unreasonable delay or official inaction that will
irretrievably prejudice the complainant;
(d) Where the amount involved is relatively small so as to make the rule
impractical and oppressive;
(e) Where the question involved is purely legal and will ultimately have
to be decided by the courts of justice;
(f) Where judicial intervention is urgent;
(g) When its application may cause great and irreparable damage;
(h) Where the controverted acts violate due process;
(i) When the issue of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies has
been rendered moot;
(j) When there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy;
(k) When strong public interest is involved; and,
(l) In quo warranto proceedings. Exceptions (c) and (e) are applicable to
the present case.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOCTRINE OF CONDONATION
The doctrine that a public official cannot be removed for administrative
misconduct committed during the prior term, since his re-election to office
operates as a condonation of the officers previous misconduct to the extent
of cutting off the right to remove him therefor. The foregoing rule, however,
finds no application to criminal cases pending before any court of justice.
(Aguinaldo v. Santos, 212 SCRA 768)
DOCTRINE OF IMPLIED MUNICIPAL LIABILITY
A municipality may become obligated upon an implied contract to pay
the reasonable value of the benefits accepted or appropriated by it as to which
it has the general power to contract. (Province of Cebu v. IAC, 147 SCRA 447)

DOCTRINE OF INVERSE CONDEMNATION

It involves the action to recover just compensation from the State or its
expropriating agency. It has the objective to recover the value of the property
taken in fact by the government defendant, even though no formal exercise
of the power of eminent domain has been attempted by the taking agency.
(Napocor v. Heirs of Sangkay, GR 165828)

DOCTRINE OF INCOMPATIBILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICES

It concerns a potential clash of two incompatible public offices held by a
single official. In other words, the doctrine concerns a conflict between an
individuals performances of potentially overlapping public duties.

DOCTRINE OF PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY IN THE PERFORMANCE

OF OFFICIAL DUTY
The doctrine holding that every public official, absent any showing of
bad faith and malice, is entitled to the presumption of regularity in the
performance of official duties.

Book I, Chapter 9, sections 38 and 39 of Executive Order No. 292

Section 38. Liability of Superior Officers. -

(1) A public officer shall not be civilly liable for acts done in the
performance of his official duties, unless there is a clear showing of bad
faith, malice or gross negligence.

(2) Any public officer who, without just cause, neglects to perform a
duty within a period fixed by law or regulation, or within a reasonable
period if none is fixed, shall be liable for damages to the private party
concerned without prejudice to such other liability as may be prescribed
by law.

(3) A head of a department or a superior officer shall not be civilly liable

for the wrongful acts, omissions of duty, negligence, or misfeasance of
his subordinates, unless he has actually authorized by written order the
specific act or misconduct complained of.
Section 39. Liability of Subordinate Officers. -No subordinate officer or
employee shall be civilly liable for acts done by him in good faith in the
performance of his duties. However, he shall be liable for willful or negligent
acts done by him which are contrary to law, morals, public policy and good
customs even if he acted under orders or instructions of his superiors.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JUDICIAL REVIEW

An administrative proceedings may be appealed to the courts of justice only

if the Constitution or the law permits it or if the issues to be reviewed involve
questions of law. Outside of these exceptions, the administrative decision is
no more reviewable by the courts of justice than judicial decisions reviewable
by administrative bodies. As a rule, the administrative decision may be validly
rendered final and not appealable at the administrative level without allowing
the aggrieved party a final resort to the courts of justice.

In Medalla v. Sayo, a decision of the Civil Service Commission appealed to

and affirmed by the Office of the President was subsequently brought to the
court of first instance in a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus.
The basic issue was the validity of an appointment issued by a city mayor
under the civil service decree. On the petitioners argument that the court of
first instance had no jurisdiction to review decisions of the President and the
Civil Service Commission rendered in the exercise of their quasi-judicial
functions, the Supreme Court declared;
Insofar as jurisdiction of the court below to review by certiorari decisions
and/or resolutions of the Civil Service Commission and the Presidential Executive
Assistant is concerned, there should be no question but that the power of judicial
review should be upheld. This jurisdiction does not depend upon an act of the
legislature authorizing it but is inherent in the courts of general jurisdiction as an
essential function of the judicial department.

In Industrial Power Sales Inc. v. Sinsuat,

The Supreme Court instructed that;
Certain universally accepted axioms govern judicial review through the
extraordinary actions of certiorari or prohibition of determinations of
administrative officers or agencies; first, that before said actions may be
entertained, it must be shown that all the administrative remedies prescribed
by law or ordinance have been exhausted; and second, that the administrative
decision may properly be annulled or set aside only upon a clear showing that
the administrative official or tribunal has acted without or in excess of
jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion.
 Public International Law

Public International law It is the body of rules and principles that are
and other whether of the recognized as legally binding and which govern
international same nationality the relations of states and other entities
invested persons or with international legal personality.
DOCTRINE OF INCORPORATION
The rules of international law form part of the law of the land and no
legislative action is required to make them applicable to a country. The
Philippines follows this doctrine, because Section 2. Article II of the
constitution states that the Philippines adopts the generally accepted
principles of international law as part of the law of the land. However, the
doctrine dictates that rules of international law are given equal standing
with, and are not superior to, national legislative enactments. (Sec. of
Justice v. Lation GR No. 139465)

Secretary of Justice v. Judge Lantion and Jimenez

Facts: A possible conflict between the US-RP Extradition Treaty and
Philippine law.
Issue: Whether or not, under the Doctrine of Incorporation, International
Law prevails over Municipal Law.
Ruling:No
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.

The doctrine of incorporation is applied whenever local courts are confronted

with situations in which there appears to be a conflict between a rule of
international law and the provisions of the local states constitution/statute.

First, efforts should first be exerted to harmonize them, so as to give effect to

both. This is because it is presumed that municipal law was enacted with
proper regard for the generally accepted principles of international law in
observance of the incorporation clause.

However, if the conflict is irreconcilable and a choice has to be made between

a rule of international law and municipal law, jurisprudence dictates that the
municipal courts should uphold municipal law.
This is because such courts are organs of municipal law and are accordingly
bound by it in all circumstances. The fact that international law was made part
of the law of the land does not pertain to or imply the primacy of international
law over national/municipal law in the municipal sphere.

The doctrine of incorporation, as applied in most countries, decrees that rules

of international law are given equal standing with, but are not superior to,
national legislative enactments.

In case of conflict, the courts should harmonize both laws first and if there
exists an unavoidable contradiction between them, the principle of lex
posterior derogat priori - a treaty may repeal a statute and a statute may
repeal a treaty - will apply. But if these laws are found in conflict with the
Constitution, these laws must be stricken out as invalid.

In states where the constitution is the highest law of the land, such as in ours,
both statutes and laws. One of the oldest and most fundamental rules in
international law is pacta sunt servanda international agreements must
be performed in good faith. 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. By their inherent nature,
treaties really limit or restrict the absoluteness of sovereignty. By their
voluntary act, nations may surrender some aspects of their state power in
exchange for greater benefits granted by or derived from a convention or pact.
After all, states, like individuals, live with coequals, and in pursuit of mutually
covenanted objectives and benefits, they also commonly agree to limit the
exercise of their otherwise absolute rights. Thus, treaties have been used to
record agreements between States concerning such widely diverse matters
as, for example, the lease of naval bases, the sale or cession of territory, the
termination of war, the regulation of conduct of hostilities, the formation of
alliances, the regulation of commercial relations, the settling of claims, the
laying down of rules governing conduct in peace and the establishment of
international organizations. The sovereignty of a state therefore cannot in
fact and in reality be considered absolute. Certain restrictions enter into the
picture: (1) limitations imposed by the very nature of membership in the
family of nations and (2) limitations imposed by treaty stipulations. (Tanada
v. Angara, 272 SCRA 18, May 2, 1997 [Panganiban]
 Taada v. Angara GR. No. 118295

By the doctrine of Incorporation, the country is bound by generally accepted

principles of international law, which are considered to be automatically part
of our own laws. 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.

Fundamental Principles:
1. Pacta sunt Servanda Obligations must be observed in good
faith
2. Rebus sic stantibus It means that a contracting States
obligations under a treaty terminates when vital or fundamental
change of circumstances occurs, thus allowing a State to
unilaterally withdraw from a treaty, because of disappearance of
the foundation upon which it rests; a) It applies to treaty of
indefinite duration; b) the vital change is unforeseeable; c) the
change is not cause by the invoking party; d) it is invoke within a
reasonable; e) it is not retroactive to provisions already executed.
3. Right of denunciation is the right to give notice of termination
or withdrawal.
DOCTRINE OF TRANSFORMATION
The generally accepted rules of international law are not per se binding upon
the State but must first be embodied in legislation enacted by the lawmaking
body and so transformed into municipal law. Only when so transformed will
they become binding upon the State as part of its municipal law.
Article II, sec. 2 of the Constitution The Philippines renounces war as an
instrument of national policy, 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.
International Law can become part of municipal law only if it is transformed
into domestic law through the appropriate constitutional machinery such as
an act of Parliament. This follows what is called the doctrine of
transformation. This provision makes the Philippines one of the states which
make a specific declaration that international has the force also of domestic
law.
Generally accepted rules of international law are not per se binding upon the
state but must first be embodied in legislation enacted by the lawmaking
body and so transformed into municipal law. This doctrine runs counter Art.
II, Sec. 2, of the 1987 Constitution.
In Medellin v. Texas, a Mexican was convicted of Rape/murder, the arrest
was illegal since the police failed to inform his right under Vienna Convention
on Consular Relation to notify consulate of his arrest and detention.

In case of Conflict between International Law and our Municipal Law

a) If International Law conflicts our Constitution, the latter shall
prevail.
b) If International Law conflicts with our Statute both have equal
standing. Hence, a treaty may amend a statute and vice versa (lex
posterior derogate priori) that which comes last in time, will usually
be upheld.
Also in Inchong v. Fernandez, conflict between Retail Trade
National Law vs. Treaty Amity with China where it was ruled that
police power cannot be bargained away through the medium of a
treaty or a contract.

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE STATES:

1. National existence and self-defense
Right may be individual or collective. Self-defense only against
aggression when necessary until the Security Council has taken
measures to maintain peace and security. Ultimately, the U.N.
Security Council determines whether an armed attack has
occurred.
2. Right to Sovereignty and Independence.
Freedom from Interventions an act by which a State interferes
with the domestic or foreign affairs of another State through
employment of force or threat of force.

DRAGO DOCTRINE
Embodied in the Hague Convention provides that Contracting powers agree
not to have recourse armed force for the recovery of contract claimed from
the government of one country by the government of another as being due
to its nationals.
DOCTRINE OF JUS COGENS
A customary International Law, it is a peremptory norm that is
accepted and recognized by the international community (slave trade, piracy
and terrorism). It creates an Erga Omnes obligation that every State owes
to the International Community.
DOCTRINE OF STATE IMMUNITY
Includes the Head of the State as the personification of that State. However,
in Rep. v. Marcos, sovereign immunity torture, executions, disappearances
are clearly acts outside of the Presidents authority. Ill-gotten wealth which
was not obtained by official acts of expropriation is not covered.
DOCTRINE OF EFFECTIVE OCCUPATION
A doctrine in International Law which holds that in order for a nation
to occupy a coastal possession, It also had to prove that it controlled sufficient
authority there to protect existing rights such as freedom of trade and transit.

Well-established modes of acquiring land territory

1. Prescription, thus, an exercise of sovereignty for 200 years over the
territory.
2. Cession is the transfer of one state to another by agreement between
them, such as Sale or Donation.
3. Conquest or subjugation is when a State previously conquered or
occupied in the course of war is annexed to it at the end of the war.
4. Accretion by natural like formation of islands or by artificial processes
like reclamation or avulsion and sudden change by violent forces of
nature like earthquake.

DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITIES
a) Personal inviolability from arrest/detentions. Temporary arrest may be
done if the envoy commits acts of violence and it is necessary to put
him under temporary restraint.
b) Premises and archives inviolability peace officers cannot break in or
search or serve writs (search, attachments, execution, summons,
orders or processes within the premises, search of the residence or
vehicles of the envoy is prohibited).
 c) Right of official communication Diplomatic pouch and couriers are
inviolable. He cannot be compelled to testify without the consent of his
government.
d) Immunity from local jurisdiction He cannot be arrested, prosecuted
or punished. He is also immune from civil and administrative
jurisdiction except if the act is outside his official functions or in his
private capacity.
e) Exemption from taxes and customs duties of articles for the official use
of the mission or personal use of the envoy and his family except
indirect taxes normally incorporated in the price of goods or services,
estate and inheritance tax.

Treaty
Treaty is an international agreement concluded between states including
international organization of States, in written form and governed by
international law, intended to create legal rights and obligations of the
parties thereto.
Requirements for validity:
1. Capacity Inherent in a State but for international organizations, it is
limited by the purpose and constitution of such organization.
2. Competence It is exercised by the President subject to senate
concurrence. (Article VII of the 1987 Philippines Constitution,
section 21, 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).
3. Consent freely given Doctrine of Unequal Treaties, those imposed
through coercion or duress by a State of unequal character, is void.
4. Object and subject matter must be lawful; not violative under the
Doctrine of Jus Cogens.

EXTRADITION
EXTRADITION involves request for the surrender of a fugitive for
prosecution.
Principles involved in Extradition:
 1. Principle of specialty An extraditee must be tried and punished only
for the crimes specified in the Treaty and Extradition Request.
2. Principle of Double Criminality - The crime for which a person is
extradited must be punishable in both states.
3. Extradition usually does not include political and religious offenders.

Procedures of Extradition:
1. Diplomatic request with necessary papers. The identity of the wanted
person and the crime allegedly committed.
2. State of refuge conducts judicial investigation to determine the identity
of the extraditee and whether the crime is covered as extraditable
offense, whether a prima facie case exist against the fugitive according
to laws of the requested State.
3. Warrant of surrender and delivery.
DOCTRINE OF AUTOLIMITATION
The doctrine where the Philippines adheres to principles of international law
as a limitation to the exercise of its sovereignty.
Concept of Sovereignty as Autolimitation When the Philippines joined
the United Nations as one of its 51 charter members, it consented to restrict
its sovereign rights under the "concept of sovereignty as autolimitation.

International Custom
Matters of international concern are not usually covered by international
agreements and many States are not parties to most treaties;
Custom is the practice that has grown up between States and has come
to be accepted as binding by the mere fact of persistent usage over a long
period of time. International custom remains a significant source.

Subjects of International Law

A. Traditional Concept
1. Only States are considered subjects on International Law
B. Contemporary concept
2. Individuals and international organizations are also subjects because
they have rights and duties under international law. (Liang v. People,
GR. No.125865)
Rights of Sovereignty and Independence

Intervention
It is the dictatorial interference by a State in the internal affairs of
another State, or in the relations between other states, which is either forcible
or backed by threat of force.

International Dispute
It is an actual disagreement between States regarding the conduct to
be taken by one for the protection or vindication of the interest of the other.
It exist when one state claims that another state should behave in a certain
manner but that claim is rejected by the other.