CASE DIGEST

PART 1: NATURE AND FUNCTION OF THE LAW

ARTICLE 2 SEC 2, 1987 CONSTITUTION ‘THE PHILIPPINE RENOUNCES WAR AS AN INTRUMENT OF

NATIONAL POLICY AND ADOPTS THE GENERALLY ACCEPTED PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW TO
FORM PART OF THE CONSTITUTION AND TO ABIDE BY THE CUSTOM OF PEACE, FREEDOM, JUSTICE,
COOPERATION, EQAULITY AND FRIENDSHIP WITH ALL OTHER NATION-STATES’

CASE 1

Secretary of Justice vs. Hon. Ralph Lantion, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 25
and Mark B. Jimenez
G.R. No. 139465, January 18, 2000

Secretary of Justice filed a case to lift the TRO issued by the Hon. Lantion in favor of the motion filed by
Mark Jimenez on the basis of the breach of the commitments and obligation of the Philippine
Government under the RP-US Extradition Treaty (PD No 1069).

*WON Private respondent’s entitlement (Jimenez) to notice and hearing during the evaluation
stage of the proceedings constitute a breach of the legal duties of the Philippine Government under the
RP-US Extradition Treaty.

*WON there is really a conflict between the treaty and the due process in the constitution.

FACTS:

1. The Department of Foreign Affairs of the US requested to the Department of Justice the
extradition of Mark Jimenez to the US on June 18, 1999.
a. Conspiracy to defraud the US
b. Attempt to evade tax
c. Fraud by wire, radio or television
d. False statements or entries
e. Election contributions in name of another
2. Mark Jimenez requested to have a copy of or access to the request of the US and be given
amplify his request after receiving the copy of the Diplomatic Note.
3. The Department of Justice on denied the requests of the private respondent Mark Jimenez.
4. Mark Jimenez filed a case against the DOJ Sec, DFA Sec in the RTC to furnish him copies of the
extradition documents and to allow him evaluate the request impartially, fairly and objectively.

ARGUMENTS

SEC OF Justice Mark Jimenez

 Sec. of Justice denial to the request is  Right to due process (notice and hearing
 consistent to the RP-US Extradition Treaty requirements) in the evaluation stage.
 Treaties must be performed in good faith.
 Requests for extradition or surrender of
accused or convicted persons must be
processed expeditiously.
 Prevent unauthorized disclosure of
confidential information

RULINGS:

RTC ordered that the Sec. of Justice, Sec of DFA and Director of NBI to maintain the status quo by
refraining from committing the acts complained of, from conducting further proceedings in connection
with the request of the United States Government for the extradition of the petitioner from filing the
corresponding Petition with a Regional Trial court; and from performing any act directed to the extradition of
the petitioner to the United States, for a period of twenty (20) days from service on respondents of this
Order, pursuant to Section 5, Rule 58 of the 1997 Rules of Court.

Sec. of Justice instant petition - Supreme Court Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr. issued a TRO ordering
Hon. Lantion to CEASE and DESIST from enforcing the assailed order dated Aug, 9, 1999.

Ruling of the Supreme Court:

The Supreme Court speaking through Justice Melo The rule of pacta sunt servanda, one of the
oldest and most fundamental maxims of international law, requires the parties to a treaty to keep
their agreement therein in good faith. The observance of our country's legal duties under a treaty is
also compelled by Section 2, Article II of the Constitution which provides that "[t]he 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 nations." Under the doctrine of incorporation, rules of
international law form part of the law of the and land no further legislative action is needed to make
such rules applicable in the domestic sphere (Salonga & Yap, Public International Law, 1992 ed., p. 12).

The doctrine of incorporation is applied whenever municipal tribunals (or 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 constitution or statute of the local state. Efforts should first be exerted to harmonize
them, so as to give effect to both since it is to be presumed that municipal law was enacted with proper
regard for the generally accepted principles of international law in observance of the observance of the
Incorporation Clause in the above-cited constitutional provision (Cruz, Philippine Political Law, 1996 ed.,
p. 55). In a situation, however, where the conflict is irreconcilable and a choice has to be made between
a rule of international law and municipal law, jurisprudence dictates that municipal law should be
upheld by the municipal courts (Ichong vs. Hernandez, 101 Phil. 1155 [1957]; Gonzales vs. Hechanova, 9
SCRA 230 [1963]; In re: Garcia, 2 SCRA 984 [1961]) for the reason that such courts are organs of
municipal law and are accordingly bound by it in all circumstances (Salonga & Yap, op. cit., p. 13). The
fact that international law has been made part of the law of the land does not pertain to or imply the
primacy of international law over national or 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. Accordingly, the principle lex
posterior derogat priori takes effect — a treaty may repeal a statute and a statute may repeal a treaty. In
states where the constitution is the highest law of the land, such as the Republic of the Philippines, both
statutes and treaties may be invalidated if they are in conflict with the constitution (Ibid.)

In the absence of a law or principle of law, we must apply the rules of fair play. An application of the
basic twin due process rights of notice and hearing will not go against the treaty or the implementing
law. Neither the Treaty nor the Extradition Law precludes these rights from a prospective extraditee.
Similarly, American jurisprudence and procedures on extradition pose no proscription. In fact, in
interstate extradition proceedings as explained above, the prospective extraditee may even request for
copies of the extradition documents from the governor of the asylum state, and if he does, his right to
be supplied the same becomes a demandable right (35 C.J.S. 410).

We have ruled time and again that this Court's equity jurisdiction, which is aptly described as "justice
outside legality," may be availed of only in the absence of, and never against, statutory law or judicial
pronouncements (Smith Bell & Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 267 SCRA 530 [1997]; David-Chan vs. Court
of Appeals, 268 SCRA 677 [1997]). The constitutional issue in the case at bar does not even call for
"justice outside legality," since private respondent's due process rights, although not guaranteed by
statute or by treaty, are protected by constitutional guarantees. We would not be true to the organic
law of the land if we choose strict construction over guarantees against the deprivation of liberty. That
would not be in keeping with the principles of democracy on which our Constitution is premised.

Instant petition is dismissed for lack of merit. Petitioner is hereby ordered to furnish copies of the
extradition request and its supporting papers, and to grant him a reasonable period within which to file
his comment with supporting evidence.

CASE 2

International School Alliance of Educators (ISAE) vs. Hon. Leonardo A. Quisumbing in his capacity as the
Secretary of Labor and Employment; HON. CRESENCIANO B. TRAJANO in his capacity as the
Acting Secretary of Labor and Employment; DR. BRIAN MACCAULEY in his capacity as the
Superintendent of International School-Manila; and INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL, INC.

G.R. No. 128845, June 1, 2000

ISAE filed a case parity (the state of being equal especially as regards status or pay), discrimination in
point-of-hire classification and racial discrimination in terms of the difference of salary against Hon.
Leonardo A. Quisumbing, et.al on the basis of equal protection clause.

FACTS:

1. International School Inc. is a domestic educational institution established primarily for

dependents of foreign diplomatic personnel and other temporary residents.
 2. The School hires foreign and local teachers classifying them into a) foreign hires b) local hires.
Foreign hires are granted benefits which are not accorded to local hires such as housing,
transportation, shipping costs etc. and they are paid 25% higher than the local hires.
3. A negotiation for a new collective bargaining agreement was held on June 1995 wherein ISAE a
legitimate labor union and a collective bargaining representative of all faculty members” raise
the issue of the difference between the salary of the foreign and local hires as well as the
question whether the foreign hires should be included in the appropriate bargaining unit.
4. ISAE on Sept. 7, 1995, filed a notice of strike. The DOLE took over the jurisdiction of the case
after the National Conciliation and Mediation Board failed to bring the parties into a
compromise.
5. DOLE Acting Sec. Trajano issue an order resolving the issue of parity and representation in favor
of the School, and subsequently, DOLE Sec. Quisumbing denied the petitioner’s Motion for
Reconsideration in an Order dated March 19, 1997.

ARGUMENTS

ISAE The School

 The point-of-hire classification of the
School is discriminatory to the Filipinos.
 The grant of higher salaries to foreign-
hires is a racial discrimination.
 Classification is a violation of the equal
protection clause of the Constitution.
 Foreign hires have to endure two
significant economic disadvantages 1)
dislocation factor 2)limited tenure
 Compensation scheme is the school’s
adaptive measure to remain competitive
on an international in terms of attracting
competent professionals in the field of
international education.
 Foreign hires do not enjoy security of
tenure in order to have parity the school
grants them higher salary and other
benefits.

RULING:

The Supreme Court speaking through Justice Kapunan declares that public policy abhors inequality and
discrimination is beyond contention. Our Constitution and laws reflect the policy against these evils. The
Constitution8 in the Article on Social Justice and Human Rights exhorts Congress to "give highest priority
to the enactment of measures that protect and enhance the right of all people to human dignity, reduce
social, economic, and political inequalities." The very broad Article 19 of the Civil Code requires every
person, "in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, [to] act with justice, give
everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.

The foregoing provisions impregnably institutionalize in this jurisdiction the long honored legal truism of
"equal pay for equal work." Persons who work with substantially equal qualifications, skill, effort and
responsibility, under similar conditions, should be paid similar salaries. 22 This rule applies to the School,
its "international character" notwithstanding.

While we recognize the need of the School to attract foreign-hires, salaries should not be used as an
enticement to the prejudice of local-hires. The local-hires perform the same services as foreign-hires and
they ought to be paid the same salaries as the latter. For the same reason, the "dislocation factor" and
the foreign-hires' limited tenure also cannot serve as valid bases for the distinction in salary rates. The
dislocation factor and limited tenure affecting foreign-hires are adequately compensated by certain
benefits accorded them which are not enjoyed by local-hires, such as housing, transportation, shipping
costs, taxes and home leave travel allowances.

The Constitution enjoins the State to "protect the rights of workers and promote their welfare," 25 "to
afford labor full protection." 26 The State, therefore, has the right and duty to regulate the relations
between labor and capital. 27These relations are not merely contractual but are so impressed with public
interest that labor contracts, collective bargaining agreements included, must yield to the common
good. 28 Should such contracts contain stipulations that are contrary to public policy, courts will not
hesitate to strike down these stipulations.

In this case, we find the point-of-hire classification employed by respondent School to justify the
distinction in the salary rates of foreign-hires and local hires to be an invalid classification. There is no
reasonable distinction between the services rendered by foreign-hires and local-hires. The practice of
the School of according higher salaries to foreign-hires contravenes public policy and, certainly, does not
deserve the sympathy of this Court.

The petition is given due course. The petition is hereby granted in part. The orders of the Secretary of
Labors are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.

CASE 3

Oposa, et. al and the Philippine Ecological Network Inc. vs. Hon. Factoran, in his capacity as the
Secretary of the DENR

G.R No. 101083, July 30, 1993

Oposa et.al filed a case of misappropriation and/or impairment of the natural resource property through
the refusal of the cancellation of the Timber License Agreement against Factoran on the basis of Article
2, Sec 16 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.

*WON the petitioners have the cause of action to file a case of misappropriation and/or impairment of
natural resources against the respondents.
FACTS:

1. Oposa et.al. filed a petition In a taxpayer’s class suit to order the respondents to cancel all the
timber license agreement in the country and to cease and desist from receiving, accepting,
renewing or approving new timber license agreements.
2. Sec. Factoran filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint. 1) plaintiffs have no cause of action
against him. 2) issue raised is a political question which properly pertains to the legislative or
executive branch of the government.
3. The petitioners filed an Opposition to the motion maintaining 1) the complaint shows a clear
and unmistakable cause of action 2) motion is dilatory 3) the action presents a justifiable
question as it involves the defendants abuse of discretion.
4. The Respondent Judge sustained the motion to dismiss the petition and further ruled that
granting the petition would result in the impairment of contracts which is prohibited by the
fundamental law of the land.