Nyl John Caesar A.

Genobiagon Public International Law

Atty. Burt Pades Case Digests
G.R. No. L-2662 March 26, 1949
SHIGENORI KURODA, petitioner,
vs.
Major General RAFAEL JALANDONI, Brigadier General CALIXTO DUQUE, Colonel
MARGARITO TORALBA, Colonel IRENEO BUENCONSEJO, Colonel PEDRO
TABUENA, Major FEDERICO ARANAS, MELVILLE S. HUSSEY and ROBERT PORT,
respondents.
Pedro Serran, Jose G. Lukban, and Liberato B. Cinco for petitioner.
Fred Ruiz Castro Federico Arenas Mariano Yengco, Jr., Ricardo A. Arcilla and S. Melville
Hussey for respondents.

Facts:
Shigenori Kuroda, formerly a Lieutenant-General of the Japanese Imperial Army and
Commanding General of the Japanese Imperial Forces in The Philippines during a period covering
19433 and 19444 who is now charged before a military Commission convened by the Chief of
Staff of the Armed forces of the Philippines with having unlawfully disregarded and failed "to
discharge his duties as such command, permitting them to commit brutal atrocities and other high
crimes against noncombatant civilians and prisoners of the Imperial Japanese Forces in violation
of the laws and customs of war" — comes before this Court seeking to establish the illegality of
Executive Order No. 68 of the President of the Philippines: to enjoin and prohibit respondents
Melville S. Hussey and Robert Port from participating in the prosecution of petitioner's case before
the Military Commission and to permanently prohibit respondents from proceeding with the case
of petitioners.

Issue:
Whether or not that Executive Order No. 68 is illegal on the ground that it violates not only
the provision of our constitutional law but also our local laws to say nothing of the fact (that) the
Philippines is not a signatory nor an adherent to the Hague Convention on Rules and Regulations
covering Land Warfare and therefore petitioners is charged of 'crimes' not based on law, national
and international.

Ratio:
No. In accordance with the generally accepted principle of international law of the present
day including the Hague Convention the Geneva Convention and significant precedents of
international jurisprudence established by the United Nations all those persons military or civilian
who have been guilty of planning preparing or waging a war of aggression and of the commission
of crimes and offenses consequential and incidental thereto in violation of the laws and customs
of war, of humanity and civilization are held accountable therefor. Consequently in the
promulgation and enforcement of Execution Order No. 68 the President of the Philippines has
acted in conformity with the generally accepted and policies of international law which are part of
our Constitution.
 G.R. No. L-129 December 19, 1945
TOMOYUKI YAMASHITA, petitioner,
vs.
WILHELM D. STYER, Commanding General, United States Army Forces, Western
Pacific, respondent.
Col. Harry E. Clarke and Lt. Col. Walter C. Hendrix for petitioner.
Maj. Robert M. Kerr for respondent.
Delgado, Dizon, Flores and Rodrigo appeared as amici curiae.

Facts:
Tomoyuki Yamashita, erstwhile commanding general of the 14th army group of the
Japanese Imperial Army in the Philippines, and now charged before an American Military
Commission with the most monstrous crimes ever committed against the American and Filipino
peoples, comes to this Court with a petition for habeas corpus and prohibition against Lt. Gen.
Wilhelm D. Styer, Commanding General of the United States Army Forces, Western Pacific. It is
alleged therein that petitioner after his surrender became a prisoner of war of the United States of
America but was later removed from such status and placed in confinement as an accused war
criminal charged before an American Military Commission constituted by respondent Lieutenant
General Styer; and he now asks that he be reinstated to his former status as prisoner of war, and
that the Military Commission be prohibited from further trying him.

Issue:
Whether or not that Spain, the "protecting power" of Japan, has not been given notice of
the implementing trial against petitioner, contrary to the provisions of the Geneva Convention of
July 27, 1892, and therefore, the Military Commission has no jurisdiction to try the petitioner.

Ratio:
No. It is maintained that Spain, the "protecting power" of Japan, has not been given notice
before trial was begun against petitioner, contrary to the provisions of the Geneva Convention of
July 27, 1929. But there is nothing in that Convention showing that notice is a prerequisite to the
jurisdiction of Military Commissions appointed by victorious belligerent. Upon the other hand, the
unconditional surrender of Japan and her acceptance of the terms of the Potsdam Ultimatum are a
clear waiver of such a notice. It may be stated, furthermore, that Spain has severed her diplomatic
relation of Japan because of atrocities committed by the Japanese troops against Spaniards in the
Philippines. Apparently, therefore, Spain has ceased to be the protecting power of Japan.
 [G.R. No. 139465. January 18, 2000]
SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, petitioner, vs. HON. RALPH C. LANTION, Presiding
Judge, Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 25, and MARK B. JIMENEZ, respondents.
Facts:
On November 13, 1994, then Secretary of Justice Franklin M. Drilon, representing the
Government of the Republic of the Philippines, signed in Manila the "Extradition Treaty Between the
Government of the Republic of the Philippines and the Government of the United States of America"
(hereinafter referred to as the RP-US Extradition Treaty). The Senate, by way of Resolution No. 11,
expressed its concurrence in the ratification of said treaty. It also expressed its concurrence in the
Diplomatic Notes correcting Paragraph (5)(a), Article 7 thereof (on the admissibility of the documents
accompanying an extradition request upon certification by the principal diplomatic or consular officer
of the requested state resident in the Requesting State).
On June 18, 1999, the Department of Justice received from the Department of Foreign Affairs
U. S. Note Verbale No. 0522 containing a request for the extradition of private respondent Mark
Jimenez to the United States. Attached to the Note Verbale were the Grand Jury Indictment, the warrant
of arrest issued by the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, and other supporting documents
for said extradition. Based on the papers submitted, private respondent appears to be charged in the
United States with violation of the following provisions of the United States Code (USC).
On the same day, petitioner issued Department Order No. 249 designating and authorizing a
panel of attorneys to take charge of and to handle the case pursuant to Section 5(1) of Presidential
Decree No. 1069. Accordingly, the panel began with the "technical evaluation and assessment" of the
extradition request and the documents in support thereof. The panel found that the "official English
translation of some documents in Spanish were not attached to the request and that there are some other
matters that needed to be addressed" (p. 15, Rollo). Calrky
Pending evaluation of the aforestated extradition documents, private respondent, through
counsel, wrote a letter dated July 1, 1999 addressed to petitioner requesting copies of the official
extradition request from the U. S. Government, as well as all documents and papers submitted
therewith; and that he be given ample time to comment on the request after he shall have received
copies of the requested papers. Private respondent also requested that the proceedings on the matter be
held in abeyance in the meantime.
Later, private respondent requested that preliminarily, he be given at least a copy of, or access
to, the request of the United States Government, and after receiving a copy of the Diplomatic Note, a
period of time to amplify on his request.
In response to private respondents July 1, 1999 letter, petitioner, in a reply-letter dated July 13,
1999 (but received by private respondent only on August 4, 1999), denied the foregoing requests.

Issue:
Whether or not private respondents entitlement 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-Extradition Treaty.

Ratio:
No. 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).
 BAYAN MUNA, as represented by Rep. SATUR OCAMPO, Rep. CRISPIN BELTRAN, and
Rep. LIZA L. MAZA,
vs
ALBERTO ROMULO, in his capacity as Executive Secretary, and BLAS F. OPLE, in his
capacity as Secretary of Foreign Affairs,
Respondents
G.R. No. 159618 February 1, 2011
Facts:
On May 9, 2003, then Ambassador Francis J. Ricciardone sent US Embassy Note No. 0470 to
the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) proposing the terms of the non-surrender bilateral agreement
(Agreement, hereinafter) between the USA and the RP.
Via Exchange of Notes No. BFO-028-03[7] dated May 13, 2003 (E/N BFO-028-03,
hereinafter), the RP, represented by then DFA Secretary Ople, agreed with and accepted the US
proposals embodied under the US Embassy Note adverted to and put in effect the Agreement with the
US government. In esse, the Agreement aims to protect what it refers to and defines as persons of the
RP and US from frivolous and harassment suits that might be brought against them in international
tribunals.[8] It is reflective of the increasing pace of the strategic security and defense partnership
between the two countries. As of May 2, 2003, similar bilateral agreements have been effected by and
between the US and 33 other countries.

Issue:
Whether or not the RP-US Non Surrender Agreement is void ab initio for contracting
obligations that are either immoral or otherwise at variance with universally recognized principles of
international law.

Ratio:
No. It is fairly clear from the foregoing disquisition that E/N BFO-028-03 be it viewed as the
Non-Surrender Agreement itself, or as an integral instrument of acceptance thereof or as consent to be
bound is a recognized mode of concluding a legally binding international written contract among
nations.
 G.R. No. L-7995 May 31, 1957
LAO H. ICHONG, in his own behalf and in behalf of other alien residents, corporations
and partnerships adversely affected. by Republic Act No. 1180, petitioner,
vs.
JAIME HERNANDEZ, Secretary of Finance, and MARCELINO SARMIENTO, City
Treasurer of Manila, respondents.
Facts:
This Court has before it the delicate task of passing upon the validity and constitutionality of a
legislative enactment (R.A. No. 1180), fundamental and far-reaching in significance. The enactment
poses questions of due process, police power and equal protection of the laws. It also poses an
important issue of fact, that is whether the conditions which the disputed law purports to remedy really
or actually exist. Admittedly springing from a deep, militant, and positive nationalistic impulse, the
law purports to protect citizen and country from the alien retailer. Through it, and within the field of
economy it regulates, Congress attempts to translate national aspirations for economic independence
and national security, rooted in the drive and urge for national survival and welfare, into a concrete
and tangible measures designed to free the national retailer from the competing dominance of the alien,
so that the country and the nation may be free from a supposed economic dependence and bondage.

Issue:
Whether or not R.A. 1180 violated thereby the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations
and of the Declaration of the Human Rights adopted by the United Nations General Assembly.

Ratio:
We find no merit in the Nations Charter imposes no strict or legal obligations regarding the
rights and freedom of their subjects (Hans Kelsen, The Law of the United Nations, 1951 ed. pp. 29-
32), and the Declaration of Human Rights contains nothing more than a mere recommendation or a
common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations (Id. p. 39.) That such is the import of
the United Nations Charter aid of the Declaration of Human Rights can be inferred the fact that
members of the United Nations Organizations, such as Norway and Denmark, prohibit foreigners from
engaging in retail trade, and in most nations of the world laws against foreigners engaged in domestic
trade are adopted.
 August 15, 1961
IN RE: PETITION OF ARTURO EFREN GARCIA for admission to the Philippine Bar
without taking the examination. ARTURO EFREN GARCIA, petitioner.

Facts:
Arturo E. Garcia has applied for admission to the practice of law in the Philippines without
submitting to the required bar examinations. In his verified petition, he avers, among others, that he is
a Filipino citizen born in Bacolod City, Province of Negros Occidental, of Filipino parentage; that he
had taken and finished in Spain, the course of "Bachillerato Superior"; that he was approved, 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"; that thereafter he
was allowed to practice the law profession in Spain; 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, he is entitled to practice the law profession in the Philippines without submitting to the
required bar examinations.

Issue:
Whether or not petitioner may benefit from the Treaty of Academic Degrees and the Exercise
of Professions between the Republic of the Philippines and the Spanish state.

Ratio:
No. The aforementioned Treaty, 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, 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 lower to repeal, alter or supplement such rules being reserved
only to the Congress of the Philippines. (See Sec. 13, Art VIII, Phil. Constitution).