1) D, the Ambassador of the Kingdom of Nepal to the Philippines, leased a house in Baguio City as his personal vacation home.

On
account of military disturbance in Nepal, D did not receive his salary and allowances from his government and so he failed to pay his
rentals for more than a year. E, the lessor, filed an action for recovery of his property with the RTC of Baguio.

a. Can the action prosper?

Yes. The action can prosper. An ambassador does not enjoy immunity from civil and administrative jurisdiction in the case of a real action
relating to private immovable property situated in the territory of the receiving State, unless he holds it on behalf of the sending State for
the purposes of the mission. In this case, D leased the hose as his personal vacation home.
b. Can E ask for the attachment of the furniture and other personal properties of D after getting hold of evidence that D is about
to leave the country?
No. E cannot ask for attachment. The properties of an Ambassador shall be inviolable. Furthermore, Section 4 of RA No. 75 states that any
writ or process whereby the person of any ambassador or public minister of any foreign State, authorized and received as such by President,
or any domestic or domestic servant of any such ambassador or minister is arrested or imprisoned, or his goods or chattels are distrained,
seized, or attached, shall be deemed void.
c. Can E ask the court to stop D’s departure from the Philippines?
No. E cannot stop the departure of the Ambassador. The person of a diplomatic agent shall be inviolable. He shall not be liable to any form
of arrest or detention.

2) The US Ambassador to the Philippines and the American Consul General also in the Philippines quarreled in the Ilocos Norte
Convention Center and shot each other. A Filipina was injured in the process. May the Philippine courts take jurisdiction over them for
trial and punishment for the crime they may have committed?
Philippine Courts may take jurisdiction against the American Consul General but not against the US Ambassador.
Consuls are not immune from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State. The immunity of consuls from the jurisdiction of the judicial or
administrative authorities of the receiving State under Article 43 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations applies only in respect of acts
performed in the exercise of consular functions and it does not extend to criminal acts. With respect to the criminal prosecution, the immunity of
consuls is limited only to their freedom from arrest or detention pending trial, except in case of a grave crime and pursuant to a decision by the
competent judicial authority.
Under the Vienna Convention, if criminal proceedings are instituted against a consular officer, he must appear before the competent authorities.
Nevertheless, the proceedings shall be conducted with the respect due to him by reason of his official position and except in the case of a grave
crime, in a manner which will hamper the exercise of consular functions as little as possible and when it has become necessary to detain a
consular officer, the proceedings against him shall be instituted with the minimum of delay.
As to the Ambassador, a diplomatic agent shall enjoy immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State. However, this does not
mean that he would be free from the jurisdiction of his own State.

3) A consul accredited to the Republic of the Philippines was caught flagrante delicto in Manila. He was arrested and detained, and a writ
of Habeas Corpus was filed in his behalf. Should the writ be granted or denied?
If the prosecution is for a commission of a grave crime, then the writ of Habeas Corpus should be denied. Under Article 41 of the Vienna
Convention on Consular Relations, the immunity of a consul from arrest and detention pending trail does not apply to grave crimes.
However, if the prosecution is not for the commission of a grave crime, then the writ of Habeas Corpus should be granted. While a consul is not
immune from the criminal prosecution of the receiving State, he is however immune from arrest and detention pending trial for crimes that are
not considered grave.

4) Who may waive the privileges and immunities of consular officers and employees? Reasons.
The sending State may waive, with regard to a member of the consular post, any of the privileges and immunities afforded to the latter. The
waiver shall in all cases be express and shall be communicated to the receiving State in writing. However, the initiation of proceedings by a
consular officer or a consular employee in a matter where he might enjoy immunity from jurisdiction shall preclude him from invoking
immunity from jurisdiction in respect of any counterclaim directly connected with the principal claim.

5) Differentiate extradition and deportation.

Extradition means the surrender by force of a wanted person by the requested Stated to the requesting State, while deportation is the
expulsion of an unwanted or undesirable alien.

Extradition may only be made pursuant to a treaty between the requesting State and the requested State, but deportation is a pure unilateral
act and an exercise of sovereignty.

Extradition is for the benefit of the requesting State, but deportation takes place in the interest of the country of residence and is ordered
without a request by a third State.

6) A Japanese woman came to the Philippines and was admitted as a transient. It was found a few days later that her passport was forged.
Deportation proceedings were then started against her. Ten days later, she married a Filipino. Could she still be subject to deportation?
No. The SC held in the case of Moya Lim Yao vs. Commissioner of Immigration (41 SCRA 292) that notwithstanding Sec 15, CA 473, an
alien woman marrying a Filipino, native-born or naturalized, becomes ipso facto a Filipina provided she is not disqualified to be a citizen of
the Philippines. It is considered the civil rights and consequences of marriage.

Aliens who after coming into the Philippines as temporary visitors and legitimately become Filipino citizens has the right to stay in the
Philippines permanently or not, as they may choose, and if they elect to reside here, the immigration authorities may neither deport them
nor confiscate their bonds. This is because our country should not kick-out its own citizens.
7) The Extradition Treaty between France and the Philippines is silent as to its applicability with respect to crimes committed prior to its
effectivity.

a) Can France demand the extradition of A, a French national residing in the Philippines, for an offense committed in France prior to
the effectivity of the treaty?
Yes. An extradition treaty may apply to crimes committed prior to its effectivity unless the treaty expressly exempts them.

b) Can A contest his extradition on the ground that it violates the ex post facto provision of the Philippine Constitution?
No. The concept of ex post facto law is limited only to penal and criminal statutes that affect the substantial rights of the accused. An
extradition treaty is neither a piece of criminal legislation nor a criminal procedural statute. It merely provides for the extradition of persons
wanted for prosecution of an offense or a crime which offense or crime was already committed or consummated at the time the treaty was
ratified.

8) The generally accepted bases of jurisdiction or theories under which a state ay claim to have jurisdiction or prescribe a rule of law over
an activity.
a) Territoriality
a. Subjective – if an activity takes place within the territory of the forum state, then the forum state has the jurisdiction to
prescribe a rule for that activity.
b. Objective – this is invoked where the action takes place outside the territory of the forum state, but the primary effect of that
activity is within the forum state.

b) Nationality
a. Active Nationality – The basis for jurisdiction where the forum state asserts the right to prescribe a law for an action based
on the nationality of the actor.
b. Passive – A theory based on the nationality of the victim.

c) Protective Principle – A State my exercise jurisdiction over conduct outside its territory that threatens its security, as long as that
conduct is generally recognized as criminal by States in the international community.
d) Universality Principle – Certain activities that are universally dangerous to State and their subject, require authority in all community
members to punish acts wherever they may occur, even absent a link between the State and the parties or the acts in question.

9) Privileges and Immunities of Diplomatic Missions

a. The right to use the flag and emblem of the sending State on the premises of the mission
b. Premises of the mission shall be inviolable.
c. Exemption from all national, regional, or municipal dues ad taxes in respect of the premises of the mission, whether owned or leased.
d. Archives and documents of mission shall be inviolable at any time and wherever they may be.
e. Receiving State shall permit and protect free communication on the part of the mission for all official purposes.
f. Official correspondence shall be inviolable.
g. Diplomatic bag shall not be opened or detained.
h. Fees and charges levied by the mission in the course of its official duties shall be exempt from all dues and taxes.

10) May a State invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty?
No. A State may not invoke the fact that its consent to be bound by a treaty has been expressed in violation of a provision of its internal law
regarding competence to conclude treaties as invalidating its consent unless that violation was manifest and concerned a rule of its internal law
of fundamental importance (Art. 46, Vienna Convention).