DOTIMAS, CHRISTOPHER JAN

PIL (ASSIGNMENT #1-DIGEST)

GONZALES v. HECHANOVA
G.R. No. L-21897
October 22, 1963

FACTS:

The Executive Secretary authorized the importation of 67,000 tons of foreign rice to be purchased from
private sources, and created a rice procurement committee for the implementation of said proposed
importation. Ramon A. Gonzales filed the petition herein, averring that the respondent is acting without
jurisdiction or excess in jurisdiction in making or attempting to made said importation of foreign rice
because Republic Act No. 3452 which allegedly repeals or amends Republic Act No. 220.

RA No. 220 explicitly prohibits the importation of rice and corn of the Rice and Corn Administration or
any other government agency; They also added that petitioner has no other plain, speedy and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law; and that a preliminary injunction is necessary for the preservation
of the rights of the parties during the pendency this case and to prevent the judgment therein from
coming ineffectual. Hence, Petitioner prayed that said petition be given due course; that a writ of
preliminary injunction be forthwith issued restraining respondent their agents or representatives from
implementing the decision of the Executive Secretary to import the aforementioned foreign rice; and
that, after due hearing, judgment be rendered making said injunction permanent.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the Government of the Philippines having entered into two (2) contracts for the
Purchase of rice, one with the Republic of Vietnam, and another with the Government of Burma;
constitute valid executive agreements under international law;

2. Whether or not such agreements became binding effective upon the signing thereof by
representatives the parties thereto;

3. Whether or not in case of conflict between Republic Acts Nos. 2207 and 3452 on the one hand,
and aforementioned contracts, on the other, the latter should prevail.

4. Whether or not the Supreme Court can interfere on the acts of the Executive relative to foreign
relations;

5. Whether or not the Government of the Philippines having already paid the price of the rice
already consummated the contract;
 RULING:

1.

No. The Court stated that the parties to said contracts do not pear to have regarded the same as
executive agreements.

Even assuming that said contracts may properly considered as executive agreements, the same are
unlawful, as well as null and void, from a constitutional viewpoint, said agreements being inconsistent
with the provisions of Republic Acts Nos. 2207 and 3452.

2.

No, such agreement will not be binding because the President has no power to do so.

Although the President may enter into executive agreements without previous legislative authority, he
may not, by executive agreement, enter into a transaction which is prohibited by statutes enacted prior
thereto.

Under the Constitution, the main function of the Executive is to enforce laws enacted by Congress. The
former may not interfere in the performance of the legislative powers of the latter, except in the
exercise of his veto power. He may not defeat legislative enactments that have acquired the status of
law, by indirectly repealing the same through an executive agreement providing for the performance of
the very act prohibited by said laws.

3.

In the event of conflict between a treaty and a statute, the one which is latest in point of time shall
prevail, is not applicable to the case at bar.

Respondents, herein, not only admit, but also insist that the contracts adverted to are not treaties. The
American Theory may be justified upon the ground that treaties to which the United States is signatory
require the advice and consent of its Senate, and, hence, of a branch of the legislative department. No
such justification can be given as regards executive agreements not authorized by previous legislation,
without completely upsetting the principle of separation of powers and the system of checks and
balances which are fundamental in our constitutional set up and that of the United States.

4.

Yes, the Supreme Court can interfere on the acts of the Executive relative to foreign relations. An
international agreement may be invalidated by our courts.

The Constitution of the Philippines has provided in Section 2 of Article VIII that the Supreme Court may
not be deprived of its jurisdiction to review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal, certiorari, or
writ of error as the law or the rules of court may provide, final judgments and decrees of inferior courts
in all cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, law, ordinance, or executive order or
regulation is in question.
In other words, our Constitution authorizes the nullification of a treaty, not only when it conflicts with
the fundamental law, but, also, when it runs counter to an act of Congress.

5.

No, the contract has not yet consummated because the said act of importation was illegal. Hence, null
and void.

Republic Act No. 2207 enjoins our Government not from entering into contracts for the purchase of rice,
but from importing rice, except under the conditions Prescribed in said Act. Upon the other hand,
Republic Act No. 3452 has two (2) main features, namely: (a) it requires the Government to purchase
rice and corn directly from our local planters, growers or landowners; and (b) it prohibits importations of
rice by the Government, and leaves such importations to private parties.

Though, a judicial declaration of illegality of the proposed importation would not compel our
Government to default in the performance of such obligations as it may have contracted with the sellers
of the rice in question, because, aside from the fact that said obligations may be complied with without
importing the commodity into the Philippines, the proposed importation may still be legalized by
complying with the provisions of the aforementioned laws.

TANADA v. TUVERA
G.R. No. 118295
May 2, 1997

FACTS:

President Ramos ratified the WTO Agreement with the goal of improving Philippine access to foreign
markets, especially its major trading partners, through the reduction of tariffs on its exports, particularly
agricultural and industrial products. Senator Tanada, together with other lawmakers, taxpayers, and
various NGO’s to nullify the Philippine ratification of the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement.

Petitioners believe that this will be detrimental to the growth of our National Economy and against to
the “Filipino First” policy. The WTO opens access to foreign markets, especially its major trading
partners, through the reduction of tariffs on its exports, particularly agricultural and industrial products.
Thus, provides new opportunities for the service sector cost and uncertainty associated with exporting
and more investment in the country. These are the predicted benefits as reflected in the agreement and
as viewed by the signatory Senators, a “free market” espoused by WTO.

Petitioners also contends that it is in conflict with the provisions of our constitution, since the said
Agreement is an assault on the sovereign powers of the Philippines because it meant that Congress
could not pass legislation that would be good for national interest and general welfare if such legislation
would not conform to the WTO Agreement.
 ISSUE:

(1) Whether or not the 1987 Constitution prohibit our country from participating in worldwide
trade liberalization and economic globalization and from integrating into a global economy that
is liberalized, deregulated and privatized.

RULING:

No, the 1987 Constitution does not prohibit our country from participating in worldwide trade
liberalization and economic globalization and from integrating into a global economy that is liberalized,
deregulated and privatized.

The Constitution did not intend to pursue an isolationist policy. It did not shut out foreign investments,
goods and services in the development of the Philippine economy. While the Constitution does not
encourage the unlimited entry of foreign goods, services and investments into the country, it does not
prohibit them either. 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.

Moreover, 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,” thereby justifying its acceptance of said
treaty. So too, 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.

What the Senate did was a valid exercise of its authority. As to whether such exercise was wise,
beneficial or viable is outside the realm of judicial inquiry and review. That is a matter between the
elected policy makers and the people. As to whether the nation should join the worldwide march
toward trade liberalization and economic globalization is a matter that our people should determine in
electing their policy makers.

PIMENTEL v. OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

G.R. No. 158088
July 6, 2005

FACTS:

The Rome Statute established the International Criminal Court. The Statute was opened for signature by
all states in Rome on July 17, 1998 and had remained open for signature until December 31, 2000. The
Philippines signed the Statute on December 28, 2000 through Charge d' Affairs Enrique A. Manalo of the
Philippine Mission to the United Nations. Its provisions, however, require that it be subject to
ratification, acceptance or approval of the signatory states.
Petitioner filed a Petition for Mandamus to compel the Office of the Executive Secretary and the
Department of Foreign Affairs to transmit the ratified copy of the Rome Statute of the International
Criminal Court to the Senate of the Philippines for its concurrence in accordance with Section 21, Article
VII of the 1987 Constitution.

Petitioners contended that the 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.

The OSG 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 Secretary and the Department of Foreign Affairs have a ministerial duty to
transmit to the Senate the copy of the Rome Statute signed by a member of the Philippine Mission to
the United Nations even without the signature of the President.

RULING:

No, the Executive Secretary and the DFA have no ministerial duty.

In our system of government, 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. In our
system of government, 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. 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.

Executive Order No. 459 issued by President Fidel V. Ramos on November 25, 1997 provides the
guidelines in the negotiation of international agreements and its ratification. It mandates that after the
treaty has been signed by the Philippine representative, the same shall be transmitted to the
Department of Foreign Affairs. The Department of Foreign Affairs shall then prepare the ratification
papers and forward the signed copy of the treaty to the President for ratification. After the President
has ratified the treaty, the Department of Foreign Affairs shall submit the same to the Senate for
concurrence. Upon receipt of the concurrence of the Senate, the Department of Foreign Affairs shall
comply with the provisions of the treaty to render it effective.
 Pharmaceutical and Health Care Assn. of the Philippines (PHAP) v. Health Secretary
G.R. No. 173034
October 9, 2007

FACTS:

Executive Order No. 51 (Milk Code) was issued by President Corazon Aquino on October 28, 1986 by
virtue of the legislative powers granted to the president under the Freedom Constitution. In 1990, the
Philippines ratified the International Convention on the Rights of the Child. Article 24 of said instrument
provides that State Parties should take appropriate measures to diminish infant and child mortality, and
ensure that all segments of society, specially parents and children, are informed of the advantages of
breastfeeding. The DOH issued herein assailed RIRR which was to take effect on July 7, 2006.

Petitioner, representing its members that are manufacturers of breastmilk substitutes, filed the present
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order
(TRO) or Writ of Preliminary Injunction. They raised the issue in the petition is whether Respondents
officers of the DOH acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and in violation of the provisions of the Constitution in
promulgating the RIRR. The Court issued a Resolution granting a TRO enjoining respondent from
implementing the questioned RIRR.

ISSUES:

Whether pertinent international agreements entered into by the Philippines are part of the law of the
land and may be implemented by the DOH through the RIRR; If in the affirmative, whether the RIRR is in
accord with the international agreements.

RULING:

International law can become part of the sphere of domestic law either by transformation or
incorporation. The transformation method requires that an international law be transformed into a
domestic law through a constitutional mechanism such as local legislation. The incorporation method
applies when, by mere constitutional declaration, international law is deemed to have the force of
domestic law. The provisions of the WHA Resolutions cannot be considered as part of the law of the
land that can be implemented by executive agencies without the need of a law enacted by the
legislature. Legislation is necessary to transform the provisions of the WHA Resolutions into domestic
law. It was likewise stated that the ICMBS and WHA Resolutions are not treaties as they have not been
concurred in by at least two-thirds of all members of the Senate as required under Section 21, Article VII
of the 1987 Constitution.

However, the ICMBS which was adopted by the WHA in 1981 had been transformed into domestic law
through local legislation, the Milk Code. Consequently, it is the Milk Code that has the force and effect of
law in this jurisdiction and not the ICMBS per se. The Milk Code is almost a verbatim reproduction of the
ICMBS, but it is well to emphasize at this point that the Code did not adopt the provision in the ICMBS
absolutely prohibiting advertising or other forms of promotion to the general public of products within
the scope of the ICMBS. Instead, the Milk Code expressly provides that advertising, promotion, or other
marketing materials may be allowed if such materials are duly authorized and approved by the Inter-
Agency Committee (IAC).

Apparently, the WHA Resolution adopting the ICMBS and subsequent WHA Resolutions urging member
states to implement the ICMBS are merely recommendatory and legally non-binding. In view of the
enactment of the Milk Code which does not contain a total ban on the advertising and promotion of
breastmilk substitutes, but instead, specifically creates an IAC which will regulate said advertising and
promotion, it follows that a total ban policy could be implemented only pursuant to a law amending the
Milk Code passed by the constitutionally authorized branch of government, the legislature. Thus, only
the provisions of the Milk Code, but not those of subsequent WHA Resolutions, can be validly
implemented by the DOH through the subject RIRR.