Module 1: General principles of international law

1. Kuroda vs. Jalandoni

● Kuroda, the Commanding General of the Japanese Imperial Forces in the Philippines
during the Japanese occupation, was charged before the Philippine Military
Commission of war crimes.
● He questioned the constitutionality of E.O. No. 68 that created the National War
Crimes Office and prescribed rules on the trial of accused war criminals.
● He contended the Philippines is not a signatory to the Hague Convention on Rules
and Regulations covering Land Warfare and therefore he is charged of crimes not
based on law, national and international.
I: W/N EO 68 is unconstitutional.
R: EO 68 is valid and constitutional.
Art. 2 Sec. 3 of 1987 Constitution: “The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of
national policy and adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as a part of
the law of the nation.”
In accordance with generally accepted principle of international law including the Hague
Convention, Geneva Convention and other international jurisprudence established by United
Nations, all those persons, military or civilian, who have been guilty of planning, preparing or
waging war of aggression and of commission of crimes and offenses consequential and
incidental thereto, in violation of law and customs of war, of humanity and civilization, are
held accountable.
The rules and regulations of convention forms part of and are wholly based on generally
accepted principles of international law.
● These rules and principles were accepted by 2 belligerent nations, US & JAPAN—
signatories to the 2 conventions.
When the petitioner was charged, PH was under the sovereignty of US and thus were
equally bound together w US and Japan.
● Rights and obligations were not erased by assumption of full sovereignty.
● Full sovereignty entitles us to enforce the right, on our own, of trying and punishing
those who committed crimes against our people.
These rules form part of the law of the land even if the PH was not a signatory to the
conventions because our Constitution has been deliberately general and extensive in its
scope and not confined to the recognition of rule and principle of international law as
continued in treaties to which our government may have been or shall be a signatory.
I: W/N the participation of attorneys Hussey and Port is a diminution of our personality as an
independent state and their appointment is a violation of our Constitution.
R: No. Respondent Military Commission is a special military tribunal governed by special
law and not by the Rules of Court which govern ordinary civil court. There is nothing in EO
68 which requires that counsel appearing before said commission must be attorneys
qualified to practice law in the Philippines in accordance with the Rules of Court.
Appointment of 2 American lawyers is not violative of the nation’s sovereignty.

2. Co Kim Chan v. Valdez Tan Keh

● Respondent Judge refused to take cognizance of and continue the proceedings in
petitioner’s civil case on the ground that the proclamation issued on October 23,
1944, by General Douglas MacArthur had the effect of invalidating and nullifying all
judicial proceedings and judgments of the court of the Philippines under the
Philippine Executive Commission and the Republic of the Philippines established
 during the Japanese military occupation, and that, furthermore, the lower courts have
no jurisdiction to take cognizance of and continue judicial proceedings pending in the
courts of the defunct Republic of the Philippines in the absence of an enabling law
granting such authority.
I: Whether or not the government established during the Japanese occupation was a
de facto government
R: Yes. Government established was a de facto government.
It is a legal truism, in political and international law that all acts and proceedings of the
legislatives, executive and judicial department of a de facto government are good and valid.
3 kinds of De Facto Government:
a. Government de facto in a proper legal sense – government that gets possession and
control of, or usurps, by force or by the voice of the majority, the rightful legal government
and maintains itself against the will of the latter.
b. Government of paramount force - that which is established and maintained by military
forces who invade and occupy a territory of the enemy in the course of war.
Characteristics:
1. Existence is maintained by active military powers within the territories, and against the
rightful authority of an established and lawful government;
2. It must necessarily be obeyed in civil matters by private citizens
c. That established as an independent government
powers and duties under de facto government during Art 42 Sec 3 of Hague Convention are
the ff:
● The belligerent occupant shall take the steps in his power to re-establish and insure
public order and safety while respecting unless absolutely prevented the laws in force
in the country.
● Belligerent occupant has the right and his burdened by the duty to insure public order
and safety during military occupation.
● He can suspend old laws and promulgate new ones and make changes as he may
see fit.
● He is enjoined to respect municipal laws in force which enforce public order and
regulate the social and commercial life of the country.
● Laws of political nature are considered suspended or in abeyance during military
occupation.
● The occupant may suspend all processes including those under judicial
administration, in practice, the local ordinary tribunals are authorized to continue
administering justice; judges and judicial officers kept their post if they accept the
authority if the belligerent occupant.
Being a de facto government, the judicial acts and proceedings of the courts of justice of
those governments, which are not of political complexion, were good and valid, and, by
virtue of the principle of postliminy (postliminium) in international law, remained good and
valid after the liberation or reoccupation.
According to the principle of postliminy, the fact that a territory which has been occupied by
an enemy comes again into the power of its legitimate government or sovereignty, does not,
except in few cases, wipe out the effects of acts done by an invader, which for one reason or
another it is within his competence to do.
The judicial acts done under his control, if not of a political complexion, remain good.
Otherwise, the whole social life of a community would be paralyzed by an invasion.
I: w/n proclamation of Gen. McArthur invalidated all judgments and judicial acts and
proceedings of the courts.
R: No.
In interpreting the phrase “processes of any other government”
● According to well-known principle of international law that ALL JUDGMENTS AND
JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS WHICH ARE NOT OF A POLITICAL COMPLEXION
WERE GOOD AND VALID BEFORE AND REMAID SO AFTER THE OCCUPIED
TERRITORY HAD COME AGAIN INTO POWER.

● To declare them null and void would be tantamount to suspending in said courts the
rights and action of the nationals of the territory during the military occupation thereof
by the enemy. A law that enjoins a person to do something will not at the same time
empower another to undo the same
I: w/n same courts may continue those proceedings pending in the said courts.
R: Yes.
The invader does not usually take the administration of justice into his own hands, but
continues the ordinary courts or tribunal to administer the laws of the country if not
absolutely prevented.
“law once established continues until changed by some competent legislative power. It is not
changed merely by change of sovereignty. Courts, being a creatures of statutes and their
existence depends upon laws which create and confer upon them their jurisdiction, the same
continues absent any legislative acts repealing such law”
(except in laws that are political in nature)
● Enabling laws or acts providing proceedings will continue and are not required by
mere change of government or sovereignty. They are necessary only in case former
courts are abolished or their jurisdiction changed.

3. Ichong vs. Hernandez

Petitioner is a Chinese merchant who questions the constitutionality of RA 1180 “An Act to
Regulate the Retail Business” on the following grounds:
● It is a violation of the Equal Protection of the Law Clause, denies them of their liberty,
property and due process of law
● It is a violation of the constitutional requirement that a bill’s title must reflect the
subject matter of the same because “regulate” does not really mean “nationalize” and
“prohibit”
● the Act violates International treaties and Laws
I: Whether or not the RA 1180 violates treaty or international obligations
R: No.
The United Nations Charter imposes no strict or legal obligations regarding the rights and
freedom of their subjects; 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.
The Treaty of Amity between the Republic of the Philippines and the Republic of China is
also claimed to be violated by the law in question
● all that the treaty guarantees are equality of treatment to the Chinese nationals upon
the same terms as the nationals of any other country.
 ● But the nationals of China are not discriminated against because nationals of all
other countries, except those of the United States, who are granted special rights by
the Constitution, are all prohibited from engaging in the retail trade.

4. Gonzales v. Hechanova
● Hechanova authorized the importation of 67,000 tons of foreign rice to be purchased
from private sourcers.
● Petitioner argues that 1.) importation of foreign rice was done without jurisdiction or in
excess of jurisdiction because RA 3452, which repealed RA 2207, explicitly prohibits
the importation of rice and corn by the Rice and Corn Administration or any other
government agency. 2.) They contended that the government has already constitute
valid executive agreements with Vietnam and Burma, that in case of conflict between
RA 2207 and 3542, the latter should prevail and the conflict be resolved under the
American jurisprudence.
I: Whether the contracts entered with Vietnam and Burma be considered as an
executive agreement, and thus constitutional.
R: No. The parties to said contracts do not appear to have regarded the same as
executive agreements.
The President may, under the American constitutional system, 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 laws, by indirectly
repealing the same through an executive agreement providing for the performance of the
very act prohibited by said laws.
Although the President may, under the American constitutional system, 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;
Treaties entered into by the President shall be null and void without a prior authorization
from the Senate.

In case of conflict between a treaty and a statute, the one with the latest shall prevail.
I: Whether an international agreement may be invalidated by the Courts.
R: Yes.
According to Section 2 Article 8 of the 1987 Constitution:
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 — (1) All cases in which the constitutionality or
validity of any treaty, law, ordinance, or executive order or regulation is in question".
The alleged consummation of the aforementioned contracts with Vietnam and Burma does
not render the case academic.

5. Mejoff vs. Dir. of Prisons

● Boris Mejoff, an alien was arrested as a Japanese spy, by U. S. Army Counter
Intelligence Corps. and later there was an order for his release.
 ● the Board of Commissioners of Immigration declared that Mejoff had entered the
Philippines illegally in 1944 and ordered that he be deported on the first available
transportation to Russia.
● He was transferred to Cebu Provincial Jail and then Bilibid Prison
● He then filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus on the basis that too long a
detention may justify the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus
I: WON Mejoff should be released from prison pending his deportation
R: Yes.
Foreign nationals, not enemy against whom no charge has been made other than that their
permission to stay has expired, may not indefinitely be kept in detention.
The protection against deprivation of liberty without due process of law and except for crimes
committed against the laws of the land is not limited to Philippine citizens but extends to all
residents, except enemy aliens, regardless of nationality.
Mejoff’s entry into the Philippines was not unlawful; he was brought by the armed and
belligerent forces of a de facto government whose decrees were law during the occupation.
Article 2 Sec. 3 of the Constitution: "adopts the generally accepted principles of international
law as part of the law of Nation."
According to Universal Declaration of HR which the PH is a member, the right to life and
liberty and all other fundamental rights as applied to all human beings were proclaimed.
● It was resolved that “all human beings are born free and equal in degree and rights”
(Art 1)
● "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedom set forth in this Declaration, without
distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other
opinion, nationality or social origin, property, birth, or other status" (Art. 2)
● "Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for
acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the Constitution or by law" (Art.
8); that "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile" (Art. 9)
US vs Nichols: has the power to release from custody an alien who has been detained an
unreasonably long period of time by the Department of Justice after it has become apparent
that although a warrant for his deportation has been issued, the warrant cannot be
effectuated.

6. Paquete v. Habana
● 2 fishing vessels under Spanish flag was caught fishing in Cuba Coast. They were
stopped by squadron and had no knowledge of the existence of war. US navy
condemned the 2 fishing vessel and their cargoes as prizes of war.
I: Whether or not both vessels were unlawfully captured.
R: Yes.
International law is part of our law, and must be ascertained and administered by the courts
of justice of appropriate jurisdiction as often as questions of right depending upon it are duly
presented for their determination.
Where there is not treaty and no controlling executive or legislative act or judicial decisions,
resort must be had to the customs and usage of the nation.
It is an established rule of international law that coast fishing vessels with their implements
and supplies, cargoes and crews (unarmed and pursuing in peaceful of catching and
bringing in fresh fish) are exempt from capture as prize of war.
 ● this rule is one which prize courts, administering the law of nations, are bound to take
judicial notice of, and to give effect to, in the absence of any treaty or other public act
of their own government in relation to the matter.

7. Mijares v. Ranada
● action was bought by 10 filipino citizens representing 10k members who each alleged
having suffered human rights abuses such as arbitrary detention, torture, rape in the
hands of police and military forces during Marcos regime
● Alien Tort act was invoked
● Petitioners filed a complaint w RTC.
● The Estate of Marcos however, filed a MTD alleging the non-payment of the correct
filing fees.
● RTC of Makati dismissed the Complaint stating that the subject matter was capable
of pecuniary estimation as it involved a judgment rendered by a foreign court
ordering the payment of a definite sum of money allowing for the easy determination
of the value of the foreign judgment.
I: Whether or not foreign judgments can be recognized and enforced in the
Philippines
R: Yes.
Foreign judgments are expressly recognized in our jurisprudence subject to the conditions
required and outlined in Sec. 48 Rule 39 of Rules of Civpro for its recognition and
enforcement.
RULES OF COMITY, UTILITY AND CONVENIENCE OF NATIONS have established a
usage among civilized states by which final judgments of foreign courts of competent
jurisdiction are RECIPROCALLY RESPECTED and RENDERED EFFICACIOUS under
certain condition that may vary in different countries. This principle is expressly recognized in
our jurisprudence.
CONDITIONS REQUIRED, as PROCEDURAL RULE, by the Philippines for recognition and
enforcement of a foreign judgment were outlined in Section 48, Rule 39 of the Rules of Civil
Procedure to wit:
Effect of Foreign Judgments. The effect of a judgment of a tribunal of a foreign country,
having jurisdiction to pronounce the judgment is as follows:
● In case of judgment upon a SPECIFIC THING, the judgment is conclusive upon the
TITLE to the thing;
● In case of judgment against a PERSON, the judgment is PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE
of a right between the parties and their successors in interest by a subsequent title;
In either case, the judgment or final order may be repelled by evidence of a want of
jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud or clear mistake of law or fact.
Distinction between a foreign judgment in an action in rem and one in personam
Action in rem the foreign judgment is deemed conclusive upon the title to the thing.
In personam the foreign judgment is PRESUMPTIVE, NOT conclusive, of a right as between
the parties and their successors in interest by a subsequent title
In both cases—the foreign judgment is susceptible to impeachment in our local courts on the
grounds of want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, mistake of law or
fact.
● the party aggrieved by the foreign judgment is entitled to defend against the
enforcement of such decision in the local forum and it is essential that there should
 be an opportunity to challenge the foreign judgment, in order for the Philippine Courts
to properly determine its efficacy.
It is necessary for an action to be filed in order to enforce a foreign judgment, even if such
judgement has conclusive effect as in the case of in rem actions, if only for the purpose of
allowing the losing party an opportunity to challenge the same, and for the court to properly
determine its efficacy.
● The party attacking a foreign judgment has the burden of overcoming the
presumption of its validity.
POLICY OF PRECLUSION: seeks to protect party expectations resulting from previous
litigation; to safeguard against the harassment of defendants; to insure that the task of
courts not be increased by never-ending litigation of the same disputes; and to promote “rest
and quietness”.
● If every judgment of a foreign court were reviewable on merits, then the plaintiff
would be forced back on his/her original cause of action and rendering the previously
concluded litigation immaterial.
No obligatory rule derived from treaties or convention that require the PH to recognize
foreign judgments, or allow a procedure for the enforcement, generally accepted principle of
international law by virtue of incorporation clause, form part of the law of the land even if
they do not derive from treaty obligations.
The classical formulation in international law sees to those customary rules accepted as
binding result from the combination of TWO ELEMENTS:
(a) The established, widespread, and consistent practice on the part of the States; and
(b) A psychological element known as the OPINION JURIS SIVE NECESSITATES (opinion
as to law of necessary). Here, a belief that the practice in question is rendered obligatory by
the existence of a rule of law requiring it.

8. PHARMACEUTICAL AND HEALTH CARE ASSOCIATION OF THE

PHILIPPINESvs. HEALTH SECRETARY FRANCISCO T. DUQUE III
● EO No. 51- Milk Code was issued by Pres. Aquino
● Milk Code states that the law seeks to give effect to Article 112 of the International
Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes (ICMBS), a code adopted by the World
Health Assembly (WHA) in 1981. From 1982 to 2006, the WHA adopted several
Resolutions to the effect that breastfeeding should be supported, promoted and
protected, hence, it should be ensured that nutrition and health claims are not
permitted for breastmilk substitutes.
● DOH issued RIRR which was to take effect on July 7, 2006. a petition for certiorari
seeking to nullify “Milk Code,” assailing that the RIRR was going beyond the
provisions of the Milk Code, thereby amending and expanding the coverage of said
law.
I: Whether or not Administrative Order No. 2006-0012 or the Revised Implementing
Rules and Regulations (RIRR) issued by the Department of Health (DOH) is not
constitutional.
R: Except Sections 4 (f), 11 and 46, the rest of the provisions of the RIRR are in
consonance with the objective, purpose and intent of the Milk Code, constituting reasonable
regulation of an industry which affects public health and welfare and, as such, the rest of the
RIRR do not constitute illegal restraint of trade nor are they violative of the due process
clause of the Constitution
I: Whether or not 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.
R: 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; 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.

WITH REGARD TO THE ISSUE ON WHETHER THE INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS

ENTERED INTO BY THE PHILIPPINES ARE PART OF THE LAW OF THE LAND
● For an international rule to be considered as customary law, it must be established
that such rule is being followed by states because they consider it obligatory to
comply with such rules (opinio juris).
● Respondents failed to establish that the provisions of pertinent WHA
Resolutions are customary international law that may be deemed part of the
law of the land
● legislation is necessary to transform the provisions of the WHA Resolutions into
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.

WITH REGARD TO DOH'S IMPLEMENTATION OF THE WHA RESOLUTIONS BY VIRTUE

OF ITS POWERS AND FUNCTIONS UNDER THE REVISED ADMINISTRATIVE CODE
EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF A DOMESTIC LAW:
● Section 3, Chapter 1, Title IX of the Revised Administrative Code of 1987 provides
that the DOH shall define the national health policy and implement a national health
plan within the framework of the government's general policies and plans, and issue
orders and regulations concerning the implementation of established health policies.
● nowhere in A.O. No. 2005-0014 is it declared that as part of such health
policy, the advertisement or promotion of breastmilk substitutes should be
absolutely prohibited. The national policy of protection, promotion and support
of breastfeeding cannot automatically be equated with a total ban on
advertising for breastmilk substitutes.
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 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

9. Colombia v. Peru
● Peru issued an arrest warrant against Victor Raul Haya de la Torre “in respect of the
crime of military rebellion”
● 3 months after the rebellion, Torre fled to the Colombian Embassy in Lima, Peru
● Colombian Ambassador confirmed that Torre was granted diplomatic asylum.
● Ambassador also stated Colombia had qualified Torre as a political refugee in
accordance with Article 2 Montevideo Convention on Political Asylum of 1933
● Peru refused to accept the unilateral qualification and refused to grant safe passage.
I: Whether or not Colombia is competent, as the country that grants asylum, to
unilaterally qualify the offence for the purpose of asylum under treaty law and
international law
R: No.
There was no expressed or implied right of unilateral and definitive qualification of the state
that grants asylum under the Havana Convention or relevant principles of international law.
Montevideo Convention of 1933 which accepts rights of unilateral qualification was not
ratified by Peru.
● It was not binding on Peru and based on low numbers of ratifications—it cannot be
said to reflect customary international law.
International custom: referred to evidence of a general practice accepted by law.
● The party which relies on a custom of this kind must prove that this custom is
established in such a manner that it has become binding on the other party.
I: Whether or not Peru, as the territorial State, was bound to give a guarantee of safe
passage.
R: No. There was no legal obligation on Peru to grant safe passage either because of the
Havana Convention or customary law.
In the case of the Havana Convention, a plain reading of Article 2 results in an obligation on
the territorial state (Peru) to grant safe passage only after it requests the asylum granting
State (Colombia) to send the person granted asylum outside its national territory (Peru).
I: Whether or not Colombia violated Article 1 and 2 (2) of the Convention on Asylum of
1928 (hereinafter called the Havana Convention) when it granted asylum and is the
continued maintenance of asylum a violation of the treaty.
R:
Art 1- No. Torre’s accusation related to a military rebellion, which the court concluded was
not a common crime and as such the granting of asylum complied with Article 1 of the
Convention.
Article 1 of the Havana Convention states that “It is not permissible for States to grant
asylum… to persons accused or condemned for common crimes… (such persons) shall be
surrendered upon request of the local government.”
Art. 2 Yes. In this case, including the 3 months that passed between the rebellion and the
time when asylum was sought, did not establish the urgency criteria in this case
Article 2 (2) of the Havana Convention states that “Asylum granted to political offenders in
legations, warships, military camps or military aircraft, shall be respected to the extent in
which allowed, as a right or through humanitarian toleration, by the usages, the conventions
or the laws of the country in which granted and in accordance with the following provisions:
First: Asylum may not be granted except in urgent cases and for the period of time strictly
indispensable for the person who has sought asylum to ensure in some other way his
safety.”
● An essential pre-requisite for the granting of asylum is the urgency or, in other words,
the presence of “an imminent or persistence of a danger for the person of the
refugee”
● Asylum may be granted on “humanitarian grounds to protect political prisoners
against the violent and disorderly action of irresponsible sections of the population
● Torre was not in such a situation at the time when he sought refuge in the
Colombian Embassy at Lima.
Territorial Asylum (Extradition) vs. Diplomatic Asylum
Territorial Asylum (extradition):
 ● the refugee is within the territory of the State of refuge.
● A decision with regard to extradition implies only the normal exercise of the territorial
sovereignty.
● The refugee is outside the territory of the State where the offence was committed,
and a decision to grant him asylum in no way derogates from the sovereignty of that
State.
diplomatic asylum
● the refugee is within the territory of the State where the offence was committed.
● A decision to grant diplomatic asylum involves a derogation from the sovereignty of
that State.
● It withdraws the offender from the jurisdiction of the territorial State and constitutes
an intervention in matters which are exclusively within the competence of that State.
● Such a derogation from territorial sovereignty cannot be recognized unless its
legal basis is established in each particular case

10. Reagan v. CIR

● Petitioner questioned the payment of an income tax assessed on him by public
respondent on an amount realized by him on a sale of his automobile to a member of
the US Marine Corps, the transaction having taken place at the Clark Field Air Base.
● Petitioner contends that the base is outside Philippine territory and therefore beyond
the jurisdictional power to tax.
I: Whether or not the sale was made outside Philippine territory and therefore beyond
our jurisdictional power to tax.
R: No. The said foreign military bases are not a foreign soil or territory for purposes of
income tax legislation. Philippine jurisdictional rights including the power to tax are
preserved.
Philippine being independent and sovereign, its authority may be exercised over its entire
domain.
There is no portion that is beyond its power. Within its limits, its decrees are supreme, its
commands are paramount. Its laws govern therein, and everyone to whom it applies must
submit to its terms.
That is the extent of its jurisdiction, both territorial and personal. Necessarily, likewise, it has
to be exclusive. If it were not thus, there is a diminution of its sovereignty.
● Clark airforce is not a foreign territory for purposes of income tax legislation. They
retain their status as native soil. Hence, still subject to its authority.
● Tax exemptions from foreign sources under Art XII of the agreement does not apply
to income derived in the basis which are derived in the PH.
Auto-limitation concept of sovereignty: Any state may by its consent, express or implied,
submit to a restriction of its sovereign rights.

11. Agustin v Edu

● This is a petition questioning the validity of a Letter of Instruction providing for an
early warning device mandatory for motor vehicles.
● It is assailed in this prohibition proceeding as being violative to the constitutional
guarantee of due process in as far as the rules and regulations for its implementation
are concerned.
I: Whether or not the letter of instruction issued by President Marcos is
unconstitutional?
R: No. the letter of Instruction No.229, as well as the implementing rules and regulations
were valid and constitutional as a valid measure of police power.
The Vienna Convention on Road signs and signals and the United Nations Organization was
ratified by the Philippine local legislation for the installation of road safety signs and devices.
It cannot be disputed then that this Declaration of Principle found in the Constitution
possesses relevance, between the International law and municipal law in applying the rule
municipal law prevails.
The 2968 Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals is impressed with the character of
“generally accepted principles of international law” which under the Constitution the
Philippines adopts as part of the law of the land
Vienna Convention, which was ratified by the Philippine Government under P.D. No. 207,
recommended the enactment of local legislation for the installation of road safety signs and
devices: * * *:”
It cannot be disputed then that this Declaration of Principle found in the Constitution
possesses relevance: “The Philippines * * * adopts the generally accepted principles of
international law as part of the law of the land, * * *

12. Republic vs. Sandiganbayan

● PCGG created an AFP anti graft board tasked to scrutinize the reports of
unexplained wealth and corrupt practices by any AFP personnel.
● the AFP Board investigated various reports of alleged unexplained wealth of
respondent Major General Josephus Q. Ramas
● Aside from the military equipment/items and communications equipment, the raiding
team was also able to confiscate money in the amount of ₱2,870,000.00 and
$50,000 US Dollars in the house of Elizabeth Dimaano
● This money was never declared in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities of
respondent. There was an intention to cover the existence of these money because
these are all ill-gotten and unexplained wealth.

I: Whether the protection accorded to individuals under the International Covenant on

Civil and Political Rights ("Covenant") and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
("Declaration") remained in effect during the interregnum.
R: Yes.
Even in the absence of a Constitution, the right against unlawful seizure can be found in the
Universal Declaration of HR and International Covernant on Civil and Political Rights.
As stated in Art. 2 of the Covenant: “the state is required to respect and to ensure to all
individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the
present covenant”
The Declaration, to which the Philippines is also a signatory, provides in its Article 17(2) that
"[n]o one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property."
Although the signatories to the Declaration did not intend it as a legally binding document,
being only a declaration, the Court has interpreted the Declaration as part of the generally
accepted principles of international law and binding on the State. Thus, the revolutionary
government was also obligated under international law to observe the rights of individuals
under the Declaration.
The revolutionary government did not repudiate the Covenant or the Declaration during the
interregnum. The Court considers the Declaration as part of customary international law, and
that Filipinos as human beings are proper subjects of the rules of international law laid down
in the Covenant.

13. Tanada v. Angara

● Petitioners assails the constitutionality of PH acceding to World Trade Organization
(WTO) for being violative of provisions which are supposed to give preference to
Filipino workers and economy on the ground that it infringes legislative and judicial
power.
● Respondent Rizalino Navarro, then Secretary of the Department of Trade and
Industry (Secretary Navarro, for brevity), representing the Government of the
Philippines, signed in Marrakesh, Morocco, the Final Act Embodying the Results of
the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Negotiations (Final Act, for brevity).
I: Whether the WTO Agreement violated the mandated economic nationalism by the
Constitution
R: NO.
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. It allows an
exchange on the basis of equality and reciprocity, frowning only on foreign competition that
is unfair.
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.
I: Whether the provisions of the WTO Agreement restricts and impairs Philippine
sovereignty, specifically the legislative power vested in the Congress.
R: No.
While sovereignty has traditionally been deemed absolute and all-encompassing on the
domestic level, it is however subject to restrictions and limitations voluntarily agreed to by
the Philippines, expressly or impliedly, as a member of the family of nations.
The Constitution did not envision a hermit-type isolation of the country from the rest of the
world. 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 laws.
A treaty engagement is not a mere moral obligation on the parties. By their inherent nature,
treaties really limit or restrict the absoluteness of sovereignty.
The Philippines has effectively agreed to limit the exercise of its sovereign powers of
taxation, eminent domain and police power.
The underlying consideration in this partial sovereignty is the reciprocal commitment of the
other contracting states in granting the same privilege and immunities to the Philippines, its
officials and its citizens. The same reciprocity characterizes the same commitments under
WTO-GATT.
A portion of sovereignty may be waived without violating the Constitution, based on the
rationale that the Philippines adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as
part of the law of the land and adheres to the policy of cooperation and amity with all
nations.

14. Bayan Muna v. Romulo

● The petitioner BAYAN MUNA sought to nullify the Non-Surrender Agreement
concluded between the Republic of the Philippines and the United States of America.
 ● They claimed that the agreement contravened the obligations of the Philippines
under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), which had been
signed (but not ratified) by the Philippines.
● also argued that the Agreement was void ab initio because it created obligations that
were immoral or that were contrary to universally recognized principals of
international law. Alberto Romulo, Executive Secretary, argued that the Non-
Surrender Agreement was constitutional and valid because it was in the nature of an
executive agreement.
I: W/N the respondents gravely abused their discretion in concluding the RP-US Non
Surrender Agreement in contravention of the Rome Statute.
R: No.
The Agreement does not contravene or undermine, nor does it differ from, the Rome Statute.
Far from going against each other, one complements the other.
Art. 1 of the Statute, the jurisdiction of the ICC is to “be complementary to national criminal
jurisdictions [of the signatory states].” the Rome Statute expressly recognizes the primary
jurisdiction of states, like the RP, over serious crimes committed within their respective
borders, the complementary jurisdiction of the ICC coming into play only when the signatory
states are unwilling or unable to prosecute.
Under international law, there is a considerable difference between a State-Party and a
signatory to a treaty.
Under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a signatory state is only obliged to
refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose of a treaty.
● The Philippines is only a signatory to the Rome Statute and not a State-Party for lack
of ratification by the Senate. Thus, it is only obliged to refrain from acts which would
defeat the object and purpose of the Rome Statute.
● Any argument obliging the Philippines to follow any provision in the treaty would be
premature.
I: W/N the agreement is valid, binding and effective without the concurrence by at
least 2/3 of all the members of the Senate.
R: International agreements may be in the form of treaties that require legislative
concurrence after executive ratification; or executive agreements that are similar to
treaties but except do not require legislative concurrence and are usually less formal and
deal with a narrower range of subject matters than treaties.
Based from the constitution and by the nature of Office of the President, as head of state
and government, is the sole organ and authority in the external affairs of the country.
The Constitution vests in the President the power to enter into international agreements,
subject, in appropriate cases, to the required concurrence votes of the Senate

15. Vinuya v. Romulo

● The petitioner Malaya Lolas is an organization established for the purpose of
providing aid to the victims of rape by Japanese military forces in the Philippines
during World War II.
● filed a petition to compel the respondents to espouse their claims for official apology
and other forms of reparations against Japan before the International Court of Justice
and other international tribunals. According to them, the general waiver of claims by
the Philippine government in the peace treaty with Japan is void.
I: Whether or not the Executive Department committed grave abuse of discretion in
not espousing petitioners’ claims for official apology and other forms of reparations
against Japan.
R: No. From a Domestic Law Perspective, the Executive Department has the exclusive
prerogative to determine whether to espouse petitioners’ claims against Japan.
It is well-established that “[t]he conduct of the foreign relations of our government is
committed by the Constitution to the executive and legislative—‘the political’—departments
of the government, and the propriety of what may be done in the exercise of this political
power is not subject to judicial inquiry or decision.”
The US Supreme Court has further cautioned that decisions relating to foreign policy are
delicate, complex, and involve large elements of prophecy. They are and should be
undertaken only by those directly responsible to the people whose welfare they advance or
imperil. They are decisions of a kind for which the Judiciary has neither aptitude, facilities nor
responsibility.
Not all cases implicating foreign relations present political questions, and courts certainly
possess the authority to construe or invalidate treaties and executive agreements. However,
the question whether the Philippine government should espouse claims of its nationals
against a foreign government is a foreign relations matter, the authority for which is
demonstrably committed by our Constitution not to the courts but to the political branches.
● In this case, the Executive Department has already decided that it is to the best
interest of the country to waive all claims of its nationals for reparations against
Japan in the Treaty of Peace of 1951. The wisdom of such decision is not for the
courts to question. Neither could petitioners herein assail the said determination by
the Executive Department via the instant petition for certiorari.
The US Supreme Court held that “[t]he President is the sole organ of the nation in its
external relations, and its sole representative with foreign relations.”
The Executive Department has determined that taking up petitioners’ cause would be
inimical to our country’s foreign policy interests, and could disrupt our relations with Japan,
thereby creating serious implications for stability in this region.
Not infrequently in affairs between nations, outstanding claims by nationals of one country
against the government of another country are “sources of friction” between the two
sovereigns;
● To resolve these difficulties, nations have often entered into agreements settling the
claims of their respective nationals; As one treatise writer puts it, international
agreements settling claims by nationals of one state against the government of
another “are established international practice reflecting traditional international
theory.
The State, therefore, is the sole judge to decide whether its protection will be granted, to
what extent it is granted, and when will it cease. It retains, in this respect, a discretionary
power the exercise of which may be determined by considerations of a political or other
nature, unrelated to the particular case.

Module 2: INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY

1. The Holy See v. Rosario
● Petition arose from a controversy over a parcel of land. under the name Holy See,
 ● The land was donated by the Archdiocese of Manila to the Papal Nuncio, which
represents the Holy See, who exercises sovereignty over the Vatican City, Rome,
Italy, for his residence.
● the squatters refuse to vacate the lots, a dispute arose between the two parties
because both were unsure whose responsibility was it to evict the squatters from said
lots
● respondent filed a suit against petitioner.
● The Holy See and Msgr. Cirilos moved to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction
based on sovereign immunity from suit
I: Whether or not the Holy See is a sovereign State
R: Yes.
Before the annexation of the Papal States by Italy in 1870, the Pope was the monarch and
he, as the Holy See, was considered a subject of International Law. With the loss of the
Papal States and the limitation of the territory under the Holy See to an area of 108.7 acres,
the position of the Holy See in International Law became controversial
In 1929, Italy and the Holy See entered into the Lateran Treaty, where Italy recognized the
exclusive dominion and sovereign jurisdiction of the Holy See over the Vatican City.
It also recognized the right of the Holy See to receive foreign diplomats, to send its own
diplomats to foreign countries, and to enter into treaties according to International Law
The Lateran Treaty established the statehood of the Vatican City "for the purpose of
assuring to the Holy See absolute and visible independence and of guaranteeing to it
indisputable sovereignty also in the field of international relations".
The Vatican City fits into none of the established categories of states, and the attribution to it
of "sovereignty" must be made in a sense different from that in which it is applied to other
states
● In a community of national states, the Vatican City represents an entity organized not
for political but for ecclesiastical purposes and international objects. Despite its size
and object, the Vatican City has an independent government of its own, with the
Pope, who is also head of the Roman Catholic Church, as the Holy See or Head of
State, in conformity with its traditions, and the demands of its mission in the world.
Indeed, the world-wide interests and activities of the Vatican City are such as to
make it in a sense an "international state

● Pope prefers to conduct foreign relations and enter into transactions as the Holy See
and not in the name of the Vatican City, one can conclude that in the Pope's own
view, it is the Holy See that is the international person

● The Republic of the Philippines has accorded the Holy See the status of a foreign
sovereign. The Holy See, through its Ambassador, the Papal Nuncio, has had
diplomatic representations with the Philippine government since 1957. This appears
to be the universal practice in international relations

I: Whether or not Holy See can invoke sovereign immunity.

R: Holy See may properly invoke sovereign immunity for its non-suability.
As expressed in Sec. 2 Art II of the 1987 Constitution, generally accepted principles of
International Law are adopted by our Courts and thus shall form part of the laws of the land
as a condition and consequence of our admission in the society of nations.
Article 31(A) of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations that diplomatic envoy
shall be granted immunity from civil and administrative jurisdiction of the receiving state over
any real action relating to private immovable property. The Department of Foreign Affairs
(DFA) certified that the Embassy of the Holy See is a duly accredited diplomatic missionary
to the Republic of the Philippines and is thus exempted from local jurisdiction and is entitled
to the immunity rights of a diplomatic mission or embassy in this Court.
The Holy See is immune from suit because the act of selling the lot of concern is non-
propriety in nature. The lot was acquired through a donation from the Archdiocese of Manila,
not for a commercial purpose, but for the use of petitioner to construct the official place of
residence of the Papal Nuncio.
Sapphire Case
● A collision between the American ship, Sapphire and the French transport Euryale
● Euryale was considerably damaged. A libel was filed in the name of the Emperor
Napoleon III, then Emperor of the French, as owner of the Euryale.
● The Sapphire’s owner challenged the “right of the Emperor of France to have brought
suit in the US courts.”
I: Whether or not the Emperor of France have the right to have brought suit in the US
courts, and if rightly brought, the suit had not become abated by the deposition of the
Emperor Napoleon III
R: Yes.
A foreign sovereign, as well as any other foreign person, who has a demand of a civil nature
against any person here, may prosecute it in our courts. To deny him this privilege would
manifest a want of comity and friendly feeling.
The reigning sovereign represents the national sovereignty, and that sovereignty is
continuous and perpetual, residing in the proper successors of the sovereign for the time
being. Napoleon was the owner of the Euryale, not as an individual, but as sovereign of
France. This is substantially averred in the libel.
On his deposition the sovereignty does not change, but merely the person or persons in
whom it resides.
A change in such representative works no change in the national sovereignty or its rights.
The next successor recognized by our government is competent to carry on a suit already
commenced and receive the fruits of it.
A deed to or treaty with a sovereign as such enures to his successors in the government of
the country.
If a substitution of names is necessary or proper it is a formal matter, and can be made by
the court under its general power to preserve due symmetry in its forms of proceeding.
People vs Perfecto
● the newspaper La Nacion – edited by herein respondent Gregorio Perfecto –
published an article against the Philippine Senate.
● Perfecto was alleged to have violated Article 256 of the Spanish Penal Code –
provision that punishes those who insults the Ministers of the Crown.
I: Whether or not Article 256 of the Spanish Penal Code is no longer in force.
R: Yes.
It is a general principle that public law that on acquisition of territory the previous political
relations of the ceded region are totally abrogated.
POLITICAL- is used to denominate the laws regulating the relations sustained by the
inhabitants to the sovereign.
According to Justice Field – all laws, ordinances and regulations in conflict with the political
character, institutions and constitutions of the new government are at once displaced. Upon
a cession of political jurisdiction and legislative power
It cannot be said that the king of spain, could by treaty or otherwise, must hold it subject to
the constitution and laws of its own government and not according to those of the
government abandoning it.
When the American claimed sovereignty the municipals laws of the Philippines affecting
private rights and properties and providing for the punishment of crime were nominally
continued in force in so far as they were compatible with the new order of things.
The courtheld that art 256 of the SPC was enacted by the government of spain to protect
Spanish officials who were representatives of the king. Due to the change of sovereignty in
the Philippines it makes no sense that the Spanish penal code will still apply

MODULE 5 - RECOGNITION
1. Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic vs. Cibrario, New York Court of
Appeals
● Soviet Government brought suit to compel an accounting by one of its buying
agents in the United States.
● This action is brought by plaintiff in its alleged capacity of a sovereign State,
to compel the defendants to account for moneys which, it is claimed, the
defendant Cibrario fraudulently obtained under a contract made by him on
July 24, 1918, with the Cinematographic Committee of the Commissariat of
Public Instruction, which is alleged to be a subordinate government body of
the plaintiff.
● The sum of $10,000 was in fact paid by the plaintiff to Cibrario as an advance
payment on his commissions.
● plaintiff delivered to Dr. Wm. C. Huntington, American commercial attache at
Petrograd, the sum of $1,000,000 to be deposited in a reliable banking
institution in the United States of America, subject to drafts drawn on the
conditions contained in the contract referred to, a copy of which was to be
filed with the institution selected.
● Dr. Huntington caused the said sum of $1,000,000 to be deposited with the
National City Bank of New York in accordance with the terms of the
agreement, a copy of which was deposited with it, and the deposit was
accepted subject to the limitations and terms imposed by the agreement upon
the withdrawal of the funds so deposited.
● under the contract, the defendant Cibrario was acting as its purchasing agent
and nothing more, and could not lawfully make a profit on the purchase and
sale of the goods in question. It claims that the defendant Cibrario bought
inferior goods at prices much lower than those mentioned in the contract, and
obtained payment for them from the National City Bank,

● The complaint herein contains the following allegations: "That the Russian
Socialist Federated Soviet Republic, hereinafter referred to as the Russian
 Soviet Government, is a sovereign State, having its seat of government at
Moscow, Russia;
● that George Tchicherin is the People's Commissar of Foreign Affairs;

● that the Cinematographic Committee of the Commissariat of Public

Instruction, hereinafter referred to as the Cinematographic Committee, is a
subordinate government body thereof.
I: Whether the rule of comity permits a suit by an unrecognized power
R: In the absence of recognition no comity exists.
● The Russian Soviet Republic, which the United States refuses to recognize, cannot
sue in our courts, even if comity did not depend on recognition, in view of the reasons
given by the State Department for refusing to recognize it.

● Comity of nations is the formal expression and ultimate result of that mutual respect
accorded throughout the civilized world by the representatives of each sovereign
power to those of every other, in considering the effects of their official acts. Its
source is a sentiment of reciprocal regard, founded on identity of position and
similarity of institutions.

2. Banco Nacional de Cuba vs. Sabatino

● respondent Farr, Whitlock & Co. (Farr), an American commodity broker,
contracted with Compania Azucarera Vertientes-Camaguey de Cuba (C.A.V.)
to purchase Cuban sugar.
● the U.S. Congress amended the 1948 Sugar Act which allowed President
Eisenhower to directly reduce Cuba’s Sugar quota.
● In response, the Cuban government adopted Law No. 851 which allowed the
Cuban President and Prime Minister the power to nationalize by forced
expropriation property or enterprises where American nationals had interest –
a system of compensation was provided herein but the possibility of payment
was practically illusory.
● The sugar covered by the contract between Farr and C.A.V. headed to
Morroco was subject to expropriation with Executive Resolution No. 1. The
ship carrying the sugar of an American company could not leave without the
Cuban government’s consent.
● Farr then entered into an identical contract with the Banco Para el Comercio
Exterior de Cuba and S.S. Hornfels carrying the sugar was able to depart.

● Said bank assigned the bills of lading to petitioner Banco Nacional de Cuba
(BNC) whose agent in New York was instructed to deliver the bills and sight
draft in the sum of $ 175k to Farr for payment. However, this was refused by
Farr, who was notified of C.A.V.’s claim that as rightful owner of the sugar, it
was entitled to the proceeds.
● Sabbatino was appointed as C.A.V.’s temporary receiver and Farr was
enjoined from taking any action in regard to the money claimed by C.A.V.
After this, Farr transferred the funds to Sabbatino.
I: Whether the respondents contentions are correct:
(1) That the doctrine does not apply to acts of state which violate international law;
(2) That the doctrine is inapplicable unless the executive specifically interposes it in a
particular case; and
(3) That, in any event, the doctrine may not be invoked by a foreign government
plaintiff in our courts.
(Whether or not the judiciary has the authority to examine the validity of a taking of
property withinits own territory by a foreign sovereign even if the taking violated
international law.) – NO.
R:
● The privilege of resorting to United States courts being available to a
recognized sovereign power not at war with the United States, and not being
dependent upon reciprocity of treatment, petitioner has access to the federal
courts.
● The propriety of the taking was not governed by New York law, since the
sugar itself was expropriated.
● This suit is not uncognizable in American courts as being one to enforce the
"public" acts of a foreign state, since the expropriation law here involved had
been fully executed within Cuba.
● The Government's uncontested assertion that the two State Department
letters expressed only the then wish of the Department to avoid commenting
on the litigation, obviates the need for this Court to pass upon the "Bernstein
exception" to the act of state doctrine, under which a court may respond to a
representation by the Executive Branch that, in particular circumstances, it
does not oppose judicial consideration of the foreign state's act.
● The scope of the act of state doctrine must be determined according to
federal law (applying all throughout the United States.
● The act of state doctrine applies and is desirable with regard to a foreign
expropriation even though the expropriation allegedly violates customary
international law.
● A foreign country's status as a plaintiff does not make the act of state doctrine
inapplicable.

3. Oetjen vs. Central Leather Co.

● Mr. John M. Enright, with whom Mr. Oscar R. Houston and Mr. James D.
Carpenter, Jr., were on the brief, for plaintiff in error. Mr. Eli J. Blair, with
whom Mr. Frank H. Platt was on the brief, for defendant in error.
● They are suits in replevin and involve the title to two large consignments of
hides, which the plaintiff in error claims to own as assignee of Martinez
Company, a partnership engaged in business in the city of Torreon, Mexico,
but which the defendant in error claims to own by purchase from the
Finnegan-Brown Company, a Texas corporation, which it is alleged
purchased the hides in Mexico from General Francisco Villa,
● they are brought to this court on the theory, that the claim of title to the hides
by the defendant in error is invalid because based upon a purchase from
General Villa, who, it is urged, confiscated them contrary to the provisions of
the Hague Convention of 1907 respecting the laws and customs of war on
land
 ● General Francisco Villa, while conducting independent operations as a duly
commissioned military commander of the Carranza Government, which had
then made much progress in its revolution in Mexico, levied a military
contribution and, in enforcing it, seized and sold some hides then owned and
possessed by Martinez citizen of Mexico,
I: Whether or not the New Jersey court has jurisdiction to rule on this case involving
matters concerning the de jure Mexican Government.
R:
● The court will take judicial notice of the fact that, since the transactions thus detailed
and since the trial of this case in the lower courts, the Government of the United
States recognized the Government of Carranza as the de facto government of the
Republic of Mexico, on October 19, 1915, and as the de jure government on August
31, 1917.
● The conduct of the foreign relations of our Government is committed by the
Constitution to the Executive and Legislative — "the political" — Departments of the
Government, and the propriety of what may be done in the exercise of this political
power is not subject to judicial inquiry or decision.
● To these principles we must add that: "Every sovereign State is bound to respect the
independence of every other sovereign State, and the courts of one country will not
sit in judgment on the acts of the government of another done within its own territory.
Redress of grievances by reason of such acts must be obtained through the means
open to be availed of by sovereign powers as between themselves.
● The remedy of the former owner, or of the purchaser from him, of the property in
controversy, if either has any remedy, must be found in the courts of Mexico or
through the diplomatic agencies of the political department of our Government.

As to the Hague Convention

It would, perhaps, be sufficient to answer this contention to say that the Hague Conventions
are international in character, designed and adapted to regulate international warfare, and
that they do not, in terms or in purpose, apply to a civil war. So it cannot apply in this case
since it involved the Mexican government and its citizens.

DOCTRINE OF STATE IMMUNITY

1. Underhill vs. Hernandez
● General Hernandez belonged to the anti- administration party, and on August
8, 1892, an engagement took place between the two parties to the conflict in
Buena Vista, which was 7 miles from Bolivar.

● Hernandez’s side prevailed in the conflict and so they entered Bolivar and
assumed command of the city. General Hernandez filled the vacant positions
in the local government and was recognized as the civil and military chief of
the city and district. Hernandez’s side, who followed the leadership of Crespo,
eventually won the conflict and took control of Venezuela, and was later on
formally recognized by the United States as the legitimate government of
Venezuela.
● At the time that Bolivar was under the control of Hernandez, Underhill applied
to him for a passport to leave the city, which was denied, as Hernandez
 wanted Underhill to operate his waterworks and repair works for the benefit of
the community in Bolivar and for the benefit of the revolutionary forces.
Subsequently, Underhill was given the passport and was able to leave the
country.
● Underhill brought a suit for damages for the detention caused by Hernandez’s
refusal to grant the passport, for his alleged confinement to his house, and for
the assaults and affronts by Hernandez’ army.
I: May Hernandez be made liable for damages by the courts of the United States for
the alleged detention of Underhill, and the assaults and affronts of his soldiers
towards the latter?
R: No
● Every sovereign state is bound to respect the independence of every other sovereign
state, and the courts of one country will not sit in judgement on the acts of another
government done within its own territory. Redress of these grievances must be
obtained through means to be availed of by the sovereign powers as between
themselves.
● The immunity of individuals from suits brought in foreign tribunals for acts done within
their own states in the exercise of governmental authority also necessarily extends to
the agents of governments ruling by paramount force. When there is a civil war in a
country, foreign nations do not assume to judge the merits of the quarrel. Once one
of the parties in the civil war prevails, the independence of that government is
recognized, and their acts regarded as ones of an independent nation.
● Thus, the circuit court of appeals was justified in its decision that the acts of
Hernandez were the acts of the government of Venezuela, and as such are not
properly the subject of adjudication in the courts of another government. Hernandez’
purpose in not granting the passport was for the benefit of the community and the
revolutionary forces, and not by any malice or personal or private motive.

2. PCGG vs. Sandiganbayan

● In relation to the case of PCGG I.S. no. 1 which was initiated to locate,
sequester and seek restitution of the ill-gotten wealth amassed by the
Marcoses, the Office of the Solicitor general requested the assistance of the
Federal office for police matters in Berne, Switzerland to locate the ill-gotten
wealth of the Marcoses, and to take precautionary measures, such as
sequestration, to freeze the assets in order to preserve their existing value
and prevent any transfer thereof.
● The office of the District Attorney in Zurich directed the Swiss Banks in Zurich
to freeze the accounts of the accused in PCGG I.S. No. 1 and in the “List of
Companies and Foundations”.
● Among those, whose accounts were frozen was that the Officeco Holdings.
Officeco then filed with the Sandiganbayan a complaint against PCGG and
OSG praying that the Swiss government be advised to exclude from the
freeze order or sequestration the account of Officeco and to unconditionally
release the said account to Office.

I: WhethertheSandiganbayan,intakingcognizanceofthecasefiledby Officeco, violates

the “Act of State Doctrine”
R: No. The act of state doctrine is one of the methods by which the states prevent
their national courts from deciding disputes which relates to the internal affairs of
another state, the other two being immunity and non-justiciability.
● It is an avoidance technique that is directly related to a state’s obligation to respect
the independence and equality of other states by not requiring them to submit to
adjudication in a national court or to settle their disputes without their consent.
● It requires the forum court to exercise restraint in the adjudication of disputes relating
to legislative or other governmental acts which a foreign state has performed within
its territorial limits.

3. Baer vs. Tizon

● Edgardo Gener was engaged in the business of logging in an area situated in
Barrio Mabayo, Bataan. His logging operations was, however, stopped by
American Naval Base authorities - who were headed by Donald Baer, the
Commander of the US Naval Base in Olongapo.
● A restraining order was issued by the respondent.
● Counsel for petitioner, upon instructions of the American Ambassador to the
Philippines, entered their appearance for the purpose of contesting the
jurisdiction of respondent Judge on the ground that the suit was one against a
foreign sovereign without its consent.
● It was therein pointed out that he is the chief or head of an agency or
instrumentality of the United States of America, with the subject matter of the
action being official acts done by him for and on behalf of the United States of
America.
● Baer, on the other hand, contested the jurisdiction of the CFI [RTC] of Bataan
and invoked the doctrine of state immunity from suit.
I: Whether or not the doctrine of immunity from suit without consent is applicable.
R: Yes. Baer may validly invoke the doctrine of state immunity, thus, the suit against
him will not prosper.
● Yes. The invocation of the doctrine of immunity from suit of a foreign state without its
consent is appropriate. It is well settled that a foreign army, permitted to march
through a friendly country or to be stationed in it, by permission of its government or
sovereign, is exempt from the civil and criminal jurisdiction of the place.

● What was sought by Gener and what was granted by the respondent Judge
amounted to an interference with the performance of the duties of Baer in the base
area in accordance with the powers possessed by him under the Philippine-American
Military Bases Agreement.
● The doctrine of state immunity is not limited to cases which would result in a
pecuniary charge against the sovereign or would require the doing of an affirmative
act by it. Prevention of a sovereign from doing an affirmative act pertaining directly
and immediately to the most important public function of any government—the
defense of the state—is equally as untenable as requiring it to do an affirmative act."

4. Syquia vs. Lopez

● The plaintiffs named Pedro, Gonzalo, and Leopoldo, all surnamed SYQUIA,
are the undivided joint owners of three apartment buildings situated in the City
 of Manila known as the North Syquia Apartments, South Syquia Apartments
and Michel Apartments.
● The term or period for the three leases was to be "for the duration of the war
and six months thereafter, unless sooner terminated by the United States of
America." The apartment buildings were used for billeting and quartering
officers of the U. S. armed forces stationed in the Manila area.

● Thereafter, they requested the predecessors in office of Moore and Tillman to

renegotiate said leases, execute lease contract for a period of three years
and to pay a reasonable rental higher than those payable under the old
contracts.
● The predecessors in office of Moore refused to execute new leases but
advised that "it is contemplated that the United States Army will vacate
subject properties prior to 1 February 1947."
● SYQUIA then formally requested Tillman to cancel said three leases and to
release the apartment buildings on June 28, 1946. Tillman refused to comply
with the request.
● Because of the failure to comply with the alleged representation and
assurance that the three apartment buildings will be vacated prior to February
1, 1947, plaintiffs on February 17, 1947, served formal notice upon
defendants Moore and Tillman and 64 other army officers or members of the
US Armed Forces who were then occupying apartments in said three
buildings.
● The thirty-day period having expired without any of the defendants having
complied with plaintiffs' demands, the SYQUIA commenced the present
action in the Municipal Court of Manila in the form of an action for unlawful
detainer against Moore and Tillman and the 64 persons occupying
apartments in the three buildings.
I: Whether or not the Court has jurisdiction in this case.
R: NO.
● Supreme Court hold that the real party defendant in interest is the Government of the
United States of America; that any judgment for back or increased rentals or
damages will have to be paid not by defendants Moore and Tillman and their 64 co-
defendants but by the said U. S. Government.
● The question of lack of jurisdiction was raised and interposed at the very beginning of
the action. The U. S. Government has not given its consent to the filing of this suit
which is essentially against her, though not in name.
● Moreover, this is not only a case of a citizen filing a suit against his own Government
without the latter's consent but it is of citizen filing an action against a foreign
government without said government's consent, which renders more obvious the lack
of jurisdiction of the courts of his country.
● In conclusion we find that the Municipal Court of Manila committed no error in
dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction and that the Court of First Instance acted
correctly in affirming the municipal court's order of dismissal.
 5. US vs. Guinto
GR. 76607
● Private respondents are suing several officers of the US Air Force stationed in
Clark Air Base
● In 1986, the Western Pacific Contracting Office, Okinawa Area Exchange, US
Air Force, solicited bids for barbering services contract through its contracting
officer- James F. Shaw
● Respondents are among those who submitted bids (Valencia, Tanglao, and
del Pilar), they are long time concessionaire inside Clark
● Ramon Dizon- won the bidding, but respondents objected and claimed that
Dizon made bid for four facilities including the Civil Engineering Area- not
included in the invitation bid
● They complained with the Philippine Area Exchange who claimed that the CE
Area has not been awarded to Dizon as he was already operating then known
as NCO club
GR 79470
● Fabian Genove filed a complaint for damages against petitioners Lamachia,
Belsa, CArtalla and Orascion for his dismissal as cook in the US Air Force
Recreation Center at the John Hay Air Station in Baguio (poured urine into
the soup stock)
● He was thereafter dismissed, Genove then, filed with the RTC complaint
against petitioners
GR 80018
● Luis Bautista- barracks boy in Camp O’Donnell and extension of Clark Air
Base was arrested following a buy- bust operation conducted by the individual
petitioners- officers of the US Air Force and special agents of the Air Force
Office of Special Investigators
● Bautista was charged and eventually dismissed from service

GR 80258
● Petitioners claim that they were beaten up and unleashed the dogs on them
which bit them, the defendants contend that the suit was against United
States which had not given its consent
I: Whether or not the state immunity doctrine can be invoked in these cases.
R:
● Doctrine of State immunity is based on the justification given by Justice Homes that
“there can be no legal right against the authority which makes the law on which the
right depends.” There are other practical reasons for the enforcement of the doctrine.
In the case of foreign state sought to be impleaded in the local jurisdiction, the added
inhibition is expressed in the maxim par in parem, non habet imperium. All states are
sovereign equals and cannot assert jurisdiction over another.
● The charges against the petitioners may not be summarily dismissed on their mere
assertion that their acts are imputable to the USA, which has not given its consent to
be sued. In fact, the defendants are sought to be held answerable for personal torts
in which the US itself is not involved. If found liable, they and they alone must satisfy
the judgment.
● In GR NO. 80258, needs further inquiry as to facts
 ● In GR NO, 79470, the restaurant services offered at the John Hay Air Station partake
of the nature of a business enterprise undertaken by the US government in its
proprietary capacity. Such services are not extended to American servicemen for free
as a perquisite of membership in the Armed Forces of US. Thus, the petitioners
cannot invoke the doctrine of State immunity to justify the dismissal of the damage
suit against them. Same is true with case in GR NO 76607.

6. US vs Rodrigo
● In GR No. 76607, private respondents regarding suing several officers of the
US Air Force in connection with the bidding for barbering services in Clark Air
Base.
● In GR No. 80018, Luis Bautista was arrested following a buy-bust operation
for a violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. Bautista then filed a complaint for
damages claiming that because of the acts of the respondents, he lost his job.
● In GR No. 79470, Fabian Genove filed a complaint for damages against the
petitioner for his dismissal as cook in the US Air Force.
● In GR No. 80258, complaint for damage was filed by the respondents against
petitioners for injuries allegedly sustained by plaintiffs.
● All cases invoke the doctrine of state immunity as a ground to dismiss the
same.
I: Are the petitioners immune from suit?
R:
● It is clear that the petitioners in GR No. 80018 were acting in the exercise of their
official functions.
● They cannot be directly impleaded for the US government has not given its consent
to be sued.
● In GR No. 79470, petitioners are not immune because restaurants are commercial
enterprises, however, the claim of damages by Genove cannot be allowed on the
strength of the evidence presented.
● Barber shops are also commercial enterprises operated by private persons, thus,
petitioners in GR No. 76607 cannot plead any immunity from the complaint filed.
● In GR No. 80258, the respondent court will have to receive the evidence of the
alleged irregularity in the grant of the barbershop concessions before it can be known
in what capacity the petitioners were acting at the time of the incident.

7. US vs. Ceballos
● In G.R. No. 76607, the private respondents are suing several officers of the
U.S. Air Force stationed in Clark Air Base in connection with the bidding
conducted by them for contracts for barber services in the said base. The
bidding was won by Ramon Dizon, over the objection of the private
respondents, who claimed that he had made a bid for four facilities, including
the Civil Engineering Area, which was not included in the invitation to bid.
● In G.R. No. 79470, Genove filed a complaint for damages against petitioners
for his dismissal as cook in the U.S. Air Force Recreation Center at the John
Hay Air Station in Baguio City. It had been ascertained after investigation, that
Genove had poured urine into the soup stock used in cooking the vegetables
served to the club customers. Lamachia, as club manager, suspended him
 and thereafter the board unanimously found him guilty and recommended his
dismissal.
● In G.R. No. 80018, Luis Bautista, who was employed as a barracks boy in
Camp O' Donnell, an extension of Clark Air Base, was arrested following a
buy-bust operation conducted by the petitioners, who were officers of the U.S.
Air Force and special agents of the Air Force Office of Special Investigators
(AFOSI). On the basis of the sworn statements made by them, an information
for violation of R.A. 6425 was filed against Bautista in the RTC of Tarlac.
● In G.R. No. 80258, a complaint for damages was filed against petitioners
herein, according to the plaintiffs, the defendants beat them up, handcuffed
them and unleashed dogs on them which bit them in several parts of their
bodies and caused extensive injuries to them. The defendants deny this and
claim the plaintiffs were arrested for theft and were bitten by the dogs
because they were struggling and resisting arrest.
I: Are the petitioners immune from suit?
R:
● In GR No. 80018 were acting in the exercise of their official functions (special
agents). They cannot be directly impleaded for the US government has not given its
consent to be sued.
● In GR No. 79470, petitioners are not immune because restaurants are commercial
enterprises, however, the claim of damages by Genove cannot be allowed on the
strength of the evidence presented.
● Barber shops are also commercial enterprises operated by private persons, thus,
petitioners in GR No. 76607 cannot plead any immunity from the complaint filed.
● In GR No. 80258, The record is too meager to indicate if the defendants were really
discharging their official duties or had actually exceeded their authority when the
incident in question occurred. Lacking this information, this Court cannot directly
decide this case. Only after it shall have determined in what capacity the petitioners
were acting at the time of the incident in question will this Court determine, if still
necessary, if the doctrine of state immunity is applicable.

8. USA vs Vergara
● In G.R. No. 80258, A complaint for damages was filed by private respondents
against petitioners (US military officers) for injuries allegedly sustained by the
former when defendants beat them up, handcuffed them and unleashed dogs
on them. The petitioners deny this and claim that respondents were arrested
for theft but resisted arrest, thus incurring the injuries.
● The United States of America was not impleaded in the complaints below but
has moved to dismiss on the ground that they are in effect suits against it to
which it has not consented. The defendants were also immune from suit
under the RP-US Bases Treaty for acts done by them in the performance of
their official functions.
I: Are the petitioners immune from suit?
R: In GR No. 80258, The record is too meager to indicate if the defendants were really
discharging their official duties or had actually exceeded their authority when the incident in
question occurred. Lacking this information, this Court cannot directly decide this case. Only
after it shall have determined in what capacity the petitioners were acting at the time of the
incident in question will this Court determine, if still necessary, if the doctrine of state
immunity is applicable.

9. USA vs Ruiz
● Sometime in May 1972, the United States invited the submission of bids for
certain naval projects.
● responded to the invitation and submitted bids.
● Subsequently, the company received two telegrams requesting it to confirm
its price. In June 1972, the company received a letter which said that the
company did not qualify to receive an award for the projects.

● The company then sued the United States of America and individual
petitioners demanding that the company perform the work on the projects,
I: Do the petitioners exercise governmental or proprietary functions?
R:
● The rule of State immunity exempts a State from being sued in the courts of another
state without its consent or waiver.
● This is a necessary consequence of the principles of independence and equality of
states.
● However, state immunity now extends only to governmental acts of the state.
● The restrictive application of State immunity is proper only when the proceedings
arise out of commercial transactions of the foreign sovereign.
● In this case, the projects are an integral part of the naval base which is devoted to
the defense of the USA and Philippines which is, indisputably, function of the
government. As such, by virtue of state immunity, the courts of the Philippines have
no jurisdiction over the case for which the US government has not given consent to
the filing of this suit.

10. USA vs Reyes

● Montoya is an American citizen who, at the time was employed as an
identification (ID) checker at the US Navy Exchange at the Joint United States
Military Assistance Group headquarters in Quezon City. She is married to one
Edgardo Montoya, a Filipino- American serviceman employed by US Navy
stationed in San Francisco California
● Maxine Bradford- American citizen who was the activity exchange manager at
the JUSMAG headquarters.
● Montoya filed a complaint with RTC of her place of residence- Cavite against
Bradford, as she was searched (her body and belongings) after she bought
items from a nearby retail store. She felt discriminated for being singled out.
I: Whether or not Bradford can invoke doctrine of state immunity.
R: No.
● While the doctrine appears to prohibit only suits against the state without its consent,
it is also applicable to complaints filed against officials of the state for acts allegedly
performed by them in the discharge of their duties.
● The rule is that if the judgment against such officials will require the state itself to
perform an affirmative act to satisfy the same, such as the appropriation of the
amount needed to pay the damages awarded against them, the suit must be
regarded as against the state itself although it has not been formally impleaded.
 ● It must be noted, however, that the rule is not so all-encompassing as to be
applicable under all circumstances.
● It is a different matter where the public official is made to account in his capacity as
such for acts contrary to law and injurious to the rights of plaintiff.

Module 9: Territory
1. Island of Palmas Case
● The Island of Palmas (or Miangas) sits about halfway between the islands of
Mindanao in the Philippines and Nanusa in the Netherlands Indies but within the
boundaries of the Philippines as defined by Spain and thus ceded to the U.S. via the
Treaty of Paris in 1898. In 1906, U.S. General Leonard Wood visited Palmas and
discovered that the Netherlands also claimed sovereignty over the island.
● The U.S. bases its title in the first place on discovery, thus the existence of
sovereignty acquired is confirmed by treaty (Treaty of Münster of 1648) to which
Spain and the Netherlands themselves are contracting parties.
● They claim that the title was intact at the moment when, by Article III of the Treaty of
Paris, Spain ceded the Philippines to the U.S, and that it is unnecessary to establish
facts showing the actual display of sovereignty precisely over the Island of Palmas
since the same forms a geographical part of the Philippine group
● The Netherlands countered that the fact of discovery by Spain is not proved, nor yet
any other form of acquisition, and even if Spain had at any moment a title, such title
had been lost.
● Its contention is that the Netherlands, represented for this purpose in the first period
of colonization by the East India Company, have possessed and exercised rights of
sovereignty from 1677, or probably from a date prior even to 1648, to the present
day.

I: WON the Island of Palmas in its entirety forms a part of territory belonging to the
U.S.
R: NO.
● Practice, as well as doctrine, recognizes that the continuous and peaceful display of
territorial sovereignty (peaceful in relation to other States) is as good as a title. The
growing insistence with which international law, ever since the middle of the 18th
century, has demanded that the occupation shall be effective would be
inconceivable, if effectiveness were required only for the act of acquisition and not
equally for the maintenance of the right.
● Without manifesting its territorial sovereignty, the state cannot fulfill its duty to protect
within the territory the rights of other states, in particular their night to integrity and
inviolability in peace and in war, together with the rights which each state may claim
for its nationals in foreign territory.
● Territorial sovereignty cannot limit itself to its negative side

2. Clipperton Island Case

● Clipperton Island is an uninhabited island coral atoll in the eastern Pacific Ocean,
southwest of Mexico, west of Costa Rica and northwest of Galapagos Islands,
Equador.
 ● France claimed to have occupied an island but Mexico claimed that Spain
discovered it and that it was the successor. Mexico also claimed it due to activities
undertaken therein as early as 1848-1849.
● On November 24, 1897, French naval authorities found three Americans working for
the American Guano Company, who had raised the American flag. U.S. authorities
denounced their act, assuring the French that they did not intend to assert American
sovereignty
● Mexico reasserted its claim late in the 19th century, and on December 13, 1897 sent
the gunboat La Democrata to occupy and annex it.
● A colony was established, and a series of military governors was posted, the last one
being Ramón Arnaud.
● France insisted on its ownership, and a lengthy diplomatic correspondence between
the two nations led to the conclusion of a treaty on March 2, 1909,

I: The issue is who, between the France and Mexico, has the sovereignty over the
Clipperton Island.

R:
● On January 28, 1931, King Victor Emmanuel of Italy declared Clipperton to be a
French possession. It was ruled that Mexico was not able to prove historic right over
the Island. For occupation you also need to possess the land which France did. That
island was in the legal situation of terratorium nullius, and, therefore, susceptible of
occupation.
● The question remains whether France proceeded to an effective occupation,
satisfying the conditions required by international law for the validity of this kind of
territorial acquisition.
● The arbitrator was satisfied that the French occupation of 1858 satisfied the
requirements of international law.
● It is beyond doubt that by immemorial usage having the force of law, besides the
animus occupandi, the actual, and not the nominal, taking of possession is a
necessary condition of occupation.

COMPONENTS OF TERRITORY
1. Magallona vs. Ermita
● In 1961, RA 3046 was enacted demarcating the maritime baselines if the
Philippines as an archipelagic state which followed the framing of the
Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone in 1958
(UNCLOS I), codifying, among others, the sovereign right of States parties
over their "territorial sea," the breadth of which, however, was left
undetermined.
● There were attempts to fill such void; however, UNCLOS II ultimately failed to
do so. Thus, the law remained as is for more than five decades.
● Among others, UNCLOS III prescribes the water-land ratio, length, and
contour of baselines of archipelagic States like the Philippines and sets the
deadline for the filing of application for the extended continental shelf.
● Complying with these requirements, RA 9522 shortened one baseline,
optimized the location of some basepoints around the Philippine archipelago
 and classified adjacent territories, namely, the Kalayaan Island Group (KIG)
and the Scarborough Shoal, as "regimes of islands" whose islands generate
their own applicable maritime zones.

I: a. W/N RA 9522 is unconstitutional for reducing the Philippine maritime territory. -

NO
R: No.
● Contrary to petitioners’ contentions, RA 9522 actually increased the Philippine
maritime territory.
● Further, petitioners’ contention that RA 9522 disregards the pre-UNCLOS III
demarcation of the territory under the Treaty of Paris and related treaties,
successively encoded in the definition of national territory under the 1935, 1973 and
1987 Constitutions is also untenable.
● UNCLOS III has nothing to do about the acquisition or loss of territory.
● It is a multilateral treaty regulating, among others, sea-use rights over maritime
zones (i.e., the territorial waters [12 nautical miles from the baselines], contiguous
zone [24 nautical miles from the baselines], exclusive economic zone [200 nautical
miles from the baselines]), and continental shelves that UNCLOS III delimits.

2. Fisheries Case
● The International Court of Justice delivered a judgment, by 10 votes to 2, that
the method employed for the delimitation of the fisheries zone by the Royal
Norwegian Decree is not contrary to international law; by 8 votes to 4, that the
baselines fixed by said decree in application of this method are not contrary to
international law.
● The United Kingdom requested the court to decide if Norway had used a
legally acceptable method in drawing the baseline from which it measured its
territorial sea.
● The United Kingdom argued that customary international law did not allow the
length of a baseline drawn across a bay to be longer than ten miles.
● Norway argued that its delimitation method was consistent with general
principles of international law.

I: Whether or not the 1935 Decree concerning the delimitation of the Norwegian
fisheries is valid under the international law of the lines of delimitation.
R. Yes.
● The ICJ ruled that the method employed for the delimitation of the fisheries zone by
the Royal Norwegian Decree of 1935 is valid and not contrary to international law.
● The judgment of the court first examined the applicability of the principles put forward
by the government of the UK, then the Norwegian system, and finally the conformity
of that system with international law.
● The first principle put forward by the UK is that the baselines must be low water
mark, this indeed is the criterion generally adopted by most states and but differ as to
its application.
● The court considered the methods of drawing the lines but, the court rejected the
“trace Parallele” which consists of drawing the outer limits of the belt following the
coast and all its sinuosity. The court also rejected the “courbe tangente” (arcs of a
 circle) and it is not obligatory under international law to use these methods of drawing
the lines.
● The court also paid particular attention to the geographical aspect of the case.

3. In the Matter of South China Sea Arbitration

● The Philippines initiated arbitration proceedings against China seeking the
declaration that the Parties’ respective rights and obligations in regard to the
waters, seabed and maritime features of the South China Sea are governed
by UNCLOS, and that China’s claims based on its “nine dash line” are
inconsistent with the Convention and therefore invalid.
● Throughout the proceedings, China has rejected and returned
correspondence from the Tribunal sent by the Registry, explaining on each
occasion “its position that it does not accept the arbitration initiated by the
Philippines.”

I & R:
● THE ‘NINE-DASH LINE’ AND CHINA’S CLAIM TO HISTORIC RIGHTS IN THE
MARITIME AREAS OF THE SOUTH CHINA SEA
○ As between the Philippines and China, the UNCLOS defines the scope of
entitlements in the South China Sea, which may not extend beyond the limits
imposed therein. China’s claims to historic rights, or other sovereign rights or
jurisdiction are contrary to the UNCLOS and without lawful effect to the extent
that they exceed the geographic and substantive limits of China’s maritime
entitlements under the UNCLOS.
● THE STATUS OF FEATURES IN THE SOUTH CHINA SEA
○ Within the meaning of Art. 121(1) of the UNCLOS (Regime of islands),
naturally formed areas of land, surrounded by water, which are above water
at high tide, However, under Art. 121(3) of the UNCLOS, the high-tide
features at Scarborough Shoal are rocks that cannot sustain human
habitation or economic life of their own and accordingly shall have no EEZ or
continental shelf.
● CHINESE ACTIVITIES IN THE SOUTH CHINA SEA
○ China has, through the operation of its marine surveillance vessels breached
Art. 77 of the UNCLOS (Rights of the coastal State over the continental shelf)
with respect to the Philippines’ sovereign rights over the non-living resources
of its continental shelf in the area of Reed Bank.
○ China has, through the operation of its marine surveillance vessels at
Mischief Reef and Second Thomas Shoal in May 2013, failed to exhibit due
regard for the Philippines’ sovereign rights with respect to fisheries in its EEZ.
Accordingly, China has breached its obligations under Art. 58(3) of the
UNCLOS (Rights and duties of other States in the EEZ.
○ China has, through the operation of its official vessels at Scarborough Shoal
from May 2012 onwards, unlawfully prevented Filipino fishermen from
engaging in traditional fishing at Scarborough Shoal.
● THE FUTURE CONDUCT OF THE PARTIES
○ Both parties are obliged to comply with the Convention regarding the
resolution of disputes, and to respect the rights and freedoms of other States
under the UNCLOS.