Secretary vs. Lantion, January 8, 2000
Efforts must first be taken to harmonize the
Facts:
In January 13, 1977, then President Ferdinand
Marcos issued Presidential Decree 1069,
“Prescribing the Procedure for the Extradition
of Persons Who Have Committed Crimes in a
Foreign Country.”
Then Secretary of Justice, Drilon, representing
the Philippines, signed in Manila the
“Extradition Treaty Between the Government of
the Republic of the Philippines and the US.
The Senate then expressed its concurrence in
the ratification of the said treaty.
On 1999, the DOJ received a request, US Note
Verbale 0522 from the US department of
Foreign Affairs for the extradition of Mark
Jimenez to the United States.
Attached to the note were the Grand Jury
Indictment, the warrant of arrest issued by the
US District Court and other supporting
documents for the said extradition
Jimenez was charged in the US for conspiracy to
commit offense or defraud the US, Attempt to
evade or defeat tax, fraud by wire, radio or
television, false statements or entries, election
contributions in the name of another.
Jimenez asked for copies of the request in order
to give his reply but the DOJ refused.
He then filed a petition against the DOJ,
Secretary of FA and Director of the NBI for
mandamus (to compel the DOJ to provide
access to the documents), certiorari (to set
aside the DOJ’s letter) and prohibition (to
restrain petitioner from considering the
extradition request). The RTC ruled in favor of
Jimenez.
Issue:
Whether or not the respondent’s entitlement to
the notice and hearing during the evaluation
stage of the proceedings constitute a breach of
legal duties of the Philippine government under
the RP-US Extradition Treaty?
Ruling:
There was no breach, as according to the Court,
the human rights guaranteed in the
Constitution should take precedence over treaty
rights claimed by a contracting party, the
doctrine of incorporation is applied when
municipal tribunals are confronted with a
situation where there is conflict between a rule
of the international law and the constitution.
laws but if conflict is irreconcilable, the
constitution must prevail.
In the case at bar, private respondent does not
only face a clear and present danger of loss of
property or employment but if liberty itself,
which may eventually lead to his forcible banish
to a foreign land. The convergence of
petitioners favorable action on the extradition
request and the deprivation of private
respondent’s liberty is easily comprehensible.
(Private respondent was not given due process
if the DOJ deprives him of the documents)
By a vote of 9-6 the SC dismissed the petition
and ordered the Justice secretary to furnish
Jimenez copies of the extradition and the
supporting papers and to grant him a
reasonable period within which to file his
comment with supporting evidence.
Tanada vs. Angara, May 2, 1997
Historical Significance:
To hasten recovery from the devastation by
WWII, three multilateral institutions were
established, 1) the World Bank, for
rehabilitation and reconstruction after WWIII; 2)
the International Monetary Fund, for currency
problems; 3) International Trade Organization,
to foster order and predictability in world trade
and minimize unilateral protectionist policies.
However, the third was never took off. But what
remained was GATT, or the General Agreement
on Tariffs and Trade. GATT is a collection of
treaties governing access to the economies of
treaty adherent with no institutionalized body
administering the agreements or dependable
system of dispute settlement.
After half a century, it finally gave birth to that
administrative body known as the World Trade
Organization, with the signing of the Final Act in
Marrakesh, Morocco and the ratification of the
WTO Agreement by its members.
Now the Philippines joined the WTO as a
founding member, as articulated by Pres. Fidel
V. Ramos sent Senate 2 letters
 They state to improve Philippine access
in foreign markets through the
reduction of tariffs on its exports.
  It also saw new opportunities for the
service sector, reduction of costs and
uncertainty associated with exporting,
and the attraction of investors in the
Country
 Also the country will benefit from the
WTO system of dispute settlement by
judicial adjudication through the
independent WTO settlement bodies
called the “Dispute Settlement Panels”
and “Appellate Tribunal”. Heretofore,
trade disputes were settled mainly
through negotiations where solutions
were arrived at frequently on the basis
of relative bargaining strengths, and
where naturally, weak and
underdeveloped countries were at a
disadvantage.
Facts:
On April 15, 1994, Respondent, as
representative of the Philippines, signed in
Marrakesh, Morocco, the Final Act Embodying
the Results of the Uruguay Round of
Multinational Negotiations.
He has agreed to:
1) To submit, as appropriate, the WTO
Agreement for the consideration of
their respective competent authorities,
with a view to seeking approval of the
Agreement in accordance with their
procedures; and
2) To adopt the Ministerial Declaration
and Decisions.
The members of the Senate received a letter
dated august 11, 1984 from the President of the
Philippines, stating among others that the
Uruguay Round Final Act is submitted to Senate
for concurrence
On December 14, 1994, the Senate adopted
Resolution No. 97 which concurs in the
ratification by the President of the Philippines of
the Agreement Establishing the World Trade
Organization. On December 16, the President
signed the ratification.
Petitioners prayed for the nullification, on
constitutional grounds, of the concurrence of
the Philippine Senate in the ratification by the
President of the Philippines of the Agreement
Establishing the World Trade Organization
(WTO Agreement, for brevity) and for the
prohibition of its implementation and
enforcement through the release and utilization
of public funds, the assignment of public
officials and employees, as well as the use of
government properties and resources by
respondent-heads of various executive offices
concerned therewith.
Petition in Brief:
Arguing mainly (1) that the WTO requires the
Philippines “to place nationals and products of
member-countries on the same footing as
Filipino and local products, (2) that the WTO
“intrudes, limits, and/or impairs” the
constitutional powers of both Congress and the
Supreme Court,
the instant petition before this Court assails the
WTO Agreement for violating the mandate of
the 1987 Constitution “develop a self-reliant
and independent national economy effectively
controlled by Filipinos … to give preference, to
qualified Filipinos (and to) promote the
preferential use of Filipino promote the
preferential use of Filipino labor, domestic
materials and locally produced goods.
Issues:
Does the Philippine Constitution prohibit
Philippine participation in worldwide trade
liberalization and economic globalization?
Whether provisions of the Agreement
Establishing the World Trade Organization
unduly limit, restrict and impair Philippine
sovereignty specifically the legislative power
which, under Sec. 2, Article VI, 1987 Philippine
Constitution is ‘vested in the Congress of the
Philippines.
Ruling:
On issue on national economy and the WTOA
 Declaration of Principles not self-
executing/ they need an enabling law.
(Art 2. Sec. 19)
 Economic Nationalism should be read
with other Constitutional Mandates to
Attain Balanced Development of
Economy
(Art. 12, Sec. 10 and 12) should
be read with other sec. of the same
article (Sec. 1 and 13). Hence to
establish these goals
1. A more equitable distribution
of opportunities, income and wealth;
2. A sustained increase in the
amount of goods and services provided
by the nation for the benefit of the
people; and
 3. An expanding productivity as
the key to raising the quality of life for
all especially the underprivileged.
On WTO impairs and intrudes on Legislative
 WTO recognizes need to Protect weak power and Judicial power.
economies – poor countries can protect No, the WTO agreement does not unduly limit,
their common interests more restrict, and impair the Philippine sovereignty,
effectively through the WTO than particularly the legislative power granted by the
through 1-on-1 negotiations with Philippine Constitution. The Senate was acting
developed countries. (negotiation strats in the proper manner when it concurred with
through law) the President’s ratification of the agreement.
 Specific WTO Provisos Protect
Developing Countries – WTO grants
While sovereignty has traditionally been
developing countries a more lenient
deemed absolute and all-encompassing on the
treatment, giving their domestic
domestic level, it is however subject to
industries some protection from the
restrictions and limitations voluntarily agreed to
rush of foreign competition. (E.g. in
by the Philippines, expressly or impliedly, as a
tariffs, preferential treatment is given to
member of the family of nations.
developing countries in terms of the
Unquestionably, the Constitution did not
amount of tariff reduction and the
envision a hermit-type isolation of the country
period within which the reduction is
from the rest of the world. In its Declaration of
spread out. (developed countries –
Principles and State Policies, the Constitution
tariff reduction of 36% w/n 6 years
“adopts the generally accepted principles of
while developing countries tariff
international law as part of the law of the land,
reduction of 24% w/ 10 years)
and adheres to the policy of peace, equality,
 Constitution does not rule out Foreign
justice, freedom, cooperation and amity, with
Competition
all nations.” By the doctrine of incorporation,
The WTO reliance on “most favored
the country is bound by generally accepted
nation,” “national treatment,” and
principles of international law, which are
“trade without discrimination” cannot
considered to be automatically part of our own
be struck down as unconstitutional as in
laws. One of the oldest and most fundamental
fact they are rules of equality and
rules in international law is pacta sunt servanda
reciprocity that apply to all WTO
— international agreements must be performed
members. Aside from envisioning a
in good faith. “A treaty engagement is not a
trade policy based on “equality and
mere moral obligation but creates a legally
reciprocity,” the fundamental law
binding obligation on the parties x x x. A state
encourages industries that are
which has contracted valid international
“competitive in both domestic and
obligations is bound to make in its legislations
foreign markets,” thereby
such modifications as may be necessary to
demonstrating a clear policy against a
ensure the fulfillment of the obligations
sheltered domestic trade environment,
undertaken.”
but one in favor of the gradual
development of robust industries that
can compete with the best in the By their inherent nature, treaties really limit or
foreign markets. Indeed, Filipino restrict the absoluteness of sovereignty. By
managers and Filipino enterprises have their voluntary act, nations may surrender some
shown capability and tenacity to aspects of their state power in exchange for
compete internationally. And given a greater benefits granted by or derived from a
free trade environment, Filipino convention or pact. After all, states, like
entrepreneurs and managers in individuals, live with coequals, and in pursuit of
Hongkong have demonstrated the mutually covenanted objectives and benefits,
Filipino capacity to grow and to prosper they also commonly agree to limit the exercise
against the best offered under a policy of their otherwise absolute rights. Thus, treaties
of laissez faire. have been used to record agreements between
 Constitution Favors Consumers, not States concerning such widely diverse matters
industries or entrepreneurs as, for example, the lease of naval bases, the
 Constitution Designed to Meet Future sale or cession of territory, the termination of
Events and Contingencies war, the regulation of conduct of hostilities, the
formation of alliances, the regulation of
commercial relations, the settling of claims, the
laying down of rules governing conduct in peace
and the establishment of international
organizations. The sovereignty of a state
therefore cannot in fact and in reality be
considered absolute. Certain restrictions enter
into the picture: (1) limitations imposed by the
very nature of membership in the family of
nations and (2) limitations imposed by treaty
stipulations. As aptly put by John F. Kennedy,
“Today, no nation can build its destiny alone.
The age of self-sufficient nationalism is over.
The age of interdependence is here.”
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack
of merit.
Kuroda vs. Jalandoni, March 26 1949
Facts:
Shigenori Kuroda, formerly a Lieutenant-
General of the Japanese Imperial Army and
Commanding General of the Japanese Imperial
Forces in the Philippines during a period
covering 1943 and 1944, who is now charged
before a Military Commission with having
unlawfully disregarded and failed “to discharge
his duties as such commander to control the
operations of members of his command,
permitting them to commit brutal atrocities and
other high crimes against noncombatant
civilians and prisoners of the Imperial Japanese
Forces, in violation of the laws and customs of
war” — comes before this Court seeking to
establish the illegality of EO No. 68, which
established a National War Crimes Offices and
provides that persons accused as war criminals
shall be tried by military commission; and to
permanently prohibit respondents from
proceeding with the case of petitioner.
Kuroda argues that EO No. 68 is illegal on the
ground that it violates not only the provisions of
our constitutional law but also our local laws, to
say nothing of the fact (that) the Philippines is
not a signatory nor an adherent to The Hague
Convention on Rules and Regulations covering
Land Warfare and, therefore, petitioner is
charged of `crimes’ not based on law, national
and international. Hence, petitioner argues —
“That in view of the fact that this commission
has been empanelled by virtue of an
unconstitutional law and an illegal order, this
commission is without jurisdiction to try herein
petitioner.”
- He also questions the participations of
US attorneys Hussey and Port as they
are not authorized by the SC and that
US is not a party in interest of the case.
Issues:
WON the Philippines can adopt the
rules and regulations laid down on The Hague
and Geneva Conventions notwithstanding that
it is not a signatory thereto and whether it can
create a Military Commission to try violations of
The Hague Convention?
Ruling:
Yes. Executive Order No. 68, establishing a
National War Crimes Office and prescribing
rules and regulations governing the trial of
accused war criminals, was issued by the
President of the Philippines on the 29th day of
July, 1947. This Court holds that this order is
valid and constitutional. Article 2 of our
Constitution provides in its section 2, that
“The Philippines renounces war as an
instrument of national policy, and adopts the
generally accepted principles of international
law as part of the law of the nation.”
In accordance with the generally accepted
principles of international law of the present
day, including the Hague Convention, the
Geneva Convention and significant precedents
of international jurisprudence established by
the United Nations, all those persons, military
or civilian, who have been guilty of planning,
preparing or waging a war of aggression and of
the commission of crimes and offenses
consequential and incidental thereto, in
violation of the laws and customs of war, of
humanity and civilization, are held accountable
therefor. Consequently, in the promulgation
and enforcement of Executive Order No. 68, the
President of the Philippines has acted in
conformity with the generally accepted
principles and policies of international law
which are part of our Constitution.
The promulgation of said executive order is an
exercise by the President of his powers as
Commander in Chief of all our armed forces, as
upheld by this Court in the case of Yamashita vs.
Styer L-129, 42 Off. Gaz., 654) 1 when we said
“War is not ended simply because hostilities
have ceased. After cessation of armed
hostilities, incidents of war may remain pending
which should be disposed of as in time of war.
`An important incident to a conduct of war is
the adoption of measures by the military
command not only to repel and defeat the
enemies but to seize and subject to disciplinary
measures those enemies who in their attempt
to thwart or impede our military effort have
violated the law of war.’ (Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.
S., 1; 63 Sup. Ct., 2.) Indeed, the power to
create a military commission for the trial and
punishment of war criminals is an aspect of
waging war. And, in the language of a writer, a
military commission `has jurisdiction so long as
a technical state of war continues. This includes
the period of an armistice, or military
occupation, up to the effective date of a treaty
of peace, and may extend beyond, by treaty
agreement.’ (Cowls, Trial of War Criminals by
Military Tribunals, American Bar Association
Journal, June, 1944.)”
Consequently, the President as Commander in
Chief is fully empowered to consummate this
unfinished aspect of war, namely, the trial and
punishment of war criminals, through the
issuance and enforcement of Executive Order
No. 68.
Petitioner argues that respondent Military
Commission has no jurisdiction to try petitioner
for acts committed in violation of The Hague
Convention and the Geneva Convention
because the Philippines is not a signatory to the
first and signed the second only in 1947. It
cannot be denied that the rules and regulations
of The Hague and Geneva conventions form
part of and are wholly based on the generally
accepted principles of international law. In fact,
these rules and principles were accepted by the
two belligerent nations, the United States and
Japan, who were signatories to the two
Conventions. Such rules and principles,
therefore, form part of the law of our nation
even if the Philippines was not a signatory to
the conventions embodying them, for our
Constitution has been deliberately general and
extensive in its scope and is not confined to the
recognition of rules and principles of
international law as contained in treaties to
which our government may have been or shall
be a signatory.
Furthermore, when the crimes charged against
petitioner were allegedly committed, the
Philippines was under the sovereignty of the
United States, and thus we were equally bound
together with the United States and with Japan,
to the rights and obligations contained in the
treaties between the belligerent countries.
These rights and obligations were not erased by
our assumption of full sovereignty. If at all, our
emergence as a free state entitles us to enforce
the right, on our own, of trying and punishing
those who committed crimes against our
people.
Inchong vs. Hernandez (101 Phil. 115)
Facts:
Petitioner, and on behalf of other alien resident
corporations and partnerships, entered the
country to take advantage of business
opportunities in the Philippines.
He and his fellow Chinese businessmen enjoyed
a monopoly in the local market. However,
Congress passed the RA No. 1180 or the Act to
regulate Retail Business, which limits against
persons, not citizens of the Philippines and
organizations that are not wholly owned by
citizens from engaging directly or indirectly in
retail trade.
In effect it nationalizes the retail trade business.
Petitioner and other alien residents’
corporations and partnerships were adversely
affected by the enactment of Republic Act.
No.1180. They had brought an action to obtain
a judicial declaration that said Act is
unconstitutional (denies equal protection,
deprives liberty and property without due
process of law) arguing that the act has violated
international treaties and obligations
Issues:
WON RA 1180 is unconstitutional and violates
international treaties and obligations.
Ruling:
Constitutional provisions:
 Valid exercise of police power –
o Does not only apply to citizens
but are admitted universal in
application
o Doctrine of Purposeful
hesitancy; the legislative has
sufficient basis on its
implementation (alien
predominance in the retail
 business, endangers national
economy)
o Does not violate equal
protection clause; sufficient
ground to distinguish between
alien and citizen in the exercise
of the occupation regulated.
o Does not violate due process;
because law is prospective and
recognizes the privileges of
aliens engaged in the business
and protects their privilege.
It cannot be said to be void for supposed
conflict with treaty obligations because no
treaty has actually been entered into on the
subject and the police power may not be
curtailed or surrendered by any treaty or any
other conventional agreement.
All that a treaty guarantees are equality of
treatment of aliens, subject to the same terms
of Filipino nationals in any other country.
However, in the conduct of engaging into retail
trade, foreign nationals, except those of the
United States, who are granted special rights by
the Constitution, are all prohibited to such
conduct.
Lo Ching vs. Archbishop of Manila (81 Phil. 601)
Facts:
The Archbishop of Manila through the Bank of
the Philippine Islands (BPI) leased a
farm to Lo and So Yun Ching Chong Co. located
at de la Calle Hidalgo, Manila, under a
monthly income of P500 by the end of three
years, extendable to two years (two years
upon agreement of the parties) (September 1,
1940 – August 31, 1943). The tenant took the
property by setting it in a hotel.
Thereafter, the Japanese army echoed the
tenants of the property and delivered the
latter to German Otto Schulze who worked until
January 1945 at the advent of the
liberation army.
On Feb 1945 The tenant reoccupied the
property and paid the monthly rental fee.
Before the end of August of that year, the
landlord required the tenants to vacate the
property, however, they refused. Therefore, the
landlord filed for an application for eviction in
the Municipal Court of Manila. It is ordered the
tenants to vacate the property and pay
its monthly rent of P625 from the first
September 1945, plus damages in the amount
of P500 and legal expenses.
The appellants contend that they are entitled to
occupy the property for three full
years, the occupation must be effective, and
continuous material, which should not be
deprived of the use and enjoyment of the
property, and the appellants are entitled to
deduct that period of three years, all the time
that no longer have the lease available
to the Japanese army
Issue:
WON Hague Convention of 1907 allows
occupation and seizure of private lands. WON
Japanese soldiers occupied the farm in dispute.
Ruling:
The Hague Convention of 1907 does not allow
an occupying army to seize private
property in the territory invaded. In contrast,
states that: "Family honor and rights, the
lives of persons, and private property, as well as
religious convictions and practice,
must be respected. Private property cannot be
confiscated." (Article 46).
The farm is not even used as army barracks, and
there is no evidence that it was
seized by military necessity, what can be
deduced that the Japanese soldiers disposed
of the property, not in the legitimate exercise
the authority of an occupying army, but
spurred on by uncontrolled and uncontrollable
desire to take over other people.
Mijares vs. Ranada, April 12, 2005
Facts:
Invoking the Alien Tort Act, petitioners Mijares,
et al.*, all of whom suffered human rights
violations during the Marcos era, obtained a
Final Judgment in their favor against the Estate
of the late Ferdinand Marcos amounting to
roughly 1.9 Billion U.S. Dollars in compensatory
and exemplary damages for tortuous violations
of international law in the US District Court of
Hawaii. This Final Judgment was affirmed by the
US Court of Appeals.
As a consequence, Petitioners filed a Complaint
with the Regional Trial Court of Makati for the
enforcement of the Final Judgment, paying Php
410.00 as docket and filing fees based on Rule
141, Section 7(b) where the value of the subject
matter is incapable of pecuniary estimation. The
Estate of Marcos however, filed a Motion to
Dismiss alleging the non-payment of the correct
filing fees. The Regional Trial Court 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. As such, the
proper filing fee was 472 Million Philippine
pesos, which Petitioners had not paid.
Issue:
Whether or not the amount paid by the
Petitioners is the proper filing fee?
Ruling:
Yes, but on a different basis—amount merely
corresponds to the same amount required for
“other actions not involving property”. The
Regional Trial Court of Makati erred in
concluding that the filing fee should be
computed on the basis of the total sum claimed
or the stated value of the property in litigation.
The Petitioner’s Complaint was lodged against
the Estate of Marcos but it is clearly based on a
judgment, the Final Judgment of the US District
Court. However, the Petitioners erred in stating
that the Final Judgment is incapable of
pecuniary estimation because it is so capable.
On this point, Petitioners state that this might
lead to an instance wherein a first level court
(MTC, MeTC, etc.) would have jurisdiction to
enforce a foreign judgment. Under Batasang
Pambansa 129, such courts are not vested with
such jurisdiction. Section 33 of Batasang
Pambansa 129 refers to instances wherein the
cause of action or subject matter pertains to an
assertion of rights over property or a sum of
money. But here, the subject matter is the
foreign judgment itself. Section 16 of Batasang
Pambansa 129 reveals that the complaint for
enforcement of judgment even if capable of
pecuniary estimation would fall under the
jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts. Thus,
the Complaint to enforce the US District Court
judgment is one capable of pecuniary
estimations but at the same time, it is also an
action based on judgment against an estate,
thus placing it beyond the ambit of Section 7(a)
of Rule 141. What governs the proper
computation of the filing fees over Complaints
for the enforcement of foreign judgments is
Section7(b)(3), involving “other actions not
involving property.”
In Re: Garcia (2 SCRA 984)
Facts:
Under the Treaty on Academic Degrees and the
Exercise of Professions between the Philippines
and Spain, nationals of each of the two
countries who have obtained the required
degrees can practice their professions within
the territory of the other. Efren Garcia, a
Filipino, finished law in the University of
Madrid, Spain and was allowed to practice the
law profession therein. He invokes the treaty in
order for him to be allowed to practice in the
Philippines without taking the bar examinations.
Issue:
WON the Treaty can modify regulations
governing admission to Philippine Bar.
Ruling:
No. It is clear, under Article 1 of the Treaty, that
the privileges provided therein are made
expressly subject to the laws and, regulations of
the contracting State in whose territory it is
desired to exercise the legal profession; and
Section 1 of Rule 127, in connection with
Sections 2, 9, and 16 thereof, which have the
force of law, require that before anyone can
practice the legal profession in the Philippines
he must first successfully pass the required bar
examinations. Moreover, the Treaty was
intended to govern Filipino citizens desiring to
practice their profession in Spain, and the
citizens of Spain desiring to practice their
profession in the Philippines. Applicant is a
Filipino Citizen desiring to practice the legal
profession in the Philippines. He is therefore
subject to the laws of his own country and is not
entitled to the privileges extended to Spanish
nationals desiring to practice in the Philippines.
The aforementioned Treaty, concluded
between the Republic of the Philippines and the
Spanish State could not have been intended to
modify the laws and regulations governing
admission to the practice of law in the
Philippines, for the reason that the Executive
Department may not encroach upon the
constitutional prerogative of the Supreme Court
to promulgate rules for admission to the
practice of law in the Philippines, the power to
repeal, alter or supplement such rules being
reserved only to the Congress of the Philippines.
Laguna Lake Development Authority vs. CA, 231
SCRA 292
Facts:
The Task Force Camarin Dumpsite of Our Lady
of Lourdes Parish, Caloocan City filed a letter
complaint with the Laguna Lake Development
Authority (LLDA) seeking to stop the operation
of the 8.6-hectare open garbage dumpsite in
Tala Estate, Barangay Camarin, Caloocan City
due to its harmful effects on the residents and
the environment. Also, it was found out that the
City Government (CG) has no documents
required by law to maintain an open dump site.
A Cease and Desist Order was issued by the
LLDA to completely halt, stop and desist from
dumping any form or kind of garbage and other
waste matter at the Camarin dumpsite.
The dumping operation was forthwith stopped
by the CG. However, the dumping operation
was resumed after a meeting was conducted
and the parties concerned failed to settle the
problem.
The LLDA issued another order reiterating its
first order and issued an Alias Cease and Desist
Order enjoining the CG from continuing its
dumping operations at the Camarin area.
Pending its motion, the CG filed with the
Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City an action
for the declaration of nullity of the cease and
desist order with prayer for the issuance of writ
of injunction. The CG sought to be declared as
the sole authority empowered to promote the
health and safety and enhance the right of the
people in Caloocan City to a balanced ecology
within its territorial jurisdiction.
Issues:
WON the LLDA has the power and authority to
issue a "cease and desist" order under Republic
Act No. 4850 and its amendatory laws?
Ruling:
The cease and desist order issued by the LLDA
requiring the City Government of Caloocan to
stop dumping its garbage in the Camarin open
dumpsite found by the LLDA to have been done
in violation of Republic Act No. 4850, as
amended, and other relevant environment
laws, cannot be stamped as an unauthorized
exercise by the LLDA of injunctive powers. By its
express terms, Republic Act No. 4850, as
amended by P.D. No. 813 and Executive Order
No. 927, series of 1983, authorizes the LLDA to
"make, alter or modify order requiring the
discontinuance of pollution. Section 4, par. (d)
explicitly authorizes the LLDA to make whatever
order may be necessary in the exercise of its
jurisdiction.
The LLDA was not expressly conferred the
power "to issue and ex-parte cease and desist
order" in a language, as suggested by the City
Government of Caloocan. However, it would be
a mistake to draw therefrom the conclusion
that there is a denial of the power to issue the
order in question when the power "to make,
alter or modify orders requiring the
discontinuance of pollution" is expressly and
clearly bestowed upon the LLDA by Executive
Order No. 927, series of 1983.
An authority to issue a "cease and desist order"
is not expressly conferred by law, there is
jurisprudence enough to the effect that the rule
granting such authority need not necessarily
be express. While it is a fundamental rule that
an administrative agency has only such powers
as are expressly granted to it by law, it is
likewise a settled rule that an administrative
agency has also such powers as are necessarily
implied in the exercise of its express powers. In
the exercise, therefore, of its express powers
under its charter as a regulatory and quasi-
judicial body with respect to pollution cases in
the Laguna Lake region, the authority of the
LLDA to issue a "cease and desist order" is,
perforce, implied. Otherwise, it may well be
reduced to a "toothless" paper agency.
Alabama Claims Arbitration Case (1872)
Principle:
No state can deny the international
responsibilities using his domestic law as a
shield. But the state law has to connection in
the International Law.
Facts:
In (1861-1865) the USA civil war was occurred.
Then Britain declared neutrality of this war and
that is accepted as the USA. But the
confederate navy made many warships used in
civil war from Britain. The US authority requests
to Britain that they can take action against the
company of the ship. But Britain did not take
any action against such company. As the
violation of the agreement, USA had claimed
compensation from Britain on the ground that it
had violated the law of neutrality.
Issues:
Whether under the Washington agreement
Britain follows the neutrality or not. Whether
Britain was liable to pay any compensation to
the USA or not.
Ruling:
It was held that Britain failed to follow the
neutrality so that Britain had to pay US
$15, 500,000 dollars so that Britain had to pay
in this amount in Gold in the form of
compensation for the violation of the laws of
neutrality.
No state to keep away from the international
responsibility to shelter the national law. Each
and every state has accountability to protect
their national law, but not avoiding
international responsibility.
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1861-
1865/alabama#:~:text=The%20Alabama
%20claims%20were%20a,of%20the%20U.S.
%20Civil%20War.&text=Together%2C%20they
%20sank%20more%20than,marine%20to
%20adopt%20foreign%20registry.
Polish Nationals in Danzig Case (1932) [225 CTS
188)
Facts:
The Free City of Danzig: semi-autonomous city-
state which existed from 1920-1939. Part of
Poland.
The diplomatic representative of Poland at
Danzig wrote to the High Commissioner of the
League of Nations, asking for a decision in the
matter of the unfavorable treatment of Polish
nationals within Danzig.
Issue and Ruling:
• Jurisdiction of the Court
• Interpretation of Article 104 (5) of the Treaty
of Versailles and of Article 33, paragraph 1, of
the Convention of Paris
o Section 5, Article 104: ensures that there be
no discrimination to the detriment of Polish
nationals and other persons of Polish origin or
speech at Danzig.
▪ Court opined that this should be interpreted
to mean that there should be no discrimination
because of the Polish character of these
persons.
o Article 33: accords national treatment to
Polish nationals and other persons of Polish
origin or speech
• Court interpretation: Danzig has two
obligations:
o To apply provisions similar to those applied by
Poland in Polish territory to minorities in the
territory of Danzig; and
o To provide against discrimination to the
detriment of persons of Polish origin,
nationality, or speech, on the ground of their
Polish character.
Jurisdiction of the Courts of Danzig
• Whether or not the railway employees who
passed from the service of the Free City into
Polish service are entitled to bring actions in
respect of pecuniary claims
o Article 104, Treaty of Versailles: Poland is
ensured control and administration of the
railway system within Danzig, except the street
railways and other railways which primarily
serve the needs of the Free City.
• Arguments:
o Poland argues that:
▪ The Danzig-Polish agreement is an
international agreement and thus it creates
rights and obligations between the two parties
only
▪ The agreement has not been incorporated into
Polish national law, and thus cannot create
direct rights and obligations for the individuals
concerned.
▪ If it is liable, Poland is only answerable to the
Railway employees, not to the former Danzig
officials who have become Polish officials,
because that is governed by Polish national law.
o Danzig claims:
▪ The agreement was intended to constitute
part of the series of provisions which establish
the legal relationship between the Railways
Administration and its employees.
• Main dispute: does the Danzig-Polish
agreement form part of the series of provisions
governing the legal relationship between the
Polish Railways Administration and the Danzig
officials who have passed into its service?
o The agreement, being an international
agreement, cannot create rights and obligations
for private individuals.
o However, in this case, there is showing that
the parties intended that the Agreement be
applicable to the officials and the Railway
Administration.
o Basically, the Agreement creates a special
legal relationship governing the relations
between the Polish Railways Administration and
the Danzig officials, workmen, and employees,
who have passed into the permanent service of
the Polish Administration.
o The Court interpreted Article 9 of the
Agreement to mean that the applicability of the
agreement is not dependent on their
incorporation into a Polish law or regulation.
o THUS. the relations between the Polish
Railways Administration and the Danzig officials
should be governed by the Agreement
▪ As a consequence, the Danzig officials have a
right of action against the Polish Railways
Administration for the recovery of claims.
La Grand Case (2001) [ICJ Rep. 466]
FACTS
• • Germany filed a complaint against the
United States for violation of the Vienna
Convention on Consular Relations. o Karl
and Walter LaGrand were arrested on
suspicion of being involved in an attempted
armed bank robbery in the course of which
the bank manager was murdered and
another bank employee was seriously
injured. ▪ They were tried and convicted of
murder, attempeted murder, attempted
armed robbery, and kidnapping.
 They were sentenced to death.
• o The authorities of the State of Arizona
tried and sentenced Karl and Walter
LaGrand to death without informing them
of their rights, as is required under Article
36, paragraph 1 (b), of the Vienna
Convention. ▪ the competent authorities of
the receiving State shall, without delay.
inform the consular post of the sending
State if, within its consular district, a
national of that State is arrested or
committed to prison or to custody pending
trial or is detained in any other manners.
Any communication addressed to the
consular post by the person arrested, in
prison, custody or detention shall be
forwarded by the said authorities without
delay. The said authorities shall inform the
person concerned without delay of his
rights under this subparagraph.
•
• o Germany also alleged that the failure
to provide the required notification
precluded Germany from protecting its
nationals’ interest provided for by Articles 5
and 36 of the Vienna Convention at both
the trial and the appeal level in the United
States courts. ▪ Dec 21, 1998 notified by US
authorities of their right to consular access.
• ▪ Jan 15, 1999 court decided Karl is to
be executed on Feb 24 and Walter March 3
• ▪ In January and February Germany
tried to prevent the execution of the
LaGrands but they were ignored.
•
•
• • Procedural Default: municipal law
which provides that because the individuals did
not assert their rights at the State level, they
could no longer assert them in federal
proceedings.
ISSUES AND RULING:
• • The US violated Article 36, par 1. Of
the Vienna Convention which required the
competent authorities of the United States to
inform the LaGrands of their right to have the
Consulate of Germany notified of their arrest. o
Also the right of consular officers to visit their
nationals in prison and to arrange for their legal
representation.
•
• • Procedural default cannot apply.
Violates Article 36, par 2. o That provision
required the United States to “enable full effect
to be given to the purposes for which the rights
accorded [under Article 36] [were] intended”.
• o The procedural default rule did not
allow the detained individuals to challenge a
conviction. It had the effect of preventing
Germany from assisting the LaGrands in a timely
fashion as provided for by the Convention.
• o Sided with PIL because Art 36of the
Vienna Convention confers a right which cannot
just be taken away because of a domestic law.
•