Fundamental Rights of States
ART. 51 of UN CHARTER;
When you say that the right of a state is fundamental, what
does it mean?
- Once a state comes into existence, it is vested
with certain rights described as fundamental or its
basic rights.
- it means that the right is basic, inherent and
essential to a state as a member of the the
international community.
- They are founded not only upon natural law but
also upon the mere fact of the existence of the
state.
FIVE (5) FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE STATES:
RIGHT TO: (ESE-TL)
A. Existence and Self-Preservation
B. Sovereignty and Independence
C. Equality
D. Territorial Integrity and Jurisdiction
E. Legation or Diplomatic Intercourse
1. RIGHT TO EXISTENCE AND SELF-PRESERVATION
- The most fundamental among all the rights of a
state.
- refers to the preservation of the state’s personality
and integrity through self-defense and self-
preservation.
Why is the right to existence closely identified with the
rights of self-defense and self-preservation?
- The right to existence is closely identified with the
rights of self-defense and self-preservation
because in order for a state to continue its
existence, a state has to preserve its personality
and integrity through self-defense and self-
preservation.
- Thus, a state may take such measures, including
to use force or may be necessary to resist any
danger of the existence.
RIGHT OF SELF-DEFENSE
- identified with self-preservation, self-help or
necessity
- empowers a state to take such measures,
including the use of force, as may be necessary to
resist any danger to its existence.
Is the validity of the right to self-defense dependent upon
the recognition of other states?
- No.
- because the right to self-defense is inherent to a
state. Hence, it does not depend upon
recognition of the states.
What are the two legal provisions recognizing the right to
self-defense?
1. ART. 51 of UN CHARTER;
2. Art. 12 of the Draft Declaration of the Rights and
Duties of States:
“Every State has the right of individual or
collective self-defense against armed attack.”
“Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of
individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs
against a member of the United Nations until the Security Council
has taken the measures necessary for the maintenance of
international peace and security. “
REQUISITES: (AGL-M)
- Armed Attack
- Grave or actual threat
- Limited necessity
- give way to Measures by the Security Council
What are the instances when use of force is allowed by the
UN Charter?
1. Inherent right of individual or collective self-
defense under Article 51
2. Enforcement of measures involving the use of air,
sea, or land forces by the UN Security Council
under Art. 42, as may be necessary to maintain or
restore international peace and security; and
3. Enforcement of measure by regional
arrangement under Art. 53, as authorized by
Security Council.
COLLECTIVE SELF-DEFENSE
What do you mean by collective self-defense?
- authorizes states to come to each other’s
assistance
- when one of them is the subject of an armed
attack and
- the Security Council has not yet taken its own
measures
- Expressly recognized under ART. 51 UN Charter &
Art. 12 of the Draft Declaration of the Rights and
Duties of States
REQUISITES:
- Armed attack; and
- Request for help (Nicaragua v. U.S.)
Can collective self-defense be given to another state upon
the presence of external aggression against a state?
- No, assistance must not be given solely for the
reason of an existence of an armed attack.
- As the ICJ ruled in Nicaragua v. U.S., the state
subject to an armed attack must have first sought
or requested help/assistance from the other State,
in order to justify collective self-defense.
ART. II, SEC. 2, PHIL. CONSTI.
“The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy,
adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as
part of the law of the land and adheres to the policy of peace,
equally, justice, freedom, cooperation, and amity with all
nations.”
Does the Philippine Constitution allow both offensive and
defensive war?
- Only defensive war and not offensive war.
What is the legal basis of the prohibition against offensive
war?
 - Article 2, section 2 of the Philippine Constitution -
prohibits offensive/aggressive war
How about the legal basis for defensive war?
- from ARTICLE 2, SEC. 2, CONSTI. – general
accepted principle (Right to existence and self-
preservation)
- Inherent right of the State to existence and self-
preservation as well as self-defense.
o This right is a generally accepted principle
of international law.
o Hence, it is part of the law of the land
under the incorporation clause.
Can the Philippine government declare war? Is there a
provision in the Constitution that allows or permits the
government to declare war?
- No, there is a difference between declaration of
war and declaration of state of war.
- Under ARTICLE 6, SEC. 23, PAR. 1, CONSTI,
Congress, by a vote of two-thirds of both houses in
joint session assembled, voting separately, shall
have the sole power to declare the existence of a
state of war, not declare war. (Declaration of State
War)
- Corollary, ART. VII, SEC. 18, PHIL. CONST provides
that the President as the commander in chief of
all armed forces and whenever it becomes
necessary, he may call out such armed forces to
prevent or suppress invasion.
o In case of invasion, when public safety
requires it, he may for a period of 60 days
suspend the privilege of the writ of
Habeas Corpus or place the Philippines or
any part thereof under martial law.
(Military Power of Pres)
2. RIGHT TO SOVEREIGNTY AND INDEPENDENCE
SOVEREIGNTY
- refers to the: (TLP-C)
o totality of the powers,
o legal competence and
o privileges of a state arising from
customary international law, and
o not dependent on the consent of another
state.
TWO ASPECTS OF THE STATE:
 INTERNAL SOVEREIGNTY
o Power of the states to direct its domestic
affairs, as when:
▪ It establishes its government,
▪ enact laws for observance within its
territory, or
▪ adopts economic policies.
 EXTERNAL SOVEREIGNTY / INDEPENDENCE
o Signifies freedom of the state to control its own
foreign affairs, such as:
▪ When it concludes treaties,
▪ Makes war or peace, and
▪ Maintains diplomatic and
commercial relations
o More often referred to as “INDEPENDENCE”
What happens to existing laws if there is a change in
sovereignty?
- A distinction shall first be made, whether the law is
political or municipal law.
- Political laws of the predecessor state are
automatically abrogated and may be restored
only upon positive act of the new sovereign.
- Non-political laws, such as those dealing with
familial relations, criminal laws, are deemed
continued, unless they are changed or are
contrary to the institutions of the successor state.
POLITICAL LAWS
Why are political laws deemed abrogated when there is a
change in sovereignty?
- Political law is branch of public law which deals
with the organization and operations of the
governmental organs of the State and defines the
relations of the State with the inhabitants of its
territory.
- Since there is a new sovereign authority over the
state, it follows that there is also a change in the
societal interaction between the State and its
inhabitants and an eventual change of political
system.
- Hence, political laws are automatically
abrogated upon change in sovereignty, unless
there is a positive act from the successor state to
retain said laws.
NON-POLITICAL LAWS
GR: Continue to operate
EXCPTN:
1. Changed by new sovereign; or
2. Contrary to the institution of the new
sovereign
Why do non-political laws continue to operate as a rule?
- They do not involve relations between the state
and its people, they only regulate private relations
thus they are generally not affected by a change
in sovereignty except when they are changed by
the new sovereign; or contrary to the institutions of
the new sovereign.
 Tañada v. Angara,
G.R. No. 118295, May 2, 1997
DOCTRINE:
Treaties do indeed limit or restrict the sovereignty of a
State. By their voluntary act, States may surrender some
aspects of their sovereignty in exchange for greater
benefits granted by or derived from a convention or
pact.
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
membership in the family of nations and
(2) limitations imposed by treaty stipulations.
Under the rule of pacta sunt servanda, a State is bound
to make such modifications in its laws as may be
necessary to ensure the fulfillment of the obligations
undertaken under the treaty.
Hence, in the domestic sphere, sovereignty is absolute
and all-encompassing. However, in the international
sphere, sovereignty is limited due to treaty stipulations
and obligations arising from membership in international
organizations.
FACTS:
In 1994, Respondent Rizalino Navarro, then Secretary of
the Department of Trade and Industry (Secretary
Navarro, for brevity), representing the Government of
the Republic of the Philippines, signed in Marrakesh,
Morocco, the Final Act Embodying the Results of the
Uruguay Round of Multilateral Negotiations (Final Act,
for brevity).
The Uruguay Round Final Act aims to liberalize and
expand world trade and strengthen the interrelationship
between trade and economic policies affecting growth
and development.
The Final Act established the WTO Agreement which
opens access to foreign markets especially to its major
trading partners through the reduction of tariffs and its
exports, particularly agricultural and industrial products,
which provides new opportunities for the service sector,
cost and uncertainty associated with exporting and
more investment in the country.
The basic principles underlying the WTO Agreement
recognize the need of developing countries like the
Philippines to “share in the growth in international
trade commensurate with the needs of their economic
development.”
The members of the Philippine Senate received a letter
from the President of the Philippines, submitting the
Uruguay Round Final Act for its concurrence pursuant to
Section 21, Article VI I of the Constitution.
Thereafter, a draft of a proposed Resolution giving its
concurrence to the WTO Agreement is enclosed.
PETITIONER’S CONTENTION:
Petitioners filed the case with prayer for the nullification
of the WTO Agreement on constitutional grounds; one
of its contentions is that:
The WTO Agreement provides that “(e)ach Member
shall ensure the conformity of its laws, regulations and
administrative procedures with its obligations as
provided in the annexed Agreements.”
of
1. Such undertaking “unduly limits, restricts and
impairs Philippine sovereignty, specifically the
legislative power which under Sec. 2, Article VI
of the 1987 Philippine Constitution is vested in
the Congress of the Philippines,
Thus, It is an assault on the sovereign powers of
the Philippines because this means that
Congress could not pass legislation that will be
good for our national interest and general
welfare if such legislation will not conform with
the WTO Agreement, which not only relates to
the trade in goods x x x but also to the flow of
investments and money x x x as well as to a
whole slew of agreements on socio-cultural
matters x x x.”[40]
More specifically, petitioners claim that said
WTO proviso derogates from the power to tax,
which is lodged in the Congress. And while the
Constitution allows Congress to authorize the
President to fix tariff rates, import and export
quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues, and
other duties or imposts, such authority is subject
to “specified limits and x x x such limitations and
restrictions” as Congress may provide,[42] as in
fact it did under Sec. 401 of the Tariff and
Customs Code.
2. WTO agreement violates the mandate of the
1987 Constitution to “develop a self-reliant and
independent national economy effectively
controlled by Filipinos, AND (to) give
preference to qualified Filipinos (and to)
promote the preferential use of Filipino labor,
domestic materials and locally produced
goods” as WTO requires the Philippines “to
place nationals and products of member-
countries on the same footing as Filipinos and
local products”
3. 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.
ISSUE:
WON the provisions of the Agreement establishing the
World Trade Organization Agreement is unconstitutional
for unduly limiting, restricting, and impairing Philippine
sovereignty
RULING:
No. the Final Act which established the World Tradé
Organization was a treaty, the Supreme Court ruled that
the WTO agreement is constitutional, even if it restricts
the sovereignty of the Philippines.
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.
By inherent nature, treaties really limit or restrict the
absoluteness of sovereignty. By Voluntary Act, nations
may surrender some aspects of their state power in
exchange for greater benefits granted by or derived
from a convention or pacts.
The underlying consideration in this partial surrender of
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 Court used as evidence the UN Charter and other
multilateral and bilateral treaties, that involve limitations
on Philippine sovereignty.
It ruled that when the Philippines joined the UN as one
of its 51 charter members, the Philippines consented to
restrict its sovereign rights under the concept of
sovereignty as auto limitation.:
“On the rationale that the Philippines has adopted the
generally accepted principles of international law as
part of the law of the land, a portion of sovereignty may
be waived without violating the Constitution.”
One of the oldest and fundamental rules in international
law is pacta sunt servanda-international agreements
must be performed in good faith. "A treaty engagement
is not a mere moral obligation but creates a legally
binding obligation on the parties xxx A state which has
contracted valid international obligations is bound to
make in its legislations such modifications as may be
necessary to ensure the fulfillment of the obligations
undertaken.
The Court has noted the obligation of the Philippines to
adjust its laws in relation to international law:
As an integral part of the community of nations, we are
responsible to assure that our government, Constitution
and laws will carry out our international obligation.
Hence, we cannot readily plead the Constitution as a
convenient excuse for non-compliance with our
obligations, duties and responsibilities under
international law.
Therefore, in the domestic sphere, sovereignty is
absolute and all-encompassing. However, in the
international sphere, sovereignty is limited due to treaty
stipulations and obligations arising from membership in
international organizations.
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.
UN Charter and Other Treaties
Limit Sovereignty
When the Philippines joined the United Nations as one
of its 51 charter members, it consented to restrict its
sovereign rights under the "concept of sovereignty as
auto-limitation."
Under Article 2 of the UN Charter, "All members shall
give the United Nations every assistance in any action it
takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall
refrain from giving assistance to any state against which
the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement
action."
Such assistance includes payment of its corresponding
share not merely in administrative expenses but also in
expenditures for the peace-keeping operations of the
organization.
PRINCIPLE OF AUTO-LIMITATION
- emphasizes a situation wherein the state through
the legislature imposes self-limitation on the
exercise of its power out of respect for the relations
that it created.
INTERVENTION
What is Intervention?
- an act by which a state interferes with the
domestic or foreign affairs of another state
through the employment of force or threat of force
which may be physical, political or economic.
NOTE: Lacking of PPE pressure in the involvement of
affairs of another state, there can no intervention.
What is the stand of UN on intervention?
- GR: ART. 2 (7) UN CHARTER:
 o UN binds itself not to intervene in matters
which are essentially within the domestic
jurisdiction of any state”
1965 UN General Assembly Resolution
- No state has the right to intervene in the affairs of
another.
GR: Intervention is sanctioned in international relations.
EXCPTN: (SDR-AH)
1. Exercised as Self-defense; or
2. decreed by the Security Council as a preventive
or enforcement of action for the maintenance of
peace and security;
3. when requested from sister states or from the UN
by the parties to a dispute or a state beset by
rebellion;
4. when such action is agreed upon in a treaty;
5. intervention based on humanitarian grounds.
DRAGO DOCTRINE
What is Drago Doctrine?
- embodied in the Hague Convention of 1907
through provision which provides that:
o contracting powers agree not to have
recourse to armed force for the recovery
of contract debts claimed from the
government of one country by the
government of another country as being
due its nationals
- - formulated by Argentinian Foreign Minister Luis
Drago
o the Drago doctrine was innovative
because it rejected categorically the
right of military intervention or occupation
of a country for the purpose of collecting
debts.
o At that time, however, European powers
were intervening and carving out empires
everywhere and the United States had
also joined the club of colonial powers
after the Spanish-American War and
hence the doctrine was not really
accepted as a principle of international
law.
- - a modified version was adopted in the Second
Hague Conference (1907): Porter Resolution
PORTER RESOLUTION
What is Porter Resolution?
- declared illegal an intervention for the collection
of debts provided that the nation in question had
accepted arbitration and the decision adopted in
the arbitration.
- Intervention is permitted if the debtor state refused
an offer to arbitrate the creditor’s claim, or having
agreed to arbitrate, prevented agreement on the
compromis, or having agreed thereto, refused to
abide by the award of the arbitrator.
RIGHT TO EQUALITY
DOCTRINE OF EQUALITY OF STATES
- Originated from natural view
o The idea here is that nations, being made
up of free individuals, must necessarily be
equal since all men are born equal.
- “All states are equal in international law despite
their obvious factual inequalities as to size,
population, wealth, strength or degrees of
civilization.”
- recognized under ARTICLE 2 OF UN CHARTER:
“The Organization is based on the principle of the
sovereign equality of all its Members.”
NOTE:
Absolute equality is an impossible aspiration. What
the UN really imposes is legal sovereign equality.
LEGAL EQUALITY v. FACTUAL EQUALITY
 While de jure equality, which refers to the
equal legal status of all states, is widely
accepted as a fundamental principle of the
international system,
 Factual equality, which pertains to the
material resources and capabilities of states,
that remains impossible in practice.
CONSEQUENCES OF EQUALITY
What are the consequences of the doctrine of equality of
states? (OEJ-LSI)
1. Right to one vote only
▪ When a question arises, which has to be settled
by consent, every state has a right to vote and
to one vote only.
2. Equal weight of votes
▪ the vote of the weakest state has as much
weight as the vote of the most powerful.
3. Non-claim of jurisdiction over another
▪ No state can claim jurisdiction over another.
4. Lack of jurisdiction by one state over official acts
of another state.
▪ the court of one state cannot as a rule question
the validity of the official acts of another state.
 And so far as those acts purport to take effect denying itself of the many benefits available from
within the latter's jurisdiction. the international community

▪ In concordance to Act of State Doctrine - Governed by the Vienna Convention Diplomatic

i. A state cannot question the legality
Relations.
of an act of another state
ii. Acts of torture, execution and
disappearance are outside
President’s authority and are not
covered by the act of State Doctrine

5. Non-suability of state without its consent

▪ Purports the Doctrine of State Immunity
▪ A state cannot be sued or be compelled to
arbitrate or mediate without its consent.

6. Non-intervention on domestic affairs

▪ Following the doctrine of Sovereign Equality, a
state cannot intervene on domestic affairs of
another state (matters within exclusive
competency)
▪ Further emphasized in ART. 2 (7) UN CHARTER
which provides that UN cannot intervene in
matters that are essentially within the domestic
jurisdiction of any state.
i. By way of exception, intervention is
explicitly allowed when the matter
involved falls under those which are
within the jurisdiction of the UN
Security Council to intervene.

4. RIGHT TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY AND JURISDICTION

What is Territorial integrity?
- Refers to the right of state to exercise its supreme
authority over its territory to the exclusion of any
other states.

TERRITORY
o Fixed portion of the earth inhabited by the
people of the State

JURISDICTION
- refers to the legal, executive and judicial
competence of a state; to prescribe rules of
conduct, to enforce its legal processes, and to
adjudicate controversies or claims.

5. RIGHT TO LEGATION OR DIPLOMATIC INTERCOURSE

- Refers to the right of state to maintain diplomatic
relations with other states.

Is this right absolute?

- No, because it is not a natural or inherent right
but exists only by common consent.

- No legal liability is incurred by the state for refusing

to send or receive diplomatic representatives.

- If it wants to, a state may shut itself from the rest of

the world. However, a policy of isolation would
hinder the progress of a state since it would be