Gonzales vs. Hechanova 9 SCRA 230 FACTS: Respondent Executive Secretary authorized the importation of 67,000 tons of foreign rice to be purchased from private sources. Thereupon, herein petitioner, Ramon A. Gonzales, a rice planter, and president of the Iloilo Palay and Corn Planters Association, filed the petition herein, averring that, in making or attempting to make said importation of foreign rice, the aforementioned respondents ―are acting without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction,‖ because Republic Act No. 2207, explicitly, prohibits the importation of rice and corn by the ―Rice and Corn Administration or any other government agency.‖ ISSUE: Whether an international agreement may be invalidated by our courts. HELD: The Constitution of the Philippines has clearly settled in the affirmative by providing in Section 2 of Article VIII thereof, that the Supreme Court may not be deprived ―of its jurisdiction to review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal, certiorari, or writ of error as the law or the rules of court may provide, final judgments and decrees of inferior courts in all cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, law, ordinance, or executive order, or regulation is in question.‖ In other words, our Constitution authorizes the nullification of a treaty, not only when it conflicts with the fundamental law, but also, when it runs counter to an act of Congress. The alleged consummation of the aforementioned contracts with Vietnam and Burma does not render this case academic. Republic Act No. 2207 enjoins our government not from entering into contracts for the purchase of rice, but from entering rice, except under the conditions prescribed in said Act. A judicial declaration of illegality of the proposed importation would not compel our Government to default in the performance of such obligations as it may have contracted with the sellers of rice in question because aside from the fact that said obligations may be complied without importing the said commodity into the Philippines, the proposed importation may still be legalized by complying with the provisions of the aforementioned laws. Then President Diosdado Macapagal entered into two executive agreements with Vietnam and Burma for the importation of rice without complying with the requisite of securing a certification from the Nat‘l Economic Council showing that there is a shortage in cereals. Hence, Hechanova authorized the importation of 67000 tons of rice from abroad to the detriment of our local planters. Gonzales, then president of the Iloilo Palay and Corn Planters Association assailed the executive agreements. Gonzales averred that Hechanova is without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction", because RA 3452 prohibits the importation of rice and corn by "the Rice and Corn Administration or any other government agency. ISSUE: Whether or not RA 3452 prevails over the 2 executive agreements entered into by Macapagal. HELD: 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. In the event of conflict between a treaty and a statute, the one which is latest in point of time shall prevail, is not applicable to the case at bar, Hechanova not only admits, but, also, insists


that the contracts adverted to are not treaties. No such justification can be given as regards executive agreements not authorized by previous legislation, without completely upsetting the principle of separation of powers and the system of checks and balances which are fundamental in our constitutional set up. As regards the question whether an executive or an international agreement may be invalidated by our courts, suffice it to say that the Constitution of the Philippines has clearly settled it in the affirmative, by providing that the SC may not be deprived "of its jurisdiction to review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal, certiorari, or writ of error, as the law or the rules of court may provide, final judgments and decrees of inferior courts in ―All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, law, ordinance, or executive order or regulation is in question". In other words, our Constitution authorizes the nullification of a treaty, not only when it conflicts with the fundamental law, but, also, when it runs counter to an act of Congress. Petitioner assails respondent‘s authorization of the importation of rice by the government from private sources on the ground that said act is violative of an Act prohibiting such importation by the RCA or any government agency. Respondent contends that the status of petitioner as a rice planter does not give him sufficient interest to file the instant petition. The SC held that petitioner has standing since in light of the policy of the government underlying the Act, which is to engage in the purchase of basic foods directly from tenants, farmers, growers in the Phil, petitioner is entitled to a chance to sell to the government the rice it now seeks to import. Said act of respondent thus deprives petitioner of this opportunity, amounting to an actual injury to petitioner. Moreover, public funds will be used to effect the purchase. Petitioner, as taxpayer, has sufficient interest and personality to seek judicial assistance with a view to restraining what he believes to be an attempt to unlawfully disburse said funds. Exhaustion of administrative remedies: exceptions applicable to case at bar: The principle requiring the previous exhaustion of administrative remedies is not applicable: 1. Where the question in dispute is purely a legal one, or 2. Where the controverted act is patently illegal or was performed without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction; or 3. where the respondent is a department secretary, whose acts as alter-ego of the President bear the implied or assumed approval of the latter, unless actually disapproved by him or 4. Where there are circumstances indicating the urgency of judicial intervention. The case at bar falls under each one of the foregoing exceptions to the general rule. Main function of Executive is to enforce laws enacted by Congress, not to defeat the same. –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 the veto power. He may not defeat legislative enactments that have acquired the status of law, by indirectly repealing the same through an executive agreement providing for the performance of the very act prohibited by said laws. Jurisdiction; Power to invalidate treaties:--The Constitution of the Philippines has clearly settled the question of whether an international agreement may be invalidated by our courts in the affirmative, by providing in Section 2 of Article VIII thereof that the Supreme Court may not be deprived ―of its jurisdiction to review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal, certiorari, or writ or 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, not only when it conflicts with the fundamental law, but also when it runs counter to an act of Congress. ICHONG vs. HERNANDEZ FACTS: 1. The Legislature passed R.A. 1180 (An Act to Regulate the Retail Business). Its purpose was to prevent persons who are not citizens of the Phil. from having a stranglehold upon the people‘s economic life.


• A prohibition against aliens and against associations, partnerships, or corporations the capital of which are not wholly owned by Filipinos, from engaging directly or indirectly in the retail trade • Aliens actually engaged in the retail business on May 15, 1954 are allowed to continue their business, unless their licenses are forfeited in accordance with law, until their death or voluntary retirement. In case of juridical persons, ten years after the approval of the Act or until the expiration of term. • Citizens and juridical entities of the United States were exempted from this Act.

• provision for the forfeiture of licenses to engage in the retail business for violation of the laws on nationalization, economic control weights and measures and labor and other laws relating to trade, commerce and industry. • Provision against the establishment or opening by aliens actually engaged in the retail business of additional stores or branches of retail business 2. Lao Ichong, in his own behalf and behalf of other alien residents, corporations and partnerships affected by the Act, filed an action to declare it unconstitutional for the ff: reasons: • It denies to alien residents the equal protection of the laws and deprives them of their liberty and property without due process • The subject of the Act is not expressed in the title • The Act violates international and treaty obligations • The provisions of the Act against the transmission by aliens of their retail business thru hereditary succession ISSUE: Whether or not the Act deprives the aliens of the equal protection of the laws. HELD: The law is a valid exercise of police power and it does not deny the aliens the equal protection of the laws. There are real and actual, positive and fundamental differences between an alien and a citizen, which fully justify the legislative classification adopted. RATIONALE: 1. The equal protection clause does not demand absolute equality among residents. It merely requires that all persons shall be treated alike, under like circumstances and conditions both as to privileges conferred and liabilities enforced. 2. The classification is actual, real and reasonable, and all persons of one class are treated alike. 3. The difference in status between citizens and aliens constitutes a basis for reasonable classification in the exercise of police power. 4. Official statistics point out to the ever-increasing dominance and control by alien of the retail trade. It is this domination and control that is the legislature‘s target in the enactment of the Act. 5. The mere fact of alienage is the root cause of the distinction between the alien and the national as a trader. The alien is naturally lacking in that spirit of loyalty and enthusiasm for the Phil. where he temporarily stays and makes his living. The alien owes no allegiance or loyalty to the State, and the State cannot rely on him/her in times of crisis or emergency. 6. While the citizen holds his life, his person and his property subject to the needs of the country, the alien may become the potential enemy of the State.


RULING: The Supreme Court ruled that Executive Order No. Article 2 of the Constitution which states 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. Whether or not Executive Order No. argues that the Military Commission is not a valid court because the law that created it. without an enabling law. he alleges that the United States is not a party of interest in the case and that the two US prosecutors cannot practice law in the Philippines. Furthermore. In the doctrine of incorporation. Kuroda. These include the principle that all persons. who have been guilty of planning. By virtue of Executive Order No. After the Liberation of the Manila and the American occupation. Judge Arsenio Dizon refused to continue hearings on the case. Kuroda vs. if not more greatly. lower courts have no jurisdiction to take cognizance of and continue judicial proceedings pending in the courts of the defunct Republic of the Philippines (the Philippine government under the Japanese). 4 . he was tried for failure to discharge his duties and permitting the brutal atrocities and other high crimes committed by his men against noncombatant civilians and prisoners of the Japanese forces.‖ The generally accepted principles of international law include those formed during the Hague Convention. the Philippines abide by these principles and therefore have a right to try persons that commit such crimes and most especially when it is committed against its citizens. 68.7. the alien now enjoys a monopolistic control on the nation‘s economy endangering the national security in times of crisis and emergency. in his petition. are to be held accountable. 68 is constitutional. military or civilian. a former Lieutenant-General of the Japanese Imperial Army and Commanding General of the Japanese Imperial Forces in the Philippines. 68. The alien retailer has shown such utter disregard for his customers and the people on whom he makes his profit. creating the National War Crimes Office and prescribing rules on the trial of accused war criminals. with the Court of First Instance of Manila. in violation of the laws and customs of war. He further contends that using as basis The Hague Convention‘s Rules and Regulations covering Land Warfare for the war crime committed cannot stand ground as the Philippines was not a signatory of such rules in such convention. the Military Commission is a special military tribunal and that the rules as to parties and representation are not governed by the rules of court but by the very provisions of this special law Co Kim Chan v Valdez Tan Keh FACTS: Co Kim Chan had a pending civil case. is unconstitutional. 68. aggrieved by the crimes with which the petitioner is charged for. Jalandoni 83 Phil 171 FACTS: Shinegori Kuroda. initiated during the Japanese occupation. Through the illegitimate use of pernicious designs and practices. was charged before the Philippine Military Commission for war crimes. saying that a proclamation issued by General Douglas MacArthur had invalidated and nullified all judicial proceedings and judgments of the courts of the Philippines and. 2. It abides with it even if it was not a signatory to these conventions by the mere incorporation of such principles in the constitution. Whether or not the US is a party of interest to this case. ISSUE: 1. As he was the commanding general during such period of war. is constitutional as it is aligned with Sec 3. Executive Order No. preparing or waging a war of aggression and of the commission of crimes and offenses in violation of laws and customs of war. The United States is a party of interest because the country and its people have been equally. the Geneva Convention and other international jurisprudence established by United Nations.

‖ Until. such construction is to be avoided. The laws and courts of the Philippines did not become.‖ Another is that ―where great inconvenience will result from a particular construction. And if they were not valid. until abolished or the laws creating and conferring jurisdiction upon them are repealed by the said government. non-political judgments and judicial proceedings of de facto governments are valid and remain valid even after the occupied territory has been liberated. And whether or not if they were not invalidated by MacArthur‘s proclamation. laws and courts of Japan. those courts could continue hearing the cases pending before them. 2. 1944 proclamation MacArthur issued in which he declared that ―all laws. it follows that the same courts may continue exercising the same jurisdiction over cases pending therein before the restoration of the Commonwealth Government. IT IS NOT CHANGED MERELY BY CHANGE OF SOVEREIGNTY. then it would not have been necessary for MacArthur to come out with a proclamation abrogating them. of course.‖ In the case of US vs. ―law once established continues until changed by some competent legislative power. and the laws and courts of the Philippines had become courts of Japan. or the court ought to presume that such construction was not intended by the makers of the law. or do away with civil government or the regular administration of the laws. however. or great mischief done. supported by the military force and deriving their authority from the laws of war. they become his and derive their force from him. The Philippine Executive Commission and the Republic of the Philippines under the Japanese occupation may be considered de facto governments. It is a legal maxim that. regulations and processes of any other government in the Philippines than that of the said Commonwealth are null and void and without legal effect in areas of the Philippines free of enemy occupation and control‖ invalidated all judgments and judicial acts and proceedings of the courts. the new sovereign by legislative act creates a change. Municipal laws and private laws. Civil obedience is expected even during war.ISSUES: 1.‖ Annulling judgments of courts made during the Japanese occupation would clog the dockets and violate international law. IF. then it could not have been MacArthur‘s intention to refer to judicial processes. 5 . as the said courts and laws creating and conferring jurisdiction upon them have continued in force until now. therefore what MacArthur said should not be construed to mean that judicial proceedings are included in the phrase ―processes of any other governments. for ―the existence of a state of insurrection and war did not loosen the bonds of society. which would be in violation of international law. even assuming that Japan legally acquired sovereignty over the Philippines. Whether or not the October 23. RATIONALE: Political and international law recognizes that all acts and proceedings of a de facto government are good and valid. Therefore. Reiter. usually remain in force unless suspended or changed by the conqueror. by being continued as required by the law of nations. The second question. 3. the court said that if such laws and institutions are continued in use by the occupant. unless required by clear and unequivocal words. hinges on the interpretation of the phrase ―processes of any other government‖ and whether or not he intended it to annul all other judgments and judicial proceedings of courts during the Japanese military occupation. the court said. according to international law. A well-known rule of statutory construction is: ―A statute ought never to be construed to violate the law of nations if any other possible construction remains. Whether or not judicial proceedings and decisions made during the Japanese occupation were valid and remained valid even after the American occupation. excepting of a political nature.

occupied during the war with Mexico. the Indonesian Embassy terminated the agreement. ordering him to take cognizance of and continue to final judgment the proceedings in civil case no.DECISION: Writ of mandamus issued to the judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila. and against the rightful authority of an established and lawful government 2. That while it exists it necessarily be obeyed in civil matters by private residents who. though not warranted by laws of the rightful government. has sovereign immunity from suit and cannot be sued as a party-defendant in the Philippines. for those acts. by force or by the voice of the majority. Hence. alleging that the Republic of Indonesia. Mexico. electrical facilities. water heaters. entered into a Maintenance Agreement in August 1995 with respondent James Vinzon. and Tampico. 3012. first by Parliament and later by Cromwell the Protector. Republic of Indonesia. do not become responsible. Petitioners claim that they had earlier verbally informed respondent of their decision to terminate the agreement. 2001. maintain specified equipment at the Embassy Main Building. or usurps. they informed respondent that the renewal of the agreement shall be at the discretion of the incoming Chief of Administration. the official residence of petitioner Ambassador Soeratmin. by the troops of the US. 2003 FACTS Petitioner. It is characterized by: 1. the rightful legal governments and maintains itself against the will of the latter. such as the government of England under the Commonwealth. Philippines. who allegedly found respondents work and services unsatisfactory and not in compliance with the standards set in the Agreement. perhaps be more aptly denominated a government of paramount force. sole proprietor of Vinzon Trade and Services. That its existence is maintained by active military power with the territories. THREE KINDS OF A DE FACTO GOVERNMENT 1. 2. In turn. respondent filed on March 20. The agreement shall be effective for a period of four years and will renew itself automatically unless cancelled by either party by giving thirty days prior written notice from the date of expiry. Respondents Opposition likewise alleged that Ambassador Soeratmin and Minister 6 . Petitioners claim that sometime prior to the date of expiration of the said agreement.R. Petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss. Republic of Indonesia vs. by acts of obedience rendered in submission to such force. One that is established and maintained by military forces who invade and occupy a territory of the enemy in the course of war. He based this claim upon the following provision in the Maintenance Agreement: Any legal action arising out of this Maintenance Agreement shall be settled according to the laws of the Philippines and by the proper court of Makati City. The said motion further alleged that Ambassador Soeratmin and Minister Counsellor Kasim are diplomatic agents as defined under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and therefore enjoy diplomatic immunity. No. a government that gets possession and control of. The agreement stated that respondent shall. June 26. an Opposition to the said motion alleging that the Republic of Indonesia has expressly waived its immunity from suit. or wrongdoers. ***But there is another description of government called also by publicists a government de facto but which might. and which is denominated a government of paramount force as the cases of Castine in Maine which was reduced to British possession in the war of 1812. On the other hand. for a consideration. The equipments covered by the agreement are air conditioning units. One that is established as an independent government by the inhabitants of a country who rise in insurrection against the parent state such as the government of the Southern Confederacy. James Vinzon G.154705. generator sets. as a foreign sovereign State. respondent filed a complaint in the (RTC) of Makati. respondent claims that the aforesaid termination was arbitrary and unlawful. Embassy Annex Building and the Wisma Duta. and water motor pumps. 3. Hence. In a proper legal sense.

Submission by a foreign state to local jurisdiction must be clear and unequivocal. In United States v. The rules of International Law. the establishment of a diplomatic mission encompasses its maintenance and upkeep. and in this case it has not been shown to be so engaged. the proper court may have no proper action. Hence. the Court of Appeals rendered its assailed decision denying the petition for lack of merit. It must be given explicitly or by necessary implication. If the act is in pursuit of a sovereign activity. and equality of States which were adopted as part of the law of our land under Article II. The applicability of Philippine laws must be deemed to include Philippine laws in its totality. including the principle recognizing sovereign immunity. On the other hand. holds that the immunity of the sovereign is recognized only with regard to public acts or acts jure imperii. as expressed in the maxim par in parem non habet imperium. is no longer a sovereign function of the State. Apropos the present case. RULING: The petition is impressed with merit. The trial court denied herein petitioners Motion to Dismiss. This concept. There is no dispute that the establishment of a diplomatic mission is an act jure imperii. On May 30. A sovereign State does not merely establish a diplomatic mission and leave it at that. In the case of foreign States. as well as the bidding for the operation of barber shops in Clark Air Base in Angeles City. such as the upkeep of its furnishings and equipment. The increasing need of sovereign States to enter into purely commercial activities remotely connected with the discharge of their governmental functions brought about a new concept of sovereign immunity. International law is founded largely upon the principles of reciprocity. such provision may also be meant to apply where the sovereign party elects to sue in the local courts. It likewise denied the Motion for Reconsideration subsequently filed. furnishings and equipment of the embassy and 7 . then it is an act jure imperii. All states are sovereign equals and cannot assert jurisdiction over one another.Counsellor Kasim can be sued and held liable in their private capacities for tortuous acts done with malice and bad faith. independence. Hence. It denied herein petitioners motion for reconsideration. however. or an incident thereof. the rule is derived from the principle of the sovereign equality of States. or otherwise waives its immunity by any subsequent act. The rule that a State may not be sued without its consent is a necessary consequence of the principles of independence and equality of States. The trial court‘s denial of the Motion to Dismiss was brought upto the Court of Appeals by herein petitioners in a petition for certiorari and prohibition. Such act is only the start of the inquiry. for instance. the State may enter into contracts with private entities to maintain the premises. Hence. the particular act or transaction must then be tested by its nature. 2002. the restrictive theory. Ruiz. comity. except to dismiss it. On the other hand. Viridian II. by way of settling the case. but not with regard to private acts or acts juregestionis. The aforesaid provision contains language not necessarily inconsistent with sovereign immunity. the practical justification for the doctrine of sovereign immunity is that there can be no legal right against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends. On the other hand. We find no such waiver in this case. As enunciated in Sanders v. the existence alone of a paragraph in a contract stating that any legal action arising out of the agreement shall be settled according to the laws of the Philippines and by a specified court of the Philippines is not necessarily a waiver of sovereign immunity from suit. ISSUE: Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining the trial court‘s decision that petitioners have waived their immunity from suit by using as its basis the abovementioned provision in the Maintenance Agreement. Said petition alleged that the trial court gravely abused its discretion in ruling that the Republic of Indonesia gave its consent to be sued and voluntarily submitted itself to the laws and jurisdiction of Philippine courts and that petitioners Ambassador Soeratmin and Minister Counsellor Kasim waived their immunity from suit. Respondent concedes that the establishment of a diplomatic mission is a sovereign function. We disagree. we considered as an act jure gestionis the hiring of a cook in the recreation center catering to American servicemen and the general public at the John Hay Air Station in Baguio City. Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution. the mere entering into a contract by a foreign State with a private party cannot be construed as the ultimate test of whether or not it is an act jure imperii or jure gestionis. he argues that the actual physical maintenance of the premises of the diplomatic mission. Is the foreign State engaged in the regular conduct of a business? If the foreign State is not engaged regularly in a business or commercial activity. A contrary attitude would unduly vex the peace of nations. we held that the conduct of public bidding for the repair of a wharf at a United States Naval Station is an act jure imperii. are neither unyielding nor impervious to change.

Philippines. NT vs. and water motor pumps of the Indonesian Embassy and the official residence of the Indonesian ambassador. unless he holds it on behalf of the sending State for the purposes of the mission. despite having been duly presented and proven. Hence. as third-party mortgagor. The properties were sold at public auction. 29. 133876. which is not the case herein. without impleading ARC as party-defendant. may not be given application FACTS: Petitioner Bank of America (BANTSA) is an international banking and financing institution duly licensed to do business in the Philippines. this appeal. It is therefore clear that petitioner Republic of Indonesia was acting in pursuit of a sovereign activity when it entered into a contract with respondent for the upkeep or maintenance of the air con units. These loans were later restructured. prompting ARC to file this action for damages against BANTSA. Philippine laws shall govern the resolution of any legal action arising out of the agreement and the proper court in Makati City shall be the agreed venue thereof.(c) an action relating to any professional or commercial activity exercised by the diplomatic agent in the receiving State outside his official functions. it cannot be deemed to have waived its immunity from suit. American Realty Corporation G. administrator. On the matter of whether or not petitioners Ambassador Soeratmin and Minister Counsellor Kasim may be sued herein in their private capacities. heir or legatee as private person and not on behalf of the sending State. He shall also enjoy immunity from its civil and administrative jurisdiction.R. The trial court ruled in favor of ARC and this was affirmed by the CA. Bank of America.(b) an action relating to succession in which the diplomatic agent is involved as executor. The petition was GRANTED. The Solicitor General submits that. organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California. except in the case of:(a) a real action relating to private immovable property situated in the territory of the receiving State. While these civil suits are still pending before the foreign courts. but said provision clearly applies only to a situation where the diplomatic agent engages in any professional or commercial activity outside official functions. No. ISSUES: Whether or not the petitioner‘s act of filing a collection suit against the principal debtors for the recovery of the loan before foreign courts constituted waiver of the remedy of foreclosure Whether or not the award by the lower court of actual and exemplary damages in favor of private respondent ARC. organized under the laws of England. BANTSA sued them for collection before foreign courts. The act of petitioners Ambassador Soeratmin and Minister Counsellor Kasim in terminating the Maintenance Agreement is not covered by the exceptions provided in the abovementioned provision. Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations provides: 1. granted US Dollar loans to certain foreign corporate borrowers. When the corporate borrowers defaulted. The Solicitor General believes that said act may fall under subparagraph (c) thereof. USA while private respondent American Realty (ARC) is a domestic corporation. the Maintenance Agreement was entered into by the Republic of Indonesia in the discharge of its governmental functions. is proper HELD: 8 . 1999 When foreign laws. BANTSA filed an extra-judicial foreclosure of real estate mortgage before the Office of the Provincial Sheriff of Bulacan. the Solicitor General states that it was not a waiver of their immunity from suit but a mere stipulation that in the event they do waive their immunity. a diplomatic agent shall enjoy immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State.the living quarters of its agents and officials. Dec. In such a case. the restructured loans secured by two real estate mortgages with private respondent ARC as third-party mortgagor. water heaters. electrical facilities. As to the paragraph in the agreement relied upon by respondent. generator sets. On numerous occasions. BANTSA and Bank of America International Limited (BAIL).

SHALL APPLY: In the case at bench. which according to petitioner is the governing law with regard to the principal agreements. prohibitive laws concerning persons. Thus. judgment or contract is contrary to a sound and established public policy of the forum. such remedy is deemed elected by the mortgage creditor upon filing of the petition not with any court of justice but with the Office of the Sheriff of the province where the sale is to be made. In our jurisdiction. when the foreign law. The public policy sought to be protected in the instant case is the principle imbedded in our jurisdiction proscribing the splitting of a single cause of action. Under the law. Under English law. there is no legal provision nor jurisprudence in our jurisdiction which makes a third person who secures the fulfillment of another‗s obligation by mortgaging his own property. Notably. or by determinations or conventions agreed upon in a foreign country. our courts will presume that the foreign law is the same as our local or domestic or internal law.Available Remedies THEORIES OF PETITIONER: A waiver of the remedy of foreclosure requires the concurrence of 2 requisites: an ordinary civil action for collection should be filed and subsequently a final judgment be correspondingly rendered therein. 9 . In a long line of decisions. private respondent subjected itself to the liabilities of a third party mortgagor. Additionally. The signatory to the principal contract—loan—remains to be primarily bound. their acts or property. petitioner‘s contention that the requisites of filing the action for collection and rendition of final judgment therein should concur. In the instant case. the remedies available to the mortgage creditor are deemed alternative and not cumulative. A foreign law must be properly pleaded and proved as a fact. if the foreign law involved is not properly pleaded and proved. the mortgagee does not lose its security interest by simply filing civil actions for sums of money. It is only upon default of the latter that the creditor may have recourse on the mortgagors by foreclosing the mortgaged properties in lieu of an action for the recovery of the amount of the loan. NOT ENGLISH LAW. In the case at bench. this Court adopted the well-imbedded principle in our jurisdiction that there is judicial notice of any foreign law. As to extrajudicial foreclosure. NOT CUMULATIVE: A mortgage creditor may institute against the mortgage debtor either a personal action for debt or a real action to foreclose the mortgage. PHILIPPINE LAW. the said foreign law. an election of one remedy operates as a waiver of the other. REMEDIES ARE ALTERNATIVE. This is what we refer to as the doctrine of processual presumption. Thus. and those which have for their object public order. third persons who are not parties to a loan may secure the latter by pledging or mortgaging their own property. is untenable. pursuant to the provision of Rule 68 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. private respondent ARC constituted real estate mortgages over its properties as security for the debt of the principal debtors. a remedy is deemed chosen upon the filing of the suit for collection or upon the filing of the complaint in an action for foreclosure of mortgage. said foreign law would still not find applicability. Notwithstanding. For this purpose. By doing so. to be solidarily bound with the principal obligor. assuming arguendo that the English Law on the matter were properly pleaded and proved xxx. judgment or order shall not be applied. In the instant case. Philippine law shall apply notwithstanding the evidence presented by petitioner to prove the English law on the matter. public policy and good customs shall not be rendered ineffective by laws or judgments promulgated.

the Sec. & that any non-compliance was attributable to the individual complainants who failed to submit themselves for processing & examination. the parties arrived at a Compromise Agreement wherein they agreed to submit to the Sec. Subsequently. over Concepcion Blayblock. RULING YES. of Labor affirmed. The Sec. The order wasn‘t appealed so it was declared final & executory. in the event certain services are contracted out. 2 of the RP-US Base Agreement.Moreover. This bidding was won by Santiago Guerrero. of Labor remanded the case to the NLRC. When Guererro commenced its operations. the US Armed Forces undertook. 1. foreign law should not be applied when its application would work undeniable injustice to the citizens or residents of the forum. of Labor affirming the NLRC Resolution. I of the RP-US Labor Agreement. The Union filed a Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution. De Los Reyes and Jose Cruz FACTS In 1972. and. The Labor Arbiter ordered the reinstatement of 129 individuals. the US Naval Base authorities in Subic conducted a public bidding for a 5-year contract for the right to operate and/or manage the transportation services inside the naval base. The Sec. Blaylock Transportation Services Employees Association-Kilusan (Btea-Kilusan). as third-party mortgagor. the US Armed Forces shall require the 10 . there being no employeremployee relationship between the parties. ISSUE Whether or not the said members of the Union were entitled to be reinstated by Guerrero. consistent w/ military requirements. The case was dismissed by the NLRC upon Guerrero‘s MTD on jurisdictional grounds. The agreement is deemed to have superseded the Resolution of the NLRC. the then incumbent concessionaire doing business under the name of Blayblock Transport Services Blayblock. "to provide security for employment. or judgment or contract that is obviously unjust negates the fundamental principles of Conflict of Laws. Upon appeal. The NLRC issued a Resolution ordering Guererro to ―absorb all complainants who filed their applications on or before the deadline‖ set by Guerrero. SOURCES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW Guerrero's Transport Services. Award of Damages As to the second pivotal issue. a law. Labor Arbiter Francisco M. Thus. 6 of Art. Inc. hence. owner-operator of Guerrero‘s Transport Services. V. w/c determination shall be final. To give justice is the most important function of law. Inc. the Union filed a complaint w/ the NLRC against Guerrero to compel it to employ its members. pursuant to Art. Guerrero claims that it substantially complied w/ the decision of the Sec. English Law is not applicable. we hold that the private respondent is entitled to the award of actual or compensatory damages inasmuch as the act of petitioner BANTSA in extrajudicially foreclosing the real estate mortgages constituted a clear violation of the rights of herein private respondent ARC. (Guerrero). it refused to employ the members of the Union. Blayblock‘s 395 employees are members of the union BTEA-KILUSAN (the Union). Pursuant to Sec. Sec. of Labor the determination of members of the Union who shall be reinstated by Guerrero. except those who may have derogatory records w/ the US Naval Authorities in Subic. Clearly then. of Labor ordered the absorption of 175 members of the Union subject to 2 conditions.

of Labor the determination as to who of the members of the Union shall be absorbed or employed by Guerrero. As part of the municipal law. Abbas later on filed for the disqualification of the 6 senator members from partaking in the said election protest on the ground that all of them are interested parties to said case. in the context of that situation. Section 17. Guerrero is ordered to submit to and secure from the appropriate authorities of the U. For this purpose. A treaty has 2 aspects — as an international agreement between states. the parties agreed to submit to the Sec. ISSUE: Whether or not Abbas‘ proposal could be given due weight. Abbas argue that considerations of public policy and the norms of fair play and due process imperatively require the mass disqualification sought. through Labor Arbiter Francisco de los Reyes. to implement the absorption of the 175 members into Guerrero's Transport Services. the effect and authority of res judicata and is enforceable by execution upon approval by the court. the Abbas et al filed before the SET an election contest docketed against 22 candidates of the LABAN coalition who were proclaimed senators-elect in the May 11. this would. whose disqualification is not sought. the aforesaid provision of the treaty enters into and forms part of the contract between Guerrero and the US Naval Base authorities. therefore. and may adopt resolutions by majority vote with no abstentions.contractor or concessioner to give priority consideration to affected employees for employment. It is obviously in recognition of such obligation that Guerrero entered into the aforementioned Compromise Agreement. therefore. For it is settled that a compromise has. ordains its composition and defines its jurisdiction and powers. bound to give "priority" to the employment of the qualified employees of the previous contractor (Blaylock). all Justices of this Court. Abbas suggested the following amendment: Tribunal's Rules (Section 24) ---. COMELEC. The Sec. Considering that the Compromise Agreement of the parties is more than a mere contract and has the force and effect of any other judgment. creates the Senate Electoral Tribunal. 179 SCRA 287Facts FACTS: On 9 Oct 1987. To accommodate the proposed disqualification. Abbas v. the new contractor (Guerrero) is. if not less than three (3) including one (1) Justice. and b) That they should pass final screening and approval by the appropriate authorities of the U. Obviously tailored to fit the situation created by the petition for disqualification. 11 . subject to the following conditions: a) That they were bona fide employees of the Blaylock Transport Service at the time its concession expired.S. Naval Base concerned. leave the resolution of the contest to the only three Members who would remain. conclusive upon the parties and their privies. Zambales the requisite screening and approval.requiring the concurrence of five (5) members for the adoption of resolutions of whatever nature ---. it is. In view of said stipulation.S. naval Base at a proviso that where more than four (4) members are disqualified. and as municipal law for the people of each state to observe. and that such determination shall be considered as final. of Labor issued an Order directing the NLRC. The SET was at the time composed of three (3) Justices of the Supreme Court and six (6) Senators. the remaining members shall constitute a quorum. upon the parties. the names of the members of the Union. 1987 congressional elections by the COMELEC. Under the Compromise Agreement. in its Article VI. HELD: The most fundamental objection to such proposal lies in the plain terms and intent of the Constitution itself which.

The senior Justice in the Electoral Tribunal shall be its Chairman."Sec. as his conscience dictates. On this point. But here. petitioners Mijares. the Petitioners err in stating that the Final Judgment is incapable of pecuniary estimation because it is so capable.P. Petitioners filed a Complaint with the RTC Makati for the enforcement of the Final Judgment. obtained a Final Judgment in their favor against the Estate of the late Ferdinand Marcos amounting to roughly $1. the SET cannot legally function as such. Every Member of the Tribunal may.129 reveals that the complaint for enforcement of judgment even if capable of pecuniary estimation would fall under the jurisdiction of the RTCs.P. the Final Judgment of the US District Court. all of whom suffered human rights violations during the Marcos era. and the remaining six shall be Members of the Senate or the House of Representatives. the Constitution intended that both those "judicial" and "legislative" components commonly share the duty and authority of deciding all contests relating to the election. Under the B. and qualifications of their respective Members.9B in compensatory and exemplary damages for tortuous violations of international law in the US District Court of Hawaii. MeTC. who shall be chosen on the basis of proportional representation from the political parties and the parties or organizations registered under the party-list system represented therein. As a consequence. without doing violence to the spirit and intent of the Constitution. etc.P. HELD: Yes. The Estate of Marcos however. Petitioners state that this might lead to an instance wherein a first level court (MTC. This Final Judgment was affirmed by the US Court of Appeals. The legislative component herein cannot be totally excluded from participation in the resolution of senatorial election contests. The Senate and the House of Representatives shall each have an Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election. §16 of B. Thus. It is not to be misunderstood in saying that no Senator-Member of the SET may inhibit or disqualify himself from sitting in judgment on any case before said Tribunal.) would have jurisdiction to enforce a foreign judgment. the proper filing fee was P472M. three of whom shall be Justices of the Supreme Court to be designated by the Chief Justice. RTC 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. et al.129 refer to instances wherein the cause of action or subject matter pertains to an assertion of rights over property or a sum of money. The Petitioner‘s Complaint was lodged against the Estate of Marcos but it is clearly based on a judgment. Ranada FACTS: Invoking the Alien Tort Act. §7(b) where the value of the subject matter is incapable of pecuniary estimation. ISSUE: Whether or not the amount paid by the Petitioners is the proper filing fee. but on a different basis—amount merely corresponds to the same amount required for ―other actions not involving property‖. returns and qualifications of Senators. as the case may be. 17. such courts are not vested with such jurisdiction.*. absent its entire membership of Senators and that no amendment of its Rules can confer on the three Justices-Members alone the power of valid adjudication of a senatorial election contest. the Complaint to enforce the US District Court judgment is one capable of 12 ." It is quite clear that in providing for a SET to be staffed by both Justices of the SC and Members of the Senate. paying P410 as docket and filing fees based on Rule 141. As such. §33 of B. RTC 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.129. However. refrain from participating in the resolution of a case where he sincerely feels that his personal interests or biases would stand in the way of an objective and impartial judgment. Mijares v. What SC is saying is that in the light of the Constitution. returns. filed a MTD alleging the non-payment of the correct filing fees. the subject matter is the foreign judgment itself. which Petitioners had not paid. Each Electoral Tribunal shall be composed of nine Members.

The defendant Gregorio Perfecto was found guilty in the municipal court and again in the Court of First Instance of Manila. The extent to which one nation shall be allowed to operate within the dominion of another nation. Opinion of the Court No law has any effect beyond the limits of the sovereignty from which its authority is derived." Consequently. and to produce a friendly intercourse between the sovereignty to which they belong. that courts of justice have continually acted upon it. having due regard both to international duty and convenience. published an article about it to the effect that "the author or authors of the robbery of the records from the iron safe of the Senate have.. It is the voluntary act of the nation by which it is offered. and to the rights of its own citizens or other persons who are under the protection of its laws. but followed the example of certain Senators who secured their election through fraud and robbery. FACTS: This is a case relating to the loss of some documents which constituted the records of testimony given by witnesses in the Senate investigation of oil companies. or prejudicial to its interests. It is a recognition which one nation allows within its territory to the legislative. nor of mere courtesy and good will.pecuniary estimations but at the same time. the Attorney-General. .R. It is not the comity of the courts. thus placing it beyond the ambit of §7(a) of Rule 141. ISSUEs: Whether or not article 256 of the Spanish Penal Code was abrogated with the change from Spanish to American sovereignty Whether or not Perfecto is guilty of libel 13 . involving ―other actions not involving property. shall defame. . filed an information alleging that the editorial constituted a violation of article 256 of the Penal Code. No. THE CONCEPT OF THE STATE People vs. L-18463. or insult any Minister of the Crown or other person in authority . depends upon the comity of nations. But it contributes so largely to promote justice between individuals." is still in force." public law: It is a general principle of the public law that on acquisition of territory the previous political relations of the ceded region are totally abrogated -. 159 U. October 4. edited by Mr. .‖ Hilton v. . writing. it is also an action based on judgment against an estate. by which all other principles of municipal law are ascertained and guided. was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court in which the court described the factors to be used when considering the application of comity. The comity thus extended to other nations is no impeachment of sovereignty.S. The newspaper La Nacion. as a part of the voluntary law of nations. Gregorio Perfecto. 113 (1895). 1922 "The important question is here squarely presented of whether article 256 of the Spanish Penal Code."political" being used to denominate the laws regulating the relations sustained by the inhabitants to the sovereign. executive or judicial acts of another nation. by . What governs the proper computation of the filing fees over Complaints for the enforcement of foreign judgments is §7(b) (3). Guyot. which is administered and ascertained in the same way. and guided by the same reasoning. Perfecto G. punishing "Any person who. perhaps. abuse. but the comity of the nation. through a resolution adopted by the Philippine Senate. and is inadmissible when contrary to its policy. Comity is neither a matter of absolute obligation.

Disomangcop and Dimalotang were able to show the 14 . Punishment for contempt of non-judicial officers has no place in a government based upon American principles. DPWH Sec. It was crowded out by implication as soon as the United States established its authority in the Philippine Islands. Disomangcop and Dimalotang sought to enjoin Datumanong as well as the Secretary of DBM from enforcing and releasing funds pursuant to the law. which calls for drastic punishment for contemptuous remarks. These officials are only entitled to respect and obedience when they are acting within the scope of their authority and jurisdiction. HELD: The SC ruled in favor of Disomangcop and Dimalotang and the SC held the said RA and DO to be inoperative. the municipal laws of the conquered territory affecting private rights of person and property and providing for the punishment of crime (e. the result is. On American occupation of the Philippines. The American system of government is calculated to enforce respect and obedience where such respect and obedience is due. it must be noted that this article punishes contempts against executive officials. Disomangcop and Dimalotang argued that the creation of those engineering districts undermines the autonomy of ARMM hence the said RA and DO should be declared inoperative and unconstitutional. Said article is contrary to the genius and fundamental principles of the American character and system of government."political" being used to denominate the laws regulating the relations sustained by the inhabitants to the sovereign. by instructions of the President to the Military Commander. was set up in the Philippines. that all the members of the court are of the opinion. Also. But with the change of sovereignty. a new government. Simeon Datumanong et al November 25. and by proclamation of the latter. Sol-Gen attacks the institution of the case. ISSUE: Whether or not Disomangcop and Dimalotang have legal standing. In all.HELD: It is a general principle of the public law that on acquisition of territory the previous political relations of the ceded region are totally abrogated -. Our official class is not. although for different reasons. The Sol-Gen argued that the petitioners lack legal standing and that the said RA is constitutional pursuant to the undiminished power of Congress to enact laws for ARMM. 2004.R. although its terms are broad enough to cover the entire official class. with costs de officio. and a new theory of government. an agent of some authority greater than the people but it is an agent and servant of the people themselves. but never does it place around the individual who happens to occupy an official position by mandate of the people any official halo. Arsadi Disomangcop & Ramir Dimalotang vs. No longer is there a Minister of the Crown or a person in authority of such exalted position that the citizen must speak of him only with bated breath. as in monarchies. "From an entirely different point of view. G.g. the Spanish Penal Code) were nominally continued in force in so far as they were compatible with the new order of things. The SC noted that Disomangcop and Dimalotang do have the legal standing to initiate the case. 149848: FACTS: Disomangcop and Dimalotang were district engineers of the 1st Engineering District of DPWH-ARMM." DECISION: To summarize. So ordered. They are assailing the validity of RA 8999 & DO 119. Article 256 was enacted by the Government of Spain to protect Spanish officials who were the representatives of the King. No. that the judgment should be reversed and the defendant and appellant acquitted. RA 8999 created an engineering district in Lanao and DO 119 created an engineering district in Marawi.

nor of any court in the Philippines. as the one who raped one of the women. and Lol-lo and Saraw were found guilty. In addition. women and children. Fourth. the boat was surrounded by 6 vintas. together with Kinawalang and Maulanis. One day. placed holes in the ship to let it sink. People vs. Boat 2 arrived in Buang and Bukid in the Dutch East Indies. Fifth.-Boat 1 had one Dutch subject-Boat 2 had 11 men. the person challenging the validity of the act must have standing to challenge. or to indemnify the offended parties924 rupees. the question before the Court must be ripe for adjudication. FACTS: On or about 30 June 1920: Two boats left Matuta.-The Moros took the 2 women with them.Piracy is robbery or forcible depredation on the high seas. another Dutch possession. They questioned the jurisdiction of the Philippines to the case. Lol-lo and Saraw went home to South Ubian. Sulu.-The two Moro marauders were identified as Lol-lo. The CFI has jurisdiction because pirates are in law hostes humani generis. likewise from Holland. they were arrested and charged with piracy at the CFI. ISSUE: Did the CFI in the Philippines have jurisdiction over Lol-lo and Saraw? YES. were arrested for piracy. they were ordered to return the 39 sacks of copra they robbed. without lawful authority and done amino furandi. two other defendants in another case. the two women were able to escape. In sum. and Saraw. The constitutional question (question of constitutionality) must be raised by the proper party. took two women and left it for it to sink. there must be before the Court an actual case calling for the exercise of judicial review. saying that the charge was not within the jurisdiction of the CFI. Here. a Dutch possession. RATIONALE: First of all. attacked some of the men. and were both sentenced to life imprisonment. the question of constitutionality must have been raised at the earliest opportunity. In addition to imprisonment. and left the people there. The decision of the constitutional question must be necessary to the determination of the case itself. and brutally violated 2 of the women. 15 . The marauders. The issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota (controversy which has begun) of the case. All the elements of the crime of piracy were there. the facts can‘t be disputed. and in the spirit and intention of universal hostility. The constitutional question (question of constitutionality) must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity.requisites of judicial review in order for a court of justice to take cognizance of this case. at 7pm.-The Moros first asked for food. 4. manned by 24 armed Moros.-After several days. but the court ruled that piracy is a crime against all mankind. The question before the court must be ripe for judicial adjudication. Third. but once in the boat. 3. a Dutch possession.-Here.-While in Maruro. the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case. took its cargo. They were saying that the facts did not constitute a public offense under Philippine laws. for Peta. Proper party must have the standing to challenge (locus standi). and to pay one-half of the costs.The demurrer was overruled. the Moros arrived at Maruro. Jurisprudence has laid down the following requisites for the exercise of judicial power: First. the following are the requisites for the exercise of judicial power 1. so every court also has jurisdiction to try these cases. Lol-lo and Saraw. The Moros interposed a demurrer. Tawi-Tawi. Second.-After 11 days. who were in Tawi-Tawi. 2. took all the cargo. the Spanish Penal Code is still in force in the Philippines. 5. Lol-lo and Saraw 27 February 1922 | Ponente: Malcolm Moros surrounded a boat. There must be an actual controversy calling for the exercise of judicial power/review.

Haw Pia paid the amount with interests to the defendant bank through the Bank of Taiwan. or subjects of another nation not war with Spain shall be punished with a penalty ranging from cadena temporal to cadena perpetua. are considered continuing in force so far as they are compatible with the new order of things until superseded.-It doesn‘t matter that the crime was committed within the jurisdictional 3-mile limit of a foreign state. Partidas and Novisima Recopilacion. The China Banking Corporation G.-The jurisdiction of piracy has no territorial limits. The crime is against all mankind. specifically Art. Ltd that was appointed by the Japanese Military authorities as liquidator of the China Banking Corporation.Piracy is a crime against all mankind. the penalty imposed is the capital punishment. and half of the costs of both instances. it‘s logical that the construction of the Penal Code be changed simply to substitute ―Spain‖ to ―United States‖. so it is also punished by all. and ―Spaniards‖ to ―citizens of the US and citizens of the Philippines‖. But corollary to this rule.-The US Constitution itself defines and punishes piracy – that whoever on the high seas. 153 of the Penal Code refers to the crime of piracy ―committed against Spaniards. But due to the horrible nature of the crime committed. So only Lol-lo is sentenced to be hung until dead. though neutral to war. it shell be punished with the penalty of presidio mayor.R. Commanding General of the Army of Occupation in the Philippines. 156 of the Penal Code. Spain ceded the Philippines to the US.103. 153 and 154 of the Penal Code were still in force in the Philippines at this time. therefore. advantage was taken of superior strength and ignominy. especially since the Penal Code found its inspiration from the Novelas. who raped one of the women. Haw Pia vs. commits the crime of piracy as defined by the law of nations. the rule is that ―the political law of the former sovereignty is necessarily changed. This further shows that the Penal Code is not inconsistent with the provisions enforced in the US. the Penal Code. As to Kinawalang and Maulanis. RATIONALE: Art.35 by way of overdraft. The punishment is unanimous for Lol-lo. If the crime is against nonbelligerent subjects of another nation at war with Spain. This definition rests its conception of piracy on the law of nations. it can be punished in any competent tribunal of any country where the offender may be found. Said loan was secured by a mortgage of property. continue until by direct action of the new government they are altered or repealed. designed to secure good order and peace in the community. On different occasions during the Japanese occupation. JUDGMENT Piracy was committed with offense against chastity and abandonment of persons without apparent means of saving themselves. are not neutral to crimes. but no unanimous as to Saraw. Those limits.BACKGROUND ON THE LAWS OF PIRACY: The Spanish Penal Code was applicable to the Philippines because of Art. No. shall be imprisoned for life.-Grotius: Piracy by the law of nations is the same thing as piracy by the civil law. was clear that municipal laws that provide for the punishment of crime.‖Since Spain already ceded the Philippines to the US. 1989 to General Wesley Merrit. Haw Pia instituted an action in the Court of 16 . L-554. which are strictly of a municipal character. Since by the Treaty of Paris.-Therefore. There are three aggravating circumstances – the wrong done was deliberately augmented by causing other wrongs not necessary for its commission. laws subsisting at the time of transfer. There is one mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction. they shall indemnify the offended parties with 924 rupees. ISSUE: Are the provisions of the Penal Code dealing with piracy still in force? YES. 9 April 1948 FACTS: Haw Pia was indebted to the China Banking Corporation in the sum of P5.-The instructions of President McKinley on May 19. Piracy in the penal code as similar to the concepts of civil law.

through the AFP AntiGraft board (the ―Board‖). comes within the meaning of the word "enemy" as used in the Trading with Enemy Act of civilized countries. The Bill of Rights under the 1973 Constitution was not operative during the interregnum. and said Bank of Taiwan. even during the interregnum the Filipino people continued to enjoy. 21 July 2003. and it not being contrary to the Hague regulations or international law. Japan had also the right to do the same in the Philippines by virtue of the international law principle that ―what is permitted to one belligerent is also allowed to the other. impound.35 with interests representing the debt of the said appellant. ISSUE: May the Japanese Military Administration order the liquidation or winding up of the business of banking institutions of enemies such as the China Banking Corporation? HELD: The defendant-appellee.500 as attorney‘s fees and the costs of the suits. In its answer. Aside from the military equipment stated in the warrant. En Banc (Carpio. Sandiganbayan. Major General Josephus Q. Ramas And Elizabeth Dimaano G. as there was no evidence presented to show that the defendant China Banking Corporation had authorized the Bank of Taiwan. 17 .R. particularly. in sequestering and liquidating the China Banking Corporation. Pursuant to said investigation. the trial court rendered a decision holding that. China Banking Corporation. incorporated under the laws of a country with which Japan was at war. assumed under international law. under the Covenant and the Declaration. After the hearing of the case. the Commanding General of the Philippine Army during the time of former President Ferdinand Marcos. Nevertheless. 104768.First Instance of Manila against the China Banking Corporation to compel the latter to execute a deed of cancellation of the mortgage on the property described in the complaint.. as an agency of the Japanese invading army. but it was.) The resulting government [from the EDSA Revolution] was a revolutionary government bound by no constitution or legal limitations except treaty obligations that the revolutionary government. must have acted in accordance. the Constabulary raiding team served a search and seizure warrant on the premises of Ramas‘ alleged mistress – Elizabeth Dimaano. it being permitted to the Allied Nations. almost the same rights found in the Bill of Rights of the 1973 Constitution. and in the answer it set up a counter claim against the plaintiff-appellant demanding the payment. within 90 days from the latter tithe former by way of overdraft together with its interests at the rate of 9 additional sum of P1. either with her own Manual of the Army and Navy and Civil Affairs. and even if not. with the mortgage annotated therein already cancelled. and to deliver to the said plaintiff the Transfer Certificate of Title No. was not authorized under the international law to liquidate the business of the China Banking Corporation. It is to be presumed that Japan. the defendant-appellee China Banking Corporation made a demand from the plaintiff-appellant forth payment of the sum of P5.103. Ltd. or with her Trading with the Enemy Act. items not included in the warrant. RECOGNITION Republic Of The Philippines V. because not only it was controlled by Japan's enemies. specially the United states and England. The revolutionary government did not repudiate the Covenant or the Declaration during the interregnum. The Presidential Commission on Good Government (the ―PCGG‖). as the de jure government in the Philippines. and block enemy properties found within their own domain or in enemy territories occupied during the war by their armed forces.000. to accept the payment of the plaintiff's debt to the said defendant. to sequestrate. No. the payment has not extinguished the indebtedness of the plaintiff to the said defendant under article 1162 of the Civil Code. besides. investigated reports of unexplained wealth involving Major General Josephus Ramas (―Ramas‖). 47634 of the Register of Deeds of Manila.00 for damages as attorney's fees and to pay the costs of the suit. as well as to pay the plaintiff the sum of P1. J.

it was held that applying the rule in statutory construction of ejusdem generis. and (2) Dimaano could not be the owner of the money because she has no visible source of income. 2. and close associate in EO No. Petitioner does not claim that the President assigned Ramas‘ case to the PCGG. otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and R. otherwise known as the Act for the Forfeiture of Unlawfully Acquired Property. the AFP Board reported that (1) Dimaano could not have used the said equipment without Ramas‘ consent. Therefore. dummy. which enabled him to receive orders directly from his commander-in-chief. were also seized. and several thousands of cash in pesos and US dollars. agent. Applying the foregoing. the present controversy should fall under the first category of AFP personnel before PCGG could have jurisdiction. In this regard. in behalf of the Republic of the Philippines (the ―Republic‖ or ―Petitioner‖) filed a Complaint against Ramas and Dimaano. land titles.: AFP personnel who accumulated ill-gotten wealth during the administration of former President Marcos by being the latter‘s immediate family. taking undue advantage of their public office or using their powers. agents or nominees of the former President were close to him. the term ―subordinate‖ refers to one who enjoys a close association with former President Marcos and/or his wife. subordinate or close associate. relative. Whether or not the properties confiscated in Dimaano‘s house were illegally seized and therefore inadmissible in evidence. The Board then concluded with a recommendation that Ramas be prosecuted for violation of R.A. the Sandiganbayan dismissed the complaint on the grounds that (1) the PCGG has no jurisdiction to investigate the private respondents and (2) the search and seizure conducted was illegal. or: AFP personnel involved in other cases of graft and corruption provided the President assigns their cases to the PCGG. Mere position held by a military officer does not automatically make him a ―subordinate‖ as this term is used in EO Nos. Whether or not the PCGG has jurisdiction to investigate Ramas and Dimaano. Such close association is manifested either by his complicity with the former President in the accumulation of ill-gotten wealth by the deposed President or by the former President‘s acquiescence in his own accumulation of ill-gotten wealth.communications equipment.e. influence. Migrinio. 3019. 1. and 2. i. ISSUES: 1. dummies. Ramas‘ position as Commanding General of the Philippine Army with the rank of Major General does not make him a ―subordinate‖ of former President Marcos for purposes of EO No. relative. through the AFP Board can only investigate the unexplained wealth and corrupt practices of AFP personnel who fall under either of the 2 categories mentioned in Section 2 of E. 1. 18 . 1 and its amendments. HELD: The PCGG. 14 and 14-A absent a showing that he enjoyed close association with former President Marcos. jewelry. 1 and the close relative. In the case at bar. We hold that Ramas was not a ―subordinate‖ of former President Marcos in the sense contemplated under EO No. Petitioner argues that Ramas was a subordinate of former President Marcos because he was the Commanding General of the Philippine Army. 1379. business associate. On 18 November 1991. In the case of Republic v. 2.O No. 1 and its amendments. Accordingly. in the same manner that business associates. Chavez. Solicitor General Francisco I.A. The PCGG has to provide a prima facie showing that he was a close associate of the former President. In its Resolution. or nominee in EO No. similar to the immediate family member.

assumed under international law. 2. the protection accorded to individuals under the Covenant and the Declaration remained in effect during the interregnum.This. the PCGG failed to do. while the AFP Board Resolution states that the AFP Board conducted the investigation pursuant to EO Nos. 1 clearly premises the creation of the PCGG on the urgent need to recover all illgotten wealth amassed by former President Marcos. EO No. In fact. which withheld the operation of the 1973 Constitution which guaranteed private respondents‘ exclusionary right. its powers must be construed to address such specific and limited purpose. his immediate family. Petitioner is partly right in its arguments. 1 created the PCGG for a specific and limited purpose. 14 and 14-A. Such omission is fatal. With the abrogation of the 1973 Constitution by the successful revolution.‖ 19 . as the de jure government in the Philippines. 1. It was ―done in defiance of the provisions of the 1973 Constitution. subordinates and close associates. the Bill of Rights under the 1973 Constitution was not operative during the interregnum. change their policy or effect radical reforms in their system of government or institutions by force or a general uprising when the legal and constitutional methods of making such change have proved inadequate or are so obstructed as to be unavailable. a revolutionary government was operative by virtue of Proclamation No. Nos. Thus. Thus. the right of revolution has been defined as ―an inherent right of a people to cast out their rulers. EO No. Petitioner‘s argument that private respondents have waived any defect in the filing of the forfeiture petition by submitting their respective Answers with counterclaim also deserves no merit. the resulting government was a revolutionary government bound by no constitution or legal limitations except treaty obligations that the revolutionary government. 14 and 14-A in relation to RA No. a person could not invoke any exclusionary right under a Bill of Rights because there was neither a constitution nor a Bill of Rights. Moreover. the resolution of the AFP Board and even the Amended Complaint do not show that Ramas accumulated the properties in question in his capacity as a ―subordinate‖ of his commander-in-chief. It is precisely a prima facie showing that the ill-gotten wealth was accumulated by a ―subordinate‖ of former President Marcos that vests jurisdiction on PCGG. 3019 and 1379. and necessarily. Thus. Without these elements. without any relation to EO Nos. From the natural law point of view. The PCGG cannot exercise investigative or prosecutorial powers never granted to it. 1379. Petitioner has no jurisdiction over private respondents. 1. said Resolution ends with a finding of violation of R. During the interregnum. 2. there was no municipal law higher than the directives and orders of the revolutionary government. relatives. 1. the PCGG cannot claim jurisdiction over a case. However.‖ Thus. Petitioner argues that at the time the search and seizure was conducted. the directives and orders of the revolutionary government were the supreme law because no constitution limited the extent and scope of such directives and orders. PCGG‘s sole task is only to recover the illgotten wealth of the Marcoses. their relatives and cronies.A. Unless given additional assignment by the President. The EDSA Revolution took place on 23-25 February 1986. This absence of relation proves fatal to petitioner‘s case. there is no jurisdiction to waive.

The warrant. almost the same rights found in the Bill of Rights of the 1973 Constitution. Clearly. However. It was only upon the adoption of the Provisional Constitution on 25 March 1986 that the directives and orders of the revolutionary government became subject to a higher municipal law that. the revolutionary government had the duty to insure that ―[n]o one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy. The raiding team had no legal basis to seize these items without showing that these items could be the subject of warrantless search and seizure. However. to which the Philippines is also a signatory. In this case. the revolutionary government presumptively sanctioned the warrant since the revolutionary government did not repudiate it. during the interregnum when no constitution or Bill of Rights existed. they must be returned to the person from whom the raiding seized them. provides in its Article 17(2) that ―[n]o one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.It has been said that ―the locus of positive law-making power lies with the people of the state‖ and from there is derived ―the right of the people to abolish. family.‖ The Declaration. specified the items to be searched and seized. and they are not. jewelry and land titles confiscated. rendered such directives and orders void. to reform and to alter any existing form of government without regard to the existing constitution. and unless these items are contraband per se. Article 2(1) of the Covenant requires each signatory State ―to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant. after installing itself as the de jure government. Director Of Prisons. home or correspondence. The revolutionary government did not repudiate the Covenant or the Declaration during the interregnum. Thus.‖ Under Article 17(1) of the Covenant. Whether the revolutionary government could have repudiated all its obligations under the Covenant or the Declaration is another matter and is not the issue here. As the de jure government. 20 . the revolutionary government was also obligated under international law to observe the right of individuals under the Declaration. the raiding team exceeded its authority when it seized these items. directives and orders issued by government officers were valid so long as these officers did not exceed the authority granted them by the revolutionary government. The seizure of these items was therefore void. The warrant is thus valid with respect to the items specifically described in the warrant. and that Filipinos as human beings are proper subjects of the rules of international law laid down in the Covenant. issued by a judge upon proper application. the Court has interpreted the Declaration as part of the generally accepted principles of international law and binding on the State. Suffice it to say that the Court considers the Declaration as part of customary international law. if contravened. even during the interregnum the Filipino people continued to enjoy. we do not declare that such person is the lawful owner of these items. the revolutionary government could not escape responsibility for the State‘s good faith compliance with its treaty obligations under international law. The fact is the revolutionary government did not repudiate the Covenant or the Declaration in the same way it repudiated the 1973 Constitution. being only a declaration. the Constabulary raiding team seized items not included in the warrant – the monies. merely that the search and seizure warrant could not be used as basis to seize and withhold these items from the possessor. under the Covenant and the Declaration. The directives and orders should not have also violated the Covenant or the Declaration. We thus hold that these items should be returned immediately to Dimaano.‖ Although the signatories to the Declaration did not intend it as a legally binding document. Thus. Aniceto Alcantara vs. assumed responsibility for the State‘s good faith compliance with the Covenant to which the Philippines is a signatory.‖ Nevertheless. The revolutionary government. communications equipment.

Valdez Tan Keh and Dizon supra. like those of the court which were continued during the Japanese occupation. which were made crimes against the belligerent occupant. Therefore. etc. The petitioner does not question the validity of said decision on the strength of the Proclamation of General Douglas McArthur of October 23. of the belligerent occupant. The sentence as modified became final on September 12. acts which tend. Petitioner now questions the validity of the decision of the Court of Appeals of Northern Luzon. were crimes against the Commonwealth or United States Government under the Revised Penal Code. the Revised Penal Code. Even assuming that the Court of Appeals of Northern Luzon was a new court created by the belligerent occupant or the de facto governments established by him. Ilocos Sur. ante). They are acts penalized for public rather than private reasons. such as treason. which according to our decision in the case of Co Kim Cham vs. As example. sedition. incident to a state of a war and necessary for the control of the occupied territory and the protection of the army of the occupier. 113. 23) of the crime of illegal discharge of firearms with less serious physical injuries. the crimes against national security . Petitioner was convicted by the Court First Instance of Ilocos Sur (Criminal case No. was the same Court of Appeals existed prior to the Japanese occupation and was lately abolished by Executive Order No. the Court of Appeals of Northern Luzon at Baguio modified said sentence (CA. on the sole ground that said court was only a creation of the so-called Republic of the Philippines during the Japanese military occupation of the Islands.R. and the reduction of the number of Justices sitting in each division. Valdez Tan Keh and Dizon. Valdez Tan Keh and Dizon. were good and valid and remain good and valid. and June 23. safety and security. in accordance with the authorities therein cited. Upon appeal. the judgments of such court. and against public order. but taken out of the territorial law and penalized as a new offenses committed against belligerent occupant.This is a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus and for the release of the petitioner on the ground that the latter is unlawfully imprisoned and restrained of his liberty by the respondent Director of Prison in the provincial jail at Vigan. 3 to hold sessions in Baguio. No. does not refer to judicial processes. such as rebellion. etc. except those a political complexion. He was charged with and convicted of an offense punishable under the municipal law of the Commonwealth. espionage. this Court ruled that the socalled Republic of the Philippines and the Philippine Executive Commission established in the Philippines during the Japanese regime were governments de facto organized by the belligerent occupant by the judicial acts thereof were good and valid and remained good and valid after the restoration of the Commonwealth Government. or acts already penalized by the latter as a crime against the legitimate government. In the said case of Co Kim Cham vs. provided that such judgments do not have a political complexion. to aid or favor the enemy and are directed against the welfare.R. In that the same case this Court held that the Court of Appeals which was continued throughout the Japanese occupation. and therefore enforceable now after the liberation or occupation of the Philippines. the sentence which petitioner is now serving has no political complexion. as modified by the Court of Appeals of Northern Luzon. 1944. the regime of the so-called Republic effected no substantial change in its nature and jurisdiction. directly or indirectly. L-5 (p.. 37. is valid and enforceable. A punitive or penal sentence is said to of a political complexion when it penalizes either a new act not defined in the municipal laws. the sentence of the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur. 790)and sentence the petitioner to an indeterminate penalty of from four months four months and twenty-one days of arresto mayor to three years.G. nine months and three days of prison correccional.. as this court held in its decision in the abovementioned case of Co Kim Cham vs. that the Court of Appeals was not authorized by Commonwealth Act No. 1945. G. 1944. The division of the Court of Appeals into several District Court of Appeals. 21 . Obviously. and that only the two Justices constituted the majority which promulgated the decision in question. No. petitioner commenced serving his sentence.

by its consent. He claims that he cannot be tried for treason since his allegiance to the Philippines was suspended at that time. the accused adhered to the enemy by giving the latter aid and comfort. Commissioner of Internal Revenue 30SCRA968(1969) FACTS: A question novel in character. it was the exercise of sovereignty that was suspended. he claims that he cannot be tried under a change of sovereignty over the country since his acts were against the Commonwealth which was replaced already by the Republic. There is no portion thereof that is beyond its power. Moreover. Sovereignty per se wasn‘t suspended. rather. Also. is raised by petitioner William C. express or implied. "is the property of a state-force due to which it has the exclusive capacity of legal self-determination and self-restriction. If it does so. and everyone to whom it applies must submit to its terms. at one time a civilian employee of an American corporation providing technical assistance to the United States Air Force in the Philippines. may refrain from the exercise of what otherwise is illimitable competence. the answer to which has far-reaching implications. Within its limits. it is presumed that the Philippine government still had the power. it is either subsisting or eliminated and replaced. Reagan. It is his contention. HELD: The Court held that nothing is better settled than that the Philippines being independent and sovereign. He would dispute the payment of the income tax assessed on him by respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue on an amount realized by him on a sale of his automobile to a member of the United States Marine Corps. there is a diminution of its sovereignty. if it chooses to. HELD: The accused was found guilty. sovereignty cannot be suspended. both territorial and personal. A citizen owes absolute and permanent allegiance to his government or sovereign. It is to be admitted that any state may. hence. They are not and cannot be foreign territory Laurel v. That is the concept of sovereignty as auto-limitation. its authority may be exercised over its entire domain." 7 A state then. its decrees are supreme. ISSUE: Whether or not the sale was made outside the Philippine territory and therefore beyond our jurisdictional function to tax. Nor does the matter end there. Its laws govern therein. No transfer of sovereignty was made.R. in the succinct language of Jellinek. Thus. If it were not thus. They retain their status as native soil. that in legal contemplation the sale was made outside Philippine territory and therefore beyond our jurisdictional power to tax. No. It is not precluded from allowing another power to participate in the exercise of jurisdictional right over certain portions of its territory. seriously and earnestly pressed. but it does not disappear.RIGHTS OF STATES Reagan v. Necessarily. submit to a restriction of its sovereign rights. its commands paramount. Its jurisdiction may be diminished. They are still subject to its authority. That is the extent of its jurisdiction. There may thus be a curtailment of what otherwise is a power plenary in character. So it is with the bases under lease to the American armed forces by virtue of the military bases agreement of 1947. the transaction having taken place at the Clark Field Air Base at Pampanga. During the Japanese occupation. it by no means follows that such areas become impressed with an alien character. likewise. it has to be exclusive. which. G. 77 Phil 856(1947) FACTS: The accused was charged with treason. there is no suspended 22 . Misa. Its laws may as to some persons found within its territory no longer control.

If the foreign state is not engaged regularly in a business or trade. The said lot 5-A is contiguous to Lots 5-B and 5-D which are covered by Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. Regarding the change of government. 271108 and 265388 respectively and registered in the name of the Realty Corporation (PRC). Acting agent to the sellers.Makati. Such an act can only be the start of the inquiry. 1991 denied the motion for the reconsideration of the June 20. through Domingo A. Cirilos. Starbright Sales Enterprises. a dispute arose as to whom of the parties has the responsibility of evicting and clearing the land of squatters. The three lots were sold to Ramon Licup. the reconveyance of the lots in questioned. Licup assigned his rights to the sale to private respondent. 1991 and September 19. Holy See v. the mere entering into a contract by a foreign state with a private party cannot be the ultimate test. Metro Manila in Civil Case N0. Inc.allegiance. By entering into the employment contract with the cook in the discharge of its proprietary function.1991 Order Petitioner was the Holy see who exercises sovereignty over the Vatican City in Rome.procedural issue of whether the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court can be availed of to question the order denying petitioner's motion to dismiss 3. What happened was a mere change of name of government. there is no such change since the sovereign – the Filipino people – is still the same. Jr. 238 SCRA 524(1994) FACTS: This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court to reverse and set aside the Orders dated June 20. Certainly. Metro Manila and registered in the name of the Petitioner(Holy See-Papal Nuncio). HELD: This Court has considered the following transactions by a foreign state with private parties as acts jure imperii. The operation of the restaurants and other facilities open to the general public is undoubtedly for profit as a commercial and not a governmental activity..90-183 The order dated June 20 1991 denied the motion of the petitioner to dismiss the complaint in Civil Case No. Italy. Private Respondent. In view if the refusal of the squatters to vacate the lots sold to the private respondent. from Commonwealth to the Republic of the Philippines.000 square meters located in the Municipality of Paranaque.determine the issue of petitioner's non-suability. us a domestic corporation engaged in the real Estate business. . tentative they may be. In the absence of legislation defining what activities and transactions shall be considered "commercial" and as constituting acts jure gestionis. Complicating the relations of the parties was the sale by petitioner of Lot 5-A to Tropicana Properties and Development Corporation (Tropicana). Rosario. the United States government impliedly divested itself of its sovereign immunity from suit. specific performance of the agreement to sell between it and the owners lot and damages 2. ISSUES: 1.the annulment of the Deeds of the sale between petitioner and the PRC on hand. we have to come out with our own guidelines. 90-183. Starbright Sales Enterprises. The logical question is whether the foreign state is engaged in the activity in the regular course of business. the particular act or 23 . The petition was arose over a parcel of land consisting of 6. Branch 61. and is represented by the Papal Nuncio. 1991 of the Regional Trial Court. while the Order dated September19..

20-22). Private respondent can ask the Philippine government. in a receiving state. L-24294. but for the use of petitioner to construct thereon the official place of residence of the Papal Nuncio. is recognized in the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (Arts. 1965. 20-22). The donation was made not for commercial purpose. 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. A restraining order was issued by respondent Judge. 1965. upon instructions of the American Ambassador to the Philippines. If this immunity is provided for a diplomatic envoy. the maintenance of the security of the Naval Base and of the installations therein being the first concern and most important duty of the Commander of the Base. The donation was made not for commercial purpose. in a receiving state. This treaty was concurred in by the Philippine Senate and entered into force in the Philippines on November 15. with the subject matter of the action being official acts done by him for and in behalf of the United States of America. Lot 5-A was acquired by petitioner as a donation from the Archdiocese of Manila. or an incident thereof. real or personal. petitioner was entirely within the scope of his authority and official duty. with all the more reason should immunity be recognized as regards the sovereign itself. it is the duty of the courts to accept this claim so as not to embarrass the executive arm of the government in conducting the country's foreign relations. May 3. Lot 5-A was acquired by petitioner as a donation from the Archdiocese of Manila. which in this case is the Holy See.the Department of Foreign Affairs has formally intervened in this case and officially certified that the Embassy of the Holy See is a duly accredited diplomatic mission to the Republic of the Philippines exempt from local jurisdiction and entitled to all the rights. especially when it is not undertaken for gain or profit. real or personal. G. 24 . 1974 FACTS: Respondent Edgardo Gener filed a complaint for injunction against Donald Baer. through the Foreign Office. No. He prayed for a writ of preliminary injunction restraining petitioner from interfering with his logging operations. necessary for the creation and maintenance of its diplomatic mission. then it is an act jure imperii. The right of a foreign sovereign to acquire property. Commander of the United States Naval Base in Olongapo. to espouse its claims against the Holy See. 90-183 against petitioner is DISMISSED Baer v. is recognized in the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (Arts. but for the use of petitioner to construct thereon the official place of residence of the Papal Nuncio. The right of a foreign sovereign to acquire property. The issue of petitioner's non-suability .]). It was added that in directing the cessation of logging operations by respondent Gener within the Naval Base. privileges and immunities of a diplomatic mission or embassy in this country.R. If the act is in pursuit of a sovereign activity. Tizon. necessary for the creation and maintenance of its diplomatic mission. Its first task is to persuade the Philippine government to take up with the Holy See the validity of its claims The petition for certiorari is GRANTED and the complaint in Civil Case No.transaction must then be tested by its nature. Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss. He alleged that he was engaged in the business of and that the American Naval Base authorities stopped his logging operations. Counsel for petitioner. Where the plea of immunity is recognized and affirmed by the executive branch. Private respondent is not left without any legal remedy for the redress of its grievances. This treaty was concurred in by the Philippine Senate and entered into force in the Philippines on November 15. It was therein pointed out that he is the chief or head of an agency or instrumentality of the United States of America. diplomatic envoy is granted immunity from the civil and administrative jurisdiction of the receiving state over any real action relating to private immovable property situated in the territory of the receiving state which the envoy holds on behalf of the sending state for the purposes of the mission.

S. she found that the name appearing therein was ―Flaviano Castro Zapanta‖ albeit the date of death and all other circumstances and information reflected therein clearly and conclusively revealed that the person referred to therein was no other than her late husband. officers and agents of the Government. However. power and authority of control within the bases. ISSUE: Whether or not the doctrine of immunity from suit without consent is applicable HELD: The action against petitioner Donald Baer being against the United States government. filed a petition for correction of entry in the register of death. Local Civil Registrar. Section 3 of the Constitution). though in doing so. 237 SCRA 25(1994) FACTS: Petitioner Gliceria Zapanta is the widow of Florencio B. Zapanta‖ was not merely clerical but substantial in nature.An opposition and reply to petitioner's motion to dismiss by respondent Gener was filed. that the Philippine Government. and the findings of the Mutual Defense Board. directing immediate investigation of illegal timber cutting in Bataan and calling attention to the fact that the records of the office show no new renewal of timber license or temporary extension permits. covered by the principle of state immunity from suit. What was sought by private respondent and what was granted by respondent Judge amounted to an interference with the performance of the duties of petitioner in the base area in accordance with the powers possessed by him under the Philippine-American Military Bases Agreement. to recover possession of said property. the Bases Agreement subjects the exercise of rights under a timber license issued by the Philippine Government to the exercise by the United States of its rights. therefore. ISSUE: Whether or not the trial court committed reversible error HELD: The Supreme Court held in the affirmative." Petitioner made a written offer of documentary evidence. Florencio. sue as individuals. This point was made clear in these words:"Assuming. Zapanta. that a foreign state may not be brought to suit before the courts of another state or its own courts without its consent. Naval Base would not be consistent with the security and operation of the Base. and therefore. the local civil registrar of Davao City issued a death certificate. relying on the principle that "a private citizen claiming title and right of possession of certain property may. said officers and agents claim that they are acting for the Government. that "continued logging operation by Mr." "It is a widely accepted principle of international law. 25 . possesses the "authority to issue a Timber License to cut logs" inside a military base. The trial court dismissed the petition on the ground that the correction of the name ―Flaviano Castro Zapanta‖ to ―Florencio B.the defense of the state ² is equally as untenable as requiring it to do an affirmative act. Respondent Judge issued an order granting respondent Gener's application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and denying petitioner's motion to dismiss the opposition to the application for a writ of preliminary injunction. Prevention of a sovereign from doing an affirmative act pertaining directly and immediately to the most important public function of any government. through the Bureau of Forestry. Gliceria. who are said to be illegally withholding the same from him. Gener within the boundaries of the U. which is made a part of the law of the land (Article II. an agency of both the Philippine and United States Governments. The solidity of the stand of petitioner is evident." is conclusive upon the respondent Judge. for purposes of argument. When Florencio died." Zapanta v. 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.

Adversary Proceeding. Bataan. at the request of the Holy See.R. On appeal by TUPAS.. in later cases. Subsequently. 41-43).The general perception was that the judicial proceeding under Art. an Agreement was forged between the Philippine Government and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees whereby an operating center for processing Indo-Chinese refugees for eventual resettlement to other countries was to be established in Bataan (Annex "A. the Court has held that it adheres to the principle that even substantial errors in a civil registry may be corrected and the true facts established provided the parties aggrieved by the error avail themselves of the appropriate adversary proceeding." Rollo. and where the evidence has been thoroughly weighed and considered. the plight of Vietnamese refugees fleeing from South Vietnam's communist rule confronted the international community. At that time. Petition. The latter opposed the petition on the ground that it is an international organization registered with the United Nations and.the International Catholic Migration Commission (ICMC) Case. where opposing counsel has been given opportunity to demolish the opposite party‘s case. on 23 February 1981. Calleja. and afforded the latter an opportunity to contest it. however. its activities are parallel to those of the International Committee for Migration (ICM) and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) [DOLE Records of BLR Case No. Category II. Med-Arbiter Anastacio L. Vol. pp. ICMC v. Bactin sustained ICMC and dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction. (Annex "E". on 15 July 1988.‖ Thus. Trade Unions of the Philippines and Allied Services (TUPAS) filed with the then Ministry of Labor and Employment a Petition for Certification Election among the rank and file members employed by ICMC. could only justify the correction of innocuous or clerical errors apparent on the face of the record and capable of being corrected by mere reference to it. one of which the party seeking relief has given legal warning to the other party. as evidenced by a Memorandum of Agreement between the Government and ICMC. as distinguished from an ex parte application. through the DEFORAF.. granted ICMC the status of a specialized agency with corresponding diplomatic privileges and immunities. It is duly registered with the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) and enjoys Consultative Status. ICMC's request for recognition as a specialized agency was still pending with the Department of Foreign Affairs (DEFORAF). However. On 14 July 1986. implemented by Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. the suit or proceeding is ―appropriate. hence. As an international organization rendering voluntary and humanitarian services in the Philippines. I]. 22-32). FACTS AND ISSUE: As an aftermath of the Vietnam War. such as misspellings and obvious mistakes. enjoys diplomatic immunity. defined Black‘s Law Dictionary defines ―adversary proceeding‖ as follows: One having opposing parties. On 5 February 1987. In response to this crisis. reversed the Med-Arbiter's Decision and ordered the immediate conduct of a certification election. It was incorporated in New York. as a non-profit agency involved in international humanitarian and voluntary work. 412 of the Civil Code. pp. Rollo. provided the trial court has conducted proceedings where all relevant facts have been fully and properly developed. contested. G. A-2-62-87. USA. 26 . No. 85750 . ICMC was one of those accredited by the Philippine Government to operate the refugee processing center in Morong. Director Pura Calleja of the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR). infra. the Philippine Government.

Section 18 and Article III. (2) the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of Specialized Agencies. Respondent BLR Director. retired Justice Jorge C. which has been complied with. particularly. fact-finding character. United States v. on the other hand. and tasked with the conduct of Philippine diplomatic and consular relations with foreign governments and UN organizations. On 10 January 1989. which declares that the Philippines adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land. the Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order enjoining the holding of the certification election. but is the sole concern of the workers themselves. and Articles 243 and 246 of the Labor Code. through its Legal Adviser. the Petition is GRANTED. It is not a suit against ICMC. the Court allowed DEFORAF intervention. 91 on 17 May 1949 (the Philippine Instrument of Ratification was signed by the President on 30 August 1949 and deposited with the UN on 20 March 1950) infra. 1990 FACTS: The private respondents are suing several officers of the US Air Force in Clark Air Base in connection with the bidding conducted by them for contracts for barber services in the said base which was won by a certain Dizon. funds or assets. ICMC sustains the affirmative of the proposition citing (1) its Memorandum of Agreement with the Philippine Government giving it the status of a specialized agency. WHEREFORE. infra. it has a legal interest in the outcome of this case.R. G.ICMC then sought the immediate dismissal of the TUPAS Petition for Certification Election invoking the immunity expressly granted but the same was denied by respondent BLR Director who. In addition. As initially stated. again. ISSUE: Is the doctrine of state immunity applicable in the cases at bar? 27 . the issue is whether or not the grant of diplomatic privileges and immunities to ICMC extends to immunity from the application of Philippine labor laws. and the Temporary Restraining Order earlier issued is made PERMANENT. with whom the Solicitor General agrees. ICMC filed the present Petition for Certiorari with Preliminary Injunction assailing the BLR Order.R. the DEFORAF. its property. cites State policy and Philippine labor laws to justify its assailed Order. ibid. Section 8 of the 1987 Constitution.Coquia of the Court of Appeals. Intervenor DEFORAF upholds ICMC's claim of diplomatic immunity and seeks an affirmance of the DEFORAF determination that the BLR Order for a certification election among the ICMC employees is violative of the diplomatic immunity of said organization. On 12 July 1989. ordered the immediate conduct of a pre-election conference. Article II. ICMC's two Motions for Reconsideration were denied despite an opinion rendered by DEFORAF on 17 October 1988 that said BLR Order violated ICMC's diplomatic immunity. in G. No. filed a Motion for Intervention alleging that. Feb 26. Guinto. on 24 November 1988. No. 76607. (infra). 85750 (the ICMC Case). The respondents wanted to cancel the award to the bid winner because they claimed that Dizon had included in his bid an area not included in the invitation to bid. the Order of the Bureau of Labor Relations for certification election is SET ASIDE. as amended. Thus. adopted by the UN General Assembly on 21 November 1947 and concurred in by the Philippine Senate through Resolution No. Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution. to conduct a rebidding. Over the opposition of the Solicitor General. and subsequently. On 28 November 1988. as the highest executive department with the competence and authority to act on matters involving diplomatic immunity and privileges. and (3) Article II. the Second Division gave due course to the ICMC Petition and required the submittal of memoranda by the parties. she contends that a certification election is not a litigation but a mere investigation of a non-adversary.

General Francisco Villa. will be deemed to have impliedly waived its non-suability if it has entered into a contract in its proprietary or private capacity. Central Leather Co. Express consent may be embodied in a general law or a special law. FACTS: 28 . for it rests at last upon and expediency. which had then made much progress in its revolution in Mexico.. that the Hague Conventions. This doctrine is not absolute and does not say the state may not be sued under any circumstance. and validates all the actions and conduct of the government so recognized from the commencement of its existence. it is deemed to have descended to the level of the other contracting party and divested itself of its sovereign immunity from suit with its implied consent. The principle that the conduct of one questioned in the courts of another is as brought within the custody of a court as foreign country.S. which clearly imports that it may be sued if it consents. 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. 1914. 1915. independent government cannot be successfully applicable to a case involving the title to property to claims for damages based upon acts done in a the highest considerations of international comity In January. and. Consent is implied when the sate enters into a contract or it itself commences litigation. The USA. and as the de jure government on August 31. thus opening itself to a counterclaim.departments of the government. do not apply to a civil war. Who is the sovereign de jure or de facto of a foreign territory is a political question the determination of which by the political departments of the government conclusively binds the judges. seized and sold some hides then owned and possessed by a citizen of Mexico. while conducting independent operations as a duly commissioned military commander of the Carranza government. ACT OF STATE DOCTRINE Oetjen v. Semble. Waiver is also implied when the government files a complaint. Every sovereign state is bound to respect the independence of every other sovereign state.the political -. like any other state. The consent of the state to be sued may be manifested expressly or impliedly. The conduct of our foreign relations is committed by the Constitution to the executive and legislative -. When the government enters into a contract. levied a military contribution. The rule says that the state may not be sued without its consent. When a government which originates in revolution or revolt is recognized by the political department of our government as the de jure government of the country in which it is established.HELD: A state may not be sued without its consent. and the propriety of what may be done in the exercise of this political power is not subject to judicial inquiry or decision. and the courts of one country will not sit in judgment on the acts of the government of another done within its own territory. in view of their terms and international character. Held that the act could not be reexamined and modified by a New Jersey court in replevin. in enforcing it. 297 (1918) SYLLABUS The court notices judicially that the government of the United States recognized the government of Carranza as the de facto government of the Republic of Mexico on October 19. 1917. and that the regulations annexed to the Convention of 1907 do not forbid such a military seizure and sale of private property as is involved in this case. such recognition is retroactive in effect. 246 U.

Hernandez 168 U. HOLDING: For reasons of international comity. Warren. In Underhill v.S.J. it discriminated against American nationals. commodities broker. in which mostly US citizens held stock. and judicial decisions might alter the flow of trade.). 250 (U. and is thereby forced to rule and validate any lawless act. International law does not require application of the Act of State doctrine.S. Stewart. Whitlock in US District Court. Whitlock because the expropriation invalid because it was motivated by a retaliatory and not a public purpose. Its fully-owned subsidiary had contracted to sell sugar to Farr. Cuba expropriated Compania Azucarera VertientesCamaguey de Cuba (C. if there is no objection. This connection between the Act of State doctrine and sovereign immunity is evident from a 19th century American case. and the courts of one country will not sit in judgment on the acts of the government 29 . 398 (1964) In response to a US sugar quota. courts in the United States will not examine the legitimacy of actions taken by another government in its territory.S. Black. in a statement which has come to be known as the ―classic American statement‖ of the Act of State doctrine: ―Every sovereign State is bound to respect the independence of every other sovereign State. the Court should examine the case on its merits. 250 (U. The Cuban government invoked the Act of State Doctrine. Whitlock & Co.A. a U. Sabbatino.S. 1897) which established the doctrine. newly independent developing countries because judicial decisions are so sporadic. Two land owners (plaintiffs in these consolidated cases) refused to pay the assessment and their property was expropriated and then after the revolution was sold to a third party. Precedent says that the Act of State doctrine applies. The judicial branch does not negotiate with foreign countries. DISSENT WHITE: The Court should wait for the State Department to give an opinion and. Should the Act of State Doctrine be invoked? HELD: Harlan. Brennan. for example. urging the US not to review its sovereign expropriation of property. The interests of the state in dealing with international disputes are best addressed by the executive.. and it failed to provide adequate compensation. 2) that acts of a foreign state regarding property of aliens domestically is beyond the reach of the domestic courts. Whitlock made a second contract with the Cuban government. Underhill v.S. Goldberg: Yes. Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Underhill v. the Supreme Court held that a citizen of the United States was not entitled to recover damages in a United States court from a Venezuelan Military General who refused to issue a passport to him because the acts of the General were held to be acts of the Venezuelan government. not the judicial. Farr. The District Court gave summary judgment in favor of Farr. Clark. Banco Nacional de Cuba had been assigned the Cuban government's rights under the second contract and sued Farr. 1897) The Act of State doctrine was initially developed in the US in cases against officials or agents of foreign governments and applied as a corollary to the personal immunity of foreign sovereigns. army commanders of the revolutionary forces imposed an assessment on wealthy land owners in each town they went to per an Executive order of the revolutionary leaders. even if international law has been violated. Judicial decisions would not protect investors by enhancing trade in.V. The majority should not create new precedent by deciding 1) the examination of international law is for the executive branch and outside the realm of the courts. then refused to take payments from its customers and refused to accept the sugar.During the Mexican revolution. 376 U. According to Fuller C. Hernandez 168 U. Douglas. Hernandez. and 3) the courts must adjudicate a claim regarding foreign law if the claim is properly before it.S..

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 decision in Underhill v. 30 .of another done within its own territory. Hernandez strongly indicates that the doctrine had its origins in notions of sovereign equality and was based on the view that international law imposed limits on the ability of States to exercise jurisdiction over other States.

8.90 147.24:39  98 .3 9.07320394784.9490780829.2039 41 .3/8 70.3.3/ 0.7.8 90 0.0703 798  %070 2.8094 90 207..82.730 4758  90 97.8 4.079.990!55308-033/0503/039..3/ 5072.3/ 84.3207.3807 94 .9 0 .0790.0.7.70/ 9 970.3./3 90.8 2..420 9.907 %.90/ .9 41 0.03:043.943 41 98 84.:9479  98 :78/..79. 5407503.   $$&  090747349908.70 89 8:-0.:79.202-0741 90 &390/ $9.3 .07 84.3/90701470-043/4:7 :78/.0/-243..98:.4:39783.     %0 .0703 98.3/ 0.80/ -50994307.3:.:80/ .:70. .3/ 801 70897.. ...3.700203941 %0..:8.943 .7  080 9.5.70 8:57020  98 .943    89.5.289..4250903.5407949.7.88:8503/0/ %:8 90708348:8503/0/   .3 %070834547943907041 9. .     %04:790/9..07039   9 8 94 -0 .07039.:80/ .943949.0703 497.304184.99..804184.3.302540041.08...  9 8 8 .07 .9 90 .80 41 :78/. 9 .:5./003.0 .03:0 $#   %$   6:08943 34.07430 94 42 9 .808.943  90 .943  -49 9077947.421479  0 .. -0 /2380/  -:99/408 349 /8.9 3 0.73.9./04:98/090!55309077947.381074184.3.8..943 2.3..9438  8 7.. 9:8 -0 ../0 4:98/0 !5530 9077947 .07039 507 80 .43.43974  47 /408 90 2.073203989. 801 /090723./070/ 94 90 0302 - .8 14:3/ :9   .8 3.3349 -0 970/147970.943 574../23:943419884.3039 .73089 570880/  9.3174290007.28 9..7017.8 1.  # 4 !    %$  %0 .0/  $4..9 490780 8 .88:8503/0/.25.3/.8889.8705..720/147.-0007..943 .79:0419029. .3 .7.0 190703499:8 90708.0   98 .38.2 #0.:9424-094.438039  057088 47 250/  8:-29 94 .09490!55308.9 .907 9.9 .9 !.:8.3 5479438 41 98 9077947  1 9 /408 84  9 - 34 20.0418.4202570880/9.943 90 8.070399.70349.3 90 .4480894 2.9907 03/ 9070  9 8 349 570.550./ .2039 41 90 3.0 94 90 &390/ $9.70.0 .9./-90#05:-.03 .903 408 . 8.3.943 .9430920..0 41 030  8 90 5745079 41 .070394.7 0/ 7 .-84:90 .894-00.03.8 948420 5078438 14:3/ 9398 9077947 34 4307.:80/ .0 94 8 4. ..#%$ $%%$   #0. 79 4..908 .80 .943.0594184.. 3 90 8:.3 25.-0.8-0.9:8 .934938-0990780990/9.38990422430./905407 4704.90.9 8 -043/ 98 5407  93 98 298  98 /0.0 985708:20/9. 70897.3..3/ 705..908 7 47.808:3/07 0.7-..0 /:0 94 ..90 903  1 9 ..3814489..3349-08:8503/0/ 9 8 0907 8:-8893 47 023.5508 2:89 8:-29 94 98 90728  %.9 8 90 09039 41 98 :78/.9920 84 0 . 4228843074139073.422.3349-0 147039077947   .43 .83 9 8:8503/0/ 7.08..90 2.9.  - 98 .8 2.8041.9907 .03 5.:94 29.43903943  8074:8 .98 070.3349-0970/:3/07.07039./2990/ 9.:94792.3/ .907  90 ...0 . 89.8 .3/ 507843.34907 5407 94 5.7008 .:/0/ 1742 .47547.907 %0709.5.9890.#0..3/ 90701470 -043/ 4:7 :78/.843  :73 90 .07039.890007.24:3970.0..3 89.0 3 90 !55308  0 4:/ /85:90 90 5.  0.0/.08-.7 $4 9 89 90 -.3080 4..1:3.# 90!55304..439025.0 84  %0 ..39.880880/ 43 2 - 708543/039 422884307 41 39073.3907 89..82.3..80/4..943. .073 90703  .9 94 98 .079803970/42.90 3 90 007.84383.943.

939070:.0 -09003 50994307 .0.80    %047/07/.   $$&$   90 .9.:5 974:4234 748 7 .943 !#   %0970049807084/94#..7908. 5.90/ :30    .438893 41   86:. 4:79 7..9.8 .30 83.9.3/ 90 70.908 ..0732039.3349-0 90 :92.905.0 .79.393#420 9.8/0 90 7/078 /.89.3/ $05902-07    41 90 #043.20 41 90 !0994307 4$00 !.  .0  94 57..0.-0   079.. /85:90 .47547..4 %08.42207.9.3/349.9..9 0974.8 94 42 4190 5.5.43899:93 ..0 90 84..33:2039 41 90 00/8 41 90 8.3 43 -0 90 89..90/ 3 90 :3.509943147. .3.90/:30 /030/902494341905099430794/828890.4190!55308    4$00..3/904307849.90 708543/039  ..3/ ..3/ .3/ .43..9 41 !.99078 94 .1.2.20414.7390 .30 41 4.0 41 08..070/ - %7.0..4.9 03907339490 02542039 .3.0/ 70:.79 41 90 36:7  %0 4...7 1:3.045203947547.90 8 349 03.9438-.0732039250//.7002039 94 80 -090039.90 9089  $:.7480 .80/#:08 414:79.79.:5 .3.07 ..3/ .07947.439:4:894498 .8.8 90 7085438-9 41 0.3.0790'.939070. 2070 ..3.398 .9 .243.3/0.908 4503 94 90 0307.9 47   .80884.07947..7:3/07#:04190#0. .7 .0 1 90 701:8.38.9434190:30  7/07  !0994307.0/390.3/ 7089070/3903..8 .8..3/ 7089070/ 3 90 3.3/ 90 !# 43 .89048004007..93 .7. .0703  90 534 50450  8 89 90 8..9084. 8 :3/4:-90/14757419.98 :70 089438  0 .90957.03994 90 80078  .38. 5071472..7-79 $.-9     %84:79. %7.9 .44 3 90 /8.7041 98 5745709..0/ 39070.90/$05902-07 /030/9024943147 9070.90803.0902.943 /0133 .90 #08543/039  $9..070322:3917428:9   3 90 .7 3 . #48.90-:83088   %0 509943 ..08 390757808  3.3..7908 .3/ 97.425.0/41946:089439047/07/03350994307 82494394/8288  /09072309088:04150994307 8343 8:..3 902070039073394.7.420 4:9 9 4:7 43 :/0308 9039.20  . 5:-. ..!74507908.08  574.0732039 1742422430.39 3. ..7/3 90 .3.3.0890/9801419884.70 .08 390757808   3 .8 .88:041090790509943147.943 %745.4:78041-:83088 190 14703 9 90 . 41 90 86:..:3. -0 .30 41 3.5..7-79 $.0/:7.0 41 90 498 3 6:089430/ 850.3/87057080390/-90!.943  90 &390/ $9. .1470389.7908 ..3.8908.9438 8. /42089.9-.0732039  9070 8 34 8:.57.:.943 03.70 209078 4.:3.1470389..438/070/ .5.4397.0780./0  90 5.943841905./49 8.438/07..3/  70850. 6:08943 8 0907901470389..42207...0  #0..3-0.80/#:08414:799470.99078  425.905.908 41 %90 48    .3. -:83088 47 97.90 708543/039  $9.3/4186:.  :8 ..6:0  0974 .070394.3/ 4907 1..804   090 7/07/.74 $#    %$  %88.9 ..55030/ .99490#05:-.0-509943074149  94%745.9.4.:7.3//.4   !7..943 41 90 7089.909.7:3/07#:04190#0.98:702507   %0 4507.947547.0 41 .-803.3 . ..4397.3/ 809 .38107 0791..8830/ 8 798 94 90 8.0 94 .204190#0.0 41 90 .7480 4.90 90 498 84/ 94 90 57.93.438/070/90144397.

8 .07 .78 ..07947.041708/03.9438   !7.94190&390/$9.7 8 #% .0-7..425.3.1470384.5.:794190.389 43.390/ 22:39 1742 90 .6:70 5745079  70. 9908:-0.0:59904$0090.3...0390!55308434.9 90 207.4  9 .803 43.80  50994307 .3/ 03990/94 .03.8 430 .9 .43.  %0 /43.. 28843  8 70.389 509943078$$$   . 3 98 . 5:75480  -:9 147 90 :80 41 50994307 94 .. /542.43.943 70897..9390..93/70.83499402-.3/ . 90 2470 70. 79 41 57023.3903.792039 41 4703 11.4:397( 0709050.00/9. 70.90/ 3 90 9077947419070.8 .94341434507.3 0.. 70.90 224.943 .80     ./4.0 :78/.90.88 41 90 4 $00 8 .38.2494394/8288 9. 90 798  57.. 43.430/.9.3/248925479.70.70/90/ /542.  3 .0419080./0 349 147 .3/4190389.04190!.8890 00.9438 798     %8 970.4 %07941.90  30.3.90890.943 1742 90 7.425.9 .0732039  974: 90 4703 11.3/ 411.9438 41 90 207.8 ..44/843-0.05998.3/ 2.80 . .0/ 3 90 -:83088 41 ./039907041 90398.02-07    49   .90.3..9.9.808904$00   %0 88:0 41 50994307 8 343 8:.430/ 3 90  '033.943 .389 .943 70.0.8 90 !5530 4.4 8 7.3 41 98 /542..9 90704390411.943 1742 90 7.90 .-0 5745079 89:. 28843 4702-.99074190 .43./ ...0 41 98 /542..888:0/-708543/039:/0  4:380 147 50994307  :543 3897:.9.389 90 4 $00  98 1789 9.943890703-0390 1789.9..7/8 90 84. 03.3/ 9..//0/9.07  422.:947908 894550/ 8 43 4507.030/ 3 98 .:3..3903.54 0.7 147 90 .84.080 41 . 03.28  %0 509943 147 .0..0703. .088.9 90 2-.34757419   49   . /43..3/039070/394147.8.943 41 90 70.43897:. 41 90 !55308 00259 1742 4.1470384.07910/ 9.9438 70897.80.03147 .3 2-.908 41207.3/039070/394147.7.3/074190.0..4:79894..:9.0. 43.3/ 411.0/ 147 . %43  # 4   .3 89.  %0 /43.0398349:3/079./41 ..03943 43 542..0.42207.7 3:3..07. /:9  902./0 90 !5530 4.0390!55308434.088.93 94 57.080 41 .01470.3/ 90 ..9432:89903-090890/-983.   %$  #08543/039 /.088..438039  !099430710/./47 94 90 !55308  039070/907.3347/07.8 03970 93 90 8.. 3907.073./23897. .08  !7. 5:75480  -:9 147 90 :80 41 50994307 94 ..041708/03.42207.943 .0703 9801  .473897:2039...4:397 81470370...8 8 94 5078:. /542.3/ 2. 7020/ 147 90 70/7088 41 98 70..9014790 5:754808 41 90 28843  1 98 22:39 8 574..8 1472.843 84:/ 22:39 -0 70. /43. 14703 84.803. :78/.3 89.3.3903.:9.6:70/ - 50994307 .. #0.80 4    .90 708543/039 8 349 019 94:9 .:770/ 3 - 90 !5530 $03. .3 .9.3 .  3 .943 .550./94198.9438  0 57.43/:.943 .943 .5..:9479 .7 147 90 .89070354390/4:99./0 349 147 . 47 507843.430/ 3 90  '033.90 4.8 2. /: .3.3/..4 %07941.. 28843  8 70.9438-708543/039030793 90 .9003.90 .4122:39870.8 ..39/:94190422.88.9:702507 0850..-9  90 05.7241904.389...:770/ 3 - 90 !5530 $03..33 50994307 1742 3907107398434507.3.1 41 90&390/ $9./4.9 90 8:9 .3.3.:3.9438 798     %8 970.90  30. . .908. .0703 94 .5..28 ..6:70 5745079  70.8 ..3 89.3.9  47. 28843 94 90 #05:-.8 70.3/22:3908 41 .14190803/389.0703 94 .8 2.6:70/ - 50994307 ...70.430/ ..9 90704390411..98 /430 -2 147 .008 ./0/ 147 .3/074190&390/$9.9:70 190.0732039949.77.39 147 3:3.943 -03 411.39 3 .0  94 0854:80 98 .03943 43 542.11720/-90 00.9. 47 507843.80 .439089390:78/.  9 .02-07    /542..90841207.3/3 -0.9.88398.90 708543/039 ...284.94341708543/039:/0 43 90 74:3/ 9..8 .9390.0147905:7548041.9.43897:. .07320393. #0..0703 94:9 98 .04190!..92. 9890/:94190.97.5.7/4 0307 10/ .450 41 8 .

3//03350994307 82494394/828890455489439490.0 9 90 5071472.4907 .3/ 4507.7/  .5.:3.943 7010.3.504139073. %2-07 .3895099430743..20.  94 4703.3/.3 .39 5:-. 94/390 8..9   98.550.0380 88:0/ - 90 !5530 4. 41 -49 90 !5530 .078..4192-07. .990.0.07. 92-07.80  90 .90 9. 3 ..0.3 .55.7 .7 0.0732039  90 /010380 41 90 89.078. .0 9 90 54078 54880880/ - 2 :3/07 90 !5530 207.0703 47 4:/ 706:70 90 /43 41 .03943 41 .0703 1742 /43 .80 41 798 :3/07 .90:8-.8 84:9 - 57.55.-:98:-89.7 41 ..07-03. 70897.39.82..5.9.#0897.8974.943 147 90 88:. .3/ 705 94 50994307 8 24943 94 /8288 - 708543/039 0307 .3 45548943 .4770..80  8 .9084.3.0732039  974: 90 :70..-0 .4:79841.9:70   $$&  0907473499097.:8..07  80 14:3/ 9.08 .1172.5..98 90 007.4:79/82880/90 509943 43 90 74:3/ 9.9 .8 7.8974 .4 .0732039 .07548808843418.3/ &390/ $9.943 41 0.:8.0 .8 10/  7034390573.4770./5745079 8:0.20 . 92-07 .3.-0990/...0398 41 90 4./411.8 411.07..9084198798 5407.3/ .43.8 706:73 9 94 /4 ..0732039  4 .390/ - 708543/039 :/0 .:9 48 38/0 . ..0398.990394394901.3/794154880884341./0 .0732039 94 90 007.3/9013/38 41 90 :9:. 1:3.943 41 90 3..4 9 88:0/ .0732039 !0994307 2.39.99070.:947941.39.439749390-./94 -00.3/ 220/..3 9.39.90  8 06:.33. 010380 4. 84.7 3 9080 47/888:23  147 5:754808 41 ..4:79.7 .943 41 .0590/573.089.93147904.9 .9 ..4:79894:998..8 .943-7 03079390-4:3/.509.83/. 90701470  10/. 29.90 3.29.943   $$&  09074734990/4.5.084 34307030./0.070/-90573.80 .943 41 90 43899:943 9.: 41 470897  548808808 90 .1172.83492070.3/.7 .3/.0   $0..3 4. 8 90 /4 41 4703.0 70.43.9 - 9  !70./..:9479 94 88:0 .57.70.94341039739070890741/0.5.3 57450792.90 708543/039 ../:.93 220/..38990&390/$9.4393:0/434507.3/.39.23990.90 22:39 8 349 290/ 94 .0  /70.0.4 /0/  90 4.9022:3917428:9   %0 84/9 41 90 89.9 90 3.. 79903 41107 41 /4.3/.903.38990 84.3/ 41 50994307 8 0..80 4:/ 349 -0 .078-007747    %0$:570204:790/390.97304122:3917428:994:9. .90.808 7002039  %8 5439 .3/ 4703.3 ..422990/70.504189.509943147. .1172.:9933.307.7084190 & $  .9.7 $#    %$  !0994307 .4190 .90/ 90703 .9.0 41 .33 /70.8 2.4 .393 708543/039 0307 8 .70903843507298 #08543/039:/088:0/ .079.90479843.43889039 9 90 ...9 5079.3/ 90701470 . 4:/708:93 .70 .438039    .7:2039 . 14703 89.9.943.943147. . /0./0 ./0.5.4..8 :3903..83449079.943 41 90 .07320398 9.908 4.47/.0 :543 90 708543/039 :/0  %0 /4.9 %097..3/ 31472.038047902547.9 90 5078437010770/9490703.3.0    .90 94 90 2489 25479.:289.70.9 ..3 ..07.0.0380 94 ..99.55.34 .9..3 47/07 7. 9470.808..-0    %0.4.7 -.47/84190411.9 90 .9.20 1742 2 94: 3 /4384 8.0 .1172.:2039.39.73:3.9041/0.708.9 .3 390710703.24:390/ 94 .808 7002039 8:-0. 4.943..34.7 3:3.. 794157023.:79 .9 90 !5530 4.794190.80 - 90 &390/$9.0 41 90 /:908 41 50994307 3 90 -.90 2..0791.3/ 79. 79 41 57023.. 03 4703./03.4   .4380398./039  . 50.9730 41 89.349 -0 -74:994 8:9-0147090.03..

.3/0/$07.50 9..8/893:80/1742.943.03 8:-89.3/  330 !09943 #44 55   317.2 8.-0..0 41 90 70..     ./0/9097.4770.391.943  .00/38070.9438.850.9438422884307147#01:008070-.93 .39.4390899   %:8 574.79 8003 7001 ..8 -003 .55.42299001477.943.788  43  0-7:.3/ 22:3908  .3/9097:01.0/339073.47547..  $   .7908 .0/ .42299004190#0/ 7488 #  #0...7!74.9.0450/  070 455483 .82885038.83...3.0 .08 41 90 .390/  90 89./0708 94 90 573.943 9 9.243907.90 .-0 41 -03 ..3/47/070/90220/..9.9 9 .39.7   0/ 7-907 3.4:39708. .990706:089 41904$00 .-80/574.7908..7.943.7 905941'093.843.9:8 41 .03907 147 574.79 8 .8..3/10202-07802540/- %0.3/2542039.7.907 .3/$4.00/3   /.. .7039 43 90 1.99 8 .3/ /82880/ 90 509943147.:41.9.0732039 974:90 #  7.8 430 41 9480 .8 -003 9474: 00/ .9438 # 70.07.3807.7.8.3/ 0348 438:9.4:8289.80   %$$$&  8.34554835.889503/3990 05.941.-47.9 0.3/:2.7 574.804     .343 57419..90 90 701:00 574..790.:2.0/.79  .7/01308 .3/90&390/. 90 5.943.078.7574.9434228843  .943   3.22:39   3  0-7:.. 0247.4:39.078.4:39.9. 507.8 0/ 9.550.3/9039073.3 4507.9. 47.894-0089.4770.0..3..43/:.557457. 57.943 430 41 .70/90/ - 90 !5530 4.0  0348 /542.943.008 ..30/  .943 41 334.3/ .90/-20707010703.03 455479:39 94 /0248 90 4554890 5.94300.39.3 330 #44 55      .0949 8:.557457.55.03.90/.90/3047 &$ .3455479:3994.4:380 .422:3897:0.3 7002039 .9907.9 90 :/.3/ 574507 /0.94190'093.094948041 9039073.0732039 .3 39073./03.90/574. '4 (   3: %7.07 43: 90!55304.89..43/:.2080701:00810031742$4:9 '093.9:8  ..3/  03.00/3 /0130/  . 4/0  25020390/ - #:0   41 90 #:08 41 4:79  .039:.43943. 850.0732039 94 4507.41:78/.3/4-.94. 9 .93 8:89.3 9..-47#0.305.03 0.0791. 70809902039 94 4907 .43174390/9039073.422:39   3 70854380 94 98 . 574.943..438/070/ 908:947574..81448  30.4.9047   8 .08   40.078.47/ .90.9.47/841#.3. 077478 .-80/3.4390890/ ./0&34384190!55308..0774783.79203941470311.4:79./0/ 90 5..3 39073.0390734743 .0 $9.0.78  #   $:-806:039 40.947!:7.2.07  3 .943.4342.8.3/./03..9438 .03.908.3.0883.7 47 98/:7089070/990&390/.4:/ 43 :891 90 .7   .19072. 90280.90     # 4   9039073..943.80  .47708543/3 /542.!099431470791.733 94 90 4907 5.4770.98..3 ..708972.943 703/073 .943 7089070/ 9 90 &390/ .943.4190:70.705.9430.9920  8706:08914770. %0 0307.05943 .98089.08 %&!$ 10/990 903389741.0/ - 90 07747 .4:3.0883 3/4 3080 701:008 147 0.00/3 :3/07 79   41 90 .3/.7.808  90 4:79 .8 1470/ -09003 90 !55304.8 ....8 9.3/:2 41 7002039 -09003 90 4.7.0/ - . 8.8 0..0-003 1: .70.:4:8 47 .08390!55308 98..3/ .3/ 070 90 0.5.4   ./.00/3 .0780/ 900/ 7-907 80.0732039..9907455480/90509943439074:3/9..3.700..03..00/38 .1147/0/ 90. 47./.-%&!$ 70.

7008 .907   9 8 349 .3/:2 41 7002039 990!55304.399089.:770/3-90!5530$03.0590/573.3/ !5530 .943  41 90  43899:943  317.0790455489434190$4...008 . 89.3/.9. 41 90 %&!$ !09943 147 0791.9.9.390/94.908.: 41 .4.943990-//3.943.33 7/07 03433 90 4/34190.078. 904:79..55.9. %02547.33 7/070.9.7/9490 -/3307-0.02-07.4310703.3 /542.3/ 79.:..7  79.8 94 :891 98 .7 90 # 974:980.390# 7/07   3  4.390/ -:9 90 8.:8090.0/:0.3.80 90!099438#% 90 7/074190 :70.5084139073./4598 900307.241/542.943   3 .02-07 10/905708039!0994314707947.3.943419043899:943 .9-.079./# 7/07.03 9.9 43 2.9 90 # 7/07 147 .22:39..07.3/&47./47.807 70970/:89.90/  90 88:0 8 0907 47 349 90 7.438/07.:/0/3 903.4:7809490!09943.3.3.943.08  . 343 .7089.8    8:89.3/ 94290$4.:9479 94 .7 3:3.-47 .03943 . 2070 3.908 $9. 570 00.8-003.9./ -..43/:.0.22:39.3 45343 703/070/ -  # 43  .22:39418. 8:9 .947 4  .70 8:3 80.3. ..3/  41 90 .97304189..794190.-0390.9470307.55.88.08  .3493.80/990.3/  79.0/ 03..43/.008 .9..-905. 317.0791.943..43/:.38 90 .0347 #:54/8 8..943 070 /030/ /08590 .4397. :394  # 4   0-    %$  %0 57.943 8 $% $  .4250903..43.943 00.03943   3: 90$0.80. 90!55303897:203941#.   90 43..4190.3/706:70/90 8:-299..8 /030/ - 708543/039 # 70.3/. 411.089.0 /05.80 3 .43/:..9022:39..9:841.. 9.70788:0/82.98./3.3/8008.90/ 8/542.90 708543/0398 .94-079.3/57.9  ..04190/542.0/ 7/07  5.99078 3. 57.80   .4.43/:.02-07   90 4:79 88:0/ .8830/- 90!708/03943 ::89.1172.7 #0897./0!#%    &390/$9.7908 ..7.85.3/ 90 %02547.770.20/9.07841 90 &$7 47.9470307.70-//3   $$&  890/4.3..3/ ./.20 .0/./.4204198.7...0732039.79.850.4330.943 00.43903/8 9.3/ 22:3908 41 $50.8 .94394-/ .9.943 41 . .3/8:-806:039  .  317.3  47/070/ 90 220/..943 9.//943  80 .3:.947 43904907.94389147034.-47 4/0  .943 .39 41 /542.389   98 5745079  1:3/8 47 .243 90 02540088.:9.343 %0708543/0398.7 #0897.39070893 904:9.0 $0..9.0791.0   $0.94300. .843.90 54..943 8 349 .43.203/0/  -/   3 .08   # # 3 # 4   90.:/0/38-/.0    8 94 49438 147 #0.0791..94341!5530.0 .9.9438 147 .9 .0 41 90 574548943 ..7 7 .8 90 089 00.843-.22:39  %:8 434.0   $0.88098  -:9 8 90 840 .008 ....090. 903 84:9 90 220/.083908. 4943 147 3907.3/ 79.9 41 .943   #08543/039#70.943.90974: #084:9434 43..7   .03 ...1172. .438:.43 90 22:39 057088 7.943 00.03943 43 90 !7.943 .0470 46:.9438 9.07320398.70.4120247..9 13/3 .8802-434.91./4590/ - 90 & 0307.808.40/ #3907.943 -:9 .3/   3907..3//054890/990&43 .90 .3/ .3/9.07341904707890280..3/ 22:3908940903/89422:39174290.792039 9 90 .4250/9   8 39.79!7023.88.03.90 /8288./0.7-07807.98147-.941!5530/542..93   98 0247.990!55308.8  10/ .-47 #0.90/-902147.0791.7  1.943 0.. 41 90 4:79 41 550.943 3.0 41 90  # /090723.-47.

9904.89.7..:043.230/..3/ 90 .430/90 4.843   4 8 90 84.430/174290.42203. -0/430390007.890/0:704.3.3300/949043..349-08:0/94:998.7.390990945745079 -74:99390.0732039 .7 .908-4:3/9470850.9438 .4:7937050.089.3//4083498.3.0732039 .3/39073.3/ 303147.80/:543.4. 0397.....9 47 9 9801.310890/ 057088 47 250/   57088 ..39  800/..438/07..4. 70..43/:.4:/349-0700..39 9:845033980194.2  %0&$ 0.422990/ -90 43899:9439490 00.8.4 43 .84250/03904.792039841904.3/54880880/-.3..4:397  147 9 70898 .   3 . 41 0.9.425..94 41 .4 0.574708839870..9  ..77..9.0732039 039078 394 .803.90 94 -0 8:0/ 2.-84:90. 9089..0732039 .7920398 41 90 4..50 9....3349 -0 8:.4:397  349 89 3 :/2039 43 90 . - 90 549.4380398   %0 .98 41 90 4.908 3 70.4:94330. 7. -0 02-4/0/ 3 .073203943::89    $02-0 9./.3/90574570941.  0 .990.992.883.29.30/ 974: 90 20.9.792039 41 4:7 4.0881: 6:089430/390.74757.43/:..7    0307.07490784.4:397 3 .0732039 41 . 0307.0394341 /4349 147-/8:...039438 3. /05.3/8.94388.7..0784. 6:08943 90 /090723.4.4:943 47 70.5..99089..894.3.93 5.804198549.0.94 4.0732039 41 .438039   . 14703 9077947 8 .   4380398250/ 0390 8.9903/0503/03.0890/ 9801 4198 84.990 .92. /:.941904.349-0 8:0/94:998.070389..49 8 70.902.422.3/ /.780:70.:894/41.3/24/10/-.42203.0250/. 14703 .36:747/0.540783498:-0.5594.90 039078 394 .4397-:943 ..0703 54078 .3/ 08.4:798 41 430 .9074 & $     $&$  %0.38 4503 94 -0 ./9032.4397.429 .97308349.0/398. 47. 473.0 %07:08.943   03 90 4.89 :543 90 089 .0/.9 41 4:7 14703 70.349078.4397.55.9438 ..982:89-0 4-9.0 /08.0 3 0110. .430/ - 90 549.9438.29.438039 .90.   89.843418:.4397..3490789..907 /4 349.77.42288430/29..0410.34907/4309398439077947 #0/70884170.3/074190.08   %0 573.80   %0 .99070:.3/.. 90 .2.3   %$   .03/0/ 9490 0. .4:79.9. 549.0 -3/8 90:/08   03 .3.902.943.4:3907.908 .-08:0/19...90 -0/0020/94.. /05.9 90 ..8 .0703 /0 :70 47 /0 1.438039 41 90 89.3/050/03.4 '.94-07   .04190790728.79 . 9 8 089. -0 2.3/ ..98/4303.994:/.0   .943.-80/  8:..0732039 .93 3/0503/039 4507.349-08:0/:3/07.0732039 .08:/..:8.4 0/9.438039 %8/4..9438 41 39073..43/:.943 41 .07320398470..-919 ./0 2:..4397.00780..9 41 430 3/0503/039 4.4:79841.07320394190&390/$9..02039419808903.8039070/394..8 -09003 90280. 850.3/ .:9.43/:.8.903410.0732039 41 90 .0732039 ..0/ 41 - 84. .9    % $%% %#   0903.902.90870...28147/.0 .:289.90  ..43.8 90 /0 :70 4.04157.0/98343 8:.3.43943 8 70974.0732039 41 90 #05:-.0.0732039108.078 .3/84/8420/08903430/.08-70.9 .070389.4:79349. /05..-094.93985745709..890/0 1..72547989. 4.3/9.3:.0703 22:39 17428:9 9 98250/.4380392.0 41 90 4907 ..08-.0 90549.905745079.7..9  98 /0020/94 .

0732039  903 701:80/ 94 9.943 41 90 .0453..4:943.40/    .9 ./0:-.23090.230 90 092. 41 90 /42089.3 4.0732039  .47/3 94 :07    3 .79      47 70.0 34990 :/.794.3/9075745079.8438 41 39073.880882039430.4397. /0.3 70.3 97.425038.4384/.0/039 - /0.90/  39073.9841904.5.0398 41 14703 4.9730 .0732039 8 798 :3/07 90 80.907 90 14 41 97..4:791742.420 94 -0 343 .941$9./..9 147 90 $9.943 904:7984:/0.-7.8249. :73 90 0.4:39708-0.8 39.:80 90 ..8 47 .:80:/.90 /4.94:79.2.& $ .4.8438 4:/ 349 57490.808  701:80/ 94 5.9730   3 &3/07 .43..943415745079 %0897. 207./0.90.  073.90 05..059908:.089478 - 03..3.19079070../039 1742 .. ./85:908.3/4307830./.8830/ 90 :-.0450/ 3 90 &$ 3 .55.039:7 207.7.3/.190.250 303/0503/039/0.908.9439003994507..90 /4.0703 $9.4:798 3 90 &390/ $9.5:754809/8.98 41 . $.808 ..4397..943.98 41 90 '030:0.9 .3 4.3/ 8:0/ . 070 0/ 94 -0 .389207.   $$%%  %0 4:79 84:/ .. 2489 &$ .3 .3  $90.9 41 $9.39118 3 9080 ./078   %4 .40/ 90 .43/ .07320398 .90..:9.0732039   . 14703 89.8 9.  4:.4...90 /4.047/074190 70.  073.70.. .90/.3  .9730  :7390&$3499470.4.880882039.038 /42089.3 .8 -003 . 073./0:-.-80/ 90 /4.943.0/94574.4. .5:-.4:798   9.9 41 $9.. /408 349 706:70 .3.08 3 .474.7703  . ..0/039 8.39.94389.. 3 &$ 897.47984:/349.941$9.90 30 570..943.9 41 $9..903 41 90 &390/ $9.4397.03 1 39073.9 41$9.4:798 .934 & $     3 70854380 94 .707.77  94.8057457.8 .3 4. 2.3/8 9070-147.90 8 -4:3/ 94 70850.70 848547.7.550/ .90 .7/314703.8 84/94.4:943.8 90 .943. '07903908 .90/.7/3 5745079 41 ..8.7  7033.709./ -003 .9 4:79  %0 :-. 8 147 90 00. 89.07038   %8 ./ -0..90/94808:.349074.3/ 43078 5.72 ./4083493049.70307./0.723.9730  . %0:/.77  94.. &390/$9.3.97/5.0 -7.03-.943 -09003 90 . 057457.80439820798 %02. ..9    &3/07./03 1470.3/0& $   & $    %0 ..9730 ..3/701:80/94.98 41 90 0307.4701:80/9488:0.943.7 :/2039 3 1.:9..0703 $9.9038 0/ 894.4330.. /0.90914703.5508  0.903/0..088.902039 4190.3 4.3/903..7 6:49.3/90..792039 94 .9730 -03.0 8:22.8 .3/   90 . 22:39 41 14703 84.3..0 5..3/91.79  4/-07 08  !70.43.77 94..90/4.9 90 .07 4907 84../:/.:80 9 .0703057457. :.8  .0 ..9730  %039070898 41 9089.90/ .:8942078.4:79841430..88547994 2 -0.4224/908-7407  . .3. &$ 8:.70-089. 9 .90 4...0 41 0.//70880/-9000..3.90/ 425.07 84.3939073.8 349 03990/ 94 70.3/:/. .7 94 90 507843.3/0  90 $:57020 4:79 0/ 9.3/ .20398174298.41./3   90 0.389.943.:80 90 057457.43/ . 4 .3/ 4:98/0 90 70.4:943..07 /.3.9 .902039 .4:39708 .09884.7 .'030:0.90/-..9.8438 29 .  :-.947./06:..   '  3 .:0 /0 :-.3 45343 .88.77  94..07320393989077947    ./.3/ 84.4:943  . 80.0/947:0.  98 1: 430/ 8:-8/.908 .943 3. 8 -043/ 90 70.0732039 3.4:7982:89.9 90 3/0503/03.9 3..943 41 39073.3 3.. ..7 0. . -0.90 /4.90.7 147./0  :/.3/349...30.. 089.28574507-014709 ..3/  1 9070 8 34 4-0.429  ..90 70.8438.908  349 0.943 $4:/ .2 41 90 .904.:9..3/0  & $    & $    .9 41 $9.--.08 25480/ .389 411.9730 .270.422.80  &3/07 .47 41 .9 9 90 :-./0.0703 22:39 8 0.23.3/078 41 90 70.

8 -09003 90280..9 39073.9434./9847383 349438 41 84...3/0897433/.9 .0703 54078 .074907$9.0/ 41 - 84.08   %0/0.908      .80:78/..8433&3/07.982:89 -0 4-9.3/ .843418:.80/ 43 90 . .3.943. 25480/ 2984390.34907/4309398439077947 #0/70884170.9089..90894007..990/4.-941$9. 073.0703 06:.8 -.41.30/ 974: 90 20.38 4503 94 -0 .9730.08-70.0 9.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful