treaties -

doctrine of transformation
Csec 21 , AA
.
7)
-
concurrence of 43 votes of
the Senate .

GAT treaty
↳ ratified
sound ferrando
→ pack
must
↳ treaties
be observed and complied
WI in good faith 2022 BAR Review Notes
POLITICAL LAW AND INTERNATIONAL LAW
Attorney EDWIN REY SANDOVAL
(January 7 - 12, 2022)
(Patterned after BAR BULLETIN No. 31, s. 2022)

Quotable Quotes from NBA greats:

the shots you don

- Michael Jordan

you are afraid of failure, you don t deserve to be successful

- Charles Barkley

Constitutional Law (11 Questions)

Is sovereignty really absolute?

In the domestic sphere sovereignty is really absolute. But this may not be so in
the field of international relations, as there may be limitations imposed on sovereignty.
First, limitations brought about by the very nature of membership in the family of nations,
and second, limitations imposed by treaty stipulations. When the Philippines joined the
UN, it is understand that it will voluntarily surrender some aspects of its sovereign powers
in exchange for greater benefits that it may derive by being a member of the UN,
otherwise it may face isolation from the rest of the world; likewise, when we enter into
treaties with other states, it is understood that we must surrender some aspects of our
state power in exchange for greater benefits that we would derive from such treaties,
especially in view of which is one of the oldest principles of
international law and, by the doctrine of incorporation, automatically becomes part of
our laws (Tanada vs. Angara). This is the concept of auto-limitation on sovereignty.

The Meaning of Judicial Power

It includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving
rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not
there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on
the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government. (Sec. 1, 2nd par., Art. VIII,
1987 Constitution)

This definition has two parts. The first part speaks of the duty of the courts of
justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and
enforceable. (The traditional concept)

The second part speaks of the duty of the courts of justice to determine whether
or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government. (The
expanded power of judicial review)
 Because of the expanded power of judicial review (2nd part), the political question
doctrine has been adversely affected; in fact, it has been greatly diminished. Because
actually nowadays, even if the question presented before the court appears to be a
political question, for as long as there is sufficient allegation of grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality
of the government, the court may still intrude into those questions.

The Political Question Doctrine

⑧
Political questions are questions of policy. They involve the wisdom (not legality)
of an act, or the@efficacy or the necessity of a particular measure and, therefore, not
subject to judicial review - a forbidden territory on the part of the courts.

As defined in Tanada vs. Cuenco, political questions are those questions which,
under the Constitution, are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or
those, in regard to which, full discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative
or the executive branch of the government (the political branches, as distinguished from
the judicial branch).

Based on this definition, there are actually two types of political questions, i.e.,
those questions which, under the Constitution, are to be decided by the people in their
sovereign capacity (1st type), or those, in regard to which, full discretionary authority has
been delegated to the legislative or the executive branch (2nd type).

The 2nd type was the one adversely affected by the expanded power of judicial
review.

Requisites of Justiciability ( Judicial power of

review
1. There must always be an actual case or controversy;
2. It must be raised by the proper party, i.e., the petitioner must have sufficient
locus standi or legal standing to question the act complied of;
3. The constitutional question must be raised at the earliest opportune time; and
4. The resolution of the constitutional question must constitute the very lis mota
or the very main issue of the entire controversy, i.e., there is no way by which
the court may resolve the entire controversy unless the court first resolves the
constitutional question raised.

Of these requisites, the first two are the most important. (Belgica vs. Ochoa)

Meaning of an or Controversy
NOTE
An actual case or controversy means an existing case or controversy which is both
ripe for resolution and susceptible of judicial determination; that which is not conjectural
or anticipatory, or that which seeks to resolve hypothetical or feigned constitutional
problems.

Based on this requirement, courts may not resolve hypothetical cases or cases
based on assumptions; courts may not even render advisory opinion (because by the
very nature of an advisory opinion, there is no actual controversy involved). In fact, even
if initially there is an actual case or controversy, but if due to supervening events the case
has been rendered moot and academic, the court may have to dismiss the petition on
that consideration. Moot and Academic

The Moot and Academic Principle

 As a rule, if a case has been rendered moot and academic by supervening events,
the court will have to dismiss the case. However, there are exceptions to the moot and
academic principle, and these are:

First, there is a grave violation of the Constitution;

Second, the exceptional character of the situation and the paramount public
interest is involved;
Third, when the constitutional issue raised requires formulation of controlling
principles to guide the bench, the bar, and the public; and
Fourth, the case is capable of repetition yet evading review. (Belgica vs. Ochoa)

nd

Locus standi is a right of appearance in a court of justice on a given question.

sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the governmental act being challenged.

The trend nowadays is towards the liberalization of the rules on legal standing,
which trend began in the case of Oposa vs. Factoran (a leading case in environmental
protection and enforcement).

The Rule-Making Power of the Supreme Court (Sec. 5[5], Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution)

The power of the Supreme Court to promulgate rules concerning the protection
and enforcement of constitutional rights,⑦pleading,②practice, and③ procedure in all courts,
the admission to the practice of law, the⑧
④ ⑥
Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the
↳
underprivileged. (Sec. 5[5], Art. 8, 1987 Constitution)
not admission to the sandy of law
.

Included in this provision is the power to promulgate rules concerning admission

to the practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the underprivileged.

Republic Act No. 7662 (Creating the Legal Education Board [LEB])

Republic Act No. 7662 was enacted by Congress which created the Legal Education
Board (LEB) which is attached to the Commission on Higher Education (CHED), an office
under the executive branch, to regulate the study of law (legal education) in the country.
Did this encroach on the rule-making power of the SC?

In Pimentel vs. Legal Education Board, the SC clarified that the rule-making power
of the SC applies only to admission to the practice of law not admission to the study of
law (legal education). Legal education is merely an aspect of the entire Philippine
educational system and, historically, the power to regulate the entire Philippine
educational system (of which legal education is merely an aspect thereof) has been
exercised by the political branches of the government, i.e., the Congress and the
executive branch, not by the Court, under the police power.

However, while upholding the constitutionality of R.A. No. 7662, there were certain
acts of the Legal Education Board (LEB) which were declared ultra vires and
unconstitutional as they encroached on the rule-making power of the SC and the
academic freedom of institutions of higher learning (Sec 5[2], Art XIV, 1987 Constitution).

Particular acts of the LEB declared ultra vires and unconstitutional, (among others)
 -or-
aptitude test for a student to be admitted in a law school. This encroached on the
academic freedom of schools which includes the right of a school to determine on
academic What the LEB may validly prescribe
is minimum requirement for admission in a law school but it is up for a school to adopt
its own admission criteria;

curriculum as it encroached not only on the academic freedom of schools but also on the
rule-making power of the SC. Only the SC can promulgate rules on limited law practice.

Prescribing mandatory requirement to teach ,

and to be appointed dean (holder of a doctorate degree in law) of a law school. Again,
what the LEB may validly promulgate are minimum requirements to teach law and to be
appointed dean of a law school.

Prescribing a mandatory continuing legal education for lawyers. Lawyers are

subject to the regulatory power of the SC thru the IBP - not the LEB.

Academic Freedom of Institution of Higher Learning (Sec. 5[2], Art. XIV, 1987
Constitution)

The right of a school or college to decide for itself, its aims and objectives, and
how best to attain them free from outside coercion or interference, except possibly when
the overriding public welfare calls for some restraint.

Bas
freedom of the school to determine, on academic grounds:

1. Who may teach;

2. What may be taught;
3. How it shall be taught and;
4. Who may be admitted to study.

May the President validly exercise emergency power motu proprio in view of the corona
virus pandemic?

No. Emergency power is merely a delegated power from Congress (Sec. 23, 2nd
par., Art VI, i987 Constitution). For that matter, what are the requisites for Congress to
validly delegate emergency powers to the President?

1. There must be war, or other national emergency (like this corona virus
pandemic);
2. The delegation must be for a limited period only (not indefinite);
3. It is always subject to such restrictions as Congress may prescribe and;
4. It must be pursuant to a declared national policy.

The Three Important Powers of the President in Sec. 18, Art. VII, 1987 Constitution

1. His calling out-power as commander-in-chief of the armed forces;

2. His power to proclaim martial law; and
3. His power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.
 The calling-out power as commander-in-chief of the armed forces is exclusive to
the President. An exercise by any other official such as a governor is ultra vires and
cannot be justified. (Kulayan vs. Governor Abdusakur Tan)

There are only two grounds to proclaim martial law or suspend the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus:④invasion or rebellion,@when the public safety requires it. On the
other hand, for the President to call-out the armed forces as commander-in-chief, the
grounds are③lawless violence,@invasion or⑨rebellion.

The martial law power and the power to suspend the privilege of the writ have
expressly been made subject to judicial review (3rd par., Sec. 18, Art. VII, 1987
Constitution); whereas the calling-out as commander-in-chief of the armed forces is a
political question, unless it can be shown that the President gravely abused his discretion
in the exercise of said power (IBP vs. Zamora).

Martial law and the suspension of the privilege of the writ has a fixed duration of
sixty days; it may even be revoked by Congress, or extended upon the initiative of the
President.

There is also a requirement now for the President to report to Congress, whether
personally or in writing, within 24 hours after the proclamation of martial law or
suspension of the privilege of the writ, and Congress, when not in session then, is
mandated by the Constitution to meet in special session even without a call from the
President.

A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution, nor
supplant the functioning of the civil courts or legislative assemblies, nor authorize the
conferment of jurisdiction on military and agencies over civilians where civil courts are
able to function.

The proclamation of martial law does not automatically suspend the privilege of
the writ of habeas corpus.

The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ is
suspended.

May the dominant political parties in the Philippines, like the PDP-Laban, validly
participate in party-list elections?

As a rule, if they field candidates in district elections, they may not. However, by
way of exception, even if they field candidates in district elections, they may still
participate in party-list elections through their sectoral wing (like labor sector) provided
that the sectoral wing is registered separately as a political party in the COMELEC and is
linked to the dominant party by way of a coalition. (Atong Paglaum, Inc. vs. COMELEC)

From the decision of the electoral tribunals in Congress, where should a party adversely
affected by such decision appeal?

No appeal lies, because the Constitution made these electoral tribunals to be the
sole judge of all ④ contests relating to the④election,② returns and③
'

qualifications of their
respective members (Sec. 17, Art. VI, 1987 Constitution). In the first place, appeal is not
a constitutional right as it is not found in the Bill of Rights; it is merely statutory, so that
if there is no law that grants a person the right to appeal, he may not appeal.
 The only remedy available to a party adversely affected by the decision of these
electoral tribunals in Congress is not an appeal, but the special civil action for certiorari
governed by Rule 65 of the Rules of Court based on grave abuse of discretion.

Fundamental Powers of the State

The fundamental powers of the State are the police power, the power of eminent
domain and the power of taxation. These are inherent powers of the State as they co-
exist with the State; the moment the State comes into being, they become operative.
There is no need of any grant of these powers to the State.

As inherent powers, they are to be exercised by the Congress (the legislature).

However, these powers may be delegated to the President, to administrative bodies or
agencies, to local governments. With respect to eminent domain, it may even be
delegated to quasi-public corporations (private corporations performing public functions
or rendering some kind of public service).

Local governments cannot possibly have inherent powers as they are mere
creatures of Congress (the legislature). Whatever power they may validly exercise are
those delegated to them, or those that can be implied from the delegated powers.

-for-

The law should be declared void because it is vague. It is vague because it lacks
comprehensible standards that men of ordinary intelligence will probably have to guess
as to its meaning and differ in its application. That law (which is vague) is repugnant to
the Constitution in two respects: first, it violates due process as it fails to afford persons
fair notice of the conduct to avoid and second, it gives law enforcers unbridled discretion

muscle). (Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan)

However, the Court was quick to caution that the act must be utterly vague on its
face (that it cannot be clarified either by a saving clause or by statutory construction) for
this to be validly invoked.

The Doctrine of Overbreadth

It decrees that a governmental purpose to control or prevent activities

constitutionally subject to state regulation may not be achieved by means which sweep
unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms.

The factor that motivates courts to depart from the normal adjudicatory rules is
rd parties
not courageous enough to bring suit.
existence may cause others not before the court to refrain from constitutionally protected

on the speech of those third parties. (Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network, Inc.
vs. Anti-Terrorism Council)

Requisites for the Issuance of a Search Warrant or Warrant of Arrest (Sec. 2, Art. III,
1987 Constitution)

1. There must be probable cause;

2. To be determined personally by a judge;
 3. After examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant (not of the
accused) and the witnesses he may produce and;
4. Particularly describing the place to be searched and the person or things to be
seized or arrested.

In connection with the last requirement, consider the ruling in Stonehill

vs. Diokno where the court clarified that the search warrant or warrant of arrest
must always be issued in connection with a specific offense; a general warrant
is not allowed (becau
).

Only a judge may issue a search warrant or warrant of arrest.

The finding of probable cause must be done personally by the judge. This is a
judicial function. He cannot abdicate the performance of this function in favor of the
prosecutor if he wanted to remain faithful the judge is
not bound by the finding of probable cause by the prosecutor. In fact, he should not rely
solely on the finding of probable by the prosecutor. (Soliven vs. Makasiar; Allado vs.
Diokno)

Freedom of Expression

This is the hallmark of a democratic regime. This is what distinguishes us from

other regimes. People in a democratic and republican state participates in the democratic
⑨
processes suffrage,@elections,③decision-making. They are free to express their views
even contrary views, unpopular and unorthodox views.

A regime which is undemocratic is intolerant of different views. What it wants is

uniformity of thought. It suppresses dissent. A democratic regime allows multiplicity of
thought
of expression is freedom of thought, and it is best served by encouraging the marketplace
of dueling ideas. The marketplace of ideas demands that speech should be met by more
speech, for it is the spark of opposite speech, the heat of colliding ideas, that can fan the

The Extent of the Protection of the Freedom of Expression Clause

Freedom of expression is a guarantee not only against censorship or prior restraint,

but as well as freedom from subsequent punishment.
④ @ ③
The protection even extends to unpopular, unorthodox and rebellious views and
ideas.

Although a preferred right, yet, just like any other right, it is not absolute. It may
be subject to regulation.

-based Restrictions on Free Speech and -

Content-based restrictions on free speech are restrictions on the speech itself, or

the contents of the speech. They are censorial in character and constitute a prior restraint
on freedom of expression and, therefore, come to the court with a heavy presumption of
unconstitutionality. To justify a content-based restriction, it is not enough that the State
is able to point out the substantive evil that it has the right to prevent or suppress, but
that the substantive evil must be of a clear-and-present danger type.
 On the other hand, in content-neutral restriction, the restriction is not directed
against the speech itself, or the contents of the speech. It is merely directed against the
⑧
incidents of the speech, i.e., the manner, the@time, and the③place of the speech. They
do not come to the court with a heavy presumption of unconstitutionality. To justify the
restriction in content-neutral restriction, it is enough that the State is able to point out
the substantive which it has the right to prevent or suppress. The clear-and-present test
is not required in content-neutral restrictions because as explained in Osmena vs.
Comelec, applying the clear-and-present danger test in content-neutral regulations is

Chavez vs. Sec. Raul Gonzales, the Court clarified that we adopt the
intermediate scrutiny approach in dealing with content-neutral regulations not the clear-
and-present danger test.

Is the Public Assembly Act (Batas Pambansa Blg. 880) a content-based restriction or
content-neutral?
not

A
In Bayan v. Ermita, the SC ruled that B.P. Blg. 880 (The Public Assembly Act) is
merely a content-neutral restriction as it does totally prohibit public assemblies; it merely
regulates them. In fact, there are even instances in said law that allow the holding of
rallies or public assemblies even without permit from the local authorities. The purpose
of the permit is merely regulatory.

What are the instances when one may hold a rally or public assembly without permit from
the local authorities?

1. If the rally is to held in a private place (only consent of the owner of the private
place is required);
2. If the rally is to be held in the campus of a state college or university; and
3. If the rally is to be held in a freedom park (for this reason all cities and
municipalities are mandated by the Public Assembly Act (B.P. Blg. 880) to
establish or designate a freedom park where people may hold a rally even
without permit).

Political rallies during the campaign period are not governed by the Public
Assembly Act, but by the Omnibus Election Code (B.P. Blg. 881); Picketing during
labor strikes are governed by the Labor Code, not by the Public Assembly Act;
holding of religious processions or military parades are governed by local
ordinances.

This the policy of the law in dealing with rallies or public assemblies, or even in
⑦the police, the
the dispersal thereof. As defined, it is the highest degree of restraint that
@ peace-keeping officers or the⑧military must observe in dealing with rallies or public
assemblies, or even in the dispersal thereof (B.P. Blg. 880).

Under this maximum tolerance policy, for as long as the demonstrators are
unarmed, and they do not exhibit overt acts of violence the police or authorities should
not interfere.

Freedom of Religion

This is another preferred right (like freedom of expres

relationship with his Creator.
 There are three important clauses in Sec. 5 of the Bill of Rights. The first sentence
-establishment clause second sentence is the free exercise
clause and; the third sentence is known as the no
religious clause.

-
religion; it must not support one particular religion as against other religions. In matters
of religious differences, the State enjoys no banquet of options neutrality alone is its
fixed and immovable stance.

The Right to Travel

In Genuino vs. Sec. De Lima, the SC declared DOJ Circular No. 41 (Authorizing the
Secretary of Justice to issue Hold Departure Orders [HDOs], Watch List Orders [WLOs],
and Allow Departure Orders [ADOs] unconstitutional as it violates the right to travel.
Under the Constitution, for the right to travel to be impaired in the interest of⑧ national
• ⑨
security, public safety, or public health, there must be law (an act of Congress). (Sec. 6,
Art. III, 1987 Constitution). A mere administrative regulation (DOJ Circular No. 41) is not
a law.

There is no basis for the Department of Justice (DOJ) to issue DOJ Circular No.
41.

The Right to Bail

Why was Senator Enrile allowed to post bail despite the fact that he was charged
with plunder, punishable by reclusion perpetua?

That is because he was able to prove, to the satisfaction of the court, that once
granted bail: (1) he will not be a flight risk, or a danger to the community and, (2) there
exist⑤special,@humanitarian and③ compelling circumstances that will justify the grant to
him. After all, the purpose of the bail is to insure the presence of the accused during
trial, or as ordered by the court.

Apparently, this ruling in Enrile vs. Sandiganbayan followed the ruling in

Government of Hongkong Special Administrative Region vs. Judge Olalia (2007) where
the Court allowed an extraditee to post bail in an extradition case provided that he was
able to prove that once granted bail he will not be flight risk or a danger to the community
and, that there exist @humanitarian and③
⑤special, compelling circumstances that will justify
the grant of bail to him by a clear and convincing evidence.

Immunities and Privileges of Members of Congress (Sec.11, Art. VI, 1987 Constitution)

1. Privilege from Arrest - A Senator or Member of the House of Representatives

shall, in all offenses punishable by not more than six years imprisonment, be
privileged from arrest. (1st sent., Sec. 11)

2. Freedom of Speech and Debate No member shall be questioned nor be held

liable in any other place for any speech or debate in the Congress or in any
committee thereof. (2nd sent., Sec. 11)

This is an absolutely privileged communication and, therefore, not

actionable even if the author acted in bad faith. (Borjal vs. CA)
Incompatible Office and Forbidden Office (Sec. 13, Art. VI, 1987 Constitution)

No Senator or Member of the House of Representatives may hold any other office
or employment in the government, or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof,
including government-owned or controlled corporations of their subsidiaries, during his
term without forfeiting his seat. (1st sent., Sec.13 - Incompatible office)

Neither shall he be appointed to any office which may have been created or the
emoluments thereof increased during the term for which he was elected. (2nd sent., Sec.
11 - Forbidden office)

A Member of Congress may actually be validly appointed to an incompatible

office, but the moment he accepts he forfeits his seat in the Congress. On the
other hand, with respect to a forbidden office, he may not be validly appointed
thereto, even is he is willing to forfeit his seat in the Congress.

Two Types of Congressional Investigations (Senate vs. Ermita)

Inquiry in Aid of Legislation (Sec. 21, Art. VI, 1987 Constitution) which is intrinsic
in the grant of legislative power itself to Congress by the Constitution, for Congress can
not be expected to enact good laws if it is denied the power to investigate (Arnault vs.
Nazareno)

The Question Hour (Sec. 22, Art. VI, 1987 Constitution) which an imported
concept from a parliamentary government, not a regular feature of a presidential form of
government, hence, appearance thereof is not really mandatory. (Senate vs. Ermita)

The Filipino First Policy (Sec. 10, par. 2, Art. XII, 1987 Constitution)
④ @ ③
In the grant of rights, privileges and concessions covering the national economy
and patrimony, the State shall give preference to qualified Filipino. (Manila Prince Hotel
vs. GSIS)

This is a self-executing provision.

Meaning of Patrimony

Patrimony simply means heritage. National patrimony refers not only to

the natural resources of the Philippines, but as well as the cultural heritage of the
Filipino people. (Manila Prince Hotel vs. GSIS)

Amendments or Revisions of the Constitution (Art. XVII, 1987 Constitution)

There are three ways of directly proposing amendments to, or revision of, this
Constitution:

1. Congress, by three-fourth vote of all its Members - Congress here will be acting
as a constituent assembly a non-legislative function of Congress.

2. Constitutional Convention, a body separate and distinct from that of the

Congress (whose members shall be elected by the people of their respective
districts).

There are two ways by which a Constitutional Convention may be convened:

 Congress itself may directly call a constitutional convention by two-
thirds vote of all its members; or

Instead of directly calling a constitutional convention, Congress may

submit the issue of calling such convention to the people, by a majority vote
of all its members.

3. ative, via a petition proposing amendment to be signed by at least

12 % of the total number of registered voters, provided that, in each legislative
district, at least 3 % of registered voters thereof shall sign the petition.

proposing amendments to the

Constitution not a revision thereof. (Santiago vs. Comelec)

Any proposed amendment or revision shall be submitted to the people in a

plebiscite to be ratified by majority of the votes cast thereof.

Public International Law (1 Question)

Sources of International Law (Article 38, Statute of the International Court of Justice)

Conventions (or Treaties)

P [ International Customs
General Principles of Law observed by Civilized Nations
Judicial Decisions
S[ Teachings of the most authoritative publicists of the various nations

The first three are the primary sources of international law; the last two are the
subsidiary sources of international law.

With respect to treaties or conventions, under the Vienna Convention on the Law
on Treaties, a treaty that violates a jus cogens norm should be invalidated.

Jus cogens

A jus cogens norm is a peremptory (mandatory) norm of general

international law recognized and accepted by the international community of
States as a whole as a norm that does not permit of any derogation and which can
be④modified or@replaced only by a subsequent norm of general international law of
the same character. Examples: the prohibition against the use of force under the
UN Charter; the law on genocide.

Between an obligation of a State towards another State in a treaty and an erga

omnes obligation, the latter must prevail.

Erga omnes erga omnes

obligation is an obligation of a State towards the international community of States
as a whole. Hence, it is superior over an obligation of a State towards another
State in a treaty.

Relationship with Domestic Law

Doctrine of Incorporation
 Doctrine of Transformation

One of the oldest principles of international law which by the doctrine of

pacta sunt servanda
must be observed, or must be complied with, in good faith.) Under this rule, a State that
enters into treaty with other States, may not advance the provisions of its constitution or
of its laws in order not to comply with its obligations under that treaty; in fact, under this
rule, a State is bound to make the necessary changes or modifications in its laws in order
to comply with its obligations under a treaty. (Tanada vs. Angara)

With respect to treaties, they become part of Philippine laws by the doctrine of
transformation because of Sec. 21, Art. VII of the Constitution which substantially
provides that for a treaty to be valid and binding upon the Philippines, it will require
concurrence by two-thirds vote of all the members of the Senate.

However, with respect to international customs and general principles of laws

observed by civilized nations, they become part of Philippine laws by the doctrine of
incorporation as expressed in Sec. 2, Art. II of the Constitution which provides that the
Philippines adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as a part of the
law of the land. (Pangilinan vs. Cayetano)

Good luck and may God bless you all!