Revised HR Cases

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

G.R. No. 81561 January 18, 1991 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee vs. ANDRE MARTI, accused-appellant. Facts: Appeal from a decision convicting accused-appellant of violation Dangerous Drugs Act. Appellant and his common-law wife, Shirley Reyes, went to the booth of the "Manila Packing and Export Forwarders" to send four (4) gift wrapped packages to a friend (WALTER FIERZ, Mattacketr II) in Zurich, Switzerland. Anita Reyes asked the appellant if she could examine and inspect the packages but appellant, refused, assuring her that the packages simply contained books, cigars, and gloves. Anita relied on the statement, and the box was sealed. Before delivery to the Bureau of Customs and/or Bureau of Posts, Mr. Job Reyes (proprietor) opened the boxes for final inspection. Peculiar odor emitted therefrom. He opened one of the bundles, took several grams of the contents thereof, reported the shipment to the NBI and requested a laboratory examination 3 NBI agents, and a photographer, went to the Reyes' office at Ermita. Reyes brought out the box and opened it, in the presence of the NBI agents. Agents requested assistance from the Manila Post Office Chief Security. Appellant, was invited while claiming his mail at the Central Post Office. Information was filed against appellant Issues/Contentions: Appellant contends that the evidence had been obtained in violation of his constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seizure and privacy of communication hence, inadmissible in evidence Ruling: The evidence was primarily discovered and obtained by a private person, acting in a private capacity and without the intervention and participation of State authorities. In the absence of governmental interference, the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be invoked against the State. Right against unreasonable search and seizure refers to the immunity of one's person, whether citizen or alien, from interference by government, included in which is his residence, his papers, and other possessions. Intended as a restraint upon the activities of sovereign authority, and was not intended to be a limitation upon other than governmental agencies; Mr. Job Reyes, the proprietor of the forwarding agency, who made search/inspection of the packages under reasonable and a standard operating procedure Mere presence of the NBI agents did not convert the reasonable search effected by Reyes into a warrantless search and seizure Merely to observe and look at that which is in plain sight is not a search. The liberties guaranteed by Constitution must always be subject to protection against the state. The Bill of Rights governs the relationship between the individual and the state, not the relation between individuals, between a private individual and other individuals. Bill of Rights declare some forbidden zones in the private sphere inaccessible to any power holder. The modifications made in 1935 Constitution deviate in no manner as to whom the restriction or inhibition against unreasonable search and seizure is directed against. The restraint stayed with the State and did not shift to anyone else. Issues/Contentions:

- His rights under the constitution while under custodial investigation were not observed. Ruling: - Contention is without merit, as law enforcers testified that accused/appellant was informed of his constitutional rights. It is presumed that they have regularly performed their duties Issues/Contentions: - he was not the owner of the packages but rather a certain Michael, a German national, whom appellant met in a pub, requested him to ship the packages Ruling: - Appellant's disclaimer as incredulous, self-serving and contrary to human experience. Complete stranger struck in half an hour could not have pushed a man to entrust the shipment. The Accused, would not simply accept such undertaking to take custody of the packages and ship the same from a complete stranger on his mere say-so" - Appellant's bare denial is even made more suspect since he was previously convicted of possession of hashish by the Kleve Court in the Federal Republic of Germany including Walter Fierz, also a Swiss national - If indeed, the German national was the owner of the merchandise, appellant should have so indicated in the contract of shipment but did not, hence presumption that things which a person possesses, or exercises acts of ownership over, are owned by him. Appellant is therefore estopped to claim otherwise. - Decision affirmed.

-

-

-

Velasquez –Rodriguez vs Honduras, InterAmerican Court of Human rights It is a principle of international law that every violation of an international obligation which results in harm creates a duty to make adequate reparation. Reparation of harm brought about by the violation of an international obligation consists in full restitution which includes the restoration of the prior situation, the reparation of the consequences of the violation, and indemnification for patrimonial and nonpatrimonial damages, including emotional harm which may be awarded in the case of human rights violations. Indemnification must be based upon the principles of equity. Indemnification for human rights violations is supported by international instruments of a universal and regional character. The Human Rights Committee, created by the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights of the United Nations, has repeatedly called for, based on the Optional Protocol, indemnification for the violation of human rights recognized in the Covenant Court has already pointed out the Government's continuing duty to investigate so long as the fate of a disappeared person is unknown. The duty to investigate is in addition to the duties to prevent involuntary disappearances and to punish those directly responsible. Court believes, then, that the fair compensation, described as "compensatory" includes reparation to the family of the victim of the material and moral damages they suffered because of the involuntary disappearance of Manfredo Velásquez.

Oposa v Factoran – - The right to a balanced and healthful ecology carries with it the correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment. The said right implies, among many other things, the judicious management and conservation of the country's forests. Intergenerational justice and responsibility.

2 Barcelona Traction Case - Arose out of the adjudication in bankruptcy in Spain of Barcelona Traction, a company incorporated in Canada. Barcelona Traction issued several series of bonds, principally in sterling. After that war the Spanish exchange control authorities refused to authorize the transfer of the foreign currency necessary for the resumption of the servicing of the sterling bonds. Subsequently, when the Belgian Government complained of this, the Spanish Government stated that the transfers could not be authorized unless it were shown that the foreign currency was to be used to repay debts arising from the genuine importation of foreign capital into Spain and that this had not been established. Spanish holders of recently acquired Barcelona Traction sterling bonds petitioned the court of Reus (Province of Tarragona) for a declaration adjudging the company bankrupt, on account of failure to pay the interest on the bonds. A judgment was given declaring the company bankrupt and ordering the seizure of the assets of Barcelona Traction and of two of its subsidiary companies. Pursuant to this judgment the principal management personnel of the two companies were dismissed and Spanish directors appointed. Shortly afterwards, these measures were extended to the other subsidiary companies. New shares of the subsidiary companies were created. Belgian nationals contended that no judicial notice of bankruptcy was provided and thus did not enter a plea of opposition against the bankruptcy judgment. Its object was to seek reparation for damage alleged by Belgium to have been sustained by Belgian nationals, shareholders in the company, as a result of acts said to be contrary to international law committed towards the company by organs of the Spanish State. - The Court observed that when a State admitted into its territory foreign investments or foreign nationals it was bound to extend to them the protection of the law and assumed obligations concerning the treatment to be afforded them. But such obligations were not absolute. In order to bring a claim in respect of the breach of such an obligation, a State must first establish its right to do so. - In the field of diplomatic protection, international law was in continuous evolution and was called upon to recognize institutions of municipal law. In municipal law, the concept of the company was founded on a firm distinction between the rights of the company and those of the shareholder. Only the company, which was endowed with legal personality, could take action in respect of matters that were of a corporate character. A wrong done to the company frequently caused prejudice to its shareholders, but this did not imply that both were entitled to claim compensation. Whenever a shareholder's interests were harmed by an act done to the company, it was to the latter that he had to look to institute appropriate action. An act infringing only the company's rights did not involve responsibility towards the shareholders, even if their interests were affected. - Where it was a question of an unlawful act committed against a company representing foreign capital, the general rule of international law authorized the national State of the company alone to exercise diplomatic protection for the purpose of seeking redress. No rule of international law expressly conferred such a right on the shareholder's national State. - Possession by the Belgian Government of a right of protection was a prerequisite for the examination of

such problems. Since no jus standi before the Court had been established, it was not for the Court to pronounce upon any other aspect of the case. - A state assumes an obligation concerning the treatment of foreign investments based on general international law, once the state admits foreign investments or foreign nationals into its territory. It is highly imperative to draw a distinction between those obligations of a state toward the international community as a whole and those arising from the field of diplomatic protection. It is only the party to whom an international obligation is due can bring a claim if a breach of an obligation that is the subject of diplomatic protection occurs. State could make claim when investment by its nationals abroad were prejudicially affected in violation of their right of State itself to have its national enjoy certain treatment. Such right could only result from a treaty or special agreement. - General rule: State of the company can seek redress. - The general principle of law is that: Corporation has juridical personality distinct from its shareholders U.S. v Mexico, 4 RIAA (1926) Neer Claim - Neer contended that Mexican authorities showed an unwarrantable lack of diligence or an unwarrantable lack of intelligent investigation in prosecuting the culprits; and that therefore the Mexican Government ought to pay to the claimants the said amount. - Commission accordingly decides that the claim of the United States is disallowed. The Commission is mindful that the task of the local Mexican authorities was hampered by the fact that the only eyewitness of the murder was unable to furnish them any helpful information. There might have been reason for the higher authorities of the State to intervene in the matter, as they apparently did. But in the view of the Commission there is a long way between holding that a more active and more efficient course of procedure might have been pursued, on the one hand, and holding that this record presents such lack of diligence and of intelligent investigation as constitutes an international delinquency, on the other hand. - It is not for an international tribunal such as this Commission to decide, whether another course of procedure taken by the local authorities at Guanacevi might have been more effective. On the contrary, the grounds of liability limit its inquiry to whether there is convincing evidence either (1) that the authorities administering the Mexican law acted in an outrageous way, in bad faith, in willful neglect of their duties, or in a pronounced degree of improper action, or (2) that Mexican law rendered it impossible for them properly to fulfil their task. France v Mexico, (1929) Jean-Baptiste Caire Claim - Jean-Baptiste Caire, a French national, was unlawfully shot and killed at an army barracks in Mexico by two Mexican army officers, a major and a captain aided by a few privates, after Caire refused a demand by one of the officers to pay a sum of money. - Mexico was internationally responsible for the conduct of the army officers. Under the doctrine of objective responsibility (state responsibility for the acts of state officials or state organs even in the absence of “fault” on the part of the state), a state is internationally responsible for acts committed by its officials or organs outside their competence if the officials or organs “acted at least to all appearances as

3 competent officials or organs, or… used powers or ascertain the consequences of the exclusion of the methods appropriate to their official capacity” applicability of the multilateral treaties for the - The officers in question consistently conducted definition of the content of the customary themselves as officers, in this capacity they began by international law which remains applicable. exacting the remittance of certain sums of money; - Even if a treaty norm and a customary norm relevant they continued by having the victim taken to a to the present dispute were to have exactly the same barracks of the occupying troops; and it was clearly content, this would not be a reason for the Court to because of the refusal of M Caire to meet their take the view that the operation of the treaty process repeated demands that they finally shot him. must necessarily deprive the customary norm of its separate applicability. Consequently, the Court is in UK v Albania, Corfu Channel Case no way bound to uphold customary rules only in so - Two British cruisers and two destroyers entered the far as they differ from the treaty rules which it is North Corfu Strait. Though the Strait was regarded as prevented by the United States reservation from safe, the destroyers struck mines in Albanian waters applying. and suffered damage. Albanian battery had fired in - There exists in customary law an opinio juris as to the the direction of two British cruisers. The United binding character of such abstention. Opinio juris Kingdom Government had protested, stating that may be deduced from, inter alia, the attitude of the innocent passage through straits is a right recognized Parties and of States towards certain General by international law; the Albanian Government had Assembly resolutions, and particularly resolution replied that foreign warships and merchant vessels 2625 (XXV) entitled "Declaration on Principles of had no right to pass through Albanian territorial International Law concerning Friendly Relations and waters without prior authorization. UK government Co-operation among States in Accordance with the sent a Note to Tirana announcing its intent to sweep Charter of the United Nations". Consent to such Corfu Channel shortly resolutions is one of the forms of expression of an - Laying of the minefield could not have been opinio juris with regard to the principle of non-use of accomplished without the knowledge of Albania. It force, regarded as a principle of customary was her duty to notify shipping and especially to warn international law, independently of the provisions, the ships proceeding through the Strait of the danger especially those of an institutional kind, to which it is to which they were exposed. In fact, nothing was subject on the treaty-law plane of the Charter. attempted by Alba- nia to prevent the disaster, and - Court finds that in customary international law, there is these grave omissions involve her international no rule permitting the exercise of collective selfresponsibility defense in the absence of a request by the State - Passage was innocent both in its principle, since it was which is a victim of the alleged attack, this being designed to affirm a right which had been unjustly additional to the requirement that the State in denied, and in its methods of execution, which were question should have declared itself to have been not unreasonable in view of the firing from the attacked. Albanian battery. - The principle of non-intervention - prohibited - Court must declare that the action of the British Navy intervention must be one bearing on matters in which constituted a violation of Albanian sovereignty each State is permitted, by the principle of State sovereignty, to decide freely. Intervention is wrongful Nicaragua v U.S. (1986) ICJ Rep when it uses methods of coercion, particularly force, - Decides that the United States of America, by certain either in the direct form of military action or in the attacks on Nicaraguan territory in 1983-1984 and indirect form of support for subversive activities in further by those acts of intervention has acted, another State. against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its - The laying of mines in the waters of another State obligation under customary international law not to without any warning or notification is not only an use force against another State; unlawful act but also a breach of the principles of - Court finds it established that, the President of the humanitarian law underlying the Hague Convention. United States authorized a United States Government United States is under an obligation to "respect" the agency to lay mines in Nicaraguan ports, United Conventions and even to "ensure respect" for them, States Government did not issue any public and and thus not to encourage persons or groups official warning to international shipping of the engaged in the conflict in Nicaragua to act in existence and location of the mines violation of the provisions of Article 3. This obligation - It is also established in the Court's view that the derives from the general principles of humanitarian support of the United States for the activities of the law to which the Conventions merely give specific contras took various forms over the years, such as expression. logistic support the supply of information on the - United States has committed a prima facie violation of location and movements of the Sandinista troops, the the principle by arming and training the contras, use of sophisticated methods of communication, etc. unless this can be justified as an exercise of the right The evidence does not however warrant a finding of self-defense. that the United States gave direct combat support, if - As regards El Salvador, the Court considers that in that is taken to mean direct intervention by United customary international law the provision of arms to States combat forces. Court ruled that the contras the opposition in another State does not constitute an remain responsible for their acts, in particular the armed attack on that State. alleged violations by them of humanitarian law - The Court concluded that it has to apply the U.S. v Iran (1980) ICJ Rep multilateral treaty reservation in the United States - Court decided (1) that Iran has violated and is skill declaration, the consequential exclusion of violating obligations owed by it to the United States; multilateral treaties being without prejudice either to (2) that these violations engage Iran's responsibility; other treaties or other sources of law enumerated in (3) that the Government of Iran must immediately Article 38 of the Statute. In order to determine the release the United States nationals held as hostages law actually to be applied to the dispute, it has to and place the premises of the Embassy in the hands

4 of the protecting power; (4) that no member of the Short v Iran United States diplomatic or consular staff may be - About 45,000 United States nationals left Iran during kept in Iran to be subjected to any form of judicial the four month period of the Islamic revolution in that proceedings or to participate in them as a witness; country which was accompanied by intense anti(5) that Iran is under an obligation to make reparation United States sentiment and acts of violence against for the injury caused to the United States, and (6) United States owned property and United States that the form and amount of such reparation, failing nationals. United States filed case against Iran in agreement between the parties, shall be settled by respect of the alleged “wrongful expulsion” from Iran the Court. of a United States national, Alfred Short, with - Attributability to the Iranian State of the acts consequential loss of personal property and complained of, and violation by Iran of certain employment income. The issue is whether the facts Iranian State was under obligation to take appropriate invoked by Short as having caused his departure from steps to protect the United States Embassy but did Iran are attributable to Iran, either directly, or nothing to prevent the attack, stop it before it indirectly as a result of its deliberate policies, or reached its completion or oblige the militants to whether they reveal a lack of due diligence in withdraw from the premises and release the meeting Iran’s international duties towards the hostages. Instead, expressions of approval were Claimant. immediately heard from numerous Iranian - The reports that many thousands of Iranians lost their authorities. Once organs of the Iranian State had thus lives in the course of these revolutionary events is an given approval to the acts complained of and decided indicator of the magnitude of the turmoil associated to perpetuate them as a means of pressure on the with the Revolution. Where a revolution leads to the United States, those acts were transformed into acts establishment of a new government, the State is held of the Iranian State: the militants became agents of responsible for the acts of the overthrown that State, which itself became internationally government insofar as the latter maintained control responsible for their acts. of the situation. The successor government is also held responsible for the acts imputable to the Home Missionary Society Claim, U.S. b Great revolutionary movement which established it, even if Britain those acts occurred prior to its establishment, as a - In 1898 the collection of a tax newly imposed on the consequence of the continuity existing between the natives of the Protectorate and known as the "hut new organization of the State and the organization of tax" was the signal for a serious and widespread the revolutionary movement. Declarations made by revolt in the Ronietta district where Home Missionary the leader of the Revolution, Ayatollah Khomeini, are Society had several establishments. In the course of of anti-foreign and in particular anti-American the rebellion all these missions were attacked, and sentiment, but the Tribunal notes that these either destroyed or damaged, and some of the pronouncements were of a general nature and did not missionaries were murdered. specify that Americans should be expelled en masse. - The contention of the United States Government Such declarations referred to by the Claimant did not before this Tribunal is that the revolt was the result of amount to an authorization to revolutionaries to act the imposition and attempted collection of the "hut in such a way that the Claimant should be forced to tax"; that it was within the knowledge of the British leave Iran forthwith. Tribunal is of the view that the Government that this tax was the object of deep Claimant has failed to prove that his departure from native resentment; that in the face of the native Iran can be imputed to the wrongful conduct of Iran. danger the British Government wholly failed to take The claim is therefore dismissed. proper steps for the maintenance of order and the protection of life and property; that the loss of life U.S. v Iran and damage to property was the result of this neglect - United States of America had instituted proceedings and failure of duty, and therefore that it is liable to against Iran in a case arising out of the situation at its pay compensation Embassy in Tehran and Consulates at Tabriz and - It is a well-established principle of international law Shiraz, and the seizure and detention as hostages of that no government can be held responsible for the its diplomatic and consular staff in Tehran and two act of rebellious bodies of men committed in violation more citizens of the United States. United States, in of its authority, where it is itself guilty of no breach of its final submissions, requested it to adjudge and good faith, or of no negligence in suppressing declare, inter alia, that the Iranian Government had insurrection. The good faith of the British Government violated its international legal obligations to the cannot be questioned, and as to the conditions United States and must: ensure the immediate prevailing in the Protectorate there is no evidence to release of the hostages; afford the United States support the contention that it failed in its duty to diplomatic and consular personnel the protection and afford adequate protection for life and property. On immunities to which they -were entitled. Iran took no the contrary the evidence of eye-witnesses proves part in the proceedings. It neither filed pleadings nor that under peculiarly difficult and trying conditions was represented at the hearing they did their duty with loyalty and daring, and - Court pints out that the conduct of the militants on upheld the highest traditions of the British army. that occasion could be directly attributed to the - Missionary Society must have been aware of the Iranian State only if it were established that they difficulties and perils to which it exposes itself in its were in fact acting on its behalf. However, the Iranian task of carrying Christianity to so remote and State--which, as the State to which the mission was barbarous a people. The contempt for difficulty and accredited, was under obligation to take appropriate peril is one of the noblest sides of their missionary steps to protect the United States Embassy-did zeal nothing to prevent the attack, stop it before it - Claim presented is dismissed. reached its completion or oblige the militants to withdraw from the premises anti release the hostages. Court finds, a clear and serious violation of Iran's obligations to the United States under Vienna

5 Convention on Diplomatic Relation and Consular respective jurisdictions according to their own laws Relations. and to apply remedies. - The Court finds that Iran, by committing successive - The Calvo clause is neither upheld by all outstanding and continuing breaches of the obligations laid upon international authorities and by the soundest among it by the Vienna Conventions has incurred international awards nor is it universally rejected responsibility towards the United States. A$; a - The contested provision, in this case, is part of a consequence, there is an obligation on the part of the contract and must be upheld unless it be repugnant Iranian State to make reparation for the injury caused to a recognized rule of international law. What must to the United States. Since, however, the breaches be established is not that the Calvo clause is are still continuing, the form and amount of such universally accepted or universally recognized, but reparation cannot yet be determined that there exists a generally accepted rule of international law condemning the Calvo clause and Chorgow Factory Case, Germany v Poland PCIJ denying to an individual the right to relinquish to any - Government of the German Reich, has submitted to extent, large or small, and under any circumstances the Permanent Court of International Justice a suit or conditions, the protection of the government to concerning the reparation due by the Polish which he owes allegiance. There exists no Government for the damage suffered by the international rule prohibiting the sovereign right of a Oberschlesische and the Bayerische in consequence nation to protect its citizens abroad from being of the attitude adopted by that Government towards subject to any limitation whatsoever under any those Companies in taking possession of the nitrate circumstances. The right of protection has been factory situated at Chorzów, which attitude has been limited by treaties between nations in provisions declared by the Court in Judgment No. 7 not to have related to the Calvo clause. been in conformity with the provisions of Geneva - A person cannot deprive the government of his nation Convention of its undoubted right of applying international - It is a principle of international law that the reparation remedies to violations of international law committed of a wrong may consist in an indemnity to his damage. Such government frequently has a corresponding to the damage which the nationals of larger interest in maintaining the principles of the injured State have suffered as a result of the act international law than in recovering damage for one which is contrary to international law. The rules of law of its citizens in a particular case, and manifestly governing the reparation are the rules of international such citizen cannot by contract tie in this respect the law in force between the two States concerned, and hands of his Government not the law governing relations between the State - As the claimant voluntarily entered into a legal which has committed a wrongful act and the contract binding itself not to call as to this contract individual who has suffered damage. upon its Government to intervene in its behalf, and as - It is a principle of international law, and even a general all of its claim relates to this contract, and as conception of law, that any breach of an engagement therefore it cannot present its claim to its involves an obligation to make reparation. Reparation Government for interposition or espousal before this must, as far as possible, wipe-¬out all the Commission, the second ground of the notion to consequences of the illegal act and re-establish the dismiss is sustained. situation which would, in. all probability, have existed if that act had not been committed. Chinese Flour Importers Assn. v Price - Reparation of wrong may consist in an indemnity Stabilization Board corresponding to damages which the nationals of - Appeal interposed by respondents as well as injured state suffered as a result of the act which is intervenors from a decision of the CFI ordering the contrary to international law. Price Stabilization Corporation (PRISCO) to grant flour - Reparation is indispensable complement of failure to quota allocations to the members of the petitioner apply convention. association and other qualified importers pursuant to - When expropriation is legal, amount of reparation is the provision of sections 12 and 14 of Republic Act the logistical value of property taken at the time of No. 426 on the basis of their quota allocations for the the expropriation. If illegal, amount of reparation years 1948 and 1949, and dismissing the complaint includes intangible assets (loss profits) of the intervenors. - Policy of our Government which is indeed very North American Dredgin Company Claim (1926) plausible and should be encouraged to give a break - US in behalf of American Dredging Company of Texas, to our countrymen so that they may have greater an American corporation, filed recovery of the sum share in our local trade, business and commerce, with damages against Government of Mexico to however, be adopted gradually so as not to cause whom American Dredging has contracted with. In injustice and discrimination to alien firms or their contract, it states that: Corporation shall be businessmen. When the PRATRA decided to ignore considered as Mexicans in all matters, within the entirely the rights of the old importers, simply Republic of Mexico, concerning the execution of such because they are aliens, in complete disregard of this work and the fulfilment of this contract. They shall policy of our Government, these importers have the not claim, nor shall they have, with regard to the right to recur to the sanctuary of justice for redress, interests and the business connected with this for they too are entitled to certain rights under our contract, any other rights or means to enforce the Constitution. same than those granted by the laws of the Republic - Aliens within the state of their residence enjoy certain to Mexicans rights and privileges like those enjoyed by its citizens, - A Calvo clause held to bar claimant from presenting to such as free access to the courts and the equal his Government any claim connected with the protection of the laws. Nor may aliens be deprived of contract in which it appeared and hence to place any life, liberty, or property without due process of law. such claim beyond the jurisdiction of the tribunal. It Citizens may, of course, be preferred to non-citizen appreciates the legitimate desire on the part of without violating constitutional guaranties. They are nations to deal with persons and property within their excluded from the enjoyment of political rights, such

6 as the right to vote and to hold public office. Other restrictions may be imposed for reasons of public policy and in the exercise of the police power.

in its operation. It applies to all public laundries without distinction, whether they belong to Americans, Filipinos, Chinese, or any other nationality. The very foundation of the police power is the control of private interests for the public welfare.

People v Chan Fook 42 Phil 230 - Chan Fook was prosecuted for the crime of resistance and disobedience to the public authority, and Youmans Case, U.S. v United Mexican State, sentenced by CFI to two months and one day of 1926 arresto mayor and to pay a fine. Accused, a Chinese - Mexican military forces, under command of officer, subject, was a passenger of the United States Military instead of protecting American citizens attacked by Transport South Bend, which arrived in Manila, he mob, opened fire on Americans, as a result of which went to pier no. 1 to get his baggage. After the all were killed either by armed forces or by mob. No search of the baggage in which postcards of an one appeared to have been punished for the crime, indecent character were found, a customs agent, though some prosecutions were begun Eugenio M. Cruz, attempted to search the body of the - Commission is of the opinion that the record shows a accused, to which the latter apparently objected. A lack of diligence in the punishment of the persons dispute took place between the two. The accused implicated in the crime. There is not sufficient resisted and struck the secret agent on the stomach. information before the Commission to warrant us in Defense, contends that once the accused has arrived undertaking to draw any definite conclusions with at the point of his destination by being allowed to respect to certain cases in which prisoners were leave the boat and to land he was beyond the released and other cases in which severe sentences jurisdiction of the customs authorities, and, therefore, imposed by the court of first instance were mitigated not liable to search without judicial warrant. by a higher court. It is also pertinent to note touching - Court ruled that after the customs authorities have this point that some soldiers were arrested but were permitted the accused to land in Manila, he ceased to not sentenced. Evidence before the Commission does be a passenger. It was too late to look for any not disclose whose weapons killed the Americans, bul contraband. He had already been searched when he the participation of the soldiers with members of the left the boat. The accused had reached his mob is established. Compensation is due to the destination, spending the night in the house where he claimant from the Mexican Government had taken lodging. It is not, therefore, reasonable to - Government is not responsible for malicious acts of believe that when he returned to pier No. 1 the next soldiers committed in their private capacity. Awards day, he had about his body any contraband. Thus the have repeatedly been rendered for wrongful acts of search made by the agent Cruz appears to be soldiers acting under the command of an officer. unreasonable. Angangueo can be regarded as acts of soldiers - Foreigners in the Philippines are entitled to the benefits committed in their private capacity when it is clear of the individual rights secured by the Philippine Bill that at the time of the commission of these acts the is undeniable. Provisions on life, liberty and property men were on duty under the immediate supervision are universal in their application to all persons within and in the presence of a commanding officer. Soldiers the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any inflicting personal injuries or committing wanton differences of race, of color, or of nationality; and the destruction or looting always act in disobedience of equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the some rules laid down by superior authority. protection of equal laws. U.S. v Panama , 6 United Rep, Intl Arb Awards, Kwong Sing v City of Manila 41 Phil 103 308 - The validity of Ordinance No. 532 of the city of Manila - Acts of violence committed June 19, 1927, by mob requiring receipts in duplicate in English and Spanish attending political meeting. No increase of police duly signed showing the kind and number of articles force before crowd became unruly. Active police delivered by laundries and dyeing and cleaning protection of claimant when attacked. No prosecution establishments, must be decided on this appeal. The of assailants. Held that neither mere fact of government of the city of Manila possesses the power aggression which could have been averted by to enact Ordinance No. 532 deem necessary and sufficient police force, nor failure, m prevailing proper for the sanitation and safety, the furtherance conditions, to institute prosecution against assailants of the prosperity, and the promotion of the morality, make government liable for damages under peace, good order, comfort, convenience, and international law general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, and - The facts related above show that in both instances such others as may be necessary to carry into effect the police most actively protected the claimant and discharge the powers and duties conferred by against his assailants and that in the second instance this chapter. Ordinance No. 532 was enacted, it is the protection was due to the fact, that the said, to avoid disputes between laundrymen and their authorities sent reinforcements from Panama City patrons and to protect customers of laundries who upon learning that the conditions in Juan Diaz are not able to decipher Chinese characters from rendered assistance necessary. being defrauded. The object of the ordinance was, - The mere fact that an alien has suffered at the hands accordingly, the promotion of peace and good order of private persons an aggression, which could have and the prevention of fraud, deceit, cheating, and been averted by the presence of a sufficient police imposition. Appellant's claim is, that Ordinance No. force on the spot, does not make a government liable 532 savors of class legislation; that it unjustly for damages under international law. There must be discriminates between persons in similar shown special circumstances from which the circumstances; and that it constitutes an arbitrary responsibility of the authorities arises: either their infringement of property rights. behavior in connection with the particular occurrence, - Court ruled that ordinance invades no fundamental or a general failure to comply with their duty to right, and impairs no personal privilege. The maintain order, to prevent crimes or to prosecute and ordinance is neither discriminatory nor unreasonable punish criminals. There were no such circumstances

7

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

in the present case. Accordingly a lack of protection - The decision was challenged in 3 principal sets of has not been established. proceedings: 1. Appeal to Supreme Court of Arizona – Denied. The Texas Cattle Case; American Mexican Claims issue of the lack of consular notification, which Com. 1948 – Missing (Ate Jen) had not been raised at trial, was also not raised Boffolo Claim, Italy v. Venezuela, 10 UN Rep Intl 2. Post-conviction relief before Arizona state court – Arb Awards, 528 (1938) Denied. The issue of the lack of consular A state possesses the general right of expulsion; but notification, which had not been raised expulsion should only be resorted to in extreme at trial, was also not raised instances and must be accomplished in the manner 3. Applications for writs of habeus corpus in the least injurious to the person affected. The state United States District Court for the District of exercising the power must, when occasion demands, Arizona – Denied on the basis of Procedural state the reason of such expulsion before an Default. LaGrands had not shown an objective international tribunal, an insufficient reason or none external factor that prevented them from raising being advanced, accepts the consequences. the issue of the lack of consular notification Venezuela, by the constitution of 1893, established as earlier. subject to expulsion foreigners having no domicile - Procedural Default Rule - before a state criminal and notoriously prejudicial to the public order. The defendant can obtain relief in federal court, the claim case of Boffolo it appears that he had no domicile in must be presented to a state court. If a state Venezuela defendant attempts to raise a new issue in a federal The right to expel foreigners is fully held by every habeus corpus proceeding, the defendant can only do State and is deduced from its very sovereignty. so by showing cause and prejudice. Cause is an Boffolo had no domicile in the country, and the fact of external impediment that prevents a defendant from his having been notoriously prejudicial to public order raising a claim and prejudice must be obvious on its is a question that the Government is fully competent face. to determine, since to it is confided the power to - German consular post was only made aware of the expel without appeal or revision. It is to be noted that case in June 1992 by the LaGrands themselves, not if it be true that foreigners enjoy the same civil rights the Arizona authorities as the natives, this refers solely to those foreigners - January 19, 1999, Germany claims that German who are domiciled. From the foregoing it appears that Consulate learned that Supreme Court of Arizona the claim must be dismissed, but without prejudice to decided that Karl LaGrand to be executed on any right the claimant may have to present his claim February 24, 1999 and Walter on March 3,1999. in Venezuela courts or elsewhere against persons Various interventions were made by Germany seeking guilty of any legal wrong so far as he is concerned. to prevent the execution of the LaGrands including the sending of letter of German Chancellor to US LAGRAND CASE (GERMANY v. UNITED STATES OF president. Such letter did not raise the issue of AMERICA) 27 JUNE 2001 absence of consular notification, but only opposition Background: to capital punishment generally. Case brought to ICJ pursuant to its jurisdiction provided - Arizona Board of Executive Clemency rejected an in Article I of Optional Protocol concerning appeal for clemency of Karl, hence Karl was executed Compulsory Settlement of Disputes to Vienna on February 24 Convention on Consular Relations of 24 April 1963. - On March 2, the present case filed in Registry of On March 2, 1999, Germany filed in Registry of Application and provisional measures. Application instituting proceedings against USA for violations of Vienna Convention on Consular Facts: Relations and provisional measures. The same was - Memorial of Germany: USA prosecuted under its communicated to US Government entitling them to domestic laws two German nationals, Karl and Walter appear in Court. Both parties provided time-limits to LaGrand, allegedly, without informing the German file Memorial (Germany) and counter-Memorial (USA) government, hence, depriving the latter to render discussing their respective stand on the case. Both consular assistance. US applied the doctrine of filed timely. procedural default which barred LaGrand from raising their claims under the Convention. US also failed to Prosecution of Walter and Karl LaGrand (Under provide measures to ensure that Walter LaGrand was US Domestic Laws) not executed pending final decision of ICJ nor provide The two German Nationals moved to US when both guarantee that it will not repeat its illegal acts. were still young children and had permanent During trial, both were provided with counsel by US residence therein. Both were adoptive children of US Court. Conformity with Convention, however, was not national but never acquired nationality of US. They raised during the trial nor informed the German appeared as US national, did not learn to speak consular authorities. German (as they were fluent in English). - Germany asked the Court the following: The two were apprehended for being involved in armed 1. To declare US violating the international legal bank robbery in Marana, Arizona in the course of obligations, in its own right and in right of which the bank manager was murdered and another diplomatic protection provided in Articles 36 of bank employee seriously injured Vienna Convention Superior Court of Pitna County, Arizona convicted them 2. US should not apply doctrine of procedural both of murder in the first degree, attempted murder default as to preclude exercise of Art 36. in the first degree, attempted armed robbery and two 3. US is obliged to conform with foregoing counts of kidnapping. Each was sentenced to death international legal obligations any future for first degree murder and to concurrent sentences detention of or criminal proceedings against of imprisonment for the other charges. Germans in US territory

8 4. Declare void the criminal liability imposed on Karl and Walter LaGrand as it is a violation of international legal obligation 5. US to provide reparation by giving compensation for the execution of Karl LaGrand 6. Restore the status quo ante in the case of Walter LaGrand 7. US to provide guarantee of non-repetition acts - US Counter-Memorial: US confirmed the breached obligation and has apologized to Germany, taking substantial measure aimed at preventing recurrence. US requested the dismissal of other claims and submissions. - US granted the provisional measure, granting 60-day reprieve, but nevertheless, Governor of Arizona decided to go forward the execution of Walter as scheduled. - ICJ issued summarily provisional measures such as the delay of execution pending the final decision of the case, and ordered US to inform the Court of any measures taken to implement the same. This order was not complied, Walter was executed as scheduled. Article 36 of Vienna Convention: Par 1 sub a: Consular officers shall be free to communicate with nationals of the sending State and to have access to them. Nationals of the sending State shall have the same freedom with respect to communication with and access to consular officers of the sending State; Par 1 sub b: If he so requests, the competent authorities of the receiving State shall, without delay, inform the consular post of the sending State if, within its consular district, a national of that State is arrested or committed to prison or to custody pending trial or is detained in any other manner. Any communication addressed to the consular post by the person arrested, in prison, custody or detention shall be forwarded by the said authorities without delay. The said authorities shall inform the person concerned without delay of his rights under this subparagraph; Par 1 sub c: Consular officers shall have the right to visit a national of the sending State who is in prison, custody or detention, to converse and correspond with him and to arrange for his legal representation. They shall also have the right to visit any national of the sending State who is in prison, custody or detention in their district in pursuance of a judgement. Nevertheless, consular officers shall refrain from taking action on behalf of a national who is in prison, custody or detention if he expressly opposes such action." Conflicts/Contentions: Procedural Aspect 1. Whether the ICJ has jurisdiction over the case and the authority to issue Orders - US argued that: o Provisional measures issued by ICJ are not binding and do not furnish a basis for judicial relief. o The case is not within the Court's jurisdiction" under the Optional Protocol because it "does not concern the interpretation or application of the Vienna Convention. US pointed out that there is distinction between jurisdiction over treaties and jurisdiction over customary law and even they contain the same content, the applicability is separate. Vienna Convention deals with consular assistance, not diplomatic protection

Right of the consul to assist an incarcerated national of his country is within the jurisdiction of the Court under the Optional Protocol. But the diplomatic protection on customary law is not covered. o That Germany seeks to have the Court play the role of ultimate court of appeal in national criminal proceedings - Germany contended that o Court has jurisdiction under Article I of the Optional Protocol (Disputes arising out of the interpretation or application of the Convention shall lie within the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice and may accordingly be brought before the Court by an application made by any party to the dispute being a Party to the present Protocol) o Germany denies that it requests the Court to act as an appellate criminal court. It is merely asking the Court to adjudge and declare that the conduct of the United States was inconsistent with its international legal obligations towards Germany under the Vienna Convention and to draw from this failure certain legal consequences provided for in the international law of state responsibility. - Ruling: The Court has jurisdiction. o Whether it is a customary law, this fact does not prevent a State party to a treaty, from taking up the case of one of its nationals and instituting international judicial proceedings on behalf of that national, on the basis of a general jurisdictional clause in such a treaty. o Whether US were obliged to comply and did comply with the Order" necessarily arises out of the interpretation or application of the Convention, thus falls within the jurisdiction of the Court. o Consequently, where Court has jurisdiction to decide a case, it also has jurisdiction to deal with provisional measure requests which seek to preserve the rights of the Parties 2. Whether or not ICJ has jurisdiction to order Assurances of non-repetition - US argued that: Court has no jurisdiction since accepting the claim, shall impose additional obligation different in character from those to which the US consented to. - Germany contended the action arises under the principles of State responsibility, hence, Germany is entitled to a whole range of remedies. Questions of State responsibility "are clearly within the ambit of the Optional Protocol” - Ruling: o The Court has jurisdiction. Dispute regarding the appropriate remedies for the violation of the Convention is a dispute that arises out of the interpretation or application of the Convention o Though US has apologized, Court considered that apologies were insufficient and that in the case of severe penalties, it would be incumbent upon the US, by means of its own choice, to allow the review and reconsideration of the conviction and sentence of German nationals, by taking into account the violation of the rights set forth in the VCCR. o

9 3. Whether or not the provisional measures ordered by ICJ is invalid as it is inconsistent with principles of “equality of the parties”, sufficient opportunity to be heard - US argued that: Germany's late filing compelled the Court to respond to its request for provisional measures ex parte, without full information. That Germany was in delay for knowing that the two were German nationals as early as 1992, and yet asked raised protest only after 6 and half years. - Germany: Germany acknowledges that delay may render an application inadmissible, but maintains that international law does not lay down any specific time-limit in that regard. It contended that it was only seven days before it filed its Application that it became aware of al1 the relevant facts underlying its claim. - Ruling: o Notwithstanding its awareness of the consequences of Germany's filing at such a late date it nevertheless considered it appropriate to enter the Order, given that an irreparable prejudice appeared to be imminent. Such Order was violated by US, giving Germany the standing to challenge the non-compliance. o Failure of the American authorities to comply with their obligation, the procedural default rule had the effect of preventing "full effect [from being] given to the purposes for which the rights accorded under this article are intended", and thus violated paragraph 2 of Article 36. 4. Whether the conviction of LaGrand is proper as it has not fully exhaust local remedies - US – Such breach on legal obligation could have been remedied at the trial stage, provided it was raised in a timely fashion. When a person fails to sue in a national court before a statute of limitations has expired, the claim is both procedurally barred in national courts and inadmissible in international tribunals for failure to exhaust local remedies. Failure of counsels does not excuse the non-exhaustion of local remedies. - Germany – The rule on local exhaustion only applies to those remedies which are legally and practically available. In this case there was no remedy which the LaGrands could resort to, as they were unaware of their right. - Ruling – It is the United States itself which had failed to carry out its obligation under the Convention to inform the LaGrand brothers. It cannot rely on this fact. 5. Whether or not the criminal conviction should be annulled based on the breach of duty of consular notification - US – Neither Germany has shown that its system requires the annulment of criminal convictions where there has been a breach of the duty of consular notification. Practice of Germany in similar cases has been to do an apology. It would be contrary to basic principles of administration of justice and equality of the Parties to apply against the United States alleged rules that Germany appears not to accept for itself - Germany – - Ruling – Court rejected the contention of US. The German cases used by US are light offenses, the same cannot be the basis and it does not follow that, remedies for violation of the Article must be identical.

Conflicts/Contentions: Substantive Aspect 6. Whether or not US violated an international legal obligation to inform the German Consular Post under Article 36, par 1(b), depriving Germany of the possibility of rendering consular assistance, ultimately resulted in execution of the LaGrands. - US acknowledged that "there was a breach of US obligation to inform the LaGrand brothers that they could ask that a German consular post be notified of their arrest and detention - Germany alleged that they were not notified of the case. 7. Whether there is violation of Article 36, Par 1 sub a and c as consequence to the violation of Art 36, par 1(b) - US contended that the claims regarding violations of Paragraphs 1(a) and (c) are misplaced, since the underlying conduct complained of is the same as the one already claimed under Paragraph 1(b). Hence, when a detainee's right to notification without delay is violated, he or she cannot establish contact with the consulate, receive visits from consular officers, nor be supported by adequate counsel. When the obligation to inform the arrested person without delay of his or her right to contact the consulate is disregarded, "the other rights contained in Article 36 par 1 become in practice irrelevant, indeed meaningless. Violation of this right is bound to imply violation of the other rights. - Germany alleged that: o The failure of the United States to inform the LaGrand brothers of their right to contact the German authorities, prevented Germany from exercising its rights under Art. 36 par 1 (b). o That by breaching its obligations to inform, the United States also violated individual rights conferred on the detainees by Article 36 par 1 (a) and 1(c) causing injury to the two Germans, and as matter of diplomatic protection, raising the action on behalf of the two. o Had Germany been properly afforded its rights under the Vienna Convention, it would have been able to intervene in time and present a "persuasive mitigation case" which "likely would have saved" the lives of the brothers - Ruling: o Article 36, paragraph 1, establishes an interrelated régime designed to facilitate the implementation of the system of consular protection: Right of communication and access under Par 1 (a), modalities of consular notification under under Par 1 (b), sets out the measures consular officers may take in rendering consular assistance to their nationals in the custody of the receiving State under Par 1 (c). o Germany and the LaGrands were in effect prevented by the breach of the United States from exercising them. o Failure of US to comply and take all measures at its disposal to ensure that Walter LaGrand is not executed pending the final decision in the proceedings, falls within the jurisdiction of the Governor of Arizona; that the Government of the United

10 States is consequently under the obligation to transmit the present Order to the said Governor. Hence, under State responsibility principle, the international responsibility of a State is engaged by the action of the competent organs and authorities acting in that State, whatever they may be. o A state that breaches its obligations to another under the Vienna Convention on consular relations by failing to inform an arrested alien of the right to consular notification and to provide judicial review of the alien’s conviction sentence also violates individual rights held by the alien under international law Decision: ICJ ruled in favor of Germany -Provisional Measures of the ICJ are Binding -Art. 36 (1) (b) VCCR entails individual rights for nationals of the sending State. It offers the individuals and their sending State a new, procedural way to challenge domestic decisions violating the VCCR, by exercising the classical legal concept of diplomatic protection. Recognizing the right of individuals to be informed of their right to contact their consular authorities is only one step to ensure the implementation of the obligations of the receiving State under the convention -The admission of guarantees of non-repetition, general and specific, as a means of remedy for an international wrongful act can be regarded as confirmation of the often neglected function of State responsibility as a means of controlling and ensuring legality in the international legal order. These guarantees and measures can also take the form of obligations of result and may require, under specific circumstances, the domestic legal system to make considerable efforts in order to be in conformity with the obligations thereby imposed on it

juridical situation is not altered by the fact that the concessionary contract was negotiated through the good offices of the Council of the League of Nations, acting through its rapporteur. The United Kingdom in submitting its dispute with Iran to the League Council, was only exercising its right of diplomatic protection in favour of one of its nationals. Thus the Court arrives at the conclusion that it lacks jurisdiction.

Goldberg Case, Germany v Romania, 2 UN Rep Intl Arb awards, 234 (1908) In July 1914, the applicants, David Goldberg and sons, traders in Braila,Romania bought certain goods (30 tons of tin) valued at 3229.10 marks of gold, which were shipped to Antwerp, Belgium on July 21, 1914. The declaration of war in 1914 prevented the departure of the ship; the goods remained at the sender, in whose hands they were requisitioned on 11 September 1915 by the German military authorities. The plaintiffs were not ompensated immediately, but the German commission awarded them on 28 October 1921, an allowance of 22.55 & Paper marks, representing, during the time 532.30 Marks gold or a little less than a sixth of the gold value of goods requisitioned. They claim today the difference between the compensation received and the value of the seized property. The German government decided to reject the request. The German State Agent invokes the jurisprudence of the Hague Tribunal. According to its ruling, it is necessary for there to have a right to compensation, that there was act contrary to international law. In this case, this is a requisition expressly permitted by international law act, or by Article 52 of the Hague Convention of 1907. Goods requisitioned were paid. It cannot therefore have been "act contrary to law.” Whether or not David Goldberg should be granted an additional compensation, despite the fact that the goods requisitioned have already been paid, thus, could not have been regarded as ‘an act contrary to Polgrave Brown’s Case 8 Whitman , p. 854 – law.’ Missing (Ate Cynthia) - Although International law authorizes the State to make an exception to the principle of respect for the Anglo Iranian Case ; UK v Iran, ICJ Rep 23, (1952) private property of aliens when the public interest so – PDF requires, it does so on the condition sine qua non - An agreement was concluded between the that fair payment shall be made for the Government of Iran and the Anglo-Iranian Oil expropriated or requisitioned property as quickly as Company. In March, April and May, 1951, laws were possible. passed in Iran, enunciating the principle of the nationalism of the oil industry in Iran and establishing - Both as regards expropriation and requisition, the payment of compensation to individuals who have procedure for the enforcement of this principle. The been deprived of their property is now considered result of these laws was a dispute between Iran and indispensable. The duty to pay compensation has the Company. The United Kingdom adopted the case either been based upon respect for private property, of the latter, and in virtue of its right of diplomatic or upon the enrichment of the community at the protection it instituted proceedings before the Court, expense of isolated individuals, or classes of whereupon Iran disputed the Court's jurisdiction individuals, by a definite act of appropriation without - The jurisdiction depends on the Declarations accepting any fault on the part of the individual. the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court made by Iran and by the United Kingdom under Article 36, - In the present case, Goldenberg was awarded an amount barely reaching the sixth value of the paragraph 2, of the Statute. These Declarations expropriated property. He was deprived of 5/6 his contain the condition of reciprocity, and as that of property without compensation. For this reason, the Iran is more limited, it is upon that Declaration that arbitrator fixed to 2696.80 Marks of gold, with the Court must base itself. Only treaties subsequent interest at 5% from September 11 1915, the to the ratification come into consideration. In order to compensation due to the applicants by the German reach an opposite conclusion, special and clearly state. estab1ishe:d reasons would be required: but the United Kingdom was not able to produce them. Under VICTOR BOROVSKY, Petitioner, v. THE the contract, Iran cannot claim from the United COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION and THE Kingdom any rights which it may claim from the DIRECTOR OF PRISONS, Respondents. Company, nor can it be called upon to perform towards the United Kingdom any obligations which it - Victor A. Borovsky, the petitioner, claims to be a stateless citizen, born in Shanghai, China, of Russian is bound to perform towards the Company. This

11 parentage. He came to the Philippines in 1936 and had resided therein ever since. Commissioner of Immigration, the petitioner was arrested for investigation as to his past activities and a warrant for his deportation was issued having been found to be an undesirable alien, a vagrant and habitual drunkard. The petitioner cries due process. Ship which took him to Shanghai, but he was not allowed to land there because he was not a national of China. He was therefore brought back to Manila and was confined to the new Bilibid Prison - Aliens illegally staying in the Philippines have no right of asylum therein even if they are "stateless," which the petitioner claims to be. Foreign nationals, not enemy, against whom no criminal charges have been formally made or judicial order issued, may not indefinitely be kept in detention. The protection against deprivation of liberty without due process of law and except for crimes committed against the laws of the land is not limited to Philippine citizens but extends to all residents, except enemy aliens, regardless of nationality. There is no allegation that the petitioner’s entry into the Philippines was not lawful; Deportation Board’s findings is that he came to and lived in this country under legal permit. - Philippines "adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of Nation." And in a resolution entitled "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" and approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations of which the Philippines is a member, the right to life and liberty and all other fundamental rights as applied to all human beings were proclaimed. It was there resolved that "All human beings are born free and equal in degree and rights without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, nationality or social origin, property, birth, or other status (Art. 2); that "Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the Constitution or by law" (Art. 8); that "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile" (Art. 9); etc. - Premises considered, the writ will issue commanding the respondents to release the petitioner from custody, but put under surveillance and bond until the government is ready to deport him. LI SENG GIAP & CO., vs. THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS - Aliens (not US/Filipino), instituted these proceedings for the registration in its name in the registry of deeds, of the three parcels of land described. The Director of Lands filed an opposition to the said application alleging as his grounds that the three parcels of land in question were public lands belonging to the Government of the United States. CFI denied the application of the applicant partnership on the ground that it is an alien, and holding, at the same time, that the parcels of land it sought to register in its name are a portion of the public domain. - The provisions of section 54 of Act No. 926 as well as those of section 45, paragraph (b), of Act No. 2874 should necessarily be so construed as not to permit aliens to obtain title to lands in their favor. It should not be understood, however, that the constitutional guaranty that no person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws, is violated thereby, because, “Every State has a fundamental right to its existence and development, as also to the integrity of its territory and the exclusive and peaceable possession of its dominions which it may guard and defend by all

possible means against any attack. Superior to the law which protects personal liberty, is the supreme and fundamental right of each State to selfpreservation and the integrity of its dominion and its sovereignty." It is upon grounds of public policy that the rights of individuals, particularly of aliens, cannot prevail against the aforesaid right of the Government of the Philippine Islands. Radick v Hutchins 95 US 210 - The petitioner alleges that he is a subject of the Emperor of Russia, and that he was, in 1864, the owner of four hundred and fifty (450) bales of cotton valuing at $50,000.00 which he designed to export from Texas, where he then resided, to Mexico, and which were then in transit on their way to Matamoras; that the defendant Hutchins, claiming to be a lieutenant-colonel in the army of the Confederate States, and chief of the cotton office at Houston in that state, combining with the defendant Wells and others, had, without warrant of law, by a public notice, prohibited the exportation of cotton from the state except upon written permits from his office. - That such permits would not be issued except upon condition that the person desiring to export cotton should sell to them an equal amount, at a nominal and arbitrary price, for the benefit of the Confederate States. - That being desirous to export and sell his cotton because of the risk incurred of its destruction or loss during the war, and knowing that if he should attempt to send it beyond the frontier of the state into Mexico, the armed forces of the Confederate States, provided to carry out the illegal exactions of the defendants and their confederates, would capture and confiscate it, he was compelled to submit and did submit to the condition imposed, and accordingly delivered to the defendants one-half of his cotton at a nominal price as a consideration for a permit to export the other half, but upon a stipulation, however, insisted upon by himself. - That he should have the privilege of redeeming the bales sold and exporting them upon the payment of such sum as the defendants might demand. - That afterwards he paid them $ 13,357.00 and in goods, wares, and merchandise at values in redemption of the bales and for a permit to export them. - He alleges that the amount thus paid was illegally and oppressively exacted and that he submitted to the wrong because of the armed forces to support and enforce it. - Was there violation of his rights by the respondents? None. - If at the time the transaction took place which has given rise to the present action, the plaintiff was a subject of the Emperor of Russia, as he alleges, that fact cannot affect the decision of the case or any question presented for the court’s consideration. He was a resident of the State of Texas and engaged in business. As a foreigner domiciled in the country, he was bound to obey all the laws of the United States not immediately relating to citizenship, and was equally amenable with citizens to the penalties prescribed for their infraction. He owed allegiance to the government of the country so long as he resided within its limits, and can claim no exemption from the statues passed to punish treason or the giving of aid and comfort to the insurgent states. - There is nothing in the allegations showing that the defendants subjected the plaintiff to any coercion or

12 duress, which would justify an action against them, either for the return of the money paid or for the value of the goods delivered in place of the money, or for damages of any kind. To constitute the coercion or duress which will be regarded as sufficient to make a payment involuntary, there must be some exacting or receiving the payment over the person or property of another, from which the latter has no other means of immediate relief than by making the payment. As stated by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, the doctrine established by the authorities is that “ a payment is not to be regarded as compulsory unless made to emancipate the person or property from an actual and existing duress imposed upon it by the party to whom the money is paid.

-

-

-

-

-

-

o o o o

doubtful stipulations should be interpreted in the least onerous sense for the party obligated; conditions not expressed cannot be invoked by the party who should have clearly expressed them. Treaties are to be interpreted generally mutatis mutandis as statutes and, in the absence of express language, are not given a retroactive effect. The " most-favored-nation " clause contained in the Italian treaty does not oblige this Commission to follow, in favor of Italian subjects, the interpretation made by other Commissions of their protocols.

Bolivar Railway Co. v Ralston, Venezuela Arb, of 1903, p 388 A nation is responsible for the acts of a successful revolution from the time such revolution began, because in theory, it represented ab initio a changing U.S. v Guatemala, Shufeldt Claim, 1930, 5 national will, crystallizing in the finally successful Hackworth result Has P. W. Shufeldt, a citizen of the United States, as - While there is opportunity for the recognition of these cessionary of the rights of Victor M. Morales I. and cogent facts and arguments by the Government itself Francisco Nâjera Andrade, the right to claim a in its public capacity and animated by a broad pecuniary indemnification for damages and injuries national spirit, there is no power vested in this which may have been caused to him by the tribunal to make orders or establish awards not promulgation of the Legislative Decree of the properly juridical in their character; that this tribunal Assembly of Guatemala No. 1544, by which it can not take into consideration questions of national disapproved the contract of February 4, 1922, for the policy, but must confine itself to the determination of extraction of a minimum of seventy-five thousand whether there has been an international wrong for quintales of chicle in a defined area in the which the respondent Government is responsible in Department of Petén. the cession of Nâjera [Andrade] damage, and that it performs its functions best and and Morales in favor of Shufeldt having been made safest when it adheres most closely to the principles by contract of 11th February 1922? established by the law of nations. It has then only to That P. W. Shufeldt has the right to claim pecuniary determine whether there has been negligence in fact indemnification from the Government of Guatemala on the part of the respondent Government in such a and to pay Government of the United States. A way and to such an extent as to make it chargeable sovereign cannot be permitted to set up one of his with the losses which this claimant company has own municipal laws as a bar suffered through the demands of the revolutionists. to a claim by a sovereign for a wrong done to the - such as exists where a portion of the inhabitants of a latter's subject country have separated themselves from the parent state and established an independent government. Sambiaggo Case, (Italy v Venezuela) Venezuela The validity of its acts, both against the parent state Arbitration of 1903 p 666 – PDF and its citizens or subjects, depends entirely upon its Salvatore Sambiaggio, resident of the parish of San ultimate success. If it fails to establish itself Joaquin, who claims 5,135.50 bolivars on account of permanently, all such acts perish with it. If it succeed requisitions and forced loans exacted of him by and become recognized, its acts from the revolutionary troops. Commission has before it the commencement of its existence are upheld as those question as to whether the Venezuelan Government of an independent nation. is materially responsible to the claimant, Sambiaggio, and other Italians established in Venezuela, on U.S.v Great Britain, US – GB Claims Arb 1920 account of damages inflicted upon them by (Neilsen Report) – Supra revolutionary authorities or troops Revolutionists are not the agents of government and a Rosa Gelbtrunk Claim, US v El Salvador, Arb natural responsibility does not exist. Their acts are Tribunal, 1902 – PDF committed to destroy government and no one should - Government of El Salvador granted to certain persons be held responsible for the acts of an enemy for the period of twenty five years, together with attempting his life. The revolutionists (in this case) certain other incidental privileges, the exclusive were beyond governmental control and the privilege of steam navigation of the port of El Triunfo. government cannot be held responsible for injuries The grant was in the form of a bilateral contract, committed by those who have escaped its restraint. signed by the executive officers on behalf of the The word " injury " occurring in the protocol imports Government of El Salvador as party of the one part legal injury; that is, wrong inflicted on the sufferer and by the grantees as party of the other part. and wrongdoing by the party to be charged. Subsequently, this concession was duly acquired by Rules of interpretation the El Salvadoranean Corporation "El Triunfo o If two meanings are admissible, that is to be Company, Limited", majority of shareholders are US preferred which is least for the advantage of the citizens. Intrigue commenced within the Company, party for whose benefit a clause is inserted; whose object was to oust the management and o the sense which the acceptor of conditions attaches control the American interests. A petition for to them ought rather to be followed than that of the adjudication of the bankruptcy of the Company was offerer; presented to the court of first instance. Claim o two meanings being admissible, preference is given presented by Rosa Gelbtrunk, an American citizen, to that which the party proposing the clause knew against the Government of El Salvador for an at the time was held by the party accepting it;

13 indemnity for the seizure of property at law of nations. The law of nations recognizes, Sensuntepeque, El Salvador, by revolutionary troops. moreover, that those States in which revolutions are - Tribunal rejected the claim for compensation of frequent, and whose governments are therefore damages caused by revolution. The state to which he subject to frequent changes, are liable for the acts of owes allegiance has no right of claim for him as revolutionists, provided that the revolutionists are, against the nation in which he is a resident. because of the means at their command, the - This protocol shall be submitted for approval and government de facto, so far as the one against which ratification by the Congress of the Republic of they are exercising their forces is concerned. Salvador. When so approved and ratified, the - But there is another and a stronger reason for such Government of Salvador will immediately notify the liability — this is, that the General Government * * * Government of the United States thereof. Unless so failed in its duty to extend to citizens of the United approved and ratified and such notice is given by the States the protection which, both by the law of Government of Salvador on or before March 1st, nations and the stipulation of said treaty, it was 1902, this protocol shall be deemed null and void; bound to do. The first duty of every government is to and the United States will be at liberty to proceed make itself respected both at home and abroad. diplomatically - The confiscation of and damage to property of - A citizen or subject of one nation who, in the pursuit of foreigners are here simply the means for the support commercial enterprise, carries on trade within the of revolutions, and have as an object to bring these territory and under the protection of the sovereignty to a favorable end, although ordinarily they are only of a nation other than his own, is to be considered as dedicated to the enrichment of a few revolutionary having cast in his lot with the subjects or citizens of partisans. the State in which he resides and carries on business - The following reasons exist to sustain the responsibility of the Venezuelan nation as such: (a) It has forbidden French Co. of Venezuela Railroad Case, 10 UN foreigners to mix in political affairs. This has been Rep intl Arb awards, 285 decreed anew in Venezuela by the law governing - It was one of the claims of the company that the foreigners. If they take part in a revolutionary respondent Government should be awarded to pay movement they must suffer severe penalties, and France 18,483.000 bolivar; (1) on the basis that it was they may even be expelled. They are incapacitated responsible for the company's ruin; (2) that the — not so the Venezuelans — from defending their company renounce its concession and abandon its property against losses by force of arms or by their enterprise to the respondent Government, including adoption of one of the parties. As a compensation for all its properties. The umpire failing to find the this the Government of Venezuela is under obligation respondent Government responsible for the ruin of to protect foreigners. If it does not do so, or if it is the company, the sum claimed cannot be allowed impossible for it to do so, there is nothing more just upon that basis. and equitable than to indemnify the person for the - State cannot be held responsible for the acts of losses suffered. (b) The confiscation of foreign revolutionaries unless the revolution is successful. property by revolutionists has as a consequence the - Self-preservation of the state could justify the nonenrichment of the national wealth of Venezuela at payment of certain outstanding liabilities. the cost of foreign property. The money, the cattle, the thing taken ought to accumulate somewhere. If Kummerov Case , 10 UN Rep Intl arb Award, 361 the revolutionists surrender, if a reconciliation with - In the months of May, June and July 1902, several the party in power is effected, as usually happens, a properties were taken from the claimant’s ranch by general amnesty is decreed. The admissibility of the revolutionary troops of Venezuela. The witnesses enriching themselves at the cost of foreigners would worked and slept in the place where the events be converted into a policy for the revolutions to occurred, and were present at the act of confiscation. come. They state expressly that the authors were troops of the "Libertadora" revolution. Dix Case, 9 UN Rep Intl Arb awards, 119 - Whether or not the Government of Venezuela may be - At the beginning of the revolution led by General held liable for the actions committed by its Castro against the Government of President Andrade, revolutionary troops. Ford Dix, a native-born citizen of the United States, - The third article of the protocol of February 13, 1903, is was engaged in the cattle business in Venezuela, of the following tenor: The Venezuelan Government having leased pastures near Valencia and Miranda. admit their liability in cases where the claim is for Revolutionary armies took his cattle. injury to, or a wrongful seizure of, property, and - The acts of a revolution becoming successful are to be consequently the Commission will not have to decide regarded as the acts of a de facto government. Taking the question of liability, but only whether the injury of neutral property for the use or service of to, or seizure of, property were wrongful acts, and successful revolutionary armies by functionaries what amount of compensation is due. By these thereunto authorized gives a right to the owner to clauses it has been agreed by contract between the demand compensation from the government German and Venezuelan Governments that exercising such authority. Governments, like Venezuela makes itself liable for the property of individuals, are responsible only for the proximate German subjects illegally confiscated by authorities and natural consequences of their acts. or troops of the Government or authorities or troops - Neutral property taken for the use or service of armies of the revolution. If the Government of Venezuela or functionaries thereunto authorized gives a right to were not liable for the damage caused by the the owner to demand compensation from the revolution, this ought to have been expressly government exercising such authority mentioned in Article III, which otherwise would have - Governments like individuals are responsible only for no meaning. the proximate and natural consequences of their - Article III of the protocol, which governs the acts. International as well as municipal law denies Commission, does not create a new right which is compensation for remote consequences, in the burdensome to Venezuela or in contradiction to the absence of evidence of deliberate intention to injure.

14 In my judgment the loss complained of in this item of Court declares that the objection regarding the nonDix's claim is too remote to entitle him to exhaustion of the remedies afforded by municipal law compensation. The military authorities, under the is well founded, and declares that the claim exigencies of war, took part of his cattle, and he is presented by the Estonian Government cannot be justly entitled to compensation for their actual value. entertained. But there is in the record no evidence of any duress or constraint on the part of the military authorities to Rhodore Forest Claim 3 UN Rep Intl arb Awards compel him to sell his remaining cattle to third 1406 – Missing (Manigbas) parties at an inadequate price. Neither is there any - A dispute has arisen between Greece and Bulgaria special animus shown against Mr. Dix, nor any concerning the application of Article 181 of the Treaty deliberate intention to injure him because of his of Neuilly of 1919 to certain forests situated in a nationality. He refers himself to the estimation in territory ceded by Turkey to Bulgaria in 1913. Article which he was held by General Castro. If the disturbed 181 of the Treaty if Neuilly provides that private state of the country impelled Mr. Dix to sacrifice his rights guaranteed in earlier treaties should not be property, he thereby suffered only one of those losses affected by transfers of territory made in execution of due to the existence of war for which there is, the later Treaty. Before the transfer, the Ottoman unfortunately, no redress. Government had granted a concession for the - Interruption of the ordinary course of business is an exploitation of the forests to a certain company, the invariable and inevitable result of a state of war. But owners of which became Greek nationals after the incidental losses incurred by individuals, whether First World War. Bulgaria refused to recognize the citizens or aliens, by reason of such interruption are concession, however, and granted a fresh concession too remote and consequential for compensation by to another company. During the hearings on the the Government within whose territory the war exists merits it was argued on behalf of Bulgaria that the concessionary rights were merely personal Ambatielos Case; Greece v UK, ICJ Rep, 28, 952 obligations, giving cutting rights in the forests, and - It was alleged that he had suffered considerable loss in that Greece could not therefore bring an international consequence of a contract which he concluded in claim in respect of them. Appearing before the 1919 with the Government of the United Kingdom Council of the League of Nations, Bulgaria called upon (represented by the Ministry of Shipping) for the the State of Necessity founded upon the serious purchase of nine steamships which were then under financial consequences that paying this construction, and in consequence of certain adverse compensation would have had for the State and the judicial decisions in the English Courts in connection economy of the country. The two Government agreed therewith that the State of necessity would become a legal - Court considers that it has no jurisdiction to go into all basis on which a public debt can be repudiated. the merits of the present case. - The tribunal found that Bulgaria had unlawfully - Court cannot accept an interpretation which would confiscated forests belonging to Greek Nationals. The have a result obviously contrary to the language of arbitrator decided to award damages, rather than the Declaration and to the continuous will of both restituto in integrum on the basis that it would be Parties to submit all differences to arbitration of one inappropriate to compel Bulgaria to restore the kind or another disputed forests because it was not likely that the forests were in the same state as they had been in Estonia v Lithuania, PCIJ 1918 and in any event, only some of the - Estonian Government instituted proceedings before the dispossessed owners had made claims. Court against the Lithuanian Government owing to - Having determined that the actions of Bulgaria were the refusal of the latter Government to recognize the not in full accordance with the obligations imposed by proprietary and concessionary rights claimed by a the Treaty of Neuilly and that restitution to the Company known as the Esimene Juurdeveo original position would not be possible, the Arbitrator Raudteede Selts Venemaal in respect of the ordered that Bulgaria should pay damages based on Panevezys-Saldutiskis railway, which had been seized the value of the exploitation contracts at the date of and operated by the Lithuanian Government. actual dispossession in 1918, together with an - The question whether or not the Lithuanian courts equitable rate of interest from that date. have jurisdiction to entertain a particular suit - Restitution was found not to be a suitable form of depends on Lithuanian law and is one on which the reparation since it would affect the right of others Lithuanian courts alone can pronounce a final decision. It is not for this Court to consider the Finnish Shipowners Claim 3 UN Rep Intl arb arguments which have been addressed to it for the awards, 1484 - PDF purpose either of establishing the jurisdiction of the - During the second half of 1916 and during 1917, Lithuanian tribunals by adducing particular provisions thirteen ships belonging to Finnish ship owners, were of the laws in force in Lithuania, or of denying the used by the British Government in the service of the jurisdiction of those tribunals by attributing a Allies chiefly to the White Sea and France. Four of particular character (seizure jure imperii) to the act of them were lost whilst on that service. The Finnish the Lithuanian Government. Until it has been clearly ship owners, having, failed in their endeavours to be shown that the Lithuanian courts have no jurisdiction paid by the British Government for the hire of the to entertain a suit by the Esimene Company as to its ships and for the value of three of the ships lost—for title to the Panevezys-Saldutiskis railway, the Court the fourth vessel lost they were paid by a Russian cannot accept the contention of the Estonian Agent Government Committee set up in London—the Finnish that the rule as to the exhaustion of local remedies Government in 1920, through their minister in does not apply in this case because Lithuanian law London, made claims for compensation, which were affords no means of redress. rejected by the British Government. The shipowners - Estonian company has not instituted any legal did not appeal to the higher Courts. In 1926, after proceedings before the Lithuanian courts in order to that decision of the Board, the Finnish Minister in establish its title to the Panevezys-Saldutiskis railway. London proposed international arbitration. The British

15 Government, rejecting this proposition, said that the - If there had been no South African war, we hold that Finnish shipowners, who had a right of recourse the United States Government would have been - The Finnish Government, although basing their obliged to take up Brown's claim with the international claim generally on the fact of "taking Government of the Republic and that there would and using without payment" have expressly excepted have been no ground for bringing it to the attention as a ground of their claim any contractual relations of Great Britain. The relation of suzerain did not between the shipowners and the British Government. operate i o render Great Britain liable for the acts This ground—which, according to the rules accepted complained of. by the Arbitrator, shall, in consequence, not be taken - For wrongs done to Brown by former State Great into account when dealing with the question of the Britain not liable, neither as a succeeding State (no requirements of the local remedies rule being fulfilled undertaking to assume such liability, pending claim —being the only one which makes a Petition of right instead of liquidated debt; no obligation to take possible, the remedy of Petition of right is also for this affirmative steps to right those wrongs), nor as a reason not to be included when there is a question of former suzerain over South African Republic. Claim this rule being applied to an international claim disallowed. founded as the one put forward by the Finnish Government before the Council of the League of Debenture Holders of San Marco Co. 1931, 5 UN Nations. Rep Intl Arb Awards, 191 - The Arbitrator's decision on the question submitted to - Exhaustion of remedies. Claim for compensation for him, in consequence of the above considerations, is transport of troops and goods on behalf of that the Finnish shipowners have exhausted the revolutionary and federal forces, for services and means of recourse placed at their disposal by British material furnished such forces, and for losses and law damages resulting from the acts of such forces. Claimant was the holder of a railroad concession in Robert E. Brown Case 6 UN Rep Intl Arb Awards connexion with which it had agreed to a Calvo Clause. 120 Claimant had previously exhausted the only available - Brown, an American citizen, and a mining engineer by local remedy and the domestic tribunal before which profession, went to South Africa, interested in gold such claim was pending had taken no action thereon mining prospects devoted particular attention to and made no indication as to when action might be Witfontein farm. Under the prevailing system taken. While tribunal will not attempt to define with governing the disposal and acquisition of mining precision what will amount to an undue delay of rights, the State, being the owner of all minerals, justice, the holding of a case for nine years without subject to certain preferential rights of the land any action whatever held undue delay. If such delay proprietors, was accustomed from time to time by were due to volume of litigation, the judicial proclamation to throw open for the prospecting and machinery itself must be deemed defective. Motion to location of mining claims specified tracts of land. dismiss disallowed. Such tracts were thereby formally designated as public gold fields and, in accordance with the terms Mavrommatic Palestine Concessions PCIJ ser of the proclamations, any and all persons were A.no 2 at 12 (1924) privileged to apply for prospecting licenses to be - The Government of the Greek Republic, by an issued by an official designated as the Responsible application instituting proceedings arising out of the Clerk of the district. Clerk received a telegram, from alleged refusa1 on the part of the Government of the seat of government announcing the withdrawal of Palestine, and consequently also on the part of His the proclamation under which Witfontein had been Britannic Majesty's Government, since the year 1921 thrown open as a public digging. Brown again to recognise to their full extent the rights acquired by protested and made a tender of the money for the M. Mavrommatis, a Greek subject, under contracts licences, which was refused. and agreements concluded by him with the Ottoman - Actual pegging of claims in his behalf on July 19, 1895, authorities in regard to concessions for certain public was unsupported by any license, and therefore had works to be constructed in Palestine no legal effect. The alternative demand for damages - The Court realises to the full the importance of the rule was never liquidated; and that his legal remedies laying down that only disputes which cannot be were not completely exhausted settled by negotiation should be brought before it. It - A claimant in a foreign State is not required to exhaust recognises, in fact, that before a dispute can be made justice in such State when there is no justice to the subject of an action at law, its subject matter exhaust. There was a real denial of justice, and that if should have been clearly defined by means of there had never been any war, or annexation by diplomatic negotiations. Nevertheless, in applying Great Britain, and if this proceeding were directed this rule, the Court cannot dis- regard, amongst other against the South African Republic, we should have considerations, the views of the States concerned, no difficulty in awarding damages on behalf of the who are in the best position to judge as to political claimant. reasons which may prevent the settlement of a given - This liability never passed to or was assumed by the dispute by diplomatic negotiation. British Government. Neither in the terms of peace - Upholds the preliminary objection submitted by His granted at the time of the surrender of the Boer Britannic Majesty's Government in so far as it relates Forces (answer, p. 192), nor in the Proclamation of to .the claim in respect of the works at Jaffa and Annexation (answer, p. 191), can there be found any dismisses it in so far as it relates to the claim in provision referring to the assumption of liabilities of respect of the works at Jerusalem ; this nature. It should be borne in mind that this was - Reserves this part of the suit for judgment on the simply a pending claim for damages against certain merits; officials arid had never become a liquidated debt of - And instructs the President to fix, in accordance with the former State. Nor is there, properly speaking, any Article 33 of the Rules of Court, the times for the question of State succession here involved. deposit of further documents of the written proceedings.

16 - Done in French and English, the French text being authoritative

-

-

-

-

-

-

and Regulations covering Land Warfare and therefore petitioners is charged of 'crimes' not based on law, national and international." North Sea Continental Shelf (West Germany vs - Court holds that this order is valid and constitutional. Denmark and West Germany vs Netherlands) ICJ Article 2 of our Constitution provides in its section 3, Feb 20, 1969 that —The Philippines renounces war as an The dispute, which was submitted to the Court on 20 instrument of national policy and adopts the February 1967,r elated to the delimitation of the generally accepted principles of international law as continental shelf between the Federal Republic of part of the of the nation. In accordance with the Germany and Denmark on the one hand, and generally accepted principle of international law of between the Federal Republic of Germany and the the present day including the Hague Convention the Netherlands on the other. The Parties asked the Court Geneva Convention and significant precedents of to state the principles and rules of international law international jurisprudence established by the United applicable, and undertook thereafter to carry out the Nation, all those person military or civilian who have delimitations on that basis been guilty of planning preparing or waging a war of Delimitation is a process which involves establishing aggression and of the commission of crimes and the boundaries of an area already, in principle, offenses consequential and incidental thereto in appertaining to the coastal State and not the violation of the laws and customs of war, of humanity determination de novo of such an area. Delimitation and civilization are held accountable therefor. in an equitable manner is one thing, but not the same Consequently in the promulgation and enforcement thing as awarding a just and equitable share of of Execution Order No. 68 the President of the previously undelimited are, even though in a number Philippines has acted in conformity with the generally of cases the results may be comparable, or even accepted and policies of international law which are identical. part of the our Constitution. The basic principles in the matter of delimitation, - It cannot be denied that the rules and regulation of the deriving from the Truman Proclamation, were that it Hague and Geneva conventions form, part of and are must be the object of agreement between the States wholly based on the generally accepted principals of concerned and that such agreement must be arrived international law. Such rule and principles therefore at in accordance with equitable principles. The Parties form part of the law of our nation even if the were under an obligation to enter into negotiations Philippines was not a signatory to the conventions with a view to arriving at an agreement and not - The change of our form government from merely to go through a formal process sf negotiation Commonwealth to Republic does not affect the as a sort of prior condition for the automatic prosecution of those charged with the crime of application of a certain method of delimitation in the treason committed during then Commonwealth. War absence of agreement; they were so to conduct crimes committed against our people and our themselves that the negotiations were meaningful, government while we were a Commonwealth are which would not be the case when one of them triable and punishable by our present Republic. insisted upon its own position without contemplating any modification of it. This obligation was merely a Opinio Juris (Opino juris sive necessitates) special application of a principle underlying all - In customary international law, opinio juris is the international relations, which was moreover second element (along with state practice) necessary recognized in Article 33 of the Charter of the United to establish a legally binding custom. Opinio juris Nations as one of the methods for the peaceful denotes a subjective obligation, a sense on behalf of settlement of international disputes a state that it is bound to the law in question. The Court's decision being ex aequo et bono. It was custom to be applied must be "accepted as law". precisely a rule of law that called for the application Whether the practice of a state is due to a belief that of equitable principles, and in such cases as the it is legally obliged to do a particular act is difficult to present ones the equidistance method could prove objectively. Therefore, opinio juris is an unquestionably lead to inequity. Although the Parties unsettled and debated notion in international law. intended themselves to apply the principles and rules laid down by the Court some indication was called for Actio popularis of the possible ways in which they might apply them. - Actio popularis is a Latin term that means a lawsuit Holding that states' frequent or habitual performance brought by a third party in the interest of the public of certain actions does not, by itself, establish opinio as a whole. It derives from Roman penal law. For juris. State practice, including that of States whose example, it is sometimes used in the context of interests are specially affected, should have been genocide and terrorism prosecution under both extensive and virtually uniform in the sense of international law. Action at law of the people.”(1) A provision invoked and should be moreover have public or universal right to initiate a lawsuit or occurred in such a way as to show general prosecution recognition that rule of law or legal obligation is involved. Yogyakarta Principles – PDF - The Yogyakarta Principles are a set of principles on the SHIGENORI KURODA, petitioner, vs. Major application of international human rights law in General RAFAEL JALANDONI, et al relation to sexual orientation and gender identity. Shigenori Kuroda, formerly a Lieutenant-General of the The Principles affirm binding international legal Japanese Imperial Army is charged before a military standards with which all States must comply. They Commission having unlawfully disregarded and failed promise a different future where all people born free "to discharge his duties as such command, permitting and equal in dignity and rights can fulfil that precious them to commit brutal atrocities and other high birthright. crimes against noncombatant civilians and prisoners. - The Yogyakarta Principles address the broad range of Petitioner contends that Philippines is not a signatory human rights standards and their application to nor an adherent to the Hague Convention on Rules issues of sexual orientation and gender

17 identity. These include extrajudicial executions, death sentence was wrongly imposed, because the violence and torture, access to justice, privacy, nonjudge considered that an aggravating circumstance discrimination, rights to freedom of expression and existed, as the crime was committed by more than assembly, employment, health, education, three armed persons. According to counsel, however, immigration and refugee issues, public participation, this was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. and a variety of other rights. Moreover, counsel states that the judge should have - The Principles affirm the primary obligation of States to taken into account the mitigating circumstance of implement human rights. Each Principle is voluntary surrender, since Messrs. Piandiong, accompanied by detailed recommendations to Morallos and Bulan came with the police without States. The Principles also emphasize, however, that resisting. all actors have responsibilities to promote and The State party's observations protect human rights. Additional recommendations - By submission of 13 October 1999, the State party are therefore addressed to the UN human rights explains that domestic remedies were exhausted system, national human rights institutions, the with the Supreme Court's decision of 3 March 1998, media, non-governmental organizations, and others. rejecting the supplemental motions for reconsideration. The convicts and their counsel could Incorporation Clause in 1987 Constitution have filed a communication with the Human Rights - Section 2. The Philippines renounces war as an Committee at that date. However, they did not do so, instrument of national policy, adopts the generally but instead petitioned the President for clemency. On accepted principles of international law as part of the 6 April 1999, the President granted a 90 days law of the land and adheres to the policy of peace, reprieve, in order to examine the request for pardon. equality, justice, freedom, cooperation, and amity The request was considered by the Presidential with all nations. Review Committee, composed of the Secretary of Justice, the Executive Secretary and the Chief Piandong v. Philippines, Case No. 869-1999 Presidential Counsel. After careful study of the case, - On 7 November 1994, Messrs. Piandiong, Morallos and the Committee found no compelling reason to Bulan were convicted of robbery with homicide and recommend to the President the exercise of sentenced to death by the Regional Trial Court of presidential prerogative. The State party explains Caloocan City. The Supreme Court denied the appeal, that the President's power to grant pardon cannot and confirmed both conviction and sentence by reverse nor review the decision by the Supreme judgement of 19 February 1997. Further motions for Court. reconsideration were denied on 3 March 1998. After - Concerning the claim of lack of legal assistance, the the execution had been scheduled for 6 April 1999, State party notes that the accused had legal the Office of the President, on 5 April 1999, granted a assistance throughout the trial proceedings and the three month reprieve of execution. No clemency was appeal. With respect to the right to life, the State however granted and on 15 June 1999, counsel party notes that the Supreme Court has ruled on the presented a communication to the Committee under constitutionality of the death penalty as well as the the Optional Protocol. methods of execution and found them to be - On 23 June 1999, the Committee, acting through its constitutional. Special Rapporteur for New Communications, - The State party assures the Committee of its transmitted the communication to the State party commitment to the Covenant and states that its with a request to provide information and action was not intended to frustrate the Committee. observations in respect of both admissibility and Counsel’s comments merits of the claims, in accordance with rule 91, - Counsel argues that Messrs. Piandiong, Morallos and paragraph 2, of the Committee’s rules of procedure. Bulan considered resort to the President as a The State party was also requested, under rule 86 of domestic remedy necessary for them to exhaust the Committee's rules of procedure, not to carry out before presenting their communication to the Human the death sentence against Messrs. Piandiong, Rights Committee. Morallos andBulan, while their case was under - With regard to the State party's argument that the consideration by the Committee. Supreme Court has ruled the death penalty and - In the afternoon of 8 July 1999, however, Messrs. method of execution constitutional, counsel argues Piandiong, Morallos and Bulan were executed by that the Supreme Court’s judgement deserves to be lethal injection. reconsidered. - Concerning the request to the Committee for interim The complaint measures, counsel reiterates that they waited to - Counsel states that Messrs Piandiong and Morallos present the communication to the Committee, until were arrested on 27 February 1994, on suspicion of all domestic remedies, including the petition for having participated, on 21 February 1994, in the clemency, had been exhausted. Counsel further robbery of passengers of a jeepney in Caloocan City, states that it is hard to take the State party’s during which one of the passengers, a policeman, expressed commitment to the Covenant seriously, in was killed. After arriving in the police station, Messrs the light of the blatant execution of Messrs. Piandiong and Morallos were hit in the stomach in Piandiong, Morallos and Bulan, despite the order to make them confess, but they refused. Committee’s request not to do so. During a line up, the eyewitnesses failed to recognize The State party’s failure to respect the Committee’s them as the robbers. The police then placed them in request for interim measures under its Rule 86 a room by themselves, and directed the - By adhering to the Optional Protocol, a State party to eyewitnesses to point them out. No counsel was the Covenant recognizes the competence of the present to assist the accused. During the trial, Human Rights Committee to receive and consider Messrs. Piandiong, Morallos and Bulan testified under communications from individuals claiming to be oath, but the judge chose to disregard their victims of violations of any of the rights set forth in testimony, because of lack of independent the Covenant (Preamble and Article 1). Implicit in a corroboration. Counsel further complains that the State's adherence to the Protocol is an undertaking

18

-

-

-

-

-

to cooperate with the Committee in good faith so as to permit and enable it to consider such communications, and after examination to forward its views to the State party and to the individual (Article 5 (1), (4)). It is incompatible with these obligations for a State party to take any action that would prevent or frustrate the Committee in its consideration and examination of the communication, and in the expression of its Views. In respect of the present communication, the authors allege that the alleged victims were denied rights under Articles 6 and 14 of the Covenant. Having been notified of the communication, the State party breaches its obligations under the Protocol, if it proceeds to execute the alleged victims before the Committee concludes its consideration and examination, and the formulation and communication of its Views. It is particularly inexcusable for the State to do so after the Committee has acted under its rule 86 to request that the State party refrain from doing so. The Committee cannot accept the State party’s argument that it was inappropriate for counsel to submit a communication to the Human Rights Committee after they had applied for Presidential clemency and this application had been rejected. There is nothing in the Optional Protocol that restricts the right of an alleged victim of a violation of his or her rights under the Covenant from submitting a communication after a request for clemency or pardon has been rejected, and the State party may not unilaterally impose such a condition that limits both the competence of the Committee and the right of alleged victims to submit communications. Furthermore, the State party has not shown that by acceding to the Committee’s request for interim measures the course of justice would have been obstructed. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Counsel has claimed that the identification of Messrs. Piandiong and Morallos by eyewitnesses during the police line-up was irregular, since the first time around none of the eyewitnesses recognized them, upon which they were put aside in a room and policemen directed the eyewitnesses to point them out. The Court rejected their claim in this respect, as it was uncorroborated by any disinterested and reliable witness. Moreover, the Court considered that the accused were identified in Court by the eyewitnesses and that this identification was sufficient. The Committee recalls its jurisprudence that it is generally for the courts of States parties, and not for the Committee, to evaluate the facts and evidence in a particular case. With regard to the other claims, concerning the alleged ill-treatment upon arrest, the evidence against the accused, and the credibility of the eyewitnesses, the Committee notes that all these issues were before the domestic courts, which rejected them. The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is of the view that it cannot make a finding of a violation of any of the articles of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Committee reiterates its conclusion that the State committed a grave breach of its obligations under the Protocol by putting the alleged victims to death before the Committee had concluded its consideration of the communication.

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

PBM Emp. Org v PBM Co., Inc., 51 SCRA 189 (1973) In a democracy, the preservation and enhancement of the dignity and worth of the human personality is the central core as well as the cardinal (foremost importance) article of faith of our civilization. The inviolable character of man as an individual must be "protected to the largest possible extent in his thoughts and in his beliefs as the citadel of his person. The Bill of Rights is designed to preserve the ideals of liberty, equality and security "against the assaults of opportunism, the expediency of the passing hour, the erosion of small encroachments, and the scorn and derision of those who have no patience with general principles the purpose of the Bill of Rights is to withdraw "certain subjects from the vicissitudes (changing of circumstance) of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials, and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's rights to life, liberty and property, to free speech, or free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections." 4 Laski proclaimed that "the happiness of the individual, not the well-being of the State, was the criterion by which its behaviour was to be judged. His interests, not its power, set the limits to the authority it was entitled to exercise freedoms of expression and of assembly as well as the right to petition are included among the immunities reserved by the sovereign people to protect the ideas that we abhor or hate more than the ideas we cherish, not only to protect the minority who want to talk, but also to benefit the majority who refuse to listen. The liberties of one are the liberties of all; and the liberties of one are not safe unless the liberties of all are protected. The rights of free expression, free assembly and petition, are not only civil rights but also political rights essential to man's enjoyment of his life, to his happiness and to his full and complete fulfillment While the Bill of Rights also protects property rights, the primacy of human rights over property rights is recognized. Property and property rights can be lost thru prescription; but human rights are imprescriptible In the hierarchy of civil liberties, the rights of free expression and of assembly occupy a preferred position as they are essential to the preservation and vitality of our civil and political institutionsIn the hierarchy of civil liberties, the rights of free expression and of assembly occupy a preferred position as they are essential to the preservation and vitality of our civil and political institutions sanctity and the sanction not permitting dubious intrusions. superiority of these freedoms over property rights is underscored by the fact that a mere reasonable or rational relation between the means employed by the law and its object or purpose — that the law is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory nor oppressive — would suffice to validate a law which restricts or impairs property rights. 12 On the other hand, a constitutional or valid infringement of human rights requires a more stringent criterion, namely existence of a grave and immediate danger of a substantive evil which the State has the right to prevent BRIGIDO R. SIMON, vs. COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

19 - The extent of the authority and power of the Commission on Human Rights ("CHR") The petitioners ask us to prohibit public respondent CHR from further hearing and investigating CHR Case No. 90-1580, entitled "Fermo, et al. vs. Quimpo, et al." - The Commission on Human Rights was created and powers and functions of the Commission are defined by the 1987 Constitution, thus: to - Investigate, on its own or on complaint by any party, all forms of human rights violations involving civil and political rights; - Adopt its operational guidelines and rules of procedure, and cite for contempt for violations thereof in accordance with the Rules of Court; - Provide appropriate legal measures for the protection of human rights of all persons within the Philippines, as well as Filipinos residing abroad, and provide for preventive measures and legal aid services to the underprivileged whose human rights have been violated or need protection; - Exercise visitorial powers over jails, prisons, or detention facilities; - Establish a continuing program of research, education, and information to enhance respect for the primacy of human rights; - Recommend to the Congress effective measures to promote human rights and to provide for compensation to victims of violations of human rights, or their families; - Monitor the Philippine Government's compliance with international treaty obligations on human rights; - Grant immunity from prosecution to any person whose testimony or whose possession of documents or other evidence is necessary or convenient to determine the truth in any investigation conducted by it or under its authority; - Request the assistance of any department, bureau, office, or agency in the performance of its functions; - Appoint its officers and employees in accordance with law; and - Perform such other duties and functions as may be provided by law. - CHR is not a quasi-judicial body. The most that may be conceded to the Commission in the way of adjudicative power is that it may investigate, i.e., receive evidence and make findings of fact as regards claimed human rights violations involving civil and political rights. But fact finding is not adjudication, and cannot be likened to the judicial function of a court of justice, or even a quasi-judicial agency or official. - Section 18, Article XIII, of the 1987 Constitution, is a provision empowering the Commission on Human Rights to "investigate, on its own or on complaint by any party, all forms of human rights violations involving civil and political rights" (Sec. 1). - Civil rights - (rights) that belong to every citizen of the state or country, or, in wider sense, to all its inhabitants, and are not connected with the organization or administration of the government. They include the rights of property, marriage, equal protection of the laws, freedom of contract, etc. Or, as otherwise defined civil rights are rights appertaining to a person by virtue of his citizenship in a state or community. Such term may also refer, in its general sense, to rights capable of being enforced or redressed in a civil action. Also quite often mentioned are the guarantees against involuntary servitude, religious persecution, unreasonable searches and seizures, and imprisonment for debt. - Political rights - the right to participate, directly or indirectly, in the establishment or administration of

government, the right of suffrage, the right to hold public office, the right of petition and, in general, the rights appurtenant to citizenship vis-a-vis the management of government. - The order for the demolition of the stalls, sari-sari stores and carinderia of the private respondents cannot fall within the compartment of "human rights violations involving civil and political rights" intended by the Constitution. - The "preventive measures and legal aid services" mentioned in the Constitution refer to extrajudicial and judicial remedies (including a writ of preliminary injunction) which the CHR may seek from proper courts on behalf of the victims of human rights violations. Not being a court of justice, the CHR itself has no jurisdiction to issue the writ

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

HON. ISIDRO CARIÑO vs. THE COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS The issue raised: May the Commission take cognizance of the case and grant that relief? 800 public school teachers, among them members of the Manila Public School Teachers Association (MPSTA) and Alliance of Concerned Teachers (ACT) undertook what they described as "mass concerted actions" to "dramatize and highlight" their plight resulting from the alleged failure of the public authorities to act upon grievances that had time and again been brought to the latter's attention. The threshold question is whether or not the Commission on Human Rights has the power under the Constitution to do so; whether or not, like a court of justice, or even a quasi-judicial agency, it has jurisdiction or adjudicatory powers over, or the power to try and decide, or hear and determine, certain specific type of cases, like alleged human rights violations involving civil or political rights. The Court declares the Commission on Human Rights to have no such power; and that it was not meant by the fundamental law to be another court or quasijudicial agency in this country, or duplicate much less take over the functions of the latter. The legal meaning of "investigate" is essentially the same: "(t)o follow up step by step by patient inquiry or observation. To trace or track; to search into; to examine and inquire into with care and accuracy; Adjudicate " means: "To settle in the exercise of judicial authority. To determine finally. EXPORT PROCESSING ZONE AUTHORITY, petitioner, vs. CHR On May 1980, PD. 1980 was issued reserving and designating certain parcels of land in Cavite for purposes of development. Eventually, a parcel of land was sold to the Export Processing Zone Authority (EPZA). Before EPZA could take possession of the property, several individuals had entered the premises and made use of the land for agricultural purposes without permission. EPZA offered financial assistance to the intruders to convince them to depart peacefully from its property. Quitclaims were signed by those who accepted the offer, including the private respondents Teresita Valles, Loreto Aledia and Pedro Ordonez. Ten years later, private respondents filed with the CHR a joint complaint, praying for justice and other reliefs and remedies against EPZA for violation of their human rights. This happened when the EPZA allegedly demolished the former’s residence despite their showing of a letter postponing the demolition issued by the Office of the President. Furthermore, it was alleged that the mediamen covering the demolition incident have been even beaten up. The

20 CHR issued an injunction order to stop the acts of latter, reveal that there is no showing of abuse of EPZA. However, despite the order, EPZA continued authority on the part of the respondent. The their demolition acts. The CHR thus issued a second respondent allowed the complainant to open and injunction together with a TRO. EPZA now questions view the docket books of the respondent under validity of the issuances. certain conditions and under his control and - Whether or not the Commission on Human Rights supervision. Complainant admitted that he was acted in excess of its jurisdiction amounting to grave aware of the rules and conditions imposed by the abuse of discretion, on the ground that it has no respondent when he went to his office to view his authority to issue writs of injunction and TRO. docket books for the purpose mentioned in his - The Commission on Human Rights acted in excess of communication. He also agreed that he is amenable its jurisdiction amounting to grave abuse of to such rules and conditions which the respondent discretion because it has no authority to issue may impose. Under these conditions, therefore, the injunction and TRO. The constitutional provision Court finds that the respondent has not committed directing the CHR “to provide for preventive any abuse of authority. measures and legal aid services to whose human - The Court finds that the respondent did not act rights have been violated or need protection” may arbitrarily in the premises. As found by the not be construed to confer jurisdiction on the Investigating Judge, the respondent allowed the Commission to issue a restraining order or writ of complainant to open and view the docket books of injunction for, if that were the intention, the respondent certain conditions and under his control Constitution would have expressly said so. and supervision. It has not been shown that the rules Furthermore, the "preventive measures and legal aid and conditions imposed by the respondent were services" mentioned in the Constitution refer to unreasonable. The access to public records extrajudicial and judicial remedies (including a predicated on the right of the people to acquire preliminary writ of injunction) which the CHR may information on matters of public concern. seek from the proper courts on behalf of the victims Undoubtedly in a democracy, the public has a of human rights violations. Not being a court of legitimate interest in matters of social and political justice, the CHR itself has no jurisdiction to issue the significance. writs in question. - The New Constitution now expressly recognizes that the people are entitled to information on matters of A.M. No. 1120-MJ May 5, 1976 public concern and thus are expressly granted access DOMINADOR C. BALDOZA, complainant, vs. HON. to official records, as well as documents of official JUDGE RODOLFO B. DIMAANO, respondent. acts, or transactions, or decisions, subject to such - In a verified letter-complaint dated September 9, 1975, limitations imposed by law. The incorporation of this the Municipal Secretary of Taal, Batangas, charges right in the Constitution is a recognition of the Municipal Judge Rodolfo B. Dimaano, of the same fundamental role of free exchange of information in a municipality, with abuse of authority in refusing to democracy. There can be no realistic perception by allow employees of the Municipal Mayor to examine the public of the nation's problems, nor a meaningful the criminal docket records of the Municipal Court to democratic decision making if they are denied access secure data in connection with their contemplated to information of general interest. Information is report on the peace and order conditions of the said needed to enable the members of society to cope municipality. with the exigencies of the times. As has been aptly - Respondent, in answer to the complaint, stated that observed: "Maintaining the flow of such information there has never been an intention to refuse access to depends on protection for both its acquisition and its official court records; that although court records are dissemination since, if either process is interrupted, among public documents open to inspection not only the flow inevitably ceases.” However, restrictions on by the parties directly involved but also by other access to certain records may be imposed by law. persons who have legitimate interest to such Thus, access restrictions imposed to control civil inspection, yet the same is always subject to insurrection have been permitted upon a showing of reasonable regulation as to who, when, where and immediate and impending danger that renders how they may be inspected. ordinary means of control inadequate to maintain - He further asserted that a court has unquestionably order. the power to prevent an improper use or inspection - WHEREFORE, the case against respondent is hereby of its records and the furnishing of copies therefrom dismissed. may be refused where the person requesting is not motivated by a serious and legitimate interest but David vs Arroyo acts out of whim or fancy or mere curiosity or to Facts: gratify private spite or to promote public scandal. - 7 consolidated petitions for certiorari and - Respondent significantly observed: “Restrictions are prohibition allege that in issuing Presidential imposed by the Court for fear of an abuse in the Proclamation No. 1017 (PP 1017) which declared exercise of the right. For fear that the dirty hands of state of national emergency and General Order partisan politics might again be at play. Some of the No. 5 (G.O. No. 5), calling out the AFP, President cases filed and decided by the Court after the Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo committed grave abuse declaration of Martial Law and years after the of discretion. Hence, such issuances are void for election still bore the stigma of partisan politics as being unconstitutional. shown in the affidavits and testimonies of witnesses. - On March 3, 2006, after all these petitions had Without casting aspersion on any particular been filed, the President lifted PP 1017 (issued in individual, it is worth mentioning, that the padlocks Feb 24) through Proclamation 1021 of the door of the Court has recently been tampered - In their presentation of the factual bases of PP by inserting papers and matchsticks xxx.” 1017 and G.O. No. 5, respondents stated that the - A careful perusal, scrutiny, and study of the proximate cause behind the executive issuances communications between the complainant and the was the conspiracy among some military officers, respondent, together with the answers filed by the leftist insurgents of the New People’s Army (NPA),

21 and some members of the political opposition in a plot to unseat or assassinate President Arroyo. They considered the aim to oust or assassinate the President and take-over the reigns of government as a clear and present danger. - Since the permit to rally was lifted via proc 1017, rallies were dispersed during which Randolf S. David was arrested without warrant. CIDG raided the Daily Tribune offices in Manila, Malaya, and its sister publication, the tabloid Abante to tell media outlets not to connive or do anything that would help the rebels in bringing down this government. - In G.R. No. 171396, David, et al. assailed PP 1017 on the grounds that 1. it encroaches on the emergency powers of Congress 2. It is a subterfuge (meaning trick) to avoid the constitutional requirements for the imposition of martial law 3. It violates the constitutional guarantees of freedom of the press, of speech and of assembly. Issue: W/N moot and academic petitions are still subject to judicial review Rulings: - But the power of judicial review does not repose upon the courts a “self-starting capacity.”23 Courts may exercise such power only when the following requisites are present: first, there must be an actual case or controversy; second, petitioners have to raise a question of constitutionality; third, the constitutional question must be raised at the earliest opportunity; and fourth, the decision of the constitutional question must be necessary to the determination of the case itself. - The “moot and academic” principle is not a magical formula that can automatically dissuade the courts in resolving a case. Courts will decide cases, otherwise moot and academic, if: first, there is a grave violation of the Constitution;31 second, the exceptional character of the situation and the paramount public interest is involved; third, when 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 - All the foregoing exceptions are present here and justify this Court’s assumption of jurisdiction over the instant petitions. Petitioners alleged that the issuance of PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5 violates the Constitution. There is no question that the issues being raised affect the public’s interest, involving as they do the people’s basic rights to freedom of expression, of assembly and of the press. Moreover, the Court has the duty to formulate guiding and controlling constitutional precepts, doctrines or rules. It has the symbolic function of educating the bench and the bar, and in the present petitions, the military and the police, on the extent of the protection given by constitutional guarantees.35 And lastly, respondents’ contested actions are capable of repetition. Certainly, the petitions are subject to judicial review.

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network, Inc. v Anti-Terrorism Council, 632 SCRA 146 (2010) - Before the Court are six petitions challenging the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 9372 (RA 9372), An Act to Secure the State and Protect our People from Terrorism, otherwise known as the Human

Security Act of 2007, signed into law on March 6, 2007. Petition ers resort to certiora ri is imprope r Preliminarily, certiorari does not lie against respondents who do not exercise judicial or quasijudicial functions. Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court Petition ers lack locus standi Locus standi or legal standing requires a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions. Petitioner-organizations assert locus standi on the basis of being suspected communist fronts by the government, especially the military; whereas individual petitioners invariably invoke the transcendental importance doctrine and their status as citizens and taxpayers. Petitioners have not presented any personal stake in the outcome of the controversy. None of them faces any charge under RA 9372. Petition ers fail to present an actual case or controv ersy By constitutional fiat, judicial power operates only when there is an actual case or controversy. The Court is not unaware that a reasonable certainty of the occurrence of a perceived threat to any constitutional interest suffices to provide a basis for mounting a constitutional challenge. This, however, is qualified by the requirement that there must be sufficient facts to enable the Court to intelligently adjudicate the issues. Petitioners obscure allegations of sporadic surveillance and supposedly being tagged as communist fronts in no way approximate a credible threat of prosecution. From these allegations, the Court is being lured to render an advisory opinion, which is not its function. Without any justiciable controversy, the petitions have become pleas for declaratory relief, over which the Court has no original jurisdiction. Then again, declaratory actions characterized by double contingency, where both the activity the petitioners intend to undertake and the anticipated reaction to it of a public official are merely theorized, lie beyond judicial review for lack of ripeness. The possibility of abuse in the implementation of RA 9372 does not avail to take the present petitions out of the realm of the surreal and merely imagined. Such possibility is not peculiar to RA 9372 since the exercise of any power granted by law may be abused. Allegations of abuse must be anchored on real events before courts may step in to settle

22

-

-

-

-

-

-

actual controversies involving rights which are by the desire to coerce the government to give in to legally demandable and enforceable. an unlawful demand. A facial invalidation of a statute is allowed only - In insisting on a facial challenge on the invocation that in free speech cases, wherein certain rules of the law penalizes speech, petitioners contend that constitutional litigation are rightly excepted the element of unlawful demand in the definition of Petitioners assail for being intrinsically vague and terrorism must necessarily be transmitted through impermissibly broad the definition of the crime of some form of expression protected by the free terrorism under RA 9372 in that terms speech clause. like widespread and extraordinary fear and panic - The argument does not persuade. What the law seeks among the populace and coerce the government to to penalize is conduct, not speech. give in to an unlawful demand are nebulous, leaving law enforcement agencies with no standard to VICTOR ORQUIOLA and HONORATA ORQUIOLA, measure the prohibited acts. petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, To be sure, the doctrine of vagueness and the doctrine TANDANG SORA DEVELOPMENT of overbreadth do not operate on the same plane. Doctrine: No person shall be deprived of A statute or act suffers from the defect property without due process of law. Failure to of vagueness when it lacks comprehensible implead proper parties- in-interest, they cannot standards that men of common intelligence must be reached by decision as no man shall be necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its affected by any proceeding to which he is a application. It is repugnant to the Constitution in two stranger who did not have his day in court. Only respects: (1) it violates due process for failure to real parties in interest in an action are bound by accord persons, especially the parties targeted by it, the judgment fair notice of the conduct to avoid; and (2) it leaves Facts: law enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying out its  Petition for review seeking the reversal of the CA provisions and becomes an arbitrary flexing of the decision which dismissed the petition to prohibit Government muscle. Theoverbreadth doctrine, Judge Vivencio Baclig of the RTC from issuing a writ meanwhile, decrees that a governmental purpose to of demolition against petitioners, and the sheriff and control or prevent activities constitutionally subject deputy sheriff from implementing an alias writ of to state regulations may not be achieved by means execution. which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby  Pura Kalaw Ledesma was the registered owner of invade the area of protected freedoms. Lot 689 in Tandang Sora, Quezon City which is As distinguished from the vagueness doctrine, the adjacent to certain portions of Lot 707 of the Piedad overbreadth doctrine assumes that individuals will Estates, registered in the name of Herminigilda understand what a statute prohibits and will Pedro accordingly refrain from that behavior, even though  Herminigilda sold the lots to Mariano Lising, some of it is protected. registered them in the name of M.B. Lising Realty A facial challenge is likewise different from an asand subdivided them into smaller lots. Petitioners, applied challenge. spouses Victor and Honorata Orquiola, purchased a Distinguished from an as-applied challenge which portion of this Lot 707-A-2 considers only extant facts affecting real litigants,  In 1969, Pura Kalaw Ledesma filed Civil Case against a facial invalidation is an examination of the entire Herminigilda Pedro and Mariano Lising for allegedly law, pinpointing its flaws and defects, not only on encroaching upon Lot 689. During the pendency of the basis of its actual operation to the parties, but the action, Tandang Sora Development Corporation also on the assumption or prediction that its very replaced Pura Kalaw Ledesma as plaintiff by virtue existence may cause others not before the court to of an assignment of Lot 689 Trial continued for three refrain from constitutionally protected speech or decades. activities.  On August 21, 1991, the trial court finally adjudged Since a penal statute may only be assailed for defendants Pedro and Lising jointly and severally being vague as applied to petitioners, a limited liable for encroaching on plaintiffs land and ordered vagueness analysis of the definition of terrorism to remove the house they constructed on the land in RA 9372 is legally impermissible absent they were occupying. an actual or imminent charge against them  On April 2, 1998, petitioners received a Special While Estrada did not apply the overbreadth doctrine, Order to remove, at their expense, all constructions, it did not preclude the operation of the vagueness including barbed wires and fences, which test on the Anti-Plunder Law as applied to the therein defendants constructed on plaintiffs property, within petitioner, finding, however, that there was no basis fifteen (15) days from notice otherwise, this Court to review the law on its face and in its entirety. It will issue a writ of demolition against them. stressed that statutes found vague as a matter of  Petitioners filed with the CA a petition for prohibition due process typically are invalidated only 'as applied' with prayer for a restraining order and preliminary to a particular defendant. injunction alleging that they bought the subject There is no merit in the claim that RA 9372 parcel of land in good faith and for value, hence, regulates speech so as to permit a facial they were parties in interest. Since they were not analysis of its validity impleaded in Civil Case, the writ of demolition From the definition of the crime of terrorism in the issued in connection therewith cannot be enforced earlier cited Section 3 of RA 9372, the following against them because to do so would amount to elements may be culled: (1) the offender commits an deprivation of property without due process of law. act punishable under any of the cited provisions of the Revised Penal Code, or under any of the  CA dismissed the petition as well as the motion for enumerated special penal laws; (2) the commission reconsideration, ruling that petitioners were of the predicate crime sows and creates a condition considered privies who derived their rights from of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic Lising by virtue of the sale and could be reached by among the populace; and (3) the offender is actuated the execution order in Civil Case

23 First Issue: Whether the alias writ of execution may be enforced against petitioners Ruling: -Petitioners submit that Medina Case*** is not controlling since Medina markedly differs from the present case on major points. o Timing of acquisition of subject property – Medina acquired prior commencement and conclusion of case, while present case, petitioners acquired before the commencement of Civil Case o Basis of Right over the disputed land of the predecessors-in-interest - In Medina based on Titulo de Composicion Con El Estado issued by the Spanish Government, while petitioners based on fully recognized Torrens title. o In Medina merely relied on the title of her predecessor-in-interest and tax declarations to prove her alleged ownership of the land, while petitioners acquired the registered title in their own names, while the petitioner -In sale of a parcel of land under the Torrens system, person dealing with the registered property need not go beyond the certificate of title as he can rely solely on the title and annotations on the title. Second Issue: Whether petitioners were innocent purchasers for value and builders in good faith Ruling: -Buyer in good faith - buys the property of another without notice that some other person has a right to or interest in such property. -Buyer for value if he pays a full and fair price at the time of the purchase or before he has notice of the claim or interest of some other person in the property. -Determination of whether one is a buyer in good faith is a factual issue which generally is outside the province of this except if CA failed to take into account certain relevant facts which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion. -CA failed to consider that petitioners purchased the subject land in 1964 from Mariano Lising and the civil case commenced sometime in 1969. Petitioners could reasonably rely on Mariano Lisings Certificate of Title which at the time of purchase was still free from any third party claim. Hence, petitioners are buyers in good faith and for value. -Builder in good faith - one who builds with the belief that the land he is building on is his, and is ignorant of any defect or flaw in his title. Petitioner spouses acquired the land without knowledge of any defect in the title of Mariano Lising. It was only in 1998, when the sheriff of Quezon City tried to execute the judgment in Civil Case which cannot serve as notice of such adverse claim to petitioners since they were not impleaded therein as parties. -Petitioners have rights over the subject property and hence they are proper parties in interest in any case, hence they should have been impleaded in civil case. -Failure to implead proper parties in interest, they cannot be reached by decision as no man shall be affected by any proceeding to which he is a stranger who did not have his day in court. Only real parties in interest in an action are bound by the judgment -Demolition of their house on their own titled lot tantamounts to a deprivation of property without due process of law. -Petition granted.

owner of property which is the Philippine Realty Corporation (PRC). - PRC sold the lot to Remedios Magbanua. Mangahas and Ramos opposed and instituted Civil Case to annul the sale and to compel PRC to execute a contract of sale in their favor. The trial court dismissed the complaint and ordered Mangahas and Ramos to vacate. - When Magbanua sought the execution of the judgment in Civil Case petitioner Medina opposed contending that she bought the houses from spouses Ricardo and Eufrocinia de Guzman (Mangahas and Ramos sold the property to spouses de Guzman), relying title from Titulo de Composicion Con El Estado .Medina argued that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over her, claiming that she was not a party in first Civil Case. - Court ruled that first civil case could be enforced against petitioner even though she was not a party thereto. Petitioner was privy to the two judgment debtors Mangahas and Ramos.

Govt. of HK v Olalia, GR 153875, 19 Apr 2007 - This case discusses whether the right to bail guaranteed under the Bill of Rights extends to a prospective extraditee in an extradition proceeding. - On January 30, 1995, the Republic of the Philippines and the British Colony of Hong Kong signed an “Agreement for the Surrender of Convicted Persons”. It took effect on June 20, 1997. - Private respondent Munoz was charged before the Hong Kong Court with three (3) counts of the offense of “accepting an advantage as agent” , in violation of Sec. 9 (1)(a) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance, Cap.201 of Hong Kong. He also faces seven (7) counts of the offense of conspiracy to defraud, penalized by the common law of Hong Kong. Warrants of arrest were issued against him. If convicted, he faces a jail term of seven (7) to fourteen (14) years for each charge. - On September 13, 1999, the DOJ received from the Hong Kong Department of Justice a request for the provisional arrest of Munoz. The RTC branch 19, Manila issued an Order of Arrest against Munoz. That same day, the NBI agents arrested and detained him. - Munoz filed a petition for bail which was opposed by the Government of Hong Kong. After hearing, Judge Bernardo Jr., issued an Order denying the Petition for Bail, holding that there is no Philippine law granting bail in extradition cases and that private respondent, Munoz is a high “flight risk”. Judge Bernardo Jr., inhibited himself from further hearing the case, it was raffled off to Branch 8 presided by Judge Olalia. Munoz filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Order denying his application for bail and this was granted by Olalia. Government of Hong Kong filed an urgent Motion to Vacate the above Order, but was denied by Judge Olalia. Hence, this petition. - Whether or not respondent judge (Olalia) acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction as there is no provision in the Constitution granting bail for a potential extradite. - No. Bearing in mind the purpose if extradition proceedings, the premise behind the issuance of the arrest warrant and the “temporary detention” is the possibility of flight of the potential extraditee. This is based on the assumption that such extraditee is a Medina Case fugitive from justice. Given the foregoing, the - Benedicta Mangahas and Francisco Ramos occupied prospective extraditee thus bears the onus probandi and built houses on the lot without consent of the

24 of showing that he or she is not a flight risk and should be granted bail. - The Philippines along with the other member of the family of nations, committed to uphold the fundamental right as well as value the worth and dignity of every person. Clearly the rights of a prospective extraditee to apply for bail in this jurisdiction must be viewed in the light of the various treaty obligations of the Philippines concerning respect for the promotion of protection of human rights. Under these treaties, the presumption lies in favour of human liberty. Thus, the Phils. should see to it that the right to liberty of every individual is not impaired. - Extradition is not a trial to determine the guilt or innocence of the potential extraditee nor it is a fullblown civil action, but one that is merely administrative in character. Its objective is to prevent the escape of a person accused or convicted of a crime and to secure his return to the state from which he fled, for the purpose of trial or punishment. It does not necessarily mean that in keeping with its treaty obligations, the Philippines should diminish a potential extraditee’s rights to life, liberty and due process. More so, were these rights are guaranteed, not only by our Constitution, but also by international conventions, to which the Philippines is a party. We should not therefore deprived an extraditee of his right to apply for bail, provided that a certain standard for the grant is satisfactorily met. - SC: The Petition was Dismissed, the case was remanded to the RTC to determine whether he is entitled to bail on the basis of clear and convincing evidence. If not, the trial court should order the cancellation of his bail bond and his immediate detention, and thereafter conduct the extradition proceedings with dispatch. WATEROUS DRUG CORPORATION and MS. EMMA CO, petitioners, vs. NLRC and ANTONIA MELODIA CATOLICO, respondents Facts: - Petition assails decision and Resolution of NLRC sustained the reinstatement and monetary awards in favor of private - Catolico was a pharmacist of Waterous Drug Corporation. She received 2 memos from WATEROUS Vice President-General Manager Emma R. Co warning her (1) not to dispense medicine to employees chargeable to the latter's accounts and (2) not to negotiate with suppliers of medicine without consulting the Purchasing Department. - For the first memo, she explained that her act was "due to negligence," since fellow employee Irene Soliven "obtained the medicines in bad faith and through misrepresentation when she claimed that she was given a charge slip by the Admitting Dept."

was actually received by Ms. Catolico (envelop already opened). - Catolico was given chance to explain, however, on 2 February 1990, she was placed on preventive suspension effective 6 February 1990 to 7 March 1990. Catolico requested access to the file containing Sales Invoice No. 266 for her to be able to make a satisfactory explanation. She protested Saldaña's invasion of her privacy when Saldaña opened an envelope addressed to Catolico - Catolico, explained that the check she received from YSP was a Christmas gift and not a "refund of overprice." - On 5 March Waterous notified Catolico of her termination. Catolico filed before the Office of the Labor Arbiter a complaint for unfair labor practice, illegal dismissal, and illegal suspension. - Labor Arbiter found no proof of ULP against petitioners, but nevertheless, decided in favor of Catolico since the dismissal was without just cause and due process, therefore illegal but disallowed reinstatement, as it would not be to the best interest of the parties. She was awarded separation pay and backwages. NLRC affirmed the findings of the Labor Arbiter for failure to prove a just cause for Catolico's dismissal. The check of P640.00 drawn by YSP in favor of complainant, which her co-employee saw when the latter opened the envelope is inadmissible to Sections 2 and 3(1 and 2) of Article III of the Constitution. - Petitioner contended that Catolico occupied a confidential position and that Catolico's receipt of YSP's check, constituted breach of confidence. Petitioner also contended that the opening of envelope addressed to private respondent does not warrant the application of the constitutional provisions. WATEROUS was justified in opening an envelope from one of its regular suppliers as it could assume that the letter was a business communication in which it had an interest. - Catolico objected that the check in issue was given to her, and she had no duty to turn it over to her employer since company rules do not prohibit an employee from accepting gifts from clients, check being discovered in violation of the constitutional provision on the right to privacy and communication; hence, inadmissible in evidence. Finally, Catolico insists that being merely a pharmacist, she did not handle "confidential information or sensitive properties." She was doing the task of a saleslady: selling drugs and making requisitions when supplies were low. Issue: W/N People vs Marti is applicable in the case.

- WATEROUS Control Clerk Eugenio Valdez informed Co - Catolico was denied due process which requires that an employee be apprised of the charge against him, that he noticed an irregularity involving Catolico and given reasonable time to answer the charge, allowed YSP. Upon verification made to YSP, it was found that ample opportunity (to prepare adequately) to be the cost per bottle was indeed overpriced. YSP, Inc. heard and defend himself, and assisted by a Accounting Department (Ms. Estelita Reyes) representative if the employee so desires. Although confirmed that the difference represents refund of Catolico was given an opportunity to explain her side, jack-up price of ten bottles of Voren tablets which was she was dismissed after receipt of her letter and that paid to Ms. Catolico through China Bank check. Ms. of her counsel. No hearing was ever conducted after Saldana, Pharmacy Clerk, confirmed that the check the issues were joined through said letters. Evidence

25

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

in WATEROUS possession were not, submitted. Hence counsel but by Dr. Martin himself under oath. Such is Catolico was also unjustly dismissed. It is settled that valid evidence against him. The use of it cannot be the burden is on the employer to prove just and valid treated as malpractice. cause for dismissing an employee, and its failure to - Thus, the administrative case amounts to no more discharge that burden would result in a finding that than a declaration that his use of the documents and the dismissal is unjustified. Catolico's dismissal was papers for the purpose of securing Dr. Martin's based on hearsay information in Valdez’s statements. admission as to their genuiness and authenticity did Estelita Reyes never testified nor executed an not constitute a violation of the injunctive order of the affidavit relative to this case. The check evidencing trial court and does not establish the admissibility of payment made by the petitioner for the drug was the documents and papers in question. never presented in evidence, nor was any receipt - Documents and papers are inadmissible in evidence. from YSP offered by petitioners. The discrepancy in 2 The constitutional injunction declaring "the privacy of Pos: Voren tablets cost P320.00 per box, vs Voren communication and correspondence to be inviolable" tablets at P384.00 per bottle. The difference in price except if there is a "lawful order from the court or may then be attributed to the different packaging when public safety or order requires otherwise, as used in each purchase order. prescribed by law. Any violation renders the evidence obtained inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. PO was duly approved by the officers. - The intimacies between husband and wife do not justify any one of them in breaking the drawers and Bill of Rights does not protect citizens from cabinets of the other and in ransacking them for any unreasonable searches and seizures perpetrated by telltale evidence of marital infidelity. A person, by private individuals. However, such an invasion gives contracting marriage, does not shed his/her integrity rise to both criminal and civil liabilities. or his right to privacy as an individual and the constitutional protection is ever available to him or to Decision affirmed her. - The law insures absolute freedom of communication between the spouses by making it privileged as Zulueta v CA, 253 SCRA 699 neither may testify for or against the other without Facts: the consent while the marriage subsists. Freedom of Petition to review decision of the CA, affirming the communication is different from compulsion for each decision of the RTC which ordered petitioner Cecilia one to share what one knows with the other. And this Zulueta to return documents and papers taken by her has nothing to do with the duty of fidelity that each from private respondent's (her husband) clinic owes to the other. without the latter's knowledge and consent to be - Petition denied. used as evidence for the legal separation case and disqualification from practice of medicine filed Gamboa v Chan, 677 SCRA 385 (2012) against the husband. - The state interest of dismantling PAGs far In the presence of her mother, a driver and private outweighs the alleged intrusion on the respondent's secretary, she forcibly opened the private life of Gamboa, especially when the drawers and cabinet in her husband's clinic and took collection and forwarding by the PNP of 157 documents consisting of private correspondence information against her was pursuant to a between Dr. Martin and his alleged paramours, lawful mandate. greetings cards, cancelled checks, diaries, Dr. - Former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo Martin's passport, and photographs. issued Administrative Order No. 275 (A.O. Dr. Martin filed action to recover documents before RTC 275) creating the Zeñarosa Commission which held Dr Martin the capital/exclusive owner of (Commission) which was formed to the properties and ordered Cecilia Zulueta to a investigate the existence of private army immediately return the properties plus nominal and groups (PAGs) in the country in view of moral damages; CA affirmed. eliminating and dismantling them Ruling: permanently in the future. Upon conclusion Petitioner contended as basis the case of Alfredo of its investigation, the Commission Martin v. Alfonso Felix, Jr which ruled that the submitted a confidential report to the Office documents and papers are admissible in evidence. of the President. SC ruled that it is not applicable since the case against - Marynette Gamboa (Gamboa) was the Atty. Felix, Jr. was for disbarment. Dr. Alfredo Martin, Mayor of Dingras, Ilocos Norte. Gamboa filed a case and charged that in using the documents alleged that the Philippine National Police in evidence, Atty. Felix, Jr. committed malpractice or Ilocos Norte (PNP) conducted surveillance gross misconduct because of the injunctive order of operation against her and her aides, and the trial court. Court favoured the defense of Atty. classified her as a PAG coddler. Purportedly Felix that when he refiled Cecilia's case for legal without the benefit of data verification, PNP separation before Pasig RTC, Manila RTC prohibited forwarded the information gathered on her Cecilia from using the documents. This order was to the Commission, causing her inclusion in appealed to SC on certiorari, which was granted, the Report’s enumeration of individuals hence set aside temporarily the order of the trial maintaining PAGs. court, making respondent's request for petitioner to - Gamboa’s association with PAG was published admit the genuineness and authenticity of the and released in the different forms of media, documents not a malpractice. This TRO was later publicly tagging her as a PAG coddler. lifted; therefore prohibition against the further use of Alleging that her right to privacy was the documents and papers became effective again. violated, Gamboa filed a petition before the Dr. Martin finally admitted the truth and authenticity of Regional Trial Court (RTC) for the issuance of the questioned annexes which was done not thru his writ of habeas data to destroy the

26

-

-

-

-

-

unverified reports from the PNP data base and restrain PNP from forwarding baseless reports against her. The RTC ruled that the inclusion of Gamboa in the report violates her right to privacy. However, the RTC dismissed Gamboa’s petition for writ of habeas data saying that Gamboa failed to establish the source of the information. Whether or not the forwarding of information or intelligence report by the PNP to the Commission was an unlawful act that violated petitioner’s right to privacy. Forwarding of information or intelligence report gathered by the PNP to the Commission is not an intrusion of petitioner’s right to privacy The Constitution explicitly mandates the dismantling of private armies and other armed groups not recognized by the duly constituted authority. It also provides for the establishment of one police force that is national in scope and civilian in character, and is controlled and administered by a national police commission. Taking into account these constitutional fiats, it is clear that the issuance of A.O. 275 articulates a legitimate state aim, which is to investigate the existence of PAGs with the ultimate objective of dismantling them permanently. Pursuant to the state interest of dismantling PAGs, as well as the powers and functions accorded to the Commission and the PNP, the latter collected information on individuals suspected of maintaining PAGs, monitored them and counteracted their activities. One of those individuals is herein petitioner Gamboa. This Court holds that Gamboa was able to sufficiently establish that the data contained in the Report listing her as a PAG coddler came from the PNP. Contrary to the ruling of the trial court, however, the forwarding of information by the PNP to the Commission was not an unlawful act that violated or threatened her right to privacy in life, liberty or security. The PNP was rationally expected to forward and share intelligence regarding PAGs with the body specifically created for the purpose of investigating the existence of these notorious groups. Moreover, the Commission was explicitly authorized to deputize the police force in the fulfillment of the former’s mandate, and thus had the power to request assistance from the latter. The fact that the PNP released information to the Commission without prior communication to Gamboa and without affording her the opportunity to refute the same cannot be interpreted as a violation or threat to her right to privacy since that act is an inherent and crucial component of intelligence gathering and investigation. Additionally, Gamboa herself admitted that the PNP had a validation system, which was used to update information on individuals associated with PAGs and to ensure that the data mirrored the situation on the field. Thus, safeguards were put in place to make sure that the information collected maintained its integrity and accuracy.

-

-

-

-

-

Whether or not resort to petition for writ of habeas data was proper Petition for writ of ftabeas data is not proper In this case, Chan and Fang admitted the existence of the Report, but emphasized its confidential nature. That it was leaked to third parties and the media was regrettable, even warranting reproach. But it must be stressed that Gamboa failed to establish that PNP was responsible for this unintended disclosure. In any event, there are other reliefs available to her to address the purported damage to her reputation, making a resort to the extraordinary remedy of the writ of habeas data unnecessary and improper. Finally, the Court rules that Gamboa was unable to prove through substantial evidence that her inclusion in the list of individuals maintaining PAGs made her and her supporters susceptible to harassment and to increased police surveillance. In this regard, Chan and Fang sufficiently explained that the investigations conducted against her were in relation to the criminal cases in which she was implicated. As public officials, they enjoy the presumption of regularity, which she failed to overcome. It is clear from the foregoing discussion that the state interest of dismantling PAGs far outweighs the alleged intrusion on the private life of Gamboa, especially when the collection and forwarding by the PNP of information against her was pursuant to a lawful mandate. Therefore, the privilege of the writ of habeas data must be denied.

MMDA vs CONCERNED RESIDENTS OF MANILA BAY January 29, 1999, concerned residents of Manila Bay filed a complaint before the RTC Imus, Cavite against several government agencies for the clean-up, rehabilitation and protection of the Manila Bay/ The complaint alleged that the water quality of Manila Bay is no longer within the allowable standards set by law (esp. PD 1152, Philippine environment Code). DENR testified for the petitioners and reported that the samples collected from the beaches around Manila Bay is beyond the safe level for bathing standard of the DENR. MWSS testified also about MWSS efforts to reduce pollution along the bay. Philippine Ports Authority presented as evidence its Memorandum Circulars on the study on ship-generated waste treatment and disposal as its Linis Dagat project. RTC ordered petitioners to Clean up and rehabilitate Manila Bay. The petitioners appealed arguing that the Environment Code relate only to the cleaning of the specific pollution incidents and do not cover cleaning in general. Raising the concerns of lack of funds appropriated for cleaning, and asserting that the cleaning of the bay is not a ministerial act which can be compelled by mandamus. CA sustained the RTC stressing that RTC did not require the agencies to do tasks outside of their usual basic functions. (1) Whether PD 1152 relate only to the cleaning of specific pollution incidents. The cleaning of the Manila bay can be compelled by mandamus. Petitioners’ obligation to perform their duties as defined by law, on one hand, and how they are to

27

-

-

carry out such duties, on the other, are two different upgrade the quality of water is not conditional on the concepts. While the implementation of the MMDA’s occurrence of any pollution incident. mandated tasks may entail a decision-making process, the enforcement of the law or the very act In re Yamashita, 327 U.S. 1 (1946) of doing what the law exacts to be done is ministerial - Petitioner was the Commanding General of the in nature and may be compelled by mandamus. Imperial Japanese Army in the Philippine Islands and The MMDA’s duty in the area of solid waste disposal, as became a prisoner of war. The gist of the charge was may be noted, is set forth not only in the that petitioner had failed in his duty as an army Environment Code (PD 1152) and RA 9003, but in its commander to control the operations of his troops, charter as well. This duty of putting up a proper "permitting them to commit" specified atrocities waste disposal system cannot be characterized as against the civilian population and prisoners of war. discretionary, for, as earlier stated; discretion Petitioner was found guilty, and sentenced to death. presupposes the power or right given by law to public - The law of war imposes on an army commander a duty functionaries to act officially according to their to take such appropriate measures as are within his judgment or conscience. power to control the troops under his command for (2) Whether the cleaning or rehabilitation of the Manila the prevention of acts which are violations of the law Bay is not ministerial act of petitioners that can be of war and which are likely to attend the occupation compelled by mandamus of hostile territory by an uncontrolled soldiery, and he Secs. 17 and 20 of the Environment Code Include may be charged with personal responsibility for his Cleaning in General failure to take such measures when violations result. Sec. 17 does not in any way state that the government What measures, if any, petitioner took to prevent, agencies concerned ought to confine themselves to were questions within the peculiar competence of the the containment, removal, and cleaning operations military officers composing the commission, and were when a specific pollution incident occurs. On the for it to decide. contrary, Sec. 17 requires them to act even in the - Annex to Fourth Hague Convention of 1907, respecting absence of a specific pollution incident, as long as the laws and customs of war on land. Article I lays water quality “has deteriorated to a degree where its down, as a condition which an armed force must fulfill state will adversely affect its best usage.” This in order to be accorded the rights of lawful section, to stress, commands concerned government belligerents, that it must be "commanded by a person agencies, when appropriate, “to take such measures responsible for his subordinates." as may be necessary to meet the prescribed water quality standards.” In fine, the underlying duty to