1.

2.

Pharmaceutical vs. Duque: Under the 1987 Constitution, international law can become part of the sphere of domestic law by either transformation or incorporation. Transformation method: requires that an international law be transformed into a domestic law through a constitutional mechanism such as local legislation. (i.e. treaties pursuant to Art.VII, Sec. 21 of the Constitution) Incorporation method: applies when, by mere constitutional declaration, an international law is deemed to have the force of domestic law. Sec. 2, Art II of the 1987 Constitution embodies the incorporation method Soft law: non-binding norms , principles and practices that influence state behaviour. Rubrico vs. Macapagal: Doctrine of Command Responsibility-The evolution of the command responsibility doctrine finds its context in the development of laws of war and armed combats. According to Fr. Bernas, command responsibility, in its simplest terms, means the responsibility of commanders for crimes committed by subordinate members of the armed forces or other persons subject to their control in international wars or domestic conflict. In this sense, command responsibility is properly a form of criminal complicity. The Hague Conventions of 1907 adopted the doctrine of command responsibility, foreshadowing the present-day precept of holding a superior accountable for the atrocities committed by his subordinates should he be remiss in his duty of control over them. As then formulated, command responsibility is an omission mode of individual criminal liability, whereby the superior is made responsible for crimes committed by his subordinates for failing to prevent or punish the perpetrators.

Note: Treaty Ratification Clause- Article VII, Sec. 21 of the 1987 Constitution provides that No treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate. It should be stressed however, that the 2/3 mentioned in this section pertains to the members of the senate present in the session hall (or plenary hall) during the voting. 3. Mijares vs. Ranada: ...generally accepted principles of international law by virtue of the incorporation clause of the Constitution, form part of the laws of the land even if they do not derive from treaty obligations. The classical formulation in the international law sees those customary rules accepted as binding result from two elements: (1) established, widespread and consistent practice on the part of the States; (2) and a psychological element known as the opinion juris sive necessitates (opinion as to law or necessity). Implicit in the latter element is a belief that the practice in question is rendered obligatory by the existence of a rule of law requiring it. Kuroda vs. Jalandoni: The generally accepted principles of international law include those formed during the Hague Convention, the Geneva Convention and other international jurisprudence established by United Nations. These include the principle that all persons, military or civilian, who have been guilty of planning, preparing or waging a war of aggression and of the commission of crimes and offenses in violation of laws and customs of war, are to be held accountable. In the doctrine of incorporation, the Philippines abides by these principles and therefore has a right to try persons that commit such crimes and most especially when it is committed against its citizens. It abides with it even if it was not a signatory to these conventions by the mere incorporation of such principles in the constitution. ABS-CBN vs. Philippine Multi-Media System Inc: Rebroadcasting is defined in Art. 3(g) of the International Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcast Organizations, also known as the 1961 Rome Convention as the simultaneous broadcasting by one broadcasting organization of the broadcast of another broadcasting organization. The Rome Convention gives broadcasting organizations the right to authorize or prohibit the rebroadcasting of its broadcast. It doesnt extend to cable retransmission. The Philippines is a signatory in the Rome Convention. Nicolas vs. Romulo: The rule in international law is that a foreign armed forces allowed to enter ones territory is immune from local jurisdiction, except to the extent agreed upon. The Status of Forces Agreements involving foreign military units around the world vary in terms and conditions, according to the situation of the parties involved, and reflect their bargaining power. But the principle remains, i.e., the receiving State can exercise jurisdiction over the forces of the sending State only to the extent agreed upon by the parties. The VFA was duly concurred in by the Philippine Senate and has been recognized as a treaty by the United States as attested and certified by the duly authorized representative of the United

4.

5.

6.

States government. The fact that the VFA was not submitted for advice and consent of the United States Senate does not detract from its status as a binding international agreement or treaty recognized by the said State. 7. Magallona vs. Ermita: UNCLOS III has nothing to do with the acquisition (or loss of territory). It is a multilateral treaty regulating among others sea using rights over maritime zones etc. Baseline laws are nothing but statutory mechanisms from UNCLOS III State parties to delimit with precision on the extent of their maritime zone and continental shelves. Under traditional international typology, State acquire (or conversely lose) territory through occupation, accretion, cession and prescription not by executing multilateral treaties on the regulation of sea-use rights or enacting statues to comply with the treatys terms to delimit maritime zones and continental shelf. In the absence of municipal legislation, international law norms now codified in UNCLOS III operate to grant innocent passage rights over the territorial sea or archipelagic waters subject to the treatys limitation and conditions for their existence. 8. Navia vs. Pardico: The purpose of the writ of amparo is to provide an expeditious and effective relief to any person whose right to life, liberty, and security is violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee or of a private individual or entity. Art. 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights recognizes every human beings inherent right to life, liberty and security. The right to life must be protected by law while the right to liberty and security cannot be impaired except on grounds provided by and in accordance with law. 9. Liban vs. Gordon: The Court must recognize the countrys Geneva Convention and respect the unique status of the Philippine National Red Cross in consonance with its treaty obligations. The Geneva Convention has the force and effect of law. Under the Constitution, the Philippines adopts generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land. (The Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols are at the core of international humanitarian law, the body of international law that regulates the conduct of armed conflict and seeks to limit its effects They specifically protect people who are not taking part in the hostilities (civilians, health workers and aid workers) and those who are no longer participating in the hostilities, such as wounded, sick and shipwrecked soldiers and prisoners of war. Source: www. ICRC.org) 10. Razon vs. Tagitis: The writ of amparo does not determine guilt nor pinpoint criminal culpability for the disappearance, rather it determines responsibility, or at least accountability, for the enforced disappearance for purposes of imposing the appropriate remedies to address the disappearance. The UN General Assembly adopted the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (Convention). The Convention provides that no one shall be subjected to enforced disappearance under any circumstances, be it a state of war, internal political instability, or any other public emergency. It obliges State Parties to codify enforced disappearance as an offense punishable with appropriate penalties under their criminal law. It also recognizes the right of relatives of the disappeared persons and of the society as a whole to know the truth on the fate and whereabouts of the disappeared and on the progress and results of the investigation. Lastly, it classifies enforced disappearance as a continuing offense, such that statutes of limitations shall not apply until the fate and whereabouts of the victim are established The absence of a specific penal law (penalizing enforced disappearances), however, is not a stumbling block for action from this Court, as heretofore mentioned; underlying every enforced disappearance is a violation of the constitutional rights to life, liberty and security that the Supreme Court is mandated by the Constitution to protect through its rule-making powers. Separately from the Constitution (but still pursuant to its terms), the Court is guided, in acting on Amparo cases, by the reality that the Philippines is a member of the UN, bound by its Charter and by the various conventions we signed and ratified, particularly the conventions touching on humans rights. Under the UN Charter, the Philippines pledged to promote universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinctions as to race, sex, language or religion.

11. Fredco Manufacturing Corp vs. President and Fellows of Harvard College:The Philippines and the United States of America are both signatories to the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (Paris Convention). The Philippines became a signatory to the Paris Convention on 27 September 1965. Articles 6bis and 8 of the Paris Convention state: ARTICLE 6bis (i) The countries of the Union undertake either administratively if their legislation so permits, or at the request of an interested party, to refuse or to cancel the registration and to prohibit the use of a trademark which constitutes a reproduction, imitation or translation, liable to create confusion or a mark considered by the competent authority of the country as being already the mark of a person entitled to the benefits of the present Convention and used for identical or similar goods. These provisions shall also apply when the essential part of the mark constitutes a reproduction of any such well-known mark or an imitation liable to create confusion therewith. ARTICLE 8 A trade name shall be protected in all the countries of the Union without the obligation of filing or registration, whether or not it forms part of a trademark. (Emphasis supplied) Thus, this Court has ruled that the Philippines is obligated to assure nationals of countries of the Paris Convention that they are afforded an effective protection against violation of their intellectual property rights in the Philippines in the same way that their own countries are obligated to accord similar protection to Philippine nationals. Harvard is the trade name of the world famous Harvard University, and it is also a trademark of Harvard University. Under Article 8 of the Paris Convention, as well as Section 37 of R.A. No. 166, Harvard University is entitled to protection in the Philippines of its trade name Harvard even without registration of such trade name in the Philippines. This means that no educational entity in the Philippines can use the trade name Harvard without the consent of Harvard University. Likewise, no entity in the Philippines can claim, expressly or impliedly through the use of the name and mark Harvard, that its products or services are authorized, approved, or licensed by, or sourced from, Harvard University without the latters consent. 12. Tuna Processing Inc. Vs. Kingford: the Philippine Supreme Court held that while, under the Corporation Code, no foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines may maintain any action, suit or proceeding in any court of the Philippines, such general law must yield to the more specific Alternative Dispute Resolution Act 2004. Under this law, which adopts the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law and the New York Convention, the grounds to reject a foreign arbitration award are limited and lack of capacity to sue is not one of them Sec. 45 of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004 provides that the opposing party in an application for recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award may raise only those grounds that were enumerated under Article V of the New York Convention, to wit: Article V

1. Recognition and enforcement of the award may be refused, at the request of the party against whom it is invoked, only if that party furnishes to the competent authority where the recognition and enforcement is sought, proof that: (a) The parties to the agreement referred to in article II were, under the law applicable to them, under some incapacity, or the said agreement is not valid under the law to which the parties have subjected it or, failing any indication thereon, under the law of the country where the award was made; or (b) The party against whom the award is invoked was not given proper notice of the appointment of the arbitrator or of the arbitration proceedings or was otherwise unable to present his case; or (c) The award deals with a difference not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration, or it contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration, provided that, if the decisions on matters submitted to arbitration can be separated from those not so submitted, that part of the award which contains decisions on matters submitted to arbitration may be recognized and enforced; or (d) The composition of the arbitral authority or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties, or, failing such agreement, was not in accordance with the law of the country where the arbitration took place; or (e) The award has not yet become binding on the parties, or has been set aside or suspended by a competent authority of the country in which, or under the law of which, that award was made. 2. Recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award may also be refused if the competent authority in the country where recognition and enforcement is sought finds that: (a) The subject matter of the difference is not capable of settlement by arbitration under the law of that country; or (b) The recognition or enforcement of the award would be contrary to the public policy of that country. 13. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Philippine Shell: In the case of international air carriers, the tax exemption granted under Sec. 135 (a) is based on a long-standing international consensus that fuel used for international air

14.

15.

16.

17.

services should be tax-exempt. The provisions of the 1944 Convention of International Civil Aviation or the Chicago Convention, which form binding international law, requires the contracting parties not to charge duty on aviation fuel already on board any aircraft that has arrived in their territory from another contracting state. Between individual countries, the exemption of airlines from national taxes and customs duties on a range of aviation-related goods, including parts, stores and fuel is a standard element of the network of bilater al Air Service Agreements. Later, a Resolution issued by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) expanded the provision as to similarly exempt from taxes all kinds of fuel taken on board for consumption by an aircraft from a contracting state in the territory of another contracting State departing for the territory of any other State. Though initially aimed at establishing uniformity of taxation among parties to the treaty to prevent double taxation, the tax exemption now generally applies to fuel used in international travel by both domestic and foreign carriers. International School Alliance of Educators v. Quisimbing: International law, which springs from general principles of law, likewise proscribes discrimination. General principles of law include principles of equity, i.e., fairness and justice, based on the test of what is reasonable. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and numerous other international Conventions all embody the general principle against discrimination, the very antithesis of fairness and justice. The Philippines, through its Constitution, has incorporated this principle as part of its national laws North Sea Continental Shelf Case: Equidistance Principle: An equidistance line, left to each of the Parties concerned all those portions of the continental shelf that were nearer to a point on its own coast than they were to any point on the coast of the other party Equidistance- special circumstance (from Art. 6 of the Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf of 1958): In the absence of agreement by parties to employ another method all continental shelf boundaries had to be drawn by means of an equidistance line unless special circumstances were recognized to exist. It is not a rule of customary international law. Doctrine of Just and Equitable share: The right of coastal State in respect of the area of continental shelf constituting a natural prolongation of its land territory under the sea existed ipso facto and ab initio, by virtue of its sovereignty over the land. Truman Proclamation: The coastal State had an original, natural and exclusive right to the continental shelf off its shores. Asylum Case (1966): in deciding on the counter-claim of Peru, the Court has found, on the one hand, "that the grant of asylum by the Colombian Government to Victor Raul Haya de la Torre was not made in conformity with Article 2, paragraph z ('First'), of that Convention" [Convention of Havana]. The Court has declared, on the other hand, not only that "the grant of asylum is not an instantaneous at which terminates with the admission, at a given moment, of a refugee to an embassy or a legation", but that asylum "is granted as long as the continued presence of the refugee in the embassy prolongs this protection". The Court declares, however, that M. Haya de la Torre is a political refugee and not a common criminal. It declares at the same time that the Havana Convention, which is the only agreement regulating the relations between Colombia and Peru in matters of asylum, contains no clause providing for the surrender of a political refugee. It follows from the foregoing consideration that Colombia has no obligation to surrender the refugee to the Peruvian authorities and that, if she abstains from doing so, she in no way violates the Havana Convention. 14. Furthermore, the Court expressly states "that the question of the possible surrender of the refugee to the territorial authorities is in no way raised in the counter-claim" and adds that "this question was not raised either in the diplomatic correspondence submitted by the Parties or at any moment in the proceedings before the Court, and in fact the Government of Peru has not requested that the refugee should be surrendered". Legality of the Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons: The Court then addresses the question of the legality or illegality of recourse to nuclear weapons in the light of the provisions of the Charter relating to the threat or use of force. In Article 2, paragraph 4, of the Charter, the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another State or in any other manner inconsistent with the purpose of the United Nations is prohibited. It does not seem to the Court that the use of nuclear weapons can be regarded as specifically prohibited on the basis of certain provisions of the Second Hague Declaration of 1899, the Regulations annexed to t& Hague Convention IV of 1907 or the 1925 Geneva Protocol. The pattern until now has been for weapons of mass destruction to be declared illegal by specific instruments. But the Court does not find any specific prohibition of recourse to nuclear weapons in treaties expressly prohibiting the use of certain weapons of mass destruction; and

observes that, although, in the last two decades, a great many negotiations have been conducted regarding nuclear weapons, they have not resulted in a treaty of general prohibition of the same kind as for bacteriological and chemical weapons. As to the treaties of Tlatelolco ancl Rarotonga and their Protocols, and also the dec1aration.s made in connection with the indefinite extension of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, it emerges from these: instruments that: (a) a number of States have undertaken not to use nuclear weapons in specific zones (Latin America; the South Pacific) or against certain other States (non-nuclear-weapon States which are parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons); (b) nevertheless, even within this framework, the nuclear weapon States have reserved the right to use nuclear weapons in certain circumstances; and (c) these reservations met with no objection from the parties to the Tlatelolco or Rarotonga Treaties or from the Security Council. 18. Paquete Habana: As a general rule, vessels and cargoes of subjects of the enemy are lawful prize. Nevertheless, it is an established rule of international law, founded on considerations of humanity to a poor and industrious order of men, and of the mutual convenience of belligerent states, that coast fishing vessels with their implements and supplies, cargoes an crews, unarmed and honestly pursuing their peaceful calling of catching and bringing fresh fish, are exempt from capture as a prize of war. Peaceful and wholly inoffensive, those who carry it on (coast-fishing), may be called the harvesters of the territorial seas, since they confine themselves to gathering their products thereof; they are for the most part poor families who seek in this calling hardly more than the means of gaining their livelihood. 19. Preah Vihear Temple Case : The Siamese Government and later the Thai Government had raised no query about the Annex I map prior to its negotiations with Cambodia in Bangkok in 1958. But in 1934-1935 a survey had established a divergence between the map line and the true line of the watershed, and other maps had been produced showing the Temple as being in Thailand: Thailand had nevertheless continued also to use and indeed to publish maps showing Preah Vihear as lying in Cambodia. Moreover, in the course of the negotiations for the 1925 and 1937 Franco-Siamese Treaties, which confirmed the existing frontiers, and in 1947 in Washington before the Franco-Siamese Conciliation Commission, it would have been natural for Thailand to raise the matter: she did not do so. The natural inference was that she had accepted the frontier at Preah Vihear as it was drawn on the map, irrespective of its correspondence with the watershed line. Thailand had stated that having been, at all material times, in possession of Preah Vihear, she had had no need to raise the matter; she had indeed instanced the acts of her administrative authorities on the ground as evidence that she had never accepted the Annex I line at Preah Vihear. But the Court found it difficult to regard such local acts as negativing the consistent attitude of the central authorities. Moreover, when in 1930 Prince Damrong, on a visit to the Temple, was officially received there by the French Resident for the adjoining Cambodian province, Siam failed to react. From these facts, the court concluded that Thailand had accepted the Annex I map. Even if there were any doubt in this connection, Thailand was not precluded from asserting that she had not accepted it since France and Cambodia had relied upon her acceptance and she had for fifty years enjoyed such benefits as the Treaty of 1904 has conferred on her. Furthermore, the acceptance of the Annex I map caused it to enter the treaty settlement; the Parties had at that time adopted an interpretation of that settlement which caused the map line to prevail over the provisions of the Treaty and, as there was no reason to think that the Parties had attached any special importance to the line of the watershed as such, as compared with the overriding importance of a final regulation of their own frontiers, the Court considered that the interpretation to be given now would be the same. 20. Corfu Channel Case: The Corfu Channel case was the first contentious case heard by the International Court of Justice, the supreme arbitration organ of the United Nations and one of the principal sources of authoritative rulings on international law. Brought in 1947 and ruled on in 1949, the case involved a series of incidents in 1946 in the Corfu channel between Albania and Corfu. Royal Navy ships had been shot at and had struck mines laid by Albania. They then entered Albanian territorial waters to seize mines with a view to proving that they had indeed been laid. When the case went to the ICJ, the United Kingdom argued that its actions were justified in the name of a new theory of intervention, according to which a state had the right to seize evidence, even if in the territory of another state, for the purpose of submitting the evidence to an international tribunal. In its ruling, the Court explicitly rejected this line of defence. "The Court can only regard the alleged right of intervention as the manifestation of a policy of force, such as has, in the past, given rise to most serious abuses and such as cannot, whatever be the present defects

in international organisation, find a place in international law. Intervention is perhaps still less inadmissible in the particular form it would take here; for, from the nature of things, it would be reserved for the most powerful States, and might easily lead to perverting the administration of international justice itself." Take Note: Meaning of innocent passage- Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State. Such passage shall take place in conformity with this Convention and with other rules of international law. Passage of a foreign ship shall be considered to be prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State if in the territorial sea it engages in any of the following activities: 21. Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Co: . In order for a state to bring a claim in respect of the breach of an obligation owed to it, it must first establish its right to do so. This right is predicated on a showing that the defendant state has broken an obligation toward the national state in respect of its nationals. In the present case it is therefore essential to establish whether the losses allegedly suffered by Belgian (P) shareholders in Barcelona Traction were the consequence of the violation of obligations of which they are beneficiaries. -In the present state of the law, the protection of shareholders requires that recourse be had to treaty stipulations or special agreements directly concluded between the private investor and the state in which the investment is placed. Barring such agreements, the obligation owed is to the corporation, and only the state of incorporation has standing to bring an action for violations of such an obligation. Nonetheless, for reasons of equity a theory has been developed to the effect that the state of the shareholders has a right of diplomatic protection when the state whose responsibility is invoked is the national state of the company. This theory, however, is not applicable to the present case, since Spain (D) is not the national state of Barcelona Traction. Barcelona Traction could have approached its national state, Canada, to ask for its diplomatic protection. -For the above reasons, the Court is of the opinion that Belgium (P) lacks standing to bring this action. 22. Sec. Of National Defense v. Manalo: Travaux preparatories: are the official record of a negotiation. Sometimes published, the "travaux" are often useful in clarifying the intentions of a treaty or other instrument. This is reflected in Article 32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) When interpreting treaties, the VCLT places this form of interpretation as secondary or less important than looking to the ordinary meaning (see Articles 31 and 32). Pacta sunt servanda is a latin term which means agreements must be kept. It is the principle in international law which says that international treaties should be upheld by all the signatories. The rule of pacta sunt servanda is based upon the principle of good faith. The basis of good faith indicates that a party to the treaty cannot invoke provisions of its domestic law as a justification for a failure to perform. The only limit to pacta sunt servanda is the peremptory norms of general international law known as jus cogens which means compelling law