KKMD

PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

Midterms Reviewers
A. Preliminary Considerations
a. Definition
Body of rules and principles of action, which are binding upon civilized states in their relation to
one another
Law which deals w/ the conduct of the states and of international organizations and with their
relations inter se, as well as with some of their relations with persons, whether natural or
juridical
Body of legal principles, norms and processes regulates the relations of states and other
international persons and governs their conduct affecting the interests of the international
community as a whole
Qualifies as law; binding
o Binding because a man, whether he is a single individual or whether he is associated w/
other men in a state, is constrained, in so far as he is reasonable being, to believe that
order, and not chaos, is the governing principle of the world in which he lives
o Basis why it is binding:
Natural law it is in the natural order of things that matters should be regulated
in compulsory manner
Consent based on the sovereignty of states, which in turn emphasizes their
freedom to act unilaterally save to the extent they agreed upon to the
constrained
Reciprocity notions of justice were replaced by consent, so consent has
gradually replaced by consensus, which has come about bec. States perceive
reciprocal advantage in cautioning self-restraint
o Theories:
Command Theory law consists of commands originating from a sovereign
backed by threats of sanction if disobeyed (Note: Intl Law is not law bec. It does
not come from a command of sovereign)
Consensual Theory derives its binding force from the consent of states (treaties
expression of consent; custom voluntary adherence to common practices)
Natural Law Theory derived from the nature of man
Private International Law (conflict of laws) body of rules of the domestic law of a State that is
applicable when a legal issue contains a foreign element, and it has decided whether a
domestic rule should apply or relinquish jurisdiction to a foreign court
b. Doctrine of Incorporation
A State is, by reason, of its membership in the family of nations, bound by the generally
accepted principles of international law, the same being considered as part of its own laws
International law can be used by Philippine courts to settle domestic disputes
Art. 2, Sec. 2 of the Constitution: only customary law and treaties, which have become part of
customary law become part of Philippine law by incorporation
c. Doctrine of Transformation
Requires the enactment by the legislative body of such international law principles as are
sought to be part of municipal law
Treaties do not become part of the law of a state unless it is consented to by the state
d. Principles
1) Obligations erga omnes
Obligation under a multilateral treaty that a State party to the treaty owes in any given
case to all the other State parties to the same treaty in view of their common values and
concern for compliance
the violation of which is deemed to be an offense not only against the State directly
affected by the breach, but also against all members of the international community

KKMD
2) Jus gentium
the law that natural reason establishes among all mankind is followed by all peoples
alike
the law observed by all mankind
applicable to both citizen and alien
3) Jus natural
law which people establishes for itself is peculiar to it
special law of that state
B. International and National Law
a. Relationship between International Law and Municipal Law
MUNICIPAL LAW
As
to
source
As to
relations
they
regulate
As to their
substance

Product of local custom or

of legislation
Regulates relations of
individuals among
themselves or with their
own states
Law of sovereign over
individuals

INTERNATIONAL
LAW
Treaties & custom
grown among states
Regulates relations
between states and
other intl persons
Law between
sovereign states

Dualism v. Monism
Dualist or Pluralist Theory:
When international & municipal law are in conflict
= Municipal law shall prevail
= 2 different spheres of law; independent of each other
Monism or Monistic Theory:
International and municipal laws
= Intl law is considered as superior to domestic law
= Belongs to only 1 system of law;
= simply 2 components of a single body called law
Municipal Law in Intl Law
A state which has violated a provision of intl law cannot justify itself by recourse to its domestic
law
Intl Law in Domestic Law
Intl law becomes part of the domestic law through transformation or incorporation
Conflict bet. Intl Law and Domestic Law
General Rule: attempt to reconcile apparent contradiction and thereby give effect if possible to
both systems of law (Presume that municipal law is always enacted w/ due regard for and never
in defiance of the generally accepted principles of intl law
Before the Intl Tribunal = a state may not plead its own law as an excuse for failure to comply
with international law
o Exception: in cases where the constitutional violation was manifest and concerned a rule
of its internal law of fundamental importance (Art. 46, Vienna Convention)
Before the Local Court = PH Constitution should be upheld; rules of intl law are given a
standing equal, not superior, to national legislative enactments
Art. 8, Sec. 5 of the Constitution explicitly recognizes the power of the Supreme Court to
declare a treaty unconstitutional; however, even if declared unconstitutional, the treaty will not
lose its character as an international law
b. Relationship between Public International Law and Philippine Municipal Law

KKMD
Philippine law is part of international law especially if it contains provisions giving greater or less
validity to the legislation of other states, for it has circumstantially the elements of international law.
PH Municipal Law
Public Intl Law
Issued by political superior for Not imposed but simply adopted
observance of those who are by states as a common rule of
under its authority
action among themselves
Enactment is from a lawmaking
authority
Regulates the relations of persons
with the state and its citizens
elsewhere
Violations are redressed through
local administrative or judicial
process
Primary (mandatory) source:
Constitution and Statutes
Jurisprudence
EOs, AOs, IRRs, Ordinances
Treaties (PH is signatory)
Secondary (persuasive) source:
Law books and journals
Treaties (PH not a signatory)
Restatements of the Law
US Supreme Court decisions
Res judicata is observed
Stare decisis is applicable

Derived
from
sources
of
international law
Applies to the relations inter se of
states and other international
persons
Violations are resolved through
state to state transactions
Primary/formal source:
Treaties or Conventions
Custom
General principles of law
Secondary source:
Decisions of ICJ
Writings of highly qualified
publicists
Res judicata is binding only to
parties and specific case
There is no stare decisis being
followed

C. Sources and Basis of International Law

Schools of Thought
a. Natural Law School
Basis natural common law, which in turn is based on the rule of conduct implanted by the
Creator in the very nature of man in his conscience to do what is right to avoid what is evil
b. Positivist School
Basis consent of States
c. Eclectic (Groatian) School
Premised both on natural moral law and on common consent
Sources:
A. Primary
a. International Conventions (Treaty Law)
o Treaty intl agreement concluded bet. States in written form and governed by
international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in 2 or more related
instruments and whatever its particular designation.
o A treaty, of whatever kind, is direct source of obligation for the parties
o Binding force of a treaty comes from the consent of the parties, not from the subject
matter or form of the treaty
o Steps in Treaty Making:
Diplomati
c
Negotiatio

Singing of
the treaty
by the
representati

Exchange
of
ratificatio

Ratification by
the
constitutional
organs of the
respective

Registration with
publication by the
Secretariat of the
UN

KKMD
b. International Customs (Customary Law)
o Custom consists of unwritten rules evinced from the generality and uniformity of the
practice of States and is adhered to by such States out of a sense of legal obligations or
opinion juris
o Consists of rules of law derived from the consistent conduct of States acting out of the
belief that the law required them to act that way
o Elements:
State Practice there must be evidence
Opinio juris sive necessitates belief that this practice is rendered obligatory by
the existence of a rule requiring it
o Persistent Objector Rule when a State persistently objects to a rule of customary
international law during the formative stage of that rule; it will not be bound by it,
however there are some that are so fundamental that states are not free to reject them
jus cogens
c. General Principles of Law
o Concepts common to major national legal systems
o Occasionally an intl court will find that it needs to resort to a legal precept found in
national legal systems but never used it an intl court before
o Can also be used when there is a gap in the intl law rather than announcing that the
case cannot be decided because there is no intl law currently exists on such topic
o Teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations if there is no
treaty and no controlling executive/legislative act or judicial decision , resort must be
had to the customs and usages of civilized nations, and as evidence of these, to the
works of jurists and commentators
Highly-Qualified Publicists writers whose main value depends on the extent to
which their books & articles are cited as works of scholarship (eg. Lex Lata
based on thorough research; Lex Ferenda based on what the author think the
law ought to be)
o Note: there is no stare decisis in intl law because it is provided for by the law and ICJ
derives its jurisdiction form the consent of the State parties
D. Subjects
Subjects of IL
an entity that has rights and responsibilities under IL and which has the capacity to maintain its rights by
bringing intl claims (eg. States, Colonies & Dependencies, Belligerent Communities, UN, Vatican & the
Holy See, Intl administrative bodies)
those with international personality
Objects of IL it is a person or thing indirectly vested with rights and obligations in international order
1st SUBJECT STATE
Predominant actor
A community of persons more or less numerous, permanently occupying a definite portion of territory,
independent of external control, and possession an organized government to which the great body of
inhabitants render habitual obedience
As a person of int law, it should possess the ff qualifications:
a) Permanent Population (PEOPLE)
o A community of persons sufficient in number and capable of maintain the permanent
existence of the community and held together by a common bond of law
b) Define Territory
o Fixed portion of the surface of the earth in which the people of the state reside
o An entity may satisfy this requirement even if its boundaries have not been finally
settled, if one or more of its boundaries are disputed, or if some of its territory is claimed
by another state
o It does not necessarily cease to be a state even if all its territory has been occupied by a
foreign power or if it has otherwise lost control of its territory temporarily
c) Government

KKMD
Institution or aggregate of institutions by which an independent society makes and
carries out those rules of action which are necessary to enable men to live in a social
state
o Natl Govt - has legal personality and it is such that is internationally responsible for the
actions of other agencies and instrumentalities of the state
o Temporary absence of govt does not terminate the existence of a state
d) Sovereignty
o Independence from outside control
o Capacity to enter into relations w/ other States
o Dependent on recognition
o Self-determination
Broader concept
Sovereignty as an element of a state is related but not identical to this
principleby virtue of this, people freely determine their political status and freely
pursue their economic, social and cultural development
Level of claims to self-determination:
a) Establishment of new state - the claim by a group within an established
state to break away and form an new entity
b) Claim to be free from external coercion, or the claim to overthrow
effective rules and establish new govt
o

Fundamental Rights of States:

o Independence capacity to provide for its won well-being & development-free from domination of
other states
o Equality legal rights irrespective of size or power of the state
o Peaceful co-existence and self-defense mutual respect for each others territory and sovereignty,
mutual non-aggression or interference in state affairs
Classification:
o Independent not subject from dictation from others w/ respect to the freedom to enter into
external affairs
o Dependent protectorate always retains a greater measure of control over its external affairs than
the suzerainty
o Neutralized independent state may be neutralized through an agreement w/ other states by virtue
of which the latter will guarantee the integrity and independence provided it refrains from taking
any act that will involve it to war or other hostile activities
Succession of States:
o The new state succeeds to no rights or obligations of the predecessor state but begins with a tabula
rasa
o Successor state assumes all obligations and enjoys all the rights of the predecessor
Recognition of States:
o Act by which a state acknowledges the existence of another state, government or belligerent
community and indicates its willingness to deal w/ the entity as such under the rules of intl law
o Theories:
a) Declaratory (Majority View) recognition is merely declaratory for the existence of the state; its
being as a state depends upon its possession of the required elements and not upon recognition
b) Constitutive (Minority View) act of recognition that constitutes the entity into an international
person; confers legal personality on the entity
o Basic Rules in Recognition of States:
It is a political act; mainly a matter of policy on the part of each state
Discretionary on the part of the recognizing authority
Exercised by the political dept. of the state executive
o Kinds:
Recognition de Jure
Recognition de Facto
Duration of recognition
Relatively permanent
Provisional
Effect of recognition on
Vests title to properties of govt
Does not vest title
ownership of properties
abroad
Effect of recognition in relation Brings about full diplomatic
Limited to certain juridical relat

KKMD
to other states

relations

Recognition of Government act of acknowledging the capacity of an entity to exercise powers of

govt of a state; decided mainly on the basis of political considerations
Requisites of Recognition of Government:
1) Govt is stable and effective
2) No substantial resistance to its authority
3) Govt must show willingness and ability to discharge its intl obligations
4) Govt must enjoy popular consent or approval of the people
o Effects of Recognition of State or Government:
Right to possession of properties of predecessor on the recognizing state
All acts of the recognized state/govt are validated retroactively, preventing the recognizing
state from passing upon their legality in its own courts
Full diplomatic relations
Right to sue in courts of recognizing state
Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial territories and Peoples, UNGA Resolution 1514
(XV) December 14, 1960
o

2nd SUBJECT INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

Legal entities created by groups of states and functioning under intl law to achieve purposes defined in
their constitutions
UNITED NATIONS CHARTER (Signed on June 26, 1945, San Francisco; Effective on October 24, 1945)
Article 1
The Purposes of the United Nations are:
1.
To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention
and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to
bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or
settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
2.
To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of
peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
3.
To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian
character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without
distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and
4.
To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.
Article 2
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following
Principles.
1.
The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
2.
All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith
the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.
3.
All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and
security, and justice, are not endangered.
4.
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or
political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
5.
All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter,
and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement
action.
6.
The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these
Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.
7.
Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially
within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the
present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.
Article 7
1.
There are established as principal organs of the United Nations: a General Assembly, a Security Council, an Economic
and Social Council, a Trusteeship Council, an International Court of Justice and a Secretariat.
2.
Such subsidiary organs as may be found necessary may be established in accordance with the present Charter.
Article 107
Nothing in the present Charter shall invalidate or preclude action, in relation to any state which during the Second World War has
been an enemy of any signatory to the present Charter, taken or authorized as a result of that war by the Governments having
responsibility for such action.

KKMD

1987 CONSTITUTION (Ratified on February 2, 1987)

ARTICLE II Declaration of Principles and State Policies

PRINCIPLES
SECTION 2. The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy, adopts the generally accepted principles of
international law as part of the law of the land and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation, and
amity with all nations.

TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (ROME, 25 March 1957)

Article 211. In each of the Member States, the Community shall enjoy the most extensive legal capacity accorded to legal
persons under their laws; it may, in particular, acquire or dispose of movable and immovable property and may be a party to
legal proceedings. To this end, the Community shall be represented by the Commission.

3rd SUBJECT INDIVIDUALS

traditionally, individuals are considered as merely as objects but modern practice demonstrates that
individuals have become increasingly recognized as participants and subjects of IL, which has occurred
primarily, but not exclusively, through human rights law
they now possessed rights and obligations under IL although such rights are limited
if committed an international crime such as aggression, genocide, terrorism and other crimes against
humanity, they are subjected to the jurisdiction of the ICC, not ICJ
Obligations of individuals are those arising from the regulation of armed conflicts
When individual rights are violated, however, individuals still have to rely on the enforcement power of
states; but some treaties have provided for the right of individuals to petition international bodies
alleging that a contracting state has violated some of their human rights
Ebdalin: The International Criminal Court: An Overview, 46 Ateneo Law Journal 318 (2001)
E. Diplomatic and Consular Laws
Diplomatic Law
Diplomacy science & art whose purpose is to accomplish foreign policy in the most accurate way,
trying to persuade the counterpart.
Diplomat sent by their foreign govt for the purpose of being general representatives
Agents:
o Head of state
o Foreign secretary or minister
o Members of diplomatic service
o Special diplomatic service
o Special diplomatic agents appointed by head of state
o Envoys ceremonials
Functions Diplomatic Missions:
1) Promote friendly relations
2) Present his country in the receiving country
3) Observe and report to his country the developments in the receiving state
4) Protect the interests of the nationals of his country within the limits allowed by international law
5) Negotiate with the govt
Diplomatic and Consular Immunities
o Based on customary law
o Official representatives of a state are given immunities and privileges within the territory of
another state
o Immunities and privileges are personal (for diplomats benefit) but also functional (to enable
the diplomat to perform his functions properly)
o The receiving state (RS) has a corresponding obligation to protect the representative and his
property and office
Diplomatic Immunities (Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961)
o Diplomatic relations are purely by mutual consent.
o An agreement by the receiving state (RS) is a prerequisite before the head of mission is sent.
The RS has no obligation to explain its refusal, and may at any time and without explanation

KKMD

notify the sending state (SS) that a diplomatic agent is persona non grata or that a staff
member is unacceptable.
The SS can either recall the person or terminate his functions with the mission.

Who can enjoy diplomatic immunities?

1) Head of mission
2) Diplomatic agent
3) Members of the mission including the diplomatic, administrative and technical and service staff
4) Private servant in the domestic service of a member of the mission, not employed by the
sending state
5) Premises of the mission, irrespective of ownershio
Rights and Privileges of Diplomatic Mission
a) Inviolability of mission premises and means of transport; RS has duty to protect the premises
and prevent any disturbance to the mission or impairment of its dignity
b) Tax exemptions for e SS and the head of mission, not extending to those payable under the
laws of RS by persons contracting with them
c) Inviolability of archives and documents of the mission
d) Inviolability of the person of diplomatic agent from arrest or detention
e) Inviolability of the private residence, property, papers, and correspondence of a diplomatic
agent
f) Immunity of diplomatic agent from criminal, civil, and administrative jurisdiction of RS;
immunity from giving evidence as witness; immunity from execution of judgement.
o Except:
1) real action relation to private immovable property in the RS, unless held on behalf of
the SS for mission purposes
2) action relating to succession, done as a private person and not on behalf of the SS
3) action relating to any professional or commercial activity done in the RS outside his
official capacity
Obligations of Diplomatic Mission
a.) To respect the laws and regulations of the RS
b.) To refrain from practice for personal profit any professional or commercial activity in the RS

Consular Law
Not concerned with political matters.
Attend only to the administrative and economic issues.
Head of consular post must first be authorized by RS via an exequatur.
RS may at any time and without explanation notify the SS that a consular officer is a persona non
grata or a staff member is unacceptable.
SS can only recall or terminate his functions with the consular post.
RS has duty to protect the consular premises, archives and interests of the SS and ensure the
unimpeded functioning of the consular offices.
Consular Officers any person, including the head of the consular post, entrusted in that capacity with
the exercise of consular function
Consul (means to take care of/ to consult) head of consular post appointed by the SS. The RS has
to admit his/her consular functions
Honorary Consul consular officers who are nationals of the RS; do not have the status of an official of
the SS and are less worthy of protection
Functions:
a) protect the interest of the SS and of its nationals in the RS
b) further development of economic, commercial, cultural and scientific relations and promote
friendly relations between RS and SS
c) report on development and condition of RS
d) issue passports and travel documents to nationals of SS and visa and appropriate documents
for those who wish to travel to SS
e) assist nationals
f) act as notary and civil registrar and perform administrative functions
g) safeguard interests of nationals in cases of succession mortis causa in RS

KKMD

h) safeguard interest of nationals who are minors or lack full capacity

i) represent or arrange representation for nationals before the tribunals or other authorities of the
RS
j) transmit judicial and extrajudicial documents or executing letters to take evidence for the
courts of the SS
k) exercise supervision and inspection over vessels under SS flag, aircrafts registered in SS, and
their crew
l) extend assistance to such vessels and aircrafts and their crew
m) other functions not prohibited by laws of RS
Areas not subject to jurisdiction of individual states
o UNCLOS
Article 87 - Freedom of the high seas
1. The high seas are open to all States, whether coastal or land-locked. Freedom of the
high seas is exercised under the conditions laid down by this Convention and by other
rules of international law. It comprises, inter alia, both for coastal and land-locked
States:
(a) freedom of navigation;
(b) freedom of overflight;
(c) freedom to lay submarine cables and pipelines, subject to Part VI;
(d) freedom to construct artificial islands and other installations permitted under
international law, subject to Part VI;
(e) freedom of fishing, subject to the conditions laid down in section 2;
(f) freedom of scientific research, subject to Parts VI and XIII.
2. These freedoms shall be exercised by all States with due regard for the interests of
other States in their exercise of the freedom of the high seas, and also with due regard
for the rights under this Convention with respect to activities in the Area.

Article 97 - Penal jurisdiction in matters of collision or any other incident of navigation

1. In the event of a collision or any other incident of navigation concerning a ship on the
high seas, involving the penal or disciplinary responsibility of the master or of any other
person in the service of the ship,
2. In disciplinary matters, the State which has issued a master's certificate or a certificate
of competence or licence shall alone be competent, after due legal process, to
pronounce the withdrawal of such certificates, even if the holder is not a national of the
State which issued them.
3. No arrest or detention of the ship, even as a measure of investigation, shall be ordered
by any authorities other than those of the flag State.

Article 101 - Definition of piracy

(a) any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for
private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft, and
directed:
(i)
on the high seas, against another ship or aircraft, or against persons or property
on board such ship or aircraft;
(ii)
against a ship, aircraft, persons or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of
any State;
(b) any act of voluntary participation in the operation of a ship or of an aircraft with
knowledge of facts making it a pirate ship or aircraft;
(c) any act of inciting or of intentionally facilitating an act described in subparagraph (a)
or (b).

The Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in Exploration of Outer Space (1967)
Outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national
appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other
means
States Parties to the Treaty shall carry on activities in the exploration and use of outer
space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, in accordance with international
law, including the Charter of the United Nations, in the interest of maintaining

KKMD

international peace and security and promoting international cooperation and

understanding
The Moon and other celestial bodies shall be used by all States Parties to the Treaty
exclusively for peaceful purposes.

Convention on Liability for Damage caused by Space Objects (1972)

States (countries) bear international responsibility for all space objects that are launched
within their territory. This means that regardless of who launches the space object, if it
was launched from State A's territory, or from State A's facility, or if State A caused the
launch to happen, then State A is fully liable for damages that result from that space
object.
If two states work together to launch a space object, then both of those states are jointly
and severally liable for the damage that object causes. This means that the injured party
can sue either of the two states for the full amount of damage.
Claims under the Liability Convention must be brought by the state against a state. The
Convention was created to supplement existing and future national laws providing
compensation to parties injured by space activities. Whereas under most national legal
systems an individual or a corporation may bring a lawsuit against another individual or
another corporation, under the Liability Convention claims must be brought on the state
level only. This means that if an individual is injured by a space object and wishes to
seek compensation under the Liability Convention, the individual must arrange for his or
her country to make a claim against the country that launched the space object that
caused the damage.

CASES Doctrines:
Kuroda v. Jalandoni

KKMD
Kuroda was charged w/ Military Commission for allowing his members to commit brutal atrocities.
Kuroda defensed that Executive Order 68, which created the Military Commission, is
unconstitutional because it violates not only our Constitution but also our local laws. That the
Philippines is not a signatory to the Hague and Geneva Convention on the Rules and Regulations on
Land Warfare, therefor Kuroda is being charged of crimes not based on law.
SC said EO 68 is valid and constitutional because our Constitution in Article II Section III expressly
provides that: The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy and adopts the
generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the nations.
The Court emphasized that the Hague and Geneva Convention are among these generally accepted
principles of international law; and that it specifically mandate that: All persons who have been
guilty of planning or waging war of aggression and of the commission of crimes, in violation of the
laws, are held accountable therefor. Thus the Court held that the President in promulgating the
Order has acted in conformity with the accepted principles of International Law.
Pimental v. Office of the Secretary
SC said The President has the sole authority to negotiate and enter into treaties and is also vested
with authority to deal with foreign states. The Constitution on the other hand requires a
concurrence of 2/3 of all the members of the Senate for the validity of the treaty entered by him
The participation of the senate in the treaty has been interpreted by petitioners that the ratification
of the treaty belongs to the senate but the Court disagrees.
The steps in the usual treaty making process according to the book of Justice Isagani Cruz are:
negotiation, signature, ratification and exchange of the instruments of ratification.
Negotiation: may be brief or protracted depending on the issues involved and may even collapse in
case no agreement has been reached upon by the parties. It may be undertaken by the head of
state or his authorized representatives. Once terms of the treaty has been finalized, it is now open
for signature.
Signature: intended as a means of authenticating the instrument and for the purpose of symbolizing
the good faith of the parties but it does not indicate the final consent of the state in cases where
ratification of the treaty is required.
Ratification: the formal act by which a state confirms the provisions of a treaty. Its purpose is to
enable the states to examine the treaty more closely and it is for this reason that most treaties are
subject to consent of a department of a government other that. That which negotiated them.
The Rome statute requires the signature of the representative of the state be subject to ratification.
After the signature of the representative, the president has the burden to carefully study the treaty
and ensure that they are not inimical to the interest of the people. Therefore, the President has the
discretion whether or not to ratify the same.
Icong v. Hernandez
The Treaty of Amity between the Republic of the Philippines and the Republic of China guarantees
equality of treatment to the Chinese nationals upon the same terms as the nationals of any other
country. But the nationals of China are not discriminated against because nationals of all other
countries, except those of the United States, who are granted special rights by the Constitution, are
all prohibited from engaging in the retail trade. Even if it would be assumed that a treaty would be
in conflict with a statute then the statute must be upheld because it represented an exercise of the

KKMD
police power which, being inherent could not be bargained away or surrendered through the
medium of a treaty.
The enactment clearly falls within the scope of the police power of the State, thru which and by
which it protects its own personality and insures its security and future; that the law does not
violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

Razon v. Tagitis
The incorporation method applies when, by mere constitutional declaration, international law is
deemed to have the force of domestic law. In this case, While the Philippines is not yet formally
bound by the terms of the Convention on enforced disappearance (or by the specific terms of the
Rome Statute) and has not formally declared enforced disappearance as a specific crime, the above
recital shows that enforced disappearance as a State practice has been repudiated by the
international community, so that the ban on it is now a generally accepted principle of international
law, which we should consider a part of the law of the land, and which we should act upon to the
extent already allowed under our laws and the international conventions that bind us.
Pharmaceutical and
Undersecretaries

Health

Care

Association

of

the

PH

v.

Health

Secretary

&

Petitioner assailed the validity of the RIRR of the Milk Code for allegedly going beyond the
provisions of the Milk Code, thereby amending and expanding the coverage of said law. The Milk
Code, in this case, was issued to give effect to Article 11 of the International Code of Marketing of
Breastmilk Substitutes (ICMBS), adopted by the World Health Assembly (WHA) in 1981, to the effect
that breastfeeding should be supported, promoted and protected.
Issue: W/N the pertinent intl agreements entered into by the Phil are part of the law of the land and
may be implemented by DOH through the RIRR. If yes, W/N the RIRR is in accord with intl
agreements
SC Ruling: Under the 1987 Constitution, international law can become part of the sphere of
domestic law either by transformation or incorporation:
Transformation method:
- requires that an international law be transformed into a domestic law
- pursuant to Article VII, Section 21 of the Constitution which provides through a constitutional
mechanism such as local legislation 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."
Incorporation method:
- applies when, by mere constitutional declaration, international law is deemed to have the force
of domestic law.
- Section 2, Article II of the 1987 Constitution: The Philippines adopts the generally accepted
principles of international law as part of the law of the land
YES for ICMBS because it was TRANSFORMED INTO DOMESTIC LAW through the Milk Code. The Milk
Code is almost a verbatim reproduction of the ICMBS, but it did not adopt the provision in the ICMBS
absolutely prohibiting advertising or other forms of promotion to the general public of products
within the scope of the ICMBS.

KKMD
NO for WHA Resolutions. DOH failed to establish that the provisions pertinent WHA resolutions are
customary intl law that may be deemed part of the law of the land. For an intl rule to be
considered as customary law, it must be established that such rule is being followed by states
because they consider it as obligatory to comply with such rules (opinion juris). Unlike the ICBMS
whereby legislature enacted most of the provisions into the law via the Milk Code, the WHA
Resolutions have not been adopted as domestic law nor are they followed in our country as well.
WHA Resolutions may be classified as SOFT LAW non-binding norms, principles and practices that
influence state behavior. Soft law is not part of intl law.
Province of North Cotabato v. Government of the PH
Rubrico v. Arroyo
Rubrico filed this petition and prayed that a writ of amparo be issued, ordering the individual
respondents to desist from performing any threatening act against the security of the petitioners.
The Hague Conventions of 1907 adopted the doctrine of command responsibility, and 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.
The doctrine has recently been codified in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
(ICC) to which the Philippines is signatory. The country is, however, not yet formally bound by the
terms and provisions embodied in this treaty-statute, since the Senate has yet to extend
concurrence in its ratification.
It may plausibly be contended that command responsibility, now constitutes a principle of
international law or customary international law in accordance with the incorporation clause of the
Constitution. Still, it would be inappropriate to apply to these proceedings the doctrine of command
responsibility as a form of criminal complicity through omission, for individual respondents criminal
liability, if there be any, is beyond the reach of amparo. In other words, the Court does not rule in
such proceedings on any issue of criminal culpability, even if incidentally a crime or an infraction of
an administrative rule may have been committed. Writ of Amparo does not determine guilt nor
pinpoint criminal culpability for disappearances (threats thereof or extra-judicial killings); it only
determines responsibility, or at least accountability, for the enforced disappearance [threats thereof
or extra-judicial killings] for purposes of imposing the appropriate remedies to address the
disappearance [or extra- judicial killings].
Abaya v. Ebdane
The Loan Agreement No. PH-204 taken in conjunction with the Exchange of Notes dated December
27, 1999 between the Japanese Government and the Philippine Government is an executive
agreement. An exchange of notes is a record of a routine agreement that has many similarities
with the private law contract. The agreement consists of the exchange of two documents, each of
the parties being in the possession of the one signed by the representative of the other.
treaties, agreements, conventions, charters, protocols, declarations, memoranda of
understanding, modus vivendi and exchange of notes all are refer to international instruments
binding at international law. Although these instruments differ from each other by title, they all
have common features and international law has applied basically the same rules to all these
instruments. These rules are the result of long practice among the States, which have accepted
them as binding norms in their mutual relations. Therefore, they are regarded as international
customary law.

KKMD
Constantino v. Cuisia
Lim v. Macapagal Arroyo
Arthur Lim and Paulino Ersando assailed the validity of Balikatan 02-1. They said that the Balikatan
exercises is not in accordance with the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA), which in turn is a
reinforcement of the 1951 MDT between the two nations. They claimed that the MDT only provides
for mutual military assistance in case of armed attack by an external aggressor against the
Philippines or the US.
Issue: Whether Balikatan 02-1 activities is covered by the Visiting Forces Agreement
SC Ruling: YES, Balikatan is covered by the VFA. To resolve this, it is necessary to refer to the VFA
itself. The VFA permits United States personnel to engage, on an impermanent basis, in activities,
the exact meaning of which was left undefined.
The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Articles 31 and 32 contains provisos governing
interpretations of international agreements. It clearly provides that the cardinal rule of
interpretation must involve an examination of the text, which is presumed to verbalize the parties
intentions. The Convention likewise dictates what may be used as aids to deduce the meaning of
terms, which it refers to as the context of the treaty, as well as other elements may be taken into
account alongside the aforesaid context.
It appeared farfetched that the ambiguity surrounding the meaning of the word activities arose
from accident. It was deliberately made that the way to give both parties a certain leeway in
negotiation. In this manner, visiting US forces may sojourn in Philippine territory for purposes other
than military.
Republic v. Sandiganbayan
PCGG case. Petitioner asserts that the revolutionary government effectively withheld the operation
of the 1973 Constitution, which guaranteed private respondents exclusionary right (from illegal
searches only applies upon ratification of the Constitution). Therefore, the government may
confiscate the monies and items taken from Dimaano and use the same in evidence against her
since at the time of their seizure, private respondents did not enjoy any constitutional right.
The Court held that the Bill of Rights under the 1973 Constitution was not operative during the
interregnum. However, the Court ruled that the protection accorded to individuals under the
Covenant and the Declaration remained in effect during the interregnum. The Declaration, to which
the Philippines is also a signatory, provides in its Article 17(2) that no one shall be arbitrarily
deprived of his property. Although the signatories to the Declaration did not intend it as a legally
binding document, being only a declaration, the Court has interpreted. the Declaration as part of
the generally accepted principles of international law and binding on the State. Thus, the
revolutionary government (the Aquino government) was also obligated under international law to
observe the rights of individuals under the Declaration.
As the de jure government, the revolutionary government could not escape responsibility for the
States good faith compliance with its treaty obligations under international law. The seizure of these
items was therefore void.
Nicaragua v. US
The general rule prohibiting force established in customary law allows for certain exceptions. The
exception of the right of individual or collective self-defense is also established in customary law,

KKMD
which Art. 51 refers to an inherent right. The Parties agree in holding that whether the response
to an attack is lawful depends on the observance of the criteria of necessity and the proportionality
of the measures taken in self-defense. Whether self-defense be individual or collective, it can only
be exercised in response to an armed attack. The Court does not believe that the concept of
armed attack includes assistance to rebels. Furthermore, the Court finds that in customary
international law, there is no ruling permitting the exercise of collective self-defense in the absence
of a request by the State which is a victim of the alleged attack, this being additional to the
requirement that the State should have declared itself to have been attacked.
Mijares v. Ranada
The US Court awarded the victims compensatory and exemplary damages. The present petitioners
then filed this complaint with RTC Makati for the enforcement of Final Judgment.
The Court said that the foreign judgment, despite its award for damages, may be enforced based on
internationally accepted principles and from opinions of foreign experts
Internationally recognized policy of preclusion, as well as the principles of comity, utility and
convenience of nations as the basis for the evolution of the rule calling for the recognition and
enforcement of foreign judgment. Although there were attempts to codify through treaties or
multilateral agreements the standards of recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment, the
Philippines is not a signatory to these attempts -> However, it is recognized as representing
scholarly thought on the matter. As Steiner and Vagts, there is a contemporary resurgence of
writing stressing the identity or similarity of the values that systems of public and private
international law seek to further a community interest in common rules on these matters in national
systems.
Morever, Salonga, whose treatise on private international law is of worldwide renown, points out,
Whatever be the theory as to the basis for recognizing foreign judgments, there can be little
dispute that the end is to protect the reasonable expectations and demands of the parties. Where
the parties have submitted a matter for adjudication in the court of one state, and proceedings
there are not tainted with irregularity, they may fairly be expected to submit, within the state or
elsewhere, to the enforcement of the judgment issued by the court.
The fact that there is no binding universal treaty governing the practice is not indicative of a
widespread rejection of the principle, but only a disagreement as to the imposable specific rules
governing the procedure for recognition and enforcement. Aside from the widespread practice, it is
indubitable that the procedure for recognition and enforcement is embodied in the rules of law,
whether statutory or jurisprudential, adopted in various foreign jurisdictions. Certainly, the
Philippine legal system has long ago accepted into its jurisprudence and procedural rules the
viability of an action for enforcement of foreign judgment, as well as the requisites for such valid
enforcement, as derived from internationally accepted doctrines.
Tanada v. Angara
WTO/GATT aims to make available to the Filipino consumer the best goods and services obtainable
anywhere in the world at the most reasonable prices. Consequently, the question boils down to
whether WTO/GATT will favor the general welfare of the public at large.
The Court notes and appreciates the ferocity and passion by which petitioners stressed their
arguments on this issue. However, while sovereignty has traditionally been deemed absolute and
all-encompassing on the domestic level, it is however subject to restrictions and limitations
voluntarily agreed to by the Philippines, expressly or impliedly, as a member of the family of
nations.

KKMD
One of the oldest and most fundamental rules in international law is pacta sunt servanda
international agreements must be performed in good faith. "A treaty engagement is not a mere
moral obligation but creates a legally binding obligation on the parties . . . A state which has
contracted valid international obligations is bound to make in its legislations such modifications as
may be necessary to ensure the fulfillment of the obligations undertaken." [In the foregoing
treaties] the Philippines has effectively agreed to limit the exercise of its sovereign powers of
taxation, eminent domain and police power. The underlying consideration in this partial surrender of
sovereignty is the reciprocal commitment of the other contracting states in granting the same
privilege and immunities to the Philippines, its officials and its citizens. The same reciprocity
characterizes the Philippine commitments under WTO-GATT.
Pimentel v. Romulo
The signing of the treaty and the ratification are two separate and distinct steps in the treatymaking process. The signature is primarily intended as a means of authenticating the instrument
and as a symbol of the good faith of the parties. It is usually performed by the states authorized
representative in the diplomatic mission. On the other hand, Ratification is the formal act by which
a state confirms and accepts the provisions of a treaty concluded by its representative. It is
generally held to be an executive act, undertaken by the head of the state or of the government.
Western Sahara
Territories inhabited by tribes or peoples having a social and political organization were not
regarded as terra nullius (territory which prior to occupation belonged to no state or which may
have been abandoned by a prior occupant).
The information furnished to the Court shows that at the time of colonization, Western Sahara was
inhabited by peoples which, if nomadic, were socially and politically organized into tribes and under
chiefs competent to represent them.
Subjects
STATES:
International Status of Southwest Africa, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports, 1950 (LABO)
Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial territories and Peoples, UNGA
Resolution 1514 (XV) December 14, 1960
1. The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial
of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment
to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.
2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their
political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
3. Inadequacy of political, economic, social or educational preparedness should never serve as a
pretext for delaying independence.
4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall
cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete
independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.
5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories
which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories,
without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire,
without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete
independence and freedom.

KKMD
6. Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial
integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United
Nations.
7. All States shall observe faithfully and strictly the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations,
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the present Declaration on the basis of equality,
non-interference in the internal affairs of all States, and respect for the sovereign rights of all
peoples and their territorial integrity.
INDIVIDUALS AND CORPORATIONS:
Ebdalin: The International Criminal Court: An Overview, 46 Ateneo Law Journal 318
(2001) Provisions, Read Text
Dispute Between Texaco Overseas Petroleum Co./ California Asiatic Oil Co. and the
Government of the Libyan Arab Republic-Arbitral Awards on the Merits, 19 January 1977
VERY QUICK FACTS: Libya promulgated decrees purporting to nationalize (basically government to
take over) all of the rights, interests and property of Texaco Overseas Petroleum Company and
California Asiatic Oil Company in Libya granted to them jointly under different contracts/deeds of
concession. The Companies objected to the decrees and claimed that such action by the Libyan
Government violated the terms and conditions of their Deeds of Concession.
Exercising their rights under their Deeds of Concession, the Companies requested arbitration and
appointed an arbitrator. The Libyan Government refused to accept arbitration and did not appoint
an arbitrator. Pursuant to the arbitration provision in their Deeds of Concession, the Companies
requested the President of the International Court of Justice to appoint a sole arbitrator to hear and
determine the disputes. The Libyan Government opposed such request and filed a memorandum
with the President contending, inter alia, that the disputes were not subject to arbitration because
the nationalizations were acts of sovereignty.
The important issue (in relation to the topic) in this case is the legal capacity of the companies
(Texaco and Asiatic) in suing and requiring performance etc. by The Libyan Government.
DOCTRINE: What does internationalization of a contractual relationship mean? A sovereign state
may enter into contractual relations w/ private persons or corporations. Through this, certain
private persons may acquire capacities w/in the international sphere. However, their
capacities, unlike those of sovereign states, are limited only to those that may be necessary to
enable to them to act internationally and to invoke, in the field of IL, such rights that they
may derive from the contract. Simply put, internationalization does not elevate a corporation
or person to the status of a state it only confers upon him such rights as he may need
for him to perform his obligations and enforce his rights in international law.
Meaning & scope of the internationalization of the contracts in dispute:
Legal international capacity is not solely attributable to a State and international law encompasses
subjects of a diversified nature. If States, the original subjects of the international legal order, enjoy
all the capacities offered by the latter, other subjects (such as a corporation in this case) enjoy only
limited capacities which are assigned to specific purposes.
Stating that a contract between a State and a private person falls within the international legal
order means that for the purposes of interpretation and performance of the contract, it should be
recognized that a private contracting party has specific international capacities. But, unlike a State,
the private person has only a limited capacity and his quality as a subject of international law does
enable him only to invoke, in the field of international law, the rights which he derives from the
contract.
In the matter of contracts, the international personality and capacity of the individual (private
person, natural or fictitious) depend on the recognition granted to them by the State in its legal

KKMD
relations with him. MEANING, DEPENDE SA CONTRACT NILA. The internationalization of certain
contracts entered into between a State and a private person does not tend to confer upon a private
person competences comparable to those of a State but only certain capacities which enable him to
act internationally in order to invoke the rights which result to him from an internationalized
contract.
INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS:
Reparations for Injuries suffered in the service of the United Nation (ICJ Reports 1949)
QUESTION 1: In the event of an agent of the United Nations in the performance of his duties
suffering injury in circumstances involving the responsibility of a State, has the United Nations, as
an Organization, the capacity to bring an international claim against the responsible de jure or de
facto government with a view to obtaining the reparation due in respect of the damage caused
(a) to the United Nations, (b) to the victim or to persons entitled through him?
HELD:
QUESTION 1 (a). YES
The questions asked of the Court relate to the "capacity of the UN (aka the Organization) to bring an
international claim". YES -THE UN is an international person.
This capacity certainly belongs to the State; a State can bring an international claim against
another State. Such a claim takes the form of a claim between two political entities, equal in law,
similar in form, and both the direct subjects of international law. It is dealt with by means of
negotiation, and cannot, in the present state of the law as to international jurisdiction, be submitted
to a tribunal, except with the consent of the States concerned.
To answer the question the ICJ looked at the UN Charter. The UN was intended to exercise and
enjoy, and is in fact exercising and enjoying functions and rights, which can only be explained on
the basis of the possession of a large measure of international personality and the capacity to
operate upon an international plane. The UN Organization is a political body charged with tasks of
an important character. To achieve these ends international personality is indispensible.
That it not the same thing as saying that it is a State, less a super-State. What it does mean is that
it is a subject of international law and capable of possessing international rights and duties, and
that it has capacity to maintain its rights by bringing international claims.
QUESTION 1 (b) YES
Under international law, the Organization (UN here) must be deemed to have those powers, which,
though not expressly provided in the Charter, are conferred upon it by necessary implication as
being essential to the performance of its duties. Having regard to its purposes and functions already
referred to, the Organization may find it necessary, and has in fact found it necessary, to entrust its
agents with important missions to be performed in disturbed parts of the world. Many missions,
from their very nature, involve the agents in unusual dangers to which ordinary persons are not
exposed. In order that the agent may perform his duties satisfactorily, he must feel that this
protection is assured to him by the Organization, and that he may count on it.
It is important that whether the agent belongs to a powerful or to a weak State; to one more
affected or less affected, by the complications of international life; to one in sympathy or not with
the mission of the agent-he should know that in the performance of his duties he is under the
protection of the Organization. This assurance is even more necessary when the agent is stateless.
Diplomatic and Consular Law
Minucher vs. CA 214 SCRA 242
The main yardstick in ascertaining whether a person is a diplomat entitled to immunity is the
determination of whether or not he performs duties of diplomatic nature.

KKMD
Vesting a person with diplomatic immunity is a prerogative of the executive branch of the
government. The State Department policy is to only concede diplomatic status to a person who
possesses an acknowledged diplomatic title and "performs duties of diplomatic nature."
The doctrine of immunity from suit will not apply and may not be invoked where the public official
is being sued in his private and personal capacity as an ordinary citizen. The cloak of protection
afforded the officers and agents of the government is removed the moment they are sued in their
individual capacity. This situation usually arises where the public official acts without authority or in
excess of the powers vested in him. It is a well-settled principle of law that a public official may be
liable in his personal private capacity for whatever damage he may have caused by his act done
with malice and in bad faith or beyond the scope of his authority and jurisdiction."
Indeed, a foreign agent, operating within a territory, can be cloaked with immunity from suit but
only as long as it can be established that he is acting within the directives of the sending state. The
consent of the host state is an indispensable requirement of basic courtesy between the two
sovereigns.
Republic of Indonesia vs. Vinzon 405 SCRA 126
FACTS: Vinzon entered into maintenance contract with Counselor Partinah as representative of
Republic of Indonesia to maintain equipment (airco, heaters etc.) in the Indonesian Embassy which
was unilaterally cancelled by Indonesia, prompting Vinzon to file charges. Contract stated: Any
legal action arising out of this Maintenance Agreement shall be settled according to the laws of the
Philippines and by the proper court of Makati City, Philippines, thus Vinzon alleged Indonesia
waived its immunity from suit.
SC RULING: The rule that a State may not be sued without its consent is a necessary consequence
of the principles of independence and equality of States.
The existence alone of a paragraph in a contract entered into by a diplomat with a private party in
the PH stating that any legal action arising out of the agreement shall be settled according to the
laws of the Philippines and by a specified court of the Philippines is not necessarily a waiver of
sovereign immunity from suit.
The applicability of Philippine laws must be deemed to include Philippine laws in its totality,
including the principle recognizing sovereign immunity. Submission by a foreign state to local
jurisdiction must be clear and unequivocal. It must be given explicitly or by necessary implication.
Nicolas vs. Romulo GR No. 175888 Feb. 11, 2009
NOTE: Focus on things affecting immunity of US armed forces by virtue of VFA.
QUICK FACTS: Smith (US Armed Forces, Marine) was charged with rape against Nicolas. US, invoking
the VFA (Visiting Forces Agreement), requested and was granted custody of Smith pending the
proceedings
Dec 29, 06: Smith was taken out of the Makati jail by PH and brought to a detention facility under
US control, provided for under new agreements between PH & US.
Kristie Kenney as rep for US & Alberto Romulo as rep for PH entered into Romulo-Kenney
Agreement: that, upon Smiths transfer from the Makati City Jail, he will be detained at the 1st floor,
Rowe (JUSMAG) Building, US Embassy in a room 10 x 12 sq ft., guarded round the clock
by US military personnel. PH police and jail authorities, under the direct supervision of DILG, will
have access to the place of detention to ensure the US is in compliance with the VFA.

KKMD
ISSUE: VALIDITY OF THE DETENTION AGREEMENTS (INVALID FOR NOT BEING IN ACCORD WITH THE
VFA)
Petitioners: undertakings violate the Constitution [SCs exclusive power to adopt rules of procedure
for all courts in the PH (Art. VIII, Sec. 5[5])]. To allow the transfer of custody of an accused to a
foreign power is to provide for a different rule of procedure for him [violates equal protection
clause]
SC: No violation of EPC. There is a substantial basis for a different treatment of a member of a
foreign military armed forces allowed to enter our territory and all other accused -- Intl Law rule: a
foreign armed forces allowed to enter ones territory is immune from local jurisdiction, EXCEPT to the
extent agreed upon
SC: No violation of SCs rule-making power. Here, the laws (including rules of procedure) of one
State do not extend or apply EXCEPT to the extent agreed upon to subjects of another State due to
the recognition of extraterritorial immunity given to such bodies as visiting foreign armed forces
Nothing in the Constitution prohibits such agreements recognizing immunity from
jurisdiction or some aspects of jurisdiction (such as custody)
HOWEVER, VFAs specific arrangement covering detention states not only that the detention shall
be carried out in facilities agreed on by authorities of both parties, but also that the detention shall
be by PH authorities.
Romulo-Kenney Agreements on the detention of Smith in the US Embassy, are NOT in accord
with the VFA itself because such detention is NOT by PH authorities. Respondents should comply
with VFA and negotiate with US representatives towards an agreement on detention facilities
under PH authorities
US Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (US vs. Iran) ICJ Reports 3, 1980

DFA vs. NLRC 262 SCRA 9

It is a recognized principle of international law and under our system of separation of powers that
diplomatic immunity is essentially a political question and courts should refuse to look beyond a
determination by the executive branch of the government, and where the plea of diplomatic
immunity is recognized and affirmed by the executive branch of the government - it is then the duty
of the courts to accept the claim of immunity upon appropriate suggestion by the principal law
officer of the government, or other officer acting under his direction. Hence, in adherence to the
settled principle that courts may not so exercise their jurisdiction as to embarrass the executive
arm of the government in conducting foreign relations, it is accepted doctrine that `in such cases
the judicial department of government follows the action of the political branch and will not
embarrass the latter by assuming an antagonistic jurisdiction.
"One of the basic immunities of an international organization is immunity from local jurisdiction, i.e.,
that it is immune from the legal writs and processes issued by the tribunals of the country where it
is found. The obvious reason for this is that the subjection of such an organization to the authority
of the local courts would afford a convenient medium thru which the host government may interfere
in their operations or even influence or control its policies and decisions of the organization; also,
such subjection to local jurisdiction would impair the capacity of such body to discharge its
responsibilities impartially on behalf of its member-states."

KKMD
"In Public International Law, when a state or international agency wishes to plead sovereign or
diplomatic immunity in a foreign court, it requests the Foreign Office (DFA for PH) of the state where
it is sued to convey to the court that said defendant is entitled to immunity.
"In the Philippines, the practice is for the foreign government or the international organization to
first secure an executive endorsement of its claim of sovereign or diplomatic immunity. But how the
Philippine Foreign Office conveys its endorsement to the courts varies meaning there is no formal
system or procedure on how the claim of diplomatic immunity is conveyed (Usually by the DFA) to
the courts (it can be thru letters, fax, personal meetings etc).
Lasco vs. UN 241 SCRA 681
The UNRFNRE (UN) is involved in a joint project of the Philippine Government and the United
Nations for exploration work in Dinagat Island.
Petitioners are the complainants for illegal dismissal and damages. Private respondent (UN) alleged
courts had no jurisdiction over its personality since it enjoyed diplomatic immunity.
Petitioner argued that the acts of mining exploration and exploitation are outside the official
functions of an international agency protected by diplomatic immunity.
Issue:
WON specialized agencies enjoy diplomatic immunity Yes
Immunity is necessary to assure unimpeded performance of their functions. The purpose is "to
shield the affairs of international organizations, in accordance with international practice, from
political pressure or control by the host country to the prejudice of member States of the
organization, and to ensure the unhampered performance of their functions"
There is no conflict between the constitutional duty of the State to protect the rights of workers and
to promote their welfare, and the grant of immunity to international organizations. Clauses on
jurisdictional immunity are now standard in the charters of the international organizations to
guarantee the smooth discharge of their functions.
UN is not engaged in a commercial venture in the Philippines. Its presence here is by virtue of a
joint project entered into by the Philippine Government and the United Nations for mineral
exploration in Dinagat Island. Its mission is not to exploit our natural resources and gain pecuniarily
thereby but to help improve the quality of life of the people, including that of petitioners.
WHO vs. Aquino 48 SCRA 242
DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY is essentially a political question and courts should refuse to look BEYOND a
determination by the executive branch of the government
o Where diplomatic immunity is recognized and affirmed by the executive branch, it is then
the duty of the courts to accept the claim of immunity upon appropriate suggestion by the
principal law officer of the government (OSG) or other officer under his direction
o Courts may NOT so exercise their jurisdiction by seizure and detention of property, as to
embarrass the executive arm of the government in conducting foreign relations
o Judicial department follows the action of the political branch and will NOT embarrass the
latter by assuming an antagonistic jurisdiction

RA 75 (Oct 21, 46) safeguards the jurisdictional immunity of diplomatic officials

KKMD
o
o

Declares as null and void writs or processes prosecuted whereby an ambassador or public
minister is arrested or his goods or chattels are seized or attached
Makes it a penal offense for every person by whom the same is obtained or prosecuted,
whether as party or as attorney, and every officer concerned in executing it to obtain or
enforce such writ or process

ICMC vs. Calleja, 190 SCRA 130

Labor Unions filed a Petition for Certification Election against ICMC and IRRI, which are, specialized
international organizations.
The issue is whether or not the grant of diplomatic privileges and immunities to ICMC (international
organization accredited by the UN whose purpose is to establish a refugee center in PH for refugees
of Vietnam War) extends to immunity from the application of Philippine labor laws.
YES - The grant of diplomatic privileges and immunities to ICMC extends to immunity from the
application of Philippine labor laws.
There are basically three propositions underlying the grant of international immunities to
international organizations. These principles, contained in the ILO (international Labor Organization)
Memorandum are stated thus:
1) International institutions should have a status which protects them against control or
interference by any one government in the performance of functions for the effective
discharge of which they are responsible to democratically constituted international bodies in
which all the nations concerned are represented;
2) No country should derive any national financial advantage by levying fiscal charges on
common international funds; and
3) The international organization should, as a collectivity of States members, be accorded the
facilities for the conduct of its official business customarily extended to each other by its
individual member States.
The theory behind all three propositions is said to be essentially institutional in character. "It is not
concerned with the status, dignity or privileges of individuals, but with the elements of functional
independence necessary to free international institutions from national control and to enable them
to discharge their responsibilities impartially on behalf of all their members. The raison d'etre for
these immunities is the assurance of unimpeded performance of their functions by the agencies
concerned.
Sps Lacierda vs. Platon, GR No. 157141, Aug 31, 2005
Petitioners were all employees/officers of Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center
(SEAFDEC), an international agency. Respondents are officers, and with the management of
SEAFDEC, Aqua Culture Development (AQC), an international organization composed of
governments of Southeast Asia created by virtue of a treaty of which the Philippines is a signatory.
As an intl org, SEAFDEC is immune from suits, it being clothed with diplomatic immunity, and
enjoys functional independence and freedom from control of the state in whose territory its office is
located.
Petitioners were terminated for cause "on the ground of misrepresentation or false statements with
intent to gain.
Petitioners filed the complaint against respondents and said that there is no diplomatic immunity
because the case they filed is not a suit against the Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center
(SEAFDEC) but against the defendants in their individual and personal capacities who are individual
officers and employees of SEAFDEC for their commission of malicious, oppressive and inequitable

KKMD
actionable acts for which they alone are liable but which they sought to cover up with the pretense
of "official actions"
ISSUE: WON the Courts had jurisdiction over the subject matter of petitioners suit?
HELD: NO. The suit is in reality against SEAFDEC, which has clothed in diplomatic immunity guised
by petitioners to be against respondents in their individual capacities.
What was alleged by petitioners were acts which could only be performed by the defendants in their
official duties/functions as executives or administrators of SEAFDEC, and could not have been done
had they acted in their personal capacities. Accordingly, the suit against respondents is in reality a
suit directed against SEAFDEC. In fact, it can also be observed in the complaint that the reliefs
sought for by the petitioners (reinstatement with back wages etc.) is directed to SEAFDEC and not
to the defendants who cannot perform the same in their personal capacity. If respondents were
sued in their personal capacity as emphatically stressed by petitioners, for tort and damages, they
would under no circumstance, power or authority be able to carry out such primary prayer. Where
lies petitioners logic?