Sei sulla pagina 1di 2

CHAPTER 1 conventions embodying them, for our Constitution has

been deliberately general and extensive in its scope and

is not confined to the recognition of rules and principles of
1. Ware v. Hylton international law as contained in treaties to which our
3 Wall, 199, 228 (US 1796) government may have been or shall be a signatory.
Relation to Municipal Law
4. Co Kim Chan v. Valdez Tan Keh
When the US declared their independence, they were GR No. L-5; Sept. 17, 1945
bound to receive the law of nations in its modern state of Relation to Municipal Law
purity and refinement.
SC rejected the view that General MacArthurs
The law of nations is a part of the law of Great Britain. Proclamation of October 23, 1944 invalidated all judicial
proceedings during the Japanese belligerent occupation
2. Paquete Habana Case of the Philippines because the edict declared null and
175 US 677 void all laws regulations and processes of any other
Relation to Municipal Law government than that of the Commonwealth.

International law is a part of our law and must be Taking into consideration the fact that according to a
ascertained and administered by the courts of justice of well-known principle of international law, all judgments
appropriate jurisdiction as often as questions of rights and judicial proceedings which are not of a political
depending upon it are presented for determination. complexion of the de facto government during the
Japanese military remained so after the occupied territory
3. Kuroda v. Jalandoni had come again into the power of the titular sovereign, it
42 OG 4282 should be presumed that it was not and could not have
Relation to Municipal Law been the intention of General MacArthur, in using the
phrase processes of any other government in said
Petitioner argues that respondent military commission proclamation, to refer to judicial processes, in violation of
has no jurisdiction to try petitioner for acts committed in said principle of international law
violation of the Hague Convention and the Geneva
Convention because the Philippines is not a signatory to 5. The Nereide
the first and signed the second only in 1947. It cannot be 9 Cranch 388 (1815)
denied that the rules and regulations of the Hague and Relation to Municipal Law
Geneva Conventions form part of and are wholly based
on the generally accepted principles of international law. SC of the US held that it was bound by the law of nations,
In fact, these rules and principles were accepted by the which is a part of the law of the land.
two belligerent nations, the United States and Japan, who
were signatories to the two Conventions. Such rules and
principles, therefore, form part of the law of our nation
even if the Philippines was not a signatory to the
6. The Over the Top Philippines at the time. Notwithstanding that in
5 F 2d 838 (D. Conn. 1125) international law treaties and executive agreements are
Relation to Municipal Law equally binding commitments of the contracting states,
the SC held that although the President may, under
SC of the US pronounced that international law is law American constitutional system, enter into executive
only in so far as we adopt it and, like all common or agreements without previous legislative authority, he may
statute law, it bends to the will of Congress. not, by executive agreements, enter into a transaction
which is prohibited by statutes enacted prior thereto. He
7. Triquet v. Bath may not defeat legislative enactments by indirectly
Fenwick, Cases, 31 repealing the same through an executive agreement
Relation to Municipal Law providing for the very act prohibited by said laws. As
regards the question of whether an international
Lord Mansfield held that the law of nations, in its full agreement may be invalidated by the courts, suffice it to
extent, was part of the law of England. say that the Constitution authorizes the nullification of a
treaty not only when it conflicts with the Constitution but
8. Ichong v. Hernandez also when it runs counter to an act of Congress.
GR No. L-7995; May 31, 1957
Constitution v. Treaty
SC rejected the assertion that the Retail Trade
Nationalization Law violated the Treaty of Amity between
the Philippines and China, the United Nations Charter 10. Thirty Hogshead of Sugar v. Boyle
and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 9 Cranch 191, 198
Secondary Sources
But even assuming that the law infringes upon the said
treaty, the treaty is always subject to qualification or Chief Justice John Marshall of the US SC declared that
amendment by a subsequent law, and the same may the decisions of the courts of every country, so far as they
never curtail or restrict the scope of the police power of are founded upon a law common to every country, will be
the State. received, not as authority, but with respect. The decisions
of the courts of every country show how the Law of
9. Gonzalez v. Hechanova Nations, in the given case, is understood in that country,
GR No. L-21897; Oct. 22, 1963 and will be considered in adopting the rule which is to
Constitution v. Treaty prevail in this.

The President of the Philippines had by executive

agreements contracted for the importation of rice from CHAPTER 3
Burma and Vietnam without first securing from the
National Economic Council the certification required by
the law that there was a shortage of the said cereal in the None