1

G.R. No. 81561

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

- His rights under the constitution while under custodial

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

Velasquez Rodriguez vs Honduras, InterAmerican Court of Human rights

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

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

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

such problems. Since no jus standi before the Court

had been established, it was not for the Court to
pronounce upon any other aspect of the case.
- A state assumes an obligation concerning the
treatment of foreign investments based on general
international law, once the state admits foreign
investments or foreign nationals into its territory. It is
highly imperative to draw a distinction between those
obligations of a state toward the international
community as a whole and those arising from the
field of diplomatic protection. It is only the party to
whom an international obligation is due can bring a
claim if a breach of an obligation that is the subject of
diplomatic protection occurs. State could make claim
when investment by its nationals abroad were
prejudicially affected in violation of their right of State
itself to have its national enjoy certain treatment.
Such right could only result from a treaty or special
agreement.
- General rule: State of the company can seek redress.
- The general principle of law is that: Corporation has
juridical personality distinct from its shareholders
U.S. v Mexico, 4 RIAA (1926) Neer Claim
- Neer contended that Mexican authorities showed an
unwarrantable lack of diligence or an unwarrantable
lack of intelligent investigation in prosecuting the
culprits; and that therefore the Mexican Government
ought to pay to the claimants the said amount.
- Commission accordingly decides that the claim of the
United States is disallowed. The Commission is
mindful that the task of the local Mexican authorities
was hampered by the fact that the only eyewitness of
the murder was unable to furnish them any helpful
information. There might have been reason for the
higher authorities of the State to intervene in the
matter, as they apparently did. But in the view of the
Commission there is a long way between holding that
a more active and more efficient course of procedure
might have been pursued, on the one hand, and
holding that this record presents such lack of
diligence and of intelligent investigation as
constitutes an international delinquency, on the other
hand.
- It is not for an international tribunal such as this
Commission to decide, whether another course of
procedure taken by the local authorities at Guanacevi
might have been more effective. On the contrary, the
grounds of liability limit its inquiry to whether there is
convincing evidence either (1) that the authorities
administering the Mexican law acted in an
outrageous way, in bad faith, in willful neglect of their
duties, or in a pronounced degree of improper action,
or (2) that Mexican law rendered it impossible for
them properly to fulfil their task.
France v Mexico, (1929) Jean-Baptiste Caire
Claim
- Jean-Baptiste Caire, a French national, was unlawfully
shot and killed at an army barracks in Mexico by two
Mexican army officers, a major and a captain aided
by a few privates, after Caire refused a demand by
one of the officers to pay a sum of money.
- Mexico was internationally responsible for the conduct
of the army officers. Under the doctrine of objective
responsibility (state responsibility for the acts of state
officials or state organs even in the absence of fault
on the part of the state), a state is internationally
responsible for acts committed by its officials or
organs outside their competence if the officials or
organs acted at least to all appearances as

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

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

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

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

in its operation. It applies to all public laundries

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

People v Chan Fook 42 Phil 230

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

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

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

Right of the consul to assist an incarcerated

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

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

Conflicts/Contentions: Substantive Aspect

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

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

juridical situation is not altered by the fact that the

concessionary contract was negotiated through the
good offices of the Council of the League of Nations,
acting through its rapporteur. The United Kingdom in
submitting its dispute with Iran to the League Council,
was only exercising its right of diplomatic protection
in favour of one of its nationals. Thus the Court
arrives at the conclusion that it lacks jurisdiction.

Goldberg Case, Germany v Romania, 2 UN Rep

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

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

possible means against any attack. Superior to the

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

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

o
o
o
o

doubtful stipulations should be interpreted in the

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

Bolivar Railway Co. v Ralston, Venezuela Arb, of

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

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

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

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

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

and Regulations covering Land Warfare and therefore

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

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

18

to cooperate with the Committee in good faith so as

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

PBM Emp. Org v PBM Co., Inc., 51 SCRA 189

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

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

government, the right of suffrage, the right to hold

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

HON. ISIDRO CARIO vs. THE COMMISSION ON

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

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

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

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

Security Act of 2007, signed into law on March 6,

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

22

actual controversies involving rights which are

by the desire to coerce the government to give in to
legally demandable and enforceable.
an unlawful demand.
A facial invalidation of a statute is allowed only - In insisting on a facial challenge on the invocation that
in free speech cases, wherein certain rules of
the law penalizes speech, petitioners contend that
constitutional litigation are rightly excepted
the element of unlawful demand in the definition of
Petitioners assail for being intrinsically vague and
terrorism must necessarily be transmitted through
impermissibly broad the definition of the crime of
some form of expression protected by the free
terrorism under
RA
9372
in
that
terms
speech clause.
like widespread and extraordinary fear and panic - The argument does not persuade. What the law seeks
among the populace and coerce the government to
to penalize is conduct, not speech.
give in to an unlawful demand are nebulous, leaving
law enforcement agencies with no standard to
VICTOR ORQUIOLA and HONORATA ORQUIOLA,
measure the prohibited acts.
petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS,
To be sure, the doctrine of vagueness and the doctrine
TANDANG SORA DEVELOPMENT
of overbreadth do not operate on the same plane.
Doctrine: No person shall be deprived of
A
statute
or
act
suffers
from
the
defect
property without due process of law. Failure to
of vagueness when
it
lacks
comprehensible
implead proper parties- in-interest, they cannot
standards that men of common intelligence must
be reached by decision as no man shall be
necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its
affected by any proceeding to which he is a
application. It is repugnant to the Constitution in two
stranger who did not have his day in court. Only
respects: (1) it violates due process for failure to
real parties in interest in an action are bound by
accord persons, especially the parties targeted by it,
the judgment
fair notice of the conduct to avoid; and (2) it leaves
Facts:
law enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying out its Petition for review seeking the reversal of the CA
provisions and becomes an arbitrary flexing of the
decision which dismissed the petition to prohibit
Government
muscle. Theoverbreadth doctrine,
Judge Vivencio Baclig of the RTC from issuing a writ
meanwhile, decrees that a governmental purpose to
of demolition against petitioners, and the sheriff and
control or prevent activities constitutionally subject
deputy sheriff from implementing an alias writ of
to state regulations may not be achieved by means
execution.
which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby Pura Kalaw Ledesma was the registered owner of
invade the area of protected freedoms.
Lot 689 in Tandang Sora, Quezon City which is
As distinguished from the vagueness doctrine, the
adjacent to certain portions of Lot 707 of the Piedad
overbreadth doctrine assumes that individuals will
Estates, registered in the name of Herminigilda
understand what a statute prohibits and will
Pedro
accordingly refrain from that behavior, even though Herminigilda sold the lots to Mariano Lising,
some of it is protected.
registered them in the name of M.B. Lising Realty
A facial challenge is likewise different from an asand subdivided them into smaller lots. Petitioners,
applied challenge.
spouses Victor and Honorata Orquiola, purchased a
Distinguished from an as-applied challenge which
portion of this Lot 707-A-2
considers only extant facts affecting real litigants,
In 1969, Pura Kalaw Ledesma filed Civil Case against
a facial invalidation is an examination of the entire
Herminigilda Pedro and Mariano Lising for allegedly
law, pinpointing its flaws and defects, not only on
encroaching upon Lot 689. During the pendency of
the basis of its actual operation to the parties, but
the action, Tandang Sora Development Corporation
also on the assumption or prediction that its very
replaced Pura Kalaw Ledesma as plaintiff by virtue
existence may cause others not before the court to
of an assignment of Lot 689 Trial continued for three
refrain from constitutionally protected speech or
decades.
activities.

On August 21, 1991, the trial court finally adjudged

Since a penal statute may only be assailed for
defendants Pedro and Lising jointly and severally
being vague as applied to petitioners, a limited
liable for encroaching on plaintiffs land and ordered
vagueness analysis of the definition of terrorism
to remove the house they constructed on the land
in RA 9372 is legally impermissible absent
they were occupying.
an actual or imminent charge against them

On April 2, 1998, petitioners received a Special

While Estrada did not apply the overbreadth doctrine,
Order to remove, at their expense, all constructions,
it did not preclude the operation of the vagueness
including barbed wires and fences, which
test on the Anti-Plunder Law as applied to the therein
defendants constructed on plaintiffs property, within
petitioner, finding, however, that there was no basis
fifteen (15) days from notice otherwise, this Court
to review the law on its face and in its entirety. It
will issue a writ of demolition against them.
stressed that statutes found vague as a matter of

Petitioners filed with the CA a petition for prohibition

due process typically are invalidated only 'as applied'
with prayer for a restraining order and preliminary
to a particular defendant.
injunction alleging that they bought the subject
There is no merit in the claim that RA 9372
parcel of land in good faith and for value, hence,
regulates speech so as to permit a facial
they were parties in interest. Since they were not
analysis of its validity
impleaded in Civil Case, the writ of demolition
From the definition of the crime of terrorism in the
issued in connection therewith cannot be enforced
earlier cited Section 3 of RA 9372, the following
against them because to do so would amount to
elements may be culled: (1) the offender commits an
deprivation of property without due process of law.
act punishable under any of the cited provisions of
the Revised Penal Code, or under any of the CA dismissed the petition as well as the motion for
enumerated special penal laws; (2) the commission
reconsideration, ruling that petitioners were
of the predicate crime sows and creates a condition
considered privies who derived their rights from
of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic
Lising by virtue of the sale and could be reached by
among the populace; and (3) the offender is actuated
the execution order in Civil Case

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

owner of property which is the Philippine Realty

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

Govt. of HK v Olalia, GR 153875, 19 Apr 2007

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

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

was actually received by Ms. Catolico (envelop

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

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

25

in WATEROUS possession were not, submitted. Hence

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

26

unverified reports from the PNP data base

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

Whether or not resort to petition for writ of

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

MMDA vs CONCERNED RESIDENTS OF MANILA

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

27

carry out such duties, on the other, are two different

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