Case Concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v.

Thailand)

Facts:

The temple of Preah Vihear is an ancient sanctuary and shrine situated on the borders of Thailand and Cambodia.

Pursuant to convention of 13 February 1904 and the Treaty of 23 March 1907 between France (of which
Cambodia was then a protectorate) and Siam (what was formerly known as Thailand), a Mixed Commission was
established to determine the exact boundary of the two territories of which to be delimited. As part of the
agreement, the frontier would follow a watershed line as to the eastern sector of the area, wherein the Preah
Vihear was located.

However, the maps which were later produced by a French firm, at the request of the Siamese Government,
deviated from the watershed line at Preah Vihear so that the temple was shown as being in Cambodia which,
until 1953, was a part of French Indo-China. This deviation apparently went unnoticed by Thailand. In 1949, the
French Government protested on learning that Thai troops had been stationed at Preah Vihear. No explanation
resulted and Cambodia, having become independent in 1953, instituted the present proceeding before the
International Court of Justice in 1959, asking that it be declared the sovereign of the area in question. Cambodia
presented the Annex 1 map in support of its claim.

Issue:

Whether Cambodia may exercise territorial sovereignty over the Temple of Preah Vihear as represented in a
map submitted as evidence, despite Thailand's lack of formal acceptance of the map as binding.

Held:

Yes.

It was clear from records that the Annex 1 map was communicated to the Siamese Government as purporting
to represent the outcome of the work of the delimitation and there was no reaction on the part of the Siamese
authorities, either then or for many years. With the passage of time that bolstered the strength of historical
claim, it became quite obvious that the temple of Preah-Vihear was acquiesced by Cambodia. Moreover, the
maps were also communicated to the Siamese government officials, some of whom knew of Preah-Vihar. It was
clear that the Siamese authorities accepted the Annex1 map and now they could not plead any error vitiating
the reality of their consent, which was given without proper investigation.

In addition, according to the principle of Estoppel that applies to international law, Thailand, which could have
voiced out its disagreement to the territorial parameters before the Franco-Siamese Conciliation Commission in
1947 in Washington, for some reasons or the other did not raise this issue. Estoppel in international law is the
process by which a nation acquires sovereignty over an area by long possession adverse to the real sovereign.
Pimentel v. Office of the Executive Secretary

Facts:

The Rome Statute established the International Criminal Court which shall have the power to exercise its
jurisdiction over persons for the most serious crimes of international concern and shall be complementary to
the national criminal jurisdictions.

On December 28, 2000, three days before its deadline for signing, the Philippines through its Charge d’ Affairs,
Enrique A. Manalo signed the Statute. By its provision, however, it is requiring that it be ratified by the accepting
states.

Petitioners filed this petition for mandamus to compel the Office of the Executive Secretary and the Department
of Foreign Affairs to transmit the signed copy of the Rome Statute to the Senate of the Philippines for its
concurrence in accordance with Section 21, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution.

The Respondents, on the other hand, argue that they as representative of the Executive Department have no
duty to transmit the Rome Statute to the Senate for concurrence.

Issue:

Whether the Executive Secretary and the Department of Foreign Affairs have a ministerial duty to transmit to
the Senate the copy of the Rome Statute signed by a member of the Philippine Mission to the United Nations
even without the signature of the President.

HELD:

No. The President, being the head of state, is regarded as the sole organ and authority in external relations and
is the county’s sole representative with foreign nations. As the chief architect of foreign policy, the President
acts as the country’s mouthpiece with respect to international affairs. Hence, the President is vested with the
authority to deal with foreign states and governments, extend or withhold recognition, maintain diplomatic
relations, enter into treaties, and otherwise transact the business of foreign relations.

It should be emphasized that under our Constitution, the power to ratify is vested in the President, subject to
the concurrence of the Senate. The role of the Senate, however, is limited only to giving or withholding its
consent, or concurrence, to the ratification. Hence, it is within the authority of the President to refuse to submit
a treaty to the Senate or, having secured its consent for its ratification, refuse to ratify it.

This Court has no jurisdiction over actions seeking to enjoin the President in the performance of his official
duties.