1) PHARMACEUTICAL AND HEALTH CARE ASSOC V. DUQUE behavior.
behavior. Respondents have not presented any evidence to prove that the WHA Resolutions,
FACTS: On October 28, 1986, Executive Order No. 51 (Milk Code) was issued by President
Corazon Aquino by virtue of the legislative powers granted to the president under the
Freedom Constitution. The Milk Code states that the law seeks to give effect to Article 112 of
the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes (ICMBS), a code adopted by
the World Health Assembly (WHA) in 1981. From 1982 to 2006, the WHA adopted several
Resolutions to the effect that breastfeeding should be supported, promoted and protected,
hence, it should be ensured that nutrition and health claims are not permitted for breastmilk
substitutes. the Philippines ratified the International Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Article 24 of said instrument provides that State Parties should take appropriate measures to
diminish infant and child mortality, and ensure that all segments of society, specially parents
and children, are informed of the advantages of breastfeeding. the DOH issued RIRR which
was to take effect on July 7, 2006. a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court, seeking to nullify Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations of The “Milk Code,”
assailing that the RIRR was going beyond the provisions of the Milk Code, thereby amending
and expanding the coverage of said law.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondents officers of the DOH acted without or in excess of
jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and
in violation of the provisions of the Constitution in promulgating the RIRR
RULING:
The Supreme Court PARTIALLY GRANTED the petition. Sections 4(f), 11 and 46 of
Administrative Order No. 2006-0012 dated May 12, 2006 are declared NULL and VOID for
being ultra vires. The Department of Health and respondents are PROHIBITED from
implementing said provisions. The international instruments pointed out by the respondents,
UNRC, ICESR, CEDAW, are deemed part of the law of the land and therefore the DOH may
implement them through the RIRR. Customary international law is deemed incorporated into
our domestic system. Custom or customary international law means “a general and
consistent practice of states followed by them from a sense of legal obligation (opinio juris).
Under the 1987 Constitution, international law can become part of the sphere of domestic
law either by transformation or incorporation. The transformation method requires that an
international law be transformed into a domestic law through a constitutional mechanism
such as local legislation. “Generally accepted principles of international law” refers to norms
of general or customary international law which are binding on all states. The Milk Code is a
verbatim reproduction of the (ICMBS), but it did not prohibit advertising or other forms of
promotion to the general public of products. Instead, the Milk Code expressly provides that
advertising, promotion, or other marketing materials may be allowed if such materials are
duly authorized and approved by the Inter-Agency Committee (IAC). In this regard, the WHA
Resolutions adopting the ICMBS are merely recommendatory and legally non-binding. This
may constitute “soft law” or non-binding norms, principles and practices that influence state
although signed by most of the member states, were in fact enforced or practiced by at least
a majority of the member states and obligatory in nature. The provisions of the WHA
Resolutions cannot be considered as part of the law of the land that can be implemented by
executive agencies without the need of a law enacted by the legislature. On the other hand,
the petitioners also failed to explain and prove by competent evidence just exactly how such
protective regulation would result in the restraint of trade. Since all the regulatory provisions
under the Milk Code apply equally to both manufacturers and distributors, the Court sees no
harm in the RIRR. Except Sections 4(f), 11 and 46, the rest of the provisions of the RIRR are in
consonance with the objective, purpose and intent of the Milk Code.
2) GONZALES V. HECHANOVA
FACTS:
Exec. Secretary Hechanova authorised the importation of foreign rice to be purchased from
private sources. Gonzales filed a petition opposing the said implementation because RA No.
3542 which allegedly repeals or amends RA No. 2207, prohibits the importation of rice and
corn "by the Rice and Corn Administration or any other government agency."
Respondents alleged that the importation permitted in RA 2207 is to be authorized by the
President of the Philippines, and by or on behalf of the Government of the Philippines. They
add that after enjoining the Rice and Corn administration and any other government agency
from importing rice and corn, S. 10 of RA 3542 indicates that only private parties may import
rice under its provisions. They contended that the government has already constitute valid
executive agreements with Vietnam and Burma, that in case of conflict between RA 2207 and
3542, the latter should prevail and the conflict be resolved under the American
jurisprudence.
ISSUE:
W/N the executive agreements may be validated in our courts.
RULING:
No. The Court is not satisfied that the status of said tracts as alleged executive agreements
has been sufficiently established. Even assuming that said contracts may properly considered
as executive agreements, the same are unlawful, as well as null and void, from a
constitutional viewpoint, said agreements being inconsistent with the provisions of Republic
Acts Nos. 2207 and 3452. Although the President may, under the American constitutional
system enter into executive agreements without previous legislative authority, he may not,
by executive agreement, enter into a transaction which is prohibited by statutes enacted
prior thereto.
Under the Constitution, the main function of the Executive is to enforce laws enacted by
Congress. He may not interfere in the performance of the legislative powers of the latter,
except in the exercise of his veto power. He may not defeat legislative enactments that have
acquired the status of law, by indirectly repealing the same through an executive agreement
providing for the performance of the very act prohibited by said laws.
3) TANADA V. ANGARA
Facts: This is a case petition by Sen. Wigberto Tanada, together with other lawmakers,
taxpayers, and various NGO’s to nullify the Philippine ratification of the World Trade
Organization (WTO) Agreement.
Petitioners believe that this will be detrimental to the growth of our National Economy and
against to the “Filipino First” policy. The WTO opens access to foreign markets, especially its
major trading partners, through the reduction of tariffs on its exports, particularly
agricultural and industrial products. Thus, provides new opportunities for the service sector
cost and uncertainty associated with exporting and more investment in the country. These
are the predicted benefits as reflected in the agreement and as viewed by the signatory
Senators, a “free market” espoused by WTO.
Petitioners also contends that it is in conflict with the provisions of our constitution, since the
said Agreement is an assault on the sovereign powers of the Philippines because it meant
that Congress could not pass legislation that would be good for national interest and general
welfare if such legislation would not conform to the WTO Agreement.
Issues:
Whether or not the petition present a justiciable controversy.
Whether or not the provisions of the ‘Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization
and the Agreements and Associated Legal Instruments included in Annexes one (1), two (2)
and three (3) of that agreement’ cited by petitioners directly contravene or undermine the
letter, spirit and intent of Section 19, Article II and Sections 10 and 12, Article XII of the 1987
Constitution.
Whether or not certain provisions of the Agreement unduly limit, restrict or impair the
exercise of legislative power by Congress.
Whether or not certain provisions of the Agreement impair the exercise of judicial power by
this Honorable Court in promulgating the rules of evidence.
Whether or not the concurrence of the Senate ‘in the ratification by the President of the
Philippines of the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization’ implied rejection of
the treaty embodied in the Final Act.
Discussions:
1987 Constitution states that Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to
settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable,
and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government.
Although the Constitution mandates to develop a self-reliant and independent national
economy controlled by Filipinos, does not necessarily rule out the entry of foreign
investments, goods and services. It contemplates neither “economic seclusion” nor
“mendicancy in the international community.” The WTO itself has some built-in advantages
to protect weak and developing economies, which comprise the vast majority of its
members. Unlike in the UN where major states have permanent seats and veto powers in the
Security Council, in the WTO, decisions are made on the basis of sovereign equality, with
each member’s vote equal in weight to that of any other. Hence, poor countries can protect
their common interests more effectively through the WTO than through one-on-one
negotiations with developed countries. Within the WTO, developing countries can form
powerful blocs to push their economic agenda more decisively than outside the Organization.
Which is not merely a matter of practical alliances but a negotiating strategy rooted in law.
Thus, the basic principles underlying the WTO Agreement recognize the need of developing
countries like the Philippines to “share in the growth in international trade commensurate
with the needs of their economic development.”
In its Declaration of Principles and State Policies, the Constitution “adopts the generally
accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land, and adheres to the
policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation and amity, with all nations. By the
doctrine of incorporation, the country is bound by generally accepted principles of
international law, which are considered to be automatically part of our own laws. A state
which has contracted valid international obligations is bound to make in its legislations such
modifications as may be necessary to ensure the fulfillment of the obligations undertaken.
Paragraph 1, Article 34 of the General Provisions and Basic Principles of the Agreement on
Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) may intrudes on the power of
the Supreme Court to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice and procedures. With
regard to Infringement of a design patent, WTO members shall be free to determine the
appropriate method of implementing the provisions of TRIPS within their own internal
systems and processes.
The alleged impairment of sovereignty in the exercise of legislative and judicial powers is
balanced by the adoption of the generally accepted principles of international law as part of
the law of the land and the adherence of the Constitution to the policy of cooperation and
amity with all nations. The Senate, after deliberation and voting, voluntarily and
overwhelmingly gave its consent to the WTO Agreement thereby making it “a part of the law
of the land” is a legitimate exercise of its sovereign duty and power.
Rulings:
In seeking to nullify an act of the Philippine Senate on the ground that it contravenes the
Constitution, the petition no doubt raises a justiciable controversy. Where an action of the
legislative branch is seriously alleged to have infringed the Constitution, it becomes not only
the right but in fact the duty of the judiciary to settle the dispute. As explained by former
Chief Justice Roberto Concepcion, “the judiciary is the final arbiter on the question of
whether or not a branch of government or any of its officials has acted without jurisdiction or
in excess of jurisdiction or so capriciously as to constitute an abuse of discretion amounting
to excess of jurisdiction. This is not only a judicial power but a duty to pass judgment on
matters of this nature.”
While the Constitution indeed mandates a bias in favor of Filipino goods, services, labor and
enterprises, at the same time, it recognizes the need for business exchange with the rest of
the world on the bases of equality and reciprocity and limits protection of Filipino enterprises
only against foreign competition and trade practices that are unfair. In other words, the
Constitution did not intend to pursue an isolationist policy. It did not shut out foreign
investments, goods and services in the development of the Philippine economy. While the
Constitution does not encourage the unlimited entry of foreign goods, services and
investments into the country, it does not prohibit them either. In fact, it allows an exchange
on the basis of equality and reciprocity, frowning only on foreign competition that is unfair.
By their inherent nature, treaties really limit or restrict the absoluteness of sovereignty. By
their voluntary act, nations may surrender some aspects of their state power in exchange for
greater benefits granted by or derived from a convention or pact. After all, states, like
individuals, live with coequals, and in pursuit of mutually covenanted objectives and benefits,
they also commonly agree to limit the exercise of their otherwise absolute rights. As shown
by the foregoing treaties Philippines has entered, a portion of sovereignty may be waived
without violating the Constitution, based on the rationale that the Philippines “adopts the
generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land and adheres
to the policy of cooperation and amity with all nations.”
The provision in Article 34 of WTO agreement does not contain an unreasonable burden,
consistent as it is with due process and the concept of adversarial dispute settlement
inherent in our judicial system.
The assailed Senate Resolution No. 97 expressed concurrence in exactly what the Final Act
required from its signatories, namely, concurrence of the Senate in the WTO Agreement.
Moreover, the Senate was well-aware of what it was concurring in as shown by the
members’ deliberation on August 25, 1994. After reading the letter of President Ramos dated
August 11, 1994, the senators of the Republic minutely dissected what the Senate was
concurring in.
4) KURODA V. JALANDONI
Facts:
1. Petitioner Sheginori Kuroda was the former Lt. General of the Japanese Army and
commanding general of the Japanese forces during the occupation (WWII) in the country. He
was tried before the Philippine Military Commission for War Crimes and other atrocities
committed against military and civilians. The military commission was establish under
Executive Order 68.
2. Petitioner assails the validity of EO 68 arguing it is unconstitutional and hence the military
commission did not have the jurisdiction to try him on the following grounds:
- that the Philippines is not a signatory to the Hague Convention (War Crimes)
3. Petitioner likewise assails that the US is not a party of interest in the case hence the 2 US
prosecutors cannot practice law in the Philippines.
Issue: Whether or not EO 68 is constitutional thus the military tribunal jurisdiction is valid
HELD:
1. EO 68 is constitutional hence the tribunal has jurisdiction to try Kuroda. EO 68 was enacted
by the President and was in accordance with Sec. 3, Art. 2 of Constitution which renounces
war as an instrument of national policy. Hence it is in accordance with generally accepted
principles of international law including the Hague Convention and Geneva Convention, and
other international jurisprudence established by the UN, including the principle that all
persons (military or civilian) guilty of plan, preparing, waging a war of aggression and other
offenses in violation of laws and customs of war. The Philippines may not be a signatory to
the 2 conventions at that time but the rules and regulations of both are wholly based on the
generally accepted principles of international law. They were accepted even by the 2
belligerent nations (US and Japan)
2. As to the participation of the 2 US prosecutors in the case, the US is a party of interest
because its country and people have greatly aggrieved by the crimes which petitioner was
being charged of.
3. Moreover, the Phil. Military Commission is a special military tribunal and rules as to parties
and representation are not governed by the rules of court but the provision of this special
law.
5) REPUBLIC V. SANDIGANBAYAN
The PCGG cannot vote sequestered shares to elect the ETPI Board of Directors or to amend
the Articles of Incorporation for the purpose of increasing the authorized capital stock unless
there is a prima facie evidence showing that said shares are ill-gotten and there is an
imminent danger of dissipation.
Two sets of board and officers of Eastern Telecommunications, Philippines, Inc. (ETPI) were
elected, one by the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) and the other by
the registered ETPI stockholders.Victor Africa, a stockholder of ETPI filed a petition for
Certiorari before the Sandiganbayan alleging that the PCGG had been “illegally exercising the
rights of stockholders of ETPI,” in the election of the members of the board of directors. The
Sandiganbayan ruled that only the registered owners, their duly authorized representatives
or their proxies may vote their corresponding shares. The PCGG filed a petition for certiorari,
mandamus and prohibition before the Court which was granted. The Court referred the
PCGG’s petition to hold the special stockholders’ meeting to the Sandiganbayan for reception
of evidence and resolution. The Sandiganbayan granted the PCGG “authority to cause the
holding of a special stockholders’ meeting of ETPI and held that there was an urgent
necessity to increase ETPI’s authorized capital stock; there existed a prima facie factual
foundation for the issuance of the writ of sequestration covering the Class “A” shares of
stock; and the PCGG was entitled to vote the sequestered shares of stock. The PCGG-
controlled ETPI board of directors held a meeting and the increase in ETPI’s authorized
capital stock from P250 Million to P2.6 Billion was “unanimously approved”. Africa filed a
motion to nullify the stockholders meeting, contending that only the Court, and not the
Sandiganbayan, has the power to authorize the PCGG to call a stockholders meeting and vote
the sequestered shares. The Sandiganbayan denied the motions for reconsideration of
prompting Africa to file before the Court a second petition, challenging the Sandiganbayan
Resolutions authorizing the holding of a stockholders meeting and the one denying the
motion for reconsideration.
ISSUES: 1. Whether or not the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in ordering the
holding of a stockholders meeting to elect the ETPI board of directors without first setting in
place, through the amendment of the articles of incorporation and the by-laws of ETPI 2.
Whether the PCGG can vote the sequestered ETPI Class “A” shares in the stockholders
meeting for the election of the board of directors.
HELD: First Issue :
On the PCGG’s imputation of grave abuse of discretion upon the Sandiganbayan for ordering
the holding of a stockholders meeting to elect the ETPI board of directors without first
setting in place, through the amendment of the articles of incorporation and the by-laws of
ETPI, the safeguards prescribed in Cojuangco, Jr. v. Roxas. The Court laid down those
safeguards because of the obvious need to reconcile the rights of the stockholder whose
shares have been sequestered and the duty of the conservator to preserve what could be ill-
gotten wealth. There is nothing in the Cojuangco case that would suggest that the above
measures should be incorporated in the articles and by-laws before a stockholders meeting
for the election of the board of directors is held. The PCGG nonetheless insists that those
measures should be written in the articles and by-laws before such meeting, “otherwise, the
{Marcos] cronies will elect themselves or their representatives, control the corporation, and
for an appreciable period of time, have every opportunity to disburse funds, destroy or alter
corporate records, and dissipate assets.” That could be a possibility, but the peculiar
circumstances of the case require that the election of the board of directors first be held
before the articles of incorporation are amended. Section 16 of the Corporation Code
requires the majority vote of the board of directors to amend the articles of incorporation. At
the time Africa filed his motion for the holding of the annual stockholders meeting, there
were two sets of ETPI directors, one controlled by the PCGG and the other by the registered
stockholders. Which of them is the legitimate board of directors? Which of them may
rightfully vote to amend the articles of incorporation and integrate the safeguards laid down
in Cojuangco? It is essential, therefore, to cure the aberration of two boards of directors
sitting in a single corporation before the articles of incorporation are amended to set in place
the Cojuangco safeguards. The danger of the so-called Marcos cronies taking control of the
corporation and dissipating its assets is, of course, a legitimate concern of the PCGG, charged
as it is with the duties of a conservator. Nevertheless, such danger may be averted by the
“substantially contemporaneous” amendment of the articles after the election of the board.
Second Issue :
The principle laid down in Baseco vs. PCGG was further enhanced in the subsequent cases of
Cojuangco v. Calpo and Presidential Commission on Good Government v. Cojuangco, Jr.,
where the Court developed a “two-tiered” test in determining whether the PCGG may vote
sequestered shares. The issue of whether PCGG may vote the sequestered shares in SMC
necessitates a determination of at least two factual matters: a.) whether there is prima facie
evidence showing that the said shares are ill-gotten and thus belong to the state; and b.)
whether there is an immediate danger of dissipation thus necessitating their continued
sequestration and voting by the PCGG while the main issue pends with the Sandiganbayan.
The two-tiered test, however, does not apply in cases involving funds of “public character.”
In such cases, the government is granted the authority to vote said shares, namely: (1)
Where government shares are taken over by private persons or entities who/which
registered them in their own names, and (2) Where the capitalization or shares that were
acquired with public funds somehow landed in private hands. In short, when sequestered
shares registered in the names of private individuals or entities are alleged to have been
acquired with ill-gotten wealth, then the two-tiered test is applied. However, when the
sequestered shares in the name of private individuals or entities are shown, prima facie, to
have been (1) originally government shares, or (2) purchased with public funds or those
affected with public interest, then the two-tiered test does not apply. The rule in the
jurisdiction is, therefore, clear. The PCGG cannot perform acts of strict ownership of
sequestered property. It is a mere conservator. It may not vote the shares in a corporation
and elect members of the board of directors. The only conceivable exception is in a case of a
takeover of a business belonging to the government or whose capitalization comes from
public funds, but which landed in private hands as in BASECO. In short, the Sandiganbayan
held that the public character exception does not apply, in which case it should have
proceeded to apply the two-tiered test. This it failed to do. The questions thus remain if
there is prima facie evidence showing that the subject shares are ill- gotten and if there is
imminent danger of dissipation. The Court is not, however, a trier of facts, hence, it is not in a
position to rule on the correctness of the PCGG’s contention. Consequently, the issue must
be remanded to the Sandiganbayan for resolution.
6) AUGUSTIN V. EDU
This case is a petition assailing the validity or the constitutionality of a Letter of Instruction
No. 229, issued by President Ferdinand E. Marcos, requiring all vehicle owners, users or
drivers to procure early warning devices to be installed a distance away from such vehicle
when it stalls or is disabled. In compliance with such letter of instruction, the Commissioner
of the Land Transportation Office issued Administrative Order No. 1 directing the compliance
thereof.
This petition alleges that such letter of instruction and subsequent administrative order are
unlawful and unconstitutional as it violates the provisions on due process, equal protection
of the law and undue delegation of police power.
Issue
Whether or not the Letter of Instruction No. 229 and the subsequent Administrative Order
issued is unconstitutional
Ruling
The Supreme Court ruled for the dismissal of the petition. The statutes in question are
deemed not unconstitutional. These were definitely in the exercise of police power as such
was established to promote public welfare and public safety. In fact, the letter of instruction
is based on the constitutional provision of adopting to the generally accepted principles of
international law as part of the law of the land. The letter of instruction mentions, as its
premise and basis, the resolutions of the 1968 Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals
and the discussions on traffic safety by the United Nations - that such letter was issued in
consideration of a growing number of road accidents due to stalled or parked vehicles on the
streets and highways.
NOTES:
1) PHARMACEUTICAL AND HEALTH CARE ASSOC V. DUQUE
AO 2006-0012-Revised IRR of EO 51- MILK CODE
President Aquino
ART 11 of the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes (ICMBS) a code
adopted by the World Health Assembly (WHA)-breastfeeding should be supported,
promoted and protected, hence, it should be ensured that nutrition and health claims are
not permitted for breastmilk substitutes.
International Convention on the Rights of the Child ART 24-take appropriate measures to
diminsih infant and child mortality, and ensure that all segments of society, specially parents
and children, are informed of the advantages of breastfeeding.
A. PETITIONER'S STANDING
An association has standing to file suit for its workers despite its lack of direct interest if its
members are affected by the action.
B. CONSTITUTIONALITY of the RIRR
1) Pertinent International instruments adverted to by respondents are NOT part of the law of
the land.
Only ICBMS and various WHA Resolutions contain specific provisions regarding the use or
marketing of breastmilk substitutes.
-TRANSFORMATION METHOD- international law be transformed into a domestic law through
LOCAL LEGISLATION
ART 7 SEC 21 of the CONSTI- no treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective
unless concurred in by at least 2/3 of all the members of the Senate.
*The ICBMS and WHA resolutions are NOT TREATIES as they have not been concurred by at
least 2/3
-INCORPORATION METHOD- mere CONSTITUTIONAL DECLARATION, international law is
deemed to have the force of domestic law
ART 2 SEC 2 of the CONSTI- ... adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as
part of the law of the land...
GENERALLY ACCEPTED PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW- norms of general or customary
international law which are binding on all states
a) renunciation of war as an instrument if national policy
b) principle of sovereign immunity
c) person's right to life, liberty and due process
d) pacta sunt servanda
"SOFT LAW"- non-binding norms, principles and practices that influences state behavior.
Recommendations of WHA do not come into force for members.
Respondents have not presented any evidence to prove that the WHA Resolutions, although
signed by most of the member states, were in fact enforced or practiced by at least a
majority of the member states
2. DOH may NOT implement the provisions of the WHA Resolutions by virtue of its powers
and functions under the Revised Administrative Code even in the absence of a domestic law.
-SEC 3 CHAP 1 TITLE 9 of RAC- DOH shall define the national health policy and issue orders
and regulations concerning the implementation of established health policies.
-Nowhere in AO 2005-0014 is it declared that as part of such health policy, the advertisement
or promotion of breastmilk substitues should be absolutely prohibited.
-The total ban policy could be implemented only PURSUANT TO A LAW amending the Milk
Code
- Only the provisions of the Milk Code, but not those of the subsequent WHA Resolutions,
can be validly implemented by the DOH through the RIRR.
3. Provisions of the RIRR are in accordance with those of the Milk Code.
1) Petition is mistaken in its claim that the Milk Code's COVERAGE is limited only to children
0-12 months old.
The coverage of the Milk Code is NOT dependent on the age of the child but on the KIND OF
PRODUCT being marketed to the public.
2) It is also incorrect for petitioner to say that the RIRR, unlike the Milk Code, does not
recognize that BREASTMILK SUBSTITUTES may be a proper and possible substitute for
breastmilk.
SEC 7 of the RIRR- when medically indicated and only when necessary, the use of breastmilk
substitutes is proper if based on complete and updated information.
3) Milk Code specifically DELEGATED to the Ministry of Health the power to ensure that there
is adequate, consistent and objective information on breastfeeding and use of breastmilk
substitutes, supplemets and related products; and the POWER TO CONTROL such
information but it is NOT ABSOLUTE. It does not encompass the power to absolutely prohibit
the advertising, marketing, and promotion of breastmilk substitutes.
-SEC 26(c) of the RIRR which requires containers and labels to state that the product offered
is not a substitute for breastmilk, is a reasonable means of enforcingg SEC 8(b) of the Milk
Code and deterring circumvention of the protection and promotion of breastfeeding as
embodies in SEC 2 of the Milk Code.
-SEC 26 (f) of the RIRR is an equally reasonable labelling requirement. It implements SEC 5 (b)
of the Milk Code.
* Thus, the DOH has significant respnsibility to translate into operational terms the standards
set forth in SEC 5, 8 and 10 of the Milk Code by which the INTER-AGENCY COMMITTEE shall
scree advertising, promotional or other marketing materials.
4) With regard to ACTIVITIES for DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION to health professionals,
the Court also finds that there is NO INCONSISTENCY between the provisions of the Milk
Code and RIRR. It is however RESTRICTED to SCIENTIFIC and FACTUAL MATTERS.
5) The RIRR's prohibition on milk companies' participation in any policymaking body in
relation to the advancement
SEC 22 of the RIRR does not pertain to research assistance to or the continuing education of
health professionals; rather, it deals with breastfeeding promotion and education for women
and children.
-Research assistance for health workers and researchers may be allowed upon approval of an
ethics committee and with certain disclosure requirments imposed on the milk company and
on the recepient of the research award.
6) DOH is not mandated by the Milk Code to accept donations
ULTRA VIRES-7) SEC 46 Neither the Milk Code nor the RAC grants the DOH the authority to fix
or impose administrative fines. Thus, without any express grant of power to fix or impose
such fines, the DOH cannot provide for those fines in the RIRR. Said provision is NULL and
VOID.
8) SEC 57 of the RIRR does not provide for the repeal of laws but only orders, issuances and
rules and regulations. Prior issuances of administrative agencies that are inconsistent
therwirh are declared repealed or modified.
PARTIALLY GRANTED. SEC 4 (f),11 and 46 of the AO are NULL and VOID for being ULTRA VIRES
2) Ramon GONZALES V. Executive Secretary Rufino HECHANOVA
(Pres. Diosdado Macapagal)
PETITIONER- rice planter, president of the iloilo Palay and Corn Planters Association
RESPONDENT- authorized the IMPORTATION of 67,000 tons of FOREIGN RICE
RA 3452- prohibits the importation of rice and corn by the Rice and Corn Administration or
any other government agency.
A. SUFFICIENCY OF PETITIONER'S INTEREST
SEC 1 RA 3452- the policy of the Government is to engage in the purchase of these basic
foods directly from those tenants, farmers, growers, procuders and landowners in the
Philippines.
B. EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
not applicable where the question in dispute is: PURELY a LEGAL one, or where the
controverted act is PATENTLY ILLEGAL or was performed without jurisdiction or in excess of
jurisdiction ...
C. MERITS OF PETITIONER'S CAUSE OF ACTION
-RA 2207 pertain to ALL IMPORTATIOS of rice and corn into the Philippines.
- The DND and the AFP and each and every officer and employee of our Government are
government agencies/agents.
-CA 138- preference shall be given to materials produced in the Philippines
- The attempt to justify the proposed importation by invoking reasons of NATIONAL
SECURITY- predicated upon the worsening situation in Laos and Vietnam and the recent
tension created by the Malaysia problem- and the alleged powers of the President as
COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF of all armed forced in the Philippines, OVERLOOKS the fact that the
protection of local planters of rice and corn in a manner that would foster and accelerate
self-sufficiency in the local production of said commodities constitutes a factor that is vital to
our ability to meet a possible national emergency.
- The respondents have expressly affirmed again and again that there is NO RICE SHORTAGE.
And the importation is avaowedly for STOCKPILE of the ARMY not the civilian population.
D. CONTRACTS WITH VIETNAM AND BURMA
RESP: The Philippines has already entered into 2 contracts for the purchase of the price- in
Vietnam and in Burma; that these contracts constitute VALID EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS under
INTERNATIONAL LAW.
1) Although the President may, under the American constitutional system, enter into
executive agreements without previous legislative authority, he may NOT, by executive
agreement, enter into a transaction which is PROHIBITED by statutes enacted prior thereto.
2) That the latest in point of time shall prevail is NOT APPLICABLE- Respondents admit that
the contract adverted to are NOT treaties.
3) Our Constitution authorizes the NULLIFICATION of a TREATY, not onlu when it conflicts
with the fundamental law, but also when it RUNS COUNTER TO AN ACT OF CONGRESS
4) The alleged consummation of the contracts does not render this case academic- RA 2207
enjoins our Government not from entering contracts but from IMPORTING RICE
5) A judicial declaration of illegality of the proposed importation would NOT compel our
Government to default in the performance of such obligations as it may have contracted with
the sellers because it MAY STILL BE LEGALIZED by complying with the provisions of the
aformentioned laws.
E. THE WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Majority favors the negative view in enjoining the respondents from implementing the
proposed importation- Injunction CANNOT BE GRANTED.
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered declaring that repsondent Exec Sec had and has
NO POWER TO AUTHORIZE THE IMPORTATION IN QUESTION- exceeded jurisidiction- for lack
of the requisite majority the injunction is denied.\
3) TANADA V. ANGARA
(Pres. Fidel Ramos)
World Bank
Monetary Fund
International Trade Organization
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade- collection of treaties governing access to the
economies of treaty adherents with NO INSTITUTIONALIZED BODY administering the
agreements or dependable system of dispute settlement.
WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION- Kennedy Round, Tokyo Round and Uruguay Round
- The principles in ART 2 are NOT INTENDED to be SELF-EXECUTING PRINCIPLES ready for
enforcement through the courts. They are used by the judiciary as AIDS or as GUIDES in the
exercise of its power of judicial review, and by the legislature in its enactment of laws.
- Though the Constitution indeed mandates a bias in favor Filipino oods services, labor and
enterprises, at the same time, it RECOGNIZES THE NEED FOR BUSINESS EXCHANGE with the
rest of the world on the bases of equality and reciprocity and limits protection of Filipino
enterprises only against foreign competition and trade practices that are UNFAIR.
- The constitutional policy of a self-reliant and independent national economy does not
necessarily rule out the entry, of foreign investments, goods and services. It contemplates
neither economic seclusion nor mendicancy in the international community.
- Sovereingnty is subject to restrictions and limitations. By the doctrine of INCORPORATION,
the country is bound by generally accepted principles of international law, which are
considered to be automatically part of our own laws. PACTA SUNT SERVANDA- international
agreements must be performed in GOOD FAITH.
- concept of sovereignty as AUTO-LIMITATION- ART 2 UN CHARTER- all members shall give
the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present
Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the UN is taking
preventive or enforcement action.
PETITION DISMISSED.
4) SHIGENORI KURODA V.. MAJOR GENERAL RAFAEL JALANDONI
(Pres. Elpidio Quirino
ILLEGALITY OF EO 68
PET: former Lieutenant General of the Japanese Imperail Army- disregarded and failed to
discharge his duties as such commander to control the operations of members of his
command, permitting them to commit brutal atrocities and other HIGH CRIMES against
noncombatant civilians and prisoners of the Imperial Japanese Forces, in violation of the
LAWS and CUSTOMS OF WAR
1) EO 68 is illegal on the groundl that it violates both our CONSTITUTIONAL LAWS and LOCAL
LAWS. The Philippines is NOT a SIGNATORY nor and ADHERENT to the HAGUE CONVENTION
ON RULES AND REGULATIONS COVERING LAND WARFARE.
a) Generally accepted principle of International Law in our Constitution (ART 2 SEC 3)
b) The President acting as a Commander in chief
c) Philippines was under the sovereignty of the US and thus we were eqqually bound
together with the US and JAPAN, to the rights and obligtions contained in the treaties
between the belligerent countries.
2) The participation in the prosecution of attorneys Melville Hussey and Robert Port, who are
not attorneys authorized by the SC to practice law in the Philippines, is a diminution of our
personality as an independent state
MILITARY COMMISSION is a special military tribunal governed by a SPECIAL LAW and NOT by
the Rules of Court. No requirement that counsel must be qualified to practice law in the
Philiippines in EO 68
In the spirit of comity US must be allowed representation in said trials.
3) The attorneys have no personality as prosecutors, the US not being a party in interest in
the case.
US and its people have been equally if not more greatly aggrieved by the crimes with which
petitioner stands charged before Military commission.
PETITION DENIED. The Court will NOT INTERFERE with the due process of such Military
Commission
5) REPUBLIC V. SANDIGANBAYAN
AFP ANTI-GRAFT BOARD
Major General Josephus Ramas and alleged mistress Elizabeth Dimaano
PCGG does not have jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute military officers by reason of
mere position held without showing that they are subordinates of former President Marcos
The Sandiganbyan DISMISSED the amended complaint and ORDERED THE RETURNI of the
confiscated items to Dimaano. It remanded the records of the case to the Ombudsman for
such appropriate action as the evidence warrants and also referred the case to the
Commissioner of the BIR for a determination of any tax liability.
SC AFFIRMED SB's decision. Absent any showing that he enjoyed close association with
former President Marcos.
-Bounded by no constitutional or legal limitations except TREATY OBLIGATIONS
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI DISMISSED.
6) Leovillo AGUSTIN V. Romeo EDU- Land Transportation Commissioner
(Pres. Marcos)
VALIDITY of LOI 229-early warning device for motor vehicles
FATAL or SERIOUS ACCIDENTS- presence of stalled, or parked motor vehicles along street or
highways without any appropriate early warning device to signal approaching motorists of
their presence
Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals
United Nations Organization
PD 207- ratified the Vienna Conventions of which the Philippines was a signatory- The Land
Transportation Commissioner shall cause Reflectorized Triangular Early Warning Devices to
be prepared and issued to registered owners of motor vehicles- charging for each piece NOT
MORE THAN 15% of the ACQUISITION COST.
LOI 229- procure from ANY SOURCE and present at the registration of his vehicle
LOI 479- EWD serial number indicated on the registration certificate and official receipt of
payment of current registration fees of the motor vehicle concerned.
PET: owner of Volkswagen Beetle Car already properly equipped with blinking lights fore and
aft
1) The LOI was issued in the exercise of the POLICE POWER.
2) It was clearly intended to promote PUBLIC SAFETY
3) Failure to lay the necessary factual foundation to rebuut the presumption of validity
4) The issuance was based on necessary statistical information and data
5) Anyone who sees this uniform kind of warning device will conclude without thinking that
there is a motor vehicle which is stationary
6) The motor vehicle owners can even PERSONALLY make or produce this early warning
device so long as the same substantially conforms with the specifications
7) Only congressional power may be the basis for declaring a statute invalid
8) To avoid the taint of an unlawful delegation, there must be a standard.The principle of
non-delegation gives rise to the principle of subordinate legislation
9) The Declaration of Principle found in the Constitution possesses relevance adopts the
GENERALLY ACCEPTED PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW as part of the law of the land.
PACT SUNT SERVANDA- agreements must be kept
PRINCIPLE OF INTERNATIONAL MORALITY
10) The constitutionality of a law will not be considered unless the point is specially pleaded,
insisted upon and adequately argued.
PETITION DISMISSED.