Gabchikova-

Nagymarus C")
,butnottoputt
hatsol
uti
oni
nto
(
Hungar
y/Sl
ov aki
a)Judgementof25 operati
oni
nOctober1992asa
September1997 uni
later
almeasur
e;

The Gabčíkovo–Nagy mar osDams  is --t

hatHungar y'
snotif
icat
ionof
alargebarragepr ojecton terminat
ionoft he1977Tr eatyand
the 
Danube.I twasi niti
atedbyt he rel
atedinstrument son19May1992
BudapestTr eatyof16Sept ember didnotlegallyterminatet
hem (and
1977bet weent he Czechosl ovak thattheyareconsequent l
ystil
lin
Social
istRepublic andt he People'
s forceandgov er
nt herel
ati
onship
RepublicofHungar y.Thepr oject betweent hePar ti
es);
aimedatpr eventingcat astrophic
fl
oods, i
mpr ovi
ngr ivernav i
gabili
ty -
-andt hatSlov
akia,
assuccessort
o
andproducingcl eanel ectri
city. Czechoslovaki
abecameapar t
yto
theTreatyof1977.
Onl yapar toft hepr ojecthasbeen
fi
nishedi n Slovakia, undert he
name  Gabčí kovoDam, -2-I
CJ/
54926Sept
ember1997
because  Hungar y
 firstsuspended,
thent riedt oter minat e,theproject Astothefut
ureconductoft
he
duet oenv ironment al andeconomi c Par
ti
es,theCour
tfound:
[
1]
concer ns.  Slovakiapr oceededwi t
h
anal t ernat i
vesol ution, call
ed --thatHungaryandSl ovakiamust
"Var i
antC" ,whichi nv olveddivert
ing negot i
ateingoodf ai
thi
nt helightof
theDanube, t
he bor derr iv
er.These thepr evai
li
ngsituati
on,
andmust
causedast i
llunresol ved takeal l
necessarymeasur esto
i
nt ernat i
onal disput ebet ween ensuret heachievementoft he
Slov aki aandHungar y.Bot hparti
es objectivesofthe1977Tr eaty;
turnedt othe Internat ionalCourtof
Just ice  f
orar uli
ng. --t
hat, unlesstheParti
esagree
otherwi se,ajoi
ntoperati
onalregi
me
Rul
i
ng: forthedam onSl ovakterr
it
orymust
I
nit
sjudgement
,theCour
tfound: beest ablishedinaccordancewith
theTreat yof1977;
--thatHungar ywasnotent i
tl
edt o
suspendandsubsequent lyabandon, --t
hateachPartymustcompensat
e
i
n1989, itspar toftheworksinthe theotherPart
yforthedamage
dam pr oject,aslaiddowni nthe causedbyitsconduct;
treatysignedi n1977byHungar yand
Czechosl ov akiaandrel
ated --andt hattheaccount sf ort
he
i
nst rument s; const ructi
onandoper ati
onofthe
wor ksmustbeset tledinaccordance
--t
hatCzechoslovaki
awasent i
tl
ed witht herelevantprov i
si
onsofthe
tostar
t,i
nNov ember1991, 1977Tr eatyanditsr el
ated
prepar
ati
onofanal ternati
ve i
nst rument s.
provi
si
onalsoluti
on( cal
led"Var
iant
TheCour theldt hatnewl ydev el
oped anagreementt othateffect.
nor msofenv ir
onment al l
awar e Rati
fi
cat i
onswer eexchanged
relevantf orthei mpl ement ationof i
n Washi ngton,D.
C. on1Apr i
l1925.
theTr eat yandt hatt hePar tiescoul d, Theagr eementwasr egister
ed
byagr eement ,
incor poratethem i
n LeagueofNat i
onsTr eaty
throught heappl icationofsev eralof Seri
es on19May1925. [
2]
 
The
i
tsar ticles.Itfoundt hatthePar t
ies, arbi
tr
atori nthecasewas  MaxHuber ,
i
nor dert oreconci leeconomi c a 
Swiss  l
awy er
.
dev elopmentwi thpr ot
ect i
onoft he
env i
ronment ,"shoul dlookaf reshat Thequest ionbef orethearbi
tr
ator
theef fect sont heenv i
ronmentoft he waswhet hertheI sl
andofPalmas
oper ationoft heGabci kov opower (Miangas)f ormedpar tofUnit
ed
plant.I npar t
icular,theymustf i
nda Statest erri
tory(refer
ringt
owhatis
sat i
sfact orysolutionf orthev ol
ume nowt he Phili
ppines)orDutch
ofwat ert ober eleasedi ntot heol d terr
itory(referri
ngt owhatis
bedoft heDanubeandi ntothesi de- now  I
ndonesi a).
armsoft her i
ver". Rul
ing:
Ri
ghtbydi
scov
ery
[edi
t]
TheUni tedSt at esar guedt hati theld
TheI
slandofLasPalmasCase,2
thei slandbecausei thadr ecei ved
Repor
tsofInt
ernt
ati
onalAr
bit
rat
ion
act ual t
it
lebyl egi t
imat et reat i
es
Awards839(1928)
from t heor i
gi nal discov ereroft he
i
sl and, Spain.TheUni t
edSt ates
Palmas( Miangas)i sani slandof arguedt hatSpai nacqui redt i
tlet o
l
itt
leeconomi cv alueorst rategi
c Pal maswhenSpai ndiscov eredt he
l
ocat i
on.I ti
s2.6  km i nnor th-
south i
sl andandt hei slandwas  ter ra
l
engt hand1. 0 km i neast -west nul l
ius.Spai n'st it
letot hei sland,
[
1]
width.  
Ithadapopul ati
onofabout becausei twasapar toft he
750i n1932, whent hecasewas Phi l
ippines, wast hencededt ot he
decided.Thei slandl i
es Uni tedSt at
esundert he Tr eat yof
between  Mindanao, t
he Par is(1898)  afterSpai n'
sdef eati n
souther nmostpar toft he Phili
ppi
nes, the Spani sh–Amer i
canWar .The
andt heNanusaI sl ands, t
henext - arbi t
ratornot edt hatnonew
northernmostpar tofI ndonesi a. i
nt ernat i
onal lawi nvali
dat edt hel egal
transf erofter ritoryv i
acessi on.
In1898,  
Spai n cededt hePhi l
ippines
totheUni tedSt atesint he Treatyof Howev er,thear bitr
atornot edthat
Paris( 1898)  andPal masi slocat ed Spai ncouldnotl egallygrantwhati t
withi
nt heboundar i
esoft hatcessi on. didnothol dandt heTr eatyofPar is
In1906, theUni tedSt atesdi scov ered coul dnotgr antPal mast otheUni ted
thattheNet herlandsal socl aimed Statesi fSpainhadnoact ualti
tl
et o
sover eigntyov ert heisl and, andt he i
t.Thear bitr
atorconcl udedt hat
twopar ti
esagr eedt osubmi tt o Spai nheldan  [
1]  
tit
lewhenSpai n
bindingar bitr
ationbyt he  Permanent "discov er
ed"Pal mas.Howev er,fora
CourtofAr bitr
at i
on.On23Januar y sov ereigntomai ntainitsinit
ialt
itle
1925, thet wogov ernment ssigned viadi scovery,thear bitr
atorsaidt hat
thediscover erhadt oactuall
y i
slandsincethe17t hcent uryandhad
exerci
seaut hori
tyevenbyassi mpl
e exerci
sedsov ereignty,incl udi
nga
anactaspl anti
ngaf l
agont he requir
ementofPr otestant ism and
beach.Spai ndidnotexer ci
se thedenialofothernat ional sont he
authori
tyov erthei sl
andaf t
ermaking i
sland.Thear bi
tratorpoi nt edoutt hat
aninit
ialclaim afterdiscoveryandso i
fSpai nhadactual l
yexer cised
theAmer icancl ai
m wasbasedon authori
ty,t
herewoul dhav ebeen
rel
ativ
elyweakgr ounds. confli
ctsbetweent het wocount r
ies,
butnonei sprovidedi nt heev i
dence.
Cont
igui
ty[
edi
t]
Thus, at i
tlethati si nchoat ecannot
TheUni tedSt atesar guedt hat
prevailov eradef initetitl
ef oundon
PalmaswasAmer icant erri
tory
thecont i
nuousandpeacef uldispl
ay
becauset hei sl
andwascl osert othe
ofsov ereignty .Peacef ul and
Phil
ippi nest hant ot heNet herl
ands
continuousdi splayoft er ri
torial
EastI ndies.Thear bitr
at orsaidthat
sovereignt yisasgoodast it
le.
therewasnoposi ti
vei nternati
onal
Howev er,discov er yalone, wi thouta
l
awf ort heAmer icanv i
ewof t
 erra
subsequentact ,cannotsuf ficeto
fi
rma  inwhi cht henear estcont inent
provesov ereignt yov ert hei sland.
orislandofconsi der ablesizegi ves
Thet errit
orialsov ereigntyoft he
ti
tl
et ot helandi ndi sput e.The
defendant ,
Net her lands, wasnot
arbit
ratorhel dt hatmer eproximi ty
contest edbyany onef r
om 1700t o
wasnotanadequat ecl aimt oland
1906sot hetitleofdi scov eryatbest
andnot edthati ft hei nternati
onal
aninchoat etitleanddoesnotpr evai
l
communi t
yf oll
owedt hepr oposed
overt heNet her landscl aimsof
Amer icanappr oach, thatwoul dl ead
sovereignt y
toarbi t
raryresul ts.
Tanadav
sAngara272SCRA18,
Conti
nuousandpeacef
uldi
spl
ayof
1997
sover
eignt
y[edi
t]
TheNet herlands' pri
mar ycont ention Null
ifi
cati
onofthePhi
li
ppi
ne
wast hati thel dactual titl
ebecause r
atif
icati
onoftheWorl
dTrade
theNet her l
andshadexer cised Organizat
ion(
WTO)Agreement.
author i
tyont heislandsi nce1677.
Thear bitratornot edt hatt heUni ted Petitionersbel i
evet hatt hiswillbe
Stateshadf ailedt oshow detriment al t
othegr owt hofour
document ationpr ov i
ngSpani sh Nat i
onal Economyandagai nsttothe
sov ereignt yont hei slandexceptt he “Fi
lipinoFi r
st”policy.TheWTO
document st hatspeci fically opensaccesst of oreignmar kets,
ment i
onedt hei sl
and' sdi scov ery. especi all
yitsmaj ort radingpar tner
s,
Addi tionally,therewasnoev i
dence thr
ought her educt i
onoft arif
fsonits
thatPal maswasapar toft hej udici
al expor ts,parti
cularlyagr icult
uraland
oradmi ni
st r
at i
veor gani zationoft he i
ndust ri
alproducts.Thus, pr
ov i
des
Spani shgov er nmentoft he newoppor tunit
iesfort heser vice
Philippines.Howev er, the sect orcostanduncer tainty
Net her l
andsshowedt hatt he 
Dut ch associ atedwi thexpor t
ingandmor e
EastI ndi aCompany  hadnegot i
ated i
nv est menti nthecount ry.Thesear e
treatieswi t
ht helocal princesoft he thepr edictedbenef i
tsasr efl
ectedin
theagreementandasv
iewedbythe al
lowsanexchangeont hebasi s
signat
orySenat
ors,
a“f
reemarket
” ofequal i
tyandr eci pr oci ty,
espousedbyWTO.
fr
owni ngonl yonf orei gn
  compet it
iont hati sunf air.
Peti
tionersalsocont endst hatitisi
n 2.Byt heiri nher entnat ure,
confl
ictwi t
ht hepr ovisi
onsofour treatiesr eal lyl imitorr est rict
constit
ut i
on,sincet hesai d theabsol ut enessof
Agreementi sanassaul tonthe sov ereignt y .Byt hei rv ol
unt ary
sovereignpower soft hePhi l
ippines
becausei tmeantt hatCongr ess act ,nationsmaysur render
couldnotpassl egislati
ont hatwould someaspect soft hei rstat e
begoodf ornational int
erestand poweri nexchangef orgr eat er
general welf
arei fsuchl egisl
ation benef itsgr ant edbyorder ived
wouldnotconf ormt otheWTO from aconv ent i
onorpact .
Agreement .
Af t
eral l,st ates, l
ike
Rul
i
ng: i
ndi vidual s, li
v ewi thcoequal s,
andi npur sui tofmut uall
y
1.Whi l
et heConst i
tut ionindeed cov enant edobj ectiv esand
mandat esabi asi nf avorof benef its,theyal socommonl y
Fil
ipinogoods, ser vices, laborand agr eet ol i
mi tt heexer ci
seof
enterprises, atthesamet i
me, it theirot her wi seabsol uter ights.
recogni zest heneedf orbusi ness Asshownbyt hef oregoi ng
exchangewi tht her estoft he treatiesPhi lippi neshas
wor l
dont hebasesofequal it
y ent ered, apor ti
onof
andr eciproci t
yandl i
mi ts sov ereignt ymaybewai v ed
protectionofFi li
pi noent er pri
ses wi t
houtv iol atingt he
onlyagai nstf orei gncompet ition Const i
tution, basedont he
andt radepr acticest hatar e rational ethatt hePhi l
ippines
unfair.Inot herwor ds, t
he “adopt st hegener al ly
Const it
utiondi dnoti ntendt o accept edpr inci plesof
pursueani sol ationi stpol icy.I t i
nt ernat i
onal l
awaspar toft he
didnotshutoutf oreign l
awoft hel andandadher est o
i
nv estment s, goodsandser vices thepol icyofcooper at i
onand
i
nt hedev elopmentoft he ami tywi thal l nations. ”
Phili
ppineeconomy .Whi let he
Const it
utiondoesnotencour age Fr
oil
anv
sPanOr
iental
Shi
ppi
ngCo
theunl i
mi tedent ryoff or eign 95Phil
905
goods, ser vicesandi nvest ment s
FernandoFr
oil
anfi
ledacompl aint
i
ntot hecount ry, itdoesnot againstt
hedef
endant-
appell
ant ,Pan
prohibitthem ei ther .Inf act ,
it Ori
entalShi
ppi
ngCo.,al
legi
ngt hat
hepur chasedf rom t heShi pping PanOr i
ent al prot estedt ot hi
s
Commi ssiont hev essel forP200, 000, restor ati
onofPl aintiff‘sr i
ght sunder
pay i
ngP50, 000downandagr eei ng thecont ractofsal e, fort her eason
topayt hebal ancei ni nstalment s.To thatwhent hev essel wasdel iver ed
secur et hepay mentoft hebal anceof toit,theShi ppingAdmi nistrationhad
thepur chasepr ice, heex ecut eda author ityt odi sposeofsai daut hor i
ty
chat tel mor tgageofsai dv essel in tothepr oper ty,Pl aintif
fhav i
ng
favoroft heShi ppi ngCommi ssion. alr
eadyr elinquishedwhat everr ights
Forv ar iousr easons, amongt hem t he hemayhav et her eon.Pl ainti
f fpai d
non- pay mentoft hei nst all
ment s, t
he ther equi redcashofP10, 000. 00and
Shippi ngCommi ssi ont ool asPanOr ient alref usedt osur r
ender
possessi onofsai dv essel and possessi onoft hev essel ,hef iledan
consi der edt hecont ractofsal e actiont or ecov erpossessi ont her eof
cancel l
ed.TheShi ppi ngCommi ssion andhav ehi m decl ar edt her i
ght ful
char teredanddel iver edsai dv essel ownerofsai dpr oper t
y.TheRepubl ic
tothedef endant -appel l
antPan ofthePhi l
ippi neswasal lowedt o
Orient al Shi ppingCo.subj ectt ot he i
nter venei nsai dci vilcasepr ay ing
appr ov al oft hePr esidentoft he forthepossessi onoft hei nor der
Phili
ppi nes.Pl aint i
ffappeal edt he thatt hechat telmor tgage
actionoft heShi ppi ngCommi ssi on const itutedt hereonmaybe
tothePr esi dentoft hePhi lippines foreclosed.
and, ini tsmeet ingt heCabi net
restor edhi mt oal l hisr i
ght sunder  
hisor igi nal cont ractwi t
ht he Ruli
ng:
Shippi ngCommi ssi on.Pl aintiffhad Whent hegov ernmententersint
oa
repeat edl ydemandedf rom t hePan contr
act,fortheStateisthendeem
Orient al Shi ppingCo.t hepossessi on tohavediv est
editsel
fofthemant l
e
ofthev essel i
nquest ionbutt he ofsovereignimmuni t
yand
l
atterr efusedt odoso. descendedt othelevelofthe
  ordi
naryindivi
dual.Havingdoneso,it
becomessubj ecttojudici
alacti
on
Plai
nt iff,pr ay edthat, upont he andprocesses.
appr ov al oft hebondaccompany i
ng
hiscompl ai nt,awr i
tofr epl evi
nbe
i
ssuedf ort hesei zur eof sai dvessel Yes.TheSupr emeCour theldthat
withal l i
tsequi pmentand thegov ernmenti mpl i
edl yall
owed
appur tenances, andt hataf ter i
tselftobesuedwheni tf i
l
eda
hear i
ng, hebeadj udgedt ohav ethe complai ntininter
v ent
ionf orthe
ri
ght ful possessi ont hereof .The purposeofasser ti
ngcl aimf or
l
owercour ti ssuedt hewr itof affi
rmat i
ver eli
efagainstt heplaint
if
f
replev i
npr ay edforbyFr oilanandby totherecov eryoft hev essel.The
vir
tuet her eoft hePanOr i
ent al i
mmuni tyoft hestatefrom sui ts
Shippi ngCo.wasdi vestedofi ts doesnotdepr iveitofther ighttosue
possessi onofsai dv essel. priv
atepar ti
esi nitsowncour ts.The
stateaspl ainti
ffmayav ailit
selfof
  thediff
er entformsofact i
onsopen
topriv
at elit
igants.Inshor t,bytaki
ng
theiniti
ativ
einanact ionagainsta part
ies.Fort
hisreason,
asui
tfor
pri
vat eparty,t
hest atesurrendersit
s specif
icperf
ormancewasfil
edby
pri
vilegedpositionandcomesdown hi
m againsttheUS.
tothel evelofthedef endant.The
l
atteraut omatical
lyacqui r
es,withi
n  
certainli
mi t
s,therighttosetup I
ssues:
what everclai
msandot herdefenses
hemi ghthaveagainstt hestate. WhetherornottheUSnav albasein
bi
ddingforsaidcont
ractsexerci
se
governmentalf
uncti
onstobeabl eto
USv
sRui
z128SCRA487 i
nvokestateimmunity.

Thisisapet iti
ontor evi
ew,setasi
de  
certai
nor dersandr estr
ain Di
scussi
ons:
perpetuall
yt heproceedingsdoneby
Hon.Rui zforlackofj ur
isdi
cti
onon Thet radi tional roleoft hest at e
thepartoft hetri
alcourt. i
mmuni tyexempt sast atef rom
beingsuedi nt hecour tsofanot her
  statewi thouti tsconsentorwai v er.
TheUni tedSt at esofAmer icahada Thisr ulei snecessar yconsequence
naval basei nSubi c,Zambal es.The ofthepr inci pl eofi ndependenceand
basewasoneoft hosepr ov i
dedi n equalityofst ates.Howev er ,ther ules
theMi l
it
ar yBasesAgr eement ofinter nat ional lawar enotpet r
ified;
betweent hePhi l
ippinesandt he theyar econt i
nual lyandev olv i
ngand
UnitedSt ates.Somet imei nMay , becauset heact i
vit
iesofst at eshav e
1972, theUni tedSt atesi nv it
edt he mul t
iplied.I thasbeennecessar yt o
submi ssi onofbi dsf oracoupl eof disti
ngui sht hem bet weensov ereign
repairpr oject s.El igiodeGuzman andgov er nment alacts( jurei mper i
i)
l
andCo. ,Inc.r espondedt ot he andpr i
v at e,commer cialand
i
nv i
tationandsubmi ttedbi ds. propriet aryact s( j
ure gest i
oni s).The
Subsequentt her eto, thecompany resultist hatSt at eimmuni tynow
receivedf rom t heUSt wot el
egr ams extendsonl yt oact sj urei mper i
l.The
request i
ngi tt oconf irmi tspr ice restri
ct i
v eappl icati
onofSt at e
proposal sandf ort henameofi ts i
mmuni tyi snowt her ulei nt he
bondi ngcompany .Thecompany UnitedSt at es, theUni tedKi ngdom
const ruedt hisasanaccept anceof andot herst at esi nwest ernEur ope.
i
tsof fersot heycompl i
edwi t
ht he
request s.Thecompanyr ecei veda
l
etterwhi chwassi gnedbyWi l
li
am I.  
Colli
nsofDepar tmentoft heNav yof
theUni tedSt at es, alsooneoft he Rul
i
ngs:
petiti
oner sher ei ni nformi ngt hatt he Yes.TheSupr emeCour theldthat
companydi dnotqual if
yt or eceivean thecontr
actrelatestotheexercise
awar df ort hepr oject sbecauseofi t
s ofit
ssovereignfuncti
ons.Inthis
previousunsat i
sf actor yper f
ormance casetheprojectsareanintegr
al part
rati
ngi nr epai rs, andt hatt he ofthenavalbasewhi chisdevotedto
projectswer eawar dedt ot hir
d
thedef enseofbot ht
heUnitedStates concludingofsev eralpri
or
andt hePhi l
ippines,i
ndi
sputablya agreement sbet weenthet wopar t
ies
functionoft hegov er
nmentoft he beginningi n1996,whent heGRP-
highestor der,theyar
enotut i
l
izedfor MILFpeacenegot i
ati
onsbegan.On
nordedi catedt ocommercialor July18, 1997,theGRPandMI LF
businesspur poses. PeacePanel ssignedtheAgr eement
onGener alCessati
onofHost i
li
ti
es.
Ther estr
icti
veappl i
cati
onofstat
e Thef oll
owi ngyear,t
heysignedt he
i
mmuni tyispr operonl ywhent he Gener alFramewor kofAgr eementof
proceedingsar i
seoutofcommer ci
al Int
entonAugust27, 1998. 
tr
ansact i
onsoft hef or
eignsover
eign.
It
scommer cial activi
ti
esof OnJul y23,2008, thePr ovinceof
economi caf fairs.Ast atemaybe Nor thCotabat oandVi ce-Gov ernor
descendedt ot hel evelofan Emmanuel Piñol fil
edapet iti
on,
i
ndividualandcant husbedeemedt o docket edasG. R.No.183591, for
havet aci
tlygiveni tsconsentt
obe MandamusandPr ohibiti
onwi th
sued.Onl ywheni tentersi
nto Pray erfortheI ssuanceofWr itof
businesscont r
act s. PreliminaryInjunct ionand
Provi
nceofNort
hCotabat
ovsGRP Tempor aryRest rainingOr der.
PeacePanelonAncest
ral
Domai
n, Invokingther i
ghtt oi nformationon
568SCRA402 mat tersofpubl i
cconcer n,
petiti
onersseekt ocompel
respondent st odi scloseandf ur ni
sh
Fact s:OnAugust5, 2008, t
he them t hecompl eteandof fici
al
Gov ernmentoft heRepubl i
coft he copiesoft heMOA- ADi ncludingi t
s
Phili
ppines( GRP)andt heMI LF, attachment s, andt opr ohibitthe
throught heChai rpersonsoft hei
r slatedsigningoft heMOA- AD,
respect i
vepeacenegot iati
ngpanels, pendi ngthedi sclosur eoft he
wer eschedul edt osigna cont entsoft heMOA- ADandt he
Memor andum ofAgr eementont he holdingofapubl i
cconsul tati
on
Ancest ralDomai n(MOA- AD)Aspect thereon.Suppl ement arily
,pet i
tioners
oftheGRP- MI LFTripoliAgreement prayt hattheMOA- ADbedecl ared
onPeaceof2001i nKual aLumpur , unconst it
utional. 
Mal aysia.
 
Themai nbodyoftheMOA- ADis
Thesi gningoft heMOA- ADbetween di
videdintofourst
rands,namely,
theGRPandt heMI LFwasnott o ConceptsandPr i
ncipl
es,Terr
it
ory,
mat er i
ali
ze,howev er,f
orupon Resources,andGovernance. 
mot ionofpet i
ti
oner s,speci
fi
call
y
thosewhof il
edt heircasesbefore hatt hesubjectoft heinformation
theschedul edsi gningoftheMOA- soughti nthepr esentcasesi sa
AD, thisCour tissuedaTempor ary mat terofpublicconcer nfacesno
Restr aini
ngOr derenj oini
ngtheGRP seriouschallenge.Infact ,
from si gningthesame.   respondent sadmi tthattheMOA- AD
i
si ndeedofpubl i
cconcer n.In
TheMOA- ADwaspr ecededbyal
ong previouscases, theCour tfoundthat
processofnegot
iat
ionandthe
ther egul ari
tyofr eal estat e i
ndependence.
 
transact ionsent eredi nt heRegi ster
ofDeeds, theneedf oradequat e
not i
cet othepubl icoft hev ari
ous Reaganv
sCI
R,GRL-26379
l
aws, theci vilser viceel igibi
li
tyofa
publ icempl oyee, thepr oper FACTS: Petit
ionerquestionedt he
managementofGSI Sf undsal legedly paymentofani ncomet axassessed
usedt ogr antl oanst opubl i
cof f
ici
als, onhi m bypubl icrespondentonan
ther ecov eryoft heMar coses' amountr eali
zedbyhi m onasal eof
allegedi ll-
gott enweal th, andthe hisaut omobi l
et oamemberoft he
i
dent i
tyofpar ty-l
istnomi nees, USMar ineCor ps,thetr
ansact i
on
amongot hers, aremat ter sofpublic havingt akenpl aceattheCl ar
kFi el
d
concer n.Undoubt edly,theMOA- AD AirBase.Pet iti
onercont endst hat
subj ectoft hepr esentcasesi sof thebasei soutsidePhili
ppi ne
publ icconcer n, i
nv ol
v i
ngasi tdoes
terr
itoryandt hereforebey ondt he
thesov ereignt yandt erritori
al
j
urisdictionalpowert otax.
i
nt egr i
tyoft heSt ate, whi chdirectl
y
affect sthel ivesoft hepubl i
cat I
SSUE:Whetherornotasal
emade
l
ar ge.  onaforei
gnmili
tar
ybaseisexcl
uded
fr
om t
ax .
Insum, t
hePr esidential Adv iseron
thePeacePr ocesscommi ttedgr ave HELD: No.Thesai dfor
eignmi l
it
ary
abuseofdi scretionwhenhef ail
edt o basesisnotaf oreignsoilor
carryoutt heper t
inentconsul tat
ion terr
it
ory forpur
posesofi ncomet ax
process, asmandat edbyE. O.No.3, l
egislat
ion.Phil
i
ppinejuri
sdicti
onal
Republ i
cActNo.7160, andRepubl i
c
ri
ghtsincludi
ngthepowert ot
axar e
ActNo.8371.Thef urtivepr ocessby
preserv
ed.
whi cht heMOA- ADwasdesi gned
andcr aftedr unscont r
ar yt oandi n
excessoft hel egalaut hor i
ty ,and
amount st oawhi msical ,capr ici
ous,
oppr essiv e,arbitr
aryanddespot ic Secr
etar
yofJusti
cevsLant
ionGR
exer ciset hereof.Itill
ust ratesagr oss 139465
evasi onofposi t
ivedut yandav i
rtual
refusal toper formt hedut yenj oi
ned.  Fact
s:
TheMOA- ADcannotber econci led Thisisapet iti
onf orreviewofa
witht hepr esentConstit
uti
onand decisionoft heMani laRegi onalTrial
l
aws.Notonl yit
sspeci f
icpr ovisions Cour t(RTC) .TheDepar tmentof
butthev eryconceptunder l
y i
ngt hem, Justicer eceivedar equestf rom the
namel y,
theassoci at
iverel
at ionshi p Depar tmentofFor eignAf fair
sfort he
envisionedbet weent heGRPandt he extr
adi ti
onofr espondentMar k
BJE, areunconst it
uti
onal,fort he Jimenezt ot heU.S.TheGr andJur y
conceptpr esupposesthatt he Indi
ct ment .Thewar r
antf orhisar r
est,
associ atedentityi
sast ateand andot hersuppor ti
ngdocument sfor
i
mpl iest hatthesamei soni tswayt o saidext radit
ionwer eat tachedal ong
witht her equest.Char gesinclude:
1.Conspiracytocommi toffenseor 2.TheU. S.request edforthe
todefraudtheUS preventi
onofunaut horized
2.Attempttoev adeordef eattax discl
osureoft hei nfor
mat ionin
3.Fraudbywi re,radi
o,ortelevi
sion thedocument s.
4.Falsestatementorent ri
es 3.Thedepar tmenti snoti nposition
5.Elect
ioncont r
ibuti
oninnameof toholdinabey anceproceedi ngs
another i
nconnect i
onwi thanext raditi
on
request,asPhi li
ppinesisbound
  toViennaConv entiononl awof
TheDepar tmentofJust i
ce( DOJ) , treat
iessucht hatev erytreat
yi n
throughadesi gnatedpanel forceisbindingupont hepart i
es.
proceededwi ththet echnical
evaluat i
onandassessmentoft he  
extraditi
ont reatywhi cht heyf ound
hav i
ngmat tersneededt obe Mar kJimenezt henfil
edapet it
ion
addr essed.Respondent ,then againsttheSecr et
aryofJustice.RTC
request edforcopi esofal lthe presidi
ngJudgeLant i
onf av
ored
document sincl udedi nthe Jimenez.Secr etar
yofJust i
cewas
extraditi
onr equestandf orhi mt obe madet oi ssueacopyoft he
givenampl et i
met oassessi t.The requestedpaper s,aswellas
Secr etaryofJust icedeni edr equest conductingf ur
therproceedi
ngs.
ont hef oll
owi nggr ounds: Thus, t
hispet i
ti
onisnowatbar .
 
1.Hef oundi tpremat ur etosecur e
him copi espr iortot he I
ssue/
s:
compl etionoft heev aluat i
on.At Whet herornotrespondent ’
s
thatpoi ntint ime, t
heDOJi si n enti
tlementtonot i
ceandhear ing
thepr ocessofev aluating duri
ngt heev al
uati
onst ageofthe
proceedingsconstitut
eabr eachof
whet hert hepr ocedur esand thelegal dut
iesofthePhi l
i
ppine
requirement sundert her el
ev ant Gov ernmentundert heRP-US
l
aw( PD1069Phi l
ippine Extradit
ionTreaty
.
ExtraditionLaw)andt r
eat y(RP-  
USExt r
adi ti
onTr eat y)hav ebeen
compl iedwi thbyt heRequest i
ng Di
scussi
ons:
Gov ernment .Evaluat i
onbyt he Thedoctrineofi ncorpor ati
onis
DOJoft hedocument si snota appli
edwhenev ermuni cipalt
ri
bunals
prel
imi nar yinvestigationl i
kei n areconfr
ont edwi thsituat i
onsin
whichthereappear stobeaconf li
ct
cri
mi nal casesmaki ngt he betweenar uleofi nternat i
onall
aw
const i
tut i
onal l
yguar ant eedrights andthepr ovisi
onsoft he
oftheaccusedi ncr i
mi nal consti
tut
ionorst atuteofal ocal
prosecut ioni napplicable. stat
e.Effort
sshoul dbedonet o
harmoni zethem.I nasi tuat i
on, tort
ureandrapeinthehandsof
howev er
,wheretheconf li
ctis poli
ceormi l
it
aryfor
cesduri
ngthe
i
rreconcilabl
eandachoi cehast obe Mar cosregi
me,fi
ledwitht
heUS
madebet weenar uleofi nternati
onal Distri
ctCour
t,Hawaii
,agai
nstt
he
l
awandmuni cipal l
aw, jurisprudence EstateFerdi
nandE.Marcos.
dictatesthatmuni cipallawshoul dbe
upheldbyt hemuni cipal courts.The Trialensued,andsubsequent l
yajury
doct r
ineofincorpor ati
ondecr ees renderedaFi nalJudgmentandan
thatrulesofinternational lawar e awar dofcompensat oryand
givenequal standing, butar enot exempl arydamagesi nfavorofthe
super i
orto,nati
onal l
egislative plaint
iffcl
asswi thanawar dofa
enactment s. totalofOneBi ll
i
onNi neHundr ed
  SixtyFourMi l
li
onFi veThousand
EightHundr edFiftyNineDollarsand
  NinetyCent s($1,964,005,
859.90)
 
Thepr esentpeti
ti
oners
  fi
led Complaint
 wit
htheMakat i
RTC
Rul
i
ng/
s: fortheenforcementoft Fi
he  nal
Judgment .
No.Thehumanr i
ghtsofper son,
Fili
pi noorf oreigner,andt her ightsof
theaccusedguar anteedi nour RespondentJudgeRanadaoft he
Const itutionshoul dtakepr ecedence Makat iRTCi ssuedt he
ov ert reat yri
ght sclai
medbya subjectOr
  der 
dismi ssingthe
cont ract ingst ate.Thedut iesoft he compl ai
ntwi thoutpr ejudi
ce.He
gov er nmentt otheindi v
idual deser v
e opinedthatt hesubj ectmat teroft he
pref erent ialconsiderat i
onwhent hey compl ai
ntwascapabl eofpecuni ar y
col l
idewi thitst r
eatyobl igat ionst o estimation,asitinv olv
edaj udgment
thegov ernmentofanot herst at e. renderedbyaf oreigncour tordering
Thi si ssoal thoughwer ecogni ze thepay mentofdef init
esumsof
treat i
esasasour ceofbi ndi ng money ,allowingforeasy
obl i
gat ionsundergener al l
yaccept ed determinat i
onoft hev alueoft he
princi plesofi nt
ernational law forei
gnj udgment .
i
ncor por atedi nourConst i
tut i
onas
par toft helawoft hel and. TheRTCest i
matedtheproper
amountoffil
i
ngfeeswas
appr
oximatel
yFourHundredSevent
y
Mi
j
aresv
sRanada455SCRA397 TwoMilli
onPesos,whichobvi
ousl
y
hadnotbeenpaid.
ACTS:
Petit
ionerssubmitthatthei
ractioni
s
TenFil
ipi
nocit
izenswhoeach i
ncapabl eofpecuniaryesti
mat i
onas
al
legedhavi
ngsuf fer
edhumanright
s thesubjectmat t
erofthesuitisthe
abusessuchasar bit
rar
ydet
ent
ion, enforcementofaf oreignj
udgment ,
andnotanact ionforthecollect
ion
ofasum ofmoneyorr ecov eryof enf
orcementofafor
eignj
udgment
 
damages.Theyal sopoi ntoutt hatto hasremai
nedunchanged.
requi
ret heclassplainti
ffst opay
FourHundr edSev entyTwoMi lli
on SEC.48.Effectofforeignj
udgments.
Pesos( P472,000,000.00)i nfil
ing Theeffectofajudgmentofat ri
bunal
feeswoul dnegat eandr enderi nuti
le ofaforeigncountry,havi
ng
theli
beralconst r
ucti
onor dainedby j
uri
sdicti
ontopr onouncethe
theRulesofCour t
,particularl
yt he j
udgmenti sasfollows:
i
nexpensi vedisposit
ionofev ery
acti
on.
(a)I
ncaseofajudgmentupona
speci
fi
cthi
ng,t
hejudgmentis
I
SSUE: concl
usi
veupontheti
tl
etothethi
ng;

Whatprovi
sion,
ifany
, t
henshould (b)Incaseofajudgmentagai nsta
applyi
ndetermi
ningthefi
l
ingfees person,thej
udgmenti spresumptiv
e
foranact
iontoenfor
ceaf or
eign evidenceofari
ghtasbet weent he
j
udgment? parti
esandtheirsuccessorsin
i
nterestbyasubsequentt i
tl
e;
RULI
NG:
I
nei t
hercase, thejudgmentorfinal
Respondentj udgewasi nclearand ordermayber epelledbyevi
denceof
seriouserrorwhenheconcl udedthat awantofjur i
sdi cti
on,wantofnotice
thef i
li
ngfeesshouldbecomput ed tothepart
y, collusi
on,fr
aud,orclear
ont hebasisoftheschemat ictabl
e mistakeoflaworf act.
ofSect i
on7( a)
,astheaction
i
nv olvedpertai
nstoacl ai
m against Thereisanev identdistinction
anest atebasedonj udgment. betweenaf oreignjudgmenti nan
acti
on inrem  andone  inper sonam.
Aproperunder
standi
ngisr equi
red Foranact ion inrem, thef oreign
onthenatur
eandef f
ectsofaf orei
gn j
udgmenti sdeemedconcl usiveupon
j
udgmentinthi
sjuri
sdict
ion. theti
tletot het hi
ng,whi leinan
acti
on in 
per sonam,  
thef oreign
Ther ulesofcomi ty
, uti
lit
yand j
udgmenti spr esumpt iv
e, andnot
conv enienceofnat ionshav e conclusiv
e, ofar ightasbet weenthe
establ i
shedausageamongci vi
l
ized part
iesandt heirsuccessor sin
statesbywhi chfinal j
udgment sof i
nterestbyasubsequentt itl
e.
foreigncour tsofcompet ent
j
ur i
sdictionarerecipr ocall
y Thus,thepar tyaggrievedbyt he
respect edandr ender edef f
icaci
ous for
eignj udgmenti sent i
tl
edto
undercer t
ainconditionst hatmay defendagai nsttheenf orcementof
 
varyi ndiff
erentcount r
ies. suchdeci sioninthelocal for
um.I ti
s
essentialthatthereshoul dbean
opportunitytochallenget heforei
gn
Thecondi
ti
onsrequi
redbythe
j
udgment ,inorderforthecour tin
Phi
li
ppi
nesforr
ecognit
ionand
thi
sjuri
sdi
cti
ont
opr oper
ly arepar tofthelawofthelandand
deter
mineit
seff
icacy. maybei mplementedbyDOH
throught heRIRR.I
fyes,W/Nthe
Consequentl
y,thepart
yat
tackinga RIRRi sinaccordwithint
’l
for
eignjudgmenthastheburdenof agreement s
overcomingthepresumpt
ionofits
val
idit
y.
MAI N:W/Nt heDOHact edw/ oorin
Pet
it
ioni
sGRANTED. excessoftheirjuri
sdict
ion,orwit
h
graveabuseofdi screti
onamount i
ng
tolackofexcessofj uri
sdicti
onand
i
nv iol
ati
onoft heConst i
tuti
onby
promulgati
ngt heRIRR.
Phar
amaceut
icalandHeal
thCar
e
Associ
ati
onofthePhi
li
ppi
nesvs Hel d:
Duque Sub- issue:
Yesf orI CBMS.Under1987Const i,
Petit
ionf orcer t
iorar iseeki ngt o i
nt ’ll
awcanbecomedomest i
cl awby
nulli
fytheRev i
sedI mpl ement i
ng transf ormat ion(thruconst i
tutional
RulesandRegul ations( RIRR)ofE. O. mechani sm suchasl ocallegislati
on)
51( MilkCode) .Pet i
tionercl aimst hat ori ncorpor ation( mer econst i
tut i
onal
theRI RRi snotv alidasi tcont ains decl arationi.etreaties)TheI CBMS
provisionst hatar enotconst i
tutional andWHAr esolutionswer enot
andgobey ondwhati tissupposed treatiesast heyhav enotbeen
toimpl ement .Mi lkCodewasi ssued concur redby2/ 3ofal lmember sof
byPr esidentCor yAqui noundert he theSenat easr equiredunderSec, 21,
Freedom Const itutionon Ar t8.Howev er,theI CBMShadbeen
Oct.1986.  
 Oneoft hepr eambul ar transf ormedi ntodomest iclaw
clausesoft heMi lkCodest atest hat throughal ocallegislationsuchas
thelawseekst ogi veef f
ectt oAr t11 theMi lkCode.TheMi lkCodei s
oftheI nt’lCodeofMar ketingand almostav er
bat i
mr eproduct i
onof
Breast milkSubst itutes( I
CBMS) ,a ICBMS.
codeadopt edbyt heWor ldHeal th
Assembl y(WHA) .Fr om 1982- 2006, Nof orWHAResol utions.TheCour t
TheWHAal soadopt edsev ere ruledt hatDOHf ail
edt oest abli
sh
resolutionst otheef fectthat thatt hepr ov i
sionsper ti
nentWHA
breastfeedi ngshoul dbesuppor ted, resol uti
onsar ecust omar yint’l
law
hence, itshouldbeensur edt hat thatmaybedeemedpar toft helaw
nutri
tionandheal t
hcl aimsar enot oft hel and.Forani nt ’
l r
ulet obe
permi tt
edf orbreast mi l
ksubst i
tutes. consi deredascust omar ylaw, it
In2006, t
heDOHi ssuedt heassai l
ed mustbeest abli
shedt hatsuchr uleis
RIRR. beingf ollowedbyst at esbecause
theyconsi deritasobl i
gator yto
I
ssue: compl ywi thsuchr ules( opinion
Sub-Issue:
W/Nthepert
inentint
’l j
ur i
s) .TheWHOr esol uti
ons, although
agreementsent
eredi
ntobyt hePhil signedbymostoft hemember
states, wer eenf orcedorpr act i
cedby accept
anceorappr
oval
”byt
he
atleastamaj orityofmemberst ates. si
gnator
ystat
es.
Unliket heI CBMSwher ebyl egi sl
ature
enact edmostoft hepr ovisionsi nt
o In2003, viaExchangeofNot eswith
thelawv i
at heMi lkCode, theWHA theUSgov ernment, t
heRP,
Resol utions( speci f
icallypr ov idi
ng representedbyt henDFASecr etar
y
forexcl usivebr eastfeedi ngf rom 0-6 Ople, f
inali
zedanon- surr
ender
mont hs, breast feedingupt o24 agreementwhi chai medt opr ot
ect
Mont hsandabsol utelypr ohi biti
ng certainpersonsoft heRPandUS
adsf orbr east mi l
ksubst i
tut es)hav e from friv
olousandhar assmentsui ts
notbeenadopt edasdomest iclaw thatmi ghtbebroughtagai nstthem
norar et heyf oll
owedi nourcount r
y i
ni nternati
onaltri
bunals.
aswel l
.TheFi l
ipinoshav et heopt i
on
ofhowt otakecar eoft hei rbabi esas Petit
ionerimputesgraveabuseof
theyseef it.WHAResol uti
onsmay di
scr et
iontorespondentsin
becl assi f
iedasSOFTLAW –non- concludingandrati
fyi
ngthe
bindingnor ms, principlesand Agreementandpr aysthatitbe
practicest hatinf l
uencest at e str
uckdownasunconst it
utional,
or
behav ior.Sof tlawi snotpar tofi nt
’l atleastdeclar
edaswi t
houtf orce
l
aw. andef f
ect.

ISSUE: [1] Didr espondent sabuse

Maini ssue: thei r 
discr etionamount ingt olackor
Yes.Somepar t
soft heRI RRwer e excessofj urisdict ioni nconcl uding
notinconsonancewi t
ht heMi l
k theRP- USNonSur renderAgr eement
CodesuchasSec.4( f
)->adv erti
sing, i
ncont rav ent i
onoft heRomeSt atute?
promot ionsoff or
mul aar eprohibited, [2]I sthe  agr eementv alid,binding
Sec11- >pr ohibit
ionsforadv er
tising andef fect ivewi thoutt he
breastmi lksubst i
tutesintendedf or concur rencebyatl east2/ 3ofal lt
he
i
nfantsandy oungchi l
drenuot o24 member soft heSenat e?
mont hs HELD:  TheAgr eementdoesnot
AndSec46- >sanctionsf or cont r
av eneorunder mi ne, nordoesi t
advertising. differf rom, theRomeSt atute. Far
Thesepr ovisionsaredecl arednul l from goi ngagai nsteachot her,one
andv oid.TheDOHandr espondent s compl ement st heot her . Asamat ter
areprohi bit
edf rom impl ement i
ng off act ,thepr i
nci pleof
saidpr ov i
sions. compl ement arityunder pinst he
creat ionoft heI CC.Accor di
ngt oAr t
.
1oft heSt atut e, thej urisdictionof
Bay
anMunav
sRomul
o641SCRA theI CCi st o“ becompl ement aryt o
244 nat ional cr i
mi nal jur i
sdi ctions[ ofthe
signat or yst ates] .”theRomeSt atute
FACTS: 
In2000,theRP,thr
ough expr essl yr ecogni zest hepr imar y
Charged’
Affai
resEnri
queA.Manalo, j
ur isdictionofst at es, l
iket heRP,
si
gnedtheRomeSt at
utewhich,
by ov erser iouscr imescommi tted
i
tsterms,i
s“subjectt
orati
fi
cati
on, wi thinthei rr espect ivebor ders, t
he
complement aryj
urisdi
cti
onofthe
ICCcomi ngintopl
ayonl ywhenthe Execut i
v eagreement smaybev ali
dly
signat
orystatesareunwi l
l
ingor enteredi ntowithoutsuch
unabletoprosecute. concur rence. AsthePr esident
wieldsv astpower sandi nf
luence,
Also, underi nternational l
aw, thereis herconducti nt heext ernalaffai
rsof
aconsi der abledi ff
erencebet weena thenat ionis,asBay anwoul dputit,
Stat e-Par t
yandasi gnat orytoa “executivealtogether.” Ther i
ghtof
treat y
.Undert heVi ennaConv enti
on thePr esidenttoenteri ntoorr at
if
y
ont heLawofTr eaties,asi gnatory bindingexecut iveagreement shas
statei sonl yobl i
gedt or ef
rainf rom beenconf i
rmedbyl ong
act swhi chwoul ddef eattheobj ect practice. 
DISMI SSED.
andpur poseofat reaty.The
Phi l
ippi nesi sonl yasi gnatoryt othe
RomeSt atuteandnotaSt ate-Party Wor
ldHeal
thOr
gani
zat
ionv
sAqui
no
forlackofr atifi
cationbyt heSenat e.
Thus, itisonl yobl i
gedt or efrainfrom FACTS:
act swhi chwoul ddef eattheobj ect Petit
ioneri sar ecogni zedof fi
cialof
andpur poseoft heRomeSt atute. theWor l
dHeal t
hOr ganization.His
Anyar gumentobl igingt he personal belongingscont ainedi n
Phi l
ippi nest of ol
lowanypr ovisionin twelve crates enteredt hePhi li
ppines
thet reat ywoul dbepr emat ure.And asunaccompani ed baggage  were
ev enassumi ngt hatt hePhi li
ppinesi s all
owedf reeent r
yf rom dut iesand
aSt at e-Par t
y, t
heRomeSt atutest i
ll taxes.Respondentj udgei ssueda
recogni zest hepr imacyof searchwar rantupont her equestof
i
nt ernat ional agreement sent ered respondentof fi
cersoft he
i
nt obet weenSt ates, evenwhenone Const abularyOf fshoreAct i
onCent er
oft heSt atesi snotaSt ate-Par t
yt o (COSAC)f oral l
egedv i
olationoft he
theRomeSt atute. Tarif
fand  Cust oms  Code.
Ther i
ghtoft heExecut i
vetoent er
i
ntobi ndingagr eement swi t
houtt he I
SSUE(S):
necessi tyofsubsequent Whetherornotsearchandsei
zur
eof
Congr essional appr ovalhasbeen pet
it
ioner
’spersonalbel
ongi
ngswas
conf irmedbyl ongusage.Fr om t he l
egal.
earliestday sofourhi story,wehav e
enter edexecut i
v eagreement s HELD:
cov eringsuchsubj ectsas NO.Pet i
tionerisent itl
edt o
commer cialandconsul arrelations, dipl
omat i
ci mmuni tyasr ecognized
mostf avor ed-nationrights,patent bytheexecut i
ve branch oft he
ri
ght s, t
rademar kandcopy right government .Suchdi pl
omat i
c
protect i
on, post alandnav igation i
mmuni t
ycar ri
eswi thit
,amongot her
arrangement sandt hesettl
ementof dipl
omat i
cpr ivil
egesandi mmuni t
ies,
cl
ai ms.Thev ali
dityoft hesehas personalinviolabil
i
ty ,i
nviolabi
li
tyof
nev erbeenser i
ousl yquestionedby theoffi
cial’
spr oper t
ies,exempt ion
ourcour ts. from l
ocal j
urisdicti
on, adn
exemptionf rom taxat i
on
and 
cust
oms 
dut
ies. Whether or not Ar
thur Scalzo i
s
i
ndeed ent itl
ed t o di plomati
c
i
mmuni t
y.

RULLI
NG
Mi
nucherv
sCA397SCRA
YES.
Fact
s
Af or ei
gnagent ,operati
ngwithina
Viol
ation oft he “Danger ous Dr ugs terr
itory, can be cl oaked wi t
h
Act of 1972, ” was f i
led agai nst i
mmuni tyfrom suitaslongasitcan
Minucher f ol
lowing a “ buy-bust be est abl
ished that he is acti
ng
operation”conduct ed byPhi li
ppine withinthedi r
ectiv
esoft hesendi
ng
poli
cenar coticagentsaccompani ed state.
byScal zoint hehouseofMi nucher,
anIraniannat i
onal,whereher oinwas The consentori mpr i
maturofthe
saidt ohav ebeensei zed.Mi nucher Phil
ippine gov ernment t o the
wasl ateracquitt
edbyt hecour t. acti
viti
esoft heUnitedStat
esDrug
EnforcementAgency ,however
,can
Minucherl
ateronfi
l
edf ordamages be gl eaned fr
om t he undi
sput
ed
duet otr
umped-upchargesofdrug fact
si nthecase.
tr
aff
icki
ngmadebyAr t
hurScal
zo.
 The of f
icial exchanges of
Scalzoonhi scountercl
aimst hathe communi cat i
on between
had act ed i
nt he discharge ofhis agenciesoft hegov er
nmentof
off
icialdut i
es as being mer el
y an thetwocount r
ies
agent of t he Drug Enf orcement  Cert
ifi
cat i
ons f r
om of fi
cials of
Admi ni
st r
ati
onoft heUni tedSt at
es boththePhi li
ppineDepar t ment
Depar t
mentofJust i
ce. ofForeignAf fair
sandt heUni ted
Stat
esEmbassy
Scal zosubsequent l
yf i
ledamot ion
 Part
ici
pat ionofmember soft he
to di smi ss t he compl ainton t he
Phil
i
ppi ne Nar coti
cs Command
groundt hat ,beingaspeci alagentof
i
n t he “ buy -
bust oper ati
on”
theUni tedSt atesDr ugEnf orcement
conduct ed att he resi
dence of
Admi nistration,he was ent i
tl
ed to
Minucher at t he behest of
diplomat i
ci mmuni ty
.Heat tachedto
Scal
zo
hismot ion Di plomat i
cNot eoft he
Unit edSt atesEmbassyaddr essedto
Thesemaybei nadequatetosupport
DOJ of t he Phi l
ippines and a
the“dipl
omat i
cst atus”ofthelatt
er
Cer tif
ication ofVi ce ConsulDonna
buttheygiv eenoughi ndi
cati
onthat
Woodwar d,certifyi
ngt hatt henoteis
thePhili
ppinegover nmenthasgiven
at rueandf ait
hful copyofi t
sorigi
nal
.
i
tsimpr i
mat ur
,ifnotconsent,tothe
Trialcour tdeni ed t he mot i
on to
acti
vi
ti
eswi thi
nPhi li
ppi
neterr
it
oryof
dismi ss.
agentScal zo oft he Uni
ted St
ates
DrugEnforcementAgency .
I
SSUE
The job descr i
pti
on ofScalzo has Agreementareaircondi
tioni
nguni
ts
taskedhi m toconductsur vei
llance andwast otakeeffecti
naper i
odof
on suspect ed drug suppli
ers and, fouryear
s.
afterhav i
ngascer t
ainedthet arget
,
toi nfor
m l ocallaw enfor
cers who  
woul dthenbeexpect edtomaket he WhenI ndonesi anMi nister
arrest. CounsellorKasi m assumedt he
posit
ionofChi efofAdmi ni
strati
on,
I
nconduct i
ngsur v
eill
anceactiv
iti
es heallegedl yfoundr espondent ’
swork
on Mi nucher,lat
er act i
ng as the andser vicesunsat isfactoryandnot
poseur-buyer dur
ing t he buy-
bust i
ncompl iancewi tht hest andardsset
operati
on,and t hen becomi ng a i
nt heMai ntenanceAgr eement .
pri
ncipalwitnessi
nt hecrimi
nalcase Hence, t
heI ndonesianEmbassy
agai
nstMi nucher, ter
mi natedt heagr eement .

Scalzo har
dlycan besaidto hav
e  
acted beyond the scope of hi
s Ther espondentcl aimsthatthe
off
icial
funct
ionordut
ies. aforesaidterminationwasar bit
rar
y
Adv
ert
isement
s andunl awful.Hence, hefi
leda
REPORTTHI
SAD
compl aintagainstthepeti
tioners
whichopposedbyi nvoki
ngi mmunity
fr
om sui t.
Republ
i
cofIndonesi
avsVinzonsGR
No154705(2003)  
 
Fact
s:
I
ssues:
Thisisapet it
ionforrev i
ewofthe
decisi
onmadebyCour tofAppealsin
rul
ingt hattheRepubl icofIndonesia 1.Whet herornottheRepubl i
cof
gaveitsconsentt obesuedand Indonesiacaninvoket hedoctr
ine
vol
unt ari
lysubmi tteditsel
ftothe ofsov erei
gnimmuni tyfr
om suit.
l
awsandj uri
sdict
ionofPhi li
ppine 2.Whet herornotpetit
ioners
courtsandt hatpetit
ioners AmbassadorSoer atmi nand
AmbassadorSoer atminandMi nister
Counsel lorKasim wai vedthei
r Mi ni
sterCounsell
orKasim may
i
mmuni t
yf r
om suit. besuedher ei
nintheirpri
vat
e
capaciti
es.
 
Petiti
oner,Republi
cofI ndonesia,  
representedbyitsCounsel l
or,Sit
i Di
scussi
ons:
Partinah,ent
eredintoaMai ntenance
Agreementwi threspondentJames TherulethataStatemaynotbe
Vinzon, sol
epropriet
orofVi nzon suedwithoutit
sconsentisa
TradeandSer v
ices.Theequi pment necessaryconsequenceofthe
cover edbytheMai ntenance pri
ncipl
esofindependenceand
equalit
yofSt ates.Thepr act ical foreignst atewi thapr iv atepar ty
j
ustifi
cationfort hedoct r
ineof cannotbeconst ruedast he
sovereignimmuni tyi
st hatther ecan
benol egalrightagainstt heaut hor it
y ulti
mat et estofwhet herornoti t
thatmakest hel awonwhi cht he i
sanact  juriimper i
i or j
 ur i
ri
ghtdepends.I nthecaseoff or
ei gn gest ioni s.Suchacti sonl yt he
States,theruleisderivedf rom the startoft hei nqui ry.Ther ei sno
pri
ncipleofthesov er
eignequal i
t yof disput et hatt heest abl ishmentof
States,asexpr essedint he
maxi m parinpar em nonhabet adi plomat icmi ssioni sanactj uri
i
mper i
um.Al lstatesaresov erei
gn i
mper ii
.Thest atemayent eri nto
equalsandcannotasser tjurisdiction cont ract swi thpr i
v ateent itiest o
overoneanot her.]Acont r
ar yattitude mai nt aint hepr emi ses,
woul d“undulyv exthepeaceof furnishi ngsandequi pmentoft he
nati
ons” .
embassy .TheRepubl icof
  Indonesi ai sact i
ngi npur sui tofa
Ther ulesofI nternat i
onal Law, sov erei gnact iv i
tywheni tent ered
howev er ,arenotunbendi ngor i
nt oacont ractwi tht he
i
mmunet ochange.Thei ncreasing respondent .Themai nt enance
needofsov erei
gnSt at est oent er agreementwasent eredi nt oby
i
nt opur elycommer cial act i
vit
ies
theRepubl icofI ndonesi ai nt he
remot elyconnect edwi tht he
dischar geoft heirgov ernment al dischar geofi tsgov er nment al
functi
onsbr oughtaboutanew funct ions.I tcannotbedeemedt o
conceptofsov ereigni mmuni ty.Thi
s hav ewai vedi t simmuni t yf rom
concept ,
ther estrict
ivet heor y
, hol
ds suit.
thatthei mmuni tyoft hesov ereignis
2.Ar t
icle31oft heVi enna
recogni zedonl ywi thr egar dtopublic
actsoract s j
ureimper i
i( publicacts Conv ent iononDi plomat ic
ofthegover nmentofa st ate),but Relat ionspr ov i
dest hata
notwi thr egardtopr i
v ateact sor diplomat icagentshal lenj oy
acts j
ur egest i
onis( thecommer ci
al i
mmuni tyf rom t hecr imi nal
activi
tiesofast ate.)
j
ur i
sidi ctionoft her ecei v ingSt ate.
  Heshal l alsoenj oyi mmuni ty
  from i tsci vilandadmi nist rat i
ve
j
ur i
sdi ct i
on, excepti nt hecaseof :
Rul
i
ngs:
o ar eal act i
onr elat ingt o
privat ei mmov abl epr oper ty
1.TheSupr emeCour trul
edthatt
he
situat edi nt het er ritor yoft he
republi
cofIndonesiacannotbe
recei v i
ngSt ate, unl esshe
deemedt ohavewai vedit
s
hol dsi tonbehal foft he
i
mmuni t
ytosuit
.Themer e
sendi ngSt at ef ort he
enteri
ngintoacont r
actbya
pur posesoft hemi ssi on;
 o anact i
onr elati
ngt o i
mpor
tat
ionofsuchnon-
dol
l
argoods
successi oni nwhi cht he
f
rom Japan(
ast
her
ewasaTr
ade
dipl
omat i
cagenti si nvolved
asexecut or,admi nistrator, and Fi
nanci
alAgr
eementb/
nthe
heirorlegat eeasapr ivate Phi
l
ippi
nes and Japan t
hen)
.EST
personandnotonbehal fof
quest
ionedt
hev
ali
dit
yoft
hesai
dEO
thesendi ngSt ate;
o anact i
onr elati
ngt oany av
err
ingt
hatt
hesai
dEOwasnev
er
professional orcommer ci
al concur
reduponbyt
heSenat
e.The
activi
tyexer cisedbyt he
i
ssuewasel
evat
edt
otheCour
tof
dipl
omat i
cagenti nt he
receivi
ngSt ateout sidehi s TaxAppeal
sandt
hel
att
err
uledi
n
offi
cialfunct ions. f
avor of EST.The Commi
ssi
oner

TheSol ici
torGener albelievest hat appeal
ed.
saidactmayf al
l undersubpar agr aph
(c)thereof,butsaidpr ovisioncl early
appliesonlytoasi t
uationwher et he I
SSUE:
 
Whet
her or not t
he EO i
s
dipl
omat i
cagentengagesi nany subj
ectt
othe concur
rence ofat
professionalorcommer cialactivity
outsideof f
ici
alfunctions, whichi s l
east2/
3oft
heSenat
e.
notthecaseher ein.
Commissi
onerofCust
omsvs.
HELD:
 
No,execut
iveAgr
eement
sar
e
East
ernSeaTradi
ng(G.
R.No.
 L-
14279) notl
i
ket
reat
ieswhi
char
esubj
ectt
o
t
heconcur
renceofatl
east2/
3oft
he
FACTS:
 
ESTwasashi
ppi
ngcompany
member
soft
heSenat
e.Agr
eement
s
char
ged i
n t
he i
mpor
tat
ion f
rom
concl
udedbyt
hePr
esi
dentwhi
chf
all
Japanofoni
onandgar
li
cint
othe
shor
t of t
reat
ies ar
e commonl
y
Phi
l
ippi
nes. I
n 1956, t
he
r
efer
redt
oasexecut
iveagr
eement
s
Commi
ssi
onerofCust
omsor
der
ed
and ar
e no l
ess common i
n our
t
he sei
zur
e and f
orf
eit
ure of t
he
schemeofgov
ernmentt
hanar
ethe
i
mpor
tgoodsbecauseESTwasnot
mor
efor
mali
nst
rument
s— t
reat
ies
abl
eto compl
y wi
th Cent
ralBank
and conv
ent
ions.They somet
imes
Ci
rcul
ars 44 and 45. The sai
d
t
aket
hef
orm ofexchangesofnot
es
ci
rcul
arswer
epur
suantt
o EO 328
and atot
hert
imes t
hatofmor
e
w/
c sought t
o r
egul
ate t
he
f
ormal document
s denomi
nat
ed
‘
agr
eement
s’or‘
prot
ocol
s’
.Thepoi
nt commer
cial r
elat
ions gener
all
y,
wher
e or
dinar
y cor
respondence i
nter
nat
ionalcl
aims,post
almat
ter
s,
bet
weent
hisandot
hergov
ernment
s t
her
egi
str
ati
onoft
rade-
mar
ksand
ends and agr
eement
s — whet
her copy
right
s,et
c.Someoft
hem wer
e
denomi
nat
ed execut
ive agr
eement
s concl
uded not by speci
fi
c
orexchangesofnot
esorot
her
wise congr
essi
onalaut
hor
izat
ion buti
n
— begi
n,maysomet
imesbedi
ff
icul
t conf
ormi
tywi
thpol
i
ciesdecl
aredi
n
ofr
eadyascer
tai
nment
.Itwoul
dbe act
sofCongr
esswi
thr
espectt
othe
usel
esst
ounder
taket
odi
scussher
e gener
alsubj
ectmat
ter
,suchast
ari
ff
t
he l
arge v
ari
ety of execut
ive act
s;whi
l
e st
il
lot
her
s,par
ti
cul
arl
y
agr
eement
sassuch,
concl
udedf
rom t
hosewi
thr
espectt
otheset
tl
ement
t
imet
oti
me.Hundr
edsofexecut
ive of cl
aims agai
nst f
orei
gn
agr
eement
s, ot
her t
han t
hose gov
ernment
s, wer
e concl
uded
ent
ered i
nto under t
he t
rade- i
ndependent
lyofanyl
egi
slat
ion.
agr
eement
s act
, hav
e been
negot
iat
edwi
thf
orei
gngov
ernment
s.
...I
twoul
dseem t
obesuf
fi
cient
,in
or
der t
o show t
hat t
he t
rade Bay
anv
.Zamor
a
I
. 
  
  
 THEFACTS
agr
eement
sundert
heactof1934
The Republic oft he Phi
lippines
ar
enotanomal
ousi
nchar
act
er,t
hat andt heUnitedSt at
esofAmer i
caent ered
i
nto an agr eement called the Vi siti
ng
t
heyar
enott
reat
ies,andt
hatt
hey ForcesAgr eement( VFA).Theagr eement
hav
e abundant pr
ecedent i
n our wast r
eatedasat reat
ybyt hePhi li
ppine
governmentand was r at i
fi
ed by t hen-
hi
stor
y,t
oref
ert
ocer
tai
ncl
assesof President Joseph Est rada wi th t he
concurrence of 2/ 3 of t he t otal
agr
eement
sher
etof
oreent
eredi
nto member shi
poft hePhil
ippineSenate.

byt
heExecut
ivewi
thoutt
heappr
oval TheVFAdef inesthet r
eat mentof
U.S.t roops and per sonnelv isi
ti
ng the
of t
he Senat
e.They cov
er such Phili
ppines.
 I
tpr ovidesf orthegui deli
nes
subj
ect
sast
hei
nspect
ionofv
essel
s, togov ernsuchv i
sits,andf urt
herdef i
nes
ther i
ghtsoft heU. S.andt hePhi l
ippi
ne
nav
igat
ion dues, i
ncome t
ax on government sint he mat t
erofcr iminal
j
urisdicti
on, mov ement of v essel and
shi
ppi
ng pr
ofi
ts,t
he admi
ssi
on of air
craft,importati
on and expor t
ati
on of
equipment ,
mat eri
alsandsuppl ies.
ci
vi
lai
rcr
aft
,cust
omsmat
ter
s,and
 thattheothercont
ractingpartyaccept
  sor
Pet
it
ionersargued,
 i
nterali
a,that acknowledges t
heagr eementasat reaty.
theVFAv i
olates§25,Arti
cleXVII
Ioft he Tor equi
retheothercont r
acti
ng stat
e,the
1987 Constituti
on,which provi
des that UnitedStatesofAmer i
caint hi
scase,t o
“for
eignmili
tarybases,t
roops,orf
acil
i
ties submi t
 t
he VFA t o t he United St at
es
shallnotbe all
owed int he Phi
li
ppines Senatef orconcurrence pursuantt oi t
s
exceptunderatr
eatydulyconcurr
edinby Constit
uti
on,istoaccordstri
ctmeani ngto
theSenate...andrecognizedasatreaty thephrase.
bytheothercont
ract
ingState.
” 
 Wel
l-
entrenched i st he pr
incipl
e
I
I.
  
  
THEI
SSUE thatthewordsusedi nt heConst i
tut
ionare
tobegi ventheirordinarymeani ngexcept
Wast
heVFAunconst
it
uti
onal
? wher etechnicaltermsar eempl oyed,in
whichcaset hesignificancethusattached
I
II
. 
  
THERULI
NG tot hem prevail
s. 
It
sl anguageshoul dbe
understood int he sense t hey havei n
[
The Cour
t DISMISSED 
the commonuse.
consol
idated peti
ti
ons, held that the
peti
ti
onersdidnotcommitgr aveabuseof Mor eover,iti s inconsequent
ial
di
screti
on, and sustained the whethertheUni tedStat
est reatstheVFA
consti
tuti
onal
it
yoftheVFA.] onl
yasanex ecuti
veagreementbecause,
under inter
national l
aw, an execut i
ve
NO, t he VFA i
s not agreementisasbi ndi
ngasat r
eat
y.Tobe
unconst
it
uti
onal
. sure,aslongast heVFA possessest he
el
ement s of an agr eement under
Secti
on25,Ar ticleXVIIIdi sallows i
nternat
ionallaw,thesai
dagr eementi
sto
for
eignmi li
tar
ybases,t r
oops,orf acil
ities betakenequal l
yasatreaty.
i
n t he count ry , unl
ess t he f oll
owi ng
conditi
onsar esuf fi
ci
ent l
ymet ,
 viz: (
a)i t xxx  
  
  
  
  
  
  
   
  
  
  
  
  
  
mustbeundera  t
reaty;(b)thetreat ymust xxx 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  xxx
be 
dul yconcur red in byt heSenat e and,
whensor equiredbycongr ess,rat if
iedby Ther ecordsrev ealthatt heUnited
amaj ori
tyofthev otescastbyt hepeopl e StatesGov ernment,thr oughAmbassador
i
n a nat ional r efer
endum; and ThomasC.Hubbar d,hasst atedt hatthe
(c)
 r
ecognized as a t reaty by the ot her United St ates gov ernment has f ull
y
contract
ingstate. commi t
tedtol i
vi
ngupt ot het ermsoft he
VFA.  
Forasl ongast heUni tedSt atesof
Therei s no di spute as t ot he Amer ica accepts oracknowl edges the
presenceoft hef ir
sttwor equisitesinthe VFAasat r
eaty,andbi ndsi t
sel ffurt
herto
caseoft heVFA.  Theconcur rencehanded compl y withi ts obli
gat i
ons under t he
byt heSenatethroughResol utionNo.18i s tr
eat y
,thereisindeedmar kedcompl i
ance
i
naccor dancewi ththepr ov i
sionsoft he withthemandat eoftheConst ituti
on.
Const i
tuti
on...t heprov i
sioni n[in§25,
Articl
e XVI I
I]requiri
ng rati
ficati
on by a
maj ori
tyoft hev otescasti nanat i
onal
Gonzal
esv
sHechanov
a
referendum bei ng unnecessar y since
Congr esshasnotr equir
edi t
.
Fact
s:
xxx  
  
  
  
  
  
  
   
  
  
  
  
  
   Exec.SecretaryHechanov aaut
hori
sedthe
xxx 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  xxx i
mpor tat
ionoff or
eignricetobe
purchasedfrom pri
v at
esources.Ramon
Thi
sCour ti
softhef
ir
mv iew t
hat Gonzalesfil
edapet iti
onopposingthesai
d
t
hephr “
ase recogni
zedasat
reat
y” means i
mpl ementationbecauseRANo.3542
whichallegedl
yrepealsoramends enactedbyCongr ess.Hemaynot
RepublicActNo.2207, pr
ohi
bit
sthe i
nterfereintheper formanceoft he
i
mpor tati
onofr i
ceandcorn“bytheRice l
egislati
vepower soft hel at
ter
, exceptin
andCor nAdmi ni
str
ati
onoranyot her theexerciseofhisv et
opower .Hemaynot
governmentagency .
” defeatlegisl
ati
veenact mentsthathav e
acquiredthestatusofl aw,byindirect
ly
  repeali
ngt hesamet hroughanexecut i
ve
Respondent sal l
egedt hatt heimpor tation agreementpr ovi
di ngfort heperformance
permi tt
edi nRepubl i
cAct2207i stobe ofthev eryactprohi bi
tedbysai dlaws.
author i
z edbyt hePresi dentoft he  
Phili
ppines, andbyoronbehal foft he
Gov ernmentoft hePhi li
ppi nes.Theyadd  
thataf t
erenj oini
ngtheRi ceandCor n
admi nistrat
ionandanyot hergov er
nment Rul
i
ng/
s:
agencyf rom importingr iceandcor n, Yes.TheConst it
utionauthori
zesthe
Section10ofRepubl icAct3542i ndicates nul
li
fi
cationofat reaty
,notonlywhenit
thatonl yprivatepartiesmayi mpor tr i
ce confl
ict
swi t
ht hefundament all
aw,but
underi tsprov i
sions.Theycont endedt hat al
so,wheni trunscount ert
oanactof
thegov ernmenthasal readyconst i
tute Congress.
vali
dexecut i
v eagreement swi thVietnam
andBur ma, thatincaseofconf li
ct  
betweenRepubl i
cActNos.2207and3542,
thelattershoul dprev ailandt heconf li
ctbe Sect ion2Ar ti
cle8st atest hatj udicial
resolvedundert heAmer ican reviewi sv estedwi tht heSupr emeCour t
.
j
ur i
sprudence. Theal legedconsummat i
onoft he
aforement i
onedcont ractswi thVi etnam
  andBur madoesnotr endert hiscase
academi c.Republ i
cActNo.2207enj oi
ns
  ourgov ernmentnotf rom ent er ingi nto
I
ssue/
s: cont ract sfort hepur chaseofr ice, but
from ent eringr i
ce,exceptundert he
Whet
herornotanint
ernat
ional
agreement condi t i
onspr escri
bedi nsaidAct .
maybeinv
ali
datedbyourcourt
s. Aj udi cialdecl ar
ati
onofi l
legal i
tyoft he
proposedi mpor tati
onwoul dnotcompel
  ourGov ernmentt odef aultint he
Di
scussi
ons: per f
or manceofsuchobl i
gat i
onsasi tmay
hav econt ractedwi tht hesel l
er sofr i
cein
From aconst i
tutional viewpoi nt
,thesaid quest i
onbecauseasi defrom t hef actthat
i
nter nationalagr eementbei ng saidobl igationsmaybecompl iedwi thout
i
nconsi stentwitht hepr ov i
sionsof i
mpor ti
ngt hesai dcommodi tyint ot he
Republ i
cAct sNos.2207and3452. Phi l
ippi nes, t
hepr oposedi mpor tationmay
Althought hePr esi dentmay ,underthe stil
lbel egal i
zedbycompl yingwi tht he
Amer icanconst itut i
onal sy stem enterint
o prov isionsoft heafor ement ionedl aws.
execut i
veagr eement swi thoutpr evious
l
egi slativ
eaut hor i
t y,hemaynot ,by
execut i
veagr eement ,ent eri nt
oa WrightVsCA
tr
ansact i
onwhi chi spr ohi bitedbyst at
utes 235SCRA229
enact edpr iorther eto.
 
FACTS:
UndertheConsti
tut
ion,
themainf
unct
ion
oftheExecut
ivei
stoenforcel
aws
Petitioner ,
anAust rali
anCi ti
zen, was ofacr i
me; 3)statuteswhi ch
soughtbyAust r
ali
anaut horit
iesf or prescri
besgr eaterpunishmentf ora
i
ndict ablecr i
mesi nhi scount r
y. cri
meal readycommi tt
ed; or,
4)laws
Extradi t
ionpr oceedi ngswer ef i
led whichaltertherulesofev idenceso
againsthi m whichor deredthe astomakei tsubstanti
allyeasierto
depor tationofpet itioner.Said convictadefendant .
decisi onwassust ainedbyt heCour t
ofAppeal s;hence, pet i
tionercame “Appl yingt heconst i
tutional princi pl
e,
hereinbywayofr ev i
ewoncer t
iorari
, the( Cour t)hashel dt hatthe
tosetasi detheor derofdepor t
ation, prohibi ti
onappl i
esonl ytocr imi nal
cont endingt hatthepr ovisi
onoft he l
egisl ationwhi chaf f
ect st he
Treat ygiv i
ngr et
roact iveeffecttot he subst ant ial ri
ght soft heaccused. ”
extradi t
iont r
eatyamount stoanex Thisbei ngso, ther eisnoabsol ut ely
postf act olawwhi chv iolat
esSect i
on nomer itinpet iti
oner ’scont ent i
on
21ofAr ticleVIoft heConst it
ution. thatt her ul i
ngoft hel owercour t
sustai ningt heTr eaty’sr etroact iv e
I
SSUE: applicat ionwi thr espectt oof fenses
commi ttedpr i
ort otheTr eat y’
s
Canextradi
ti
ont
reat
ybeappl
i
ed comi ngi ntof or ceandef fect ,viol ates
ret
roact
ivel
y? theConst itutional prohi bitionagai nst
expostf act ol aws.Ast heCour tof
Appeal scor rect l
yconcl uded, the
RULI
NG: Treat yisnei therapi eceofcr i
mi nal
l
egisl ationnoracr i
mi nal procedur al
NO.Ear lycomment atorsunder st
ood statute.“ Itmer el
ypr ov idesf ort he
expostf act
ol awst oi ncludealll
aws extr
adi ti
onofper sonswant edf or
ofretrospect iv
eappl ication,whether prosecut ionofanof fenseoracr i
me
ci
v i
lorcr iminal.Howev er,Chief whichof fenseorcr imewasal ready
JusticeSal monP.Chase, ci
ti
ng commi ttedorconsummat edatt he
Blackstone, TheFeder ali
standot her ti
met het reat ywasr atif
ied. ”
earl
yU. S.stat econst i
tutionsin
Calderv s.Bul lconcl udedt hatthe Bar
cel
onaTr
act
ionCase
conceptwasl i
mi tedonl ytopenal
andcr iminal statutes. BarcelonaTr act i
on,Light , andPower
Company ,
Lt d was
a 
corpor ation  incorpor atedi n Canada,
  wit
h Tor ont o headquar ter s,thatmadeand
suppli
edel ect ricit
yin Spai n.Ithadissued
AsconceivedunderourConst
it
uti
on, bondst onon- Spani shi nv estors,but
expostfactol
awsar e duri
ngt he Spani shCiv i
l War  
(1936-9)the
Spanishgov ernmentr ef usedt oall
ow
BTLPt ot ransf ercur r
encyt opay
1)statut
esthatmakeanact bondholder st hei nterestt heywer edue.In
punishabl
easacr i
mewhensuchact 1948agr oupofbondhol derssuedi n
wasnotanof fensewhencommi tt
ed; Spaintodecl aret hatBTLPhaddef aul
ted
2)lawswhich,whil
enotcreat
ingnew onthegr oundi thadf ailedt opayt he
i
nterest.TheSpani shcour tallowedtheir
off
enses,aggravat
etheseri
ousness
claim.Thebusi nesswassol d,t hesur plus
distributedt ot hebondhol der s, anda FACTS:
smal l amountwaspai dtoshar ehol ders.
Theshar ehol der sinCanadasucceededi n Thisisanor i
ginalPeti
tionfor
persuadi ngCanadaandot herst atesto Certi
orariunderRule65oft he
compl aint hat  Spain  haddeni edj usti
ce RulesofCour twithan
andv iolatedaser i
esoft reatyobl igati
ons.
Howev er,Canadaev ent uallyaccept edt hat
appli
cat i
onfortheissuanceofa
Spai nhadt her ightt opr ev entBTLPf r
om writofpreli
minarymandat or y
transf erri
ngcur rencyanddecl ar i
ngBTLP i
njunctionagainsttheOf f
iceof
bankr upt .Oft heshar es, 88percentwer e theExecut i
veSecretary,t
he
ownedbyBel gi ans, andt heBel gi an
gov ernmentcompl ained, i
nsist ingt he SecretaryoftheDFA, the
Spani shgov ernmenthadnotact ed SecretaryoftheDOJ, andt he
proper l
y.Theymadeani niti
al clai m at OSG.
the Internat ional Cour tofJust ice  i
n1958,
butl aterwi t hdr ewi tt oallownegot i
ati
ons.
Subsequentnegot i
at ionsbr okedown, and Petitionersareall
member sof
anewcl aim wasf i
ledi n1962.Spai n theMALAYALOLAS, anon-st
ock,
cont endedt hatBel gium hadnost anding
becauseBTLPwasaCanadi ancompany . non- profi
torgani
zati
on
registeredwiththeSEC,
Rul
i
ng: establ i
shedforthepurposeof
prov i
dingaidt ot
hev i
cti
msof
TheI nternat ional Cour tofJust icehel d
thatBel gium hadnol egal interesti nthe
rapebyJapanesemi l
i
taryf
orces
mat tert oj ust i
fyitbr ingingacl aim. i
nt hePhi li
ppinesduri
ngthe
AlthoughBel gianshar eholder ssuf feredi f SecondWor l
dWar .
awr ongwasdonet ot hecompany ,itwas
onlyt hecompany 'sright sthatcoul dhav e
beeni nfringedbySpai n'sact ions.Itwoul d Pet i
ti
oner sclaimt hatsi nce1998,
onlybei fdi rectshar ehol derr i
ght s(such theyhav eappr oachedt he
ast odi vi
dends)wer eaf fected, thatthe
stateoft heshar eholder swoul dhav ean
Execut i
veDepar t
mentt hrough
i
ndependentr ightofact ion.Itwasa theDOJ, DFA, andOSG,
gener alruleofi nternat i
onal lawt hatwhen request i
ngassi stancei nfili
nga
anunl awf ul actwascommi tt
edagai nsta claim againstt heJapanese
company ,onl ythest at eofi ncor poration
oft hecompanycoul dsue, andbecause offici
alsandmi li
taryof ficers
Canadahadchosennott o, t
hiswast he whoor deredt heest ablishment
end.Thei deaofa" diplomat icpr otection" oft he“comf or twomen”st ations
ofshar ehol der swasunsoundbecausei t
woul dcr eat econf usi onandi nsecur i
tyin
i
nt hePhi li
ppines.Butof fi
cialsof
economi cr elat i
onsasshar esar e'widel y theExecut iveDepar tment
scat teredandf r
equent l
ychangehands' . decl i
nedt oassi stt hepet i
tioners,
Thecour tal sosai dt hatast at eisbound andt ookt heposi ti
ont hatt he
togi vet hesamel egal pr otectiont o
foreigni nv est ment sandnat ional s,either i
ndi vi
dual cl
aimsoft hecomf ort
fornat ural orlegal per sons, wheni t womenf orcompensat ionhad
admi tsthem t oi tster r
itory. alreadybeenf ul l
ysat isfiedby
Japan’ scompl iancewi tht he
Vi
nuy
avsRomul
o
PeaceTr
eat
ybetweenthe ISSUE:
Phi
li
ppi
nesandJapan. WONt heExecutiv
eDepar t
ment
commi t
tedgraveabuseof
Hence, thi
spet i
tionwher e discret
ioninnotespousing
pet i
ti
oner spr ayf orthiscourtto petit
ioners’
clai
msf oroffi
cial
(a)decl arethatr espondents apologyandot herfor
msof
commi ttedgr av eabuseof reparati
onsagainstJapan.
discretionamount ingtolackor
excessofdi scr etioninrefusing RULI NG:
toespouset heircl ai
msf orthe Petit
ionlacksmer i
t.From a
crimesagai nsthumani tyand Domest icLawPer spect i
ve,the
warcr imescommi tt
edagainst ExecutiveDepartmenthast he
them; and( b)compel t
he exclusiv
epr er
ogativeto
respondent st oespouset hei
r determinewhet hertoespouse
claimsf orof fici
al apologyand peti
tioners’
clai
msagai nstJapan.
otherf ormsofr eparati
ons
againstJapanbef orethe Poli
ti
cal questionsr efer“ to
International Cour tofJust i
ce thosequest i
onswhi ch, undert he
(ICJ)andot heri nternati
onal Constit
ut i
on,aret obedeci ded
tri
bunal s. bythepeopl ei ntheirsov ereign
capacity,ori
nr egardt owhi ch
Respondentsmaintai
nt hatall ful
ldiscreti
onar yaut horityhas
cl
aimsofthePhi l
ippi
nesandi ts beendel egatedt othel egi slati
ve
nati
onal
srelati
vetothewarwer e orexecut i
vebr anchoft he
deal
twithintheSanFr ancisco government .Itisconcer nedwi t
h
PeaceTreatyof1951andt he i
ssuesdependentupont he
bi
lat
eralReparat
ionsAgr eement wisdom, notlegalityofa
of1956. parti
cularmeasur e.
”

OnJanuar y15, 1997,t

heAsian Onet ypeofcaseofpol iti
cal
Women’ sFundandt he questionsi nvolvesquesti
onsof
Phil
ippi
negov er
nmentsigneda for
eignr elati
ons.Itiswell-
Memor andum ofUnder st
anding establi
shedt hat“t
heconductof
formedical andwelfar
esupport theforeignr elat
ionsofour
programsforf ormercomfort governmenti scommi ttedbythe
women.Ov erthenextfi
veyears, Const i
tuti
ont otheexecuti
veand
thesewerei mplementedbythe l
egislati
ve–‘ t
he
DepartmentofSoci alWelf
are poli
ti
cal ’
–depar tmentsofthe
andDev el
opment . government ,andthepropriet
yof
whatmaybedonei nthe
exerciseofthispolit
icalpoweri
s war.Hehashi sconfi
denti
al
notsubj ecttoj
udiciali
nquir
yor sourcesofinfor
mation.Hehas
decision.”ar
edel i
cate,complex
, hi
sagent sinthefor
m of
andi nvolvel
argeelement sof di
plomat i
c,consul
arandother
prophecy .Theyareandshoul d off
icial
s.
beunder t
akenonlybyt hose
dir
ect l
yresponsibletothe TheExecut i
veDepar tmenthas
peopl ewhosewel farethey determi nedt hattakingup
advanceori mper i
l. peti
tioner s’causewoul dbe
i
nimi cal toourcount ry’sforei
gn
Butnotal l casesi mpl icat ing poli
cyi nterests,andcoul d
foreignr elat ionspr esentpol itical disr
uptourr el
ati
onswi thJapan,
quest ions, andcour tscer tainly therebycr eat i
ngser i
ous
possesst heaut hor i
tyt o i
mpl icationsf orstabil
ityinthi
s
const rueori nv ali
dat et reat i
es regi
on.Fort het oov er
t urnthe
andexecut iveagr eement s. Execut i
v eDepar tment ’
s
Howev er,thequest i
onwhet her determi nationwoul dmeanan
thePhi li
ppinegov ernment assessmentoft hef oreignpoli
cy
shoul despousecl aimsofi ts j
udgment sbyacoor dinate
national sagai nstaf oreign poli
tical branchtowhi ch
gov ernmenti saf or eignr elations authorityt omaket hatjudgment
mat ter, t
heaut horityforwhi chi s hasbeenconst it
utional l
y
demonst r
abl ycommi ttedbyour commi tted.
Const i
tuti
onnott ot hecour t
s
butt ot hepol iti
cal branches.I n From amuni ci pal l
aw
thi
scase, theExecut ive perspect ive,cer tiorariwi l
lnotli
e.
Depar t
menthasal r
eadydeci ded Asagener al pr i
nciple, where
thati tistot hebesti nter estof suchanext raor dinar ylengthof
thecount ryt owai veal l claimsof ti
mehasl apsedbet weent he
i
tsnat i
onal sf orrepar at i
ons treaty’sconcl usi onandour
agai nstJapani ntheTr eat yof consi deration–t heExecut i
ve
Peaceof1951.Thewi sdom of mustbegi venampl edi scretion
suchdeci si oni snotf ort he toassesst hef or ei
gnpol i
cy
cour tst oquest ion. consi derationsofespousi nga
claim againstJapan, from the
ThePr esident,notCongress,
has standpoi ntofbot ht hei nt
erests
thebetteroppor tuni
tyof oft hepet i
tioner sandt hoseof
knowingt hecondi ti
onswhich theRepubl ic,anddeci deont hat
prevai
l i
nf orei
gncountri
es,and basi sifapol ogi esar esuf fi
cient,
especiall
yi sthi
st r
ueint
imeof andwhet herf urtherst epsar e
appr
opr
iat
eornecessar
y. Event hei nvocationofj us
cogensnor msander gaomnes
Int hei nter national spher e, obli
gat i
onswi l
lnotal tert hi
s
tradi ti
onal ly,t
heonl ymeans analysis.Pet i
ti
oner shav enot
av ailablef orindi vidual stobr i
ng shownt hatthecr imes
acl ai m wi thint hei nternat i
onal commi tt
edbyt heJapanese
l
egal system hasbeenwhent he armyv iolatedjuscogens
i
ndi v idual isabl et oper suadea prohibiti
onsatt het imet he
gov er nmentt obr ingacl aim on TreatyofPeacewassi gned,or
thei ndi vidual’sbehal f.Byt aking thatthedut yt opr osecut e
upt hecaseofoneofi t
s perpetratorsofi nternational
subj ect sandbyr esor t
ingt o cri
mesi saner gaomnes
diplomat icact i
onori nter nati
onal obli
gat i
onorhasat tai
nedt he
j
udi ci alpr oceedi ngsonhi s statusofj uscogens.
behal f,aSt atei si nreal i
ty
asser ti
ngi t
sownr i
ghtt oensur e, Thet erm er gaomnes( Latin: in
i
nt heper sonofi t
ssubj ects, relationt oev er yone)i n
respectf ort her ulesof i
nt ernat ional lawhasbeenused
i
nt er national law. asal egal term descr i
bi ng
obligat ionsowedbySt ates
Withint helimi t
spr escr i
bedby towar dst hecommuni tyof
i
nter nat i
onal law, aSt atemay statesasawhol e.Essent i
al
exerci sedi plomat i
cpr otection distinct i
onshoul dbedr awn
bywhat evermeansandt o bet weent heobl i
gat ionsofa
what ev erext entitt hi
nksf it
,forit Stat et owar dst hei nter national
i
si tsownr ightthatt heSt ateis communi tyasawhol e, and
asser ting.Shoul dt henat ural or thosear i
singv is-à-visanot her
l
egal per sononwhosebehal fit Stat ei nt hef i
el dofdi plomat ic
i
sact i
ngconsi derthatt hei r prot ection.Byt heirv erynat ure,
ri
ght sar enotadequat ely thef or merar et heconcer nofal l
protect ed, theyhav enor emedy Stat es.I nv iewoft hei mpor tance
i
ni nter national l
aw.Al ltheycan oft her ight sinv olv ed, allStat es
doi sr esor ttonat i
onal law, i
f canbehel dt ohav eal egal
meansar eav ail
able,wi thav i
ew i
nt eresti nt hei rpr otect ion;they
tofur ther i
ngt heircauseor areobl igat i
onser gaomnes.
obtaini ngr edress.Al lthese
quest ionsr emai nwi t
hi nt he Theterm“ j
uscogens”(l
it
eral
l
y,
provinceofmuni cipal l
awanddo “compel
linglaw”)r
efer
sto
notaf f ecttheposi tion normsthatcommand
i
nter nat i
onal l
y . peremptoryauthor
it
y,
supersedingconf l
ict
ingt r
eaties FACTS:
andcustom.Juscogensnor ms
areconsideredper empt oryint he  
   
   
  
   
  
  The  USS Guar di
an is an
Av enger -class mi ne
sensethattheyar emandat ory,
count ermeasur es ship of t he US
donotadmi tder ogation,andcan Nav y.I n December 2012,t he US
bemodi fi
edonl ybygener al Embassy i n t he Phi l
ippines
i
nternati
onal normsofequi valent request ed di plomatic clear
ance f or
authori
ty thesai dv essel“toenterandexi tthe
terri
torialwat ersoft he Phi l
ippines
andt oar ri
v eattheportofSubi cBay
WHEREFORE,t
hePeti
ti
oni
s for t he pur pose of r out
ine shi p
her
ebyDI
SMISSED. replenishment , mai nt
enance, and
crewl iber ty.
”OnJanuar y6,2013, the
shiplef tSasebo, Japanf orSubi cBay,
Ar
igov
sSwi
ft arrivi
ngonJanuar y13,2013af tera
briefstopf orfueli
nOki nawa, Japan.

 
   
  
  
   
  
  On Januar y15,2013,t he
2014CASEDI
GEST: USSGuar diandepar t
edSubi cBayf or
i
t s nextpor tofcal lin Makassar ,
ARIGOV.SWI
FT Indonesia.OnJanuar y17,2013 at
Publi
shedby 
admi
n on 
Febr
uar
y21,
2015 
|
 Leav
e 2:20 a.m.whi l
et ransit
ing theSul u
aresponse Sea,t he shi pran agr ound on t he
northwestsi deofSout hShoaloft he
MOSTREV.PEDROARIGO,
et.al
., Tubbat aha Reef s,about80 mi les
Peti
ti
oner
s, east-southeastofPal awan.Noone
wasi njuredintheincident,andt here
v
s. havebeennor epor t
sofl eakingfuel
oroil.
SCOTTH.SWI FT,et
.al
.,
Respondent
s.  
   
  
  
   
  
  Peti
tioners claim t hatt he
grounding, sal vaging and post -
G.
R.No.206510 
  
  
  
  
  
  
 Sept
ember salvaging oper ati
ons of t he USS
16,
2014 Guar di
an cause and cont inue t o
cause env ironment al damage of
  such magni t
ude as t o af f
ectt he
provincesofPal awan, Antique,Aklan,
  Guimar as,Il
oil
o,Negr osOcci dental
,
Negr os Or i
ental, Zamboanga del
PONENTE:
 Vi
l
lar
ama Nor t
e,Basilan,Sul u,andTawi -
Tawi,
which ev ents vi
olate
TOPI
C: 
Wri
tofkal ikasan,UNCLOS, their
 consti
tuti
onalrights to a
I
mmunityf
rom sui
t balancedandheal t
hf ulecology.

  I
SSUES:
1.Whet herornotpetit
ioner
shav elegal i
ncor poratedi nthef undament al l
aw.”
standing. We decl ared t hat the r i
ght t oa
2.Whet herornotUSr espondentsmay balancedandheal t
hfulecologyneed
behel dli
ablefor
 damages causedby notbewr ittenint heConst it
utionf or
USSGuar di
an. i
ti s assumed,l ike otherci viland
3.Whet her or not t he waiver of poli
ttcalright sguar anteedint he Bil
l
i
mmuni ty from sui t under VFA ofRights,t o exist
 from theincept i
on
appli
esi nthi
scase. ofmanki nd and i ti s an issue of
tr
anscendent al i mpor t
ance wi th
  i
ntergener ationali mpli
cations.Such
ri
ghtcar ri
es wi thi tthe cor rel
ative
HELD: dutyt or efrai
nf r om impai ri
ng the
envir
onment .
Fi
rsti
ssue:YES.
 
   
    
  
  
  
 Onthenov elelementi nthe
  class sui tfi
l
ed by t he pet i
ti
oners
mi norsinOposa,thisCour truledthat
Pet
it
ioner
shav
elegalst
andi
ng notonl ydo ordinaryci t
izens hav e
l
egal st andi
ng t o sue f or t he
 
   
    
  
   
  Locusst andii s“ ar i
ghtof enf orcementofenv i
ronment alrights,
appear ancei na cour tofj ust i
ce ona theycandosoi nr epresent ati
onof
givenquest ion.”Speci ficall
y ,iti s“ a theirownandf uturegener ati
ons.
par ty’
s per sonal and subst ant ial
i
nt eresti n a case wher e he has Secondi
ssue:YES.
sust ainedorwi l
lsust ai ndi recti njur y
as a r esult” of t he act  
being  chal l
enged, and“ call
sf ormor e
than j usta gener al i
zed gr ievance. ”  
   
  
  
  
  
  
 TheUS r espondent swer e
Howev er,ther uleonst andi ngi sa sued int heirof f
icialcapaci t
y as
procedur almat terwhi cht hi sCour t commandi ngof fi
cer soft heUSNav y
has r elaxed f or non- t
r aditi
onal who had cont roland super v
ision
plaintiffs l i
ke or dinar y ci ti
zens, overtheUSSGuar dianandi tscr ew.
taxpay er sandl egislator swhent he Theal l
egedactoromi ssionr esulting
publ i
ci nterestsor equi res,suchas i
nt heunf ortunat egr oundi ngoft he
when t he subj ect mat ter of t he USS Guar dian on t he TRNP was
cont rov er
sy i s of t r anscendent al commi tted whi l
e t hey wer e
i
mpor tance, of over reaching perfor
mi ng of fi
cialmi li
tar y dut i
es.
significance t o soci ety, or of Consideringt hatt hesat isfact i
onofa
par amountpubl icinter est . j
udgmentagai nstsai dof ficialswi l
l
requir
e r emedi al act ions and
 
   
  
   
  
  
  Int he l
andmar k case of appropriation off unds by t he US
Oposa v . Fact oran, Jr .
, we government ,thesui tisdeemedt obe
recognized t he “publi
c r i
ght” of one agai nst t he US i tself. The
cit
izenst o“abalancedandheal thf
ul pri
ncipleofSt atei mmuni tyt herefore
ecologywhi ch,forthef ir
sttimei n barst he exer cise ofj urisdiction by
our consti
tut
ional
 hi
story,
issolemnly thi
s Cour t ov er t he per sons of
r
espondent
sSwi
ft
,Ri
ceandRobl
i
ng. Arti
cle31: 
Responsi
bil
i
tyoftheflag
State for damage caused by a
 
   
  
  
   
    Dur ing t he del i
ber ati
ons, warship orothergovernmentship
Senior  
Associ ate Just i
ce Ant onio T. operated for non- commercial
Carpiot ook t he posi ti
on t hatt he purposes
conductoft heUSi nt hiscase,when
i
tswar shi pent eredar estrictedar ea The f lag St ate shal l bear
i
nv i
ol ati
onofR. A.No.10067 and i
nter nationalr esponsibil
ityf orany
caused damage t ot he TRNP r eef l
ossordamaget othe coast al
 State
system,br ings t he mat ter wi thin resulti
ng f rom t he non- compl iance
the 
ambi t ofAr ti
cle31oft heUni ted bya war ship orot hergov ernment
NationsConv ent ion on theLaw of ship oper ated f ornon- commer cial
theSea( UNCLOS) . 
Heexpl ainedt hat purposes wi t
h t he l aws and
while hi stor i
cally,war ships enj oy regulations of t he coast al
 State
sover eign i mmuni tyf rom sui tas concer ning passage t hrough t he
extensi onsoft heirfl
agSt ate, Art
.31 terr
itori
alseaorwi tht hepr ovisions
oftheUNCLOScr eatesanexcept ion oft hisConv enti
onorot herr ulesof
tothisr ulei ncaseswher et heyf ai
l i
nter national law.
to compl y wi th t he r ules and
regulat i
ons of t he coast al 
State Art
icle 32: 
Immuni
ti
es ofwarships
regardi ng passage t hrough t he and ot her government shi ps
l
atter’s i nternal wat ers and t he operated f
or non- commercial
terr
itorialsea. purposes

    
  
  
    
  
  
  
Wi t
h such ex ceptions as
arecont ainedi nsubsect ionAandi n
 
  
  
   
  
  
  
  
Int
hecaseofwarships,as art
icles30 and 31,not hing i nt his
point
edoutbyJust i
ceCarpio,they Conv entionaf f
ectst heimmuni ti
esof
conti
nue t o enjoy sov er
eign war ships and ot her gov er nment
i
mmuni t
ysubjectt
ot he f
ollowing shipsoper ated fornon- commer cial
excepti
ons: purposes.  A f oreign war ship’
s
unaut horizedent ryi nt
oouri nternal
Arti
cle 30:  
Non-compli
ance by wat ers wi thr esulting damage t o
warships wi th t he laws and mar ineresour cesisonesi tuat i
onin
regul
ationsofthe 
coast
al 
Stat
e which t he abov e pr ovisions may
appl y.
Ifanywar shi
pdoesnotcompl ywith
the l aws and r egulat
ions of Butwhati ft
heoff
endi
ngwarshi
pisa
the coast alSt
ateconcer ni
ngpassage non-part
yt otheUNCLOS,asinthi
s
through t he terr
itori
al sea and case,theUS?
disregar ds any r equest f or
compl iancet herewit
hwhi chismade According t o Just i
ce Car pio,
toit,the  coastal
 St
atemayr equi
reit alt
hough t he US to date has not
to l eav e t he t erri
tor
ial sea rat
ifi
edt heUNCLOS,asamat terof
i
mmedi ately. l
ong-standing pol icy t he US
considers i
tself bound
by 
customary i
nter
nat
ionalrul
es on Art
icl
e197: Cooper
ati
ononagl
obal
the“t
radit
ionalusesoft heoceans” orr
egional
basis
ascodifi
edinUNCLOS.
Statesshal lcooper ateonagl obal
Mor eov er, Justice Car
pio basis and,as appr opr iate,on a
emphasi zest hat“ t
heUSr efusalto regionalbasi s,di rectly ort hrough
j
oint heUNCLOSwascent eredonits compet ent international
disagr eementwi t
hUNCLOS”r egi
me organi zati
ons,i n f ormul ating and
ofdeep seabed mi ni
ng (PartXI) elaborat i
ng i nternational r ules,
whi ch consi derst he oceans and standar ds and recommended
deep seabed commonl yowned by pract i
cesandpr ocedur esconsi stent
manki nd,” poi nt
ing out that such with t his Conv ention, f or t he
“hasnot hingt odowi thi
tstheUS’ protect i
on and pr eserv ation oft he
accept ance mar ine env i
ronment ,t aking i nto
of cust omar y i
nternati
onalrules on account char act
er i
stic r egional
nav igation.” features.

TheCour tal sof ullyconcur redwi th Inf ine,t he r el

ev ance ofUNCLOS
Just i
ce Car pi o’s v iew t hat non- prov isi
ons to t
he present
member shipi nt heUNCLOSdoesnot cont rov ersy i s bey ond di sput e.
meant hatt heUSwi lldisregar dt he Althought hesai dt reatyupholdst he
ri
ght s of t he Phi li
ppi nes as i
mmuni ty of war ships from t he
a Coast al Stat e ov er i ts i nternal j
urisdi ctionofCoast alStateswhi l
e
wat ersandt er ri
torialsea.Wet hus nav igatingt hel atter’sterr
it
orialsea,
expectt heUSt obear“ i
nt ernat ional thef l
agSt atesshal lberequiredt o
responsi bili
ty ” under Ar t. 31 i n l
eav et het erri
torialseai mmedi ately
connect ion wi tht he USS Guar dian i
ft heyf l
outt hel awsandr egulations
groundi ngwhi chadv erselyaf fect ed oft heCoast alState, andtheywi l
lbe
the Tubbat aha r eef s.I ndeed,i ti s l
iabl ef ordamagescausedbyt heir
diffi
cultt oimagi net hatourl ong- time war shipsoranyot hergov ernment
allyandt radi ngpar tner,whi chhas vesseloper atedf ornon- commer cial
been act i
v ely suppor ting t he purposesunderAr ticle31.
count ry
’sef fort st opr eser veourv ital
mar iner esour ces,woul dshi rkf rom Thi
rdi
ssue:NO.
i
ts obl igat ion t o compensat et he
damagecausedbyi tswar shi pwhi l
e  
transiti
ngouri nternalwat er s.Much
l
ess can we compr ehend a  
   
  
  
  
  
  
  The wai ver of St ate
Gov ernmentexer cisingl eader shipi n i
mmuni t
yundert he VF A pertains
i
nt ernational af fairs, unwi l
ling t o onlytocr i
minaljuri
sdicti
onandnot
compl ywi tht he UNCLOS di rective tospecialcivilacti
onssuchast he
foral lnat i
onst o cooper at ei nt he presentpet i
ti
on forissuance ofa
globalt askt opr otectandpr eser ve writofKal i
kasan.Inf act
,itcanbe
themar ineenv ir
onmentaspr ov i
ded i
nferredf r
om Sect i
on17,Rule7of
i
nAr ti
cle197ofUNCLOS the Rul es that a cr i
minal case
againsta per son charged witha
v
iol
ati
onofanenv i
ronment
all
aw i
s
t
obefil
edsepar
atel
y.

 
    
  
  
  
  
  The Cour t considered a
view thatar uli
ngont heappl i
cation
or non- appli
cati
on of cr iminal
j
ur i
sdicti
onpr ovi
si
onsoft heVFAt o
US per sonnelwho may be f ound
responsibleforthegroundingoft he
USS Guar dian,wouldbepr emat ure
andbey ondt heprovi
nceofapet i
tion
forawr itofKali
kasan.

 
   
  
  
   
  
   The Cour t al so f ound
 
unnecessar y at t his poi nt t o
determi ne whet hersuch wai verof
Stateimmuni tyi si ndeedabsol ute.In
the same v ein,we cannot gr ant
damageswhi chhav eresultedf r
om
thev iolationofenv ir
onment all aws.
The Rul es al lows t he recov ery of
damages,i ncludi ngt hecol l
ect i
onof
admi nistrativef inesunderR. A.No.
10067,i nasepar atecivi
lsuitort hat
deemedi nstitut edwi t
ht hecr i
minal
acti
onchar gingt hesamev iolati
onof
anenv i
ronment al law.