Download Case Digest PDF

TitleCase Digest
Tags Public Sphere Common Law Government
File Size150.3 KB
Total Pages11
Table of Contents
                            The legality of the possession of nuclear weapons
                        
Document Text Contents
Page 1

Case Digest

1. Kuroda vs. Jalandoni, 83 Phil. 171
Facts:
Petitioner Sheginori Kuroda was the former Lt. General of the Japanese Army and
commanding general of the Japanese forces during 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.

Petitioner assailed 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:
The Philippines is not a signatory to the Hague Convention (War Crimes)

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:
 WON EO 68 is constitutional?
 WON American lawyers may participate in a case under a military commission

when they are not qualified to practice law in the Philippines
HELD:

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. 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. Although, the Philippines may not be a signatory to the 2 conventions at that
time but the rules and regulations of both are based on the generally accepted
principles of international law.

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. 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.

2. Lo Ching vs. Archbishop of Manila, 81 Phil. 601

FACTS:

The Archbishop of Manila through the Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) leased a
farm to Lo and So Yun Ching Chong Co. located at de la Calle Hidalgo, Manila, under a
monthly income of P500 by the end of three years, extendable to two years (two years
upon agreement of the parties). The tenant took the property by setting it in a hotel.

Page 5

Facts:
Petitioner has signed in Manila the “extradition Treaty between the Government of the
Philippines and the Government of the U.S.A. The Philippine Senate ratified the said Treaty.

Thereafter, the Department of Justice received from the Department of Foreign Affairs U.S a
Verbale Note containing a request for the extradition of Jimenez to the United States.

On the same day, petitioner designate and authorizing a panel of attorneys to take charge of
and to handle the case. Pending evaluation of the extradition documents, Mark Jimenez
through counsel, wrote a letter to Justice Secretary requesting copies of the official extradition
request from the U.S Government and that he be given ample time to comment on the request
after he shall have received copies of the requested papers but the petitioner denied the
request for the consistency of Article 7 of the RP-US Extradition Treaty, the Philippine
Government must present the interests of the United States in any proceedings arising out of a
request for extradition.

ISSUE:
WON to uphold a citizen’s basic due process rights or the government’s ironclad duties under a
treaty

RULING:
The human rights of person, whether citizen or alien, and the rights of the accused guaranteed
in our Constitution should take precedence over treaty rights claimed by a contracting state.
The duties of the government to the individual deserve preferential consideration when they
collide with its treaty obligations to the government of another state. This is so although we
recognize treaties as a source of binding obligations under generally accepted principles of
international law incorporated in our Constitution as part of the law of the land.

The doctrine of incorporation is applied whenever municipal tribunals are confronted with
situation in which there appears to be a conflict between a rule of international law and the
provision of the constitution or statute of the local state. Under this doctrine, rules of
international law form part of the law of the land and no further legislative action are needed
to make such rules applicable in the domestic sphere. It is also applied whenever municipal
tribunals are confronted with situations in which there appears to be a conflict between a rule
of international law and the provisions of the constitution or statute of the local state.

In a situation, however, where the conflict is irreconcilable and a choice has to be made
between a rule of international law and a municipal law, jurisprudence dictates that municipal
law should be upheld by the municipal courts, for the reason that such courts are organs of
municipal law and are accordingly bound by it in all circumstances.

6. Ichong vs. Hernandez, 101 Phil 115

FACTS
Petitioner entered the country to take advantage of business opportunities in the Philippines.
He and his fellow Chinese businessmen enjoyed a monopoly in the local market. However,
Congress passed the RA No. 1180 or the Retail Trade Nationalization Act. In effect it
nationalizes the retail trade business.

Petitioner and other alien residents’ corporations and partnerships were adversely affected by
the enactment of Republic Act. No.1180. They had brought an action to obtain a judicial
declaration that said Act is unconstitutional, arguing that the act has violated international
treaties and obligations

ISSUE
WON the Act violates international treaties and obligations.

Page 10

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Conventions_(1899_and_1907)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinio_juris
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customary_international_law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_weapons

Page 11

justified in the use of force. Also, US violated the CIL prohibition on the use of force when it
assisted the contras by “organizing or encouraging the organization of irregular forces and
armed bands… for incursion into the territory of another state” and “participating in acts of
civil strife…in another State” and when these acts involved the threat or use of force. The
supply of funds to the contras does not violate the prohibition on the use of force.

16.Republic of the Philippines vs. Marcos, 806 Fd. 344, US Court of Appeals

Facts:
The Republic of the Philippines sought preliminary injunction barring the Marcoses, several real
estate holding companies and their alleged principal and managers as record holders of certain
properties in New York from transferring or encumbering properties, which were alleged to
have been purchase using ill-gotten wealth from the Philippines. A temporary restraining order
given and the real estate holding companies and alleged principals and managers were
ordered to vacate the said estates. The US Southern District Court of NY granted preliminary
injunction, but the defendants appealed the case with the Court of Appeals. It was held that,
among other rulings regarding the case, the act of state doctrine did not prohibit adjudication
in federal court of legality of acts of former President Marcos and his wife in that action purely
private acts by the president. This doctrine will also not apply even to public acts because the
Marcos government was no longer in power and danger of interference with executive’s
conduct of foreign policy.

Issue:
WON the acts of the Marcoses are insulated because they were acts of state, thereby, not
reviewable by US courts

Held:

The classification of certain acts as acts of state with the consequence that their validity will be
treated as beyond judicial review is a pragmatic device, not required by the nature of
sovereign authority and inconsistently applied in international law. The purpose of the device is
to keep the judiciary from embroiling the courts and the country in the affairs of the foreign
nation whose acts are challenged. Minimally viewed, the classification keeps a court from
making pronouncements on matters over which it has no power; maximally interpreted, the
classification prevents the embarrassment of a court offending a foreign government that is
"extant at the time of suit."

The continuing vitality of the doctrine depends on its capacity to reflect the proper distribution
of functions between the judicial and political branches of the Government on matters bearing
upon foreign relations. A court that passes on the validity of an act of state intrudes into the
domain of the political branches.

Similer Documents