Jeffry Liang vs. People of the Philippines

Facts: Jeffry Liang, a Chinese national who was employed as an economist by the Asian Development Bank who was alleged by Joyce Cabal, a member of the clerical staff of Asian Development Bank of defamatory words.

The Metropolitan Trial Court of Mandaluyong City acting pursuant to an advice from the Department of Foreign Affairs that petitioner enjoyed immunity from legal process, dismissed the criminal Information against him.

On petition for certiorari and mandamus filed by the people, the RTC of Pasig annuled and set aside the order of Metropolitan Trial Court dismissing the case, so the Mr. Liang brought a petition for review.

Issue: Whether or not the statements allegedly made by petitioner, Mr. Liang were uttered while in the performance of his official functions.

Ruling: Denied the petition for review in the essence that the immunity granted to officers and staff of the Asian Development Bank is not absolute; it is limited to acts performed in an official capacity. Further, the court ruled that the immunity cannot cover the commission of a crime such as slander or oral defamation in the name official duty.

Secretary of Justice vs. Lantion, 322 SCRA 160 January 28, 2008

Facts: Secretary Of Justice Franklin Drilon, representing the Government of the Republic of the Philippines, 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.

On June 18, 1999, the Department of Justice received from the Department of Foreign Affairs U.S Note Verbale No. 0522 containing a request for the extradition of private respondent Mark Jiminez 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 aforestated extradition documents, Mark Jiminez 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 stated in Article 7 that the Philippine Government must present the interests of the United States in any proceedings arising out of a request for extradition.

Issue: Whether or not to uphold a citizen’s basic due process rights or the governments 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.

Petition is dismissed.

J.B.L. Reyes vs. Bagatsing, GR No. 65366 October 25, 1983

Facts : Petitioner, retired Justice JB .L Reyes filed a petition to respondent, Mayor Ramon Bagatsing, the city mayor of manila that on behalf of anti-bases coalition sought a permit from the city of manila to hold a peaceful march and rally on october 26, 1983 from 2.00 to 5.00 in the afternoon, starting from the luneta, a public park, to the gates of united states embassy, hardly two blocks away. Once there, and in an open space of the public property, a short program would be held.

On october 20, 1983 the petitioner filed a suit for mandamus with alternative prayer for writ of preliminary mandatory injunction because due to the fact that as of that date, petitioner had not been informed of any action taken on his request on behalf of the organization to hold a rally. On october 25, 1983, the answer of respondent mayor was filed on his behalf by assistant solicitor general eduardo g. montenegro. It turned out that on october 19, suc permit was denied.


Issues :

1. Whether or not holding a rally in front of the US embassy would be applicable or a violation of Ordinance no.7295 of the city of manila.

2. Whether or not the denial of the exercise of the constitutional rights of free speech and peaceably assembly was justified by clear and present danger.

Ruling : The petition was granted. The Supreme Court granted the mandatory injunction allowing the proposed march and rally. The court found that there was no clear and present danger of a substantive evil to a legitimate public interest that would justify the denial of the exercise of the constitutional rights of free speech and peaceably assembly.

Our country is signatory of the Vienna Convention. It is binding in our laws. The second paragraph of its Article 22 that the receiving state is under a special duty to take appropriate steps tp protect the premise of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity. The constitution adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land. That being the case, if there were clear and present danger of any intrusion or damage, or disturbance of the of the peace of the mission, or impairment of its dignity, there would be a justification for the denial of the permit insofar as the terminal point would be the embassy.

Agustin vs. Edu, 88 SCRA 195 L- 49112 February 22, 1979

Facts: The petitioner was an owner of a volkswagen bettle car, model 13035, already properly equipped when it came out from the assembly lines with blinking lights fore and aft, which could very well serve as an early warning devise in case of emergencies mentioned in Letter of Instructions No.229, as amended as well as the Land Transportation Commission.

Respondent Land Transportation Commissioner Romeo Edu issued Memorandum Circular No. 32 pursuant to Letter of Instruction NO. 229 as amended. It required the use of Early Warning Devices on motor vehicles.

Issue: Whether or not the Letter of Instructions as well as the implementing rules and regulations were unlawful and constitutional.

Ruling: The court held that the letter of instructions No. 229 as amended as well as the implementing rules and regulations were valid and constitutional as a valid police power measure.

The petition itself quoted these two whereas clauses of the assailed Letter of Instruction. Whereas the hazards posed by such obstructions to traffic have been recognized by international bodies concerned with traffic safety, the Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals and the United Nation ratified by the Philippine local legislation for the installation of road safety sign and devices. It cannot be disputed then that this declaration of principle found in the constitution possesses relevance because our country adopts the generally accepted principle, thus become part of the law of the land.

The petition was dismissed.

Kuroda vs. Jalandoni, 83 Phil. 185, L - 2662 March 26, 1949

Facts : Shigenori Kuroda, a formerly a Lietenant-General of the japanese imperial army and commanding general of the japanese imperial forces in the philippines during a period covering 1943 and 1944 who is now charge before a military commission convened by the chief of staff of the armed forces of the philippines with having unlawfully disregarded and failed to discharge his duties as such command, permitting them to commit brutal atrocities and other high crimes against noncombatant civilians and prisoners of the imperial japanese forces in the violations of the laws and customer of war.

Petitioner argues that respondent Military Commission has no jurisdiction to try petitioner for its acts committed in violation of Hague Convention and the Geneva convention because the Philippines is not signatory to Hague Convention and signed the Geneva only in 1947. He also challenges the participation of the two American attorneys in the prosecution of his case on the ground that said attorneys are not qualified to practice law in the Philippines.

Issues:

1. Whether or not the executive order no. 68 is a ground for the violations of our provision of constitutions law and to our local law.

2. Whether or not Atty. Melville S. Hussey and Robert Port is allowed to practice the law professions in the philippines.


Ruling : The court holds that the Executive Order is valid and Constitutional.

Article 2 of our Constitution provides in its section 3 that ” The Philippines renounces war as an instruments of national policy and adopts the generally accepted principle of international law as part of the law of nation.”

In accordance with the generally accepted principles of international law of the present day, including the Hague and Geneva Convention and significant precedents of international jurisprudence established by the U.N, all the persons, military or civilian, who have been guilty of planning, preparing, or waging a war of aggression and commission of the crimes and offenses consequential and incidental thereto, in violation of the laws and customs of war of humanity and civilization, are held accountable therefore. Consequently, in the promulgation and enforcement of Executive Order no. 68, the President of the Philippines has acted in conformity with the generally accepted principles and policies of international law which are part our Constitution.

On the second issue, the court ruled that the appointment of the two American attorneys is not violative of our national sovereignty. It is only fair and proper that the U.S which has submitted the vindication of crimes against her government and her people to a tribunal of our nation should be allowed representation in the trial of those very crimes. The lest that we could do in the spirit of comity is to allow this representation in said trial.

The petition was denied.

Mejoff vs. Directors of Prison, 90 Phil. 70, L- 4254 September 26, 1951

Fact:The petitioner was a Russian national who was brought into the country as a secret operative of the Japanese forces. Upon liberation, he was arrested as a Japanese spy by the U.S Army. Thereafter, the People’s Court ordered his release but the Board of Commissioners of Immigration declared that the he had entered the country illegally and ordered his deportation. After repeated failures to have have him deported, the authorities moved him to Bilibid where he was detained up to time of petition.

Issue: Whether or not an alien person who claims to be stateless may indefinitely kept in detention.

Ruling: The Court decides that an alien who illegally stayed in the Philippines have no right of asylum even if they claimed as stateless. Foreign nationals, not enemies, against whom no charge had been made other than their permission to stay has expired, may not be indefinitely kept in detention for the reason that protection against deprivation of liberty without due process of law and except for crimes committed against the laws of the land is not limited to Philippine citizen citizens but extends to all residents, except enemy aliens.

Mejoff entry to our country was not unlawful; he was brought by the armed forces of a de facto government whose decrees were law during the occupation.

He has the right to life and liberty and all other fundamental rights as applied to human beings, as proclaimed in the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” approved by the General Assembly of the United Nation, of our country is a member. The theory on which the court is given the power to act is that the warrant for his deportation which was not executed is functus officio and the alien is being held without any authority of law. The possibility that he might join or aid disloyal elements if turned out at large does not justify prolonged detention, the remedy in that case being to impose conditions in the order of release and exact bail in reasonable amount with sufficient sureties.

The petition was denied.