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.