RECOGNITION

Tobar - Wilson Doctrine

* A doctrine that precludes recognition of any government established by revolution, civil war, coup d’ etat or other forms of internal violence until the freely elected representatives of the people have organized a constitutional government.

* First expressed in the 1907 Central American Republics at the suggestion of Foreign Minister Tobar of Ecuador and reiterated by President Woodrow Wilson of the US in a public statement made in 1913.

Example : The Revolution in Nicaragua in which through the moral mandate of US, communicated to rebels in order to foster a true consititutional government and free elections aimed for the preservation of general welfare of Central America.

Stimson Doctrine

* Precludes the recognition of any government established as a result of external aggression.

* Formulated by US Secretary of State Stimson in 1932.

* Adopted by the League of Nations through a resolution stating that: “It is incumbent upon the members of the League of Nations not to recognize any situation, treaty or agreement which may be brought about by means contrary to the Covenant of the League of Nations or to the Pact of Paris”

Example : The United States did not recognize the Japanese-supported government in Manchukuo (1932) or the Italian government in Ethiopia (1936).

Estrada Doctrine

* The diplomatic representatives in a country where a political upheaval has taken place will deal or will not deal with whatever government is in control at the time and either action shall not be taken as a judgment on the legitimacy of the said government.

* Attributed to Foreign Minister Genaro Estrada of Mexico.

* Example: Recognition of PROC based on the ‘one china policy’

Example : Many Latin Americans condemn the idea of the US unilaterally "certifying" nations as fighting against the drug trade

CMC vs. Callega, G.R. no. 85750, September 28, 1990

Facts : After the Vietnam War, the international community was confronted with a problem on the plight of Vietnamese refugees fleeing from South Vietnam. In response, an agreement was forged between Philippine Government and United Nations High Commissioner for refugees to create an operating center for the resettlement of refugees.

Under the said agreement, the International Catholic Migration Commission (ICMC) was accredited by the Philippine Government to operate the refugee processing center in Morong, Bataan. The ICMC was considered a non-profit agency involved in international and humanitarian and voluntary work.

However, on July 14, 1986, the Trade Unions of the Philippines and Allied Service (TUPAS) filed to the then Ministry of Labor and Employment a Petition for Certification Election among the rank and file members employed by ICMC.

Afterwhich, while ICMC’s request for recognition as a “specialized agency” was still pending, Director Pura Calleja of the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) ordered ICMC the immediate conduct of certification of election.

Subsequently, through the Department of Foreign Affairs (DEFORAF) the ICMC was granted a status of a specialized agency with corresponding diplomatic priveleges and immunities. ICMC then sought immediate dismissal of TUPAS petition invoking immunities expressly granted but were twice denied by respondent BLR director. Thus, the present Petition for Certiorari is now at bar.

Issue : Whether or not the grant of diplomatic priveleges and immunities to ICMC extends to immunity from the application of Philippine labor laws

Held : The immunity granted being from every form of legal process except in any particular case they have expressly waived the immunity.
Respondent’s claim in so far as stating that a certification of election is beyond the scope of immunity. That such is not a suit against ICMC but mere investigation of a non-adversary fact-finding character were all rejected.

The immunuties accorded to international organization constitute a categorical recognition by the executive branch of the Government. Its determination is held to be a political question and courts should refuse to look beyond a determination by the Executive Branch. Where the plea of diplomatic immunity is recognized an affirmed by the executive branch as in the case at bar, it is then the duty of the courts to accept the claim of immunity upon appropriate suggestion of the principal law officer of the government or other officer acting under his direction - as for this case the DEFORAF.

Moreover, the exercise of jurisdiction by the Department of Labor would defeat the very purpose of immunity, which is to shield the affairs of internatinal organizations, in accordance with international practice, from political pressure or control by the host country and to ensure unhampered perfromance of their functions.

Petition is GRANTED.

Marcos vs. Manglapus, G.R. no. 88211, September 15, 1989

Facts : In February 1986, Ferdinand E. Marcos was deposed from presidency via people power and forced into exile in Hawaii. Nearly three years after, in his deathbed seeks return to the Philippines to die.

Thus, this petition for mandamus and prohibition asks the Court to order the respondent to issue travel documents to Mr. Marcos and the immediate members of his family and to enjoin the the implementation of President Aquino’s decision to bar their return to the Philippines.

Petitioners contend that the right of the Marcoses to return to the Philippines is guaranteed under the Bill of Rights. That the President is without power to impair the liberty of abode of the Marcoses because only the court may do so “within the limits prescribed by law.” The President has enumerated powers and what is not enumerated is impliedly denied to her.

Issues : Whether or not the President has the power under the Constitution, to bar Marcoses from returning to the Philippines

Whether or not the President acted arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction upon determining that the Marcoses’s return poses a serious threat to national interest and welfare and decided to bar their return

Held : The executive power of the President under the Constitution is more than the sum of specific powers enumerated under the Constitution. In balancing the general welfare and the common good against the exercise of rights of certain individuals, the power involved is the President’s residual power to protect the general welfare of the people. Presidential power is a wide discretion, within the bounds of laws and extraordinary in times of emergency.

The President did not act arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion in determining that the return of former President Marcos and his family poses a serious threat to national interest and welfare. There exist factual bases in the President’s decision in the pleadings, oral arguments and facts filed by the parties during the briefing in chambers by the Chief of Staff of the Armed of the Philppines and National Security Adviser.

That the President has the power under the Constitution to bar the Macrose’s from returning has been recognized by the members of the Legislature. Through a Resolution proposed in the House of Representative, signed by 103 members urging the President to allow Mr. Marcos to return to the Philippines –an act of true national reconciliation. The Resolution does not question the President’s power but was an appeal to allow a man to come home and to die in his country. Such request submit to the exercise of a broader discretion on the part of the President to determine whether it must be granted or not.

The case is not a political question and for such, the court exercised its judicial power involving the determination whether there has been a grave abuse of discretion on the part of any branch or instrumnetality of the government.

Petition is hereby DISMISSED.