GRANDE, Mhel Rose Camille G. JD 2C Topic: Customary International Law Australia v. France December 20, 1974 Facts: Australia instituted proceedings against France concerning tests of nuclear weapon which France proposed to carry out in the atmosphere in the South Pacific region. However, before the case could be completed, France announced it had completed the test and did not plan any further test. Issue: Whether or not the statements made by the France authorities are binding France created a legal obligation Held: Yes. Of the statements by the French Government now before the Court, the most essential are clearly those made by the President of the Republic. There can be no doubt, in view of his functions, that his public communications or statements, oral or written, as Head of State, are in international relations acts of the French State. His statements, and those of members of the French Government acting under his authority, up to the last statement made by the Minister of Defence constitute a whole. Thus, in whatever form these statements were expressed, they must be held to constitute an engagement of the State, having regard to their intention and to the circumstances in which they were made One of the basic principles governing the creation and performance of legal obligations, whatever their source, is the principle of good faith. Trust and confidence are inherent in international co-operation, in particular in an age when this co-operation in many fields is becoming increasingly essential. Just as the very rule of pacta sunt servanda in the law of treaties is based on good faith, so also is the binding character of an international obligation assumed by unilateral declaration. Thus interested States may take cognizance of unilateral declarations and place confidence in them, and are entitled to require that the obligation thus created be respected. Moreover, the unilateral statements of the French authorities were made outside the Court, publicly and erga omnes, even though the first of them was communicated to the Government of Australia. GRANDE, Mhel Rose Camille G. JD 2C Topic: Doctrine of Incorporation Tañada V. Angara G.R. No. 118295; May 2, 1997 Facts: Senate Resolution No. 97, which ratified the World Trade Organization Agreement, was challenged, on the ground that it violates Article II, Section 19 and Article XII, Sections 10 and 12of the 1987 Constitution(embodying the “Filipino First” policy) It requires the Philippines "to place nationals and products of member-countries on the same footing as Filipinos and local products" Issue: Whether or not the provisions of the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization unduly limit, restrict and impair Philippine sovereignty specifically the legislative power which, under Sec. 2, Article VI, 1987 Philippine Constitution is ‘vested in the Congress of the Philippines. Held: No, the WTO agreement does not unduly limit, restrict, and impair the Philippine sovereignty, particularly the legislative power granted by the Philippine Constitution. The Senate was acting in the proper manner when it concurred with the President’s ratification of the agreement. While sovereignty has traditionally been deemed absolute and all-encompassing on the domestic level, it is however subject to restrictions and limitations voluntarily agreed to by the Philippines, expressly or impliedly, as a member of the family of nations. Unquestionably, the Constitution did not envision a hermit-type isolation of the country from the rest of the world. In its Declaration of Principles and State Policies, the Constitution “adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land, and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation and amity, with all nations.” By the doctrine of incorporation, the country is bound by generally accepted principles of international law, which are considered to be automatically part of our own laws. One of the oldest and most fundamental rules in international law is pacta sunt servanda — international agreements must be performed in good faith. By their inherent nature, treaties really limit or restrict the absoluteness of sovereignty. By their voluntary act, nations may surrender some aspects of their state power in exchange for greater benefits granted by or derived from a convention or pact. After all, states, like individuals, live with coequals, and in pursuit of mutually covenanted objectives and benefits, they also commonly agree to limit the exercise of their otherwise absolute rights. Thus, treaties have been used to record agreements between States concerning such widely diverse matters. GRANDE, Mhel Rose Camille G. JD 2C Topic: Interpretation Tañada V. Angara G.R. No. 118295; May 2, 1997 Facts: Senate Resolution No. 97, which ratified the World Trade Organization Agreement, was challenged, on the ground that it violates Article II, Section 19 and Article XII, Sections 10 and 12of the 1987 Constitution(embodying the “Filipino First” policy) It requires the Philippines "to place nationals and products of member-countries on the same footing as Filipinos and local products". Issue: Whether or not the WTO is constitutional Ruling: Yes.The SC upheld the WTO agreement. While the Constitution has a bias towards Filipino goods, services, labor, and enterprises, there is also a need for some degree of equality and reciprocity in the country’s business dealings with the rest of the world. The framers did not intendtoadopt an isolationist policy. A “self-reliant and independent national economy” cannot be interpreted to mean a bar on foreign investments, goods, and services. It is not“economic seclusion”, nor is it “mendicancy in the international community.” What the Constitution shall do is protect Filipino enterprises against unfair foreign competition.