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.