Philippine Jurisprudence on the Relationship between Philippine Law and International
Law
1. Kuroda v. Jalandoni, G.R. No. L-2662, 26 March 1949
- The question as to “how did the Supreme Court describe the international obligations of the
Philippines?” is appropriate to answer this case. First, the Court dealt with the validity of EO No.
68 to charge the petitioner Shigenori Kuroda for his acts in violation of the Hague and the Geneva
Convention even if the Philippines is only a signatory to the latter convention. The court ruled that
EO No. 68 is neither invalid nor unconstitutional since it was exercised by the President of his
powers as the Commander in Chief to indict war criminals for the furtherance of the State’s
international obligation pursuant to Article II, Sec. 3 of the Philippine Constitution. By virtue of this
provision, it is irrelevant whether the Philippines is a signatory or not in the Hague and the Geneva
Convention since its rules and regulations were implied as forming part of the generally accepted
principals of international law. Lastly, it is notable that the Philippines is still under the sovereignty
of the United States when the petitioner committed the crimes against non-combatant Civilians
and prisoners in the country which makes the former all the more bound along with the latter and
Japan as regards to their rights and obligations under the said treaties in this case. This is
because although the Filipinos have already assumed full sovereignty from the Americans, it still
entitles the former to enforce their right as to charge those who committed crimes against them.
2. Philip Morris, Inc., Benson & Hedges (Canada), Inc., and Fabriques of Tabac Reunies,
S.A. v. Court Of Appeals and Fortune Tobacco Corporation, G.R. No. 91332, 16 July 1993,
224 SCRA 576
- The query as to “how did the Supreme Court apply international law?” is appropriate to resolve
this case. First, the Court attended the issue raised by the petitioner corporations from America
whose patented trademark “Mark” was allegedly used illegally by the respondent domestic
corporation in the Philippines in violation of the Trademark Law. Although the Court found that
the actual use of trademarks in the Philippine commercial dealings is not an indispensable
requirement under the Paris Convention to which the United States and the Philippines were
signatories of, the Trademark Law still punishes the actual commercial use of the registered
trademark of a foreign country in this country. However, the Court in applying the principles of
international law ruled that while international law forms part of the law of the land as stated in the
Constitution, it is not deemed superior to the domestic law of the country. This is because the
application of the doctrine of incorporation denotes that our municipal law is co-equal with the
rules of the international law. Since the court noted that the petitioners was not able to prove that
the respondent corporation actually used the former’s trademark in the Philippines, the latter’s
enforcement of its right to protect its trademark cannot be granted.
3. Tañada, et al., v. Angara, et al., G.R. No. 118295, 2 May 1997, 272 SCRA 18
- The question as to “how did the Supreme Court apply international law?” is appropriate to answer
this case. First, the Court looked into the WTO Agreement where the Philippines became bound
by the signing of its ratification through the President of the Philippines as concurred and ratified
by the Senate where the petitioners contended the respondents act in ratifying it as unduly
restricting the exercise of the legislative power by the Congress. The Court ruled that even though
the ratification of the said treaty by the Philippines limits its sovereignty, it does not mean that the
country should have absolute sovereignty of its State powers. This is because the limitation of
sovereignty by way of the treaty the State signed with other States implies that it is needed in
exchange of greater benefits that a State could receive as a result of it signing the convention. It
also shows that the State parties are in one in granting the same immunities and privileges to the
respective constituents of each State in the treaty.
4. Razon, et al. v. Tagitis, G.R. No. 182498, 3 December 2009
- The query as to “how did the Supreme Court describe the international obligations of the
Philippines?” is appropriate to resolve this case. First, the Court determined that the issue involves
the disappearance of the respondent’s husband and that whether the petitioners are liable despite
the Philippines not being a signatory to the Convention against enforced disappearances.
Although the court recognized that the country cannot enact a law which criminalizes enforced
disappearances, it noted that the State is still bound by the said Treaty since it is a member of the
United Nations (UN) whose charter aims to facilitate the protection of human rights and
fundamental freedoms of the State parties. Since enforced disappearance is an act against
human dignity, it implies that it is in violation of the basic human rights of the members of the UN
pursuant to Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In addition, the Court emphasized that the
doctrine of incorporation as provided under the Philippine Constitution expressly mentioned that
the generally accepted principles of international law forms part of the law of the land. Thus, even
if the country is not yet a signatory to the Convention against enforced disappearances, the
customary disallowance of this practice by the States is binding on our State as well.
5. Secretary of Justice v. Lantion, G.R. No. 139465, 18 January 2000
- The question as to “how did the Supreme Court apply international law?” is appropriate to answer
this case. First, the Court dealt with the proposition by the petitioner that there was a conflict
between the application of the RP-US Extradition treaty and the Philippine laws as to the grant of
notice and hearing by the RTC in application of the latter laws to the accused Mark Jimenez in
violation of the former. The Court ruled that there is no conflict between the duties imposed under
the said convention and the application of the local laws to the accused. This is because the Court
stated that under the rule of pacta sunt servanda, the State parties are required to abide by their
treaty agreement in good faith. It also stated that the doctrine of incorporation under the Philippine
Constitution requires the country to uphold the generally accepted principles of international law
without the need of a legislative enactment. Since the case involves the grant of notice and
hearing by the RTC to Jimenez which is not a right to an extradite provided under the RP-US
Extradition, the Court made the pronouncement that such grant is to be upheld to avoid injustice
and lack of due process even when the domestic law is silent as to its application to the accused.
This is because the application of the twin due process rights would not go against the treaty that
the Philippines entered with the United States.
6. Bayan v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 138570, 10 October 2000, 342 SCRA 449
- I think the inquiry as to “how did the Supreme Court apply international law?” is appropriate to
respond to this case. First, the Court noted the contention of the petitioners as to whether the
Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) is recognized by the United States as a treaty with the
Philippines. The Court held that although the Americans consider the VFA as an executive
agreement instead of a treaty, it is still deemed as a treaty provided that it possesses the elements
of an agreement under the international law. Also, the Court discussed that treaties and executive
agreements have the same binding effect so long as the State parties have executed them within
their powers and jurisdiction. Since the United States expressly recognizes its obligations to
comply with the VFA based on the records, they are bound by such treaty and in furtherance of
their international mandate under the Philippine Constitution. Lastly, the Court applied the doctrine
of incorporation under the Constitution after the President’s ratification and concurrence of the
Senate to the provisions of the VFA. This is because the VFA forms part of the generally accepted
principles of international law as part of the law of the land with regard to the policy of peace and
amity with all nations.
7. Bayan Muna v. Romulo, et al., G.R. No. 159618, 1 February 2011
- The question as to “how did the Supreme Court apply international law?” is appropriate to answer
this case. First, the Court delved into the issue as to the validity of the Bilateral Agreement entered
into by the Philippines and the United States concerning the protection of their persons from
unimportant and burdensome suits that could be filed against them in international courts. The
Court ruled that the exchange of diplomatic notes between the States constituted the executive
agreements to them which has the same binding effect of a treaty. Such agreement is an
international agreement without need of concurrence by the Legislative so long as the parties
expressly denote their intent to comply and be bound with their obligations thereunder. Secondly,
the Court recognized that treaties and international agreements have limiting effect as regards to
the sovereignty of a State. Although a State should have full sovereign powers as a general rule,
it does not preclude it from limiting its sovereignty for its greater good as a result of its treaty and
international obligations with other States. Lastly, the Court clarified that the Bilateral Agreement
between the Philippines and the United States is not capable of amending the treaties that
countries were signatories. Thus, this agreement does not violate the Rome Statute to which the
Philippines is a signatory since it already formed part of the law of the land as one of the generally
accepted principles of international law under the Philippine Constitution.