Gonzales vs. Hechanova

9 SCRA 230

FACTS: Respondent Executive Secretary authorized the importation of 67,000 tons of foreign rice to be purchased from private sources. Thereupon, herein petitioner, Ramon A. Gonzales, a rice planter, and president of the Iloilo Palay and Corn Planters Association, filed the petition herein, averring that, in making or attempting to make said importation of foreign rice, the aforementioned respondents “are acting without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction,” because Republic Act No. 2207, explicitly, prohibits the importation of rice and corn by the “Rice and Corn Administration or any other government agency.”

ISSUE: Whether an international agreement may be invalidated by our courts.

HELD: The Constitution of the Philippines has clearly settled in the affirmative by providing in Section 2 of Article VIII thereof, that the Supreme Court may not be deprived “of its jurisdiction to review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal, certiorari, or writ of error as the law or the rules of court may provide, final judgments and decrees of inferior courts in all cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, law, ordinance, or executive order, or regulation is in question.” In other words, our Constitution authorizes the nullification of a treaty, not only when it conflicts with the fundamental law, but also, when it runs counter to an act of Congress.
The alleged consummation of the aforementioned contracts with Vietnam and Burma does not render this case academic. Republic Act No. 2207 enjoins our government not from entering into contracts for the purchase of rice, but from entering rice, except under the conditions prescribed in said Act.

A judicial declaration of illegality of the proposed importation would not compel our Government to default in the performance of such obligations as it may have contracted with the sellers of rice in question because aside from the fact that said obligations may be complied without importing the said commodity into the Philippines, the proposed importation may still be legalized by complying with the provisions of the aforementioned laws.

Ichong vs. Hernandez

101 PHIL 155

FACTS: The Congress of the Philippines enacted the act which nationalizes the retail trade business, Republic Act No. 1180 entitled “An Act to Regulate the Retail Business,” prohibiting aliens in general to engage in retail trade in our country.

Petitioner, for and in his own behalf and on behalf of other alien residents, corporations and partnerships adversely affected by the provisions of RA No. 1180, brought this action to obtain a judicial declaration that said Act is unconstitutional.

ISSUE: Whether Congress in enacting R.A. No. 1180 violated the UN Charter, the UN Declaration of Human Rights and the Philippine-Chinese Treaty of Amity.

HELD: The UN Charter imposes no strict or legal obligations regarding the rights and freedom of their subjects, and the Declaration of Human Rights contains nothing more than a mere recommendation, or a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations.

The Treaty of Amity between the Republic of the Philippines and the Republic of China guarantees equality of treatment to the Chinese nationals “upon the same terms as the nationals of any other country. But the nationals of China are not discriminated against because nationals of all other countries, except those of the United States, who are granted special rights by the Constitution, are all prohibited from engaging in the retail trade.

But even supposing that the law infringes upon the said treaty, the treaty is always subject to qualification or amendment by a subsequent law, and the same may never curtail or restrict the scope of the police power of the State.

Kuroda vs. Jalandoni

83 PHIL 171

FACTS: Petitioner, formerly a Lieutenant-General of the Japanese Army and Commanding General of the Japanese Imperial Forces, was charged before a military commission set by Executive Order No. 68 of the President of the Philippines. Said executive order also established a National War Crimes Office and prescribed rules and regulations governing the trial of accused war criminals. Petitioner contended that E.O. No. 68 was illegal and unconstitutional because he cannot be tried fro violation of international conventions, like the Geneva and Hague Conventions. Furthermore, he alleged that the participation of two American lawyers in the prosecution was violative of our national sovereignty.

ISSUE: Whether the Philippine Government has the jurisdiction to try and convict Kuroda for violating prohibited acts of the war.

HELD: Executive Order No. 68 is legal and constitutional because Article II, Section 3 of the 1935 Constitution explicitly provides that “the Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy, and adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of nation.”

In promulgation and enforcement of E.O. No. 68, the President of the Philippine exercised his power as commander-in-chief of all armed forces. Moreover, it was in adherence with the generally accepted principles and policies of international law which form part of our Constitution.

With regards to the contention about the participation of two American lawyers, the Philippines were under the sovereignty of the United States and thus, we were equally bound together with the US and Japan, to the rights and obligations contained in the treaties. These rights and obligations were not erased by our assumption of full sovereignty.

Tanada vs. Angara

272 SCRA 18

FACTS: The suit was filed to nullify the concurrence of the Philippines Senate to the President’s Ratification of the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization. It was contended that the agreement places nationals and products of member countries on the same footing as Filipinos and local products in contravention of the Filipino First Policy.

Petitioners maintained that this Agreement was an assault on the sovereign powers of the Philippines because it meant that Congress could not pass legislation that would be good for national interest and general welfare if such legislation would not conform to the WTO Agreement.

ISSUE: Whether the provisions of the WTO Agreement and its annexes limit, restrict, or impair the exercise of legislative power by Congress.

HELD: While sovereignty has traditionally been deemed absolute and all-encompassing on the domestic level, it is however subject to limitations and restrictions voluntarily agreed to by the Philippines as a member of the family of nations. One of the oldest and most fundamental rules in international law is pacta sunt servanda — international agreements must be performed in good faith. “A treaty engagement is not a mere moral obligation but creates a legally binding obligation on the parties xxx. A state which has contracted valid international obligations is bound to make in its legislation such modifications as may be necessary to ensure the fulfillment of the obligations undertaken.

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 mutuality covenanted objectives and benefits, they also commonly agree to limit the exercise of their otherwise absolute rights.

The sovereignty of a state therefore cannot in fact and in reality be considered absolute. Certain restrictions enter into the picture: (1) limitations imposed by the very nature of membership in the family of nations and (2) limitations imposed by treaty stipulations.

Traders Royal Bank vs CA

FACTS: Assailed in this Petition for Review on Certiorari is the Decision of the respondent CA affirming the nullity of the transfer of central Bank Certificate of Indebtedness (CBC) No. D981, with a face value of P500,000 from Philippine Underwriters Finance Corporation (Philfinance) to the petitioner Trader’s Royal Bank (TRB)

ISSUE: Whether or not CBCI No D891 is a negotiable instrument

HELD: No. The language of negotiability which characterizes a negotiable paper as a credit instrument is its freedom to circulate as a substitute for money. Hence, freedom negotiability is the touchstone relating to the protection of holders in due course, and the freedom of negotiability is the foundation for the protection which the law throws around a holder in due course.

This freedom in negotiability is totally absent in a certificate of indebtedness as it merely acknowledges paying a sum of money to a specified person or entity for a period of time.