ICMC vs. Calleja

ICMC vs. Calleja
GR 85750, Sept.28 1990

FACTS:

As an aftermath of the Vietnam War, the plight of Vietnamese refugees fleeing from South Vietnam's communist rule confronted the international community.

In response to this crisis, on 23 February 1981, an Agreement was forged between the Philippine Government and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees whereby an operating center for processing Indo-Chinese refugees for eventual resettlement to other countries was to be established in Bataan .

ICMC was one of those accredited by the Philippine Government to operate the refugee processing center in Morong, Bataan. It was incorporated in New York, USA, at the request of the Holy See, as a non-profit agency involved in international humanitarian and voluntary work. It is duly registered with the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) and enjoys Consultative Status, Category II. As an international organization rendering voluntary and humanitarian services in the Philippines, its activities are parallel to those of the International Committee for Migration (ICM) and the International Committee of the Red Cross

On 14 July 1986, Trade Unions of the Philippines and Allied Services (TUPAS) filed with the then Ministry of Labor and Employment a Petition for Certification Election among the rank and file members employed by ICMC The latter opposed the petition on the ground that it is an international organization registered with the United Nations and, hence, enjoys diplomatic immunity.

ISSUE: Whether or not the grant of diplomatic privileges and immunites to ICMC extends to immunity from the application of Philippine labor laws?

HELD:

The grant of immunity from local jurisdiction to ICMC is clearly necessitated by their international character and respective purposes. The objective is to avoid the danger of partiality and interference by the host country in their internal workings. The exercise of jurisdiction by the Department of Labor in these instances would defeat the very purpose of immunity, which is to shield the affairs of international organizations, in accordance with international practice, from political pressure or control by the host country to the prejudice of member States of the organization, and to ensure the unhampered performance of their functions

ICMC employees are not without recourse whenever there are disputes to be settled. Section 31 of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies of the United Nations 17 provides that "each specialized agency shall make provision for appropriate modes of settlement of: (a) disputes arising out of contracts or other disputes of private character to which the specialized agency is a party." Moreover, pursuant to Article IV of the Memorandum of Agreement between ICMC the the Philippine Government, whenever there is any abuse of privilege by ICMC, the Government is free to withdraw the privileges and immunities accorded.

Clauses on jurisdictional immunity are said to be standard provisions in the constitutions of international Organizations. "The immunity covers the organization concerned, its property and its assets. It is equally applicable to proceedings in personam and proceedings in rem.

ICMC did not invoke its immunity and, therefore, may be deemed to have waived it, assuming that during that period (1983-1985) it was tacitly recognized as enjoying such immunity.

Petition is GRANTED, the Order of the Bureau of Labor Relations for certification election is SET ASIDE, and the Temporary Restraining Order earlier issued is made

Case Digest

G.R. No. 88211 September 15, 1989

Marcos v. Manglapus

FACTS:

It is a case of a dictator President Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines forced out of office and into exile after causing twenty years of political, economic and social havoc in the country and who within the short space of three years seeks to return to the Philippines to die.

But Mrs. Aquino, considering the dire consequences to the nation of his return at a time when the stability of government is threatened from various directions and the economy is just beginning to rise and move forward, has stood firmly on the decision to bar the return of Mr. Marcos and his family.

Issue: 1 .Whether or not the ban of Mr. Marcos and family from returning to the Philippines has international precedents?

2. Whether or not the President acted in grave abuse of discretion in determining the return of the Marcoses?



HELD:

NO, The right to return to one's country is not among the rights specifically guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, which treats only of the liberty of abode and the right to travel, but it is our well-considered view that the right to return may be considered, as a generally accepted principle of international law and, under our Constitution, is part of the law of the land [Art. II, Sec. 2 of the Constitution.]

However, it is distinct and separate from the right to travel and enjoys a different protection under the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, i.e., against being "arbitrarily deprived" thereof [Art. 12 (4).]

The Declaration speaks of the "right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state" [Art. 13(l)] separately from the "right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country." [Art. 13(2).]

On the other hand, the Covenant guarantees the "right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence" [Art. 12(l)] and the right to "be free to leave any country, including his own."

[Art. 12(2)] which rights may be restricted by such laws as "are necessary to protect national security, public order, public health or morals or enter qqqs own country" of which one cannot be "arbitrarily deprived." [Art. 12(4).]

It would therefore be inappropriate to construe the limitations to the right to return to one's country in the same context as those pertaining to the liberty of abode and the right to travel.

2.NO.The President did not act arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion in determining that the return of former President Marcos and his family at the present time and under present circumstances poses a serious threat to national interest and welfare and in prohibiting their return to the Philippines.

The power involved is the President's residual power to protect the general welfare of the people. It is founded on the duty of the President, as steward of the people.

Petition is Dismissed

Estrada Doctrine

Estrada Doctrine-

Since reognition has been construed as approval (and non-recognition,disapproval) of a govt established through political upheaval, a state may not issue a declaration giving recognition to such govt, but merely accept whatever govt is in effective control without raising the issue of recognition. Dealing or not dealing with the govt is not a judgement on the legitimacy of the said govt.

Stimson doctrine

Stimson doctrine - No recognition of a govt established through external aggression.

Example : Members of the League of Nations not to recognize any situation, treaty or agreement which may be brought about by means of contrary to the Convention of the League of Nations or to Pact of Paris.

Tobar/Wilson doctrine

TOBAR / WILSON DOCTRINE : Precludes recognition of any government established by revolutionary means until constitutional reorganization by free election of representatives.

The doctrine was first expressed in a treaty concluded in 1907 by Central American republics at the suggestion of Foreign Minister Tobar of Ecuador and was reiterated by President Woodrow Wilson of the United States in a public statement made 1913.

Example:Coup d'etat during Marcos Regime constituting internal violence,revolution,civil war

montevideo convention

The Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States was a treaty (which was later accepted as part of customary international law) signed at Montevideo, Uruguay, on December 26, 1933, at the Seventh International Conference of American States. At this conference, United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Secretary of State Cordell Hull declared the so-called Good Neighbor Policy, which opposed U.S. armed intervention in inter-American affairs. This was a diplomatic attempt by Franklin D. Roosevelt to reverse the perception of "Yankee imperialism," brought about by policies instituted (largely) by his predecessor, President Herbert Hoover. The convention was signed by 19 states, three with reservations (Brazil, Peru and the United States[1]).

The convention sets out the definition, rights and duties of statehood. Most well-known is article 1, which sets out the four criteria for statehood that have sometimes been recognized as an accurate statement of customary international law:
The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

Furthermore, the first sentence of article 3 explicitly states that "The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states." This is known as the declarative theory of statehood.
Some have questioned whether these criteria are sufficient, as they allow less-recognized entities like the Republic of China (Taiwan) or even entirely non-recognized entities like the Principality of Sealand to claim full status as states. According to the alternative constitutive theory of statehood, a state exists only insofar as it is recognized by other states. It should not be confused with the Estrada doctrine.

There have also been attempts to further broaden the convention's definition, although they have gained less support. Founders of non-territorial micronations commonly assert that the requirement in the Montevideo Convention of a defined territory is in some way wrong-headed, for largely unspecified reasons. Some non-territorial entities, notably the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, are indeed considered subjects of international law, but these do not aspire to statehood.

Signatories

The states that signed this convention are: Honduras, United States of America, El Salvador, Dominican Republic, Haiti, Argentina, Venezuela, Uruguay, Paraguay, Mexico, Panama, Guatemala, Brazil, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Colombia, Chile, Peru, Cuba[2]. However, as a restatement of customary international law, the Montevideo Convention merely codified existing legal norms and its principles and therefore does not apply merely to the signatories, but to all subjects of international law as a whole.
The European Union, in the principal statement of its Badinter Committee, follows the Montevideo Convention in its definition of a state: by having a territory, a population, and a political authority. The committee also found that the existence of states was a question of fact, while the recognition by other states was purely declaratory and not a determinative factor of statehood.

Switzerland, although not a member of the European Union, adheres to the same principle, stating that "neither a political unit needs to be recognized to become a state, nor does a state have the obligation to recognize another one. At the same time, neither recognition is enough to create a state, nor does its absence abolish it

Sudan conflict

Introduction:

The civil war in the Sudan is routinely characterized as a conflict between Muslims and Christians, Arabs and Africans, or North and South. Religion, ethnicity, and regional issues were the key factors which shaped the two sides in the early days of the conflict, but in the latest bout of fighting which has raged since 1983, the lines are drawn as much along economic lines as ethno- religious ones. Worsening ecological problems in the region, scarcity of resources, and the drought of the 1980s exacerbated the conflict, and has become one of the central issues preventing resolution of it.

Brief description

Sudan, the largest country in Africa, was one of the first countries on the continent to gain its independence from colonial rule in 1956, but has never developed a clear identity of its own. Clear divisions exist between the people of the North, primarily Muslims of Arab descent, and the South, mostly black Africans of Christian or traditional African religions, and it is this division which historically has formed the battle lines in the civil war that has raged off and on since the 1950's.
Many factors led to and continue to be important aspects of the conflict, including religious and cultural persecution, poor economic conditions, historical differences between North and South, and misguided social and economic programs. Ecological and environmental factors, however, have exacerbated the problems and, for the time being, make settlement of this war impossible.

Present Situation

This country has struggled under the weight of this war for fourteen years, with over a million people killed and 3.5 million refugees displaced. (15) This conflict has many causes and many consequences. Unfortunately, the consequences exacerbate the underlying causes and make settlement even more difficult. The flow of the displaced into the cities continues, though now this flow consists of refugees from the south rather than displaced farmers and nomads. The drought continues and in order to survive, Sudanese farmers continue their harsh treatment of the land and southward progression in search of arable land, a practice that can only make a bad situation much worse.

The north-south war formally ended in January 2005 with the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) which incorporated the former rebel group, the Sudanese People's Liberation Army/Movement (SPLA/M) into a Government of National Unity (GNU). However the implementation of the CPA has been hampered by the lack of good faith and the absence of political will on the part of the ruling National Congress Party (NCP) and the lack of capacity of the SPLM/A, aggravated by the July 2005 death of its late Chairman, Dr. John Garang, as well as the absence of consistent international pressure. Deliberate obstruction of the CPA implementation by the NCP, particularly the areas of Abyei, oil revenue sharing and the demarcation of the north-south border, are putting the hard-fought peace at risk.

In mid-2003, the struggle for land and power in the western region of Darfur intensified, with government-supported Arab Janjaweed militia undertaking a policy of ethnic cleansing towards the civilian population of African tribes. The attacks by the government forces and allied militias led to the deaths of over 200,000 Darfurians and the displacement of over 2 million. Despite the deployment of the African Union Mission in Sudan (AMIS) in 2004, the security situation in Darfur continues to deteriorate as attacks on civilians continue – caused primarily by Khartoum’s unwillingness to rein in the militias it armed- but compounded by fighting between rebel factions and an escalating proxy war between Sudan and Chad, which has also begun to destabilize the Central African Republican (CAR). After seven rounds of peace talks, a peace agreement was signed by the government and one faction of the Sudanese Liberation Army/Movement (SLA/M) in May of 2006 but the weakness of the agreement and the lack of support for it on the ground in Darfur do not bode well for its ability to secure peace for the people of Darfur. In the second half of 2006 attacks on civilians and NGO workers increased dramatically and security dropped to its lowest level since the beginning of the conflict. Despite faltering international pressure, Khartoum continues to resist the presence of a UN peacekeeping force to support the beleaguered AU troops.

In eastern Sudan, a peace agreement (the Eastern Sudan Peace Agreement – ESPA) between the Government of Sudan and the Eastern Front rebel group was signed in Asmara in October 2006. However, as with the DPA there is lack of support for the agreement, which is seen by many as another attempt by the Government to silence its opponents by buying them off and making empty gestures. Crisis Group’s Nairobi-based team reports and recommends policy on the situation in Sudan.

sources: www.wikepedia.com

www.crisisgroup.org

1982 Covention law of the sea

Under the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea, of which the Philippines is a signatory, the territorial sea has a uniform breadth of 12 miles measured from the low water mark of the coast.
The 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea accepted our definition of internal waters according to the archipelago doctrine but limited the territorial sea for all states to 12 nautical miles from the low-water mark of the coast.

Settlement of Disputes arising from the UN convention of the Sea (UNCLOS). Part XV of the 1982 Convention on the Law of Sea requires States to settle peacefully any dispute concerning the Convention. Failing a bilateral settlement, art 286 provides that any dispute shall be submitted for compulsory settlement to one of the tribunals having jurisdiction. These include the International Tribunal for the Law of Sea (ITLOS), the International Court of Justice , and arbitral or special arbitral tribunals constituted under UNCLOS.

Contiguous Zone

Contiguous Zone- Extends up to 12 nautical miles from the territorial sea. Although technically, not part of the territory of the State, the Coastal state may exercise limited jurisdiction over the contiguous zone, to prevent infringement of customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws.

Exclusive Economic Zone

Exclusive Economic Zone.

Extends up to 200 nautical miles from the low-water mark or the baselines, as the case may be. Technically, the area beyond the territorial sea is not part of the territory of the State, but the coastal State may exercise sovereign rights over economic resources of the sea, seabed, subsoil, although other States shall have freedom of navigation and over flight, to lay submarine cables and pipelines, and other lawful uses. States with overlapping exclusive economic zones are enjoined to enter into the appropriate treaty for the joint exploitation and utilization of the resources in the area. Included in the Philippines exclusive economic zone is the Scarborough Shoal, a rock formation about 135 kilometers from Iba, Zambales.

STRAIGHT LINE BASELINE METHOD

STRAIGHT LINE BASELINE METHOD.

To determine the extent of archipelagic waters, the archipelagic state shall draw straight baselines connecting the outermost points of the outermost islands and drying reefs, provided that ratio of the area of the water to the area of the land, including atolls, is between 1:1 and 9:1. The length of such baselines shall not exceed 100 nautical miles, except that up to 3% of the total number of baseline enclosing any archipelago may exceed that length up to a maximum of 125 miles. The baselines drawn should not depart, to any appreciable extent, from the general configuration of the archipelago. All the waters within the baselines shall then be considers as internal waters. The breadth of the 12 mile territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf shall then be measured from the archipelagic baselines

ARCHIPELAGIC WATERS

ARCHIPELAGIC WATERS. The Archipelago Doctrine: The Waters around, between and connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless of their breadth or dimension, are to be treated as internal waters.

A.) Archipelago: A group of islands, including parts of islands interconnecting waters, and other natural features which are closed interrelated is such islands, waters and other natural features which form an intrinsic geographical, economic and political entity, or which historically has been regarded as such.

National territory of the Philippine

National Territory

Sec 1, Art 1 of 1986 Philippine Constitution, defines the National territory of the Philippines as follows: “The National Territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced therein, and all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting of the terrestrial, fluvial, and aerial domains, including its territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and other submarine areas. The waters around, between and connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless of their breadth or dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the Philippines”

A.) Organic acts and issuances affecting the National territory

I. Treaty of Paris of December 10, 1898 (cession of the Philippine islands by Spain to the United States;

II. Treaty between Spain and the U.S., at Washington, on Nov 7 , 1900 ( Cagayan, Sulu and Sibato)

III Treaty between and the U.S. and Great Britain, jan 2, 1930 (Turtle Islands and Mangsee Islands)

IV. 1935 Constitution ( Batanes)

V. 1973 Constitution ( territory belonging to the Philippines by historic right or legal title)

VI. PD 1596 , June 11, 1978 ( Philippines officially laid claim to KALAYAAN Islands by virtue of occupation and exercise of jurisdiction)

B.) The second sentence of Sec 1, Art I, is a statement of the Archipelago doctrine of national territory.

The Secretariat

F. The Secretariat

Chief administrative organ of the UN, headed by the Secretary General who iss chosen by the Genaral Assembly upon recommendation of Security Council.
Term of Secretary General 5 years subject to re-election
Secretary General is the highest representative of the UN, authorized to act in its behalf and entitled to full diplomatic immunity. He may waive the immunities and privileges of other key-officials of the UN.

International Court of Justice

E. International Court of Justice

It is the principal organ of the UN; composed of 15 members who are elected for a term of 9 years by absolute majority vote in the General Assembly and Security Council in separate elections, no two of whom must be nationals of the same state. They must be of high moral character and possess the qualifications required in their respective countries for appointment to their highest judicial offices.
The court decide contentious cases, render advisory opinions. Jurisdiction is based on the consent of the parties under optional jurisdiction clause of the Statute (art 360) and comprises all cases that parties have referred to it and all matters especially provided for in the Charter or in treaties and convention in force.
Advisory opinions on legal questions arising within the scope of their activities are given upon request of the General Assembly or the Security Council and other organs of the UN when authorized by the General Assembly.

Trusteeship Council

D. Trusteeship Council

In Charged with the duty of assisting the Security Council and the General Assembly in the Administration of International Trusteeship Agreement.
Composed of a) the members of the UN administering trust territories, b) the permanent members of the Security Council not administering trust territories; c) other members as necessary and elected by the General Assembly for a 3 year term.

Economic and Social Council

C. Economic and Social Council

Composed of 54 members elected by t he General Assembly for a three year term. It shall exert efforts towards higher standard of living, conditions of economic and social progress and development, solutions of international economic social health and related problems, universal respect for the observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Decisions are reached by a simple majority vote.

Security Council

B. Security Council- Maintenance of international peace and security. It is composed of 5 permanent members, namely: China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States and the ten elective members, elected for 2 years terms by the General assembly, five from African and Asian states, two from Latin American states, two from Western European and other States and one from Eastern European States.
For the elective members, no immediate reelection is allowed. The Security Council is expected to function continuously, and sessions may be called at any time, thus the representative of the members states should always be available.
Voting in The Security Council

YALTA FORMULA
Each member entitled to one vote
On substantial questions (non-procedural): Affirmative vote of nine (9) members required, including all the 5 permanent members.
A permanent member may veto on any non-procedural matter to prevent its passage.
On procedural questions: Affirmative vote of nine members or more;
But determining whether a question is procedural or not is a non-procedural matter.
Any permanent member may veto on such determination or on the substantial question when raised. So called double veto.

Principal organs Of United Nations

A.General Assembly- Consist of all the members of the organization, each of which is entitled to send not more than 5 representatives and 5 alternates. Each member has only one vote. Its functions may b e classified into:

1. Deliberative , like initiating studies and making recommendations for the of international law.
2. Supervisory, such as receiving and considering annual and special reports from other organs of the UN
3. Financial, as the consideration and approval of the budget of the organization , the apportionment of expenses
4. Elective , as in the election of the non-permanent members of the Security Council, all members of the EcoSoc
5. Constituent, such as the admission of members and the amendment of the Charter.
Its regular session is held once a year, and it may hold special sessions called by the Secretary General at the request of the Security Council or a majority of the members. The vote of 2/3of the members present and voting is required in cases of peace, security, membership, elections, trusteeship system, and budget.

Secretary of Justice vs Judge lantion

5. Secretary of Justice vs Judge lantion
GR No 139465 ,Jan 18,2000

FACTS: On January 13, 1977, then President Ferdinand E. Marcos issued Presidential Decree No. 1069 "Prescribing the Procedure for the Extradition of Persons Who Have Committed Crimes in a Foreign Country". The Decree is founded on: the doctrine of incorporation under the Constitution; the mutual concern for the suppression of crime both in the state where it was committed and the state where the criminal may have escaped; the extradition treaty with the Republic of Indonesia and the intention of the Philippines to enter into similar treaties with other interested countries; and the need for rules to guide the executive department and the courts in the proper implementation of said treaties.On November 13, 1994, then Secretary of Justice Franklin M. Drilon, representing the Government of the Republic of the Philippines, signed in Manila the "Extradition Treaty Between the Government of the Republic of the Philippines and the Government of the United States of America"On June 18, 1999, the Department of Justice received from the Department of Foreign Affairs U.S. Note Verbale No. 0522 containing a request for the extradition of private respondent Mark Jimenez to the United States.

ISSUE: 1 Whether or not there is a conflict between between the treaty and the due process clause in the Constitution?

HELD:

1.NO.En contrario, these two components of the law of the land are not pined against each other. There is no occasion to choose which of the two should be upheld.Instead, we see a void in the provisions of the RP-US Extradition Treaty, as implemented by Presidential Decree No. 1069, as regards the basic due process rights of a prospective extraditee at the evaluation stage of extradition proceedings. From the procedures earlier abstracted, after the filing of the extradition petition and during the judicial determination of the propriety of extradition, the rights of notice and hearing are clearly granted to the prospective extraditee. However, prior thereto, the law is silent as to these rights. Reference to the U.S. extradition procedures also manifests this silence.In the absence of a law or principle of law, we must apply the rules of fair play. An application of the basic twin due process rights of notice and hearing will not go against the treaty or the implementing law. Neither the Treaty nor the Extradition Law precludes these rights from a prospective extraditee.The doctrine of incorporation is applied whenever municipal tribunals (or local courts) are confronted with situations in which there appears to be a conflict between a rule of international law and the provisions of the constitution or statute of the local state. Efforts should first be exerted to harmonize them, so as to give effect to both since it is to be presumed that municipal law was enacted with proper regard for the generally accepted principles of international law in observance of the observance of the Incorporation Clause in the above-cited constitutional provision.

PETITION is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

KURODA vs JALANDONI

KURODA vs JALANDONI
83 PHIL 171

FACTS: Shigenori Kuroda, formerly a Lieutenant-General of the Japanese Imperial Army and Commanding General of the Japanese Imperial Forces in The Philippines during a period covering 19433 and 19444 who is now charged before a military Commission convened by the Chief of Staff of the Armed forces of the Philippines with having unlawfully disregarded and failed "to discharge his duties as such command, permitting them to commit brutal atrocities and other high crimes against noncombatant civilians and prisoners of the Imperial Japanese Forces in violation of the laws and customs of war" comes before this Court seeking to establish the illegality of Executive Order No. 68 of the President of the Philippines: to enjoin and prohibit respondents Melville S. Hussey and Robert Port from participating in the prosecution of petitioner's case before the Military Commission and to permanently prohibit respondents from proceeding with the case of petitioners.

ISSUE: Whether Military Commission has jurisdiction to try petitioner for acts committed in violation of the Hague Convention and the Geneva Convention even the Philippine was not a signatory to such treaty?

HELD: Military Commission has jurisdiction to try for the acts committed.It cannot be denied that the rules and regulations of the two convention form part of and are wholly based on the generally accepted principles of international law.These rules and principles were accepted by the two belligerent nations, United States and Japan, who were signatories of two conventions.Such rules and principles therefore,form part of the law of our nation even the Philippine was not a signatory to the conventions embodying them,for our Constitution has been deliberatley general and extensive in its scope and is not confined to the recognition of rules and principles of international law as contained in treaties to which our government may have been or shall be a signatory.

REYES vs BAGATSING

REYES vs BAGATSING
125 SCRA 553

FACTS: This was a petition for mandamus with writ of preliminary injunction to review the decision of the City of Mayor of Manila Ramon Bagatsing, denying the application for permit to hold a rally from Luneta to the gates of the United States Embassy.

ISSUE: Whether the contention of mayor Bagatsing as to denying the application for permit to hold rally was in accordance to the Veinna Convention?

HELD: NO.The Constitution adopts the generally accepted principle of International law as part of the law of the land.Veinna Convention is a restatement of the generally accepted principles of international law.It should be a part of the law of the land.That being a case,If there were clear and present danger of any intrusion or damage or distribution of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity, there would be a justification for the denial of the permit insofar as the terminal point would be the Embassy.

Petition is GRANTED. The court found that there was no clear and present danger of a substantive evil to a legitimate public interest that would justify the denial of the exercise of the constitutional rights of free speech and peaceble assembly.

AGUSTIN vs EDU

AGUSTIN vs EDU
88 SCRA 195

FACTS: This was an original action in the Supreme Court for prohibition.Petitioner was an owner of a volkswagen beetle car,model 13035 already properly equipped when it came out from the assembly lines with blinking lights which could serve as an early warning device in case of the emergencies mentioned in Letter of Instructions No 229, as amended, as well as the Implementing rules and regulations in Administrative Order No 1 issued by Land transportation Commission.Respondent Land Transportation commissioner Romeo Edu issued memorandum circular no 32 pursuant to Letter of Instructions No.229,as amended. It required the use of early Warning Devices (EWD) on motor vehicles. Petitioner alleged that the letter of instructions, as well as the implementing rules and regulations were unlawful and unconstitutional.

ISSUE: Whether the Letter of Instruction were considered valid and constitutional?

HELD: YES, The court held that the letter of Instruction No.229,as amended as well as the implementing rules and regulations were valid and constitutional as a valid measure of police power. The Vienna Convention on Road signs and signals and the United Nations Organization was ratified by the Philippine local legislation for the installation of road safety signs and devices.It cannot be disputed then that this Declaration of Principle found in the Constitution possesses relevance,between the International law and municipal law in applying the rule municipal law prevails.

Petition is DISMISSED.

MEJOFF vs DIRECTOR OF PRISONS90 PHIL 70

1.MEJOFF vs DIRECTOR OF PRISONS
90 PHIL 70

FACTS: This was an original action in the Supreme Court for habeas corpus.The petitioner was a Russian national who was brought into the country as a secret operative of the Japanese forces. Upon liberation,he was arrested as a Japanese spy by the U.S. Army. Thereafter, the people's court ordered his release.But the Board of Commissioners of Immigration declared that he had entered the country illegally and ordered deportation.

ISSUE: Whether the petitioner being a stateless person has the right to life and liberty being provided in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

HELD: YES, The protection against deprivation of liberty without due process of law and except for crimes committed against the laws of the land is not limited to Philippine citizens but extends to all residents, except enemy aliens, regardless of nationality.This is being provided in "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations which the Philippine is a member.The petitioner's entry into the Philippines was not unlawful; he was brought by the armed and belligerent forces of a de facto government whoose decrees were law during the occupation.The theory on which the court is given the power to act is that the wrant for his deportation, which was not executed, is functus officio and the alien is being held without anny law.

Petition is GRANTED