MEJOFF VS.

DIRECTOR OF PRISONS 90 PHIL 70

September 26, 1951

Facts:
This is a second petition for habeas corpus by Boris Mejoff, the first having been
denied in a decision of this Court of July 30, 1949.

"The petitioner Boris Mejoff is an alien of Russian descent who was brought to this
country from Shanghai as a secret operative by the Japanese forces during the
latter's regime in these Islands. Upon liberation he was arrested as a Japanese spy,
by
U.
S.
Army
Counter
Intelligence
Corps.
Thereafter the People's Court ordered his release. But the Deportation Board taking
his case up, found that having no travel documents Mejoff was illegally in this
country, and consequently referred the matter to the immigration authorities.

After the corresponding investigation, the Board of Commissioners of Immigration on

April 5, 1948, declared that Mejoff had entered the Philippines illegally in 1944,
without inspection and admission by the immigration officials at a designation port of
entry and, therefore, it ordered that he be deported on the first available
transportation to Russia.

The petitioner was then under custody, he having been arrested on March 18, 1948.
In October 1948 after repeated failures to ship this deportee abroad, the authorities
removed him to Bilibid Prison at Muntinglupa where he has been confined up to the
present time, inasmuch as the Commissioner of Immigration believes it is for the best
interests of the country to keep him under detention while arrangements for his
departure are being made."
Over two years having elapsed since the decision aforesaid was promulgated, the
Government has not found ways and means of removing the petitioner out of the
country, and none are in sight, although, it should be said in justice to the
deportation authorities, it was through no fault of theirs that no ship or country would
take the petitioner.

RULING:
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.

Moreover, by its Constitution (Art. II, Sec. 3) the Philippines "adopts the generally
accepted principles of international law as part of the law of Nation." And in a
resolution entitled "Universal Declaration Of Human Rights" and approved by the
General Assembly of the United Nations of which the Philippines is a member, at its
plenary meeting on December 10, 1948, the right to life and liberty and all other
fundamental rights as applied to all human beings were proclaimed.
It was there resolved that "All human beings are born free and equal in degree and
rights" (Art. 1); that "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedom set forth in
this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language,
religion, political or other opinion, nationality or social origin, property, birth, or other
status" (Art. 2); that "Every one has the right to an effective remedy by the
competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by
the Constitution or by law" (Art. 8); that "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary
arrest, detention or exile" (Art. 9 ); etc.

Premises considered, the writ will issue commanding the respondents to release the
petitioner from custody upon these terms: The petitioner shall be placed under the
surveillance of the immigration authorities or their agents in such form and manner
as may be deemed adequate to insure that he keep peace and be available when the
Government is ready to deport him. The surveillance shall be reasonable and the

question of reasonableness shall be submitted to this Court or to the Court of First

Instance of Manila for decision in case of abuse.

No costs will be charged.

Tanada vs Angara, 272 SCRA 18, May 2, 1997
Facts :
This is a petition seeking to nullify the Philippine ratification of the World Trade
Organization (WTO) Agreement. Petitioners question the concurrence of herein
respondents acting in their capacities as Senators via signing the said agreement.

The WTO opens access to foreign markets, especially its major trading partners,
through the reduction of tariffs on its exports, particularly agricultural and industrial
products. Thus, provides new opportunities for the service sector cost and
uncertainty associated with exporting and more investment in the country. These are
the predicted benefits as reflected in the agreement and as viewed by the signatory
Senators, a free market espoused by WTO.

Petitioners on the other hand viewed the WTO agreement as one that limits, restricts
and impair Philippine economic sovereignty and legislative power. That the Filipino
First policy of the Constitution was taken for granted as it gives foreign trading
intervention.

Issue :
Whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction on the part of the Senate in giving its concurrence of the said
WTO agreement.

Ruling:
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 automatically part of
our own laws. Pacta sunt servanda international agreements must be performed in
good faith. A treaty is not a mere moral obligation but creates a legally binding
obligation on the parties.
Through WTO the sovereignty of the state cannot in fact and reality be considered as
absolute because it is a regulation of commercial relations among nations. Such as
when Philippines joined the United Nations (UN) it consented to restrict its
sovereignty right under the concept of sovereignty as auto-limitation. What Senate
did was a valid exercise of authority. As to determine whether such exercise is wise,
beneficial or viable is outside the realm of judicial inquiry and review. The act of
signing the said agreement is not a legislative restriction as WTO allows withdrawal
of membership should this be the political desire of a member. Also, it should not be
viewed as a limitation of economic sovereignty. WTO remains as the only viable
structure for multilateral trading and the veritable forum for the development of
international trade law. Its alternative is isolation, stagnation if not economic selfdestruction. Thus, the people be allowed, through their duly elected officers, make
their free choice.

Petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

People v. Perfecto, G.R. No. L-18463, October 4, 1922

FACTS: The issue started when the Secretary of the Philippine Senate,
Fernando Guerrero, discovered that the documents regarding the testimony of

the witnesses in an investigation of oil companies had disappeared from his

office. Then, the day following the convening of Senate, the newspaper La
Nacion edited by herein respondent Gregorio Perfecto published an article
against the Philippine Senate. Here, Mr. Perfecto was alleged to have violated
Article 256 of the Spanish Penal Code provision that punishes those who
insults the Ministers of the Crown. Hence, the issue.

ISSUE: Whether or not Article 256 of the Spanish Penal Code (SPC) is still in
force and can be applied in the case at bar?
HELD: No.
REASONING: The Court stated that during the Spanish Government, Article 256
of the SPC was enacted to protect Spanish officials as representatives of the
King. However, the Court explains that in the present case, we no longer have
Kings nor its representatives for the provision to protect. Also, with the change of
sovereignty over the Philippines from Spanish to American, it means that the
invoked provision of the SPC had been automatically abrogated. The Court
determined Article 256 of the SPC to be political in nature for it is about the
relation of the State to its inhabitants, thus, the Court emphasized that it is a
general principle of the public law that on acquisition of territory, the previous
political relations of the ceded region are totally abrogated. Hence, Article 256 of
the SPC is considered no longer in force and cannot be applied to the present
case. Therefore, respondent was acquitted.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS vs. GREGORIO PERFECTO

(43 Phil 887) Case Digest

Facts:
On September 7, 1920, Mr. Gregorio Perfecto published an article in the newspaper La
Nacion regarding the disappearance of certain documents in the Office of Fernando M.
Guerrero, the Secretary of the Philippine Senate. The article of Mr. Perfecto suggested
that the difficulty in finding the perpetrators was due to an official concealment by the
Senate since the missing documents constituted the records of testimony given by
witnesses in the investigation of oil companies. This resulted to a case being filed against
Mr. Perfecto for violation of Article 256 of the Penal Code. He was found guilty by the
Municipal Trial Court and again in the Court of First Instance of Manila. Mr. Perfecto
filed an appeal in the Supreme Court to dismiss the case on the ground that Article 256
was not in force anymore.
Issue:
Will a law be abrogated by the change of Spanish to American Sovereignty over the
Philippines?
Ruling:
The Supreme Court held that Article 256 of the Spanish Penal Code was enacted by the
Government of Spain to protect Spanish officials who were representative of the King.
With the change of sovereignty, a new government, and a new theory of government, was

set up in the Philippines. It was no sense a continuation of the old laws. No longer is there
a Minister of the Crown or a person in authority of such exalted position that the citizen
must speak of him only in bated breath.
The crime of lese majeste disappeared in the Philippines with the ratification of the
Treaty of Paris. Ministers of the Crown have no place under the American flag.
Judgement is REVERED and the defendant and appellant ACQUITTED.