Pharmaceutical and Health Care Association of the Philippines vs.

Duque
III Issue: W/n the RIRR is unconstitutional?
(Austria-Martinez, October 9, 2007) Sub-issue(s): W/n the RIRR is in accord with TMC? W/n pertinent international
agreements entered into by the Philippines are part of the law of the land and
Nature: Special Civil Action in the Supreme Court. Certiorari may thus be implemented through an RIRR, if so, is the RIRR in accord with
Petitioner: Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Association of the Philippines such international agreements?
Respondents: DOH Sec. Francisco Duque III, DOH Undersecretaries Dr.
Ethelyn Nieto, Dr. Margarita Galon, Atty. Alexander Padilla and Dr. Jade Del Note: I focused on the parts on international law. The other matters (in case
Mundo; and Asst. Secretaries Dr. Mario Villaverde, Dr. David Lozada and Dr. ma’am asks) are at the bottom of the digest.
Nemesio Gako
Held: No. However what may be implemented is the RIRR based on the Milk
Facts: Code which in turn is based on the ICMBS as this is deemed part of the law of
Executive Order No. 51 (The Milk Code - TMC) was issued by Pres. Aquino on the land. The other WHA Resolutions however cannot be imposed as they are
Oct. 28, 1986 by virtue of the legislative powers granted to her under the not deemed part of the law of the land.
Freedom Constitution.
One of the preambular clauses of TMC – the law seeks to give effect to Article Ratio:
11 of the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substituttes (ICMBS), a Are the international instruments referred to by the respondents part of the law
code adopted by the WHA (World Health Assembly) in 1981. of the land?
In 1990, the Philippine ratified the International Convention on the Rights of the The various international instruments invoked by respondents are:
Child. Art. 24 of the instrument mandates that States should take measure to The UN Conventions on the Rights of the Child
diminish infant mortality and should ensure that all segments of society are The International Convenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights
informed of the advantages of breastfeeding. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women
From 1982 – 2006, the WHA adopted several resolutions to the effect that These instruments only provide general terms of the steps that States must take
breastfeeding should be supported, promoted and protected, hence, it should be to prevent child mortality. Hence, they do not have anything about the use and
ensured that nutrition and health claims are not permitted for breastmilk marketing of breastmilk substitutes
substitutes.
May 15, 2006 – DOH issues the assailed RIRR (Revised Implementing Rules The ICMBS and other WHA Resolutions however, are the international
and Regulations of E.O. 51 or A.O. No. 2006-0012) which was to take effect on instruments which have specific provisions on breastmilk substitutes
July 7, 2006. – The RIRR imposes a ban on all advertisements of breastmilk Under the 1987 Constitution, international law can become part of domestic law
substitutes in 2 ways:
June 28, 2006 – Petitioner filed the present Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition Transformation – an international law is transformed into a domestic law through
with Prayer for the Issuance of a TRO or Writ of Preliminary injunction. a constitutional mechanism such as local legislation
August 15, 2006 – the Court issued a Resolution granting the TRO, enjoining Treaties become part of law of the land through this method, pursuant to Art 7,
the respondents from implementing the assailed RIRR. Sec 21 – wherein “no treaty or international agreement shall be valid.. unless
Petitioner assails the RIRR for going beyond the provisions of TMC thereby concurred by at least 2/3 of Senate”
amending and expanding the coverage of the said law. The ICMBS and WHA Resolutions are NOT treaties as they haven’t been
DOH meanwhile contends that the RIRR implements not only TMC but also concurred in by the required 2/3 vote.
various international instruments regarding infant and young child nutrition. They HOWEVER, the ICMBS has been transformed into domestic law through local
posit that the said international instruments are deemed part of the law of the legislation that is TMC.
land and therefore may be implemented by the DOH in the RIRR. Therefore, it is not the ICMBS per se that has the force of law but it’s TMC.
While TMC is almost a verbatim reproduction of the ICMBS, it did not adopt the On the other hand, recommendations of the WHA do not come into force for its
latter’s provision on the absolute prohibition on advertising of products within the members unlike regulations. Rather, they carry moral and political weight as
scope of the ICMBS. Instead the MC provides that advertising promotion or they constitute the judgment on a health issue of the collective membership of
other marketing materials may be allowed if such materials are approved by a the highest body in the field of health.
committee. The WHA resolution adopting the ICMBS and the subsequent WHA resolutions
Incorporation – by mere constitutional declaration, international law is deemed urging states to implement the ICMBS are merely recommendatory and legally
to have the force of domestic law non-binding.
This is found under Art 2, Sec 2 – The Philippines… adopts generally accepted Hence, unlike the ICMBS which has become TMC through legislative
principles of international law as part of the law of the land enactment, the subsequent WHA Resolutions, which provide for exclusive
In Mihares v. Ranada: International law becomes customary rules accepted as breastfeeding and prohibition on advertisements and promotions of breastmilk
binding as a result of two elements: have not been adopted as domestic law.
Established, widespread, and consistent practice on part of the state WHA Resolutions have been viewed to constitute “soft law” or non-binding
Opinion juris sive necessitates (opinion as to law or necessity. norms, which influence state behavior. Soft law has been noted to be a rapid
Generally accepted principles of international law refer to norms of general or means of norm creation, in order to reflect and respond to the changing needs
customary international law which are binding on all states, valid through all and demands of constituents (of the UN.)
kinds of human societies, and basic to legal systems generally As previously discussed, for an international rule to be considered customary
Fr. Bernas has a definition similar to the one above. Customary international law law, it must be established that such rule is followed by states because it is
has two factors: considered obligatory (opinio juris).
Material factor – how states behave In the case at bar, respondents have not presented any evidence to prove that
The consistency and the generality of the practice the WHA Resolutions are in fact enforced or practice by member states.
Psychological or subjective factor – why they behave the way they do Further, they failed to establish that provisions of pertinent WHA Resolutions are
Once state practice has been established, now determine why they behave they customary international law that may be deemed part of law of the land.
do. Is it ouor of courtesy or opinio juris (the belief that a certain type of behavior Hence, legislation is necessary to transform the WHA resolutions into domestic
is obligatory) law. They cannot thus be implemented by executive agencies without the need
When a law satisfies the two factors it becomes part of customary international of a law to be enacted by legislature.
law which is then incorporated into our domestic system
On other issues:
Since the WHA Resolutions have not been embodied in any local legislation, W/n the petitioner is the real party in interest? Yes.
have they attained the status of customary law and hence part of our law of the An association has standing to file suit for its workers despite its lack of direct
land? interest of its members are affected by the action. An organization has standing
The World Health Organization (WHO) is one of the international specialized to assert the concerns of its constituents. (Exec Sec vs CA)
agencies of the UN. The Court has rules that an association has the legal personality to represent its
According to the WHO Constitution, it’s the WHA which determines the policies members because the results of the case will affect their vital interests. (Purok
of the WHO, the former also has the power to “adopt regulations concerning Bagong Silang Association Inc. vs. Yuipco)
advertising and labeling of pharmaceutical and similar products” and “to make In the petitioner’s Amended Articles of Incorporation, it states that the
recommendations to members on any matter within the Organization’s association is formed “to represent directly or through approved representatives
competence” the pharmaceutical and health care industry before the Philippine Government
Note that the legal effect of a regulation as opposed to recommendation is quite and any of its agencies, the medical professions and the general public.”
different Therefore, the petitioner, as an organization, has an interest in fulfilling its
Regulations which are duly adopted by the WHA are binding on member states avowed purpose of representing members who are part of the pharmaceutical
and health care industry. Petitioner is duly authorized to bring to the attention of Questioned provision, in addition to Section 26 of Rule VII provide labeling
the government agencies and courts any grievance suffered by its members requirements for breastmilk substitutes  found to be in consonance with the
which are directly affected by the assailed RIRR. Milk Code
The petitioner, whose legal identity is deemed fused with its members, should The provisions in question provide reasonable means of enforcing related
be considered as a legal party-in-interest which stands to be benefited or injured provisions in the Milk Code.
by any judgment in the case.
W/n Section 57 of the RIRR repeals existing laws?
W/n the DOH has the power to implement the WHA Resolutions under the Section in question only repeals orders, issuances and rules and regulations,
Revised Administrative Code even in the absence of a domestic law? Only the not laws. The provision is valid as it is within the DOH’s rule-making power.
provisions of the Milk Code. (as per the discussion above) An administrative agency has quasi-legislative or rule-making power. However,
Section 3, Chapter 1, Title IX of the RAC of 1987 provides that the DOH shall such power is limited to making rules and regulation subjected to the boundaries
define the national health policy and can issue orders and regulations set by the granting statute and the Constitution. The power is also subject to
concerning the implementation of established health policies. the doctrine of non-delegability and separability of powers. The power, which
A.O. No 2005 -0014 which provides the national policy on infant and young child includes amending, revising, altering or repealing, is granted to allow for
feeding, does not declare that as part of its policy, the advertisement or flexibility in the implementation of the laws.
promotion of breastmilk substitutes should be absolutely prohibited.
Only the provisions of the Milk Code, but not those of the subsequent WHA W/n On Section 4, 5(w), 11, 22, 32, 47 and 52 violates the due process clause
Resolutions, can be validly implemented by the DOH through the subject RIRR. of the Constitution (Article III Section 1)?
Despite the fact that the present Constitution enshrines free enterprise as a
W/n the provisions of the RIRR being in accordance with the Milk Code? Not all policy, it nonetheless reserves to the government the power to intervene
of them whenever necessary to promote the general welfare… free enterprise does not
Assailed provisions: [1] extending the coverage to young children; [2] imposing call for the removal of protective regulations. It must be clearly explained and
exclusive breastfeeding for infants from 0-6 months; [3] imposes an absolute proven by competent evidence just exactly how such protective regulation would
ban on advertising and promotion for breastmilk substitutes; [4] requiring result in the restraint of trade.
additional labeling requirements; [5] prohibits the dissemination of information Section 4 – proscription of milk manufacturers’ participation in any policymaking
on infant formula; [6] forbids milk manufacturers and distributors to extend body; Section 22 – classes and seminars for women and children; Section 32 –
assistance in research and continuing education Although the DOH has the giving of assistance, support and logistics or training; Section 52 – giving of
power under the Milk Code to control information regarding breastmilk vis-à-vis donations
breastmilk substitutes, this power is not absolute because it has no power to In the instant case, petitioner failed to show how the aforementioned sections
impose an absolute prohibition in the marketing, promotion and advertising of hamper the trade of breastmilk substitutes. They also failed to establish that
breastmilk substitutes. Several provisions of the Milk Code attest to the fact that these activities are essential and indispensable to their trade.
such power to control information is not absolute.
Sections 11 and 4(f) of the RIRR are clearly violative of the Milk Code because Disposition: The Petition is Partially Granted. Only sections 4(f), 11 and 46 of
such provisions impose an absolute prohibition on advertising, promotion and A.O. 2006-0014 are declared null and void for being ultra vires. The TRO is
marketing of breastmilk substitutes, which is not provided for in the Milk Code. lifted insofar as the rest of the provisions of A.O. 2006-0012 is concerned.
Section 46 is violative of the Milk Code because the DOH has exceeded its
authority in imposing such fines or sanctions when the Milk Code does not do
so. Other assailed provisions are in accordance with the Milk Code.

W/n Section 13 of the RIRR providing a sufficient standard? Yes. G.R. No. 159618 February 1, 2011
BAYAN MUNA, as represented by Rep. SATUR OCAMPO, Rep. CRISPIN The above argument is a kind of recycling of petitioners earlier position, which,
BELTRAN, and Rep. LIZA L. MAZA, Petitioner, as already discussed, contends that the RP, by entering into the Agreement,
vs. virtually abdicated its sovereignty and in theprocess undermined its treaty
ALBERTO ROMULO, in his capacity as Executive Secretary, and BLAS F. obligations under the Rome Statute, contrary to international law principles.
OPLE, in his capacity as Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Respondents.
VELASCO, JR., J.: The Court is not persuaded. Suffice it to state in this regard that the non-
Facts: surrender agreement, as aptly described by the Solicitor General, is an
assertion by the Philippines of its desire to try and punish crimes under its
Petitioner Bayan Muna is a duly registered party-list group established to national law. The agreement is a recognition of the primacy and competence of
represent the marginalized sectors of society. Respondent Blas F. Ople, now the countrys judiciary to try offenses under its national criminal laws and
deceased, was the Secretary of Foreign Affairs during the period material to dispense justice fairly and judiciously. Petitioner, labors under the erroneous
thiscase. Respondent Alberto Romulo was impleaded in his capacity as then impression that the Agreement would allow Filipinos and Americans committing
Executive Secretary. high crimes of international concern to escape criminal trial and punishment.
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Having a key determinative This is manifestly incorrect. Persons who may have committed acts penalized
bearing on this case is the Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal under the Rome Statute can be prosecuted and punished in the Philippines or in
Court (ICC) with the power to exercise its jurisdiction over persons for the the US; or with the consent of the RP or the US, before the ICC, assuming that
mostserious crimes of international concern and shall be complementary to the all the formalities necessary to bind both countries to the Rome Statute have
national criminal jurisdictions been met.

Theserious crimes adverted to cover those considered grave under international Perspective wise, what the Agreement contextually prohibits is the surrender by
law, such as genocide, crimes againsthumanity, war crimes, and crimes of either party of individuals to international tribunals, like the ICC, without the
aggression.On December 28, 2000, the RP, through Charge d·Affaires consent of the other party, which may desire to prosecute the crime under its
Enrique A. Manalo, signed the Rome Statute which, by itsterms,is subject to existing laws. With this view, there is nothing immoral or violative of international
ratification, acceptance or approval by the signatory states. As of the filing of the law concepts in the act of the Philippines of assuming criminal jurisdiction
instant petition, only 92 out of the 139 signatory countries appear to have pursuant to the non-surrender agreement over an offense considered criminal
completed the ratification, approval and concurrence process. The Philippines is by both Philippine laws and the Rome Statute
not among the 92.

Issue: Whether or not the RP-US Non Surrender Agreement is void ab initio for International Agreements; treaties and executive agreements. Under
contracting obligations that are either immoral or otherwise at variance with international law, there is no difference between treaties and executive
universally recognized principles of international law. agreements in terms of their binding effects on the contracting states
concerned, as long as the negotiating functionaries have remained within their
Held: No. Petitioner urges that theAgreement be struck down as void ab initio powers. However, a treaty has greater “dignity” than an executive agreement,
for imposing immoral obligations and/or being at variance with allegedly because its constitutional efficacy is beyond doubt, a treaty having behind it the
universally recognized principles of international law. The immoral aspect authority of the President, the Senate, and the people; a ratified treaty, unlike an
proceedsfrom the fact that the Agreement, as petitioner would put it, leaves executive agreement, takes precedence over any prior statutory enactment.
criminals immune from responsibility for unimaginable atrocities that deeply Petitioner, in this case, argues that the Non-Surrender Agreement between the
shock the conscience of humanity; it precludes our country from delivering an Philippines and the US is of dubious validity, partaking as it does of the nature
American criminal to the ICC. of a treaty; hence, it must be duly concurred in by the Senate. Petitioner relies
on the case, Commissioner of Customs v. Eastern Sea Trading, in which the
Court stated: international agreements involving political issues or changes of waive some aspects of their state power or agree to limit the exercise of their
national policy and those involving international arrangements of a permanent otherwise exclusive and absolute jurisdiction. The usual underlying
character usually take the form of treaties; while those embodying adjustments consideration in this partial surrender may be the greater benefits derived from a
of detail carrying out well established national policies and traditions and those pact or a reciprocal undertaking of one contracting party to grant the same
involving arrangements of a more or less temporary nature take the form of privileges or immunities to the other.
executive agreements. According to petitioner, the subject of the Agreement
does not fall under any of the subject-categories that are enumerated in the Shigenori Kuroda was the highest ranking Japanese officer stationed in the
Eastern Sea Trading case that may be covered by an executive agreement, Philippines during the Japanese occupation. He was then charged before the
such as commercial/consular relations, most-favored nation rights, patent rights, Military Commission, headed by Major General Rafael Jalandoni, due to the
trademark and copyright protection, postal and navigation arrangements and atrocities that were done against non combatant civilians and prisoners during
settlement of claims. The Supreme Court held, however, that the categorization the war. His trial was in pursuant to Executive Order No. 68 which established
of subject matters that may be covered by international agreements mentioned the National War Crimes Office and prescribing rules and regulations governing
in Eastern Sea Trading is not cast in stone. There are no hard and fast rules on the trial of accused war criminals. Kuroda is questioning the legality of the said
the propriety of entering, on a given subject, into a treaty or an executive EO arguing that the same is not provided for in the Constitution. He further
agreement as an instrument of international relations. The primary consideration underscores the fact that the Philippines is not a signatory of the Hague
in the choice of the form of agreement is the parties’ intent and desire to craft an Convention on the Rules and Regulations Covering Land Warfare hence we
international agreement in the form they so wish to further their respective cannot impose against him any criminal charges because it has no laws to base
interests. The matter of form takes a back seat when it comes to effectiveness on, national or international.
and binding effect of the enforcement of a treaty or an executive agreement, as ISSUE: Whether or not Kuroda can be charged in Philippine courts?
the parties in either international agreement each labor under the pacta sunt HELD: Yes. EO No. 68 is constitutional hence the Philippine courts can take
servanda principle. cognizance of the case at bar. EO No 68 is in pursuant to the constitutional
provision that states “the Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national
International Agreements; limitations on sovereignty. The RP, by entering into policy, and adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part
the Agreement, does thereby abdicate its sovereignty, abdication being done by of the law of the nation.” The Hague Convention and other similar conventions
its waiving or abandoning its right to seek recourse through the Rome Statute of whose principles are generally accepted are hence considered as part of the
the ICC for erring Americans committing international crimes in the country. As it law of the land.
were, the Agreement is but a form of affirmance and confirmation of the
Philippines’ national criminal jurisdiction. National criminal jurisdiction being USA VS GUINTO
primary, it is always the responsibility and within the prerogative of the RP either G.R. No. 76607 182 SCRA 644 February 26, 1990
to prosecute criminal offenses equally covered by the Rome Statute or to UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, FREDERICK M. SMOUSE AND YVONNE
accede to the jurisdiction of the ICC. Thus, the Philippines may decide to try REEVES, petitioners,
“persons” of the US, as the term is understood in the Agreement, under our vs.
national criminal justice system; or it may opt not to exercise its criminal HON. ELIODORO B. GUINTO, Presiding Judge, Branch LVII, Regional Trial
jurisdiction over its erring citizens or over US “persons” committing high crimes Court, Angeles City, ROBERTO T. VALENCIA, EMERENCIANA C.
in the country and defer to the secondary criminal jurisdiction of the ICC over TANGLAO, AND PABLO C. DEL PILAR, respondents.
them. In the same breath, the US must extend the same privilege to the
Philippines with respect to “persons” of the RP committing high crimes within US
territorial jurisdiction. By their nature, treaties and international agreements Facts:
actually have a limiting effect on the otherwise encompassing and absolute
nature of sovereignty. By their voluntary act, nations may decide to surrender or
The case involves the doctrine of state immunity. The United States of America such society, the state is automatically obligated to comply with these principles
was not impleaded in the case at bar but has moved to dismiss on the ground in its relations with other states.
that they are in effect suits against it to which it has not consented.
While the doctrine appears to prohibit only suits against the state without its
The private respondents are suing several officers of the US Air Force in Clark consent, it is also applicable to complaints filed against officials of the states for
Air Base in connection with the bidding conducted by them for contracts for acts allegedly performed by them in the discharge of their duties. The rule is that
barber services in the said base. Among those who submitted their bids were if the judgment against such officials will require the state itself to perform an
private respondents Roberto T. Valencia, Emerenciana C. Tanglao, and Pablo affirmative act to satisfy the same, the suit must be regarded as against the
C. del Pilar. state although it has not been formally impleaded. When the government enters
into a contract, it is deemed to have descended to the level of the other
The Bidding was won by Ramon Dizon over the objection of the private contracting party and divested of its sovereign immunity from suit with its implied
respondents who claimed that he had made a bid for 4 facilities, including the consent.
Civil Engineering Area which was not included in the invitation to bid.
Rulings:
The private respondents filed a complaint in the court below to compel The court finds the barbershops subject to the concessions granted by the US
Philippine Area Exchange (PHAX) and the individual petitioners to cancel the government to be commercial enterprises operated by private persons. They
award to Dizon, to conduct a rebidding for the barbershop concessions and to are not agencies of the United States Armed Forces nor are their facilities
allow the private respondents by a writ of preliminary injunction to continue demandable as a matter of right by the American servicemen. These
operating the concessions pending litigation. establishments provide for the grooming needs of their customers. This being
the case, the petitioners cannot plead any immunity from the complaint filed by
The petitioners filed a motion to dismiss and opposition to the petition for the private respondents in the court below.
preliminary injunction on the ground that the action was in effect a suit against Petitioners states they have acted in the discharge of their official functions as
USA which had not waived its non-suability, but trial court denied the application officers or agents of the United States. They are sought to be held answerable
for a writ of preliminary injunction. for personal torts in which the United States itself is not involved. If found liable,
they and they alone must satisfy the judgment.
Issues: The Court would have directly resolved the claims against the defendants,
Whether or not the action was in effect a suit against United States of America. except for the paucity of the record in the case at hand. The evidence of the
Whether or not the petitioners were immune from suit under the RP-US Bases alleged irregularity in the grant of the barbershop
Treaty for acts done by them in the performance of their official duties. concessions is not before the Court. The respondent court will have to receive
that evidence first, so it can later determine on the basis thereof if the plaintiffs
Discussions: are entitled to the relief they seek. Accordingly, this case must also be
The rule that a state may not be sued without its consent, is one of the generally remanded to the court below for further proceedings.
accepted principles of international law that we have adopted as part of the law
of our land. Agustin vs Edu

Even without such affirmation, we would still be bound by the generally Facts
accepted principles of international law under the doctrine of incorporation. This case is a petition assailing the validity or the constitutionality of a Letter of
Under this doctrine, as accepted by the majority of states, such principles are Instruction No. 229, issued by President Ferdinand E. Marcos, requiring all
deemed incorporated in the law of every civilized state as a condition and vehicle owners, users or drivers to procure early warning devices to be installed
consequence of its membership in the society of nations. Upon its admission to a distance away from such vehicle when it stalls or is disabled. In compliance
with such letter of instruction, the Commissioner of the Land Transportation power shall be vested in the President of the Philippines." The phrase, however,
Office issued Administrative Order No. 1 directing the compliance thereof. does not define what is meant by executive power although the same article
This petition alleges that such letter of instruction and subsequent administrative tackles on exercises of certain powers by the President such as appointing
order are unlawful and unconstitutional as it violates the provisions on due power during recess of the Congress (S.16), control of all the executive
process, equal protection of the law and undue delegation of police power. departments, bureaus, and offices (Section 17), power to grant reprieves,
commutations, and pardons, and remit fines and forfeitures, after conviction by
final judgment (Section 19), treaty making power (Section 21), borrowing
Issue power (Section 20), budgetary power (Section 22), informing power (Section
Whether or not the Letter of Instruction No. 229 and the subsequent 23).
Administrative Order issued is unconstitutional The Constitution may have grant powers to the President, it cannot be said to
be limited only to the specific powers enumerated in the Constitution. Whatever
power inherent in the government that is neither legislative nor judicial has to be
Ruling executive.
The Supreme Court ruled for the dismissal of the petition. The statutes in
question are deemed not unconstitutional. These were definitely in the exercise
of police power as such was established to promote public welfare and public WHO vs Aquino
safety. In fact, the letter of instruction is based on the constitutional provision of Facts:
adopting to the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the
law of the land. The letter of instruction mentions, as its premise and basis, the
resolutions of the 1968 Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals and the Dr. Leonce Verstuyft was assigned by WHO to its regional office in Manila as
discussions on traffic safety by the United Nations - that such letter was issued Acting Assistant Director of Health Services. His personal effects, contained in
in consideration of a growing number of road accidents due to stalled or parked twelve (12) crates, were allowed free entry from duties and taxes. Constabulary
vehicles on the streets and highways. Offshore Action Center (COSAC) suspected that the crates “contain large
quantities of highly dutiable goods” beyond the official needs of Verstuyft. Upon
Marcos vs Manglapus application of the COSAC officers, Judge Aquino issued a search warrant for the
search and seizure of the personal effects of Verstuyft.
FACTS:
Former President Marcos, after his and his family spent three year exile in Secretary of Foreign Affairs Carlos P. Romulo advised Judge Aquino that Dr.
Hawaii, USA, sought to return to the Philippines. The call is about to request of Verstuyft is entitled to immunity from search in respect for his personal baggage
Marcos family to order the respondents to issue travel order to them and to as accorded to members of diplomatic missions pursuant to the Host Agreement
enjoin the petition of the President's decision to bar their return to the and requested that the search warrant be suspended. The Solicitor General
Philippines. accordingly joined Verstuyft for the quashal of the search warrant but
respondent judge nevertheless summarily denied the quashal. Verstuyft, thus,
ISSUE: filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the SC. WHO joined Verstuyft in
Whether or not, in the exercise of the powers granted by the Constitution, the asserting diplomatic immunity.
President may prohibit the Marcoses from returning to the Philippines.

RULING: Issue:
Yes
According to Section 1, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution: "The executive
Whether or not personal effect of Verstuyft can be exempted from search and Court: (1) enjoin the COMELEC from conducting the plebiscite; and (2) declare
seizure under the diplomatic immunity. RA 6734, or parts thereof, unconstitutional. The arguments against R.A. 6734
raised by petitioners may generally be categorized into either of the following: (a)
Held: that R.A. 6734, or parts thereof, violates the Constitution, and (b) that certain
provisions of R.A. No. 6734 conflict with the Tripoli Agreement.

Yes. The executive branch of the Phils has expressly recognized that Verstuyft is Issue: Whether or not certain provisions of the Organic Act are unconstitutional.
entitled to diplomatic immunity, pursuant to the provisions of the Host Agreement.
The DFA formally advised respondent judge of the Philippine Government's Held: The petition has no merit and the law is constitutional.
official position. The Solicitor General, as principal law officer of the gorvernment,
likewise expressly affirmed said petitioner's right to diplomatic immunity and 1. Petitioner contends that the tenor of a provision in the Organic Act makes the
asked for the quashal of the search warrant. creation of an autonomous region absolute, such that even if only two provinces
vote in favor of autonomy, an autonomous region would still be created composed
It is a recognized principle of international law and under our system of separation of the two provinces where the favorable votes were obtained. there is a specific
of powers that diplomatic immunity is essentially a political question and courts provision in the Transitory Provisions (Article XIX) of the Organic Act, which
should refuse to look beyond a determination by the executive branch of the incorporates substantially the same requirements embodied in the Constitution
government, and where the plea of diplomatic immunity is recognized and and fills in the details, thus:
affirmed by the executive branch of the government as in the case at bar, it is
then the duty of the courts to accept the claim of immunity upon appropriate SEC. 13. The creation of the Autonomous Region in Muslim
suggestion by the principal law officer of the government, the Solicitor General in Mindanao shall take effect when approved by a majority of the
this case, or other officer acting under his discretion. Courts may not so exercise votes cast by the constituent units provided in paragraph (2) of
their jurisdiction by seizure and detention of property, as to embarass the Sec. 1 of Article II of this Act in a plebiscite which shall be held
executive arm of the government in conducting foreign relations. not earlier than ninety (90) days or later than one hundred twenty
(120) days after the approval of this Act: Provided, That only the
The Court, therefore, holds the respondent judge acted without jurisdiction and provinces and cities voting favorably in such plebiscite shall be
with grave abuse of discretion in not ordering the quashal of the search warrant included in the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao. The
issued by him in disregard of the diplomatic immunity of petitioner provinces and cities which in the plebiscite do not vote for
Verstuyft. (World Health Organization vs. Aquino, G.R. No. L-35131, inclusion in the Autonomous Region shall remain the existing
November 29, 1972, 48 SCRA 243) administrative determination, merge the existing regions.

Thus, under the Constitution and R.A. No 6734, the creation of the autonomous
Abbas vs. COMELEC region shall take effect only when approved by a majority of the votes cast by the
G.R. No. 89651 November 10, 1989 constituent units in a plebiscite, and only those provinces and cities where a
majority vote in favor of the Organic Act shall be included in the autonomous
Topics: nature of plebiscite, constitutionality of RA 6734 region. The provinces and cities wherein such a majority is not attained shall not
be included in the autonomous region. It may be that even if an autonomous
Facts: A plebiscite in thirteen (13) provinces and nine (9) cities in Mindanao and region is created, not all of the thirteen (13) provinces and nine (9) cities
Palawan, was scheduled for November 19, 1989, in implementation of RA 6734, mentioned in Article II, section 1 (2) of R.A. No. 6734 shall be included therein.
entitled "An Act Providing for an Organic Act for the Autonomous Region in The single plebiscite contemplated by the Constitution and R.A. No. 6734 will
Muslim Mindanao" (Organic Act). These consolidated petitions pray that the therefore be determinative of (1) whether there shall be an autonomous region in
Muslim Mindanao and (2) which provinces and cities, among those enumerated the Muslim Code and national law, wherein an application of national law might
in R.A. No. 6734, shall compromise it. be offensive to a Muslim's religious convictions.

2. The question has been raised as to what this majority means. Does it refer to In the present case, no actual controversy between real litigants exists. There are
a majority of the total votes cast in the plebiscite in all the constituent units, or a no conflicting claims involving the application of national law resulting in an
majority in each of the constituent units, or both? alleged violation of religious freedom. This being so, the Court in this case may
not be calleupon to resolve what is merely a perceived potential conflict between
The 1987 Constitution provides: The creation of the autonomous region shall be the provisions the Muslim Code and national law.
effective when approved by majority of the votes cast by the constituent units in
a plebiscite called for the purpose, provided that only provinces, cities and 5. According to petitioners, said provision grants the President the power to merge
geographic areas voting favorably in such plebiscite shall be included in the regions, a power which is not conferred by the Constitution upon the President.
autonomous region. [Art. X, sec, 18, para, 2]. It will readily be seen that the
creation of the autonomous region is made to depend, not on the total majority While the power to merge administrative regions is not expressly provided for in
vote in the plebiscite, but on the will of the majority in each of the constituent units the Constitution, it is a power which has traditionally been lodged with the
and the proviso underscores this. President to facilitate the exercise of the power of general supervision over local
governments. There is no conflict between the power of the President to merge
3. Petitioner avers that not all of the thirteen (13) provinces and nine (9) cities administrative regions with the constitutional provision requiring a plebiscite in the
included in the Organic Act, possess such concurrence in historical and cultural merger of local government units because the requirement of a plebiscite in a
heritage and other relevant characteristics. By including areas, which do not merger expressly applies only to provinces, cities, municipalities or barangays,
strictly share the same characteristic as the others, petitioner claims that not to administrative regions.
Congress has expanded the scope of the autonomous region which the
constitution itself has prescribed to be limited. 6. Every law has in its favor the presumption of constitutionality. Based on the
grounds raised by petitioners to challenge the constitutionality of R.A. No. 6734,
Petitioner's argument is not tenable. The Constitution lays down the standards by the Court finds that petitioners have failed to overcome the presumption. The
which Congress shall determine which areas should constitute the autonomous dismissal of these two petitions is, therefore, inevitable.
region. Guided by these constitutional criteria, the ascertainment by Congress of
the areas that share common attributes is within the exclusive realm of the ICHONG vs HERNANDEZ
legislature's discretion. Any review of this ascertainment would have to go into
the wisdom of the law. Lao Ichong is a Chinese businessman who entered the country to take advantage
of business opportunities herein abound (then) – particularly in the retail business.
4. Both petitions also question the validity of R.A. No. 6734 on the ground that it For some time he and his fellow Chinese businessmen enjoyed a “monopoly” in
violates the constitutional guarantee on free exercise of religion [Art. III, sec. 5]. the local market in Pasay. Until in June 1954 when Congress passed the RA 1180
The objection centers on a provision in the Organic Act which mandates that or the Retail Trade Nationalization Act the purpose of which is to reserve to
should there be any conflict between the Muslim Code and the Tribal Code on the Filipinos the right to engage in the retail business. Ichong then petitioned for the
one had, and the national law on the other hand, the Shari'ah courts created under nullification of the said Act on the ground that it contravened several treaties
the same Act should apply national law. Petitioners maintain that the islamic law concluded by the RP which, according to him, violates the equal protection clause
(Shari'ah) is derived from the Koran, which makes it part of divine law. Thus it (pacta sund servanda). He said that as a Chinese businessman engaged in the
may not be subjected to any "man-made" national law. Petitioner Abbas supports business here in the country who helps in the income generation of the country
this objection by enumerating possible instances of conflict between provisions of he should be given equal opportunity.
ISSUE: Whether or not a law may invalidate or supersede treaties or generally
accepted principles.
HELD: Yes, a law may supersede a treaty or a generally accepted principle. In
this case, there is no conflict at all between the raised generally accepted principle
and with RA 1180. The equal protection of the law clause “does not demand
absolute equality amongst residents; it merely requires that all persons shall be
treated alike, under like circumstances and conditions both as to privileges
conferred and liabilities enforced”; and, that the equal protection clause “is not
infringed by legislation which applies only to those persons falling within a
specified class, if it applies alike to all persons within such class, and reasonable
grounds exist for making a distinction between those who fall within such class
and those who do not.”
For the sake of argument, even if it would be assumed that a treaty would be in
conflict with a statute then the statute must be upheld because it represented an
exercise of the police power which, being inherent could not be bargained away
or surrendered through the medium of a treaty. Hence, Ichong can no longer
assert his right to operate his market stalls in the Pasay city market.