AGUSTIN VS. EDU

AGUSTIN VS. EDU
88 SCRA 195

Facts:

Petitioner Agustin in this prohibition proceeding assailed the validity and constitutionality of the Letter of Instruction No. 229, as amended by Letter of Instruction No. 479, providing for an early warning device for motor vehicles. He contended that the said Letter of Instructions and its implementing rules and regulations are "oppressive, unreasonable, arbitrary, confiscatory, nay unconstitutional and contrary to the precepts of our compassionate New Society."

Issue: Whether or not assailed Letters of Instructions and Memorandum Circular void and unconstitutional.

Held:

The Court decided the petition against the petitioner.

The assailed Letter of Instruction quoted important clauses that the hazards posed by such obstructions to traffic have been recognized by international bodies concerned with traffic safety, the 1968 Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals and the United Nations Organization (U.N.); and, that the said Vienna Convention, which was ratified by the Philippine Government under P.D. No. 207, recommended the enactment of local legislation for the installation of road safety signs and devices.

It is undisputable therefore that the Declaration of Principle found in the Constitution possesses relevance: “the Philippines adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land”. The 1968 Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals is impressed with such a character. It is not for this country to repudiate a commitment to which it had pledged its word. The concept of Pacta sunt servanda stands in the way of such an attitude, which is, moreover, at war with the principle of international morality.

TAÑADA VS. ANGARA

TAÑADA VS. ANGARA
272 SCRA 18

Facts:

On April 15, 1994, respondent Navarro, Secretary of Department of Trade and Industry and a representative of the Philippine government, signed in the Final Act Embodying the Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Negotiations. Bys signing the Final Act, the Philippines agreed to submit the agreement establishing the World Trade Organization that require the Philippines, among others, “to place nationals and products of member-countries on the same footing as Filipinos and local products”. To that effect, the President ratified and submitted the same to the Senate for its concurrence pursuant to Section21, Article VII of the Constitution. Hence the petitioner assailed the WTO Agreement for violating the mandate of the 1987 Constitution to “develop a self-reliant and independent national economy effectively controlled by Filipinos . . . (to) give preference to qualified Filipinos (and to) promote the preferential use of Filipino labor, domestic materials and locally produced goods”.

Issue: Whether the provisions of the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization contravene the provisions of Sec. 19, Art. II, and Secs. 10 and 12, Art. XII, all of the 1987 Philippines Constitution.

Held:

The court ruled the petition in favor of the respondents.

Article II of the Constitution is a "declaration of principles and state policies." These principles in Article II are not intended to be self-executing principles ready for enforcement through the courts. They are used by the judiciary as aids or as guides in the exercise of its power of judicial review, and by the legislature in its enactment of laws.

The provisions of Sec. 10 and 12, Article XII of the Constitution, general principles relating to the national economy and patrimony, is enforceable only in regard to “the grants or rights, privileges and concessions covering national economy and patrimony” and not to every aspect of trade and commerce. While the Constitution mandates a bias in favor of Filipino goods, services, labor and enterprises, at the same time, it recognizes the need for business exchange with the rest of the world on the bases of equality and reciprocity and limits protection of Filipino enterprises only against foreign competition and trade practices that are unfair. In other words, the Constitution did not intend to pursue an isolationist policy.

On the other hand, there is no basis on the contention that under WTO, local industries will all be wiped out and that Filipino will be deprived of control of the economy, in fact, WTO recognizes need to protect weak economies like the Philippines.

REYES VS. BAGATSING

J.B.L. REYES VS. BAGATSING
125 SCRA 553

Facts:

Justice JBL Reyes filed a petition on behalf of the Anti-Bases Coalition to compel the issuance of a permit for a rally to be held at the Luneta and a subsequent march to the U.S. Embassy on Roxas Boulevard. The petition was filed the day before the scheduled assembly as no action had apparently been taken on the application, although it turned out later that it had been rejected in a letter sent earlier by ordinary mail. The reasons for the denial was the mayor’s fear that the assemblage might be infiltrated by subversive elements to the prejudice of the public order, and thus the intended rally would violate a city ordinance implementing the provisions of the Diplomatic Convention requiring the receiving state to afford adequate protection to foreign embassies; hence his suggestion that the rally be held at an enclosed place like Rizal Coliseum for better security.

Issue: Whether the denial of the issuance and modification of the permit is meritorious and is guaranteed under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution.

Held:

The court set aside the denial or the modification of the permit sought and order the respondent official to grant it. The choice of Luneta and U.S. Embassy for a public rally cannot legally objected to in the absence of clear and present danger to life or property of the embassy. The Philippines, being a signatory of Vienna Conventions which calls for the protection of the premises of a diplomatic mission, adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land as cited in Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution.

BORIS MEJOFF VS. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

BORIS MEJOFF VS. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS
90 Phil. 70 (1979) Court of the Philippines

Facts:

The case is a second petition for habeas corpus filed by petitioner Boris Mejoff, the first having been denied in a decision of this Court of July 30, 1949.

Herein petitioner is an alien of Russian decent who was brought from Shanghai by the Japanese forces. Upon liberation, he was arrested as Japanese spy by U.S. Army Counter Intelligence Corps and was handed to the Commonwealth Government for disposition in accordance with Commonwealth Act No. 682. Thereafter, the People Court ordered his release but the Deportation Board taking his case up declared the petitioner as an illegal alien for lack of necessary documents presented upon entering the Philippines. The immigration officials then ordered that the petitioner be deported on the first available transportation to Russia but failed to do so in several times. While the arrangements for his departure are being made and for the best interest of the country, petitioner Mejoff was detained at the Bilibid Prison in Muntinlupa. 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.

Issue: Whether or not prolonged detention of the petitioner is warranted by law and the Constitution.

Held:

The court ruled in favor of the petitioner and commanded the respondents to release the former from custody subject to terms and conditions. The petitioner’s unduly prolonged detention would be unwarranted by law and the Constitution, if the only purpose of the detention be to eliminate a danger that is by no means actual, present, or uncontrollable. The possibility that he might join or aid disloyal elements if turned out at large does not justify prolonged detention, the remedy in that case being to impose conditions in the order of release and exact bail in a reasonable amount with sufficient sureties. Hence, a foreign national, not enemy, against whom no criminal charges have been formally made or judicial order issued, may not be indefinitely be kept in detention. He has the right to life and liberty and all other fundamental rights as applied to human beings, as proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations, of which the Philippines is a member.

KURODA VS. JALANDONI

KURODA VS. JALANDONI
83 Phil. 171 (1949) Court of the Philippines

Facts:

Kuroda, Lieutenant General of the Japanese Imperial Army, was prosecuted for war crimes before the Military Commission set up by Executive Order No. 68 of the President of the Philippines. Kuroda challenged the legality and constitutionality of the Military Commission and contended that it lacked jurisdiction to try him for violation of the Hague and Geneva Conventions on the Laws of War, since the Philippines was not a signatory to these conventions.

Issue: Whether or not the established Military Commission is legal and constitutional.

Held:

The court ruled that the Military Commission was legal and constitutional base on the citation of Article II, Section 3 of the Philippine Constitution declaring that “the Philippine adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the nation”.

The court ruled that in accordance with the generally accepted principles of international law of the present day, including the Hague Convention, the Geneva Convention, and significant precedents of international jurisprudence established by the United Nations, all those persons, military or civilian, who had been guilty of planning, preparing or waging a war of aggression and of the commission of crimes and offenses consequential and incidental thereto, in violation of the laws and customs of war, of humanity and civilization, were held accountable therefore. Although the Philippines was not a signatory to the conventions embodying them, our Constitution has been deliberately 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. Consequently, in the promulgation and enforcement of Executive Order No. 68, the President of the Philippines had acted in conformity with the generally accepted principles and policies of international law which are part of our Constitution.