WHO vs Aquino Case Digest

Facts:

Dr. Leonce Verstuyft was assigned by WHO to its regional office in Manila as Acting Assistant
Director of Health Services. His personal effects, contained in twelve (12) crates, were allowed
free entry from duties and taxes. Constabulary Offshore Action Center (COSAC) suspected that
the crates contain large quantities of highly dutiable goods beyond the official needs
of Verstuyft. Upon application of the COSAC officers, Judge Aquino issued a search warrant for
the search and seizure of the personal effects of Verstuyft.

Secretary of Foreign Affairs Carlos P. Romulo advised Judge Aquino that Dr. Verstuyft is entitled
to immunity from search in respect for his personal baggage as accorded to members of
diplomatic missions pursuant to the Host Agreement and requested that the search warrant be
suspended. The Solicitor General accordingly joined Verstuyft for the quashal of the search
warrant but respondent judge nevertheless summarily denied the quashal. Verstuyft, thus, filed a
petition for certiorari and prohibition with the SC. WHO joined Verstuyft in asserting diplomatic
immunity.

Issue:

Whether or not personal effect of Verstuyft can be exempted from search and seizure under the
diplomatic immunity.

Held:

Yes. The executive branch of the Phils has expressly recognized that Verstuyft is entitled to
diplomatic immunity, pursuant to the provisions of the Host Agreement. The DFA formally
advised respondent judge of the Philippine Government's official position. The Solicitor General,
as principal law officer of the government, likewise expressly affirmed said petitioner's right to
diplomatic immunity and asked for the quashal of the search warrant.

It is a recognized principle of international law and under our system of separation of powers that
diplomatic immunity is essentially a political question and courts should refuse to look beyond
a determination by the executive branch of the government, and where the plea of diplomatic
immunity is recognized and 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 suggestion
by the principal law officer of the government, the Solicitor General in this case, or other officer
acting under his discretion. Courts may not so exercise their jurisdiction by seizure and detention
of property, as to embarrass the executive arm of the government in conducting foreign
relations.

The Court, therefore, holds the respondent judge acted without jurisdiction and with grave abuse
of discretion in not ordering the quashal of the search warrant issued by him in disregard of the
diplomatic immunity of petitioner Verstuyft.
Bayan Muna vs. Romulo - GR No. 159618 Case Digest
Facts:

Petitioner Bayan Muna is a duly registered party-list group established to represent the
marginalized sectors of society. Respondent Blas F. Ople, now deceased, was the Secretary of
Foreign Affairs during the period material to this case. Respondent Alberto Romulo was
impleaded in his capacity as then Executive Secretary.

Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court

Having a key determinative bearing on this case is the Rome Statute establishing the
International Criminal Court (ICC) with the power to exercise its jurisdiction over persons for
the most serious crimes of international concern x x x and shall be complementary to the national
criminal jurisdictions. The serious crimes adverted to cover those considered grave under
international law, such as genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes of
aggression.

On December 28, 2000, the RP, through Charge dAffaires Enrique A. Manalo, signed the Rome
Statute which, by its terms, is subject to ratification, acceptance or approval by the signatory
states. As of the filing of the instant petition, only 92 out of the 139 signatory countries appear to
have completed the ratification, approval and concurrence process. The Philippines is not among
the 92.
RP-US Non-Surrender Agreement
On May 9, 2003, then Ambassador Francis J. Ricciardone sent US Embassy Note No. 0470 to
the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) proposing the terms of the non-surrender bilateral
agreement (Agreement, hereinafter) between the USA and the RP.
Via Exchange of Notes No. BFO-028-037 dated May 13, 2003 (E/N BFO-028-03, hereinafter),
the RP, represented by then DFA Secretary Ople, agreed with and accepted the US proposals
embodied under the US Embassy Note adverted to and put in effect the Agreement with the US
government. In esse, the Agreement aims to protect what it refers to and defines as persons of
the RP and US from frivolous and harassment suits that might be brought against them in
international tribunals.8 It is reflective of the increasing pace of the strategic security and defense
partnership between the two countries. As of May 2, 2003, similar bilateral agreements have
been effected by and between the US and 33 other countries.

The Agreement pertinently provides as follows:

1. For purposes of this Agreement, persons are current or former Government officials,
employees (including contractors), or military personnel or nationals of one Party.
2. Persons of one Party present in the territory of the other shall not, absent the express consent
of the first Party,

(a) be surrendered or transferred by any means to any international tribunal for any purpose,
unless such tribunal has been established by the UN Security Council, or

(b) be surrendered or transferred by any means to any other entity or third country, or expelled to
a third country, for the purpose of surrender to or transfer to any international tribunal, unless
such tribunal has been established by the UN Security Council.

3. When the [US] extradites, surrenders, or otherwise transfers a person of the Philippines to a
third country, the [US] will not agree to the surrender or transfer of that person by the third
country to any international tribunal, unless such tribunal has been established by the UN
Security Council, absent the express consent of the Government of the Republic of the
Philippines [GRP].

4. When the [GRP] extradites, surrenders, or otherwise transfers a person of the [USA] to a third
country, the [GRP] will not agree to the surrender or transfer of that person by the third country
to any international tribunal, unless such tribunal has been established by the UN Security
Council, absent the express consent of the Government of the [US].

5. This Agreement shall remain in force until one year after the date on which one party notifies
the other of its intent to terminate the Agreement. The provisions of this Agreement shall
continue to apply with respect to any act occurring, or any allegation arising, before the effective
date of termination.

In response to a query of then Solicitor General Alfredo L. Benipayo on the status of the non-
surrender agreement, Ambassador Ricciardone replied in his letter of October 28, 2003 that the
exchange of diplomatic notes constituted a legally binding agreement under international law;
and that, under US law, the said agreement did not require the advice and consent of the US
Senate.
In this proceeding, petitioner imputes grave abuse of discretion to respondents in concluding and
ratifying the Agreement and prays that it be struck down as unconstitutional, or at least declared
as without force and effect.

Issue: Whether or not the RP-US NON SURRENDER AGREEMENT is void ab initio for
contracting obligations that are either immoral or otherwise at variance with universally
recognized principles of international law.

Ruling: The petition is bereft of merit.

Validity of the RP-US Non-Surrender Agreement

Petitioners initial challenge against the Agreement relates to form, its threshold posture being
that E/N BFO-028-03 cannot be a valid medium for concluding the Agreement.

Petitioners contentionperhaps taken unaware of certain well-recognized international

doctrines, practices, and jargonsis untenable. One of these is the doctrine of incorporation, as
expressed in Section 2, Article II of the Constitution, wherein the Philippines adopts the
generally accepted principles of international law and international jurisprudence as part of the
law of the land and adheres to the policy of peace, cooperation, and amity with all nations. An
exchange of notes falls into the category of inter-governmental agreements, which is an
internationally accepted form of international agreement. The United Nations Treaty Collections
(Treaty Reference Guide) defines the term as follows:

An exchange of notes is a record of a routine agreement, that has many similarities with the
private law contract. The agreement consists of the exchange of two documents, each of the
parties being in the possession of the one signed by the representative of the other. Under the
usual procedure, the accepting State repeats the text of the offering State to record its assent. The
signatories of the letters may be government Ministers, diplomats or departmental heads. The
technique of exchange of notes is frequently resorted to, either because of its speedy procedure,
or, sometimes, to avoid the process of legislative approval.

In another perspective, the terms exchange of notes and executive agreements have been
used interchangeably, exchange of notes being considered a form of executive agreement that
becomes binding through executive action. On the other hand, executive agreements concluded
by the President sometimes take the form of exchange of notes and at other times that of more
formal documents denominated agreements or protocols. As former US High Commissioner
to the Philippines Francis B. Sayre observed in his work, The Constitutionality of Trade
Agreement Acts:

The point where ordinary correspondence between this and other governments ends and
agreements whether denominated executive agreements or exchange of notes or otherwise
begin, may sometimes be difficult of ready ascertainment. x x x
It is fairly clear from the foregoing disquisition that E/N BFO-028-03be it viewed as the Non-
Surrender Agreement itself, or as an integral instrument of acceptance thereof or as consent to be
boundis a recognized mode of concluding a legally binding international written contract
among nations.

Agreement Not Immoral/Not at Variance

with Principles of International Law
Petitioner urges that the Agreement be struck down as void ab initio for imposing immoral
obligations and/or being at variance with allegedly universally recognized principles of
international law. The immoral aspect proceeds from the fact that the Agreement, as petitioner
would put it, leaves criminals immune from responsibility for unimaginable atrocities that
deeply shock the conscience of humanity; x x x it precludes our country from delivering an
American criminal to the [ICC] x x x.63

The above argument is a kind of recycling of petitioners earlier position, which, as already
discussed, contends that the RP, by entering into the Agreement, virtually abdicated its
sovereignty and in the process undermined its treaty obligations under the Rome Statute,
contrary to international law principles.

The Court is not persuaded. Suffice it to state in this regard that the non-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 national law. x x x The agreement is a recognition of the primacy and
competence of the countrys judiciary to try offenses under its national criminal laws and
dispense justice fairly and judiciously.

Petitioner, we believe, labors under the erroneous impression that the Agreement would allow
Filipinos and Americans committing high crimes of international concern to escape criminal trial
and punishment. This is manifestly incorrect. Persons who may have committed acts penalized
under the Rome Statute can be prosecuted and punished in the Philippines or in the US; or with
the consent of the RP or the US, before the ICC, assuming, for the nonce, that all the formalities
necessary to bind both countries to the Rome Statute have been met. For perspective, what the
Agreement contextually prohibits is the surrender by either party of individuals to international
tribunals, like the ICC, without the consent of the other party, which may desire to prosecute the
crime under its existing laws. With the view we take of things, there is nothing immoral or
violative of international law concepts in the act of the Philippines of assuming criminal
jurisdiction pursuant to the non-surrender agreement over an offense considered criminal by both
Philippine laws and the Rome Statute.
ARTHUR D. LIM vs. HON. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY (G.R. No. 151445) Case Digest

Facts:

Arthur D. Lim and Paulino P. Ersando filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition attacking the
constitutionality of Balikatan-02-1. They were subsequently joined by SANLAKAS and
PARTIDO NG MANGGAGAWA, both party-list organizations, who filed a petition-in-
intervention. Lim and Ersando filed suits in their capacities as citizens, lawyers and taxpayers.
SANLAKAS and PARTIDO on the other hand, claimed that certain members of their
organization are residents of Zamboanga and Sulu, and hence will be directly affected by the
operations being conducted in Mindanao.

The petitioners alleged that Balikatan-02-1 is not covered by the Mutual Defense Treaty
(MDT) between the Philippines and the United States. Petitioners posited that the MDT only
provides for mutual military assistance in case of armed attack by an external aggressor against
the Philippines or the US. Petitioners also claim that the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) does
not authorize American Soldiers to engage in combat operations in Philippine Territory.

Issue:

Is the Balikatan-02-1 inconsistent with the Philippine Constitution?

Ruling:

The MDT is the core of the defense relationship between the Philippines and the US and it is the
VFA which gives continued relevance to it. Moreover, it is the VFA that gave legitimacy to the
current Balikatan exercise.

The constitution leaves us no doubt that US Forces are prohibited from engaging war on
Philippine territory. This limitation is explicitly provided for in the Terms of Reference of the
Balikatan exercise. The issues that were raised by the petitioners was only based on fear of future
violation of the Terms of Reference.
Based on the facts obtaining, the Supreme court find that the holding of Balikatan-02-1 joint
military exercise has not intruded into that penumbra of error that would otherwise call for the
correction on its part.

The petition and the petition-in-intervention is DISMISSED.

Bayan vs Zamora
G. R. No. 138570
October 10, 2000

Bayan vs Zamora

Facts:

The United States panel met with the Philippine panel to discussed, among others, the possible
elements of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA). This resulted to a series of conferences and
negotiations which culminated on January 12 and 13, 1998. Thereafter, President Fidel Ramos
approved the VFA, which was respectively signed by Secretary Siazon and United States
Ambassador Thomas Hubbard.

Pres. Joseph Estrada ratified the VFA on October 5, 1998 and on May 27, 1999, the senate
approved it by (2/3) votes.

Cause of Action:

Petitioners, among others, assert that Sec. 25, Art XVIII of the 1987 constitution is applicable
and not Section 21, Article VII.

Following the argument of the petitioner, under they provision cited, the foreign military bases,
troops, or facilities may be allowed in the Philippines unless the following conditions are
sufficiently met:
a) it must be a treaty,
b) it must be duly concurred in by the senate, ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a national
referendum held for that purpose if so required by congress, and
c) recognized as such by the other contracting state.

Respondents, on the other hand, argue that Section 21 Article VII is applicable so that, what is
requires for such treaty to be valid and effective is the concurrence in by at least two-thirds of all
the members of the senate.

ISSUE:
Is the VFA governed by the provisions of Section 21, Art VII or of Section 25, Article XVIII of
the Constitution?

HELD:

Section 25, Article XVIII, which specifically deals with treaties involving foreign military bases,
troops or facilities should apply in the instant case. To a certain extent and in a limited sense,
however, the provisions of section 21, Article VII will find applicability with regard to the issue
and for the sole purpose of determining the number of votes required to obtain the valid
concurrence of the senate.

The Constitution, makes no distinction between transient and permanent. We find nothing in
section 25, Article XVIII that requires foreign troops or facilities to be stationed or placed
permanently in the Philippines.

It is inconsequential whether the United States treats the VFA only as an executive agreement
because, under international law, an executive agreement is as binding as a treaty.
 Rene A.V. Saguisag v. Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa
G.R. No. 212426 & 212444; January 12, 2016

Ponente: C.J. Sereno

FACTS: The Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) is an executive agreement

that gives U.S. troops, planes and ships increased rotational presence in Philippine military bases
and allows the U.S. to build facilities to store fuel and equipment there. It was signed against the
backdrop of the Philippines' maritime dispute with China over the West Philippine Sea.

The US embassy and DFA exchanged diplomatic notes confirming all necessary requirements for
the agreement to take force. The agreement was signed on April 2014. President Benigno Aquino
III ratified the same on June 2014. It was not submitted to Congress on the understanding
that to do so was no longer necessary.

Petitions for Certiorari were filed before the Supreme Court assailing the constitutionality of the
agreement. Herein petitioners now contend that it should have been concurred by the senate as it
is not an executive agreement. The Senate issued Senate Resolution No. 105 expressing a strong
sense that in order for EDCA to be valid and binding, it must first be transmitted to the Senate for
deliberation and concurrence.

ISSUE: Whether or not the EDCA between the Philippines and the U.S. is constitutional.

RULING: YES. The EDCA is an executive agreement and does not need the Senate's
concurrence. As an executive agreement, it remains consistent with existing laws and
treaties that it purports to implement.

Petitioners contend that the EDCA must be in the form of a treaty duly concurred by Senate.
They hinge their argument under the following Constitutional provisions:
Sec. 21, Art. VII: No treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective unless
concurred in by at least 2/3rds of all the Members of the Senate.
Section 25, Article XVIII: xxx Military Bases, foreign military bases, troops, or
facilities shall not be allowed in the Philippines except under a treaty duly concurred in
by the Senate xxx
The President, however, may enter into an executive agreement on foreign military bases,
troops, or facilities, if (a) it is not the instrument that allows the presence of foreign military
bases, troops, or facilities; or (b) it merely aims to implement an existing law or treaty

In Commissioner of Customs v. Eastern Sea Trading: Executive Agreements

are defined as international agreements embodying adjustments of detail carrying out well-
established national policies and traditions and those involving arrangements of a more or less
temporary nature.

Treaties are formal documents which require ratification with the approval of two-thirds of the
Senate. The right of the Executive to enter into binding agreements without the necessity of
subsequent Congressional approval has been confirmed by long usage.

The Visiting Forces Agreement a treaty ratified by the Senate in 1999 already allowed the
return of US troops. EDCA is consistent with the content, purpose, and framework of the Mutual
Defense Treaty and the VFA. The practice of resorting to executive agreements in adjusting the
details of a law or a treaty that already deals with the presence of foreign military forces is not at
all unusual in this jurisdiction.

In order to keep the peace in its archipelago and to sustain itself at the same time against the
destructive forces of nature, the Philippines will need friends. Who they are, and what form the
friendships will take, are for the President to decide. The only restriction is what the Constitution
itself expressly prohibits. EDCA is not constitutionally infirm. As an executive agreement, it
remains consistent with existing laws and treaties that it purports to implement.

Petition is DISMISSED.