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.
FOR YOUR STUDY:
Held: The court ruled that the Military Commission was legal and constitutional base on the citation of
1969 Vienna Convention on Treaties 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”.
Cases:
BAYAN (Bagong Alyansang Makabayan), et al, vs EXECUTIVE SECRETARY RONALDO
The court ruled that in accordance with the generally accepted principles of international law of the
ZAMORA, G.R. No. 138570, October 10, 2000
present day, including the Hague Convention, the Geneva Convention, and significant precedents of
FactsThe United States panel met with the Philippine panel to discussed, among others, the possible
international jurisprudence established by the United Nations, all those persons, military or civilian, who
elements of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA). This resulted to a series of conferences and
had been guilty of planning, preparing or waging a war of aggression and of the commission of crimes
negotiations which culminated on January 12 and 13, 1998. Thereafter, President Fidel Ramos
and offenses consequential and incidental thereto, in violation of the laws and customs of war, of
approved the VFA, which was respectively signed by Secretary Siazon and United States Ambassador
humanity and civilization, were held accountable therefore. Although the Philippines was not a signatory
Thomas Hubbard.
to the conventions embodying them, our Constitution has been deliberately general and extensive in its
Pres. Joseph Estrada ratified the VFA on October 5, 1998 and on May 27, 1999, the senate approved it
scope and is not confined to the recognition of rules and principles of international law as contained in
by (2/3) votes.
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
Cause of Action:Petitioners, among others, assert that Sec. 25, Art XVIII of the 1987 constitution is
conformity with the generally accepted principles and policies of international law which are part of our
applicable and not Section 21, Article VII.
Constitution.
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: Yamashita v. Styer, 75 Phil 563
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.

Kuroda v. Jalandoni. 83 SCRA 171

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
Kookooritchkin v. Solicitor General, 81 Phil 435
FACTS: Legality of the Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons, ICJ Reports, 1996
-Ermes Kookooritchkin was born in Russia, grew up as a citizen of the now defunct Imperial Russian
Government under the Czars Paquete Habana, 175 US 677, 1900
-during WW1, he was part of Russia's military service Preah Vihear Temple Case, ICJ Reports, 1962
-when the 1917 Russian revolution broke out, he joined the White Russian Army, but the latter was
overwhelmed by the Bolsheviks. He refused to join the Bolshevik regime so fled to Shanghai and found Case Concerning Right of Passage over Indian Territory (Portugal v. India)
his way to Manila (arrived under the group of Admiral Stark in 1923) Corfu Channel Case, ICJ Reports, 1949
-he established permanent residence in Iriga, Camarines Sur since 1925
-he was a guerilla officer during the war Chorzow Factory Case, 1928 PCIJ Ser. A, No. 17
-married a Filipino named Concepcion Segovia, and had a son Ronald, who is studying at St. Agnes Barcelona Traction, Light & Power Company Case, ICJ Reports, 1970
Academy, a school duly recognized by the Government
-he is a shop superintendent and receives an annual salary of P13,200 Texaco v. Libya, 17 ILM or 53 ILR 389, 1978
-can speak and write English and Bicol dialect…
BP v. Libya, 53 ILR 297
(basta, he showed he is qualified and has none of the disqualifications)
-disclaims allegiance to the present Communist Government of Russia Saudi Arabia v. Arabian American Oil Company, 27 ILR 117
-he filed 1941 petition for naturalization
DoJ Circular NO. 90, December 6, 2010, PRESCRIBING RULES IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
CFI: granted it
-OSG appealed: TRANSFER OF SENTENCED PERSONS AGREEMENTS
(1) Russian: he failed to show that he has lost Russian citizenship and that Russia grants to Filipinos the
right to become naturalized citizens
(2) failed to establish that he was not disqualified Actors in International Law
WON Kookooritchkin should be granted Cert of Naturalization? YES 1. States 
Kookooritchkin is Stateless: Empire of Russia ceased to exist and he disclaims allegiance or connection 2. International Organizations 
with the Soviet Government now existing in Russia 3. Individuals and Corporations
-It is a "well-known fact that the ruthlessness of modern dictatorships had scattered throughout the world • Art. 1, Montevideo Convention on Rights & Duties of States, 49 Stat 3097, 1933
a large number of stateless refugees or displaced persons, w/o country and w/o flag. The tyrannical Cases:
intolerance of said dictatorships toward all opposition induced them to resort to beastly oppression,
concentration camps and blood purges, and it is only natural that the not so fortunate ones who were Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company Case, ICJ Reports, 1970
able to escape to foreign countries should feel the loss of all bonds of attachment to the hells which Reparations for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the UN, ICJ Reports, 1949
were formerly their fatherland's."
Don't need to require Kookooritchkin to present evidence that he is stateless and had no allegiance to Mavrommatis Case, PCIJ, Ser. A, No. 2, 1924
Russian republic: He was at war with the said rule, plus acts of Kookooritchkin show that he does not Certain Expenses of the UN, ICJ Reports, 1962
feel any bond of attachment to the Soviet dictatorship.
*AS LONG AS STATELESS PERSONS POSSESS ALL THE QUALIFICATIONS, THEY CAN BE A. States
NATURALIZED AS PHILIPPINE CITIZENS W/O THE REQUIREMENT OF RECIPROCITY. 1. Territorial Sovereignty
Cases:
RENE A.V. SAGUISAG, et al., vs EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., et al, G.R. Island of Las Palmas Case (US v. Netherlands), 2 RIAA 829
No. 212426, January 12, 2016
Las Palmas Arbitration Revisited, H. Harry L. Roque, Jr.
North Sea Continental Shelf Case, ICJ Reports, 1969
Eastern Greenland Case, PCIJ Ser. A/B, No. 53
South West Africa Case (2nd Phase), ICJ Reports, 1966
SS Lotus Case, PCIJ Ser. A, No. 10
Asylum Case, ICJ Reports, 1950
Thematic Lighthouses:
Nuclear Test Cases, ICJ Reports:
-New Zealand v. France, 1974 Minquiers & Ecrehos Case, ICJ Reports, 1951
-Australia v. France, 1974 Case Concerning Sovereignty Over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan (Indonesia/Malaysia)
-Request for an examination of the situation in accordance with par. 63 of the court’s judgment
of the 20  Eritrea-Yemen Arbitration, ICJ Reports, 1998
December 1974 in the Nuclear Tests (New Zealand v. France) Case, 1995
 f. The Continental Shelf
Map Cases: North Sea Continental Shelf Case, ICJ Reports, 1969
Eritrea-Yemen Arbitration, ICJ Reports, 1998
Libya v. Malta, ICJ Reports, 1985
Preah Vihear Temple Case, ICJ Reports, 1962
Tunisia v. Libya, ICJ Reports, 1982
Frontier Dispute Case (Burkina Faso v. Mali), ICJ Reports, 1986
Guinea v. Guinea Bissau, ILR 77, 1985
Libya v. Chad, ICJ Reports 1994
Aegean Sea Continental Shelf Case (Greece v. Turkey), ICJ Reports, 1978
Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries Case, ICJ Reports, 1951
Anglo-French, ICJ Reports, 1979
Western Sahara Case, ICJ Reports, 1975
Case Concerning Maritime Delimitation in the area between Greenland and Jan Mayen (Denmark v. Norway),
El Salvador v. Honduras, with Nicaragua intervening, ICJ Reports,1992 1993
Clipperton Island Arbitration (France v. Mexico), January 28, 1931 Canada & France, St. Pierre
g. The Exclusive Economic Zone

UNCLOS: • Arts. 55-58, 70-73, UNCLOS

• International Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), ILM 21, 1982 Spain v. Canada (facts only), ICJ Reports, 1966
• Agreement Relating to the Implementation of Part XI of the UNCLOS, ILM 33, 1994 M/V Saiga (St. Vincent & Grenadines v. Guinea), ITLOS Judgment, July 1, 1999
• Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the UNCLOS Relating to the Conservation & Camouco Case (Panama v. France), Judgment, 7 Feb 2000, 
Management of Straddling Fish Stocks & Highly Migratory Fish Stocks www.un.org/depts/ios/itlos/jud-camouco.htm)
- Philippines vs China case h. Delimitation of Maritime Boundaries
Cases: Gulf of Maine Case (Canada v. US), ICJ Reports, 1994
a. Internal Waters
i. The High Seas
Military & Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. US), ICJ Reports, 1986 • Arts. 86-97, 105-111, UNCLOS
Saudi Arabia v. Arabian American Oil Company, 27 ILR 117 j. Conservation & Management of Living Resources of the High Seas
b. Territorial Sea Southern Blue Fin Tuna Cases (NZ & Australia v. Japan), Order on Request for Provisional Measures,
• Arts. 27-32, UNCLOS ITLOS Order, August 27, 1999
The Gulf of Sidra Incidents, 5 Italian Yearbook of International Law k. Right of Land-Locked States to & from the Sea
Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries Case, ICJ Reports, 1951 l. International Seabed Area
El Salvador v. Honduras, with Nicaragua Intervening, ICJ Reports, 1992 m. Navigation
US v. California, 382 US, 1966 n. Marine Pollution
US v. Louisiana, 382 US 11, 1969 • Civil Liability Convention of 1969
c. Straits • International Fund Convention of 1971
Corfu Channel Case, ICJ Reports, 1949 • TOVALOP
d. Archipelagos  • CRISTAL
• Arts. 49, 52-53, UNCLOS • 1984 Protocols to CLC & FC Conventions
• Coquia, Analysis of the Archipelago Doctrine in the Law of the Sea, 8 PYIL 30 • 1992 CLC & FC
Corfu Channel Case, ICJ Reports, 1949 • TOVALOP Supplement of 1994

e. The Contiguous Zone • Crystal 1992

o. Resolution of Disputes - taxes. Respondent judge issued a search warrant upon the request of respondent officers of the Constabulary
Offshore Action Center (COSAC) for alleged violation of the Tariff and Customs Code.
1. Use of Force (a) General (b) The Laws of War (c) The Concepts of Self-Defense and Self Protection (d) The
Legality of Reprisals (e) Humanitarian Intervention (f) Terrorism
ISSUE(S):
2. Judicial and Arbitral Settlement  Whether or not search and seizure of petitioner’s personal belongings was legal.
(a) International Court of Justice
(b) Non-Judicial HELD:
NO. Petitioner is entitled to diplomatic immunity as recognized by the executive branch of the government.
p. Peaceful Use of the Oceans
Such diplomatic immunity carries with it, among other diplomatic privileges and immunities, personal
q. Archaeological & Historical Objects inviolability, inviolability of the official’s properties, exemption from local jurisdiction, adn exemption from
taxation and customs duties
Lyons Inc. v. USA, 104 Phil 593
Jurisdiction & Immunities:
1. Territory Liang v. People, March 26, 2001
2. Adjacent Maritime Areas
Jurisdiction over Persons and Economic Activities:
(a) Criminal and Civil Jurisdiction 
(b) Immunity from Jurisdiction
i. State Immunity and Act of State
ii. Diplomatic and Consular Immunity
iii. Immunities of International Organizations
4. Areas Not Subject to the Jurisdiction of Individual States
Cases on Jurisdiction:
Brownwell v. Sunlife, 95 Phil 228
People v. Lol-lo & Saraw, 43 Phil 19
Tubb v. Greiss, 78 Phil 249
Haw Pia v. China Banking, 80 Phil 604

Cases on Sovereign Immunities:

Hilao v. Estate of Ferdinand Marcos, Judgment of Feb 1985 & Opinion/Order of November 1995
JUSMAG Philippines v. NLRC, 239 SCRA 224
USA v. Reyes, 219 SCRA 192
Wylie v. Rarang, 209 SCRA 357
USA v. Ruiz, 136 SCRA 487
WHO v. Aquino, 48 SCRA 242
FACTS:
Petitioner is a recognized official of the World Health Organization. His personal belongings contained in
twelve crates entered the Philippines as unaccompanied baggage were allowed free entry from duties and
Minucher v. CA, 214 SCRA 242
Holy See v. Rosario, 238 SCRA 524
SEAFDEC v. Acosta, 226 SCRA 49 Bayan v. Zamora, October 10, 2000
ICMC v. Calleja Salonga Petition on the VFA, January 22, 2007
Ex Parte Pinochet, 38 ILM 581, March 1999 Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
Israel v. Eichmann, 1962
Ker v. Illinois, December 6, 1886 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations; Vienna Convention on
Machain v. Sosa Consular Relations and Optional Protocols:
Sosa v. Machain • Cases: 
Ebrahim Case US Diplomatic & Consular Staff (US v. Iran), ICJ Reports, 1980

Case Concerning Avena and other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. USA), March 31, 2004
UNOCAL Case: Decision by the California Central District Court
Congo v. Belgium, ICJ Reports, February 14, 2002 International Organizations:
US v. Purganan (Mark Jimenez Cases) = 2 cases: SC & MFR
1. The UN Charter & the Use of Force
Flowers v. Clinton • Arts. 2(3), 2(4), 24(1), 25, 23(1), 27(3), UN Charter
• Cases:
Teotico v. Governor Genera
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. US), ICJ Reports, 1986
Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro)), February 26, 2007
Legality of the Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons, ICJ Reports, 1966
Union Bridge Company Claim (US v. Great Britain), 1924
Legality of the Use of Force (Yugoslavia v. US), 38 ILM 1199
• Youmans Claim (US v. Mexico), 1926
The Relationship between the UN Charter and General International Law regarding non-use of force: The
• Zafiro Claim (Great Britain v. US), 1925 Case of NATO’s air campaign in the Kosovo Crisis of 1999, Shinya Murase
• Bolivar Railway Company Claim (Great Britain v. Venezuela), 1903 The Caroline Case
2004 edition
M.W. Reisman, “Assessing Claims to Revise the Laws of War,” 97 AJIL 82 at 87, 2003
• Neer Claim (US v. Mexico, 1926)
Case Concerning Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), December 12, 1996
• Starrett Housing Corp. v. Iran (Interlocutory Award) (US v. Iran), 1983

2. International Court of Justice

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties  • Arts. 92, 93, 94, 96, UN Charter
• Cases:  • Arts. 1, 34(1), 35(1), ICJ Statute
Definition of “treaty”
Abaya v. Sec. Ebdane, G.R. No. 167919, February 14, 2007
a. Applicable Law
DBM v. Kolonwel Trading; Vibal v. Kolonwel; DEPED v. Kolonwel, June 8, 2007 • Arts. 38 & 59, ICJ Statute

Definition of “ratification”: b. Jurisdiction

SENATOR AQUILINO PIMENTEL, JR., et al., vs OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, et al, G.R. No. • Art. 36(1), (2) & (3), ICJ
158088 July 6, 2005
Lim v. Exec. Sec., G.R. No. 151445. April 11, 2002
Cases on Jurisdiction: 2. International Criminal Law
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. US), ICJ Reports, 1986
a. Nurumberg Tribunal
Lockerbie Case (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. USA), ICJ Reports, 1988 b. Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal (Report)
ELSI Case, ICJ Reports, 1989 c. 1949 Geneva Conventions
d. 1978 Additional Protocol to the Geneva Convention
South West Africa Cases, ICJ Reports, 1966 e. Security Council Resolution No. 827 (Yugoslavia War Crimes Tribunal)
Nauru v. Australia, ICJ Reports, 1992 f. Security Council Resolution No. 955 (Rwanda War Crimes Tribunal)
g. 1998 Rome Convention on the International Criminal Court
Case Concerning East Timor (Portugal v. Australia), ICJ Reports, 1995
Cases:
Advisory Opinion on the Legality of Nuclear Weapons (WHO Request), ICJ Reports, 1996
Cases on Provisional Measures: Yugoslavia War Crimes Tribunal Decision on Tadic, July 15, 1999 (www.un.org/icyt/ pressreal/tad-sumj99)
Bosnia Case (Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide Yamashita v. Styer, 75 Phil 563
(Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro)), February 26, 2007
Dizon v. Commanding General (Report)
Lockerbie Case (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. USA), ICJ Reports, 1988
Foreign Investments & Natural Resources:
Cases:
Cases on Dispute: Texaco v. Libya, 17 ILM or 53 ILR 389, 1978
Admissions Case (Conditions of Admission of a state to membership in the United Nations), ICJ Reports, May
28, 1948 BP v. Libya, 53 ILR 279
Free Zones Case (Case of the Free Zones of Upper Savoy and the District of Gex), PCIJ Ser. A/B. No. 45, Saudi Arabia v. Arabian American Oil Company, 27 ILR 117
June 7, 1932 Chorzow Factory Case, PCIJ Ser. A, No. 17, 1928
Marvrommatis Case, PCIJ Ser. A, No. 2, 1924 LIAMCO v. Libyan Arab Republic, 62 ILR 140
UN Headquarters Advisory Opinion (Applicability of the Obligation to Arbitrate under Sec. 21 of the UN
Starrett Housing Case, 4 Iran-US Claims Tribunal Report
Headquarters Agreement of June 26, 1947), ICJ Reports, April 26, 1988
Kuwait v. Aminoil, 66 ILR 518
Sapphire Case, 35 ILR 136
Cases on Advisory Opinions:
a. When Lawful
Legality of the Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict (WHO Request), ICJ Reports, 1996
Starrett Housing Case, 4 Iran-US Claims Tribunal Report
Monetary Gold Case (Monetary Gold Removed from Rome in 1943 (Italy v. France, UK of Great Britain &
Northern Ireland, & the USA)), ICJ Reports, June 15, 1954 AMOCO Case (US v. Iran), 27 ILM 1314
Certain Expenses of the UN, ICJ Reports, 1962 Phillips Petroleum Company Iran, v. The Islamic Republic of Iran, and The National Iranian Oil, 21 Iran-US
Claims Report
Western Sahara Case, ICJ Reports, 1975
Botswana v. Namibia (Case Concerning kasikili/Sedudu Island), ICJ Reports, 1999
Status of Eastern Carelia (Finland v. Russia), PCIJ Ser. B, No. 5, July 23, 1923 WTO:
Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Cases:
Territories Bautista Paper (Amicus Memorandum of Ambassador Lilia Bautista), GR No. 118295, August 1996
Tañada v. Angara, GR No. 118925, May 2,1997

The Individual
1. Human Rights