BATCH 2

1. Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company Case (Belgium v. Spain) (1970)
FACTS:
-Belgium (P) brought an action for damages against Spain (D) on the ground that its nationals as
shareholders of the Barcelona Traction Co., incorporated and registered in Canada, had been seriously harmed by
actions of Spain (D) resulting in expropriation.
-The Barcelona Traction, Light, and Power Co. was incorporated and registered in Canada for the purpose of
developing and operating electrical power in Spain (D).
-After the Spanish Civil War, the company was declared bankrupt by a Spanish court and its assets were seized.
-After the Canadian interposition ceased, Belgium (P) brought an action for damages against Spain (D) for what it
termed expropriation of the assets of the Traction Co. on the ground that a large majority of the stock of the
company was owned by Belgian (P) nationals.
-Spain (D) raised the preliminary objection that Belgium (P) lacked standing to bring suit for damages to a
Canadian company
ISSUE:
Does the state of the shareholders of a company have a right of diplomatic protection if the state whose
responsibility is invoked is not the national state of the company?
HELD:
No. In order for a state to bring a claim in respect of the breach of an obligation owed to it, it must first
establish its right to do so. This right is predicated on a showing that the defendant state has broken an obligation
toward the national state in respect of its nationals. In the present case it is therefore essential to establish
whether the losses allegedly suffered by Belgian (P) shareholders in Barcelona Traction were the consequence of
the violation of obligations of which they are beneficiaries.

4. MEJOFF VS. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS 90 PHIL 70

MEJOFF VS. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS, digested
Posted by Pius Morados on November 8, 2011
90 Phil. 70 (1951) (Constitutional Law Right to Life and Liberty, Aliens)
FACTS: Herein petitioner, an alien illegally in this country was kept under prolonged detention while arrangements
for his departure are being made filed a petition for habeas corpus. For two years, the Government has not found
ways and means of deporting the petitioner because no ship nor country would take the latter. It is insinuated
that the petitioner might join or aid the disloyal elements if allowed to be at large.
ISSUE: Whether or not an alien, not enemy, against whom no charge has been made other than that their
permission to stay has expired, may be detained indefinitely for as long as the Government is unable to deport
him.
HELD: No, a foreign national, not enemy, against whom no criminal charges have been formally made or judicial
order issued, may not indefinitely be kept in detention. He also has the right to life and liberty and all other
fundamental rights as applied to human beings. Petitioner is ordered to be released upon the condition of being
under surveillance and exact bail in a reasonable amount with sufficient sureties. The possibility that he might
join or aid disloyal elements if turned out at large does not justify prolonged detention.

5. Kuroda vs. Jalandoni

Facts:
Petitioner, formerly a Lieutenant-General of the Japanese Army and Commanding General of
the Japanese Imperial Forces, was charged before a military commission set by Executive
Order No. 68 of the President of the Philippines. Said executive order also established a
National War Crimes Office and prescribed rules and regulations governing the trial of
accused war criminals. Petitioner contended that E.O. No. 68 was illegal and unconstitutional
because he cannot be tried fro violation of international conventions, like the Geneva and
Hague Conventions. Furthermore, he alleged that the participation of two American lawyers
in the prosecution was violative of our national sovereignty.

Issue:
Whether the Philippine Government has the jurisdiction to try and convict Kuroda for
violating prohibited acts of the war.

Ruling:
Executive Order No. 68 is legal and constitutional because Article II, Section 3 of the 1935
Constitution explicitly provides that the Philippines renounces war as an instrument of
national policy, and adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of
the law of nation.
In promulgation and enforcement of E.O. No. 68, the President of the Philippine exercised his
power as commander-in-chief of all armed forces. Moreover, it was in adherence with the
generally accepted principles and policies of international law which form part of our
Constitution.
With regards to the contention about the participation of two American lawyers, the
Philippines was under the sovereignty of the United States and thus, we were equally bound
together with the US and Japan, to the rights and obligations contained in the treaties. These
rights and obligations were not erased by our assumption of full sovereignty.

6) Agustin vs Edu 88 SCRA 195

Facts :
This case is a petition assailing the validity or the constitutionality of a Letter of
Instruction No. 229, issued by President Ferdinand E. Marcos, requiring all vehicle
owners, users or drivers to procure early warning devices to be installed 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 Office issued
Administratie Order No. 1 directing the compliance thereof.
This petition alleges that such letter of instruction and subsequent administrative
order are unlawful and unconstitutional as it violates the provisions on due process,
equal protection of the law and undue delegation of police power.
Issue:
Whether or not the Letter of Instruction No. 229 and the subsequent Administrative
Order issued is unconstitutional?
Ruling:
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 safety. In fact,
the letter of instruction is based on the constitutional provision of 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 discussions on traffic safety
by the United Nations - that such letter was issued in consideration of a growing
number of road accidents due to stalled or parked vehicles on the streets and
highways.

7) JBL Reyes vs Bagatsing 125 scra 553

FACFTS: Retired Justice JBL Reyes in behalf of the members of the Anti-Bases
Coalition sought a permit to rally from Luneta Park until the front gate of the US
embassy which is less than two blocks apart. The permit has been denied by then
Manila mayor Ramon Bagatsing. The mayor claimed that there have been
intelligence reports that indicated that the rally would be infiltrated by lawless
elements. He also issued City Ordinance No. 7295 to prohibit the staging of rallies
within the 500 feet radius of the US embassy. Bagatsing pointed out that it was his
intention to provide protection to the US embassy from such lawless elements in
pursuant to Art. 22 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. And that
under our constitution we adhere to generally accepted principles of international
law.
ISSUE: Whether or not a treaty may supersede provisions of the Constitution.
HELD:
I. No. Indeed, the receiving state is tasked for the protection of foreign diplomats
from any lawless element. And indeed the Vienna Convention is a restatement of
the generally accepted principles of international law. But the same cannot be
invoked as defense to the primacy of the Philippine Constitution which upholds and
guarantees the rights to free speech and peacable assembly. At the same time, the
City Ordinance issued by respondent mayor cannot be invoked if the application
thereof would collide with a constitutionally guaranteed rights.

8) Raquea vs Bradford (75Phil50)

FACTS:
By virtue of the proclamation issued by General of the Army MacArthur, petitioners
were arrested by the 306 CIC and detained under security commitment order No
385. The
petitioners Raquiza, Tee Han Kee, and Infante were charged with Espionage activity
with the Japanese, active collaboration with the enemy respectively. Power for
Commander of the US
Army to proclaim by virtue of military necessity is not questioned. He based
proclamation on the reasons that the apprehended have violated due allegiance to
the US and it is a military necessity. Petitioners move for writ of Habeas Corpus.
ISSUES:
1. Whether the war terminated within the meaning of that part in the
proclamation?
HELD:
No. The war, in the legal sense, continues until, and terminated at the same time
of, some formal proclamation of peace by an authority competent to proclaim it. It is
the province of the political department, and not the judicial department, to
determine if war has ended. The fact that delivery of certain persons under custody
of the US Army has already begun does not mean that the war has, in the legal
sense, already terminated, which clearly it has not. Delivery within the power of
military authorities to make even before was terminates.

9) Baer vs Tizon (57 scra 1)

FACTS:
Respondent Edgardo Gener, asplaintiff, filed a complaint for injunctionwith
the Court of First Instance of Bataan against petitioner, Donald Baer,Commander of
the United States NavalBase in Olongapo. He alleged that he was engaged in
thebusiness of logging and that theAmerican Naval Base authoritiesstopped his
logging operations. He prayed for a writ of preliminaryinjunction restraining
petitioner frominterfering with his logging operations. A restraining order was
issued byrespondent Judge. Counsel for petitioner, uponinstructions of the
AmericanAmbassador to the Philippines, enteredtheir appearance for the purpose
of contesting the jurisdiction of respondent Judge on the ground thatthe suit was
one against a foreignsovereign without its consent.

ISSUE:
Was the contention of the petitioner thatthe respondent judge acquires no
jurisdictionon the ground that the suit was one against aforeign sovereign without
its consent.
HELD:
YES. The contention of the petitioneris tenable.The writ of certiorari prayed
for isgranted, nullifying and setting aside the writ of preliminary injunction.The
invocation of the doctrine of immunity from suit of a foreign state withoutits
consent is appropriate.

10) Tanada vs Angara, 272 SCRA 18, May 2, 1997

Facts :
This is a petition seeking to nullify the Philippine ratification of the World Trade
Organization (WTO) Agreement. Petitioners question the concurrence of herein
respondents acting in their capacities as Senators via signing the said agreement.
The WTO opens access to foreign markets, especially its major trading partners,
through the reduction of tariffs on its exports, particularly agricultural and industrial
products. Thus, provides new opportunities for the service sector cost and
uncertainty associated with exporting and more investment in the country. These
are the predicted benefits as reflected in the agreement and as viewed by the
signatory Senators, a free market espoused by WTO.
Petitioners on the other hand viewed the WTO agreement as one that limits,
restricts and impair Philippine economic sovereignty and legislative power. That the
Filipino First policy of the Constitution was taken for granted as it gives foreign
trading intervention.
Issue :
Whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction on the part of the Senate in giving its concurrence of the said
WTO agreement.
Ruling:
In its Declaration of Principles and state policies, the Constitution adopts the
generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land, and
adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation and amity,
with all nations. By the doctrine of incorporation, the country is bound by generally
accepted principles of international law, which are considered automatically part of
our own laws. Pacta sunt servanda international agreements must be performed
in good faith. A treaty is not a mere moral obligation but creates a legally binding
obligation on the parties.
Through WTO the sovereignty of the state cannot in fact and reality be considered
as absolute because it is a regulation of commercial relations among nations. Such
as when Philippines joined the United Nations (UN) it consented to restrict its

sovereignty right under the concept of sovereignty as auto-limitation. What

Senate did was a valid exercise of authority. As to determine whether such exercise
is wise, beneficial or viable is outside the realm of judicial inquiry and review. The
act of signing the said agreement is not a legislative restriction as WTO allows
withdrawal of membership should this be the political desire of a member. Also, it
should not be viewed as a limitation of economic sovereignty. WTO remains as the
only viable structure for multilateral trading and the veritable forum for the
development of international trade law. Its alternative is isolation, stagnation if not
economic self-destruction. Thus, the people be allowed, through their duly elected
officers, make their free choice.

12.) Manila Prince Hotel vs GSIS

FACTS: The Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), pursuant to the
privatization program of the government, decided to sell through public bidding
30% to 51 % of the issued and outstanding shares of respondent Manila Hotel
(MHC). In a close bidding, only two bidders participated. Petitioner Manila Prince, a
Filipino Corporation, which offered to buy 51% of the MHC at P41.58 per share and
Renong Berhad, a Malaysian Firm, which bid for the same number of shares at
P44.00 per share. Pending the declaration of Renong Berhad as the winning bidder,
petitioner matches the bid price of P44.00 per share by Renong Berhad.
Subsequently, petitioner sent a manager's check as bid security to match the bid of
Renong Berhad which respondent GSIS refuse to accept. Apprehensive that GSIS
has disregarded the tender of the matching bid and that the sale may be
consummated which Renong Berhad, petitioner filed a petition before the Supreme
Court.
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner should be preferred after it has match the bid
offered of Malaysian firm under Section 10, second paragraph of Article 12 of the
1987 Constitution.
RULING: A constitution is a system of fundamental laws for the governance and
administration of a nation. It is supreme, imperious, absolute and unalterable
except by the authority from which it emanates. Since the constitution is the
fundamental, paramount and supreme law of the nation, it is deemed written in
every statute and contract. Article 12, Section 10, paragraph 2 of the 1987
Constitution provides that "in the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions
covering the national economy and patrimony, the State shall give preference to
qualified Filipinos." It means just that qualified Filipinos shall be preferred. When the

Constitution speaks of "national patrimony", it refers not only to the natural

resources of the Philippines but also to the cultural heritage of the Filipinos. Manila
Hotel has become a landmark- a living testimonial of Philippine Heritage. While it
was restrictively an American Hotel when it first opened, it immediately evolved to
be truly Filipino. Verily, Manila Hotel has become part of our national economy and
patrimony. Respondents further argue that the Constitutional provision is addressed
to the State, not to GSIS which by itself possesses a separate and distinct
personality. In constitutional jurisprudence, the acts of a person distinct from the
government are considered "state action" covered by the Constitution (1) when the
activity it engages is a public function; (2) when the government is so significantly
involved with the private actor as to make the government responsible for his
action; and (3) when the government has approved or authorized the action.
Without doubt, the transaction entered into by the GSIS is in fact a transaction of
the State and therefore subject to the constitutional command. Therefore, the GSIS
is directed to accept the matching bid of petitioner Manila Prince Hotel.