BAYAN VS.

ZAMORA

Facts:

Issues relating to the Visiting Forces Agreement. 1947- Military Bases Agreements. 1951- Mutual
Defense Treaty. 1998- VFA, approved by Ramos, ratified by Estrada through respondent Sec. Of Foreign
Affairs. Concurred by 2/3rds of the Senate.

Petitioners argue the unconstitutionality of the VFA and imputes that herein respondents acted with
grave abuse of discretion in ratifying said agreement.

Issues:

1. Legal standing
2. Is VFA governed by Art. VII Sec 21 or Art. XVIII Sec. 25?
3. Does VFA abdicate Phil. Sovereignty?

Held:

1. No. Petitioners failed to show that they have sustained or in danger of sustaining a direct injury
as a result of VFA. As taxpayers, no public funds are involved in this case. However, considering
that the present case is of transcendental importance, procedural issues are set aside.
2. Petitioner: Art. XVIII Sec 25 considering the presence of foreign military troops. Shall not be
allowed except under a treaty concurred by the Senate and ratified by a majority of the votes cast
by the people in a national referendum held for that purpose, and recognized as a treaty by the other
contracting State."
Respondent: Military troops are merely temporary.
Court: The law does not make any distinction as to permanent or temporary presence
Undoubtedly, 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
3. No. Constitutional.

Lim vs. Executive Secretary

Facts: Petition to restrain the Balikatan exercises. Petioners question the constitutionality of the joint
exercises

ISSUE:

1. Locus standi
2. Constitutionality

Held:

1. No locus standi. Does not involve taxing powers. Injuries raised are mere conjectures
 2. the holding of "Balikatan 02-1" joint military exercise has not intruded into that penumbra of error that
would otherwise call for correction on our part. In other words, respondents in the case at bar have not
committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

PIMENTEL VS. EXEC. SEC.

Facts:

Mandamus to compel respondents to transmit the signed copy of the Rome Statute of the ICC to the
Senate for concurrence.

Petitioners: Ratification is the duty of Senate

Issue:

1. Legal standing
2. whether the Executive Secretary and the Department of Foreign Affairs have a ministerial duty to
transmit to the Senate the copy of the Rome Statute signed by a member of the Philippine Mission to
the United Nations even without the signature of the President.

Held:

1. Only Pimentel has legal standing as he is a member of the Senate

2. No. In the realm of treaty-making, the President has the sole authority to negotiate with other states.
Ratification is generally held to be an executive act, undertaken by the head of the state or of the
government.
It should be emphasized that under our Constitution, the power to ratify is vested in the President,
subject to the concurrence of the Senate. The role of the Senate, however, is limited only to giving or
withholding its consent, or concurrence, to the ratification.20 Hence, it is within the authority of the
President to refuse to submit a treaty to the Senate or, having secured its consent for its ratification,
refuse to ratify it.21 Although the refusal of a state to ratify a treaty which has been signed in its behalf
is a serious step that should not be taken lightly,22 such decision is within the competence of the
President alone, which cannot be encroached by this Court via a writ of mandamus. This Court has no
jurisdiction over actions seeking to enjoin the President in the performance of his official duties.

PHARMACEUTICAL VS. DOH

Facts: Petition to nullify the RIRR of the Milk Code as it contains provisions that are not constitutional and go
beyond the law it is supposed to implement.
Petitioner assails the RIRR for allegedly going beyond the provisions of the Milk Code, thereby amending and
expanding the coverage of said law. The defense of the DOH is that the RIRR implements not only the Milk
Code but also various international instruments10 regarding infant and young child nutrition. It is respondents'
position that said international instruments are deemed part of the law of the land and therefore the DOH may
implement them through the RIRR.
Under the 1987 Constitution, international law can become part of the sphere of domestic law either
by transformation or incorporation.11 The transformation method requires that an international law be
transformed into a domestic law through a constitutional mechanism such as local legislation. The
incorporation method applies when, by mere constitutional declaration, international law is deemed to have the
force of domestic law.12
Treaties become part of the law of the land through transformation pursuant to Article VII, Section 21 of the
Constitution which provides that "[n]o treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective unless
concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the members of the Senate." Thus, treaties or conventional
international law must go through a process prescribed by the Constitution for it to be transformed into
municipal law that can be applied to domestic conflicts

Held:
Respondents failed to establish that the provisions of pertinent WHA Resolutions are customary international
law that may be deemed part of the law of the land. Consequently, legislation is necessary to transform the
provisions of the WHA Resolutions into domestic law. The provisions of the WHA Resolutions cannot be
considered as part of the law of the land that can be implemented by executive agencies without the need
of a law enacted by the legislature
Thus, only the provisions of the Milk Code, but not those of subsequent WHA Resolutions, can be validly
implemented by the DOH through the subject RIRR.

BAYAN MUNA VS. ROMULO

Facts: petition to nullify the Non-Surrender Agreement concluded by and between the Republic of the
Philippines (RP) and the United States of America (USA). 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
Petitioner: agreement is a treaty so it must be concurred by the senate
Held: No. It is an executive agreement, concurrence is not needed