You are on page 1of 10

Ang ladlad v.

COMELEC
Comelec refused to recognize Ang Ladlad LGBT Party, an organization composed of
men and women who identify themselves as lesbians, gays, bisexuals, or trans-gendered
individuals (LGBTs),as a party list based on moral grounds. In the elevation of the case
to the Supreme Court, Comelec alleged that petitioner made misrepresentation in their
application.

Issue:
Whether or not Ang Ladlad LGBT Party qualifies for registration as party-list.

Ruling:
Ang Ladlad LGBT Party’s application for registration should be granted.

Comelec’s citation of the Bible and the Koran in denying petitioner’s application was a
violation of the non-establishment clause laid down in Article 3 section 5 of the
Constitution. The proscription by law relative to acts against morality must be for a
secular purpose (that is, the conduct prohibited or sought to be repressed is “detrimental
or dangerous to those conditions upon which depend the existence and progress of
human society"), rather than out of religious conformity. The Comelec failed to
substantiate their allegation that allowing registration to Ladlad would be detrimental to
society.
Abaya v. Abdane
On May 7, 2004 Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) of the Department of Public
Works and Highways (DPWH) issued a Resolution No. PJHL-A-04-012. It was
approved by DPWH Acting Secretary Florante Soriquez. This resolution recommended
the award to China Road & Bridge Corporation of the contract for the implementation of
civil works for Contract Package No. I (CP I), which consists of the
improvement/rehabilitation of the San Andres-Virac-Jct. Bago-Viga road, with the lengt
of 79.818 kilometers, in the island province of Catanduanes.
This Loan Agreement No. PH-204 was executed by and between the JBIC and the
Philippine Government pursuant to the exchange of Notes executed by and between Mr.
Yoshihisa Ara, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Japan to the
Philippines, and then Foreign Affairs Secretary Siazon, in behalf of their respective
governments.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the Loan Agreement No. PH-204 between the JBIC and the Philippine
Government is a kind of a treaty.

HELD:
The Loan Agreement No. PH-204 taken in conjunction with the Exchange of Notes
dated December 27, 1999 between the Japanese Government and the Philippine
Government is an executive agreement.
An “exchange of notes” is a record of a routine agreement that has many similarities
with the private law contract.
Air France vs SAKS

Respondent, while a passenger on petitioner's jetliner as it descended to land in Los


Angeles on a trip from Paris, felt severe pressure and pain in her left ear, and the pain
continued after the jetliner landed. Shortly thereafter, respondent consulted a doctor who
concluded that she had become permanently deaf in her left ear. She then filed suit in a
California state court, alleging that her hearing loss was caused by negligent
maintenance and operation of the jetliner's pressurization system. Article 17 of the
Warsaw Convention makes air carriers liable for injuries sustained by a passenger "if the
accident which caused the damage so sustained took place on board the aircraft or in the
course of any of the operations of embarking or disembarking.
Issue : won Petitioner is liable under the treaty
Held: Yes. Liability under Article 17 arises only if a passenger's injury is caused by an
unexpected or unusual event or happening that is external to the passenger, and not
where the injury results from the passenger's own internal reaction to the usual, normal,
and expected operation of the aircraft, in which case it has not been caused by an
accident under Article 17
Qatar v. Bahrain ICJ 1994

A dispute concerning sovereignty over Hawar islands and Dibal and Qit’at Jaradah
shoals, including the delimitation of a maritime boundary were issues upon which Qatar
(P) and Bahrain (D) sought to resolve for 20 years. During this period of time, letters
were exchanged and acknowledged by both parties heads of state. A Tripartite
Committee “for the purpose of approaching the International Court of Justice…..” was
formed by representatives of Qatar (P), Bahrain (D) and Saudi Arabia. Though the
committee met several time, it failed to produce an agreement on the specific terms for
submitting the dispute to the Court. Eventually, the meetings culminated in “Minutes”,
which reaffirmed the process and stipulated that the parties “may” submit the dispute to
the I.C.J. after giving the Saudi King six months to resolve the dispute. The Court’s
jurisdiction was disputed by Bahrain (D) when Qatar (P) filed a claim in the I.C.J.
Issue: won rights and obligations can be constituted by the signatories to the minutes of
meetings and letters exchanged.
Held: yes. In this case, the Minutes not only contain the record of the meetings between
the parties, it also contained the reaffirmation of obligations previously agreed to and
agreement to allow the King of Saudi Arabia to try to find a solution to the dispute
during a six-month period, and indicated the possibility of the involvement of the I.C.J.
The Minutes stipulated commitments to which the parties agreed, thereby creating rights
and obligations in international law. This is the basis therefore of the existence of
international agreement.
DBM v kolonwell trading June 8, 2007

In the middle of 2005, DepEd requested the services of the DBM-PS to undertake
procurement project which is to be jointly funded by the World Bank (WB), thru the
Second Social Expenditure Management Program (SEMP2) of the RP-IBRD Loan
Agreement No. 7118-PH and the Asian Development Bank (ABD) thru SEDIP Loan No.
1654-PHI. In October 2005, the DBM-PS called for a bidding for the supply of the
Makabayan textbooks and teachers manuals. Of the entities, foreign and local, included
private respondent Kolonwel DBM committee issued a resolution disqualifying, among
others, Kolonwel for “failure in cover stock testing “. Kolonwel was informed of this
and subsequently filed with RTC Manila a special civil action for certiorari with a prayer
for TRO. In support of its TRO application, Kolonwel alleged, among other things, that
the supply-awardees were rushing with the implementation of the void supply contracts
to beat the closing-date deadline. After summary hearing, the Manila RTC issued a 20-
day TRO, and later issued a decision wherein Resolution 001-2006-A of the DBM was
annulled and set aside. Hence this petition.

ISSUE : won the petition will prosper

RULING :
The petition is granted and the assailed decision of the Manila RTC is hereby nullified
and set aside. Under the fundamental international principle of pacta sunt servanda, the
RP, as borrower bound itself to perform in good faith the duties and obligations under
Loan No. 7118-PH. Applying this postulate, the DBM IABAC, was legally obliged to
comply with, or accord primacy to the WB guidelines on the conduct and
implementation of the bidding/procurement process in question.Foreign loan agreements
with international financial institutions, such as Loan No. 7118-PH, partake of an
executive or international agreement within the purview of Sec. 4 of RA9184.
Significantly, whatever was stipulated in the loan agreement, shall primarily govern the
procurement of goods necessary to implement the main project.
Arthur lim v executive secretart
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?


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

No. Section 25, Article XVIII, which specifically deals with treaties involving foreign
military bases, troops or facilities should apply in the instant case. 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.
Pimentel vs Executive secretary
The petitioners filed a petition for mandamus to compel the Office of the Executive
Secretary and the Department of Foreign Affairs to transmit the signed copy of the
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court to the Senate of the Philippines for its
concurrence pursuant to Sec. 21, Art VII of the 1987 Constitution. The Rome Statute
established the Int'l Criminal Court which will have jurisdiction over the most serious
crimes as genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and crimes of aggression as
defined by the Statute. The Philippines through the Charge du Affairs in UN. The
provisions of the Statute however require that it be subject to ratification, acceptance or
approval of the signatory state. Petitioners contend that ratification of a treaty, under
both domestic and international law, is a function of the Senate, hence it is the duty of
the Executive Department to transmit the signed copy to the senate to allow it to exercise
its discretion.
Issue: Whether or not the Exec. Secretary and the DFA has the ministerial duty to
transmit to the Senate the copy of the Rome Statute signed by a member of the
Philippine mission to the U.N. even without the signature of the President.
Held: The President as the head of state is the sole organ and authorized in the external
relations and he is also the country's sole representative with foreign nations, He is the
mouthpiece with respect to the country's foreign affairs. In treaty-making, the President
has the sole authority to negotiate with other states and enter into treaties but this power
is limited by the Constitution with the 2/3 required vote of all the members of the Senate
for the treaty to be valid. (Sec. 21, Art VII). The legislative branch part is essential to
provide a check on the executive in the field of foreign relations, to ensure the nation's
pursuit of political maturity and growth.
Salonga petition to the VFA
Lance Corporal Daniel Smith, member of the US Armed Forces, was found guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape in the RTC of Makati. The court ordered
Smith detained at the Makati City Jail until further orders.

On December 19 and 22, 2006, Philippine Foreign Affairs Secretary Alberto Romulo
and US Ambassador Kristie Kenney executed agreements that pursuant to the VFA,
Smith be returned to the US military custody and be detained at the first floor, Rowe
Building, US Embassy Compound.

Petitioner Jovito Salonga, et al. challenged the validity of the said agreements
contending that the Philippines should have custody of Smith because, first of all, the
VFA is void and unconstitutional since it violates Art. XVlll, Sec. 25 of the constitution.
Issue: won VFA is constitutional
Held: Yes. The SC ruled that “the VFA was duly concurred in by the Philippine Senate
and has been recognized as a treaty by the United States,” and “the fact that (it) was not
submitted for advice and consent of the United States does not detract from its status as
a binding international agreement or treaty recognized by the said State.”
Nicaragua vs US
Nicaragua alleged that the United States is effectively in control of the contras, the
United States devised their strategy and directed their tactics, and that the contras were
paid for and directly controlled by the United States. Nicaragua also alleged that some
attacks against Nicaragua were carried out, directly, by the United States military – with
the aim to overthrow the Government of Nicaragua. Attacks against Nicaragua included
the mining of Nicaraguan ports, and other attacks on ports, oil installations, and a naval
base. Nicaragua alleged that aircrafts belonging to the United States flew over
Nicaraguan territory to gather intelligence, supply to the contras in the field, and to
intimidate the population.
Issue: won United States violate its customary international law obligation not to
intervene in the affairs of another State, when it trained, armed, equipped, and financed
the contra forces or when it encouraged, supported, and aided the military and
paramilitary activities against Nicaragua?

Held: yes. The United States violated the customary international law prohibition on the
use of force when it assisted the contras by “organizing or encouraging the organization
of irregular forces and armed bands… for incursion into the territory of another state”
and participated “in acts of civil strife…in another State” and when these acts involved
the threat or use of force.