LegRes WEEK 11& 12
Rishi Notes
I. Treaties
“A treaty is an agreement under international law entered into by
actors in international law, namely sovereign states and
international organizations. A treaty may also be known as an
(international) agreement, protocol, covenant, convention, pact,
or exchange of letters, among other terms.”
A. Sources of international law
“Certainly, judicial decisions and juristic writings are regarded as
auxiliary sources of international law, whereas it is unclear
whether the general principles of law recognized by 'civilized
nations' should be recognized as a principal or auxiliary source of
international law.”
 PHIL. CONST. art. II, § 2.
“Section 2. The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of
national policy, 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.
B. Treaties and executive agreements
“An executive agreement is an agreement between the heads of
government of two or more nations that has not been ratified by
the legislature as treaties are ratified. Executive agreements are
considered politically binding to distinguish them from treaties
which are legally binding.”
 Bayan Muna v. Alberto Romulo, G.R. No. 159618, Feb. 1, 2011.
FACTS: In 2000, the RP, through Charge d’Affaires Enrique A. Manalo,
signed the Rome Statute which, by its terms, is “subject to ratification,
acceptance or approval” by the signatory states.
In 2003, via Exchange of Notes with the US government, the RP,
represented by then DFA Secretary Ople, finalized a non-surrender
agreement which aimed to protect certain persons of the RP and US
from frivolous and harassment suits that might be brought against
them in international tribunals.
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:
Did respondents abuse their discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction in concluding the RP-US Non Surrender Agreement in
contravention of the Rome Statute?
Is the agreement valid, binding and effective without the concurrence
by at least 2/3 of all the members of the Senate?
HELD: The Agreement does not contravene or undermine, nor does it
differ from, the Rome Statute. Far from going against each other, one
complements the other. As a matter of fact, the principle of
complementarity underpins the creation of the ICC. According to Art. 1
of the Statute, the jurisdiction of the ICC is to “be complementary to
national criminal jurisdictions [of the signatory states].” the Rome
Statute expressly recognizes the primary jurisdiction of states, like the
RP, over serious crimes committed within their respective borders, the
complementary jurisdiction of the ICC coming into play only when the
signatory states are unwilling or unable to prosecute.
Also, under international law, there is a considerable difference
between a State-Party and a signatory to a treaty. Under the Vienna
Convention on the Law of Treaties, a signatory state is only obliged to
refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose of a
treaty. The Philippines is only a signatory to the Rome Statute and not
a State-Party for lack of ratification by the Senate. Thus, it is only
obliged to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and
purpose of the Rome Statute. Any argument obliging the Philippines to
follow any provision in the treaty would be premature. And even
assuming that the Philippines is a State-Party, the Rome Statute still
recognizes the primacy of international agreements entered into
between States, even when one of the States is not a State-Party to the
Rome Statute.
***
The right of the Executive to enter into binding agreements without
the necessity of subsequent Congressional approval has been
confirmed by long usage. From the earliest days of our history, we
have entered executive agreements covering such subjects as
commercial and consular relations, most favored-nation rights, patent
rights, trademark and copyright protection, postal and navigation
arrangements and the settlement of claims. The validity of these has
never been seriously questioned by our courts.
Executive agreements may be validly entered into without such
concurrence. As the President wields vast powers and influence, her
conduct in the external affairs of the nation is, as Bayan would put it,
“executive altogether.” The right of the President to enter into or
ratify binding executive agreements has been confirmed by long
practice.
Sources:
1. Philippine Treaty Series
“A Collection of the Texts of Treaties and Other International
Agreements to Which the Philippines Is a Party”
2. Philippine Treaties Index
“This treaty database was developed by the Office of Legal Affairs –
Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA-OLA) and the Library Services of
the Supreme Court of the Philippines. Please click the following for
an overview of Philippine Treaty Law and Practice.”
II. Ordinances
“An ordinance is a law passed by a municipal government. A
municipality, such as a city, town, village, or borough, is a political
subdivision of a state within which a municipal corporation has
been established to provide local government to a population in a
defined area.”
 White Light Corp. v. City of Manila, G.R. No. 122846, Jan. 20, 2009
(validity)
Police Power – Not Validly Exercised – Infringement of Private Rights
On 3 Dec 1992, then Mayor Lim signed into law Ord 7774 entitled “An
Ordinance” prohibiting short time admission in hotels, motels, lodging
houses, pension houses and similar establishments in the City of Manila.
White Light Corp is an operator of mini hotels and motels who sought to
have the Ordinance be nullified as the said Ordinance infringes on the
private rights of their patrons. The RTC ruled in favor of WLC. It ruled
that the Ordinance strikes at the personal liberty of the individual
guaranteed by the Constitution. The City maintains that the ordinance is
valid as it is a valid exercise of police power. Under the LGC, the City is
empowered to regulate the establishment, operation and maintenance
of cafes, restaurants, beerhouses, hotels, motels, inns, pension houses,
lodging houses and other similar establishments, including tourist
guides and transports. The CA ruled in favor of the City.
ISSUE: Whether or not Ord 7774 is valid.
HELD: The SC ruled that the said ordinance is null and void as it indeed
infringes upon individual liberty. It also violates the due process clause
which serves as a guaranty for protection against arbitrary regulation or
seizure. The said ordinance invades private rights. Note that not all who
goes into motels and hotels for wash up rate are really there for obscene
purposes only. Some are tourists who needed rest or to “wash up” or to
freshen up. Hence, the infidelity sought to be avoided by the said
ordinance is more or less subjected only to a limited group of people.
The SC reiterates that individual rights may be adversely affected only
to the extent that may fairly be required by the legitimate demands of
public interest or public welfare.
III. Administrative issuances, rules, and regulations
 ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, bk. IV, chap. 11
“Chapter 11
ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUANCES
Sec. 50. General Classification of Issuances. - The administrative
issuances of Secretaries and heads of bureaus, offices or agencies
shall be in the form of circulars or orders.chanrobles virtual law
library
 ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, bk. IV, chap. 6, § 36
SECTION 36. Authority to Prescribe Forms and Issue Regulations.—
(1) The head of a bureau or office shall prescribe forms and issue
circulars or orders to secure the harmonious and efficient
administration of his bureau or office and to carry into full effect the
laws relating to matters within his jurisdiction. Penalties shall not be
prescribed in any circular or order for its violation, except as
expressly allowed by law;
(2) Heads of bureaus or offices are authorized to issue orders regarding
the administration of their internal affairs for the guidance of or
compliance by their officers and employees;
(3) Regional directors are authorized to issue circulars of purely
informational or implementing nature and orders relating to the
administration of the internal affairs of regional offices and units
within their supervision; and
(4) Issuances under paragraphs (2) and (3) hereof shall not require, for
their effectivity, approval by the Secretary or other authority.
 CIVIL CODE, art. 7
Article 7. Laws are repealed only by subsequent ones, and their
violation or non-observance shall not be excused by disuse, or
custom or practice to the contrary.
When the courts declared a law to be inconsistent with the
Constitution, the former shall be void and the latter shall
govern.
Administrative or executive acts, orders and regulations shall be valid
only when they are not contrary to the laws or the Constitution.
(5a)
 Tañada v. Tuvera, G.R. No. L-63915, December 29, 1986.
TAÑADA VS. TUVERA
146 SCRA 446 (December 29, 1986)
FACTS:
This is a motion for reconsideration of the decision promulgated on
April 24, 1985. Respondent argued that while publication was
necessary as a rule, it was not so when it was “otherwise” as when the
decrees themselves declared that they were to become effective
immediately upon their approval.
ISSUES:
Whether or not a distinction be made between laws of general
applicability and laws which are not as to their publication;
Whether or not a publication shall be made in publications of general
circulation.
HELD:
The clause “unless it is otherwise provided” refers to the date of
effectivity and not to the requirement of publication itself, which
cannot in any event be omitted. This clause does not mean that the
legislature may make the law effective immediately upon approval, or
in any other date, without its previous publication.
“Laws” should refer to all laws and not only to those of general
application, for strictly speaking, all laws relate to the people in
general albeit there are some that do not apply to them directly. A
law without any bearing on the public would be invalid as an intrusion
of privacy or as class legislation or as an ultra vires act of the
legislature. To be valid, the law must invariably affect the public
interest eve if it might be directly applicable only to one individual, or IV.
some of the people only, and not to the public as a whole.
All statutes, including those of local application and private laws, shall
be published as a condition for their effectivity, which shall begin 15
days after publication unless a different effectivity date is fixed by the
legislature.
Publication must be in full or it is no publication at all, since its
purpose is to inform the public of the content of the law.
Article 2 of the Civil Code provides that publication of laws must be
made in the Official Gazette, and not elsewhere, as a requirement for
their effectivity. The Supreme Court is not called upon to rule upon
the wisdom of a law or to repeal or modify it if it finds it impractical.
The publication must be made forthwith, or at least as soon as
possible.
J. Cruz:
Laws must come out in the open in the clear light of the sun instead of
skulking in the shadows with their dark, deep secrets. Mysterious
pronouncements and rumored rules cannot be recognized as binding
unless their existence and contents are confirmed by a valid
publication intended to make full disclosure and give proper notice to
the people. The furtive law is like a scabbarded saber that cannot
faint, parry or cut unless the naked blade is drawn.
 Commissioner of Customs v. Hypermix Feeds, G.R. No.
179579, Feb. 1, 2012.
“CAN’T FIND DIGEST”
Presidential issuances
 ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, bk. III, chaps. 1 & 2.
BOOK III
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
Title I
POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT
Chapter 1
POWER OF CONTROL
 Sec. 1. Power of Control.- The President shall have control of all
the executive departments, bureaus, and offices. He shall ensure that
the laws be faithfully executed.chanrobles virtual law library
Chapter 2
ORDINANCE POWER
Sec. 2. Executive Orders. - Acts of the President providing for rules of
a general or permanent character in implementation or execution of
constitutional or statutory powers shall be promulgated in executive
orders.chanrobles virtual law library
Sec. 3. Administrative Orders. - Acts of the President which relate to
particular aspect of governmental operations in pursuance of his duties
as administrative head shall be promulgated in administrative
orders.chanrobles virtual law library
Sec. 4. Proclamations. - Acts of the President fixing a date or declaring
a status or condition of public moment or interest, upon the existence
of which the operation of a specific law or regulation is made to depend,
shall be promulgated in proclamations which shall have the force of an
executive order.chanrobles virtual law library
Sec. 5. Memorandum Orders. - Acts of the President on matters of
administrative detail or of subordinate or temporary interest which only
concern a particular officer or office of the Government shall be
embodied in memorandum orders.chanrobles virtual law library
Sec. 6. Memorandum Circulars. - Acts of the President on matters
relating to internal administration, which the President desires to bring
to the attention of all or some of the departments, agencies, bureaus or
offices of the Government, for information or compliance, shall be
embodied in memorandum circulars.chanrobles virtual law library
Sec. 7. General or Special Orders.- Acts and commands of the
President in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of
the Philippines shall be issued as general or special orders.chanrobles
virtual law library
V. Lack of applicable law
 CIVIL CODE, art. 9
“Article 9. No judge or court shall decline to render judgment by
reason of the silence, obscurity or insufficiency of the laws. (6)”
 Silverio v. Republic, G.R. No. 174689, Oct. 19, 2007.
“PARTIES:
petitioner: Rommel Jacinto Dantes Silverio
respondent: Republic of the Philippines
FACTS:
On November 26, 2002, Silverio field a petition for the change of his
first name “Rommel Jacinto” to “Mely” and his sex from male to
female in his birth certificate in the RTC of Manila, Branch 8, for
reason of his sex reassignment. He alleged that he is a male
transsexual, he is anatomically male but thinks and acts like a female.
The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of him, explaining that it is
consonance with the principle of justice and equality.
The Republic, through the OSG, filed a petition for certiorari in the
Court of Appeals alleging that there is no law allowing change of name
by reason of sex alteration. Petitioner filed a reconsideration but was
denied. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
WON change in name and sex in birth certificate are allowed by
reason of sex reassignment.
 HELD:
No. A change of name is a privilege and not a right. It may be allowed
in cases where the name is ridiculous, tainted with dishonor, or
difficult to pronounce or write; a nickname is habitually used; or if the
change will avoid confusion. The petitioner’s basis of the change of his
name is that he intends his first name compatible with the sex he
thought he transformed himself into thru surgery. The Court says that
his true name does not prejudice him at all, and no law allows the
change of entry in the birth certificate as to sex on the ground of sex
reassignment. The Court denied the petition.”
 Reyes v. Lim, G.R. No. 134241, Aug. 11, 2003.
A Digest of David Reyes vs. Jose Lim, G.R. No. 134241, August 11, 2003
Facts: Petitioner David Reyes filed a complaint for annulment of
contract and damages against respondents. The complaint alleged that
Reyes as seller and Lim as buyer entered into a contract to sell a parcel
of land located along F.B. Harrison Street, Pasay City with a monthly
rental of P35,000.
The complaint claimed that Reyes had informed Harrison Lumber to
vacate the Property before the end of January 1995. Reyes also
informed Keng and Harrison Lumber that if they failed to vacate by 8
March 1995, he would hold them liable for the penalty of P400,000 a
month as provided in the Contract to Sell. It was also alleged that Lim
connived with Harrison Lumber not to vacate the Property until the
P400,000 monthly penalty would have accumulated and equaled the
unpaid purchase price of P18,000,000.
Keng and Harrison Lumber denied that they connived with Lim to
defraud Reyes, and that Reyes approved their request for an extension
of time to vacate the Property due to their difficulty in finding a new
location for their business. Harrison Lumber claimed that it had already
started transferring some of its merchandise to its new business
location in Malabon.
Lim filed his Answer stating that he was ready and willing to pay the
balance of the purchase price. Lim requested a meeting with Reyes
through the latter’s daughter on the signing of the Deed of Absolute
Sale and the payment of the balance but Reyes kept postponing their
meeting. Reyes offered to return the P10 million down payment to Lim
because Reyes was having problems in removing the lessee from the
Property. Lim rejected Reyes’ offer and proceeded to verify the status
of Reyes’ title to the Property. Lim learned that Reyes had already sold
the Property to Line One Foods Corporation Lim denied conniving with
Keng and Harrison Lumber to defraud Reyes.Reyes filed a Motion for
Leave to File Amended Complaint due to supervening facts. These
included the filing by Lim of a complaint for estafa against Reyes as
well as an action for specific performance and nullification of sale and
title plus damages before another trial court. The trial court granted
the motion.
In his Amended Answer Lim prayed for the cancellation of the Contract
to Sell and for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment against
Reyes. The trial court denied the prayer for a writ of preliminary
attachment.
Lim requested in open court that Reyes be ordered to deposit the P10
million down payment with the cashier of the Regional Trial Court of
Parañaque. The trial court granted this motion.
Reyes filed a Motion to Set Aside the Order on the ground the Order
practically granted the reliefs Lim prayed for in his Amended Answer.
The trial court denied Reyes’ motion.
The trial court denied Reyes’ Motion for Reconsideration. In the same
order, the trial court directed Reyes to deposit the P10 million down
payment with the Clerk of Court.

Reyes filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals and
prayed that the orders of the trial court be set aside for having been
issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
But the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for lack of merit.

Hence, this petition for review.

Issue: Whether on not the equity jurisdiction is an applicable law on

the matter?

Held: The instant case, the Supreme Court held that if this was a case
where there is hiatus in the law and in the Rules of Court. If this case
was left alone, the hiatus will result in unjust enrichment to Reyes at
the expense of Lim. Here the court excercised equity jurisdiction.The
purpose of the exercise of equity jurisdiction in this case is to prevent
unjust enrichment and to ensure restitution so that substantial justice
may be attained in cases where the prescribed or customary forms of
ordinary law are inadequate.

The Supreme Court also state that rescission is possible only when the
person demanding rescission can return whatever he may be obliged
to restore. A court of equity will not rescind a contract unless there is
restitution, that is, the parties are restored to the status quo ante.

In this case, it was just, equitable and proper for the trial court to order
the deposit of the P10 million down payment. The decision of the
Court of Appeals was affirmed.