Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Facts: It is not denied that such acts directed against the civilian
population of an occupied country and against prisoners
of war are recognized in international law as violations of
General Tomoyuki Yamashita is the Commanding the law of war under Fourth Hague Convention. But it is
General of the Japanese Imperial Army. When he urged that the charge does not allege that petitioner has
surrendered in 1945, an American military commission either committed or directed the commission of such
tried him on charges that he permitted atrocities against acts, and consequently that no violation is charged as
both civilians and prisoners of war, in violation of the law against him. But this overlooks the fact that the gist of the
of war. charge is an unlawful breach of duty by petitioner as an
army commander to control the operations of the
The bills of particulars, filed by the prosecution by order members of his command by 'permitting them to commit'
of the commission, allege a series of 123 acts, committed the extensive and widespread atrocities specified.
by members of the forces under petitioner's command.
The question then is whether the law of war imposes on
The first item specifies the execution of a 'a an army commander a duty to take such appropriate
deliberate plan and purpose to massacre and measures as are within his power to control the troops
exterminate a large part of the civilian population under his command for the prevention of the specified
of Batangas Province, and to devastate and acts which are violations of the law of war and which are
destroy public, private and religious property likely to attend the occupation of hostile territory by an
therein, as a result of which more than 25,000 uncontrolled soldiery, and whether he may be charged
men, women and children, all unarmed with personal responsibility for his failure to take such
noncombatant civilians, were brutally mistreated measures when violations result. That this was the
and killed, without cause or trial, and entire precise issue to be tried was made clear by the
settlements were devastated and destroyed statement of the prosecution at the opening of the trial.
wantonly and without military necessity.' Other
items specify acts of violence, cruelty and
homicide inflicted upon the civilian population and
Issue: The "Yamashita standard" is based upon the
precedent set by the United States Supreme Court in
W/N the commission had jurisdiction. the case of Japanese General Tomoyuki Yamashita.
He was prosecuted, in a still controversial trial, for
Held: atrocities committed by troops under his command
in the Philippines. Yamashita was charged with
The writs were DENIED. "unlawfully disregarding and failing to discharge his
duty as a commander to control the acts of members
The court found that Congress had legally authorized the of his command by permitting them to commit war
commission's establishment under the war powers, and crimes."
that the charge was adequate to state a violation of the
law of war. The "Medina standard" is based upon the
prosecution of US Army Captain Ernest Medina in
It is evident that the conduct of military operations by connection with the My Lai Massacre during the
troops whose excesses are unrestrained by the orders or Vietnam War. It holds that a commanding officer,
efforts of their commander would almost certainly result being aware of a human rights violation or a war
in violations which it is the purpose of the law of war to crime, will be held criminally liable when he does not
prevent. Its purpose to protect civilian populations and take action. (Medina was, however, acquitted of all
prisoners of war from brutality would largely be defeated charges.)
if the commander of an invading army could with impunity
neglect to take reasonable measures for their protection. RUFFY V CHIEF OF STAFF
Hence the law of war presupposes that its violation is to FACTS:
be avoided through the control of the operations of war During the Japanese occupation, Ramon Ruffy, et
by commanders who are to some extent responsible for al., petitioner, a provincial commander of the Philippine
their subordinates. Constabulary, retreated in the mountains instead of
surrendering to the Japanese. He then led a guerrilla
Command responsibility, sometimes referred to as outfit known as bolo combat team of bolo area. The said
the Yamashita standard or the Medina standard, is Bolo area was a contingent of the 6th military district,
the doctrine of hierarchical accountability in cases of which has been recognized and placed under the
war crimes. The doctrine was established by the operational control of the US army in the South pacific.
Hague Conventions IV (1907) and X (1907).
Sometime later, Col. Jurado effected a change of dates they are required by the terms of the call, draft, or
command in the bolo area. Major ruffy who was then order to obey the same." By their acceptance of
acting as commanding officer for the Bolo area was appointments as officers in the Bolo Area from the
relieved of his position. Later on or on Oct 19, 1944. General Headquarters of the 6th Military District, they
Lieut. Col. Jurado was slain allegedly by the petitioners. It became members of the Philippine Army amendable to
was this murder which gave rise to petitioners’ trial. the Articles of War.
The trial court convicted petitioner and he now
filled this instant petition with the contention that he was
not subject to military law at the time of the offense for COMFORT WOMEN (VINUYA ET AL)
which he had been placed on trial was committed.
Petitioners contended that by the enemy occupation of
the Philippines, the national defese act and all laws and FACTS
regulations creation the existence of the Philippine Army Petitioners are all members of the MALAYA LOLAS, a
including the articles of war were suspended during such non-stock, non-profit organization registered with the
occupation. SEC for the purpose of providing aid to the victims of
rape by Japanese military forces in the Philippines during
ISSUE: the WWII. They claim that they were “comfort women” at
Whether the petitioner was subject to military law at the that time and have greatly suffered because of that. In
time the alleged offense was committed. 1998, they have approached the Executive Department
HELD: through the DOJ, DFA, and OSG and requested
YES, petitioners were subject to military law at the assistance in filing a claim against the Japanese officials
time the alleged offense was committed. The rule that and military officers who ordered the establishment of the
laws of political in nature or affecting relations are “comfort women” stations in the Philippines. However, the
considered superseded or in abeyance during the military officials declined on that ground that the individual claims
occupation, is intended for governing of the civil had already been satisfied by Japan’s compliance with
inhabitants of occupied territory. It is not intended for and the San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1951 and the bilateral
does not bind the enemies in arms (such as Philippine Reparations Agreement of 1956 between Japan and the
army) It is our opinion that the petitioners come within the Philippines. The petitioners argue that the general waiver
general application of the clause in sub-paragraph (a); of claims made by the Philippine government in the
"and all other persons lawfully called, drafted, or ordered Treaty of Peace with Japan is void because the comfort
into, or to duty for training in, the said service, from the women system constituted a crime against humanity,
sexual slavery, and torture. The same was prohibited When this happens, in the eye of the international
under the jus cogens norms from which no derogation is tribunal, the State is the sole claimant.
possible. Thus, such waiver was a breach against the
government’s obligation not to afford impunity for crimes Therefore, the State is the sole judge to decide whether
against humanity. In addition, they claim that the its protection in favor of those petitioners will be granted,
Philippine government’s acceptance of the apologies to what extent it is granted, and when will it cease. It is a
made by Japan as well as funds for the AWF were discretionary power and the exercise of which may be
contrary to international law. determined by consideration of a political or other nature.
1. The grounds invoked by the petitioners were not Presumption regarding paternity is neither unknown nor
proper grounds for a disqualification case as enumerated unacceptable in Philippine Law. There is more than
under Section 12 and 68 of the Omnibus Election Code. sufficient evidence that Poe has Filipino parents and is
therefore a natural-born Filipino. Hence, the burden of
2. What the petitioners filed focus on establishing her proof was on private respondents to show that petitioner
ineligibility, hence, they fall within the exclusive is not a Filipinocitizen.
jurisdiction of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal, not the
COMELEC. Private respondents should show that Poe’s parents were
aliens. Her admission that she is a foundling did not shift
3. The July 18, 2006 Order of the Bureau of Immigration the burden to her because such status did not exclude
declaring her as natural born, her appointment as the possibility that her parents were Filipinos. In fact,
MTRCB Chair and the issuance of the decree of adoption there is a high probability that her parents are Filipinos.
reinforced her position as a natural born citizen The Solicitor General offered official Statistics from the
Philippine Statistics office that from 1965 to 1975, the constitutionalist Rafols to include foundlings as natural
total number of foreigners born in the Philippines was born citizens was not carried out, not because there was
15,985. While the Filipinos born in the country were more any objection to the notion that persons of unknown
than 10 Million. On this basis, there is a 99% chance that parentage are not citizens, but only because their
the child born in the Philippines would be a Filipino which number was not enough to merit specific mention. There
in turn, would indicate more than ample probability that was no intent or language that would permit
Poe’s parents are Filipinos. discrimination against foundlings. On the contrary, all
three Constitutions guarantee the basic right to equal
Other circumstantial evidence of the nationality of Poe’s protection of the laws. Likewise, domestic laws on
parents are the fact that: adoption support the principle that foundlings are
Filipinos. These laws do not provide that adoption confers
1. She was abandoned in a Roman Catholic Church in citizenship upon the adoptee, rather, the adoptee must
Iloilo be Filipino in the first place to be adopted. Recent
legislation all expressly refer to “Filipino children” and
2. She has typical Filipino features include foundlings as among Filipino children who may
be adopted.
There are disputable presumptions that things have
happened according to the ordinary course of nature. On The argument that the process to determine that the child
this basis, it is safer to assume that Poe’s parents are is a foundling leading to the issuance of a foundling
Filipinos. To assume otherwiseis to accept the absurd. certificate are acts to acquire or perfect Philippine
citizenship is without merit.
2) Whether as a foundling, Poe is a natural born
Citizen Hence, the argument that as a foundling, Poe underwent
a process in order to acquire or perfect her Philippine
Foundlings are as a class, natural born citizens. While citizenship, is untenable.
the 1935 Constitution is silent as to foundlings, there is
no restrictive language that would exclude them either. “Having to perform an act” means that the act must
Because of silence and ambiguity in the enumeration, be personally done by the citizen. In this case, the
there is a need to examine the intent of the framers. The determination of foundling status was done by
amendment to the Constitution proposed by authorities, not by Poe. Second, the object of the
process is to determine the whereabouts of the
parents, not the citizenship of the child and lastly, the for the Protection of Persons from Enforced
process is not analogous to naturalization Disappearance, we (the Supreme Court) ruled that the
proceedings. proscription against enforced disappearance was
nonetheless binding as a generally accepted principle of
Under international law, foundlings are citizens. Generally international law.
accepted principles of international law which include
international customs form part of the laws of the land. Poe’s evidence shows that at least 60 countries in Asia,
The common thread of the Universal Declaration of North and South America and Europe have passed
Human Rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child legislation recognizing foundlings as its citizens. 166 out
and the International Convent on Civil and Political Rights of 189 countries accept that foundlings are recognized as
obligates the Philippines to grant nationality from birth citizens. Hence, there is a generally accepted principle of
and to ensure that no child is stateless. The principles international law to presume foundlings as having been
stated in the: born and a national of the country in which it is found.
1. Hague Convention on Certain Questions Relation to Hence, as a foundling, Poe is a natural born Filipino
the Conflict of Nationality laws (that a foundling is citizen.
presumed to have the nationality of the country of birth)
This concept evolved into the (1) amparo libertad Was the grant proper? YES
for the protection of personal freedom, equivalent
to the habeas corpus writ; (2) amparo contra leyes Promulgated in October 24, 2007. First time that
for the judicial review of the constitutionality of the Supreme Court exercised its expanded power
statutes; (3) amparo casacion for the judicial in the 1987 Constitution to promulgate rules to
review of the constitutionality and legality of a protect the people’s constitutional rights (life,
judicial decision; (4) amparo administrativo for the liberty, property)
judicial review of administrative actions; and (5) Coverage of which is confined to:
amparo agrario for the protection of peasants’ o Extralegal killings – killings committed
rights derived from the agrarian reform process without due process of the law
In Latin American countries, except Cuba, the writ o Enforced disappearances – an arrest,
of amparo has been constitutionally adopted to detention or abduction by the government;
protect against human rights abuses especially refusal of the State to disclose the fate or
committed in countries under military juntas. whereabouts places him outside the
In the Philippines, while the 1987 Constitution protection of the law
does not explicitly provide for the writ of amparo, “Amparo” literally means protection in Spanish.
several of the above amparo protections are Writ of Amparo originated in Mexico (Yucatan
guaranteed by our charter. The second paragraph State). Eventually incorporated into the Mexican
of Article VIII, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution, Constitution in 1847. Spread across the Western
the Grave Abuse Clause, provides for the judicial hemisphere and eventually to the Philippines.
power “to determine whether or not there has Provides for swift relief because of the summary
been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to nature of its proceedings. Only substantial
lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any evidence is required.
branch or instrumentality of the Government.” The
There is still a threat to the life, liberty, and a is a stimulus, a cause of action.
violation of their right to security of the Manalo (PH is a signatory to both
brothers because their captors, whom they conventions)
escaped from, still remain at large. o Guarantee of bodily and psychological
o Right to security is in Art. III, Sec. 2 of the integrity or security.
1987 Constitution. Article III, Section II of the 1987
o It is the right to enjoyment of life. Constitution guarantees against
search without warrant
Three ways of exercising right to security: ELKs and EDs involve Physical
o Freedom from fear. torture, force, and violence are a
Enunciated in the Universal severe invasion of bodily integrity.
Declaration of Human Rights It constitutes an invasion of both
(UDHR) Article 3 bodily and psychological integrity as
Everyone has the right to life, the dignity of the human person
liberty and security of includes the exercise of free will
person. Note: The consti also guarantees
It is the “right to security of against torture
person” as the word “security” o Guarantee of protection of one’s right by the
itself means “freedom from Government
fear. The writ of amparo, this right is built
International Covenant on Civil and into the guarantees of the right to
Political Rights (ICCPR), Art. 9 (1) life and liberty under Article III,
Everyone has the right to Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution
liberty and security of and the right to security of person
person. under Article III, Section 2.
“Freedom from fear” is the right Protection includes conducting
and any threat to the rights to effective investigations, organization
life, liberty or security is the of the government apparatus to
actionable wrong. Fear is a extend protection to victims of ELKs
state of mind, a reaction; threat and EDs as well as their families
Right to security of persons can exist
independently of the right to liberty.
(the court cited several cases here,
Delgado Paez v. Colombia; Bwaya v.
Zambia; Bahamonde v. Equatorial
Guinea) REPUBLIC VS. SANDIGANBAYAN, G.R. NO. 104768
They have a positive duty to protect
right to liberty and not just a FACTS:
prohibition for arbitrary deprivation of
such rights. (ECHR in Kurt v. Turkey) Immediately upon her assumption to office following the
successful EDSA Revolution, then President Corazon C.
The continuing threat on the life of the Manalo Aquino issued Executive Order No. 1 (“EO No. 1”)
brothers is apparent. This threat vitiates their free creating the Presidential Commission on Good
will because they are forced to limit their Government (“PCGG”). EO No. 1 primarily tasked the
movements and activities. Threats to liberty, PCGG to recover all ill-gotten wealth of former President
security, and life are actionable through a Ferdinand E. Marcos, his immediate family, relatives,
petition for a writ of amparo. subordinates and close associates. Accordingly, the
The military failed to provide protection for the PCGG, through its then Chairman Jovito R. Salonga,
respondents. They were even the ones who created an AFP Anti-Graft Board (“AFP Board”) tasked to
actually tortured them. The one-day investigation investigate reports of unexplained wealth and corrupt
conducted by Jimenez was limited, superficial and practices by AFP personnel, whether in the active service
one-sided. or retired. Based on its mandate, the AFP Board
“In sum, we conclude that respondents’ right to investigated various reports of alleged unexplained
security as “freedom from threat” is violated by the wealth of respondent Major General Josephus Q. Ramas
apparent threat to their life, liberty and security of (“Ramas”). Later, the AFP Board issued a Resolution on
person. Their right to security as a guarantee of its findings and recommendation on the reported
protection by the government is likewise violated unexplained wealth of Ramas.
by the ineffective investigation and protection on
the part of the military.”
On 3 March 1986, the Constabulary raiding team served
at Dimaano’s residence a search warrant captioned
“Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunition.” The
raiding team seized the items detailed in the seizure Petitioner wants the Court to take judicial notice that the
receipt together with other items not included in the raiding team conducted the search and seizure “on
search warrant. The raiding team seized firearms, March 3, 1986 or five days after the successful EDSA
jewelry, and land titles. revolution.” Petitioner argues that a revolutionary
government was operative at that time by virtue of
Thus, on 1 August 1987, the PCGG filed a petition for Proclamation No. 1 announcing that President Aquino
forfeiture under Republic Act No. 1379 (“RA No. and Vice President Laurel were “taking power in the
1379”) against Ramas. The complaint was amended to name and by the will of the Filipino people.” Petitioner
include Elizabeth Dimaano, the alleged mistress of asserts that the revolutionary government effectively
Ramas, as co-defendant. withheld the operation of the 1973 Constitution which
guaranteed private respondents’ exclusionary right.
During the interregnum, the directives and orders of the The protection accorded to individuals under the
revolutionary government were the supreme law because International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
no constitution limited the extent and scope of such (ICCPR) and the Universal Declaration of Human
directives and orders. With the abrogation of the 1973 Rights (UDHR) remained in effect during the
Constitution by the successful revolution, there was no interregnum.
municipal law higher than the directives and orders of the
revolutionary government. Thus, during the interregnum, Nevertheless, even during the interregnum the Filipino
a person could not invoke any exclusionary right under a people continued to enjoy, under the ICCPR and the
Bill of Rights because there was neither a constitution nor UDHR, almost the same rights found in the Bill of Rights
a Bill of Rights during the interregnum. of the 1973 Constitution.
The revolutionary government, after installing itself as the proper subjects of the rules of international law laid down
de jure government, assumed responsibility for the in the ICCPR. The fact is the revolutionary government
State’s good faith compliance with the ICCPR to which did not repudiate the ICCPR or the UDHR in the same
the Philippines is a signatory. Article 2(1) of the ICCPR way it repudiated the 1973 Constitution. As the de jure
requires each signatory State “to respect and to ensure government, the revolutionary government could not
to all individuals within its territory and subject to its escape responsibility for the State’s good faith
jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present ICCPR.” compliance with its treaty obligations under international
Under Article 17(1) of the ICCPR, the revolutionary law.
government had the duty to insure that “[n]o one shall be
subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his It was only upon the adoption of the Provisional
privacy, family, home or correspondence.” Constitution on 25 March 1986 that the directives and
orders of the revolutionary government became subject
The UDHR, to which the Philippines is also a signatory, to a higher municipal law that, if contravened, rendered
provides in its Article 17(2) that “[n]o one shall be such directives and orders void. The Provisional
arbitrarily deprived of his property.” Although the Constitution adopted verbatim the Bill of Rights of the
signatories to the UDHR did not intend it as a legally 1973 Constitution. The Provisional Constitution served as
binding document, being only a UDHR, the Court has a self-limitation by the revolutionary government to avoid
interpreted the UDHR as part of the generally accepted abuses of the absolute powers entrusted to it by the
principles of international law and binding on the State. people.
Thus, the revolutionary government was also obligated
under international law to observe the rights of individuals During the interregnum when no constitution or Bill of
under the UDHR. Rights existed, directives and orders issued by
government officers were valid so long as these officers
The revolutionary government did not repudiate the did not exceed the authority granted them by the
ICCPR or the UDHR during the interregnum. Whether the revolutionary government. The directives and orders
revolutionary government could have repudiated all its should not have also violated the ICCPR or the UDHR. In
obligations under the ICCPR or the UDHR is another this case, the revolutionary government presumptively
matter and is not the issue here. Suffice it to say that the sanctioned the warrant since the revolutionary
Court considers the UDHR as part of customary government did not repudiate it. The warrant, issued by a
international law, and that Filipinos as human beings are judge upon proper application, specified the items to be
searched and seized. The warrant is thus valid with Petitioner: Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Association
respect to the items specifically described in the warrant. of the Philippines
Respondents: DOH Sec. Francisco Duque III, DOH
Undersecretaries Dr. Ethelyn Nieto, Dr. Margarita Galon,
It is obvious from the testimony of Captain Sebastian that Atty. Alexander Padilla and Dr. Jade Del Mundo; and
the warrant did not include the monies, communications Asst. Secretaries Dr. Mario Villaverde, Dr. David Lozada
equipment, jewelry and land titles that the raiding team and Dr. Nemesio Gako
confiscated. The search warrant did not particularly
Facts:
describe these items and the raiding team confiscated - Executive Order No. 51 (The Milk Code - TMC) was
them on its own authority. The raiding team had no legal issued by Pres. Aquino on Oct. 28, 1986 by virtue of
basis to seize these items without showing that these the legislative powers granted to her under the
items could be the subject of warrantless search and Freedom Constitution.
seizure. Clearly, the raiding team exceeded its authority (1) One of the preambular clauses of TMC – the law
when it seized these items. seeks to give effect to Article 11 of the
International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk
Substituttes (ICMBS), a code adopted by the
The seizure of these items was therefore void, and WHA (World Health Assembly) in 1981.
unless these items are contraband per se, and they are - In 1990, the Philippine ratified the International
not, they must be returned to the person from whom the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Art. 24 of the
instrument mandates that States should take
raiding seized them. However, we do not declare that measure to diminish infant mortality and should
such person is the lawful owner of these items, merely ensure that all segments of society are informed of
that the search and seizure warrant could not be used as the advantages of breastfeeding.
basis to seize and withhold these items from the - From 1982 – 2006, the WHA adopted several
possessor. We thus hold that these items should be resolutions to the effect that breastfeeding should be
returned immediately to Dimaano. supported, promoted and protected, hence, it should
be ensured that nutrition and health claims are not
permitted for breastmilk substitutes.
PHARMACEUTICAL AND HEALTH CARE - May 15, 2006 – DOH issues the assailed RIRR
ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. DUQUE III (Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations of
(Austria-Martinez, October 9, 2007) E.O. 51 or A.O. No. 2006-0012) which was to take
effect on July 7, 2006. – The RIRR imposes a ban on
Nature: Special Civil Action in the Supreme Court. all advertisements of breastmilk substitutes
Certiorari
- June 28, 2006 – Petitioner filed the present Petition 1. Are the international instruments referred to by the
for Certiorari and Prohibition with Prayer for the respondents part of the law of the land?
Issuance of a TRO or Writ of Preliminary injunction. - The various international instruments invoked by
- August 15, 2006 – the Court issued a Resolution respondents are:
granting the TRO, enjoining the respondents from (1) The UN Conventions on the Rights of the Child
implementing the assailed RIRR. (2) The International Convenant on Economic,
- Petitioner assails the RIRR for going beyond the Social, and Cultural Rights
provisions of TMC thereby amending and expanding (3) Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
the coverage of the said law. Discrimination Against Women
- DOH meanwhile contends that the RIRR implements - These instruments only provide general terms of the
not only TMC but also various international steps that States must take to prevent child mortality.
instruments regarding infant and young child Hence, they do not have anything about the use and
nutrition. They posit that the said international marketing of breastmilk substitutes
instruments are deemed part of the law of the land
and therefore may be implemented by the DOH in - The ICMBS and other WHA Resolutions however,
the RIRR. are the international instruments which have specific
provisions on breastmilk substitutes
Issue: W/n the RIRR is unconstitutional? - Under the 1987 Constitution, international law can
Sub-issue(s): W/n the RIRR is in accord with TMC? W/n become part of domestic law in 2 ways:
pertinent international agreements entered into by the (1) Transformation – an international law is
Philippines are part of the law of the land and may thus transformed into a domestic law through a
be implemented through an RIRR, if so, is the RIRR in constitutional mechanism such as local legislation
accord with such international agreements? Treaties become part of law of the land
through this method, pursuant to Art 7, Sec 21
Note: I focused on the parts on international law. The – wherein “no treaty or international
other matters (in case ma’am asks) are at the bottom of agreement shall be valid.. unless concurred
the digest. by at least 2/3 of Senate”
The ICMBS and WHA Resolutions are NOT
Held: No. However what may be implemented is the treaties as they haven’t been concurred in by
RIRR based on the Milk Code which in turn is based on the required 2/3 vote.
the ICMBS as this is deemed part of the law of the land. HOWEVER, the ICMBS has been transformed
The other WHA Resolutions however cannot be imposed into domestic law through local legislation that
as they are not deemed part of the law of the land. is TMC.
Therefore, it is not the ICMBS per se
Ratio: that has the force of law but it’s TMC.
o While TMC is almost a verbatim 2.) Psychological or subjective factor – why
reproduction of the ICMBS, it did not they behave the way they do
adopt the latter’s provision on the Once state practice has been
absolute prohibition on advertising of established, now determine why they
products within the scope of the behave they do. Is it ouor of courtesy or
ICMBS. Instead the MC provides that opinio juris (the belief that a certain type
advertising promotion or other of behavior is obligatory)
marketing materials may be allowed if When a law satisfies the two factors it
such materials are approved by a becomes part of customary international law
committee. which is then incorporated into our domestic
(2) Incorporation – by mere constitutional system
declaration, international law is deemed to have
the force of domestic law 2. Since the WHA Resolutions have not been embodied
This is found under Art 2, Sec 2 – The in any local legislation, have they attained the status
Philippines… adopts generally accepted of customary law and hence part of our law of the
principles of international law as part of the land?
law of the land - The World Health Organization (WHO) is one of the
In Mihares v. Ranada: International law international specialized agencies of the UN.
becomes customary rules accepted as binding - According to the WHO Constitution, it’s the WHA
as a result of two elements: which determines the policies of the WHO, the
1.) Established, widespread, and consistent former also has the power to “adopt regulations
practice on part of the state concerning advertising and labeling of
2.) Opinion juris sive necessitates (opinion as pharmaceutical and similar products” and “to make
to law or necessity. recommendations to members on any matter within
Generally accepted principles of international the Organization’s competence”
law refer to norms of general or customary - Note that the legal effect of a regulation as opposed
international law which are binding on all to recommendation is quite different
states, valid through all kinds of human (1) Regulations which are duly adopted by the WHA
societies, and basic to legal systems generally are binding on member states
Fr. Bernas has a definition similar to the one (2) On the other hand, recommendations of the WHA
above. Customary international law has two do not come into force for its members unlike
factors: regulations. Rather, they carry moral and political
1.) Material factor – how states behave weight as they constitute the judgment on a
The consistency and the generality of health issue of the collective membership of the
the practice highest body in the field of health.
- The WHA resolution adopting the ICMBS and the - An association has standing to file suit for its workers
subsequent WHA resolutions urging states to despite its lack of direct interest of its members are
implement the ICMBS are merely recommendatory affected by the action. An organization has standing
and legally non-binding. to assert the concerns of its constituents. (Exec Sec
- Hence, unlike the ICMBS which has become TMC vs CA)
through legislative enactment, the subsequent WHA - The Court has rules that an association has the legal
Resolutions, which provide for exclusive personality to represent its members because the
breastfeeding and prohibition on advertisements and results of the case will affect their vital interests.
promotions of breastmilk have not been adopted as (Purok Bagong Silang Association Inc. vs. Yuipco)
domestic law. - In the petitioner’s Amended Articles of Incorporation, it
- WHA Resolutions have been viewed to constitute states that the association is formed “to represent
“soft law” or non-binding norms, which influence directly or through approved representatives the
state behavior. Soft law has been noted to be a rapid pharmaceutical and health care industry before the
means of norm creation, in order to reflect and Philippine Government and any of its agencies, the
respond to the changing needs and demands of medical professions and the general public.”
constituents (of the UN.) - Therefore, the petitioner, as an organization, has an
- As previously discussed, for an international rule to interest in fulfilling its avowed purpose of
be considered customary law, it must be established representing members who are part of the
that such rule is followed by states because it is pharmaceutical and health care industry. Petitioner
considered obligatory (opinio juris). is duly authorized to bring to the attention of the
- In the case at bar, respondents have not presented government agencies and courts any grievance
any evidence to prove that the WHA Resolutions are suffered by its members which are directly affected
in fact enforced or practice by member states. by the assailed RIRR.
Further, they failed to establish that provisions of - The petitioner, whose legal identity is deemed fused
pertinent WHA Resolutions are customary with its members, should be considered as a legal
international law that may be deemed part of law of party-in-interest which stands to be benefited or
the land. injured by any judgment in the case.
- Hence, legislation is necessary to transform the
WHA resolutions into domestic law. They cannot thus W/n the DOH has the power to implement the WHA
be implemented by executive agencies without the Resolutions under the Revised Administrative Code
need of a law to be enacted by legislature. even in the absence of a domestic law? Only the
provisions of the Milk Code. (as per the discussion
On other issues: above)
W/n the petitioner is the real party in interest? Yes. - Section 3, Chapter 1, Title IX of the RAC of 1987
provides that the DOH shall define the national
health policy and can issue orders and regulations
concerning the implementation of established health authority in imposing such fines or sanctions when
policies. the Milk Code does not do so. Other assailed
- A.O. No 2005 -0014 which provides the national provisions are in accordance with the Milk Code.
policy on infant and young child feeding, does not
declare that as part of its policy, the advertisement or W/n Section 13 of the RIRR providing a sufficient
promotion of breastmilk substitutes should be standard? Yes.
absolutely prohibited. - Questioned provision, in addition to Section 26 of
- Only the provisions of the Milk Code, but not those of Rule VII provide labeling requirements for breastmilk
the subsequent WHA Resolutions, can be validly substitutes found to be in consonance with the
implemented by the DOH through the subject RIRR. Milk Code
- The provisions in question provide reasonable
W/n the provisions of the RIRR being in accordance with means of enforcing related provisions in the Milk
the Milk Code? Not all of them Code.
- Assailed provisions: [1] extending the coverage to
young children; [2] imposing exclusive breastfeeding W/n Section 57 of the RIRR repeals existing laws?
for infants from 0-6 months; [3] imposes an absolute - Section in question only repeals orders, issuances
ban on advertising and promotion for breastmilk and rules and regulations, not laws. The provision is
substitutes; [4] requiring additional labeling valid as it is within the DOH’s rule-making power.
requirements; [5] prohibits the dissemination of - An administrative agency has quasi-legislative or
information on infant formula; [6] forbids milk rule-making power. However, such power is limited
manufacturers and distributors to extend assistance to making rules and regulation subjected to the
in research and continuing education Although the boundaries set by the granting statute and the
DOH has the power under the Milk Code to control Constitution. The power is also subject to the
information regarding breastmilk vis-à-vis breastmilk doctrine of non-delegability and separability of
substitutes, this power is not absolute because it has powers. The power, which includes amending,
no power to impose an absolute prohibition in the revising, altering or repealing, is granted to allow for
marketing, promotion and advertising of breastmilk flexibility in the implementation of the laws.
substitutes. Several provisions of the Milk Code
attest to the fact that such power to control W/n On Section 4, 5(w), 11, 22, 32, 47 and 52 violates
information is not absolute. the due process clause of the Constitution (Article III
- Sections 11 and 4(f) of the RIRR are clearly violative Section 1)?
of the Milk Code because such provisions impose an - Despite the fact that the present Constitution
absolute prohibition on advertising, promotion and enshrines free enterprise as a policy, it nonetheless
marketing of breastmilk substitutes, which is not reserves to the government the power to intervene
provided for in the Milk Code. Section 46 is violative whenever necessary to promote the general
of the Milk Code because the DOH has exceeded its welfare… free enterprise does not call for the
removal of protective regulations. It must be clearly
explained and proven by competent evidence just
exactly how such protective regulation would result
in the restraint of trade.
- Section 4 – proscription of milk manufacturers’
participation in any policymaking body; Section 22 –
classes and seminars for women and children;
Section 32 – giving of assistance, support and
logistics or training; Section 52 – giving of donations
- In the instant case, petitioner failed to show how the
aforementioned sections hamper the trade of
breastmilk substitutes. They also failed to establish
that these activities are essential and indispensable
to their trade.