1.
ADVISORY OPINION ON THE USE OF NUCLEAR
WEAPON
 There is no express authorization of the
use of nuclear weapons in customary
and conventional international law.
 There is also no express prohibition of the
use of nuclear weapons in customary
and conventional law.
 What is prohibited is the use of threat and
force of a Member State against the
territorial integrity or political
independence of any state.
o XPN: the use of threat and force in
self-defense
 Note: There must be
reasonable necessity of the
means employed to
prevent or repel the
attack.
 A threat or use of nuclear weapons
should also be compatible with the
requirements of the international law
applicable in armed conflict, particularly
those of the principles and rules of
international humanitarian law, as well as
with specific obligations under treaties
and other undertakings which expressly
deal with nuclear weapons.
2. REPARATION CASE
 Q: In the event of an agent of the UN in
the performance of his duties suffering
injury in circumstances involving the
responsibility of a State, has the United
Nations, as an organization, the capacity
to bring an international claim against
the responsible government with a view
of obtaining the reparation in respect of
the damaged caused:
o To the UN?
o To the victim or to persons entitled
through him?
 A: Yes. UN, as an Organization, has the
capacity to bring an international claim
whether or not the responsible State is a
member of the United Nations.
 Q: How is action by the UN to be
reconciled with such rights as may be
possessed by the State which the victim
is a national?
 A: When the UN, as an organization, is
bringing a claim for reparation for
damage caused to its agent, it can only
do so by basing the claim upon a breach
of obligations due to itself and to respect
the rights of the agent’s national State.
The reconciliation must depend upon
considerations applicable to each
particular case, and upon agreements
to be made between the Organization
and individual States.
3. INTERNATIONAL CATHOLIC MIGRATION
COMMISSION V. CALLEJA
 Issue: WON the grant of diplomatic
privileges and immunities to ICMC
extends to immunity from the application
of our labor laws?
 Held: YES
o It is a recognized principle in
international law and under our
system of separation of powers
that diplomatic immunity is
essentially a political question and
courts should refuse to look
beyond a determination by the
executive branch, and where the
plea of diplomatic immunity is
recognized and affirmed by the
executive as in the case at bar, it
is then the duty of the courts to
accept the claim of immunity.
o This is affirmed by the MOA
between ICMC and the
Philippines which provides that
ICMC shall enjoy immunity from
every form of legal process.
4. KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA V.
IRRI
 IRRI enjoys immunity from suit as granted
by PD 1620. The purpose of this grant is to
prevent possible political interference of
the host country.
 Furthermore, IRRI has its own mode of
protecting the rights of its workers.
5. DFA V. NLRB
 The Charter of ADB and the
Headquarters Agreement established
that except in specified cases, ADB
enjoys immunity from legal process of
every form.
 Reason for granting the immunity: to
prevent host country from interfering with
 the operations and policies of the
international organization.
 The courts are duty bound to accept the
plea of diplomatic immunity by an
international organization recognized
and affirmed by the executive
department.
o The DFA is in charge with the
determination of persons and
institutions covered by diplomatic
immunities.
6. WHO V. AQUINO
 Involves search and seizure of the
personal effects of an employee of WHO
 Issue: WON the personal effects of the
employee can be exempted from
search and seizure under the diplomatic
immunity
 Held: YES
o The executive branch through the
DFA has expressly recognized that
the employee is entitled to
diplomatic immunity pursuant to
the provisions of the Host
Agreement.
o It is a recognized principle in
international law and under our
system of separation of powers
that diplomatic immunity is
essentially a political question and
courts should refuse to look
beyond a determination by the
executive branch, and where the
plea of diplomatic immunity is
recognized and affirmed by the
executive as in the case at bar, it
is then the duty of the courts to
accept the claim of immunity.
7. LIANG V. PEOPLE
 Liang shall not enjoy immunity from suit
by being an economist of the ADB.
 Immunity from suit does not cover acts
which are not performed within his
official function. In this case, his acts of
defamation shall not be covered by
immunity from suit because these are not
within the official function of Liang.
Side note:
 Jure imperii: governmental
activities; within official function
 Jure gestionis: commercial, private
and propriety acts
8. RUSSION SOCIALIST FEDERATED SOVIET
REPUBLIC V. CIBRARIO
 The Court denied the petition of the
Russian Soviet Republic because the
Russian Soviet Republic has no capacity
to sue.
 A foreign power can only sue in the US
courts if it is recognized by the US. In this
case, US has not recognized and refuses
to recognize the Russian Soviet Republic.
9. BANCO NACIONAL DE CUBA V. SABATINO
 Issue: May the courts of the US refuse to
give effects to decrees of foreign
sovereign government where the
decree violates common international
law?
 Held: No.
o This is pursuant to Act of State
Doctrine which provides that
every sovereign state is bound to
respect the independence of
every other sovereign state, and
the courts will not sit in judgment
of another government’s act
done within its territory.
o The judiciary, in line with the Act of
State Doctrine, will not examine
the validity of a taking of property
within its own territory by a foreign
sovereign government
recognized by this country in the
absence of international
agreements to the contrary, even
if the taking violates customary
international law.
10. OETJEN V. CENTRAL LEATHER CO.
 The US recognized the government of
Caranza (result of a revolution) as the de
facto government in 1915 and then as
the de jure government in 1917.
 The conduct of foreign relations is
committed by the Constitution to the
executive and legislative departments
and the propriety of what may be done
in the exercise of political power is not a
subject to judicial inquiry or decision.
  Who is the sovereign, de jure or de factor,
of a territory is not a judicial, but is a
political question.
 When a government which originates in
revolution or revolt is recognized by the
political department of our government
as the de jure government of the country
in which it is established, such recognition
is retroactive in effect and validates all
the actions and conduct of the
government so recognized from the
commencement of its existence.
 The conduct of one independent
government cannot be successfully
questioned in the courts of another.
11. YAO V. COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION
 Under Commonwealth Act 473, an alien
woman marrying a Filipino, native born or
naturalized, becomes ipso facto a
Filipina provided she is not disqualified to
be a citizen of the Philippines.
 Likewise, an alien woman married to an
alien who is subsequently naturalized
here follows the Philippine citizenship of
her husband the moment he takes his
oath as Filipino citizen, provided that she
does not suffer from any of the
disqualifications.
12. US V. AUSTRIA AND HUNGARY
 Citizenship is determined by rules
prescribed by municipal law.
 Under the law of Austria, to which
Alexander Tellech had voluntarily
subjected himself, he was an Austrian
citizen.
 Possessing as he did dual nationality, he
voluntarily took the risk incident to
residing in Austrian territory and
subjecting himself to the duties and
obligations of an Austrian citizen arising
under the municipal laws of Austria.
13. THE CANEVERO CASE
 The tribunal first considers the status of
Raphael Canevaro, who born in Peru of
Italian parentage. It considers that for the
purposes of the case, the claimant,
Raphael Canevaro, has elected to
consider himself a Peruvian citizen and
that, by virtue of such election, he
acquired not merely Peruvian, but lost
Italian citizenship. Not being an Italian
citizen, his rights in the premises are such
rights as a Peruvian would have against
the Government of Peru.
 The Italian nationality of the brothers
Napoleon and Carlo Canevaro was
admitted.
 It will be noted that the claims of
Napoleon, Carlo and Raphael were
submitted to the tribunal, but, as the
tribunal found Raphael was a Peruvian
citizen, his claim was disallowed, as the
Italian Government had no right to
present a claim of a Peruvian citizen.
 As the three brothers were equal
claimants, the judgment of the tribunal
only affected the interests of the Italian
claimants, Napoleon and Carlo.
14. THE NOTTEBOHM CASE (Liechtenstein v.
Guatemala)
 Mr. Nottebohm, who was then a German
national, had settled in Guatemala in
1905 and continued to reside there.
 In 1939 – after the beginning of the
Second World War – while on visit to
Europe, he obtained Liechtenstein
nationality and returned to Guatemala
in 1940 where he resumed his former
business activities until his removal as a
result of war measures.
 On the international plane, the grant of
nationality is entitled recognition only if it
represents a genuine connection
between the individual and the State
granting its nationality.
 Mr. Nottebohm’s nationality, however,
was not based on any genuine prior link
with Liechtenstein and the sole object of
his naturalization was to enable him to
acquire the status of a neutral national in
time of war. For these reasons,
Liechtenstein was not entitled to take up
his case and put forward an international
claim on his behalf against Guatemala.
15. CHATTIN CASE
 Chattin is an American working in
Mexico. He was charged and arrested
for embezzlement. When the prison was
attacked by rebels, he ran away and
escaped to the US.
  US sues Mexico on behalf of Chattin for
the poor treatment of Chattin by the
Mexican judicial system.
 Mexico argued that as a fugitive from
justice, Chattin waived his rights and
forfeited the protection of his home
country.
 Held: The Commission ruled in favor of US.
o Protection of a fugitive from
justice should be left to the
discretion of the claimant
government. Although the
individual loses his right to invoke
and expect protection from his
Government, this would seem not
to imply that his government as
well loses its rights to espouse its
subject’s claim in its discretion.
o Although Chattin’s arrest was
legal, there were irregularities in
the court proceedings. These
include the absence of proper
investigations, insufficiency of
confrontations, withholding from
the accused the opportunity to
know all the charges brought
against him, undue delay of the
proceedings, making the hearings
in open court a mere formality
and a continued absence of
seriousness on the part of the
Court.
16. US (NOYES) V. PANAMA
 The mere fact that an alien has suffered
at the hands of private persons an
aggression, which could have been
averted by the presence of a sufficient
police force on the spot, does not make
a government liable for damages under
international law.
 There must be shown special
circumstances from which the
responsibility of the authorities arises:
o Their behavior in connection with
the particular occurrence; or
o General failure to comply with
their duty to maintain order, to
prevent crimes or to prosecute
and punish criminals.
 There were no such circumstances
present in the case. Accordingly, a lack
of protection has not been established.
 Panama is not liable.
17. NORTH AMERICAN DREDGING V. MEXICO
 The North American Dredging Company
entered into a contract with the
Government of Mexico with a Calvo
clause. (Under this clause, the workers of
North American Dredging were
considered Mexicans and that they were
deprived of any rights as aliens, and
under no conditions shall the intervention
of foreign diplomatic agents be
permitted, in any matter related to this
contract.)
 The company, inconsistent with the
Calvo claise, sought the aid of the
American government instead of
enforcing their claim in accordance with
the laws of the Republic of Mexico.
 Held:
o It is not absolute that a Calvo
clause is invalid. It must be
decided on a case to case basis.
In this case, the clause was valid
as it only purposes equality
between the foreigner and
Mexicans.
o The claimant (the dredging
company) is bound by the
contract. However, it could not
under any circumstances bind its
Government with respect to
remedies of international law.
o As the claimant voluntarily
entered into a legal contract
binding itself not to call upon its
Government to intervene as to
the matters of this contract,
therefore, it cannot present it
claim to its Government for
interposition before this
Commission.
o The Commission has no jurisdiction
over the case.
18. HARVEY V. SANTIAGO
 Petitioners were Dutch and Americans
residing in Laguna.
 Through surveillance, the Operation
Report of the Commissioner of
Immigration and Deportation read that
they were suspected pedophiles.
  The petitioners argue that pedophilia
was not punishable by Philippine laws.
 Held:
o The arrest of the petitioners was
based on the probable cause
determined after close
surveillance of 3 moths/.
o The seizure of articles linked to the
arrest was valid since the arrest
was based on a probably cause
and the seizure was made
incidental to a lawful arrest.
o Although pedophilia was not
punishable by the PH laws, the
state has the inherent power to
exclude aliens from its territory
upon such grounds as it may
deem proper for its self-
preservation or public interest.
o The power to deport aliens is an
act of State, an act done by or
under the authority of the
sovereign power.
 Doctrine of specialty: a person who is
extradited to a country to stand trial for
certain criminal offense may be tried only
for those offenses and not for any other
pre-extradition offenses.
20. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE V. LANTION
 Extradition proceedings are not criminal
proceedings.
o No strict compliance with the
Rules of Court
 It does not include the determination of
the innocence of the accused.
 The accused is not entitled to notice and
hearing as to the investigation report.
Such report is strictly confidential.
 Extradition is a sui generis.

19. US V. RAUSCHER
 The defendant in this case is being
charged with murder on board an
American vessel on the high seas, fled to
England and was demanded of the
government of that country, and
surrendered on this charge. The Circuit
Court of US did not proceed against him
for murder but for a minor offense not
included in the treaty of extradition.
 Held: The treaty under the defendant
was delivered to the US, and under the
proceedings by which this was done,
and acts of Congress on that subject
provide that he cannot lawfully tried for
any offense than murder. He is exempted
from trial from any other offense until he
has had an opportunity to return to the
country from which he was taken for the
purpose alone of trial for the offense
specified in the demand for his surrender.

Side note:
 Doctrine of double criminality: a suspect
can be extradited from one country to
stand trial for breaking a second country’s
law only if similar law exists in the
extraditing country.