Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 19


PIL Midterm Notes GENERAL PRINCIPLES ART II SEC 2 1987 CONSTITUTION 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. International Law traditional concept: body of rules and principles of action which are binding upon civilized states in their relations with one another modern concept: body of legal rules which apply between sovereign states and such other entities as have been granted international personality now used interchangeably with the term the law of nations Division of International Law a. laws of peace govern normal relations of states b. laws of war when war breaks out, govern the relations of states for the duration of the hostilities c. laws of neutrality govern the relations of states not involved in the war with those who are involved in the war Distinctions with Municipal Law a. present-day legal analysis regard private international law, or conflict of laws, as pertaining to municipal or private law of each state consensus is that only those precepts applicable to relations of international persons inter se fall within the field of international law b. monists believe in oneness or unity of all law reason: some fundamental notions of international law cannot be comprehended without the assumption of a superior legal order from which various systems of municipal law are derived by way of legislation law is essentially a command binding upon the subjects independently of their will, and it is ultimately the conduct of individuals which it regulates c. dualists believe in dichotomy of law y differences in international law and municipal law: municipal law issued by political superior for observance by those under its authority international law not imposed but simply adopted as a common rule of action municipal law law of a sovereign over those subjected international law law, not above, but between sovereign states; weaker law municipal law consists of enactments from lawmaking authority of each state international law derived from sources as international customs, international conventions and general principles of law municipal law regulates relations of individuals among themselves international law applies to relations inter se of states and other international persons municipal law entail individual responsibility international law responsibility for infractions is usually collective, attaches directly to the state possible for a principle of municipal law to attach to international law such as if it is embodied in a treaty or convention, i.e. Hague Convention, Geneva Convention Conflict between Municipal and International Laws (Differing Views) basic rule: reconcile the apparent contradiction presumption: municipal law is always enacted bye ach state with due regard for and never in defiance of the generally accepted principles of international law apparent conflict: differing view which should prevail international standpoint: to sustain or uphold the supremacy of municipal law over international law could lead to international anarchy and lawlessness; thus there could be no question that international laws must yield to the law of nations; international law is binding upon the state as a corporate person, and no provision of the national constitution or act of the national legislature or decree of the executive or judicial agencies can change the force of its provisions in so far as the legal relations of the state toward other states are concerned national tribunals: international law is law only in so far as we adopt it and, like all common or statute law, it bends to the will of Congress Constitution vs Treaty generally, treaty is rejected in the local forum but is upheld by international tribunals as a demandable obligation of the signatories under the maxim pacta sunt servanda But, every State has the duty to carry out in good faith its obligations arising form treaties and it may not invoke provisions in its constitution or laws as excuse for failure to perform this duty Philippines: our Constitution authorizes the Supreme Court to decide, among others, all cases involving the constitutionality of any treaty, international or executive agreement, law Basis of International Law emanate NOT from a supreme lawmaking authority BUT, voluntarily observed by an international community naturalist school of thought: basis is law of nature

Relation to Municipal Law with or without an express declaration to this effect, states admitted to the family of nations are bound by the rules prescribed by it for the regulation of international intercourse Doctrine of Incorporation law of nations, although not specially adopted by the Constitution or any municipal act, is essentially a part of the law of the land obligation commences and runs with the existence of a nation Doctrine of Transformation minority view generally accepted rules of international law are not per se binding upon the state but must first be embodied in legislation enacted by the lawmaking body and so transformed into municipal law

law of nature higher law; rule of human conduct independent of positive enactment and even of special divine revelation, and binding always and everywhere in view of its intrinsic reasonableness; natural and universal principle of right and wrong, independent of any mutual recourse or compact international law is therefore not a law between but above states positivists (led by Richard Zouche): international law is derived form agreement of sovereign states to be bound by it not a law of subordination but of coordination positive identification with or acknowledgment of the law is necessary to make it binding on the states it purports to govern eclectics or grotians: basis of international law is both the law of nature and consent of states international law is based on the dictate of right reason as well as the practice of states should there be a conflict, law of nature will prevail as being the fundamental law enforcement: process by which such observance may be compelled, usually by force or at least the threat of force through international organizations or regional groups, i.e. United Nations (1) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, law, ordinance, or executive order or regulation is in question". In other words, our Constitution authorizes the nullification of a treaty, not only when it conflicts with the fundamental law, but, also, when it runs counter to an act of Congress. ICHONG VS HERNANDEZ Another subordinate argument against the validity of the law is the supposed violation thereby of the Charter of the United Nations and of the Declaration of the Human Rights adopted by the United Nations General Assembly. We find no merit in the Nations Charter imposes no strict or legal obligations regarding the rights and freedom of their subjects, and the Declaration of Human Rights contains nothing more than a mere recommendation or a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations. we hold that the disputed law was enacted to remedy a real actual threat and danger to national economy posed by alien dominance and control of the retail business and free citizens and country from dominance and control; that the enactment clearly falls within the scope of the police power of the State, thru which and by which it protects its own personality and insures its security and future; that the law does not violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution because sufficient grounds exist for the distinction between alien and citizen in the exercise of the occupation regulated, nor the due process of law clause, because the law is prospective in operation and recognizes the privilege of aliens already engaged in the occupation and reasonably protects their privilege; that the wisdom and efficacy of the law to carry out its objectives appear to us to be plainly evident as a matter of fact it seems not only appropriate but actually necessary and that in any case such matter falls within the prerogative of the Legislature, with whose power and discretion the Judicial department of the Government may not interfere; that the provisions of the law are clearly embraced in the title, and this suffers from no duplicity and has not misled the legislators or the segment of the population affected; and that it cannot be said to be void for supposed conflict with treaty obligations because no treaty has actually been entered into on the subject and the police power may not be curtailed or surrendered by any treaty or any other conventional agreement.

Functions of International law primary: establish peace and order in the community of nations and to prevent the employment of force, including war, in all international relations promote world friendship encourage and ensure greater international cooperation orderly management of relations of states Distinctions with other concepts International morality or ethics: principles which govern relations of states from the higher standpoint of conscience, morality, justice and humanity International comity: rules of courtesy observed by states in their mutual relations International diplomacy: objects of national or international policy and the conduct of foreign affairs or international relations; application of intelligence and tact to the conduct of official relations between independent states Jus feciale: law of negotiations and diplomacy which determined the duties of the Fecial College of the old Roman Republic International administrative law: body of laws and regulations, now highly developed, created by the action of international conferences or commissions which regulate the relations and activities of national and international agencies with respect to those material and intellectual interests which have received an authoritative universal recognition CASE PRINCIPLES: GONZALES VS HECHANOVA As regards the question whether an international agreement may be invalidated by our courts, suffice it to say that the Constitution of the Philippines has clearly settled it in the affirmative, by providing, in Section 2 of Article VIII thereof, that the Supreme Court may not be deprived "of its jurisdiction to review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal, certiorari, or writ of error as the law or the rules of court may provide, final judgments and decrees of inferior courts in

Sanctions of International Law compulsive force of reciprocal advantage and fear of retaliation belief shared by states in the inherent reasonableness of international law and in their common conviction that its observance will redound to the welfare of the whole society of nations normal habits of obedience ingrained in the nature of man as a social being respect for world opinion desire to project agreeable public image constant and reasonable fear violations of international law might visit upon the culprit the retaliation of other states machinery of the United Nations Enforcement of International Law observance: essentially subjective and mainly dependent on the volition of the entity which is supposed to be governed by law

KURODA VS JALANDONI It cannot be denied that the rules and regulation of the Hague and Geneva conventions form, part of and are wholly based on the generally accepted principals of international law. In facts these rules and principles were accepted by the two belligerent nation the United State and Japan who were signatories to the two Convention, Such rule and principles therefore form part of the law of our nation even if the Philippines was not a signatory to the conventions embodying them for our Constitution has been deliberately general and extensive in its scope and is not confined to the recognition of rule and principle of international law as continued inn treaties to which our government may have been or shall be a signatory. Furthermore when the crimes charged against petitioner were allegedly committed the Philippines was under the sovereignty of United States and thus we were equally bound together with the United States and with Japan to the right and obligation contained in the treaties between the belligerent countries. These rights and obligation were not erased by our assumption of full sovereignty. If at all our emergency as a free state entitles us to enforce the right on our own of trying and punishing those who committed crimes against crimes against our people. . . . The change of our form government from Commonwealth to Republic does not affect the prosecution of those charged with the crime of treason committed during then Commonwealth because it is an offense against the same sovereign people. . . . By the same token war crimes committed against our people and our government while we were a Commonwealth are triable and punishable by our present Republic. CO KIM CHAM VS VALDEZ TAN KEH 1. International law says the acts of a de facto government are valid and civil laws continue even during occupation unless repealed. 2. MacArthur annulled proceedings of other governments, but this cannot be applied on judicial proceedings because such a construction would violate the law of nations. 3. Since the laws remain valid, the court must continue hearing the case pending before it. ***3 kinds of de facto government: through rebellion (govt gets possession and control through force or the voice of the majority and maintains itself against the will of the rightful government) through occupation (established and maintained by military forces who invade and occupy a territory of the enemy in the course of war; denoted as a government of paramount force) through insurrection (established as an independent government by the inhabitants of a country who rise in insurrection against the parent state) REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA VS VINZON The rule that a State may not be sued without its consent is a necessary consequence of the principles of independence and equality of States. The mere entering into a contract by a foreign State with a private party cannot be construed as the ultimate test of whether or not it is an act jure imperii or jure gestionis. Such act is only the start of the inquiry. A sovereign State does not merely establish a diplomatic mission and leave it at that; the establishment of a diplomatic mission encompasses its maintenance and upkeep. Hence, the State may enter into contracts with private entities to maintain the premises, furnishings and equipment of the embassy and the living quarters of its agents and officials. It is therefore clear that petitioner Republic of Indonesia was acting in pursuit of a sovereign activity when it entered into a contract with respondent for the upkeep or maintenance of the air conditioning units, generator sets, electrical facilities, water heaters, and water motor pumps of the Indonesian Embassy and the official residence of the Indonesian ambassador. SISON VS BOARD OF ACCOUNTANCY International Law is founded largely upon mutuality, reciprocity, and the principle of comity of nations. Comity, in this connection, is neither a matter of absolute obligation on the one hand, nor of mere courtesy and good will on the other; it is the recognition which one nation allows within its territory to the acts of foreign governments and tribunals, having due regard both to the international duty and convenience and the rights of its own citizens or of other persons who are under the protection of its laws. The fact of reciprocity does not necessarily influence the application of the doctrine of comity, although it may do so and has been given consideration in some instances. comity "is the recognition which one nation allows within its territory to the legislative, executive, or judicial acts of another nation, having due regard both to International duty and convenience, and to the rights of its own citizens or of other persons who are under the protection of its laws."

BANK OF AMERICA VS AMERICAN REALTY CORP In the case at bench, Philippine law shall apply notwithstanding the evidence presented by petitioner to prove the English law on the matter. In a long line of decisions, this Court adopted the well-imbedded principle in our jurisdiction that there is judicial notice of any foreign law. A foreign law must be properly pleaded and proved as a fact. Thus, if the foreign law involved is not properly pleaded and proved, our courts will presume that the foreign law is the same as our local or domestic or internal law. This is what we refer to as the doctrine of processual presumption. In the instant case, assuming arguendo that the English Law on the matter were properly pleaded and proved xxx, said foreign law would still not find applicability. Thus, when the foreign law, judgment or contract is contrary to a sound and established public policy of the forum, the said foreign law, judgment or order shall not be applied. Additionally, prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts or property, and those which have for their object public order, public policy and good customs shall not be rendered ineffective by laws or judgments promulgated, or by determinations or conventions agreed upon in a foreign country. The public policy sought to be protected in the instant case is the principle imbedded in our jurisdiction proscribing the splitting of a single cause of action. Moreover, foreign law should not be applied when its application would work undeniable injustice to the citizens or residents of the forum. To give justice is the most important function of law; hence, a law, or judgment or contract that is obviously unjust negates the fundamental principles of Conflict of Laws. Clearly then, English Law is not applicable.

SOURCES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW Under Art 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice: Primary or Direct Sources

treaties or conventions, customs, and the general principles of law Secondary or Indirect Sources decisions of courts and the writings of publicists Primary Sources: Treaties not every treaty can be considered a direct source of international law, i.e. bilateral treaty; this is a source only of what is called particular international law bilateral treaties may become primary sources if, a) they are of the same nature, b) contain practically uniform provisions, c) concluded by a substantial number of states, albeit separately, i.e. standard extradition treaties general rule: to be considered as direct source, treat must be concluded by a sizable number of states and reflect the will or at least the consensus of the family of nations Custom practice which has grown up between states and has come to be accepted as binding by the mere fact of persistent usage over a long period of time, i.e. practice of granting immunities to foreign heads of states or diplomats known as the principle of extraterritoriality one defect is the difficulty of determining when a practice can be considered to have hardened into custom and thus acquired obligatory character; another is slow process of evolution distinguished from usage, which is a long established way of doing things by states but is not coupled with the conviction that it is obligatory and right General Principles of Law mostly derived from the law of nature observed by majority because they are believed to be good and just i.e. prescription, estoppel, pacta sunt servanda, consent, res judicata Secondary Sources: Decisions of courts no distinction between those rendered by international tribunals and promulgated by national courts doctrine of stare decisis is not applicable in international law; decision of court in one case will have only persuasive value in decision of a subsequent case Writings of Publicists to qualify, must be a fair and unbiased representation of international law, and by an acknowledged authority in the field mere credentials not enough and the U.S. Naval Base authorities. In view of said stipulation, the new contractor is, therefore, bound to give "priority" to the employment of the qualified employees of the previous contractor. It is obviously in recognition of such obligation that petitioner entered into the afore-mentioned Compromise Agreement. FIRDAUSI ABBAS VS COMELEC We find it neither necessary nor determinative of the case to rule on the nature of the Tripoli Agreement and its binding effect on the Philippine Government whether under public international or internal Philippine law. In the first place, it is now the Constitution itself that provides for the creation of an autonomous region in Muslim Mindanao. The standard for any inquiry into the validity of R.A. No. 6734 would therefore be what is so provided in the Constitution. Thus, any conflict between the provisions of R.A. No. 6734 and the provisions of the Tripoli Agreement will not have the effect of enjoining the implementation of the Organic Act. Assuming for the sake of argument that the Tripoli Agreement is a binding treaty or international agreement, it would then constitute part of the law of the land. But as internal law it would not be superior to R.A. No. 6734, an enactment of the Congress of the Philippines, rather it would be in the same class as the latter. Thus, if at all, R.A. No. 6734 would be amendatory of the Tripoli Agreement, being a subsequent law. Only a determination by this Court that R.A. No. 6734 contravened the Constitution would result in the granting of the reliefs sought.

UNITED NATIONS CHARTER OF 1945 ART VIII 1987 CONSTITUTION SEC 4 (2) All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty, international or executive agreement, or law, which shall be heard by the Supreme Court en banc, and all other cases which under the Rules of Court are required to be heard en banc, including those involving the constitutionality, application, or operation of presidential decrees, proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances, and other regulations, shall be decided with the concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon. SEC 5 (2) (A) The Supreme Court shall have the following powers: Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts in: All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question. CASE PRINCIPLES: GUERRERRO TRANSPORT SYSTEM VS BLAYLOCK Pursuant to Section 6 of Article I of the Philippine-U S. Labor Agreement of May 27, 1968, the United States Armed Forces undertook, consistent with military requirements, "to provide security for employment, and, in the event certain services are contracted out, the United States Armed Forces shall require the contractor or concessionerto give priority consideration to affected employees for employment. (Emphasis supplied.) A treaty has two (2) aspects as an international agreement between states, and as municipal law for the people of each state to observe. As part of the municipal law, the aforesaid provision of the treaty enters into and forms part of the contract between petitioner

MIJARES VS RANADA The rules of comity, utility and convenience of nations have established a usage among civilized states by which final judgments of foreign courts of competent jurisdiction are reciprocally respected and rendered efficacious under certain conditions that may vary in different countries. Whatever be the theory as to the basis for recognizing foreign judgments, there can be little dispute that the end is to protect the reasonable expectations and demands of the parties. Where the parties have submitted a matter for adjudication in the court of one state, and proceedings there are not tainted with irregularity, they may fairly be expected to submit, within the state or elsewhere, to the enforcement of the judgment issued by the court.

There is no obligatory rule derived from treaties or conventions that requires the Philippines to recognize foreign judgments, or allow a procedure for the enforcement thereof. However, generally accepted principles of international law, by virtue of the incorporation clause of the Constitution, form part of the laws of the land even if they do not derive from treaty obligations.66 The classical formulation in international law sees those customary rules accepted as binding result from the combination two elements: the established, widespread, and consistent practice on the part of States; and a psychological element known as the opinion juris sive necessitates (opinion as to law or necessity). Implicit in the latter element is a belief that the practice in question is rendered obligatory by the existence of a rule of law requiring it. HILTON VS GUYOT No law has any effect beyond the limits of the sovereignty from which itsauthority is derived. The extent to which one nation shall be allowed to operate within the dominion of another nation, depends upon the comity of nations. Comity is neither a matter of absolute obligation, nor of mere courtesy and good will. It is a recognition which one nation allows within its territory to the legislative, executive or judicial acts of another nation, having due regard both to international duty and convenience, and to the rights of its own citizens or other persons who are under the protection of its laws. The comity thus extended to other nations is no impeachment of sovereignty. It is the voluntary act of the nation by which it is offered, and is inadmissible when contrary to its policy, or prejudicial to its interests. But it contributes so largely to promote justice between individuals, and to produce a friendly intercourse between the sovereignty to which they belong, that courts of justice have continually acted upon it, as a part of the voluntary law of nations. It is not the comity of the courts, but the comity of the nation, which is administered and ascertained in the same way, and guided by the same reasoning, by which all other principles of municipal law are ascertained and guided. YAO KEE VS SY-GONZALES Custom is defined as a rule of conduct formed by repetition of acts, uniformly observed (practiced) as a social rule, legally binding and obligatory. The law requires that a custom must be proved as a fact, according to the rules of evidence. On this score the Court had occasion to state that a local custom as a source of right cannot be considered by a court of justice unless such custom is properly established by competent evidence like any other fact. The same evidence, if not one of a higher degree, should be required of a foreign custom. Construing this provision of law the Court has held that to establish a valid foreign marriage two things must be proven, namely 1) the existence of the foreign law as a question of fact; and 2) the alleged foreign marriage by convincing evidence. In the case at bar petitioners did not present any competent evidence relative to the law and custom of China on marriage. The testimonies of Yao and Gan Ching (brother) cannot be considered as proof of Chinas law or custom on marriage not only because they are self serving evidence, but more importantly, there is no showing that they are competent to testify on the subject matter. For failure to prove the foreign law or custom, and consequently, the validity of the marriage in accordance with said law or custom, the marriage between Yao Kee and Sy Kiat cannot be recognized in this jurisdiction. Vatican City, colonies and dependencies, mandates and trust territories, international administrative bodies, belligerent communities, and even individuals subject: an entity that has rights and responsibilities under that law; has international personality; can directly assert rights and be held directly responsible under the law of nations; has faculty of motivation; can be a proper party in transactions involving application of the law of nations object: person or thing in respect of which rights are held and obligations assumed by the subject; not directly governed by rules of international law; rights are received and responsibilities imposed indirectly, through instrumentality of an intermediate agency

THE PAQUETE HABANA International law is part of our law, and must be ascertained and administered by the courts of justice of appropriate jurisdiction as often as questions of right depending upon it are duly presented for their determination. For this purpose, where there is no treaty and no controlling executive or legislative act or judicial decision, resort must be had to the customs and usages of civilized nations, and, as evidence of these, to the works of jurists and commentators, not for the speculations of their authors concerning what the law ought to be, but for trustworthy evidence of what the law really is. By an ancient usage among civilized nations, beginning centuries ago and gradually ripening into a rule of international law, coast fishing vessels pursuing their vocation of catching and bringing in fresh fish have been recognized as exempt, with their cargoes and crews, from capture as prize of war.

State -

group pf people living together in a definite territory under an independent government organized for political ends and capable of entering into international relations some writers use state and nation in identical sense others still hold that state is a legal concept, and nation is only a racial or ethnic concept elements: a. permanent population b. defined territory c. government d. sovereignty or independence additional (not YET met with general acceptance): e. recognition by other states f. possession of sufficient degree of civilization

THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY International Community body of juridical entities which are governed by the law of nations modern concept: composed not only of states but also of such other international persons, i.e. United Nations,

People -

Territory fixed portion of the surface of the earth in which the people of the state reside

human beings living within its territory both sexes and sufficient in number to maintain and perpetuate themselves regarded as a unity

nomadic tribes and moving states do not possess this element necessary for jurisdictional reasons and to provide for needs of inhabitants should be big enough to be self-sufficient and small enough to be easily administered and defended Government agency through which the will of the state is formulated, expressed and realized necessary because state must have an entity to represent it in its relations with other states form does not matter provided it is able to maintain order and comply with responsibilities under the law of nations group of anarchists or society of pirates cannot qualify as state Sovereignty power of the state to direct its own external affairs without interference or dictation from other states independence has been described as the external aspect or manifestation of this element degree of freedom determines status of the state Capacity of States - entity possessed of the elements is ordinarily regarded as an international person entitled to membership in the family of nations - does not automatically follow, reasons: recognition is generally a political act which may not be compelled restricted capacity of state to discharge international obligations Classification of States Independent States - may be simple or composite, either of which may be neutralized - state which is not subject to dictation from others in the direction of its own internal and external affairs y Simple - placed under a single and centralized government exercising power over both its internal and external affairs, i.e. Philippines, Netherlands y Composite consist of two or more states, each with its own separate government but bound under a central authority exercising, to a greater or less degree, control over their external relations y Real Union created when two or more states are merged under a unified authority so that they form a single international person through which they act as one entity states retain their separate identities but their respective international personalities are extinguished and blended in the new international person, which is not regarded as a state in itself y Federal Union combination of two or more sovereign states which upon merger cease to be states, resulting in the creation of a new state with full international personality to represent them in external relations as well as a certain degree of power over their domestic affairs and inhabitants i.e. United States y Confederation - organization of states which retain their internal sovereignty and, to some degree, their external sovereignty, while delegating tot eh collective body power to represent them as a whole for certain limited and specified purposes y Personal Union - two or more independent states are brought together under the rule of the same monarch, who nevertheless does not become on e international person for the purpose of representing any or all of them y Incorporate Union - union of two or more states under a central authority empowered to direct both their external and internal affairs and possessed of a separate international personality Neutralized States - an independent state, whether simple or composite, may be neutralized through agreement with other states by virtue of which the latter will guarantee its integrity and independence provided it refrains from taking any act that will involve it in war or other hostile activity except for defensive purposes - i.e. Switzerland Dependent States - although commonly recognized as states, are subject to the control of other states in the direction of their external affairs - may be protectorate or suzerainty y Protectorate - viewed by others as retaining a greater measure of control over its external affairs than the suzerainty y Suzerainty The United Nations - not a state or superstate but a mere organization of states - regarded as an international person for certain purposes - enjoys certain privileges and immunities such as nonsuability, inviolability of its premises and archives, and exemption from taxation - has right of legation, i.e. can send and receive diplomatic agents who possess the same rights accorded regular envoys - can even wage war, in a sense, through the exercise of its power to undertake enforcement action in case of threat to or breach of international peace The Vatican City - exercises certain prerogatives of states, such as the treatymaking power and the right of diplomatic intercourse Colonies and Dependencies - part and parcel of the parent state, through which all its external relations are transacted with other states - has no legal standing in the family of nations - Nevertheless, have been allowed on occasion to participate in their own right in international undertakings and granted practically the status of a sovereign state Mandates and Trust Territories - 3 kinds of trust territories: a. those held under mandate under the League of Nations b. those territories detached form the defeated states after the World War 2 c. those voluntarily placed under the system of states responsible for their administration - terms of trusteeship agreed upon by administering authority with the Security Council in the case of strategic areas, and

with the General Assembly, in the case of non-strategic areas Belligerent Communities - when a portion of the population rises up in arms against the legitimate government, it is ordinarily regarded as merely internal affair, BUT when the conflict widens and aggravates, it may become necessary to accord the rebels recognition of belligerency - the recognizing state, while not conferring all the rights of an independent state, concedes to the government recognized the rights, and imposes upon it the obligations, of an independent state in matters relating to the war being waged. - for purposes of conflict, and pending determination of whether or not the belligerent community should be fully recognized as a state, it is treated as an international person and becomes directly subject to the laws of war and neutrality International Administrative Bodies - 2 conditions should concur: a. their purposes are mainly non-political b. they are autonomous, i.e. not subject to the control of any state Individuals - not merely an object but a subject of international law - argued that individual is basic unit of society, national and international - pointed out that: a. UN Charter reaffirms faith in fundamental human rights b. Universal Declaration on Human Rights proclaims basic individual rights which all nations are called upon to foster c. number of treaties directly confer rights upon individuals and authorize them to bring lawsuits before states d. states are obliged to maintain international standard of justice with respect to aliens e. Genocide Convention condemns mass extermination f. pirates are regarded hostes humanis generis g. doctrine of incorporation makes the law of nations part of municipal law and thus directly applicable tot eh individual inhabitants of the state THE UNITED NATIONS United Nations - emerged out of WW 2 as a symbol of mans undismayed determination to establish for all nations a rule of law that would forever banish the terrible arbitrament of war in the solution of international disputes - Brief History: After WW 1 creation of League of Nations, US not member 1946 League of Nations dissolved As early as 1941 London Declaration to work together, and with other peoples, in war and peace 1943 Moscow Declaration signed by China, Soviet Union, UK, and US; necessity of establishing a general international organization 1943 Teheran Conference followed Moscow Declaration; responsibility upon us and all the United Nations to make peace which will command the goodwill of the overwhelming mass of the people 1944 Dumbarton Oaks Proposals, initial blueprint of the Organization; Security Council conceived as key body of the United Nations 1945 approval of United Nations Charter by delegates of 50 nations at San Francisco Conference The United Nations Charter - consists of 111 articles besides Preamble and concluding provisions - includes Statute of the International Court of Justice - may be considered a treaty because its binding force is derived form agreement of the parties - may be considered a constitution as it provides for organization and operations of different organs of UN - applies to members as well as non-members so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security - in case of conflict between obligation of Member of UN in the present charter and obligations under any other international agreement, the obligations under the charter will prevail amendments: vote of 2/3 of the members of the General Assembly and ratified by 2/3 of members of UN

The Preamble to the Charter - introduces charter - sets common intentions of original members WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED y to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and y to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and y to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and y to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom, AND FOR THESE ENDS y to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and y to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and y to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and y to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples, HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations. Purposes (Article 1) 1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the

suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace; To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and selfdetermination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace; To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends. state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action. Efficacy will depend upon cooperation of member-states The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security. Even non-members are covered for the maintenance of international peace and security Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll. Domestic Jurisdiction Clause affects only rights and privileges; state still has to perform obligations



Expulsion of Members - member who consistently violated principles of the Charter - vote of 2/3 of those present and voting in the General Assembly upon recommendation of the Security Council by a qualified majority vote Withdrawal of Members - no provision in Charter - possible justifications: a. Organization unable to maintain peace or could do so only at the expense of law and justice b. members rights and obligations were changed by charter amendment which member did not concur or did not accept c. amendment duly accepted, not ratified Organs of the UN y General Assembly - consists of all members of the Organization, each entitled to send not more than 5 representatives and 5 alternates as well as technical staff - meets in regular annual session on 3rd Tuesday of September or in special session at the call of majority of members or request of Security Council - each member has one vote - functions: a. deliberative initiating studies and recommendations towards development of international laws b. supervisory receiving and considering annual and special reports from other organs of UN c. financial consideration and approval of budget d. elective election of non-permanent members of Security Council, etc e. constituent admission of members and amendment of charter y Security Council - key organ in the maintenance of international peace and security - consists of 5 permanent members and 10 elective members - 1st group: Big Five China, France, United Kingdom, Russia, United States




Principles (Article 2) - methods of regulating norms according to which the UN and its members shall discharge their obligations and achieve their common ends 1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members. Basis: right of equality All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter. Basis: pacta sunt servanda All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered. Rule itself is generally accepted principle All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations. Most important principle All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any


Membership - 2 kinds: a. original states who participated in UN San Francisco Conference or previously signed Declaration by the UN, signed and ratified the UN Charter b. elective qualifications: a) must be a state, b) must be peace-loving, c) must accept obligations of the Charter, d) must be able to carry out these obligations, e) must be willing to carry out these obligations - The recommendation of the Security Council is a condition precedent to the decision of the General Assembly to admit an applicant-state as a member Suspension of Members - member against which preventive or enforcement action has been taken by the Security Council - effected by 2/3 of those present and voting in General Assembly upon favorable recommendation of at least nine members of the Security Council - may be lifted alone by the Security Council, also by a qualified majority vote - member is prevented from participating in meetings in General Assembly or being elected into Security Council - nationals of suspended state may continue serving in Secretariat or International Court of Justice




other members are elected for 2-year terms by General Assembly: 5 from African and Asian states; 2 from Latin American states; 2 from Western European and other states; 1 from Eastern European states - non-permanent members not eligible for immediate election - staggering terms: of them now retire and replaced every year - voting governed by Yalta formula: each member shall have one vote BUT, procedural matters (organization and meetings of council): decided by affirmative vote of any 9 or more members non-procedural matter (maintaining or restoring world peace): require concurrence of at least 9 members, including permanent no member can vote on a pacific settlement to which it is a party - permanent member may veto and prevent agreement on a non-procedural question even if supported by all members of Security Council - permanent member may also exercise double veto and disapprove any proposal to consider a question merely procedural and thereafter vote against the question itself on the merits - absention or absence of any permanent member in connection with a voting on a non-procedural question is not considered a veto; proposal deemed adopted if approved by at least 9 council members - may take steps for pacific settlement of disputes, limitation is that the dispute must be international Economic and Social Council - originally 18, then became 27, then finally 54 members total - elected by General Assembly for 3-year terms and may be re-elected immediately - staggered terms to provide replacement or re-election of 1/3 of the body every year - meet in regular session - each member has one vote; decisions are reached by majority Trusteeship Council charged with duty of assisting the Security Council and General Assembly in the administration of the international trusteeship system - composition: a. members of UN administering trust territories b. permanent members of the Security Council not administering trust territories c. many other members elected for 3-year terms by the General Assembly as may be necessary - meet in regular session - each member has one vote; decisions are reached by majority - powers, may: a. consider reports submitted by administering authorities b. accept petitions and examine them in consultation with administering authorities c. provide periodic visits to trust territories d. such other actions International Court of Justice - judicial organ of UN - all members are ipso facto parties - non-member may become party on conditions determined by General Assembly - composition of court: 15 members elected by absolute majority vote in General Assembly and Security Council Judges of high moral character and possess qualification required in their respective country for appointment to highest judicial offices No two may be nationals of the same country If more than 1 is elected, the eldest is considered - term of member is 9 years and may be re-elected - staggered term to provide lection of 1/3 of membership at 3-year intervals - no judge removed unless, in unanimous opinion of members, he has ceased to fulfill required conditions - court shall elect its President and Vice-President, who shall serve for 3 years and may be re-elected - function: decide contentious cases and render advisory opinions - jurisdiction: based on consent of parties optional jurisdiction clause Secretariat chief administrative organ headed by Secretary-General, chosen by General Assembly upon recommendation of Security Council term is 5-years and may be re-elected highest representative of the UN and authorized to act on its behalf entitled to full diplomatic immunities and privileges which only the Security Council may waive Secretary-General may waive immunities and privileges of other key-officials of UN Duty: bring to attention of Security Council any matter which in his opinion may threaten international peace and security; acts as secretary in all meetings; prepare s budget for submission; provides technical facilities; coordinates vast administrative machinery

THE CONCEPT OF THE STATE Generally accepted methods by which status is acquired: y Revolution y Unification y Secession y Assertion of independence y Agreement and Attainment of civilization Principle of State Continuity - from the moment of its creation, state continues as a juristic being notwithstanding changes in its circumstances, provided only that they do not result in loss of any of its essential elements - continuity of life of state is not impaired by changes in form of government, reduction of its population as long as substantial number of people survive, loss of part of its territory provided that remainder is still sizable - limitation of sovereignty reduces it to a dependent state but does not deprive it of international personality Extinction of State - Example: Population may be completely wiped out Government overthrown without being replaced State may merge with another state Territory dismembered or annexed by others If federation, may be broken up or dissolved

If independent, becomes dependent Radical impairment or actual loss of one or more of the essential elements of the state that will result in its extinction rights of predecessor government are inherited in toto by successor government where the new government was organized by virtue of a constitutional reform duly ratified in a plebiscite, the obligations of the replaced government are also completely assumed by the former where the new government was established through violence, as by a revolution, it may lawfully reject the purely personal or political obligations of the predecessor government but no those contracted by it in the ordinary course of official business and the national sovereignty as well as territorial integrity of the Republic of the Philippines."54 Regional autonomy is the degree of self-determination exercised by the local government unit vis--vis the central government. In international law, the right to self-determination need not be understood as a right to political separation, but rather as a complex net of legal-political relations between a certain people and the state authorities. It ensures the right of peoples to the necessary level of autonomy that would guarantee the support of their own cultural identity, the establishment of priorities by the community's internal decision-making processes and the management of collective matters by themselves.55 If self-determination is viewed as an end in itself reflecting a preference for homogeneous, independent nation-states, it is incapable of universal application without massive disruption. However, if self-determination is viewed as a means to an endthat end being a democratic, participatory political and economic system in which the rights of individuals and the identity of minority communities are protectedits continuing validity is more easily perceived.56 Regional autonomy refers to the granting of basic internal government powers to the people of a particular area or region with least control and supervision from the central government. PEOPLE VS LOL-LO Pirates are in law hostes humani generis. Piracy is a crime not against any particular state but against all mankind. It may be punished in the competent tribunal of any country where the offender may be found or into which he may be carried. The jurisdiction of piracy unlike all other crimes has no territorial limits. As it is against all so may it be punished by all. Nor does it matter that the crime was committed within the jurisdictional 3-mile limit of a foreign state, "for those limits, though neutral to war, are not neutral to crimes." The general rules of public law recognized and acted on by the United States relating to the effect of a transfer of territory from another State to the United States are well-known. The political law of the former sovereignty is necessarily changed. The municipal law in so far as it is consistent with the Constitution, the laws of the United States, or the characteristics and institutions of the government, remains in force. As a corollary to the main rules, laws subsisting at the time of transfer, designed to secure good order and peace in the community, which are strictly of a municipal character,

Succession of States - question will arise in the event that a state is extinguished or is created as a result of any of the methods previously discussed - takes place when one state assumes the rights and some of the obligations of another because of certain changes in the condition of the latter - may be either universal or partial - Universal: state is annexed to another state or is totally dismembered or merges with another state to form a new state; international personality of the former state is completely absorbed by the successor - Partial: a portion of the territory of a state secedes or is ceded to another or when an independent state becomes a protectorate or a suzerainty or when a dependent state acquires full sovereignty Consequences of State Succession - allegiance of the inhabitants of the predecessor state in the territory affected is transferred to the successor state usually, naturalized en masse - political laws of former sovereign are automatically abrogated and may be restored only by positive act of new sovereign non-political laws are continued unless changed by sovereign or contrary to institutions of successor state - treaties of political or commercial nature, including extradition, are discontinued except those dealing with local rights and duties - all rights of predecessor state are inherited by successor state does not apply to liabilities; successor state has discretion which liabilities to assume and which to reject Succession of Governments - one government replaces another either peacefully or by violent methods - integrity of state is not affected

CASE PRINCIPLES: PEOPLE VS PERFECTO It is a general principle of the public law that on acquisition of territory the previous political relations of the ceded region are totally abrogated. "Political" is here used to denominate the laws regulating the relations sustained by the inhabitants to the sovereign. Mr. Justice Field of the United States Supreme Court stated the obvious when he said: "As a matter of course, all laws, ordinances and regulations in conflict with the political character, institutions and Constitution of the new government are at once displaced. Thus, upon a cession of political jurisdiction and legislative power and the latter is involved in the former to the United States, the laws of the country in support of an established religion or abridging the freedom of the press, or authorizing cruel and unusual punishments, and he like, would at once cease to be of obligatory force without any declaration to that effect." To quote again from the United States Supreme Court: "It cannot be admitted that the King of Spain could, by treaty or otherwise, impart to the United States any of his royal prerogatives; and much less can it be admitted that they have capacity to receive or power to exercise them. Every nation acquiring territory, by treaty or otherwise, must hold it subject to the Constitution and laws of its own government, and not according to those of the government ceding it." DISOMANGCOP VS DATUMANONG The creation of autonomous regions does not signify the establishment of a sovereignty distinct from that of the Republic, as it can be installed only "within the framework of this Constitution

continue until by direct action of the new government they are altered or repealed. REPUBLIC VS CIBRARIO The Russian Soviet Republic, which the United States refuses to recognize, cannot sue in the latter's courts, even if comity did not depend on recognition, in view of the reasons given by the State Department for refusing to recognize it. If recognized, undoubtedly it may. Conceivably this right may depend on treaty. But if no treaty to that effect exists the privilege rests upon the theory of international comity. This is so with regard to all foreign corporations. Comity may be defined as that reciprocal courtesy which one member of the family of nations owes to the others. It presupposes friendship. It assumes the prevalence of equity and justice. Experience points to the expediency of recognizing the legislative, executive, and judicial acts of other powers. What is termed the comity of nations is the formal expression and ultimate result of that mutual respect accorded throughout the civilized world by the representatives of each sovereign power to those of every other, in considering the effects of their official acts. Its source is a sentiment of reciprocal regard, founded on identity of position and similarity of institutions. Rules of comity are a portion of the law that they enforce. Precedents mark the line that they should follow. Both in England and in the United States so universally and for such a length of time have actions by alien corporations and individuals been allowed that the right to bring them in a proper case has become fixed. Unless restrained by legislative fiat no court may now deny it. Statements are that a recognized government may be a plaintiff. Therefore, when a foreign power brings an action in the courts of a state, it is not a matter of right. Its power to do so is the creature of comity. Until such government is recognized by a state no such comity exists. The plaintiff concededly has not been so recognized. There is, therefore, no proper party in the case at hand. Recognition, and, consequently, the existence of comity, is purely a matter for the determination of the legislative or executive departments of the government. Who is the sovereign of a territory is a political question. In any case where that question is in dispute the courts are bound by the decision reached by those departments. It is not for the courts to say whether the present governments of Russia or Mexico or Great Britain should or should not be recognized. HAW PIA VS CHINA BANKING CORP The provisions of the Hague Regulations, section III, on Military Authority over Hostile Territory, which is a part of the Hague Convention respecting the laws and customs of war on land, are intended to serve as general rule of conduct for the belligerents in their relations with each other and with the inhabitants, but as it had not been found possible then to concert regulations covering all the circumstances which occur in practice, and on the other hand it could not have been intended by the High Contracting Parties that the unforeseen cases should, in the absence of a written undertaking, be left to the arbitrary judgment of military commanders, it was agreed that "Until a complete code of the laws of war has been issued, the High Contracting Parties deem it expedient to declare that in cases not included in the Regulations adopted by them, the inhabitants and the belligerents remain under the protection and the rule of the principles of international law, as they result for the usages established among civilized peoples, from the laws of humanity, and the dictates of public conscience." Before the Hague Convention, it was the usage or practice to allow or permit the confiscation or appropriation by the belligerent occupant not only of public but also of private property of the enemy in a territory occupied by the belligerent hostile army; and as such usage or practice was allowed, a fortiori, any other act short of confiscation was necessarily permitted. Section III of the Hague Regulations only prohibits the confiscation of private property, article 53 provides that cash funds, and property liable to requisition and all other movable property belonging to the State susceptible of military use or operation, may be confiscated or taken possession of as a booty and utilized for the benefit of the invader's government. The belligerents in their effort to control enemy property within their jurisdiction or in territories occupied by their armed forces in order to avoid their use in aid of the enemy and to increase their own resources, after the Hague Convention and specially during the first World War, had to resort to such measures of prevention which do not amount to a straight confiscation, as freezing, blocking, placing under custody and sequestrating the enemy private property. Such acts are recognized as not repugnant to the Hague Regulations by well-known writers on International Law, and are authorized in the Army and Navy Manual of Military Government and Civil Affairs not only of the United States, but also in tries, as well as in the Trading with the Enemy Acts of said countries. RECOGNITION Recognition - merely declaratory and only affirms the pre-existing fact that the entity being recognized already possesses the status of an international person - highly political and discretionary minority view: recognition is constitutive, meaning that it is the last indispensable element that converts or constitutes the entity being recognized into an international person may be extended by individual states or a number of them together Philippines: President determines question of recognition, an act of state therefore not subject to judicial review

Object of Recognition - may be extended to a state, a government or a belligerent community - Recognition of state is generally irrevocable and imports recognition of its government - Recognition of government may be withdrawn and does not necessarily signify existence of state - Recognition of belligerent community does not produce same effect as recognition of state and government because rebels are accorded international personality only in connection with the hostilities they are waging Kinds of Recognition - may be either express or implied - Express o May be verbal or in writing o May be extended through formal proclamation or announcement, stipulation in a treaty, letter or telegram ,or on occasion of official call or conference - Implied o Recognizing state enters into official intercourse with the new member by exchanging diplomatic representatives, concluding bipartite treaty dealing comprehensively with relations in general, or acknowledging its flag or entering into formal relations with it o In case of belligerent communities, recognition is implied when legitimate government blockades a port held by the former or when other states observe neutrality in the conflict - act of recognition must have clear indication of an intention: a. to treat with the new state as such, or b. to accept the new government as having authority to represent said state, or

c. to recognize in the case of insurgents that they are entitled to exercise belligerent rights Relatively permanent Vests title in the government to its properties abroad Brings about full diplomatic relations Provisional Does not vest title in the government to its properties abroad Limited to certain juridical relations where recognition is extended by third states, consequences are effective only as to them and do not bind other state not extending recognition only where recognition is made by parent state that the effects become general and legally applicable to all other states

Recognition of States - free act by which one or more states acknowledge the existence on a definite territory of a human society politically organized, independent of any existing state, and capable of observing the obligations of international law, and by which they manifest therefore their intention to consider it a member of the international community Recognition of Governments - free act by which one or several states acknowledge that a person or a group of persons is capable of binding the state which they claim to represent and witness their intention to enter into relations with them - usually decided on the basis of political considerations - 3 kinds of de facto government: a. established by inhabitants who rise in revolt and depose legitimate regime b. established in the course of war by invading forces of one belligerent in the territory of another belligerent whose government is also displaced c. established by inhabitants of state who secede therefrom without overthrowing its government - practice of most states now is to extend recognition to a new government only if it is shown that it has control of the administrative machinery of the state with popular acquiescence and that it is willing to comply with its international obligations - 2 criterion: a. objective test the government must be able to maintain order within the state and to repel external aggression b. subjective test employed for purpose of justifying the withholding of recognition from a government that is politically unacceptable - De jure: government that satisfies the criteria - De facto: not yet satisfied the criteria - if no indication of kind of recognition extended, it is presumed de jure De Jure De Facto

Effects of Recognition of States and Governments - full diplomatic relations established, except de facto government - recognized state or government acquires the right to sue in the courts of recognizing state - recognized state or government has right to the possession of properties of its predecessor in the territory of the recognizing state - all acts of the recognized state or government are validated retroactively, preventing the recognizing state from passing upon their legality in its own court Recognition of Belligerency - belligerency exists when inhabitants of state rise up in arms for the purpose of overthrowing the legitimate government Insurgency Initial state of belligerency Directed by military authorities Usually not recognized Belligerency More serious and widespread Under civil government There are settled rules regarding recognition of belligerency

conditions: a. there must be an organized civil government directing the rebel forces b. rebels must occupy a substantial portion of territory of state c. conflict between legitimate government and rebels must be serious, making the outcome uncertain d. rebels must be will and able to observe laws of war

Consequences of Recognition of Belligerency - belligerent community is considered a separate state for purpose of the conflict it is waging - relations with each other shall be governed by the laws of war and their relations with other states shall be subject to the laws of neutrality, for the duration of hostilities

CASE PRINCIPLES: REPUBLIC VS SANDIGANBAYAN whether the revolutionary government was bound by the Bill of Rights of the 1973 Constitution during the interregnum, that is, after the actual and effective take-over of power by the revolutionary government following the cessation of resistance by loyalist forces We hold that the Bill of Rights under the 1973 Constitution was not operative during the interregnum. However, we rule that the protection accorded to individuals under the Covenant and the Declaration remained in effect during the interregnum. During the interregnum, the directives and orders of the revolutionary government were the supreme law because no constitution limited the extent and scope of such directives and orders. With the abrogation of the 1973 Constitution by the successful revolution, there was no municipal law higher than the directives and orders of the revolutionary government. Thus, during the interregnum, a person could not invoke any exclusionary right under a Bill of Rights because there was neither a constitution nor a Bill of Rights during the interregnum. A revolution has been defined as the complete overthrow of the established government in any country or state by those who were previously subject to it or as a sudden, radical and fundamental change in the government or political system, usually effected with violence or at least some acts of violence. It was through the February 1986 revolution, a relatively peaceful one, and more popularly known as the people power revolution that the Filipino people tore themselves away from an existing regime. This revolution also saw the unprecedented rise to power of the Aquino government. During the interregnum, the government in power was concededly a revolutionary government bound by no constitution. No one could validly question the sequestration orders as violative of the Bill of Rights because there was no Bill of Rights during the interregnum. The revolutionary government, after installing itself as the de jure government, assumed responsibility for the States good faith compliance with the Covenant to which the Philippines is a signatory. Article 2(1) of the Covenant requires each signatory State

to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights45 recognized in the present Covenant. Under Article 17(1) of the Covenant, the revolutionary government had the duty to insure that [n]o one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence. The Declaration, to which the Philippines is also a signatory, provides in its Article 17(2) that [n]o one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property. Although the signatories to the Declaration did not intend it as a legally binding document, being only a declaration, the Court has interpreted the Declaration as part of the generally accepted principles of international law and binding on the State.46 Thus, the revolutionary government was also obligated under international law to observe the rights47 of individuals under the Declaration. The revolutionary government did not repudiate the Covenant or the Declaration during the interregnum. Whether the revolutionary government could have repudiated all its obligations under the Covenant or the Declaration is another matter and is not the issue here. Suffice it to say that the Court considers the Declaration as part of customary international law, and that Filipinos as human beings are proper subjects of the rules of international law laid down in the Covenant. The fact is the revolutionary government did not repudiate the Covenant or the Declaration in the same way it repudiated the 1973 Constitution. As the de jure government, the revolutionary government could not escape responsibility for the States good faith compliance with its treaty obligations under international law. During the interregnum when no constitution or Bill of Rights existed, directives and orders issued by government officers were valid so long as these officers did not exceed the authority granted them by the revolutionary government. The directives and orders should not have also violated the Covenant or the Declaration. UNDERHILL VS HERNANDEZ Every sovereign State is bound to respect the independence of every other sovereign State, and the courts of one country will not sit in judgment on the acts of the government of another done within its own territory. Redress of grievances by reason of such acts must be obtained through the means open to be availed of by sovereign powers as between themselves. ALCANTARA VS DIRECTOR OF PRISONS The so-called Republic of the Philippines and the Philippine Executive Commission established in the Philippines during the Japanese regime were governments de facto organized by the belligerent occupant by the judicial acts thereof were good and valid and remained good and valid after the restoration of the Commonwealth Government, except those a political complexion. Even assuming that the Court of Appeals of Northern Luzon was a new court created by the belligerent occupant or the de facto governments established by him, the judgments of such court, like those of the court which were continued during the Japanese occupation, were good and valid and remain good and valid, and therefore enforceable now after the liberation or occupation of the Philippines, provided that such judgments do not have a political complexion. A punitive or penal sentence is said to of a political complexion when it penalizes either a new act not defined in the municipal laws, or acts already penalized by the latter as a crime against the legitimate government, but taken out of the territorial law and penalized as a new offenses committed against belligerent occupant, incident to a state of a war and necessary for the control of the occupied territory and the protection of the army of the occupier. They are acts penalized for public rather than private reasons, acts which tend, directly or indirectly, to aid or favor the enemy and are directed against the welfare, safety and security, of the belligerent occupant. As example, the crimes against national security , such as treason, espionage, etc., and against public order, such as rebellion, sedition, etc., were crimes against the Commonwealth or United States Government under the Revised Penal Code, which were made crimes against the belligerent occupant. *** doctrine that the judgments and sentences, not of political complexion, of the ordinary court in these Islands during the Japanese occupation are good and valid. ETORMA VS RAVELO It is correct that a government established in a territory under a sovereign de jure is a government de jure, but it is not true that a government established in a territory under a sovereign de jure cannot be a government de facto. The three classes of governments de facto set forth in the decision of this Court in the case of Co Kim Cham vs. Valdez Tan Keh and Dizon and recognized by all the publicist and decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, are governments de facto established in a territory which continued under the same sovereign de jure, or in which there was no change of sovereignty. In the said case of Co Kim Cham vs. Valdez Tan Keh and Dizon, this Court said: "There are several kinds of de facto governments. The first, or government de facto in a proper legal sense, is that government that gets possession and control of, or usurps, by force or by the voice of the majority, the rightful legal government and maintains itself against the will of the latter, such as the government of England under the Commonwealth, first by Parliament and later by Cromwell as Protector. The second is that which is established and maintained by military forces who invade and occupy a territory of the enemy in the course of war, and which is denominated a government of paramount force, as the cases of Castine, in Maine, which was reduced to British possession in the war of 1812, and of Tampico, Mexico, occupied during the war with Mexico by the troops of the United States. And the third is that established as an independent government by the inhabitants of a country who rise in insurrection against the parent state, such as the government of the Southern Confederacy in revolt against the Union during the war of secession." It goes without saying that a puppet government is no government at all, not even a de facto government." A puppet government is one that acts as another wills or dictates. The Republic of the Philippines was a puppet government, because although set up apparently as a free and independent government, was, in truth and in fact, a government de facto established by the belligerent occupant or the Japanese military forces Midterm notes in PIL LAW - SET OF rules and regulations what makes it different from the others? = there is a sanction for VIOLATION = enacted by competent authority enacted- promulgated competent authority- refers to the SOVEREIGN wherever they are. But if it comes from soverign authority, it is considered as law

= DELEGATED- people delegates teh sovereign authirty in republican govneremnt a =there are toehr entties beside states that are also govered by varyig degres by teh law of natiosn: UNITED NATIONS, INVIDUAL. other entites- came under the coverage of interantionl law because of agreement between staes - principally the united nations itself and most of the entities covered by international law either organs or eextnsion fo un ROME CONVENTION ION INTERNATIONL CRIMINAL LAWmaking an indifual instead of just an object of internationlaw , ALSO A SUBJECT. TAKE NOTE: SWAZENBERGER- international law is a body of lega rules which apply b/wsovering staes and such otehr entites as have been granted international prersoality = use by bentham in his intro to the princples of morals and legilsation. = a misnomer because it suggests that it relates toe h intercourse of nations rather than states = interchangebly used with law of nations THERE ARE NO SETS OF SANCTIONS - there is an ongoing debate whether international law is really cosniderd as law: ACCDG TO: POSITIVISTS- if it governs relationship, it is law NATURAL LAW ADVOCATES- if it is good then it is law ECLECTICSTRADITIONAL CONCPET: a body of rules and principels fo action whcih are binding uon ciivlzed staes in theri raltins with one anotehr. CURRENT CONCEPT:- added who are subject of international law, kai before states ra man jud STATE - LEGAL/JRUDICAL- HAS FOUR elements: people, terrirotry, sovereinty and govneremnt VS NATION = ETHNIC/CULTURAL has common etnthic or cultural ties such as language, race, religion 1. THE LAWS OF PEACE 2. THE LAWS OF WAR 3. THE LAWS OF NETURALITy dsntciton with muncipal law 1. issued bv a potlical sovereign, law of natisn si a law between staes 2. muncipla law cosist mainly of enactement and gapil 3. regualtss teh relatins fo individuals among themselves or with tehir own state 4. vilations fo internaitonal lawss are resovled thorugh state to state transactions. 5. mnciaplaw, individul responsiblity, international law is usually colelctevie. UN- lessens the effect of globalization. 2 THEORIES AS TO WEHN AN INERNATIONAL PRINCIPLE BECOMES PART OF LAW OF LAND 1. DOCRTRIEN OF INCORPRATION -states affirm theri acceptance and adoption of interantionl law as a part of the law of hte land int erhi fudnamental law, art II. sec. 2 = we abide by intarnional law int eh cnsitutuion. = phils. renounces war as an instrument of national policy 2. DOCTRINE TRANSFORMATION- GAPIL are not per se binding upon the stae but must first be emobdied in legislation by the lawming body and so transfroed into muncipal law = befoer they become part of the land, it has to be enacted by competent body CONSISTENT WTH dream that all nations will be one under one sovereign authority INCORPORATION- acceptable in international states, very few adher to transformation, it is difficult. CASE:

= it is desirable- promulgated for teh common good = but there are also bad laws- not intended for the common good but for the interest of the people BAD LAW- is still a law INTERNATIONAL LAW- not enacted by a competent authority ONE BASI PRINCIPLE in INTERNATIONAL LAW: all states are equal, no matter how big or how small, they are considered as EQUAL. international community- based on the theory of the state, where does it belong? = WHEN EVERyTHING IS EQUAL- you are in the state of nature BASED ON THEORy OF THE STATE, ON HOW STATE CAME ABOUT, one of the more popular theory is the theory of state of nature. At first, there was no state, the same thing with the status of states today, all states are equal, the international community is for the state of nature.


1. KURODA VS JALANDONI = when an international law is incorporated, is it equal or same standing as a muncipal law in status? or is it higher or are both equal? point of view of muncipal courts-if a case is decided by a muncipal court- if there is a conflict between 2 laws: muncipal law and international principle which will govern? we go to the principle in stat con that it is possible that u resolve the apparent contradiction and as much as possible give effect to both laws. itis possible na dilireal ang conflict. 2. CO KIM CHAN VS VALDEZ, sept, 15, 1945 CRITERIA TO BE USED IN RESOLVING CONFLICTS BETWEEN ITNRANTNIONL LAW AND MUNCIAP LAW 1. BASIC ruel si to resovle the apparent contradiction and give effect to both systems 2. If conflict is actual: -if in case of international tribunal would uphold internationl law -in case of national tribunals have been inconsistent. CONSTITUTION VS TREATy - in teh phils. , the position is clear that a treaty is subject to teh test of cnstitutionality by teh SC = no interantional rpinciple no matter how popular if inconsistent with the consittuion, not part of our laws case: 1. ICHONG VS HERNANDEZ , GR. 799SIX 2. GONZALEZ VS HECHANOVA, GR. 21897 = the rule of SC: to declare that a law is unconsittuational or not consistent with teh consitution thus latter is superior BASIS OF IL: 1. NATURALIST SCHOOL - we all come from good stuff, there are natural goods which are discernable 2. POSITIVIST SCHOOL- a law of coordination not a law of subordination - IF A PRINCIPLE COORDINATES THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ADN AMONG STATES, TEHN IT IS LAW. 3. ECLECTIC OR GROATIAN SCHOOL- combinatinon of la of nature and teh consent of staets SANCTIONS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW - there are no sanctions daw in international law pero *the compulsive force of reciprocal advantage and fear of retaliation 1. INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL: teh inhernt reaosnablens of internationa law and that its obsevance will redouncd toeh welfare of the whole society of nations 2. normal habits of obedience ingrained in the nature of man as a social being 3. respect for world opinion held by most states = when UN decided to go to IRAQ- they wanted a resolution from sec. council so their action will be sanctioned but US was not able to get teh majority vote of sec.council so close allies of US were asked 4. fear of retaliation 5. machinery of the UN = UN intervened into a dispute and succesful in resolving it one way or anotehr, based on more pospualre session of international community gutom q..huh ENFORECOMENT OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 1. through international organizations 2. teh Security council of the UN 3. International Cour of jUstice FUNCTIONS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW: 1. PRIMARy FUNCTIONS: TOE STABLISH PEACE ADN ORDER IN TEH ITNERNATIONAL COMMUNITy AND PREVENT TEH EMPLOyMENT OF FORCE -wars should ot be used as ameans of pursuing natonal policies whihc measn under teh UN charter, aggressive wars is outlaw 2. SEEKS A LASTING ACCord BASED ON A GENUINE SPIRiT OF International HARMONy, IT SRIVES AS WELL TO PROMOSTE WORLD FRIENDSHIP By LEVLING THE BARIERS, AS OF COLORE OR CREED, THA HAVE SO FAR OBSTRUCETD TEH FOSTERING OF A CLOSER UNDERSTANDING in the family of nations 3. endeavors to encouarge and ensure grater itnatoal coperaton nteh solutioin ofcertian common problems of a politcial encomic cultural or humanierain characcter 4. provide for the ordelry management of the relation states on the bssi fo the substatnive reules tehy have agreed to observe as members of teh international community why would it be problematic if chinese wil devalue the yuan? could lead to deflation. DISTINCTIONS WITH OTHER CONCEPTS 4. Diplomaticce initiatives between states 5. war six. War tribunals 7. Treated as part of internal law COURT OF JUSTICE VS COURT OF ARBITRATION J-since there is no competent authority, there is no body of internationl law wchihc can vest jurisdiction on a corut What is there are only courts of arbitration- it is a court that gets its jusridiction from teh CONSENT OF THE PARTIES TO THE DISPUTE.

- international morality or ethichs -internatonal comity- par to international alw becasue the comity between nations is the sourc e of a lot of practices especially in diplomatic relationships. - international dimplomacy - international administrative law STATUS FO INTENTAOINL LAW MAJOR ACHIEVEMENTS STATUS OF INTERNTIONAL LAW, P20 Are bilateral treaties considered as direct source of international law? HOW would u invoke that practice in order to support ur case? = how do u prove that custom as generally accepted? bakete naval why is stare decisis not considered as general principle fo law which can be a source of international law? -p. 25 = stare decisis applies to municipal law but not to international laws. in such case, it will only have persuasive value. IN CASE OF JAPAN AND KOREA, the tribunal is in favor of japan? can u do that? yes, itis a secondary source. DILI lang primary source STARE DECISIS -cant apply bec. parties go into settlmetn or dispute to an arbitral court, they were the jurisdiction of court..stems from their agrement that the court will have jurisdiction over man..but only amomng parties of the case SC: highest courts an dall other secondary - only SC can change its ruling WHAT HAPPENS TO THE LAWS OF THE LAND WHEN IT IS OCCUPIED By BELIGERENT FORCE SUCH AS WEHN JAPAN INVADED THE PHILS, DOES IT ABROGATE EVERyTHING INSIDE? = obviusly ther is an internatinal law, the laws of war, timely made set of rules wehre everything about government is divided into how many parts? = when mac-arthur came back. the last ceasar. NON-POLITICAL - utang (civil case) ----- POLITICAL

why are general principles of law allowed to become a determiner hwo states may choose to do this or not? position of naturalist school that there are rules that are universal or based on reason which applies anywhere. kuroda - main contention: hague conven tion on the laws of war does not supposedly apply considering we are not signatory but since it is generally accepted part of international law so by the process of incorporation, that applies to us SO KURODA a japanese national, cant put it up as a defense that the consituttion of military tribunals of war crimes against him was unlawful

= THE ACTS OF BELIGERENT GOVERNMENT, UNDER nonpolitical acts are not abrogated. = was directed to continue ONE CASE: - during the war, naa xa utang, nibayad xa jap money = the time money was paid, it was legal tender ICHONG VS HERNANDEZ: 2. treaty of amity between phils and china = no specific privilege given to chinese citizens

TREATy OF AMITy- treaty where chinese citizens were assured that any right or pivilge granted to other nationals will also be granted to chinese nationals. - when treaty has that provision there is no ___ of legislature to pass subsequent law to negate such grant of right of privilege ot a group of foreigners (chinese) = this tells us that mun. law and an international law principle which is part of our laws, when they are in conflict, such must be resolved to make two laws applicable ex. ichong vs hernandez: there seems to be conflict between UN charter adn the local legislation, COURT was able to harmonize both laws= so came the treaty of amity = only that in this case, there is an obiter dictum by the court OBITER DICTUM- something not necessary to resolve the case, when corut said that there is no stopping the legislature from exercising its police pwoer even if there are treaty commitments, it's easy to say that but difficult to do in practice EXAMPLE: even with the RETAIL TRADE ACt, there are still group of nationals not covered by such act (americans) - under parity rights agreement = part of the 1934 constitution- could not be amended by a mere statute.

UNDER INTARNATIONAL LAW, it is obligation of superior beligernent force to maintain order within = that's the reason why osmena and quezon left behind laurel = HE was left- and was tried for treason, somebody has to stay and take care of ordinary business eg post office, police, courts = if everything breaks down, di na kaya sa jap. forces.

SIR: he doubts if the amity provision did provide or gurantee chinese and phils. retail trade. GONZALES: - what was used by exec. sec. arenot executive agreements but contracts to buy rice. = HECHANOVA USED CONTRACTS TO BUy RICE NOT EXECUTIVE AGREMENTS- one void contracts is whent eh rpovsion of the contract is law - in this case, ther was a law that require certian procedure that rice can be ijported, which malacanang did not observe.. = WHAT was used as executive agrmeent signed by SC entere dinto by president- agaisnt hte law. = to them he is asked, if he is embarassed we should be embarased = SC would not definitely invalidate executive agrement entered into by president himself-= they can afford to say that because that was not the issue RULE: mun. law and international law are equal footing, if there is conflict, it should be resovled and harmonized..not when u apply rule of stat con GEN. LAW OVER SPECIAL LAW- adopted earlier vs adopted now- those are different rules which can resolve cannot resolve conflict between mun law AMERICAN BANK = in our jurisdiction , u can file a case to collect or foreclose mortgage DOCTRINE OF PROCESSUAL PRESUMPTION- once u choose one u can no longer foreclose SC said tingali, but for us NO!! = no presentation fo evidence law contrary to what we have bec. if it is in any way related to what he is doing here int he phi.s that belongs tot eh first kind = in this case, it invovles contract for MAINTENANCE AGREMENT FOR repair of aircon etc. DILI na acts of sovereignty daw kai maintenance lang BE VERy sure that u can recover... = in other caes, even if there is liablity but it can be triaed to foreign gvernemtn, still immunity will attach WHETHER IT IS ACT OF GOVT OR PRIVATE ACT ASUUMING, tht it was a treaty, it cant also pass the test of consituttionality CONSITUTTION SAID: if u want to creat an automous regiion, THERE MUST FIRST BE A ORGANIC ACT, and submitted to affected area with a plebsicite or approval of majority of those who vote = CONTENTION of ABBAS could not hold water, PHILS. already has commitement to create autonomus region of muslim mindanao SC SAID: no such comitment, it was not treaty between phils and libya. mijares vs ranada: = still has to be proven at the lower court, not conclusive action in rem vs in persona - IN REM- binding against whole world in personam-seeking to enforce personal obligation

2. private capacity

HILTON VS GUyOT -when a foreign law or jdugment is made to apply in another state, it's not bec. the sovereignty in that state will extend but bec. of comity WHEN OUR COURTS- recognze judgemtn made by US COURT we are not compelled to do so, it is purely voluntary act but that's part of international law yao kee: both sets of children were considered as natural children because petitioner was not able to prove chinese custom 2nd set: acknowledged childrn bec. of their children not married. PAQUETE HABANA

GUERRERO INDONESIA CASE: acts done by foreign diplomats consist of 2 classess: 1. acts of sovereignty - jure imperi (public) = if the mere entering into a contract by a diplomat or any diplomatic person covered by sovereign immunity does not automatically mean tht the foreign reprsentative or official has waived the immunity of state from suit. ABBAS CASE: - we focus on Tripoli agreemnt , was it treaty? if not, why? because a treaty can only be entered into between states and MNLF- IS not even a beligerent community = this is nto a state, so how can it be a treaty

- the spanish governemnt on behalf of the oweners brought this case. fisherman- give food to the community - interesting in european countries rgarding exception fo fishing vessels applied by US PORTS - good illustration as CUSTOM AS SOUCE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW MIJARES: A FOREIGN JUDGMETN can be made to apply to our jurisdiction but there must be certain procedures to follow: BANK OF AMERICA - certain proceudres intended to prserve order for example the prohibition against MULTIPLICITy OF SUITs- then that foreign judgmetn or law cannot be made to apply in this case PERFECTO CASE PERFECTOR- journalist in spanish paper = effects of teh acts of a de facto governemtn in control of a certain governemnt ALL POLITICAL MILITARy AND OTHER SIMILAR ACTS HAS FORCE AND EFFECT, OTHER ACTS REMAIN UNTIL ABOLISHED - crime of lesi magistrate- invovled in spanish regime wehn americans took over with entirely difft system of govenrment, the crime was clearly inconsistent, wtih principels of democratic form of governemnt. WEHTHR DEMOCRATIC IS SHIFT TO AUTOCRATIC = RIZAL- never wanted independence PERFECTO- was very annoying to poltiicans, always told the truth - leste mageste -succeeded in lower court HOW ABOUT TIIME OF CORy WHEN SHE TOOK OVER THE PRESIDENCy WHEN MARCOS STEPPED DOWN? WAS THERE TO RECONIZE ANEW THE EXISTENCE OF REP. OF PHILS as a STATE? no need LOL-LO - piracy is a universal crime -pirates can be tried in any place wehre they may be bound CIBRIANO - the govenrmetn whihc wanted to sue in the US when the Soviet Russians were beligerent community in russia overthrowing the aristocratic governemtn. - US recognzied monarchy so new govnerment was not recognzed, this is the consequence of non-recognition - THE CASE DAW COULD NOT PROSPER- bec. foreign govnemrtn when they recognze an unrecognzed cannot be sued bec. fo immunity from suit it is desirable for a state to become part of family o fnations = emilio aguinaldo- proclaimed the first phil republic -no other state paid recognition to his republic = assuming at that time, phils. arleady have four elements of the state but it did not receive any recognition =depends on wehther existence of state is acknowledged by other states UNDER PRESENT COMMUNITy, it is rare that newly consittued state is not given recognition







WILL TH EFFECT OF DE JURE RECOGNITION RETROACT to the time recognition is given? if the STATE / GOVT IS NOT RECOGNIZED CAN IT FILE A SUIT IN A STATE WHERE IT IS NOT RECOGNIZED? = NO. CIBRARIO CASE = cannot file daw in a state where it is not reconized CAN IT BE SUED in a case where it is not recognized? - dismissed for no standing RIGHT TO SUE- is based on comity if dili friends, di ka-file og suit pero di pud xa ma-sue because thre is another principle wHCIH is PRINCIPLE FO STATE IMUUNITy NOT DEPEDNENT ON RECOGNITION. (CIBRARIO CASE)

1. CASE OF SANDIGANBAyAN: WHEN GMA took over estrada, was there a need for other states to reconiz govnermetn of GMA? aside from the fact that it was a constitutional change bec. GMA assumed presidency based on provisons of consit SEIZURE OF ITEMS- were considered as illegal not By virtue of bill of right but because of international conventions 2. CO KIM CHAN VS VALDEZ 3. UNDERHILL 4. PRINCIPLES IN THESE CASES: A. post-dominion principle (take note in alcantara case)

- there was nothing involved in the manner of judgemtn whihc during the jap occupation would be sustained bec. it is covered by procedure res adjudicata ARGUMENT; petition for election- is not a suit but an administrative proceeding. that is covered too by immunity US VS GUINTO = what happened sa barbershop? they cant have immunity from suit bec. they gave their cosnent wehn they entered into contract IF THE ACT IS PROPRIETARy- then immunity will not attach - the very reason the govenremnt or international organization is here in the phils. the principle of immunity from suit will attach COMM. VS GOTANGCO = test: who eventually pays? eventually be part of cost to WHO especially between the agreement between the phils and inernational org. it is exempt from direct and indirect taxes but court ruled taht CONTRACTOR'S TAX cant be imposed bec. it was an indirect tax whihc WHO is immune US VS RUIZ = mere fact of an entity entiteld to immunity entering into a contract is not necessarily result in the waiver of the immunity ex. if u have teh lawyer of someone liek ruiz--tell him that there must be a prior arrangement as to how he can be paid bec. if later on the entity entitled to immunity will make of its obligatinos-- U WILL BE LEFT WITH NOTHING! - repair of the field, was very much related to purpose of US NAVy wihtout a docking facility, they coudl nto apply

- was conducted by governemnt US state of america. INDEPENDENCE - is not absolute freedom - just freedom from control and restrictions on members of interantional community RELATED TO RIGHT OF DEFENDANT- is right against INTERVENTION - more or less related to principle of outgrowing of AGGRESSIVE WARFARE - no prohbition mentioned before if state is capable then it can intervene in the internal affairs of another state but with outgrowing of WAR as an instrument of national policy, INTERVENTION IS ALLOWED - INTERFERENCE- of domestic and foreign affairs fo antoher state through employment is allowed CAMBODIAN NATIONAL- Ang was under house arrest- arroyo said that it is an intervention of gov't of Myanmar BUT THEy SAID ; there was no intervention agaisnt belligerent community without threat-actual or imminentNO INTERVENTION 5 iNSTANCES wehn intervention is legal 1. exercised as act of self defense - ex. what is claimed by US in Iraq bec. they dont want weaposn of mass destruction to reach american shore. - there must be a resolution by security council and there's treaty agrement CATHOLIC COMISSION VS FERRER IMMUNITy extends to cases invovling labor rights

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF STATE WHAT'S the most important? - self-existence of govenremt has always been there - the state/ person may do anvthing to serve his/her existence, any act of self-defense is always allowed

THE ONLy PROBLEM IS: there must first be an armed attack there are 2 tests whwether act of govt is valid or not: - in national law, the problem is when is there an armed attack? LOGICALLy, the danger must be instant, overwehlmign and leaving no choice and no moment for deliberation, not just apprehended danger. UNDER present national law, no reason-- can serve as a reason for aggression IN OTHER WORDS, the state must not make an act of aggression in order for it to exercise its right of self-existence and self-defesne ANy act of aggression is considered a crime against international peace. RIGHT OF INDEPENDENCE - related to sovereignty 2 aspects: 1. internal 2. external - is often described to as independence - an example s phil. comonwealth. COMMONWEALTH- had internal sovereignty - has full autonomy of the govenremtn