POE-LLAMANZARES v.

COMELEC DOH issued the assailed RIRR which imposes a ban on all advertisements of
breastmilk substitutes
Facts:
Petitioner assails the RIRR for allegedly going beyond the provisions of the Milk
Petitioner's filing of her COC for President in the 2016 elections triggered the filing of Code, thereby amending and expanding the coverage of said law. The defense of the
several COMELEC cases against her. One of the issue raised (by Estrella Elamparo) DOH is that the RIRR implements not only the Milk Code but also various
is that she cannot be considered a natural-born Filipino citizen as she is a foundling. international instruments regarding infant and young child nutrition. It is respondents'
position that said international instruments are deemed part of the law of the land and
Ruling: therefore the DOH may implement them through the RIRR.

Foundlings are citizens under international law. Ruling:

Universal Declaration of Human Rights ("UDHR") has been interpreted by this Court
as part of the generally accepted principles of international law and binding on the 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
State. The Philippines has also ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
from treaty obligations. The classical formulation in international law sees
(UNCRC). In 1986, the country also ratified the 1966 International Covenant on Civil those customary rules accepted as binding result from the combination of two
and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 24 thereof provide for the right of every child "to elements: the established, widespread, and consistent practice on the part of
acquire a nationality.” 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
The common thread of the UDHR, UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and that the practice in question is rendered obligatory by the existence of a rule of
International Covenant and Civil and Political Rights is to obligate the Philippines to law requiring it.
grant nationality from birth and ensure that no child is stateless.

The principles found in two conventions, while yet unratified by the Philippines, are The Court stressed that for an international rule to be considered as customary law, it
generally accepted principles of international law. must be established that such rule is being followed by states because they consider
it obligatory to comply with such rules (opinio juris). However, according to the
The first is Article 14 of the 1930 Hague Convention on Certain Questions Relating to Court, the respondents have not presented any evidence to prove that the WHA
the Conflict of Nationality Laws under which a foundling is presumed to have the Resolutions, although signed by most of the member states, were in fact enforced or
"nationality of the country of birth.” practiced by at least a majority of the member states; neither have respondents
proven that any compliance by member states with said WHA Resolutions was
The second is the principle that a foundling is presumed born of citizens of the obligatory in nature. Respondents failed to establish that the provisions of pertinent
country where he is found, contained in Article 2 of the 1961 United Nations WHA Resolutions are customary international law that may be deemed part of the law
Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. of the land. Consequently, legislation is necessary to transform the provisions of the
WHA Resolutions into domestic law. The provisions of the WHA Resolutions
PHARMACEUTICAL v. DOH cannot be considered as part of the law of the land that can be implemented by
executive agencies without the need of a law enacted by the legislature.
Facts:
THE PAQUETE HABANA AND THE LOLA
EO 51 (The Milk Code) was issued by Pres. Aquino in 1986 during the Freedom
Constitution. One of the preambular clauses of TMC is that it seeks to give effect to Facts:
Article 11 of the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes (ICMBS), a
code adopted by the World Health Assembly. Two fishing boats, each owned by Spanish citizens, regularly fished off the coast of
Havana, Cuba. One boat was named “The Paquete Habana” (plaintiff). Spain
The WHA adopted several resolutions to the effect that breastfeeding should be maintained control of Cuba until this control was challenged by the United States in
supported, promoted and protected hence, it should be ensured that nutrition and the Spanish-American War of 1898. During the war, the United States created a
health claims are not permitted for breastmilk substitutes. blockade around Cuba. The owners of the fishing boats, however, had no knowledge
of the war or the blockade. When they attempted to access the usual fishing port in
Havana, the two ships were captured as prizes of war by the United States. Their international law. The Montevideo Convention of 1933, which accepts the right of
cargo contained no arms or ammunition, but merely fresh fish. The ship owners unilateral qualification, and on which Colombia relied to justify its unilateral
brought suit against the United States in federal district court. The district court held qualification, was not ratified by Peru.
the two fishing ships and their cargoes to be prizes of war. The ship owners
appealed. Assuming arguendo that there is a custom…

Ruling: ***A party which claims a custom exists must prove that the custom was established
in such a manner that it has become binding on the other party.
While the United States Supreme Court found that there was no specific United
States law that defines a "prize of war," the court states that customary international The Colombia did not establish the existence of regional custom because it failed to
law makes fishing vessels exempt from being taken as a prize of war. prove consistent and uniform usage by the States.

International is part of our law, and must be ascertained and administered by the The Court also reiterated that the fact that a particular State practice was followed
courts of justice of appropriate jurisdiction, as often as questions of right depending because of political expediency and not because of a belief that it is a legal obligation
upon it are duly presented for their determination. For this purpose, where there is no is detrimental to the formation of a customary law.
treaty, and no controlling executive or legislative act or judicial decision, resort must
be had to the customs and usages of civilized nations. NORTH SEA CONTINENTAL SHELF CASES

In this case, the court states that there was state practice by a number of different Facts:
countries which seemed to point to a custom that commercial fishing vessels were
exempt from being prizes of war. Netherlands and Denmark had drawn partial boundary lines based on the
There was a repetition of the above practice that made commercial fishing vessels equidistance principle (A-B and C-D). An agreement on further prolongation of the
exempt. boundary proved difficult because Denmark and Netherlands wanted this
Opinio juris stated that commercial fishing vessels were exempt from being "prizes of prolongation to take place based on the equidistance principle (B-E and D-E) where
war." as Germany was of the view that, together, these two boundaries would produce an
inequitable result for her. Germany stated that due to its concave coastline, such a
line would result in her loosing out on her share of the continental shelf based on
THE ASYLUM CASE (COLOMBIA/PERU)
proportionality to the length of its North Sea coastline. The Court had to decide the
Facts: principles and rules of international law applicable to this delimitation. In doing so, the
Court had to decide if the principles espoused by the parties were binding on the
Haya Dela Torre was a Peruvian national. He led an unsuccessful rebellion against parties either through treaty law or customary international law.
Peru in 1948. The Peruvian government issued a warrant for his arrest on criminal
charges related to this political uprising. He fled to the Colombian embassy in Lima. Ruling:
He therein requested, and was granted, diplomatic asylum by the Colombian
The equidistance principle was not binding on Germany by way of treaty or customary
ambassador on behalf of the government of Colombia. Colombia then requested
international law. In the case of the latter, the principle had not attained a customary
permission from Peru for dela Torre’s safe passage from the Collombian embassy,
international law status at the time of the entry into force of the Geneva Convention or
through Peru, and into Colombia. Peru refused.
thereafter. Germany did not sign in the Geneva Convention. As such, the Court held
Colombia then brought this suit against Peru in the ICJ, asking the court to declare that the use of the equidistance method is not obligatory for the delimitation of the
that Colombia had properly granted asylum, pursuant to a recognized regional areas concerned.
practice of granting asylum in such political cases.
The basic principles in the matter of delimitation must be arrived at in accordance with
Ruling: equitable principles.

The court held that there was no expressed or implied right of unilateral qualification The delimitation of the continental shelf was governed by the principle that each
of the State that grants asylum under the Havana Convention or relevant principles of coastal state is entitled to a just and equitable share.
HOLY SEE v. ROSARIO any professional or commercial activity exercised by the diplomatic agent in the receiving state outside
his official functions. As already mentioned above, the commission of a crime is not part of official duty.
Facts:
TINOCO CLAIMS ARBITRATION (Great Britain v. Costa Rica) C.J. Taft
The case stemmed from a controversy over a parcel of land registered under the name of Holy See
donated by Archdiocese of Manila to the Papal Nuncio. The lot was sold to Starbright Sales Enterprises. Facts:
When the squatters refuse to vacate the lots, a dispute arose between Starbright and Holy See on
whose responsibility was it to evict the squatters. The Holy See says that respondent corporation should The “(Federico) Tinoco regime” came to power through a coup in Costa Rica in 1917. It overthrows
do it or the earnest money will be returned. The earnest money was returned to Starbright. The same Alfredo Gonzales. It lasted for two years. During this time, the Tinoco regime was recognized as
lots then were sold to Tropicana Properties. legitimate by some States, but not large powers such as Great Britain (plaintiff). During its time in power,
the Tinoco regime entered into several contracts (including an oil concession) with the Royal Bank of
Starbright filed for the annulment of the sale, specific performance and damages against the Holy See Canada and the Central Costa Rica Petroleum Company, then subjects of the British government.
and Tropicana Properties.
When the regime fell in 1919, the restored government nullified the oil concession to the RBC under the
Issue: Law of Nullities in 1922, which invalidates all contracts between the executive power and private
persons, made with or without approval of the legislative power covering the period of the Tinoco
Can the Holy See invoke sovereign immunity? Government. Costa Rica argued that the Tinoco regime was not a recognized government capable of
entering into contracts on behalf of the State. Additionally, Costa Rica argued that since Great Britain
Ruling: itself did not recognize the Tinoco regime as a government, it could not claim that Tinoco conferred
enforceable rights such as the oil concession on British citizens. In March 1923, the case was
Yes. The PH has accorded the Holy See the status of a foreign sovereign. The Holy See, through its
considered by an Arbitrator, United States Chief Justice William H. Taft.
Ambassador, the Papal Nuncio, has had diplomatic representations with the PH government since 1957.
Ruling:
The Holy See is immune because the act of selling the lot is non-proprietary in nature. The transfer of
the property is likewise clothed with a governmental character as Holy See sold it not for profit or gain 1) Tinoco regime was the de facto and de jure government for 2 years and 9 months. Therefore, the
but because it cannot evict the squatters. successor government cannot refute the actions of the previous regime.

It was noted in Article 31 (A) of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations that diplomatic The principle of continuity of States applies. It states that changes in the government or the internal
envoy shall be granted immunity from civil and administrative jurisdiction of the receiving state over any policy of a state do not as a rule affect its position in international law. Moreover, the state is bound by
real action relating to private immovable property. The DFA has formally intervened in this case and engagements entered into by governments that have ceased to exist.
officially certified that the Embassy of the Holy See is a duly accredited diplomatic mission to the
Republic of the PH exempt from local jurisdiction and entitled to all the rights, privileges, and immunities 2) Tinoco was an actual sovereign government.
of a diplomatic mission or embassy in this country.
3) Under Article 9 of the Draft Commission of the Doctrine of Diplomatic Protection, a state can act on
LIANG v. PEOPLE behalf of a corporation that was incorporated under its laws – therefore, Britain can legally represent the
RBC and the CCRPC, whose shareholders are British citizens.
Facts:
4) The principle of estoppels does not apply as Tinoco government entered into a contract, which
Jeffrey Liang is an economist at ADB. He was charged with the court for uttering defamatory words legitimized the administration’s de facto status.
against Joyce Cabal. The judge received a protocol from the DFA stating that petitioner is covered by
immunity from legal process under Section 45 of the Agreement between ADB and PH government. Note: Oil concession - exploration and development of oil and gas industry in a defined area

Ruling:

Under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, a diplomatic agent, assuming petitioner is such,
enjoys immunity from criminal jurisdiction of the receiving state except in the case of an action relating to
THE SAPPHIRE (U.S. v. France) Petitioner's claim does not arise out of that agreement (the cargo of wheat aboard the S.S. Hudson was
being shipped pursuant to the Surplus Agricultural Commodities Agreement between the United States
Facts: and Spain) but out of the charter party between it and respondent. This, we think, is a commercial
operation of the Spanish government and as such the defense of sovereign immunity is not available.
The case was one of collision between the American ship (Sapphire) and the French transport (Euryale)
owned by Napoleon III (Emperor of France), which took place in the harbor of San Francisco in the
2) Respondent asserts that aside from the question of sovereign immunity this court should decline
morning of December 22, 1987, in which the Euryale was considerably damaged. jurisdiction by reason of the “Act of State Doctrine”. We take this doctrine to mean that the courts of this
country will not sit in judgment on the official acts of foreign government done within its own territory. We
Napoleon III filed a libel case in the district court against the Sapphire. do not think that the acts upon which petitioner bases its claim (negligence perhaps) can be
considered official acts.
Issue:

Can Napoleon III, a foreign national, bring a suit in US courts? UNDERHILL v. HERNANDEZ

Ruling: Facts:

Yes. A foreign sovereign, as well as any other foreign person, who has a demand of a civil nature In the early part of 1892 a revolution was initiated in Venezuela led by Hernandez, against the
against any person here may prosecute it in our courts. To deny him this privilege would manifest a want administration thereof, which the revolutionists claimed had ceased to be the legitimate government. In
of comity and friendly feeling. October the party in revolt had achieved success generally, taking possession of the capital of
Venezuela, October 6th; and on October 23, 1892, the 'Crespo government,' so called, was formally
The reigning sovereign represents the national sovereignty, and that sovereignty is continuous and recognized as the legitimate government of Venezuela by the United States.
perpetual, residing in the proper successors of the sovereign for the time being. Napoleon was the
owner of the Euryale, not as an individual but as sovereign of France. George F. Underhill was a citizen of the United States, who had constructed a waterworks system for the
city of Bolivar, under a contract with the government, and was engaged in supplying the place with
On Napoleon’s deposition the sovereignty does not change, but merely the person or persons in whom it water; and he also carried on a machiney repair business. Sometime after the entry of Gen. Hernandez,
resides. The foreign state is the true and real owner of its public vessels of war. The reigning Emperor or Underhill applied to him, as the officer in command, for a passport to leave the city. Hernandez refused
national assembly or other actual person or party in power is but the agent and representative of the this request, and requests made by others in Underhill's behalf, until October 18th, when a passport was
national sovereignty. A change in such representative works no change in the national sovereignty or its given, and Underhill left the country.
rights. The next successor recognized by our government is competent to carry on a suit already
commenced and receive the fruits of it. A deed to or treaty with a sovereign as such enures to his This action was brought to recover damages for the detention caused by reason of the refusal to grant
successors in the government of the country. the passport, for the alleged confinement of Underhill to his own house, and for certain alleged assaults
and affronts by the soldiers of Hernandez's army.
VICTORY TRANSPORT, owner of S.S. Hudson v. COMISARIA GENERAL, voyage charterer of S.S.
Hudson (US v. Spain) Issue:

Facts: Are the acts of Hernandez acts of the government, and as such cannot be the subjects of adjudication in
the courts of another government?
Petitioner, as owner of the vessel S.S. Hudson, voyage chartered her to respondent, a branch of the
Ministry of Commerce of the Spanish government, for a voyage carrying a wheat cargo from Mobile, Ruling:
Alabama, to two ports in Spain. The vessel sustained damage at the discharging ports and petitioner
makes claims exceeding $200,000. The charter party was made in New York and provides for arbitration Yes. Every sovereign state is bound to respect the independence of every other sovereign state, and the
of disputes arising under it in New York. 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
Ruling: to be availed of by sovereign powers as between themselves.

1) The State Department has pronounced broadly against recognizing sovereign immunity for the
commercial operations of a foreign government.
The immunity of individuals from suits brought in foreign tribunals for acts done within their own states, in Ruling:
the exercise of governmental authority, whether as civil officers or as military commanders, must
necessarily extend to the agents of governments ruling by paramount force as matter of fact. 1) Brown acquired rights of substantial character under laws and regulations in force on July 19, 1895,
and that numerous steps taken by Executive Department, Volksraad and Judiciary with obvious intent to
LUTHER v. SAGOR defeat Brown's claims constitute denial of justice.

Facts: 2) Liability never passed to or was assumed by the British Government. Neither in the terms of peace
granted at the time of the surrender of the Boer Forces, nor in the Proclamation of Annexation, can there
The Russian Socialist Federal Soviet Republic passed a decree in June, 1918, declaring all mechanical be found any provision referring to the assumption of liabilities of this nature. It should be borne in mind
sawmills of a certain capital value and all woodworking establishments belonging to private or limited that this was simply a pending claim for damages against certain officials arid had never become a
companies to be the property of the Republic. In 1919 agents of the Republic seized the plaintiffs‘ mill or liquidated debt of the former State.
factory in Russia and the stock of manufactured wood therein. In August, 1920, agents of the Republic
purported to sell a quantity of the stock so seized to the defendants, who imported it into England. Under the 1884 Convention it is plain that Great Britain as suzerain, reserved only a qualified control
over the relations of the South African Republic with foreign powers.
Ruling:
"A claimant in a foreign State is not required to exhaust justice in such State when there is no justice to
When a Government which originates in revolution or revolt is recognized by the political department of exhaust"
our Government as the de jure Government of the country in which it is established, such recognition is
retroactive in effect and validates all the actions and conduct of the Government so recognized from the THE SCHOONER EXCHANGE v. MCFADDON
commencement of its existence.
Facts:
It is well settled that the validity of the acts of an independent sovereign government in relation to
property and persons within its jurisdiction cannot be questioned in the Courts of this country: ―Every On 24 August, 1811, John McFaddon & William Greetham, of the State of Maryland, filed their libel in
sovereign state is bound to respect the independence of every other sovereign state, and the Courts of the District Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania against the Schooner Exchange,
one country will not sit in judgment on the acts of the Government of another done within its own territory setting forth that they were her sole owners, on 27 October, 1809, when she sailed from Baltimore,
bound to St. Sebastians, in Spain. That while lawfully and peaceably pursuing her voyage, she was on
BROWN CLAIM (US v. Great Britain) 30 December, 1810, violently and forcibly taken by certain persons, acting under the decrees and orders
of Napoleon, Emperor of the French, out of the custody of the libellants, and of their captain and agent,
Facts: and was disposed of by those persons, or some of them, in violation of the rights of the libellants and of
the law of nations in that behalf. That she had been brought into the port of Philadelphia, and was then in
Proclamation issued on June 18, 1895, by President of South African Republic (Transvaal Government) the jurisdiction of that court, in possession of a certain Dennis M. Begon, her reputed captain or master.
designating certain tract of land, called Witfontein, as public gold field beginning July 19, 1895. The
following day, Robert Brown, an American citizen, and a mining engineer applied for 1,200 prospecting They prayed that she might be restored to them.
licenses but was refused issuance because of the second proclamation issued by Executive Council at
Pretoria suspending the issuance of licenses. Pegging out of 1,200 mining claims by Brown who, Ruling:
notwithstanding refusal of licenses, asserted title. [Second proclamation issued on July 20, 1895, by
State President adjourning opening of Witfontein until August 2, 1895.] Suit brought on July 22, 1895, A public vessel of war of a foreign sovereign at peace with the United States, coming into our ports and
before High Court of the South African Republic by Brown demanding licences to cover 1,200 claims demeaning herself in a friendly manner, is exempt from the jurisdiction of the country.
already pegged off. Resolution adopted on July 26, 1895, by Second Volksraad approving withdrawal of
first proclamation and issuance of second one, and declaring that no person who had suffered damage A sovereign entering a foreign territory with the knowledge and license of its sovereign, that license,
should be entitled to compensation. Third proclamation issued on July 31, 1895, by State President though containing no stipulation exempting his person from arrest, is universally understood to imply
further adjourning opening until August 30, 1895. New government regulations for distributing mining such stipulation.
claims by lot drawn up on August 15, 1895, and made applicable to Witfontein on August 20, 1895.
Where a sovereign allows the troops of a foreign prince to pass through his dominions, he waives his
Alternative claim for damages in the original action filed by Brown in October, 1895.
jurisdiction over the army to which the right of passage has been granted without any express
declaration to that effect.
A principle of public law that national ships of war entering the port of a friendly power open for their "The first counterclaim alleges that on or about August 9, 1920, defendant participated in a loan made
reception are to be considered as exempted by the consent of that power from its jurisdiction. by J. P. Morgan & Co. to the Pacific Development Co. in the face amount of $5,000,000, said loan being
secured by a $5,500,000 Chinese Government Treasury Note, being the note of the plaintiff herein, The
If there be no treaty applicable to the case, and the sovereign permits his ports to remain open to the Republic of China. Said loan was not paid on its maturity date by Pacific Development Company and
public ships of foreign friendly powers, they virtually enter by his assent. If they enter by an assent thus subsequently Pacific Development Company was liquidated. In the course of said liquidation, J. P.
necessarily implied, their case cannot be distinguished from that of vessels entering by express assent. Morgan & Co. offered the collateral for sale at public auction and purchased the collateral on behalf of
the participants in the loan to the Pacific Development Company. The Chinese Government Treasury
HAILE SELASSIE v. CABLE AND WIRELESS LTD. Note is still held by J. P. Morgan & Co. and is now past due, and by virtue thereof there is said to be
owing to the defendant the sum of $317,720.93 plus interest of $590,386.53. For a second counterclaim
Facts:
against plaintiff, The Republic of China, the defendant alleges that between April and August 1947
Plaintiff Haile Selassie commenced these proceedings for the purpose of obtaining an order for an defendant began the purchase of Chinese Government 36th Year Short Term Treasury Notes of The
account of what was due under a contract made between the Director General of Posts Telegraphs & Republic of China. On these notes, the plaintiff, The Republic of China, is said to be indebted to the
Telephones of Ethiopia, and Cable & Wireless Ltd. The contract related to the transmission of wireless defendant in the sum of $391,033.60 principal together with interest thereon in the sum of $335,290.94.
messages between an Ethiopian State radio telegraphic station at Addis Ababa in Ethiopia and a radio Defendant demands judgment against the plaintiffs dismissing the complaint with costs, and against the
telegraphic station of the defendant company in Great Britain. The relevant provision of the contract was plaintiff, The Republic of China, for the sum of $1,634,432."
that the charges paid by the senders of telegraphic messages between the two stations should be
China pleads for sovereign immunity.
apportioned in the proportion of two-thirds to the transmitting station and one-third to the receiving
station. As a result of the war between Italy and Ethiopia the radio telegraphic station at Addis Ababa Ruling:
was closed down on May 2, 1936.
It is recognized that a counterclaim based on the subject matter of a sovereign's suit is allowed to cut
The CFI ruled in favor of the plaintiff. The defendants appealed. While the appeal was pending, Great into the doctrine of immunity. This is proof positive that the doctrine is not absolute, and that
Britain granted de jure recognition to the occupying force of Italy as emperor of Ethiopia. considerations of fair play must be taken into account in its application.

Issue: When a sovereign sues in our courts to enforce a claim, "it so far takes the position of a private suitor as
to agree by implication that justice may be done with regard to the subject matter. Accordingly, we have
Who is entitled to sue in behalf of Ethiopia?
held that a sovereign who sues in our courts so submits itself to the jurisdiction it has invoked those
Ruling: defenses by way of set-off and of counterclaim are available against it.

ITALY. Haile Selassie is no longer the de jure sovereign. The recognition by His Majesty’s Government SAUDI ARABIA v. NELSON
that the King of Italy had in fact (de jure) become sovereign of Ethiopia would of itself operate to
Facts:
preclude Haile Selassie from maintaining in the English courts a claim as sovereign.
Nelson (P), a monitoring system engineer at a hospital in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, was recruited in the
Recognition is retrospective in effect and therefore the right of succession dated back to the date of the
United States for employment. Upon discovery of safety defects in the hospital’s oxygen and nitrous
de facto recognition of the King of Haile as sovereign of Ethiopia to the second half of due 1936.
oxide lines, Nelson (P) disclosed this to the hospital officials as well as the Saudi government (D)
Note: De jure - legitimate government with color of authority but not exercising actual power commission. Several months after Nelson (P) was told by the hospital officers to ignore the problems, he
was called into the hospital’s security office and arrested.
NATIONAL BANK OF NEW YORK v. REPUBLIC OF CHINA
He was summarily transported to a jail cell where he was chained, beaten, tortured and kept without
Facts: food for four days. Nelson (P) was released after he had spent thirty-nine days in prison and was
allowed to leave the country. Upon his arrival in the United States, the Nelson’s (P) filed suit against
The Shanghai-Nanking Railway Administration, an official agency of respondent Republic of China,
Saudi Arabia (D) seeking damages for personal injury. The Nelsons’ (P) also claimed a basis of recovery
established a $200,000 deposit account in 1948 with the New York head office of petitioner National City
in Saudi Arabia (D) for its failure to inform him about the hidden dangers associated with his
Bank of New York. Subsequently, respondent sought to withdraw the funds, but petitioner refused to
employment. This judgment was however appealed by Saudi Arabia (D).
pay, and respondent brought suit in Federal District Court.
In 1988, Nelson and his wife filed this action against petitioners in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida seeking damages for personal injury.

Issue:

Can the Saudi Arabia be immuned from suit?

Ruling:

Yes. Restrictive Theory - That a state engages in commercial activity under that theory where it
exercises only those powers that can also be exercised by private citizens, rather than those powers
peculiar to sovereigns. What happened was exercise of Police Power or acts of officers.

Unless the action is based upon a commercial activity in the manner of a private player within the
market, foreign states are entitled to immunity from the jurisdiction of the courts in the US. Hence, the
torture allegation which was levied against Saudi Arabia does not fall under the purview of the definition
of “commercial activity” as contained in the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976.

On the part of Nelson, his claim about not being warned of the peril attached to his job does not have
any merit because sovereign nations have no duty to warn of their propensity for tortuous conducts.
REPARATIONS FOR INJURIES SUFFERED IN THE SERVICE OF THE UN Forthwith, the ADB and the DFA notified respondent Labor Arbiter that the ADB, as well as its President
and Office, were covered by an immunity from legal process.
Facts:
Issue:
Count Folke Bernadotte of Wisburg (relative of King Gustaf of Sweden), had rescued more than 30,000
prisoners from German concentration camps in World War II through mediation. As Vice-Chairman of Is ADB immuned from suit?
the Swedish Red Cross, he freed many Jews, but his status of a hero was short-lived. The newly-formed
UN had appointed Bernadotte as the mediator in the first Israeli-Arab conflict in Palestine, with Israel Ruling:
fighting for independence. With his first partition plan, Bernadotte angered many extremist forces within
Israel. He came to be seen as enemy of Israel, and was assassinated in Jerusalem by the Jewish group
YES. Under Article 55 of Agreement on the Establishment of ADB — All Governors, Directors,
in 1948.
alternates, officers and employees of the Bank, including experts performing missions for the Bank:
Issue: (1) shall be immune from legal process with respect of acts performed by them in their official capacity,
except when the Bank waives the immunity. 
Does the UN has "the capacity to bring an international claim against the responsible de jure or de facto Under Article 50 (1) The Bank shall enjoy immunity from every form of legal process except for
government with a view to obtaining the reparation due in respect of the damage caused (a) to the borrowings, guaranties or the sale of securities.
United Nations, (b) to the victim or to persons entitled through him" when the defendant State is not a
In Public International Law, when a state or international agency wishes to plead sovereign or diplomatic
member of the Organization.
immunity in a foreign court, it requests the Foreign Office of the state where it is sued to convey to the
court that said defendant is entitled to immunity.
Ruling:
In the Philippines, the practice is for the foreign government or the international organization to first
YES. secure an executive endorsement of its claim of sovereign or diplomatic immunity.
In the case at bench, the Department of Foreign Affairs, through the Office of Legal Affairs moved with
The legal personality of international organizations was affirmed but it was qualified as being limited. this Court to be allowed to intervene on the side of petitioner. The Court allowed the said Department to
They have legal personality because they were created by States themselves. Thus, when States create file its memorandum in support of petitioner's claim of sovereign immunity.
an international organization, it follows that they would have given such a created entity the power to act
The obvious reason for this is that the subjection of such an organization to the authority of the local
in the international sphere. However, this legal personality that has been delegated to the IO by the
courts would afford a convenient medium thru which the host government may interfere in their
States that created them is limited and may only be used to achieve the purposes for which they were
operations or even influence or control its policies and decisions of the organization; besides, such
created or for acts inherent thereto.
subjection to local jurisdiction would impair the capacity of such body to discharge its responsibilities
The Un is regarded in international law as possessing the powers which, even if they are not expressly impartially behalf of its member-states.
stated in the Charter, are conferred upon the Organization as essential to the discharge of its functions.
LASCO v. UN
The risk of possible competition between the Organization and the victim’s national state could be Facts:
eliminated either by means of a general convention or by a particular agreement in any individual case.
Petitioners were dismissed from their employment with private respondent, the United Nations Revolving
*Ongoing debate – if a State wishes, it may refuse to recognize the personality of an organization that it Fund for Natural Resources Exploration (UNRFNRE), which is a special fund and subsidiary organ of the
played no part in creating. United Nations. The UNRFNRE is involved in a joint project of the Philippine Government and the United
Nations for exploration work in Dinagat Island.
DFA v. NLRC Petitioners filed for illegal dismissal before the NLRC. Private respondent invoke its diplomatic immunity
pursuant to the 1946 Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the UN of which the PH is an
original signatory.
Facts:
Issue:
Private respondent filed a case before the NLRC for alleged illegal dismissal by ADB and the latter's Can the private respondent invoke its diplomatic immunity?
violation of the "labor-only" contracting law. Two summonses were served, one sent directly to the ADB
and the other through the Department of Foreign Affairs ("DFA"), both with a copy of the complaint. Ruling:
YES. The diplomatic immunity of private respondent was sufficiently established by the letter of the Facts:
Department of Foreign Affairs, recognizing and confirming the immunity of UNRFNRE in accordance
with the 1946 Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations where the Philippine (1) As an aftermath of the Vietnam War, the plight of Vietnamese refugees fleeing from South
Government was a party. The issue whether an international organization is entitled to diplomatic Vietnam's communist rule confronted the international community.
immunity is a "political question" and such determination by the executive branch is conclusive on the In response to this crisis, on 23 February 1981, an Agreement was forged between the Philippine
courts and quasi-judicial agencies. Government and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees whereby an operating center for
Our courts can only assume jurisdiction over private respondent if it expressly waived its immunity, processing Indo-Chinese refugees for eventual resettlement to other countries was to be established in
which is not so in the case at bench. Bataan.
ICMC was one of those accredited by the Philippine Government to operate the refugee processing
Private respondent is not engaged in a commercial venture in the Philippines. Its presence here is by center in Morong, Bataan. It was incorporated in New York, USA, at the request of the Holy See, as a
virtue of a joint project entered into by the Philippine Government and the United Nations for mineral non-profit agency involved in international humanitarian and voluntary work. It is duly registered with the
exploration in Dinagat Island. Its mission is not to exploit our natural resources and gain pecuniarily United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) and enjoys Consultative Status, Category II.
thereby but to help improve the quality of life of the people, including that of petitioners. The Trade Unions of the Philippines and Allied Services (TUPAS) filed with the then Ministry of Labor
and Employment a Petition for Certification Election among the rank and file members employed by
WHO v. Aquino ICMC. The latter opposed the petition on the ground that it is an international organization registered
with the United Nations and, hence, enjoys diplomatic immunity.
Facts:
Petitioner Dr. Leonce Verstuyft was assigned by the WHO in Manila as Acting Asst. Director of Health (2) The Philippine Government and the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations signed a
Services. Memorandum of Understanding establishing the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI)
at Los Baños, Laguna. It was intended to be an autonomous, philanthropic, tax-free, non-
Respondents Constabulary Offshore Action Center (COSAC) officers applied a warrant before the court profit, non-stock organization designed to carry out the principal objective of conducting
for the search and seizure of ten crates consigned to petitioner Verstuyft stored at the Eternit "basic research on the rice plant, on all phases of rice production, management, distribution
Corporation warehouse on the ground that they “contain large quantities of highly dutiable goods beyond and utilization with a view to attaining nutritive and economic advantage or benefit for the
the official needs of petitioner” and “for purposes of taxation.” people of Asia and other major rice-growing areas through improvement in quality and
Issue: quantity of rice."

Is the petitioner entitled to diplomatic immunity from search of his baggage?

Initially, IRRI was organized and registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission as a private
Ruling: corporation subject to all laws and regulations. However, by virtue of Pres. Decree No. 1620,
promulgated on 19 April 1979, IRRI was granted the status, prerogatives, privileges and immunities of
YES. He is entitled to diplomatic immunity, pursuant to the Host Agreement executed on July 22, 1951 an international organization.
between the Philippine Government and the World Health Organization.
Such diplomatic immunity carries with it, among other diplomatic privileges and immunities, personal The Kapisanan filed a Petition for Direct Certification Election with the Region IV of DOLE.
inviolability, inviolability of the official's properties, exemption from local jurisdiction, and exemption from
taxation and customs duties.
Issue:
The executive branch of the Philippine Government has expressly  recognized that petitioner Verstuyft is
entitled to diplomatic immunity, pursuant to the provisions of the Host Agreement. The Department of Is the ICMC and IRRI entitled to diplomatic immunity? If yes, does it extend to application of labor laws?
Foreign Affairs formally advised respondent judge of the Philippine Government's official position that Ruling:
accordingly "Dr. Verstuyft cannot be the subject of a Philippine court summons without violating an
obligation in international law of the Philippine Government" and asked for the quashal of the search YES. Article II of the Memorandum of Agreement between the Philippine Government and ICMC
warrant, since his personal effects and baggages after having been allowed free entry from all customs provides that ICMC shall have a status "similar to that of a specialized agency."
duties and taxes, may not be baselessly claimed to have been "unlawfully imported" in violation of the Article III, Sections 4 and 5 of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of Specialized Agencies,
tariff and customs code as claimed by respondents COSAC officers. The Solicitor-General, as principal adopted by the UN General Assembly on 21 November 1947 and concurred in by the Philippine Senate
law officer of the Government, likewise expressly affirmed said petitioner's right to diplomatic immunity through Resolution No. 19 on 17 May 1949, explicitly provides:
and asked for the quashal of the search warrant.
Art. III, Section 4. The specialized agencies, their property and assets, wherever located and by
whomsoever held, shall enjoy immunity from every form of legal process  except insofar as in any
(1) International Catholic Migration Commission v. Calleja particular case they have expressly waived their immunity. It is, however, understood that no waiver of
(2) Kapisanan ng Manggagawa at Tac v. Sec of Labor & International Rice Research Institute immunity shall extend to any measure of execution.
IRRI is similarly situated, Pres. Decree No. 1620, Article 3, is explicit in its grant of immunity, thus: the Tribunal for the trials of high-level Nazi officials seized after the war. Prior to the Nuremberg trials,
Art. 3. Immunity from Legal Process. — The Institute shall enjoy immunity from any penal, civil and war crimes were limited to the military courts of the individual countries; “for the first time, the concepts
administrative proceedings, except insofar as that immunity has been expressly waived by the Director- of collective guilt were used to justify punishment,” (Facts On File News Services, 1997).  Some 5,000
General of the Institute or his authorized representatives. Nazi’s were charged with war crimes.  However, the Nuremberg trials were designed specifically to
prosecute high-ranking Nazi officials with whom authority over heinous atrocities rested. The four counts
There are basically three propositions underlying the grant of international immunities to international of the indictment were: 1- Conspiracy to commit crimes alleged in other counts; 2- Crimes against
organizations. These principles, contained in the ILO Memorandum are stated thus: peace; 3- War crimes; 4- Crimes against humanity. The Nuremburg trials were one of the first organized
attempts to apply principles of international law, and established new precedents for the international
1) international institutions should have a status which protects them against control or interference by community.
any one government in the performance of functions for the effective discharge of which they are
responsible to democratically constituted international bodies in which all the nations concerned are Other source:
represented;
-Defendants argue:  There can be no punishment of crime without a pre-existing law (ex post
2) no country should derive any national financial advantage by levying fiscal charges on common facto punishment is abhorrent to the law of civilized nations)
international funds; and -No sovereign power had made aggressive war a crime at the time the alleged criminal acts
were committed, no statute defined aggressive war, no penalty fixed for its commission, no
3) the international organization should, as a collectivity of States members, be accorded the facilities for court had been created to try/punish offenders.
the conduct of its official business customarily extended to each other by its individual member States. -Court states that this is not a limitation of sovereignty, but in general a principle of justice.
The theory behind all three propositions is said to be essentially institutional in character. "It is not Attacker knew what he did was wrong, would be unjust if his wrong were to go unpunished.
concerned with the status, dignity or privileges of individuals, but with the elements of functional -Attackers knew that they were acting in defiance of all international law when in complete
independence necessary to free international institutions from national control and to enable them to deliberation they carried out their designs of invasion and aggression.
discharge their responsibilities impartially on behalf of all their members. The raison d'etre for these Pact of Paris: binding on 63 nations, including Germany, Italy, and Japan at outbreak of war in
immunities is the assurance of unimpeded performance of their functions by the agencies concerned. 1939.  
After signing the pact, any nation resorting to war as an instrument of national policy breaks
Certification Election is covered by the immunity, regardless of the fact that it is not a the Pact.
suit against ICMC. It could tugger off a series of events in the collective bargaining Hague Convention of 1907: prohibited resort to certain methods of waging war.  
process together with related incidents and/or concerted activities, which could -Includes inhumane treatment of prisoners, the employment of poisoned weapons, improper
inevitably involve ICMC in the "legal process," which includes "any penal, civil and use of flags of truce, etc.  
administrative proceedings." The eventuality of Court litigation is neither remote and The law of war is found in: 1. treaties, 2. customs and practices of states which gradually
from which international organizations are precisely shielded to safeguard them from obtained universal recognition, and 3. general principles of justice applied by jurists and
the disruption of their functions. practised by military courts.
Law is not static: continually adapted, following the needs of a changing world.
What is Certification Election? It refers to a call for recognition of a particular
-Court states that treaties do no more than express and define for more accurate reference the
group in a company as the official labor union to represent the interests of
principles that law which already exist.  
employees towards the management most specifically in CBA negotiations.
Assembly of the League of Nations, 24 September 1927
*Diplomatic immunity is essentially a political question and courts should refuse to look Delegations present (including Ds) unanimously adopted a declaration concerning wars of
beyond a determination by the executive branch of the government, and where the plea aggression.  
of diplomatic immunity is recognized and affirmed by the executive branch of the Pan-American (Havana) Conference:  
government as in the case at bar, it is then the duty of the courts to accept the claim of “war of aggression constitutes an international crime against the human species.”
immunity upon appropriate suggestion by the principal law officer of the government -D’s argue that int’l law is concerned with acts of the states, provides no punishment for
individuals, and where the act is an act of a state, those who carry it out are not responsible,
instead are protected under doctrine of sovereignty of the State.
INDIVIDUALS AS SUBJECTS OF PIL (The Modern View) Court denies:  International law imposes duties and liabilities upon individuals as well as upon
States.
THE JUDGMENT OF THE NUREMBERG TRIAL Crimes against international law are committed by men, not by abstract entities, and
international law provisions can be enforced only by punishing individuals who commit such
Facts: WWII between Allied Powers (US, Great Britain, France, Soviet Union) and Axis Powers
crimes.
(Germany, Italy, Japan)
-Can’t shelter self behind official position in order to be freed from punishment.
Shortly after WWII ended in May 1945, Allied governments jointly agreed that those responsible for The official position of Ds, whether as heads of state, or responsible officials in government
wartime atrocities must be held accountable and punished for their crimes. The International Military departments, shall not be considered as freeing them from responsibility, or mitigating
Tribunal (IMT) was organized in the German city of Nuremberg in order to do just that. The United punishment.
States, Great Britain, France, and the Soviet Union each appointed judges and supplied prosecutors to
HOLDING
Resort to a war of aggression is not merely illegal, but is criminal
Other source:
Members of the National Socialist (Nazi) Party in Germany (defendants)
orchestrated an invasion of Poland in 1939 and also seized Austria and
Czechoslovakia, beginning World War II. The defendants’ invasion had been
pre-planned and carefully orchestrated in order to expand the territory of
Germany. The defendants knew that war would probably be necessary to
achieve their goals. Under the terms of the London Agreement—signed after
World War II by France, the United Kingdom, the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics (U.S.S.R.), and the United States—an International Military
Tribunal was formed to try the war criminals of World War II, including the
defendants. The Nuremburg Charter that formed the tribunal defined crimes
against peace as “planning, preparation, initiation, or waging of a war of
aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties.”
Other source:
Brief summary: For instigating wars of aggression against neighboring countries, officials of
Hitler’s Third Reich meaning “Third Regime or Empire 1933-1945”, were indicted.
Synopsis of Rule of Law: It is a crime to plan or wage war in violation of international
treaties.
Facts: Based on the war they instigated, the officials of Hitler’s Third Reich were indicted.
Issue: Is it a crime to plan or wage war that is a war of aggression or a war in violation of
international treaties?
Ruling: Yes. The nations who signed the Kellog-Briand Pact/Pact of Paris (General Treaty for
Renunciation of War as an Instrument of National Policy) – 1928 international agreement in
which signatory states promised not to use war to resolve disputes or conflicts of whatever
nature or of whatever origin, which may arise among them -- or adhered to it
unconditionally condemned recourse to war as an instrument of policy and expressly
renounced it.