PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW
Public International Law governs the relationship between sovereign states and international entities. In the Philippines, international law is recognized as part of the law of the land, as affirmed by Article II, Section 2 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, which provides that the Philippines adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of its legal system. Below are the major subtopics of Public International Law in the Philippines, with relevant case laws.
Sources of International Law
The sources of international law, as recognized in Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), include treaties, customary international law, general principles of law recognized by civilized nations, judicial decisions, and teachings of the most qualified publicists.
These sources play a crucial role in shaping both global and domestic legal systems. The Constitution and Supreme Court decisions have reinforced the significance of these international law sources, integrating them into the national legal framework.
Treaties
Treaties are formal agreements between sovereign states or international organizations that are legally binding under international law. In the Philippines, treaties become part of domestic law once ratified and concurred by the Senate, in accordance with Article VII, Section 21 of the 1987 Constitution.
Pimentel v. Office of the Executive Secretary
G.R. No. 158088, July 6, 2005
This case involved Senator Aquilino Pimentel questioning the constitutionality of the Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA), particularly its ratification process.
Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that the Senate’s concurrence is essential for the enforcement of treaties, in line with the Philippine Constitution’s requirements. The Court emphasized that under the Constitution, treaties and international agreements must undergo a two-step process before becoming effective. First, the President, through the Executive branch, negotiates and signs the treaty or agreement. Second, the Senate must review and concur with the treaty by a two-thirds majority vote for it to be valid and binding on the Philippines. In this case, as the JPEPA had not yet undergone this process, it was not yet valid or enforceable.
G.R. No. 159618, February 1, 2011
The case focused on the Mutual Logistics Support Agreement (MLSA) between the Philippines and the United States, and whether it required Senate concurrence.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the respondents, holding that the MLSA is an executive agreement and, therefore, does not require Senate concurrence. The Court explained that an executive agreement is binding without the need for Senate approval if it is made in accordance with existing policies, laws, or treaties that have already been concurred in by the Senate.
Ratio Decidendi:
The Court distinguished between treaties and executive agreements. A treaty requires Senate concurrence because it creates new international obligations or amends existing ones. However, an executive agreement does not need Senate approval if it implements existing treaties, laws, or policies. The Court held that the MLSA fell into the category of an executive agreement because it was made under the authority of the existing Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA), which the Senate had already concurred with. Therefore, no further Senate action was necessary for the MLSA.
Significance:
The case clarified the distinction between treaties and executive agreements in Philippine law. It reaffirmed that executive agreements, if based on existing treaties or laws, do not require Senate concurrence, while treaties that establish new international obligations do.
Customary International Law
Customary international law consists of practices that are consistently followed by states out of a sense of legal obligation. These are unwritten norms that evolve through general state practice and are accepted as law.
G.R. No. L-4254, September 26, 1951
This case involved a stateless alien, Mejoff, detained by Philippine authorities for deportation, which could not be executed.
Mejoff, a Russian national, was arrested in the Philippines as a suspected Japanese spy during World War II. After the war, he was ordered deported by the Philippine government for being an undesirable alien. However, due to the political situation in Russia, no country was willing to accept Mejoff, and he remained in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons for an extended period.
Mejoff filed a habeas corpus petition seeking his release from detention, arguing that his prolonged detention without deportation was illegal since no country was willing to receive him.
Issue:
Whether the continued detention of Mejoff, despite the inability to deport him, is lawful.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mejoff and ordered his release. The Court held that while the government has the power to detain an alien for deportation, such detention cannot be indefinite. Mejoff’s prolonged detention without any real prospect of deportation was deemed unreasonable and illegal.
Ratio Decidendi:
The Court ruled that the power of the state to deport undesirable aliens does not give the state the authority to detain an alien indefinitely when deportation cannot be accomplished. Detention must be reasonably related to the deportation process, and if deportation is not possible within a reasonable time, the detainee must be released. The Court emphasized the protection of individual liberty, holding that no person should be subject to indefinite detention without legal justification.
Significance:
This case is a landmark decision on the limits of the government’s authority to detain individuals for deportation. It reinforced the principle that prolonged or indefinite detention without a clear legal basis violates the right to liberty, even for aliens subject to deportation. The ruling also emphasized that the government must act within reasonable timeframes when enforcing deportation orders.
General Principles of Law Recognized by Civilized Nations
General principles of law refer to fundamental legal concepts and principles that are common to major legal systems worldwide, such as due process, equity, and good faith. These principles fill gaps where treaties and customary law may not provide clear guidance.
Government of the United States of America v. Purganan
G.R. No. 148571, September 24, 2002
Mark B. Jimenez, also known as Mario Crespo, was wanted in the United States for various charges, including tax evasion, wire fraud, and conspiracy. The United States Government requested his extradition under the Philippines-U.S. Extradition Treaty. Jimenez opposed the petition for his extradition and filed an application for bail, arguing that he should be entitled to provisional liberty while the extradition proceedings were ongoing.
The Regional Trial Court granted Jimenez’s application for bail, but the Government of the United States of America, through the Philippine government, questioned the decision before the Supreme Court, arguing that bail is not allowed in extradition proceedings.
Issue:
Whether a person facing extradition is entitled to bail during the pendency of the extradition proceedings.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Government of the United States of America and reversed the lower court’s decision to grant bail to Jimenez.
Ratio Decidendi:
The Court held that extradition proceedings are not criminal in nature, and thus, the right to bail, as guaranteed under the Constitution for criminal cases, does not automatically apply. The Court ruled that bail may be granted in extradition cases only in highly exceptional circumstances, such as when the petitioner can show that detention would be highly oppressive and that there are special humanitarian considerations. In this case, Jimenez failed to present any special circumstances that would justify his release on bail.
The Court emphasized that extradition is a tool of international cooperation and that those facing extradition should not be treated as mere criminal defendants entitled to the same constitutional protections. The risk of flight is higher in extradition cases since the person is sought for criminal prosecution abroad.
Significance:
This case set a precedent that bail is generally not available in extradition cases unless there are extraordinary circumstances. It clarified that extradition is not equivalent to criminal prosecution within the Philippines and, therefore, constitutional protections like the right to bail do not automatically apply. This ruling strengthened international cooperation in criminal matters and reinforced the principle that persons subject to extradition should be treated differently from ordinary criminal defendants.
Judicial Decisions
While not a formal source of international law, judicial decisions of both international and domestic courts can help interpret and apply international law principles. Philippine courts often cite rulings from international tribunals and foreign courts when resolving cases involving international legal issues.
Secretary of Justice v. Lantion
G.R. No. 139465, January 18, 2000
The United States requested the extradition of Mark Jimenez (Mario Crespo) under the RP-US Extradition Treaty. The Department of Justice (DOJ) began to process this request. Secretary of Justice Serafin Cuevas sought to keep the process confidential, particularly the documents related to the request, and did not notify Jimenez of the extradition request. Jimenez petitioned the Regional Trial Court (RTC), claiming that his right to due process was being violated, as he should be informed of the charges and allowed to defend himself even at the early stages of the extradition process.
The RTC ruled in favor of Jimenez, requiring the DOJ to furnish him with the documents related to the extradition request. Secretary Cuevas appealed this decision to the Supreme Court, arguing that the person being extradited has no right to be informed during the initial stages of the extradition process.
Issue:
Whether a prospective extraditee, like Jimenez, is entitled to due process, specifically the right to be informed and have access to documents related to the extradition request during the evaluation stage at the Department of Justice.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Lantion, upholding the right to due process at all stages of the extradition process.
Ratio Decidendi:
The Court held that due process applies to the preliminary stages of an extradition request. The Court reasoned that while the extradition process is not criminal in nature, it still affects the liberty of the individual involved. Because of the potential deprivation of liberty, a prospective extraditee has the right to due process, which includes the right to be informed of the charges and the right to access documents related to the case.
The Court found that the DOJ’s withholding of documents violated Jimenez’s right to due process. The DOJ should have notified him of the extradition request and provided the necessary documents so that he could prepare a defense before any decision was made about the request.
Significance:
This ruling strengthened the due process rights of individuals facing extradition. It affirmed that even during the preliminary evaluation stage, the person being extradited must be notified and given access to the relevant documents to prepare their defense. The case ensures a balance between the Philippines’ international obligations under extradition treaties and its constitutional duty to protect the rights of individuals.
Teachings of the Most Qualified Publicists
The teachings of qualified publicists—including legal scholars and experts in international law—are recognized as subsidiary means for determining the rules of law in international jurisprudence. While these writings are not considered primary sources of international law, they play an important role in interpreting or clarifying the application of treaties, customary international law, and general principles of law. This is especially true in situations where the law is evolving or where there is no clear consensus among states.
Philippine Application
In the Philippine legal system, the Supreme Court seldom makes direct references to the teachings of publicists in its decisions. However, international law theories and scholarly works frequently influence judicial reasoning, particularly in complex cases involving international legal principles. These teachings can be persuasive sources when interpreting the scope of the Philippines’ obligations under international law, especially in the absence of a controlling treaty or customary rule.
Doctrines of International Law
International law is founded on several essential doctrines that shape how states interact with one another and how international actors conduct themselves on the global stage. These doctrines function as fundamental principles designed to uphold global order, safeguard human rights, and promote peaceful cooperation among nations. By applying these doctrines in international courts and tribunals, the international community ensures that states are held accountable for their conduct, and that their legal obligations under international law are enforced. This system of accountability strengthens the rule of law across borders and helps to prevent conflict and injustice.
The Philippines, as an active member of the global community, recognizes and adheres to these key doctrines, both within its domestic legal framework and in fulfilling its commitments to international agreements. The country’s participation in various international treaties and conventions is a testament to its ongoing role in upholding the principles of international law, ensuring that global standards are integrated into its national policies and practices.
These doctrines serve as foundational principles for resolving disputes, fostering cooperation, and maintaining global order. Below are some of the major doctrines in international law:
Doctrine of State Sovereignty
The Doctrine of State Sovereignty is a core principle of international law, asserting that each state has supreme authority within its own territory and is equal in rights and duties to other states. Sovereignty implies that states are free from external interference in their internal affairs, provided they respect the sovereignty of other states and comply with international obligations.
United States v. Nicaragua (ICJ, 1986)
The U.S. was found to have violated Nicaragua’s sovereignty by training, arming, and supporting Contra forces engaged in military activities against Nicaragua, breaching the customary international law principle of non-intervention. Additionally, the U.S. violated the prohibition on the use of force by attacking Nicaraguan territory in military operations between 1983 and 1984. Unauthorized overflights of Nicaraguan territory and other acts of force further breached Nicaragua’s sovereignty.
The U.S. also mined Nicaragua’s internal and territorial waters in early 1984, violating customary international law on the non-use of force and respect for sovereignty, as well as Article XIX of the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce, and Navigation. Although the U.S. was criticized for producing manual encouraging acts contrary to humanitarian law, these acts were not directly attributable to the U.S. Moreover, the Court ruled that the U.S. embargo on Nicaragua, imposed in May 1985, violated its treaty obligations.
The U.S. was ordered to cease these illegal actions immediately and make reparations for the harm caused to Nicaragua due to breaches of customary international law and the treaty.
Doctrine of Self-Determination
The Doctrine of Self-Determination asserts that people have the right to freely determine their political status and pursue their economic, social, and cultural development. This doctrine is central to decolonization movements and is recognized under the United Nations Charter and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
East Timor (Portugal v. Australia, ICJ, 1995)
Case Digest: East Timor (Portugal v. Australia)
International Court of Justice, 1995
In 1995, Portugal initiated proceedings before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against Australia, regarding the legality of a treaty signed between Australia and Indonesia in 1989, which concerned the exploitation of oil and gas resources in the Timor Sea. The agreement was made without the involvement of East Timor, which at the time was under Indonesia’s occupation. Portugal, as the administering power of East Timor under international law, argued that the treaty violated East Timor’s right to self-determination.
Portugal claimed that the 1989 treaty between Australia and Indonesia on the Timor Sea resources was invalid because it failed to respect the principle of self-determination for East Timor, which was not represented in the negotiations. Portugal argued that the Indonesian occupation of East Timor was illegal and, as a result, any agreements made by Indonesia concerning the territory’s resources were also invalid. Australia, on the other hand, argued that the case was based on a political issue that could not be adjudicated by the ICJ and that the matter should be resolved through diplomatic means rather than litigation.
Issue:
Whether Australia’s 1989 agreement with Indonesia regarding the exploitation of resources in the Timor Sea violated East Timor’s right to self-determination.
Ruling:
The International Court of Justice ruled that it could not hear the case because East Timor was not a party to the dispute and had not consented to the court’s jurisdiction. The ICJ held that the matter was within the scope of bilateral relations between Australia and Indonesia, and the court could not interfere in an issue involving the sovereignty of a state that had not consented to its jurisdiction. Thus, the ICJ did not rule on the substantive issue of self-determination.
Rationale:
The ICJ emphasized that under international law, the rights of a people to self-determination are fundamental; however, the case involved a bilateral dispute between Australia and Indonesia, with no consent from East Timor to participate in the legal proceedings. The court concluded that the application of self-determination principles in this context was a matter that needed to be addressed through diplomatic channels and negotiations, rather than litigation before the court.
Conclusion:
The International Court of Justice dismissed the case on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction, ruling that the dispute over the exploitation of resources in the Timor Sea between Australia and Indonesia could not be adjudicated without the participation of East Timor. This decision underscored the significance of the principle of self-determination but also highlighted the importance of consent in the ICJ’s jurisdiction. The ruling left the question of East Timor’s self-determination and its resource rights to be addressed in the political and diplomatic arenas.
Doctrine of State Immunity
Principle: The doctrine of State immunity holds that a state cannot be sued in the courts of another state without its consent.
Holy See v. Rosario, Jr. (G.R. No. 101949, December 1, 1994)
The Holy See, through the Apostolic Nuncio to the Philippines, filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition against the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) and the Bureau of Immigration to challenge the deportation order of respondent, Rosario, Jr. Rosario, a Filipino national, was a former diplomat who had served as a member of the Holy See’s diplomatic mission to the Philippines. He was accused of engaging in unlawful activities while in the Philippines, particularly attempting to interfere in local political matters and violating Philippine laws.
The Philippine government issued an order of deportation against Rosario for violating immigration laws and engaging in activities incompatible with his diplomatic status. The Holy See, however, invoked diplomatic immunity on behalf of Rosario, asserting that, as a representative of a foreign government, Rosario should be protected from local legal proceedings and deportation under the principle of diplomatic immunity.
Issue:
Whether the Holy See, as a sovereign entity, can invoke diplomatic immunity on behalf of its representative (Rosario) in the Philippines to prevent his deportation.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Philippine government, affirming the validity of the deportation order against Rosario. The Court held that the diplomatic immunity granted to foreign representatives does not extend to violations of Philippine laws or activities that are not related to the official duties of the diplomat.
The Court explained that while the principle of diplomatic immunity is well-established in international law, it is not absolute. Diplomatic immunity protects foreign diplomats from legal processes only in connection with their official functions. If a diplomat, or any person with diplomatic status, engages in unlawful activities that are not related to their diplomatic functions, they may be subject to local laws, including deportation.
The Court emphasized that the Holy See’s diplomatic status did not shield Rosario from accountability under Philippine law for actions unrelated to his diplomatic duties. As a result, the deportation order issued by the Philippine government was upheld.
Rationale:
The Court based its ruling on the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which allows for diplomatic immunity but also provides exceptions in cases where diplomats engage in activities outside their official functions. In this case, Rosario’s actions, which involved unlawful interference in domestic affairs, were found to fall outside the scope of his diplomatic duties and privileges.
The ruling also highlighted the sovereignty of the Philippines to enforce its own laws, including immigration laws, against individuals who do not enjoy diplomatic immunity for actions unrelated to their diplomatic mission.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court ruled that the Holy See’s invocation of diplomatic immunity on behalf of Rosario, Jr. was not valid in this case. The Court upheld the deportation order, emphasizing that diplomatic immunity does not protect foreign diplomats from local jurisdiction when they engage in activities that are not related to their official functions. The Court’s decision affirmed the Philippine government’s right to enforce its immigration laws and deport individuals who violate them, regardless of their diplomatic status.
Doctrine of Non-Intervention
The Doctrine of Non-Intervention complements state sovereignty by prohibiting states from intervening in the internal or external affairs of other states, particularly through the use of force or coercion. This principle is enshrined in the United Nations Charter (Article 2(4)).
Nicaragua v. United States (ICJ, 1986)
In this landmark case, the ICJ ruled that the United States violated the non-intervention principle by assisting rebel groups in Nicaragua and conducting operations within its territory.
Doctrine of Jus Cogens (Peremptory Norms)
Jus Cogens norms are fundamental principles of international law that are universally recognized as non-derogable. These norms include prohibitions on genocide, slavery, torture, and aggression. No state can violate these norms, and no derogation from these principles is permitted, even by treaty.
The ICJ’s judgment in the Case Concerning Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda) affirmed that violations of jus cogens norms, such as acts of aggression and human rights abuses, cannot be justified.
Doctrine of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P)
The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine emerged in the early 2000s and posits that the international community has a responsibility to intervene, through diplomatic, humanitarian, or military means, to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity if the state in question is unable or unwilling to do so.
United Nations Intervention in Libya (2011)
The UN Security Council, invoking the R2P doctrine, authorized military intervention in Libya to protect civilians from mass atrocities being committed by the regime of Muammar Gaddafi.
Universal Jurisdiction
Principle: The principle of universal jurisdiction allows states to prosecute individuals for certain crimes (like genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity) regardless of where they were committed, or the nationality of the perpetrators or victims. The Doctrine of Universal Jurisdiction allows states to claim criminal jurisdiction over an accused person regardless of where the crime was committed or the nationality of the accused. This applies to certain grave crimes such as genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and torture.
In Re: Request of the Westinghouse Electric Corporation for Judicial Assistance (G.R. No. 75885, February 12, 1987)
This case dealt with allegations of corruption in the Marcos regime. While it primarily involved issues of corruption, the case also touched on the application of universal jurisdiction in holding individuals accountable for serious international crimes.
Arrest Warrant Case (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium, ICJ, 2002)
In this case, Belgium issued an arrest warrant for a Congolese foreign minister based on universal jurisdiction for alleged war crimes. The ICJ ruled that sitting foreign ministers are entitled to immunity from prosecution.
Doctrine of Diplomatic Immunity
The Doctrine of Diplomatic Immunity is based on the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961), which grants foreign diplomats immunity from the jurisdiction of the host state. This immunity ensures that diplomats can perform their duties without fear of harassment or interference.
Minucher v. Court of Appeals (Philippines, 2003)
In this case, an Iranian diplomat invoked diplomatic immunity to avoid prosecution in the Philippines. The Supreme Court upheld the immunity, citing the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.
Doctrine of Incorporation
Principle: Under the Doctrine of Incorporation, generally accepted principles of international law form part of the law of the land, even without legislative enactment. This is enshrined in the 1987 Philippine Constitution, Article II, Section 2.
Kuroda v. Jalandoni
G.R. No. L-2662, March 26, 1949
This case involved a Japanese general convicted of war crimes after World War II. He questioned the jurisdiction of the Philippine military tribunal trying him.
Ruling: The Supreme Court upheld the tribunal’s jurisdiction, citing the incorporation of the Geneva Conventions and international law principles into Philippine law, which provided the legal basis for the prosecution of war crimes.
Doctrine of Transformation
Principle: This doctrine requires that international law must be transformed into domestic law through legislation before it can be applied. The Philippines typically applies this doctrine in relation to treaties that need to be ratified by the Senate.
MeTC Judge Caesar O. Buenagua v. CA and Ma. Ludivina P. Tangcangco (G.R. No. 178063, April 6, 2011)
In this case, the Court held that international conventions, including the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, must be transformed into Philippine law through proper legislative processes before they could be used as the basis for a decision.
Doctrine of Pacta Sunt Servanda
Principle: The Doctrine of Pacta Sunt Servanda means that “agreements must be kept.” This principle holds that treaties and international agreements are binding on the parties and must be performed in good faith. This principle mandates that states must comply with their treaty obligations in good faith. The Philippines has invoked this principle in cases involving the enforcement of treaties.
Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region v. Olalia, Jr. (G.R. No. 153675, April 19, 2007)
This case involved an extradition treaty between the Philippines and Hong Kong. The Supreme Court emphasized that under pacta sunt servanda, the Philippines is bound to honor its treaty obligations and thus must comply with its commitment under the Extradition Treaty with Hong Kong.
In the Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project Case (Hungary v. Slovakia, ICJ, 1997), the ICJ reaffirmed that treaties must be respected, and any unilateral suspension of treaty obligations must be justified under international law.
The Principle of Non-Refoulement
Principle: The principle of non-refoulement prohibits the return of individuals to a country where they may face persecution. This principle is enshrined in the 1951 Refugee Convention and has been applied in the Philippines.
Commissioner of Immigration v. Go Teh (G.R. No. 147571, October 25, 2001)
The Supreme Court of the Philippines applied the principle of non-refoulement in the case of Go Teh, ruling that the deportation of a Chinese national to a country where he feared persecution was illegal.
Doctrine of Territorial Integrity
The Doctrine of Territorial Integrity maintains that the borders and territories of states are inviolable and should not be altered by force. It emphasizes the importance of maintaining the geographical boundaries of a state as recognized by international law.
The ICJ’s decision in the Case Concerning the Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso v. Mali, 1986) stressed the principle of territorial integrity, rejecting attempts by either party to alter their recognized borders through force.
Doctrine of International Humanitarian Law (IHL)
International Humanitarian Law (IHL), also known as the law of war or the law of armed conflict, seeks to limit the effects of armed conflict by protecting those who are not participating in hostilities (civilians) and restricting the means and methods of warfare. The Geneva Conventions are central to this doctrine.
International Committee of the Red Cross v. Sandiganbayan (Philippines, 1991)
This case affirmed the immunity of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in the Philippines due to its role in upholding international humanitarian law.
Right to a Clean and Healthy Environment (Customary International Law)
The right to a clean and healthy environment is increasingly recognized as a fundamental human right under both international and domestic legal systems. Although not explicitly stated in all international treaties, it has evolved through customary international law and the development of international environmental agreements. This right is derived from the general principles of law that emphasize the protection of human life and health, as well as the duty of states to prevent environmental harm.
In the Philippines, the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is explicitly enshrined in the Philippine Constitution, under Article II, Section 16, which states:
“The State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.”
This provision incorporates the international customary law principle that acknowledges the environment as an essential part of the human rights framework.
Customary International Law on Environmental Protection
Customary international law on environmental protection consists of principles that have been consistently followed by states, such as the precautionary principle, polluter-pays principle, and the duty not to cause transboundary harm. These principles contribute to the recognition of the right to a healthy environment.
Precautionary Principle: This principle suggests that when there is a risk of significant harm to the environment or human health, the absence of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation.
Polluter-Pays Principle: The party responsible for causing pollution should bear the cost of managing it to prevent damage to human health or the environment.
No Transboundary Harm Principle: States have an obligation to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction do not cause environmental harm to other states or areas beyond national jurisdiction.
Philippine Jurisprudence on the Right to a Healthy Environment
Oposa v. Factoran
G.R. No. 101083, July 30, 1993
In this landmark case, a group of minors, represented by their parents, filed a petition for a writ of continuing mandamus against the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), seeking to stop the issuance of timber licenses that were contributing to deforestation and environmental degradation. They based their claim on the right to a balanced and healthful ecology, as stated in the Constitution.
Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, recognizing the right to a balanced and healthful ecology as a self-executing right. This case reinforced the doctrine that this right is intergenerational, meaning it applies not only to the current generation but also to future generations.
Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA) v. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay
G.R. Nos. 171947-48, December 18, 2008
This case involved the responsibility of government agencies to rehabilitate, clean up, and preserve Manila Bay, which had become heavily polluted. The petitioners demanded that the government fulfill its duty to protect the environment under both the Constitution and international environmental agreements.
Ruling: The Supreme Court issued a writ of continuing mandamus, ordering government agencies to undertake specific actions to rehabilitate Manila Bay. The Court emphasized the duty of the state to ensure environmental protection, aligning with international obligations to maintain a healthy environment.
Application of Customary International Law
Philippine jurisprudence often invokes customary international law when addressing environmental concerns. The courts have applied international environmental principles, such as the precautionary principle, when making rulings that affect environmental protection.
Resident Marine Mammals of the Protected Seascape Tañon Strait v. Reyes
G.R. No. 180771, April 21, 2015
This case involved a petition for certiorari challenging the legality of oil exploration in the Tañon Strait, a protected marine area. The petitioners argued that the government’s decision to allow exploration violated the right to a balanced and healthful ecology and international environmental standards.
Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, invoking the precautionary principle. The Court emphasized that the state has a duty to ensure that environmental protection is prioritized, even in the absence of complete scientific certainty regarding the potential harm.
Treaties & Conventions
Definition of Treaties
A treaty is a formal and legally binding agreement between two or more sovereign states or international organizations. It is typically negotiated and signed by representatives of the parties involved and often requires ratification by the respective governments before it becomes legally enforceable. Treaties can cover a wide range of subjects, including trade, defense, environmental issues, and human rights. They are governed by international law, particularly under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) of 1969.
Definition of Conventions
A convention is a type of treaty that generally serves as a framework for international cooperation on specific issues. Conventions often focus on broader topics and establish norms or standards for behavior that states agree to follow. While conventions can be legally binding, they are often seen as more flexible than treaties, and their implementation may rely on states’ willingness to adopt domestic legislation to comply with their provisions. An example of a convention is the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC).
How a Treaty is Entered Into by Countries
The process of entering into a treaty typically involves several key steps, which may vary slightly depending on the domestic laws and procedures of the countries involved. However, the general process is as follows:
1. Negotiation: Representatives of the countries (often diplomats or governmental officials) engage in negotiations to agree on the terms and conditions of the treaty. This stage involves discussions, drafting, and potential amendments to ensure that the parties' interests are adequately addressed.
2. Signature: Once the parties reach an agreement, the treaty is signed by the authorized representatives of the countries involved. The signature indicates the parties’ intention to be bound by the treaty, but it does not yet create legal obligations. It is important to note that the authority to sign treaties usually resides with heads of state, foreign ministers, or designated diplomats.
3. Ratification: After signing, each country must go through its domestic procedures to ratify the treaty. This process often involves the approval of the national legislature or parliament. The ratification process may vary from country to country. In some jurisdictions, a simple majority vote may suffice, while others require a two-thirds majority or a constitutional amendment.
4. Deposit: Once ratified, the treaty is often deposited with a designated authority, typically the United Nations or the government of a country specified in the treaty. This act of depositing signifies the official acceptance of the treaty by the country.
5. Implementation into Domestic Law: After ratification, the treaty becomes part of the domestic law of the ratifying state. The manner of implementation may differ based on the country’s legal system. In a dualist system, treaties require specific legislation to be enacted to incorporate the treaty provisions into domestic law. In contrast, in a monist system, treaties automatically become part of the national legal order upon ratification.
Representation in Treaty Negotiations
Countries are represented in treaty negotiations by designated officials, typically diplomats or members of the government who have the authority to act on behalf of their state. The level of representation can vary depending on the treaty’s significance, ranging from ambassadors to specialized representatives in relevant fields (e.g., environmental, trade, or human rights experts).
Similarities and differences from the procedure in conventions:
The processes of entering into treaties and conventions are fundamentally similar, as both involve agreements between states governed by international law. However, there are key differences that distinguish treaties from conventions, particularly in their purpose, scope, and procedural nuances.
Similarities
1. Negotiation: Both treaties and conventions start with negotiations among states. Representatives engage in discussions to draft the terms and provisions of the agreement.
2. Signature: In both cases, the agreement is signed by representatives of the participating states. This signature indicates preliminary endorsement but does not yet bind the countries to the agreement.
3. Ratification: After signing, both treaties and conventions require ratification through domestic legal processes. Each country must follow its constitutional procedures to formally agree to be bound by the document.
4. Implementation: Both require incorporation into domestic law, either through new legislation or direct application of international law, depending on the country’s legal system (dualist or monist).
Differences
1. Definition and Purpose:
• Treaties are specific agreements between two or more states that can cover a wide range of subjects, including trade, defense, and diplomatic relations. They are often binding in nature.
• Conventions, on the other hand, are generally broader agreements, often established to address specific global issues such as environmental protection or human rights. They tend to involve a larger number of parties and aim to set a standard or framework for cooperation.
2. Adoption:
• Treaties are typically negotiated and signed by specific parties, and each treaty can have unique procedures for its adoption.
• Conventions are often adopted in multilateral conferences where a large number of countries participate. They may follow a more standardized process that involves consensus or majority voting among member states.
3. Binding Nature:
• While both treaties and conventions create legal obligations, conventions often require additional commitments from states to adhere to their principles or objectives, which may be outlined in follow-up protocols or agreements.
4. Ratification Process:
• The ratification process for conventions may include additional steps, such as the establishment of monitoring bodies or mechanisms for implementation, which are less common in the context of bilateral treaties.
In summary:
While treaties and conventions share a common framework for negotiation, signature, ratification, and implementation, they differ in terms of purpose, scope, and procedural details. Understanding these differences is crucial for comprehending how international law is formed and how states engage in cooperative efforts on a global scale.
References:
Carty, A. (2017). International Law: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press.
Shaw, M. N. (2017). International Law (8th ed.). Cambridge University Press.
United Nations. (1969). Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Retrieved from https://treaties.un.org/doc/publication/UNTS/Volume%201155/volume-1155-I-18232-English.pdf