THE LAW OF TREATIES

Santos III vs. Northwest Orient Airlines, 210 SCRA Tanada III vs. Angara, 272 SCRA 18.
256.
Facts:
Facts:
This is a petition seeking to nullify the Philippine ratification of
The petitioner, a minor and a resident of the Philippines, the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement. Petitioners
purchased from private respondent Northwest Orient Airlines question the concurrence of herein respondents acting in their
(NOA), a foreign corporation with principal office in Minnesota, capacities as Senators via signing the said agreement. The WTO
U.S.A. and licensed to do business and maintain a branch opens access to foreign markets, especially its major trading
office in the Philippines, a round-trip ticket in San Francisco. partners, through the reduction of tariffs on its exports,
U.S.A., for his flight from San Francisco to Manila via Tokyo and particularly agricultural and industrial products. Thus, provides
back. The scheduled departure date from Tokyo was December new opportunities for the service sector cost and uncertainty
20, 1986 and no date was specified for his return to San associated with exporting and more investment in the country.
Francisco. Petitioner checked in at the NOA counter in the San
These are the predicted benefits as reflected in the agreement
Francisco airport for his scheduled departure to Manila.
and as viewed by the signatory Senators, a “free market”
However, despite a previous confirmation and re-confirmation,
espoused by WTO. Petitioners on the other hand viewed the
he was informed that he had no reservation for his flight from
WTO agreement as one that limits, restricts and impair
Tokyo to Manila. He therefore had to be wait-listed. Petitioner
Philippine economic sovereignty and legislative power. That the
then sued NOA for damages in the Regional Trial Court of
Filipino First policy of the Constitution was taken for granted as
Makati.
it gives foreign trading intervention.
 North Orient Airlines moved to dismiss the complaint on the
Issue:
ground of lack of jurisdiction invoking Article 28 (1) of the
Warsaw Convention. Whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the
Art. 28. (1) An action for damage must be brought at the option of
Senate in giving its concurrence of the said WTO agreement
the  plaintiff, in the territory of one of the High Contracting
Parties, either  before the court of the domicile of the carrier or of Ruling:
his principal place of business, or where he has a place of
business through which the contract has been made, or before In its Declaration of Principles and state policies, the
the court at the place of destination. Constitution “adopts the generally accepted principles of
international law as part of the law of the land, and adheres to
Respondent contended that the Philippines was not its domicile the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation and
nor was this its principal place of  business. Neither was the amity , with all nations. By the doctrine of incorporation, the
petitioner's ticket issued in this country nor was his destination country is bound by generally accepted principles of
Manila but San Francisco in the United States. The lower court international law, which are considered automatically part of
granted the motion and dismissed the case. However, the our own laws.
petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the
decision of the lower court. Petitioner filed a motion Pacta sunt servanda – international agreements must be
for reconsideration, but the same was denied. Petitioner then performed in good faith. A treaty is not a mere moral obligation
came to Supreme Court, raising the same issues it submitted in but creates a legally binding obligation on the parties. Through
the Court of Appeals. WTO the sovereignty of the state cannot in fact and reality be
considered as absolute because it is a regulation of commercial
Issue: relations among nations. Such as when Philippines joined the
United Nations (UN) it consented to restrict its sovereignty right
Whether or not Article 28 (1) of the Warsaw Convention is
under the “concept of sovereignty as autolimitation.”
constitutional?
What Senate did was a valid exercise of authority. As to
Ruling:
determine whether such exercise is wise, beneficial or viable is
The Court ruled that Article 28 (1) of the Warsaw Convention is outside the realm of judicial inquiry and review. The act of
constitutional The  signing the said agreement is not a legislative restriction as
Warsaw Convention is a treaty commitment voluntarily assu WTO allows withdrawal of membership should this be the
med by the Philippinegovernment and, as such, has the force political desire of a member. Also, it should not be viewed as a
and effect of law in this country. limitation of economic sovereignty.

According to the Supreme Court, “The treaty which is the WTO remains as the only viable structure for multilateral
subject matter of this petition was a joint legislative- trading and the veritable forum for the development of
executive act. The presumption is that it was first carefully international trade law. Its alternative is isolation, stagnation if
studied and determined to be constitutional before it was not economic self-destruction. Thus, the people be allowed,
adopted and given the force of law in this country. through their duly elected officers, make their free choice.

The petitioner's allegations are not convincing enough to

overcome this presumption. Apparently, the Convention
considered the four places designated in Article 28 the most
convenient forums for the litigation of any claim that may arise Arthur Lim [Link]., vs. Executive Secretary, GR #
between the airline and its passenger, as distinguished from all 151445, April 11,2002.
other  places.
Facts:
At any rate, we agree with the respondent court that this case
can be decided on other grounds without the necessity of Pursuant to the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) signed in
resolving the constitutional issue. 1999, personnel from the armed forces of the United States of
America started arriving in Mindanao to take partin "Balikatan
”More over, “It is well-settled that courts will assume jurisdiction 02-1” on January 2002.  The Balikatan 02-1 exercises involves
over a constitutional question only if it is shown that the the simulation of joint military maneuvers pursuant to the
essential requisites of a judicial inquiry into such a question are Mutual Defense Treaty, a bilateral defense agreement entered
first satisfied. Thus, there must be an actual case or controversy into by the Philippines and the United States in 1951.  The
involving a conflict of legal rights susceptible of judicial exercise is rooted from the international anti-terrorism
determination; the constitutional question must have been campaign declared by President George W. Bush in reaction to
opportunely raised by the proper party; and the resolution of the 3 commercial aircrafts hijacking that smashed into twin
the question is unavoidably necessary to the decision of the towers of the World Trade Center in New York City and the
case itself. Pentagon building in Washington, D.C. allegedly by the al-
Qaeda headed by the Osama bin Laden that occurred on
Courts generally avoid having to decide a constitutional
September 11, 2001.  Arthur D. Lim and Paulino P. Ersando as
question. This attitude is based on the doctrine of separation of
citizens, lawyers and taxpayers filed a petition for certiorari and
powers, which enjoins upon the departments of the government
prohibition attacking the constitutionality of the joint exercise. 
a becoming respect for each other's acts.”
The Solicitor General commented the prematurity of the action
as it is based only on a fear of future violation of the Terms of
Reference and impropriety of availing of certiorari to ascertain a
question of fact specifically interpretation of the VFA whether it applicable provision on treaties that involve presence of
is covers "Balikatan 02-1” and no question of constitutionality is foreign military troops in the country
involved.  Moreover, there is lack of locus standi since it does Whether or not the power to ratify treaties, like the
not involve tax spending and there is no proof of direct personal VFA, is lodged with the Senate
injury. 
Ruling:
Issue:
The Court ruled that Section 25, Article XVIII and
Whether or not the Visiting Forces Agreement is Section 21, Article VII of the Constitution are both
unconstitutional. applicable on a treaty, like the VFA, which involves the
presence of foreign military troops in the country.
Ruling: Section 21, Article VII deals with treatise or
international agreements in general, in which case, the
The VFA permits United States personnel to engage, on an
concurrence of at least two-thirds (2/3) of all the
impermanent basis, in "activities," the exact meaning of which
Members of the Senate is required to make the same
was left undefined. The expression is ambiguous, permitting a
valid and binding on the part of the Philippines.
wide scope of undertakings subject only to the approval of the
However, Section 25, Article XVIII is a special provision
Philippine government. The sole encumbrance placed on its
that applies to treaties which involve the presence of
definition is couched in the negative, in that United States
foreign military bases, troops or facilities in the
personnel must "abstain from any activity inconsistent with the
Philippines. Herein, concurrence of Senate, in the
spirit of this agreement, and in particular, from any political
number so provided Section 21, Article VII, is only one
activity." All other activities, in other words, are fair game.
of the requisites to comply with the constitutional
The meaning of the word “activities" was deliberately made that requirements and to make the agreement binding on
way to give both parties a certain leeway in negotiation. Thus, the Philippines.
the VFA gives legitimacy to the current Balikatan exercises. 
A special provision prevails over a general one. Lex specialis
Both the history and intent of the Mutual Defense Treaty and
derogat generali. Where there is in the same statute a particular
the VFA support the conclusion that combat-related activities -
enactment and a general one which, in its most comprehensive
as opposed to combat itself - such as the one subject of the
sense, would include what is embraced in the former, the
instant petition, are indeed authorized.
particular enactment must be operative, and the general
Both the Mutual Defense Treaty and the Visiting Forces enactment must be taken to affect only such cases within its
Agreement, as in all other treaties and international agreements general language which are not within the provision of the
to which the Philippines is a party, must be read in the context particular enactment. It cannot be said that Section 25, Article
of the 1987 Constitution especially Sec. 2, 7 and 8 of Article 2: XVIII is inapplicable to transient agreements.
Declaration of Principles and State Policies in this case.  The
The Constitution makes no distinction between transient and
Constitution also regulates the foreign relations powers of the
permanent. When no distinction is made by law, the Court
Chief Executive when it provides that "[n]o treaty or
should not distinguish. Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos
international agreement shall be valid and effective unless
distinguire debemos. Also, it cannot be contended that Section
concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the members of the
25, Article XVIII is not controlling since no foreign military
Senate."  Even more pointedly Sec. 25 on Transitory Provisions
bases, but merely foreign troops and facilities, are involved in
which shows antipathy towards foreign military presence in the
the VFA.
country, or of foreign influence in general.  Hence, foreign
troops are allowed entry into the Philippines only by way of Said constitutional provision covers foreign military bases,
direct exception. troops, or facilities. It provision contemplates three different
situations - a military treaty the subject of which could be either
Conflict arises then between the fundamental law and our
(a) foreign bases, (b) foreign troops, or (c) foreign facilities. Given
obligations arising from international agreements.
that Section 25, Article XVIII, such provision disallows foreign
military bases, troops, or facilities in the country, unless the
following conditions are sufficiently met: (a) it must be under a
BAYAN et al., vs. Executive Secretary, G.R treaty; (b) the treaty must be duly concurred in by the Senate
#138570, October 10, 2000. and, when so required by congress, ratified by a majority of the
votes cast by the people in a national referendum; and (c)
Facts: recognized as a treaty by the other contracting state. All the
aforesaid elements were met here.
The United States of America and the Philippines discussed
about the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA), which provides for On the first two requisites, the concurrence of 2/3 of the
the mechanism for regulating the circumstances and conditions member of Senate is sufficient. There is no need for ratification
under which US Armed Forces and defense personnel may be by a majority of the votes cast in a national referendum as
present in the Philippines. President Fidel V. Ramos approved Congress did not require it. However, on the third element,
the VFA, which was respectively signed by public respondent petitioners argue that the phrase recognized as a treaty means
Secretary Siazon and Unites States Ambassador Thomas that the VFA should have the advice and consent of the United
Hubbard on February 10, 1998. States Senate pursuant to its own constitutional process, and
that it should not be considered merely an executive agreement
On October 5, 1998, the new president, Joseph E. Estrada,
by the United States. Contrary to petitioners’ contention,
through the country’s Secretary of Foreign Affairs, ratified the
however, said phrase only means that the other contracting
VFA. It was then officially transmitted to the Senate for
party accepts or acknowledges the agreement as a treaty.
concurrence, pursuant to Section 21, Article VII of the 1987
Words used in the Constitution are to be given their ordinary
Constitution. The Senate thereafter gave its concurrence to the
meaning except where technical terms are employed, in which
VFA by a two-thirds (2/3) vote of its members.
case the significance thus attached to them prevails.
On June 1, 1999, the VFA officially entered into force after an
Moreover, it is inconsequential whether the United States treats
Exchange of Notes between the Philippines Foreign Affairs
the VFA only as an executive agreement because, under
Secretary and the United States Ambassador. Petitioners
international law, an executive agreement is as binding as a
question the validity of the VFA on the ground that Section 25,
treaty. In fact, as long as the VFA possesses the elements of an
Article XVIII of the Constitution and not Section 21, Article VII
agreement under international law, the said agreement is to be
which applies on treaties that involve presence of foreign
taken equally as a treaty. A treaty, as defined by the Vienna
military troops in the country.
Convention on the Law of Treaties, is an international
It is also argued that the President acted with grave abuse of instrument concluded between States in written form and
discretion when it ratified the VFA, a treaty, as the power to governed by international law, whether embodied in a single
ratify is the same is lodged with the Senate and not with the instrument or in two or more related instruments, and
chief executive. For respondents, only Section 21, Article VII of whatever its particular designation.
the Constitution applies as the VFA is a mere transient
There are many other terms used for a treaty or international
agreement and is just about troops, not bases.
agreement, like act, protocol, agreement, compromis d
Issue: arbitrage, concordat, convention, declaration, exchange of
notes, pact, statute, charter and modus vivendi. These terms
Whether or not Section 25, Article XVIII of the may be useful, but they furnish little more than mere
Constitution and not Section 21, Article VII is the description and are all under the general term “treaty”. Also,
records reveal that the United States Government has stated
that it is fully committed to living up to the terms of the VFA. They argue that the requirement of prior concurrence of an
For as long as America accepts or acknowledges the VFA as a entity specifically named by the Constitution, the Monetary
treaty, and binds itself to comply with its obligations under the Board, reinforces the submission that not respondents but the
same, there is compliance with the mandate of our President “alone and personally” can validly bind the country.
Constitution. Hence, they would like Cuisia et al to stop acting pursuant to
the said scheme.
Ratification is generally held to be an executive act,
undertaken by the head of the state, through which Issue: Whether or not the President of the Philippines can
the formal acceptance of a treaty is proclaimed. Hence, validly delegate her debt power to the respondents.
the power to ratify treaty is vested in the President and
not in the legislature. The role of the Senate is limited Ruling: The Court ruled that the president has borrowing
only to giving or withholding its consent, or powers and that the President may contract or guarantee
concurrence, to the ratification, in accordance with the foreign loans in behalf of this country with prior concurrence of
principle of and healthy system of checks and the Monetary Board. It makes no distinction whatsoever, and
balances. However, per the principle of separation of the fact that a debt or a loan may be onerous is irrelevant. On
powers, into the field of negotiation the Senate cannot the other hand, the President can delegate this power to her
intrude, and Congress itself is powerless to invade it. direct subordinates. The evident exigency of having the
Secretary of Finance implement the decision of the President to
execute the debt-relief contracts is made manifest by the fact
Pimentel vs. Executive Secretary , G.R No. that the process of establishing and executing a strategy for
158088. July 6, 2005. managing the government’s debt is deep within the realm of the
expertise of the Department of Finance, primed as it is to raise
Facts: the required amount of funding, achieve its risk and cost
objectives, and meet any other sovereign debt management
The petitioners filed a petition for mandamus to compel the goals.
Office of the Executive Secretary and the Department of Foreign
Affairs to transmit the signed copy of the Rome Statute of the If the President were to personally exercise every aspect of the
International Criminal Court  to the Senate of the Philippinesfor foreign borrowing power, he/she would have to pause from
its concurrence pursuant to Sec. 21, Art VII of the 1987 running the country long enough to focus on a welter of time-
Constitution. consuming detailed activities, the propriety of
incurring/guaranteeing loans, studying and choosing among
The Rome Statute established the Int'l Criminal Court which the many methods that may be taken toward this end, meeting
will have jurisdiction over the most serious crimes as genocide, countless times with creditor representatives to negotiate,
crimes against humanity, war crimes and crimes of aggression obtaining the concurrence of the Monetary Board, explaining
as defined by the Statute. The Philippines through the Chargie and defending the negotiated deal to the public, and more often
du Affairs in UN. The provisions of the Statute however require than not, flying to the agreed place of execution to sign the
that it  be subject to ratification, acceptance or approval of the documents.  This sort of constitutional interpretation would
signatory state.  negate the very existence of cabinet positions and the respective
expertise which the holders thereof are accorded and would
Petitioners contend that ratification of a treaty, under both
unduly hamper the President’s effectivity in running the
domestic and international law, is a function of the Senate,
government.  The act of the Cuisia et al are not
hence it is the duty of the Executive Department to transmit the
unconstitutional.
signed copy to the senate to allow it to exercise its discretion. 
However, there are certain acts which, by their very nature,
Issue:
cannot be validated by subsequent approval or ratification by
Whether or not the Exec. Secretary and the DFA have the the President. There are certain constitutional powers and
ministerial duty to transmit to the Senate the copy of the Rome prerogatives of the Chief Executive of the Nation which must be
Statute signed by a member of the Philippine mission to the exercised by him in person and no amount of approval or
U.N. even without the signature of the President. ratification will validate the exercise of any of those powers by
any other person. Such, for instance, in his power to suspend
Ruling: the writ of habeas corpus and proclaim martial law and the
exercise by him of the benign prerogative of pardon (mercy).
The Supreme Court held that it does not. The President as the
head of state is the sole organ and authorized in the external There are certain presidential powers which arise out of
relations and he is also the country's sole representative with exceptional circumstances, and if exercised, would involve the
foreign nations, He is the mouthpiece with respect to the suspension of fundamental freedoms, or at least call for the
country's foreign affairs. In treaty-making, the President has the supersedence of executive prerogatives over those exercised by
sole authority to negotiate with other states and enter into co-equal branches of government. The declaration of martial
treaties but this power is limited by the Constitution with the law, the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, and the
2/3 required vote of all the members of the Senate for the treaty exercise of the pardoning power notwithstanding the judicial
to be valid. (Sec. 21, Art VII). determination of guilt of the accused, all fall within this special
class that demands the exclusive exercise by the President of
the constitutionally vested power. The list is by no means
exclusive, but there must be a showing that the executive power
Constantino vs. Cuisia, G.R. No. 106064. October
in question is of similar gravitas and exceptional import.
13, 2005.

Facts:
Saguisag vs Executive Secretary GR No. 212426
During the Corazon Aquino regime, her administration came up
and GR No. 212444, January 12, 2016
with a scheme to reduce the country’s external debt. The
solution resorted to was to incur foreign debts. Three Facts:
restructuring programs were sought to initiate the program for
foreign debts, they are basically buyback programs and bond- This is a Resolution on the Motion for Reconsideration seeking
conversion programs. The spouses Renato Constantino, Jr. and to reverse the Decision of this Court in Saguisag et. al., v.
Lourdes Constantino, as a taxpayers, and in behalf of their Executive Secretary dated 12 January 2016.
minor children who are Filipino citizens, together with FFDC
(Freedom From Debt Coalition) averred that the buyback and Petitioners claim this Court erred when it ruled that the
bond-conversion schemes were onerous and they do not Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) between the
constitute the loan “contract” or “guarantee” contemplated Philippines and the US was not a treaty. In connection to this,
in Sec. 20, Art. VII of the Constitution.  petitioners move that EDCA must be in the form of a treaty in
order to comply with the constitutional restriction under Section
And assuming that the President has such power, unlike other 25, Article· XVIII of the 1987 Constitution on foreign military
powers which may be validly delegated by the President, the bases, troops, and facilities. Additionally, they reiterate their
power to incur foreign debts is expressly reserved by the arguments on the issues of telecommunications, taxation, and
Constitution in the person of the President, hence, the nuclear weapons.
respondents herein, Central Bank Governor Jose Cuisia et al,
cannot incur debts for the Philippines nor such power can be The principal reason for the Motion for Reconsideration is
delegated to them. Constantino argued that the gravity by evidently petitioners’ disagreement with the Decision that EDCA
which the exercise of the power will affect the Filipino nation implements the VFA and Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT).
requires that the President alone must exercise this power.
Petitioners argue that EDCA’s provisions fall outside the through the Senate, a treaty is regarded as being on the same
allegedly limited scope of the VFA and MDT because it provides level as a statute. If there is an irreconcilable conflict, a later law
a wider arrangement than the VFA for military bases, troops, or treaty takes precedence over one that is prior. An executive
and facilities, and it allows the establishment of U.S. military agreement is treated differently. Executive agreements that are
bases. inconsistent with either a law or a treaty are considered
ineffective. Both types of international agreement are
Issue: nevertheless subject to the supremacy of the Constitution. 
Whether or not EDCA is a treaty. Subsequently, the Decision goes to great lengths to illustrate the
source of EDCA’s validity, in that as an executive agreement it
Ruling:
fell within the parameters of the VFA and MDT, and seamlessly
Petitioners detail their objections to EDCA in a similar way to merged with the whole web of Philippine law. We need not
their original petition, claiming that the VFA and MDT did not restate the arguments here. It suffices to state that this Court
allow EDCA to contain the following provisions: remains unconvinced that EDCA deserves treaty status under
the law.
Agreed Location
Rotational presence of personnel The Court found no reason for EDCA to be declared
U.S. contractors unconstitutional. It fully conforms to the Philippines’ legal
Activities of U.S. contractors regime through the MDT and VFA. It also fully conforms to the
government’s continued policy to enhance our military
The Court ruled in Saguisag, et. al.  that the EDCA is not a capability in the face of various military and humanitarian
treaty despite the presence of these provisions. The very nature issues that may arise.
of EDCA, its provisions and subject matter, indubitably
categorize it as an executive agreement – a class of agreement
that is not covered by the Article XVIII Section 25 restriction – in
painstaking detail.

Executive agreements may dispense with the requirement of

Senate concurrence because of the legal mandate with which
they are concluded.

As culled from the deliberations of the Constitutional

Commission, past Supreme Court Decisions, and works of
noted scholars, executive agreements merely involve
arrangements on the implementation of existing  policies, rules,
laws, or agreements.

They are concluded

to adjust the details of a treaty;

pursuant to or upon confirmation by an act of the
Legislature; or
in the exercise of the President’s independent powers
under the Constitution.

The raison d’etre of executive agreements hinges

on prior constitutional or legislative authorizations. The special
nature of an executive agreement is not just a domestic
variation in international agreements.

International practice has accepted the use of various forms

and designations of international agreements, ranging from the
traditional notion of a treaty – which connotes a formal, solemn
instrument – to engagements concluded in modern, simplified
forms that no longer necessitate ratification.

An international agreement may take different forms: treaty,

act, protocol, agreement, concordat, compromis
d’arbitrage,  convention, covenant, declaration, exchange of
notes, statute, pact, charter, agreed minute, memorandum of
agreement, modus vivendi,  or some other form.

Consequently, under international law, the distinction between

a treaty and an international agreement or even an executive
agreement is irrelevant for purposes of determining
international rights and obligations.

However, this principle does not mean that the domestic law
distinguishing treaties, international
agreements,  and executive agreements  is relegated to a mere
variation in form, or that the constitutional requirement of
Senate concurrence is demoted to an optional constitutional
directive. There remain two very important features that
distinguish treaties  from executive agreements and translate
them into terms of art in the domestic setting.

First,  executive agreements must remain traceable to an

express or implied authorization under the Constitution,
statutes, or treaties. The absence of these precedents puts the
validity and effectivity of executive agreements under serious
question for the main function of the Executive is to enforce the
Constitution and the laws enacted by the Legislature, not to
defeat or interfere in the performance of these rules. In turn,
executive agreements cannot create new international
obligations that are not expressly allowed or reasonably implied
in the law they purport to implement.

Second, treaties are, by their very nature, considered superior

to executive agreements. Treaties are products of the acts of the
Executive and the Senate unlike executive agreements, which
are solely executive actions. Because of legislative participation
IV. JURISDICTION OF A STATES Clearly, there is nothing in the law that required the State to
guarantee the indigenous people their own police and security
force; but rather, it shall be the State, through police officers,
The Province of North Cotabato et al. v. The that will provide for the protection of the people. With regards to
Government of the Republic of the Philippines et the autonomy of the indigenous people, the law does not
al. G.R. Nos. 183591, 183752, 183893, 183951 obligate States to grant indigenous peoples the near-
and 183962, 14 October 2008 independent status of a state; since it would impair the
territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and
Facts:
independent states. 
Subject of this case is the Memorandum of Agreement on the
Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD) which is scheduled to be signed by
the Government of the Republic of the Philippines and the MILF
in August 05, 2008. Western Sahara Advisory Opinion, 1975 I.C.J. 12
The MOA-AD is a result of various agreements entered into by Facts:
and between the government and the MILF starting in 1996;
then in 1997, they signed the Agreement on General Cessation Morocco gained independence in 1956, and the Istiqlal
of Hostilities; and the following year, they signed the General Party presented its vision for the new state's boundaries.
Framework of Agreement of Intent on August 27, 1998. [3]
 These nationalists appealed to the idea of a Greater Morocco,
However, in 1999 and in the early of 2000, the MILF attacked a based upon the territory of the Sharifian empire which
number of municipalities in Central Mindanao. In March 2000, preceded French and British colonization. This area included
they took the hall of Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte; hence, then what was at the time Spanish Sahara, French West Africa,
Pres. Estrada declared an all-out war-which tolled the peace and French Algeria. The Moroccan state itself formally adopted
negotiation. It was when then Pres. Arroyo assumed office, the 'Greater Morocco' vision under Mohammed V in
when the negotiation regarding peace in Mindanao continued. 1958.] After Mauritanian and Algerian independence in the
MILF was hesitant; however, this negotiation proceeded when early 1960s, Morocco released claim to most of Greater
the government of Malaysia interceded. Formal peace talks Morocco. However, it has maintained its irredentist claim over
resumed and MILF suspended all its military actions. The Western Sahara.
Tripoli Agreement in 2001 lead to the ceasefire between the
parties. After the death of MILF Chairman Hashim and Iqbal On 17 September 1974, King Hassan II announced his
took over his position, the crafting of MOA-AD in its final form intention to bring the issue to the ICJ . In December, Spain
was born.  agreed to delay the referendum pending the opinion of the
court. They gave their support to ICJ submission on the
Included in the resources is the stipulation that the BJE is free grounds that it be a non-binding, advisory opinion, rather than
to enter into any economic cooperation and trade relations with a "contentious issue", where the ruling would oblige the
foreign countries and shall have the option to establish trade interested states to act in a particular manner[.
missions in those countries, as well as environmental
cooperation agreements, but not to include aggression in the On 13 December, the United Nations General Assembly voted
GRP. The external defense of the BJE is to remain the duty and on a submission, resulting in UN General Assembly
obligation of the government. The BJE shall have participation Resolution 3292, affirming it and defining the wording of the
in international meetings and events" like those of the ASEAN questions to be submitted. Algeria was among the nations
and the specialized agencies of the UN. They are to be entitled to voting in favor, and several Third World nations abstained.
participate in Philippine official missions and delegations for the
Issue:
negotiation of border agreements or protocols for environmental
protection and equitable sharing of incomes and revenues Whether or not Western Sahara (Río de Oro and Sakiet El
involving the bodies of water adjacent to or between the islands Hamra) at the time of colonization by Spain a territory
forming part of the ancestral domain. The BJE shall also have belonging to no one.
the right to explore its resources and that the sharing between
the Central Government and the BJE of total production Ruling:
pertaining to natural resources is to be 75:25 in favor of the
BJE. And they shall have the right to cancel or modify From the four arguments the Moroccan delegation had made
concessions and TLAs.  before the ICJ (immemorial possession, geographical
continuity, internal displays of sovereignty and external
Issue: displays of sovereignty), the Court could not find ‘any legal tie
of territorial sovereignty between Western Sahara and the
Whether or not international laws require right to own Moroccan State.’ This finding was reiterated with respect to
government for indigenous people. both Mauritanian and Moroccan claims: ‘the materials and
information presented to [the Court] do not establish any tie of
Ruling:
territorial sovereignty between the territory of Western Sahara
The Philippines adopts the generally accepted principle of and the Kingdom of Morocco or the Mauritanian entity. The
international law as part of the law of the land. In international Court acknowledged that there had been ‘a legal tie of
law, the right to self-determination has long been recognized allegiance between the Sultan and some, though only some, of
which states that people can freely determine their political the tribes of the territory’ (i.e., Tiknah sub-groups). Yet in its
status and freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural final conclusion, the Court explained the significance of these
development. There are the internal and external self- minimal ‘legal ties’:
determination—internal, meaning the self-pursuit of man and
Thus the court has not found legal ties of such a nature as
the external which takes the form of the assertion of the right to
might affect the application of resolution 1514 (XV) in the
unilateral secession. This principle of self-determination is
decolonization Western Sahara and, in particular, of the
viewed with respect accorded to the territorial integrity of
principle of self-determination through the free and genuine
existing states. External self-determination is only afforded in
expression of the will of the peoples of the Territory.
exceptional cases when there is an actual block in the
meaningful exercise of the right to internal self-determination. The sixteen judges voted 14 to 2 against Morocco and 15 to 1
International law, as a general rule, subject only to limited and against Mauritania. In both cases, the dissenting vote was
exceptional cases, recognizes that the right of disposing national an ad hoc judge appointed by Morocco under a special ICJ
territory is essentially an attribute of the sovereignty of every rule. Yet in the case of Morocco, the other dissenting voice felt
state.  that the Court should have rejected Morocco’s claims more
vehemently. 
On matters relative to indigenous people, international law
states that indigenous peoples situated within states do not Indeed, hours after the opinion was read on 16 October 1975,
have a general right to independence or secession from those King Hassan took the Court’s caveat -- there had existed some
states under international law, but they do have rights ties between the Moroccan monarch and some of the Tiknah
amounting to what was discussed above as the right to internal tribes -- and announced to the world that Morocco would
self-determination; have the right to autonomy or self- march 350,000 civilians into Western Sahara whether Spain
government in matters relating to their internal and local affairs, left or not. In this game of chicken, it was Madrid who
as well as ways and means for financing their autonomous flinched. Almost a month after the ICJ declared its support for
functions; have the right to the lands, territories and resources Western Saharan self-determination, Spain announced on 14
which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise November that it soon leave Western Sahara, handing it over
used or acquired.  to Morocco and Mauritania.  The fact that Morocco
deliberately misconstrued the ICJ opinion to justify an Foreign Affairs about the country’s intentions toward Eastern
invasion of the Spanish controlled Western Sahara, means Greenland. The Minister replied that Norway did not intend to
that Morocco is guilty of two egregious and ongoing breaches contest Danish sovereignty over the whole of Greenland.
of international order:  Denmark later sued Norway before the Permanent Court of
International Justice on the ground that Norway violated
1) One : a flagrant attempt to expand territory by force and  Danish sovereignty in Eastern Greenland.
2) Two: a deliberate denial of a people’s right to self-
Issue:
determination.
Is a reply given by the Minister of Foreign Affairs on behalf of his
government binding upon the country to which the Minister
belongs?
Case of Island of Palmas, 2 R.I.A>A. 829, 844
(1928) Ruling:

Facts: Yes. A reply given by the Minister of Foreign Affairs on behalf of

his government is binding upon the country to which the
Palmas (Miangas) is an island of little economic value or
Minister belongs. It is beyond dispute that a reply of the nature
strategic location. It is 2.6 km in north-south length and
given here in response to a request by the diplomatic
1.0 km in east-west width.] It had a population of about 750 in
representative of a foreign power is binding upon the country
1932, when the case was decided. The island lies
the Minister represents. The Vienna Convention on the Law of
between Mindanao, the southernmost part of the Philippines,
Treaties is the main source of international law on treaties. The
and the Nanusa Islands, the next-northernmost part of
Convention was ratified by 35 countries but not by the United
Indonesia.
States. Unilateral statements may also be binding on states.
In 1898, Spain ceded the Philippines to the United States in
the Treaty of Paris (1898) and Palmas is located within the
Case Concerning Sovereignty over PulauLigitan
boundaries of that cession. In 1906, the United States
and PulauSipadan (Indonesia/Malaysia), Judgment
discovered that the Netherlands also claimed sovereignty over
ICJ Reports (2001), 15.
the island, and the two parties agreed to submit to binding
arbitration by the Permanent Court of Arbitration. On 23
January 1925, the two governments signed an agreement to
that effect. Ratifications were exchanged in Washington, [Link] Clipperton Island Case, 26 Am. J. Int’l L. 390, 394
1 April 1925. The agreement was registered in League of (1932), 394
Nations Treaty Series on 19 May 1925. The arbitrator in the Case Concerning Kasikili/Sedudu Island
case was Max Huber, a Swiss lawyer. (Botswana/Namibia) 1999 WL 1693057 (ICJ), 1999
ICJ 1045
Issue: Attorney General of Israel v. El-Turani, ILR 18
(1951), no. 39
Whether or not Las Palmas Island is included in the Treaty of
United States vs. Hon. V.M. Ruiz, 136 SCRA 487
Paris
(1985).
Ruling: United States vs. Hon. Luis Reyes, 219 SCRA 192
(1993).
The arbitrator noted that no new international law invalidated Paul Joseph Wright v. Court od Appeals, G.R. No.
the legal transfer of territory via cession. However, the arbitrator 113213. August 15, 1994.
noted that Spain could not legally grant what it did not hold and Khosrow Minucher vs. Court of Appeals, GR
the Treaty of Paris could not grant Palmas to the United States #142396, February 11, 2003.
if Spain had no actual title to it. The arbitrator concluded that Republic of Indonesia vs. James Vinzon, GR
Spain held an inchoate title when Spain "discovered" Palmas. #154705, June 26, 2003.
However, for a sovereign to maintain its initial title via discovery, United States vs. Hon. Judge Purganan, GR
the arbitrator said that the discoverer had to actually exercise #148571,
authority even by as simple an act as planting a flag on the Domingo v. Scheer, G.R. No. 154745. January 29,
beach. Spain did not exercise authority over the island after 2004.
making an initial claim after discovery and so the American Soering vs. UK, 11 European Human Rights Report
claim was based on relatively weak grounds. 439 (1989).
Chalal vs. UK, 23 EHRR 413 (1996).
The arbitrator noted that the United States had failed to show D vs. UK, 24 EHRR 423 (1997).
documentation proving Spanish sovereignty on the island
except the documents that specifically mentioned the island's
discovery. Additionally, there was no evidence that Palmas was
a part of the judicial or administrative organization of the
Spanish government of the Philippines. However, the
Netherlands showed that the Dutch East India Company had
negotiated treaties with the local princes of the island since the
17th century and had exercised sovereignty, including a
requirement of Protestantism and the denial of other nationals
on the island. The arbitrator pointed out that if Spain had
actually exercised authority, there would have been conflicts
between the two countries, but none is provided in the evidence.

Thus, a title that is inchoate cannot prevail over a definite title

found on the continuous and peaceful display of sovereignty.
Peaceful and continuous display of territorial sovereignty is as
good as title. However, discovery alone, without a subsequent
act, cannot suffice to prove sovereignty over the island. The
territorial sovereignty of the defendant, Netherlands, was not
contested by anyone from 1700 to 1906 so the title of discovery
at best an inchoate title and does not prevail over the
Netherlands claims of sovereignty.

Eastern Greenland Case, PCIJ, Ser A/B, No. 53

(1933), 16

Facts:

In the 1920s, Norway occupied and claimed as its own parts of

Eastern Greenland, a territory previously claimed by Denmark.
A Danish diplomatic representative asked Norway’s Minister of