Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 2 views

    PIL-Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    stephannieobo

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    PIL-Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    stephannieobo
    2 views3 pages

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    2 views3 pages

    PIL-Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    stephannieobo

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    Stephannie Grace Tan-Gumban Public International

    Law

    COMMISSIONER OF CUTOMS AND THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS VS EASTERN SEA TRADING

    FACTS:

    Respondent Eastern Sea Trading was the consignee of several shipments of onion and garlic which arrived in
    Manila, some shipment coming from Japan and others from Hong Kong. None of the shipments had the
    certificate required by Central Bank Circulars No. 44 and 45 for release thereof, thus, the goods imported were
    seized and subjected to forfeiture proceedings for violation of Sec. 1363(f) of the RAC.

    Petitioner Collector of Customs of Manila rendered a decision declaring the goods, which had been released to
    consignees on surety bonds, forfeited to the Government and directed the amount of surety bonds to be paid
    by the principal and surety to the Bureau of Customs. The Commissioner of Customs affirmed the decision.

    Respondent sought a review of the decision with the Court of Tax Appeals, which reversed the decision and
    ordered the bonds cancelled and withdrawn. Hence, this petition of the Commissioner of Customs.

    Petitioner avers that Central Bank has no authority to regulate transactions not involving foreign exchange,
    that the shipments in question are in the nature of “no-dollar” imports and therefore do not involve foreign
    exchange, and that insofar as a Central Bank license and certificate authorizing importation of release of goods
    are required by the circulars, they are null and void – the seizure and forfeiture of goods from Japan cannot be
    justified under E.O No 328 not only because the same seeks to implement an executive agreement – extending
    the effectively of our Trade and Financial agreements with Japan (believed to be dubious validity) – but also
    because there is no government agency authorized to issue the import license by the aforementioned E.O.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the executive agreement sought to be implemented by E.O No. 328 is a valid, considering the
    fact that the Senate had not concurred in the making of the said executive agreement. – Valid

    RULING:

    The concurrence of said House of Congress is required by our fundamental law in the making of “treaties”
    (Article 7, Section 10(7)), which are, however, distinct and different from “executive agreements’, which may
    be validly entered into such concurrence.

    Treaties are formal documents which require ratification with the approval of two-thirds of the Senate.
    Executive agreements become binding through executive action without the need of a vote by Senate or by
    Congress.

    The right of the Executive to enter into binding agreements without the necessity of subsequent Congressional
    approval has been confirmed by long usage. The validity of these has never been seriously questioned by the
    courts.

    International agreements involving political issues or changes of national policy and those involving
    international arrangements of a permanent character usually take the form of treaties. But international
    agreements embodying adjustments of detail carrying out well-established national policies and traditions and
    those involving arrangements of a more or less temporary nature usually take the form of executive
    agreements.
    Pimentel Jr. vs Office of the Executive Secretary G.R. No. 158088 (July 6, 2005)

    Facts: This is a petition for mandamus filed by petitioners to compel the Office of the Executive Secretary and
    the Department of Foreign Affairs to transmit the signed copy of the Rome Statute of the International
    Criminal Court to the Senate of the Philippines for its concurrence in accordance with Section 21, Article VII of
    the 1987 Constitution. The Rome Statute was opened for signature for states from July 17, 1998 until
    December 31, 2000. This Statute establishes the International Criminal Court (ICC) which “shall have the power
    to exercise its jurisdiction over persons for the most serious crimes of international concern (e.g. the crime of
    genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, the crime of aggression, etc.). It shall also be complementary
    to the national criminal jurisdictions. On Dec. 28, 2000 - The Philippines signed the Statute thru Enrique
    Manalo, Charge d’ Affairs of the Philippine Mission to the UN. However, its provisions still require ratification,
    acceptance or approval of the signatory states.

    Special civil action in the Supreme Court (current petition)


     Petitioners filed this petition for Mandamus to compel the Office of the Executive Secretary and the
    Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) to transmit the signed treaty to the Senate for Ratification.
     Petitioners believe that in accordance with Section 21, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution, the
    ratification of the treaty is a function of the Senate and hence the Executive must transmit it to allow
    the Senate to exercise its discretion.
     Moreover, petitioners believe that the Philippines has a ministerial duty to ratify the Rome Statute
    under treaty law and customary international law. Their basis for this is the Vienna Convention of the
    Law of Treaties which enjoins states to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose of a
    treaty when they have signed the treaty prior to ratification unless they have made their intention clear
    not to become parties to the treaty.

    Issue: WON the Office of the Executive Secretary and DFA have a ministerial duty to transmit to the Senate the
    Rome Statute which is already signed by a Philippine Mission although it is not yet signed by the President?
    (NO)

    Ratio:
    The President under the Philippine system of government is the sole organ and authority in external relations
    and is the sole representative with foreign nations. However, in accordance with the Constitution, for an
    international agreement signed by him to be valid and effective it would require the concurrence of 2/3 of all
    the members of the Senate.

    Petitioners though interpret this Constitutional provision differently and incorrectly, in the sense that it is not
    just to check the President’s power but that the ratification process as a whole is the power of the Senate.
    They also think that the signing of the treaty is already equivalent to ratification.

    The treaty making process according to Justice Isagani Cruz has four distinct processes namely:
    1. Negotiation - may be undertaken by the President or his representatives.
    2. Signature - starts when parties agree to the terms of the agreement, authentication and symbol of
    good faith of the parties but it is not equivalent to a final consent.
    3. Ratification - act thru which a state confirms and accepts the provisions of a treaty. Its purpose is to
    allow the parties to examine the treaty more closely. Normally done by a Government body different
    from the Negotiating body.
    4. Exchange of Instruments of Ratification- signifies effectivity of the treaty.

    The treaty making process in the Philippines is governed by EO 459 issued by President Ramos. It states that
    once treaty is signed, it is transmitted to the DFA, then to the President, then to the Senate and DFA again to
    officially render it effective.

    The SC holds that the President still has discretion to ratify the treaty or not even if it is already signed by
    Government authorities. Moreover, under the Vienna Convention, the state has no legal or moral duty to
    automatically ratify a treaty upon signing of its representatives. To clarify further, the power to ratify treaties
    is vested in the President but it subject to the concurrence of the Senate. Hence, the President may either
    refuse to submit a signed Treaty to the Senate or even after concurrence of the Senate, change his mind and
    refuse to ratify it.

    In sum, the decision is within the competence of the President and it cannot be encroached by the Court via a
    writ of mandamus. The Court has no jurisdiction to enjoin the President in the performance of this official
    duty.

    DISPOSITIVE: Petition DISMISSED. It is beyond SC’s jurisdiction to compel the executive branch to transmit the
    signed text of Rome Statute to the Senate.

    You might also like