Bayan%Muna%v%Alberto%Romulo%

Bayan%Muna,%Petitioner.%

Alberto%Romulo,%Blas%Ople,%Respondents.%

FACTS:%

In%2000,%the%RP,%through%Charge%d’Affaires%Enrique%A.%Manalo,%signed%the%Rome%Statute%establishing%the%International%Criminal%Court%(ICC)%with%the$power$to$exercise$its$jurisdiction$over$persons$for$the$most%serious%crimes%of%international%concern%(genocide,%crimes%against%humanity,%war%crimes,%aggression%

crimes),%in%which%by%its%terms,%is%“subject%to%ratification,%acceptance%or%approval”%by%the%signatory%states.%%

In%2003,%via%Exchange%of%Notes%with%the%US%government,%the%RP,%represented%by%then%DFA%Secretary%Ople,%finalized%a%non=surrender%agreement%which%aimed%to%protect%certain%persons%of%the%RP%and%US%from%frivolous%and%harassment%suits%that%might%be%brought%against%them%in%international%tribunals.%

Petitioner%imputes%grave%abuse%of%discretion%to%respondents%in%concluding%and%ratifying%the%Agreement%and%prays%that%it%be%struck%down%as%unconstitutional,%or%at%least%declared%as%without%force%and%effect.%

ISSUES:%

Whether%the%Respondents%abused%their%discretion%amounting%to%lack%or%excess%of%jurisdiction%for%concluding%the%RP=US%Non%Surrender%Agreement%in%contravention%of%the%Rome%Statute.%

Whether%the%agreement%is%valid,%binding%and%effective%without%the%concurrence%by%at%least%2/3%of%all%the%members%of%the%Senate.%

HELD:%NO%MERIT%

INTERNATIONAL%LAW:%Rome%Statute%

First%issue%

The%Agreement%does%not%contravene%or%undermine,%nor%does%it%differ%from,%the%Rome%Statute.%%Far%from%

going%against%each%other,%one%complements%the%other.%%As%a%matter%of%fact,%the%principle%of%

complementarity%underpins%the%creation%of%the%ICC.%According%to%Art.%1%of%the%Statute,%the%jurisdiction%of%

the%ICC%is%to%“be%complementary%to%national%criminal%jurisdictions%[of%the%signatory%states].”%the%Rome%

Statute%expressly%recognizes%the%primary%jurisdiction%of%states,%like%the%RP,%over%serious%crimes%

committed%within%their%respective%borders,%the%complementary%jurisdiction%of%the%ICC%coming%into%play%

only%when%the%signatory%states%are%unwilling%or%unable%to%prosecute.%

%

%

%

%

Also,%under%international%law,%there%is%a%considerable%difference%between%a%State=Party%and%a%signatory%to%a%treaty.%Under%the%Vienna%Convention%on%the%Law%of%Treaties,%a%signatory%state%is%only%obliged%to%refrain%from%acts%which%would%defeat%the%object%and%purpose%of%a%treaty.%The%Philippines%is%only%a%signatory%to%the%Rome%Statute%and%not%a%State\Party%for%lack%of%ratification%by%the%Senate.%Thus,%it%is%only%

obliged%to%refrain%from%acts%which%would%defeat%the%object%and%purpose%of%the%Rome%Statute.%Any%argument%obliging%the%Philippines%to%follow%any%provision%in%the%treaty%would%be%premature.%And%even%

assuming%that%the%Philippines%is%a%State\Party,%the%Rome%Statute%still%recognizes%the%primacy%of%

international%agreements%entered%into%between%States,%even%when%one%of%the%States%is%not%a%State\Party%

to%the%Rome%Statute.%

CONSTITUTIONAL%LAW:%2/3%concurrence%

Second%issue%

The%right%of%the%Executive%to%enter%into%binding%agreements%without%the%necessity%of%subsequent%Congressional%approval%has%been%confirmed%by%long%usage.%From%the%earliest%days%of%our%history,%we%have%entered%executive%agreements%covering%such%subjects%as%commercial%and%consular%relations,%most%

favored\nation%rights,%patent%rights,%trademark%and%copyright%protection,%postal%and%navigation%

arrangements%and%the%settlement%of%claims.%The%validity%of%these%has%never%been%seriously%questioned%by%

our%courts.%

Executive%agreements%may%be%validly%entered%into%without%such%concurrence.%%As%the%President%wields%

vast%powers%and%influence,%her%conduct%in%the%external%affairs%of%the%nation%is,%as%Bayan%would%put%it,%

“executive%altogether.”%%The%right%of%the%President%to%enter%into%or%ratify%binding%executive%agreements%has%been%confirmed%by%long%practice.%

%

Petition%is%DISMISSED.%

%

White%Light%Corp%v%City%of%Manila%

%

On%3%Dec%1992,%then%Mayor%Lim%signed%into%law%Ord%7774%entitled%“An%Ordinance”%prohibiting%short%time%

admission%in%hotels,%motels,%lodging%houses,%pension%houses%and%similar%establishments%in%the%City%of%

Manila.%White%Light%Corp%is%an%operator%of%mini%hotels%and%motels%who%sought%to%have%the%Ordinance%be%

nullified%as%the%said%Ordinance%infringes%on%the%private%rights%of%their%patrons.%The%RTC%ruled%in%favor%of%

WLC.%It%ruled%that%the%Ordinance%strikes%at%the%personal%liberty%of%the%individual%guaranteed%by%the%

Constitution.%The%City%maintains%that%the%ordinance%is%valid%as%it%is%a%valid%exercise%of%police%power.%Under%

the%LGC,%the%City%is%empowered%to%regulate%the%establishment,%operation%and%maintenance%of%cafes,%

restaurants,%beerhouses,%hotels,%motels,%inns,%pension%houses,%lodging%houses%and%other%similar%

establishments,%including%tourist%guides%and%transports.%The%CA%ruled%in%favor%of%the%City.%

ISSUE:%Whether%or%not%Ord%7774%is%valid.%

%

HELD:%The%SC%ruled%that%the%said%ordinance%is%null%and%void%as%it%indeed%infringes%upon%individual%liberty.%

It%also%violates%the%due%process%clause%which%serves%as%a%guaranty%for%protection%against%arbitrary%

regulation%or%seizure.%The%said%ordinance%invades%private%rights.%Note%that%not%all%who%goes%into%motels%

and%hotels%for%wash%up%rate%are%really%there%for%obscene%purposes%only.%Some%are%tourists%who%needed%

rest%or%to%“wash%up”%or%to%freshen%up.%Hence,%the%infidelity%sought%to%be%avoided%by%the%said%ordinance%is%

more%or%less%subjected%only%to%a%limited%group%of%people.%The%SC%reiterates%that%individual%rights%may%be%

adversely%affected%only%to%the%extent%that%may%fairly%be%required%by%the%legitimate%demands%of%public%

interest%or%public%welfare.%

%

Tanada%v%Tuvera%

%

Lorenzo%Tanada,%Abraham%Sarmiento,%MABINI,%Petitioners.%

Hon.%Juan%Tuvera,%Hon.%Joaquin%Venus,%Melquiades%De%la%Cruz,%Florentino%Pablo,%Respondents.%

Facts:%

Petitioners%asked%for%the%issuance%of%the%Writ%of%mandamus%to%compel%the%respondents%to%publish%in%the%Official%Gazette%the%unpublished%Executive%Issuances%such%as;%Presidential%Decrees,%Proclamations,%

Executive%Orders,%general%orders,%letters%of%implementation,%and%administrative%orders.%In%defense,%

respondents%stated%that%the%petitioners%have%no%legal%personality%in%the%case%citing%sec.%3%of%rule%65%of%the%Rules%of%Court%which%lays\out%the%requirement%for%filing%for%a%Writ%of%Mandamus.%Petitioners%contended%that%the%issue%touches%the%public%and%thereby%does%not%require%any%special%circumstance%to%institute%an%action.%On%the%other%hand,%respondents%stated%that%publication%of%the%mentioned%issuances%is%not%asine%qua%non%requirement%as%the%Law%provides%its%own%affectivity%date%as%stated%in%Art.%2%of%the%Civil%Code.%%

Issue:%

Whether%or%not%publication%affects%the%validity%of%the%Executive%Issuances.%

Held:%

The%Supreme%Court%in%its%decision,%ordered%the%respondents%to%publish%the%Executive%Issuances%of%general%application,%and%further%stated%that%failure%for%publication%would%render%the%Issuances%no%binding%force%and%effect.%It%was%explained%that%such%publication%is%essential%as%it%gives%basis%to%the%legal%maxim%known%as%ignorantia%legis%non%excusat.%Thus,%failure%to%publish%would%make%create%injustice%as%

would%it%would%punish%the%citizen%for%transgression%of%the%law%which%he%had%no%notice.%The%court%

declared%that%Presidential%issuances%with%general%application%without%publication%would%be%inoperative%

and%null%and%void.%However,%some%justices%in%their%concurring%opinions%made%a%qualification%stating%that%

publication%is%not%an%absolute%requirement.%As%Justice%Fernando%stated%that,%publication%is%needed%but%it%

must%not%only%confined%in%the%Official%Gazette%because%it%would%make%those%other%laws%not%published%in%

the%Official%Gazette%bereft%of%any%binding%force%or%effect.%

Commissioner%of%Customs%v%Hypermix%Feeds%Corporation%

%

Facts:%

The%Commissioner%of%Customs%issued%CM%27\2003%classifying%wheat%as%(1)importer%or%consignee;%(2)%

country%of%origin;%and%(3)%port%of%discharge%and%depending%on%these%factors,%wheat%would%be%classified%

further%as%either%food%grade%with%a%tariff%rate%of%3%%or%feed%grade%with%a%tariff%rate%of%7%.%The%regulation%

also%provides%for%an%exclusive%list%of%corporations,%ports%of%discharge,%commodity%descriptions%and%

countries%of%origin.%On%December%19,%2003,%the%respondent%filed%a%Petition%for%Declaratory%Relief%with%

the%Regional%Trial%Court%of%Las%Pinas%contending%the%following:%(1)%the%regulation%was%issued%without%

following%the%mandate%of%the%Revised%Administrative%Code,%(2)%that%the%regulation%classified%them%to%be%a%

feed%grade%supplier%without%prior%assessment%and%examination,%(3)the%equal%protection%clause%of%the%

Constitution%was%violated%when%the%regulation%treated%the%non\flour%millers%differently%from%flour%millers%

for%no%reason%at%all,%and(4)%the%retroactive%application%of%the%regulation%is%confiscatory.%The%petitioners%

thereafter%filed%a%motion%to%dismiss%contending%that:%(1)%the%RTC%does%not%have%jurisdiction%of%the%subject%

matter,%(2)%an%action%for%declaratory%relief%was%improper,(3)%CM%27\2003%was%an%internal%administrative%

rule%and%not%legislative%in%nature;%and%(4)%the%claims%of%the%respondent%were%speculative%and%premature.%

On%March10,%2005,%the%Regional%Trial%Court%rendered%a%decision%ruling%in%favor%of%the%respondent.%It%held%

that%the%jurisdiction%is%properly%held%because%the%subject%matter%is%quasi\legislative%in%nature.%It%also%held%

that%the%petition%for%declaratory%relief%was%proper%remedy%and%that%the%respondent%was%the%proper%party%

to%file%it.%On%matters%relating%to%the%validity%of%the%regulation,%the%court%held%that%the%regulation%is%invalid%

because%the%basic%requirements%of%hearing%and%publication%were%not%complied%with.%The%petitioners%then%

appealed%to%Court%of%Appeals%but%it%was,%however,%dismissed.%Hence,%this%petition%for%review%on%

certiorari%under%Rule45%assailing%the%decision%of%the%Court%of%Appeals.%

%

Issue:%W/N%the%issuance%of%CMO%27\2003%is%within%the%powers%of%the%Commissioner%of%Customs%

%

Held:%The%provision%mandates%that%the%customs%officer%must%first%assess%and%determine%the%classification%

of%the%imported%article%before%tariff%may%be%imposed.%Unfortunately,%CMO%23\2007%has%already%classified%

the%article%even%before%the%customs%officer%had%the%chance%to%examine%it.%In%effect,%petitioner%

Commissioner%of%Customs%diminished%the%powers%granted%by%the%Tariff%and%Customs%Code%with%regard%to%

wheat%importation%when%it%no%longer%required%the%customs%officer’s%prior%examination%and%assessment%

of%the%proper%classification%of%the%wheat.%It%is%well\settled%that%rules%and%regulations,%which%are%the%

product%of%a%delegated%power%to%create%new%and%additional%legal%provisions%that%have%the%effect%of%law,%

should%be%within%the%scope%of%the%statutory%authority%granted%by%the%legislature%to%the%administrative%

agency.%It%is%required%that%the%regulation%be%germane%to%the%objects%and%purposes%of%the%law;%and%that%it%

be%not%in%contradiction%to,%but%inconformity%with,%the%standards%prescribed%by%law.%

%

Victorias%Milling%Co.%Inc.%v.%Social%Security%Commission%

FACTS:%

The%Social%Security%Commission%issued%its%Circular%No.%22%of%the%following%tenor:%

Effective%November%1,%1958,%all%Employers%in%computing%the%premiums%due%the%System,%will%take%into%

consideration%and%include%in%the%Employee’s%remuneration%all%bonuses%and%overtime%pay,%as%well%as%the%

cash%value%of%other%media%of%remuneration.%All%these%will%comprise%the%Employee’s%remuneration%or%

earnings,%upon%which%the%3\1/2%%and%2\1/2%%contributions%will%be%based,%up%to%a%maximum%of%P500%for%

any%one%month.%

Upon%receipt%of%a%copy%thereof,%petitioner%Victorias%Milling%Company,%Inc.,%through%counsel,%wrote%the%

Social%Security%Commission%in%effect%protesting%against%the%circular%as%contradictory%to%a%previous%

Circular%No.%7,%expressly%excluding%overtime%pay%and%bonus%in%the%computation%of%the%employers’%and%

employees’%respective%monthly%premium%contributions,%and%submitting,%“In%order%to%assist%your%System%

in%arriving%at%a%proper%interpretation%of%the%term%‘compensation’%for%the%purposes%of”%such%computation,%

their%observations%on%Republic%Act%1161%and%its%amendment%and%on%the%general%interpretation%of%the%

words%“compensation”,%“remuneration”%and%“wages”.%Counsel%further%questioned%the%validity%of%the%

circular%for%lack%of%authority%on%the%part%of%the%Social%Security%Commission%to%promulgate%it%without%the%

approval%of%the%President%and%for%lack%of%publication%in%the%Official%Gazette.%

ISSUE:%

Whether%or%not%Circular%No.%22%is%a%rule%or%regulation%as%contemplated%in%Section%4(a)%of%Republic%Act%

1161%empowering%the%Social%Security%Commission%“to%adopt,%amend%and%repeal%subject%to%the%approval%

of%the%President%such%rules%and%regulations%as%may%be%necessary%to%carry%out%the%provisions%and%purposes%

of%this%Act.”%

HELD:%

No.%The%Commission’s%Circular%No.%22%is%not%a%rule%or%regulation%that%needed%the%approval%of%the%

President%and%publication%in%the%Official%Gazette%to%be%effective,%but%a%mere%administrative%interpretation%

of%the%statute,%a%mere%statement%of%general%policy%or%opinion%as%to%how%the%law%should%be%construed.%

The%Circular%purports%merely%to%advise%employers\members%of%the%System%of%what,%in%the%light%of%the%

amendment%of%the%law,%they%should%include%in%determining%the%monthly%compensation%of%their%

employees%upon%which%the%social%security%contributions%should%be%based.%The%Circular%neither%needs%

approval%from%the%President%nor%publication%in%the%Official%Gazette.%

%

NATIONAL%FEDERATION%OF%SUGAR%WORKERS%v%OVEJERA%

FACTS:%

NFSW%struck%against%private%respondent%Central%Azucarera%de%la%Carlota%(CAC)%to%compel%the%latter%for%

the%payment%of%the%13th%month%pay%under%PD%851%(13th%Month%Pay%Law)%in%addition%to%the%Christmas,%

milling%and%amelioration%bonuses%being%enjoyed%by%CAC%workers%which%amount%to%1\½%months’%salary.%

Labor%Arbiter%Ovejera%declared%the%strike%as%illegal%and%no%pronouncement%was%made%as%to%the%demand%

on%the%13th%month%pay.%This%caused%petitioner%to%file%an%instant%petition%with%SC.%

ISSUE:%

W/N%under%PD%851,%an%employer%is%obliged%to%give%its%workers%a%13th%month%salary%in%addition%to%

Christmas,%milling%and%amelioration%bonuses,%the%aggregate%of%which%exceeds%the%13th%month%pay.%

HELD:%

No.%The%intention%was%to%grant%some%relief%—%not%to%all%workers%—%but%only%to%the%unfortunate%ones%not%

actually%paid%a%13th%month%salary%or%what%amounts%to%it,%by%whatever%name%called;%but%it%was%not%

envisioned%that%a%double%burden%would%be%imposed%on%the%employer%already%paying%his%employees%a%

13th%month%pay%or%its%equivalent%—%whether%out%of%pure%generosity%or%on%the%basis%of%a%binding%

agreement%and,%in%the%latter%ease,%regardless%of%the%conditional%character%of%the%grant,%so%long%as%there%is%

actual%payment.%Otherwise,%what%was%conceived%to%be%a%13th%month%salary%would%in%effect%become%a%

14th%or%possibly%15th%month%pay.%

%

%%