View
213
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
8/11/2019 Monsanto Vinuya
1/13
CASE FACTS ISSUE PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS RULING RATIO
MonsantoVS
Factoran
PET Calbayog AsstTreasurer SalvacionMosanto and three otheraccused were convicted
by the Sandiganbayan ofthe complex crime ofestafa thru falsification ofpublic documents.Appealed, but was denied.While her motion forreconsideration waspending, PresidentMarcos granted her anabsolute pardon whichshe accepted.
PET requested that she bereinstated to her formerposition without thenecessity of a newappointment.More importantly, whenpardon was issued beforethe final verdict of guilt, itwas an acquittal becausethere was no offense tospeak of. In effect, thePresident has declared
her not guilty of the crimecharged and hasaccordingly dismissed thesame.
W/N a publicofficer, whohas beengranted an
absolutepardon by theChiefExecutive, isentitled toreinstatementto her formerpositionwithout needof a newappointment.
The Finance Ministrygranted her request,but no earlier thanthe date she was
extended the absolutepardon. PET arguedthat the full pardonshe received wipedout the crime whichimplies that herservice in thegovernment wasnever interrupter andtherefore the date ofher reinstatementcorresponded to the
date of herpreventivesuspension and thatshe is entitled tobackpay.
PET argued thatwithout that finaljudgment ofconviction, theaccessory penalty offorfeiture of office did
not attach and thestatus of heremploymentremained"suspended."
RES Deputy ExecutiveSecretary Fulgencio S.Factoran, Jr., afterreceiving PET letter
from the Ministry ofFinance, argued thatacquittal, not absolutepardon, of a formerpublic officer is theonly ground forreinstatement to hisformer position andentitlement topayment of hissalaries, benefits andemoluments due to
him during the periodof his suspensionpendente lite.
NO. PET, though pardoned,cannot be entitled toreceive backpay for lostearnings and benefits.
Pardon does not ipsofacto restore a convictedfelon to public officenecessarily relinquishedor forfeited by reason ofthe conviction, althoughsuch pardon undoubtedlyrestores his eligibility forappointment to thatoffice. Stated differently,the pardon granted topetitioner has resulted in
removing herdisqualification fromholding publicemployment but itcannot go beyond that.To regain her former postas assistant citytreasurer, she must re-apply and undergo theusual procedure requiredfor a new appointment.
8/11/2019 Monsanto Vinuya
2/13
8/11/2019 Monsanto Vinuya
3/13
Petitioner was thenreinstated from hiswork and he is claimingbefore the COA for hisback payment of
salaries from the timeof his dismissal up topresent. RespondentCOA denied petitioners
pleadings and refusedto give due course tohis claim.
illegally dismissed and
were thus orderedreinstated or to those
otherwise acquitted of
the charges against
them.
GonzalesVS
Hechanova
Then PresidentDiosdado Macapagalentered into two
executive agreementswith Vietnam andBurma for theimportation of ricewithout complying withthe requisite ofsecuring a certificationfrom the Natl
Economic Councilshowing that there is ashortage in cereals.Hence, Hechanova
authorized theimportation of 67000tons of rice fromabroad to the detrimentof our local planters.Gonzales, thenpresident of the IloiloPalay and Corn PlantersAssociation assailed theexecutive agreements.
W/N theexecutiveagreements may
be validated inour courts.
Respondents claimthat in cases where anexecutive agreement,
in the form of thecontracts entered intoby hereinrespondents, fall incontrast with existingstatutes as that of RA2207 (which prohibitsthe importation of ricewith the exception ofcertain conditions)and RA 3452 (whichexpressly prohibits
the importation ofrice) the latter shouldprevail sinceaccording to AmericanJurisprudence, itreflects the latestintentions have nomerits becausealthough the Presidentis generally allowed to
NO. The Court is not satisfiedthat the status of saidtracts as alleged
executive agreements hasbeen sufficientlyestablished. Evenassuming that saidcontracts may properlyconsidered as executiveagreements, the same areunlawful, as well as nulland void, from aconstitutional viewpoint,said agreements beinginconsistent with the
provisions of RepublicActs Nos. 2207 and 3452.Although the Presidentmay, under the Americanconstitutional systementer into executiveagreements withoutprevious legislativeauthority, he may not, byexecutive agreement,
8/11/2019 Monsanto Vinuya
4/13
Gonzales averred thatHechanova is withoutjurisdiction or in excessof jurisdiction, because
RA 3452 prohibits the
importation of rice andcorn by the Rice and
Corn Administration orany other governmentagency.
enter into executiveagreements withoutprevious legislation,the latter can neverenter into transactions
which are prohibitedby prior enactedstatutes.
enter into a transactionwhich is prohibited bystatutes enacted priorthereto.Under the Constitution,
the main function of theExecutive is to enforcelaws enacted byCongress. He may notinterfere in theperformance of thelegislative powers of thelatter, except in theexercise of his vetopower. He may not defeatlegislative enactmentsthat have acquired the
status of law, byindirectly repealing thesame through anexecutive agreementproviding for theperformance of the veryact prohibited by saidlaws.
8/11/2019 Monsanto Vinuya
5/13
USAFFEVS
Treasurer
President of the UnitedStates Franklin D.Roosevelt called intoaction his ArmedForces in lieu of the
coming War. Alsoincluded in such callwere the military forcesof the PhilippineCommonwealth. Giventhis, the Congress of theUS provided in itsAppropriation Act of1941, appropriations tobe allotted to the Armyof the Philippines whichshall be expended in
the manner prescribedby the President of theUS, but shall beavailable to theGovernment of thePhilippines upon itswritten request of forreimbursement.
Subsequent acts ofsimilar nature weremade by the U.S
Congress appropriatingmoney, and the totalamount appropriated tothe Philippine ArmedForces amounted toP578,863,000.00. Ofthose amounts about35 million dollarsremained in thepossession of the
WoN theRomulo-SnyderAgreement wasvalid?
The petitionerscontend that themoney delivered tothe Armed Forces bythe U.S were straight
payments for militaryservices andtherefore belonged tothe PhilippineGovernment.Furthermore theycontend that theofficers who signedthe agreement had noauthority to sign thesame, seeing as it waswithout concurrence
of Congress. Theythen prayed that theamounts be paid tothem to serve theunpaid claims of theveterans.
The petitioners resttheir arguments onthe fact that theagreement lackedratification by the
Senate of thePhilippines to make itbinding on theGovernment.
YES: TrialCourtsdecision isaffirmed andthe Romulo
Snyderagreement isdeemedvalid.
It is concluded by thecourt that the agreementis not a treaty per se, andthe fact that it was notsubmitted to Senate for
its concurrence isconceded. Howevertreaties are not the onlyinternational agreementsthat are binding, in factthis agreement may beconsidered as anExecutive Agreementthat requires noconcurrence from Senatebut is equally binding.
Executive Agreementsfall into two classes: (1)agreements made purelyas executive actsaffecting externalrelations andindependent of orwithout legislativeauthorization, which maybe termed as presidentialagreements and (2)agreements entered into
in pursuants of acts ofCongress, which havebeen designated asCongressional-ExecutiveAgreements.
The Romulo-SnyderAgreement may fallunder any of these twoclasses, for precisely on
8/11/2019 Monsanto Vinuya
6/13
Philippine ArmedForces. Howeverneeding funds in adying financial situationthen President Quirino
requested that thePhilippine Governmentretain the fund to bepaid in ten annualinstallments later on.
These installmentswere to be the subjectof the assailedagreement in this casewhich is the Romulo-Snyder Agreement
signed on Washingtonin November 6, 1950.The agreementprovided that thePhilippine Governmentshall pay back the 35million by payingaround $3.5 million inten years.
September 18, 1946,Congress of thePhilippines specificallyauthorized the Presidentof the Philippines to
obtain such loans orincur such indebtednesswith the Government ofthe United States, itsagencies orinstrumentalities.
8/11/2019 Monsanto Vinuya
7/13
TanadaVS
Angara
Doctrine: A final
act, sometimescalled protocol declture, is aninstrument whichrecords thewinding up of theproceedings of adiplomaticconference andusually includes areproduction ofthe texts of
treaties,conventions,recommendationsand other actsagreed upon andsigned by theplenipotentiariesattending theconference. It is
not the treatyitself. It is rathera summary of the
proceedings of aprotractedconference whichmay have takenplace over severalyears.
In April 15, 1994Secretary Navarro(respondent) signedthe Final ActEmbodying the
Results of theUruguay Round ofMultilateralNegotiations inMorroco. The Senatereceived a letter forits concurrence inAugust and onDecember, thePhilippine Senateadopted a resolutionto concur the
AgreementEstablishing theWorld TradeOrganization.However, the FinalAct signed bySecretary Navarro notonly contains theWTO Agreement butalso the MinisterialDeclarations andDecisions and the
Understanding onCommitments andFinancial Services. OnDecember 29, 1994, apetition was filed.
W/N RESmembers of theSenate acted ingrave abuse ofdiscretion
amounting tolack or excess ofjurisdictionwhen theyconcurred onlyin theratification ofthe AgreementEstablishing theWorld TradeOrganization,and not with
the Presidentialsubmission
PET Sen. Wilberto E.Tanada, et al.contends both thewisdom and legalityof WTO. PET argued,
inter alia,concurrence only inthe WTO Agreementand not in otherdocumentscontained in theFinal Act is defectiveand insufficient andthus constitutesabuse of authority.PET submit thatsuch concurrence in
the WTO Agreementalone is flawedbecause it is in effecta rejection of theFinal Act, which inturn was thedocument signed bySecretary Navarro,in representation ofthe Republic uponauthority of thePresident. They
contend that thesecond letter of thePresident to theSenate whichenumerated whatconstitutes the FinalAct should havebeen the subject ofconcurrence of theSenate.
RES Sen. EgardoAngara et al. aremembers of theSenate whoconcurred in the
ratification whoconcurred in theratification by thePresident of theAgreementestablishing theWorld TradeOrganization.
NO. TheCourt cannotfind anycogentreason to
impute graveabuse ofdiscretion tothe Senates
exercise of itspower ofconcurrencein the WTOAgreementgranted it bySec. 21 ofArticle VII of
theConstitution.
Senate records showthat the Senatedeliberated on whatexactly was the subjectof their concurrence.
An excerpt reveals:SEN TOLENTINO: Mr.Chairman, I have notseen the newsubmission actuallytransmitted to us but Isaw the draft of hisearlier, and I think itnow complies with theprovisions of theConstitution, and withthe Final Act itself. The
Constitution does notrequire us to ratify theFinal Act. It requires usto ratify the Agreementwhich is now beingsubmitted. The FinalAct itself specifies whatis going to besubmitted to with thegovernments of theparticipants.
8/11/2019 Monsanto Vinuya
8/13
BayanVS
Zamora
After the expiration ofthe RP-US MilitaryBases Agreement, theRP-US negotiated for apossible extension of
the RP-US MilitaryBases Agreement.Negotiations led tothe Visiting ForcesAgreement. The draftwas approved by thethen President FidelV. Ramos and the USAmbassador ThomasHubbard. Then,President Estradaratified the VFA and
submitted throughExec. SecretaryZamora, the VFA forconcurrence of theSenate in pursuant ofSection 21 Article 7 ofthe Constitution. Theproposed resolutionwas then approved by2/3 of the Senate asSenate Resolution No.18.
Is VFAgoverned by theprovision ofSection 21,Article 7 or of
Section 25,Article 18?
Whether thereis a grave abuseof discretion bythe Presidentand the Senatein ratifying theagreement
The petitionerssubmit that there isgrave abuse ofdiscretion and thatArticle 18 Section
25, not Article 7Section 21 should beapplied. On thegrounds of the thirdrequirement ofArt.18 Section 25 recognized as atreaty, thepetitioners furtherassail the validity ofthe VFA agreementbeing a mere
executive agreementby the United States,and do not possessthe advice andconsent of theUnited States Senatepursuant to its ownconstitutionalprocess. Thus, thepetitions assail thevalidity of the VFAagreement.
DISMISSED. Sec. 21, Art. VIIpertains to treaties andinternationalagreements in generalwhile Sec. 25, Art. XVIII
applies to treatieswhich involve thepresence of militarybases, troops orfacilities in thePhilippines.
The former onlyrequires theconcurrence of themembers of the Senate.On the other hand, the
latter requires theconcurrence of theSenate, ratification by amajority of votes castin a nationalreferendum andrecognition by theother contracting State.Therefore, bothprovisions areapplicable.
8/11/2019 Monsanto Vinuya
9/13
AbayaVS
Ebdane
The government ofJapan and thePhilippines conductedExchange of Notesconcerning the
understanding ofJapanese loans to beextended to thePhilippineGovernment for thecountrys economic
stabilization anddevelopment. JapanBank for InternationalCooperation (JBIC)agreed to lend RP anamount not exceeding
Y15.4Billion asprincipal for theimplementation of theArterial Road Links
Development Project.
Subsequently, DPWHwho was tasked toimplement the projectissued a publishedinvitation to bid,eventually out of the23 foreign and local
contractors thatjoined the bidding,only seven remainedand China Road andBridge Corporationwon the biddingdespite its bid amountof P950Billion that isapparently above theApproved Budget for
W/N DPWHerred inupholding thegrant of theaforementioned
project to ChinaRoad andBridgeCorporation
PetitionDISMISSED.
RA 9184, whichpetitioners heavilybank on, cannot beapplied because theadvertisements of the
invitation for bids wasalready issued prior tothe effectivity of thesaid act, and since lawscannot be givenretroactive effectunless expresslyprovided, it should beEO 40, PD 1594, RA7160 and their IRRwhich should govern.
It should be noted thatthe assailed Loan
Agreement, taken in
conjunction with the
Exchange of Notes is an
Executive Agreement
since it was executed
pursuant to the
agreement and is an
integral part of the
same.
Loan Agreement, takenin conjunction with theExchange of Notes is anExecutive Agreementsince it was executedpursuant to the
8/11/2019 Monsanto Vinuya
10/13
the Contract whichwas only atP730Billion; hencethe current petitionassailing DPWHs
resolution PJHL-A-04-012 which awardedChina Road & BridgeCorporation with theproject.
agreement and is anintegral part of thesame
PharmaceuticalVS
DOH
This tackles theconstitutionality ofthe RIRRimplemented by theDOH vis a vis theprovisions of the MilkCode or EO 51, a Code
that adopted theICMBS. The ICMBS hasbeen adopted as adomestic law throughlocal legislation in1981 (by doctrine oftransformation),hence it is the MilkCode that is in effectand not really theICMBS. Moreover, itmust be noted that
while the Milk Codealmost verbatimadopts the ICMBS, itdid not adopt theprovision in theICMBS prohibitingprohibitingadvertising or otherforms of promotion tothe general public of
Whetherpertinentinternationalagreementsentered into bythe Philippinesare part of the
law of the landandmay beimplementedby the DOHthrough theRIRR; If in theaffirmative,whether theRIRR is inaccord with theinternational
agreements
The RIRR goesbeyond theprovisions of theMilk Code therebyamending andexpanding the saidlaw
YES. Court considers theWHA Resolutions assoft law (already
discussed before asrecommendations that
have political weight,and are not binding).
Respondents failed toestablish that such lawis customaryinternational law suchthat it can be deemedpart of the law of theland (by virtue ofincorporation). Thoseprovisions containingprohibitions on theadvertising andpromoting of
breastmilk substitutescannot be adopted ascontained in the WHAResolutions as it iswanting of a locallegislation in pursuantto Article VII, Section21 of the Constitution(doctrine oftransformation). Only
8/11/2019 Monsanto Vinuya
11/13
products within thescope of the ICMBS.Instead, the Milk Codeexpressly providesthat advertising,
promotion, or othermarketing materialsmay be allowed ifsuch materials areduly authorized andapproved by theInter-AgencyCommittee (IAC).
those contained in theMilk Code, as it is thelaw that has alreadygone through locallegislation, can be
implemented by theDOH through the RIRR.
8/11/2019 Monsanto Vinuya
12/13
VinuyaVS
Romulo
"PET Isabelita Vinuya,et al. were allmembers of theMalaya LolasOrganization,
established for thepurpose of providingaid to the victims ofrape by Japanesemilitary forces in thePhilippines duringWWII.
PET argue that (1) thegeneral waiver ofclaims made by thePhilippine
government in theTreaty of Peace withJapan is void. (2) Theyclaim that the comfortwomen systemestablished by Japan,and the brutal rapeand enslavement ofpetitionersconstituted a crimeagainst humanity,sexual slavery, and
torture.
(1) W/N RESultra vires inrefusing toespouse theclaims of the
PET for thecrimes againsthumanity andwar crimescommittedagainst them;and,
(2) W/N theCourt cancompel RES toespouse PET
claims forofficial apologyand other formsof reparationsagainst Japanbefore theInternationalCourt of Justice(ICJ) and otherinternationaltribunals.
They also allege thatthe prohibitionagainst theseinternational crimesis jus cogensnorms
from which noderogation ispossible; as such, inwaiving the claimsof Filipina comfortwomen and failingto espouse theircomplaints againstJapan, the Philippinegovernment is inbreach of its legalobligation not to
afford impunity forcrimes againsthumanity.
Finally, PET assertthat the Philippinegovts acceptance of
the apologies
made by Japan aswell as funds fromthe Asian Womens
Fund (AWF) were
contrary tointernational law.
RES ExecutiveSecretary AlbertoRomulo, et al.maintain that (1)allclaims of the
Philippines and itsnationals relative tothe war were dealtwith in the SanFrancisco PeaceTreaty of 1951 andthe bilateralReparationsAgreement of 1956.(2) In addition, RESargue that theapologies made by
Japan have beensatisfactory, and (3)that Japan hadaddressed theindividual claims ofthe women throughthe atonementmoney paid by theAWF."
NO. The issue is political innature. It is not withinSC power to order theExecutive Departmentto take up the PET
cause. SC only powerin this regard is to urgeand exhort theExecutive Departmentto take up PET cause.Jurisdiction over suchissues of internationalscope lies with theExecutive Department,particularly the ChiefExecutive. As a generalprinciple and
particularly here,where such anextraordinary length oftime has lapsedbetween the treatys
conclusion and ourconsideration theExecutive must begiven ample discretionto assess the foreignpolicy considerationsof espousing a claim
against Japan, from thestandpoint of both theinterests of thepetitioners and thoseof the Republic, anddecide on that basis ifapologies are sufficient,and whether furthersteps are appropriateor necessary.
8/11/2019 Monsanto Vinuya
13/13
Recommended