SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, petitioner, vs. HON. RALPH C. LANTION, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 25, and MARK B. JIMENEZ, respondents.

A strict observance of the Extradition Law indicates that the only duty of the Secretary of Justice is to file the extradition petition after the request and all the supporting papers are forwarded to him by the Secretary of Foreign Affairs.

It is the latter official who is authorized to evaluate the extradition papers, to assure their sufficiency, and under Paragraph [3], Article 3 of the Treaty, to determine whether or not the request is politically motivated, or that the offense is a military offense which is not punishable under nonmilitary penal legislation. Ipso facto, as expressly provided in the Secretary of Justice has the ministerial duty of filing the extradition papers.

IN RE:PETITION OF ARTURO EFREN GARCIA for admission to the Philippine Bar without taking the examination. ARTURO EFREN GARCIA, petitioner.

Philippine Bar; Requisites for Admission.—A Filipino citizenTreaty on Academic Degrees and the Exercise of Professions; Professionals governed by treaty.— The Treaty on Academic Degrees and the Exercise of Professions between the Republic of the Philippines and the Spanish State, is intended to govern Filipino citizens desiring to practice their profession in Spain, and the citizens of Spain desiring to practice their professions in thePhilippines. A Filipino citizen desiring to practice the legal profession in the Philippines, is not entitled to the privileges extended to Spanish nationals desiring to practice in the Philippines.

Same; Treaty cannot modify regulations governing admission to Philippine bar.—The aforementioned Treaty could not have been intended to modify the laws and regulations governing admission to the practice of law in the Philippines, for the reason that the Executive Department may not encroach upon the constitutional prerogative of the Supreme Court to promulgate rules for admission to the practice of law in the Philippines, the power to repeal, alter or supplement such rules being reserved only to the Congress of the Philippines. (See Sec. 13, Art. VIII, Philippine Constitution.)

J. A. SISON, petitioner, vs. THE BOARD OF ACCOUNTANCY and ROBERT ORR FERGUZON, respondents.

INTERNATIONAL LAW; COMITY OF NATIONS; CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT OF GREAT BRITAIN; ALLOWED TO PRACTICE IN THE PHILIPPINES.—While the profession of certified public accountant is not controlled or regulated by the Government of Great Britain, the country of origin of respondent R. O. F., according to the record, said respondent had been admitted in this country to the practice of his profession as certified public accountant on the strength of his membership of the Institute of Accountants and Actuaries in Glasgow (England), incorporated by Royal Charter, 1855. The question of his entitlement to admission to the practice of his profession in this jurisdiction, does not, therefore, come under reciprocity, as this principle is known in International Law, but is included in the meaning of comity, as expressed in the alternative condition of the proviso of section 12 of Act No. 3105 which says: such country or state does not restrict the right of Filipino certified public accountants to practice therein.

ID.; COMITY AND RECIPROCITY DEFINED AND DISTINGUISHED.—International Law is founded largely upon mutuality, reciprocity and the principle of comity of nations. Comity, in this connection, is neither a matter of absolute obligation on the one hand, nor of mere courtesy and good will on the other; it is the recognition which one nation allows within its territory to the acts of foreign governments and their tribunals, having due regard both to international duty and convenience and to the rights of its own citizens or of other persons who are under the protection of its laws. The fact of reciprocity does not necessarily influence the application of the doctrine of comity, although it may do so and has been given consideration in some instances.

Co KIM CHAM (alias Co CHAM), petitioner, vs. EUSEBIO VALDEZ TAN KEH and ARSENIO P. DIZON, Judge of First Instance of Manila, respondents.

POLITICAL AND INTERNATIONAL LAW; VALIDITYOF ACTS OF "DE FACTO" GOVERNMENT.—It is a legal truism in political and international law that all acts and proceedings of the legislative, executive, and judicial departments of a de facto government are good and valid.

VALIDITY OF JUDICIAL ACTS AND PROCEEDINGS OF PHILIPPINE EXECUTIVE COMMISSION AND REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES AFTER REOCCUPATION OF THE PHILIPPINES.—The Government of the Philippine Executive Commission and the Republic of the Philippines during the Japanese military occupation being de facto governments, it necessarily follows that the judicial acts and proceedings of the courts of justice of those governments, which are not of a political complexion, were good and valid, and, by virtue of the well-known principle of postliminy (postliminium) in international law, remained good and valid after the liberation or reoccupation of the Philippines by theAmerican and Filipino forces under the leadership ofGeneral Douglas MacArthur.

JURISDICTION OF COURTS OF COMMONWEALTH TO CONTINUE PROCEEDINGS IN ACTIONS PENDING IN COURTS DURING JAPANESE MILITARY OCCUPATION.—Although in theory the authority of the local civil and judicial administration is suspended as a matter of course as soon as military occupation takes place, in practice the invader does not usually take the administration of justice into his own hands, but continues the ordinary courts or tribunals to administer the laws of the country which he is enjoined, unless absolutely prevented, to respect. Following this practice and the precepts of the law of nations, the Commander in Chief of the Japanese forces proclaimed onJanuary 3, 1943, when Manila was occupied.

LAWYERS LEAGUE FOR BETTER PHIL., AND/OR OLIVER O. LOZANO, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL PRICE CONTROL COUNCIL AND/OR SHELL PHILIPPINES, INC., CALTEX PHILIPPINES, INC., FILOIL REFINERY CORPORATION, MOBIL OIL PHILIPPINES, INC.,GETTY OIL PHILIPPINES, INC., ESSO PHILIPPINES,INC., respondents.

Actions; Certiorari; Case at bar, moot and academic by virtue of separate action of same nature under new statute.—A previous petition for certiorari respecting the propriety of increases in the price of oil and similar products is rendered moot and academic where a statute authorizes a new hearing on such prices to be conducted by the new Price Control Council or the Oil Industry Commission and where the latter body had in fact met and conducted the corresponding hearing and rendered its decision now subject of a petition for review with the Supreme Court.

TANADA vs. ANGARA

International Law; While sovereignty has traditionally been deemed absolute and all—encompassing on the domestic level, it is however subject to restrictions and limitation s voluntarily agreed to by the Philippines, expressly or impliedly, as a member of the family of nations.—This Court notes and appreciates the ferocity and passion by which petitioners stressed their arguments on this issue. However, while sovereignty has traditionally been deemed absolute and all-encompassing on the domestic level, it is however subject to restrictions and limitations voluntarily agreed to by the Philippines, expressly or impliedly, as a member of the family of nations. Unquestionably, the Constitution did not envision a hermit type isolation of the country from the rest of the world.

Same; Same; Doctrine of Incorporation; Words and Phrases ;By the doctrine of incorporation, the country is bound by generally accepted principles of international law, which are considered automatically part of our own laws.—In its Declaration of Principles and State Policies, the Constitution “adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land, and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation and amity, with all nations.” By the doctrine of incorporation, the country is bound by generally accepted principles of international law, which are considered to be automatically part of our own laws. One of the oldest and most fundamental rules in international law is pacta sunt servanda— international agreements must be performed in good faith. “A treaty engagement is not a mere moral obligation but creates a legally binding obligation on the parties x x x. A state which has contracted valid international obligations is bound to make in its legislations such modifications as may be necessary to ensure the fulfillment of the obligations undertaken.”

Same; Same; Treaties; By their voluntary act, nations may surrender some aspects of their state power in exchange for greater benefits granted by or derived from a convention or pact.—by their inherent nature, treaties really limit or restrict the absoluteness of sovereignty. By their voluntary act, nations may surrender some aspects of their state power in exchange for greater benefits granted by or derived from a convention or pact. After all, states, like individuals, live with coequals, and in pursuit of mutually

covenanted objectives and benefits, they also commonly agree to limit the exercise of their otherwise absolute rights.THE HOLY SEE, petitioner, vs. THE HON. ERIBERTO U. ROSARIO, JR., as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 61 and STARBRIGHT SALES ENTERPRISES, INC., respondents.

Public International Law; Diplomatic Immunity; Nonsuability; Courts and Practices; A state or international agency requests the Foreign Office of the state where it is sued to convey to the court that it is entitled to immunity.—In Public International Law, when a state or international agency wishes to plead sovereign or diplomatic immunity in a foreign court, it requests the Foreign Office of the state where it is sued to convey to the court that said defendant is entitled to immunity.

Same; Same; Same; In the Philippines, the practice is for the government sovereign or the international organization to first secure an executive endorsement of its claim of sovereign or diplomatic immunity.—In the Philippines, the practice is for the foreign government or the international organization to first secure an executive endorsement of its claim of sovereign or diplomatic immunity. But how the Philippine Foreign Office conveys its endorsement to the courts varies.

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff and appellee, vs. GREGORIO PERFECTO, defendant and appellant.

EFFECT OF CHANGE FROM SPANISH TO AMERICAN SOVEREIGNTY OVER THE PHILIPPINES ON ARTICLE 256 OF THE PENAL CODE. (OPINION OF JUSTICES MALCOLM, OSTRAND, AND JOHNS.) — Article 256 of the Spanish Penal Code is not now in force because abrogated by the change from Spanish to American sovereignty over the Philippines and because inconsistent with democratic principles of government.

ID.; ID.; ID.—All those provisions of the Spanish Penal Code having to do with such subjects as treason, lése majesté, religion and worship, rebellion, sedition, and contempt of ministers of the crown, are no longer in force.Article 255 of the Penal Code is of a similar nature. It is a general principle of the public law that on acquisition of territory the previous political relations of the ceded region are totally abrogated. "It cannot be admitted that the King of Spain could, by treaty or otherwise, impart to the United States any of his royal prerogatives; And much less can it be admitted that they have capacity to receive or power to exercise them. Every nation acquiring territory, by treaty or otherwise, must hold it subject to the constitution and laws of its own government, and not according to those of the government ceding it." (Pollard vs. Hagan [1845], 3 How., 210.)

VERISIMO VASQUEZ VILAS, plaintiff in error and appellant, vs. CITY OF MANILA. (No. 53.) ESPERANZA OTERO TRIGAS ET AL., plaintiffs in error and appellants, vs. CITY OF MANILA. (No. 54.) RICARDO AGUADO, appellant vs. CITY OF MANILA.

INTERNATIONAL LAW; CESSIONS OR CONQUEST; DISSOLUTION OF MUNICIPALITY. —A municipal corporation is not totally dissolved as a mere consequence of military occupation or territorial cession.

ID.; RESULT OF CESSION; MUNICIPAL PROPERTY.—Public property belonging to the city of Manila as a municipal corporation cannot be regarded as having passed to the United States under the cession by Spain of the Philippine Islands for a cash consideration, under the treaty of Paris of December 10, 1898, of all "buildings, wharves, barracks, forts, structures, public highways, and other immovable property which, in conformity with law, belong to the public domain, and as such belong, to. The Crown of Spain,"—especially in view of the further stipulation protecting and safeguarding the property and property rights of municipal corporations precisely as were those of individuals.

LAO H. ICHONG, in his own behalf and in behalf of other alien residents, corporations and partnerships adversely affected by Republic Act No. 1180, petitioner, vs. JAIME HERNANDEZ, Secretary of Finance, and MARCELINO SARMIENTO, City Treasurer of Manila, respondents.

INTERNATIONAL TREATIES AND OBLIGATIONS NOT VIOLATED BY REPUBLIC ACT No. 1180; TREATIES SUBJECT TO QUALIFICATION OR AMENDMENT BY SUBSEQUENT LAW.—The law does not violate international treaties and obligations. The United Nations Charter imposes no strict or legal obligations regarding the rights and freedom of their subjects (Jans Kelsen, The Law of the United Nations,1951 ed., pp. 2932), and the Declaration of Human Rights contains nothing more than a mere recommendation, or a common standard of achievement

for all peoples and all nations. The Treaty of Amity between the Republic of the Philippines and the Republic of China of April 18, 1947 guarantees equality of treatment to the Chinese nationals "upon the same terms as the nationals of any other country". But the nationals of China are not discriminated against because nationals of all other countries, except those of the United States, who are granted special rights by the Constitution, are all prohibited from engaging in the retail trade. But even supposing that the law infringes upon the said treaty, the treaty is always subject to qualification or amendment by a subsequent law.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CAPT. JAMES E, GALLOWAY, WILLIAM I. COLLINS and ROBERT GOHIER, petitioners, vs. HON. V.M. RUIZ, Presiding Judge of Branch XV, Court of First Instance of Rizal and ELIGIO DE GUZMAN & CO., INC., respondents.

Public Corporations; Constitutional Law; Contracts; In suits against a foreign government, a distinction must he made between acts jure imperil and acts jure gestionis. As to the former, the State immunity prevails .—The traditional rule of State immunity exempts a State from being sued in the courts of another State without its consent or waiver. This rule is a necessary consequence of the principles of independence and equality of States. However, the rules of International Law are not petrified; they are constantly developing and evolving. And because the activities of states have multiplied, it has been necessary to distinguish them—between sovereign and governmental acts (jure imperii) and private, commercial and proprietary acts (jure gestionis). The result is that State immunity now extends only to acts jure imperii. The restrictive application of State immunity is now the rule in the United States, the United Kingdom and other states in western Europe. (See Coquia and DefensorSantiago, Public International Law.

THE REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA, HIS EXCELLENCYAMBASSADOR SOERATMIN, and MINISTERCOUNSELLOR AZHARI KASIM, petitioners, vs. JAMESVINZON, doing business under the name and style ofVINZON TRADE AND SERVICES, respondent.

International Law; State Sovereignty; Immunity from Suit; Consent is a necessary consequence of the principles of independence and equality of States; All states are sovereign equals and cannot assert jurisdiction over one another. —International law is founded largely upon the principles of reciprocity, comity, independence, and equality of States which were adopted as part of the law of our land under Article II, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution. The rule that a State may not be sued without its consent is a necessary consequence of the principles of independence and equality of States. As enunciated in Sanders v. Veridiano II, the practical justification for the doctrine of sovereign immunity is that there can be no legal right against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends. In the case of foreign States, the rule is derived from the principle of the sovereign equality of States, as expressed in the maxim par in parem non habet imperium. All states are sovereign equals and cannot assert jurisdiction over one another. A contrary attitude would “unduly vex the peace of nations.”

ERNESTO L. CALLADO, petitioner, vs. INTERNATIONAL RICE RESEARCH INSTITUTE, respondent.

International Law; Immunity From Suits; The IRRI is immune from suit.—IRRI’s immunity from suit is undisputed. Presidential Decree No. 1620, Article 3 provides: “Article 3. Immunity from Legal Process. The Institute shall enjoy immunity from any penal, civil and administrative proceedings, except insofar as that immunity has been expressly waived by the Director-general of the Institute or his authorized.

PIMENTEL Jr., vs. OFFICE of the EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

International Law; Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court; Only Senator Pimentel has the legal standing to file the instant suit since the other petitioners, even as they maintain their standing as advocates and defenders of human rights, and as citizens of the country, have not shown that they have sustained or will sustain a direct injury from the non-transmittal of the signed text of the Rome Statute to the Senate— the Rome Statute is intended to complement national criminal laws and courts and sufficient remedies are available under our national laws to protect our citizens against human rights violations and petitioners can always seek redress for any abuse in our domestic courts.—The question in standing is whether a party has alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the

presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions. We find that among the petitioners, only Senator Pimentel has the legal standing to file the instant suit. The other petitioners maintain their standing as advocates and defenders of human rights, and as citizens of the country. They have not shown, however, that they have sustained or will sustain a direct injury from the non-transmittal of the signed text of the RomeStatute to the Senate. Their contention that they will be deprived of their remedies for the protection and enforcement of their rights does not persuade. The Rome Statute is intended to complement national criminal laws and courts. Sufficient remedies are available under our national laws to protect our citizens against human rights violations and petitioners can always seek redress for any abuse in our domestic courts.

LEOVILLO C. AGUSTIN, petitioner, vs. HON. ROMEO F. EDU, in his capacity as Land Transportation Commissioner; HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, in his capacity as Minister of National Defense; HON. ALFREDO L. JUINIO, in his capacity as Minister of Public Works, Transportation and Communications; and HON: BALTAZAR AQUINO, in his capacity as Minister of Public Highways, respondents.

International Law; The 2968 Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals is impressed with the character of “generally accepted principles of international law” which under the Constitution the Philippines adopts as part of the law of the land.—The petition itself quoted these two whereas clauses of the assailed Letter of Instruction: “[Whereas], the hazards posed by such obstructions to traffic have been recognized by international bodies concerned with traffic safety, the 1968 Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals and the United Nations Organization (U.N.); [Whereas], the said Vienna Convention, which was ratified by the Philippine Government under P.D. No. 207, recommended the enactment of local legislation for the installation of road safety signs and devices: * * *:” It cannot be disputed then that this Declaration of Principle found in the Constitution possesses relevance: “The Philippines * * * adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land, * * *: The 1968 Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals is impressed with such a character. It is not for this country to repudiate a commitment to which it had pledged its word. The concept of Pacta sunt servanda stands in the way of such an attitude, which is, moreover, at war with the principle of international morality.

BAGONG ALYANSANG MAKABAYAN vs. ZAMORA

It bears stressing that a taxpayer’s suit refers to a case where the act complained of directly involves the illegal disbursement of public funds derived from taxation.—In the case before us, petitioners failed to show, to the satisfaction of this Court, that they have sustained, or are in danger of sustaining any direct injury as a result of the enforcement of the VFA. As taxpayers, petitioners have not established that the VFA involves the exercise by Congress of its taxing or spending powers. On this point, it bears stressing that a taxpayer’s suit refers to a case where the act complained of directly involves the illegal disbursement of public funds derived from taxation. Thus, in Bugnay Const. & Development Corp. vs. Laron, we held: “x x xit is exigent that the taxpayer plaintiff sufficiently show that he would be benefited or injured by the judgment or entitled to the avails of the suit as a real party in interest. Before he can invoke the power of judicial review, he must specifically prove that he has sufficient interest in preventing the illegal expenditure of money raised by taxation and that he will sustain a direct injury as a result of the enforcement of the questioned statute or contract. It is not sufficient that he has merely a general interest common to all members of the public.”

MARIA JEANETTE C. TECSON and FELIX E. DESIDERIO, JR., petitioners, vs. The COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, RONALD ALLAN KELLEY POE (a.k.a. FERNANDO POE, JR.) and VICTORINO X. FORNIER, respondents.

The 1935 Constitution confers citizenship to all persons whose fathers are Filipino citizens regardless of whether such children are legitimate or illegitimate.—In ascertaining, in G.R. No. 161824, whether grave abuse of discretion has been committed by the COMELEC, it is necessary to take on the matter of whether or not respondent FPJ is a natural born citizen, which, in turn, depended on whether or not the father of respondent, Allan F. Poe, would have himself been a Filipino citizen and, in the affirmative, whether or not the alleged illegitimacy of respondent prevents him from taking after the Filipino citizenship of his putative father. Any conclusion on theFilipino citizenship of Lorenzo Pou could only be drawn from the presumption that having died in 1954 at 84 years old, Lorenzo would have been born sometime in the year 1870, when the Philippines was under

Spanish rule, and that San Carlos, Pangasinan, his place of residence upon his death in 1954, in the absence of any other evidence, could have well been his place of residence before death, such that Lorenzo Pou would have benefited from the “en masse Filipinization” that the PhilippineBill had effected in 1902. That citizenship (of Lorenzo Pou), if acquired, would thereby extend to his son, Allan F. Poe, father of respondent FPJ. The 1935 Constitution, during which regime respondent FPJ has seen first light, confers citizenship to all persons whose fathers are Filipino citizens regardless of whether such children are legitimate or illegitimate.

KAPISANAN NG MANGGAGAWA AT TAC SA IRRIORGANIZEDLABOR ASSOCIATION IN LINE INDUSTRIES AND AGRICULTURE, petitioner, vs. SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT ANDINTERNATIONAL RICE RESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC., respondents.

Political Law; Public International Law; Nature of Specialized Agencies; Specialized agencies are international organizations.—"Specialized agencies" are international organizations having functions in particular fields. The term appears in Articles 57 and 63 of the Charter of the UnitedNations: "The Charter, while it invests the United Nations with the general task of promoting progress and international cooperation in economic, social, health, cultural, educational and related matters, contemplates that these tasks will be mainly fulfilled not by organs of the United Nations itself but by autonomous international organizations established by intergovernmental agreements outside the United Nations. There are now many such international agencies having functions in many different fields, e.g. in posts, telecommunications, railways, canals, rivers, sea transport, civil aviation, meteorology, atomic energy, finance, trade, education and culture, health and refugees. Some are virtually worldwide in their membership, some are regional or otherwise limited in their membership. The Charter provides that those agencies which have 'wide international responsibilities' are to be brought into relationship with the United Nations by agreements entered into between them and the Economic and Social Council, are then to be known as 'specialized agencies.'"