Monsanto Vinuya

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.


2/13


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,


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.


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


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.


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.


8/13

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.


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


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


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.


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.


13/13

Documents

Monsanto Vinuya