ANSWERS TO THE FINAL EXAMINATION

1.The President forged an executive agreement with Vietnam for a year supply of animal feeds to the Philippines not to exceed 40,000 tons. The Association of Animal Feed Sellers of the Philippines questioned the executive agreement for being contrary to R.A. 462 which prohibits the importation of animal feeds from Asian countries. Is the challenge correct?

A. Yes, the executive agreement is contrary to our existing domestic law.
B. No, the President is the sole organ of the government in external relations and all his actions as such form part of the law of the land.
C. No, international agreements are sui generis which must stand independently of our domestic laws.
D. Yes, the executive agreement is actually a treaty which does not take effect without ratification by the Senate.

2. Carlos, a foreign national was charged with and convicted of a serious crime in State X and sentenced to life imprisonment. His country applied for relief with the International Court of Justice (ICJ), arguing that State X did not inform Carlos of his right under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention to be accorded legal assistance by his government. State X, as signatory to the Vienna Convention,agreed to ICJ's compulsory jurisdiction over all disputes regarding the interpretation or application of the Vienna Convention. ICJ ruled that State X violated its obligation to provide consular notification to the foreign national's country. ICJ also required State X to review and reconsider the life sentence imposed on the foreign national. State X then wrote the United Nations informing that it was withdrawing from the Optional Protocol on Vienna Convention and was not bound by the ICJ decision. What principle of international law did State X violate?

A. Pacta Sunt Servanda
B. Act of State Doctrine
C. Protective Principle
D. Jus Cogens

3. Which of the following statements is NOT correct?

(A) No province, city, or municipality, not even the ARMM, is recognized under our laws as having an "associative" relationship with the national government.
(B) In international practice, the "associated state" arrangement has usually been used as a transitional device of former colonies on their way to full independence.
(C) An association is formed when two states of equal power voluntarily establish durable links
(D) It bears noting that in U.S. constitutional and international practice, free association is understood as an international association between sovereigns.

4. It is a principle of international law that the armed forces of one State, when crossing the territory of another friendly country, with the acquiescence of the latter, is---

(A) not subject to the jurisdiction of the territorial sovereign, but to that of the officers and superior authorities of its own command.
(B)subject to the criminal and civil jurisdiction of the receiving state
(C) Must obtain express permission before its troops can pass through the territory of another state
(D) understood to cede a portion of his territorial jurisdiction

5. Uti possidetis is a principle in international law that territory and other property remains with its possessor at the end of a conflict, unless provided for by treaty. Originating in Roman law, this principle enables a belligerent party to claim territory that it has acquired by war. Literally it means

(a) as you take
(b) as you use
(c) as you possess
(d) as you use and possess

6. The term was originally used in treaties to refer to the withdrawal of enemy troops and the restoration of prewar leadership. When used as such, it means that no side gains or loses territory or economic and political rights.

(a) status quo ante bellum
(b)right of angary
(c) treaty limits theory
(d) jus bellum

7. Which of the following does NOT define Rendition in the context of public international law ?

(A) a "surrender" or "handing over" of persons or property, particularly from one jurisdiction to another
(B) For criminal suspects, extradition is different from rendition.
(C) Act of rendering, i.e. delivering, a judicial decision, or of explaining a series of events, as a defendant or witness
(D) Each state has a presumptive duty to render suspects on the request of another state, as under the full faith and credit clause.

8. In the case of THE HOLY SEE vs. ERIBERTO U. ROSARIO, JR., ET AL. (G.R. No. 101949 December 1, 1994) the procedure is outlined pursuant to public international law in pleading sovereign or diplomatic immunity in a foreign court.
l. State the procedure.
2. In the United States the procedure followed is the process of “suggestion”. EXPLAIN THE “process of suggestion”.

ANSWER:

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.

In the United States, the procedure followed is the process of "suggestion," where the foreign state or the international organization sued in an American court requests the Secretary of State to make a determination as to whether it is entitled to immunity. If the Secretary of State finds that the defendant is immune from suit, he, in turn, asks the Attorney General to submit to the court a "suggestion" that the defendant is entitled to immunity. In England, a similar procedure is followed, only the Foreign Office issues a certification to that effect instead of submitting a "suggestion" (O'Connell, I International Law 130 [1965]; Note: Immunity from Suit of Foreign Sovereign Instrumentalities and Obligations, 50 Yale Law Journal 1088 [1941]).

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. In International Catholic Migration Commission v. Calleja, 190 SCRA 130 (1990), the Secretary of Foreign Affairs just sent a letter directly to the Secretary of Labor and Employment, informing the latter that the respondent-employer could not be sued because it enjoyed diplomatic immunity. In World Health Organization v. Aquino, 48 SCRA 242 (1972), the Secretary of Foreign Affairs sent the trial court a telegram to that effect. In Baer v. Tizon, 57 SCRA 1 (1974), the U.S. Embassy asked the Secretary of Foreign Affairs to request the Solicitor General to make, in behalf of the Commander of the United States Naval Base at Olongapo City, Zambales, a "suggestion" to respondent Judge. The Solicitor General embodied the "suggestion" in a Manifestation and Memorandum as amicus curiae.

In the case at bench, the Department of Foreign Affairs, through the Office of Legal Affairs moved with this Court to be allowed to intervene on the side of petitioner. The Court allowed the said Department to file its memorandum in support of petitioner's claim of sovereign immunity.

In some cases, the defense of sovereign immunity was submitted directly to the local courts by the respondents through their private counsels (Raquiza v. Bradford, 75 Phil. 50 [1945]; Miquiabas v. Philippine-Ryukyus Command, 80 Phil. 262 [1948]; United States of America v. Guinto, 182 SCRA 644 [1990] and companion cases). In cases where the foreign states bypass the Foreign Office, the courts can inquire into the facts and make their own determination as to the nature of the acts and transactions involved.

III

9. The case arose when Cuba nationalized its sugar industry, taking control of sugar refineries and other companies in the wake of the Cuban revolution. A large number of Americans who had invested in those companies lost their investments without compensation when the Cuban government assumed control. However, despite the loss suffered by United States nationals, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of Cuba's domestic action and therefore rejected the claim of US nationals against Cuba for their lost investments.

Question: What principle of international law is applied by the U.S. Court regarding this matter? Explain this principle.

ANSWER: Act of State doctrine.This doctrine says that a nation is sovereign within its own borders, and its domestic actions may not be questioned in the courts of another nation. Each sovereign state has complete control over the laws within its own borders and that its acts cannot be questioned in the courts of another state.
The act-of-state doctrine is a common-law principle that prevents U.S. courts from questioning the validity of a foreign country's sovereign acts that take place within its own territory. The "Act of State Doctrine" says that courts should not decide cases that would interfere with their country's foreign policy.

10. (a) According to Jessup, what is the meaning of the doctrine of Rebus sic stantibus? (b) What is the key element of said doctrine?(c) Does this doctrine operate automatically to render a treaty inoperative.

ANSWER:The petitioner is invoking the doctrine of rebus sic stantibus. According to Jessup, "this doctrine constitutes an attempt to formulate a legal principle which would justify non-performance of a treaty obligation if the conditions with relation to which the parties contracted have changed so materially and so unexpectedly as to create a situation in which the exaction of performance would be unreasonable." The key element of this doctrine is the vital change in the condition of the contracting parties that they could not have foreseen at the time the treaty was concluded. The doctrine of rebus sic stantibus does not operate automatically to render the treaty inoperative. There is a necessity for a formal act of rejection, usually made by the head of State, with a statement of the reasons why compliance with the treaty is no longer required.