1.What do you understand by the
“Principle of Active or Affective Nationality” as embodied in the Hague
Convention of 1930 on the Conflict of Nationality Laws? How was it applied in
the Nottebohm case as decided by the International Court of Justice in 1955?
2.There
is always a possibility that failure of unity among the Big Five of the UN will
render the Security Council impotent in the solution of international disputes.
As observed, the veto cast by any of the permanent members will prevent
agreement on this matter. To avoid this predicament of inaction, what did the
General Assembly of the United Nations adopt? Explain some of the details
cncerning said resolution.
3.What are franc tireurs? Are they
considered as combatants? Under what conditions?
4.Explain the significance of levee en
masse. Are they considered as “prisoners of war” when captured?
5.Explain the principle of “military
necessity”. Distinguish it from the principle of humanity and chivalry.
6.What is the “right of angary”?
7.Distinguish neutrality from
neutralization.
8.Distinguish uti posseditis
from status qou ante.
9. Explain “international humanitarian law”,
its scope, coverage and application. How is this law concretized in the Geneva
conventions?
10. When Adolf Eichman was captured in
Argentina, tried and sentenced to die in Israel, the Isreali government invoked
a certain principle of international law to validate its action. What was that
principle? Explain.
11.
At the Nuremberg trial of the Nazi war criminals at the end of the WW II,
the defense argued on behalf of the German defendants that although a nation
could not wage aggressive war without transgressing international law, it could
use war as an instrument of self-defense, and that the nation itself must be
the sole judge of whether its actions were in self-defense. How would you meet
the argument if you were a member of the Tribunal trying the case? Rule on the
issues, inoking by analogy the ruling of the Supreme Court, in Yamashita
v.Styer.
12. In case a non-resident alien in the
Philippines files a complaint, can his complaint be dismissed on the ground of forum
non-conveniens? What is forum non-conveniens? Is it considered as
one of the grounds for a motion to dismiss under the rules of court?
13.The
Extradition Treaty between France and the Philippines is silent as to its applicability
with respect to crimes committed prior to its effectivity.
i) Can France demand the
extradition of “A”, a French National residing in the Philippines, for an
offense committed in France prior to the effectivity of the treaty?
ii) Can “A” contest his
extradition on the ground that it violates the ex post facto provision
of the Philippine Constitution? Explain.
14.The Federation of Islamabad concluded
an agreement with the Republic of Baleria, concerning the facilitation of entry
of Balerian contract workers into Islamabad.Thereafter, a revolution broke out
in Islamabad, which is now governed by a military junta. Most of the Balerian
contract workers were arrrested by Islamabad Immigration Officers for not
having with them necessary papers and proper documents. Upon learning of the
incident, the government of Baleria loadge a formal protest with the Islamabad
revolutionary government invoking certain provisions of the aforementioned
agreement. The latter replied, however, that the new governmentis not
“internationally bound” by the same. Moreover, Islamabad further contended that
said agreement is contrary to its Islamic Law.
Is
the new revolutionary government under obligation, pursuant to international
law, to comply with what have been agreed upon and set forth in the agreement
concluded with Baleria by its former government? Reason.
15. Patrick Cruz, a Filipino, solicited
P40, 000 each from Juan, Pedro, Maria, Petra and Pablo in the Philippines, as
downpayment for a contractual teaching job in the United States. The job abroad
did not materialize, and it was later known that Patrick was an unlicensed
recruiter. The victims filed a case for Illegal recruitment in large scale and
Estafa before the RTC in Manila. A warrant of arrest was issued against him.
In the
meantime, he eluded arrest and escaped in the United States, where he is now
presently residing.
The
Philippines has an extradition treaty with the U.S., which does not include
“illegal recruitment” as an extraditable crime. Estafa is included.
1.
Juan comes to you for advice. He desires that Patrcik
should be made answerable for the offense he committed. What should be your
advice to Juan?
2.
Patrick claims that he could not be extradited
and tried because “illegal recruitment” is not an extraditable
offense as listed in the treaty. Is he correct? Reason.
3.
Upon an extradition request made by the Philippine
government before the Department of Foreign Affairs in the U.S., is Patrick,
under International Law, given the right to be furnished the copies of the
extradition documents so that he can properly defend himself? Reason.
4.
It is stated that a proceeding for extradition is a sui
generis. What do you understand by this?
5.
In the case at bar, is deportation applicable?
16. Plaintiff-appellant instituted this
action in the Court of First Instance of Manila against the defendant-appellee,
China Banking Corporation, to compel the latter to execute a deed of
cancellation of the mortgage on the property described in the complaint, and to
deliver to the said plaintiff the Transfer Certificate of Title No. 47634 of
the Register of Deeds of Manila, with the mortgage annotated therein already
cancelled, as well as to pay the plaintiff the sum of P1,000.00 for damages as
attorney's fees and to pay the costs of the suit. The cause of action is that
the plaintiff's indebtedness to the China Banking Corporation in the sum of
P5,103.35 by way of overdraft in current account payable on demand together
with its interests, has been completely paid, on different occasions, from
October 7, 1942, to August 29, 1944, to the defendant China Banking Corporation
through the defendant Bank of Taiwan, Ltd., that was appointed by the Japanese
Military authorities as liquidator of the China Banking Corporation.
Upon having been served with summons the
defendant-appellee China Banking Corporation made a demand from the
plaintiff-appellant for the payment of the sum of P5,103.35 with interests
representing the debt of the said appellant, and in the answer it set up a
counter claim against the plaintiff-appellant demanding the payment, within 90
days from and after the date Executive Order No. 32 on moratorium, series of
1945, has been repealed, of said amount due from the latter to the former by
way of overdraft together with its interests at the rate of 9 per cent per
annum to be compounded monthly, and the additional sum of P1,500 as attorney's
fees and the costs of the suit.
After the
hearing of the case, the trial court rendered a decision holding that, as there
was no evidence presented to show that the defendant China Banking Corporation
had authorized the Bank of Taiwan, Ltd., to accept the payment of the
plaintiff's debt to the said defendant, and said Bank of Taiwan, as an agency
of the Japanese invading army, was not authorized under the international law
to liquidate the business of the China Banking Corporation, the payment has not
extinguished the indebtedness of the plaintiff to the said defendant under
article 1162 of the Civil Code. The court absolved the defendant China Banking
Corporation from the complaint of the plaintiff, and sentenced the latter to
pay the former the sum of P5,103.35 with interests within the period of 90 days
from and after the above mentioned Executive Order No. 32 had been repealed or
set aside, and ordered that, if the plaintiff failed to pay it within the said
period, the property mortgaged shall be sold at public auction and the proceeds
of the sale applied to the payment of said obligation. The plaintiff appealed
from the decision to this Court.
QUESTIONS:
1. Under the
rules of international law did the Japanese Military Administration have
authority to order the liquidation or winding up of the business of
defendant-appellee China Banking Corporation, and to appoint the Bank of Taiwan
liquidator authorized as such to accept the payment by the plaintiff-appellant
to said defendant-appellee?
2. Is the payment by the plaintiff-appellant of her
monetary obligation in Japanese notes during the Japanese occupation has the
effect of extinguishing her obligation to said defendant-appellee?
17.
As a rule a treaty is binding only on the contracting parties. There are
instances, however, when third states may be validly held to the observance of
or benefit from the provisions of a treaty. State at least two of these
instances.
18. Jane and Joe are owners in fee simple
of the parcels of land in question, even before the outbreak of World War II.
When the Japanese came and occupied the Philippines, the Japanese Imperial Army
took these parcels of land and used them for the construction of a railroad
line. When the Philippines was liberated from the Japanese Military Occupation,
the aforesaid parcels were abandoned and said owners immediately returned to
their respective areas and repossessed them.
On
September 26, 1947, the Philippine Alien Property Administrator vested in
himself pursuant to Vesting Order No. P-386, the aforesaid properties after
having found them to be owned or controlled or held by an enemy country. Said
properties were to be held, used, administrated, liquidated, sold or otherwise
dealt with by the Philippine Alien Property Administrator for the interest and
benefit of the United States in accordance with the Philippine Property Act of
1948. Obviously unaware of the implication of Vesting Order No. P-386 and the
Philippine Property Act of 1948, Jane & Joe failed to file their notice of
claims for the return of their respective properties within the period provided
for under the aforesaid Vesting Order. In the middle part of 1954, Manila Railroad
Company entered the said parcels of land and re-established its railroad track
thereon.
Jane
& Joe, who were deprived of said properties by the Manila Railroad Company
now file a case for recovery of ownership and possession.
Now
be the judge. Would you grant the petition?
19.
A. In extradition proceedings, are prospective extraditees entitled to
notice and hearing before warrants for
their arrest can be issued?
B.
Equally important, are they entitled to the right to
bail and provisional liberty while the extradition proceedings are pending?
Reason out your answer in the light of the Mark Jimenez case.
C.
In the Jimenez case, what are the so-called five
postulates of extradition?
20. On March 17, 1993, Assistant Secretary
Sime D. Hidalgo of the Department of Foreign Affairs indorsed to the Department
of Justice Diplomatic Note No. 080/93 dated February 19, 1993 from the
Government of Australia to the Department of Justice through Attorney General
Michael Duffy. Said Diplomatic Note was a formal request for the extradition of
Petitioner Paul Joseph Wright who is wanted for the following indictable
crimes:
1.Wright/Orr Matter one count of Obtaining Property by Deception
contrary to Section 81(1) of the Victorian Crimes Act of 1958; and
2.Wright/Cracker Matter Thirteen (13) counts of Obtaining Properties
by Deception contrary to Section 81(1) of the Victorian Crimes Act of 1958; one
count of attempting to Obtain Property by Deception contrary to Section 321(m)
of Victorian Crimes Act of 1958; and one count of Perjury contrary to Section
314 of Victorian Crimes Act of 1958, which crimes were allegedly committed in
the following manner:
Pursuant
to Section 5 of PD No. 1069, in relation to the Extradition Treaty concluded
between the Republic of the Philippines and Australia on September 10, 1990,
extradition proceedings were initiated on April 6, 1993 by the State Counsels
of the Department of Justice before the respondent court.
In its Order dated April 13, 1993, the respondent
court directed the petitioner to appear before it on April 30, 1993 and to file
his answer within ten days. In the same order, the respondent Judge ordered the
NBI to serve summons and cause the arrest of the petitioner.
The respondent
court received return of the warrant of arrest and summons signed by NBI Senior
Agent Manuel Almendras with the information that the petitioner was arrested on
April 26, 1993 at Taguig, Metro Manila and was subsequently detained at the NBI
detention cell where petitioner, to date, continue to be held.
Thereafter, the
petitioner filed his answer.
In the course of the trial, the
petitioner testified that he was jobless, married to a Filipina, Judith David,
with whom he begot a child; that he has no case in Australia; that he is not a
fugitive from justice and is not aware of the offenses charged against him;
that he arrived in the Philippines on February 25, 1990 returned to Australia
on March 1, 1990, then back to the Philippines on April 11, 1990, left the
Philippines again on April 24, 1990 for Australia and returned to the
Philippines on May 24, 1990, again left for Australia on May 29, 1990 passing
by Singapore and then returned to the Philippines on June 25, 1990 and from
that time on, has not left the Philippines;
and that his tourist visa has been extended but he could not produce the same
in court as it was misplaced, has neither produced any certification thereof,
nor any temporary working visa.
The trial court, in its decision dated 14 June
1993, granting the petition for extradition requested by the Government of
Australia, concluding that the documents submitted by the Australian Government
meet the requirements of Article 7 of the Treaty of Extradition and that the
offenses for which the petitioner were sought in his country are extraditable
offenses under Article 2 of the said Treaty. The trial court, moreover, held
that under the provisions of the same Article, extradition could be granted
irrespective of when the offense in relation to the extradition was committed,
provided that the offense happened to be an offense in the requesting State at
the time the acts or omissions constituting the same were committed.
Petitioner challenged the decision of the Regional
Trial Court before the Court of Appeals assigning the following errors:
I.THAT THE HONORABLE
RESPONDENT JUDGE GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING RETROACTIVE FORCE AND EFFECT TO THE
EXTRADITION TREATY DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE RESPONDENT
SHOW THAT THE ALLEGED OFFENSES FOR WHICH PETITIONER IS SOUGHT TO BE EXTRADITED
TOOK PLACE IN 1988-1989 AT THE TIME THERE WAS NO EXTRADITION TREATY BETWEEN THE
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES AND AUSTRALIA.
II.THAT THE ACT OF THE
HONORABLE RESPONDENT JUDGE IN GIVING RETROACTIVE FORCE AND EFFECT TO THE
EXTRADITION TREATY BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES AND AUSTRALIA
AMOUNTS TO AN "EX POST FACTO LAW" AND VIOLATES SECTION 21, ARTICLE
VII OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION.
