Albertine Din( score 9/10)
Exam: quiz in constitutional law nov 14, 2020
Word count: 642
Writing time: 53 minutes
Email: albertine.din@gmail.com
Class: Consti Law 1
Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa
1. Jus cogens is translated as "compelling law". These are principles or norms which derogation by States are not allowed. In the Vinuya case, the Filipina victims of "comfort women" stations of the Japanese army during the Second World War cited jus cogens as a basis for persuading the Philippine Government to take up their cause and claim apology and compensation from the Japanese Government. According to the petitioners, the jus cogens prohibition of sexual slavery and torture should compel the Executive Department to further their demands. Other examples of jus cogens are prohibitions against slavery, piracy, and torture.
2. Erga omnes is translated as"towards all". Erga omnes obligations or rights are rights which can be claimed by everyone. In international law, these are obligations which the State owes to the entire community of States as a whole. In the Barcelona Traction case, the petitioner claimed that it is an ergo omes obligation of States to take responsibility of foreign investments in their own country. In this case, the Belgian Government, on behalf of Belgian nationals who invested in a Canadian corporation in Spain, petitioned that the Spanish government assume responsibility for the Canadian corporation, as it is a foreign investment undertaken in Spain. Erga omnes obligations are practiced by States, in order to ensure that universal rights are not breached.
3. Traditionally, the victims of "comfort women" stations can petition their government to represent on their behalf and pursue for claims in international tribunals such as the International Court of Justice.
4. In the Vinuya case, the Supreme Court ruled that the instant petition involved foreign or diplomatic relations between the Philippines and Japan, which is a political question which belongs in the prerogative of the Executive Department. In other words, the State, through the Executive Department has the prerogative whether to pursue the case or claims, or to set it aside in consideration of diplomatic relations.
5. The principle of international law used in this case is the obligation of states to protect their own nationals who have suffered damages through an action by another State.
6. The department of government being referred to in this statement is the Executive Department. This is so because this is the only branch of government which was provided by the Constitution of exclusive prerogative in dealing with international or diplomatic relations, and because it is the only department which has access to confidential and sensitive intelligence or data. This sensitive intelligence are key factors in determining the foreign policy position of a State, thus, only the Executive Department has the power to steer their conduct of foreign relations.
7. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The Court ruled that such political questions--as they necessarily involve the State's diplomatic relations with a foreign state--are within the exclusive prerogative of the Executive Department, as provided for in the Constitution. As such, as they can only urge the Executive Department to heed the demands of the victims, the case or petition must fail in the Supreme Court for their lack of jurisdiction over political questions.
8. No, a justice of the Court of Appeals cannot be held liable for such criminal offense. As explained in Borromeo, the judges and justices cannot be held liable in the exercise of their official duty in their decisions. The Constitution provides for other remedies such as reviews by a higher court, such as the Supreme Court. This is so because the judges or justices must remain independent in order to exercise their own judgment in deciding cases brought before their courts. (Ony judges can be sued under article 204 of the revised penal code, as said article did not mention "justice" but "judge")
9. In the Borromeo case, Borromeo was charged with contempt not observing due process and filing numerous groundless cases against lawyers representing his opponents, clerks of courts, judges, and even justices. The Supreme Court penalized him with ten days imprisonment and a fine of one thousand pesos.
Albertine Din
2020-11-14
Audey Principe (score 8/10)
Exam: quiz in constitutional law nov 14, 2020
Word count: 802
Writing time: 105 minutes
Email: audeygprincipe@gmail.com
Class: Constitutional Law 1
Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa
1. jus cogens from a latin phase compelling law. It is a principle which form the norms of international law that cannot be set aside.
The relevance of this principle in the case of Venuya is that the petitioner prayed to the Supreme Court to compel the different administrative sectors in the Philippines to espouse their claims for official apology and other forms of reparations against Japan before the International Court of Justice.
An illustration of jus cogens is to compel Japan in a post-rehabilitation purposes in the Philippines brought about by the Second World War wherein several cities were destroyed in the Philippines caused by Japanese troups.
2. Erga omnes is a latin phase which means "towards all" or "towards everyone." In legal terminology, it is rights of obligations are owed toward all.
The erga omnes was used in Barcelona Traction case by means of obligating Spain for the treatment of a Canadian investor.
The Barcelona Traction Case is an application of erga omnes, in this case Belgian national invested in a Canadian Corporation in Spain; one of the Canadian investors needs treatment in Spain. In order to obligates Spain for the treatment thereof, the Belgian Nationals invoked erga omnes in which such obligation is based on general international law.
It is practiced in countries or states belonging to United Nations, an obligation of this doctrine is owned to the international community as a whole to obligate every state through joint and separate action for the realization ofthe principle of equal rights of the people.
3. The ICJ may intertain in two types of cases: legal disputes between states submitted to it by them (contentious cases) and request for advisory opininions on legal questions referred to it by United Nations agencies (advisory proceedings).
The only way these comfort women file a case in ICJ is thru a Philippine representative to the ICJ.
They cannot file a direct case against Japan in the ICJ unless it follows the rules of ICJ.
Within the limits prescribed by international law, a State may exercise diplomatic protection by whatever means and to whatever extent it thinks fit, for it is the State's own right it is asserting.
4. This principle used in the Vinuya case in determining that the petition of the "comfort women" is subject to the international law or the national law of the land, the State therefor acknowledged that such petition is not applicable in the ICJ and such matters can be resolved under the national law. With different quotations supporting the dismissal of the petition, it only falls down under the judicial sovereignity of the Philippines as a sole judge in the petitioners claim.
5. The principle used in the Mavrommatics Palestine Concessions Case states that; by taking up the case by one of its subjects and by resorting to diplomatic action or international judicial proceedings on his behalf, a State is in reality asserting its own right to ensure, the person of its subjects, respect for the rules of international law.
6. The Executive department. It is the Chief Executive or the president who possesses the most comprehensive and the most confidential information about the foreign countries for our diplomatic and consular officials regularly brief him on meaningful events all over the world.
Baker v. Carr explained that: prominent on the surface of any case held to involve a political question is found a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issues to a coordinate political department or a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards of resolving it, or the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for non-judicial discretion. In the same vein, Tanada v. Cuenco states that: political question refers to those questions which, under the Constitution, are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of the government.
7. The SC held the first petition that it lacks merit. Second petition ruled that the Philippines is not under any international obligation to espouse petitioner's claim. Among all other, the Executive branch must be given ample discretion to assess the foreign policy consideration of espousing a claim against Japan, from the standpoint of both the interests of the petitioners and those of the Republic, and decide on that basis if apologies are sufficient, and whether further steps are appropriate or necessary.
8. Yes, he can be criminally liable because "knowingly redering an unjust decision" is incongruent with the Rules of Court and thereby subject for criminal offense.
9. Borromeo was found and declared guilty of constructive contempt repeatedly committed overtime, despite warnings and instructions given to him. He was sentenced to imprisonment for 10 days and a fine of 1, 000. 00 pesos.
Audey Principe
2020-11-14
DC Kimberly Cuenca
Exam: quiz in constitutional law nov 14, 2020
Word count: 809
Writing time: 116 minutes
Email: kimberlycuenca@gmail.com
Class: Constitutional Law 1
Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa
1.
Also called as peremptory norm, Jus Cogens or compelling law is a fundamental principle of international law that is accepted as a norm in which no derogation is allowed by the international community, and can be modified only by a subsequent norm of having thee same same character of the general international law. Jus Cogens bans genocide, maritime piracy, enslaving, wars of aggression and territorial aggrandizement, torture and refoulement. Jus Cogens may not be violated by any state through international treaties, or local or special customs, and is mandatory.
Jus Cogens principle was not observed in the Vinuya Case. The petitioners in the Vinuya Case have not show that the crimes committed by the Japanese army violated jus cogens duringn the Treaty of Peace was signed. As such, the ILC was unable to concord the proper ciriteria for identifying peremptory norms.
Execution of juvenile offender,s, torture, and peremptory norms protecting the environment are examples of jus cogens principle. In the case of Domingues v. United States, a particular norm in a jus cogens nature was provided as an example of an international body's opinion. Jus Cogens norm was not to impose capital punishment on people who committed a crime when they are not 18 years old yet. Thus, the United States banned the execution of juvenile offenders afterwards.
2.
Erga ormnes or in relation to everyone, rights or obligations are owed toward all. Obligations owed by the States towards the community of States as a whole. Obligations owed by the State are the concern of all States.
Erga ormnes was used in the Barcelona Traction case by assuming that the Spain, a State should assume an obligation concerning the treatment of foreign investments based on general international law. Assuming the obligation should be done once the State admits foreign investments or foreign nationals into its territory.
The Barcelona Traction case is all about Belgium claiming that Spain should be held responsible for acts in violation of international law that had caused injury to a Canadian corporation and its Belgian shareholdrers operating in Spain. Erga omnes states that all states have a legal interest in their protection, and that was what Belgium did.
Yes, erga omnes is already practiced by the states of the world. It is because all states have a legal interest in their protection, and the basic right of all human person should be protected against slavery and racial discrimination as obtained from the basic general international law.
3.
These "comfort women" can file a case against Japan by bringing their claims before the United States, pursuant to the "ATCA" or Alien Tort Claims Act. However, the case will be denied by the lower courts, the Court of Appeals, and the US Supreme Court because United States lacks jurisdiction over Japan.
Yes. They can file the case directly before the International Court of Justice agianst Japan under the international law. The ergo omnes principle should be observe by then, as such, the basic right of these "comfort women" were violated, and should be protected deriving from the basic general international law.
4.
5.
The erga omnes principle is used in the "Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions Case". The court considered that under the international law, there is an obligation of states to protect their nationals when they are injured through the actions of other states. As such, erga omnes principle obligates and states that all states have legal interest in their protection.
6.
The Executive Department is being referred to in the above mentioned statement. The President posseses the most comprehensive and the most confidential information about foreign countries for our diplomatic and consular briefings. Thus, it is only right that the concerns about foreign affairs is entrusted in the executive department.
It is the principle about the political question. Political questions are those questions, in which are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full disretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of the government, under the Constitution.
7.
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. Although the Supreme Court sympathizes with the petitioner's cause, it is not within their power and jurisdiction to order the Executive Department to take up the petitioners' cause. They can only urge the Executive Department to take up the petitioners' cause, but the latter will decide if they do so.
8.
No, a justice of court of appeals cannot be liable for such criminal offense. He cannot be subjected to liability for any of his official acts, as long as he acted in good faith, no matter how erroneous such act is.
9.
Borromeo was charge of constructive contempt repeatedly committed over time, despite warnings and instructions given to him. He was sentenced to serve a term of 10-days imprisonment and a fine of one thousand pesos (P 1,000.00).
DC Kimberly Cuenca
2020-11-14
Holly-Ann Cabasag
Exam: quiz in constitutional law nov 14, 2020
Word count: 683
Writing time: 116 minutes
Email: cabasaghollyann4@gmail.com
Class: Constitutional Law
Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa
1. Jus Cogens is a fundamental principle of internal law that is accepted by the international community of states as a norm from which no derogation is permitted. This compelling law prohibits several acts of derogation such as slavery, genocide, and some form of piracy.
This compelling priciple is relevant to the Vinuya case however, the principle of jus cogens cannot be applied since Peace treaty has been contracted between the Philippines and Japan. Thus, the said treaty cannot be breached and that the petition was dismissed. The petitioners cannot claimed moral damages and compensation towards Japan.
One example to illustrate the jus cogens principle includes prohibitions of crimes against humanity, genocide, slavery , and human trafficking. An example could be a forced labor, when a mother forced his child to work in a specific country and engaged in prostitution.
2. The principle of erga omnes which means "toward all". The said principle in which erga omnes rights or obligations are owed toward all. Everyone is entitled to such obligations.
The Barcelona Traction Case was all about Belgian Nationals who invested in a Canadian Corporation. Belgium sued Spain on the argument that Spain was responsible for acts in violation of international law that had caused injury to the Canadian corporation and its Belgian shareholders. The issue in this case is that whether a state assumes an obligation concerning the treatment of foreign investments based on intenational law. It was being held that yes a state can assume an obligation concerning treatment of foreign investments based on general international law.
Yes it is already practice in states of the world. This is very relevant in protecting the people against any form of discrimation against humanity.
3. These "comfort women" cannot file against Japan. They cannot file directly before the International Court of Justice against Japan and that there must be a representation of the state. The said court is not exclusive however an approval must be needed for such filing to prosper. The state is the sole judge to decide whether or not the protection will be prosper and be granted.
4. The said principle in the Vinuya case will not apply.There's already a subsisting treaty contracted between Japan and Philippines prior to the filing of the said petition.
5. The principle used in the "Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions Case", all of the mandate of holder's obligations under international law must be taken account. The dispute is about the interpretation and application of the contract.
6. The department of government being referred to in the above mentioned statement is the Executive branch. The said branch of the government includes the President who has the overall power. He has the authority and power to enter into treatries and foreign relations for the welfare of the country and to maintain peace and order. The President is both the head of the state and head of the government and a commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces.
7. In Baker v. Carr and Tanada v. Cuenco, the important principle being reiterated is that the political rights are delegated in the Executive and Legislative branches of the government. The political questions are only delegated in the Executive and Legislative branches and not subject to the Judiciary. The three inherent powers of the state are not merely exercise by the latter. The Judiciary branch only interprets the law.
8. The Supreme Court held that the said petition be dismissed and that it was the Executive's jurisdiction and not in the Judiciary branch. Their is already an existing treaty and that the principle of jus cogens cannot be applied.
9. No. Justice of Court of Appeals cannot be held liable for such criminal offense as "knowingly rendering an unjust decision". Under the law, his opinion does not matter. The law must be applied. The law may be harsh but it is the law. If one disagrees with the result, one must seek to change the law.
10. In the Borromeo case,he was found guilty with a corresponding charge of constructive contempt and a penalty of 1000 Php with 10 days of detainment.
Holly-Ann Cabasag
2020-11-14
Joseph Vallecer
Exam: quiz in constitutional law nov 14, 2020
Word count: 393
Email: jvallecer1980@gmail.com
Class: Constitutional law
Teacher: Judge Ric S.Bastasa
1. Peremptory norm also called jus cogens ius cogens,latin for compelling law,is a fundamental principle of international law that is accepted by the international community or states as norm from which no derogation is permitted
Jus cogens relevance to vinuya case is that foreign policy prerogatives of the Executive Branch ,Incorporation clause.
Example:genocide,maritim privacy,enslaving in general'slavery as well as slave trade,wars of aggression and territorial aggrandizement,torture and refoulement.
2 Erga omnes is latin phrase which means 'toward all 'or 'towards everyone.In legal terminology ,erga omnes rights or obligations are owed toward all.
Erga omnes used in Barcelona Traction Case,becuase the basic right of all human was mention by the court to be protected against slavery and racial descrimination as deriving from basic general international law.Such rights may derive from international instruments of a universal or quasi-universal character.Such obligations are obligations erga omnes,that is,all states have a legal interest in their protection.
The case about Belgium claim Spain should be held accountable for the injury to a Canadian corporation operating in Spain.
In international law,it has been used as a legal term describing obligations owed by states towards the community of states as a whole.An erga omnes obligations exists because of the universal and undeniable interest in the perpetuation of critical rights and the prevention of their breach.An essential distinction should be drawn between the obligations of a State towards the international community as a whole and those arising vis-a vis another Statein the field of diplomatic protection.
3.Our government should the take the lead in protecting its citizens against violation of their fundamental human rights.Regrettably,it is not within our power to order theExecutive Department to take up the petitioner's causE.Ours is only the power to urge and exhort the Executive Department to take up petitioner's cause.
4 The term jus cogens 'compelling law' refers to norms that command peremptory authority superseding conflicting treaties and costum.it is considered peremptory in the sense that they are mandatory ,do not admit derogation,and can be modified only by general international norms of equivalent authority.
5. A mandates in Article 26 to which the Palestine Mandate belongs.The logical conclusionis that an action in support of private interests is excluded under Article 26 of the Mandate now in question,and that ,precisely from this standpoint the Court has no juris
Joseph Vallecer
2020-11-14
Kyle Kristian Jay Geromo
Exam: quiz in constitutional law nov 14, 2020
Word count: 797
Writing time: 109 minutes
Email: kylekristianjaygeromo@gmail.com
Class: Constitutional Law 1
Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa
1. Jus Cogens is a principle of compelling law which forms the norms of international law that cannot be set aside. In the case of Vinuya, the principle of jus cogens was followed for the reason of the treaty by the Philippines and Japan. It was stated that it cannot be breached since there is already a treaty between two nations that stipulated order and respect. Vinuya and MALAYA LOLAS wanted to charge the Japanese for the moral damages during the World War 2 of rape of comfort women, however it was dismissed by the Supreme Court for the reason that it must follow what is stipulated on a law or treaty that may cause negative implications between nations. An example illustrating jus cogens is the Treaty between Indonesia and Philippines considering each contracting party should follow the exclusive economic zones of each country. Therefore, they cannot illegally enter each country without legal process and notice of two nations.
2. Erga Omnes is a form of obligation that fulfills that is subject to all. In the case, it was assumed that the obligations is for the general and for all. It is an obligation that governs the states legal interest in protecting the welfare of the people. A question was raised whether an obligation concerning foreign investments that fall under foreign national territory that questioned its treatment based on international law. It was held that it assumed obligations since it is highly an obligation towards a state to protect international community against slavery and racial discrimination derived from the general concept of international law. Yes, it is already practiced by states as it protects the individual rights of every person against discrimination.
3. No, the comfort women cannot file directly a case against Japan in the International Court. These comfort women must be represented by the state as it was stated in the Vinuya case. They appealed in the Executive Department as their way of reaching their goal of filing against moral and criminal damages toward the Japanese during the World War 2. In the international sphere, the only means available for them to persuade a government to bring claim on individual's behalf. In the taking up of one's case it must be subject to resorting by the state for diplomatic action or international judicial proceedings on behalf of the person filing for the case. The state is ensuring its own rights with respect to international law.
4. In the Vinuya case, the state did not follow the principle. There is an existing treaty of peace between Philippines and Japan that is why the petition of Vinuya and MALAYA LOLAS was dismissed by the Supreme Court. It followed the principle of jus cogens.
5. The principle the case of Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions Case is that obligations under international law must be taken into account based on the mandated rules and protect interest of indivuals.
6. The department mentioned in the statement is the Executive branch of the government. In the Executive branch is headed by the President of the country who is responsible for foreign relations along with other international works with regards to peace, order, and he is the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the country and the highest authority of the country.
7. The principle in Bake v. Carr and Tanada v. Cuenco is that the political law of the government belong to the Executive and Legislative department of the government. This means that the political questions and discussions and exercise of inherent powers are given to the executive and legislative and not subject to judicial decisons since it only interprets the law and not execute them.
8. The petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court. There is an existing treaty and it was said that the power of petition is under the executive and legislative brand of the government and not on the judiciary branch of the government. It was also in the ruling of the Supreme Court that it followed the principle of jus cogens and as well as payed respect of the treaty of peace between Philippines and Japan.
9. No, he cannot be held liable for criminal offense. The law must be followed whatever its result and no matter the effect of its application. Under law, no judge shall render judgment or insufficiency and even though the law is harsh it is what it is or dura lex sed lex.
10. Borromeo was found and declared guilty of constructive contempt that he committed over time despite constant warning given to him. He was sentenced a term of ten days in City Jail of Cebu City prison and a fine of one thousand pesos. He was also warned that repitition of such offenses will cause him merit of more serious sanctions.
Kyle Kristian Jay Geromo
2020-11-14
Marie Beth Revilla
Exam: quiz in constitutional law nov 14, 2020
Word count: 483
Writing time: 115 minutes
Email: mariebeth.revilla1432@gmail.com
Class: Constitutional Law
Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa
1.) Jus cogens is a compelling law a principle of international law based on values taken to be fundamental to the international community and that cannot be set aside.
It was not relevant to the vinuya case because there was already a peace treaty stipulation present between the Philippines and Japan.
An example is an agreement of the protection of filipino immigrants workers working in Saudi or other countries to protect their human rights and safety living in another country.
2.) Erga omnes refers to the rights and obligations of everyone in relation to the international community as a whole. In the barcelona Transaction case, the international court of justice identified a category of international obligation called erga omnes norms. The court of justice rejected the request of the belgian government and declared belgium as not qualified to stand before the court as it did not have recognized rights, to exercise diplomatic protection for its nationals. The nationality state of shareholders cannot sue diplomatic protection. Moreover, the court stated that belgium could not sue spain by itself as the barcelona company was ruled by Canadian law. There was no legal interest in the matter for belgium to bring a claim.
3.) The international law court is not like the RTC that individuals can file directly, the state has to represent these women in filing a case against Japan, therefore they need the country's approval.
4.) In the Vinuya case the state did not grant thee's petition due to the peace treaty stipulation that was already present between the Philippines and Japan.
5.) The court came to its resolution by deciphering the arrangement. In like manner, the entirety of the command holder's commitments under international law must be considered to protect individuals rights.
6.) The Executive government, because the president is in this department who has the full powers to decide and enforce the law, conduct diplomacy with other nations, negotiate and sign treaties, and issue orders clarifying existing laws.
7.) The principle in political law is that the Judicial branch does not have political power, only the Legislative and Executive decisions are subject to have the political right because Judicial branch only interprets the law.
8.) The Supreme court dismissed their petition because it was the executive jurisdiction and not judiciary. A peace treaty stipulation was also already present therefore their petition cannot be imposed.
9.) The justice of the court of appeals cannot be held liable with a criminal offense as knowingly unjust decision because his opinion to the case case does not matter because the law must be enforced because the law may be harsh but it is the law (dura lex, sed lex).
10.) He was held guilty of contructive contempt, he was sentenced to 10 days in prison in Cebu City Jail with a fine of 1000.00 pesos.
Marie Beth Revilla
2020-11-14
MARIETTA RAEL
Exam: quiz in constitutional law nov 14, 2020
Word count: 840
Writing time: 108 minutes
Email: ursomarietta@yahoo.com
Class: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
Teacher: JUDGE RIC BASTASA
1. a.)Jus Cogens is a fundamental principle of international law which are recognised and accepted by the international community as rules of which no exceptions are allowed. Jus cogens are considered peremptory in the sense that they are mandatory, do not admit derogation and can be modified only by general international norms of equivalent authority.
b.) Petitioners claim that since 1998,that officials of the Executive Department declined to assist them and took the position that the individual claims of the comfort women for compensation had already been satisfied by Japan's compliance with the Peace Treaty between the Philippines and Japn. Petition was dismissed as to lack of merit. Executive Department has the exlusive prerogative to determine wether to espouse petitioners' claims against Japan as petioners have not shown that the crimes committed by the Japanes army violated jus cogens prohibitions at the time the Treaty of Peace was signed, or that the duty to prosecute perpetrators of international crimes is an erga omnes obligation or has attained the status of jus cogens.
c.) Examples of jus cogens norms include the right of all people to self-determination, the prohibition on the acquisition of territory by force and the prohibition on genocide, slavery and torture.
2.) a.)Erga omnes is a Lati concept that translates as "towards all".It means that all states have the right to to take action when fundamental principles of international law are violated.
b.) The basic right of all human persons was mentioned by the Court to be protected against slavery and racial discrimination as deriving from basic general international law. Such obligations are obligations erga omnes, that is, all states have legal interest in their protection.
c.)It is about the belgian nationals who had invested in Canadian corporation operating in Spain.belgium sued Spain on the premise that Spain was responsible for acts in violation of international law that had caused injury to the Canadian corporation and its Belgium stakeholders.
c. Yes, those that are categorised as jus cogens rules, it gives rise to "erga omnes' obligations. Because erga omnes refers to the character of obligations, to what particular types of norms and obligations (jus cogens) that a state is being affected.
3. a.)Under the Principle of Complementarity, International Criminal Court should only be the court of last resort, providing that a state is uwilling or unable to prosecute a certain individual or a certain case. I think this would be the last remedy in order for the comfort women to file a case against Japan. But with the presence of the signed treaty, I think it would be inaccessible to pursue the case.
b.) No, as being stated in a Domestic law perspective that the Executive Department has the exclusive prerogative wether to espouse petitioners' claims against Japan.
c.) In the international sphere, the only means to bring a claim within international legal sytem has been when the individual is able to persuade a government to bring a claim on the individual's behalf.
4. Within the limits prescribed by international law, a State may excercise diplomatic protection by whatever means and to whatever extent, for it is its own right that the Sate is asserting.However, should the natural or legal person on whose behalf it is acting consider that their rights are not protected, they have no remedy in international law. All they can do is resort to national law.That's what happened exactly to Vinuya case.
5. It is the Article 26 of the Mandate Treaty for Palestine. The court examine wether the requirements of Article 26 of the League of Nations mandate were met.In the judgement it was stated that claims of the national Mavrommatis were in dispute however under international law, it is an obligation of the state to protect their nationals in the event that they have suffered damage through the actions of other states.
6. a.) It is the Executive Department.The President who possess the most comprehensive information and has a wider degree of discretion in the conduct of foreign affairs.He has also unlimited access with regard to ulta-sensitivity of military intelligence data.
b.) Right of Equal protection. It is intended to protect the rights provided by the United Staes Constitution for all individuals regardless of race, ethnicity, gender etc.
7.) The petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed The Executive Deaprtment has the exclusive prerogative to determine wether to espouse petitioners' claims against Japan.
8.) Yes. Knowingly, rendering an unjust judgement is a criminal offense defined and penalized by law.For conviction to lie,it must be proved that the judgement is unjust and the judge knows that it is unjust.
9.) He was found guilty of Constructive contempt repeatedly commited over time , despite of warnings and instructions given to him. He was sentenced to serve a term of imprisonment of TEN (10) DAYS in the City jail of Cebu and to pay a fine of ONE THOUSAND PESOS (1,000.00).
MARIETTA RAEL
2020-11-14
Mary Rovytte Banas
Exam: quiz in constitutional law nov 14, 2020
Word count: 674
Writing time: 180 minutes
Email: maryrovytte.b@gmail.com
Class: Contitutional Law
Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa
1.
Jus Cogens refers to norms that command peremptory authority, superseding conflicting treaties and customs. These are considered peremptory in the sense that they are mandatory, do not admit derogation, and can be modified only by general international norms of equivalent authority.
As to the case of Vinuya, the relevance of this principle would give a derogable duty to the Philippines to institute proceedings against Japan.
An example of a jus cogens are prohibiting or a ban on genocide, maritime piracy, slave trade, refoulement, torture, and wars of aggression and territorial aggrandizement.
2.
Erga omnes is a latin phrase means "towards all" or "towards everyone". This is used as a legal term describing obligations owed by states towards the community of states as a whole.
3.
The only means available for these comfort women to bring a claim within the international legal system has been when the individual is able to persuade a government to bring a claim on the individual's behalf. Once the State has taken up a case on behalf of one of its subjects before an internation tribunal, in the eyes of the latter the State is sole claimant.
No, in the case of Vinuya the court ruled that because of states' reluctance to directly prosecute claims against another state, recent developments support the modern trend to empower individual directly participate in suits against perpetrators of international crims.
The existence of jus cogens. The claimant must show that Japan had committed a crime that violate jus cogens prohibitions to assail the petition.
4.
5.
The court used the refusal of the Critsh government to recognize the concession agreement of 1914 and measured against Article 14 of the mandate contract, provided:
"the government of Palestine takes all measures that are necessary to promote the development of society and the country and is authorized, in compliance with the international legal obligations entered into by the madate holder, to ensure control over natural resources or other works and the construction of public facilities. There should be a development geared to the needs of the country."
6.
The Supreme Court and the lower courts. Under our Constitution, this had provided the nature of the judicial function thus giving power to the Supreme Court and lower court to render its just judgment based on the evidence presented by both counsels.
7.
8.
As ruled in the case of Vinuya, the Executive Department had the ample time to assess the foreign policy considerations of espousing a claim against Japan, from the standpoint of both the interests of the petitioners and those of the Republic and decide on that basis if apologies are sufficient and whether further steps are appropriate or necessary.
Under the international, the only means available for the individual to bring a claim within the international legal systerm has been when the individual is able to persuade a government to bring a claim on the individual's behalf. When this happens, in the eye of the international tribunal, the State becomes the sole claimant.
Therefore, the State is the sole judge to decide whether its protection in favor of those petitioners will be granted, to what extent it is granted, and when will it cease. it is a discretionary power and exercise of which may be determined by consideration of a political or other nature.
9.
Yes. In the Case of Borromeo, the court cited that criminal offense as "knowingly rendering an unjust decision" under the Revised Penal Court cover judges either the Court of Appeals and/or Supreme Court who has rendered unjustness decision in any case submitted to him for decision.
10.
The charges against Borromeo is constructive contempt for repeteadly committing over time despite that warning and instructions given to him and to the end that he may ponder his serious errors and grave misconduct and learn due respect for the Courts and their authority.
Borromeo was punished by imprisonment of ten (10) days in the City Jail of Cebu City and to pay a fine of one thousand pesos (P1,000.00).
Mary Rovytte Banas
2020-11-14
Meg Dianne Paler
Exam: quiz in constitutional law nov 14, 2020
Word count: 765
Writing time: 103 minutes
Email: megdianne@yahoo.com
Class: Consti 1
Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa
* A. The principle of Jus cogens is about the compelling law used in International law which is observed among the international community as a peremptory norm wherein there is no derogation is permitted.
B. In the Vinuya case, the Comfort women during the Japanese occupancy in the Philippines petitioned that Japan must render and apology in writing to the women vicitms aside from the compensation.
Under the jus cogens principle, it is not clearly agreed what are the accepted norms but generally accepted are: genocide, piracy, slavery, torture, territorial aggrandizement, refoulement.
In Vinuya case, the Court cannot find a reason that the Jus Cogens principle can be applied. In addition, the Court can only urge but not order our government to take up the plea of the petitioners.
RSblog provides the examples of Jus Cogens as folows:
1. The case of Michael Domingues, a minor who was convicted and faced death penalty in Nevada. The US argued with the CHR that there was no established jus cogens not to sentence death to a minor. The US has consequently banned sentencing minor offenders as the Supreme Court held that the international law is one of its reasons.
* B. Erga omnes as legally defined as the rights and obligations owed towards all or everyone.
In the case of Barcelona Traction, Spain has been sued by the Belgian shareholders of a Canadian company operating in Spain. The issue is, whether or not Spain be held liable on the treatment of the Canadian corporation under the erga omnes law.
Under the international law, a state assumes obligations which pertains to the treatment of foreign investors and investments in their territory. In the case at bar, the basic human right is protected against slavery and racial discrimination which is under the erga omnes principle, whre all states have legal interest.
Yes, erga omnes is already practiced by the states of the world through the UN International Law Commission, allowing all states to invoke a states's responsibility which the other state incurred due to unlawful actions.
* In my understanding, the "comfort women" can file a case directly to Japan under the International law following the jus cogens principle. It is clearly stated under this principle,as a general rule that slavery is one of the generally accepted instance.
The underlying principle is that, the citizens of Japan has raped women in the territory of Philippines. Japan is then liable for the unlawful actions done by its citizens in the other state, Philippines.
* In Vinuya's case, the State must be the one to decide if the the country will take up the case of Vinuya against the country of Japan. The SC has held that the jurisction of the SC is only to urge the state but cannot order.
* In Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions case, the principle being held is the principle of jus cogens. Under the International law, there is an obligation of states to protect their nationals when the other state incur damages to their nationals.
In the case at bar, the British government refused to keep the contract with Mavrommatis and passed him to a British entrepreneur. WHen Greece and British governement was not able to make an agreement by negotiation, then Greece brought Mavrommatis to the International Court of Justice where the court has jurisdiction over the dispute. The court has reached the conclusion where the provisions of the concession agreement covers the activities of the Palestinian governement, and also the actions of that has been authorized to individuals. This provision was complied by Mavrommatis.
6*The Department of Foreign Affairs.
* Baker v. Carr
7* The Supreme Court has dismissed the petition of the "comfort women". Although the SC sympathized with the cruelty the women has experienced under the Japanese soldiers but our government should be the one to initiate for the protection of its citizens. We need to remember that, the Judiciary is separate from the state, so the SC can only urge and encourage but cannot order the government, as it is beyond the jurisdiction of the SC.
8.* Yes, under Article 204 of the Revised Penal Code, "knowingly rendering an unjust decision" is criminally liable. However, the provision does not apply to the members of the collegiate courts or its divisions.
9* In Borromeo case, the SC found him guilty of constructive contempt repeatedly committed overtime despite several warnings and notices given to him. Adding to that, his errors and grave misconduct to the Courts and employees.
He was sentenced to serve 10 days in prison and penalty of 1,000 pesos.
Meg Dianne Paler
2020-11-14
Nicefel Villomo
Exam: quiz in constitutional law nov 14, 2020
Word count: 723
Writing time: 113 minutes
Email: Nicefelvillomo@yahoo.com
Class: Constitutional Law
Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa
1. The principle of Jus Cogens means "Compelling the Law".
It designates norms from which no derogation is permitted by way of particular agreements. Its stems from the idea already known in Roman law that certain legal rules cannot be contracted out, given the fundamental values they uphold.
In Vinuyan case he wanted to violate the law because he wanted them to pay for the moral damages and also for the criminal liabilty, but since the treaty stipulation cannot be breached because it will violate the rules of the principles of the Jus Cogens and it must be followed. Therefore the petition in Vinuyan case was dismissed.
Example of jus cogens principle includes the prohibitions against crimes against humanity,genocide, and human trafficking.
Chinese Immigrants entering a marriage with a fililpina here in the philippines just to acquire residency and open up a business is one of prohibition in the philippines because it violates the law.
2. Principle of "erga omnes" means to "towards all" or towards everyone"
In legal terminology, erga omnes rightd or obligations are owed toward all. For instance, a property right is an erga omnes entitlement, and therefore enforceable against anybody infringing that right.
In the case of Barcelona Traction erga omnes was used because the internatinal court of justice identified a category of international obligations which is called erga omnes, namely the obligations owed by states to the international community as a whole, intended to protect and promote the basic values and common interest of all. without losing sight of the theoritical dimensionof obligations erga omnes. After discussing the a broad spectrum of key international court in its orbiter dictum an obligation of erga omnes, the prohibition of aggression and genocide, and the protection from slavery and racial discrimination. It infers five common elements of obligations erga omnes, including their reflecting basic moral values.
Yes it is already practiced in states of the world because it protect every persons human rights.
3. No. They cannot file a case unless the state represents their case against japan. International courts are for all the country but there must be an approval of the state to have a permit before proceeding the case, but there must be a representation of the state for them to be able to file a case against the them. International law provides that any state that violates its international obligation must be held accountable for its actions.
4. The state did not accept the petition they dismissed the Vinuya case because there is already a treaty stipulations between the philippines and japan. Since there is already existing treaty stipulation in the both countries therefore they cannot violate the rules under the law.
5. The principle used in Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions Case mandates the holder's obligations under the international law must be taken into account. The dispute is about the interpretation and application of the contract.
6. Executive Government is responsible for enforcing the law and President belongs to the executive branch whose powers include being able to veto, or reject , a proposal for law. The President acts as both the head of state and commander-in-chief of the armed forcs. Independent federal agencies are tasked with enforcing the laws enacted by congress.
7. The principle in Baker v. Carr and Tanada v. Cuenco is that, the political questions delagates only to the Legislative and executive branch of the government. Those three inherent powers can be executed by legislative and executive department.
Because Judicial power is just an interpreter of the law and not applying the law.
8. The Supreme Court dismissed their petition because there is already an existing treaty stipulations at the time it arise and it was the executive jurisdiction and not judiciary. It was said that the peace and order must applied in the phillipines and japan.
9. No. the court of appeals cannot be held liable for criminal offense knowingly rendering an unjust decision, because his/her opinion to the case does not matter ,Whatever the law is it must be applied as they say "Dura lex sed lex" The law may be harsh but it is the law.
10. In the Borromeo case he was held liable and guilty of constructive contempt,the penalty imposed against him was ten (10) days of imprisonment and 1000 pesos payment in city jail of cebu city.
Nicefel Villomo
2020-11-14
Raymund Morgia
Exam: quiz in constitutional law nov 14, 2020
Word count: 620
Writing time: 134 minutes
Email: morgiaraymund@gmail.com
Class: Constitutional Law 1
Teacher: Ric Bastasa
1. The principle of Jus Cogens is the higher and founding set of rules of the international legal system that which these rules are compulsory and also binding in all states as they override other principles of international law. It is relevance in the case of Vinuya because of the violation of the Japanese Imperial Army that has violated jus cogen prohibition at the time of the treaty of peace was signed for it is the duty to prosecute the armies involved of the international crime that they have commited in the philippines during the war and this crimes has attained the status of jus cogens.
2. The principle of Erga Omnes is a legal terminology which means rights or obligations are owed towards all for some rights like property rights are enforceable against anybody. it is used in Barcelona traction case in a sense that states or countries have the obligation concerning treatment of foreign invesments once the state admits foreign investments or foreign nationals into its territory. Yes it has already practiced by states in reasons of breach in the international community due to unlawfull actions of other state against human rights such as slavery, and racial discrimination.
3. No they cant for the Philippines is not under any international obligation to espouse petitioners' claim and the only means available for the individuals is to claim within the international lehal system and to persuade a government to bring a claim in the individuals's behalf. The underlying principle under the international law for them against the state is the principle of Erga Omnes for they can enforce their rights that was violated by the Japanese Imperial Army and the monetary reparations obligation of Japan that was seek by the petitioners.
4. The principle was used in the case of Vinuya where the Supreme Court held that only the Executive Department as the head of state can grant what the petitioners seek towards the state of Japan.
5. The principle is Erga Omnes for it is stated in the principle of erga omnes that the state should be reponsible for its nationals and also to the foreign investor. And also its the rights of the individuals and as a erga omnes it can be enforced towards anybody including the state.
6. The Executive Department for it has regularly decided issues and matters in regards to foreign relations and during war times for it is the executive department who hold the highest ranking official of the government, the head of state and the commander-in-chief of the arm forces of the philippines, and also exercies the controls of bureaus such as DFA which also conduct foreign relations. Thus it will be right for the executive department to conduct foreign relations for the country.
The important principle in political law that was demonstrated in the cases of Baker vs Carr and Tanada vs Cuenco is the doctrine of political question. Political Question is a principle
7. It was held in the case of vinuya that the petitioners appeared to be without a remedy to challenge the ones who offended them before the appopriate fora. And also the SC held that it is not within their powers to order the executive department and only the power to urge the executive department to take up the petitioners' case. For it is beyond the mandate of the Supreme Court to force the Executive Department to take up the cause of the petitioners.
8. Yes for it is
9. Joaquin Borromeo was found guilty of constructive contempt repeatedly committed over time and heh is senstenced to serve 10 days of imprisonment in the City Jail of Cebu City and to pay a fine of 1,000.00 pesos.
Raymund Morgia
2020-11-14
Vanessa Mawile
Exam: quiz in constitutional law nov 14, 2020
Word count: 633
Writing time: 111 minutes
Email: vanessamawile04@gmail.com
Class: Constitutional Law 1
Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa
1. Jus Cogens literally means compelling law, refers to norms that command peremptory authority, superseding customs. They are mandatory and can be modified only by general international norms of equivalent authority. Generally included are prohibitions on waging aggressive war, crimes against humanity, genocide, slavery and torture.
In the Vinuya Case, Malaya Lolas alleged that the prohibition against Japanese crimes i.e. slavery, crimes against women in the form of rape is jus cogens which can't be set aside. But, for clarification, in the case their petition was not granted because it has already been settled by a peace treaty.
One example is when a state represents itself in behalf of a citizen whose right was infringed internationally. Like, Mary Jane Veloso who was sentenced to death in another country but was saved by President Duterte.
2. Erga omnes means "in relation to everyone" in Latin. These are obligations owed by states towards the community of states as a whole. In Barcelona Traction case, Belgian nationals invested in Canadian corporation and sued Spain on the ground that Spain was responsible for acts in violation of international law which caused injury to the Canadian corporation and it's shareholders. It was raised whether the State of Spain assumes an obligation concerning treatment of foreign investments based on international law. It was held that yes, it assumes obligation once the state admits foreign investments or nationals in its territory.
Yes, Erga Omnes is already practiced by the States of the world as all states have a legal interest in the protection of basic human rights, against slavery, racial discrimination and the likes.
3. Comfort women can file a case against Japan only when they are able to persuade the government to bring a claim on their behalf. Under international law, they can not file the case directly before the International Court of Justice against Japan unless the State will do it for them. Once the State take up the case, in the eyes of the International law the State is the sole claimant.
4. In the Vinuya case, the State did not grant the petition of the Malaya Lola since there is already an existing peace treaty between the Philippines and Japan.
5. The principle in Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions Case is that there is an obligation of states to protect their nationals in the event that they have suffered damage through the actions of other states.
6. It is the Executive Government for the reason that, the President belongs to this department. The President is the sole representative with foreign relations. He possess confidential information about foreign countries for diplomats and consuls brief him on events about the world from time to time.
7. In Baker v Carr and Tanada v Cuenco, political matters is delegated to the Legislative and Executive branch of the government. Hence, what may be done in the exercise of political power is not subject to judicial decision.
8. Their petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court. It is not within the power of Judiciary to order the Executive Department to take up the comfort women's cause. The power of the Judicial Department is only to urge and exhort the Executive to take up their cause.
9. No, he can not be held liable for such a criminal offense as knowingly rendering an unjust decision because under the law, his/her opinion to the case does not matter. The law must be applied as it is, even if the judge is aware of what the truth is. As the maxim goes, "dura lex sed lex".
10. In the Borromeo case, he was held guilty of constructive contempt and was sentenced to an imprisonment of ten (10) days in City Jail of Cebu City and a fine of one thousand pesos (Php 1,000.00).
official answer
QUIZ IN POLITICAL LAW REVIEW/ANSWERS
(1) Explain the principle of Jus
Cogens. What is its relevance to the Vinuya case? Give examples to
illustrate the jus cogens principle.
(1)The term is closely connected with
the international law concept of jus cogens. In international law, the term "jus cogens"
(literally, "compelling law") refers to norms that command peremptory
authority, superseding conflicting treaties and custom. Jus cogens norms are
considered peremptory in the sense that they are mandatory, do not admit
derogation, and can be modified only by general international norms of
equivalent authority.70Early
strains of the jus cogens doctrine have existed since the 1700s,71 but
peremptory norms began to attract greater scholarly attention with the
publication of Alfred von Verdross's influential 1937 article, Forbidden
Treaties in International Law.72 The
recognition of jus cogens gained even more force in the 1950s and 1960s with
the ILC’s preparation of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT).73 Though
there was a consensus that certain international norms had attained the status
of jus cogens,74 the
ILC was unable to reach a consensus on the proper criteria for identifying
peremptory norms.
2.Explain the principle of “ergaomnes”.
How was it used in the Barcelona Traction case? What is the Barcelona Traction
case all about? Is ErgaOmnes already practiced by the states of the world? Why?The term ergaomnes (Latin: in relation to everyone) in international law has been used
as a legal term describing obligations owed by States towards the community of states as a whole. The
concept was recognized by the ICJ in Barcelona Traction:
x xx an essential distinction should be drawn between the obligations of a
State towards the international community as a whole, and those arising vis-à-vis
another State in the field of diplomatic protection. By their very nature, the
former are the concern of all States. In view of the importance of the rights
involved, all States can be held to have a legal interest in their protection;
they are obligations ergaomnes.Such obligations derive, for example, in
contemporary international law, from the outlawing of acts of aggression, and
of genocide, as also from the principles and rules concerning the basic rights
of the human person, including protection from slavery and racial
discrimination. Some of the corresponding rights of protection have entered
into the body of general international law … others are conferred by
international instruments of a universal or quasi-universal character.
The Latin phrase, ‘ergaomnes,’ has since become one of the rallying
cries of those sharing a belief in the emergence of a value-based international
public order. However, as is so often the case, the reality is neither so clear
nor so bright. Whatever the relevance of obligations ergaomnes as
a legal concept, its full potential remains to be realized in practice.69
3.Rape, sexual slavery,
torture, and sexual violence are morally reprehensible as well as legally
prohibited under contemporary international law. In what way can these “comfort
women” file a case against Japan? Under international law, can they file the
case directly before the International Court of Justice against Japan? What is
the underlying principle under International Law for them or for one citizen
affected to prosecute her case against a State for that matter? Explain.We
fully agree that rape, sexual slavery, torture, and sexual violence are morally
reprehensible as well as legally prohibited under contemporary international
law.65 However,
petitioners take quite a theoretical leap in claiming that these proscriptions
automatically imply that that the Philippines is under a non-derogable
obligation to prosecute international crimes, particularly since petitioners do
not demand the imputation of individual criminal liability, but seek to recover
monetary reparations from the state of Japan. Absent the consent of states, an
applicable treaty regime, or a directive by the Security Council, there is no
non-derogable duty to institute proceedings against Japan. Indeed, precisely
because of states’ reluctance to directly prosecute claims against another
state, recent developments support the modern trend to empower individuals to
directly participate in suits against perpetrators of international crimes.66 Nonetheless,
notwithstanding an array of General Assembly resolutions calling for the
prosecution of crimes against humanity and the strong policy arguments
warranting such a rule, the practice of states does not yet support the present
existence of an obligation to prosecute international crimes.67 Of
course a customary duty of prosecution is ideal, but we cannot find enough
evidence to reasonably assert its existence. To the extent that any state
practice in this area is widespread, it is in the practice of granting
amnesties, immunity, selective prosecution, or de facto impunity
to those who commit crimes against humanity.
4“The State is the sole judge to decide
whether its protection will be granted, to what extent it is granted, and when
will it cease. It retains, in this respect, a discretionary power the exercise
of which may be determined by considerations of a political or other nature,
unrelated to the particular case.”. How is this principle used in the Vinuya
case? Explain.The Court would here observe that, within the limits prescribed by
international law, a State may exercise diplomatic protection by whatever means
and to whatever extent it thinks fit, for it is its own right that the State is
asserting. Should the natural or legal person on whose behalf it is acting
consider that their rights are not adequately protected, they have no remedy in
international law. All they can do is resort to national law, if means are
available, with a view to furthering their cause or obtaining redress. The
municipal legislator may lay upon the State an obligation to protect its
citizens abroad, and may also confer upon the national a right to demand the
performance of that obligation, and clothe the right with corresponding
sanctions.1awwphi1 However, all these questions remain within the province of municipal
law and do not affect the position internationally.58
The State, therefore, is the sole judge to decide whether its protection
will be granted, to what extent it is granted, and when will it cease. It
retains, in this respect, a discretionary power the exercise of which may be
determined by considerations of a political or other nature, unrelated to the
particular case.
5.What
principle is used in the “Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions Case” with respect to a claim of an individual against a state?Explain.In the international sphere, traditionally, the only means
available for individuals to bring a claim within the international legal
system has been when the individual is able to persuade a government to bring a
claim on the individual’s behalf.55 Even then, it is not the
individual’s rights that are being asserted, but rather, the state’s own
rights. Nowhere is this position more clearly reflected than in the dictum of
the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) in the 1924 Mavrommatis
Palestine Concessions Case:
By taking up the case of one of its
subjects and by resorting to diplomatic action or international judicial
proceedings on his behalf, a State is in reality asserting its own
right to ensure, in the person of its subjects, respect for the rules
of international law. The question, therefore, whether the present dispute
originates in an injury to a private interest, which in point of fact is the
case in many international disputes, is irrelevant from this standpoint. Once a
State has taken up a case on behalf of one of its subjects before an
international tribunal, in the eyes of the latter the State is sole claimant.56
Since the exercise of diplomatic
protection is the right of the State, reliance on the right is within the
absolute discretion of states, and the decision whether to exercise the
discretion may invariably be influenced by political considerations other than
the legal merits of the particular claim
6.“The conduct of foreign relations is
full of complexities and consequences, sometimes with life and death
significance to the nation especially in times of war. It can only be entrusted
to that department of government which can act on the basis of the best
available information and can decide with decisiveness”. Question: What
department of government is being referred to in the above mentioned statement?
Why?The conduct of foreign relations is full of complexities
and consequences, sometimes with life and death significance to the nation
especially in times of war. It can only be entrusted to that department of
government which can act on the basis of the best available information and can
decide with decisiveness. x xx It is also the President who possesses the most
comprehensive and the most confidential information about foreign countries for
our diplomatic and consular officials regularly brief him on meaningful events
all over the world. He has also unlimited access to ultra-sensitive military
intelligence data. In fine, the presidential role in foreign affairs is
dominant and the President is traditionally accorded a wider degree of
discretion in the conduct of foreign affairs. The regularity, nay, validity of
his actions are adjudged under less stringent standards, lest their judicial
repudiation lead to breach of an international obligation, rupture of state
relations, forfeiture of confidence, national embarrassment and a plethora of
other problems with equally undesirable consequences.
The Executive Department has
determined that taking up petitioners’ cause would be inimical to our country’s
foreign policy interests, and could disrupt our relations with Japan, thereby
creating serious implications for stability in this region. For us to overturn
the Executive Department’s determination would mean an assessment of the
foreign policy judgments by a coordinate political branch to which authority to
make that judgment has been constitutionally committed.
7.Baker v. Carr and Tanada v. Cuenco are
two important cases which demonstrate a very important principle in political
law. What principle is that? Explain said principle.) Baker v. Carr39 remains the starting point for
analysis under the political question doctrine. There the US Supreme Court
explained that:
x xx Prominent on the surface of any
case held to involve a political question is found a textually demonstrable
constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department or
a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it, or
the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind
clearly for non-judicial discretion; or the impossibility of a court's
undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due
coordinate branches of government; or an unusual need for unquestioning
adherence to a political decision already made; or the potentiality of
embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on
question.
In Tañada v. Cuenco,40 we held that political
questions refer "to those questions which, under the Constitution, are to
be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which
full discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive
branch of the government. It is concerned with issues dependent upon the
wisdom, not legality of a particular measure."
8.In their petition the
comfort women pray (a) to declare that respondents
committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of discretion
in refusing to espouse their claims for the crimes against humanity and war
crimes committed against them; and (b) to compel the respondents to espouse
their claims for official apology and other forms of reparations against Japan
before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and other international
tribunals. Question: How did the Supreme Court rule on said prayers? Explain. It is within the
right of the executive department through the President not to spouse the
claims of the comfort women hence it cannot be compelled to do so.
9.Can a justice of court of appeals be
liable for such a criminal offense as “knowingly rendering an unjust decision”?
Explain your answer.No, the applicability of said
criminal provision applies only to Judges and not to justices which are magistrates of collegiate courts.Respondents
should know that the provisions of Article 204 of the Revised Penal Code( -
Knowingly rendering unjust judgment. ... - Any judge who, by reason of
inexcusable negligence or ignorance shall render a manifestly unjust judgment
in any case submitted to him for decision shall be punished by arresto mayor
and temporary special disqualification) as to 'rendering
knowingly unjust judgment,' refer to an individual judge who does so 'in any
case submitted to him for decision' and even then, it is not the prosecutor who
would pass judgment on the unjustness' of the decision rendered by him but the
proper appellate court with jurisdiction to review the same, either the Court
of Appeals and/or the Supreme Court. Respondents
should likewise know that said penal article has no application to the members
of a collegiate court such as this Court or its Divisions who reach their
conclusions in consultation and accordingly render their collective judgment
after due deliberation. It also follows, consequently, that a charge
of violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act on the ground that such
a collective decision is unjust' cannot prosper.
10.In the Borromeo case, what was the
charge against him and what penalty was imposed by the Supreme Court? He was convicted of constructive or indirect contempt and
punished to ten days of imprisonment and to pay the fine of P1,000.
Vanessa Mawile
No comments:
Post a Comment