Doctrine of Incorporation digested cases

DOCTRINE OF INCORPORATION

1.MEJOFF vs DIRECTOR OF PRISONS
90 PHIL 70

FACTS: This was an original action in the Supreme Court for habeas corpus.

The petitioner was a Russian national who was brought into the country as a secret operative of the Japanese forces. Upon liberation,he was arrested as a Japanese spy by the U.S. Army. Thereafter, the people's court ordered his release.But the Board of Commissioners of Immigration declared that he had entered the country illegally and ordered deportation.

ISSUE: Whether the petitioner being a stateless person has the right to life and liberty being provided in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

HELD: YES, The protection against deprivation of liberty without due process of law and except for crimes committed against the laws of the land is not limited to Philippine citizens but extends to all residents, except enemy aliens, regardless of nationality.This is being provided in "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations which the Philippine is a member.

The petitioner's entry into the Philippines was not unlawful; he was brought by the armed and belligerent forces of a de facto government whoose decrees were law during the occupation.

The theory on which the court is given the power to act is that the wrant for his deportation, which was not executed, is functus officio and the alien is being held without anny law.

Petition is GRANTED

2.AGUSTIN vs EDU

88 SCRA 195

FACTS: This was an original action in the Supreme Court for prohibition.

Petitioner was an owner of a volkswagen beetle car,model 13035 already properly equipped when it came out from the assembly lines with blinking lights which could serve as an early warning device in case of the emergencies mentioned in Letter of Instructions No 229, as amended, as well as the Implementing rules and regulations in Administrative Order No 1 issued by Land transportation Commission.

Respondent Land Transportation commissioner Romeo Edu issued memorandum circular no 32 pursuant to Letter of Instructions No.229,as amended. It required the use of early Warning Devices (EWD) on motor vehicles. Petitioner alleged that the letter of instructions, as well as the implementing rules and regulations were unlawful and unconstitutional.

ISSUE: Whether the Letter of Instruction were considered valid and constitutional?

HELD: YES, The court held that the letter of Instruction No.229,as amended as well as the implementing rules and regulations were valid and constitutional as a valid measure of police power. The Vienna Convention on Road signs and signals and the United Nations Organization was ratified by the Philippine local legislation for the installation of road safety signs and devices.

It cannot be disputed then that this Declaration of Principle found in the Constitution possesses relevance,between the International law and municipal law in applying the rule municipal law prevails.

Petition is DISMISSED.

3.REYES vs BAGATSING

125 SCRA 553

FACTS: This was a petition for mandamus with writ of preliminary injunction to review the decision of the City of Mayor of Manila Ramon Bagatsing, denying the application for permit to hold a rally from Luneta to the gates of the United States Embassy.

ISSUE: Whether the contention of mayor Bagatsing as to denying the application for permit to hold rally was in accordance to the Veinna Convention?

HELD: NO.The Constitution adopts the generally accepted principle of International law as part of the law of the land.Veinna Convention is a restatement of the generally accepted principles of international law.It should be a part of the law of the land.That being a case,If there were clear and present danger of any intrusion or damage or distribution of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity, there would be a justification for the denial of the permit insofar as the terminal point would be the Embassy.

Petition is GRANTED. The court found that there was no clear and present danger of a substantive evil to a legitimate public interest that would justify the denial of the exercise of the constitutional rights of free speech and peaceble assembly.

4.KURODA vs JALANDONI

83 PHIL 171

FACTS: Shigenori Kuroda, formerly a Lieutenant-General of the Japanese Imperial Army and Commanding General of the Japanese Imperial Forces in The Philippines during a period covering 19433 and 19444 who is now charged before a military Commission convened by the Chief of Staff of the Armed forces of the Philippines with having unlawfully disregarded and failed "to discharge his duties as such command, permitting them to commit brutal atrocities and other high crimes against noncombatant civilians and prisoners of the Imperial Japanese Forces in violation of the laws and customs of war" comes before this Court seeking to establish the illegality of Executive Order No. 68 of the President of the Philippines: to enjoin and prohibit respondents Melville S. Hussey and Robert Port from participating in the prosecution of petitioner's case before the Military Commission and to permanently prohibit respondents from proceeding with the case of petitioners.

ISSUE: Whether Military Commission has jurisdiction to try petitioner for acts committed in violation of the Hague Convention and the Geneva Convention even the Philippine was not a signatory to such treaty?

HELD: Military Commission has jurisdiction to try for the acts committed.It cannot be denied that the rules and regulations of the two convention form part of and are wholly based on the generally accepted principles of international law.

These rules and principles were accepted by the two belligerent nations, United States and Japan, who were signatories of two conventions.Such rules and principles therefore,form part of the law of our nation even the Philippine was not a signatory to the conventions embodying them,for our Constitution has been deliberatley general and extensive in its scope and is not confined to the recognition of rules and principles of international law as contained in treaties to which our government may have been or shall be a signatory.

5. Secretary of Justice vs Judge lantion

GR No 139465 ,Jan 18,2000

FACTS: On January 13, 1977, then President Ferdinand E. Marcos issued Presidential Decree No. 1069 "Prescribing the Procedure for the Extradition of Persons Who Have Committed Crimes in a Foreign Country". The Decree is founded on: the doctrine of incorporation under the Constitution; the mutual concern for the suppression of crime both in the state where it was committed and the state where the criminal may have escaped; the extradition treaty with the Republic of Indonesia and the intention of the Philippines to enter into similar treaties with other interested countries; and the need for rules to guide the executive department and the courts in the proper implementation of said treaties.

On November 13, 1994, then Secretary of Justice Franklin M. Drilon, representing the Government of the Republic of the Philippines, signed in Manila the "Extradition Treaty Between the Government of the Republic of the Philippines and the Government of the United States of America"

On June 18, 1999, the Department of Justice received from the Department of Foreign Affairs U.S. Note Verbale No. 0522 containing a request for the extradition of private respondent Mark Jimenez to the United States.

ISSUE: 1 Whether or not there is a conflict between between the treaty and the due process clause in the Constitution?

HELD: 1.NO.En contrario, these two components of the law of the land are not pined against each other. There is no occasion to choose which of the two should be upheld.

Instead, we see a void in the provisions of the RP-US Extradition Treaty, as implemented by Presidential Decree No. 1069, as regards the basic due process rights of a prospective extraditee at the evaluation stage of extradition proceedings. From the procedures earlier abstracted, after the filing of the extradition petition and during the judicial determination of the propriety of extradition, the rights of notice and hearing are clearly granted to the prospective extraditee. However, prior thereto, the law is silent as to these rights. Reference to the U.S. extradition procedures also manifests this silence.

In the absence of a law or principle of law, we must apply the rules of fair play. An application of the basic twin due process rights of notice and hearing will not go against the treaty or the implementing law. Neither the Treaty nor the Extradition Law precludes these rights from a prospective extraditee.

The doctrine of incorporation is applied whenever municipal tribunals (or local courts) are confronted with situations in which there appears to be a conflict between a rule of international law and the provisions of the constitution or statute of the local state. Efforts should first be exerted to harmonize them, so as to give effect to both since it is to be presumed that municipal law was enacted with proper regard for the generally accepted principles of international law in observance of the observance of the Incorporation Clause in the above-cited constitutional provision.

PETITION is DISMISSED for lack of merit.