THE MILLENIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS REPORT - 2008
http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/pdf/The%20Millennium%20Development%20Goals%20Report%202008.pdf
The eight Millennium Development Goals have been adopted by the international community as a framework for the development activities of over 190 countries in ten regions; they have been articulated into over 20 targets and over 60 indicators. This Report summarizes progress towards the goals in each of the regions. However, any such synthesis inevitably masks the range and variety of development experiences in individual countries since the goals were adopted.
Mid-point shows some key successes
The single most important success to date has been the unprecedented breadth and depth of the commitment to the MDGs – a global collective effort that is unsurpassed in 50 years of development experience. It is not only governments of developing countries and the international community that have adopted the MDGs as their framework for international development cooperation, but also the private sector and, critically, civil society in both developed and developing countries. Besides being advocates for the MDGs, private foundations in the developed countries have become an important source of funding for a wide range of activities intended to achieve them. NGOs in developing countries are increasingly engaged in undertaking these activities, as well as in monitoring the
outcomes.
This global collective effort is yielding results. Adding more recent data to those contained in earlier Reports largely confirms the patterns identified previously. There has been sound progress in some MDG areas, even in some of the more challenging regions, and a number of targets are expected to be reached by their target dates, mostly 2015:
• The overarching goal of reducing absolute poverty by half is within reach for the world as a whole;
• In all but two regions, primary school enrolment is at least 90 per cent;
• The gender parity index in primary education is 95 per cent or higher in six of the 10 regions, including the most populous ones;
• Deaths from measles fell from over 750,000 in 2000 to less than 250,000 in 2006, and about 80 per cent of children in developing countries now receive a measles vaccine;
• The number of deaths from AIDS fell from 2.2 million in 2005 to 2.0 million in 2007, and the number of people newly infected declined from 3.0 million in 2001 to 2.7 million in 2007;
• Malaria prevention is expanding, with widespread increases in insecticide-treated net use among children under five in sub-Saharan Africa: in 16 out of 20 countries, use has at least tripled since around 2000.
• The incidence of tuberculosis is expected to be halted and begin to decline before the target date of 2015;
• Some 1.6 billion people have gained access to safe drinking water since 1990;
• The use of ozone-depleting substances has been almost eliminated and this has contributed to the effort to reduce global warming;
• The share of developing countries’ export earnings devoted to servicing external debt fell from 12.5 per cent in 2000 to 6.6 per cent in 2006, allowing them to allocate more resources to reducing poverty;
• The private sector has increased the availability of some critical essential drugs and rapidly spread mobile phone technology throughout the developing world.
GOAL # 1: ERADICATE EXTREME POVERTY AND HUNGER
TARGET:
Halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people whose income is less than $1 a day
MDG REPORT:
Higher food prices may push 100 million people deeper into poverty
New data, based on the latest estimates of the cost of living in developing countries, may change our view of the scale and distribution of global poverty. But the continuing economic growth in all developing regions suggests that the downward trend in poverty continued through 2007. The goal of cutting in half the proportion of people in the developing world living on less than $1 a day by 2015 remains within reach. However, this achievement will be due largely to extraordinary economic success in most of Asia. In contrast, previous estimates suggest that little progress was made in reducing extreme poverty in sub-Saharan Africa. In Western Asia, poverty rates were relatively low but increasing. And the transition economies of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) and South-Eastern Europe were still recovering from the rise in poverty in the early 1990s.
GOAL # 2: ACHIEVE UNIVERSAL PRIMARY EDUCATION
TARGET:
Ensure that, by 2015, children everywhere, boys and girls alike, will be able to complete a full course of primary schooling
MDG REPORT:
Political will, coupled with targeted investments, have yielded widespread progress in primary school enrolment
In almost all regions, the net enrolment ratio in 2006 exceeded 90 per cent, and many countries were close to achieving universal primary enrolment. The number of children of primary school age who were out of school fell from 103 million in 1999 to 73 million in 2006, despite an overall increase in the number of
children in this age group.
GOAL # 3: PROMOTE GENDER EQUALITY AND EMPOWER WOMEN
TARGET:
Eliminate gender disparity in primary and secondary education, preferably by 2005, and in all levels of education no later than 2015
MDG REPORT:
Girls still wait for equal primary school access in some regions
School doors have swung open for girls in nearly all regions as many countries have successfully promoted girls’ education as part of their efforts to boost overall enrolment. Girls’ primary enrolment increased more than boys’ in all developing regions between 2000 and 2006. As a result, two out of three countries have achieved gender parity at the primary level. Despite impressive gains, girls account for 55 per cent of the out-of-school population.
Targeted action is needed to help girls from poor, rural areas stay in school
In developing countries, primary school attendance of girls and boys is nearly equal in the richest households and in urban areas. However, girls in rural areas
and from the poorest households require targeted interventions to encourage them to enrol in and stay in school. Satellite schools in remote areas, eliminating
school fees, providing school meals, constructing separate sanitation facilities, ensuring a safe school environment and promoting later marriage have boosted girls’ attendance in school.
GOAL # 4: REDUCE CHILD MORTALITY
TARGET:
Reduce by two thirds, between 1990 and 2015, the under-five mortality rate
MDG REPORT:
Despite progress, deaths of under five children remain unacceptably high
In 2006, for the first time since mortality data have been gathered, annual deaths among children under five dipped below 10 million. Nevertheless, the death of
millions of children from preventable causes each year is unacceptable. A child born in a developing country is over 13 times more likely to die within the first five
years of life than a child born in an industrialized country. Sub-Saharan Africa accounts for about half the deaths of children under five in the developing world.
Between 1990 and 2006, about 27 countries – the large majority in sub-Saharan Africa – made no progress in reducing childhood deaths. In Eastern Asia and Latin America and the Caribbean, child mortality rates are approximately four times higher than in developed regions. Disparities persist in all regions: mortality rates are higher for children from rural and poor families and whose mothers lack a basic education.
GOAL # 5: IMPROVE MATERNAL HEALTH
TARGET:
Reduce by three quarters, between 1990 and 2015, the maternal mortality ratio
MDG REPORT:
The high risk of dying in pregnancy or childbirth continues unabated in sub-Saharan Africa and Southern Asia
Maternal mortality remains unacceptably high across much of the developing world. In 2005, more than 500,000 women died during pregnancy, childbirth or in the six weeks after delivery. Ninety-nine per cent of these deaths occurred in the developing regions, with sub-Saharan Africa and Southern Asia accounting for 86 per cent of them. In sub-Saharan Africa, a woman’s risk of dying from treatable or preventable complications of pregnancy and childbirth over the course of her lifetime is 1 in 22 , compared to 1 in 7,300 in the developed regions.
GOAL # 6: COMBAT HIV/AIDS, MALARIA AND OTHER DISEASES
TARGET:
Have halted by 2015 and begun to reverse the spread of HIV/AIDS
MDG REPORT:
Despite small victories, AIDS continues to take a terrible toll, especially in sub-Saharan Africa
Every day, nearly 7,500 people become infected with HIV and 5,500 die from AIDS, mostly due to a lack of HIV prevention and treatment services. Despite these staggering numbers, some encouraging developments have sparked small victories in the battle against AIDS. Thanks to improvements in prevention programmes, the number of people newly infected with HIV declined from 3 million in 2001 to 2.7 million in 2007. And with the expansion of antiretroviral treatment services, the number of people who die from AIDS has started to decline, from 2.2 million in 2005 to 2.0 million in 2007. However, largely because newly infected people survive longer, the number of people living with HIV rose
from an estimated 29.5 million in 2001 to 33 million in 2007. The vast majority of those living with HIV are in sub-Saharan Africa.
TARGET:
Have halted by 2015 and begun to reverse the incidence of malaria and other major diseases
MDG REPORT:
Despite tremendous progress, use of insecticide-treated mosquito nets falls short of global targets
The number of insecticide-treated mosquito nets produced worldwide jumped from 30 million in 2004 to 95 million in 2007. Coupled with increased resources, this has led to a rapid rise in the number of mosquito nets procured and distributed within countries. For example, UNICEF increased its procurement from 7 million in 2004 to nearly 20 million in 2007, and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria increased its distribution from 1.35 million in 2004 to 18 million in 2006. As a result, all sub-Saharan African countries for which there are trend data showed increases in insecticide-treated net use among children under five; 16 of these 20 countries have at least tripled their coverage since around 2000. Despite this progress, overall insecticide-treated net use falls short of global targets.
GOAL #7: ENSURE ENVIROMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
TARGET:
Integrate the principles of sustainable development into country policies and programmes and reverse the loss of environmental resources
MDG REPORT:
Immediate action is needed to contain rising greenhouse gas emissions
In 2007, the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change made it abundantly clear that the climate is warming and
“most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic
greenhouse gas.” Carbon dioxide (CO2) released by the burning of fossil fuels accounts for more than half of the global greenhouse gas emissions responsible for climate change.
TARGET:
By 2020, to have achieved a significant improvement in the lives of at l east 100 million slum dwellers
MDG REPORT:
Simple, low-cost interventions could significantly improve the lives of many slum dwellers The lack of improved sanitation and water facilities are two of the four defining characteristics of urban slums. The others are durable housing and sufficient living area. In 2005, slightly more than one third of the urban population in developing regions lived in slum conditions; in sub-Saharan Africa, the proportion was over 60 per cent.
GOAL #8: DEVELOP FOR GLOBAL PARTNERSHIP FOR DEVELOPMENT
TARGET;
Address the special needs of the least developed countries, landlocked
countries and small island developing states
MDG REPORT:
Development assistance will have to increase substantially to double aid to Africa by 2010
Total aid remains well below the United Nations target of 0.7 per cent of the gross national income (GNI) of the members of the Development Assistance
Committee of the OECD. Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden were the only countries to reach or exceed this target in 2007. For the
developed countries as a group, official development assistance fell to 0.28 per cent of their combined gross national income in 2007.
TARGET:
Develop further an open, rule-based, predictable, non-discriminatory trading and financial system
MDG REPORT:
Market access for most developing countries is little improved
There has been little progress recently in reducing the barriers to exports from developing countries to developed countries. The 2005 World Trade Organization Agreement on Textiles and Clothing liberalized trade in those sectors, benefiting some developing and least developed countries while hurting others, including several least developed countries in Africa and upper-middle-income countries in Eastern Asia. In December 2005, the developed country members of the World Trade Organization vowed that, by 2008, they would make
at least 97 per cent of their tariff lines duty-free and quota-free for imports originating from least developed countries.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Friday, October 17, 2008
DBM vs KOLONWEL TRADING
G. R. No. 175608
June 8, 2007
DEPARTMENT O BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT PROCUREMENT SERVICE (DBM-PS) and the inter-Agency Bids and Awards Committee (IABAC), petetioners VS. KOLONWEL TRADING, respondent.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the foreign loan agreements (Loan No. 7118-PH) with international financial institutions, partake of an executive or international agreement and shall govern the procurement of goods necessary to implement the project.
HELD:
This issue has been affirmatively answered in the case of Abaya. In that case, the court declared that the RP-JBIC loan agreement was to be of governing application over the CP I project and that the JBIC Procurement Guidelines, as stipulated in the loan agreement.
Under the fundamental international law principle of pacta sunt servanda, the RP, as borrower, bound itself to perform in good faith its duties and obligation under Loan No. 7118-PH. Applying this postulate, the IABAC was legally obliged to comply with, or accord primacy to, the WB Guidelines on the conduct and implementation of the bidding/procurement process in question.
June 8, 2007
DEPARTMENT O BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT PROCUREMENT SERVICE (DBM-PS) and the inter-Agency Bids and Awards Committee (IABAC), petetioners VS. KOLONWEL TRADING, respondent.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the foreign loan agreements (Loan No. 7118-PH) with international financial institutions, partake of an executive or international agreement and shall govern the procurement of goods necessary to implement the project.
HELD:
This issue has been affirmatively answered in the case of Abaya. In that case, the court declared that the RP-JBIC loan agreement was to be of governing application over the CP I project and that the JBIC Procurement Guidelines, as stipulated in the loan agreement.
Under the fundamental international law principle of pacta sunt servanda, the RP, as borrower, bound itself to perform in good faith its duties and obligation under Loan No. 7118-PH. Applying this postulate, the IABAC was legally obliged to comply with, or accord primacy to, the WB Guidelines on the conduct and implementation of the bidding/procurement process in question.
Plaridel M. Abaya vs. Hon. Secretary Hermogenes E. Ebdane, Jr.
G. R. No. 167919
February 14, 2007
Plaridel M. Abaya vs. Hon. Secretary Hermogenes E. Ebdane, Jr.
FACTS:
On May 7, 2004 Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) issued a Resolution No. PJHL-A-04-012. It was approved by DPWH Acting Secretary Florante Soriquez. This resolution recommended the award to China Road & Bridge Corporation of the contract for the implementation of civil works for Contract Package No. I (CP I), which consists of the improvement/rehabilitation of the San Andres-Virac-Jct. Bago-Viga road, with the lengt of 79.818 kilometers, in the island province of Catanduanes.
This Loan Agreement No. PH-204 was executed by and between the JBIC and the Philippine Government pursuant to the exchange of Notes executed by and between Mr. Yoshihisa Ara, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Japan to the Philippines, and then Foreign Affairs Secretary Siazon, in behalf of their respective governments.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Loan Agreement No. PH-204 between the JBIC and the Philippine Government is a kind of a treaty.
HELD:
The Loan Agreement No. PH-204 taken in conjunction with the Exchange of Notes dated December 27, 1999 between the Japanese Government and the Philippine Government is an executive agreement.
An “exchange of notes” is a record of a routine agreement that has many similarities with the private law contract. The agreement consists of the exchange of two documents, each of the parties being in the possession of the one signed by the representative of the other.
…treaties, agreements, conventions, charters, protocols, declarations, memoranda of understanding, modus vivendi and exchange of notes all are refer to international instruments binding at international law.
Although these instruments differ from each other by title, they all have common features and international law has applied basically the same rules to all these instruments. These rules are the result of long practice among the States, which have accepted them as binding norms in their mutual relations. Therefore, they are regarded as international customary law.
February 14, 2007
Plaridel M. Abaya vs. Hon. Secretary Hermogenes E. Ebdane, Jr.
FACTS:
On May 7, 2004 Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) issued a Resolution No. PJHL-A-04-012. It was approved by DPWH Acting Secretary Florante Soriquez. This resolution recommended the award to China Road & Bridge Corporation of the contract for the implementation of civil works for Contract Package No. I (CP I), which consists of the improvement/rehabilitation of the San Andres-Virac-Jct. Bago-Viga road, with the lengt of 79.818 kilometers, in the island province of Catanduanes.
This Loan Agreement No. PH-204 was executed by and between the JBIC and the Philippine Government pursuant to the exchange of Notes executed by and between Mr. Yoshihisa Ara, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Japan to the Philippines, and then Foreign Affairs Secretary Siazon, in behalf of their respective governments.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Loan Agreement No. PH-204 between the JBIC and the Philippine Government is a kind of a treaty.
HELD:
The Loan Agreement No. PH-204 taken in conjunction with the Exchange of Notes dated December 27, 1999 between the Japanese Government and the Philippine Government is an executive agreement.
An “exchange of notes” is a record of a routine agreement that has many similarities with the private law contract. The agreement consists of the exchange of two documents, each of the parties being in the possession of the one signed by the representative of the other.
…treaties, agreements, conventions, charters, protocols, declarations, memoranda of understanding, modus vivendi and exchange of notes all are refer to international instruments binding at international law.
Although these instruments differ from each other by title, they all have common features and international law has applied basically the same rules to all these instruments. These rules are the result of long practice among the States, which have accepted them as binding norms in their mutual relations. Therefore, they are regarded as international customary law.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Bayan vs Zamora
G. R. No. 138570
October 10, 2000
Bayan vs Zamora
Facts:
The United States panel met with the Philippine panel to discussed, among others, the possible elements of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA). This resulted to a series of conferences and negotiations which culminated on January 12 and 13, 1998. Thereafter, President Fidel Ramos approved the VFA, which was respectively signed by Secretary Siazon and United States Ambassador Thomas Hubbard.
Pres. Joseph Estrada ratified the VFA on October 5, 1998 and on May 27, 1999, the senate approved it by (2/3) votes.
Cause of Action:
Petitioners, among others, assert that Sec. 25, Art XVIII of the 1987 constitution is applicable and not Section 21, Article VII.
Following the argument of the petitioner, under they provision cited, the “foreign military bases, troops, or facilities” may be allowed in the Philippines unless the following conditions are sufficiently met:
a) it must be a treaty,
b) it must be duly concurred in by the senate, ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a national referendum held for that purpose if so required by congress, and
c) recognized as such by the other contracting state.
Respondents, on the other hand, argue that Section 21 Article VII is applicable so that, what is requires for such treaty to be valid and effective is the concurrence in by at least two-thirds of all the members of the senate.
ISSUE:
Is the VFA governed by the provisions of Section 21, Art VII or of Section 25, Article XVIII of the Constitution?
HELD:
Section 25, Article XVIII, which specifically deals with treaties involving foreign military bases, troops or facilities should apply in the instant case. To a certain extent and in a limited sense, however, the provisions of section 21, Article VII will find applicability with regard to the issue and for the sole purpose of determining the number of votes required to obtain the valid concurrence of the senate.
The Constitution, makes no distinction between “transient” and “permanent.” We find nothing in section 25, Article XVIII that requires foreign troops or facilities to be stationed or placed permanently in the Philippines.
It is inconsequential whether the United States treats the VFA only as an executive agreement because, under international law, an executive agreement is as binding as a treaty.
October 10, 2000
Bayan vs Zamora
Facts:
The United States panel met with the Philippine panel to discussed, among others, the possible elements of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA). This resulted to a series of conferences and negotiations which culminated on January 12 and 13, 1998. Thereafter, President Fidel Ramos approved the VFA, which was respectively signed by Secretary Siazon and United States Ambassador Thomas Hubbard.
Pres. Joseph Estrada ratified the VFA on October 5, 1998 and on May 27, 1999, the senate approved it by (2/3) votes.
Cause of Action:
Petitioners, among others, assert that Sec. 25, Art XVIII of the 1987 constitution is applicable and not Section 21, Article VII.
Following the argument of the petitioner, under they provision cited, the “foreign military bases, troops, or facilities” may be allowed in the Philippines unless the following conditions are sufficiently met:
a) it must be a treaty,
b) it must be duly concurred in by the senate, ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a national referendum held for that purpose if so required by congress, and
c) recognized as such by the other contracting state.
Respondents, on the other hand, argue that Section 21 Article VII is applicable so that, what is requires for such treaty to be valid and effective is the concurrence in by at least two-thirds of all the members of the senate.
ISSUE:
Is the VFA governed by the provisions of Section 21, Art VII or of Section 25, Article XVIII of the Constitution?
HELD:
Section 25, Article XVIII, which specifically deals with treaties involving foreign military bases, troops or facilities should apply in the instant case. To a certain extent and in a limited sense, however, the provisions of section 21, Article VII will find applicability with regard to the issue and for the sole purpose of determining the number of votes required to obtain the valid concurrence of the senate.
The Constitution, makes no distinction between “transient” and “permanent.” We find nothing in section 25, Article XVIII that requires foreign troops or facilities to be stationed or placed permanently in the Philippines.
It is inconsequential whether the United States treats the VFA only as an executive agreement because, under international law, an executive agreement is as binding as a treaty.
Gov. of Hongkong Special Administrative Region vs. Hon. Felixberto Olalia
G.R. No. 153675
Gov. of Hongkong Special Administrative Region vs. Hon. Felixberto Olalia
FACTS:
Juan Antonio Munoz, who was charged before the Hongkong Court with three (3) counts of the offense of “accepting an advantage as an agent”, conspiracy to defraud, was penalized by a common law of Hongkong. A warrant of arrest was issued and if convicted, he may face jail terms.
On September 23, 1999, He was arrested and detained.
On November 22, 1999, Hongkong Special Administrative Region filed with the RTC of Manila a petition for his extradition.
Juan Antonio Munoz filed a petition for bail, which Judge Felixberto Olalia granted.
Petitioner (Hongkong Administrative), filed a petition to vacate such order, but it was denied by the same judge.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Juan Antonio Munoz has the right to post bail when there is nothing in the Constitution or Statutory law providing a potential extradite a right to bail.
HELD:
The Philippines committed to uphold the fundamental human rights as well as value the worth and dignity of every person (Sec. 2 Art II 1987 Constitution) have the obligation to make available to every person under detention such remedies which safeguard their fundamental right to liberty.
The right of a prospective extraditee to apply for bail must be viewed in the light of the various treaty obligations of the Philippines concerning respect for the promotion and protection of human rights. Under these treaties, the presumption lies in favor of human liberty.
While our extradition law does not provide for the grant of bail to an extradite, however, there is no provision prohibiting him or her from filing a motion for bail, aright to due process under the Constitution.
The time-honored principle of pacta sunt servanda demands that the Philippines honor its obligations under the Extradition Treaty it entered into with the Hongkong Special Administrative Region. Failure to comply with these obligations is a setback in our foreign relations and defeats the purpose of extradition.
Gov. of Hongkong Special Administrative Region vs. Hon. Felixberto Olalia
FACTS:
Juan Antonio Munoz, who was charged before the Hongkong Court with three (3) counts of the offense of “accepting an advantage as an agent”, conspiracy to defraud, was penalized by a common law of Hongkong. A warrant of arrest was issued and if convicted, he may face jail terms.
On September 23, 1999, He was arrested and detained.
On November 22, 1999, Hongkong Special Administrative Region filed with the RTC of Manila a petition for his extradition.
Juan Antonio Munoz filed a petition for bail, which Judge Felixberto Olalia granted.
Petitioner (Hongkong Administrative), filed a petition to vacate such order, but it was denied by the same judge.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Juan Antonio Munoz has the right to post bail when there is nothing in the Constitution or Statutory law providing a potential extradite a right to bail.
HELD:
The Philippines committed to uphold the fundamental human rights as well as value the worth and dignity of every person (Sec. 2 Art II 1987 Constitution) have the obligation to make available to every person under detention such remedies which safeguard their fundamental right to liberty.
The right of a prospective extraditee to apply for bail must be viewed in the light of the various treaty obligations of the Philippines concerning respect for the promotion and protection of human rights. Under these treaties, the presumption lies in favor of human liberty.
While our extradition law does not provide for the grant of bail to an extradite, however, there is no provision prohibiting him or her from filing a motion for bail, aright to due process under the Constitution.
The time-honored principle of pacta sunt servanda demands that the Philippines honor its obligations under the Extradition Treaty it entered into with the Hongkong Special Administrative Region. Failure to comply with these obligations is a setback in our foreign relations and defeats the purpose of extradition.
Monday, September 15, 2008
Answer to Question Nos. 2 & 3 of 2008 Bar Exam-Political & International Law
QUESTION NO. 2
May a treaty violate international law? If your answer is in the affirmative, explain when such may happen. If your answer is in the negative, explain why.
Answer:
Yes, a treaty may be a violation to international law. It happens when the subject matter of the treaty of the contracting parties can not be legally complied with because it is forbidden by universally recognized principle of international law. The treaty of Tordesillas in 1494 which is sought to divide between Spain and Portugal parts of the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans, which are open seas under the law of nations is an example of a treaty which is a violation of international law.
QUESTION NO. 3
The President alone without the concurrence of the senate abrogated a treaty. Assume that the other country-party to the treaty is agreeable to the abrogation provided it complies with the Philippine Constitution. If a case involving the validity of the treaty abrogation is brought to the Supreme Court, how should it be resolved?
Answer:
It could be resolved by applying the legal principle established in the case of Senator Pimentel Jr. vs. Office of the Executive Secretary G.R. No. 158088, July 6, 2005. In that case, Senator Aquilino Pimentel Jr. file a petition to compel Executive Secretary Hon. Alberto Romulo and Secretary of Foreign Affairs Hon. Blas Ople to transmit the signed documents – The Rome Statute which was signed by Charge d’ Affairs Enrique Manalo – to transmit it to the Senate for ratification.
Hon. Alberto Romulo and Hon. Blas Ople, on the other hand, argue that they as representative of the Executive Department have no duty to transmit the Rome Statute to the Senate for concurrence.
The Court settled the issue by declaring that: The President, being the head of state, is regarded as the sole organ and authority in external relations and is the country’s sole representative with foreign nations. As the chief architect of foreign policy, the President acts as the country’s mouthpiece with respect to international affairs. Hence, the President is vested with the authority to deal with foreign states and governments, extend or withhold recognition, maintain diplomatic relations, enter into treaties, and otherwise transact the business of foreign relations.
The role of the Senate, however, is limited only to giving or withholding its consent, or concurrence, to the ratification.
May a treaty violate international law? If your answer is in the affirmative, explain when such may happen. If your answer is in the negative, explain why.
Answer:
Yes, a treaty may be a violation to international law. It happens when the subject matter of the treaty of the contracting parties can not be legally complied with because it is forbidden by universally recognized principle of international law. The treaty of Tordesillas in 1494 which is sought to divide between Spain and Portugal parts of the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans, which are open seas under the law of nations is an example of a treaty which is a violation of international law.
QUESTION NO. 3
The President alone without the concurrence of the senate abrogated a treaty. Assume that the other country-party to the treaty is agreeable to the abrogation provided it complies with the Philippine Constitution. If a case involving the validity of the treaty abrogation is brought to the Supreme Court, how should it be resolved?
Answer:
It could be resolved by applying the legal principle established in the case of Senator Pimentel Jr. vs. Office of the Executive Secretary G.R. No. 158088, July 6, 2005. In that case, Senator Aquilino Pimentel Jr. file a petition to compel Executive Secretary Hon. Alberto Romulo and Secretary of Foreign Affairs Hon. Blas Ople to transmit the signed documents – The Rome Statute which was signed by Charge d’ Affairs Enrique Manalo – to transmit it to the Senate for ratification.
Hon. Alberto Romulo and Hon. Blas Ople, on the other hand, argue that they as representative of the Executive Department have no duty to transmit the Rome Statute to the Senate for concurrence.
The Court settled the issue by declaring that: The President, being the head of state, is regarded as the sole organ and authority in external relations and is the country’s sole representative with foreign nations. As the chief architect of foreign policy, the President acts as the country’s mouthpiece with respect to international affairs. Hence, the President is vested with the authority to deal with foreign states and governments, extend or withhold recognition, maintain diplomatic relations, enter into treaties, and otherwise transact the business of foreign relations.
The role of the Senate, however, is limited only to giving or withholding its consent, or concurrence, to the ratification.
R. A. No. 75
REPUBLIC ACT No. 75
AN ACT TO PENALIZE ACTS WHICH WOULD IMPAIR THE PROPER OBSERVANCE BY THE REPUBLIC AND INHABITANTS OF THE PHILIPPINES OF THE IMMUNITIES, RIGHT, AND PRIVILEGES OF DULY ACCREDITED FOREIGN DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR AGENTS IN THE PHILIPPINES
Section 1. Any person who shall falsely assume and take upon himself to act as a diplomatic, consular, or any other official of a foreign government duly accredited as such to the Government of the Republic of the Philippines with intent to defraud such foreign government or the Government of the Philippines, or any person, or in such pretended character shall demand or obtain, or attempt to obtain from person or from said foreign government or the Government of the Philippines, or from any officer thereof, any money, paper, document, or other thing, of value, shall be fined not more than five thousand pesos, or shall be imprisoned for not more than five years, or both, in addition to the penalties that may be imposed under the Revised Penal Code.
Section 2. Any person, other than a diplomatic or consular officer or attach, who shall act in the Republic of the Philippines as an agent of a foreign government without prior notification to, and registration with, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs shall be fined not more than five thousand pesos, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both, aside from other penalties that may be imposed by law.
Section 3. Any person, who with intent to deceive or mislead, within the jurisdiction of the Republic, wear any naval, military, police, or other official uniform, decoration, or regalia of any foreign State, nation or government with which the Republic of the Philippines is at peace, or any uniform, decoration or regalia so nearly resembling the same as to be calculated to deceive, unless such wearing thereof be authorized by such State, nation, or government, shall upon conviction, be punished by a fine not exceeding two hundred pesos or imprisonment not exceeding six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment.1awphil-itc-alf
Section 4. Any writ or process sued out or prosecuted by any person in any court of the Republic of the Philippines, or by any judge or justice, whereby the person of any ambassador or public minister of any foreign State, authorized and received as such by the President, or any domestic or domestic servant of any such ambassador or minister is arrested or imprisoned, or his goods or chattels are distrained, seized, or attached, shall be deemed void, and every person by whom the same is obtained or prosecuted, whether as party or as attorney, and every officer concerned in executing it, shall upon conviction, be punished by imprisonment for not more than three years and a fine of not exceeding two hundred pesos in the discretion of the court.
Section 5. The provisions of section four hereof shall not apply to any case where the person against whom the process is issued is a citizen or inhabitant of the Republic of the Philippines, in the service of an ambassador or a public minister, and the process is founded upon a debt contracted before he entered upon such service; nor shall the said section apply to any case where the person against whom the process is issued is a domestic servant of an ambassador or a public minister, unless the name of the servant has, before the issuing thereof, been registered in the Department of Foreign Affairs, and transmitted by the Secretary of Foreign Affairs to the Chief of Police of the City of Manila, who shall upon receipt thereof post the same in some public place in his office. All persons shall have resort to the list of names so posted in the office of the Chief of Police, and take copies without fee.
Section 6. Any person who assaults, strikes, wounds, imprisons or in any other manner offers violence to the person of an ambassador or a public minister, in violation of the law of nations, shall be imprisoned not more than three years, and fined not exceeding two hundred pesos, in the discretion of the court, in addition to the penalties that may be imposed under the Revised Penal Code.
Section 7. The provisions of this Act shall be applicable only in case where the country of the diplomatic or consular representative adversely affected has provided for similar protection to duly accredited diplomatic or consular representatives of the Republic of the Philippines by prescribing like or similar penalties for like or similar offenses herein contained.
Section 8. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.
Approved: October 21, 1946
AN ACT TO PENALIZE ACTS WHICH WOULD IMPAIR THE PROPER OBSERVANCE BY THE REPUBLIC AND INHABITANTS OF THE PHILIPPINES OF THE IMMUNITIES, RIGHT, AND PRIVILEGES OF DULY ACCREDITED FOREIGN DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR AGENTS IN THE PHILIPPINES
Section 1. Any person who shall falsely assume and take upon himself to act as a diplomatic, consular, or any other official of a foreign government duly accredited as such to the Government of the Republic of the Philippines with intent to defraud such foreign government or the Government of the Philippines, or any person, or in such pretended character shall demand or obtain, or attempt to obtain from person or from said foreign government or the Government of the Philippines, or from any officer thereof, any money, paper, document, or other thing, of value, shall be fined not more than five thousand pesos, or shall be imprisoned for not more than five years, or both, in addition to the penalties that may be imposed under the Revised Penal Code.
Section 2. Any person, other than a diplomatic or consular officer or attach, who shall act in the Republic of the Philippines as an agent of a foreign government without prior notification to, and registration with, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs shall be fined not more than five thousand pesos, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both, aside from other penalties that may be imposed by law.
Section 3. Any person, who with intent to deceive or mislead, within the jurisdiction of the Republic, wear any naval, military, police, or other official uniform, decoration, or regalia of any foreign State, nation or government with which the Republic of the Philippines is at peace, or any uniform, decoration or regalia so nearly resembling the same as to be calculated to deceive, unless such wearing thereof be authorized by such State, nation, or government, shall upon conviction, be punished by a fine not exceeding two hundred pesos or imprisonment not exceeding six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment.1awphil-itc-alf
Section 4. Any writ or process sued out or prosecuted by any person in any court of the Republic of the Philippines, or by any judge or justice, whereby the person of any ambassador or public minister of any foreign State, authorized and received as such by the President, or any domestic or domestic servant of any such ambassador or minister is arrested or imprisoned, or his goods or chattels are distrained, seized, or attached, shall be deemed void, and every person by whom the same is obtained or prosecuted, whether as party or as attorney, and every officer concerned in executing it, shall upon conviction, be punished by imprisonment for not more than three years and a fine of not exceeding two hundred pesos in the discretion of the court.
Section 5. The provisions of section four hereof shall not apply to any case where the person against whom the process is issued is a citizen or inhabitant of the Republic of the Philippines, in the service of an ambassador or a public minister, and the process is founded upon a debt contracted before he entered upon such service; nor shall the said section apply to any case where the person against whom the process is issued is a domestic servant of an ambassador or a public minister, unless the name of the servant has, before the issuing thereof, been registered in the Department of Foreign Affairs, and transmitted by the Secretary of Foreign Affairs to the Chief of Police of the City of Manila, who shall upon receipt thereof post the same in some public place in his office. All persons shall have resort to the list of names so posted in the office of the Chief of Police, and take copies without fee.
Section 6. Any person who assaults, strikes, wounds, imprisons or in any other manner offers violence to the person of an ambassador or a public minister, in violation of the law of nations, shall be imprisoned not more than three years, and fined not exceeding two hundred pesos, in the discretion of the court, in addition to the penalties that may be imposed under the Revised Penal Code.
Section 7. The provisions of this Act shall be applicable only in case where the country of the diplomatic or consular representative adversely affected has provided for similar protection to duly accredited diplomatic or consular representatives of the Republic of the Philippines by prescribing like or similar penalties for like or similar offenses herein contained.
Section 8. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.
Approved: October 21, 1946
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)