meikimouse

BROWNELL VS SUN LIFE ASSURANCE95 PHIL 228, GR NO L-5731, JUNE 22, 1954

Facts:This is a petition instituted in the CFI under the provisions of Philippines Property Act of the US against the Sun Life Assurance company of Canada to compel the latter to comply with the demand of the former to pay him the money which of the proceeds of an endowment policy payable to Aihara, Japanese national.The defenses of Sun Life Assurance are that immunities in Trading with the Enemy Act of US is doubtful application in the Philippines and defendant is a trustee of the fund and under legal obligation to see to it that it is paid to the person entitled.CFI granted the petition. Hence, appeal was filed with the SC contending that CFI erred in holding that the law is binding upon the inhabitants of the Philippines.

Issue:WON the Trading with the Enemy Act apply to Philippines Govt.

Ruling:Yes, A foreign law may have extraterritorial effect in a country other than the country of origin provided the former in which it sought to be made operative gives its consent. The consent need not be expressed it is enough to be implied from its conduct or from that of its authorized officers. In this case, the said act was conformed by President Roxas in a joint statement signed by him and by Commissioner McNutt. Ambassador Romulo also formally expressed the conformity of the Government of the Philippines to the approval of said act to the American Senate. It is well settled in the US that its laws have no extraterritorial effect. The application of said law in the Philippines is based concurrently on Philippines Property Act of 1946 and on the tacit consent and conduct of the Government of the Philippines in receiving the benefits of its provisions.

INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL VS QUISUMBING333 SCRA 13, GR NO 128845, JUNE 1, 2000

Facts:Private respondent (School) pursuant to PD 732 is a domestic educational institution established primarily for dependents of foreign diplomatic personnel and other temporary residents. The School hires both foreign and local teachers as members of its faculty classifying its as foreign and local-hires.The School grants foreign- hires certain benefits not accorded to local-hires. During the negotiations for a new CBA, petitioner Intl. School Alliance of Educators, legitimate labor union and collective bargaining representative of all faculty members contested the difference in salary rates between foreign-hires and local-hires.Petitioner filed a notice of strike hence DOLE Acting Secretary Trajano resolved the issues in favor of the School. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied by DOLE Secretary Quisumbing.

Issue:WON the point-of-hire classification employed by the School is discriminatory.Ruling:Yes, If an employer accords employees in the same position and rank, the presumption is that these employees perform equal work. In this case, the employer has hailed to discharge this burden hence there is no evidence that foreign-hires perform 25% more efficiently than local-hires. Salaries should not be used as an enticement to the prejudice of local-hires. Section 18 of Art 2 and Section 3 of Art 13 of the Constitution, these relations are not merely contractual but are so impressed with public interest that labor contracts, CBA must yield to the common good.

KIOBEL VS ROYAL DUTCH PETROLEUM133 SCT 1659 (2013)

Petitioner Esther Kiobel, representing a group of individuals from the Ogoni region in Nigeria, filed a class action lawsuit against Respondents, the Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., Shell Transport and Trading Company PLC, and Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria, LTD (Royal Dutch) under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS). The ATS grants jurisdiction to some federal courts for certain violations of international law. Petitioners allege that Royal Dutch aided the Nigerian government in committing various acts of violence against protestors of the oil exploration projects in the Ogoni region. Petitioners claim that they have standing to sue under the ATS because the history, text, and purpose of the statute support the application of the ATS to actions in foreign countries. Petitioner also contends that previous court decisions interpreted the ATS to extend beyond U.S. territory. In response, Royal Dutch argues that the ATS is not an exception to the presumption that U.S. law does not apply extraterritorially, and should not be applicable to actions outside of the U.S. The Court's decision in this case will clarify the reach of the U.S. federal courts' jurisdiction over certain extraterritorial tort claims.

Facts:Esther Kiobel represents a class of citizens from the Ogoni region in Nigeria who filed a class action suit against the respondents Royal Dutch Petroleum, Shell Transport and Trading Company and Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria (Royal Dutch Petroleum) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in 2002. Respondent corporations are incorporated in the Netherlands, United Kingdom, and Nigeria, respectively. Respondents are companies that have been engaged in oil exploration and production in the Ogoni region of Nigeria since 1958. In response to Royal Dutch Petroleums exploration efforts, a group of Ogoni citizens formed the Movement for the Survival of Ogoni People which protested the detrimental environmental effects that Royal Dutchs oil exploration has on the region.Petitioners in this case (Kiobel) allege that Royal Dutch Petroleum partnered with the Nigerian government in 1993 to stop the Ogoni from protesting the oil exploration projects. Petitioners allege that Nigerian military forces committed atrocities against the Ogoni people including raping, murdering, beating, and making unlawful arrests to further the governments efforts to stop the protesting, which would allow Royal Dutch to continue oil exploration in the region. Petitioners claim that Royal Dutch Petroleum provided the Nigerian soldiers with transportation, food, compensation and staging areas for carrying out attacks against the Ogoni.Kiobel brings the claim under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), which allows foreign citizens to bring suits in U.S. federal courts for certain violations of the law of nations. Kiobel brought suit arguing that Royal Dutch Petroleum had aided and abetted the Nigerian government, or was otherwise complicit, in the atrocities committed against the people. In 2006, the District Court dismissed some of the claims of aiding and abetting but allowed claims of aiding and abetting arbitrary arrest and detention; crimes against humanity; and torture or cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment to stand. The District Court recognized the importance of interpreting the law properly and thus certified the whole case for interlocutory appeal by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Second Circuit ruled that the ATS had never served as a basis for liability on the part of corporations. The court dismissed all of Kiobels claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. This case was the first time that the Second Circuit directly addressed whether its jurisdiction under ATS extends to civil actions involving corporations.The Supreme Court heard oral arguments for the case on February 28, 2012 and on March 5, 2012 ordered re-arguments. The re-arguments will be on the question of under what circumstances the Alien Tort Statute allows American courts to litigate tort claims that are based on actions that did not occur within the territory of the United States.

Issue:Whether an American federal court can hear a claim under the Alien Tort statute, when that claim arose out of conduct in a foreign country.

Ruling:Petitioners argue that the text, history, and purpose of the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) support their contention that the ATS was applicable in foreign nations. However, Respondents argue that the ATS is not an exception to the presumption that U.S. law does not apply extraterritorially, and should not be applicable to actions outside of the U.S.

Business Implications

BP America and others (BP America) point out that the U.S corporations often have contacts with foreign military and government entities when the corporations conduct foreign business. BP America maintains that if ATS liability for aiding and abetting is extended in this case, many corporations conducting business in developing countries will be at risk of billion-dollar claims based solely on their incidental contacts with the governing regimes in these countries. The Chamber of Commerce further argues that if ATS is extended to cases involving U.S. corporations conduct in foreign countries, the ATS could effectively act as embargos or international sanctions. Moreover, the Chamber of Commerce contends that the ATS will impose additional risks to corporations and discourage corporations from investing overseas. Furthermore, the Chamber of Commerce argues that the decrease in investment in developing nations will not only harm corporations but also the developing nations themselves, as well as negatively affect U.S. foreign policy. The Chamber of Commerce also contends that the United States has often encouraged investment in developing nations to further political policies, and the ATS will serve as a barrier to those policies.Ambassador David J. Scheffer (Scheffer) contends that if the ATS has extraterritorial reach, it will enforce the global trend that is moving towards applying more civil liability for corporations that violate international human rights, and as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, the. U.S. should support the trend and hold corporations accountable for their human rights violations. Scheffer also argues that if the ATS has foreign reach, it will signal to other countries Americas commitment to justice, and promote international justice. The members of the Parliament of the Federal Republic of Germany (German Parliament) also maintain that the ATS would support notions of international justice, and provide a remedy to victims of human rights violations. The German Parliament contends that the ATS does not act as a barrier to international corporations, since the number of human rights claims that are brought against multinational corporations are very small due to the high cost of bringing a class action lawsuit. Petitioners further state that the settlements in these types of human rights cases are so minor for large corporations that they will not greatly hamper income so drastically as to prevent a corporation from considering foreign investment.

Sovereign Power vs. Protection of Human Rights

The Cato Institute states that a sovereign should limit its punishment of crimes to those crimes that occur within the sovereigns jurisdiction, independent of the nature of the crime. The Cato Institute argues that allowing the Petitioners to continue to litigate the case would greatly expand the boundaries of the reach of American courts in cases dealing with international law. The Cato Institute maintains that this will create an overreach of U.S. power, which will undermine U.S. foreign policy by allowing U.S. courts to decide disputes in foreign countries. The Federal Republic of Germany believes that if the Court finds for Petitioners, the sovereign judicial powers of foreign nations will be reduced even though they have stronger interests in cases that concern their own corporations.Navi Pillay, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (Pillay), believes that victims of human rights violations are entitled to compensation for the atrocities committed against them and this compensation is necessary because often human rights violations create an inability to support a family or make a livelihood. Pillay also states that often there are no avenues in the domestic judicial systems to recover for human rights violations and if Petitioners are unsuccessful in this instance, a potential avenue for recovery will be lost to victims of human rights violations. Petitioners also state that the need for a forum to hear the human rights violations far outweighs any infraction on the sovereignty of a nation.top

Analysis

Application of Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain to International Torts

Petitioner argues that the seminal case, Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, already resolved the question of whether the ATS allows U.S. courts to recognize a cause of action for international law violations that occur outside the United States. Petitioner contends that Sosa, a case in which plaintiffs sued the defendants for kidnapping under the ATS, held that ATS jurisdiction extends to a small subset of common law tort cases derived from international law. Petitioner points out that the Sosa court held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to damages under the ATS, since the ATS was a jurisdictional statute that was intended to regulate common law causes of actions for a small number of international law violations, including crimes against ambassadors, breaches of safe conducts, and piracy. Petitioner argues that Sosa authorized ATS jurisdiction to include human rights violations by foreign nationals in its discussion of remedies. Petitioner further argues that international law prohibits any government from committing human rights violations against their citizens, especially within their own sovereignty. Moreover, Petitioner states that no court since Sosa has held that ATS jurisdiction is limited to conduct occurring within the U.S. or on the high seas.Respondent argues that Sosa stands for the proposition that to apply the ATS and federal common law is to recognize U.S. law in a foreign country. Respondent asserts that, under the ATS, courts apply federal common law to a violation of an international law norm, therefore applying U.S. law to foreign nations. Thus, respondent argues, that while these causes of action do look partially to international law for substantive content, because it is based on a violation of an international law custom, it is nonetheless an application of U.S. federal common law. Respondent argues that to find otherwise would likely be a violation of international law, which prohibits universal civil jurisdiction. Respondent further argues that even if it would not be a clear violation of international law, it would be an arguable violation. In support of this, Respondent cites Sosa , which lists the potential violation of international law as a consideration a court should use when determining whether or not to extend jurisdiction to international tort cases under the ATS. Respondent further contends that there is no acceptable circumstance where it would be appropriate for the U.S. to apply its own laws to a case such as this one.

Presumption Against Extraterritoriality

Petitioner argues that the presumption against extraterritoriality is not applicable to the ATS because it is a jurisdictional statute and that the presumption against extraterritoriality does not apply to jurisdictional statutes. Petitioner also asserts that the ATS does not have any geographic limitations on the scope of its jurisdiction. Moreover, Petitioner compares the ATS to U.S. adjudication of international tort claims (also known as Transitory Tort claims), where both parties are based outside of the United States. Petitioner states that international tort claims may be adjudicated in the U.S. regardless of where the cause of action arose, so long as the plaintiffs can satisfy personal jurisdiction requirements. Petitioner argues that both the ATS and the Transitory Tort doctrine derive their power from customary international law and not the substantive law of any particular nation. Petitioner notes that although the ATS uses some federal common law to provide rules, this is consistent with international law principles, which dictate that each state may enforce international law through their own legal system. Thus, petitioner contends that adjudication of this case would not apply U.S. law extraterritoriality.Respondent contends that the ATS and federal common law should not be interpreted to apply to conduct on foreign soil because U.S. law is presumed not to apply extraterritorially. Respondent thus argues that, by extending ATS and federal common law to suits involving foreign territories and parties, the Court would extend U.S. law outside of its borders. Respondent contends that this presumption against extraterritoriality applies to the ATS despite the fact that it is a jurisdictional statute. In support of this claim, Respondent cites the Sosa decision, in which the Court determined that the decision to create a private right of action is usually best left to the legislature. Respondent continues by stating that the Court intended for the extraterritoriality presumption to also apply to the ATS. Respondent argues that, although several lower courts have permitted suits arising from incidents in foreign nations, the Court should explicitly foreclose such suits because they cause international friction. In response to Petitioners comparison of international tort cases and ATS claims, Respondent replies that ATS cases and international tort claims require entirely different procedural rules: while international tort cases are adjudicated in a U.S. forum, the law of wherever the violation occurred supplies the choice of law. Respondent argues that in contrast, ATS cases require application of U.S. federal common lawmeaning the law of the nation where the incident occurred has no impact.

History, Text, and Purpose of the ATS

Petitioner contends that maintaining federal jurisdiction over these types of alien tort cases is appropriate and has been assumed since the formation of the United States. Petitioner argues that the ATS was enacted to adjudicate treaty violations and therefore extends territorial jurisdiction everywhere international law reaches. Moreover, Petitioner argues that even if the presumption against extraterritoriality does apply, it is rebutted by the text, history, and purpose of the statute. Petitioner states that the ATS has long been understood to include violations committed in foreign nations by foreign actors. In support of this, Petitioner points to the fact that Congress has long supported international human rights compliance and accountability and that, by restricting the jurisdiction of ATS claims, U.S. foreign policy would be compromised. Petitioner additionally argues that the founders did not apply a territorial limitation to the scope of the ATS.Respondent supports its ATS interpretation by claiming that, where Congress has intended for an Act to include violations that occur on foreign soil, it has explicitly said so. Respondent cites the Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA) as an example of this. The TVPA explicitly extends jurisdiction to acts occurring in foreign nations regardless of the actors. Respondent further contends that application of the ATS has historically involved incidents occurring on U.S. soil. Respondent thus concludes that only Congress may outline territorial jurisdiction of the ATS and, if it intends for jurisdiction to include acts committed on foreign soil by foreign nations, it must explicitly say so. Respondent argues that to conclude otherwise would be to establish absolute U.S. jurisdiction over all international matters.

Application of U.S. Law to International Claims

Petitioner argues that U.S. law is not applied here because the ATS and federal common law call for the application of international law to any disputes filed under the statute. Petitioner states that these laws are utilized worldwide and are easily applied by the federal courts to ATS disputes. In this way, Petitioner argues that it is not U.S. law that applies extraterritorially but rather international law that applies universally. Petitioner argues that the history of the ATS demonstrates that Congress intended it to provide federal courts with extraterritorial reach, a prospect shown by the many foreign tort cases litigated in U.S. federal courts. Petitioner also notes that adjudication of foreign violations does not violate the prohibition on universal civil jurisdiction because there are restrictions on ATS jurisdiction, such as where defendant is not sufficiently connected to the forum nation to satisfy due process requirements. Petitioner concludes that these jurisdictional limitations are sufficient to prevent U.S. courts from unilaterally exercising universal civil jurisdiction.Respondent responds first by pointing to the fact that the case before the Court is especially sensitive because it involves passing judgment on the commercial conduct of a foreign government, not just a non-government actor. Respondent additionally argues that the ATS was enacted as a means of preventing international conflict and was not intended to include violations committed by alien actors in foreign nations. Respondent states that the alleged conduct occurred entirely in Nigeria and Nigeria objects to U.S. adjudication of the matter because they believe it will jeopardize their ability to reconcile the country with the Ogoni people. Respondent argues that foreign nations often object to the application of laws outside the construct of their own sovereignty because they choose their own means of dealing with internal conflict. Respondent points to South Africa as an example of a country that took an alternative routeby creating the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC)to address the disputes that arose in the aftermath of apartheid. Respondent argues that this as an example of a situation where imposition of foreign jurisdiction would have been a serious disruption of South Africas autonomy.top

Conclusion

The re-arguments in this case will focus on the interpretation of the Alien Tort Statute as it relates to the ability for an American court to have jurisdiction on civil cases that would otherwise be outside their reach. The Courts decision will greatly affect corporate investment in emerging markets and international human rights law. Petitioners will argue that they must be allowed to bring their claim in a United States court in order to allow for justice for human rights cases, while Respondents will urge to the Court that there is no jurisdiction on the part of the United States and the case would be better served in a jurisdiction that has greater ties to the underlying action.

VINUYA VS EXECUTIVE SECRETARYG.R. No. 162230, April 28, 2010

Facts:

This is an original Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court with an application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction against the Office of the Executive Secretary, the Secretary of the DFA, the Secretary of the DOJ, and the OSG.

Petitioners are all members of the MALAYA LOLAS, a non-stock, non-profit organization registered with the SEC, established for the purpose of providing aid to the victims of rape by Japanese military forces in the Philippines during the Second World War.

Petitioners claim that since 1998, they have approached the Executive Department through the DOJ, DFA, and OSG, requesting assistance in filing a claim against the Japanese officials and military officers who ordered the establishment of the comfort women stations in the Philippines. But officials of the Executive Department declined to assist the petitioners, and took the position that the individual claims of the comfort women for compensation had already been fully satisfied by Japans compliance with the Peace Treaty between the Philippines and Japan.

Hence, this petition where petitioners pray for this court to (a) 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) 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.

Respondents maintain that all claims of the Philippines and its nationals relative to the war were dealt with in the San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1951 and the bilateral Reparations Agreement of 1956.

On January 15, 1997, the Asian Womens Fund and the Philippine government signed a Memorandum of Understanding for medical and welfare support programs for former comfort women. Over the next five years, these were implemented by the Department of Social Welfare and Development.

Issue:

WON the Executive Department committed grave abuse of discretion in not espousing petitioners claims for official apology and other forms of reparations against Japan.

Ruling:

Petition lacks merit. From a Domestic Law Perspective, the Executive Department has the exclusive prerogative to determine whether to espouse petitioners claims against Japan.

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.

One type of case of political questions involves questions of foreign relations. It is well-established that the conduct of the foreign relations of our government is committed by the Constitution to the executive and legislativethe politicaldepartments of the government, and the propriety of what may be done in the exercise of this political power is not subject to judicial inquiry or decision. are delicate, complex, and involve large elements of prophecy. They are and should be undertaken only by those directly responsible to the people whose welfare they advance or imperil.

But not all cases implicating foreign relations present political questions, and courts certainly possess the authority to construe or invalidate treaties and executive agreements. However, the question whether the Philippine government should espouse claims of its nationals against a foreign government is a foreign relations matter, the authority for which is demonstrably committed by our Constitution not to the courts but to the political branches. In this case, the Executive Department has already decided that it is to the best interest of the country to waive all claims of its nationals for reparations against Japan in the Treaty of Peace of 1951. The wisdom of such decision is not for the courts to question.

The President, not Congress, has the better opportunity of knowing the conditions which prevail in foreign countries, and especially is this true in time of war. He has his confidential sources of information. He has his agents in the form of diplomatic, consular and other officials.

The Executive Department has determined that taking up petitioners cause would be inimical to our countrys foreign policy interests, and could disrupt our relations with Japan, thereby creating serious implications for stability in this region. For the to overturn the Executive Departments 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.

From a municipal law perspective, certiorari will not lie. As a general principle, where such an extraordinary length of time has lapsed between the treatys conclusion and our consideration the Executive must be given ample discretion 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.

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 individuals behalf. 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.

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. All these questions remain within the province of municipal law and do not affect the position internationally.

Even the invocation of jus cogens norms and erga omnes obligations will not alter this analysis. Petitioners have not shown that the crimes committed by the Japanese 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.

The term erga omnes (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. Essential distinction should be drawn between the obligations of a State towards the international community as a whole, and those arising vis--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 erga omnes.

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

WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby DISMISSED.