No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 May 2025
Mauro Cappelletti’s waves of domestic and transnational constitutionalism have reached Asia where courts exercise constitutional review and engage with international law in the process. Institutional and sociological legal scholars celebrate this as the inexorable global constitutionalization of international law through the liberal structures of judicial review and dialogue. A previous article cast doubt on the inevitability of global constitutionalization in view of material inconsistencies in interactions with international law by Asian courts, even those with rule of law and liberal democratic traditions. The present article on the Philippine Supreme Court sheds light on an underlying cause: arbitrary and contradictory selection and application of secondary rules for identifying international law by its source. The consequent degradation of international law and delegitimization of judicial engagement with it are the makings of the third wave of judicial review that Doreen Lustig and Joseph Weiler warned will reverse the gains of transnational constitutionalism.
1 Doreen LUSTIG and J.H.H. WEILER, “Judicial Review in the Contemporary World: Retrospective and Prospective” (2018) 16 (2) International Journal of Constitutional Law at 338.
2 Mauro CAPPELLETTI, “Judicial Review in Comparative Perspective” (1970) 58 Calif. L. Rev. 1018 at 1032–3; Mauro CAPPELLETTI, Judicial Review in the Contemporary World (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1971) at 29–32.
3 Ibid., Cappelletti, “Judicial Review in Comparative Perspective” at 1018, 1020.
4 Ibid., at 1018–19.
5 See Mauro CAPPELLETTI, “The Expanding Role of Judicial Review in Modern Societies” (1989) 58 Rev. Jur. U.P.R. at 12–13.
6 Cappelletti, “Judicial Review in Comparative Perspective”, supra note 2 at 1019–20.
7 Ibid., at 1020–50.
8 Ibid., at 1033. See, however, Mauro CAPPELLETTI, “Repudiating Montesquieu? The Expansion and Legitimacy of ‘Constitutional Justice’” (1986) 35(1) Catholic University Law Review (1986) in which he acknowledged that, following its defeat in World War II, Japan adopted Western constitutionalism. Ibid., at 1–10.
9 Cappelletti, “Judicial Review in Comparative Perspective”, supra note 2, at 1019. He cited constitutionalism across Western jurisdictions, ideologies and markets signalling “a remarkable and growing similarity in the ideals of many, particularly Western, constitutions”.
10 Ibid., at 1020.
11 Cappelletti, “Repudiating Montesquieu”, supra note 8, at 21–2.
12 Ibid., at 22–3.
13 Mauro CAPPELLETTI, Monica SECCOMBE and Joseph WEILER, eds., Integration Through Law Europe and the American Federal Experience (Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter, 1986) at 45.
14 Useful surveys of the first wave are provided in Edward MCWHINNEY, Judicial Review in the English-Speaking World (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1965); Erin DELANEY and Rosalind DIXON, “Beyond Europe and the United States: The Wide World of Judicial Review” in Erin DELANEY and Rosalind DIXON, eds., Comparative Judicial Review (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2018) at 318–36.
15 See Eric IP, Hybrid Constitutionalism: The Politics of Constitutional Review in the Chinese Special Administrative Regions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019); Anja SCHOELLER-SCHLETTER, ed., Constitutional Review in the Middle East and North Africa (Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, 2021); Suzannah LINTON, Tim MCCORMACK and Sandesh SIVAKUMARAN, eds., Asia-Pacific Perspectives on International Humanitarian Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019) at 473–640.
16 See Karen ALTER, The New Terrain of International Law: Courts, Politics, Rights (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2014); Stephen GARDBAUM, “Human Rights and International Constitutionalism” in Jeffrey DUNOFF and Joel TRACHTMAN, eds., Ruling the World? Constitutionalism, International Law and Global Governance (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009); Eyal BENVENISTI, “Reclaiming Democracy: The Strategic Uses of Foreign and International Law by National Courts” (2008) 102(2) American Journal of International Law at 241–74; Samantha BESSON, “Human Rights as Transnational Constitutional Law” in Anthony LANG and Antje WIENER, eds., Handbook on Global Constitutionalism (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2023) at 234–47. See, however, Başak ÇALI, “On Einsteinian Waves, International Law and National Hats: Afterword to the Foreword by Doreen Lustig and J. H. H. Weiler” (2019) 17(1) International Journal of Constitutional Law at 24–30 which doubts empirical evidence of the second wave, whether in the form of international judicial review or domestic judicial review relying on international law as a source of higher law.
17 See Wen-Chen CHANG, “Asian Exceptionalism? Reflections on Judicial Review in the Contemporary World: Afterword to the Foreword by Doreen Lustig and J. H. H. Weiler” (2019) 17(1) International Journal of Constitutional Law at 37–9.
18 Under the four-walls doctrine, courts restrict constitutional interpretation to the four corners of the document and disregard foreign law and international law. See Chee Siok Chin and others v. Minister for Home Affairs and another [2006] 1 SLR(R) 582 (Singapore); The Court in the Government of the State of Kelantan v. The Government of the Federation of Malaya and Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra Al-Haj [1963] 1 MLJ 355 (Malaysia). Under the dualist doctrine, the courts disregard international conventions that have not been acceded or that have been acceded to but not transformed into domestic legislation, and customary international law that are inconsistent with domestic law. See Yong Vui Kong v. Public Prosecutor [2015] 2 SLR 1129 (Singapore). See Jack Tsen-Ta LEE, “Interpreting Bills of Rights: The Value of a Comparative Approach” (2007) 5 International Journal of Constitutional Law at 122–152.
19 Anne-Marie SLAUGHTER, “A Global Community of Courts” (2003) 44 Harvard International Law Journal at 191; Michael KIRBY, “Transnational Judicial Dialogue, Internationalisation of Law and Australian Judges” (2008) 9(1) Melbourne Journal of International Law 173 at 182–4; Robert BADINTER and Stephen BREYER, Judges in Contemporary Democracy: An International Conversation (New York: NYU Press, 2004).
20 Anthony LANG, “Global Constitutionalism: A Practical Universal” (2021) 10(2) Global Constitutionalism at 367–75.
21 See Melissa LOJA, “Recent Engagement with International Human Rights Norms by the Courts of Singapore, Malaysia, and Philippines” (2021) 19(1) International Journal of Constitutional Law at 98–126; Hikmahanto JUWANA, “Courts in Indonesia: A Mix of Western and Local Character” in Jiunn-rong YEH and Wen-Chen CHANG, eds., Asian Courts in Context (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 2015) at 303–39.
22 Ibid., Loja, “Recent Engagement with International Human Rights Norms” at 114–18.
23 Ibid., at 108–11.
24 Ibid., at 114–16.
25 Ibid., at 102–08.
26 Christopher MCCRUDDEN, “Human Dignity and Judicial Interpretation of Human Rights” (2008) 19(4) European Journal of International Law at 655–724.
27 Poul KJAER, Constitutionalism in the Global Realm: A Sociological Approach (New York: Routledge, 2014).
28 Theresa REINOLD, “Diffusion Theories and the Interpretive Approaches of Domestic Courts” in Helmut AUST and Georg NOLTE, eds., The Interpretation of International Law by Domestic Courts: Uniformity, Diversity, Convergence (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016) at 272–87.
29 Knut TRAISBACH, “A Transnational Judicial Public Sphere as an Idea and Ideology: Critical Reflections on Judicial Dialogue and its Legitimizing Potential” (2021) 10(2) Global Constitutionalism at 186–207.
30 Ngoc Son BUI, “Global Constitutionalism: Asia-Pacific Perspectives” (2021) 10(2) Global Constitutionalism at 232.
31 Oscar SCHACHTER, “International Law in Theory and Practice: General Course in Public International Law” (1982) 178 Collected Courses of The Hague Academy of International Law at 60–62.
32 Jean DÁSPREMONT, “International Law-Making by Non-state Actors: Changing the Model or Putting the Phenomenon into Perspective?” in Math NOORTMANN, August REINISCH and Cedric RYNGAERT, eds., Non-state Actors in International Law (Oxford: Hart, 2015) at 176–80.
33 See Timothy ENDICOTT, “Herbert Hart and the Semantic Sting” (1998) 4 Legal Theory 283.
34 See Lustig and Weiler, “Judicial Review in the Contemporary World”, supra note 1 at 319. The wave simile was more chronological and methodological (centralized versus decentralized) in Mauro CAPPELLETTI and Bryant GARTH, “Access to Justice: Newest Wave in Worldwide Movement to Make Rights Effective” (1978) 27(2) Buffalo Law Review at 181–292.
35 Tom Ginsburg employs the term differs to mean judicial review in the post-communist world and other new democracies. See Tom GINSBURG, Judicial Review in New Democracies: Constitutional Courts in Asian Cases (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003) at 90.
36 Lustig and Weiler, “Judicial Review in the Contemporary World”, supra note 1 at 319.
37 J.H.H. WEILER, “The Normative Dimension of the Three Waves of Judicial Review” (2020) 1 Quaderni Costituzionali at 236. The language of individual human rights counters national narcissism.
38 Ibid.
39 Ibid., at 236–8.
40 Lustig and Weiler, “Judicial Review in the Contemporary World”, supra note 1 at 339.
41 Ibid., at 339–41. This homogenization is exemplified by the ruling of the Constitutional Court of Belgium in Judgment No. 145/6 December 2012, 2012 upholding “a societal model where the individual took precedence over his philosophical, cultural or religious ties, with a view to fostering integration for all and to ensuring that citizens shared a common heritage of fundamental values such as the right to life, the right to freedom of conscience, democracy, gender equality, or the principle of separation between church and State”.
42 Ibid., at 340, 369.
43 Ibid., at 345, 357–69.
44 Ibid., at 342–3.
45 See Ran HIRSCHL and Ayelet SHACHAR, “Spatial Statism” (2019) 17(2) International Journal of Constitutional Law at 387–438.
46 Ibid., at 343. See, however, Tom GINSBURG, Democracies and International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021) which argues that the incompatibility can arise between liberal democracy, rather than democracy, and international law, and that international law has been shown to enhance democracy, although in recent times this is no longer axiomatic.
47 Ibid., at 343–4.
48 Ibid., at 344–5.
49 Ibid., at 320.
50 See Chris THORNHILL, “The Mutation of International Law in Contemporary Constitutions: Thinking Sociologically about Political Constitutionalism” (2016) 79 Mod. L. Rev. 207; Neha JAIN, “The Democratizing Force of International Law: Human Rights Adjudication by the Indian Supreme Court” in Anthea ROBERTS et al., eds., Comparative International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018), 319–36.
51 Ibid., 319–20.
52 Lustig and Weiler, “Judicial Review in the Contemporary World”, supra note 1, at 346.
53 Charles Henry CUNNINGHAM, The Audiencia in The Spanish Colonies, as Illustrated by the Audiencia of Manila 1583–1800 (University of California, 1919) at 347–54.
54 Emma Helen BLAIR et al., eds., The Philippine Islands, 1493–1803 (Cleveland, Ohio: The A. H. Clark company, 1903) at 274, 350.
55 Military Proclamation of General Wesley Merritt, 14 August 1898, in Elihu ROOT, Collection of United States Documents Relating to the Philippine Islands Volume 1 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1898) at 56–7. In 1899, the US Military Governor issued general orders defining the jurisdiction of various courts but reserved for the military commission crimes affecting military administration. See General Orders No. 20, 29 May 1899, in Annual Report of Maj. Gen. E.S. Otis, Commanding Department of the Pacific and 8th Army Corps, Military Governor in the Philippine Islands (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1899) at 146; General Order No. 22, ibid. at 148. General Order No. 58 set out the criminal code of procedure. Ibid., at 261–71.
56 A Treaty of Peace between the United States and Spain, 10 December 1898, U.S. S. Doc. No. 62 (1899).
57 Ibid., Article 10. See Adong v. Cheong Seng Gee (1922) 43 Phil. Rep. 43.
58 Gsell v. Veloso (1906) 6 Phil. Rep. 143; Inchausti and Co. v. Commanding General (1906) 6 Phil. Rep. 556.
59 Cariño v. Insular Government (1909) 41 Phil. Rep. 935.
60 General Order No. 4, 15 January 1902 and General Order No. 52, 11 June 1902 published the following conventions as proclaimed by the US President: (1) Convention between the United States and Certain Powers for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes; (2) Convention between the United States of America and Certain Powers for the Adaptation to Maritime Warfare of the Principles of the Geneva Conventions of 22 August 1864; (3) Declaration to Prohibit for the Terms of Five Years the Launching of Projectiles and Explosives from Balloons, and Other New Methods of a Similar Nature; and (4) Convention between the United States of America and Certain Powers, with Respect to the Laws and Customs of War on Land and Regulations Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land. See Elihu ROOT, Collection of United States Documents: Ser. A.-F (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1903).
61 In Re: Frank Stanley Allen (1903) 2 Phil. Rep. 630.
62 Section 10, Philippine Organic Act, Philippine Organic Act (1902), 32 STAT. 69; Section 27, Philippine Autonomy Act (1916), 39 Stat. 545.
63 Campagnie de Commerce et de Navigation D’Extreme Orient v. Hamburg Amerika Packetfacht Actien Gesellschaft (1917) 36 Phil. Rep. 590.
64 Ibid.
65 Ibid.
66 The United States v. H.N. Bull (1910) 15 Phil. Rep. 7.
67 The United States v. William Fowler et al. (1902) 1 Phil. Rep. 614.
68 The United States v. Marcelo De Guzman (1902) 1 Phil. Rep. 385. See, also, Simeon Villa v. Henry T. Allen (1902) 2 Phil. Rep. 436, involving a conspirator of Guzman. This time, the court avoided discussion of war crimes and decided the case based on procedural rules for the grant of amnesty.
69 Ibid.
70 Public Act No. 127, An Act to Provide for the Complete Independence of the Philippines Islands, 24 March 1934 (Tydings-Mcduffie Act), U.S. Congress, U.S. Statutes at Large, Volume 48 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1934) at 456-65. Section 10 guaranteed independence on the tenth year from the inauguration of a government under the constitution envisioned in the law. Section 17 conditioned the adoption of said constitution and creation of said government upon the consent of the Philippine legislature to the provisions of the law.
71 Concurrent Resolution Accepting Public Act No. 127, 1 May 1934, in US High Commissioner, Report: Message from the President of the United States Transmitting the First Report of the U.S. High Commissioner to the Philippines Islands (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1937) at 61–2.
72 “The 1935 Constitution” online: Official Gazette officialgazette.gov.ph/constitutions/the-1935-constitution/. Documents pertaining to its adoption by the constitutional convention, certification by the US President and ratification by the people of the Philippines are found in Philippine Inauguration Committee, Blue Book of the Inauguration of the Commonwealth of the Philippines (Bureau of printing, 1935). The political provisions were amended in 1940. See Third Annual Report of the United States High Commissioner to the Philippine Islands (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1943) at 39–40.
The 1943 Constitution imposed by the Japanese occupation forces on the Philippines did not provide for judicial review of treaties, or the domestic application of international customary law. See “The 1943 Constitution” online: Official Gazette officialgazette.gov.ph/constitutions/the-1943-constitution/. It was later declared without effect although the decisions rendered by the Philippine Supreme Court during that period were considered legitimate under international law. See, however, Naredico, Inc. v. Krominco, Inc. (2019) 844 Phil. Rep. 721 and Dissenting Opinion, Atty. Alicia RIsos-Vidal v. Commission on Elections et al. (2015) 751 Phil. Rep. 479 which cited the 1943 Constitution without giving reason for lending the instrument legitimacy. Following surrender by Japan in 1945, the 1935 Constitution was reinstated. See Co Kim Cham v. Eusebio Valdez Tan Keh et al. (1945) 75 Phil. Rep. 113.
73 Ordinance Appended to the Constitution, 1935 Constitution, supra note 72. The ordinance remained in effect “pending the final and complete withdrawal of the sovereignty of the [U.S.] over the Philippines”.
74 Ibid., Article 8, Section 2.
75 Ibid., Ordinance, Section 1(13).
76 Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice, 16 December 1920, 6 L.N.T.S 379 (entered into force 16 December 1920) [PCIJ Statute].
77 1945 Statute of the International Court of Justice, 26 June 1945, 33 U.N.T.S 993 (entered into force 24 October 1945) [ICJ Statute].
78 Bank of the Philippine Islands v. De Reny Fabric et al. (1971) 146 Phil. Rep. 67.
79 “Lotus” (France v. Turkey), Judgment No. 9, 1927, P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 10 at 18; Asylum Case (Colombia/Peru), Judgment of 20 November 1950, [1950] I.C.J Rep. 266.
80 Supra note 76; supra note 77.
81 Nuclear Tests (Australia v. France), Judgment of 20 December 1974, [1974] I.C.J Rep. 253 at 268.
82 Mejoff v. The Director of Prisons (1951) 90 Phil. Rep. 70; Borovsky v. Commissioner of Immigration (1951) 90 Phil. Rep. 107; Chirskoff v. Commissioner of Immigration (1951) 90 Phil. Rep. 256.
83 Ichong v. Hernandez (1957) 1 Phil. Rep. 1155, citing Hans KELSEN, The Law of the United Nation (London: The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd., 1951).
84 Boy Scouts of the Philippines v. Araos (1958) 102 Phil. Rep. 1080; Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions et al. v. Secretary of Labor (1969) 136 Phil. Rep. 289.
85 Simon v. Commission on Human Rights (1994) 299 Phil. Rep. 124.
86 Republic of the Philippines v. Sandiganbayan et al. (2003) 454 Phil. Rep. 504.
87 Macalintal v. Commission on Election (2003) 453 Phil. Rep. 586.
88 Planas v. Commission on Elections (1973) 151 Phil. Rep. 217.
89 Philippine Independence Proc. No. 2695, 22 U.S.C 1394, effective 4 July 1946.
90 Article 13 and Article 14, Agreement between the Republic of the Philippines and the United States of America Concerning Military Bases, 14 March 1947, 43 U.N.T.S 271 (entered into force 26 March 1947).
91 Lily Raquiza et al. v. Bradford et al. (1945) 75 Phil. Rep. 50.
92 George L. Tubb and Wesley Tedrow v. Thomas E. Griess (1947) 80 Phil. Rep. 262.
93 Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon (1812) 11 U.S. 116.
94 Supra note at 92, citing Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, ibid., and the works of Westlake, Oppenheim, and others.
95 The Court would later affirm Philippine jurisdiction over a civil case involving private property claimed to be within the military bases and, at the same time, the sovereign immunity of the US government from monetary claims arising from said civil case. See Syquia v. Almeda Lopez (1949) 84 Phil. Rep. 312.
96 Jesus Miquiabas v. Commanding General, Philippines-Ryukyus Command, United States Army (1948) 80 Phil. Rep. 262.
97 Ibid.
98 Ibid.
99 Pedro Syquia et al. v. Natividad Almeda Lopez et al. (1949) 84 Phil. Rep. 312.
100 Godofredo Dizon v. The Commanding General of the Philippine Ryukus Command, United States Army (1948) 81 Phil. Rep. 286.
101 Joint Resolution of 29 June 1944, 41 Official Gazette 7 at 693–4.
102 William C. Reagan v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (1969) 141 Phil. Rep. 621.
103 Donald Baer, Commander U.S. Naval Base v. Hon. Tito V. Tizon et al. (1974) 56 Phil. Rep. 1.
104 Hon. Nicolas C. Adolfo v. Hon. Lucas Lacson et al. (1970) 145 Phil. Rep. 264.
105 Ibid. See Mendez-Blair Agreement (entered into force 10 August 1965) 16 U.S. Treaties 1090.
106 Ibid.
107 Ibid.
108 Ibid, citing Customs Commissioner v. Eastern Sea Trading (1961) 113 Phil. Rep. 333.
109 Ibid. See also United States v. Chin Tze (1905) 4 Phil. Rep. 658; G. S. Weigall v. Morgan Shuster (1908) 11 Phil. Rep. 340; Co Chiong v. Mayor of Manila (1949) 83 Phil. Rep. 257.
110 Article 18, Section 25, Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines (2 February 1987), online: Official Gazette officialgazette.gov.ph/constitutions/1987-constitution/. See Saguisag et al. v. Ochoa et al. (2016) 777 Phil. Rep. 280.
111 Article 8, Section 14(1), Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines (17 January 1973), online: Official Gazette officialgazette.gov.ph/constitutions/1973-constitution-of-the-republic-of-the-philippines-2/.
112 Article 7, Section 21, The 1987 Constitution (2 February 1987), online: Official Gazette www.officialgazette.gov.ph/constitutions/1987-constitution/.
113 Saguisag et al. v. Ochoa, supra note 110.
114 Ramon A. Gonzales v. Rufino G. Hechanova et al. (1963) 118 Phil. Rep. 1065.
115 Senator Aquilino Pimentel, Jr. v. Office of the Exective Sectreary, Represented by Hon. Alberto Romulo (2005) 501 Phil. Rep. 303.
116 Article 7, Section 1, The 1987 Constitution, in relation to Book 4, Title 1, Administrative Code of 1987, online: Official Gazette https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/1987/07/25/executive-order-no-292-s-1987/.
117 Ibid.
118 Gen. Avelino I. Razon v. Mary Jean B. Tagitis (2009) 621 Phil. Rep. 536.
119 Ibid.
120 Article 8, Section 5(5), supra note 112.
121 Convention on the Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption, 29 May 1993, 1870 U.N.T.S. 167 (entered into force 1 May 1995) [Adoption Convention].
122 Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, 25 October 1980, 1343 U.N.T.S. 89 (entered into force 1 December 1983) [Child Abduction Convention].
123 Convention Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents, 5 October 1961, 527 U.N.T.S. 189 (entered into force 24 January 1965) [Apostille Convention].
124 Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, 15 November 1965, 658 U.N.T.S. 163 (entered into force 10 February 1969) [Service Convention].
125 Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance, 23 November 2007, 2955 U.N.T.S. 81 (entered into force 1 January 2013) [Child Support Convention].
126 Senate Resolution No. 034 (4 June 1996), online: Legislative Digital Resources issuances-library.senate.gov.ph/legislative-issuance/senate-resolution-no-034-s-1996.
127 Supra note 121.
128 Senate Resolution No. 116-16 (1 February 2016) at para. 6, online: Legislative Digital Resources issuances-library.senate.gov.ph/legislative%2Bissuances/Senate%20Resolution%20No.%20116%2C%20s.%202016.
129 Supra note 122.
130 The list of instruments submitted for concurrence are at legacy.senate.gov.ph/19th_congress/Treaties/Treaties%20-%2019th%20Congress_090424.pdf.
131 Section 13(f), Republic Act No. 9160 (Anti-Money Laundering Act) (9 September 2001), online: Supreme Court E-Library elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/2/7391; and Section 324, Republic Act No. 10607 (The Insurance Code) (15 August 2013), online: Supreme Court E-Library elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/2/58852.
132 Section 145, Republic Act No. 11232 (20 February 2019), online: Supreme Court E-Library elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/2/86463.
133 Article 76, Republic Act No. 8791 (23 May 2000), online: Supreme Court E-Library elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/2/5339.
134 Section 65, Republic Act No. 8799 (19 July 2000), online: Supreme Court E-Library elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/2/3988.
135 See Senate Bill No. 256 (11 July 2022), online: legacy.senate.gov.ph/lisdata/3798734430!.pdf. Without stating any reason, the bill references the convention but does not incorporate its provisions.
136 Rule 2, Section 3(e), Supreme Court A.M. No. 19-08-14-SC (17 September 2019) at https://oca.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/A.M.-No.-19-08-14-SC.pdf.
137 Rule 132, Section 24, Supreme Court A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC (18 October 2019), online: Supreme Court E-Library elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/11/90592.
138 Supreme Court Administrative Order No. 251-2020 (1 September 2022), online: sc.judiciary.gov.ph/guidelines-on-the-implementation-in-the-philippines-of-the-hague-service-convention-on-the-service-abroad-of-judicial-documents-in-civil-and-commercial-matters/.
139 Supreme Court A.M. No. 21-03-02-SC (31 May 2021), online: sc.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/21-03-02-SC.pdf.
140 Bayan Muna v. Alberto Romulo (2011) 656 Phil. Rep. 246.
141 Pimentel et al. v. Cayetano et al. (2021) 898 Phil. Rep. 522.
142 Ibid.
143 See, however, Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion of 9 July 2004, [2004] I.C.J. Reports 2004 at 136, para. 155; Kupreškić et al., Judgment, 14 January 2000, IT-95-16-T at para. 520; Prosecutor v. Palija, Verdict, 28 November 2007, X-KR-06/290 at 20.
144 Decision on the assignment of the situation in the Republic of the Philippines, 19 April 2021, ICC-01/21.
145 Presidential Decree No. 1596 (19 February 1979, 75 (8) Official Gazette 1556, online: Supreme Court E-Library elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/11/54412.
146 The South China Sea Arbitration (The Republic of Philippines v. The People’s Republic of China), Award of 12 July 2016, PCA Case Nº 2013-19 at para. 574.
147 Republic of the Philippines et al. v. Provincial Government of Palawan et al. (2018) 844 Phil. Rep. 453 at 483; Devie Ann Isaga Fuertes v. The Senate of Philippines et al. (2020) 868 Phil. Rep. 117 at 841–2.
148 Devie Ann Isaga Fuertes v. The Senate of Philippines et al., ibid. at 842.
149 Ibid.