Another nice find!

If you have a Facebook Account, like this site to download audio reviewers/lectures.
http://www.facebook.com/RpAudiocodals

Gonzales vs Echanova (9 SCRA 230)

FACTS:

Respondent executive secretary authorized importation of 67,000 tons of foreign rice to be purchased from private sources. Ramon A. Gonzales, a rice planter and president of Iloilo Palay and Corn Planters Assoc. filed and averring that in making or attempting to make importation of foreign rice are acting without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction because RA 2207, explicitly prohibits the importation of rice and corn by Rice and Corn Administration or any government agency.

ISSUE:
Whether an international agreement may be invalidated by our courts.

HELD:

The power of judicial review is vested with the supreme court in consonance to section 2 art. VIII of the constitution. The alleged consummation of the contracts with Vietnam and Burma does not render this case academic. RA 2207 enjoins our government not from entering contracts for the purchase of rice, but from entering rice, except under conditions prescribed in said act.

US vs Ruiz (136 SCRA 487)

FACTS:
The USA had a naval base in Subic, Zambales. The base was one of those provided in the military bases agreement between the Philippines and the US. Respondent alleges that it won in the bidding conducted by the US for the construction of wharves in said base that was merely awarded to another group. For this reason, a suit for specific performance was filed by him against the US.

ISSUE:
Whether the US naval base in bidding for said contracts exercise governmental functions to be able to invoke state immunity.

HELD:
The traditional role of the state immunity exempts a state from being sued in the courts of another state without its consent or waiver. This rule is necessary consequence of the principle of independence and equality of states. However, the rules of international law are not petrified; they are continually and evolving and because the activities of states have multiplied. It has been necessary to distinguish them between sovereign and governmental acts and private, commercial and proprietory acts. The result is that state immunity now extends only to sovereign and governmental acts.