Facts:

The case involves Hon. Nicolas C. Adolfo, the Municipal Judge of Subic, Zambales, who filed a petition for review on certiorari against the Court of First Instance of Zambales, Branch I, and Albert L. Merchant, a civilian employee of the U.S. Naval Base at Subic Bay. The petition arose from a decision dated November 20, 1968, which annulled Judge Adolfo's order from June 29, 1967. This order declared the custody receipt issued by the Commander of the U.S. Naval Base, pertaining to Merchant's provisional liberty, as non-existent. The case at hand was a criminal matter where Merchant was accused of "Less Serious Physical Injuries thru Reckless Imprudence," specifically for an incident that occurred outside the military base in Barrio Manggahan, Subic, Zambales. The basis of the petition lay in Article 13 of the United States-Philippines Military Bases Agreement from 1947, which includes provisions for the custody of accused persons by the commanding officer of th

...

Facts:

Parties and Background

• Petitioner: Hon. Nicolas C. Adolfo, Municipal Judge of Subic, Zambales.
• Respondents:
• The Court of First Instance of Zambales, Branch I, presided over by Hon. Lucas Lacson.
• Albert L. Merchant, the accused in a criminal case pending before the Municipal Judge.

Procedural History and Context

• On September 1, 1969, petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari challenging the decision of the Court of First Instance dated November 20, 1968.
• The challenged decision had annulled petitioner’s June 29, 1967 order in a criminal case which had declared non-existent the custody receipt issued by the Commander of the United States Naval Base at Subic Bay.
• The custody receipt was related to the provisional liberty of respondent Albert L. Merchant, who was then the accused in the criminal case.

Disputed Custodial Authority and Treaty Provisions

• The custody receipt issue arose under the Military Bases Agreement:
• The original agreement (US-Philippines Military Bases Agreement of 1937) and its subsequent revision in 1947 provided that custody for an accused, pending trial and judgment, should be entrusted to the commanding officer of the nearest U.S. Naval Base at Subic Bay.
• Specific reference was made to paragraph 5 of the amended Article in the 1947 agreement.
• The petition also discussed the second paragraph of the article, which granted the Philippines jurisdiction over offenses committed outside the base by a member of the U.S. armed forces.
• A key point was that although the crime attributed to Merchant was committed outside the base, Merchant, described as a civilian employee (or component) of the base, was not considered a member of the armed forces within the scope of the original agreement.

The Mendez-Blair Agreement and Its Controversy

• Petitioner emphasized the exchange of notes dated August 10, 1965 (commonly known as the Mendez-Blair Agreement) which purportedly amended the custody provisions:
• It introduced language covering accused “members of the United States armed forces, civilian components, or dependents.”
• The amendment allowed the base commander to assume custody over such individuals pending trial or investigation in a Philippine court.
• The petitioner argued that the amendment or modification of the original treaty provisions must follow the constitutional requirement of Senate ratification.
• The distinction was made between treaties and executive agreements, with the petitioner contending that the Military Bases Agreement, being a treaty affecting national sovereignty and territorial jurisdiction, could not be unilaterally modified by an executive act.

Subsequent Developments and Mootness

• Respondent Merchant, through his counsel and as evidenced by subsequent filings, took steps to have the custody receipt withdrawn:
• A letter from Rear Admiral V. G. Lambert, Commander of the U.S. Naval Base at Subic Bay (dated April 16, 1970), formally withdrew the custody receipt.
• Merchant submitted a cash bond and a petition for release from custody pursuant to the Rules of Court.
• A manifestation by petitioner-appellant later acknowledged that the central issue—custodial authority over Merchant—had become moot due to Merchant’s actions and his submission of a cash bond.

Issue:

Validity of the Exchange of Notes (Mendez-Blair Agreement)

• Whether the exchange of notes dated August 10, 1965 validly modified or amended the custody provisions of the original Military Bases Agreement.
• Whether such a modification, affecting custody over civilians on the base, may be undertaken without the mandatory Senate ratification required for treaty amendments.

Justiciability and Mootness

• Whether the issue of custodial authority should be decided given that the custody receipt had been withdrawn by the U.S. Naval Base Commander.
• Whether Merchant’s subsequent actions (submitting a cash bond and requesting release) render the question of the amendment’s validity moot and academic.

Separation of Powers Concerning Treaty Amendments

• Whether the amendment of a treaty, which involves national sovereignty and territorial jurisdiction, can be effected solely through executive action without the participation of the legislative branch.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)