A clarification regarding the terms "municipal law" and "foreign law" within
the Philippine legal context is crucial for a nuanced understanding of how
private international law operates domestically.
"Municipal law" from a Philippine perspective refers to the body of laws originating from the Philippines itself, encompassing the Constitution of the Philippines, statutes enacted by Congress (primarily republic acts, but also including historical legislative acts), Supreme Court decisions, and, in a broader sense, executive issuances and implementing regulations. Conversely, "foreign law" denotes the legal enactments and jurisprudence of any sovereign state other than the Philippines. This distinction forms the bedrock upon which Philippine private international law principles function, guiding local courts in determining when and how to apply the legal norms of another jurisdiction.
Thus, Philippine law is municipal law in the eyes of a Philippine court but a foreign in the eyes of a French court. French law is foreign in the eyes of Philippine court while municipal in the eyes of a French court.
When "municipal law points to the application of foreign law," it means that Philippine law points to the application of the law of another jurisdiction. This phrase encapsulates the very essence of choice-of-law rules within Philippine private international law. These domestic rules, enshrined in statutes like the Civil Code, dictate that in certain situations involving a foreign element -- such as the nationality of a party, the place where a contract was executed, or the location of property, Philippine courts must look beyond domestic law and apply the relevant laws of another country.
For instance, Article 16 of the Civil Code states that real property as well as personal property is subject to the law of the country where it is situated. Thus, if a Filipino citizen owns land in France and a dispute arises regarding its ownership or possession, a Philippine court, guided by this municipal law provision, would apply French property law to resolve the issue; provided that the relevant French law has been properly pleaded and proved.
Similarly, Article 829 of the Civil Code provides that the validity of a revocation of a will made outside the Philippines is governed by the law of the place where the will was made or the law of the place in which the testator had his/her domicile at the time of such execution. On the other hand, if the revocation takes place in the Philippines, such must be in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Code of the Philippines. Hence, if a French national makes a revocation of a previous will in the United States where s/he is a domiciliary, a Philippine court adjudicating the validity of that revocation may apply the law of the United States (place of execution), as directed by Philippine municipal law.
It must be emphasized that this directive from Philippine municipal law to apply foreign law is not an abdication of sovereignty. Rather, it is a pragmatic recognition of the interconnectedness of the global community and the need for legal systems to accommodate cross-border transactions and relationships. It acknowledges that in many instances, the most just and equitable resolution can only be achieved by applying the law of the jurisdiction with the most significant connection to the matter at hand. This principle of lex loci, or the law of the place, is a cornerstone of private international law and is reflected in various provisions of Philippine statutes and pieces of jurisprudence.
Furthermore, the identification of what constitutes "law" within the Philippine context is important. While statutes passed by Congress are the most direct form of legislative enactment, the inclusion of Supreme Court decisions as part of the legal system underscores the principle of stare decisis, where judicial precedents establish binding legal principles. Executive issuances, particularly those issued during periods of martial law where legislative and executive powers were merged, also carry the effect of law. This broad understanding of "municipal law" means that, when a Philippine choice-of-law rule points to the application of foreign law, it is directing the court to consider the entire legal system of that foreign jurisdiction -- its municipal law, including its statutes, judicial decisions, and potentially even its equivalent of executive regulations, to the extent relevant to the issue at hand. This, of course, is but one view on this score as there also exists a view that the forum should only look into the text of the foreign law without reference to the interpretation given by that foreign state's body of jurisprudence.
Following the first view, consider a scenario involving a contract between a Filipino company and a Japanese corporation, with the contract stipulating that it shall be governed by Japanese law. Such stipulation is known as a "choice-of-law stipulation." If a dispute arises and is brought before a Philippine court, the forum, adhering to the contractual stipulation (a manifestation of party autonomy, a recognized principle in Philippine private international law) would apply Japanese contract law. This would necessitate the Philippine court understanding and applying relevant Japanese statutes, potentially decisions of Japanese courts interpreting those statutes, and any other pertinent legal norms within the Japanese legal system, thereby sitting in judgment as if it is a Japanese court. This is inevitable because, in this situation, the Philippine municipal law directs the application of Japanese foreign law to resolve the contractual dispute.
The discussion in preceding paragraph may not be the approach adopted in other countries. It may also be that foreign law frowns upon the application of Philippine law within its jurisdiction. Nevertheless, the modern trend is to make conflict-of-laws outcomes more predictable and uniform for the benefit and convenience of the parties.