04/02/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly [42] Record of the Constitutional Commission, Vol. V, pp. 24 -25. [43] Neri v. Senate Committee, G.R. No. 180643, March 25, 2008. [44] Akbayan v. Aquino, G.R. No. 170516, July 16, 2008. SEPARATE OPINION AZCUNA, J.: I agree with the ponencia but I hold the view that, had the MOA-AD been signed as planned, it would have provided a basis for a claim in an international court that the Philippines was bound by its terms at the very least as a unilateral declaration made before representatives of the international community with vital interests in the region. Whether the case of Australia v. France[1] or that of Burkina Faso v. Mali,[2] is the one applicable, is not solely for this Court to decide but also for the international court where the Philippines could be sued. While we may agree that the Philippines should not be considered bound, the international court may rule otherwise. There is need to consult the people before risking that kind of outcome. On this point, Martin Dixon and Robert McCorquodale, in their Cases and Materials on International Law, observe: B. Unilateral statements Nuclear Test Cases (Australia v. France and New Zealand v. France) Merits ICJ Rep. 1974 253, International Court of Justice Australia and New Zealand brought proceedings against France arising from nuclear tests conducted by France in the South Pacific. Before the Court had an opportunity to hear in full the merits of the case, statements were made by French authorities indicating that France would no longer conduct atmospheric nuclear tests. The court held by nine votes to six that, due to these statements by France, the claim of Australia and New Zealand no longer had any object and so the Court did not have to decide the issues in the case. It is well recognized that declarations made by way of unilateral acts, concerning legal or factual situations, may have the effect of creating legal obligations. Declarations of this kind may be, and often are, very specific. When it is the intention of the State making the declaration that it should become bound according to its terms, that intention confers on the declaration the character of a legal undertaking, the State being thenceforth legally required to follow a course of conduct consistent with the declaration. An undertaking of this kind, if given publicly, and with an elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/47263 137/203