Macarieto I. Trayvilla, et al. v. Japan Airlines, et al.

The US Supreme Court for over a century thru its cases and guidance prohibits state and federal courts from invalidating official acts of sovereign states. This is called the “act of state doctrine.” Kirkpatrick v. Envi­ ronmental Tectonics Corp., 493 U.S. 400 (1990). The Philippines as a sovereign state thru an official “act of state” declared that a Filipino with expired passport is allowed entry to his homeland, the Philippines. See Pet.App. D. The New York Appellate Court affirming the dismissal of the New York Supreme Court Queens County invalidated the “act of state” of the Philippines, by declaring that it is well settled that a valid(unexpired) passport is required for entry of a Filipino to his homeland. See Pet.App. A,B. 1. Whether the State Appellate Court’s order that invalidates and defies the “act of state” of the Phil­ ippines (act of state of the Philippines allowing its own Filipino citizens entry to his homeland with expired passport) is a violation of the “act of state doctrine” and the separation of powers provision as consistently ruled and upheld by the US Supreme Court? Pursuant to the separation of powers provision and act of state doctrine, the US Supreme Court con­ sistently held that the “conduct of foreign affairs” be­ long to the “executive branch” and not to the “courts” and that because of this an “act of a state” (in this case the Philippine official act of allowing its own citizens entry to his homeland with expired passports) becomes the “rule of decision of the courts” in the United States,