exam 5

1.In the case of Laurel v. Misa,(1947) Justice Perfecto, enumerated four kinds of Allegiance. What are these?

Answer: Allegiance is of four kinds, namely: (1) Natural allegiance that which arises by nature and birth; (2) acquired allegiance that arising through some circumstance or act other than birth, namely, by denization or naturalization; (3) local allegiance-- that arising from residence simply within the country, for however short a time; and (4) legal allegiance that arising from oath, taken usually at the town or leet, for, by the common law, the oath of allegiance might be tendered to every one upon attaining the age of twelve years. (3 C.J.S., p.885.)

2. (a) In extradition proceedings, are prospective extraditees entitled to notice and hearing before warrants for their arrest can be issued? (b) Equally important, are they entitled to the right to bail and provisional liberty while the extradition proceedings are pending? (c) What are the exceptions to the general rule?

Answer: In general, the answer to these two novel questions is “No.” The explanation of and the reasons for, as well as the exceptions to, this rule are laid out in this Decision.(USA v. Purganan, 2002)x x x Accordingly and to best serve the ends of justice, we believe and so hold that, after a potential extraditee has been arrested or placed under the custody of the law, bail may be applied for and granted as an exception, only upon a clear and convincing showing (1) that, once granted bail, the applicant will not be a flight risk or a danger to the community; and (2) that there exist special, humanitarian and compelling circumstances including, as a matter of reciprocity, those cited by the highest court in the requesting state when it grants provisional liberty in extradition cases therein.

3. Supply the missing word: (a)_____________ is the state of being exempt from the jurisdiction of local law, usually as the result of diplomatic negotiations

(b)_______________, a term of international law, used to denominate certain immunities from the application of the rule that every person is subject for all acts done within the boundaries of a state to its local laws.

(c) ______________ has also been granted by treaty to the subjects and citizens of contracting Christian states resident within the territory of certain non-Christian states.

(d)Lastly, it is held that when armies or regiments are allowed by a foreign state to cross its territory, they necessarily have __________________rights.

(e) An historic case of __________________ was the seizure of the railways of Nicaragua by Brown Brothers and Harriman, a U.S. banking firm. Under the Knox-Castrillo Treaty of 1911 these railroads became legally part of the State of Maine, according to former president of Guatemala, Juan José Arévalo, in his book The Shark and the Sardines (Lyle Stuart, New York, 1961).

Answer: http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Exterritoriality

(a) Extraterritoriality is the state of being exempt from the jurisdiction of local law, usually as the result of diplomatic negotiations

(b) Exterritoriality, a term of international law, used to denominate certain immunities from the application of the rule that every person is subject for all acts done within the boundaries of a state to its local laws.

(c) Exterritoriality has also been granted by treaty to the subjects and citizens of contracting Christian states resident within the territory of certain non-Christian states.

(d)Lastly, it is held that when armies or regiments are allowed by a foreign state to cross its territory, they necessarily have (d) exterritorial rights.

(e) An historic case of extraterritoriality was the seizure of the railways of Nicaragua by Brown Brothers and Harriman, a U.S. banking firm. Under the Knox-Castrillo Treaty of 1911 these railroads became legally part of the State of Maine, according to former president of Guatemala, Juan José Arévalo, in his book The Shark and the Sardines (Lyle Stuart, New York, 1961).

4. What is the last step in the treaty-making process? What is expected to be achieved on said step? If there is no affectivity date specified in the treaty, what should be its effectivity date?

ANSWER:The last step in the treaty-making process is the exchange of the instruments of ratification, which usually also signifies the effectivity of the treaty unless a different date has been agreed upon by the parties. Where ratification is dispensed with and no effectivity clause is embodied in the treaty, the instrument is deemed effective upon its signature.

5. The petitioner is a minor and a resident of the Philippines. Private respondent Northwest Orient Airlines (NOA) is a foreign corporation with principal office in Minnesota, U.S.A., and licensed to do business and maintain a branch office in the Philippines.

On October 21, 1986, the petitioner purchased from NOA a round-trip ticket in San Francisco, U.S.A., for his flight from San Francisco to Manila via Tokyo and back. The scheduled departure date from Tokyo was December 20, 1986. No date was specified for his return to San Francisco.

On December 19, 1986, the petitioner checked in at the NOA counter in the San Francisco airport for his scheduled departure to Manila. Despite a previous confirmation and re-confirmation, he was informed that he had no reservation for his flight from Tokyo to Manila. He therefore had to be wait-listed.

On March 12, 1987, the petitioner sued NOA for damages in the Regional Trial Court of Makati. On April 13, 1987, NOA moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Citing the above-quoted article, it contended that the complaint could be instituted only in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, before:

1. the court of the domicile of the carrier;

2. the court of its principal place of business;

3. the court where it has a place of business through which the contract had been made;

4. the court of the place of destination.

The private respondent contended that the Philippines was not its domicile nor was this its principal place of business. Neither was the petitioner's ticket issued in this country nor was his destination Manila but San Francisco in the United States.

On February 1, 1988, the lower court granted the motion and dismissed the case

QUESTION: Is the dismissal correct? Explain your answer.

ANSWER: Yes. AUGUSTO BENEDICTO SANTOS III, represented by his father and legal guardian, Augusto Benedicto Santos, petitioner, vs. NORTHWEST ORIENT AIRLINES and COURT OF APPEALS, respondents. [G.R. No. 101538. June 23, 1992]

6.(a) According to Jessup, what is the meaning of the doctrine of Rebus sic stantibus? (b) What is the key element of said doctrine?(c) Does this doctrine operate automatically to render a treaty inoperative?

ANSWER: The petitioner is invoking the doctrine of rebus sic stantibus. According to Jessup, "this doctrine constitutes an attempt to formulate a legal principle which would justify non-performance of a treaty obligation if the conditions with relation to which the parties contracted have changed so materially and so unexpectedly as to create a situation in which the exaction of performance would be unreasonable." The key element of this doctrine is the vital change in the condition of the contracting parties that they could not have foreseen at the time the treaty was concluded. The doctrine of rebus sic stantibus does not operate automatically to render the treaty inoperative. There is a necessity for a formal act of rejection, usually made by the head of State, with a statement of the reasons why compliance with the treaty is no longer required.

7. SUPPLY THE missing words:

(A) __________(in relation to everyone) is frequently used in legal terminology describing obligations or rights toward all.

(B) An ________ right (a statutory right) can here be distinguished from a right based on contract, which is only enforceable against the contracting party.

In international law it has been used as a legal term describing obligations owed by states towards the community of states as a whole.

(C)An _________obligation exists because of the universal and undeniable interest in the perpetuation of critical rights (and the prevention of their breach). Consequently, any state has the right to complain of a breach.

(D)Examples of _________ norms include piracy, genocide, slavery, and racial discrimination. The concept was recognized in the International Court of Justice's decision in the Barcelona Traction case [(Belgium v Spain) (Second Phase) ICJ Rep 1970 3 at paragraph 33]:

ANSWER: Erga omnes (in relation to everyone) is frequently used in legal terminology describing obligations or rights toward all. For instance a property right is an erga omnes right, and therefore enforceable against anybody infringing that right. An erga omnes right (a statutory right) can here be distinguished from a right based on contract, which is only enforceable against the contracting party.

In international law it has been used as a legal term describing obligations owed by states towards the community of states as a whole. An erga omnes obligation exists because of the universal and undeniable interest in the perpetuation of critical rights (and the prevention of their breach). Consequently, any state has the right to complain of a breach. Examples of erga omnes norms include piracy, genocide, slavery, and racial discrimination. The concept was recognized in the International Court of Justice's decision in the Barcelona Traction case [(Belgium v Spain) (Second Phase) ICJ Rep 1970 3 at paragraph 33]:

8. A. What is international humanitarian law (IHL)? (b) Name at least two sources of IHL? (c) When does international humanitarian law apply?

ANSWER: A. What is international humanitarian law?

In addition to this very operational side of its work, the ICRC is also the promoter and guardian of international humanitarian law, the body of rules applicable in armed conflict which

· protect those not or no longer taking active part in hostilities

· regulate permissible means and methods of warfare.

The principal sources of international humanitarian law today are

· the four Geneva Conventions of 1949;

· the two Additional Protocols thereto of 1977;

· a number of treaties prohibiting or restricting the use of specific weapons, eg the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons and its protocols;

· the 1954 Convention on the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of War;

· instruments establishing international mechanisms for the enforcement of international humanitarian law such as the 1998 Statute of the International Criminal Court;

· an important body of customary law.

B. When does international humanitarian law apply?

As I stated earlier, international humanitarian law applies in times of armed conflict. This begs the deceptively simple question of “what constitutes an armed conflict”? While in 1974 General Assembly adopted a definition of aggression, nowhere - neither in international humanitarian law instruments nor in any other body of international law – do we find a definition of armed conflict.
If we look to international humanitarian law treaties for guidance, while we do not find a definition, we do have provisions indicating when relevant conventions are applicable. International humanitarian law recognises two types of conflict: international armed conflicts and non-international armed conflicts. Different criteria determine the existence of these types of conflict, which are regulated by different rules.

(9) Accordingly there are three types of treaties in the American system, as enumerated in the case of Suzette Nicolas v. Romulo. What are these three types and explain each.

Accordingly, there are three types of treaties in the American system:

1. Art. II, Sec. 2 treaties – These are advised and consented to by the US Senate in accordance with Art. II, Sec. 2 of the US Constitution.

2. Executive–Congressional Agreements: These are joint agreements of the President and Congress and need not be submitted to the Senate.

3. Sole Executive Agreements. – These are agreements entered into by the President. They are to be submitted to Congress within sixty (60) days of ratification under the provisions of the Case-Zablocki Act, after which they are recognized by the Congress and may be implemented.

10. Explain the right of angary.What are the three requisites?

ANSWER: By the right of angary, a belligerent may, upon payment of just compensation, seize, use or destroy, in case of urgent necessity for purposes of offense or defense, neutral property found in its territory, in enemy territory or on the high seas. The three requisites: (1) that the property is in the territory under the control or jurisdiction of the belligerent (2) that there is urgent necessity for the taking (3) that just compensation is paid to the owner.

exam 6

OBJECTIVE QUESTIONS CONCERNING HUMAN RIGHTS

1. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a (A) proper manner (b) spirit of brotherhood (c) way acceptable to society (d) moral way (e) camaraderie (f) none of the above

2. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain (a) unalienable Rights (b) human rights (c) privileges (d) obligations (e) civil rights (f) none of the above that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

3. The two theories that dominate contemporary human rights discussion are the interest theory and the will theory. Interest theory argues that the that the principal function of human rights: (a) is to protect and promote certain essential human interests (b) attempts to establish the validity of human rights based on the unique human capacity for freedom (c) is to see to it that men behave in acceptable standards (d) is to create a peaceful world (e) none of the above.

4. The (a) Universal Declaration on the rights of the child (b)Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) (c) Civil and Political Rights of Detainees (d) Convention on Humanitarian Law (e) none of the above ---was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948, partly in response to the atrocities of World War II. Although the it was a non-binding resolution, it is now considered by some to have acquired the force of international customary law which may be invoked in appropriate circumstances by national and other judiciaries

5. In 1966, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) were adopted by the (a) United Nations (b) NATO (c) ASEAN (d) Security Council (e) General Assembly-- between them making the rights contained in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR) binding on all states that have signed this treaty, creating human-rights law.

6. All human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent and related. The international community must treat human rights (a) within their state (b) within their government (c) internationally (d) globally --- in a fair and equal manner, on the same footing, and with the same emphasis.

7. Human rights abuses are monitored by United Nations committees, national institutions and governments and by many independent (a) states (b) civic organizations (c) non-governmental organizations (d) enforcement agencies (e) none of the above ----- such as Amnesty International, International Federation of Human Rights, Human Rights Watch, World Organization Against Torture, Freedom House, International Freedom of Expression Exchange and Anti-Slavery International. These organizations collect evidence and documentation of alleged human rights abuses and apply pressure to enforce human rights laws.

8. (a) Governmental cruelty (b) Police brutality (c) police attack (d) human rights violation (e) none of the above-----is the intentional use of excessive force, usually physical, but potentially also in the form of verbal attacks and psychological intimidation, by a police officer.

9. A (a) standard operating procedure (b) code of conduct (c) use of force continuum (d) code of silence (e) none of the above -----is a standard that provides law enforcement officials & security guards (such as police officers, probation officers, or corrections officers) with guidelines as to how much force may be used against a resisting subject in a given situation. In certain ways it is similar to the military rules of engagement. The purpose of these models is to clarify, both for officers and citizens, the complex subject of use of force by law officers. They are often central parts of law enforcement agencies' use of force policies. It sets levels of force considered appropriate in direct response to a subject's behavior.

The (a) writ of habeas data (b) writ of habeas corpus (c) writ of amparo (d) anti-wire tapping law (e) none of the above is a remedy available to any person whose right to privacy in life, liberty or security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of data or information regarding the person, family, home and correspondence of the aggrieved party.

exam 7

1.What do you understand by the “Principle of Active or Affective Nationality” as embodied in the Hague Convention of 1930 on the Conflict of Nationality Laws? How was it applied in the Nottebohm case as decided by the International Court of Justice in 1955?

2.There is always a possibility that failure of unity among the Big Five of the UN will render the Security Council impotent in the solution of international disputes. As observed, the veto cast by any of the permanent members will prevent agreement on this matter. To avoid this predicament of inaction, what did the General Assembly of the United Nations adopt? Explain some of the details cncerning said resolution.

3.What are franc tireurs? Are they considered as combatants? Under what conditions?

4.Explain the significance of levee en masse. Are they considered as “prisoners of war” when captured?

5.Explain the principle of “military necessity”. Distinguish it from the principle of humanity and chivalry.

6.What is the “right of angary”?

7.Distinguish neutrality from neutralization.

8.Distinguish uti posseditis from status qou ante.

9. Explain “international humanitarian law”, its scope, coverage and application. How is this law concretized in the Geneva conventions?

10. When Adolf Eichman was captured in Argentina, tried and sentenced to die in Israel, the Isreali government invoked a certain principle of international law to validate its action. What was that principle? Explain.

11. At the Nuremberg trial of the Nazi war criminals at the end of the WW II, the defense argued on behalf of the German defendants that although a nation could not wage aggressive war without transgressing international law, it could use war as an instrument of self-defense, and that the nation itself must be the sole judge of whether its actions were in self-defense. How would you meet the argument if you were a member of the Tribunal trying the case? Rule on the issues, inoking by analogy the ruling of the Supreme Court, in Yamashita v.Styer.

12. In case a non-resident alien in the Philippines files a complaint, can his complaint be dismissed on the ground of forum non-conveniens? What is forum non-conveniens? Is it considered as one of the grounds for a motion to dismiss under the rules of court?

13.The Extradition Treaty between France and the Philippines is silent as to its applicability with respect to crimes committed prior to its effectivity.

i) Can France demand the extradition of “A”, a French National residing in the Philippines, for an offense committed in France prior to the effectivity of the treaty?

ii) Can “A” contest his extradition on the ground that it violates the ex post facto provision of the Philippine Constitution? Explain.

14.The Federation of Islamabad concluded an agreement with the Republic of Baleria, concerning the facilitation of entry of Balerian contract workers into Islamabad.Thereafter, a revolution broke out in Islamabad, which is now governed by a military junta. Most of the Balerian contract workers were arrrested by Islamabad Immigration Officers for not having with them necessary papers and proper documents. Upon learning of the incident, the government of Baleria loadge a formal protest with the Islamabad revolutionary government invoking certain provisions of the aforementioned agreement. The latter replied, however, that the new governmentis not “internationally bound” by the same. Moreover, Islamabad further contended that said agreement is contrary to its Islamic Law.

Is the new revolutionary government under obligation, pursuant to international law, to comply with what have been agreed upon and set forth in the agreement concluded with Baleria by its former government? Reason.

15. Patrick Cruz, a Filipino, solicited P40, 000 each from Juan, Pedro, Maria, Petra and Pablo in the Philippines, as downpayment for a contractual teaching job in the United States. The job abroad did not materialize, and it was later known that Patrick was an unlicensed recruiter. The victims filed a case for Illegal recruitment in large scale and Estafa before the RTC in Manila. A warrant of arrest was issued against him.

In the meantime, he eluded arrest and escaped in the United States, where he is now presently residing.

The Philippines has an extradition treaty with the U.S., which does not include “illegal recruitment” as an extraditable crime. Estafa is included.

1. Juan comes to you for advice. He desires that Patrcik should be made answerable for the offense he committed. What should be your advice to Juan?

2. Patrick claims that he could not be extradited and tried because “illegal recruitment” is not an extraditable offense as listed in the treaty. Is he correct? Reason.

3. Upon an extradition request made by the Philippine government before the Department of Foreign Affairs in the U.S., is Patrick, under International Law, given the right to be furnished the copies of the extradition documents so that he can properly defend himself? Reason.

4. It is stated that a proceeding for extradition is a sui generis. What do you understand by this?

5. In the case at bar, is deportation applicable?

16. Plaintiff-appellant instituted this action in the Court of First Instance of Manila against the defendant-appellee, China Banking Corporation, to compel the latter to execute a deed of cancellation of the mortgage on the property described in the complaint, and to deliver to the said plaintiff the Transfer Certificate of Title No. 47634 of the Register of Deeds of Manila, with the mortgage annotated therein already cancelled, as well as to pay the plaintiff the sum of P1,000.00 for damages as attorney's fees and to pay the costs of the suit. The cause of action is that the plaintiff's indebtedness to the China Banking Corporation in the sum of P5,103.35 by way of overdraft in current account payable on demand together with its interests, has been completely paid, on different occasions, from October 7, 1942, to August 29, 1944, to the defendant China Banking Corporation through the defendant Bank of Taiwan, Ltd., that was appointed by the Japanese Military authorities as liquidator of the China Banking Corporation.

Upon having been served with summons the defendant-appellee China Banking Corporation made a demand from the plaintiff-appellant for the payment of the sum of P5,103.35 with interests representing the debt of the said appellant, and in the answer it set up a counter claim against the plaintiff-appellant demanding the payment, within 90 days from and after the date Executive Order No. 32 on moratorium, series of 1945, has been repealed, of said amount due from the latter to the former by way of overdraft together with its interests at the rate of 9 per cent per annum to be compounded monthly, and the additional sum of P1,500 as attorney's fees and the costs of the suit.

After the hearing of the case, the trial court rendered a decision holding that, as there was no evidence presented to show that the defendant China Banking Corporation had authorized the Bank of Taiwan, Ltd., to accept the payment of the plaintiff's debt to the said defendant, and said Bank of Taiwan, as an agency of the Japanese invading army, was not authorized under the international law to liquidate the business of the China Banking Corporation, the payment has not extinguished the indebtedness of the plaintiff to the said defendant under article 1162 of the Civil Code. The court absolved the defendant China Banking Corporation from the complaint of the plaintiff, and sentenced the latter to pay the former the sum of P5,103.35 with interests within the period of 90 days from and after the above mentioned Executive Order No. 32 had been repealed or set aside, and ordered that, if the plaintiff failed to pay it within the said period, the property mortgaged shall be sold at public auction and the proceeds of the sale applied to the payment of said obligation. The plaintiff appealed from the decision to this Court.

QUESTIONS:

1. Under the rules of international law did the Japanese Military Administration have authority to order the liquidation or winding up of the business of defendant-appellee China Banking Corporation, and to appoint the Bank of Taiwan liquidator authorized as such to accept the payment by the plaintiff-appellant to said defendant-appellee?

2. Is the payment by the plaintiff-appellant of her monetary obligation in Japanese notes during the Japanese occupation has the effect of extinguishing her obligation to said defendant-appellee?

17. As a rule a treaty is binding only on the contracting parties. There are instances, however, when third states may be validly held to the observance of or benefit from the provisions of a treaty. State at least two of these instances.

18. Jane and Joe are owners in fee simple of the parcels of land in question, even before the outbreak of World War II. When the Japanese came and occupied the Philippines, the Japanese Imperial Army took these parcels of land and used them for the construction of a railroad line. When the Philippines was liberated from the Japanese Military Occupation, the aforesaid parcels were abandoned and said owners immediately returned to their respective areas and repossessed them.

On September 26, 1947, the Philippine Alien Property Administrator vested in himself pursuant to Vesting Order No. P-386, the aforesaid properties after having found them to be owned or controlled or held by an enemy country. Said properties were to be held, used, administrated, liquidated, sold or otherwise dealt with by the Philippine Alien Property Administrator for the interest and benefit of the United States in accordance with the Philippine Property Act of 1948. Obviously unaware of the implication of Vesting Order No. P-386 and the Philippine Property Act of 1948, Jane & Joe failed to file their notice of claims for the return of their respective properties within the period provided for under the aforesaid Vesting Order. In the middle part of 1954, Manila Railroad Company entered the said parcels of land and re-established its railroad track thereon.

Jane & Joe, who were deprived of said properties by the Manila Railroad Company now file a case for recovery of ownership and possession.

Now be the judge. Would you grant the petition?

19. A. In extradition proceedings, are prospective extraditees entitled to notice and hearing before warrants for their arrest can be issued?

B. Equally important, are they entitled to the right to bail and provisional liberty while the extradition proceedings are pending? Reason out your answer in the light of the Mark Jimenez case.

C. In the Jimenez case, what are the so-called five postulates of extradition?

20. On March 17, 1993, Assistant Secretary Sime D. Hidalgo of the Department of Foreign Affairs indorsed to the Department of Justice Diplomatic Note No. 080/93 dated February 19, 1993 from the Government of Australia to the Department of Justice through Attorney General Michael Duffy. Said Diplomatic Note was a formal request for the extradition of Petitioner Paul Joseph Wright who is wanted for the following indictable crimes:

1.Wright/Orr Matter one count of Obtaining Property by Deception contrary to Section 81(1) of the Victorian Crimes Act of 1958; and

2.Wright/Cracker Matter Thirteen (13) counts of Obtaining Properties by Deception contrary to Section 81(1) of the Victorian Crimes Act of 1958; one count of attempting to Obtain Property by Deception contrary to Section 321(m) of Victorian Crimes Act of 1958; and one count of Perjury contrary to Section 314 of Victorian Crimes Act of 1958, which crimes were allegedly committed in the following manner:

Pursuant to Section 5 of PD No. 1069, in relation to the Extradition Treaty concluded between the Republic of the Philippines and Australia on September 10, 1990, extradition proceedings were initiated on April 6, 1993 by the State Counsels of the Department of Justice before the respondent court.

In its Order dated April 13, 1993, the respondent court directed the petitioner to appear before it on April 30, 1993 and to file his answer within ten days. In the same order, the respondent Judge ordered the NBI to serve summons and cause the arrest of the petitioner.

The respondent court received return of the warrant of arrest and summons signed by NBI Senior Agent Manuel Almendras with the information that the petitioner was arrested on April 26, 1993 at Taguig, Metro Manila and was subsequently detained at the NBI detention cell where petitioner, to date, continue to be held.

Thereafter, the petitioner filed his answer.

In the course of the trial, the petitioner testified that he was jobless, married to a Filipina, Judith David, with whom he begot a child; that he has no case in Australia; that he is not a fugitive from justice and is not aware of the offenses charged against him; that he arrived in the Philippines on February 25, 1990 returned to Australia on March 1, 1990, then back to the Philippines on April 11, 1990, left the Philippines again on April 24, 1990 for Australia and returned to the Philippines on May 24, 1990, again left for Australia on May 29, 1990 passing by Singapore and then returned to the Philippines on June 25, 1990 and from that time on, has not left the Philippines; and that his tourist visa has been extended but he could not produce the same in court as it was misplaced, has neither produced any certification thereof, nor any temporary working visa.

The trial court, in its decision dated 14 June 1993, granting the petition for extradition requested by the Government of Australia, concluding that the documents submitted by the Australian Government meet the requirements of Article 7 of the Treaty of Extradition and that the offenses for which the petitioner were sought in his country are extraditable offenses under Article 2 of the said Treaty. The trial court, moreover, held that under the provisions of the same Article, extradition could be granted irrespective of when the offense in relation to the extradition was committed, provided that the offense happened to be an offense in the requesting State at the time the acts or omissions constituting the same were committed.

Petitioner challenged the decision of the Regional Trial Court before the Court of Appeals assigning the following errors:

I.THAT THE HONORABLE RESPONDENT JUDGE GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING RETROACTIVE FORCE AND EFFECT TO THE EXTRADITION TREATY DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE RESPONDENT SHOW THAT THE ALLEGED OFFENSES FOR WHICH PETITIONER IS SOUGHT TO BE EXTRADITED TOOK PLACE IN 1988-1989 AT THE TIME THERE WAS NO EXTRADITION TREATY BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES AND AUSTRALIA.

II.THAT THE ACT OF THE HONORABLE RESPONDENT JUDGE IN GIVING RETROACTIVE FORCE AND EFFECT TO THE EXTRADITION TREATY BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES AND AUSTRALIA AMOUNTS TO AN "EX POST FACTO LAW" AND VIOLATES SECTION 21, ARTICLE VII OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION.

As Senator Jovito R. Salonga and Former Chief Justice Pedro L. Yap stated in their book, Public International Law (p. 83,1956 ed.):
Permanent international commissions and administrative bodies have been created by the agreement of a considerable number of States for a variety of international purposes, economic or social and mainly non-political. Among the notable instances are the International Labor Organization, the International Institute of Agriculture, the International Danube Commission. In so far as they are autonomous and beyond the control of any one State, they have a distinct juridical personality independent of the municipal law of the State where they are situated. As such, according to one leading authority they must be deemed to possess a species of international personality of their own. (Salonga and Yap, Public International Law, 83 [1956 ed.]
Pursuant to its being a signatory to the Agreement, the Republic of the Philippines agreed to be represented by one Director in governing SEAFDEC Council (Agreement Establishing SEAFDEC, Art. 5, Par. 1,. . .), and that its national laws and regulations shall apply only insofar as its contributions to SEAFDEC of "an agreed amount of money, movable and immovable property and services necessary for the establishment and operation of the Center" are concerned (Art. 11, ibid). It expressly waived the application of the Philippine laws on the disbursement of funds of petitioner SEAFDEC-AQD (Section 2, P.D. No. 292).
The then Minister of Justice likewise opined that Philippine Courts have no jurisdiction over SEAFDEC-AQD in Opinion No. 139, Series of 1984 —
4. One of the basic immunities of an international organization is immunity from local jurisdiction, i.e., that it is immune from the legal writs and processes issued by the tribunals of the country where it is found. (See Jenks, Id., pp. 37-44). The obvious reason for this is that the subjection of such an organization to the authority of the local courts would afford a convenient medium thru which the host government may interfere in their operations or even influence or control its policies and decisions of the organization; besides, such objection to local jurisdiction would impair the capacity of such body to discharge its responsibilities impartially on behalf of its member-states. In the case at bar, for instance, the entertainment by the National Labor Relations Commission of Mr. Madamba's reinstatement cases would amount to interference by the Philippine Government in the management decisions of the SEARCA governing board; even worse, it could compromise the desired impartiality of the organization since it will have to suit its actuations to the requirements of Philippine law, which may not necessarily coincide with the interests of the other member-states. It is precisely to forestall these possibilities that in cases where the extent of the immunity is specified in the enabling instruments of international organizations (jurisdictional immunity, is specified in the enabling instruments of international organizations), jurisdictional immunity from the host country is invariably among the first accorded. (See Jenks, Id.; See Bowett. The Law of International Institutions. pp. 284-285).


G.R. Nos. 97468-70 September 2, 1993
SOUTHEAST ASIAN FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CENTER represented by its Chief, DR. FLOR J. LACANILAO, petitioner, vs.DANILO ACOSTA in his capacity as Labor Arbiter of the National Labor Relations Commission, Regional Arbitration, Branch VI, CORAZON CANTO, DAN BALIAO, ELIZABETH SUPETRAN, CARMELITA FERRER, CATHRYN CONTRADOR, and DORIC VELOSO, respondents.

BROWNELL V. SUNLIFE CANADA(1954)

There is no question that a foreign law may have extraterritorial effect in a country other than the country of origin, provided the latter, in which it is sought to be made operative, gives its consent thereto. This principle is supported by the unquestioned authority.
The jurisdiction of the nation within its territory is necessarily exclusive and absolute. It is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by itself. Any restriction upon it, deriving validity from an external source, would imply a diminution of its sovereignty to the extent of the restriction, and an investment of that sovereignty to the same extent in that power in which would impose such restriction. All exceptions, therefore, to the full and complete power of a nation within its own territories, must be traced up to the consent of the nation itself. They can flow from no other legitimate source. This consent may be either express or implied. (Philippine Political Law by Sinco, pp. 27-28, citing Chief Justice Marshall's statement in the Exchange, 7 Cranch 116)
In the course of his dissenting opinion in the case of S. S. Lotus, decided by the Permanent Court of International Justice, John Bassett Moore said:
1. It is an admitted principle of International Law that a nation possesses and exercises within its own territory an absolute and exclusive jurisdiction, and that any exception to this right must be traced to the consent of the nation, either express or implied (Schooner Exchange vs. McFadden [812], 7 Cranch 116, 136). The benefit of this principle equally enures to all independent and sovereign States, and is attended with a corresponding responsibility for what takes place within the national territory. (Digest of International Law, by Backworth, Vol. II, pp. 1-2)
The above principle is not denied by respondent-appellant. But its argument on this appeal is that while the acts enacted by the Philippine Congress impliedly accept the benefits of the operation of the United States law (Philippine Property Act of 1946), no provision in the said acts of the Philippine Congress makes said United States law expressly applicable. In answer to this contention, it must be stated that the consent of a Senate to the operation of a foreign law within its territory does not need to be express; it is enough that said consent be implied from its conduct or from that of its authorized officers.
515. No rule of International Law exists which prescribe a necessary form of ratification. — Ratification can, therefore, be given tacitly as well as expressly. Tacit ratification takes place when a State begins the execution of a treaty without expressly ratifying it. It is usual for ratification to take the form of a document duly signed by the Heads of the States concerned and their Secretaries for Foreign Affairs. It is usual to draft as many documents as there are parties to the Convention, and to exchange these documents between the parties. Occasionally the whole of the treaty is recited verbatim in the ratifying documents, but sometimes only the title, preamble, and date of the treaty, and the names of the signatory representatives are cited. As ratification is only the confirmation of an already existing treaty, the essential requirements in a ratifying document is merely that it should refer clearly and unmistakably to the treaty to be ratified. The citation of title, preamble, date, and names of the representatives is, therefore quite sufficient to satisfy that requirements. (Oppenheim, pp. 818-819; emphasis ours.)
International Law does not require that agreements between nations must be concluded in any particular form or style. The law of nations is much more interested in the faithful performance of international obligations than in prescribing procedural requirements. (Treaties and Executive Agreements, by Myers S. McDougal and Asher Lands, Yale Law Journal, Vol. 54, pp. 318-319)
In the case at bar, our ratification of or concurrence to the agreement for the extension of the Philippine Property Act of 1946 is clearly implied from the acts of the President of the Philippines and of the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, as well as by the enactment of Republic Acts Nos. 7, 8, and 477.
We must emphasize the fact that the operation of the Philippine Property Act of 1946 in the Philippines is not derived from the unilateral act of the United States Congress, which made it expressly applicable, or from the saving provision contained in the proclamation of independence. It is well-settled in the United States that its laws have no extraterritorial effect. The application of said law in the Philippines is based concurrently on said act (Philippine Property Act of 1946) and on the tacit consent thereto and the conduct of the Philippine Government itself in receiving the benefits of its provisions.

G.R. No. L-5731 June 22, 1954
HERBERT BROWNELL, JR., as Attorney General of the United States, petitioner-appellee, vs.SUN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA, respondent-appellant

In Public International Law, when a state or international agency wishes to plead sovereign or diplomatic immunity in a foreign court, it requests the Foreign Office of the state where it is sued to convey to the court that said defendant is entitled to immunity.
In the United States, the procedure followed is the process of "suggestion," where the foreign state or the international organization sued in an American court requests the Secretary of State to make a determination as to whether it is entitled to immunity. If the Secretary of State finds that the defendant is immune from suit, he, in turn, asks the Attorney General to submit to the court a "suggestion" that the defendant is entitled to immunity. In England, a similar procedure is followed, only the Foreign Office issues a certification to that effect instead of submitting a "suggestion" (O'Connell, I International Law 130 [1965]; Note: Immunity from Suit of Foreign Sovereign Instrumentalities and Obligations, 50 Yale Law Journal 1088 [1941]).
In the Philippines, the practice is for the foreign government or the international organization to first secure an executive endorsement of its claim of sovereign or diplomatic immunity. But how the Philippine Foreign Office conveys its endorsement to the courts varies. In International Catholic Migration Commission v. Calleja, 190 SCRA 130 (1990), the Secretary of Foreign Affairs just sent a letter directly to the Secretary of Labor and Employment, informing the latter that the respondent-employer could not be sued because it enjoyed diplomatic immunity. In World Health Organization v. Aquino, 48 SCRA 242 (1972), the Secretary of Foreign Affairs sent the trial court a telegram to that effect. In Baer v. Tizon, 57 SCRA 1 (1974), the U.S. Embassy asked the Secretary of Foreign Affairs to request the Solicitor General to make, in behalf of the Commander of the United States Naval Base at Olongapo City, Zambales, a "suggestion" to respondent Judge. The Solicitor General embodied the "suggestion" in a Manifestation and Memorandum as amicus curiae.
In the case at bench, the Department of Foreign Affairs, through the Office of Legal Affairs moved with this Court to be allowed to intervene on the side of petitioner. The Court allowed the said Department to file its memorandum in support of petitioner's claim of sovereign immunity.
In some cases, the defense of sovereign immunity was submitted directly to the local courts by the respondents through their private counsels (Raquiza v. Bradford, 75 Phil. 50 [1945]; Miquiabas v. Philippine-Ryukyus Command, 80 Phil. 262 [1948]; United States of America v. Guinto, 182 SCRA 644 [1990] and companion cases). In cases where the foreign states bypass the Foreign Office, the courts can inquire into the facts and make their own determination as to the nature of the acts and transactions involved.

Republic of the PhilippinesCongress of the PhilippinesMetro Manila
Fourteenth CongressThird Regular Session
Begun and held in Metro Manila, on Monday, the twenty-seventh day of July, two thousand nine.
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9851
AN ACT DEFINING AND PENALIZING CRIMES AGAINST INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW, GENOCIDE AND OTHER CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY, ORGANIZING JURISDICTION, DESIGNATING SPECIAL COURTS, AND FOR RELATED PURPOSES
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled:
CHAPTER IINTRODUCTORY PROVISIONS
Section 1. Short Title. - This Act shall be known as the "Philippine Act on Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law, Genocide, and Other Crimes Against Humanity".
Section 2. Declaration of Principles and State Policies. -
(a) The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy, adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land and adheres to a policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation and amity with all nations.
(b) The state values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights, including the rights of indigenous cultural communities and other vulnerable groups, such as women and children;
(c) It shall be the responsibility of the State and all other sectors concerned to resolved armed conflict in order to promote the goal of "Children as Zones of Peace";
(d) The state adopts the generally accepted principles of international law, including the Hague Conventions of 1907, the Geneva Conventions on the protection of victims of war and international humanitarian law, as part of the law our nation;
(e) The most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole must not go unpunished and their effective prosecution must be ensured by taking measures at the national level, in order to put an end to impunity for the perpetrators of these crimes and thus contribute to the prevention of such crimes, it being the duty of every State to exercise its criminal jurisdiction over those responsible for international crimes;
(f) The State shall guarantee persons suspected or accused of having committed grave crimes under international law all rights necessary to ensure that their trial will be fair and prompt in strict accordance with national and international law and standards for fair trial, It shall also protect victims, witnesses and their families, and provide appropriate redress to victims and their families, It shall ensure that the legal systems in place provide accessible and gender-sensitive avenues of redress for victims of armed conflict, and
(g)The State recognizes that the application of the provisions of this Act shall not affect the legal status of the parties to a conflict, nor give an implied recognition of the status of belligerency
CHAPTER IIDEFINITION OF TERMS
Section 3. For purposes of this Act, the term:
(a) "Apartheid' means inhumane acts committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime
(b) "Arbitrary deportation or forcible transfer of population" means forced displacement of the persons concerned by expultion by expulsion or other coercive acts from the area in which they are lawfully present, without grounds permitted under domestic or international law.
(c) "Armed conflict" means any use of force or armed violence between States or a protracted armed violence between governmental authorities and organized armed groups or between such groups within that State: Provided, That such force or armed violence gives rise, or may give rise, to a situation to which the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, including their common Article 3, apply. Armed conflict may be international, that is, between two (2) or more States, including belligerent occupation; or non-international, that is, between governmental authorities and organized armed groups or between such groups within a state. It does not cover internal disturbances or tensions such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence or other acts of a similar nature.
(d) "Armed forces" means all organized armed forces, groups and units that belong to a party to an armed conflict which are under a command responsible to that party for the conduct of its subordinates. Such armed forces shall be subject to an internal disciplinary system which enforces compliance with International Humanitarian Law
(e) "Attack directed against any civilian population" means a course of conduct involving the multiple commission of acts referred to in Section 6 of this Act against any civilian population, pursuant to or in furtherance of a State or organizational policy to commit such attack.
(f) "Effective command and control" or " effective authority and control" means having the material ability to prevent and punish the commission of offenses by subordinates.
(g) "Enforced or involuntary disappearance of persons" means the arrest, detention, or abduction of persons by, or with the authorization support or acquiescence of, a State or a political organization followed by a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give information on the fate or whereabouts of those persons, with the intention of removing from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time
(h) "Enslavement" means the exercise of any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership over a person and includes the exercise of such power in the course of trafficking in persons, in particular women and children.
(i) "Extermination" means the international infliction of conditions of life, inter alia, the deprivation of access to food and medicine, calculated to bring about the destruction of a part of a population.
(j) " Forced pregnancy" means the unlawful confinement of a women to be forcibly made pregnant, with the intent of affecting the ethnic composition of any population carrying out other grave violations of international law.
(k) "Hors de Combat" means a person who:
(1) is in the power of an adverse party;
(2) has clearly expressed an intention to surrender; or
(3) has been rendered unconscious or otherwise incapacitated by wounds or sickness and therefore is incapable of defending himself: Provided, that in any of these cases, the person form any hostile act and does not attempt to escape.
(l) "Military necessity" means the necessity of employing measures which are indispensable to achieve a legitimate aim of the conflict and are not otherwise prohibited by International Humanitarian Law
(m) "Non-defended locality" means a locality that fulfills the following conditions:
(1) all combatants, as well as mobile weapons and mobile military equipment, must have been evacuated;
(2) no hostile use of fixed military installations or establishments must have been made;
(3) no acts of hostility must have been committed by the authorities or by the population; and
(4) no activities in support of military operations, must have been undertaken.
(n) "No quarter will be given' means refusing to spare the life of anybody, even of persons manifestly unable to defend themselves or who clearly express their intention to surrender.
(o) "Perfidy" means acts which invite the confidence of an adversary to lead him/her to believe he/she is entitled to, or is obliged to accord, protection under the rules of International Humanitarian Law, with the intent to betray that confidence, including but not limited to:
(1) feigning an intent to negotiate under a flag of truce;
(2) feigning surrender;
(3) feigning incapacitation by wounds or sickness;
(4) feigning civilian or noncombatant status; and
(5) feigning protective status by use of signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations or of a neutral or other State not party to the conflict.
(p) "Persecution" means the international and severe deprivation of fundamental rights contrary to international law by reason of identity of the group or collectivity.
(q) "Protect person" in an armed conflict means:
(1) a person wounded, sick or shipwrecked, whether civilian or military;
(2) a prisoner of war or any person deprived of liberty for reasons related to an armed conflict;
(3) a civilian or any person not taking a direct part or having ceased to take part in the hostilities in the power of the adverse party;
(4) a person who, before the beginning of hostilities, was considered a stateless person or refugee under the relevant international instruments accepted by the parties to the conflict concerned or under the national legislation of the state of refuge or state of residence;
(5) a member of the medical personnel assigned exclusively to medical purposes or to the administration of medical units or to the operation of or administration of medical transports; or
(6) a member of the religious personnel who is exclusively engaged in the work of their ministry and attached to the armed forces of a party to the conflict, its medical units or medical transports, or non-denominational, noncombatant military personnel carrying out functions similar to religious personnel.
(r) " Superior" means:
(1) a military commander or a person effectively acting as a military commander; or
(2) any other superior, in as much as the crimes arose from activities within the effective authority and control of that superior.
(s) "Torture" means the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical, mental, or psychological, upon a person in the custody or under the control of the accused; except that torture shall not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions.
(t) "Works and installations containing dangerous forces" means works and installations the attack of which may cause the release of dangerous forces and consequent severe losses among the civilian population, namely: dams, dikes, and nuclear, electrical generation stations.
CHAPTER IIICRIMES AGAINST INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW, GENOCIDE AND OTHER CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY
Section 4. War Crimes. - For the purpose of this Act, "war crimes" or "crimes against Interntional Human Humanitarian Law" means:
(a) In case of an international armed conflict , grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts against persons or property protected under provisions of the relevant Geneva Convention:
(1) Willful killing;
(2) Torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments;
(3) Willfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health;
(4) Extensive destruction and appropriation of property not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly;
(5) Willfully depriving a prisoner of war or other protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial;
(6) Arbitrary deportation or forcible transfer of population or unlawful confinement;
(7) Taking of hostages;
(8) Compelling a prisoner a prisoner of war or other protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile power; and
(9) Unjustifiable delay in the repatriation of prisoners of war or other protected persons.
(b) In case of a non-international armed conflict, serious violations of common Article 3 to the four (4) Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely , any of the following acts committed against persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including member of the armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention or any other cause;
(1) Violence to life and person, in particular, willful killings, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(2) Committing outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
(3) Taking of hostages; and
(4) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all judicial guarantees which are generally recognized as indispensable.
(c) Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely:
(1) Internationally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;
(2) Intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, that is, object which are not military objectives;
(3) Intentionally directing attacks against buildings, material, medical units and transport, and personnel using the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions or Additional Protocol III in conformity with intentional law;
(4) Intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as ling as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict;
(5) Launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated;
(6) Launching an attack against works or installations containing dangerous forces in the knowledge that such attack will cause excessive loss of life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects, and causing death or serious injury to body or health .
(7) Attacking or bombarding, by whatever means, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings which are undefended and which are not military objectives, or making non-defended localities or demilitarized zones the object of attack;
(8) Killing or wounding a person in the knowledge that he/she is hors de combat, including a combatant who, having laid down his/her arms or no longer having means of defense, has surrendered at discretion;
(9) Making improper use of a flag of truce, of the flag or the military insignia and uniform of the enemy or of the United Nations, as well as of the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions or other protective signs under International Humanitarian Law, resulting in death, serious personal injury or capture;
(10) Intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not military objectives. In case of doubt whether such building or place has been used to make an effective contribution to military action, it shall be presumed not to be so used;
(11) Subjecting persons who are in the power of an adverse party to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind, or to removal of tissue or organs for transplantation, which are neither justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the person concerned nor carried out in his/her interest, and which cause death to or seriously endanger the health of such person or persons;
(12) Killing, wounding or capturing an adversary by resort to perfidy;
(13) Declaring that no quarter will be given;
(14) Destroying or seizing the enemy's property unless such destruction or seizure is imperatively demanded by the necessities of war;
(15) Pillaging a town or place, even when taken by assault;
(16) Ordering the displacements of the civilian population for reasons related to the conflict, unless the security of the civilians involved or imperative military reasons so demand;
(17) Transferring, directly or indirectly, by the occupying power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory;
(18) Commiting outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatments;
(19) Commiting rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence also constituting a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions or a serious violation of common Article 3 to the Geneva Convensions;
(20) Utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations;
(21) Intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indespensable to their survival, including willfully impeding relief supplies as provided for under the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols;
(22) In an international armed conflict, compelling the nationals of the hostile party to take part in the operations of war directed against their own country, even if they were in the belligerent's service before the commencement of the war;
(23) In an international armed conflict, declaring abolished, suspended or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party;
(24) Commiting any of the following acts:
(i) Conscripting, enlisting or recruiting children under the age of fifteen (15) years into the national armed forces;
(ii) Conscripting, enlisting or recruiting children under the age of eighteen (18) years into an armed force or group other than the national armed forces; and
(iii) Using children under the age of eighteen (18) years to participate actively in hostilities; and
(25) Employing means of warfare which are prohibited under international law, such as:
(i) Poison or poisoned weapons;
(ii) Asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and all analogous liquids, materials or devices;
(iii) Bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with hard envelopes which do not entirely cover the core or are pierced with incisions; and
(iv) Weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare which are of the nature to cause superfluous injury or unecessary suffering or which are inherently indiscriminate in violation of the international law of armed conflict.
Any person found guilty of commiting any of the acts specified herein shall suffer the penalty provided under Section 7 of this Act.
Section 5. Genocide - (a) For the purpose of this Act, "genocide" means any of the following acts with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, religious, social or any other similar stable and permanent group as such:
(1) Killing members of the group;
(2) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(3) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(4) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and
(5) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
(b) It shall be unlawful for any person to directly and publicly incite others to commit genocide.
Any person found guilty of committing any of the acts specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section shall suffer the penalty provided under Section 7 of this Act.
Section 6. Other Crimes Against Humanity. - For the purpose of this act, "other crimes against humanity" means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:
(a) Willful killing;
(b) Extermination;
(c) Enslavement;
(d) Arbitrary deportation or forcible transfer of population;
(e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
(f) Torture;
(g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
(h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender, sexual orientation or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime defined in this Act;
(i) Enforced or involuntary disappearance of persons;
(j) Apartheid; and
(k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.
Any person found guilty of committing any of the acts specified herein shall suffer the penalty provided under Section 7 of this Act.
CHAPTER IVPENAL PROVISIONS
Section 7. Penalties. - Any person found guilty of committing any of the acts provided under Sections 4, 5 and 6 of this Act shall suffer the penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium to maximum period and a fine ranging from One hundred thousand pesos (Php 100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (Php 500,000.00).
When justified by the extreme gravity of the crime, especially where the commision of any of the crimes specified herein results in death or serious physical injury, or constitutes rape, and considering the individual circumstances of the accused, the penalty of reclusion perpetua and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (Php 500,000.00) to One million pesos (Php 1,000,000.00) shall be imposed.
Any person found guilty of inciting others to commit genocide referred to in Section 5(b) of this Act shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period and a fine ranging from Ten thousand pesos (Php 10,000.00) to Twenty thousand pesos (Php 20,000.00).
In addition, the court shall order the forfeiture of proceeds, property and assets derived, directly or indirectly, from that crime, without prejudice to the rights of bona fide third (3rd) parties. The court shall also impose the corresponding accessory penalties under the Revised Penal Code, especially where the offender is a public officer.
CHAPTER VSOME PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Section 8. Individual Criminal Responsibilities. - (a) In addition to existing provisions in Philippine law on principles of criminal responsibility, a person shall be criminally liable as principal for a crime defined and penalized in this Act if he/she:
(1) Commits such a crime, whether as an individual, jointly with another or through another person, regardless of whether that other person is criminally responsible;
(2) Orders, solicits or induces the commission of such a crime which in fact occurs or is attempted;
(3) In any other way contributes to the commission or attempted commission of such a crime by a group of person acting with a common purpose. Such contribution shall be intentional and shall either:
(i) be made with the aim of furthering the criminal activity or criminal purpose of the group, where such activity or purpose involves the commission of a crime defined in this Act; or
(ii) be made in the knowledge of the intention of the group to commit the crime.
(b) A person shall be criminally liable as accomplice for facilitating the commission of a crime defined and penalized in this Act if he/she aids, abets or otherwise assists in its commission or attempted commission, including providing the means for its commission.
(c) A person shall be criminally liable for a crime defined and penalized in this Act if he/she attempts to commit such a crime by taking action that commences its execution by means of a substantial step, but the crime does not occur because of circumstances independent of the person's intention. However, a person who abandons the effort to commit the crime or otherwise prevents the completion of the crime shall not be liable for punishment under this Act for the attempt to commit the same if he/she completely and voluntarily gave up the criminal purpose.
Section 9. Irrelevance of Official Capacity. - This Act shall apply equally to all persons without any distinction based on official capacity. In particular, official capacity as a head of state or government, a member of a government or parliament, an elected representative or a government official shall in no case exempt a person from criminal responsibility under this Act, nor shall it, in and of itself, constitute a ground for reduction of sentence. However:
(a) Immunities or special procedural rules that may be attached to the official capacity of a person under Philippine law other than the established constitutional immunity from suit of the Philippine President during his/her tenure, shall not bar the court from exercising jurisdiction over such a person; and
(b) Immunities that may be attached to the official capacity of a person under international law may limit the application of this Act, nut only within the bounds established under international law.
Section 10. Responsibility of Superiors. - In addition to other grounds of criminal responsibility for crimes defined and penalized under this Act, a superior shall be criminally responsible as a principal for such crimes committed by subordinates under his/her effective command and control, or effective authority and control as the case may be, as a result of his/her failure to properly exercise control over such subordinates, where:
(a) That superior either knew or, owing to the circumstances at the time, should have known that the subordinates were committing or about to commit such crimes;
(b) That superior failed to take all necessary and reasonable measures within his/her power to prevent or repress their commission or to submit the matter to the competent authorities for investigation and prosecution.
Section 11. Non-prescription. - The crimes defined and penalized under this Act, their prosecution, and the execution of sentences imposed on their account, shall not be subject to any prescription.
Section 12. Orders from a Superior. - The fact that a crime defined and penalized under this Act has been committed by a person pursuant to an order of a government or a superior, whether military or civilian, shall not relieve that person of criminal responsibility unless all of the following elements occur:
(a) The person was under a legal obligation to obey orders of the government or the superior in question;
(b) The person did not know that the order was unlawful; and
(c) The order was not manifestly unlawful.
For the purposes of this section, orders to commit genocide or other crimes against humanity are manifestly unlawful.
CHAPTER VIProtection of Victims and Witnesses
Section 13. Protection of Victims and Witnesses. - In addition to existing provisions in Philippine law for the protection of victims and witnesses, the following measures shall be undertaken:
(a) The Philippine court shall take appropriate measures to protect the safety, physical and physiological well-being, dignity and privacy of victims and witnesses. In so doing, the court shall have regard of all relevant factors, including age, gender and health, and the nature of the crime, in particular, but not limited to, where the crime involves sexual or gender violence or violence against children. The prosecutor shall take such measures particularly during the investigation and prosecution of such crimes. These measures shall not be prejudicial to or inconsistent with the rights of the accused and to a fair and impartial trial;
(b) As an exception to the general principle of public hearings, the court may, to protect the victims and witnesses or an accused, conduct any part of the proceedings in camera or allow the presentation of evidence by electronic or other special means. In particular, such measures shall be implemented in the case of the victim of sexual violence or a child who is a victim or is a witness, unless otherwise ordered by the court, having regard to all the circumstances, particularly the views of the victim or witness;
(c) Where the personal interests of the victims are affected, the court shall permit their views and concerns to be presented and considered at stages of the proceedings determined to be appropriate by the court in manner which is not prejudicial to or inconsistent with the rights of the accused and a fair and impartial trial. Such views and concerns may be presented by the legal representatives of the victims where the court considers it appropriate in accordance with the established rules of procedure and evidence; and
(d) Where the disclosure of evidence or information pursuant to this Act may lead to the grave endangerment of the security of a witness for his/her family, the prosecution may, for the purposes of any proceedings conducted prior to the commencement of the trial, withhold such evidence or information and instead submit a summary thereof. Such measures shall be exercised in a manner which is not prejudicial to or inconsistent with the rights of the accused and to a fair and impartial trial.
Section 14. Reparations to Victims. - In addition to existing provisions in Philippine law and procedural rules for reparations to victims, the following measures shall be undertaken:
(a) The court shall follow the principles relating to the reparations to, or in respect of, victims,including restitution, compensation and rehabilitation. On this basis, in its decision, the court may, wither upon request or on its own motion in exceptional circumstances, determine the scope and extent of any damage, loss and injury to, or in respect of, victims and state the principles on which it is acting;1avvphi1
(b) The court may make an order directly against a convicted person specifying appropriate reparations to, or in respect of, victims, including restitution, compensation and rehabilitation; and
(c) Before making an order under this section, the court may invite and shall take account of representations from or on behalf of the convicted person, victims or other interested persons.
Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as prejudicing the rights of victims under national or international law.
CHAPTER VIIApplicability of International Law and Other Laws
Section 15. Applicability of International Law.- In the application and interpretation of this Act, Philippine courts shall be guided by the following sources:
(a) The 1948 Genocide Convention;
(b) The 1949 Genava Conventions I-IV, their 1977 Additional Protocols I and II and their 2005 Additional Protocol III;
(c) The 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, its First Protocol and its 1999 Second Protocol;
(d) The 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child and its 2000 Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict;
(e) The rules and principles of customary international law;
(f) The judicial decisions of international courts and tribunals;
(g) Relevant and applicable international human rights instruments;
(h) Other relevant international treaties and conventions ratified or acceded to by the Republic of the Philippines; and
(i) Teachings of the most highly qualified publicists and authoritative commentaries on the foregoing sources as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of international law.
Section 16. Suppletory Application of the Revised Penal Code and Other General or Special Laws. - The provisions of the Revised Penal Code and other general or special laws shall have a suppletory application to the provisions of this Act.
CHAPTER VIIJURISDICTION
Section 17. Jurisdiction.- The State shall exercise jurisdiction over persons, whether military or civilian, suspected or accused of a crime defined and penalized in this Act, regardless of where the crime is committed, provided, any one of the following conditions is met:
(a) The accused is a Filipino citizen;
(b) The accused, regardless of citizenship or residence, is present in the Philippines; or
(c) The accused has committed the said crime against a Filipino citizen.
In the interest of justice, the relevant Philippine authorities may dispense with the investigation or prosecution of a crime punishable under this Act if another court or international tribunal is already conducting the investigation or undertaking the prosecution of such crime. Instead, the authorities may surrender or extradite suspected or accused persons in the Philippines to the appropriate international court, if any, or to another State pursuant to the applicable extradition laws and treaties.
No criminal proceedings shall be initiated against foreign nationals suspected or accused of having committed the crimes defined and penalized in this Act if they have been tried by a competent court outside the Philippines in respect of the same offense and acquitted, or having been convicted, already served their sentence.
Section 18. Philippine Court, Prosecutors and Investigators. - The Regional Trial Court of the Philippines shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over the crimes punishable under this Act. Their judgments may be appealed or elevated to the Court of Appeals and to the Supreme Court as provided by law.
The Supreme Court shall designate special courts to try cases involving crimes punishable under this Act. For these cases, the Commission on Human Rights, the Department of Justice, the Philippine National Police or other concerned law enforcement agencies shall designate prosecutors or investigators as the case may be.
The State shall ensure that judges, prosecutors and investigators, especially those designated for purposes of this Act, receive effective training in human rights, International Humanitarian Law and International Criminal Law.
CHAPTER IXFINAL PROVISIONS
Section 19. Separability Clause. - If, for any reason or reasons, any part or provision of this Statute shall be held to be unconstitutional or invalid, other parts or provisions hereof which are not affected thereby shall continue to be in full force and effect.
Section 20. Repealing Clause. - All laws, presidential decrees and issuances, executive orders, rules and regulations or parts thereof inconsistent with the provisions of this Statute are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.
Section 21. Effectivity. - This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its complete publication in the Official Gazette or in two (2) newspapers general circulation.
Approved,
Sgd. PROSPERO C. NOGRALESSpeaker of the House of Representative
Sgd. JUAN PONCE ENRILEPresident of the Senate
This Act which is a consolidation of Senate Bill No. 2669 and House Bill No. 6633 was finally passed by the Senate and the House of Representatives on October 14, 2009 and October 16, 2009, respectively.
For:
Sgd. MARILYN B. BARUA-YAPSecretary GeneralHouse of Representatives
Sgd. EMMA LIRIO-REYESSecretary of the Senate
Approved:
Sgd. GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYOPresident of the Philippines
December 11, 2009