BATINO, MARY ALELIE D.

PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW FINALS

Define the following:

1. Terrorism in its broadest sense, the use of intentionally indiscriminate
violence as a means to create terror or fear, in order to achieve a political, religious, or
ideological aim
2. War Crimes A war crime is an act that constitutes a serious violation of the
law of war that gives rise to individual criminal responsibility
3. Genocide is intentional action to destroy a people (usually defined as an
ethnic, national, racial, or religious group) in whole or in part.
4. Crimes against humanity includes 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 (Wilful killing, Extermination, Enslavement,
Arbitrary deportation or forcible transfer of population Imprisonment Torture etc.)

Recently, two international human rights groups released findings

that the police are behind the spate of extrajudicial drug-related killings
and President Duterte purportedly encourage law enforcers to do the
killing.
As of the end of January 2017, persons (and still counting) killed in
the campaign against drug, one of the priority commitment of the
president, reached 7,000 persons.
Can President Duterte be indicted for war crimes, crimes against
humanity or genocide for the killing of about 7,000 persons?

He cannot be indicted for war crimes since the war on drugs is not the kind of
war as defined for the purpose of war crimes. Neither he be indicted for crimes against
humanity nor genocide since the there is no intention to destroy people as defined as an
ethnic, national, racial or religious group.

The Vatican City is the headquarters of the Roman Catholic Church. It

represents an entity organized not for political purpose but for
ecclesiastical purpose. Is the Vatican City a state and the pope head of the
state? Explain briefly.

Yes, Vatican is a State since is has all the elements of the state namely, the people,
territory, government and sovereignty. The Pope is also considered the head of the state.

In 1929, the Lateran Treaty was signed with Italy which recognized the state of
the Vatican City and the sovereignty of the Holy See in the field of international
relations as an attribute that pertains to the very nature of the Holy See, in conformity
with its traditions and the demands of its mission in the world.
 Is there a distinction between suability and liability of state? Does it
extend to foreign states? Explain briefly.

Yes. Consent to be sued or suability is not equivalent to consent to liability or

liability of state. The Fact that the State consented to being sued does not mean that the
State will ultimately be held liable. Even if the case is decided against the State, an
award cannot be satisfied by writs of execution or garnishment against public funds.
Yes. This rule applies not only in favor of the Philippines but also in favor of
foreign states.

May a foreign state be obliged to litigate in interpleader?

The rule likewise prohibits a person from filing for interpleader, with the State as
one of the defendants being compelled to interplead (Section 3 Article XVI)

Which of the following is considered to be an act not covered by said

immunity? Explain your answer. Choose only one and explain briefly.
(c) the act of bidding for operation of barbershops in a US facility

This act is an act jure gestionis, which are considered private acts and the
immunity of the sovereign is not recognized. If the foreign State is not engaged regularly
in a business or commercial activity, and in this case it has not been shown to be so
engaged, the particular act or transaction must then be tested by its nature.

In 2012, the Employers Group in the Committee of Application of

Standards (CAS) derailed the examination of cases on application of
standards in law and practice. The five (5) countries under review on their
respect for trade union rights were allowed not to be held accountable for
non compliance with International Labor Standards, particularly, on
Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining.
The Employer's Group has a novel idea that henceforth freedom of
association does not include the right to strike as it is not so stated in
Convention 87. The same position was reiterated in 2013 and 2014.
The workers group hold that it has long been settled that in
Convention 87, the right to organize unions includes the twin fundamental
rights: (1) to collectively bargain and (2) to peaceful concerted activities,
including the right to strike
Which side you want to take and justify your answer in accordance
with Articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention of Treaties?
 The Ambassador of the Republic of the Kafiristan referred to you for
handling the case the Embassy's Maintenance Agreement with CBM, a
private domestic company engaged in maintenance work. The Agreement
binds CBM, for a defined fee, to maintain Embassy's elevators, air
conditioning units and electrical facilities. Section 10 of the Agreement
provides that the Agreement shall be governed by Philippine laws and that
any legal action shall be brought before the proper court of Makati.
Kafristan terminated the Agreement because CBM allegedly did not comply
with their agreed maintenance standards.
CBM contested the termination and filed a complaint against
Kafiristan before the Regional Trial Court of Makati. The Ambassador
wants you to file a motion to dismiss on the ground of state immunity from
suit and to oppose the position that under Section 10 of the Agreement,
Kafristan expressly waives its immunity from suit.
Under the facts, can the Embassy successfully invoke Immunity from
suit?

Yes. In the case of Republic of Indonesia vs Vinzon, The Supreme Court ruled
that the republic of Indonesia cannot be deemed to have waived its immunity to suit.
The mere entering into a contract by a foreign state with a private party cannot be
construed as the ultimate test of whether or not it is an act juri imperii or juri gestionis.
Such act is only the start of the inquiry. There is no dispute that the establishment of a
diplomatic mission is an act juri imperii. The state may enter into contracts with private
entities to maintain the premises, furnishings and equipment of the embassy. The
Embassy in this case is acting in pursuit of a sovereign activity when it entered into a
contract with the CBM.

Congress passed Republic Act 7711 to comply with the UNCLOS. In a

petition filed with the Supreme Court, AnakTi Ilocos, an association of
Ilocano professionals, argued that Republic Article 7711 discarded the
definition of the Philippine territory under the Treaty of Paris and in
related treaties; excluded the Kalayaan Islands and the Scarborough Shoals
from the Philippine Archipelagic baselines; and converted internal waters
into archipelagic waters. Is the petition meritorious?

Yes, because the provisions of the UNCLOS on archipelagic passage through sea
lanes do not nullify or impair the sovereignty of the Philippines as an archipelagic State
over the sea lanes and do not deprive it of authority to enact legislation to protect its
sovereignty, independence and security.

The International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) dismissed Ernesto

Callado for driving an institute car while under the influence of liquor. He
filed an action for illegal dismissal and reinstatement with backwages with
the NLRC. The Labor Arbiter ruled in his favor that in case of termination,
the Institution waived its immunity. On appeal to the NLRC, the order of the
labor arbiter was reversed and set aside; hence, a petition for certiorari was
filed by Callado where he argued that the immunity granted IRRI under
Sec. 3, PD 1620 was waived in a Memorandum dated April 13, 1991. Decide.

The grant of immunity to IRRI is clear and unequivocal and an express waiver by
its Director-General is the only way by which it may relinquish or abandon its immunity.

Callado was not denied due process, and this, notwithstanding the non-referral to
the Council of IRRI Employees and Management.

It is a recognized principle of international law and under our system of

separation of powers that diplomatic immunity is essentially a political question and
courts should refuse to look beyond a determination by the executive branch of the
government, and where the plea of diplomatic immunity is recognized and affirmed by
the executive branch of the government.

How do, or would, courts or tribunals in your country resolve cases of

inconsistency between domestic provisions and ratified international
treaties?

Under Article 7 of the Civil Code, an executive agreement contrary to a prior law
is void. Similarly, an executive agreement contrary to a subsequent law becomes void
upon the effectivity of such subsequent law. Since Article 7 of the Civil Code provides
that executive acts shall be valid only when they are not contrary to the laws, once an
executive act becomes contrary to law such executive act becomes void even if it was
valid prior to the enactment of such subsequent law.

A treaty, on the other hand, acquires the status of a municipal law upon
ratification by the Senate. Hence, a treaty may amend or repeal a prior law and vice-
versa. Unlike an executive agreement, a treaty may change state policy embodied in a
prior and existing law.

In 2006, the RTC of Makati rendered a decision finding U.S Lance

Corporal Daniel Smith guilty of the crime of rape committed against a
Filipina. As a result, the RTC ordered Smith detained at the Makati Jail
until further orders. A day or two before the end of 2006, however, Smith
was taken out of the Makati Jail by a contingent of the Philippine National
Police, purportedly under the order of the DILG and brought to a facility for
detention under the control of the United States government is the transfer
of Smith to a US facility valid?

The provision of Art. XVIII, Sec. 25 of the Constitution, is complied with by virtue
of the fact that the presence of the US Armed Forces through the VFA is a presence
allowed under the RP-US Mutual Defense Treaty. Since the RP-US Mutual Defense
Treaty itself has been ratified and concurred in by both the Philippine Senate and the US
Senate, there is no violation of the Constitutional provision resulting from such
presence.

The VFA being a valid and binding agreement, the parties are required as a
matter of international law to abide by its terms and provisions.

Nothing in the Constitution prohibits such agreements recognizing immunity

from jurisdiction or some aspects of jurisdiction (such as custody), in relation to long-
recognized subjects of such immunity like Heads of State, diplomats and members of
the armed forces contingents of a foreign State allowed to enter another States territory.
On the contrary, the Constitution states that the Philippines adopts the generally
accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land. (Art. II, Sec. 2).