You are on page 1of 19

Diplomatic and Consular Law

Rules regulating the various aspect of diplomatic relations are the result of centuries
of States practice. They constitute one of the earliest expressions of International Law.
Whenever in history there have been independent States coexisting, special customs
have developed on how the representatives of one State would be treated by other
State.[1]

Traditionally, diplomatic relations have been conducted through ambassadors and


their staffs. However, with the growth of trade and commercial transactions the office
of consul was established.

Today, diplomats and consuls perform useful functions in the host states. They
provide permanent presence in host States, pursue friendly relations between their
States and the host States, and promote the various interests of their States in the host
states.

Because of the important roles played by diplomats and consuls in international


relations, it is necessary to treat this subject in the following two sections. Thus, section
one is devoted to diplomatic mission, while section two is devoted to consular post.

Section 1: Diplomatic Mission [2]

Today, all States are represented in foreign States by diplomatic


representatives. These diplomatic representations are of a permanent nature, although
representatives are changeable.

The emergence of permanent as distinct from temporary diplomatic missions is


dated back to the 17th Century. Rules related to rights, duties, privileges and
immunities of diplomatic representatives were developed through customs in the
18th Century. In the early 19th Century, some common understandings on the rules
were reached to at the Congress of Vienna of 1815. Developments of diplomatic rules
have continued since that date. The new and the most extensive codification of the
diplomatic law was achieved in 1961 by the conclusion of the Vienna Convention on
Diplomatic Relations.[3] This Convention both codified existing rules and established
others. It laid down rules related to classes of heads of a diplomatic mission, members
of a mission, appointment and reception of the head of a mission, functions of a
mission, the privileges and immunities of a mission and its members, the duties of the
members of a mission, the duties of the receiving State, and the termination of the
mission. It provided that matters not regulated by the Convention continue to be
governed by the rules of customary International Law. In the following, all these rules
are dealt with.

A. Members of a Mission and Classification of Heads of a Mission [4]

Under the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, members of the


diplomatic mission are the following:

(1) The head of the mission: The person who is charged by the sending State with
the duty of acting in that capacity.

(2) Members of the diplomatic staff: The members who have diplomatic rank.

(3) Members of the administrative and technical staff: The members who are
employed in the administrative and technical service of the mission.

(4) Members of service staff: The members who are employed in the domestic
service of the mission.

The Convention divided Heads of diplomatic missions into three classes, namely:

(1) Ambassadors accredited to Heads of States.

(2) Special envoys and ministers accredited to Heads of States.

(3) Charges daffaires accredited to Ministers for Foreign Affairs.

The class to which the head of a mission is assigned is a matter of agreement


between the concerned States. Except as concerns precedence and etiquette, there is
no differentiation between heads of a mission by reason of their class. However, heads
of missions are to take precedence in their respective classes in the order of the date
and time of taking up their functions.

B. Appointment of Heads and Diplomatic Members of the Missions [5]


Under the Convention, the appointment of a diplomatic agent (the head of the
diplomatic mission or any member of the diplomatic staff) is subject to the agreement of
the receiving States which has the right to refuse the appointment of any particular
person without being obliged to give reasons. Because of the possibility of refusing the
proposed person, it is the practice of States that the sending State usually notifies the
receiving State of the name of the person proposed to be appointed a diplomatic
agent. When the receiving State gives its consent to the proposed person, then the
sending State can proceed with the formal appointment of the diplomat and accredit
him. Accreditation is done by furnishing the head of the mission or any member of the
diplomatic staff with certain official papers known as letter of credence or
credentials. The credentials of the head of a mission are presented to the Head of the
receiving State in a ceremonial reception.

It is still, however, that the receiving state can at any time without obliged to explain
its decision to notify the sending State that a particular diplomat is persona non grata; in
such case, he should be recalled and his functions should be terminated.

C. Functions of the Diplomatic Mission [6]

The functions of a diplomatic mission as stated by the Convention consist among


other things of:

(1) representing the sending State in the receiving State;

(2) protecting in the receiving State the interests of the sending state and its nationals,
within the limits permitted by International Law;

(3) negotiating with the Government of the receiving State;

(4) ascertaining by all lawful means conditions and developments in the receiving
State, and reporting thereon to the Government of the sending State;

(5) promoting friendly relations between the sending State and the receiving State, and
developing their economic, cultural and scientific relations.
In addition to these functions, the diplomatic mission can perform consular functions
since nothing in the Convention prevents it from performing such functions.

D. Privileges and Immunities of a Diplomatic Agent [7]

The Convention grants the head of the diplomatic mission and members of the
diplomatic staff of the mission as well as members of their families certain privileges and
immunities from jurisdiction of the receiving State. It has been the practice that an
ambassador to a certain State submits to the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of that State a
list containing the names of members of the diplomatic mission with their positions,
ranks and functions, and the names of persons who should be granted full or limited
immunity.

The most important privileges and immunities granted to a diplomatic agent (the
head of the mission and members of diplomatic staff) are:

(1) A complete immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State;

(2) Immunity from the civil and administrative jurisdiction of the receiving state, except
in the case of:

i. a real action related to private immovable property situated in the territory


of the receiving state, unless he holds it on behalf of the sending State for the purpose
of the mission.

ii. an action related to succession in which he is involved as executor,


administrator, heir or legatee as a private person and not on behalf of the sending State;

iii. an action related to any professional or commercial activity exercised by him


in the receiving State outside his official functions.

(3) The inviolability of his person.

(4) Exemption from all dues and taxes, personal or real, national, regional or
municipal in the receiving state, except indirect taxes, taxes and dues on private
immovable, dues on inheritance, dues and taxes on private income, and charges levied
for specific services rendered;
(5) Freedom of communication for official purposes;

(6) The right to move freely in the territory of the receiving State.

(7) The inviolability of his private residence.

(8) The inviolability of his papers, correspondence and property

The above privileges and immunities are enjoyed by a diplomatic agent from the
moment he enters the territory of the receiving State on proceeding to take up his post
or, if already in its territory, from the moment when his appointment is notified to the
Ministry for Foreign Affairs. He also enjoys such privileges and immunities when
passes through or is in the territory of a third State on proceeding to take up or to return
to his post, or when returning to his own country.

The immunity from jurisdiction granted to a diplomatic agent is immunity from the
jurisdiction of the receiving State and not from liability. He is not immune from the
jurisdiction of the sending State. Moreover, he can be sued in the receiving state after a
reasonable time elapses from the ending of his mission.

The immunity of a diplomatic agent from jurisdiction of the receiving State may be
waived by the sending State. The waiver must be express. However, such waiver of
immunity from jurisdiction does not imply waiver of immunity in respect of the execution
of a judgment; in such case, a separate waiver is required. Immunity may also be
waived by the diplomatic agent himself, by submitting voluntarily to the jurisdiction of the
court of the receiving State.

Members of the family of a diplomatic agent, if they are not nationals of the receiving
State, likewise enjoy the same privileges and immunities. The same privileges and
immunities, with certain exceptions, is enjoyed by members of the administrative and
technical staff of the mission, together with members of their families forming part of
their respective households, if they are not nationals or permanent residents of the
receiving State. Members of the service staff who are not nationals or permanent
residents of the receiving State enjoy immunity from jurisdiction only in respect of acts
performed in the course of their official duties.

As regard the mission itself, the Convention makes its premises, achieves,
documents, correspondence and diplomatic bag inviolable. Moreover, it grants the
premises of the mission, their furniture and other property thereon, and the means of
transport of the mission the immunity from search, requisition, attachment or
execution. The premises of the mission are also exempt from all national, regional or
municipal dues and taxes, other than such as represent payment for specific services
rendered.

E. Termination of a Diplomatic Mission or of the Functions of a Diplomatic

Agent [8]

A diplomatic mission or the functions of a diplomatic agent may be terminated


permanently or temporary by various means and for various reasons, some are stated
in the Convention and others are established by States practice. Among these means
and reasons are the following:

(1) Breaking off the diplomatic relations between the sending and the receiving
States because of a war or any other reason.

(2) A recall of the diplomatic agent by his sending State upon its initiative, or at the
request of the receiving State.

(3) A notification by the sending State to the receiving State that the functions of the
mission or the diplomatic agent has come to its end.

(4) A notification by the receiving State that the diplomatic agent is a persona non
grata.

(5) Resignation of the diplomatic agent.

(6) Death of the diplomatic agent.

Section 2: Consular Post [9]

The institution of consular post is much older than that of diplomatic mission. The
modern system of consular post is dated back to the 16th Century. The 1963 Vienna
Convention on Consular Relations is the law governing consular representation.[10] A
consular officer (any person, including the head of the consular post, entrusted with the
capacity to exercise consular functions) like a diplomatic agent, represents his State in
the receiving State. However, unlike a diplomatic agent, he is not concerned with
political relations between the two States, but with a variety of administrative functions,
such as issuing visas and passports, looking after the commercial interests of his State,
and assisting the nationals of his State in distress.

In the following, the rules governing consular relations, namely members of the
consular post, classification of the head of the post, the appointment of consular
officers, functions of the consular post, privileges and immunities of consular officers,
and the termination of post, are dealt with.

A. Members of the Consular Post and Classification of the Heads of the

Post [11]

The members of the consular post as stated by the 1963 Vienna Convention are:

(1) The head of the post: The person charged by the sending State with the duty of
acting in that capacity.

(2) Consular officers, other than the head of the consular post: Persons entrusted to
exercise consular functions.

(3) Consular employees: Persons employed in the administrative and technical


service of a consular post.

(4) Members of the service staff: Persons employed in the domestic service of the
consular post.

(5) Members of the private staff: Persons employed exclusively on the private
service of members of the consular post.

The heads of a consular post are divided into four classes, namely:
(1) Consuls-General.

(2) Consuls.

(3) Vice-Consuls.

(4) Consular agents.

The class to which a head of a consular post is assigned is a matter of agreement


between the concerned states.

B. Appointment of a Head of the Consular Post [12]

The head of a consular post is appointed by the sending State and is admitted to
exercise his functions by the receiving State. The sending State normally notify the
appointment of a consul to the receiving State which has the right either to issue an
exequatur or refuse to issue it without obliged to give reasons. The exequatur is a
written official recognition and authorization of the consul. If the receiving State has no
objection against the appointment, the exequatur is issued. Normally, a consul does not
take his post until receiving an exequatur. If subsequently, an objection is raised, the
receiving State may notify the appointing State that the consul is no longer
acceptable. Then the appointing State must recall him, if it does not, the receiving State
may withdraw the exequatur. Furthermore, a receiving State may notify the sending
State that any member of the consular post is not acceptable.

C. Functions of a Consular Post [13]

Consular post is different from diplomatic mission in its functions. While diplomatic
mission is concerned with political relations between the two States, the consular post
exercises a variety of administrative functions. Furthermore, while there is only one
diplomatic mission in a State, there can be more than one consulate in one State. The
major functions of consular posts are:

(1) Protecting the interests of the sending State and its nationals in the receiving
State.

(2) Furthering the development of commercial, economic, cultural and scientific


relations between the sending State and the receiving State.

(3) Promoting friendly relations between the sending State and the receiving State.

(4) Reporting to the sending State on the conditions and developments of the
commercial, economic, cultural and scientific life of the receiving State, and giving such
information to interested persons.

(5) Issuing passports and travel documents to nationals of the sending State, and
giving visas to persons wishing to travel to that State.

(6) Helping and assisting nationals of the sending State, safeguarding their
interests in certain cases, and representing or arranging for their representation before
the courts and other authorities of the receiving State.

(7) Transmitting judicial and extra-judicial documents to the receiving State.

(8) Exercising a supervision and inspection powers over vessels and aircrafts
having the nationality of the sending State, and over the crews of these vessels and
aircrafts.

(9) Acting as notary and civil registrar, and performing certain functions of
administrative nature.

A consular post can perform other functions entrusted to it by the sending State
which are not prohibited by the laws and regulations of the receiving State, not objected
by the receiving State, or referred to in the international agreements in force between
the sending state and the receiving State.

D. Privileges and Immunities of Consular Officers [14]


Nowadays, many States combine its diplomatic and consular services
together. Thus, a person who acts simultaneously as a diplomatic agent and a consular
officer enjoys the diplomatic privileges and immunities under the 1961 Vienna
Convention on Diplomatic Relations. If the consular functions are exercised by the
consular post, then the consular officer enjoys the consular privileges and immunities
under the 1963 Vienna Convention on the Consular Relations.

Under the 1963 Vienna Convention on the Consular Relations, consular posts,
members of a consular post (consular officers and employees), members of their
families and members of their private staff enjoy certain privileges and
immunities. These privileges and immunities are less than what diplomatic mission and
diplomatic agents are entitled to. The most important privileges and immunities are the
following:

(1) A consular officer (the head of the consular post and any person entrusted to
exercise consular functions) is immune from an arrest or detention pending trial, except
in the case of a grave crime and pursuant to a decision by the competent judicial
authority. He is immune from imprisonment or any other restriction on his personal
freedom save in execution of a final judicial decision. If criminal proceedings are
instituted against him, he must appear before the competent authorities. The
proceedings must be conducted in a manner that respects his official position and does
not hamper the exercise of consular functions, and with the minimum delay.

(2) A consular officer and a consular employee (any person employed in the
administrative or technical service of the consular post) are immune from the jurisdiction
of the judicial or administrative authorities of the receiving State only in respect of acts
performed in exercise of consular functions. However, they do not enjoy such immunity
in respect of a civil action either:

i. Arising out of a contract concluded by them not as agents of the sending


State; or

ii. Brought by third party for damages arising from an accident in the receiving
State caused by vehicle, vessels or aircraft.

(3) A consular officer and a consular employee and members of their families
forming part of their households are exempt from all dues and taxes, except on certain
specified cases.
(4) A member of the consular post (the head of the post, any person entrusted to
exercise consular functions, any person employed in administrative or technical service
of the post and in the domestic service of the post) is under no obligation to give
evidence concerning matters connected with the exercise of his functions or to produce
official correspondence and documents related thereto. He is also entitled to decline to
give evidence as expert witness with regard to the law of the sending state.

(5) A member of the consular post enjoys the freedom of communication for
official purposes.

(6) A member of the consular post enjoys the right to move freely in the territory of
the receiving State.

(7) The archives, documents, official correspondence and consular bag are
inviolable at any time and whenever they may be.

(8) The premises of the consular post and the private residences of members of
the consular post are inviolable. They are, also, exempt from all taxes and dues other
than such as represent payment for specific services.

The above privileges and immunities are enjoyed by the member of the consular
post from the moment he enters the territory of the receiving State on proceeding to
take up his post or, if already in its territory, from the moment when he enters on his
duties. The same privileges and immunities are enjoyed by members of the families of
the members of the consular post.

The privileges and immunities of the consular post may be waived by the sending
State. The waiver must be express and be communicated to the receiving State in
writing. However, the waiver of immunity from jurisdiction for the purposes of civil or
administrative proceedings does not imply waiver of immunity from the execution of a
judicial decisions; in such case, a separate waiver is required. Immunity may also be
waived by the member of the consular post himself, by submitting voluntarily to the
jurisdiction of the court of the receiving State.

E. Termination of a Consular Functions [15]


The consular functions may be terminated by various ways and reasons. Among
these ways and reasons are the following:

(1) A recall of the member of the consular post by his appointing State upon its
initiative, or at the request of the receiving State.

(2) A notification by the appointing State to the receiving State that the functions of
the post or any of its members are terminated.

(3) The withdrawal of the exequatur by the receiving State.

(4) Resignation of the member of the consular post.

(5) Death of the member of the consular post.

(6) The breaking off relations between the sending and receiving States, such as in
case of a war.

Diplomatic law is that area of international law that governs permanent and
temporary diplomatic missions. A fundamental concept of diplomatic law is that
of diplomatic immunity, which derives from state immunity.

Key elements of diplomatic law are the immunity of diplomatic staff, the inviolability of
the diplomatic mission and its grounds, and the security of diplomatic correspondence
and diplomatic bags. Famous cases involving the breaking of diplomatic laws includes
the Iran hostage crisis in 1979, the shooting of a British police woman from the Libyan
Embassy in London in 1984, and the discovery of a former Nigerian Minister in a
diplomatic crate at Stansted airport in 1984.

It is also an accepted principle of customary international law and is recognized


between countries as a matter of practicality. Diplomatic law is often strictly adhered to
by states because it works on reciprocity. For example, if you expel diplomats from a
certain country, then your diplomats will most likely be expelled from that country.
DIGEST: Moy Ya Lim Yao v.s. Commissioner of Immigration 41 SCRA 292 (1971)

FACTS:

Plaintiff, a temporary alien visitor, whose authorized stay in the Philippines was to
expire, claims herself to be lawfully naturalized by virtue of her marriage with co
plaintiff, a Filipino citizen. Solicitor General opposes on ther ground that the mere
marriage of a Filipino citizen to an alien does not automatically confer on the
latter Philippine citizenship, because record shows that the same does not
possess all the qualifications required of applicants for naturalization

(Commonwealth Act No. 473) even if she has proven that she does not suffer
any disqualification thereunder.

ISSUE:

Whether or not an alien who married a naturalized Filipino is lawfully naturalized.

HELD: Yes, an alien woman marrying a Filipino, native born or naturalized


becomes ipso facto a Filipino provided she is not disqualified to be citizen of the
Philippines

G.R. No. L-21289, October 4 1971, 41 SCRA 292

FACTS:

Lau Yuen Yeung applied for a passport visa to enter the Philippines as a non-immigrant
on 8 February 1961. In the interrogation made in connection with herapplication for a
temporary visitor's visa to enter the Philippines, she stated that she was a Chinese
residing at Kowloon, Hongkong, and that she desired to take a pleasure trip to
the Philippines to visit her great grand uncle, Lau Ching Ping. She was permitted to
come into the Philippines on 13 March 1961 for a period of one month.

On the date of her arrival, Asher Y. Cheng filed a bond in the amount of P1,000.00 to
undertake, among others, that said Lau Yuen Yeung would actually depart from
the Philippines on or before the expiration of her authorized period of stay in this country
or within the period as in his discretion the Commissioner of Immigration or his
authorized representative might properly allow.

After repeated extensions, Lau Yuen Yeung was allowed to stay in the Philippinesup to
13 February 1962. On 25 January 1962, she contracted marriage with Moy Ya Lim Yao
alias Edilberto Aguinaldo Lim an alleged Filipino citizen. Because of the contemplated
action of the Commissioner of Immigration to confiscate her bond and order her arrest
and immediate deportation, after the expiration of her authorized stay, she brought an
action for injunction. At the hearing which took place one and a half years after her
arrival, it was admitted that Lau Yuen Yeung could not write and speak either English or
Tagalog, except for a few words. She could not name any Filipino neighbor, with
a Filipino name except one, Rosa. She did not know the names of her brothers-in-law,
or sisters-in-law. As a result, the Court of First Instance of Manila denied the prayer for
preliminary injunction. Moya Lim Yao and Lau Yuen Yeung appealed.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Lau Yuen Yeung ipso facto became a Filipino citizen upon
hermarriage to a Filipino citizen.

HELD:

Under Section 15 of Commonwealth Act 473, an alien woman marrying a Filipino, native
born or naturalized, becomes ipso facto a Filipina provided she is not disqualified to be
a citizen of the Philippines under Section 4 of the same law. Likewise, an alien woman
married to an alien who is subsequently naturalized here follows
the Philippine citizenship of her husband the moment he takes his oath
asFilipino citizen, provided that she does not suffer from any of the disqualifications
under said Section 4. Whether the alien woman requires to undergo the naturalization
proceedings, Section 15 is a parallel provision to Section 16. Thus, if the widow of
an applicant for naturalization as Filipino, who dies during the proceedings, is not
required to go through a naturalization proceedings, in order to be considered as
a Filipino citizen hereof, it should follow that the wife of a livingFilipino cannot be denied
the same privilege.
This is plain common sense and there is absolutely no evidence that the Legislature
intended to treat them differently. As the laws of our country, both substantive and
procedural, stand today, there is no such procedure (a substitute for naturalization
proceeding to enable the alien wife of a Philippine citizen to have the matter of her own
citizenship settled and established so that she may not have to be called upon to prove
it everytime she has to perform an act or enter into a transaction orbusiness or exercise
a right reserved only to Filipinos), but such is no proof that the citizenship is not vested
as of the date of marriage or the husband's acquisition of citizenship, as the case may
be, for the truth is that the situation obtains even as to native-born Filipinos. Everytime
the citizenship of a person is material or indispensible in a judicial or administrative
case. Whatever the corresponding court or administrative authority decides therein as to
such citizenship is generally not considered as res adjudicata, hence it has to be
threshed out again and again as the occasion may demand. Lau Yuen Yeung, was
declared to have become aFilipino citizen from and by virtue of her marriage to Moy Ya
Lim Yao al as Edilberto Aguinaldo Lim, a Filipino citizen of 25 January 1962.

G.R. NO. 159618: Feruary 1, 2011

BAYAN MUNA, Represented by Rep. SATUR OCAMPO, Rep. CRISPIN BELTRAN,


Rep. LIZA L. MAZA, Petitioner

v.

ALBERTO ROMULO, in his capacity as Executive Secretary , and BLAS F. OPLE, in


his capacity as Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Respondents.

FACTS:

In 2000, the RP, through Charge dAffaires Enrique A. Manalo, signed the Rome Statute
which, by its terms, is subject to ratification, acceptance or approval by the signatory
states.

In 2003, via Exchange of Notes with the US government, the RP, represented by then
DFA Secretary Ople, finalized a non-surrender agreement which aimed to protect
certain persons of the RP and US from frivolous and harassment suits that might be
brought against them in international tribunals.

Petitioner imputes grave abuse of discretion to respondents in concluding and ratifying


the Agreement and prays that it be struck down as unconstitutional, or at least declared
as without force and effect.
ISSUE:

Whether the Respondents abused their discretion amounting to lack or excess of


jurisdiction for concluding the RP-US Non Surrender Agreement in contravention of the
Rome Statute.

Whether the agreement is valid, binding and effective without the concurrence by at
least 2/3 of all the members of the Senate.

HELD: The petition is bereft of merit.

INTERNATIONAL LAW: Rome Statute

First issue

The Agreement does not contravene or undermine, nor does it differ from, the Rome
Statute. Far from going against each other, one complements the other. As a matter of
fact, the principle of complementarity underpins the creation of the ICC. According to
Art. 1 of the Statute, the jurisdiction of the ICC is to be complementary to national
criminal jurisdictions [of the signatory states]. the Rome Statute expressly recognizes
the primary jurisdiction of states, like the RP, over serious crimes committed within their
respective borders, the complementary jurisdiction of the ICC coming into play only
when the signatory states are unwilling or unable to prosecute.

Also, under international law, there is a considerable difference between a State-Party


and a signatory to a treaty. Under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a
signatory state is only obliged to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and
purpose of a treaty. The Philippines is only a signatory to the Rome Statute and not a
State-Party for lack of ratification by the Senate. Thus, it is only obliged to refrain from
acts which would defeat the object and purpose of the Rome Statute. Any argument
obliging the Philippines to follow any provision in the treaty would be premature. And
even assuming that the Philippines is a State-Party, the Rome Statute still recognizes
the primacy of international agreements entered into between States, even when one of
the States is not a State-Party to the Rome Statute.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: 2/3 concurrence


Second issue

The right of the Executive to enter into binding agreements without the necessity of
subsequent Congressional approval has been confirmed by long usage. From the
earliest days of our history, we have entered executive agreements covering such
subjects as commercial and consular relations, most favored-nation rights, patent rights,
trademark and copyright protection, postal and navigation arrangements and the
settlement of claims. The validity of these has never been seriously questioned by our
courts.

Executive agreements may be validly entered into without such concurrence. As the
President wields vast powers and influence, her conduct in the external affairs of the
nation is, as Bayan would put it, executive altogether. The right of the President to
enter into or ratify binding executive agreements has been confirmed by long practice.

7 Principles of International Law

Principle I

Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is
responsible therefor and liable to punishment.

Principle II

The fact that international law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a
crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from
responsibility under international law.

Principle III

The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under
international law acted as Head of State or responsible Government official does not
relieve him from responsibility under international law.

Principle IV

The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does
not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice
was in fact possible to him.
Principle V

Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on
the facts and law.

Principle VI

The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:

(a) Crimes against peace:

(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in


violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;

(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of


the acts mentioned under (i).

(b) War crimes:

Violations of the laws or customs of war include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-
treatment or deportation to slave-labour or for any other purpose of civilian population
of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war, of persons on
the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction
of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.

(c) Crimes against humanity:

Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts done against
any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds, when
such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connexion
with any crime against peace or any war crime.

Principle VII

Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime


against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law

Section 2. 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 the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom,
cooperation, and amity with all nations.