Name: RUGIE B.

ABARCAR
Year level: 2nd Year
Subject: PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW (Prelim Exam)

ANSWERS:

1.
The three requirements before a group may successfully assert their rights to self-
determination as agreed by the Commentators are: they must be a people, they must be
oppressed, and they must have been a colony.

If our Muslim brothers wish to exercise their rights of self-determination, they shall met
these three requirements. In certain circumstances, the right to self-determination may include
the right to secede, however they should be allowed to exercise that right provided they shall
met the above mentioned requirements which are people, oppressed and have been a colony.

First, they must be a people. People as defined by UNESCO, has a common history, a
common racial or ethnic identity, cultural homogeneity, linguistic unity, common religion,
territorial connectedness and a common economic life. Our Muslim brothers or Muslim
community has their own history and ethnic identity and culture. This means that they qualify
in this requirement. However, their culture is also a reflection of being a Filipino which is
honored and recognized by our country.

Second, they must be oppressed. The underlying purpose of this requirement is to

ensure that states who do not violate the group’s rights will not be dismembered unnecessarily.
In our present situation, Muslims in our country are enjoying the same rights and privileges as
to Christians. Their rights are being protected by the law of the land in respect that they are
also Filipinos and permanent inhabitants in our country. This means that they are not
oppressed.

Finally, they must have been a colony. Our country, Philippines has been colonized by
different countries with different races and cultures. That dominations were not specifically
pertain and affected only Muslims but to all Filipinos with different religions. Our Muslim
brothers are currently experiencing equal rights and protection by our law, same with other
religious groups. Therefore, they did not meet the 3 rd requirement for them to exercise their
right to self-determination.

2.
Constitutive theory of recognition is a kind of recognition that is a necessary condition
for statehood and international personality. It is a process by which a political community
acquires personality and becomes a member of the family of nations. On the other hand,
declarative theory of recognition states that declaration is a mere formality and has no legal
effect as the existence of the State is a mere question of fact. Recognition only provides the
evidence to the facts. This theory says recognition is not important.

In the constitutive theory, a state exists exclusively only via recognition by other states.
Recognition may be withheld for purely subjective reasons despite objective fulfillment of the
requirements for statehood. Under the declaratory view, the legal personality of a state is
conferred upon completion of an objective evaluation of the fulfillment of these requirements.
Constitutive theory will somehow suppress the judgment of a State, since all decisions shall be
consulted first with other nations locally or internationally.

3.
The statement, “Many constitutions specify that customary international law and
reciprocal treaties which the state has ratified, are to form part of municipal law without the
need to further state action” is a Monist theory. Monists contend that there is only one system
of law, of which international and domestic laws are no more than two aspects. They justify this
by claiming that both of them govern sets of individuals, both are binding, and both are
manifestations of a single concept of law.

If the Philippines subscribes to this theory, we comply with the International

Humanitarian Law by binding our laws to them. Whatever laws they want to implement, our
domestic law shall follow and comply with our obligation as under in this theory. This means
that the international law is superior and stronger. Jurisdiction of Philippine laws cannot avoid
being bound to apply international law. The consequence of this theory is that, the
international law will apply to our country regardless of our domestic law and that we cannot in
the international forum plead our own domestic law or even our own constitution.