The Province of North Cotabato v Government of the Republic of the Philippines Peace Panel on Ancestral Domain (GRP), October

1 , !""#$Ri%ht to &elf$Determination of Peoples

FACTS: The Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) an' the ()*+ ,ere sche'ule' to si%n a (emoran'um of A%reement on the Ancestral Domain ((OA$AD) Aspect of the GRP$()*+ Tripoli A%reement on Peace in -uala *umpur, (ala.sia/ The (OA$AD ,as prece'e' b. a lon% process of ne%otiation an' the conclu'in% of several prior a%reements bet,een the t,o parties ,hen the GRP$()*+ peace ne%otiations be%an/ The (OA$AD mentions for the 0Bangsamoro Juridical Entity0 (123) to ,hich it %rants the authorit. an' 4uris'iction over the Ancestral Domain an' Ancestral *an's of the 1an%samoro an' to the %overnance an' autonom. of the cities an' provinces to ,hich the same covers its territor. anchorin% on the right to self-determination of peoples/ +ormal peace tal5s bet,een the parties ,ere hel' in Tripoli, *ib.a, the outcome of ,hich ,as the GRP$()*+ Tripoli A%reement on Peace containin% the basic principles an' a%en'a on the aspects of the ne%otiation an' one of them is the Ancestral omain Aspect/ Petitioners file' separate Petitions for (an'amus an' Prohibition to the si%nin% of the (OA$AD/ The Court issue' a Temporar. Restrainin% Or'er comman'in% an' 'irectin% public respon'ents an' their a%ents to cease an' 'esist from formall. si%nin% the (OA$AD/ !SS"E: 6hether or not the contents of the (OA$AD violate the Constitution7 #"$!%&: Article )), &ection ! of the Constitution states that the Philippines 0a'opts the %enerall. accepte' principles of international la, as part of the la, of the lan'/0 )nternational la, has lon% reco%ni8e' the right to selfdetermination of 'peoples(' un'erstoo' not merel. as the entire population of a &tate but also a portion thereof/ 0The ri%ht of a people to self$ 'etermination is no, so ,i'el. reco%ni8e' in international conventions that the principle has ac9uire' a status be.on' :convention; an' is consi'ere' a %eneral principle of international la,/0 Amon% the conventions referre' to are the )nternational Covenant on Civil an' Political Ri%hts an' the )nternational Covenant on 3conomic, &ocial an' Cultural Ri%hts ,hich state that all peoples, b. virtue of the ri%ht of self$'etermination, 'freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic( social( and cultural de)elopment*' The people;s ri%ht to self$ 'etermination shoul' not, ho,ever, be un'erstoo' as e<ten'in% to a unilateral ri%ht of secession/ A 'istinction shoul' be ma'e bet,een the ri%ht of internal an' e<ternal self$'etermination/ !nternal self$'etermination is a people;s pursuit of its political, economic, social an' cultural 'evelopment ,ithin the frame,or5 of an e<istin% state/ A ri%ht to e<ternal self$ 'etermination (,hich in this case potentiall. ta5es the form of the assertion of a ri%ht to unilateral secession) arises in onl. the most e<treme of cases an', even then, un'er carefull. 'efine' circumstances/ E+ternal self$ 'etermination can be 'efine' as the establishment of a soverei%n an' in'epen'ent &tate, the free association or inte%ration ,ith an in'epen'ent

&tate, or the emer%ence into an. other political status freel. 'etermine' b. a people/ Turnin% no, to the more specific cate%or. of in'i%enous peoples, this term has been use', in scholarship as ,ell as international, re%ional, an' state practices, to refer to %roups ,ith 'istinct cultures, histories, an' connections to lan' (spiritual an' other,ise) that have been forcibl. incorporate' into a lar%er %overnin% societ./ These %roups are re%ar'e' as 0in'i%enous0 since the. are the livin% 'escen'ants of pre$invasion inhabitants of lan's no, 'ominate' b. others/ As ,ith the broa'er cate%or. of 0peoples,0 in'i%enous peoples situate' ,ithin states 'o not have a %eneral ri%ht to in'epen'ence or secession from those states un'er international la,, but the. 'o have ri%hts amountin% to ,hat ,as 'iscusse' above as the ri%ht to internal self$'etermination/ The =N General Assembl. a'opte' the =nite' Nations Declaration on the Ri%hts of )n'i%enous Peoples (=N DR)P) ,hich the Philippines ,as inclu'e' as amon% those in favor/ The Declaration clearl. reco%ni8e' the right of indigenous peoples to self-determination( encompassing the right to autonomy or self-go)ernment* &elf$%overnment has been un'erstoo' as e9uivalent to 0internal self$'etermination/0 Assumin% that the =N DR)P, li5e the =niversal Declaration on >uman Ri%hts, must no, be re%ar'e' as embo'.in% customar. international la,, the obli%ations enumerate' therein 'o not strictl. re9uire the Republic to %rant the 1an%samoro people, throu%h the instrumentalit. of the 123, the particular ri%hts an' po,ers provi'e' for in the (OA$AD/ 6hat it uphol's is the ri%ht of in'i%enous peoples to the lan's, territories an' resources ,hich the. have tra'itionall. o,ne', occupie' or other,ise use' or ac9uire'/ (oreover, the =N DR)P, ,hile uphol'in% the ri%ht of in'i%enous peoples to autonom., 'oes not obli%ate &tates to %rant in'i%enous peoples the near$in'epen'ent status of an associate' state/ 3ven if the =N DR)P ,ere consi'ere' as part of the la, of the lan' pursuant to Article )), &ection ! of the Constitution, it ,oul' not suffice to uphol' the vali'it. of the (OA$AD so as to ren'er its compliance ,ith other la,s unnecessar./ )t is, therefore, clear that the (OA$ AD contains numerous provisions that cannot be reconcile' ,ith the Constitution an' the la,s as presentl. ,or'e'/ The (OA$AD cannot be reconcile' ,ith the present Constitution an' la,s/

&u8ette Nicolas v Romulo, +ebruar. 11, !""?$Constitutionalit. of the @+A

FACTS: Respon'ent *ance Corporal (*ACP*) Daniel &mith is a member of the =nite' &tates Arme' +orces/ >e ,as char%e' ,ith the crime of rape committe' a%ainst a +ilipina, petitioner herein, insi'e the &ubic 1a. +reeport Bone, Olon%apo Cit. an' insi'e a &tare< @an o,ne' b. &tar,a.s Travel an' Tours/ Pursuant to the @isitin% +orces A%reement (@+A) bet,een the Republic of the Philippines an' the =nite' &tates, the =nite' &tates, at its re9uest, ,as %rante' custo'. of 'efen'ant &mith pen'in% the procee'in%s/ Trial ,as transferre' from the RTC of Bambales to the RTC of (a5ati for securit. reasons/ The RTC of (a5ati ren'ere' its Decision fin'in% 'efen'ant &mith %uilt./ Pursuant to Article @, para%raph No/ 1", of the @isitin% +orces

A%reement entere' into b. the Philippines an' the =nite' &tates, &()T> shall serve his sentence in the facilities that shall, thereafter, be a%ree' upon b. appropriate Philippine an' =nite' &tates authorities/ Pen'in% a%reement on such facilities, &()T> ,as temporaril. committe' to the (a5ati Cit. 2ail/ >o,ever, &mith ,as ta5en out of the (a5ati 4ail b. a contin%ent of Philippine la, enforcement a%ents, purporte'l. actin% un'er or'ers of the Department of the )nterior an' *ocal Government, an' brou%ht to a facilit. for 'etention un'er the control of the =nite' &tates %overnment, provi'e' for un'er ne, a%reements bet,een the Philippines an' the =nite' &tates, referre' to as the Romulo$-enne. A%reement/

!SS"E: 6hether or not the Philippines shoul' have custo'. of *ACP* &mith because the @+A is voi' an' unconstitutional/ #"$!%&: The 9uestion is ,hether or not the presence of =& Arme' +orces in Philippine territor. pursuant to the @+A is allo,e' 0un'er a treat. 'ul. concurre' in b. the &enate an' reco%ni8e' as a treat. b. the other contractin% &tate/0 The Court fin's that it is, for t,o reasons/ +irst, the @+A ,as 'ul. concurre' in b. the Philippine &enate an' has been reco%ni8e' as a treat. b. the =nite' &tates as atteste' an' certifie' b. the 'ul. authori8e' representative of the =nite' &tates %overnment/ The secon' reason has to 'o ,ith the relation bet,een the @+A an' the RP$=& (utual Defense Treat./ This earlier a%reement ,as si%ne' an' 'ul. ratifie' ,ith the concurrence of both the Philippine &enate an' the =nite' &tates &enate/ The @+A, ,hich is the instrument a%ree' upon to provi'e for the 4oint RP$=& militar. e<ercises, is simpl. an implementin% a%reement to the main RP$=& (ilitar. Defense Treat./ The @+A bein% a vali' an' bin'in% a%reement, the parties are re9uire' as a matter of international la, to abi'e b. its terms an' provisions/ The rule in international la, is that a forei%n arme' forces allo,e' to enter oneCs territor. is immune from local 4uris'iction, e<cept to the e<tent a%ree' upon/ The principle remains, i/e/, the receivin% &tate can e<ercise 4uris'iction over the forces of the sen'in% &tate onl. to the e<tent a%ree' upon b. the parties/ Nothin% in the Constitution prohibits such a%reements reco%ni8in% immunit. from 4uris'iction or some aspects of 4uris'iction (such as custo'.)/ On the contrar., the Constitution states that the Philippines a'opts the %enerall. accepte' principles of international la, as part of the la, of the lan'/ )t is clear that the parties to the @+A reco%ni8e' the 'ifference bet,een custo'. 'urin% the trial an' 'etention after conviction, because the. provi'e' for a specific arran%ement to cover 'etention/ Therefore, the Romulo$-enne. A%reements ,hich are a%reements on the 'etention of the accuse' in the =nite' &tates 3mbass. are not in accor' ,ith the @+A itself because such 'etention is not 0b. Philippine authorities/0

Avelino Ra8on v (ar. 2ean 1/ Ta%itis, December D, !""?$General Principles of )nternational *a,

FACTS: The establishe' facts sho, that 3n%ineer (orce' Ta%itis, a consultant for the 6orl' 1an5 an' the &enior >onorar. Counselor for the )slamic Development 1an5 ()D1) &cholarship Pro%ramme, ,as last seen in 2olo, &ulu/ To%ether ,ith Arsimin -unnon% (-unnon%), an )D1 scholar, Ta%itis arrive' in 2olo b. boat from a seminar in Bamboan%a Cit./ The. imme'iatel. chec5e'$ in at A&E Pension >ouse/ Ta%itis as5e' -unnon% to bu. him a boat tic5et for his return trip the follo,in% 'a. to Bamboan%a/ 6hen -unnon% returne' from this erran', Ta%itis ,as no lon%er aroun'/ -unnon% an' (uhamma' Ab'ulna8eir N/ (atli, a =P professor of (uslim stu'ies an' Ta%itisC fello, stu'ent counselor at the )D1, reporte' Ta%itisC 'isappearance to the 2olo Police &tation/ (ore than a month later, the respon'ent file' a Petition for the 6rit of Amparo (petition) ,ith the CA throu%h her Attorne.$in$+act a%ainst the Petitioners/ The CA imme'iatel. issue' the 6rit of Amparo, set the case for hearin% an' 'irecte' the petitioners to file their verifie' return ,ithin sevent.$t,o (F!) hours from service of the ,rit/ )n their verifie' Return file' 'urin% the hearin%, the petitioners 'enie' an. involvement in or 5no,le'%e of Ta%itisC alle%e' ab'uction/ The CA issue' its 'ecision confirmin% that the 'isappearance of Ta%itis ,as an 0enforce' 'isappearance0 un'er the =nite' Nations (=N) Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from 3nforce' Disappearances/ The CA rule' that ,hen militar. intelli%ence pinpointe' the investi%ative arm of the PNP (C)DG) to be involve' in the ab'uction, the missin%$person case 9ualifie' as an enforce' 'isappearance/ The conclusion that the C)DG ,as involve' ,as base' on the respon'entCs testimon., corroborate' b. her companion/ !SS"E: 6hether or not the Amparo petition file' before the CA is bin'in% as an action on the Philippines/ #"$!%&: To 'ate, the Philippines has neither si%ne' nor ratifie' the Convention, so that the countr. is not .et committe' to enact an. la, penali8in% enforce' 'isappearance as a crime/ The absence of a specific penal la,, ho,ever, is not a stumblin% bloc5 for action from the Court un'erl.in% ever. enforce' 'isappearance as a violation of the constitutional ri%hts to life, libert. an' securit. that the &upreme Court is man'ate' b. the Constitution to protect throu%h its rule-ma,ing po-ers/ As a matter of human ri%ht an' fun'amental free'om an' as a polic. matter ma'e in a =N Declaration, the ban on enforce' 'isappearance cannot but have its effects on the countr., %iven its o,n a'herence to 0%enerall. accepte' principles of international la, as part of the la, of the lan'/0 =n'er the 1?#F Constitution, international la, can become part of the sphere of 'omestic la, either b. transformation or incorporation/ The transformation metho' re9uires that an international la, be transforme' into a 'omestic la, throu%h a constitutional mechanism such as local le%islation/ The incorporation metho' applies ,hen, b. mere constitutional 'eclaration, international la, is 'eeme' to have the force of 'omestic la,/ The Court has characteri8e' 'generally accepted principles of international la-' as norms of %eneral or customar. international la, that are bin'in% on all states/ Generall. accepte' principles of international la,, b. virtue of the incorporation clause of the Constitution, form part of the la,s of the lan' even if the. 'o not 'erive from treat. obli%ations/ The classical formulation

in international la, sees those customar. rules accepte' as bin'in% result from the combination of t,o elementsG the esta.lished( -idespread( and consistent practice on the part of &tatesH an' a ps.cholo%ical element 5no,n as the opinio /uris si)e necessitates (opinion as to la, or necessit.)/ )mplicit in the latter element is a belief that the practice in 9uestion is ren'ere' obli%ator. b. the e<istence of a rule of la, re9uirin% it/ The most ,i'el. accepte' statement of sources of international la, to'a. is Article D#(1) of the &tatute of the )nternational Court of 2ustice, ,hich provi'es that the Court shall appl. 0international custom, as evi'ence of a %eneral practice accepte' as la,/0 The material sources of custom inclu'e &tate practice, &tate le%islation, international an' national 4u'icial 'ecisions, recitals in treaties an' other international instruments, a pattern of treaties in the same form, the practice of international or%ans, an' resolutions relatin% to le%al 9uestions in the =N General Assembl./ &ometimes referre' to as 0evi'ence0 of international la,, these sources i'entif. the substance an' content of the obli%ations of &tates an' are in'icative of the 0&tate practice0 an' 0opinio 4uris0 re9uirements of international la,/ 6hile the Philippines is not .et formall. boun' b. the terms of the Convention on enforce' 'isappearance (or b. the specific terms of the Rome &tatute) an' has not formall. 'eclare' enforce' 'isappearance as a specific crime, the above recital sho,s that enforce' 'isappearance as a &tate practice has been repu'iate' b. the international communit., so that the ban on it is no, a %enerall. accepte' principle of international la,, ,hich the Court shoul' consi'er a part of the la, of the lan', an' ,hich the Court shoul' act upon to the e<tent alrea'. allo,e' un'er Philippine la,s an' the international conventions that bin' it/

)sabelita C/ @inu.a v >on/ 3<ecutive &ecretar., et/ al/, April, !#, !"1"$ Diplomatic Protection

FACTS: Petitioners are all members of the (A*AEA *O*A&, a non$stoc5, non$ profit or%ani8ation re%istere' ,ith the &ecurities an' 3<chan%e Commission, establishe' for the purpose of provi'in% ai' to the victims of rape b. 2apanese militar. forces in the Philippines 'urin% the &econ' 6orl' 6ar/ Petitioners claim that the. have approache' the 3<ecutive Department throu%h the DO2, D+A, an' O&G, re9uestin% assistance in filin% a claim a%ainst the 2apanese officials an' militar. officers ,ho or'ere' the establishment of the 0comfort ,omen0 stations in the Philippines/ >o,ever, officials of the 3<ecutive Department 'ecline' to assist the petitioners, an' too5 the position that the in'ivi'ual claims of the comfort ,omen for compensation ha' alrea'. been full. satisfie' b. 2apanCs compliance ,ith the Peace Treat. bet,een the Philippines an' 2apan/ !SS"E: 6hether or not the 3<ecutive Department committe' %rave abuse of 'iscretion in not espousin% petitionersC claims for official apolo%. an' other forms of reparations a%ainst 2apan/ #"$!%&:

+rom a Domestic *a, Perspective, the 3<ecutive Department has the e<clusive prero%ative to 'etermine ,hether to espouse petitionersC claims a%ainst 2apan/ Political 9uestions refer 0to those 9uestions ,hich, un'er the Constitution, are to be 'eci'e' b. the people in their soverei%n capacit., or in re%ar' to ,hich full 'iscretionar. authorit. has been 'ele%ate' to the le%islative or e<ecutive branch of the %overnment/ )t is concerne' ,ith issues 'epen'ent upon the ,is'om, not le%alit. of a particular measure/0 Certain t.pes of cases often have been foun' to present political 9uestions/ One such cate%or. involves 9uestions of forei%n relations/ )t is ,ell$establishe' that 0the con'uct of the forei%n relations of our %overnment is committe' b. the Constitution to the e<ecutive an' le%islative$$;the political;$$'epartments of the %overnment, an' the propriet. of ,hat ma. be 'one in the e<ercise of this political po,er is not sub4ect to 4u'icial in9uir. or 'ecision/0 To be sure, not all cases implicatin% forei%n relations present political 9uestions, an' courts certainl. possess the authorit. to construe or invali'ate treaties an' e<ecutive a%reements/ >o,ever, the 9uestion ,hether the Philippine %overnment shoul' espouse claims of its nationals a%ainst a forei%n %overnment is a forei%n relations matter, the authorit. for ,hich is 'emonstrabl. committe' b. our Constitution not to the courts but to the political branches/ )n this case, the 3<ecutive Department has alrea'. 'eci'e' that it is to the best interest of the countr. to ,aive all claims of its nationals for reparations a%ainst 2apan in the Treat. of Peace of 1?I1/ The ,is'om of such 'ecision is not for the courts to 9uestion/ The 3<ecutive Department has 'etermine' that ta5in% up petitionersC cause ,oul' be inimical to our countr.Cs forei%n polic. interests, an' coul' 'isrupt our relations ,ith 2apan, thereb. creatin% serious implications for stabilit. in this re%ion/ )n an. event, it cannot reasonabl. be maintaine' that the Philippine %overnment ,as ,ithout authorit. to ne%otiate the Treat. of Peace ,ith 2apan/ )n'ee', e<cept as an a%reement mi%ht other,ise provi'e, international settlements %enerall. ,ipe out the un'erl.in% private claims, thereb. terminatin% an. recourse un'er 'omestic la,/ This practice of settlin% claims b. means of a peace treat. is certainl. nothin% ne,/ The Philippines is not un'er an. international obli%ation to espouse petitionersC claims/ )n the international sphere, tra'itionall., the onl. means available for in'ivi'uals to brin% a claim ,ithin the international le%al s.stem has been ,hen the in'ivi'ual is able to persua'e a %overnment to brin% a claim on the in'ivi'ualCs behalf/ 3ven then, it is not the in'ivi'ualCs ri%hts that are bein% asserte', but rather, the stateCs o,n ri%hts/ &ince the e<ercise of 'iplomatic protection is the ri%ht of the &tate, reliance on the ri%ht is ,ithin the absolute 'iscretion of states, an' the 'ecision ,hether to e<ercise the 'iscretion ma. invariabl. be influence' b. political consi'erations other than the le%al merits of the particular claim/ The &tate, therefore, is the sole 4u'%e to 'eci'e ,hether its protection ,ill be %rante', to ,hat e<tent it is %rante', an' ,hen ,ill it cease/ )t retains, in this respect, a 'iscretionar. po,er the e<ercise of ,hich ma. be 'etermine' b. consi'erations of a political or other nature, unrelate' to the particular case/ )t has been ar%ue' that the &tate has a duty to protect its nationals an' act on hisAher behalf ,hen ri%hts are in4ure'/ >o,ever, at present, there is no sufficient evi'ence to establish a %eneral international obli%ation for &tates to e<ercise 'iplomatic protection of their o,n nationals abroa'/ Thou%h, perhaps 'esirable, neither state practice nor opinio juris has evolve' in such a 'irection/ )f it is a 'ut. internationall., it is onl. a moral an' not a le%al 'ut., an' there is no means of enforcin% its fulfillment/ 6e

full. a%ree that rape, se<ual slaver., torture, an' se<ual violence are morall. reprehensible as ,ell as le%all. prohibite' un'er contemporar. international la,/ >o,ever, petitioners ta5e 9uite a theoretical leap in claimin% that these proscriptions automaticall. impl. that that the Philippines is un'er a non$ 'ero%able obli%ation to prosecute international crimes, particularl. since petitioners 'o not 'eman' the imputation of in'ivi'ual criminal liabilit., but see5 to recover monetar. reparations from the state of 2apan/ Absent the consent of states, an applicable treat. re%ime, or a 'irective b. the &ecurit. Council, there is no non$'ero%able 'ut. to institute procee'in%s a%ainst 2apan/ Nonetheless, not,ithstan'in% an arra. of General Assembl. resolutions callin% for the prosecution of crimes a%ainst humanit. an' the stron% polic. ar%uments ,arrantin% such a rule, the practice of states 'oes not .et support the present e<istence of an obli%ation to prosecute international crimes/ 3ven the invocation of 4us co%ens norms an' er%a omnes obli%ations ,ill not alter this anal.sis/ The term erga omnes (*atinG in relation to everyone) in international la, has been use' as a le%al term 'escribin% obli%ations o,e' b. &tates to,ar's the communit. of states as a ,hole/ The *atin phrase, :er%a omnes,C has since become one of the rall.in% cries of those sharin% a belief in the emer%ence of a value$base' international public or'er/ 6hatever the relevance of obli%ations er%a omnes as a le%al concept, its full potential remains to be reali8e' in practice/ The term is closel. connecte' ,ith the international la, concept of 4us co%ens/ )n international la,, the term 0jus cogens0 (literall., 0compellin% la,0) refers to norms that comman' peremptor. authorit., superse'in% conflictin% treaties an' custom/ 2us co%ens norms are consi'ere' peremptor. in the sense that the. are man'ator., 'o not a'mit 'ero%ation, an' can be mo'ifie' onl. b. %eneral international norms of e9uivalent authorit./ Of course, ,e %reatl. s.mpathi8e ,ith the cause of petitioners, an' ,e cannot be%in to comprehen' the unima%inable horror the. un'er,ent at the han's of the 2apanese sol'iers/ 6e are also 'eepl. concerne' that, in apparent contravention of fun'amental principles of la,, the petitioners appear to be ,ithout a reme'. to challen%e those that have offen'e' them before appropriate fora/ Nee'less to sa., our %overnment shoul' ta5e the lea' in protectin% its citi8ens a%ainst violation of their fun'amental human ri%hts/ Re%rettabl., it is not ,ithin our po,er to or'er the 3<ecutive Department to ta5e up the petitionersC cause/ Ours is onl. the po,er to ur%e an' e<hort the 3<ecutive Department to ta5e up petitionersC cause/

*our'es Rubrico, et/ al/ v Gloria (acapa%al$Arro.o, et/ al/, +ebruar. 1", !"1"$ Doctrine of )ncorporation

FACTS: The petition for the ,rit of amparo ,as ori%inall. file' before this Court/ After issuin% the 'esire' ,rit an' 'irectin% the respon'ents to file a verifie' ,ritten return, the Court referre' the petition to the CA for summar. hearin% an' appropriate action/ The petition containe' that arme' men belon%in% to the D"1st Air )ntelli%ence an' &ecurit. &9ua'ron (A)&&, for short) base' in +ernan'o Air 1ase in *ipa Cit. ab'ucte' *our'es D/ Rubrico

(*our'es), brou%ht to, an' 'etaine' at, the air base ,ithout char%es/ After *our'esC release, the harassment continue'/ The CA ren'ere' its partial 4u'%ment 'isposin% of the petition but onl. insofar as Gen/ >ermo%enes 3speron, then A+P Chief of &taff, PADir/ Gen/ Avelino Ra8on, then PNP Chief, PA&upt/ Ro9uero of the Cavite Police Provincial Office, PA)nsp/ Gome8, no, retire', an' the O(1 ,ere concerne'/ The CA 'roppe' the Presi'ent Gloria (acapa%al$Arro.o as respon'ent in the case on the %roun' of presi'ential immunit. from suit/ !SS"E: 6hether or not the 'ismissal of the petition ,ith respect to Gen/ 3speron, PADir/ Gen/ Ra8on, PA&upt/ Ro9uero, PA)nsp/ Gome8, an' the O(1 is vali' follo,in% the 'octrine of comman' responsibilit./ #"$!%&: The evolution of the comman' responsibilit. 'octrine fin's its conte<t in the 'evelopment of la,s of ,ar an' arme' combats/ Accor'in% to +r/ 1ernas, 0comman' responsibilit.,0 in its simplest terms, means the 0responsibilit. of comman'ers for crimes committe' b. subor'inate members of the arme' forces or other persons sub4ect to their control in international ,ars or 'omestic conflict/0 )n this sense, comman' responsibilit. is properl. a form of criminal complicit./ The >a%ue Conventions of 1?"F a'opte' the 'octrine of comman' responsibilit., foresha'o,in% the present$'a. precept of hol'in% a superior accountable for the atrocities committe' b. his subor'inates shoul' he be remiss in his 'ut. of control over them/ As then formulate', comman' responsibilit. is 0 an omission mode of indi)idual criminal lia.ilit .,0 ,hereb. the superior is ma'e responsible for crimes committed b. his subor'inates for failin% to prevent or punish the perpetrators (as oppose' to crimes he or'ere')/ The 'octrine has recentl. been co'ifie' in the Rome &tatute of the )nternational Criminal Court ()CC) to ,hich the Philippines is si%nator./ &ec/ !# of the &tatute imposes in'ivi'ual responsibilit. on militar. comman'ers for crimes committe' b. forces un'er their control/ The countr. is, ho,ever, not .et formall. boun' b. the terms an' provisions embo'ie' in this treat.$statute, since the &enate has .et to e<ten' concurrence in its ratification/ 6hile there are several pen'in% bills on comman' responsibilit., there is still no Philippine la, that provi'es for criminal liabilit. un'er that 'octrine/ )f comman' responsibilit. ,ere to be invo5e' an' applie' to these procee'in%s, it shoul', at most, be onl. to 'etermine the author ,ho, at the first instance, is accountable for, an' has the 'ut. to a''ress, the 'isappearance an' harassments complaine' of, so as to enable the Court to 'evise reme'ial measures that ma. be appropriate un'er the premises to protect ri%hts covere' b. the ,rit of amparo/ As intimate' earlier, ho,ever, the 'etermination shoul' not be pursue' to fi< criminal liabilit. on respon'ents preparator. to criminal prosecution, or as a prelu'e to a'ministrative 'isciplinar. procee'in%s un'er e<istin% a'ministrative issuances, if there be an./

Carlos T/ Go v *uis T/ Ramos, et/ al/, &eptember , !""?$Deportation

FACTS: These petitions stemme' from the complaint$affi'avit for 'eportation initiate' b. *uis T/ Ramos before the 1ureau of )mmi%ration an' Deportation (no, 1ureau of )mmi%ration) a%ainst 2imm. T/ Go alle%in% that the latter is an ille%al an' un'esirable alien/ 2imm. refute' the alle%ations in his counter$ affi'avit, averrin% that the complaint for 'eportation initiate' b. *uis ,as merel. a harassment case 'esi%ne' to oust him of his ri%htful share in their business 'ealin%s/ 2imm. maintaine' that there is no truth to the alle%ation that he is an alien, an' insiste' that he is a natural$born +ilipino/ 2imm. alle%e' that his father Carlos, ,ho ,as the son of a Chinese father an' +ilipina mother, electe' Philippine citi8enship in accor'ance ,ith Article )@, &ection 1, para%raph of the 1?DI Constitution an' Com/ Act No/ J!I/ 2imm. a''e' that he ha' even vote' in the 1?I! an' 1?II elections/ >e 'enie' that his father arrive' in the Philippines as an un'ocumente' alien, alle%in% that his father has no recor' of arrival in this countr. as alle%e' in the complaint$affi'avit precisel. because his father ,as born an' raise' in the Philippines, an' in fact, spea5s fluent )lon%%o an' Ta%alo%/ 6ith re%ar' to the erroneous entr. in his birth certificate that he is 0+Chinese,0 he maintaine' that such ,as not of his o,n 'oin%, but ma. be attribute' to the emplo.ees of the *ocal Civil Re%istrarCs Office ,ho mi%ht have relie' on his Chinese$soun'in% surname ,hen ma5in% the sai' entr./ As re%ar's the entr. in his siblin%sC certificates of birth, particularl. 2uliet Go an' Carlos Go, 2r/, that their father is Chinese, 2imm. averre' that the entr. ,as erroneous because it ,as ma'e ,ithout prior consultation ,ith his father/ The 1oar' issue' a Decision or'erin% the apprehension an' 'eportation of 2imm./ !SS"E: 6hether or not the evi'ence a''uce' b. Carlos an' 2imm. to prove their claim to Philippine citi8enship is substantial an' sufficient to oust the 1oar' of its 4uris'iction from continuin% ,ith the 'eportation procee'in%s in or'er to %ive ,a. to a formal 4u'icial action to pass upon the issue of aliena%e/ #"$!%&: There can be no 9uestion that the 1oar' has the authorit. to hear an' 'etermine the 'eportation case a%ainst a 'eportee an' in the process 'etermine also the 9uestion of citi8enship raise' b. him/ >o,ever, this Court, follo,in% American 4urispru'ence, lai' 'o,n the e<ception to the primar. 4uris'iction en4o.e' b. the 'eportation boar' in the case of Chua >ion% v/ Deportation 1oar' ,herein ,e stresse' that 4u'icial 'etermination is permitte' in cases ,hen the courts themselves believe that there is substantial evi'ence supportin% the claim of citi8enship, so substantial that there are reasonable %roun's for the belief that the claim is correct/ (oreover, ,hen the evi'ence submitte' b. a 'eportee is conclusive of his citi8enship, the ri%ht to imme'iate revie, shoul' also be reco%ni8e' an' the courts shall promptl. en4oin the 'eportation procee'in%s/ 6hile ,e are min'ful that resort to the courts ma. be ha', the same shoul' be allo,e' onl. in the soun' 'iscretion of a competent court in proper procee'in%s/ After all, the 1oar'Cs 4uris'iction is not 'iveste' b. the mere claim of citi8enship/ (oreover, a 'eportee ,ho claims to be a citi8en an' not therefore sub4ect to 'eportation has the ri%ht to have his citi8enship revie,e' b. the courts, after the 'eportation procee'in%s/ The 'ecision of

the 1oar' on the 9uestion is, of course, not final but sub4ect to revie, b. the courts/ After a careful evaluation of the evi'ence, the appellate court ,as not convince' that the same ,as sufficient to oust the 1oar' of its 4uris'iction to continue ,ith the 'eportation procee'in%s consi'erin% that ,hat ,ere presente' particularl. the birth certificates of 2imm., as ,ell as those of his siblin%s, 2uliet Go an' Carlos Go, 2r/ in'icate that the. are Chinese citi8ens/ +urthermore, li5e the 1oar', it foun' the election of Carlos of Philippine citi8enship, ,hich ,as offere' as a''itional proof of his claim, irre%ular as it ,as not ma'e on time/ 6e fin' no co%ent reason to overturn the above fin'in%s of the appellate tribunal/ The 9uestion of ,hether substantial evi'ence ha' been presente' to allo, imme'iate recourse to the re%ular courts is a 9uestion of fact ,hich is be.on' this CourtCs po,er of revie, for it is not a trier of facts/ None of the e<ceptions in ,hich this Court ma. resolve factual issues has been sho,n to e<ist in this case/ 3ven if ,e evaluate their ar%uments an' the evi'ence the. presente' once a%ain, the same conclusion ,ill still be reache'/ One of the ar%uments raise' to sustain CarlosC claim to Philippine citi8enship is the 'octrine of 4us soli, or the 'octrine or principle of citi8enship b. place of birth/ To recall, both the trial court an' the Court of Appeals rule' that the 'octrine of 4us soli ,as never e<ten'e' to the Philippines/ 6e a%ree/ The 'octrine of 4us soli ,as for a time the prevailin% rule in the ac9uisition of oneCs citi8enship/ >o,ever, the &upreme Court aban'one' the principle of 4us soli in the case of Tan Chon% v/ &ecretar. of *abor/ &ince then, sai' 'octrine onl. benefite' those ,ho ,ere in'ivi'uall. 'eclare' to be citi8ens of the Philippines b. a final court 'ecision on the mista5en application of 4us soli/ )t is a settle' rule that onl. le%itimate chil'ren follo, the citi8enship of the father an' that ille%itimate chil'ren are un'er the parental authorit. of the mother an' follo, her nationalit./ (oreover, ,e have also rule' that an ille%itimate chil' of a +ilipina nee' not perform an. act to confer upon him all the ri%hts an' privile%es attache' to citi8ens of the PhilippinesH he automaticall. becomes a citi8en himself/ >o,ever, it is our consi'ere' vie, that absent an. evi'ence provin% that Carlos is in'ee' an ille%itimate son of a +ilipina, the aforestate' establishe' rule coul' not be applie' to him/ )n our consi'ere' vie,, the alle%ation of 2imm. that 'ue process ,as not observe' in the 'eportation procee'in%s must li5e,ise fail/ Deportation procee'in%s are a'ministrative in character, summar. in nature, an' nee' not be con'ucte' strictl. in accor'ance ,ith the rules of or'inar. court procee'in%s/ The essence of 'ue process is simpl. an opportunit. to be hear', or as applie' to a'ministrative procee'in%s, an opportunit. to e<plain oneCs si'e or an opportunit. to see5 reconsi'eration of the action or rulin% complaine' of/ As lon% as the parties are %iven the opportunit. to be hear' before 4u'%ment is ren'ere', the 'eman's of 'ue process are sufficientl. met/

1a.an (una v Alberto Romulo, +ebruar. 1, !"11$3<ecutive A%reement

FACTS: Petitioner 1a.an (una is a 'ul. re%istere' part.$list %roup establishe' to represent the mar%inali8e' sectors of societ./ Respon'ent 1las +/ Ople, no, 'ecease', ,as the &ecretar. of +orei%n Affairs 'urin% the perio' material to this case/ Respon'ent Alberto Romulo ,as implea'e' in his capacit. as then 3<ecutive &ecretar./ >avin% a 5e. 'eterminative bearin% on this case is the Rome &tatute establishin% the )nternational Criminal Court ()CC) ,ith 0the power to exercise its jurisdiction over persons for the most serious crimes of international concern < < < and shall be complementary to the national criminal jurisdictions/0 The serious crimes a'verte' to cover those consi'ere' %rave un'er international la,, such as %enoci'e, crimes a%ainst humanit., ,ar crimes, an' crimes of a%%ression/ The RP si%ne' the Rome &tatute ,hich, b. its terms, is 0sub4ect to ratification, acceptance or approval0 b. the si%nator. states/ As of the filin% of the instant petition, onl. ?! out of the 1D? si%nator. countries appear to have complete' the ratification, approval an' concurrence process/ The Philippines is not amon% the ?!/ Then Ambassa'or +rancis 2/ Ricciar'one sent =& 3mbass. Note to the Department of +orei%n Affairs (D+A) proposin% the terms of the non$ surren'er bilateral a%reement (Agreement, hereinafter) bet,een the =&A an' the RP/ @ia 3<chan%e of Notes (3AN, hereinafter), the RP a%ree' ,ith an' accepte' the =& proposals embo'ie' un'er the =& 3mbass. Note a'verte' to an' put in effect the Agreement ,ith the =& %overnment/ )n esse, the Agreement aims to protect ,hat it refers to an' 'efines as 0persons0 of the RP an' =& from frivolous an' harassment suits that mi%ht be brou%ht a%ainst them in international tribunals/ )n response to a 9uer. of then &olicitor General Alfre'o */ 1enipa.o on the status of the non$surren'er a%reement, Ambassa'or Ricciar'one replie' in his letter that the e<chan%e of 'iplomatic notes constitute' a le%all. bin'in% a%reement un'er international la,H an' that, un'er =& la,, the sai' a%reement 'i' not re9uire the a'vice an' consent of the =& &enate/ )n this procee'in%, petitioner imputes %rave abuse of 'iscretion to respon'ents in conclu'in% an' ratif.in% the Agreement an' pra.s that it be struc5 'o,n as unconstitutional, or at least 'eclare' as ,ithout force an' effect/ Respon'ents 9uestion petitionerCs stan'in% to maintain a suit an' counter that the Agreement, bein% in the nature of an e<ecutive a%reement, 'oes not re9uire &enate concurrence for its efficac./ An' for reasons 'etaile' in their comment, respon'ents assert the constitutionalit. of the Agreement/ !SS"E: 6hether or not the Agreement, ,hich has not been submitte' to the &enate for concurrence, contravenes an' un'ermines the Rome &tatute an' other treaties/ #"$!%&: 0alidity of the #1-"S %on-Surrender Agreement PetitionersC contentionKKperhaps ta5en una,are of certain ,ell$ reco%ni8e' international 'octrines, practices, an' 4ar%onsKKis untenable/ One of these is the 'octrine of incorporation, as e<presse' in &ection !, Article )) of the Constitution, ,herein the Philippines a'opts the %enerall. accepte' principles of international la, an' international 4urispru'ence as part of the la, of the lan' an' a'heres to the polic. of peace, cooperation, an' amit. ,ith all nations/ An e<chan%e of notes falls 0into the cate%or. of inter$

%overnmental a%reements,0 ,hich is an internationall. accepte' form of international a%reement/ An 'e+change of notes' is a recor' of a routine a%reement that has man. similarities ,ith the private la, contract/ The a%reement consists of the e<chan%e of t,o 'ocuments, each of the parties bein% in the possession of the one si%ne' b. the representative of the other/ =n'er the usual proce'ure, the acceptin% &tate repeats the te<t of the offerin% &tate to recor' its assent/ The si%natories of the letters ma. be %overnment (inisters, 'iplomats or 'epartmental hea's/ The techni9ue of e<chan%e of notes is fre9uentl. resorte' to, either because of its spee'. proce'ure, or, sometimes, to avoi' the process of le%islative approval/ )n another perspective, the terms 0e<chan%e of notes0 an' 0e<ecutive a%reements0 have been use' interchan%eabl., e<chan%e of notes bein% consi'ere' a form of e<ecutive a%reement that becomes bin'in% throu%h e<ecutive action/ On the other han', e<ecutive a%reements conclu'e' b. the Presi'ent 0sometimes ta5e the form of e<chan%e of notes an' at other times that of more formal 'ocuments 'enominate' :a%reementsC or :protocols/C0 Senate Concurrence %ot #e2uired Article ! of the @ienna Convention on the *a, of Treaties 'efines a treaty as 0an international a%reement conclu'e' bet,een states in ,ritten form an' %overne' b. international la,, ,hether embo'ie' in a sin%le instrument or in t,o or more relate' instruments an' ,hatever its particular 'esi%nation/0 !nternational agreements ma. be in the form of 345 treaties that re2uire legislati)e concurrence after e+ecuti)e ratificationH or 365 e+ecuti)e agreements that are similar to treaties( e+cept that they do not re2uire legislati)e concurrence and are usually less formal and deal -ith a narro-er range of su./ect matters than treaties* =n'er international la,, there is no 'ifference bet,een treaties an' e<ecutive a%reements in terms of their bin'in% effects on the contractin% states concerne', as lon% as the ne%otiatin% functionaries have remaine' ,ithin their po,ers/ Neither, on the 'omestic sphere, can one be hel' vali' if it violates the Constitution/ Authorities are, ho,ever, a%ree' that one is 'istinct from another for accepte' reasons apart from the concurrence$re9uirement aspect/ As has been observe' b. =& constitutional scholars, a treat. has %reater 0'i%nit.0 than an e<ecutive a%reement, because its constitutional efficac. is be.on' 'oubt, a treat. havin% behin' it the authorit. of the Presi'ent, the &enate, an' the peopleH a ratifie' treat., unli5e an e<ecutive a%reement, ta5es prece'ence over an. prior statutor. enactment/ There are no har' an' fast rules on the propriet. of enterin%, on a %iven sub4ect, into a treat. or an e<ecutive a%reement as an instrument of international relations/ The primar. consi'eration in the choice of the form of a%reement is the partiesC intent an' 'esire to craft an international a%reement in the form the. so ,ish to further their respective interests/ @eril., the matter of form ta5es a bac5 seat ,hen it comes to effectiveness an' bin'in% effect of the enforcement of a treat. or an e<ecutive a%reement, as the parties in either international a%reement each labor un'er the pacta sunt servanda principle/ An' lest it be overloo5e', one t.pe of e<ecutive a%reement is a treat.$authori8e' or a treat.$implementin% e<ecutive a%reement, ,hich necessaril. ,oul' cover the same matters sub4ect of the un'erl.in% treat./ 1ut over an' above the fore%oin% consi'erations is the fact thatKKsave for the situation an' matters contemplate' in &ec/ !I, Art/ L@))) of the ConstitutionKK,hen a treat. is re9uire', the Constitution 'oes not classif. an. sub4ect, li5e that involvin% political issues, to be in the form of, an' ratifie' as, a treat./ 6hat the Constitution merel. prescribes is that treaties nee' the concurrence of the &enate b. a vote 'efine' therein to

complete the ratification process/ An e<ecutive a%reement that 'oes not re9uire the concurrence of the &enate for its ratification ma. not be use' to amen' a treat. that, un'er the Constitution, is the pro'uct of the ratif.in% acts of the 3<ecutive an' the &enate/ The presence of a treat., purporte'l. bein% sub4ect to amen'ment b. an e<ecutive a%reement, 'oes not obtain un'er the premises/

The Agreement %ot in Contra)ention of the #ome Statute Contrar. to petitionerCs pretense, the Agreement 'oes not contravene or un'ermine, nor 'oes it 'iffer from, the Rome &tatute/ +ar from %oin% a%ainst each other, one complements the other/ As a matter of fact, the principle of complementarit. un'erpins the creation of the )CC/ As aptl. pointe' out b. respon'ents an' a'mitte' b. petitioners, the 4uris'iction of the )CC is to 0be complementar. to national criminal 4uris'ictions Mof the si%nator. statesN/0 &i%nificantl., the si<th preambular para%raph of the Rome &tatute 'eclares that 0it is the 'ut. of ever. &tate to e<ercise its criminal 4uris'iction over those responsible for international crimes/0 This provision in'icates that primar. 4uris'iction over the so$calle' international crimes rests, at the first instance, ,ith the state ,here the crime ,as committe'H secon'aril., ,ith the )CC in appropriate situations/ Of particular note is the application of the principle of ne bis in idem un'er the Rome &tatute, ,hich a%ain un'erscores the primac. of the 4uris'iction of a state vis$a$vis that of the )CC/ As far as relevant, the provision states that 0no person ,ho has been trie' b. another court for con'uct < < < Mconstitutin% crimes ,ithin its 4uris'ictionN shall be trie' b. the M)nternational CriminalN Court ,ith respect to the same con'uct < < </0 The fore%oin% provisions of the Rome &tatute, ta5en collectivel., ar%ue a%ainst the i'ea of 4uris'ictional conflict bet,een the Philippines, as part. to the non$surren'er a%reement, an' the )CCH or the i'ea of the A%reement substantiall. impairin% the value of the RPCs un'erta5in% un'er the Rome &tatute/ )%norin% for a ,hile the fact that the RP si%ne' the Rome &tatute ahea' of the Agreement, it is abun'antl. clear to us that the Rome &tatute e<pressl. reco%ni8es the primar. 4uris'iction of states, li5e the RP, over serious crimes committe' ,ithin their respective bor'ers, the complementar. 4uris'iction of the )CC comin% into pla. onl. ,hen the si%nator. states are un,illin% or unable to prosecute/ (oreover, un'er international la,, there is a consi'erable 'ifference bet,een a &tate$Part. an' a si%nator. to a treat./ =n'er the @ienna Convention on the *a, of Treaties, a si%nator. state is onl. obli%e' to refrain from acts ,hich ,oul' 'efeat the ob4ect an' purpose of a treat.H ,hereas a &tate$Part., on the other han', is le%all. obli%e' to follo, all the provisions of a treat. in %oo' faith/ )n the instant case, it bears stressin% that the Philippines is onl. a si%nator. to the Rome &tatute an' not a &tate$Part. for lac5 of ratification b. the &enate/ Thus, it is onl. obli%e' to refrain from acts ,hich ,oul' 'efeat the ob4ect an' purpose of the Rome &tatute/ An. ar%ument obli%in% the Philippines to follo, an. provision in the treat. ,oul' be premature/ As a result, petitionerCs ar%ument that &tate$Parties ,ith non$surren'er a%reements are prevente' from meetin% their obli%ations un'er the Rome &tatute must fail/ These articles are onl. le%all. bin'in% upon &tate$Parties, not si%natories/

So)ereignty $imited .y !nternational Agreements )n the conte<t of the Constitution, there can be no serious ob4ection to the Philippines a%reein% to un'erta5e the thin%s set forth in the Agreement/ &urel., one &tate can a%ree to ,aive 4uris'ictionOto the e<tent a%ree' upon Oto sub4ects of another &tate 'ue to the reco%nition of the principle of e<traterritorial immunit./ To be sure, the nullit. of the sub4ect non$surren'er a%reement cannot be pre'icate' on the postulate that some of its provisions constitute a virtual ab'ication of its soverei%nt./ Almost ever. time a state enters into an international a%reement, it voluntaril. she's off part of its soverei%nt./ The Constitution, as 'rafte', 'i' not envision a reclusive Philippines isolate' from the rest of the ,orl'/ )t even a'heres, as earlier state', to the polic. of cooperation an' amit. ,ith all nations/ 1. their nature, treaties an' international a%reements actuall. have a limitin% effect on the other,ise encompassin% an' absolute nature of soverei%nt./ 1. their voluntar. act, nations ma. 'eci'e to surren'er or ,aive some aspects of their state po,er or a%ree to limit the e<ercise of their other,ise e<clusive an' absolute 4uris'iction/ Prof/ (erlin (a%allona v 3'uar'o 3rmita, et/ al/, Au%ust 1J, !"11$ Archipela%ic DoctrineH RA ?I!!$1aselines FACTS: Con%ress passe' RA D" J 'emarcatin% the maritime baselines of the Philippines as an archipela%ic &tate/ This la, follo,e' the framin% of the =NC*O& ), co'if.in%, amon% others, the soverei%n ri%ht of &tates parties over their 0territorial sea,0 the brea'th of ,hich, ho,ever, ,as left un'etermine'/ Attempts to fill this voi' 'urin% the secon' roun' of ne%otiations in =NC*O& )) prove' futile/ Thus, RA D" J remaine' unchan%e' for nearl. five 'eca'es, save for RA I J correctin% t.po%raphical errors an' reservin% the 'ra,in% of baselines aroun' &abah in North 1orneo/ Con%ress amen'e' RA D" J b. enactin% RA ?I!!, the statute no, un'er scrutin./ The chan%e ,as prompte' b. the nee' to ma5e RA D" J compliant ,ith the terms of =NC*O& ))) ,hich the Philippines ratifie'/ Amon% others, =NC*O& ))) prescribes the ,ater$lan' ratio, len%th, an' contour of baselines of archipela%ic &tates li5e the Philippines an' sets the 'ea'line for the filin% of application for the e<ten'e' continental shelf/ Compl.in% ,ith these re9uirements, RA ?I!! shortene' one baseline, optimi8e' the location of some basepoints aroun' the Philippine archipela%o an' classifie' a'4acent territories, namel., the -ala.aan )slan' Group (-)G) an' the &carborou%h &hoal, as 0re%imes of islan's0 ,hose islan's %enerate their o,n applicable maritime 8ones/ Petitioners assail the constitutionalit. of RA ?I!! ar%uin% on territorial 'iminution/ Petitioners faciall. attac5 RA ?I!! for ,hat it e<clu'e' an' inclu'e' K its failure to reference either the Treat. of Paris or &abah an' its use of =NC*O& )))Cs frame,or5 of re%ime of islan's to 'etermine the maritime 8ones of the -)G an' the &carborou%h &hoal/ !SS"E: 6hether or not RA ?I!! is constitutional/ #"$!%&: =NC*O& ))) has nothin% to 'o ,ith the ac9uisition or loss of territor./ )t is a multilateral treat. re%ulatin%, amon% others, sea$use ri%hts over

maritime 8ones an' continental shelves that =NC*O& ))) 'elimits/ =NC*O& ))) ,as the culmination of 'eca'es$lon% ne%otiations amon% =nite' Nations members to co'if. norms re%ulatin% the con'uct of &tates in the ,orl'Cs oceans an' submarine areas, reco%ni8in% coastal an' archipela%ic &tatesC %ra'uate' authorit. over a limite' span of ,aters an' submarine lan's alon% their coasts/ On the other han', baselines la,s such as RA ?I!! are enacte' b. =NC*O& ))) &tates$parties to mar5$out specific basepoints alon% their coasts from ,hich baselines are 'ra,n, either strai%ht or contoure', to serve as %eo%raphic startin% points to measure the brea'th of the maritime 8ones an' continental shelf/ 3ven un'er petitionersC theor. that the Philippine territor. embraces the islan's an' all the waters ,ithin the rectan%ular area 'elimite' in the Treat. of Paris, the baselines of the Philippines ,oul' still have to be 'ra,n in accor'ance ,ith RA ?I!! because this is the onl. ,a. to 'ra, the baselines in conformit. ,ith =NC*O& )))/ The baselines cannot be 'ra,n from the boun'aries or other portions of the rectan%ular area 'elineate' in the Treat. of Paris, but from the 0outermost islan's an' 'r.in% reefs of the archipela%o/0 =NC*O& ))) an' its ancillar. baselines la,s pla. no role in the ac9uisition, enlar%ement or, 'iminution of territor./ Territorial claims to lan' features are outsi'e =NC*O& ))), an' are instea' %overne' b. the rules on %eneral international la,/ PetitionersC ar%ument for the invali'it. of RA ?I!! for its failure to te<tuali8e the PhilippinesC claim over &abah in North 1orneo is also untenable/ &ection ! of RA I J, ,hich RA ?I!! 'i' not repeal, 5eeps open the 'oor for 'ra,in% the baselines of &abah/ 6hether referre' to as Philippine 0internal ,aters0 un'er Article ) of the Constitution or as 0archipela%ic ,aters0 un'er =NC*O& ))), the Philippines e<ercises soverei%nt. over the bo'. of ,ater l.in% lan',ar' of the baselines, inclu'in% the air space over it an' the submarine areas un'erneath/ The fact of soverei%nt., ho,ever, 'oes not preclu'e the operation of municipal an' international la, norms sub4ectin% the territorial sea or archipela%ic ,aters to necessar., if not mar%inal, bur'ens in the interest of maintainin% unimpe'e', e<pe'itious international navi%ation, consistent ,ith the international la, principle of free'om of navi%ation/ Thus, 'omesticall., the political branches of the Philippine %overnment, in the competent 'ischar%e of their constitutional po,ers, ma. pass le%islation 'esi%natin% routes ,ithin the archipela%ic ,aters to re%ulate innocent an' sea lanes passa%e/ )n'ee', bills 'ra,in% nautical hi%h,a.s for sea lanes passa%e are no, pen'in% in Con%ress/ )n the absence of municipal le%islation, international la, norms, no, co'ifie' in =NC*O& ))), operate to %rant innocent passa%e ri%hts over the territorial sea or archipela%ic ,aters, sub4ect to the treat.Cs limitations an' con'itions for their e<ercise/ &i%nificantl., the ri%ht of innocent passa%e is a customar. international la,, thus automaticall. incorporate' in the corpus of Philippine la,/ No mo'ern &tate can vali'l. invo5e its soverei%nt. to absolutel. forbi' innocent passa%e that is e<ercise' in accor'ance ,ith customar. international la, ,ithout ris5in% retaliator. measures from the international communit./ PetitionersC invocation of non$e<ecutor. constitutional provisions in Article )) (Declaration of Principles an' &tate Policies) must also fail/ Our present state of 4urispru'ence consi'ers the provisions in Article )) as mere le%islative %ui'es, ,hich, absent enablin% le%islation, 0'o not embo'. 4u'iciall. enforceable constitutional ri%hts/0 Article )) provisions serve as %ui'es in formulatin% an' interpretin% implementin% le%islation, as ,ell as in interpretin% e<ecutor. provisions of the Constitution/ )n fact, the 'emarcation of the baselines enables the Philippines to 'elimit its e<clusive economic 8one, reservin% solel. to the Philippines the e<ploitation of all

livin% an' non$livin% resources ,ithin such 8one/ &uch a maritime 'elineation bin's the international communit. since the 'elineation is in strict observance of =NC*O& )))/ )f the maritime 'elineation is contrar. to =NC*O& ))), the international communit. ,ill of course re4ect it an' ,ill refuse to be boun' b. it/ =NC*O& ))) favors &tates ,ith a lon% coastline li5e the Philippines/ =NC*O& ))) creates a sui generis maritime space K the e<clusive economic 8one K in ,aters previousl. part of the hi%h seas/ =NC*O& ))) %rants ne, ri%hts to coastal &tates to e<clusivel. e<ploit the resources foun' ,ithin this 8one up to !"" nautical miles/ =NC*O& ))), ho,ever, preserves the tra'itional free'om of navi%ation of other &tates that attache' to this 8one be.on' the territorial sea before =NC*O& )))/ Petitioners hol' the vie, that, base' on the permissive te<t of =NC*O& ))), Con%ress ,as not boun' to pass RA ?I!!/ 6e have loo5e' at the relevant provision of =NC*O& ))) an' ,e fin' petitionersC rea'in% plausible/ Nevertheless, the prero%ative of choosin% this option belon%s to Con%ress, not to this Court/ (oreover, the lu<ur. of choosin% this option comes at a ver. steep price/ Absent an =NC*O& ))) compliant baselines la,, an archipela%ic &tate li5e the Philippines ,ill fin' itself 'evoi' of internationall. acceptable baselines from ,here the brea'th of its maritime 8ones an' continental shelf is measure'/ This is recipe for a t,o$fronte' 'isasterG first, it sen's an open invitation to the seafarin% po,ers to freel. enter an' e<ploit the resources in the ,aters an' submarine areas aroun' our archipela%oH an' second, it ,ea5ens the countr.Cs case in an. international 'ispute over Philippine maritime space/ These are conse9uences Con%ress ,isel. avoi'e'/ The enactment of =NC*O& ))) compliant baselines la, for the Philippine archipela%o an' a'4acent areas, as embo'ie' in RA ?I!!, allo,s an internationall.$reco%ni8e' 'elimitation of the brea'th of the PhilippinesC maritime 8ones an' continental shelf/ RA ?I!! is therefore a most vital step on the part of the Philippines in safe%uar'in% its maritime 8ones, consistent ,ith the Constitution an' our national interest/