IN March 2018, at the instance of then-president Rodrigo Duterte, the Philippines officially "withdrew" from its status as a state party to the Rome Statute that established the International Criminal Court and set out the Elements of Crimes and its Rules of Procedure and Evidence.
But in 2009, quite providently, Congress passed Republic Act 9851, the domestic statute that makes "international humanitarian law" a statute of the domestic legal system. In Pangilinan v. Cayetano (2021) and companion cases, the Supreme Court acknowledged this statute to be more far-reaching than the Rome Statute. It punishes war crimes, genocide and "other crimes against humanity." The fourth crime — aggression — over which the International Criminal Court has jurisdiction, is not one of the crimes included in the statute. It is intriguing that under Section 15 that prescribes the "applicability of international law and other laws" not only are the judicial decisions of international courts and tribunals included, but also "relevant and applicable international human rights instruments." This category is markedly distinct from "other relevant international treaties and conventions ratified or acceded to by the Republic of the Philippines." A convincing argument can be made for the application of international covenants and agreements protecting human rights to which the Philippines may not have acceded but are nonetheless "applicable" ratione materiae!
Continue reading with one of these options:
Ad-free access
P 80 per month
(billed annually at P 960)
- Unlimited ad-free access to website articles
- Limited offer: Subscribe today and get digital edition access for free (accessible with up to 3 devices)