PIL Prefi Transcript

PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW (TRANSCRIPT) PRE-FINAL COVERAGE
PIL RECORDING JAN. 31, 2O15

Exercise of territorial sovereignty
- If it involves exercise of the right to the exclusion of other states, functions of the state
- Government. We learned that government as an element of state. What is important here is not the legitimacy of
the government. What do we mean by legitimacy is not required in government?
- law of the state? Government is legitimate if it has a constitutional standing. Judgment of government is based on
the constitution or in a manner established by the constitution. But if it is established outside the constitution,
maybe that government is not the legitimate government. Thats why if we talk about government, we must
distinguish between de facto and de jure government.
- in other words, even if a government has a particular territory but no legitimate status= it is considered de facto.
What is important is that it has an effective control over the territory.
- there are two kinds of effective control: some point out to external control as independence.
- internal and external. If we say internal or external sovereignty, we are not referring to a government that is not
subjected to a form of control or influence. This is more of a legal question rather than a political one. Most authors
mention of the political reality that some states adopt policies and even enter into treaties on the basis of some
pressures by other states. But that should not diminish the ability of the state to still control its affairs, internally or
externally.
- independence? The government is independent. We mean the government, actually and without the help of
external forces, could exercise its sovereign power on its own. Ex. Coercion of a third state
Ex. Political pressure on entering into a treaty- not really
- in the case of the state of Palestine, most of the international writers criticized this as not in accordance with IL
Because Palestine at that time and even up to the present cannot specifically identify a territory within its effective
control, still having a problem with Israel.
- the other thing that we have to take note is that even there is a temporary deprivation of effective control, this will
not diminish the fact that that state is a government. E.g. Somalia, Rwanda
Common question in the bar exam: distinction between a state and government.
How to distinguish? What is the concept of state and government?
There is a doctrine on the idea distinction between a state and government: There are Changes in the government
but still the state continues (Doctrine of state continuity).
- important because:
a. the state indeed consists of a government
b. it is the state that is considered as the bearer of rights and duties under IL: states enter into treaties, not
government
- CACPACITY TO ENTER INTO RELATIONS WITH OTHER STATES.
- there are two theories on recognition:
a. constitutive- recognition of states makes a community or entity a state
b. declaratory- recognition of the fact that it is already a state; this is favored in IL; most author would point to
article iii of the Montevideo convention: the political existence of the state is independent of recognition of other
states. Even before recognition, state has the right to protect its integrity and independence.
Capacity need not be absolute. It can be limited for as long as the capacity is pursuant to the doctrine selfautolimitation. It is the state itself that allows the limitation to exercise its capacity to enter into relations.
Associated states.
Association in PIL? This relates to a situation where an entity that used to be part of a larger state will be given
independence, usually in the process of decolonization. And some states, since they do not know yet how to
Prepared by: ABRIL|LARGO|LOCAY-LOCAY|TACUYAN
A.Y. 2014-2015
1|Page
administer they foreign relations, they enter in to treaty with the so that the more civilized state will be the one
administering the foreign affairs or conduct of the not-so- civilized state. That is in itself not an exercise of
sovereignty. Thats why even if there is a limited capacity, for as long as the limitation is self-limitation, that would
not diminish the status of the state or the associate.
Communities with sui generis status. Why sui generis? If you apply the four elements of statehood, they cannot
pass but they are recognized as possessing international legal personality. Try to make a research on this (unya wa
nagresearch, so sa recits, nag-NGANGA!).
While recognition is not an element of statehood, such recognition however has the effects on whether or not states
can actually enjoy right and privileges of statehood. Some authors found the reality that while recognition is not an
element of statehood, these states enjoy rights only if they are integrated in the international community by third
states in a process called CO-OPTATION.
Co-optation. See slide kay nagdali si sir diri dapit. You cannot force a state to enter into another state.
KAI: is Monaco recognized as a state?
Sir: Some books recognize Monaco as a state. You might also include this in your research. Sala ni ni Kai.
hahahah
Problems arise in the emergence of new state by way of secession.
Distinguish the opinion of the ICJ in the case of Quebec from that of Kosovo.
Kosovo was a part of Serbia. Then what happened? What did the Albanians (Kosovo) experience? Were there
allegations on ethnic cleansing, human rights violations, discrimination that led the UN Security Council to
intervene? Yes. In fact, the UNSC overextended its intervention by establishing a provisional government or
administrative body in Kosovo until they came up with a democratically elected assembly. After establishing its own
assembly, UNSC ordered ceasefire and demilitarization, and then, they were supposed to talk about the extent by
which autonomy may be granted to Kosovo by Serbia in the area of politics, economics, socio-cultural, inter-religion,
etc. but they failed to come up with a definite extent of its autonomy that led to a unilateral declaration of this
assembly. Is the unilateral declaration considered a violation of IL?
Were the people of Quebec subject to human rights violation? Difference between the situations of the people of
Kosovo and Quebec.
People in Quebec can be distinguished from the people of Canada: Minority wanting to secede from an already
existing territory with a claim of being different and a minority subjected to human rights violation.
PIL feb 4 2015 transcription ( Guys, heavy ang orals ni Sir ani na time)
One of the effects of recognizing a state, we know that it may not be considered an element of statehood, atleast
from the perspective of declaratory theories, in any case, I think that you have learned that even if it is not
necessarily an element of statehood, albeit there are arguments still in favor of constitutive, we know that there are
inescapable consequences of recognizing a state.
SIR: Can you tell us the consequences or the effects of recognizing a state?
DENNIS: sir, one of the effects I know is that when one state recognizes another state, uhm, that recognizing state
must respect the independence of that recognized state. Also that, the state recognized will become somehow
subjects of international law and their acts as a state are now become valid or their transactions and their relations
outside the state become valid.
SIR: the case of underhill vs hernandez what is covered by international law?
DENNIS: this sir, in this case, this has stipulated the Act of State doctrine, wherein when one, uh sir, can I say the
facts first sir?
SIR: what do u mean by Acts of State Doctrine? What is your understanding of the Act of State
Doctrine?
DENNIS: like, the act of state doctrine, simply implies that, the court in exercising jurisdiction over the foreign state
must apply the laws of that foreign state, rather than their domestic laws.
SIR: okay, uhm what about recognition of governments? How is it distinguished from recognition of
states?
A.Y. 2014-2015
2|Page
DENNIS: in recognizing a government, once a govt is recognized, their acts prior to the recognition, become valid
and that that government must be accountable for their acts, while in recognizing a state.
BAGOL: in recognizing a government, it is a necessary consequence that the state while if it is only the state that is
recognized, its government or a specific regime is recognized.
SIR: how is that done?
BAGOL: whenever a state passes the requirements of statehood, then the state is recognized as a state by a third
entity, but if a government has effective control over that state, it does not necessarily recognized by another
state.
SIR: Is there such a thing as an obligation to recognize a state?
BAGOL: I think there is no obligation to recognize a state, I think there is none, because according to the declarative
theory, the consent of a state is really not required
SIR: if there is no obligation to recognize a state, is there no obligation to recognize a government?
BAGOL: I guess there is also none, but in case where there is a
SIR: Is there importance to recognize a de jure or a de facto government?
BAGOL: If it is de facto, it means that the government was recognized but however it was constituted outside the
regime of that government, then other states has chosen to recognize that government.
SIR: Can you tell us something about the Tinoco arbitration case, as to how relevant is the recognition or nonrecognition of a state.
BAGOL: In the tinoco arbitration case, this is about there is a government of Gonzales the govt of Gonzales was
overthrown by the govt of tinoco and when the tinoco regime was in control, it entered into several contracts. It
entered into concessions with great Britain, however when the Gonzales regime was able to gain back ts power, it
invalidated all the contractsw and concessions which the tinoco government entered into. GB sued the Gonzales
govt and said that the Gonzales govt cannot invalidate the concessions. It has to recognize the contracts entered
into by the tinoco govt. when the tinoco govt was in power, it can be recognized as a de facto govt. over which the
contracts it entered into should be..
SIR: But didnt the costa rican govt that time argued that GB cannot anymore invoke the validity of the
contracts coz in the first place, GB did not recognize the tinoco govt, so in other words, GB was
therefore estopped
BAGOL: In this case sir, the court said that recognition is not important since the acts of the costa rican govt is an
act of a de facto govt which has effective control over the costa rica at that time, and since there is subsequent
recognition, then it has an obligation to recognize the acts of the previous government.
SIR: in the case of CO KIM vs , the SC applied the recognized principles of public international law and
the distinction between the different kinds of de facto govt, how does a de facto govt exist and what
are the types of a de facto govt?
PONTANAR: in this case sir, a de facto government, There are three kinds of a de facto government, the first is one
where it is established thru rebellion.
First is that a de facto government is one where it is established through rebellion, the second one where the
situation where,
SIR: if that is established thru rebellion, is there a name for that?
PONTANAR: The second one would be occupation, where military forces invade and occupy said area.
And the third type is
SIR: Is there also a name for that?
PONTANAR: Government of War. And the last would be the is one where there is insurrection.
SIR: how is one done?
A.Y. 2014-2015
3|Page
PONTANAR: in the first one sir is thru occupation.

SIR: the first type you mentioned
PONTANAR: in rebellion sir, the government is controlled or possessed by two adversary goals of the majority
wherein there is a majority of the people who wants to revolutionize against the existing government
SIR: like the filipinos revolting against the govt of Aquino?
Uhm no sir, that is the second type of occupation.
SIR: so the first type is rebellion, thats why I said rebellion, isnt that about the people revolting
against the existing type of government?
PONTANAR: no sir, as what I have read in this case, the court said that the administration was a de facto
government in the second type. Which is through occupation.
SIR: so the situation of Aquino?
PONTANAR: oh I thought about the Cory Aquino sir.
SIR: ah no, im talking about the Pinoy Aquino, coz if you talk about the past, that is the Marcos
administration.
That is a situation and the third one is insurrection, what is it?
PONTANAR: uhm insurrection is more like, there is like an idependent government, like in a state there is a portion
which is has people that has their own independent government and they tend to overthrow the current govt. so
example would be like,
SIR: il give you three kinds of government and you identify each one.
SIR: The govt is of Emilio Aguinaldo in Kawit cavite, what kind of govt is that?
PONTANAR: Second govt. revolutionary
SIR: second, govt of the Japanese armed forces?
PONTANAR: government thru occupation
SIR: govt established by the late Aquino after the collapse of the marcos govt
PONTANAR: uhm that is the insurrection.
SIR: bernal?, name some non state actors, atleast 4 and tell us significance of non state actors in
international law.
BERNAL : first sir is international organizations, if we go back to the ruling of the ICJ in the case of although
recognition of an international law, it is impliedly given the force of an international status because of the fact that
the organization or the states themselves
SIR: do u mean international status as recognizing it or giving it or possessing an international legal
personality?
BERNAL : yes sir, like in the case of UN sir, it is given an international legal personality.
SIR: how different is an international organization from a non governmental organization?
BERNAL: an intl org sir is in their creation sir, they are created by states, second when we talk about NGOs they are
created by private individuals. So in that case, if we differentiate the two, the first one which is an international
organization, possesses an international personality and non governmental org which doesnt have the same legal
personality.
SIR: what is the value of NGOs, giv exaamples of NGOs
BERNAL: Greenpeace sir, in that case sir, according to ackehurst sir, the contribution of an NGO in the international
sphere sir is, that their assistance to international issues to international world sir is
A.Y. 2014-2015
4|Page
SIR: what assistance?

BERNAL: for example sir, in giving, aid to nations sir which are undergoing war.
SIR: I think you are referring to the contribution of NGO in the formation of international law, given
that most NGO possess more or less competence and expertise in certain areas, like Amnesty
International will be dealing with human rights. GREENPEACE, with environment. Redcross, dealing
with humanitarian group. So most of the observations and recommendations of NGOs are being
utilized by the international law commission itself in coming up with interpretations of norms that are
enacted.
What about multinational companies and individuals? How does international law deal with them?
BERNAL: as a law sir, individuals are objects of international law and as such it is erga omnes rule to protect the
rights of the individuals as well as multinational companies sir, for the attainment and in furtherance of justice sir.
SIR: the recognition of individuals and international companies in such a way that if we talk about
rights, seldom to be seen in the international law, recognizing rights of individuals and multinational
companies to the extent that there rights pertaining to individuals that have in fact are customary
international law and other human rghts law, but the problem is with regard to treaties, whether or
not we confer duties to individuals, does international law also recognize duties of individuals?
BERNAL: yes sir, intl law, recognizes duties towards individuals.
SIR: such as? Example?
BERNAL: for example sir if we use it in the humanitarian law sir, we have the duty to protect individual rights and
those offenses..
SIR: those are rights, I mean duties of individuals that international law confers on them.
BERNAL: in a way of mandating individuals to observe international law, such as the erga omnes rule, not to commit
crimes against humanity. Observing the laws of war to some extent sir.
SIR: oh okay. Miss locaylocay?
(guys, airhead moves kayo so please, uhm, il just encode the questions of sir ha. )
SIR: have you encountered in your readings different kinds of jurisdictions?
CHENA: yes sir. (bagag nawng, bisag wala jud nakaabot ug basa sa jurisdiction na topic)
SIR: have you read that topic?
CHENA: just very vaguely sir (shuffling notes) the one thing about jurisdiction, it talks about the territory (blah
blah blah.. wrong kau na answer) like, this certain tribunal has jurisdiction over certain kind of people
SIR: are u talking about jurisdiction of a court?
CHENA: that could be one thing sir, the jurisdiction to adjudicate. (diin man ko aning word na adjudicate uy)
SIR: what about the jurisdiction of the other branches of the government? like the jurisdiction to
legislate? The jurisdiction of the executive branch?
CHENA: and that too sir, the jurisdiction as to the extent of the exercise of their powers.
SIR: okay, so talking about jurisdiction, in regard to court jurisdiction, we call it the jurisdiction to
adjudicate, different from the jurisdiction to prescribe which is legislative, jurisdiction to enforce
which is the executive and jurisdiction to adjudicate which refers to the types of adjudication one of
course which is territoriality. What is territoriality jurisdiction?
CHENA: like say for example, I am (blah blah blah)
SIR: so a state has jurisdiction over a crime committed in its territory?
CHENA: thats right sir.
A.Y. 2014-2015
5|Page
SIR: have you come across the principle of nationality? How is it different from territoriality? In any
case, we have one which is nationality and territoriality.
CHENA: (wrong napud na answer) like the nationality principle, I am a national of a certain state, so the state has
jurisdiction over me and (sir interrupts)
SIR: lets talk about the case of nottebohn. Have you read that case?
CHENA: no sir.
Sir calls other people ; TAMPUS AND JAECTIN didnt read the case as well.
SIR:
Okay so, while recognition is not an element of statehood, atleast in the lieu of declaratory theory, there are
however effects that are identifiable and conflicting.
CONFLICTS - Full diplomatic relations, that is expected, the idea of recognizing a state, is of course a political act.
The state may, grant or withdraw or revoke or refuse to recognize a newly emerging state, although, it could be
agreed for example that the moment a state has established itself as a state international community should
recognize the state because the moment a group objectively has established itself as a state then it possesses
certain rights independent of other states. But that is just one scope.
So if you are ready to recognize a state, then you must be ready to grant diplomatic relations. If you are not ready
to grant or give diplomatic relations with that newly emerging state, then you dont recognize that state. So,
observation is that the moment a state recognizes another state, chances are, there could be full diplomatic
relations given, unless the recognition is qualified. Recognition may be qualified as merely recognizing a state not
as a de jure but only a de facto recognition, meaning it is only recognizing the state, but we recognize you only for
the purposes of our interests that we enter into relations.
The most common effect of recognition of course is the right to enter into relations with the recognizing state.
Entitlement to property of the recognizing state is another. And recognition shall be given retroactive effect. This is
underlying principle in the underhill vs hernandez. This is a US case, but most authors and experts in intl law would
still the underhill doctrine, in support of the theory that recognition should be given retroactive effect. So in the
case of underhill vs hernandez. (sir explained the case. I presumed wev read it) the acts of hernandez were
considered the acts of the state and therefore, you cannot sue hernandez in his individual capacity. And there was
this argument that, how can you attribute the act of hernandez as an act of Venezuela that when that incident
happened, the US did not recognize yet the govt of hernandez, but the US SC learned that later on recognized
anyway so the effect is retroactive.
So, in any case, the act of state doctrine compels a state to refuse or to pass judgment from the acts of other
states. That is the act of state doctrine. This is Pursuant to the fundamental principle of equality of states. State A
cannot pass judgment on the validity of the acts of State B.
It means that the state A will resolve an issue by looking at the internal processes in the other state. The act of
state doctrine bars the passing of judgment by the validity of other states.
In the nottebohm case, the grant of citizenship for naturalization was not considered, by Guatemala, because of the
failure of international law to grant effectiveness to the grant of citizenship. We will talk about that later.
Now, thats recognition of states. Lets talk about recognition of government. You were right in saying that, there is a
distinction between recognition of state and recognition of government, the moment a state is recognized, then it
recognizes the entire entity as a state without reference to whoever is governing. If state a recognizes state b, it
doesnt necessarily recognize that the govt of x and the govt y is in control, that would require another recognition
of that govt as well. It is possible that there is a de jure recognition, yes you are a state to us, but there is also a de
facto recognition of the govt because it was established in a way that is objectionable to the recognizing state.
And you also know that there are several types of recognition offered by theories, and wel go to that later. But a
recognition of a government whether de jure or de facto doesnt matter, because, for as long as there is recognition
of government, it would necessarily result in the recognition that it is a state because you are recognizing that it is a
government.
So lets talk about the recognition of government, once again it is a political question and it involves discretion on
the part of the executive. Or the head of state or the official that is vested with public affairs. You are right, there is
no duty to recognize a government and that is why there are several theories or doctrines of recognition because
THERE IS NO DUTY TO RECOGNIZE A GOVERNMENT, it is purely DISCRETIONARY.
A.Y. 2014-2015
6|Page
Addition, states used to apply certain thresholds or conditions before they would recognize antoher government,
there is the requirement of effectiveness and degree of control. Meaning the moment we recognize you, we
understand that that government is in control of the territory. Stability and permanence is also, another factor that
recognizing states will consider. Popular support, it means you are democratically recognized, but in fact there are
governments that are established extra constitutionally. Popular support means, it has the support of the
inhabitants in that particular territory if it has been established extra constitutionally and not democratically.
Then ofcourse the ability and willingness to fulfill international obligations, again, these however does not mean
that the four factors are present objectively that the particular state is bound to recognize. What it simply means is
that these are the factors that the recognizing state will consider when the want to recognize or establish
recognition. It is possible that a government has all the four factors but the recognizing state still refuses to
recognize and there is no obligation or duty to recognize.
That is the traditional approach.
Now, probably because of the idea that, recognition is highly political and discretionary, then some practices had
evolved like the Tobar or Wilson Doctrine, espoused by former secretary Wilson in the US. This theory or doctrine
precludes recognition of any government established by revolutionary means. These are modern theories and
brought about by the huge influence of democratic states especially US.
The Stimpson doctrine is another, no recognition of a government established through external conventions.
The Estrada doctrine, of course as you know this is not in reference to our oldest president, Joseph Estrada. LOVE
CONQUERS EVERYTHING.
This is the Mexican leader Estrada. If a state is established through political upheaval, the state may not give
recognition to the emerging government but will accept if it has effective control, I think the idea is that it would be
more of respecting the internal affairs of that state. Dealing or not dealing with that said government is not a test in
dealing with such legitimacy of the government. This came out several times in the bar exam. (ESTRADA DOCTRINE
iyang pasabot.)
Costa rica claimed that GB was estopped in not recognizing the contract. Because at that time, GB was not
recognizing costa rica. So how will you answer that if you have not encountered the case?
Principle recognition or non-recognition of other governments by such de facto government will not necessarily
destroy the de facto status of such government. It is no argument to say that Estoppel may be applied in a non
recognizing state with regard to enforcement of contracts.
It is likewise important to talk about recognition of belligerent state. Recognition of belligerency. Not insurgency.
How will you distinguish belligerency from insurgency? How will you differentiate insurgency from a riot? In which
instance do we use properly the term war?
If govt forces are engaged in some sort of fire or use of weapons against a group. Do we call it war? In situtations
that involve a riot or insurgency, do we use the word war? We only use the word war if that status of a group can be
said as belligerent.
A mere riot is ofcourse an informal, an unorganized. There is no armed conflict there.
How do you distinguish insurgency as from belligerency.
There is insurgency if there are groups more or less organized but lacks a civil government and possession of a
significant portion of territory.
So if a group has a substantial portion of territory and it has a civil government recognized by the national
government, then that group can qualify as a belligerent but it all depends now, whether the state recognizes and
what would be the effects if a state recognizes a belligerent.
The moment participants of insurgency are captured, how will the state treat the captured insurgents? What about
belligerents? How will the state treat belligerents? Like POW status. We start from there next time and we continue
up to jurisdiction.
PIL TRANSCRIPT FEB. 9, 2015 by D.A.T.A.
A.Y. 2014-2015
7|Page
Were talking about the difference between insurgents and belligerents in IL. That is important because if the
government of a particular state treats a group as mere insurgents, that simply means that the armed group or the
insurgents and the armed forces will not be governed by the laws of war.
Meaning, what will apply will be the municipal law of that state. But if the group will qualify as belligerents, then,
there is the option on the part of the state to either recognize belligerency or not.
The effect if there is recognition of belligerency, that the relationship of the armed conflict between the belligerents
and the armed forces, will now be governed by the laws of war. Meaning, they shall be treated, for example, those
captured as prisoners of war, and they shall be prosecuted not under domestic law but will be prosecuted for
international crimes if any has been committed.
So, we have the following basic effects of the recognition of belligerency:
Before recognition, the rebels will be subject to municipal laws of the legitimate government and in case of
the injuries suffered by third states - Usually, in the form of injuries inflicted to their citizens. In that
situation, we will be talking about state responsibility soon. Well talk about the liability of the state in so
far as acts committed by rebels are concerned. But, generally, the acts of the rebels will be imputable to
the state before recognition, because non-recognition of belligerency is a commitment or undertaking on
the part of the non-recognizing state that it is still in control of the territory. And so if it says that it doesnt
recognize the group as belligerents then that state is saying that were in control and so whatever
happens to citizens of third states, we shall be responsible. But if the state thinks that its already out of
its control, then it will now recognize belligerence so that acts committed of the belligerents will no longer
be imputable to the state. Basically, thats what guides states on the matter whether it will recognize or
not.
Doctrine of State Continuity- whatever happens to the internal organization or changes in the government, the state
continues to exist.
Different effects of state succession and government succession.
Q: When is there state succession? When is there mere government succession?
It is important to characterize what is happening in a particular territory. Something happens in a territory, the
government, for example, had been overthrown. Is this state succession or government succession? Because, you
know that there are different consequences in state succession and the other.
When is there state succession?
Change is personality. Particularly, in what aspect? Change in Sovereignty. In the PH, did we have ever a situation
when we changed state, state succession?
Change of sovereign power from Spain to the USA.
Change from US government (American sovereignty) to PH, granting independence.
Changes of government:
Change from parliamentary government (Marcos era) to a democratic form. Establishment of the 1973
Constitution and the 1987 Constitution.
During elections, we only change the administration and not the government.
It is important to know the nature of state succession. There is state succession when there is a substitution of new
sovereign over a particular territory and common examples would be cession, Annexation, decolonization, merger,
etc.
This will have legal effects in treaty and International obligations. This is where you refer to the so-called Clean
Slate Doctrine or tabula rasa. CSD, as a general rule, the moment there is change of sovereignty, except in certain
treaties involving boundaries and territories, the new or successor state should not inherit the obligations incurred
by the preceding sovereignty. That is basically the rule in CSD.
So, what are the effects of state succession?
1.
2.
Transfer of allegiance of inheritance

Since political laws are laws that define the relationship between the inhabitants and the state, as a
general rule, they are abrogated whether or not they are compatible with the laws of the new sovereign.
Even if they are still compatible, they are deemed abrogated. The only by which political laws may
A.Y. 2014-2015
8|Page
3.
4.
continue is when there is an affirmative act on the part of the new sovereign enacting the same political
laws. But, the effect is automatic.
For non-political laws, they continue unless they are inconsistent or expressly abrogated by the new
sovereign.
Effects on public property, torts liability generally not acquired, and the new sovereign has the option to
assume liability.
Treaties of the predecessor state under the CSD are not binding on new sovereign.
Exceptions: those dealing with local rights and affecting territory.
What is important here is that the new sovereign has the option to assume liability. Under the treaty of Paris, the US
expressly said that it never assumed the obligation of Spain in relation to the PH islands. It is an option whether to
assume or not. That is not necessarily the case in government succession.
What are the effects of government succession?
No problem with rights. That will be beneficial to the successor government. All rights of predecessor
government are inherited by the new govt. But, the distinction now is when it comes to obligations. When
it comes to obligations, we distinguish the two kinds of changing the government:
a. By constitutional means or peaceful means, although it does not necessarily need to be peaceful.
b. By non-constitutional means or violent means (EDSA Revolution, non-violent)
If by peaceful means, obligations as well are inherited. If by extraconstitutional or violent means, the new
government has the option to either inherit the obligations or not. And if it will reject obligations, it can
reject political and personal obligations, but not those arising out from the regular administration of
government.
Usual examples of political obligations:
Let us assume that during the time of Marcos, he entered in to contracts with the govt of
Malaysia for the supply of ammunitions for his armed forces that we are battling against the demonstrators
of Aquino group. The obligations incurred by the government can be considered as political because it was
intended precisely as an expense against the government that will soon replace the government of Marcos.
That is a political obligation which can be rejected.
Example of personal obligation:
Usually, these are obligations incurred that do not benefit the people or the society as a whole,
obligations subject of corruption. Obligations incurred as a result of corruption, the government has the
option not to assume the obligation. And, in the case of former Pres. Aquino, she was generous enough to
declare in the session in the Senate of the US, after the Aquino admin was installed by the People Power,
that the PH will honor all the obligations of the deposed government of Marcos (World Bank obligations,
which, of course, the US has great interest and other obligations as well). We did not follow Poland. The
new democratic government that was installed rejected the obligations of the former dictator. When it
became bankrupt, exempt from paying obligations until it can start anew. This can be done under the
auspices of the IMF World Bank policy. You can actually tell WB we owe you 400 billion we cannot pay such.
The WB can actually condone provided that the new government comply with certain conditions. We
demand that of revenue 40% shall go to the infrastructure, etc. The moment you are able to comply, do
not expect to be economically aided.
Non-state actors in IL. Done na ni, ingon si sir. So he did not really touch this part.
In the Reparation for Injuries case, normally, states are the ones considered having international legal personality.
Except in this case, where the ICJ mentioned that the UN as an international organization, also has international
legal personality, can therefore represent or rather demand and bring claims at the international level. And that for
individuals, usually, that would require espousal claims by states for generally they are objects of international. But,
to some extent, some kinds of individuals have international legal personality in the area of rights. At least, in the
area of rights, not probably on duties (ex. Right to self-determination).
As for duties, there are situations where we can say that even individuals possess international duties, especially if
we talk about international criminal responsibility. Even individuals can be considered non-compliant of IL norms.
JURISDICTION
A.Y. 2014-2015
9|Page
There are three kinds of jurisdiction. When we say jurisdiction we are not only talking about the jurisdiction of the
court. We are talking here about the jurisdiction of the government or the state.
a.
b.
c.
Jurisdiction to prescribe law. This is legislative, the authority of the state to make its law or policy
applicable to persons or activities. Whether this can be extended outside the territory of the state, well
talk about it later on.
What jurisdiction simply means is the authority to prescribe a conduct and that is legislative.
Jurisdiction to enforce. This involves the authority to use governmental resources and demand compliance
of certain administrative rules.
Jurisdiction to adjudicate. Pertains to the court, to decide on cases and subject certain persons to the
processes of the court.
Specific jurisdiction of courts in relation to crimes: criminal jurisdiction.

Different theories justifying jurisdiction of courts:
a.
TERRITORIALITY PRINCIPLE
As distinguished from principle of generality:
Generality principle is a component of territoriality principle but only applied to persons sojourning in a
particular territory.
Some books that are not non-legal use these terms interchangeably.
Generality Principle: ability of the applicability of laws to all people sojourning in a particular territory
(ex. Art. 14, CC)
Territorial Jurisdiction: covers not only over persons, but also over acts or events. This is where we can
talk of extraterritoriality principle. Because in Generality Principle, laws, ex. penal laws involving
national security, can be applied to all persons sojourning in a particular state. But if we talk about TP
that is regardless of actually placed, if you put into consideration the idea of extraterritoriality
principle.
o
Ex. Territorial Jurisdiction over person, property, acts, occurring within the territory. Since
crimes may be committed in a lot of ways and in different stages, then IL encounters the
problem of subjective and objective territorial principle.
o
We are not dealing here with definite jurisdiction as applicable universally because, in fact, a
state may be aggressive enough to even apply all these principles. Or, it may be conservative
enough to just choose some and reject others. Do not think that a state will always has all
these kinds of jurisdiction. This is just a question on HOW TO JUSTIFY AN EXERCISE OF
JURISDICTION BY A STATE OVER A PARTICULAR PERSON OR CRIME.
o
You cannot say that State A can choose territorial or nationality jurisdiction. It will depend on
the policy of that state. Not unless, for purposes of examination, probably, the question would
be: IF YOU ARE TO ARGUE ON THE TERRITORIALITY PRINCIPLE OR NATIONALITY PRINCIPLE,
HOW WOULD YOU JUSTIFY JURISDICTION OF THE COURT? When can it be invoked or
applicable?
o
Caveat: Some principles are still controversial under IL, ex. Protective Principle. There is no
CIL that says, at all times, there can be PP. there may be CIL as to the limited application of
PP.
2 kinds of Territorial Jurisdiction:
o
Subjective TP: a crime can be commenced within one state and may be completed or
consummated in another state
o
Objective TP: commenced in another state, the completion or effects would be in that
invoking state, or harmful consequences to the social or economic order in that territory are
also present or felt.
o
The usual example: someone in Canada fires a gun and hits another in the US.
o
Canada can justify under STP while US can justify under OTP.
o
The first to acquire jurisdiction cannot apply because of separate penal laws, that of
Canada of the US.
US is the more dynamic and aggressive in acquiring jurisdiction over crimes.
US v. Vasquez-Velasco
The murdered were not actually members of the US Drug Enforcement Agency. They were civilians.
Okay? A novelist, photographer. But, they were mistaken of the USDEA. That is where the US tried to
look for a connection. Since the act was directed against the USDEA, then that was considered as
against the US interest. How justified by the USA?
That IL generally permits the extraterritoriality principle under the Objective territorial
principle.
The crime was committed abroad but was directed to USDEA, thus affecting the interest of the USA.
OTP: Consummated or completed in the territory of the invoking state OR, even if it is not completed
there, and this is the more aggressive territorial principle, and it produces gravely harmful
consequences to the social economic order inside the territory, it may be justified under the OTP.
A.Y. 2014-2015
10 | P a g e
This was also justified under Protective Principle. And, in this case, the US Court mentioned of a
delimitation to the application of Protective Principle. PP has a narrow application unlike TP,
Universality, or Nationality.
US: under which jurisdiction is asserted over foreigners for an act committed outside the US that we
impinge on the:
1. Territorial security
2. Political independence of the US
Since the crime was directed against the US, it was directed against the USDEA, it was therefore an
act that impinged on the territorial security.
Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. California
The insurance conflict on policy and some London-based company dealing with the insurance and that
the policy by American insurance companies were not provoking the interest of this London-based
insurance companies. They came up with certain acts, a conspiracy to diminish the economic interest
of the US in relation to insurance policies in the insurance business. The US applied the Sherman Act,
an ant-trust law, even if the acts were committed in the UK.
Justification: The foreign conduct that was meant to produce and does in fact produce substantial
effect in the US.
This is an example of PP.
b.
NATIONALITY PRINCIPLE
2 kinds:
o
Passive nationality: looks at the victim. For as long as the victim is a citizen of that state,
then, that state has authority or jurisdiction over the crime.
o
Active nationality: jurisdiction is attached to the person wherever he is situated. If the person
is an American, and wherever he commits a crime, the American courts can have jurisdiction
over him.
o
AN: on the offender; PN: on the victim.
o
But there has got to be a genuine link or connection between the person, either as the
offender or the victim, and this is established by the Nationality Principle espoused in the
case of Nottebohm.
Nottebohm was born German but for more than three decades he had been in Guatemala
due to family business. And then, war broke out involving Germany and for fear that the
properties of Nottebohm will be confiscated, he applied for naturalization in Liechtenstein. He
was in fact exempt of some requirements of naturalization. When he went back to
Guatemala, he was arrested detained because he was German. So, Liechtenstein alleges that
Nottebohm is its citizen and it has the right to protect him. Claim was filed by Liechtenstein.
Issue: WON Liechtenstein will have the power to espouse the claim or the power to protect
or make diplomatic protection for or in behalf of Nottebohm.
The basis was he was granted citizenship by naturalization.
ICJ: mentioned of a variance in local or domestic citizenship studies and nationality studies in
IL. A state can have its own kind or set of citizenship laws but these will not necessarily have
a bearing in the International level because we follow the Effective Nationality Theory.
What is Effective Nationality Theory?
-end-
Public International Law February 11, 2015
How relevant is it the nationality theory in Nottebohm Case?
A.Y. 2014-2015
11 | P a g e
Student A: It is because the person here when he applied citizenship in Liechtenstein, ICJ said that Liechtenstein did
not have the personality(interrupted by Sir)
Sir: What is the interest of Liechtenstein again? or what did they do?
A: ... (unsure answer)
Sir: It was exercising diplomatic protection because Nottebohm was arrested and detained. To be able to question
the proceedings, the State may do so when its citizen is in a foreign country then normally if you seek remedies for
maltreatment or abuse of authority then the remedy could be diplomatic protection exercised in behalf of its citizen.
So that is what Liechtenstein is trying to do. So there is a question whether or not, Liechtenstein has the authority
to exercise diplomatic protection solely on the basis on the grant of citizenship via naturalization on Nottebohm.
What did ICJ said about it?
A: ICJ said here sir that there is no legal bond between Liechtenstein and Nottebohm but with Guatemala
Sir: Why was ICJ talking about a bond?

A: Because sir inorder to apply nationality principle there has to be some kind of a bond
Sir: Was the citizenship granted to Nottebohm enough bond that would connect Nottebohm and Liechtenstein?
A: No sir, it is not enough because the citizeship was merely an afterthought because of the war.
Sir: Are you saying the citizenship proceeding in Liechtenstein is irregular and therefore void?
A: No sir but Nottebohm applied for citizenship it was not his real intention (interrupted)
Sir: Was Nottebohm a citizen of Liechtenstein?

A: Yes sir.
Sir: Mere grant of citizenship, according to ICJ, is not sufficient to vest Liechtenstenstein in order to exercise
diplomatic protection. But ICJ did not say that the citizenship granted to Nottebohm is invalid.
(recit ended)
Sir: This is important, class, as you have noticed when we study International Law, we should be conscious with
different legal system. One is domestic and the other is international. So the question whether X is a citizen of State
A is a question that requires domestic law of State A and no other. In fact in a particular State, in deciding
citizenship is limited only to saying whether a particular person is a citizen of that State or not but it cannot adjudge
whether that person is a citizen of another State. For example, in Philippine Court, it can only say that Juan dela
Cruz is a Filipino but cannot say Juan dela Cruz is Spanish because question of citizenship is a domestic law
question. Now what Liechtenstein is trying to do is not application of domestic law alone but also international law
because it is exercising diplomatic protection. And diplomatic protection is an international law concern so
A.Y. 2014-2015
12 | P a g e
according to ICJ it has to be settled under International Law. So the link between Nottebohm and Liechtenstein
should be under International Law as well. According to ICJ, the link is not settled by mere citizenship alone but
what we call EFFECTIVE NATIONALITY THEORY. Ok?
I will show you what the ICJ mentioned about this (sir is opening his slides). As argued by Guatemala in its outer
memorial.
ICJ: ... "Guatemala has referred to a well-established principle of

international,... that "it is the bond of nationality between the State
and the individual which alone confers upon the State the right of
diplomatic protection".
..."the courts of third States, when they have before them an individual
whom two other States hold to be their national, seek to resolve the
conflict by having recourse to international criteria and their prevailing
tendency is to prefer the real and effective nationality."
... nationality is a legal bond having as its basis a social fact of
attachment, a genuine connection of existence, interests and
sentiments, together with the existence of reciprocal rights and
duties.
Nottebohm in this case is staying in Guatemala for 34 years because they have a family business there in fact
started as an ordinary officer and later on became the president. Many times, he has been to Germany also. There
is therefore no effective link between him and Liechtenstein. So that is your nationality theory for purposes of
exercising jurisdiction. So we have active and passive nationality.
So how about this case of US vs Columba-Collela(1979).
Student I: It is about a stolen car in Texas. The question here is whether the US can exercise jurisdiction because
Columba-Collela in this case is not a US citizen but British living in Mexico.
Sir: first, what crime has been committed here? Selling of a stolen car - fencing, di ba? This is a violation of antifencing law. So, the crime of fencing was committed in Mexico. Do you think there is link between the crime and the
US for US court to acquire jurisdiction to try the British national?
Student I: Yes sir because the car was stolen in Texas but the selling happened in Mexico.
Sir: Under what principle can we apply?
I: territorial principle sir because... (sir interrupted because it is wrong.. hehe)
Sir: The crime committed here is fencing in Mexico. Not the stealing because the stealing is a separate crime which
is not the issue in this case. So, how do you establish jurisdiction here?
I: nationality principle sir? (sayop na pod ni... hehe)
Sir: If it is passive, the victim here is american? in fencing, the victim is american? Dili pwede active because the
offender is not an American citizen. Cannot passive also because the victim is not an American.
A.Y. 2014-2015
13 | P a g e
I: Sir, maybe we can apply the protective principle? (sayop na pod kay actually walay ma-apply nga principle of
jurisdiction)
Sir: maybe? what is protective principle?
I: crime is threat to national security.
Sir: does fencing a threat to national security? According to US, protective principle will only apply if it will also
interfere in the governmental operation para majustify ang protective. In this case, it does not. How about
universality principle?
I: Cannot sir because this is not crime against the international community.
Sir: If we talk about protective principle, the limited and narrow scope would be threat to national security and
interference in the governmental operation. Universality also has limited scope applicable only to international
crimes such as war crimes and piracy(as lex lata). All others, lex ferenda. And in case of terrorism, apart from
knowing that it can be lex ferenda, you can probably add because of instant CIL in case of terrorism. And the
justification that it is part of instant CIL is the way terrorism has been committed in modern times involving modern
technology and also because of the massive impact of terrorism around the globe. That is one of the justifications
that combating terrorism as instant CIL and consider as part of universal application of jurisdiction but that is not a
lex lata yet only a developing international law.
(recit ended)
United States vs Columba-Collela (1979)
Facts: A British citizen living in Mexico agrees to sell a car that is in Mexico
but was stolen from Texas by someone else.
How
about
Issue: Can the British citizen be prosecuted under US law?
Protective Principle?
- the protective principle does not bear on this case because
the case does not involve a threat to national security or
directly interfere with government operations.
objective territoriality principle? According to ICJ, the British national is not the one who stole the car and therefore
there was no significant connection in the US. Maybe there is connection but not significant to justify objective
territoriality. How about passive nationality? not applicable because usually covers also a limited category of crime.
I might have mentioned of torture, yes but not even in cases of murder that does not affect jus cogens or erga
omnes norms. It is hard to justify it. Even murder is not within the context of passive nationality theory. So let's go
to protective principle. As I said.
A.Y. 2014-2015
14 | P a g e
Protective Principle in Jurisdiction

- a state can legislate crimes that i considers to be a threat to its security,
integrity, or economic interests
In US,
they
- common examples: espionage, counterfeiting

(terrorism?)
Restatement 402: "... a state has jurisdiction to prescribe the law with
respect to ...(3) certain conduct outside its territory by persons not its
nationals that is directed agains the security of the state or against a
limited class of other state interests."
- this principle is limited to conduct that occurs outside a
state's territory, by noncitizens
include economic interest. Remember the case of Hartford? What interest was affected by the alleged conspiracy to
damage and prejudice the economy of US, the insurance industry in particular, compelling to restructure their
insurance policies. That was economic interest and the US justified it through protective principle. Ok?
- The Protective Principle, is not a catch-all principle, however. It has a

very narrow scope
- Examples of conduct that come under the protective principle:
- security (espionage, counterfeiting, falsification of official documents)
- terrorism?
- customs and immigration laws
- perjury before consular officials
(my
note:
those
'?'
above
- economic interests?
are really found in the slide; it connotes some meanings)
In our article 2 of RPC, it can still be justified under protective principle although we call it extraterritoriality
principle because we also declare that we have jurisdiction to acts committed outside the Philippines but involving
those enumerated in article 2 and i remember there is counterfeiting, falsification, introduction, etc. Question on
terrorism. maybe instant CIL. Economic interest- US settled but not international law settled. It is still controversial
that's why i placed there question mark.
An old case...
----
A.Y. 2014-2015
15 | P a g e
United States vs Bowman (1922)

The indictment charged Wry (Master) and Bowman (Engineer), officer of
the Dio (owned by the US), for planning to oder, through Johnson & Co.,
and receipt for 1,000 tons of fuel oil from the Standard Oil Company, but to
take only 600 tons aboard, and to collect cash for a delivery of 1,000
tons through Johnson & Co. from the Fleet Corporation, and then divide the
money paid for the undelivered 400 tons among them (with two other
defendants).
Not
much
Court:
A criminal statue dealing with acts that are directly injurious
to the government and are capable of perpetration without
regard to particular locality, and subjecting all who commit
them to punishment, is to be construed as applicable to
citizens of the United States upon the high seas or in a foreign
country, though there be no express declaration to that effect
controversy if crime is committed in high seas but it is controversial only when committed in other territory like
what happened in the case of US vs Romero-Galue
United States vs Romero-Galue,

This
was in
high
seas
and
757 F.2d 1147 (11th Cir. 1985)
US could still exercise jurisdiction over the Panamanian ship even if there is
no treaty because the protective principle would allow the US to prosecute
foreign nationals on foreign vessels on the high seas for possession of
narcotics (and in some way inherently harmed the US)
"The protective principle permits a nation to assert jurisdiction

over a person whose conduct outside the nation's territory
threatens the nation's security or could potentially interfere with
the operation of its governmental functions."
involved narcotics. Although the crime was committed in high seas, there was evidence that it is directed to US
because based on intelligence report those narcotics are intended for US. The governmental function involved is
combating narcotics.
How about the case of Atty general of gov't of Israel?
A.Y. 2014-2015
16 | P a g e
Sir: Can we apply protective principle in this case? The crime was directed against the Jewish people. That's one and
second?
Student O: Also universality principle because of genocide..
Sir: In this case two principles can be applied. One is protective or even passive nationality then second,
universality. So here, it was argued that the court has no jurisdiction because he was captured in a foreign territory
in Argentina but it was dismissed because of universality theory.
In your exam(kani!), expect there will be a problem and then there will some crimes. You will be asked to justify the
jurisdiction of the court and be able to point out particular principle that the court may apply. And probably i will
also ask whether or not it should be upheld and possible to argue that this is the principle that the court can invoke
but aslo be asked to decide whether it can be successfully invoked. So you have to master the concept, scope,
limitations, etc of all of these.
----
Attorney General of Government of Israel vs Eichmann (1961)
-------
United States vs Usama Bin Laden (2000)

Israel tried and convicted Adolf Eichmann, who had been captured by
Facts: Defendants
are to
charged
a variety
of crimes
Israeli agents in Argentina
and brought
Israel with
for trial.
Eichmann
was stemming from the
Augustcrimes
1998 bombings
of the US
Embassies
in Nairobi,
charged of committing
agains Jewish
people,
crimes
againstKenya.
humanity, war crimes, and membership in hostile organization as defined
in Israel's Nazis and Nazi Collaborators Punishment Law. Eichmann argued
that the court had Court:
no jurisdiction
because
he was captured
foreign
The passive
personality
principleinisaincreasingly
accepted as
country in violation applied
of international
law.
to terrorists and other organized attacks on a state's
nationals by reason of their nationality, or to assassination of a
state's diplomatic representatives or other officials..." (citing
Restatement section 402). ... Universal jurisdiction is increasingly
Court:
accepted for certain acts of terrorism... " (citing Restatement section
"From the point
of view
international
law, the
power
of the
404)...
Bothof
universal
jurisdiction
and
the protective
principle are bases for
State of Israel
to
enact
the
law
in
question...
is
based...
on
a
jurisdiction by the United States over the death of foreign citizens"
dual foundation: the universal character of the crimes in
----question and their specific character intended to exterminate
In this
Jewish people."
case,
Usama also admitted that Al-Qaeda is responsible for the bombing of the US Embassies in Kenya so a case was filed
in US. The issue is the justification of the authority of US courts because the bombing took somewhere else. Passive
personality principle was invoked as the proper principle to justify jurisdiction. Universal jurisdiction can also be
used to justify.
How about the case of Pinochet?
This is a very important case. It was mentioned in many books. Take note of this case. This is relation whether or
not a former head of state is immune from prosecution.
He was a dictator of Chile. Pinochet hated Spaniard so much that he ordered in fact a series of torture against
Spanish national. After the end of his territorial regime, he got sick and went to London for medical purposes.
A.Y. 2014-2015
17 | P a g e
Around this time, Spanish court issued an arrest warrant against Pinochet then he was abducted in London. The
question now is whether or not Spanish court has lawful jurisdiction against Pinochet for acts committed in Chile?
Territorial Jurisdiction? Of course not applicable because the torture was committed in Chile.
Active Nationality? Dili pod because Pinochet is Chilean.
Protective Principle? No also because there was no threat to State's national security.
So what could be possibly proper is number one.. Universal Jurisdiction kay torture man because prohibition against
torture is erga omnes norm. Also Passive nationality because the victims were Spanish citizen because the passive
nationality principle is more persuasive than the universal jurisdiction. So when you read about jurisdiction, you
include also the case of Pinochet.
----
Pinochet Case
- Spain relied on Universal Jurisdiction to argue for Pinochet's extradition from

England to Spain
- It also relied on Passive Nationality/Personality (Spanish Citizens were killed
in Chile)
- Passive Nationality/Personality was found to be more persuasive than
Universal Jurisdiction
- No Territorial Jurisdiction - happened in Chile, not Spain
- No Active Nationality - Pinochet was not Spanish
- No Protective Principle - there was no imminent threat to Spain's national
security from Spain
----
Sir: The jurisdiction to prescribe which is essentially legislative may probably be extended even outside the territory
of the State, correct?
Student D: Yes
Sir: Authority to enforce however seems to be limited because even if jurisdiction maybe vested to the court, the
service of warrant however would require jurisdiction to implement. ok? and that seems to be problematic because
even if, for example, the US has jurisdiction over the crime committed outside or even in the US but the person to
be arrested is no longer in the territory of the US. That becomes a problematic now because the service of the
warrant may encounter problem. So, how do we deal with this?
Student: Through the process of extradition
Sir: Ok. that's one. what else?
A.Y. 2014-2015
18 | P a g e
Student: Probably, deportation also sir

Sir: If the bar exam is distinguished deportation from extradition
Student: Extradition, sir, is a State request another state for the arrest a person and send to back to the requesting
State. Deportation is the ouster of that individual from the State.
Sir: Ok that's to the process. What else?
Student: In extradition, the crime is committed in the territory of the requesting State; deportation is committed
within the territory of the State. (2nd bell na sir oh... dismiss na)
Sir: Is there a request for deportation? or request for extradition?
Student: Only in extradition sir. For deportation, it is up to the individual where he will go.
Sir: How about abduction of criminals? With or without extradition treaty, is that a way also of acquiring jurisdiction
over a person?
Student: it happened in one of the cases where he was forcible abducted. There is no prohibition in IL. So when it is
not prohibited although there is a problem when .. (interrupted)
Sir: What is "rendition?"? (the class were confused; first time i heard this but for sure it will be discussed again in
the succeeding classes)
Student: I haven't encountered this in my reading, sir.
So class, let us end here. Coverage next meeting is up to consular immunity
February 18, 2015 PIL recording 1:1:18

Okay ah. Why is it important that extradition is a chapter in jurisdiction? As you know there are 2 kinds of
jurisdiction or authority that the state can exercise in international law. We have the jurisdiction to prescribe or the
authority to prescribe which is basically legislative. Ahm actually the law can be given to acts or person even
outside. So even legislative measures can still be applied to acts of persons outside. You know that diba? It can still
be given extra territorial effect. Probably an example is the case of income tax oh dba? You distinguish between
Filipino resident and Filipino non resident . For Filipino non resident they are taxable for income within, mao ba na?
ohh if you are a Filipino resident your income is taxable even if you earn it within or without oh see. Kamao kug
taxation. Mao ban a mao ban a class still the same? Oh see gawas na ninyo inig sabado inig exam.gipangutana mo
sa kaso ni many pacquaio noh? WALA. Oh tax law given effect even to income earned outside so extra territorial.
Okay? Court jurisdiction, jurisdiction to adjudicate. We have just studied that. It can also be given extra territorial
effect. Even you apply universality principle for intl crimes like genocide even in protective principle in a narrow
scope but you see the practice in the US then you have ahhm objective territorial principle and subjective territiorial
principle. Dba? Pued part of the act is committed outside. Alright?
The third one is the jurisdiction to enforce. Okay? Meaning to enforce processes like court orders, arrest warrants,
subpoena, arrest waarant. Thats a problem because it is clearly confined within the territory of the state. That;s
why theres need for ways for example a person may be brought to the jurisdiction of the court if he is already
outside the territory of the state. Okay? We call this the process of rendition. Did I discuss this? Wala pa noh? Okay
its different from what I did during the concert for a cause dba? That was a rendition of a song. Okay? This one is
different. There are 3 kinds or forms rather of rendition. Number 1 is the most ah ah commonly adopted through
extradition ok? Because if you want to obtain the person of the accused. You want to serve the warrant of arrest. Its
the only way you can have jurisdiction over the person. Even if you have jurisdiction over the case but you also
need to have a jurisdiction over the person because the 1 st authority is to decide whether the crime has been
committed and the 2nd is to impose the penalty. You cannot impose the penalty of the crime if you dont have
jurisdiction over the person of the accused. Okay so. You need the consent of the other state. Otherwise if you
extend the authority to enforce in the territory of the other state. That can be a case of intervention. If it is without
consent. This concerns about some FBI agents found in the project unsay tawag ana mission exodus oo in the
service or in serving the warrant to Marwan. Its no problem if it was with consent of the Philippines. Its not an
intervention or interference. In the same manner if you enter into extradition treay thats still the same effect. That
still will serve the purposes of another state if voluntary. 2 nd is deportation. Thats also a form of rendition. But the
problem with deportation and it was asked already in 1 bar exam. Distinguish extradition from deportation. Ahh
deportation is unilateral , theres no need. There can be an informal request but why would the state do that.
Probably there is extradition treaty. So the other state can probably influence where the accused could be found to
A.Y. 2014-2015
19 | P a g e
deport. But it can be done only informally. Legally there is no requirement of consent and then of course you dont
need a treaty and the destination of the deportee is irrelevant. Thats also the problem of deportation because the
deporting state cannot direct the deportee where to go after. Kay expulsion ra man na xa sa territory.the best thing
really is to have extradition. The 2rd form of rendition is the most controversial one. Abduction in the territory of
another state. Oi wa tay klase tomorrow? Magkjalse kaha ta? 2 na man lang ka issues ang nabilin. Ang probleman
ani class ang mga taga laing planeta
Okay so its controversial because basically it actually constitutes intervention or interference in the affairs of
another state. Abduction of criminals abroad is intervention. But whether it affects the jurisdiction of the court, well
talk about that a lil later. But 1st extradition. So there are impt conditions in extradition. Number 1 there has to be a
treaty. Thats why its called treaty based. Meaning theres no duty to extradite, even there is influence. Are you
following. And the moment theres already extradition treaty. A state is now obliged to surrender an accused in its
territory because of pacta sunt survanda. Diba? Oh. So there is now the duty to deliver. The 2 nd condition is that the
person to be charged or convicted must be charged or convicted of an extraditable offense. So di pued iextradite
mo for future charge.so if you have in whatever book you are reading. For pourposes of porsection, it is not
hypothetical. It must be really porsecuted and the purpose only of extradition is to acquire jurisdiction over the
person of the accused. Abduction abroad is really a necessity. Part of due process by the way. Take note of that. And
then in extradition the extraditable offense should either be listed or covered by a dual or double criminality clause.
So ang extradition treat will provide xa ug list. Now hat if a crime is not among those listed in the treaty. Is there a
possibility that a person still be extradited on the bases of a crime not listed. YES if covered by dual criminality
principle. What is the meaning of dual criminality principle? It means punishable by penal laws if both parties then it
is a common offense and therefore it can be a subj of extradition but theres a caveat here. The extradition treat
must provide for that clause. It cannot just say that both. The treaty must acknowledge dual criminalty principle.
Okay. Its hard to abide by such because it has not yet amounted to international law. This is purely so therefore
the treaty must acknowledge. Thats the lex lata. Ofcourse the lex ferenda here is without mentioning, if it had
been practiced by states then some authors infact suggest thtat it may actually be legitimate. But I dont think that
is well acceptable. So in view of that. Youll have the following principles as well. Already asked in the bar exam.
These are the areas that examiners focus.
(SLIDE)
1. no treaty, no oblig to extradite as I have said. Treaty based.
2. pacta sunt servanda apllies the moment there is extradition treeay entered into force. Bound. Take note that as a
matter of CIL it could not cover political offenses. You know why? Right to Asylum. Erga omnes- CIL. Because of that
a treaty cannot provide political offenses. Note however that we have attentat clause. Already asked in the bar.
What is that? The provision in the treaty that mere killing of the head of the state should not by itself considered as
a political offense. So some stradition treaty have that provision.
3. the rule on specialty. Adopted in lieu of the need to acknowledge due process in the extradite lso while these
are criminals. They also enjoy presumption of innocence. Intl law is becoming democrstic as well. So in a criminal
proceeding there is a and therefore the accused or extradite ..due process. And the rule of specialty requires that
the extradite must only be prosecuted for offenses that have been the subject of the request. Charged of robbery
dili pued ikiha nimog rape. Should be the crime mentioned on the request. Thats basic tanet to fairness. Maayu pa
kung daghan xa kaso ienumerate nalang tanan.
4. ex post facto law prohibition does not apply. Why? Extradition is not a criminal proceeding. Ex post facto law
applies only to a criminal case. Lets say you committed a crime in 2010 and state a and b entered into a treaty on
2012. Okay. Can state a request for extradition of x from state b for a crime committed even before extradition
treaty entered into force. Answer is YES because since it is not a criminal proceeding it cannot be invoked.
Remember the case of olalia vs govt of hongkong? The 1 st issue is WON the respondent in extradition proceeding
will be entitled to bail? First ruling of our SC. Not entitled because a right o bail is gratned only or can be invoked by
the accused in a criminal proceeding. And since an extradite is not an accused and also not in a criminal proceeding
then theres no right to bail in extradition proceeding. In olalia case. The SC found the need to look again as to the
kind of right involved in the extradition proceeding and the discussion of SC recognized the elevated recognition of
rights of indiv in intl laws. Individuals right to freedom is internationally recognized and so accdg to the SC okay
even if extradition is not a criminal proceeding and therefore generally no right to bail, SC said it has however it has
an ear mark of a criminal proceeding. What happens diay durinf extradiotion. Dba you are arrested. If you are the
resp. you will be detained and asked to answer. To that extent daw because there is a possibility of denial of your
liberty your freedom will be restricted in a way so even if not criminal proceeding. Extradtion has an ear mark of a
criminal proceeding. Ergo, a respondent in extradition proceeding may now post bail.
We now go to the issue on legality of abduction. So I already mention the 3 modes of rendition. It is settled that
abduction of criminals from another state. Because abduction we dont have consent so it is intervention under UN
charter. Okay. Ahhm, it can only be justified if invoking self defense but then again it is sill not clkearly settled in intl
law whether there is self defense in a case where you need to abduct. Difficulty in establishing an element of
A.Y. 2014-2015
20 | P a g e
unlawful aggression. But ofcourse writers have not closed their doors to the possibility of that pre emptive self
defense. That it may infact develop to intl law. But if it can be established there is valid exercise of self defense then
it may be justifies. But as I have said. Its still hard at the moment.
WON the legality of abduction will affect the jurisdiction of the court. This is the principle of _____________________.
What do you mean by that? Wrongfully captured. Validly detained. Dba? Abduct sa territory of another country but
lawfully or validly detained. Ang question nato sa special issues unsay status ani in intl law. Lex lata lex ferenda?
Illegal apprehension will not necesarrily affect the jurisdiction of the __state. Case of eichman. Ker frisbie doctrine
on the scope of some sort of making an exemption. It may be validly detained if the apprehension is accompanied
with torture, brutality or similar outrageous conduct. Typoical common law thinking. Daghan kaayu musud ana
class. Civil law pa ni ilista. (similar violent acts kung civil pa). just take the case of Eichmann. Adbucted abroad in
argentina. Tried in Israel. One of the defenses invoked is the legality of the arrest because it was done in the
territory of argentina without consent. What was ruled there was ofcourse is applying the so called kerr frisbie
doctrine, kerr vs illinoise, frisbie vs Collins. Both cases however internal. Not necessarily intl but concept evolved as
inl principle.
(SLIDES) ker-frisbie cases.
How is it justified? Whats he justification of male captus bene detectus. Even if there is irregularity in the arrest of
the accused it will not accuse the jurisdiction of the court. One factor because the court anyway will grant the
accused person due process., heard, counsel, face witness face to face procedural safeguards. And the other
reason ofcourse is this ahm arrest of the accused individual is not a judicial ____. Correct? It is executive. So it
makes no sense to affect the jurisdiction of the court as a result of non observance of the procedure when
enforcement is done. D man =cpourt and nag abduct. Police man. And why should there be illegal or irregular
conduct affect na judiciary man sila? PAUSE!
In the case of US vs Alvarez. It is also will the presence of extradition treaty bar the forcible abduction of criminals
abused. It should supposetedly coz since there is regular method of rendition why go to a highly controversial
method of rendition? Yes? Most authors will mor or less advance that it SHOULD. But no intl law says it should. Like
in this case mexico and us had an extradition treaty. (SLIDE) here the officials of mexico were lng aware of the
practice of US on abduction and did not insist the prohibition of abduction in the treaty. So the silence of the lack
of a privision in the extradition treaty ws used by the US SC in justifying that extradition treat does not necesarilly
affects or bar abduction. Again common law noh:? Whatever is pragamatic. But you hae on books on the matter
largely criticize this.
Not in the outline but will be tacked in our special issues. The case vs toscalino. So whjat happened here? (SLIDEfacts) brutally tortured for 17 days. Brought to court via abduction. Okay there is kerr frisbie doctrine legality of
arrest will not necesarilly affect the jurisdiction of the court., in us vs tscalino 1974 It said ahm if the allegations
were true thisallegations of torture. Then they are too shocking to conscience that due process acquired. that the
district court divest itself of jurisdiction. Activist court. Aware of such brutality. US SC we view due process of now
requiring.. (ruling US vs toscalino)
General rule: male captus bene detectus
Except: when the arrest or conduct is accompanied with brutality, torture, and other outrageous conduct.
Interestingly in the same year, after toscalino US vs Muhat still 1974. What happened? He was abducted. And in the
process of abduction he was blindfolded. No infliction of injuries. Tabunan kag murag isi style. Di na muqualkify as
outrageous conduct? Unsa? Unsa na? para namo ourageous. Pero lain inyong gihisgutan oi. GIKAN PA NA TAN AW
FIFTY SHADES OF GREY SIS. Ahhhhh! ABI KUG SA VALENTINES DAY KANNG SA SEARCHEE OG SEARCHER DIBA
MAGBLINDFOLD MAN NA. the mere fact na there was abduction, it will not necesarilly call for application of
toscalino. Apparently with the req of outrageous conduct. Blindfold does not amount to outrageous conduct. So
there must be an amount of physiucal violence inflicted against the person of the abductee. Ang blindfold si kung
huot kaayu? If butangan sako na d kaginhawa thats outrageous.sa exam dapat pa iqualify giunsa pag blindfold.
Ana bay aka sir d ka muhatag 10. Burden to establish the presence of torture. Incumbent upon the accuse although
under our consti law. Uhhm, irregularity of perfeormance of plice may not actually invoke in cases involving right to
freedom. But I think its the accused.
We go to immunity from jurisdiction. 1st part of which we have doctrine of qualified immunity or those s called
restrictive theory on state immunity that is there is a need to distinguish jus imperii and jus gestonis. And this
immunity from suit is applicable only when it is governmental function. Revie nature and purpose test. And also
act of state doctr4ine well talk about it. Case of Hernandez. Ahh courts are barred or any governmental agencies
are barred from passing judgments on any case or acts of other states because of the principle of co equality. We
will tlk about diplomatic immunity..
But first your doctrine of qualified immunity is just a repeat. Applicable only to jus imperii or governmental acts but
not to jus gestonis . and then in 1 case the following are enumerated. (SLIDE-LIST)
A.Y. 2014-2015
21 | P a g e
So even in civil proceedings. Ahm the doctreine of immunity were also applied. Relate in the case of Pinochet later
on. (conversation with American in the plane)
This employee in the hospital in Saudi Arabia exposed some provlems in the hospital with the on the job hazard.
Murag mga safety hazards. And then govt hospital baya so you are not supposed to directly announce. (Kwento sa
reklamo about low internet and nephews na nidaku sa US) he was torture by govt police so he filed case. Ang
question karon ang pag operate sa hospital govtal o proprietary so as to have immunity. Torture is police or law
enforers acts. Assumed that it is conduct of law enforcers. Torure is a technical word. If gangster ang nagtorure
nimo d na torture gitawag. Unsa man? Hazing? Mauling? You use the ord torture only to law enfoircers conduct. He
was suing man law officials nagtorture. Then it is not public commercial character therefore immune- governmental!
Another case that apply nature is this argentin republic vs hess. Not by purpose but by nature. The alleged
offenders were armies ilang gitraget ang mga ships sa liberail corp in the isi and these were armed
attach.something cannot be done by private person. Phil usually purpose. Us nature.
We go to head of state and diplomatic immunity.
HEAD OF STATE AND DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY
What is the scope of the immunity of the head of state? Is the head of State immune from suit?
Anyone? What is the international law on the immunity of the head of State?
Student A: Complete immunity sir even if the acts of the head of State are in private capacity
Sir: There must be a reason for that. Why is it that we adopt the principle of absolute immunity?
A: I think sir so that their purpose will not be impeded ...
Sir: There a term for that - Functional Immunity - so as not to disturb or prevent the head of state from effectively
performing its function then there should be a rule exempting our head of State from suit.
Is there a possibility that we can sue the head of State, nonetheless? Let me clarify. How about a
former head of State?
When we say complete immunity, we are referring to incumbency. Not during term but tenure because when we say
during tenure that is during incumbency. So if sayo siya ni-end sa iya term and dili na siya nag-sit as head of state,
so what's the rule there? If involves official function of a former head of state then the immunity continues. But if
the act involved is not related to its function then the case will now prosper. In other words, there is absolute
immunity during incumbency and continue immunity for acts in performance of his function and no more immunity
for acts not in the performance of his function. That is the reason we are able to charge Estrada for plunder and
now Arroya also for plunder because committing a crime or plunder is never related to official function.
There is also dispute as who is actually the head of State in a particular country for purposes of
lawfully invoking immunity from suit?
This is applicable where the "head of State" is being charged in another country. What if that country does not
recognize that person as the head of State? Therefore no matter that person invoke immunity as the head of State
but the State prosecuting him for some crimes will not recognize him as the head of State. That actually happened
in 1997 in the case of United States vs Noriega.
---US v. Noriega
A.Y. 2014-2015
22 | P a g e
Noriega was abducted to the US and brought to trial for his involvement in cocaine trafficking.
The executive branch (George Bush) did not consider Noriega to be the head of state of Panama, so he did not
receive head of State immunity. The US had recognized instead Delvalle, and later Endara, as legitimate heads of
state of Panama.
----It seems however that US did not Noriega as the head of Panama. Kani man gud Panama. Wala ni extradition2x.
That's why if you clients who want to plea, you suggest Panama because no extradition treaty. They have no
extradition treaty but with beautiful ladies. Perfect! (Sir proceeded with his joke about his partner who went to
Panama).
Not recognize, so why should we grant u? Naa sad diay political aspect ang recognition of the Head of State
because if you are not recognize, it is an issue of de facto and de jure government. That's the case.
That's let take the case again of Pinochet.
---Immunity of Former Head of State in Criminal Proceedings
Pinochet Case:
The House of Lords of UK ruled that the absolute prohibition of torture, a jus cogens norm,
overrides immunity afforded to a former Head of State in criminal proceedings. The commission of a
crime against humanity and jus cogens cannot be done in an official capacity on behalf of a State
The House of Lords who determined that Pinochet could be extradited from Britain to Spain said that if he
were still a head of state he would be immune from prosecution, even for torture
Rationale for immunity: To assure heads of state that they will be able to represent their countries and not
have to fight off suits while traveling abroad.
Pinochet had immunity ratione materiae but not immunity ratione personae (kinds of immunity
usually applied to diplomatic immunity)
----
Pinochet, the dictator of Chile. After the dictatorial regime, he was arrested in England to answer for the torture and
killing of Spanish citizens in Chile during his time. As to torture, his argument is that he ordered torture and
therefore it was official. So as being former head of State, i cannot be prosecuted for acts in performance of official
function. I ordered the torture as the head of State. The absolute prohibition of torture, a jus cogens norm, overrides
immunity afforded to a former Head of State in criminal proceedings. Butangan nato ug criminal proceedings
because in the case of Saudi Arabia, in civil cases, there is international law yet that bars the application of
immunity of head of state for that matter. you have to take note of that.
----Distinction, must, however, be made between:
Domestic jurisdiction over Head of State
vs.
Jurisdiction of International Criminal Court for International crimes
A.Y. 2014-2015
23 | P a g e
---because indeed immunity of the head of State originates from State immunity and is justifed by the co-equality
among states. Therefore, a court of one state cannot exercise jurisdiction over the person who is the head of
another state. If you are to talk about International Criminal Court, this does not call for a situation where a
domestic subjects another State to its jurisdiction because this is already international criminal court. What applies
here is of course the principle of pacta sunt servanda. All states have agreed for those parties to the ICC that they
will abide by the purposes of the Rome Statute. So jurisdiction of ICC should not be an issue for those who are
parties to the International Criminal Court. No issue on immunity of head of state here.
--Act of State Doctrine
Courts generally will not pass judgment on the validity of the public and official acts of a foreign government
within its own territory.
Rationale for the Act of State Doctrine: Co-equality among states; respect for sovereignty of foreign states.
------Underhill v Hernandez, 168 US 250 (1897) p.619:

Every sovereign State is bound to respect the independence of every other sovereign State, and the
courts of one country will not sit in judgment on the acts of the government of another done within its own territory.
Redress of grievances by reason of such acts must be obtained through the means open to be availed of by
sovereign powers as between themselves.
----We now go to the Diplomatic Immunity and Consular Immunity. This is also a perennial topic in the bar exam.
---Inviolability of Premises of Foreign Diplomatic Mission
The premises of a foreign diplomatic mission are inviolable and no person, even a member of the
government of the receiving state, may enter the premises without the authority of the mission. The receiving state
has in fact the duty to protect the mission against intrusion or damage and to prevent disturbances of the peace of
the mission or impairment of its dignity. (Art. 22, VCDR)
---What if police officer in Manila received a report of a bomb planted inside the US embassy, may Manila
police insist on entering the premises for security purposes? Would that violate the sovereignty of a
State if you prevent law enforcers from preventing threats to national security or safety to enter the
premises?
Take note that inviolability of the Premises in international law is ABSOLUTE. So no amount of justification of security
concern or whatever. There is only one way wherein the host State or its official to enter the premises and that is
only through CONSENT of the diplomatic mission. On another point, the bomb threat could be used as a ploy to
justify entry without consent in the premises of the diplomatic mission and possibility of that happening is not
remote.
----
A.Y. 2014-2015
24 | P a g e
Legal Status of Embassies and Consulates

Basic Rule: inviolability of premises!
-
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, Article 22:
A.
Duty of the receiving state to refrain from entering the premises without the consent of the
head of mission
B.
Duty of the receiving state to protect the premises against any intrusion, damage,
disturbance, etc.
-
States can waive their inviolability.

o Waivers must be express
Theories behind inviolability of embassies and consulates: extraterritoriality, representational, and

functional necessity.
Article 22 sets out the negative (not to enter) and positive (to protect) obligations of the receiving state,
including immunity from processes (search, execution, attachment, etc.)
o Inviolability extends (a) even in cases of armed conflict (art. 45), (b) to archives and documents of the
mission (Art. 24), (c) and to the ambassadors residence, papers and correspondence (art. 30)
-
Q: Is this inviolability absolute?
----There are two obligations: negative and positive.

If you remember the Iran crisis I discussed to you last time, the movie ARGO. The di ba the only way na-resolve ang
crisis is for Ronald Reagan to negotiate with the hostage takers saying: "Let's put an end on this, total namatay na
man ang head of Iran at the time which they demand to return, release the hostages and we commit not to
prosecute you". True enough the US did not prosecute the hostage takers but instead US sued Iran for its failure to
protect the premises against intrusion, damage and disturbance kay in the video, there's evidence na during rally,
nagsaka na gali sa coral, naa mga police but passively observing the incident. So, there is violation on the duty to
protect the premises.
Indeed there are three theories on this: one is extraterritoriality because this is an extension governmental function
therefore the diplomatic mission represents the State. The other one functional necessity as not to disrupt the
functioning of the diplomatic mission. (So that's, extraterritoriality, representational and functional necessity). In
modern international law, however, it favors functional necessity than the traditional ones - extraterritoriality and
representational.
Please read the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relation.
Mao na mga attache case sa diplomat, naa nakatatak, dili na na tan-awon. That is one source of illegality smuggling
jewelry.
Another immunity here.

---Non-interference with Missions official communication
A.Y. 2014-2015
25 | P a g e
Under Article 27 of the VCDR, a receiving state shall permit and protect the free communication on
behalf of the mission for all official purposes. Such official communication shall not be interfered with. The
diplomatic bag shall not be opened or detained.
The use of sniffer dogs and external examination of the bag is, however, permitted customarily per ILC
Draft Articles. A reasonable suspicion that the bag contains illegal article will also allow the authorities to have the
bag opened in the presence of a representative of the sending state. The bag, however, must bear visible external
marks of its character and contain only diplomatic documents or official articles.
---(sir, telling another story about certain sniffing dog which can only identify certain, not all, contraband)
----
Diplomatic Immunity
Diplomats have personal inviolability (Art. 29)
-
The rationale for diplomatic immunity has changed:

o Traditional justification: sovereignty of the state and the respect due other state (co-equality principle)
o Now, the rationale is for functional necessity- diplomats must enjoy the protection in order for
them to discharge their duties more effectively and efficiently.
o Other theories: extraterritoriality and representative character theories
---(sir is just reading the slides)
---Scope of Diplomatic Personal Inviolability

-
Private residence (whether owned or not, hotel room, or apartment)
Papers and correspondence
Property (unless otherwise provided in Sec. 1, Art. 31)
As witness (art. 31)
Processes (art. 31)
Extends to members of the family (art. 37)
Extends to administrative and technical staff and their members of the family in criminal jurisdiction (art. 37)
Extends to civil and administrative jurisdiction over the foregoing persons and to members of the service staff
when acts are intra vires
A.Y. 2014-2015
26 | P a g e
Does not cover jurisdiction of sending state (art. 31)
---I trust you class that you will go to these specific articles.
Article 37 does not cover jurisdiction of sending States. So even if immune but if it is the sending State that served
the processes then that is not part of the immunity. This immunity from the processes is only for the host or
receiving State. In last year bar exam, very tricky because an ambassador was assigned to State A. He is an
ambassador of State B. He went to vacation to State C and it was there were he was subjected to processes. He was
arrested there because he was in a company of a minor. He was accused of a statute prohibiting that situation. The
ambassador invoked immunity. So how do you deal with that? Note that immunity is more of a duty on the part of
the host state rather than a right of the ambassador. Ok? in other words, the receiving State has the duty and since
the one which disturbs the function is State C which is not the host State. So the duty to grant his immunity does
not exist in so far as the State C is concerned.
---Two categories of diplomatic immunity

-
Immunity ratione personae

o Immunity that attaches to the person of the diplomat while he is diplomat
o Irrelevant for former diplomats
Immunity ratione materiae

o For former officials, the focus in on the act. This is normally irrelevant while a person is a diplomat.
o When a person ceases to be a diplomat, or his government waives his immunity, the person retains
substantive immunity for actions he performs in his civil functions while still diplomats.
------Personal and Functional Immunity of Diplomatic Officials
In terms of immunity from jurisdiction, a distinction must be drawn between civil and criminal
processes.
In terms of criminal jurisdiction, diplomatic agents have total immunity from the law of the receiving
state and the only remedy available to the receiving state is to declare the diplomat persona non grata. The
immunity from criminal jurisdiction applies to any offense committed by the diplomat whether official or not. In
terms of civil jurisdiction, diplomats are immune from the civil jurisdiction of the receiving state except in three (3)
cases. The immunity of diplomats extends to Arrests and Detentions. (See DR of Congo v. Belgium)
---Ang diplomatic mission that's for political purposes that's where we said the government aspect of that
government. Embassy, for example, that allows the entry of visitors to the State. To allow a foreigner or not is
governmental function. Consular office is for trade and commercial interest of the government. Take note in criminal
jurisdiction, that's absolute. TOTAL immunity dyud class in fact it includes processes. Same sa president. But in civil,
naay exceptions like when appointed executor of a decedent involving a property held in his personal capacity, so
there are three cases. In other words, ang civil immunity naay exceptions. Ang criminal, absolute. Take note of that.
In a lot of bar exams, criminal jurisdiction involving traffic violation or subpoena/processes, not necessarily
prosecuted, or subpoena to testify -- so that is included.
A.Y. 2014-2015
27 | P a g e
However, in the case of consul, the immunity is only in regards to official acts.
---Functional Immunity of Consular Officials
As for Consuls, however, although they enjoy more or less the same immunities and privileges as
diplomats, their immunity from criminal and civil jurisdiction extends to their official acts only.
----
Unlike in diplomat, acts not related to official functions, naa gihapon immunity. For example, a rape can never be in
performance of his function.
Question by Student: Does absolute still apply to jus cogens?
Sir: I think since it is applicable to head of State, with more reason that it should be applicable to diplomat. If it is jus
cogens, it is still not a ground to exempt.
So, please also those important Philippine cases on diplomatic immunity coz i think i will also include that in the
exam. I will see you Saturday 730am (sayoha uy). Coverage is from Municipal and International law up to Immunity.
GOOD LUCK NATO!
"People who make the choice to study, work hard or do whatever they endeavor is to give it the max on themselves
to reach to the top level. And you have the people who get envy and jealous, yet are not willing to put that work in,
and they want to get the same praise"
A.Y. 2014-2015
28 | P a g e

PIL Prefi Transcript

Cargado por

Información del documento

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

PIL Prefi Transcript

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW (TRANSCRIPT) PRE-FINAL COVERAGE

PIL RECORDING JAN. 31, 2O15

Prepared by: ABRIL|LARGO|LOCAY-LOCAY|TACUYAN

PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW (TRANSCRIPT) PRE-FINAL COVERAGE

Prepared by: ABRIL|LARGO|LOCAY-LOCAY|TACUYAN

PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW (TRANSCRIPT) PRE-FINAL COVERAGE

Prepared by: ABRIL|LARGO|LOCAY-LOCAY|TACUYAN

PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW (TRANSCRIPT) PRE-FINAL COVERAGE

PONTANAR: in the first one sir is thru occupation.

Prepared by: ABRIL|LARGO|LOCAY-LOCAY|TACUYAN

PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW (TRANSCRIPT) PRE-FINAL COVERAGE

SIR: what assistance?

Prepared by: ABRIL|LARGO|LOCAY-LOCAY|TACUYAN

PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW (TRANSCRIPT) PRE-FINAL COVERAGE

Prepared by: ABRIL|LARGO|LOCAY-LOCAY|TACUYAN

PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW (TRANSCRIPT) PRE-FINAL COVERAGE

PIL TRANSCRIPT FEB. 9, 2015 by D.A.T.A.

Prepared by: ABRIL|LARGO|LOCAY-LOCAY|TACUYAN

PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW (TRANSCRIPT) PRE-FINAL COVERAGE

Transfer of allegiance of inheritance

PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW (TRANSCRIPT) PRE-FINAL COVERAGE

Prepared by: ABRIL|LARGO|LOCAY-LOCAY|TACUYAN

PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW (TRANSCRIPT) PRE-FINAL COVERAGE

Specific jurisdiction of courts in relation to crimes: criminal jurisdiction.

Prepared by: ABRIL|LARGO|LOCAY-LOCAY|TACUYAN

PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW (TRANSCRIPT) PRE-FINAL COVERAGE

Public International Law February 11, 2015

How relevant is it the nationality theory in Nottebohm Case?

Prepared by: ABRIL|LARGO|LOCAY-LOCAY|TACUYAN

PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW (TRANSCRIPT) PRE-FINAL COVERAGE

A: ... (unsure answer)

Sir: Why was ICJ talking about a bond?

Sir: Was Nottebohm a citizen of Liechtenstein?

Prepared by: ABRIL|LARGO|LOCAY-LOCAY|TACUYAN

PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW (TRANSCRIPT) PRE-FINAL COVERAGE

ICJ: ... "Guatemala has referred to a well-established principle of

So how about this case of US vs Columba-Collela(1979).

Prepared by: ABRIL|LARGO|LOCAY-LOCAY|TACUYAN

PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW (TRANSCRIPT) PRE-FINAL COVERAGE

United States vs Columba-Collela (1979)

Issue: Can the British citizen be prosecuted under US law?

Prepared by: ABRIL|LARGO|LOCAY-LOCAY|TACUYAN

PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW (TRANSCRIPT) PRE-FINAL COVERAGE

Protective Principle in Jurisdiction

- common examples: espionage, counterfeiting

- The Protective Principle, is not a catch-all principle, however. It has a

Prepared by: ABRIL|LARGO|LOCAY-LOCAY|TACUYAN

PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW (TRANSCRIPT) PRE-FINAL COVERAGE

United States vs Bowman (1922)

United States vs Romero-Galue,

757 F.2d 1147 (11th Cir. 1985)

"The protective principle permits a nation to assert jurisdiction

How about the case of Atty general of gov't of Israel?

Prepared by: ABRIL|LARGO|LOCAY-LOCAY|TACUYAN

PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW (TRANSCRIPT) PRE-FINAL COVERAGE

Attorney General of Government of Israel vs Eichmann (1961)

United States vs Usama Bin Laden (2000)

How about the case of Pinochet?

Prepared by: ABRIL|LARGO|LOCAY-LOCAY|TACUYAN

PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW (TRANSCRIPT) PRE-FINAL COVERAGE

- Spain relied on Universal Jurisdiction to argue for Pinochet's extradition from

Prepared by: ABRIL|LARGO|LOCAY-LOCAY|TACUYAN

PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW (TRANSCRIPT) PRE-FINAL COVERAGE

Student: Probably, deportation also sir