Statements of Facts:

Republic Act No. 9851, otherwise known as, the Philippine Act on Crimes Against International
Humanitarian Law, Genocide and Other Crime Against Humanity was enacted signed into law on 11 December
2009.
RA 9851 defines war crimes, genocides and other crimes against humanities and provides penalty for such
crimes. It also institutes a form of universal jurisdiction (Section 2(e)) and expresses the applicability of international
law, specifying some international treaties. (Section 15(e))

Issues:
1. Whether or not the statute has a basis in the Constitution
2. Whether or not the statute has a relation to the sources of law under the Statute of the International Court of
Justice
3. Whether or not the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties Between States

Analysis/Evaluation

Problem #1: On the Basis of the Constitution
Section 2(a) of RA 9851 on the Declaration of Principles and State Policies is actually a restatement of
Article II, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, otherwise known as the incorporation clause. Section
2 (a) states:

The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy, adopts generally accepted
principles of international law as part of the law of the land and adheres to a policy of peace,
equality, justice, freedom, cooperation and amity with all nations

The Philippines adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of
the land (Art.II, Sec.2, Constitution).

These generally accepted principles of international law refer to norms that are binding upon all
states (international customs and general principles of international law).

Though these principles do not become part of the Constitution, they nonetheless become part of
the Philippine legal system, and may be subject to judicial notice as law (MAGALLONA).

Secretary of Justice vs. Lantion, (2000): Under the doctrine of incorporation, rules of international
law form part of the law of the land, and no further legislative action is needed to make such rules
applicable in the domestic sphere.

Transformation Clause not applicable it being not a treaty, so
In the same section under item (d), the statute also specifically declared the Hague Conventions of 1907 and the
Geneva Conventions on the protection of victims of war and international humanitarian law as a generally accepted
principle of international law. Cite Kuroda vs. Jalandoni
General principles of are also adopted under the incorporation clause.

Transformation Clause
- By specifically citing treaties as required to be

Problem #2: Relation to the Sources of Law under the ICJ Statute
The sources of law under the ICJ Statute is stated in Article 38 of the Stature which provides that:

By specifying under the Chapter VII of the sources of law, it seems that the statute is adopting the provisions of the
ICJ Statute in the application and interpretation of the. The judicial department is the one whose primary functions is
to interpret laws in the Philippines and by stating that such was to be considered by the Court in the application and
interpretation of the statute itself, it seems that the statute treats the Court similar to that of the ICJ.

Mandatory shall

Adherence in international law
Specific example:
International concept of irrelevance of official capacity (Sec 9)

On the Specified Treaties (Sec 15 (a) (d)
Let us now go to specified sources in the statute itself. Some of the treaties were already ratified by the
Philippines and as such, using the Article 38 of the ICJ Statute as reference, it is binding on the state.
To those treaties that are not yet ratified, they can be subsumed as part of the customary law

On Section (15 (e) (i)
Note: the sources are similar to that of the wordings of the Article 38 (Make a table)

Problem #3: Application of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties

Article 2 of the VCLOT defines treaties as agreement Insert statute here. Using such definition, it can be
said that the VCLOT is not applicable, the statute not being a treaty in itself but a legislative act of the state and
constitutes part of the domestic law.
A question however arises on the effect of the statute stating that some conventions shall be used in the
application and interpretation of the word

PART II: JUS COGENS NORMS

The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLOT), in Article 53, defined jus cogens or peremptory
norm of general international law as a norm accepted and recognized by the international community of States as a
whole as norm from which no derogation is permitted and which can be modified only by a subsequent norm of
general international law having the same character.
Under such definition, it can be said that jus cogens norm, being a norm that no one can derogate from, is of
mandatory character to such extent that international community of States cannot deviate from the principles
embodied in such norm.

(1) Influence of Jus Cogens Norm on the Internalization of Generally Accepted Principles of International Law
Jus cogens norms are stated in the Vienna Convention which apllies only to treaties but this does not mean
that jus cogens norm are not applicable if there are no treaty involve. The VCLOT only codified the existing concept
of Jus Cogens norms. It is a customary law or general international law already existing even before the
Then, Jus cogens norm can be considered as a generally-accepted principles of international law. The last
phrase of Article 38 seems to imply that jus cogens norm can only be modified by another jus cogens norm and not
just an international custom or general international law that has not yet achieve the level of a jus cogens norm.

(2) Influence of Jus Cogens Norm on Treaty Norm
Being a norm embodied in a treaty or convention, the effect of definition in the VCLOT on treaty norms is
more evident than its effect on the internalization of generally accepted principles of international law. Such effect on
the treaty can be seen under two provisions of the VCLOT, specifically Article 53 and 64.
According to Article 53 of the VCLOT, a treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it conflicts with a
peremptory nor, of general international law. On the other hand Article 64 provides that if a new peremptory norm
general international law emerges, any existing treaty which is in conflict with that norm becomes void and
terminates. The two provisions in effect invalidate a treaty by the mere fact that it is in conflict with a jus cogens
norm. Due to such provision, it can be fairly concluded then that jus cogens norm are higher in the hierarchy of norms
than treaty norm.
In effect, the acceptance and recognition by the international community of States tramps the express
treaty ratification of the 2/3 of the Senate. (Question: Monism)

Conclusion:
Finally, it is important to take note that a jus cogens norm can only have an influence on the two if is in conflict with
them otherwise all other norms can be internalized under the Constitution under the two aforementioned means. In
effect, jus cogens norm provides some sort of limitation to the internationalization of international law. It also provides
some sort of universal standard.