I’m just so proud of my International Law paper last sem so I thought that I just have to post it (to boost my slowly deflating go Ha,ha).
A summary and critique on the symposium entitled “ Advance Human Rights Ensure Justice for Victims, Support the International Criminal Court”
Last December 2, 2004, a petitioners’ and parliamentarians’ forum was held at the Traders Hotel entitled “ Advance Human Rights Ensure Justice for Victims, Support the International Criminal Court”. In the said symposium, Hon. Loretta Ann P. Rosales gave an overview of the forum. The nature of the International Criminal Court was also mentioned. Hon. Rosales stated that the International Criminal Court was the very first and independent tribunal that has jurisdiction over individuals who commit the most serious crimes in the world namely: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and aggression. Unfortunately, the Philippines, while signatory to the Rome treaty that created the Court, has not ratified it yet. Three esteemed speakers passionately aired their views and sentiments regarding the inaction of the President of the Philippines to sign the said treaty in order for the senate to deliberate on the said matter. The following presents the summary con critique of the speeches presented by the speakers:
Dean Raul C. Pangalangan
Co-chairperson, PCICC
Dean, College of Law, University of the Philippines
Philippine Delegate, Rome Conference on the ICC
Dean Pangalangan enlightened the audience with his profound explanation of the problem being faced by the PCICC in the status quo as regards the delay of the transmittal of the treaty by President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. He also stated the doctrine of incorporation being adopted by the Philippines in pursuance of the 1987 Constitution. The treaty approval of the International Criminal Court Treaty necessitates the 2/3 of the senate vote in order for it to be valid and binding. However, the inaction of the President impedes its prompt concurrence. His discussion on how the ICC will work gave a light in the inquiring minds of the participants. The concept of complimentary jurisdiction was tackled with utmost clarity. By complimentary jurisdiction, it entails that the court will only acquire jurisdiction based on two planks. First is when the local courts are unwilling to prosecute and second, when the local court is unable to prosecute. Upon hearing these, I came to realize that ICC is in one way or another a “supplementary court” created in order to help a country assuage its increasing problem regarding the ubiquitous unheeded cases locally.
Atty.Harry Roque
A summary and critique on the symposium entitled “ Advance Human Rights Ensure Justice for Victims, Support the International Criminal Court”
Last December 2, 2004, a petitioners’ and parliamentarians’ forum was held at the Traders Hotel entitled “ Advance Human Rights Ensure Justice for Victims, Support the International Criminal Court”. In the said symposium, Hon. Loretta Ann P. Rosales gave an overview of the forum. The nature of the International Criminal Court was also mentioned. Hon. Rosales stated that the International Criminal Court was the very first and independent tribunal that has jurisdiction over individuals who commit the most serious crimes in the world namely: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and aggression. Unfortunately, the Philippines, while signatory to the Rome treaty that created the Court, has not ratified it yet. Three esteemed speakers passionately aired their views and sentiments regarding the inaction of the President of the Philippines to sign the said treaty in order for the senate to deliberate on the said matter. The following presents the summary con critique of the speeches presented by the speakers:
Dean Raul C. Pangalangan
Co-chairperson, PCICC
Dean, College of Law, University of the Philippines
Philippine Delegate, Rome Conference on the ICC
Dean Pangalangan enlightened the audience with his profound explanation of the problem being faced by the PCICC in the status quo as regards the delay of the transmittal of the treaty by President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. He also stated the doctrine of incorporation being adopted by the Philippines in pursuance of the 1987 Constitution. The treaty approval of the International Criminal Court Treaty necessitates the 2/3 of the senate vote in order for it to be valid and binding. However, the inaction of the President impedes its prompt concurrence. His discussion on how the ICC will work gave a light in the inquiring minds of the participants. The concept of complimentary jurisdiction was tackled with utmost clarity. By complimentary jurisdiction, it entails that the court will only acquire jurisdiction based on two planks. First is when the local courts are unwilling to prosecute and second, when the local court is unable to prosecute. Upon hearing these, I came to realize that ICC is in one way or another a “supplementary court” created in order to help a country assuage its increasing problem regarding the ubiquitous unheeded cases locally.
Atty.Harry Roque
Legal Counsel, PCICC
After an enlightening discussion given by Dean Pangalangan, Atty. Roque presented a mind stimulating talk by explaining the different landmark cases such as the case of Pimentel vs. Executive Secretary which presented an in depth analysis of the incorporation system. The logic that he presented is that the existence of the doctrine of incorporation in our constitution is a prima facie evidence that the laws adopted in the international arena is automatically adopted in the Philippines. And that one of the basis of international law is the customary principles of the international law. Hence, following the logic, a conclusion maybe had that the treaty can be validly adopted in the Philippines by virtue of the doctrine of incorporation. The question now is this: Why is there a need for the Philippines to ratify the treaty in order to bind them if what is followed is the doctrine of incorporation? The answer is fairly simple. It is for the reason that the Vienna Convention requires ratification. I also agree with the conclusion that Atty. Roque arrived at. It is true that by the non-transmittal of the President of the said treaty, it constitutes a restriction on the part of the senate to do its job making it violative of the constitutional process.
Atty. Romel Regalado Bagares
Executive Director, Center for International Law (CENTERLAW)
The last speaker was Atty. Bagares. Though the content of his speech was good, I would say that his part was the least dynamic of the three. It is because he merely read the joint statement of the petitioners in the landmark case of Sen. Aquilino Pimentel, Jr. et al, vs. Executive Secretary. The focal point of his speech, aside from reiterating his disappointment from the President’s inaction to transmit the treaty for the senate’s concurrence, is the happiness that the petitioners feel. It is for the following reasons: First, the Supreme Court gave due course to there petition despite their fears that the justices would not grant the petitioners standing to sue. Second, since the Rome Statute was adopted on July 17, 1998 and entered into force on July 1, 2002, more than half of the world have ratified the Rome Statute which created the International Criminal Tribunal. Third, the US Supreme Court, in three rulings released simultaneously, rebuffed the US President for the US government’s handling handling of the Guantanamo Bay prisoners in contravention of international law. And lastly, recent events gave the petitioners hope that our own Supreme Court will take kindly their petition and recognize the universal applicability of these principles as the very building blocks of an international community where impunity can not exist because its members assiduously protect the hollowed nature of these principles.
In retrospect, a realist can conclude that the inaction of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo hampers the growth of the Philippine Justice System as well as its status in the international community. Despite the fact that it is difficult, we must shun away with the shadow of US, which is the number one enemy of the International Criminal Court. We must stand on our own feet and advocate change for the general welfare. Others might say that even if the Philippines will ratify the Rome Statute, its ratification remains inutile because of its agreement with the US government. We must also take into consideration that this change is a giant leap for the Philippines. Lastly, let us consider that when those who bear the greatest responsibility for the commission of these crimes will remain scot-free, it will only create a vicious cycle of violence and hostility to humanity.
Submitted by:
Rabanera, Rose Lyn S.
FEU-LAW
After an enlightening discussion given by Dean Pangalangan, Atty. Roque presented a mind stimulating talk by explaining the different landmark cases such as the case of Pimentel vs. Executive Secretary which presented an in depth analysis of the incorporation system. The logic that he presented is that the existence of the doctrine of incorporation in our constitution is a prima facie evidence that the laws adopted in the international arena is automatically adopted in the Philippines. And that one of the basis of international law is the customary principles of the international law. Hence, following the logic, a conclusion maybe had that the treaty can be validly adopted in the Philippines by virtue of the doctrine of incorporation. The question now is this: Why is there a need for the Philippines to ratify the treaty in order to bind them if what is followed is the doctrine of incorporation? The answer is fairly simple. It is for the reason that the Vienna Convention requires ratification. I also agree with the conclusion that Atty. Roque arrived at. It is true that by the non-transmittal of the President of the said treaty, it constitutes a restriction on the part of the senate to do its job making it violative of the constitutional process.
Atty. Romel Regalado Bagares
Executive Director, Center for International Law (CENTERLAW)
The last speaker was Atty. Bagares. Though the content of his speech was good, I would say that his part was the least dynamic of the three. It is because he merely read the joint statement of the petitioners in the landmark case of Sen. Aquilino Pimentel, Jr. et al, vs. Executive Secretary. The focal point of his speech, aside from reiterating his disappointment from the President’s inaction to transmit the treaty for the senate’s concurrence, is the happiness that the petitioners feel. It is for the following reasons: First, the Supreme Court gave due course to there petition despite their fears that the justices would not grant the petitioners standing to sue. Second, since the Rome Statute was adopted on July 17, 1998 and entered into force on July 1, 2002, more than half of the world have ratified the Rome Statute which created the International Criminal Tribunal. Third, the US Supreme Court, in three rulings released simultaneously, rebuffed the US President for the US government’s handling handling of the Guantanamo Bay prisoners in contravention of international law. And lastly, recent events gave the petitioners hope that our own Supreme Court will take kindly their petition and recognize the universal applicability of these principles as the very building blocks of an international community where impunity can not exist because its members assiduously protect the hollowed nature of these principles.
In retrospect, a realist can conclude that the inaction of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo hampers the growth of the Philippine Justice System as well as its status in the international community. Despite the fact that it is difficult, we must shun away with the shadow of US, which is the number one enemy of the International Criminal Court. We must stand on our own feet and advocate change for the general welfare. Others might say that even if the Philippines will ratify the Rome Statute, its ratification remains inutile because of its agreement with the US government. We must also take into consideration that this change is a giant leap for the Philippines. Lastly, let us consider that when those who bear the greatest responsibility for the commission of these crimes will remain scot-free, it will only create a vicious cycle of violence and hostility to humanity.
Submitted by:
Rabanera, Rose Lyn S.
FEU-LAW
1 comment:
You're nothing but a second rate, trying hard, COPYCAT! Hahaha! Just kidding!
Good thing my idea came as an inspiration on your part to let other people know about your writing skills and your expertise in international law as well. Just as I had said before, I see nothing wrong in letting others know about how we are doing in our law studies.
Good luck and more power on your succedding papers!
Post a Comment