Law 111 Public International Law

Atty. GILBERT R. HUFANA

Professor

Jurisdiction in
International Law
 Jurisdiction

• A government’s general power to exercise

authority over all persons and entities
within its territory is called jurisdiction
• Includes judicial, legislative and
enforcement powers
 Aspects of Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

Prescriptive Adjudicative Enforcement

 Aspects of Jurisdiction

• adjudicative jurisdiction: to hear and

decide on matters
• prescriptive jurisdiction: to make laws
• enforcement jurisdiction: to enforce the
laws, for example by investigating a crime
or arresting a suspect or punishing a
suspect in national courts
 Jurisdiction

• A State has unlimited prescriptive jurisdiction:

this means that the legislature can make laws
on any subject and covering any person
anywhere.
• National courts derive its jurisdiction (power
to hear and decide a case) from these laws.
 Jurisdiction

• Although the legislature can penalize any act

through its domestic law: international law
doesn’t permit the State to enforce its law
outside its territory. For example, Saudi
Arabian (SA) law says: adultery is an offense
that is punishable by stoning to death. This
law is enforceable in SA; but, SA can’t
enforce that law in Sri Lanka (SL), i.e. a
person can’t be stoned to death in SL, even if
that person is a national of SA.
 Jurisdiction

• A State can’t exercise its power in any form in

the territory of another State; unless, there is
an international custom or convention
permitting the State to do so (Lotus Case).
 Basis of Criminal Jurisdiction

• Territorial jurisdiction
• Jurisdiction based on nationality
• Passive Personality Principle
• Protective Principle
• Universal Jurisdiction
• Effects Doctrine
 Territorial Jurisdiction

• national courts will always have jurisdiction

over offenses that took place in its territory
• vests jurisdiction in state where offense was
committed
• Art. 14, NCC
• Facets:
– Objective
– Subjective
• Case to read: The Lotus Case
 Objective Territoriality

• certain states apply their territorial jurisdiction

to offenses or acts commenced in another
state, but (i) consummated or completed
within their territory, or (ii) producing gravely
harmful consequences to the social or
economic order inside their territory
 Objective Territoriality

• For example, if Kithmini shot and injured

Liam Fox in SL: the SL Police can enter
BCIS, arrest her and take her to a SL Court.
• In the Lotus Case, the Court said that Turkey
could exercise jurisdiction over France
because a constituent element of the offense
– death – occurred in Turkish territory.
 Subjective Territoriality

• jurisdiction to prosecute or punish crimes

commenced within their territory but completed
or consummated in the territory of another state
• What if Kithmini (in SL) sends a parcel bomb to
Fox in UK? In this case, the bomb exploded, or
the crime happened, outside SL. Kithmini is in
SL: does the SL courts still have jurisdiction?
• They can; because, a vital element of the crime
took place in SL the crime began in SL: Kithmini
posted the bomb from SL.
 Jurisdiction over offenses that
took place wholly outside the
State’s territory
• International law doesn’t prohibit a State from
exercising jurisdiction in its territory over acts
that took place abroad. If the person who
committed the crime is present in that State,
the State can arrest her and try her in court
(enforce its jurisdiction) even if there is no
rule in international law expressly permitting
the States to do so.
 Nationality Principle

• States have jurisdiction over their nationals

over crimes specified in their national law.
• Art. 15, NCC; tax laws
• For example: the Suppression of Terrorist
Bombing Act of Sri Lanka gives the High
Court the jurisdiction to try a Sri Lankan
national who blasts a bomb in a foreign
country – even if his only connection to SL is
the fact that he is a Sri Lankan.
 Nationality Principle

• In the Trail of Earl Russel a UK national

was convicted of bigamy even though the
second marriage took place outside UK.
(This is also an example of subjective
territoriality principle because the first
marriage took place in UK).
 Nationality Principle

• It becomes complicated when a person is a

dual national, lets say of Australia and SL,
and both countries want to enforce their
jurisdiction based on nationality.
• In this case, jurisdiction goes to the country
where the person has a genuine link
(Nottebohm Case); i.e., where is he living and
working, where his home is and his family.
 Passive Personality Principle

• In this situation, the crime was committed abroad

and the person who committed the offense was
not a national of that State. In this situation, only
the victim is a national of the State which claims
jurisdiction.
• In the Yunis case, US courts decided that they
had jurisdiction over Yunis (a Lebanese national)
based on the passive personality principle
because two US nationals were abroad the
Jordanian airline that Yunis hijacked.
 Protective Principle

• In this situation, the crime was committed abroad

and neither the person who committed the crime,
nor the victims, were nationals of that State.
• In this case, jurisdiction is asserted on the basis
that the security or the interests of the State is
affected by an act committed abroad.
• vest jurisdiction in state whose national
interests is injured or national security
compromised
 Protective Principle

• InEichmann’s case, the Israeli Court

based its jurisdiction on the protective
principle and said that the crimes
committed by Eichmann against the
Jewish people affected the ‘vital interests’
of Israel.
 Universal Jurisdiction

• In this case, the crime was committed

abroad, neither the person who committed
the crime, nor the victims, were nationals of
that State.
• Universal jurisdiction enables a person to be
tried before a national court even when there
is no link to the State.
 Universal Jurisdiction

• Under this principle, jurisdiction is exercised

on the basis that the crime committed is so
serious and of universal concern that each
State has an interest to prosecute.
• In other words, these crimes are punishable
by any State.
 The Eichmann Case

• Israel used universal jurisdiction as a basis to

prosecute Eichmann for his involvement in
organizing the deaths of Jews, in Germany,
during the Natzi era.
• Here, Universal Jurisdiction was used on the
basis that Eichmann committed war crimes
and crimes against humanity.
 The Pinochet Case

• The House of Lords in UK exercised

universal jurisdiction on the basis that
Pinochet was responsible for acts of torture
at the time he was the head of State in Chile.
 Problem

• A Filipino owned construction company with

principal office in Manila leased an aircraft
registered in England to ferry construction
workers to the Middle East. While on a flight
to Saudi Arabia with Filipino crew provided by
the lessee, the aircraft was highjacked by
drug traffickers. The hijackers were captured
in Damaseus and sent to the Philippines for
trial. Do courts of Manila have jurisdiction
over the case?
 Answer

• Yes. Hijacking is actually piracy, defined in People

vs. Lol-lo, 43 Phil 19 as robbery or forcible
depredation in the high seas without lawful
authority and done animo furandi and in the spirit
and intention of universal hostility.
• Piracy is a crime against all mankind. Accordingly,
it may be punished in the competent tribunal if any
country where the offender may be found or into
which he may be carried. The jurisdiction on piracy
unlike all other crimes has no territorial limits.
 Exceptions to the exercise of
Jurisdiction
• Doctrine of Sovereign/State Immunity
• Act of State Doctrine
• Diplomatic Immunity
• Immunity of UN Specialized agencies, other
International Organizations, and its Officers;
• Foreign Merchant vessels exercising the right of
innocent passage;
• Foreign armies passing through or stationed in the
territory with the permission of the State;
• Warships and other public vessels of another State
Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity

• a state enjoys immunity from the exercise of

jurisdiction by another state
• The courts of one state may not assume
jurisdiction over another state.
 Problem

• The Republic of Balau opened and operated in

Manila an office engaged in trading of Balau
products with the Philippine products. In one
transaction, the local buyer complained that the
Balau goods delivered to him were substandard
and he sued the Republic of Balau before the
RTC of Pasig for damages.
– How can the Republic of Balau invoke its
sovereign immunity? Explain.
– Will such defense of sovereign immunity
prosper?
 Answer

• By filing a motion to dismiss in accordance with

Section 1 (a) Rule 16 of the Rules of Court on
the ground that the court has no jurisdiction over
its person.
• No. The sale of Balau products as a contract
involves a commercial activity. As held by the
Supreme Court in the case of USA vs. Ruiz and
USA vs. Guinto, it was stated that a foreign state
couldn’t invoke immunity from suit if it enters into
a commercial contract. The Philippines adheres
to Restrictive Sovereign Immunity.
 Act of State Doctrine

• An act of state is an act done by the sovereign

power of a country, or by its delegate, within the
limits of the power vested in him.
• An act of State cannot be questioned or made the
subject of legal proceedings in court of law.
• Courts cannot pass judgment on acts of State
done within its territorial jurisdiction.
• It is different from Sovereign Immunity from Suit.
Here, you cannot sue a sovereign State in the
courts of another State.
 Diplomatic Immunity

• ensures that diplomats are given safe passage

and are considered not susceptible
to lawsuit or prosecution under the host
country's laws, although they can still
be expelled
– Ambassadors or nuncios accredited to Heads of
State and other heads of missions of equivalent rank;
– Envoys ministers and internuncios accredited to
Heads of State;
– Charges d’affaires accredited to Ministers for Foreign
Affairs.
 The Right of Legation

• It is the right to send and receive diplomatic

missions.
• It is strictly not a right since no State can be
compelled to enter into diplomatic relations with
another State.
• Diplomatic relations is established by mutual
consent between two States.
– Active right of legation – send diplomatic
representatives
– Passive right of legation – receive diplomatic
representatives
 Functions of Diplomatic
Missions
• representing sending state in receiving state;
• protecting in receiving state interests of sending
state and its nationals;
• negotiating with government of receiving state;
• promoting friendly relations between sending and
receiving states and developing their economic,
cultural and scientific relations;
• ascertaining by all lawful means conditions and
developments in receiving state and reporting
thereon to government of sending state; and
 Functions of Diplomatic
Missions
• ascertaining by all lawful means conditions
and developments in receiving state and
reporting thereon to government of
sending state; and
• in some cases, representing friendly
governments at their request.
 Diplomatic Corps

• A body formed by all diplomatic envoys

accredited to the same State.
• The Doyen or head of this body is usually
the Papal Nuncio, or the oldest accredited
ambassador or plenipotentiary.
 Diplomatic Relations

• The diplomatic relations of a state are

usually conducted through:
– The head of state;
– The foreign secretary or minister; and
– The members of the diplomatic
service/mission.
Process of Sending Diplomatic
Mission
• Agreation
1

• Issuance of the Letter of Credence

2

• Acceptance/Recognition (on the

3 part of the receiving state)
 Agreation

• It is a practice of the states before appointing a

particular individual to be the chief of their
diplomatic mission in order to avoid possible
embarrassment. It consist of two acts:
– The Inquiry, usually informal, addressed by the
sending state to the receiving state regarding the
acceptability of an individual to be its chief of mission
– The agreement, also informal, by which the receiving
state indicates to the sending state that such person,
would be acceptable.
 Letter of Credence

• The document, which the envoy receives

from his government accrediting him to the
foreign state to which he is being sent.
• It designates his rank and the general object
of his mission and asks that he be received
favorably and that full credence be given to
what he says on behalf of his state.
 Privileges & Immunities

• Personal inviolability;
• Inviolability of premises and archives;
• Right of an official communication;
• Exemption from local jurisdiction;
• Exemption from subpoena as witness;
• Exemption from taxation
 Personal Inviolability

• The person of a diplomatic agent shall be

inviolable and he shall not be liable to any form of
arrest or detention. The receiving state shall treat
him with due respect and shall take all appropriate
steps to prevent any attack on his person,
freedom or dignity.
• A diplomatic agent shall enjoy immunity from the
criminal, civil and administrative jurisdiction of the
receiving state, except in certain cases as, for
example, when the civil action deals with property
held by him in a private or proprietary capacity.
 Inviolability of premises and
archives
• The diplomatic premises shall be inviolable, and
the agents of the receiving state may not enter
them without the consent of the head of the
mission.
• Such premises, their furnishings and other
property thereon and the means of
transportation of the mission shall be immune
from search, requisition, attachment or execution
• The archives and documents of the mission shall
be inviolable at any time and wherever they may
be
 Right of an official
communication
• The receiving state shall permit and protect free
communication on the part of the mission for all
official purposes.
• In communicating with the government and
other missions, and consulates of the sending
state wherever situated, the mission may employ
all appropriate means, including diplomatic
couriers and messages in code or cipher.
• The official correspondence of the mission shall
be inviolable.
 Is Diplomatic immunity a
political question?
• Diplomatic immunity is essentially a
political question and the courts should
refuse to look beyond the determination by
the executive branch. (DFA vs. NLRC,
1996)
 Who enjoys DI besides the
head of mission?
• The diplomatic immunities and privileges are
also enjoyed by the diplomatic suite or retinue,
which consists of the official and non-official staff
of the mission.
– The official staff is made up of the administrative and
technical personnel of the mission, including those
performing clerical work, and the member of their
respective families.
– The non-official staff is composed of the household
help, such as the domestic servants, butlers, and
cooks and chauffeurs employed by the mission.
 Problem

• The Ambassador of State X to the Philippines

bought in the name of his government two
houses and lots at Forbes Park, Makati. One
house is used as the chancery and residence of
the ambassador, and the other as quarters for
nationals of State X who are studying in De La
Salle University. The Register of Deeds refused
to register the sale and to issue Transfer
Certificates of Title in the name of State X. Is his
refusal justified?
 Answer

• The prohibition in the Constitution against

alienation of lands in favor of aliens does not
apply to alienation of the same in favor of foreign
governments to be used as chancery and
residence of its diplomatic representatives. The
receiving state is under obligation to facilitate the
acquisition on its territory, in accordance with its
laws, by the sending state of premises
necessary for its mission, or to assist the latter in
obtaining accommodation in some other way.
Therefore, the refusal of the ROD is unjustified.
 Answer…cont.

• However, in so far as the house and lot to be

used as quarters of the nationals of State X who
are studying in De La Salle University are
concerned, the Register of Deeds correctly
refused registration. Here, the prohibition in the
constitution against the transfer of properties to
parties other than the Filipino citizens or
corporation 60% of the capital of which is owned
by such citizens should be followed.
 Termination of Diplomatic
Relation
• A diplomatic mission may come to an end by
any of the usual methods of terminating official
relations like:
– Under Municipal Law: [ R A D A R ]
• Resignation
• Accomplishment of the purpose
• Death
• Abolition of the office
• Removal
 Termination of Diplomatic
Relation
• Under the International Law: [ W E R ]
– War - the outbreak of war between the sending
and receiving states which is usually severed
before the actual commencement of hostilities;
– Extinction - extinction of either the sending state
or the receiving state; OR
– Recall – may be demanded by the receiving state
when the foreign diplomat becomes a persona
non grata to it for any reason.
 Consular Mission
• Consuls belong to a class of state agents distinct
from that of diplomatic officers.
• They do not represent their state in its relations with
foreign states and are not intermediaries through
whom matters of state are discussed between
governments.
• They look mainly after the commercial interest of their
own state in the territory of a foreign state.
• They are not clothed with diplomatic character and
are not accredited to the government of the country
where they exercised their consular functions; they
 Consular Mission

• Consuls derive their authority from two principal

sources, to wit, the letter patent or letter ‘de
provision, which is the commission issued by
the sending state, and the exequator, which is
the permission given them by the receiving state
to perform their functions therein.
 Consular Immunity

• Like diplomats, consuls are entitled to the

inviolability of their correspondence, archives
and other documents, freedom of movement
and travel, immunity from jurisdiction for acts
performed in their official capacity and
exemption from certain taxes and customs
duties.
 Consular Immunity
• However, consuls are liable to arrest and
punishment for grave offenses and may be
required to give testimony, subject to certain
exceptions.
• The consular offices are immune only with
respect to that part where the consular work is
being performed and they may be expropriated
for purposes of national defense or public utility.
 Problem

• A consul of a South American country stationed

in Manila was charged with serious physical
injuries. May he claim immunity from jurisdiction
of the local court? Explain.
• Suppose after he was charged, he was
appointed as his country’s ambassador to the
Philippines. Can his newly gained diplomatic
status be a ground for the dismissal of his
criminal case? Explain.
 Answer

• No, Under Article 41 of the Vienna Convention,

consuls do not enjoy immunity from the criminal
jurisdiction of the receiving state. He is not liable to
arrest or detention pending the trial unless the
offense was committed against his father, mother,
child, ascendant, descendant or spouse. Consuls
are not liable to arrest and detention pending trial
except in the case of grave crime and pursuant to a
decision by the competent judicial authority. The
crime of physical injuries is not a grave crime
unless it is committed against the above-mentioned
 Answer…cont.

• Yes, Under Article 40 of the Vienna Convention,

if a diplomatic agent is in the territory of a third
state, which has granted him a passport visa if
such was necessary, while proceeding to take
up his post, the third state shall accord him
inviolability and such other immunities as may
be required to ensure his transit.
 Extradition

• The delivery of an accused or a convicted

individual to the State in whose territory he is
alleged to have committed a crime by the State
on whose territory the alleged criminal or
criminal happens to be at the time.

• The legal duty to extradite a fugitive from justice

is based only on treaty stipulations
 Bases of Extradition
Older Type Principle of Double Criminality
One, which contains a Sometimes called “no list treaty”
specific list of offenses
that a fugitive should The more modern type contains no
have committed in order list of crimes but provides that the
to be extradited. offenses in question should be
punishable in both states.

It should not require that the name of

the crime described should be the
same in both countries. It is enough
that the particular act charged is a
crime in both jurisdictions.
 Nature of an Extradition
Proceeding
• As held by the US Supreme Court in United
States v. Galanis:
– “An extradition proceeding is not a criminal
prosecution, and the constitutional safeguards that
accompany a criminal trial in this country do not
shield an accused from extradition pursuant to a valid
treaty.”
• A]n extradition proceeding is sui generis.
• It is not a criminal proceeding which will call into
operation all the rights of an accused as
guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.
 Nature of an Extradition
Proceeding
• To begin with, the process of extradition does
not involve the determination of the guilt or
innocence of an accused.
• As a rule, constitutional rights that are only
relevant to determine the guilt or innocence of
an accused cannot be invoked by an extraditee
especially by one whose extradition papers are
still undergoing evaluation.
 Nature of an Extradition
Proceeding
• As an extradition proceeding is not criminal in
character and the evaluation stage in an
extradition proceeding is not akin to a
preliminary investigation, the due process
safeguards in the latter do not necessarily apply
to the former. (Secretary of Justice v. Hon.
Ralph C. Lantion, G.R. No. 139465, Oct. 17,
2000)
 Extradition v Criminal
Proceeding
Criminal Proceeding Extradition Proceeding
summary in nature involves a full-blown trial
requires proof beyond a fugitive may be ordered
reasonable doubt for extradited “upon showing of
conviction the existence of a prima facie
case”
judgment becomes courts may adjudge an
executory upon being individual extraditable but the
rendered final President has the final
discretion to extradite him
Extradition of War Criminals and
Terrorists
• (Violators of crimes against international law)
• As violators of crimes against international law,
war criminals are subject to extradition in 1946,
the UN General Assembly passed a resolution
recommending to members and calling upon all
non-members to extradite war criminals,
including traitors.
 Attentat Clause

• A provision in an extradition treaty that

stipulates that the murder of the head of a
foreign government or the member of his
family should not be considered as a
political offense.
 Doctrine of Reciprocity

• If the requesting state is shown to be

willing to surrender its own nationals for
trial by the courts of another country, the
detaining state must also surrender its
own citizens for trial.
 Postulates on Extradition

• Extradition Is a Major Instrument for the

Suppression of Crime.
– extradition treaties are entered into for the
purpose of suppressing crime by facilitating
the arrest and the custodial transfer of a
fugitive from one state to the other.
 Postulates on Extradition

• The Requesting State Will Accord Due

Process to the Accused.
– an extradition treaty presupposes that both
parties thereto have examined and that both
accept and trust each other’s legal system
and judicial process.
– That signature signifies our full faith that the
accused will be given, upon extradition to the
requesting state, all relevant and basic rights
in the criminal proceedings that will take place
therein
 Postulates on Extradition

• The Proceedings Are Sui Generis.

– as pointed out in Secretary of Justice vs.
Lantion, extradition proceedings are not
criminal in nature.
– In criminal proceedings, the constitutional
rights of the accused are at fore; in
extradition, which is sui generis - in a class
by itself – they are not.
 Postulates on Extradition

• Compliance Shall Be in Good Faith.

– our executive branch of government
voluntarily entered into the Extradition Treaty,
and our legislative branch ratified it.
– Hence, the Treaty carries the presumption
that its implementation will serve the national
interest.
 Postulates on Extradition

• There Is an Underlying Risk of Flight

– Persons to be extradited are presumed to be
flight risks.
– This prima facie presumption finds
reinforcement in the experience of the
executive branch nothing short of confinement
can ensure that the accused will not flee the
jurisdiction of the requested state in order to
thwart their extradition to the requesting state.
 Problem 1

• Is the respondent in extradition proceeding

entitled to notice and hearing before the
issuance of a warrant of arrest?
 Answer

• On the Basis of the Extradition law

– It is significant to note that Section 6 of PD 1069, our Extradition
Law, uses the word “immediate” to qualify the arrest of the
accused. This “qualification would be rendered nugatory by
setting for hearing the issuance of the arrest warrant.
• On the Basis of the Constitution
– Even Section 2 of Article III of our Constitution, which is invoked
by Jimenez, does not require a notice or a hearing before the
issuance of a warrant of arrest.
– To determine probable cause for the issuance of arrest warrants,
the Constitution itself requires only the examination - under oath
or affirmation - of complainants and the witnesses they may
produce. There is no requirement to notify and hear the accused
before the issuance of warrants of arrest.
 Problem 2

• Is a respondent in an extradition
proceeding entitled to bail during the
pendency of the Extradition Proceeding?
 Answer
• It does not apply to extradition proceedings,
because extradition courts do not render judgments
of conviction or acquittal.
• The constitutional provision on bail as well as
Section 4 of Rule 114 of the Rules of Court, applies
only when a person has been arrested and detained
for violation of Philippine criminal laws.
– the constitutional right to bail “flows from the
presumption of innocence in favor of every accused
who should not be subjected to the loss of freedom as
thereafter he would be entitled to acquittal, unless his
guilt be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
 Problem 3

• Patrick is charged with illegal recruitment and

estafa before the RTC of Manila. He jumped
bail and managed to escape to America.
Assume that there is an extradition treaty
between the Philippines and America and it
does not include illegal recruitment as one of the
extraditable offenses. Upon surrender of Patrick
by the US Government to the Philippines,
Patrick protested that he could not be tried for
illegal recruitment. Decide.
 Answer

• Under the principle of specialty in

extradition, Patrick cannot be tried for
illegal recruitment since this is not included
in the list of extraditable offenses in the
extradition treaty between the Philippines
and the United States, unless the United
States does not object to the trial of
Patrick for illegal recruitment.
United Nations and International Peace

END OF LECTURE