I.

The Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the case per

constitutional1, statutory2, reglementary3, and
jurisprudential requirements. 4

II. Generally accepted principles of international law form

part of the law of the land.5
A. The application and interpretation of Rep. Act No. 9851 by
Philippine courts shall be guided by the—
1. 1948 Genocide Convention,
2. Rules and principles of customary international law,
3. Judicial decisions of international courts and tribunals, and
4. Other relevant international treaties ratified by the
Philippines, and teachings of the most highly qualified
publicists.6
B. The sources of international law are—
1. International conventions,
2. International custom,
3. General principles of law recognized by civilized nations, and
4. Subsidiarily, judicial decisions and teachings of the most
highly qualified publicists.7
III. The Philippines must order the prosecution and arrest of
the Westphalian Soldiers.
A. Genocide
1. Genocide is a special penal offense under Philippine Law.8
a. “The killing, causing bodily or mental harm to bring about
physical destruction of a national, ethnic, racial, religious,

1 CONST. art. VIII, § 5

2 Rep. Act No. 9851, § 18. The Regional Trial Courts of the Philippines shall have original and exclusive
jurisdiction over crimes punishable under Rep. Act No. 9851. Their judgments may be appealed or elevated
to the Court of Appeals and to the Supreme Court, as provided by law.
3 RULES OF COURT, Rule 45(1). Filing of petition with Supreme Court.— A party desiring to appeal by

certiorari from a judgment or final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the
Regional Trial Court or other courts whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme Court a verified
petition for review on certiorari. The petition may include an application for a writ of preliminary
injunction or other provisional remedies and shall raise only questions of law, which must be distinctly set
forth. The petitioner may seek the same provisional remedies by verified motion filed in the same action or
proceeding at any time during its pendency.
4 Nocum v. Tan, G.R. No. 145022, September 23, 2005. It is settled that jurisdiction is conferred by law

based on the facts alleged in the complaint since the latter comprises a concise statement of the ultimate
facts constituting the plaintiff's causes of action.
5 CONST. art. II, § 2.
6 Rep. Act No. 9851, § 15.
7 Statute of the International Court of Justice, art. 38(1).
8 Rep. Act No. 9851, § 5.
 social, or any other similar group, with the intent to
destroy such group, are ways of committing genocide.”9
b. Persons found guilty will be subject to heavy civil and
criminal sanctions.
B. International law recognizes genocide as a crime of the highest
order.
1. The U.N. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of
the Crime of Genocide proscribes it.
a. Parties should undertake to enact effective penalties for
persons guilty of genocide.
b. Persons charged with genocide should be tried by a
competent tribunal of the state in the territory of which the
act was committed, or by such international penal tribunal
that may have jurisdiction over the case.
2. Genocide is a violation of jus cogens—"compelling law” which
holds the highest hierarchical position among all other
norms.10
a. The prohibition against genocide is a jus cogens norm that
cannot be reserved or derogated.11
b. Genocide is considered part of jus cogens on the basis of
opinio juris, language in preambles of treaties, large
number of states which ratified treaties related to it, and ad
hoc international investigations and prosecutions of
perpetrators of genocide.12
3. Vindication of genocide is an obligatio erga omnes.
a. All States have a legal interest in its vindication and such
obligation is towards the international community as a
whole.
b. Erga omnes is a consequence of a given international crime
having risen to the level of jus cogens.13
c. The most serious crimes of concern to the international
community as a whole must not go unpunished and their
effective prosecution must be ensured…14

9 Rep. Act No. 9851, § 5.

10 M. Cherif Bassiouni, International Crimes: Jus Cogens and Obligatio Erga Omnes, 59 L. & CONTEMP.
PROBS. 63-74 (Fall 1996).
11 Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Advisory

Opinion, 1951 I.C.J. Rep. 15 (May 28).

12 M. Cherif Bassiouni, supra.
13 South West Africa Case (Eth. v. S. Afr.; Liberia v. S. Afr.), Judgment, 1962 I.C.J. Rep. 319 (December 21);

Barcelona Traction Case (Belg. v. Spain), Judgment, 1964 I.C.J. Rep. 6 (July 24).
14 Rep. Act No. 9851, § 2(e).
 C. To adhere to the principle of pacta sunt servanda, the
Philippines should opt to arrest and prosecute them domestically
instead of surrendering them to the International Criminal Court
(ICC).
1. The VIFEDCA provides the following—
a. Philippine authorities shall have jurisdiction over
Westphalian personnel with respect to offenses committed
within the Philippines and punishable under its laws.
b. The custody of Westphalian personnel over whom the
Philippines is to exercise jurisdiction shall immediately
reside with Westphalian military authorities, if they so
request.
2. Westphalia requested that they be given custody while judicial
proceedings are on-going.
3. The ICC Pre-Trial Chamber has already initiated its
investigation proceedings and issued a warrant of arrest.
4. The Philippines has the duty to cooperate fully with the ICC in
its investigation and prosecution of crimes within the
jurisdiction of the Court.15
a. It must immediately take steps to arrest the person/s in
question in accordance with its laws.16
5. Philippine authorities may dispense with the investigation or
prosecution of a crime if another court or international
tribunal is already conducting the investigation and may
surrender or extradite suspected persons to the appropriate
international court.17
a. “May” is permissive.
b. Option to prosecute domestically or to surrender
jurisdiction is potestative to the Philippines.
c. To elect neither is not an option.
6. The principle of complementarity allows the Philippines not
to surrender the Soldiers to the ICC if their case is already
being tried in its courts.
IV. The Philippines must order the Eastphalian Diplomat’s
arrest and his surrender to the ICC.

15 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, art. 86. Hereinafter, Rome Statute.
16 Rome Statute, art. 59.
17 Rep. Act No. 9851, § 17, ¶ 2.
 A. Petitioner admits the inviolability of the chancery and the
immunity of the Diplomat under customary law and the Vienna
Convention on Diplomatic Relations.18
1. Petitioner acknowledges that diplomatic immunity from
domestic criminal jurisdiction extends even “where they are
suspected of having committed war crimes or crimes against
humanity.”19
2. However, immunities of diplomats “do not represent a bar to
criminal prosecution in certain circumstances”—e.g.,
“criminal proceedings before certain international criminal
courts, where they have jurisdiction.”20
i. “Immunities or special procedural rules which may
attach to the official capacity of a person, whether
under national or international law, shall not bar the
Court from exercising its jurisdiction over such a
person.”21
B. Petitioner submits that the Court’s role is limited to declaring the
existence of the duty to arrest and surrender and to order
compliance with the duty.
1. Judicial inquiry ends with the declaratory and mandatory
function.
2. The question of feasibility and the details of implementation
is solely addressed to the Executive.
C. The Philippines must comply with the ICC request for arrest and
surrender.
1. State Parties have a general obligation to cooperate with the
ICC, particularly with “prosecution of crimes within the
jurisdiction of the Court.”22
2. States Parties shall, in accordance with the provisions [Part
IX] and the procedure under their national law, comply with
requests for arrest and surrender.23
3. Philippine law expressly allows dispensation with
investigation and prosecution when an international tribunal
is conducting the same.24

18 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, pmbl., art. 22(1), art. 29.

19 Arrest Warrants Case (Dem. Rep. Congo v. Belg.), Judgment, 2002 I.C.J. Rep. 3 (April 11).
20 id., applied mutatis mutandis.
21 Rome Statute, art. 27(2).
22 Rome Statute, art. 86.
23 Rome Statute, art. 89(1).
24 Rep. Act No. 9851, § 17, ¶ 2.
 a. Authorities may surrender the accused to the appropriate
international court “pursuant to the applicable extradition
laws and treaties.”—i.e., Pres. Decree No. 1069.25
4. With the issuance of the arrest warrant by the ICC and request
for arrest, compliance follows as a matter of course.
a. “The competent authorities of the custodial State are
expressly forbidden by the Statute from questioning
whether the warrant has been properly issued by the Pre-
Trial Chamber.”26
b. Failure to comply is cause for the ICC to refer the non-
compliant state to the Assembly of State Parties or the U.N.
Security Council.27
V. The Construction Contract is Null and Void.
A. The WEXIMBANK–Department of Finance (DOF) Loan Agreement
is not a treaty or executive agreement under the Vienna
Convention on the Laws of Treaties28, Exec Order No. 45929, and
case law.
1. The requisites of an executive agreement are as follows—
a. the agreement must be between states;
b. it must be written; and
c. it must be governed by international law.30
B. WEXIMBANK is a government-owned and controlled corporation
(GOCC) acting in the proprietary, not sovereign capacity of
Westphalia.
1. Processual presumption applies due to lack of proof of
Westphalian Law.
a. WEXIMBANK is akin to a GOCC.31
25 Rep. Act No. 9851, § 17, ¶ 2.
26 WILLIAM A. SCHABAS, AN INTRODUCTION TO THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT 278 (4th ed. 2011).
27 Rome Statue, art. 87(7).
28 Vienna Convention on the Law Treaties, § 2(1). “An international agreement concluded between States

in written form and governed by international law, whatever its particular designation”
29 Exec. Order No. 459, § 2(a). International Agreement shall refer to a contract or understanding,

regardless of nomenclature, entered into between the Philippines and another government in written form
and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related
instruments.
30 China Nat’l Mach. & Equipment Corp. (Grp.) v. Sta. Maria, G.R. No. 185572, February 7, 2012.
31 REV. ADM. CODE, § 2(13). Government-owned or controlled corporation refers to any agency organized

as a stock or non-stock corporation, vested with functions relating to public needs whether governmental
or proprietary in nature, and owned by the Government directly or through its instrumentalities either
wholly, or, where applicable as in the case of stock corporations, to the extent of at least fifty-one 51%:
Provided, That government-owned or controlled corporations may be further categorized by the
Department of the Budget, the Civil Service Commission, and the Commission on Audit for purposes of the
exercise and discharge of their respective powers, functions and responsibilities with respect to such
corporations.
 2. DOF is a department32 not clothed with full powers33 to
negotiate international agreements.34
3. As Westphalian law was stipulated as governing law, the
requisite that international law shall govern is not met.
4. No fact indicates the loan was guaranteed by Philippines.
C. The Section 4 exception in Rep. Act No. 9184 is inapplicable.
D. Absence of procurement guidelines in VIFEDCA, and the accessory
loan agreement, calls for reference to the statute for
implementation.
E. For being non-compliant with the Constitution and with Rep. Act
No. 9184, the Construction Contract between DND and ZTZ
must be declared void ab initio.

32 REV. ADM. CODE, § 2(7). Department refers to an executive department created by law. For purposes of
Book IV, this shall include any instrumentality, as herein defined, having or assigned the rank of a
department, regardless of its name or designation.
33 Exec. Order No. 459, § 4. Full Powers. -The issuance of Full Powers shall be made by the President of the

Philippines who may delegate this function to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs.
The following persons, however, shall not require Full Powers prior to negotiating or signing a treaty or an
executive agreement, or any amendment thereto, by virtue of the nature of their functions:
a. Secretary of Foreign Affairs;
b. Heads of Philippine diplomatic missions, for the purpose of adopting the text of a treaty or an
agreement between the Philippines and the State to which they are accredited;
c. Representatives accredited by the Philippines to an international conference or to an international
organization or one of its organs, for the purpose of adopting the text of a treaty in that conference,
organization or organ.

34 Exec. Order No. 459, § 3. Authority to Negotiate. Prior to any international meeting or negotiation of a
treaty or executive agreement, authorization must be secured by the lead agency from the President through
the Secretary of Foreign Affairs. The request for authorization shall be in writing, proposing the
composition of the Philippine delegation and recommending the range of positions to be taken by that
delegation. In case of negotiations of agreements, changes of national policy or those involving international
arrangements of a permanent character entered into in the name of the Government of the Republic of the
Philippines, the authorization shall be in the form of Full Powers and formal instructions. In cases of other
agreements, a written authorization from the President shall be sufficient.