FERAREN, JOHN REY A.

2nd ROUND MIDTERM EXAM

Far Eastern University

Institutes of Law
Human Rights

Answer the following questions correctly and concisely.

1. Discuss the implications of the principle that the right of self-

determination of peoples under the ICCPR is a collective right.

- Under the ICCPR, the right to self-determination is a

human’s right to freely exercise their political status as well
as their economic, social and cultural development. In the
case of Province of North Cotabato v. GRP, international law
recognizes the right to self-determination as either an
internal or external right to self-determination. The former
is a portion of a population that seeks political, economic,
social and cultural development within a framework of a
given state, while the latter is wider in scope where a whole
population asserts a right of secession from foreign control
by another state. Under both circumstances, they could be
entail as a collective right by a group of people that seeks
recognition from either the state that they have assimilated
with or from foreign control. The implication being is that
these set of people wants a form of legitimacy and a freedom
from outside interference in exercising their political,
cultural, social, economic beliefs and standing within their
tribe or community.

2. The Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant

on Civil and Political Rights contains the undertaking the
State Parties not to execute any person within their
jurisdiction and to take all necessary measures to abolish the
death penalty within their jurisdiction. Considering that an
international protocol is generally considered merely as a soft
law, may the Philippines re-institute the death penalty in spite
 of its ratification of the Second Optional Protocol? Discuss
fully.
- Yes, the Philippines may institute the death penalty as
such. In the case of Pharmaceutical and Health Care
Association v. Duque, A soft law is an expression of non-
binding norms, principles, and practices that influence
state behavior. As a general rule, these form of law could
not also be considered as customary norms which is
incorporated in Article II of our Constitution. They are in
contrast with hard law which are in a written form like a
treaty and should be approach with strict observance as per
the principle of pacta sunt servanda under the Vienna
Convention. Therefore, considering the protocol is merely a
soft-law the Philippines very well re-institute the death
penalty given the fact of its non-strict observance and at the
same time the Philippines exercising its municipal law
independently as a sovereign state. Also, under the ICCPR,
the covenant itself has mention the existence of death
penalty from other countries, provided that it should be
only imposed with only from the most serious crimes and
carried out by a competent court.

2. Discuss how the International Covenant on Civil and Political

Rights protect the right of conscientious objectors.

- Under the ICCPR, the term forced and compulsory labour

which is protected under the covenant does not include
military service therefore conscientious objectors does not
fall within the protection of the ICCPR in the context of
slavery or servitude. However, there are still countries and
international organization that recognize or push through
the rights of conscientious objectors. One such
international organization is the Council of Europe which
has adopted resolutions on a range of human rights issue
including the rights of conscientious objectors.

3. May the Philippines adopt a policy restricting the entry of

OFWs coming from countries afflicted with severe viral
infestations? Explain fully.
 - Yes the Philippine may adopt such policy if it sees that such
entry would impair the general warfare of the public.
Although the UN Declaration of Human Rights under article
13, which states the right to return from his country and
article 11(4) of the ICCPR, where cannot be “arbitrarily
deprived” to enter his own country. The right to return to
one’s country is not among the rights specifically
guaranteed in the Bill of Rights this was elaborated in the
case of Marcos v. Manglapus, the case pertains that
although the right to return to one’s country may be
considered as a generally accepted principle of international
law it is distinct and separate from the right to travel and
enjoys a different protection under the ICCPR against being
“arbitrarily deprived”. Thus, UDHR is normally used to
affirm or supplement rights in domestic law and may be
dispensed with if it involves the safety, security and health
of the general public. In this case, If the OFW’s return from
countries with infestations would hamper the safety of the
public at large, then their return may be defer with given
the justifiable and substantial grounds for the imposition.

4. Discuss the right to security of persons under Article 9 of the

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Is this
right non-derogable right? Explain fully.

- No, the security of persons is not a non-degorable right but

a derogable right. Under article 4 of the ICCPR, Right of
persons under Article 9 is not one of the articles included as
a non-derogable right under the Covenant. This is because
this right can be suspended in a state of emergency or it
can be restricted by the State if public morals and public
interest are prejudice. This could be applied with persons
charged with a crime or suspected of committing a crime
with probable cause, provided that these kinds of
impairment of their security are done in accordance with
procedure or due process and under justifiable
circumstances.