Republic Act (RA) 9851, or the Philippine Act on Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law,

Genocide, and Other Crimes Against Humanity, was enacted in December 2009. It provides the
grounds for the filing of charges and sanctions, and designated the courts that will litigate the
cases filed against perpetrators.

1. What specific acts are criminalized under the law?

RA 9851 prohibits any acts of crimes against humanity that are “committed as part of a
widespread or systematic attack” — such as willful killing, extermination, and torture — against
any civilian.
It punishes genocide and war crimes in accordance with international humanitarian laws
and treaties, such as the 1948 Genocide Convention and 1949 Geneva Conventions. Genocide
constitutes acts that are meant to “destroy” in whole or in part a particular group such as ethnic
minorities by killing or hurting them, among others. War crimes refer to excessive warfare methods
committed during international or non-international armed conflicts.
2. Who may be held liable for violating provisions of RA 9851?
Any individual, including government officials and foreign nationals, found to have violated
any of the provisions of RA 9851, may be charged and prosecuted before the Regional Trial Courts
(RTC) — which, under Section 18 of the law, “have original and exclusive jurisdiction” over all
relevant cases — or “special courts” designated by the Supreme Court (SC).
While the law affirms the individual criminal responsibility of an accused, it also incriminates
a public official on the basis of command responsibility for failure to prevent one’s subordinates
from committing violative actions under RA 9851, or submitting the matter to competent
authorities for investigation and prosecution.
The law states that courts “shall be guided” by relevant international conventions, treaties,
laws, and judicial decisions of international courts and tribunals in interpreting its provisions.
Under Section 17, local authorities may “dispense” or stop the investigation or prosecution
if another court or international tribunal is already investigating or prosecuting an individual for a
similar offense “in the interest of justice.” In such cases, local authorities “may surrender or
extradite” suspected or accused persons to the “appropriate international court, if any, or to
another State pursuant to the applicable extradition laws and treaties.”
3. What penalties may be imposed on persons who violate the law?
Persons found guilty of committing crimes against humanity, war crimes, or genocide face
penalties ranging from a fine of P100,000 to P500,000 and imprisonment of at least 14 years,
eight months and a day up to 20 years. The assets, property, and proceeds directly or indirectly
obtained during the commission of the violations will also be forfeited.
Local courts may impose heavier sanctions, specifically reclusion perpetua (maximum of 30
years imprisonment) and fine of up to P1 million “when justified by the extreme gravity of the
crime,” especially if the crimes constitute rape, or have resulted in death or serious physical injury,
and depending on the “individual circumstances” of the accused. Public officials may also face
additional accessory penalties under the Revised Penal Code.
Persons found guilty of inciting others to commit genocide will suffer imprisonment ranging
from six years and one day to 12 years, and a fine of P10,000 up to P20,000.
Under RA 9851, victims are entitled to reparations for the damages or losses incurred by their
perpetrators based on the assessment of the court.
4. Can an incumbent president be held liable under RA 9851?
While Section 9 of RA 9851 indicates the “irrelevance” of position in government of the accused
from prosecution, or reduction of sentence, the sitting president cannot be prosecuted for violating
any provision of the law, including crimes against humanity, until his or her tenure ends:
“Immunities or special procedural rules that may be attached to the official capacity of a
person under Philippine law other than the established constitutional immunity from suit of
the Philippine President during his/her tenure, shall not bar the court from exercising its
jurisdiction over such a person…”
Source: Official Gazette, Republic Act 9851, Dec. 11, 2009

Although the 1987 Philippine Constitution does not have an explicit provision regarding
presidential immunity, unlike in the 1973 Constitution, various jurisprudence still recognize the
privilege from criminal or civil suits of an incumbent president.
In a 2011 ruling, the SC explained that granting immunity to the president “is important
[so] that he be freed from any form of harassment, hindrance or distraction to enable him to fully
attend to the performance of his official duties and functions.”
The decision, which pertains to three petitions against military and government officials
allegedly involved in the abduction of two missing students of the University of the Philippines in
2006, added that dragging the president to court litigations “impairs his usefulness in the
discharge” of his constitutional duties. Former president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, who was among
the personalities named by the petitioners, was dropped as a respondent owing to her presidential
immunity that time.
However, the immunity from suits of a sitting Philippine president does not apply when it
comes to the ICC, which has jurisdiction over international crimes such as crimes against
humanity. Carranza said the Hague-based court does not acknowledge immunities from suits of a
head of state. (See VERA FILES FACT CHECK: ICC can strip off Duterte’s immunity)
Article 27 of the Rome Statute, which Roque, in a 2012 article, recognized as “adopted verbatim”
under Section 9 of RA 9851, provides that immunities or special procedural rules under national
or international law accorded to any government official, including the heads of state or
government, will not bar the ICC from exercising its jurisdiction.
In at least two cases, the ICC wanted to put two sitting heads of states on trial when it
issued arrest warrants against former Sudanese president Omar Al Bashir and the late Libyan
leader Muammar Gaddafi.
According to the ICC, Al Bashir was the first sitting president to be wanted by the ICC for
various charges, including two counts of crimes against humanity and five counts of war crimes,
that occurred in Darfur, Sudan. However, Al Bashir has yet to be tried before the ICC because he
is still at large despite two arrest warrants issued against him. Meanwhile, the two crimes against
humanity cases against Gaddafi were terminated following his death in 2011.
Neither Sudan nor Libya became a state party or ratified the Rome Statute. But the Rome
Statute allows the ICC to launch an investigation of erring officials of the two countries since their
cases were referred by the United Nations Security Council.
While the Philippines has left the ICC, Bensouda has maintained that all crimes that
occurred in the country during the period of its membership to the statute from November 2011
to March 2019, when the country’s withdrawal officially took effect, still fall under the jurisdiction
of the court.