1. There is a proposal to conduct joint patrol operations between the United States and the Republic of the Philippines at the West Philippine Sea. Give your stand.

I support the proposal to conduct a joint patrol operations between the United States and the Republic of the Philippines at the West Philippine Sea.

In the 501 page ruling of the International Tribunal of the Laws of the Sea (ITLOS) on Republic of the Philippines v. People Republic of China, the international tribunal has held that, as to territorial claim, there was no legal basis for China to claim historic rights within the sea areas falling within the “nine-dash line.” The tribunal declared that certain sea areas are within the exclusive economic zone of the Philippines, because those areas are not overlapped by any possible entitlement of China. xxx It further held that, China violated the Philippines’ sovereign rights in its exclusive economic zone by interfering with the Philippine fishing and petroleum exploration, constructing artificial islands, and failing to prevent Chinese fishermen from fishing in the zone.

However, China does not recognize the ruling made by ITLOS. The execution of the ruling made by ITLOS would be nugatory if China does not recognize its ruling. With this, the rights of the Filipino fishermen to the exclusive economic zone in the West Philippine Sea cannot be realized. Hence, there is a need for an alternative action to enforce our rights to our claim in the West Philippine Sea. As such, we may opt for the conduction of joint patrol operations with the United States.

Historically, a standoff between the Philippine Navy and the Chinese Navy has taken place in the West Philippine Sea for purposes of posturization and safeguarding the rights of the state with its claim to the West Philippine Sea. However, sometime thereafter, the US, in its promise to support the Philippines in its maritime dispute was later left uncompiled. In its effect, China continued to exploit the zone to which they are not entitled.

Now, the proposal for the conduction of a joint patrol operations with the United States may have the effect of enforcing our rightful claims to the West Philippine Sea. Through the said proposal, it may act as a way to make a posture and position to pressure China to act in such a way to recognize our rightful claim to the West Philippine Sea.

2. There is a continuing investigation against Former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte regarding alleged extrajudicial killings relative to drugs. The Duterte camp claims that the Philippines has long withdrawn membership from the International Court. May the Philippine government cooperate like allowing International Criminal Court (ICC) personnel to conduct investigations in the Philippines or cooperate and/or supply evidence against Duterte?

Yes. The Philippine Government may cooperate by allowing ICC personnel to conduct investigations in the Philippines against Duterte. While it is true under the general rule of International Law that, the ICC can only acquire jurisdiction over the person only in cases where the accused is a national of a state party. However, by way of exception, under Article 127 of the Rome Statute, which states that, a State shall not be discharged, by reason of its withdrawal, from obligations arising from the statute while it was a Party to the statute.

Here, while it is true that the Former President has withdrawn its membership from the International Court, the International Criminal Court may still acquire Jurisdiction over the Person of the Former President because a complaint against the same has been instituted before the Philippines withdrawn. Hence, the Philippine government may allow ICC to conduct investigations in the Philippines against Duterte.

3. Mr. Arnolfo Teves Jr., a former lawmaker has refused to return to the country to answer the criminal charges against him. Allegedly, he is in Timor-Leste. May the Philippines ask Timor-Leste authorities to arrest and repatriate the Filipino fugitive and send him back to the Philippines to face the charges?

It depends as to whether or not the Philippines and Timor-Leste have an existing treaty for extradition to determine whether or not the request to extradite is valid. Had there a treaty between the Philippines and Timor-Leste for extradition, the Philippines may request Timor-Leste to arrest Mr. Anolfo Teves, Jr. and repatriate and send him back to the Philippines. However, if there is no treaty that existed between the party state, the request of the Philippines may not prosper. Since punishment of fugitive criminals is dependent mainly on the willingness of the host State to apprehend them and revert them to the State where their offenses were committed, jurisdiction over such fugitive and subsequent enforcement of penal laws can be effectively accomplished only be agreement between States through treaties of extradition. Without a treaty on Extradition, the arrest and repatriation of a fugitive in another country is not demandable.

However, by way of exception, a fugitive may be arrested and repatriated in another country even without a treaty on Extradition. Such arrest and repatriation can be made only by principle of comity, where the requested country, out of its friendliness, fulfills the request of the requesting country to arrest and repatriate the fugitive in question.

4. On grounds of self-defense, on the part of Israel and the right of the Palestinian people to their alleged territory war is raging. Would you give your stand with reasons how the continuous killing could be stopped. Whom do you support? Justify.

Under the principle of International Law, the State may exercise its right to Self-Defense if there is:

1.     An armed attack or aggression;

2.     The self-defensive action taken by attacked state must be reported immediately to the Security Council;

3.     Such action shall not in any way affect right of Security Council to take any time action as it deems necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Further, applicable rule for Self-Defense is found under the Penal Code because the penal laws provides for the justifiability of a certain act committed, it is when:

1.     There is an unlawful aggression;

2.     There is a reasonable necessity to repel such aggression;

3.     There is lack of provocation on the part making a defense.

In the case of Israel’s “self-defensive” act, while it may be argued that indeed there is an unlawful aggression on the Part of Palestine by instantiating an attack against Israel. However, on the part of Israel, as one making a defense, it cannot show that there is a reasonable necessity to repel such unlawful aggression nor lack of provocation on their part. Thus, no justifiable self-defense is in existence.

The defensive act of Israel cannot be justified because the said act is not proportionate to the threat being faced. The question of Proportionality is vital in deciding whether or not the self-defense is valid and justifiable. In the case at bar, Israel’s defensive act is not proportionate to the threat faced since we must consider the impact of its defensive act on civilian populations. Thus, it is a question of humanitarian concern Hence, having the defensive act be on unproportionate terms, the self-defense is deemed too unjustifiable.

The next point is that there must be a lack of provocation on the part of the one making a defense is not observed by Israel. Historically speaking, the context of conflict is deeply rooted in issues concerning complex matters of displacement, competing national aspirations, and contested territories. Understanding such historical background is crucial in determining the requisite of provocation.

Here, the Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and the establishment of settlements may be deemed as provocative actions that contribute to the tension to the region. Hence, in this view, certain Israeli Policies may be seen as provocative. Thus, the requisite of lack of provocation is not seen in the case at bar. Hence, The self-defense made by Israel is not complete and therefore not valid and justifiable act of self-defense.

5. The United Nations is criticized for not doing its job in preventing and/or stopping the massive destruction of property and killing of people almost to the brink of genocide. Give your stand with reasons.

I strongly agree. While it is true that the United Nations is doing its job in preventing or stopping conflicts and mass atrocities through the United Nations Security Council as the body responsible for maintaining international peace and security. However, the fulfillment of its mandate is limited which may result in insufficiency in exercising its function. The political dynamics within the UN Security Council, including the use of veto power by its permanent members, can lead to deadlock and hinder the Council's ability to take robust action. This has been a significant challenge in addressing conflicts where geopolitical interests are at play.

The role of UN in the Israel-Palestine conflict is simply to mediate and support ceasefires and advance political negotiations. The UN announcement for condemnation of attacks is not effective to prevent further escalation of the tension and violence between Israel and Palestine. It seems that the UN is in a deadlock to have a position. All it can do is mitigate the tension by its announcement to release and aid civilians. In conflicts like the Israel-Palestine situation, the UN often plays a role in mediating and supporting ceasefires. However, the political complexities and deeply rooted issues in the region make achieving a lasting resolution challenging. The UN's influence is sometimes constrained by the willingness of the conflicting parties to engage in meaningful negotiations.

Condemnations and announcements by the UN may have symbolic importance, but their effectiveness in preventing further escalation can be limited. The nature of the conflict, historical grievances, and complex power dynamics often require more comprehensive and sustained diplomatic efforts.

Also, United Nations reliance on member states to contribute resources and troops for the purpose of peacekeeping operations contributes to its limited enforceability. The UN's reliance on member states for resources and troops can indeed limit its ability to enforce resolutions and take decisive actions in conflict zones. The effectiveness of peacekeeping missions depends on the willingness of member states to contribute resources and personnel.

Recognizing these limitations, there have been ongoing discussions about the need for UN reform to enhance its capabilities in conflict prevention and resolution.

POSITION ON THE UKRAINE-RUSSIA CONFLICT

The conflict between Ukraine and Russia escalated when Ukraine decided to join NATO or the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. NATO is an international political and military organization composed of European countries that is established for collective security and ensure the defense of its members and to promote stability and cooperation in the North Atlantic Sea. For long-standing history, Ukraine was then part of Russia, which thereafter decided to have independence from the Soviet Union. Ukraine then decided to establish their own identity apart from Russia. In line with this, Ukraine decided to join the NATO. By reason of Ukraine’s decision to join NATO, Russia saw this as a direct security challenge. With NATO’s expansion, Russia strongly expressed its opposition. Putin of Russia theorizes that Ukraine has no identity nor sovereignty and that it can only have an identity and sovereignty if it is in partnership with Russia. With this, Putin put the matters into his own hands through forcing its way to invade Ukraine. From this, it resulted into a war.

Under the International law principle, as juridical entity possessing international personality, the state is vested with the right to existence and self-defense, and the right of sovereignty and independence. Every state has the right to be sovereign in its territorial jurisdiction. Ukrainians by in fact is an independent sovereign state and was declared independent since 1991. Ukraine as a country is far different from Russia in many different aspects such as government, politics, commerce, and culture. Hence, with Ukraine having sovereignty, it must be respected by any other states.

Article 2(4) of the UN charter provides that, all members shall refrain in their international relations from threat or use of force against territorial integrity or political independence of any state or in any other manner inconsistent with the purpose of United Nations. Having both Ukraine and Russia as members of UN, they must obey said provision. Russia’s act must be condemned and must merit serious sanctions.

As to the power of control, Russia has no longer control over Ukraine. It is established that Ukraine attained the status of a state and has an equal footing with any other states. Under the principle of International Law, Par in parem non habet imperium or an equal has no power over an equal, it is a principle that one sovereign power cannot exercise jurisdiction over another sovereign power. In the case here, Russia is convinced that Ukraine is still under their control. Thus, it would be wrong to say such thing.

POSITION IN ISRAEL-PALESTINE CONFLICT

The Israel-Palestine conflict have a long complex history before it builds up into a war. The war started when the terrorist group in Palestine attacked Israel, and Israel, in its claim of self-defense, attacked back.

Under the principle of International Law, the State may exercise its right to Self-Defense if there is:

4.     An armed attack or aggression;

5.     The self-defensive action taken by attacked state must be reported immediately to the Security Council;

6.     Such action shall not in any way affect right of Security Council to take any time action as it deems necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Further, applicable rule for Self-Defense is found under the Penal Code because the penal laws provides for the justifiability of a certain act committed, it is when:

4.     There is an unlawful aggression;

5.     There is a reasonable necessity to repel such aggression;

6.     There is lack of provocation on the part making a defense.

In the case of Israel’s “self-defensive” act, while it may be argued that indeed there is an unlawful aggression on the Part of Palestine by instantiating an attack against Israel. However, on the part of Israel, as one making a defense, it cannot show that there is a reasonable necessity to repel such unlawful aggression nor lack of provocation on their part. Thus, no justifiable self-defense is in existence.

The defensive act of Israel cannot be justified because the said act is not proportionate to the threat being faced. The question of Proportionality is vital in deciding whether or not the self-defense is valid and justifiable. In the case at bar, Israel’s defensive act is not proportionate to the threat faced since we must consider the impact of its defensive act on civilian populations. Thus, it is a question of humanitarian concern Hence, having the defensive act be on unproportionate terms, the self-defense is deemed too unjustifiable.

The next point is that there must be a lack of provocation on the part of the one making a defense is not observed by Israel. Historically speaking, the context of conflict is deeply rooted in issues concerning complex matters of displacement, competing national aspirations, and contested territories. Understanding such historical background is crucial in determining the requisite of provocation.

Here, the Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and the establishment of settlements may be deemed as provocative actions that contribute to the tension to the region. Hence, in this view, certain Israeli Policies may be seen as provocative. Thus, the requisite of lack of provocation is not seen in the case at bar. Hence, The self-defense made by Israel is not complete and therefore not valid and justifiable act of self-defense.

POSITION ON THE RETURN OF PHILIPPINES TO THE ICC

I wholeheartedly support the proposition advocating for the Philippines to return to the International Criminal Court (ICC). The decision to re-engage with the ICC is a crucial step for a nation committed to peace and justice, especially in addressing the pressing concerns related to crimes against humanity during the tenure of President Rodrigo Duterte from 2016 to 2022.

The Philippines, known for its dedication to upholding the principles of human rights and justice, can benefit immensely from the ICC's expanded role as an impartial and comprehensive scrutinizing body. By returning to the ICC, the Philippines not only reinforces its commitment to transparency but also demonstrates a willingness to subject itself to international scrutiny, showcasing a government that values accountability and human rights.

Moreover, the ICC provides an essential avenue for investigating and addressing crimes against humanity that might have occurred during the specified period. The international community, through the ICC, offers an impartial platform that goes beyond domestic courts, ensuring an unbiased examination of alleged atrocities. This is particularly vital in instances where there may be concerns about the independence and impartiality of local judicial processes.

Returning to the ICC is not merely about addressing past grievances but also about securing the Philippines' commitment to justice in the future. By reinstating ties with the ICC, the nation establishes a framework for potential future investigations into crimes against humanity. This proactive approach serves as a deterrent, emphasizing the nation's resolve to hold individuals accountable for egregious violations, irrespective of their position or influence.

Furthermore, the ICC's involvement provides an additional layer of protection for citizens by fostering a culture of accountability and adherence to international human rights standards. It ensures that the Philippines maintains access to a credible and internationally recognized forum for addressing human rights violations, thereby safeguarding the rights and well-being of its people.

In conclusion, the decision for the Philippines to return to the International Criminal Court is a testament to the nation's commitment to justice, human rights, and accountability. It not only addresses past concerns but also establishes a robust framework for dealing with potential future challenges. The move reflects the country's dedication to upholding international standards and fostering a just and peaceful society for all its citizens.