“As correctly observed by many participants to the conference, this should hence be referred to as the Philippine principle on legality of war crimes.

The theme of the recently concluded 7th Biennial Conference of the Asian Society of International Law was “Finding Solutions to Civilizational Problems from an Asian Perspective.” I thought that the theme was apt given that as the venue of the conference, the Philippines has contributions to international law proving that what started as normative solutions to our domestic problems have found international application through international law.

For instance, while the world attributes to the Nuremberg Tribunal the principle that the violations of the laws and customs of war are criminal whether or not there is a domestic statute penalizing them as such, it was the Philippine Supreme Court in Yamashita vs Styler that first pronounced this principle at least three years before Nuremberg. As correctly observed by many participants to the conference, this should hence be referred to as the Philippine principle on legality of war crimes. It was also in this case of Yamashita where the principle of command responsibility was defined and first applied. This is with respect to the leaders and military commanders who may incur criminal responsibility for atrocities committed by their troops if they know or should have known that these crimes are happening and they did not do anything to prevent them or to punish the perpetrators thereof.

Likewise, long before the world entered into the Geneva Convention on the rights of refugees, our Supreme Court in Kookooritchkin vs CID ruled that refugees should be allowed safe haven into our country on humanitarian grounds. This case involved Russian nationals who fled their homeland when the Tsar was toppled during the Russian Revolution.

On the rights of indigenous peoples to their ancestral lanes which they have owned since ancient times — although bereft of Torrens title, our Supreme Court ruled in Cariño vs Insular government that IP have a right and title to land that they have owned communally since ancient times. Courts and other tribunal bodies quote Cariño as the precedent for this principle.

And recently, Oposa vs Factoran has crystallized into a customary norm of international law. Here, our Court ruled that children have a standing to sue to protect their environment. This is today referred to as “intergenerational rights,” a cardinal principle of environmental law.

The fact that our Supreme Court has contributed so much to international law only proves that domestic problems often are common dilemmas for the international community. With our hosting of the Asian Society Biennial conference, we hope that our contributions to the field of International law will continue in the years to come.