COR JESU LAW SCHOOL

Digos City, Davao del Sur

HUMAN RIGHTS LAW

FIRST QUARTERLY EXAMINATION
SY 2020-2021

ATTY. JOSEPH R. PEŇAS, CPA

Professor

GOOD LUCK

1. a. What are the attributes of Human Rights? Explain. (5 pts)

The following are the attributes of Human Rights:
a. Human Rights are inalienable which means that it cannot be taken or given
away by any human;
b. Human Rights are universal as it applies to all humans, regardless of the age,
sex, culture or race;
c. Human rights are equal because every human being has the same rights
with one another; and
d. It is Inherent as human rights are inherent to every human being the moment
they were born.
b. What are the three generations of Human Rights? Explain. (5 pts)

The three generations of human rights are as follows:

i. First generation human rights which focuses mostly to the political and civil
rights. These rights are known to be a negative rights as it prohibit one from
doing somethingg. A known example of which is the prohibition searches and
seizure;
ii. Second generation it is the opposite of first generation as the rights in this
generation are known to be positive rights. These rights can be gleaned from
our social and cultural rights such as right to education; and
iii. Third generation human rights which are rights that emerged anew such as
environmental rights of every individuals.

2. a. Explain “The state as guarantor of Human Rights”. (5 pts)

The state as guarantor of Human Rights provides that it is not the state who gives an
individual the human rights since these rights are known to be inherent in every person.
The duty of the State here is to ensure that individual go on with the enjoyment of their
rights. But, in turn, the members of the society must also acknowledge its authority.

So being a guarantor of human rights the State in this case may be held liable or
accountable when individuals are being deprived of their rights by the positive act or
negative act of the State.

b.Explain the doctrine of derivative responsibility of a state in human rights law. (5pts)
 The doctrine of derivative responsibility presupposes a liability that may arise against
the State for human rights violations even if the state did not directly commit the act that
constitutes the violation as long as the state assisted or connived with such act as it allows such
the act to happen provided that the State in this case exercises direction and control over the
commission of the act.

3. a. Prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is a restraint against the state and not
against private individuals. TRUE OR FALSE. Explain (5 pts )

True. The prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizure is a restraint against the
state.
As discussed in the case of People vs Marti, the Supreme Court held that the
Constitution prohibits unlawful searches and seizure as a restraint directed only to the State and
the agencies being tasked to enforce the laws. Further, the principle of laid down in our
Constitution admits that it does not govern relationship between and individual to another
individual as it focuses on the relationship of the State as to its individual. Thus, this prohibition
applies only to the state and no against private individual.

b. What is the doctrine of intergenerational responsibility as enunciated by the Supreme court in

the case involving environmental protection. Explain. (5 pts)

The doctrine of intergenerational responsibility as discussed in the case of Oposa vs

Factoran grants the right of the present generation to sue on its behalf and in behalf of the
succeeding generations for the protection of the environment for the future generations to
enjoy a healthful ecology as also embodied in our Constitution and in the human rights.

4. a. What is command responsibility doctrine in International Law? (5pts)

The doctrine of command responsibility makes a superior liable for the failure to stop
human rights violations committed by its subordinates. The liability would arise even if
there is no direct showing that the superior ordered the commission of these acts as
such superior can be made liable under the Doctrine of Command Responsibility.

b. Can the right to life be waived? (5pts)

No. The right to life cannot be waived.

The Constitution explicitly provides that no person shall be deprived of life. There was a
case decided in other courts which provides that this right to life provided in our human
rights does not carry with it the right to die. This right to life means that nobody
including the government can try to end your life perhaps it creates duty for our
government to safeguard our lives by making laws for our protection.

5. a. What is jus cogens and obligation erga omnes? (5pts)

 Jus cogens is a fundamental principle that is accepted and recongized in international law
which provides that customs and different cultural influences and standards are
fundamental norms that it superior to other sources of international law and that these
norms need not be agreed upon by a State in order to form part of their jurisprudence.

On the other hand, oblgation erga omnes provides that there are certain obligations by a
State that are expected by them to be followed regardless of the presence or absence to be
bound by it.

b. What are the sources of International Human Rights Law? (5pts)

The sources of International Human Rights are as follows:
a. International conventions;
b. General principles of law that are recognized by the laws of nation;
c. Judicial decisions and comments of highly qualified publicist; and
d. International customs, coupled with evidence as to its general practice.

6. State A and State B, two sovereign states, enter into a 10-year mutual defense treaty. After five
(5) years, State A finds that the more progressive State B did not go to the aid of State A when it
was threatened by its strong neighbour State C. State B reasoned that it had to be prudent and
deliberate in reacting to State C because of their existing trade treaties.
a. May State A now unilaterally withdraw from its mutual defense treaty with State B? (5 pts)

Applying the principle under International law which is the pacta sunt servanda which
provides that States who entered into a treaty with another State being asignatory
therefrom is bound to faithfully comply with such treaty.

In this case, State A is expected to faithfully comply with the obligation provided in the
treaty entered between them. Thus, State A cannot withdraw with the treaty.

However, the principle of rebus sic stantibus may also be applied in such case, and d by
applying so State A can unilaterally withdraw from its treaty obligation with State B, on
the ground that in such withdrawal from the treaty is for protection against an existence
of harm by that may be inflicted against State A.

b. What is the difference between the principles of pacta sunt servanda and rebus sic stantibus
in international law? (5pts)

Pacta sunt servanda, requires compliance of treaty obligations of signatory states in

good faith irrespective of constrains in its enforcement, while rebus sic stantibus
demands the unitary withdrawal or severance in the enforcement of State's treaty
obligations whenever it would be impossible to comply with.

7. Referring to problem no. 6 above:

a. Are the principles of pacta sunt servanda and rebus sic stantibus relevant in the treaty
relations between State A and State B? ( 5pts)
 Yes the principles are relevant between the two States to a treaty.

As the two principles may be invoked by these two state. State A may invoke rebus sic
stantibus to unilaterally withdraw from the mutual defense treaty invoking severance in the
enforcement of state’s obligation and when impossibility to comply intervenes. Also B may
invoke the principle of pacta sunt servanda by demanding a to faithfully comply with tis
obligations.

b. What about in the treaty relations between State B and State C? Explain. (5 pts)

Both State must comply with their treaty obligations under the principle of pacta sunt
servanda. However both states cannot invoke the principle of Rebus sic stantibus since
there is no fundamental change or circumstances present that could affect the treaty
between them.

8. The Philippines and the Republic of MALAYANESIA established diplomatic relations and
immediately their respective Presidents signed the following:
a. Executive agreement allowing the Republic of MALAYANESIA to establish its embassy and
consular offices within Metro Manila; and
b. Executive agreement allowing Republic of MALAYANESIA to bring to the Philippines its
military complement, warship, and armaments from time to time for a period not exceeding
one month for the purpose of training exercises with our military counterparts in the
Philippines and exempting from Philippine criminal jurisdiction acts committed in the line of
duty by foreign military personnel, and from paying customs duties on all goods brought by
said foreign forces into Philippine territory in connection with the holding of the activities
authorized under the said Executive agreement.

Senator BALAS questioned the constitutionality of the said executive agreement and
demanded that the Executive agreement be submitted to the Senate for ratification
pursuant to the Philippine Constitution. Is Senator BALAS correct? Explain. ( 5pts)

No. Executive agreement ne not to be ratified by the Senate.

Executive orders although similar to a treaty except that they do not require legislative
concurrence as provided under the law. The only requirement for a executive agreement is
that is that it shall be transimitted to the Department of Foreign affairs for the preparation
and signing of the papers. There is no law that requires an executive agreement to be
ratified by the Senate.

9. Children who are members of a religious sect have been expelled from their respective public
schools for refusing on account of their religious beliefs, to take part in the flag ceremony which
includes playing by a band or singing the national anthem, saluting the Philippine flag and
reciting the patriotic pledge. The students and their parents assail the expulsion on the ground
that the school authorities have acted in violation of their right to free public education,
freedom of speech, and religious freedom and worship. Decide. (5pts)

The school did not act in violation of the students right to free public education,
freedom of speed and freedom of religion.
 It was held by the Supreme Court in one case that it had decided that these freedom
from religion does not carry with it and exemption for one to not comply with the rules
and regulations that is being promulgated by the authority. If they chose not to salute
the flag, the would lost the benefit of having access to free public education.

10. Not too long ago, “allied forces”, led by American and British armed forces, invaded Iraq to
“liberate Iraqis and destroy suspected weapons of mass destruction. The Security Council of the
United Nations failed to reach a consensus on whether to support or oppose the “war of
liberation”. Can the action taken by the allied forces find justification in International Law? (5
pts)

The action taken by the allied forces cannot be justified. There is a prohibition under the
international law against the use of force prescribed by the United Nations. It was
mandated under the United Nation that they must refrain from using force against any
territory of another State. This prohibition is now recognized under as a norm or
principle in customary international law that makes it binding to all the members of the
United Nations.

11. The S/S Magnitude of German registry, while moored at the South Harbor, was found to have
contraband goods on board. The Customs Team found out that the vessel did not have the
required ship’s permit and shipping documents. The vessel and its cargo were held and warrant
of seizure and detention was issued after due investigation. In the course of the forfeiture
proceedings, the ship captain and the ship’s resident agent executed sworn statements before
the customs legal officer admitting that contraband cargo were found aboard the vessel. The
shipping lines object to the admission of the statements as evidence contending that during
their execution, the captain and the shipping agent were not assisted by council in violation of
the right to due process. Decide. ( 10 pts )

The admission of the statements of the captain and the shipping agent did not violate
due process even if no counsel has assisted them.

Jurisprudence provides that, the assistance of counsel is not indispensable to due

process in forfeiture proceedings since this forfeiture proceedings are not criminal in their own
nature. What is important is that the parties are afforded the opportunity to be heard and the
decision is based on substantial evidence.

12. STOP was elected senator in the 2019 national elections. He was born out of wedlock in 1981 of
an American father and a naturalized Filipina mother. STOP never elected Philippine citizenship
upon reaching the age of majority. Is SENATOR STOP a Filipino citizen? ( 5 pts)
Yes. Senator STOP is a citizen. The law applicable is the 1973 Constitution.

In Tecson vs Comelec, the 1973 Constitution did not distinguish as to a child citizenship
or where to follow his citizenship since the law provides that Those whose mother or
father are citizens of the Philippines. The law does not qualify whether the same is
applicable to a legitimate or illegitimate child.

In the case at bar, since Senator Stop was born out of wedlock so it follows that it is the
citizen of his mother that she must follow and in doing so it made him a citizen of the
Philippines without a need of electing the same.