NECESSITY SPEECH

1. It is with pride that we have witnessed before and are witnessing now
the most beautiful lessons in consolidating and affirming this
sovereignty on the principle of either winning or dying … there is no
place for defeat.

2. Ladies and gentlemen, your honors, good evening.

3. Tonight, I will argue that the condemning of the UN probe is in line

with the Principle of Non-intervention and abuse of the UN to
the sovereignty of the Philippines.

4. First, non-interference is the bedrock of a state’s sovereignty.

5. Sovereignty is defined as the powers that grant the state the right of
control within its agreed borders, and the freedom to organize its
legislative, administrative and judicial authorities, along with
independence from any external authority, taking into account
international law and the agreed borders of other states.

6. Sovereignty also refers to the relationship between external and

internal authority. The former is the status and independence of the
state within the international system. The latter is the power of the
state to make decisions that apply to all its citizens and institutions,
both inside and beyond the borders of the state.

7. Your Honors, one of the most salient principles of sovereignty is that

of non-interference, any breach of which is an international legal
taboo.

8. UN General Assembly 2131 explicitly says: “No state has the right to
intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the
internal or external affairs of any other state.”

9. Second, it is our duty as the citizens of the republic to promote

and protect our sovereignty as enshrined in our very
Constitution, the supreme law of the land.

10. Section 7, Article II of the 1987 Constitution has a clear

conception of what the nation’s foreign policy should be that the
state shall pursue an independent foreign policy. In its relation with
 other states, the paramount consideration shall be the national
sovereignty, territorial integrity, national interest, and the right to self-
determination.

11. The framers of the 1987 Constitution upheld that above all, the
Executive and the congress in relation to the Constitution’s section on
social justice must always seek for the consultation with the people.

12. Your Honors, with respect to the pulse of the Filipinos, a survey
conducted late last year showed that eight out of ten are satisfied
with this administration’s campaign against illegal drugs.

13. This can only mean that Filipinos feel safer as the rate of
criminality has substantially declined to a remarkable low for indeed,
a significant number of our country’s felonies are drug related.

14. Lastly, the UN Probe is not just a mere interference but a

declaration of War on our Sovereignty.

15. Respect for state sovereignty, the equality of all states

regardless of their size and the strength of their economies, and
equality of rights and duties of all sovereign states, are among the
fundamental concepts that the United Nations aims to protect.

16. Then why is the UN pushing for an investigation on our own

municipal policy when the reasons foisted by them have been
discredited by the very nation they pretend to care about.

17. The call for a probe by 11 allegedly independent UN experts

was based on a biased and false recital of facts. They are presenting
general allegations obtained from false information.

18. Your Honors, the affirmative wishes to emphasize that our

domestic remedies are available and working. Thus, we should be
permitted to solve our own concerns.

19. In the case of Almora vs. Dela Rosa, the Supreme Court has
mandated the Solicitor General to furnish reports of the alleged
killings during police operations. Moreover, the Philippine National
Police Human Rights Affairs Office has proved the compliance of the
state to human rights standards.
20. Ladies and gentlemen, the Philippines is a working democratic
state with functioning and independent judicial system. The
accountability and other information provided by the state must not
be ignored.

21. To end, let me say that the citizens of each state play a key role
in supporting their countries to achieve and implement this
sovereignty by believing in the independence of their homeland and
having confidence in their leadership’s choices and decisions.
 NOTES

1. The Human Rights Council Resolution is not a source of International

Law. It does not create a legally binding state obligation.

According to the permanent court of international justice, sovereignty

of the state is supreme, and restriction thereto can never be
presumed. Thus, to justify any restrictions to the exercise of
sovereignty in this case, your honors, any legally binding state
obligation to allow for a review of war on drugs must arise from any
of the material and formal sources of International law as found
under Article 38 Paragraph 1 of the ICJ statute. These are treaties,
customary international law, general principles of law, and judicial
decisions and teachings of the most highly publicized publicist. In this
case, UNHRC Resolution does not fall in any of those sources. Thus, it
does not create a legally binding obligation on the part of the
Philippines.

2. The principle of subsidiarity embedded in every human rights treaty

provides that where domestic remedies are available, a sovereign
state should be permitted and allowed to solve their own concerns.

3. War on drugs should not be done at the expense of human rights.

That is not the issue of tonight’s debate.

4. Article 2 Section 5 of the UN Charter:

“The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated

in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality

of all its Members.

2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and

benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfil in good faith the
obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.

3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful

means in such a manner that international peace and security, and
justice, are not endangered.

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the

threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political
 independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with
the Purposes of the United Nations.

5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any
action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall
refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United
Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.

6. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of
the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as
may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and
security.

7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United

Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the
domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to
submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this
principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures
under Chapter VII.”

5. If we’re invoking committee, isn’t it voluntary and therefore non-

binding?

6. Our membership is not an automatic waiver of our sovereignty.

7. There are only repercussions if we allow them to investigate. The state

should have the first obligation and opportunity to redress any
human right violations. The moment we allow them to enter, it is
another way of saying that our domestic mechanisms have failed
unjustifiably likening us to failed States.

8. Is that UN Resolution even a treaty resolution?

9. United Kingdom and Korea, parties who voted in favor of this

resolution once rejected the UN resolutions calling them
recommendatory.

10. Complementarity – The principle of complementarity provides

that a case is inadmissible before the International Criminal Court
(ICC) if it is currently under investigation by a state with jurisdiction
over it. The concept of complementarity, however, allows for ICC
jurisdiction in situations when the state is unable or unwilling to
proceed with an investigation or where the state investigation is
 conducted in bad faith such as when it is used to shield the person
from criminal responsibility.
11. Subsidiarity –
The idea that functions that can be exercised at a lower level oforgani
zation should so be rather than being taken over by a higher level org
anization.
 POSSIBLE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

1. Should the Philippines comply with its treaty obligations in good

faith?
a. Yes, general obligations to promote peace and security.
2. Is the Philippines signatory to the UN Charter?
a. Yes, of course.
3. Should the Philippines comply with the obligations under the UN
Charter?
a. Yes, to promote human rights in domestic mechanisms.
4. Do you know that the UN Charter requires state members to assist
the actions of the UN pursuant to its charter?
a. No, under Art 2…
5. Do you also know that the Charter requires international cooperation
on human rights?
a. The Charter does not authorize any UN body under Article 2
Paragraph 7.
6. Should the Philippines comply with UN’s investigation?
7. Do you claim that the resolution violates the Philippine sovereignty?
a. It limits the exercise of sovereignty if we are bound to it.
8. Is sovereignty absolute?
a. Sovereignty is absolute, the exercise of sovereignty is not. The
exercise of sovereignty can be limited.
9. Are you familiar with the ruling of the case of Tañada vs. Angara?
a. We are not here to question the constitutionality of the
resolution. This is a matter of international law.
10. Is Philippines a signatory to treaties and human rights such as
the UDHR?
a. Which does not provide an obligation to allow for an
international investigation.
11. And under the said treaties, the Philippines has the obligation
to protect human rights?
a. To protect human rights, yes, but not to allow an international
investigation.
12. Would you agree with me that it is a matter beyond domestic
concerns?
a. It is a domestic concern.
 CROSS EXAMINATION

1. Good evening, Counsel. I call, request and urge you to answer the
questions only by a mere yes or no.
2. Do you know what it means by a binding resolution?
3. Of course. It indicates that certain actions are either required or
prohibited, correct?
4. Have you read the entire resolution subject for tonight’s debate?
5. Do you, then, consider “calls upon”, “requests”, and “urges” binding
words?
6. Are you aware that the resolution itself used the aforementioned
words that are considered to be non-binding?
(Thank you for that concession! I’ll take that as a yes.) (The resolution
itself uses non-binding words such as calls upon, requests, and urges,
correct? And these are non-binding words?)
7. Therefore, the resolution cannot bind the Philippines for the mere
resolution itself does not compel.
8. I called, requested and urged you to answer my questions only by a
mere yes or no, correct?
9. You may qualify your answer although I told you not to, because the
words mentioned are merely recommendatory.
10. Counsel, you mentioned about the UN Human Rights Council,
correct?
11. Are you aware that the UNHRC is a mere subsidiary organ of
the UN General Assembly?
12. Do you know that the function of the UN General Assembly is
to make recommendations under the UN Charter?
13. Do you agree with me that as a mere subsidiary of the UN
General Assembly, the UN HRC can only make recommendations?
14. You mentioned about the UN Charter, correct? Are you aware
of Article 2 Paragraph 7 of the UN Charter? (which provides that the
UN shall not be authorized to intervene with matters which fall under
domestic jurisdiction.)
15. The entire Articles both of the UN Charter and ICCPR does not
contain any obligation to allow for an international investigation.
16. Thank you, Counsel. No more questions, Your Honors.