(Question IX-A, Political Law, 2017 Bar Exam)
Ambassador Robert of State Alpha committed a very serious crime while he headed his foreign mission in the Philippines. Is he subject to arrest by Philippine authorities? Explain your answer. (3%)
Under the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, a diplomatic agent shall enjoy immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State. He shall also enjoy immunity from its civil and administrative jurisdiction. Rule
In the case at bar, Ambassador Robert of State Alpha is a diplomatic agent that enjoys diplomatic immunity. Accordingly, Philippine authorities have no criminal jurisdiction over him. Apply
Thus, Ambassador Robert is not subject to arrest by Philippine authorities. Conclusion
(Question IX-B, Political Law, 2017 Bar Exam)
Extradition is the process pursuant to a treaty between two State parties for the surrender by the requested State to the custody of the requesting State of a fugitive criminal residing in the former. However, extradition depends on the application of two principles – the principle of specialty and the dual criminality principle. Explain these principles. (4%)
Under the rule of specialty in international law, a Requested State shall surrender to a Requesting State a person to be tried only for a criminal offense specified in their treaty of extradition.
Double criminality rule provides that the extraditable offense must be criminal under the laws of both the requesting and the requested states. This simply means that the requested state comes under no obligation to surrender the person if its laws do not regard the conduct covered by the request for extradition as criminal.
(Question IX-C, Political Law, 2017 Bar Exam)
The President signs an agreement with his counterpart in another country involving reciprocity in the treatment of each country’s nationals residing in the other’s territory. However, he does not submit the agreement to the Senate for concurrence.
Sec. 21, Art. VII of the Constitution provides that no treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective without such concurrence.
Is the agreement signed by the President effective despite the lack of Senate concurrence? Explain your answer. (4%)
Under jurisprudence, executive agreements may be validly entered into without the Senate’s concurrence. Rule
In the case at bar, the President entered into an executive agreement and not a treat. Accordingly, Senate concurrence is not necessary. Apply
Thus, the agreement signed by the President is effective despite the lack of Senate concurrence. Conclusion
(Notice: The suggested answers simulate those that a bar examinee may provide, and thus specific citations are not provided. Notwithstanding, in the reviewers, the bar exam question is answered under the appropriate topic which discusses the concepts and principles, as well as provide for specific citations. Accordingly, please refer to it on the reviewer or in the Library.)
Lawyer, Author, Mentor