*PRIL Feb 18

ACTA
-suit can be filed against:
1. Government official acting under colorable title
2. Private individual
3. State, if only it has waived its immunity from suits
4. Corporations
-far more success in filing suits against public officials (although they claim that these were under state acts)
Defenses:
1. Forum non conveniens
2. Act of state
3. No proximate cause (esp. in UNOCAL and Chevron)
ACTA: Both place of injury and place of conduct are not in the forum state; only connection is that the defendant is there (and so is the plaintiff)
Critique: extraterritorial application of US law over conduct committed outside US
Time v. Reyes
-Time published an article wherein Ponce Enrile and Villegas were depicted as corrupt officials so the two sued times in RTC Rizal. Court ruled that the venue where the case was filed was provided under a special law - RA 4363 which should be followed (since they are officials of Manila, either in RTC of Manila or the place where the article was published).  On the argument that Times is not in Manila, inconvenient to bring suit where they are, court ruled that the RP laws cannot extend its application abroad.
If apply traditional approach: law of the place where the tort happened : place of publication: NY
If apply modern approach: Most significant relations: the plaintiffs is in Manila, the alleged acts imputed on the two plaintiffs are in Manila, the effects are in Manila…harm of reputation in RP not in NY = so can apply RP law
TORT vs. CRIME

TORT	CRIME
Transitory: may be punished wherever the tortfeasor is located	Territorial
Individual is the victim	State is the offended party
Indemnify the victim	Punish and reform

LEX LOCI DELICTI
=law of the place where the crime was committed
4. It has to be a domestic law
Exceptions
1. When the defendant is immune from criminal liability
2. When the crime happened w/n territorial waters but on board a foreign vessel
3. When the defendant is a Filipino, under the exceptions in Article 2, RPC
*most recent convention on international crime: Rome Statute
-only applicable if the State consented to the application of the Rome Statute and Jurisdiction of ICC
DOCTRINE OF STATE IMMUNITY
Ratio: all states are sovereign equals and thus, cannot assert jurisdiction over one another
-covers acts allegedly performed in the official capacity (jure imperii), not private, commercial or proprietary acts (jure gestionis)
LIANG v. RP
-Liang accused Cabal of theft and even called her a b*tch!  So he was sued for grave oral defamation. DFA gave an office of protocol making him immune from criminal liability so lower courts dismissed the charges. Court held: (1) DFA determination not binding; (2) ADB officers only immune if in official capacity; (3) Slander (imputation of a theft) not an official duty; (4) Vienna convention does not make a diplomat immune from criminal liabilities.
WYLIE v. RARANG
-"Auring" was accused in the memo of the airbase of criminal acts which led to the investigation of Auring for the alleged crimes. Auring sued the officials of the airbase. Court held that the officials cannot claim immunity from crimes because doing criminal acts is not deemed a part of official duty.
CRIMES COMMITTED ON BOARD A FOREIGN VESSEL even if it is within the territorial waters of the coastal state
>as long as no disruption of peace and order  - see Art 27
FRENCH RULE: only prosecute if against peace and security of the coastal state
ENGLISH RULE: if w/n coastal waters, can prosecute criminal even on board foreign ship
4. is there an actual difference in deciding what cases may be heard by PHILIPPINE COURTS? None. It's the starting point which is different. If it pertains to internal affairs of the ship, it is w/n the jurisdiction of the flag state. It would only fall under the jurisdiction of the country of the coastal state if it affects the peace and order of the coastal state.
US v. FOWLER -Fowler et al. stole bottles of champagne on a foreign vessel in the high seas. Victim filed suit in RP. Court held that the applicable law then, Act 136, only confers jurisdiction to RP if the ship is registered an licensed in RP. Lawton is not so registered.
-RP cannot exercise jurisdiction in the High seas
P v. WONG CHENG
-Wong Cheng smoked opium in a foreign vessel in territorial waters of RP. Sued in RP. Court said that since we follow the English rule, only triable in the courts of the country w/n whose territory they were committed.  Court acquires juridiction.
-smoking opium w/n territorial jurisdiction of RP: w/n jurisdiction? But no showing that there's many opium, blah blah…? Apparently, they smoked opium in open view of everyone. Encourages everyone to violate the law
US v. LOOK CHAW
-Opium was landed in Cebu upon boarding of RP investigators of the ship. Court held that generally mere possession of a thing of prohibited use in RP, abroad a foreign vessel in transit, does not constitute a crime; X: when the ship is landed.
UNCLOS
-Art 27
Criminal jurisdiction of COASTAL STATE not exercised ON BOARD A FOREIGN SHIP passing through the territorial sea…
(d) if such measure are necessary for the suppression of illicit traffic in narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances...
CRIMES COMMITTED BY FILIPINOS BUT NOT W/N RP JURISDICTION - ART 2, RPC
Why are these exceptions to the territorial rule: threats to national security and economy of the state - national interest
Extradition: unjust to not be able to punish an act done just because he is not w/n the forum's jurisdiction
On rapists of children: "How can you be kind to them, they're not human beings."