Melo Commission Report: Findings

Feb. 23, 2007

More interestingly, the Philippines, even if not a party to Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, is among the states cited by the ICRC whose military manuals, military instructions, and legislation specify the responsibility of commanders for the crimes of their subordinates, confirming that the above rule has crystallized into a norm of customary international humanitarian law.[94] In truth, the Philippine Armed Forces own Articles of War recognizes a commanders responsibility for the actions of his subordinates under the general provision that a commander must maintain discipline within his ranks. Thus, Article 97 of the Articles of War states:

General Article. Though not mentioned in articles, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline and all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the military services shall be taken cognizance of by a general or special or summary court martial according to the nature and degree of the offense, and punished at the discretion of such court.

Likewise, the utterance of statements which tend to induce subordinates to misbehave, such as words that would inspire subordinates to commit extrajudicial killings, is categorically punished in times of war under Article 76 of the Articles of War. Furthermore, Article 105 of the Articles of War recognizes the duty of commanding officer to punish men under his command for minor offenses and imposes a penalty for his failure to mete out the appropriate penalty when there is enough evidence to warrant such disciplinary measure.

Hence, it is clear that the doctrine of command responsibility in general has been adopted by the Philippines[95], as a generally accepted principle of international law, and hence, as part of the law of the land. The doctrines refinements and restatements AP I and the Rome Statute, while signed by but as of yet lacking ratification by the Philippines, may be considered similarly applicable and binding. This was probably put best by Justice Perfecto in his separate opinion in Yamashita v. Styer,[96] where he stated:

The treaties entered into between members of the family of nations are but specific definitions and reinforcements of the general common law of nations, the “unwritten” rules of warfare, which for centuries have limited the method and manner of conducting wars. The common law of nations, by which all states are and must be bound, dictates that warfare shall be carried on only in accordance with basic considerations of humanity and chivalry.

,
comments powered by Disqus