5 Command Responsibility and Universal Jurisdiction: Cutting-Edge Principles Atthis point, I will just single out two particularly importantprinciples of international criminal law that have been enshrined, amongothers, in R.A. No. 9851, namely command responsibility and universal jurisdiction. R.A. No. 9851 quite significantly provides for command responsibility as an operative principle of criminal liability for the first time on thelevelof a national statute through a provision on responsibility of superiors, thus: “a superior shall be criminally responsible as a principal for such crimes committed by subordinates under his/hereffective commandandcontrol, or effective authority and controlas the case maybe,asa result of his/her failure to properly exercise control over such subordinates, where: (a) (b) The superioreither knew or, owing to the circumstancesat the time, should have known that the subordinates were committing or about to commit such crimes; and The superior failed to take all necessary and reasonable measures within his/her power to prevent or repress their commission or to submit the matter to the competent authorities for investigation and prosecution.” While the context of this provision refers to war crimes, genocide, and “other crimes against humanity” under R.A. No. 9851, this sets a statutory precedent for its extension to the cases of other serious crimes like torture, enforced disappearances, and extrajudicial killings in the corresponding special laws, if any, on such crimes. This Philippine statutory codification of the doctrine of command responsibility, we might say, is only fitting because the roots of the doctrine are usually traced to the 1946 ruling in the Yamashita case — as Harry would point out --for atrocities committed by the Japanese armed forces in the Philippines during the Second World War,albeit the relevantruling is the one by the U.S., not the Philippine, Supreme Court. In its status as a national statute providing for a clear concept of commandresponsibility as a basis for criminalliability, R.A. No. 9851 was a major step forward in acting on the several related recommendations of the 2007 Melo Commission Report, Alson Mission Report and National Consultative Summit on Extrajudicial Killings and Enforced Disappearances. Also significant in R.A. No. 9851is the provision on jurisdiction which might be characterized as a qualified universal jurisdiction. On one hand,theStateshall exercise jurisdiction over war crimes, genocide, and “other crimes against humanity” regardless of where the crime is committed. On the other hand,there has to - be a nexus to the Philippines, whereby the accusedis a Filipino citizen, or is present in the Philippines, or has committed the crime against a Filipino citizen. But the second condition, whereby the accusedis present in the Philippines, brings this quite close to full universal jurisdiction. Such an accused could be a foreigner who has committed the crime against anotherforeigner and has doneso outside the Philippines, but who has cometo be presentin the Philippines — the State can then exercise jurisdiction over him. Universal jurisdiction is actually explained in R.A. No. 9851’s Declaration of Principles and State Policies: “The most serious crimesof concern to the international community as a whole must not go unpunished andtheireffective prosecution must be ensured by taking measuresat the national level, in order to put an end to impunity for the perpetrators of these crimes and thus contribute to the prevention of such crimes, it being the duty of every State to exercise its criminal jurisdiction over those responsible for international crimes.” The ideais to allow for “justice without borders” so that there are “no safe havens” for war criminals and the like. Applicability of International Law, and Effective Training I come nowtothefinal part of this backgrounder. R.A. No. 9851 provides that in its application and interpretation, Philippine courts shall be guided by the following international law sources: (a) The 1948 Genocide Convention; (b) The 1949 Geneva ConventionsI-IV,their 1977 Additional Protocols I and II and their 2005 Additional Protocol III; (c) The 1954 Hague Conventionfor the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, its First Protocol and its 1999 Second Protocol; (d) The 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child and its 2000 Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in ArmedConflict; (e) The rules andprinciples of customary international law; (f) Thejudicial decisions of international courts and tribunals; (g) Relevant and applicable international humanrights instruments; (h) Otherrelevant international treaties and conventionsratified or acceded to by the Republic of the Philippines; and (i) Teachings of the most highly qualified publicists and authoritative commentaries on the foregoing sources as subsidiary meansfor the determination ofrules ofinternational law.