Article Ill, Section Philippine permit 19 of Constitution the penalty the reasons” “heinous crimes” notwithstanding, allowed to International law does not permit withdrawal from, nor denunciation it is the the Philippines may the the international law. involving reimpose upon for “compelling be binding Philippines as a matter of customary to of the death Philippines doubtful whether obligation 1987 purporting reimposition in the Second Optional Protocol. of, Once ratified by a State, its obligations are death penalty, in view of the absolute nature binding of the obligations of the Philippines in conclusion was (hypothetically) international wrong, a minimum period of notice of law. and twelve perpetual. months would Even be if that required to The ratification of the Second Optional Protocol. It would be expected that all Protocol other by the Philippines in 2007, States party to the Second twenty years after the passage of the Optional Protocol would protest such a Constitution, is a valid sovereign act of course the Philippines as a matter in the most vigorous terms. of international law. The Philippines may The Bills that are before the House of not Representatives and the Senate are in withdraw Optional from Protocol the as Second this unambiguously any treaty prohibits, event inconsistent international legal with obligations of the the Philippines because death penalty in the Philippines for all re-impose the crimes. crimes that are not “the most serious permanently, the imposition of crimes.” The VCLT, to which the Philippines is a itself party, requires the state to comply with death its “heinous.” treaty them obligations in good faith. and That perform is also an 45 The prohibits they the death Philippine the seek penalty to for Constitution imposition of the penalty for crimes that are not