However, the existence of that constitutional provision does not affect the absolute nature of the obligations of the Philippines in international law. Any suggestion that domestic law and the 1987 Constitution may permit the reintroduction of the death penalty in the Philippines despite the ratification of the Second Optional Protocol is completely untenable for the purposes of international law. It is a fundamental principle of international law that States may not rely upon a provision of domestic law to avoid their international legal obligations. As a matter of international law, an inconsistent constitutional provision of Philippines law does not affect the obligations of the Philippines at international law. Under Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT),13 to which the Philippines is a party, the Philippines must comply with its treaty obligations and perform them in good faith. That is also an obligation binding upon the Philippines as a matter of customary international law. Additionally, Article 27 of the VCLT expressly prohibits a State from relying upon any provision of its domestic law to justify a breach of international law. The travaux préparatoires to the VCLT confirms that the Constitutions of States are part of domestic law for the purposes of Article 27.14 As the Permanent Court of International Justice stated as long ago as 1932 in its advisory opinion in Treatment of Polish Nationals, … a State cannot adduce as against another State its own Constitution with a view to evading obligations incumbent upon it under international law or treaties in force.” To the extent there was any doubt, the position is made absolute by the adoption by the General Assembly at its 56th Session in 2001 of the Articles on the Responsibility of States for Wrongful Acts (the “State Responsibility Articles”). Article 3 of the State Responsibility Articles provides that: “The characterization of an act of a State as internationally wrongful is governed by international law. Such characterization is not affected by the characterization of the same act as lawful by internal law.” Article 32 of the State Responsibility Articles provides that: “The responsible State may not rely on the provisions of its internal law as justification for failure to comply with its obligations under this part.” 13 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, opened for signature May 23, 1969, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331 (entered into force Jan. 27, 1980) [hereinafter VCLT]. 14 See Vienna Conference, Documents, p. 145; Vienna Conference, First Session, p. 158, Vienna Conference, Second Session, p. 54; See also Merlin M. Magallona, The Supreme Court and International Law: Problems and Approaches in Philippine Practice, 85 PHIL. L.J. 1 (2010). Page 6 of 23