6 No other Philippine statute has shown this much adherence to international law. Certainly not the Philippine anti-terrorism law R.A. No. 9372 which, instead of making reference to the 12 international anti- terrorism conventions as it should have, makes reference to 12 Revised Penal Codeprovisions and special laws. Unlike R.A. No. 9851 having a section on Applicability of International Law, what R.A. No. 9372 hasis a section on Applicability of the Revised Penal Code — a 1932 domestic law whichis basically an extension of the Spanish Penal Codeof 1870, being applied to post-9/11, 2001 terrorism! Amongthe various major treaty sources of R.A. No. 9851, several haveactually not yet been ratified by the Philippines: the 1954 Hague Conventionfor the Protection of Cultural Property, the 1977 Additional Protocol I of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, and the 1998 RomeStatute. Their not yet being ratified rightly did not bar the sovereign Philippine Congress, in the exercise of its plenary legislative power, from adopting some oftheir provisions into the national criminal law. Indeed, the ICRC Advisory Service has said, “When these offenses are separately defined in national criminal law, the independenceofthis definition of international law can permit the repression of a breach of oneof the treaties (e.g. Additional Protocol I), even if the treaty has not beenratified by the prosecuting State.” Ratification has another function, which is to bind the Philippines with a particular internationaltreaty regime, in terms of both obligations and benefits. And so, because the Philippineshasnotyet ratified the RomeStatute,it is not yet part of the ICC system. But the above-indicated sourcesare not onlytreaty international law but also “the rules and principles of customary international law.” R.A. No. 9851’s Declaration of Principles and State Policies lays the basis for this through this particular paragraph: “The state adopts the generally accepted principles of international law, including the Hague Conventions of 1907, the Geneva Conventions on the protection of victims of war and international humanitarian law,as part of the law ofour nation.” This paragraphis actually a restatement ofthe 1949 Philippine SupremeCourt ruling in the Kurodacase of another Japanese warcriminalin the Philippinesthat “the rules and regulations of the Hague and Geneva conventions form part of and are wholly based on the generally accepted principles of international law... Such rules and principles, therefore, form part of the law of our nation even if the Philippines wasnot a signatory to the conventions embodying them.” In other words, as far as the primary IHLtreaties like the Hague and Geneva Conventions are concerned, the rules and regulations therein are already deemedincorporated into Philippine law. Therefore, in a sense, R.A. No. 9851 merely “re-legislated” these rules and regulations for clarity and updating, and also because the treaties themselves require domestic penallegislation. It consolidated those principles, rules and regulations in one comprehensive law in so far as the domestic penal aspect of serious international crimes is concerned. In fine, R.A. No. 9851 is a marriage of national criminal law andaspectsof international law. Theresultis a different framework from pure or ordinary criminal law. This different frameworkis justified by the difference between commoncrimesand seriousinternational crimes — just as different diseases require different medical treatment. Under R.A. No. 9851, the State shall ensure that judges, prosecutors and investigators, especially those designated for purposes of this Act, receive effective training in human rights, international humanitarian law andinternational criminal law. Thus, this new law can and should be a catalystfor the infusion of more international law (and thus more cosmopolitan and less parochial) consciousness among Filipino lawyers and law students through the law curriculum and continuing legal education. This can be considered part of a broader educational and consciousness-building effort on IHL and humanrights which is crucial for their implementation and enforcement, in conjunction with criminal prosecution. No less than outgoing Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno has referred to IHL as a “neglected aspect of international law in our jurisdiction.” Thetruetest of R.A. No. 9851is of course in the practice of adherence, implementation and enforcement. This starts with an appreciation of its breakthrough nature andfeatures for the enforcement of IHL and human rights. It also leads the way nowfor the easier passage of other more specific IHL-relatedlegislation like thestill pendingbills on landmines and oninternal displacement, andthestill pending ratification of the 1977 Additional Protocol I and the 1988 RomeStatute.. Thoughpenal sanctions are indispensable to ensure respect for IHL and humanrights, such sanctions are insufficient in themselves to put an end to acts contrary to IHL and humanrights. These normsneedto be placed withina suitable regulatory framework which will lay down the behavior complying with or prohibited by IHL and humanrights. In sum,the Philippines through R.A. No. 9851 maybesaidto be availing of the best that has been created by humanity in termsof international law to prevent and punish the worst acts of inhumanity. Availing of “the best that has been created by humanity”is also surely part of teaching, learning and doing law “in the grand manner.” Thankyou.