I hope that I had just been able to address on key points, why and howthe “IHLBill” and then the “IHL Law”had comeabout and had cometopass. I will now proceedto the new law’s... General Significance, Potential and Key Features For the first time, in R.A. No. 9851, we have a national statute that defines and penalizes war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity. This could be even more significant than R.A. No. 9745, the “AntiTorture Act of 2009”signedinto law about a monthearlier. To the credit of the 14 Congress and of the Arroyo administration, they havedelivered this significant Pacquiao-like one-two punch for humanrights and IHL during the “last round”of this Congress and administration before bowing out in mid-2010. This new law will enable the Philippines to prosecute the international crimesitself, contribute to an effective international criminal justice regime, strengthenits national criminal justice system, and generally bring its national law into conformity with international standardsas well as up-to-date with important developmentsin international law. It can no longer besaid that the Philippines is “unable” to prosecute war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity for the simple reason that there is no Philippine law defining and penalizing these serious international crimes as such. Such inability could even justify the “complementary”(i.e. secondary)jurisdiction of the ICC over such crimes. The ICRC Advisory Service has said that “Criminal legislation is the most appropriate and effective meansof dealing withall serious violations of IHL.” But, as we shall explain further down, R.A. No. 9851 is a special law, not an amendment to the Revised Penal Code, becausethis law is not simply criminal law but also international criminal law, international humanitarian law and international human rights law.In practical terms, something like the “Maguindanao Massacre” can now be prosecuted as a crime against humanity rather than as a commoncrime of multiple murder. R.A. No. 9851 also comesat a time whenit can provide someteethto a neweffort for a civilian protection component in the context of the peace process between the Governmentof the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) and the MILF. As a law which enforces both human rights and IHL,it can also co-relate on a parallel basis with the Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law (CARHRIHL) between the GRP and the National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP), with more reason as there has been no standing ceasefire between them andas their Joint Monitoring Committee (JMC) mechanism has been _perennially stalemated. The fact that R.A. No. 9851 is heavily informed by humanrights and IHL, evenif itis still a national law, could make those major rebel groups look at or treat it somewhat differently from the usual repressive laws and decrees of the state that they rail against. On another level, R.A. No. 9851 might also contribute to the proper balance between peaceandjustice, which should notbe an either-or proposition. The most important features of R.A. No. 9851 can be outlinedasfollows: Vv > > Defining and penalizing war crimes, genocide, and “other crimes against humanity.” Applicability to all individual perpetrators, whether state agents or non-state actors (unlike the AntiTorture Act whichis limited to state-agent perpetrators). Applying certain international criminal law principlesof irrelevanceof official capacity (for immunities), responsibility of superiors (i.e. command responsibility), unlawful superior orders, and non-prescription, VV Instituting a form of universaljurisdiction, albeit qualified. Providing for international standardsfor protection of victims and witnesses, as well as reparations to the former. Express applicability of international law,includingof specific internationaltreaties. Providing for the designation of special courts, prosecutors and investigators, andtheir effective training Vv VV amongothers. No requirement of implementing rules and regulations (unlike the Anti-Torture Act) in humanrights, IHL andinternational criminal law. I will no longer present R.A. No. 9851's definitions of war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity, which more orless follow those in the RomeStatute, esp. for the last two crimes. We’ve noted though that R.A. No. 9851 uses the terminology “other crimes against humanity.” We can only surmise for now that Congress must have considered the preceding war crimes and genocide as also being “crimes against humanity” in a loose or generic sense. Whileall three crimes are now defined in the RomeStatute, each has its own internationallegal basis. For war crimes, it is mainly the 1949 Geneva Conventions andits 1977 Additional Protocols. For genocide, it is the 1948 Genocide Convention. And for crimes against humanity, it is customary international law. These original treaty and customary international law sources were emphasizedin the later drafts of the “IHLBill,” while referenceto the morecontroversial andstill unratified Rome Statute was deliberately toned down. R.A. No. 9851’s definition of war crimes, however, differs with the Rome Statute’s definition in one significant aspect. In the clustering or categorizing of various acts which would constitute war crimesor “crimes against IHL,” R.A. No. 9851 contains relatively more war crimes for non-international armed conflict than does