that the death penalty does not serve the goal of deterrence of crime, 57 and loses sight of the restorative and rehabilitative aspects of justice. The efforts by the Philippines to reintroduce the death penalty are inconsistent with customary law obligations and with the overwhelming views of the community of States. IV. The Relationship Between International Law and the Philippine Constitution In any event, the Philippines is bound by its international obligations both as a matter of international law, and as a matter of domestic law. The relationship between (customary) international law and Philippine law has been first laid down in the 1935 Constitution, which established the Commonwealth of the Philippines. The present provision in the 1987 Constitution has the same tenor as the 1935 Constitution. According to Article II, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution, “[t]he Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy, adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation, and amity with all nations.”58 The Philippine Supreme Court has consistently held that customary law is part of the law of the land. There is no need for treaty law, valid or otherwise, to be applicable in the Philippines. In a recent case on this point, Magallona v. Ermita, the Philippine Supreme declared that principles of international customary law (such as the right of innocent passage) is “automatically incorporated in the corpus of Philippine law.” Thusly, Philippine Congress is not bound to pass a law for the principle to apply.59 While there have been arguments that the Philippines is a monist state,60 even if the Philippines were to be considered a dualist state (one which does not generally automatically applies international law without domestic enablements), it is beyond doubt that the Philippine Constitution is explicit in its treatment of customary law. When it comes to customary law (as opposed to treaties and international agreements), principles of customary law are automatically part of Philippine law without the need for any domestic law. This is because principles of international customary law are general principles of international law.61 57 World Coalition Against the Death Penalty and International Federation for Human Rights (FiDh), The Death Penalty For Drug Crimes in Asia, Oct. 2015 at 26, available at https://www.fidh.org/IMG/pdf/asia_death_penalty_drug_crimes_fidh_wcadp_report_oct_2015_pdf.pdf (last accessed Feb. 27, 2017). 58 PHIL. CONST., art. II, § 2. 59 Magallona v. Ermita, G.R. No. 187167 (Aug. 16, 2011). 60 See, debate on this, Francis Tom Temprosa, Reflections on a Legal Confluence: International Law in the Philippine Court, 1940-2000, (2013) 19 AsYBIL 90, 115-116 (2017). 61 JOAQUIN G. BERNAS, AN INTRODUCTION TO PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW 57(2002). Page 19 of 23