Jurisdiction, in the context of states, is the power of a state to affect legal interests. It is an attribute of sovereignty that confers, through law, the power and authority to apply the law. This power can be exercised over a state’s entire domain, with its decrees being supreme and its commands paramount within its limits. However, a state may, by its consent (express or implied), submit to a restriction of its sovereign rights, which is known as sovereignty as auto-limitation.
Jurisdiction can be categorized into three types recognized in international law:
- Jurisdiction to prescribe (legislative jurisdiction): The authority of a state to make its policy applicable to persons or activities regardless of boundaries.
- Jurisdiction to enforce: The authority of a state to use government resources to induce or compel compliance with its law, including the power to arrest. Having jurisdiction is distinct from enforcing the decision of a court.
- Jurisdiction to adjudicate: The authority of the state to subject particular persons or things to its courts regardless of boundaries.
The scope of a state’s jurisdiction over a person, thing, or event depends on the state’s interest in affecting the subject in question. International law recognizes several principles for asserting jurisdiction:
- Territoriality Principle:
- This is the most frequently invoked ground for criminal jurisdiction. It postulates that a state exercises exclusive jurisdiction (executive, legislative, and judicial) over all persons, things, transactions, or happenings within its territorial limits. Conversely, a state is generally not allowed to assert jurisdiction over affairs taking place within the territories of other states.
- Subjective Territoriality Principle: Grants jurisdiction to prosecute or punish crimes commenced within a state’s territory but completed or consummated in another state’s territory.
- Objective Territoriality Principle: Applies when the action takes place outside the state’s territory, but the primary effect or consequences of that activity occur within its territory, or it produces gravely harmful consequences to the social or economic order inside its territory. An example is a rifleman in Canada shooting an American across Niagara Falls in New York, where the murder occurs in the U.S., giving the U.S. jurisdiction.
- Nationality Principle (also called Personality Principle):
- This principle allows a state to exercise jurisdiction over its nationals even when those nationals are outside the state’s territory. It is based on the theory that a national is entitled to state protection wherever they are and is bound by a duty of obedience and allegiance.
- Active Personality Principle: Allows a state to prosecute its own nationals for crimes committed abroad.
- Passive Personality Principle: Allows a state to assert jurisdiction over an offense committed abroad solely because the victim of the offense was a national of that state. This principle is generally limited to certain cases and is less common due to its potential to offend other nations’ laws. The Yunis case, where the U.S. prosecuted a Lebanese for hijacking a Jordanian civilian airliner in Beirut because American citizens were among the passengers, is an example.
- Protective Principle:
- Under this principle, a state may exercise jurisdiction over conduct outside its territory that threatens its security, integrity, or economic interests, as long as the conduct is generally recognized as criminal by states in the international community. Examples include treason, forging government currency, or plotting to break a state’s customs laws. This principle is invoked when the “victim” is the government or sovereign itself.
- Universality Principle:
- This is the most far-reaching ground for extraterritorial jurisdiction. It allows any state to exercise jurisdiction over certain heinous and widely condemned offenses, even when no other recognized basis for jurisdiction exists. The rationale is that such crimes are so egregious they are considered committed against the international community as a whole. Historically applied to piracy, it has expanded to include jus cogens norms like slavery, genocide, hijacking, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. This principle can be asserted in absentia (offender not present in the state’s territory) or tied to the “aut dedere aut judicare” obligation (prosecute or extradite).
Conflicts of Jurisdiction: When there are competing interests among various states, priorities may be established based on the quality and quantity of linkages the states have. While jurisdiction is generally territorial, international law does not prohibit a state from exercising jurisdiction over acts that occurred abroad, provided it can rely on some permissive rule of international law.
Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction (Philippines): Republic Act No. 11930 (Anti-Online Sexual Abuse or Exploitation of Children (OSAEC) and Anti-Child Sexual Abuse or Exploitation Materials (CSAEM) Act) specifically grants the Philippine State extra-territorial jurisdiction over acts defined and penalized under the Act, even if committed outside the Philippines and regardless of whether such acts constitute an offense at the place of commission, provided the offense is a continuing one that was either commenced in the Philippines, or committed in another country by a Filipino citizen or permanent resident against a Filipino citizen.
Exceptions and Limitations to Jurisdiction: A state’s jurisdiction is not absolute and is subject to certain exceptions and limitations. These include:
- State Immunity: The fundamental principle that the State may not be sued without its consent.
- This doctrine applies to complaints filed against officials of the state for acts performed in the discharge of their duties, especially if the judgment would require the state to perform an affirmative act, like appropriating funds.
- The traditional rule has evolved into a restrictive doctrine, distinguishing between:
- Sovereign and governmental acts (jure imperii): State immunity extends only to these acts. An example is the power to issue business permits and licenses, which is an exercise of police power and thus a governmental act.
- Private, commercial, and proprietary acts (jure gestionis): Engaging in these acts is considered a waiver of immunity.
- Waiver of Consent: Consent to be sued may be express (e.g., specific law like Act No. 3083, or a general law like one allowing a government corporation to sue and be sued) or implied (e.g., when the state commences litigation or enters into a contract). However, waiver of immunity does not mean concession of liability; it only gives the plaintiff a chance to prove liability.
- Government funds and properties cannot be seized under writs of execution to satisfy judgments, as this could paralyze state functions; claims must be filed with the Commission on Audit (COA).
- The determination by the executive branch that a state or instrumentality is entitled to sovereign or diplomatic immunity is a political question conclusive upon the courts.
- A public officer acting without or in excess of jurisdiction incurs personal liability, which cannot be imputed to the State. The doctrine of state immunity cannot be used to perpetrate injustice.
- Foreign Entities and Properties:
- Generally, a state may not exercise jurisdiction over foreign states, heads of states, diplomatic representatives, and consuls to a certain degree.
- Foreign merchant vessels exercising rights of innocent passage or arriving under stress are recognized exceptions. Criminal jurisdiction over foreign merchant vessels in territorial seas is determined by applying either the English Rule or French Rule.
- Foreign armies passing through or stationed in its territories with the state’s permission.
- Acts of State: National courts generally refrain from prosecuting the validity of official acts carried out by a foreign state within its own territory. This is a corollary to the principle of state immunity.
- International Organizations and their Officers:
- Organizations like the United Nations may be exempt from jurisdiction if the state waives its jurisdiction by agreement.
- Judicial Bodies:
- Regional Trial Courts (RTCs) are courts of general jurisdiction, but their scope cannot be extended over matters falling under the special jurisdiction of another court or quasi-judicial body.
- The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and RTCs are co-equal bodies when the SEC exercises quasi-judicial jurisdiction (e.g., issuing CDOs), and RTCs cannot interfere with or overturn SEC orders. This is based on the doctrine of judicial stability or non-interference.
- The Sandiganbayan has exclusive original jurisdiction over cases involving violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and other related crimes where high-ranking public officials or military/PNP officers are accused.
- The HRET’s (House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal) jurisdiction is limited to the election, returns, and qualification of “Members” of the House of Representatives, specifically after a valid proclamation, proper oath, and assumption of office. Once a proclamation is made, COMELEC’s jurisdiction over the candidate is lost, and the HRET’s jurisdiction begins.
- The COMELEC has exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests relating to the elections, returns, and qualifications of all elective regional, provincial, and city officials. It has appellate jurisdiction over contests involving municipal officials decided by trial courts of general jurisdiction, or barangay officials decided by trial courts of limited jurisdiction.
- The Supreme Court has exclusive administrative supervision over all courts and their personnel. No other branch of government may intrude into this power.
- The Supreme Court’s power to promulgate rules concerning the practice of law, including the integrated bar and legal assistance, is exclusive. The Court has no primary and direct jurisdiction over the study of law.
- The jurisdiction to determine whether an applicant may take the bar examinations belongs to the Court.
- The COA’s primary jurisdiction over money claims due from or owing to the government does not preclude the exercise of jurisdiction over the same subject matter by another adjudicatory body, tribunal, or court. The COA’s jurisdiction is limited to audit matters only and is devoid of authority to determine the validity of contracts.
- Administrative Law Doctrines:
- Doctrine of Primary Administrative Jurisdiction: If an administrative tribunal has jurisdiction over a controversy, courts should not resolve the issue even if it may be within their proper jurisdiction. This is especially true when the question involves the administrative tribunal’s sound discretion requiring special knowledge, experience, and services to determine technical and intricate matters of fact. This doctrine refers to the competence of a court to take cognizance of a case at first instance and cannot be waived. It applies only where the administrative agency exercises its quasi-judicial or adjudicatory function.
- Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies: Requires a party to first avail of all administrative processes before seeking court intervention. Failure to observe this doctrine affects the party’s cause of action but does not affect the court’s jurisdiction, and it may be waived.
- Res Judicata: Applies to both judicial and quasi-judicial acts of public, executive, or administrative officers and boards acting within their jurisdiction.
- The COA has primary jurisdiction to examine, audit, and settle “all debts and claims of any sort” due from or owing the Government. Its original jurisdiction is primarily limited to liquidated claims.
English