Tiran Alon – 2019 ICLR Candidate

The Death of Vaping?

Internationally, the pressure is mounting on government regulatory bodies to strengthen their laws that deal with the regulation of vaping and e-cigarette products. This pressure is spurred by the outpour of negative health effects that have resulted in hospitalizations and even deaths. In the United States alone, vaping has sickened at least 530 people and killed eight.[1]Many countries have already began banning e-cigarettes, including Brazil, Thailand, India, amongst others.[2]There is much controversy on the extent of negative health effects from e-cigarettes. The American Lung Association has said that “e-cigarettes are not safe,” but the American Cancer Society has said that they are “likely to be significantly less harmful for adults than smoking regular cigarettes.”[3]Research conducted by the University College London and Public Health England echo the belief of the American Cancer Society that e-cigarettes are a much healthier alternative to traditional smoking.[4]

At the moment, e-cigarette companies continue to experience relaxed advertising and marketing laws as compared to traditional tobacco products. Juul, for example, launched a ten-million-dollar television advertising campaign in 2019, titled “Make the Switch,” which aimed at persuading adults to switch to the “healthier” alternative of vaping as opposed to smoking cigarettes.[5]Outside of the handful of countries that have gone ahead and banned e-cigarettes, countries have failed to adequately update tobacco and cigarette laws to keep up with the advances in technology.

In the United States, there has been bipartisan support urging the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to immediately pull e-cigarettes from the market, including the market leader Juul, until the FDA is able to review the safety of the products.[6]Under this review process, e-cigarette companies would need to prove that their products offer a net public health benefit.[7]Another more complex issue associated with the e-cigarette and vaping devices is that many of the harmed individuals have been found to have tampered with the e-cigarette devices to vape products other than, or in addition to, nicotine, including THC, amongst other chemicals and substances.[8]Thus, with no single substance, chemical, or brand being at fault for the negative health effects, more research seems necessary to ascertain the source of the health concerns. The fact that it may not be the manufactured product, but a tampered product that is causing the health concerns, raises the question as to if the vaping company is actually to blame? Furthermore, is the FDA the proper regulatory body to be overseeing this electronic product that is being tampered with? These questions and more will continue to bog down legislators and regulatory agencies globally as they seek to address this very real and very concerning public health concern.

[1]Angelica LaVito, More Than 500 Diagnosed With Vaping-Linked Lung Disease and 8 Deaths Reported in U.S.,KTLA (September 19, 2019),

[2]Factbox: India becomes latest country to ban sale of e-cigarettes, Reuters (September 18, 2019),

[3]E-cigarette panic is ruining “biggest public health opportunity” in 120 years, scientist says, CBS News (September 20, 2019),


[5]Michelle Andrews, Cigarettes Can’t Be Advertised On TV. Should Juul Ads Be Permitted?, NPR (August 20, 2019),

[6]Angelica LaVito, Lawmakers urge FDA to immediately pull Juul, other e-cigarettes from the market, CNBC (September 20, 2019),




Roman Rodriguez-Tejera – 2019 ICLR Candidate


The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) was adopted in 1977 as a bulwark against illicit corporate practices that the government grew concerned would inhibit the effectiveness of the free market, lead to the misallocation of American capital, and undermine foreign policy.[1]The impetus for the Act was two-fold: the Nixon scandal had, among other things, revealed the common practice of bribing foreign officials through gifts or direct payments and a subsequent investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) found that nearly 100 corporate executives had participated in bribery payments that totaled $300 million.[2]Ultimately, the FCPA “made it a criminal offense in the United States to provide money or gifts to a foreign official to influence that official for the purpose of gaining a competitive advantage.”[3]Additionally, corporations could be held liable for the actions of a subsidiary under a strict liability theory of respondeat superior, even if the illicit conduct occurred prior to the subsidiaries acquisition.[4]

Despite its harsh façade, virtually all FCPA investigations end in settlement, wherein the corporation agrees to pay a penalty as part of a non-prosecution or deferred prosecution agreement.[5]In fact, only two corporations have ever actually challenged the Department of Justice (DOJ) to meet its burden of proof in court and both corporations prevailed.[6]Nevertheless, because most corporations rather not invite the attention associated with a public trial, settlements remain the norm.[7]

The lack of caselaw – and the fact that compliance guidelines were only first published in 2014, nearly forty years after its original enactment – has made navigating the world of international business ever more challenging for corporations. In response, corporations have elected to implement robust compliance programs that educate employees, directors, and partners about the seriousness of the FCPA and the consequences of violating the law.[8]These oversight programs allow corporations to self-report and conduct internal investigations in the event that a rogue bad-actor acts outside the wishes of the corporation.

Nevertheless, the FCPA has been the target of persistent criticism since its inception. In 2012, future-President Donald Trump declared that the FCPA was “a horrible law.”[9]Furthermore, future-President Trump expressed his concern that “things like this that cause us to not be able to lead the world….For this country to prosecute because something took place in India is outrageous.”[10]Putting these nuanced jurisdictional queries aside, President Donald Trump hit on perhaps the most common critique against the FCPA: the fear that the United States is placing itself at a competitive disadvantage by burdening itself with rules that others are free to ignore. This argument side-steps the reality that, given the ubiquity of the American banking system, the United States frequently exercises its jurisdiction against foreign corporations.[11]Nevertheless, the argument strikes at a larger question: is the FCPA a good law?

The success of a law is often measured by its correlative relationship to a particular desired outcome. However, in the FCPA context, there is disagreement regarding how this desired outcome should be framed: are we seeking to penalize “bad-actors” that attempt to improperly affect international investment markets through their illicit conduct or are we trying to address international corruption as a pervasive issue that reflects larger systemic failures? The narrower framing fits more neatly with current enforcement efforts, however for many it does not reach far enough.

Indeed, one of the less discussed failures of the FCPA is that each violation of the FCPA necessarily requires two parties: a corporation or entity and a government official. However, current enforcement practices only focus on the former, leaving government officials that seek out or demand bribes to continue to act with impunity.[12]Although the United Sates does, at times, attempt to reach these foreign officials under other criminal statutes like “the Travel Act, mail/wire fraud, and money laundering statutes, which enable demand-side prosecutions of foreign officials…their use has been infrequent.”[13]Moreover, because demand-side bribery often exists within a multi-level framework whereby “[f]oreign officials who take bribes often share a portion of their illegal proceeds with their superiors…. serious independent investigation and prosecution of such a crime may expose corruption at high levels.”[14]

Thus, perhaps the issue is not that we ask too much of our corporations, but that we are unable to shield them from the exploitative efforts of foreign officials that leverage their bureaucratic positions to promote and maintain a system of personal enrichment that no single corporation can refuse to engage in. Efforts to increase the benefits of self-reporting are a good sign, however the inability of the DOJ to distinguish between bribery and coercive extortion leaves many international corporations in a tenuous legal position that denies the reality of international trade practices and unduly burdens small or mid-sized corporations that are particularly vulnerable to exploitation.

[1]Victor E. Schwartz, Carrots and Sticks: Placing Rewards as well as Punishment in Regulatory and Tort Law, Harvard Journal on Legislation, Summer, 315-363 at 319 (2014).

[2]Id. at 320.

[3]Id. at 319.

[4]Id. at 322, 335.

[5]Mike Koehler, The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in a New Era, 57 (2014).

[6]Schwartz,at 324.

[7]Koehler, at 57.

[8]Schwartz, at 332.

[9]Aaron Blake, Is Floating a $50 Million Trump Tower Penthouse for Vladimir Putin Illegal?, The Washington Post (November 30, 2018),


[11]Shearman & Sterling, Recent Trends and Patterns in the Enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, FCPA Digest at 26* (January 2019),–Sterlings-Recent-Trends-and-Patterns-in-FCPA-010419.pdf?la=en&hash=D04F50F3BC2A9C3C95AFBF2B7914C65767F7C4FB.

[12]Jessica Tillipman, No Easy Solutions to the Scourge of Demand-Side Bribery, The FCPA Blog (August 27, 2019 at 8:38AM),


[14]Thomas Firestone, Two to Tango: Attacking the Demand Side of Bribery, The American Interest (December 17, 2018),


Christopher A. Penelas – 2019 ICLR Candidate

Controlled Urbanism: What We Can Learn from European Municipalities

According to the European Environment Agency, Europe is one of the most intensively used continents on the globe with up to 80% of its land being used for settlement, production systems, and infrastructure.[1]Meanwhile, in the United States, we use about 66 million acres of our 2.3 billion acres of land for urban development.[2]This developed area of land constitutes about 3% of our total land area, yet compromises around 75% of our population.[3]

These statistics could give us some insight as to why European cities and towns have been able to avoid the problem of urban sprawl and maintain a healthy balance between city life and the environment[4]. While American cities have been plagued with traffic congestion and the issues that accompany urban sprawl.[5]

The answer to the question as to why American cities have these problems and our European counterparts have been able to avoid them, may lie in how municipalities in the two continents regulate the use of land. Generally, in the United States, land use regulation has been modeled after Euclidean zoning.[6]This type of zoning focuses on the exclusivity of certain uses within a given zone.[7]Basically, restricting unwanted uses in certain areas, thus having the effect of sectioning off our cities and towns into different use areas. Almost every major American city has an industrial area, residential area, commercial area, civic area, and financial area. This impacts Americans by making them drive further for work and social activities, separates them into different parts of a city, and forces them to spend more time commuting.[8]Further, American cities have been enamored with low density single family housing. This has the impact of pushing people further apart and burdening municipal governments with increased cost to provide water, electricity and rescue services.[9]

Across the pond, municipal governments have focused on the predominant use in the area, which essentially means that most districts end up being mixed use. For the average European this means that their school, place of business, social activities, doctors’ offices and grocery stores are all within walking distance or a short commute. This has the impact of reducing traffic, allowing more compact cities (cutting down on urban sprawl by allowing more density), and saving European residents an immense amount of time and stress compared to their American counterparts.[10]

While many American cities have begun experimenting with smart growth or mixed use plans, these cities tend to be the exception.[11]Even in cities where they have implemented these types of programs it will take a long time to reverse the impact of Euclidean Zoning. What American cities can do, however, is begin to allow more mixed use development and build transit orientated communities that mitigate the effect of traffic. The benefits of these types of communities range from less traffic, housing equity, reduced levels of stress, and more social interactions.[12]

While many believe that planning and zoning could not have an impact on social issues and health, the impact is seen when we compare the amount of time we spend in a car communing, the amount of time we socialize and our environment to our European counterparts. American Municipalities have a lot to learn from their European counterparts.

[1]European Environment Agency, Land Use, Environmental Topics (July 24, 2017),

[2]George Wuerthner, The Truth About Land Use in the United States, Watersheds Messenger (Summer 2002),



[5]The Daily Sentinel, You Can’t be Against Density and Sprawl, The Daily Sentinel (Sept. 13, 2019),

[6]Sonia Hirt, To Zone or Not to Zone?Comparing European and American Land-use Regulation,(2010); sequence=4


[8]Gregory H. Shill, Americans Shouldn’t Have to Drive, but the Law Insists on It, The Atlantic (July 9, 2019),

[9]The Daily Sentinel, You Can’t be Against Density and Sprawl, The Daily Sentinel (Sept. 13, 2019),

[10]Sonia Hirt, To zone or not to zone?Comparing European and American Land-use Regulation, (2010); sequence=4

[11]Wikipedia, List of examples of New Urbanism,(July 23, 2019),

[12]Gillian B. White, How Zoning Laws Exacerbate Inequality, The Atlantic (Nov. 23, 2015),


David McDonald – 2019 ICLR Candidate

Hong Kong: An Eastern Protest for Western Freedom

Hong Kong, long considered a gateway for investment between a closed-off China and the rest of the world, may be moving from a haven of democracy in the East to a city of oppression similar to the rest of China. Protests in June, estimated to consist of hundreds of thousands to over a million citizens, swallowed Hong Kong following proposed legislation by the city’s government. The law in question would allow Hong Kong citizens to be extradited to countries where Hong Kong does not currently have extradition agreements, including China and Taiwan.[1]While seemingly innocent, critics argue the bill would allow virtually anyone to be transferred and detained in China, whether the detainee is a criminal or simply a political activist.

While the extradition bill applies to thirty-seven crimes (none political), critics have justifiable concerns following mysterious abductions to mainland China in recent years that this would legalize more extraditions.[2]This bill was the original inspiration for the summer protests. However, a swift and violent crackdown by police brought new life and support to the protests, gaining Hong Kong international attention. Since then, the protests have grown in both violence and size as police and protesters play a dangerous game of cat-and-mouse throughout the city. Protestors have become more organized, articulating five demands in total: withdrawal of the extradition bill, the retraction of the word “riot” to describe the protests, the release of all arrested demonstrators, an independent inquiry into the police perceived brutality, and the right for Hong Kong people to democratically choose their own leaders.[3]

It’s the last demand, the right for Hong Kong to choose its own leaders, that lies at the heart of the issue. Hong Kong has operated with a high degree of autonomy in a “one-country, two-system” government. Ever since Great Britain relinquished control of Hong Kong in 1997, the city has retained its economic and political freedom while still technically “belonging” to mainland China in a mini-constitution known as the Basic Law.[4]However, this pseudo-autonomy dies at the expiration of the Basic Law in 2047. At that time, Hong Kong would completely fall under China’s governmental control: one-party, one-system again. Many view the extradition bill as Chinese exerting influence to bring Hong Kong under its control before the 2047 timeline. Presumably, a fully Chinese Hong Kong would lose many of the freedoms that Hong Kong and the rest of the Western world enjoy: independent courts, freewheeling press, open internet, etc. It’s no wonder that Hong Kong would want to stay clear of China’s controls for as long as possible.

With the police crackdown on what was originally a peaceful protest, both sides have escalated in violence. Protestors have thrown gasoline bombs at government headquarters.[5]Police have used tear gas and rubber bullets on citizens.[6]Reports out of Hong Kong are understandably chaotic, worsened by China and the West both blaming the other side for agitating the situation.[7]Amongst the turmoil, Carrie Lam, the Chief Executive of Hong Kong and the original proposer of the extradition bill, suddenly withdrew the bill on Wednesday, September 4, 2019.[8]This change has brought criticism on both sides as pro-Beijing advocates criticize Carrie Lam for giving in to demands and the protestors argue that it is “too little, too late” following the violent police response.[9]

While it is too soon to definitively say what the demonstrators’ response will be to the bill, it seems likely that protests will continue until all five demands are met. One thing is clear: the one-country, two-system plan is not working as it currently stands. These protests, coupled with the 2014 liberation marches, show that Hong Kong is not as unified with China as the mainland government would like to believe. Continuing encroachments into Hong Kongers’ rights before the Basic Law expires show just how anxious Chinese officials are to suppress the city’s current freedoms and bring Hong Kong back into the fold. According to a report by Reuters, Carrie Lam was recorded in a private meeting expressing regret and how if she had a choice, she would “quit, having made a deep apology.”[10]

Meanwhile, the international community looks on to see how China will handle the continuing protests. While government officials have declared that they are not considering sending the military into the city (likely to avoid another situation like Tiananmen Square in 1989), Chinese forces are amassing in Shenzhen, a city located just outside of Hong Kong.[11]Until a resolution is reached, Hong Kong’s economy will continue to languish as protestors struggle to maintain their freedoms.

[1]Mike Ives, What is Hong Kong’s Extradition Bill?, N.Y. Times, June 10, 2019,

[2]For reference: Jamil Anderlini, Ben Bland, Gloria Cheung & Lucy Hornby, Chinese billionaire abducted from Hong Kong, Fin. Times, January 31, 2019,

[3]Amy Qin, Hong Kong’s Leader Partly Relents. Will the Protests Continue?, N.Y. Times, Sept. 4, 2019,

[4]Ives, supranote 1.

[5]Hong Kong police storm subway with batons as protests rage, CNBC, Aug. 31, 2019,


[7]Tom O’Connor, China State Media Says West Will Never Get Hong Kong Back as Protestors Beat Up Journalist, News Week, Aug. 31, 2019,

[8]James Pomfret & Clare Jim, Hong Kong leader pulls extradition bill, but too little too late, say some, Reuters, Sept. 3, 2019,


[10]Greg Torode, James Pomfret, & Anne Marie Roantree, Special Report: Hong Kong leader says she would ‘quit’ if she could, fears her ability to resolve crisis now ‘very limited’, Reuters, Sept. 2, 2019,

[11]O’Connor,supranote 7.


Fahim Gulamali – 2019 ICLR Candidate

It’s Actually a Burqa Ban: Islamophobic Underpinnings of the Netherlands’ “Act Partially Prohibiting the Face-Covering Clothing”

 On August 1, 2019, the Netherlands followed multiple European countries in banning the burqa, a face covering that is central to the faith of many practicing Muslim women.[1]The legislation, known as the “Act Partially Prohibiting Face-Covering Clothing,” “prohibits the wearing of clothing that completely or partially conceals the face in spaces where people are expected to communicate with each other.”[2]In addition to burqas, the legislation bans masks and motorcycle helmets, amongst other clothing designed to conceal the face.[3]Although the Dutch government alleges that “the ban does not target any religion or freedom to dress,”[4]the history leading to enacting the law is grounded in Islamophobia.

A “burqa ban” was first proposed in the Netherlands in 2005, by Geert Wilders,[5]leader of the Party for Freedom.[6]Wilders, whose mission has been to “de-Islamize” the Netherlands,[7]was initially unsuccessful in generally banning face veils in all public places because the proposed law violated the Dutch Constitution.[8]Specifically, the legislation would have violated Article 6, the provision enacting the right to freedom of religion.[9]

Nevertheless, Wilders succeeded. In an attempt to ward off Wilders’ Freedom Party from gaining political power,[10]Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte passed a revised law in the lower house partially prohibiting “face-covering” clothing from being worn in public places in 2016.[11]The revised law bans clothing that covers the face from being worn “on public transportation and in educational, governmental, and nursing care institutions, but is still allows in such public spaces as on train platforms.”[12]The upper house passed the bill in 2018, and the ban was put into effect this August.[13]Human rights advocates have recognized the Islamophobic and sexist implications of this law, calling it “an infringement on women’s right to choose what they wear.”[14]Nevertheless, the European convention of human rights does not protect a woman’s right to choose what she wears.[15]

Public officials have been grappling with enforcing this law while also serving their patrons. Hospitals, fearing that Muslim women will not seek out care because of the ban,[16]have decided that they will not turn individuals away if their faces are covered.[17]In the same vein, public transport authorities, fearing that the ban will cause unnecessary delays, have placed limits on “registering the number of violations of the burqa ban.”[18]Nonetheless, the Netherlands’ Code of Criminal Procedure permits citizen arrests.[19]Thus, citizens may potentially arrest Muslim women for covering their face.

The Dutch government is also cognizant of the potential roadblocks in enforcing the burqa law. It evaluates new laws five years after it passes a law.[20]However, the government will evaluate the implications of the ban in three years, perhaps because it recognized that “the burqa law would be difficult to enforce.”[21]

[1]Jenny Gesley, Netherlands: Burqa Ban Enters into Force, Global Legal Monitor (Aug. 27, 2019),



[4]Stephanie Sundier, Dutch Ban on Face Coverings Takes Effect But Lacks Willing Enforcement, Jurist (Aug. 2, 2019),


[6]Jenny Gesley, Netherlands: Burqa Ban Enters into Force, Global Legal Monitor (Aug. 27, 2019),

[7]Ruby Mellen, It Took 10 years, But the Dutch Far Right Finally Managed to Pass a Burqa Ban, Wash. Post (June 27, 2018),



[10]James McAuley, As the Netherlands’ Burqa Ban Takes Effect, Police and Transport Officials Refuse to Enforce it, Wash. Post (Aug. 1, 2019),


[12]Stephanie Sundier, Dutch Ban on Face Coverings Takes Effect But Lacks Willing Enforcement, Jurist (Aug. 2, 2019),

[13]James McAuley, As the Netherlands’ Burqa Ban Takes Effect, Police and Transport Officials Refuse to Enforce it, Wash. Post (Aug. 1, 2019),

[14]Stephanie Sundier, Dutch Ban on Face Coverings Takes Effect But Lacks Willing Enforcement, Jurist (Aug. 2, 2019),


[16]Jenny Gesley, Netherlands: Burqa Ban Enters into Force, Global Legal Monitor (Aug. 27, 2019),

[17]Stephanie Sundier, Dutch Ban on Face Coverings Takes Effect But Lacks Willing Enforcement, Jurist (Aug. 2, 2019),

[18]Jenny Gesley, Netherlands: Burqa Ban Enters into Force, Global Legal Monitor (Aug. 27, 2019),





Karina Oms – 2019 ICLR Candidate

Benjamin Ramos, a Philippine human rights lawyer, was gunned down as he left his office at night.[1]Ramos is the 34th out of 43 jurists killed since Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte took office in 2016—others killed include three judges and seven prosecutors.[2]The common connection between all of these murders is the Philippine war on drugs.[3]Ramos founded the National Union of People’s Lawyers, which provided pro bono legal work to individuals and families victimized and targeted by President Rodrigo Duarte’s drug war.[4]In a speech on August 2017, Duterte told police to not be intimidated by human rights lawyers who were involved in the investigation of the deaths of drug dealers and drug addicts,[5]and added, “If they are obstructing justice, you shoot them.”[6]Ramos was part of a legal team investigating the massacre of nine sugar plantation workers as well as six youth activists protecting the state of their country.[7]Philippine attorney Rex Jasper Lopoz was also killed leaving a shopping mall, allegedly due to his representation of defendants in drug cases.[8]

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) has urged the Supreme Court to look into the killings of lawyers and has made several efforts to protect Philippine lawyers.[9]In a statement, the IBP believed”Lawyers, prosecutors, and judges are being targeted with surging frequency and impunity… This series of unsolved crimes against lawyers has germinated a dark halo of fear that has paralyzed the most important pillars of the justice system.”[10]“[Lawyers] are sworn to advocate for their clients causes within the bounds of the law,” the IBP stated, and are supposed to be “free from fear and intimidation, regardless of our own beliefs of guilt or innocence.”[11]The IBP and several other organizations have demanded impartial investigations into the murders of their lawyers and continue to seek justice for the slain and punishment for the perpetrators.[12]

The Philippine Penal Code outlines murder and subsequent consequences. Per the code, someone is guilty of murder only if they commit a certain type of murder.[13]According to the code, the murder must be committed: with treachery, in consideration of a price, reward, or promise, by means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment or assault upon a street car or locomotive, fall of an airship, by means of motor vehicles, or with the use of any other means involving great waste and ruin, on occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic or other public calamity, with evident premeditation, or, finally, with cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim, or outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse.[14]In the Philippines, those who commit a punishable murder shall be punished by maximum reclusion until death.[15]

Laws in the United States do not outline different situations that cause a killing to be “murder,” and in turn, label murder as “the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought.”[16]In addition, the punishment for murder varies from state-to-state, some states adopting the death penalty and others not. Also, murder in the United States is categorized into two types, first degree and second degree.

Murder in the first degree is a crime punishable by death.[17]In any case in which the death penalty may be used as punishment, the United States Attorney must follow the procedures set forth in title 9 of the Criminal Justice Manual, which states that the Attorney General must approve the United States Attorney pursuing the death penalty.[18]Murder in the second degree constitutes every other kind of murder and is punishable by any term of imprisonment, including life.[19]

Interestingly, Philippine law prohibits capital punishment, and states that, “The imposition of the penalty of death is hereby prohibited. Accordingly, Republic Act No. Eight Thousand One Hundred Seventy-Seven (R.A. No. 8177), otherwise known as the Act Designating Death by Lethal Injection is hereby repealed, Republic Act No. Seven Thousand Six Hundred Fifty-Nine (R.A. No. 7659), otherwise known as the Death Penalty Law, and all other laws, executive orders and decrees, insofar as they impose the death penalty are hereby repealed or amended accordingly.”[20]

As a result of the turmoil in the Philippines, The United Nations’ top human rights body voted on in July of 2019 to scrutinize thousands of alleged extrajudicial police killings associated with President Rodrigo Duterte’s war on drugs in the Philippines, a campaign that human rights groups around the world have condemned as a anarchistic outrage.[21]For the time being, the war on drugs is still ongoing and President Duerte has stayed true to the promise he made his country on the eve of his election, saying, “If I make it to the presidential palace I will do just what I did as mayor. You drug pushers, holdup men, and do-nothings, you better get out because I’ll kill you.”[22]

[1]Lawyers’ Rights Watch Canada,Killing the lawyers: 43 Jurists Murdered in the Philippines Since 2016 (July 5, 2019),







[8]Carlos H. Conde, Philippine Lawyer Possible Victim of “Drug War” Murder (March 15, 2019, 2:28 PM),

[9]Tetch Torres-Tupas, IBP urges gov’t to quickly solve killing of rights lawyer (November 7, 2018 7:11 PM),

[10]Hernel Tocomo, Chief Justice, lawyer’s group condemn Tagum attorney’s slay (March 14, 2019 7:19 PM),



[13]REV. PENAL CODE, art. 248.



[16]18 U.S.C. § 1111 (1970).

[17]18 U.S.C. § 1536 (1970).



[20]Balay Rehabilitation Center, Fact Sheet: Note on the death penalty and the Philippines,

[21]Nick Cumming-Bruce, U.N. Rights Council to Investigate Killings in Philippine Drug War (July 11, 2019),

[22]Human Rights Watch, Philippine War on Drugs,

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *