Practice question
Foreigners operating abroad counterfeit Philippine currency. Philippine law validly covers the conduct. Investigators propose entering the foreign country and seizing the suspects without consent, cooperation, or another lawful basis, arguing that a threat to the monetary system authorizes any enforcement method. Which analysis is correct?
- The counterfeiting automatically transfers foreign territory to the Philippines.
- The protective principle guarantees immunity from the foreign State's laws.
- A protective basis for the offense does not by itself authorize police operations in another State.
- Because foreign enforcement is limited, the statute can never cover the conduct.
- The seriousness of counterfeiting abolishes every sovereignty limit.
Legal references
- Revised Penal Code, Article 2: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/28/20426
- UNODC, Guide for the Legislative Incorporation and Implementation of Universal Anti-Terrorism Instruments, paragraph 359: https://www.unodc.org/documents/terrorism/Publications/Guide_Legislative_Incorporation_Implementation/English.pdf
- UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, Articles 4 and 15: https://mandates.un.org/mandate/A/RES/55/25
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.