As usual, deputy presidential mouth Abi Valte shot from the hip when she declared that since this administration is not responsible for the Ampatuan massacre, the government is not obliged to pay compensation to its victims.

Her statement is not only uncaring and insensitive. It smacks of an obvious gross ignorance of the law. While ordinary citizens may be forgiven for perhaps not understanding the fine distinctions of the law, there is absolutely no excuse for a very young lawyer like Valte to have already forgotten the nature of state responsibility and the resulting  state obligation for an  internationally wrongful act. This is taught to every law student. For her benefit, therefore, let me restate what I have been teaching UP law students for many years already.

A state may incur responsibility for an intentionally wrongful act: one, where it breaches a norm of international law; and two, it is done through acts of individuals whose acts may be attributed to a state.

A state may breach either a treaty, a customary or general principle of international law. Unlike tort law under domestic law, it is not required that a state act either intentionally or negligently. All that is required is a breach of a norm. While intent may sometimes be relevant in determining such factors as the amount of compensation that may be due, intent is generally is not required. The state in this regard is subject to strict liability.

A state, because it can only act trough human beings, can only be held responsible if it acts through individuals who are its agents, or those who took instructions from it. It can also be held responsible for acts done by private individuals whom it vested with a color of authority to act on its behalf. An example of this is Blackwater, a private paramilitary force, contracted by the US government to perform acts normally performed by state agents, that is, defense-related activities.

A state agent refers to any person connected with either the executive, judicial or legislative branch of government. Under this mode of attribution, the rank of the state agent is immaterial. The act of a foot soldier is sufficient to attribute responsibility in the same manner as an act of a head of state.

Where the twin elements of a breach and attribution concur, there arises now an obligation on the part of the state to first, cease and desist from the illegal act; and two, to make reparations. The latter here requires the restoration of the status quo ante, or the situation prevailing prior to the breach. Only if this is not possible should resort be had to compensation. How much? In the Chorzow Factory case, the predecessor of the International Court of Justice ruled that it should be sufficient to “extinguish all the consequences of the illegal act”.

Applying the law to the facts of the Ampatuan case, there should be no doubt that there was a breach of international law. Here, the norm is found in the international Covenant on Civil and Political (ICCPR) right, which provides the duty of states to “protect” and “promote” the right to life. This guarantee is an undertaking that a state will not violate the right to life of all persons within its territory. It also includes a commitment to do all that there is necessary to give full effect to the right. This includes resort to legislation, if need be.

All 58 victims died at the hand of locally elected officials, policemen, military personnel, and force multipliers, the civilian volunteer organizations. Their right to life was hence violated by agents of the state. It may have happened during and with complicity  of the Arroyo regime. Still,  the reality is it was perpetrated by one and the same state, the Republic of the Philippines.

Because the Philippines committed an internationally wrongful act, it is the state, regardless of the administration in place – that should make reparations. This duty includes payment of monetary compensation to the victims, and all acts required to restore the psychosocial well being of the victims prior to the breach. This is why the victims, at least those whom I represent, have been clamoring for compensation from the state, and not just from the accused in the criminal case.

I made the disclosure about the latest attempt to settle with the victims in the hope that the Aquino administration will attend to the victims’ right to compensation. Yes, the victims of the Ampatuan massacre are financially hard up. This is because they lost their breadwinners in the massacre. None of those whom I represent are of means. Where will they go now for assistance? Either government assists them or they succumb to the temptation to settle.

READ ALSO: Mindboggling, troubling offers for Maguindanao massacre victims

The victims are not asking for alms. They do not want charity. They were victims of a state’s breach of its obligation. They want compensation for this fact.

Sadly, the purpose for my disclosure has apparently been for naught.

When Valte said that this administration is not at fault and hence, it will not pay compensation to the victims; she doused whatever hopes the victims had for reparations. She also put an end to the hope that government will come to the aid of the victims in their time of need.

Harry Roque Jr. is a professor of law and director of the University of the Philippines Law Center's Institute of International Legal Studies. Visit Harry Roque's blog. Follow him on Twitter @attyharryroque.