Freedom to Live in Dignity: Foundation of Peace and Security[1]

Dr. Nymia Pimentel Simbulan

Executive Director

Philippine Human Rights Information Center (PhilRights)

Associate Professor, Social Sciences

University of the Philippines, Manila

Human Rights: A State Obligation

As a human rights defender who has been involved in human rights work for more than a decade, it is an honor to have been invited to this important gathering to share my thoughts and views on the report prepared by UN Secretary General Kofi Anan focused on the freedom to live in dignity.

The freedom to live in dignity constitutes the foundation of human existence. It is the essence of being human where one is able to grow and develop, is treated with respect and without discrimination, and is able to live in peace and harmony with others.

The freedom to live in dignity is inseparable from the enjoyment of freedom from want and from fear since these are the essential conditions and requisites for people to live a life that befits every human being. The freedom to live in dignity entails enjoying civil and political rights such as the inherent right to life, freedom from torture or cruel treatment and punishment, freedom from illegal arrest and detention, right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty by law, right to a speedy and fair trial, right to suffrage, right to privacy, and freedom of association, expression and assembly. It also entails the fulfillment of ones economic, social and cultural rights such as the rights to food, health, education, and social security, the right to work and to strike, the right to take part in the cultural life of the community and to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications. Thus, in order for people to live in dignity, they should be free from all forms of deprivations such as hunger, ignorance, powerlessness, disabilities and disease. They should be able to defend themselves from all forms of discrimination, insecurities, abuse and injustice. Moreover, they should be able to actively and meaningfully participate in democratic processes that will affect their lives and future as individuals and as a people.

Historically, the Filipino peoples’ freedom to live in dignity, to enjoy a life that befits human beings, has been constantly denied and violated. Our people, especially poor women and children, the elderly, members of indigenous groups and Muslims, have been surviving under very harsh, deprived and dangerous environments, which have further contributed to their physical, psychological, economic and social vulnerabilities, inadequacies and incompetencies.

As a State Party to almost all the major international human rights treaties namely the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), and Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), the Philippines has the obligation to implement the various conventions it has ratified through the years. Yet, it has dismally failed to comply with its human rights obligations, as realities in Philippine society would show. There is a big gap between commitment in theory and praxis.  In fact even a basic obligation of States Parties such as submitting periodic reports to treaty monitoring bodies has not been fulfilled by the Philippine government. For instance, it was only in 2003, a delay of 14 years, when the Philippine government through the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) submitted its periodic report to the Committee on Human Rights, the UN body that monitors the implementation of the ICCPR.

Sec. Kofi Anan said that the State is primarily responsible in protecting, respecting and fulfilling the human rights of its citizens. Its reason for existence is to protect the people, especially the vulnerable ones, from forces which impinge on their rights, to create an enabling environment that will empower people and communities to exercise and defend their rights, and to engage in actions that will support the promotion of human rights in society. Yet, the human rights record of the Philippines illustrates both the inability and the lack of political will and commitment of the country’s leaders to protect the people’s rights and interests.

Human Rights Violations: A Persistent Reality

The freedom to live with dignity, including the freedom from want and from fear, has remained an elusive reality to most Filipinos. At the turn of the century, two major developments have contributed to the difficulties of our people from enjoying a life with dignity and worth. These have also become the primary sources of human rights violations domestically, and have posed new threats and challenges in the struggle for human rights and freedoms in the country.

Today, globalization and the war against terror are the two major sources of human rights violations in the country and in the world. Globalization and the war against terror have created conditions and provided justifications for States worldwide to adapt national policies and programs resulting to their non-compliance with and abandonment of their human rights obligations. In the name of global competitiveness, States have pursued the liberalization of agricultural products, privatization of public utilities and social services, freeze in workers’ wages, reduction of national budget for basic social services like health, education, housing, and the imposition of new taxes.

Meanwhile, in the name of national security and public safety, governments have passed anti-terrorism laws, pushed for the institutionalization of a national identification (ID) system, conducted illegal and arbitrary arrest, search and seizure activities, and authorized the use of torture on suspected terrorists.

All these State actions have resulted to the curtailment of people’s civil and political rights and freedoms, and the violations of their economic, social and cultural rights.

The Erosion of the People’s Economic, Social & Cultural Rights

While recognizing the positive impact of globalization with the “shrinking of space and time”, it  has likewise resulted to a widening of disparities and inequities within and between peoples. Despite the reported growth of the gross domestic product (GDP) of the country (the most recent of which was 4.7% growth during the second quarter of 2005, and 6.5% and 6.4% GDP growth during the first and second half of 2004, respectively) (Remo, PDI, August 30, 2005, A1), the National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB) revealed that in 2003 24.7% of Filipino families were living below the poverty threshold (PDI, March 20, 2005, p. A16). This means that close to one-fourth of Filipino families nationwide do not eat enough food; are unable to provide their children with quality education; are forced to self-medicate and engage in harmful health practices when sick; do not have access to clean, potable drinking water; and reside in dangerous areas like railway tracks, below bridges and overpasses, and sidewalks.

A basic requirement to enjoy a life of dignity is having the capability to purchase and/or provide quality and sufficient food to members of the family, especially infants and children. Yet, in urban and rural poor communities, malnutrition continues to affect a significant portion of Filipino children and youth having detrimental consequences on their intellectual and productive capabilities.  In 2001, the Commission on Population revealed that about 15.3 million Filipinos start their day without any breakfast on the table (Sarmiento, 2001, p. 1). There is no doubt that this figure has increased today with the rising costs of basic goods and services but with no corresponding increase in wages and salaries through the years.

As of March 2005, figures of the National Wages and Productivity Commission (NWPC) have shown a big gap between the daily minimum wage received by workers throughout the archipelago and the daily living wage or the amount pegged by the NWPC for a family of 6 members to be able to meet the essential requirements for human existence. For instance, in Metro Manila, the daily minimum wage for an ordinary worker is Php300 ($5.36) or Php363 short of the living wage pegged at Php663.00 ($11.84). The situation is even worse in the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) since the gap between the minimum wage pegged at Php170 ($3.04) and the living wage set at Php824 ($14.71) is a staggering Php654 (PDI, May 8, 2005, A16). (See Appendix A)

When people have to struggle to provide themselves and their families with as basic as food for breakfast, can you imagine what kind of life they have? And yet for those who are able to make both ends meet, the food ordinarily consumed constitute items of low nutritional quality like instant noodles and other forms of junk food which have high salt, sugar and fat contents. The rising costs of commodities have resulted to these food items gradually becoming the staple food of poor Filipino families, next to rice. A single pack of instant noodle costing about Php 5.00 a pack ($.09) plus rice, can feed a family of 5-6 members. Thus, it is not surprising that based on the 2003 Food and Nutrition Research Institute (FNRI) Report on the Nutritional Status of Filipinos, for every 100 preschoolers, 32 are anemic, 30 under height, 28 underweight and 1 is overweight; and for every 100 young school children, 41 are under height, 33 underweight and 1 is overweight.

The government’s failure to create regular jobs for its labor force and provide decent wages resulting to the inability of workers to buy enough quality food has likewise made the population more vulnerable to all kinds of communicable but preventable diseases. A classic example is tuberculosis (TB) which continues to be the 6th leading cause of mortality and morbidity in the Philippines affecting the productive age group 25-49 years. It is estimated that 75 Filipinos die of TB daily, making the Philippines the 8th among 22 countries with the highest TB burden (National Statistics Office, 2003).

Diarrhea, a filth-related disease, has consistently been the number 1 leading cause of morbidity especially among infants and children, an indication of the people’s inability to access and afford basic social services particularly safe drinking water and proper waste disposal and sanitation systems. As of 2000, about 24% of households throughout the country still do not have access to safe water supply while 31% of households nationwide do not have sanitary toilets. Among the regions, the ARMM has the highest percentage of households with no access to water supply at 38% and with no sanitary toilet at 57% (Department of Health, 2000).

The government’s lack of political will to make clean water available and accessible to the local population can be demonstrated with the outbreak of cholera and gastroenteritis in a number of northern Luzon provinces last year (2004). Based on an article in the Philippine Daily Inquirer (PDI Northern Luzon Bureau, January 5, 2005, A15), in the Ilocos region alone, from May – September 2004, 13,682 people were afflicted with acute gastroenteritis and 619 with cholera, both water-borne diseases. The province of Pangasinan was the hardest hit by the epidemic with 8,819 cases of acute gastroenteritis and 464 individuals afflicted with cholera.

The people’s access to quality and affordable health care services has not been that encouraging, either, during the past years especially with the implementation of neoliberal policies and programs by the national government and manifested in the privatization or “corporatization” of public health facilities and services.

According to the 2003 National Demographic and Health Survey, 77% of mothers with children under-5 said they encounter problems in accessing health care when they are sick and 67% said this was primarily due to lack of money for treatment. Other related problems cited by the respondents were not wanting to go alone (28%), distance of the health facility (27%) and having to commute to go to the health center (26%).

Poverty and lack of education of mothers have been identified as major factors for the high infant and under-5 mortality rates of the Philippines which are among the highest in Southeast Asia. As revealed in the 2003 National Demographic and Health Survey, for every 1,000 births, 29 children will die before reaching their first birthday (infant mortality rate) and 40 will die before reaching the age of 5 (under-5 mortality rate).

Meanwhile, the low value placed on education by the State will partly explain why through the years, the quality of public education has been deteriorating side-by-side with the deterioration in the school performance of students. Data from the Department of Education reveal that for every 1,000 Grade 1 entrants, 312 do not complete elementary education; 249 students finish the 6-year elementary education at an average of 9.6 years due to repetition. Less than half or 439 pupils are able to complete elementary schooling in 6 years out of 1,000 entrants (Alliance of Concerned Teachers of the Philippines, 2005).

The Dreadful State of Civil and Political Rights

The war against terror has increased people’s insecurities and vulnerabilities to illegal arrest and detention, torture and cruel treatment, summary executions and other forms of abuse and injustice.

During the first quarter of 2005, the State had demonstrated its violent character with how the Camp Bicutan seige was handled. Instead of resorting to dialogue and negotiations, the military and law enforcement authorities have opted to resolve conflicts with its citizens through the use of unnecessary and excessive force and in utter disregard of human rights norms and standards.  A small incident such as an attempted escape of an insignificant number of suspected Abu Sayyaf Group members detained at Camp Bagong Diwa in Bicutan ended up in the slaughter of 23 defenseless Muslim detainees.

The right to life and dignity of the Muslim detainees has been grossly violated in the Bicutan massacre. As revealed in the report of the fact-finding mission conducted by the Commission on Human Rights (CHR), several human rights NGOs and  a number of Bangsa Moro organizations, the 23 Muslims killed in the Bicutan seige were subjected to torture and inhuman treatment and eventually, summarily executed. Reminiscent of the American colonizers’ mindset and attitude that “a good Muslim is a dead Muslim”, the Philippine National Police and the Special Action Force (SAF) under the command of DILG Secretary Angelo Reyes who headed the Crisis Management Team (CMT), have decided to display their firepower as the means to deal with the trapped Muslim detainees in Camp Bagong Diwa. Most of them were undergoing trial for their alleged involvement in the ASG.

The right to life and dignity has also been under attack during the first half of 2005 with the series of extrajudicial or summary executions perpetrated by unknown hitmen. Under the Arroyo government, the Philippines has started to acquire the reputation of being the “summary execution capital of the world” with the increasing number of unsolved cases of summary killings in various parts of the country. Three groups, namely, journalists, small-time criminal elements like petty thieves and cell phone snatchers, and members of militant organizations and party-list groups have been the targets and victims of summary executions in the country.

Since the start of the Arroyo government in 2001 up to the first half of 2005, a total of 32 journalists, all in the line of duty, have been summarily executed (Task Force Detainees of the Philippines, 2005)(See Appendix B). These include Klein Cantoneros, a broadcaster of a local radio station DXAA in Dipolog City, Misamis Occidental in Mindanao. The series of killings of journalists have earned for the country to be considered by the Paris-based Reporters Sans Frontieres (Reporters without Borders or RSF) as one of the most dangerous places for journalists to practice their profession. Meanwhile, the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), a New York-based NGO dedicated to the defense of press freedom worldwide, has tagged the Philippines as “the most murderous country for journalists”, followed by Iraq, Colombia, Bangladesh and Russia (PDI, May 4, 2005, p. A1). 

Besides journalists, members and leaders of militant organizations and party-list groups have also been the targets of summary executions in various parts of the archipelago. Meanwhile, summary executions continue to be used as a method to curb criminality in the cities of Davao by the notorious “Davao Death Squads” and in Cebu by the newly organized  “Hunter Team” of Mayor Tomas Osmeña.

Undeniably, these developments in the cities of Cebu and Davao have seriously undermined the right to life and dignity of urban poor children, adolescents and/or young adults who have become the usual targets and victims of extrajudicial executions in these two cities. On mere suspicion or because of past criminal records, the victims’ right to life has been grossly violated since they have been judged and executed without having their day in court.

What further aggravates the situation is the persistence of a culture of impunity and the utter disregard for the rule of law demonstrated in the seeming indifference of government authorities to pursue the murderers and render justice to the victims and their families. Since 1986, not a single perpetrator of these killings had been apprehended, more so convicted.

While more and more countries have abandoned capital punishment in their statute books in recognition of the principle that no State, even for the most grievous offense committed by its citizens, has the right to intentionally take away their lives, the Philippines, by virtue of Republic Act 7659 passed in 1994 had restored the death penalty for 46 heinous crimes including 25 labeled as “mandatory death offenses” (RA 7659, 1994). The incompatibility of the Philippine death penalty regime with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) had been noted on several occasions by the Human Rights Committee.

In the Concluding Observations of the United Nations Human Rights Committee (2003, p. 2) on the 2003 report submitted by the Philippine government, the following concerns were raised on the long list of capital crimes:

            […] it [The Committee] remains concerned by the adoption of legislation providing

for the death penalty after article 3, section 19(1), of the Constitution of the Philippines

            had prohibited the imposition of the death penalty. In any event, the Committee has

            noted that the death penalty is mandatory for a number of crimes and extends to an

            excessive number of offenses which do not fit the definition of the “most serious”

            crimes (underscoring provided) within the meaning of article 6, paragraph 2, of the

Covenant.

The Human Rights Committee had also called the attention of the Philippine government on the presence of “mandatory death offenses” in its death penalty law. A ruling of this UN body based on a complaint filed by Rolando Pagdayawon, a death row inmate convicted for statutory rape, and contained in its Communication No. 1110/2002 to the Philippine government dated December 8, 2004, stated (United Nations Human Rights Committee, December 8, 2004, p. 5):

            The Committee recalls its jurisprudence that the automatic and mandatory imposition

            of the death penalty constitutes an arbitrary deprivation of life, in violation of

            article 6, paragraph 1, of the Covenant,(underscoring provided) in circumstances

where the death penalty is imposed without any possibility of taking into account

the defendant’s personal circumstances or the circumstances of the particular

offence. It also notes that rape, under the law of the State party is a broad notion

and covers crimes of different degrees of seriousness. It follows that the automatic

imposition of the death penalty in the author’s case, by virtue of the application of

article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, violated his rights under article 6,

paragraph 1, of the Covenant.

As of June 30, 2005, there were a total of 1,181 Filipinos (1,150 males and 31 females) on death row (Bureau of Corrections Administrative Division, 2005). One of the 31 women death row inmates is an 83-year-old grandmother convicted for drug trafficking. At the time of her conviction, the old woman was more than 70 years old which means she should not have been sentenced to death but given the next lower punishment of reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment in accordance with a provision of RA 7659.

Meanwhile, as of the end of 2004, the Philippine Action for Youth Offenders reported 21 children on death row. Fourteen of them are mixed with adult death row inmates at the state penitentiary for males in

Muntinglupa, Metro Manila, while 6 are imprisoned at Camp Sampaguita, Muntinglupa (Roque, 2005). There is one female minor who is staying at the Correctional Institution for Women (CIW).

The Human Rights Committee also noted in its Concluding Observations on the 2003 Philippine Report “that the death penalty is prohibited for persons below 18 years of age” and was “concerned that minors have been sentenced to death, seven of whom are currently detained on death row.” (United Nations Human Rights Committee, 2003, p. 2).

Access to economic resources, education and power are things which most death row inmates have been deprived of and are the very reasons why they have ended up in such a predicament. Fair trial and due process have often been denied to many of them because of their inability to hire the services of a competent and dedicated lawyer, inability to comprehend the nature of their offense and legal language, and inability to effectively communicate or express themselves during court hearings.  Many have likewise been victims of harassment and torture by law enforcement agents. There is no doubt that the death penalty is anti-poor as evidenced by the predominant class background of those on death row.

The built-in weaknesses and inconsistencies of the Philippine criminal justice system provide further justification why they death penalty in the country should be abolished. Evidences of the high judicial error committed by the lower courts in death sentencing have been indicated by the cases reviewed by the Philippine Supreme Court. As of March 2005, out of the 1,323 death penalty cases reviewed (some death row inmates have been convicted for 2 or more crimes), only 20.3% have been affirmed by the Supreme Court (Supreme Court of the Philippines, 2004). More than half (56.7%) were either modified or acquitted, while 20.7% have been transferred to the Court of Appeals, by the High Court (Supreme Court of the Philippines, 2005). (See Table 1)

Table 1: Status of death penalty Cases reviewed by the

              Philippine Supreme Court as of March 2005

                     Source: Supreme Court of the Philippines. 2005

Agenda for Action & Change

UN Sec. General Kofi Anan has put forward several important points for action and change in the advancement and protection of human rights primarily of the disadvantaged peoples and nations, which need to be seriously considered by the world’s leaders during the coming UN Summit this September.

Critical in the attainment of sustainable development and security within nations and throughout the world is the states’ commitment to respect, protect and fulfill their human rights obligations. This is a non-negotiable requirement which leaders of the world should carry out with political will and vigor. With this as framework the following issues/concerns/calls may be raised by the Philippine delegation to the UN Summit in New York:

1.       Urge the world’s leaders to ratify and implement all human rights treaties and the optional protocols that accompany many of these instruments. In the case of the Philippines, urge Pres. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo to certify as immediate or urgent the ratification of Optional Protocol 2 of the ICCPR on the abolition of the death penalty and the Rome Statute on the International Criminal Court (ICC);

2.       Bridge the gap between ratification and implementation of the various provisions of international human rights instruments by States Parties. As pointed out by Sec. Kofi Anan in his report (2005, p. 48), governments must “be held accountable, both to their citizens and to each other”, and now is the time to do so. It is urgent that the UN is able effectively address the apparent inability and unwillingness of national leaders to protect and respect the human rights of their citizens. However, in instances when governments are both unable and unwilling to do so, Sec. Kofi Anan’s recommendation of “shifting the responsibility to the international community through the use of diplomatic, humanitarian and other methods to help governments protect the human rights and well-being of civilian populations” should be done with utmost caution to avoid such interventions from turning into actions of aggression and/or external interference/meddling with the internal affairs of a sovereign nation.

3.       Strengthen existing treaty monitoring bodies to ensure a more effective system to monitor state compliance with their human rights commitments/obligations. Domestically, this entails identifying ways of how to enhance the monitoring functions of national human rights institutions like the Philippine Commission on Human Rights (CHR).

4.       Develop effective mechanisms on how the treaty monitoring bodies can ensure the compliance of states with their human rights obligations like the submission of regular periodic reports and the implementation of the Committee’s recommendations. There have been many cases when states parties have failed to fulfill their obligations as basic as the submission of periodic reports to the Convention committees. And yet there have been no sanctions imposed on these delinquent states, including the Philippines.

5.       Mainstream the use/application of the rights-based approach (RBA) to development and governance within the UN system. This includes instituting mechanisms that will enhance the capabilities of states in the mainstreaming and application of the RBA.

6.       The policies, priorities and decisions made by the World Trade Organizations (WTO), multilateral lending institutions like the World Bank (WB) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and transnational corporations (TNCs) have greatly affected the great divide between the developed countries on one hand and the least developed and developing countries, on the other hand. The widening disparities and inequities have been due to the prominence given to profits over human rights. The UN should be able to address the issue of how these bodies/institutions can be made accountable for their actions which are inconsistent with human rights norms and standards.

* * * * * * * * * *

References:

Alliance of Concerned Teachers of the Philippines (ACT-Phils). What is the State of Philippines Education? 2005.

Anan, Kofi A. In Larger Freedom: Towards Development, Security and Human Rights for All. New York, United Nations. 2005

Bureau of Corrections Administrative Division (January 2005) Facts and Figures of Death Convicts. Manila.

Department of Health. http://www.doh.gov.ph/data_stat/html/fhsis_environment.htm. 2000.

Food and Nutrition Research Institute (FNRI). Report on the Nutritional Status of Filipinos, 2003.

National Demographic and Health Survey, 2003

National Statistics Office, 2003.

Philippine Daily Inquirer Northern Luzon Bureau, January 5, 2005

Philippine Daily Inquirer, May 4, 2005. A1 & A8

Philippine Daily Inquirer, May 8, 2005. A16

Remo, Michelle V. Economcy grows 4.8%. Philippine Daily Inquirer, August 30, 2005. A1 & A10.

Republic Act 7659 An Act to Impose the Death Penalty on Certain Heinous Crimes, Amending for that Purpose the Revised Penal Code as Amended, Other Special Penal Law; and for other Purposes. 1994

Roque, M. R. (April 11, 2005) The Forgotten Children. Newsbreak. Manila. 19-20.

Sarmiento, Juan V., Jr. 15M Filipinos start day with no breakfast. Philippine Daily Inquirer. July 26, 2001. 1

Task Force Detainees of the Philippines. 2005

Supreme Court of the Philippines (2005) Cases Reviewed by the Supreme Court and Remanded Decisions. Judicial Records Office. Manila.

_________ Are we winning the war on poverty? Philippine Daily Inquirer, March 20, 2005. A16.

United Nations Human Rights Committee (2003) Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee, Philippines. U.N. Doc. CCPR/CO/79/PHL 2003 [Internet] Available from: <http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/hrcommittee/philippines2003.html> [Accessed May 29, 2005]

United Nations Human Rights Committee (December 8, 2004) Views of the Human Rights Committee under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Communication No. 1110/2002: Philippines. 08/12/2004. CCPR/C82/D/1110/2002. [Internet] Available from: <http://www.unchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/385c2add1632f4a8c12565a9004dc311/e00cee76f2aade94c1256...> [Accessed May 31, 2005]

Appendix A

DAILY MINIMUM AND LIVING WAGES IN PESOS

(as of March 2005)

*Amount is for the whole of Region IV

**Exchange rate: US$1 = Php56.00

                Source: National Wages & Productivity Commission

Appendix B

Number of Journalists Killed, Philippines, 1986- June 2005

                     Source: TFDP, 2005