Tag Archive: Human Rights Defenders


by Renato G. Mabunga

(This article has been presented by the author to the delegates of the 6th Asian Human Rights Defenders Forum (6th AHRDF) held in Quezon City, Philippines on 3-5 December 2014)

 

Though use inter-changeably and oftentimes carries the same meaning, intent and even connotation, there is a THIN LINE DISTINCTION between Security of Human Rights Defenders (HRDs) and the Protection of Human Rights Workers.

Coming from an Organization Development (OD) perspective: Security of HRD speaks more of the assessment of the Slide2internal realities of individual defenders and their organizations vis-à-vis their actual experience and perceptions in the conduct of doing human rights work. It is an evaluation of perceived risks and threats that directly impacts on one’s personal commitment (to the cause of human rights), involvement (to organizations), and sustainability of seeing through some changes in the external situation. It also defines the degree of threshold for organization indicating critical shift or change in the conduct of operation – from a normal, acceptable level of usual activities to conscious weighing of the impact and dangers of particular action to the lives of the implementers and/or the target communities.

Protection of HRDs, on the other hand, is a response or measures derived from the assessment of risks and threats. This could either be personal or at the individual level, or organizational. And, may take the form of internal policies of the organization or personal disciplinary measures and precautions of individual HRDs. All of which are aimed at lessening risks and threats. Continue reading

Advertisements
The UN Special Rapperteur on HRD, Michel Forst with Asian HRD-subregional workshop group reporters during the 6th Asian Human Rights Defenders Forum (AHRDF) in Quezon City, Philippines, 3-5 December 2014. (Photo by FORUM-ASIA)

The UN Special Rapperteur on HRD, Michel Forst with Asian HRD-subregional workshop group reporters during the 6th Asian Human Rights Defenders Forum (AHRDF) in Quezon City, Philippines, 3-5 December 2014. (Photo by Jerbert Briola)

 

 

Human rights defenders from around the world gathered in Manila last week to consolidate “protection platforms” for human rights workers. The meeting highlighted various protection initiatives on the ground and the challenges for their implementation.

The event tracked various organizational protection systems and mechanisms as stopgap measures against violations of the rights of activists. It also mapped out effective engagement and cooperation with the newly appointed UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders.

In his speech, Michel Forst, the UN rapporteur, noted that Asian human rights defenders are the most threatened, intimidated or investigated.

They are also the most harassed or criminalized, and the most likely to be prevented from travelling.

Such violations and denials of fundamental freedoms have been aimed to discredit, silence and eliminate human rights defenders in the region, he said.

Forst observed that the space for civil society and human rights defenders in the Asian region has shrunk while state and non-state entities in Asia use “sophisticated patterns of attacks” to impede the legitimate work of human rights defenders.

Indeed, Asian human rights defenders are facing increasing restrictions on freedom of expression and information, on the rights to freedoms of association and peaceful assembly and the criminalization, vilification and use of judicial harassment in persecuting development workers and even environmental activists.

It is precisely because of the critical role of human rights defenders in promoting human rights awareness and debate at national and international levels that many find their own rights flagrantly violated by repressive governments.

Click here to read more 

[Video] HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS

(This video is uploaded by  on YouTube to mark annually the commemoration of the International Human Rights Day and the celebration dedicated to human rights defenders.)

Human Rights Defenders (HRDs)

are people (individual or group, local, regional or international)

believing in the universality of human rights and

acting peacefully in defense of human rights for all

They

* Collect and disseminate information on violations

* Support victims of human rights violations (HRVs)

* Act to secure accountability and end impunity

* Support better governance and government policy

*Contribute to the implementation of human rights treaties

*Do human rights education and training.

.

By: Dr. Renato G. Mabunga

(Note:  This article was first published in HUMAN RIGHTS FORUM, Volume 5, Number 1issue.  Updated and modified to incorporate latest developments and preparation on the Philippine 2nd Cycle Universal Periodic Review slated on the 13th HRC/UPR Working Group session in May to June 2012.)

……………………………………………………………………………………..

“Every day we are reminded of the need for a strengthened United Nations, as we face a growing array of new challenges, including humanitarian crises, human rights violations, armed conflicts and important health and environmental concerns. Seldom has the United Nations been called upon to do so much for so many. I am determined to breathe new life and inject renewed confidence in a strengthened United Nations firmly anchored in the twenty-first century, and which is effective, efficient, coherent and accountable.”

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon

IN 1997, and again in 2002, reforms in the United Nations gained ground in Geneva and New York, respectively. These reforms came in the heels of then-Secretary General Kofi Annan’s challenge to the UN’s “continued significance” in the face of 21st century realities. He called for improvements in how the UN conducts its work, implements its mandate and manages the funds entrusted to it by its Member States in order to bring human rights to all peoples of the world.

These reforms took a significant turn during the General Assembly’s 60th session. The world’s leaders adopted UNGA Resolution 60/251 on the 15th of March 2006, which created the Human Rights Council (HRC). The HR Council is now a subsidiary organ of the General Assembly, taking over the role of the Commission on Human Rights, which was created under article 68 of the UN Charter on Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). The HRC was mandated to conduct a Universal Periodic Review (UPR), a mechanism to evaluate each member state’s human rights commitments. The said review shall be a cooperative mechanism, based on an interactive dialog, with the full involvement of the country concerned and with consideration given to its capacity-building needs. The UPR is intended to complement and not duplicate the work of treaty bodies.

Continue reading

HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS-PILIPINAS

(Mr. Jonal Javier (in red shirt), Secretary General of HRD-Pilipinas during the 4th Regional HRD Forum in Manila)

Human Rights Defenders – Pilipinas or HRD-Pilipinas is a non-stock, non-profit organization duly registered under the PhilippinesSecurities and Exchange Commission (SEC).  It is a membership organization of individuals actively engaging in the promotion, defense, protection and fulfillment of “human rights for all” in the Philippines on various issues be it in civil, political, economic, social, cultural spheres or in the field of development and peace.

Human Rights Defenders-Pilipinas was born-out from the series of campaigns of civil society organizations against the rising phenomenon of extra-judicial killings of human rights workers and activists in Philippines in 2006.  This was highlighted with the official visit of the UN Special Rapporteur on Summary Execution Prof. Phillip Alston in March 2007; and, its subsequent report and recommendations on the Philippines at the UN Human Rights Council.  In 2008, under the Human Rights Defenders Program of the Task Force Detainees of the Philippines (TFDP), series of consultations were conducted on the situation and protection of HRDs.  In a resolution during the 1st National Conference of Human Rights Defenders on December 1-2, 2009 at De LaSalle University in Manila, participants to the gathering resolved to establish a formal organization of HRDs to look into possible protection mechanisms for HRDs and ways of enhancing their capabilities in doing human rights work.  A National Coordinating Committee was set-up to implement the resolution and manage the preparation of the organization.  On November 30 – December 1, 2010, the 1st National General Assembly was called for and participated in by 75 HRDs coming from Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao; formally launching the Human Rights Defenders – Pilipinas at the La Consolacion Convent, San Juan, Metro Manila. Continue reading

by Navanethem Pillay, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights

Bali, Sunday 27 November 2010

Colleagues, Ladies and Gentlemen, Dear friends

It is with great pleasure that I address all of you today at the start of the 4th Regional Consultation on ASEAN and Human Rights.

Meeting you today reminds me that the creation of a human rights system for the ASEAN region is so much more than the establishment of an intergovernmental mechanism.  As I look around and see faces from across Southeast Asia, I am reminded that in this region of great diversity, it is the creation of regional civil society networks that has been one of the most important and encouraging developments in recent years.

I was also pleased to meet this morning with representatives of the four national human rights institutions in ASEAN countries, and encouraged to see them working together closely with you.

Continue reading

Photo by the Medical Action Group (MAG)

by Hon. Jose Midas P. Marquez
Court Administrator
Chief, Public Information Office

(Note from the Blogger:  This article was delivered  by the author at the Media Launch of the Medical Action Group Project at the Citrine Emerald Room Function Hall, Diamond Hotel, Roxas Boulevard, Manila on 06 August 2011.  It is uploaded in this page as a possible mechanism for the protection of Human Rights Defenders (HRDs).)

A pleasant morning to everyone.
 
Last December 2008, I spoke before your organization on the importance of medical documentation in relation to the case of the Manalo brothers, which is the first decision of the Supreme Court on the application of the Writ of Amparo, an extraordinary remedy promulgated by the Court available to any person whose right to life, liberty and security is violated, or threatened with violation. Today, barely three years after, I am proud to say that the Supreme Court has not wavered in its quest in protecting and defending human rights, and has consistently issued resolutions which can be considered as triumphs in such mission.

The plight of missing political activist Jonas Joseph T. Burgos falls under this mission.  It was on 28 April 2007 when Jonas was abducted by several unidentified men while he was eating lunch at a restaurant in Ever Gotesco Mall, Commonwealth Avenue, Quezon City. Eyewitnesses, including the restaurant’s employees, claim that Jonas was dragged into a van whose license plates were later traced to another vehicle impounded by the military in Bulacan. Up to now, the whereabouts of Jonas are unknown. Just last month, however the Court ordered the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) to produce Jonas, and to show cause why he should not be released from detention.[1]

Two months ago, the Court also ordered the AFP to release University of the Philippines (UP) student activists Sherlyn Cadapan and Karen Empeno, and farmer Manuel Merino, who have been missing for nearly five years and were allegedly abducted by armed men, and said that retired General Jovito Palparan and five others “appear responsible and accountable” for their disappearance.[2] The High Tribunal emphasized its order by putting the words “immediate release” in capital letters in its ruling.

The High Court added that its decision is final and executory, and thus, there is no need to file any motion for the execution of its decision. The Court said that “since the right to life, liberty and security of a person is at stake, the proceedings should not be delayed and execution of any decision thereon must be expedited as soon as possible since any form of delay even for a day may jeopardize the very rights that these writs seek to immediately protect.”

And late last year, the High Court ordered the CHR to conduct further investigation on Filipino-American activist Melissa Roxas’s alleged abduction and torture by the military in 1999. Roxas alleged that she and companions Juanito Carabeo and John Edward Jandoc were resting in the house of one Mr. Jesus Paolo in Sitio Bagong Sikat, Barangay Kapanikian, La Paz, Tarlac when 15 heavily armed men barged in, ganged them up, blindfolded, and dragged them to a waiting van. She claimed that she was later taken to the military camp of Fort Magsaysay in Nueva Ecija where she was allegedly interrogated and tortured on suspicion of being a member of the Communist Party of the Philippines-New People’s Army.

In this case of Roxas v. Arroyo,[3] the Court specifically tasked the CHR to identify the persons described in the cartographic sketches submitted by Roxas as well as their whereabouts, and to pursue any other leads relevant to her abduction and torture.

The Roxas case likewise brings me to another equally consequential point, and that is the importance of effective medical documentation in successfully prosecuting amparo cases, and other cases against violations of human rights. One of the documentary exhibits admitted in this case is the medical certificate of Roxas, which was executed right after she was freed.

Continue reading

SONA 2011 (photo by TFDP)

By Renato G. Mabunga, PhD 

Background:

  • Ever since the decision of Mr. Benigno Simeon Aquino III to run as the 15th president of the Republic of the Philippines, he fails to provide the Filipino people with a concrete human rights agenda.
    • The fact remains that on major occasions, where the president should have drawn a roadmap on how his government would fair on human rights, the whole country is left hanging.
    • All we have heard are promises on specific issues under a paradigm of anti-corruption: “Kung walang corrupt, walang mahirap” (without corruption, there’s no poverty). Its framework of good governance is packaged on this slogan (corruption); alleviating it to be the “end-all” and “be-all” of what has and will become of the Philippines.
    • During the campaign period 2010 the Philippine human rights community had asked all presidential candidates of their human rights agenda. The Aquino camp had only promised in a traditional political fashion to incorporate human rights agenda in its governance.
  • From the moment Noynoy Aquino started his bid for the presidency until his oath taking into office, The Philippine Online Chronicles has compiled 24 promises from the various sorties Aquino had attended to. These are the following:
    1. Expand irrigation development program
    2. Probe 2004 vote rigging
    3. Scrap GMA’s flagship programs
    4. Upgrade army and increase defense spending
    5. Closure to extrajudicial killings
    6. No favors to allies and supporters
    7. Strictly enforce environmental laws
    8. Make Freedom of Information (FOI )bill his administration’s priority
    9. Streamline government approval processes
    10. Adjust government pay scale
    11. No to Dictatorship
    12. Safer sources of renewable energy
    13. Population management via responsible parenthood
    14. Charter change only via constitutional convention
    15. Create jobs at home, reject overseas employment as development strategy
    16. No new or increase in taxes
    17. Distribute Hacienda Luisita to Farmers
    18. Justice for Massacre Victims
    19. Renew peace talks and decades-long insurgencies
    20. Investigate Gloria Arroyo
    21. Avoid foreign trips
    22. A Lean, Graft-free Government
    23. A holistic and comprehensive public health care system
    24. To Quit Smoking if he wins
  • True enough, in his inaugural speech he warned on the abuse of power by government officials. This signaled his slogan “ang matuwid na daan” (the straight path) with war against corruption as the centerpiece of his administration.
  • Viewing some of them from the perspective of human rights, one could say at least, there are some possibilities that his administration would champion human rights as a guidepost of his anti-corruption slogan. Especially, if we take to heart his pronouncements during his inaugural address:
    • 1. Kung walang corrupt, walang mahirap.’ Ito ang mga prinsipyong tinatayuan at nagsisilbing batayan ng ating administrasyon. (If there are no corrupt, there are no empoverished prople. This is the principle and basis of my administration.)
    • 2. de-kalidad na edukasyon, kabilang ang edukasyong bokasyonal para makapaghanap ng marangal na trabaho ang hindi makapag-kolehiyo; (Quality education, including vocational courses in aid of searching for dignified work for those unable to pursue higher/college education.)
    • 3. serbisyong pangkalusugan tulad ng PhilHealth para sa lahat sa loob ng tatlong taon; (Health services like PhilHealth for all in three year time.)
    • 4. Tirahan sa loob ng mga ligtas na komunidad. (Housing in safer communities.)
    • 5. Kung dati ay may fertilizer scam, ngayon ay may kalinga nang tunay para sa mga magsasaka. Tutulungan natin sila sa irigasyon, extension services, at sa pagbenta ng kanilang produkto sa pinakamataas na presyong maaari. (While there was fertilizer scam before, now genuine services for all peasants.  Let’s help by providing them irrigation, extension services, and capabilities to sell their products to much higher possible prices.)
    • 6. There can be no reconciliation without justice. Sa paglimot ng pagkakasala,sinisigurado mong mauulit muli ang mga pagkakasalang ito. (By simply forgetting the past wrongs doings, they are surely be repeated again.) 
    • 7. We are committed to a peaceful and just settlement of conflicts, inclusive of the interests of all – may they be Lumads, Bangsamoro or Christian.
    • 8. We shall defeat the enemy by wielding the tools of justice, social reform and equitable governance leading to a better life.
  • However, to compare these to his 10-point governance agenda (campaign platform), one can deduce them as mere band-aids to temporarily stop the bleeding of resources both human and natural.  Below are some broad strokes in his agenda which are Human Rights related:
    • Job creation – more on skill development thru TESDA and infrastructure building.
    • Mindanao – resumption of peace talks; Internal Refugees.
    • Reforms in the Judiciary – more on administrative/personnel build-up rather than incorporation of human rights frame into the current criminal justice system.
    • Education – for competitive advantage; infrastructure.
    • Health – philhealth for everyone; infrastructure.
    • Housing – in-city/on-site relocation. o Agrarian reform – irrigation; infrastructure.
  • All of these are packaged under anti-corruption campaign for social services which pre-supposes that internal systems within government departments are alright and policy-guidelines are adequate. It is no wonder that in his SONA ng “matuwid na daan”, there is: 
    • NO POLICY STATEMENT ON HUMAN RIGHTS
    • No statement on the Human Security Act
    • No statement of legislations pending during the 14th congress on Extra-Judicial Killings, Enforced Disappearance, the Right to Information Bill, etc…
    • NO “MARCHING ORDERS” ON CURRENT HUMAN RIGHTS CONCERNS AND ISSUES
    • One liner on Extra-Judicial Killings during the post Arroyo administration and none on the EJKs during the previous administrations.
    • Nothing on enforced disappearances
    • NO CLEAR POLICY STATEMENT ON INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS INSTRUMENTS, PROTOCOLS OR MECHANISMS THAT REMAIN PENDING
    • NOT A SINGLE WORD ON AGRARIAN REFORM OR SOCIAL JUSTICE

Where are we now in 2011(HR perspective):

  • Until at present, the current administration has not drawn up his Government’s human rights agenda.
    • The draft 2nd National Human Rights Action Plan of the Philippines for 2010-2014 (NHRAPP-2) has never been finalized and given attention. The 1st NHRAPP ended 11 years ago.
    • There is continuing extra-judicial killings amid repeated government announcement that it is not a policy of the administration.
      • Agta Tribal Leader case
      • Killings and harassments of environmental activists and journalists
      • In the One year of the Benigno Aquino Administration, 8 cases of Extra-judicial killings have been documented
    • UNSOLVED/UNADDRESSED ENFORCED DISAPPEARANCES
      • For 16 years the bill criminalizing acts of enforced disappearance has not been passed.
      • Pending cases of enforced disappearance face a blank wall in search for the missing ones.
      • Two cases of enforced disappearance have been documented in the first year of Aquino administration.
    • “GUILT BY ASSOCIATION” CASES 
      • Ming Saladero Case 
      • Morong 43 case
      • Community “census” case in Central Luzon
      • Rita Melecio harassment case
    • On Torture 
      • Torture remains the standard operating procedure within the security forces. E.g. police torture case in NCR, Lenin Salas case, torture of petty criminals in Davao.
      • Torture and hazing are thought of as SOPs in the Philippine National Police training camps.
    • On Political Prisoners and humanitarian reasons
      • Tatay Umbrero case and the post humous executive clemency.
      • Hunger strike of political detainees calling for a Human Rights Agenda in the Aquino administration; prison reforms and release of all political prisoners.
  • With the current human rights environment, IMPUNITY and DE FACTO IMMUNITY exist.
  • SONA 2010 and 2011 failed to provide a clear road map for human rights protection and social justice dispensation under the Aquino Administration. A window of hope remains present however:
    • the Constitution remains clear in its mandate to guarantee full respect to human rights and ensure human dignity.
    • CSOs must remain vigilant and together with the oppressed sectors consistently engage and assert peoples’ and human rights demands.

While there is a window for hope, many things still need to be done:

  • THE PROMISE OF CLOSURE?
  • A CLEAR HUMAN RIGHTS AGENDA/POLICY
  • SIGNIFICANT LEGISLATION ON HUMAN RIGHTS PROTECTION 
  • Laws on Extra-Judicial Killings and Criminalization of cases Enforced Disappearance
  • Incorporating International laws and IHL PRINCIPLES through ratification or adoption of HR conventions, protocols and mechanisms
  • Freedom of Information
  • STRENGTHENING TRUST AND CONFIDENCE IN EXISTING STATE INSTITUTIONS TO GUARANTEE PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY
  • STRENGTHENING COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS AS NATIONAL MECHANISM FOR PROTECTION
  • ADOPTION OF THE ROME STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT to provide solid foundation to the question of Command Responsibility (Art. 28, Rome Statute of the ICC)
  • STRENGTHENING JUDICIAL REMEDIES 
    • Writ of Amparo
    • Writ of Habeas Data
    • Writ of Habeas Corpus
    • PROVIDING FOR BETTER PROTECTION MEASURES
      • Witness protection program
      • Sanctuary provisions
      • Protection of Human Rights Defenders (HRDs)
    • CHANGE IN PERSPECTIVE OF JUDICIARY, EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE BRANCHES
      • Mainstreaming of human rights in all branches of government
      • Continuing human rights education for the security forces
      • Incorporation of human rights as a subject in school curricula
    • COMBATTING IMPUNITY

Give voice to the powerless, advocate and monitor implementation of human rights standards, documentation of human rights violations, organize, assist and support victims of human rights violations, provide human rights education and training- are just by way of examples, the contribution of non-government organizations (NGOs) and civil society to the advancement and protection of human rights.

The 1987 Constitution provides the NGOs the power to represent the people’s interests in consultations on local and national issues, as well as in governance and policy-making (Section 23 of Article II: “The State shall encourage non-governmental, community-based, or sectoral organizations that promote the welfare of the nation.”).

In 1991, the Republic Act No. 7169 otherwise known as the Local Government Code (Sections 34, 35 and 37, refers to ‘people’s and non-government organizations’) devolved the provision of certain services to Local Government Units (LGUs) and made NGO involvement in these bodies mandatory. The Code specified that LGUs should promote the establishment and operation of NGOs. It also permitted them to cooperate with them in areas like socio-economic development and environmental protection. Other local government bodies– like the health board, school board and pre-qualification bids and awards committees– were also to have NGO representation.

In the international human rights arena, NGOs and civil society actors’ contribution has also enriched the work of the independent experts that belong to long-established United Nations (UN) human rights mechanisms. Crucially, their knowledge and experiences have also been brought to bear in the establishment and operations of human rights treaty bodies and special procedures.

This position paper makes specific reference to the proposed resolution of the Commission on Human Rights (referred hereafter as the Commission) on Accreditation of NGOs and members of civil society [ RESOLUTION CHR (IV) No. A2011]. The Commission’s proposed resolution at hand should be considered alongside with other existing international human rights instruments and guidelines such as the “Principles relating to the status of national institutions” (otherwise known as The Paris Principles) adopted by United Nations General Assembly resolution 48/134 of 20 December 1993, as requisite ingredients for effective and independent functioning of national human rights institutions.

Based on various kinds and actual experiences, clearly, the Commission should cultivate and deepen their working relationship with NGOs and civil society especially those working in the protection and defense of human rights or with vulnerable groups, in obtaining redress for the victims of human rights violations and breaking impunity.

Taking into closer look at the public legitimacy of the Commission, rather than just formal legitimacy as a constitutional body mandated by the Constitution, it is assumed that the credibility and effectiveness of the Commission derives more from what they did such as investigations on alleged human rights violations, jail visitations, provision of assistance to the victims of human rights violations and human rights education and training, than from what they said in public and media they would do.

A clear line should be appropriately drawn on the roles between the Commission and, NGOs and civil society. The reality is that if the Commission had characteristic and behavior similar to NGOs and civil society, they would likely to prove less useful and effective in the discharge of their functions and responsibilities they are supposed to do.

To be effective and credible, the Commission must gain a degree of trust from those working within the government, as well as in NGOs and civil society. However, it does not mean understanding the constraints within which the government and its agencies operates and offering solutions to protect and promote human rights on the grounds in a narrow sense.

The Commission at its best should act as a viable conduit through which NGOs and civil society help peoples, in particular the marginalized sector, articulate their grievances and bring documented and reported cases of human rights violations to the attention of the government for its appropriate and timely action. The Commission has its own specific identity and character which stands between the government and, NGOs and civil society. As service providers, they should largely complement rather than duplicate the work and displace each other.

The proposed accreditation interfere the independence of the Commission as well as that of NGOs and civil society. Accreditation may be viewed as a form of interference and a move to restrict the political space upon which CSOs operate. It is a dangerous measure which when accepted by civil society groups may find themselves eventually into a trap. It seems to be unfavorable for the NGOs and civil society since accreditation has a discriminatory and divisive effect among civil society groups. It will result to the polarization of civil society into those accredited which may result to receiving preferential treatment from the Commission and those not which may result to their being discredited and marginalization. We certainly do not want to see such a scenario in our midst.

Many of the points we have articulated are directed towards strengthening the capacity of the Commission which is crucial to the protection, promotion and fulfillment of human rights. Suffice it to say, we should provide support to the Commission and do so in ways that to the maximum degree recognize and strive to protect our independence and respective organizational mandate.

The Commission’s cooperation with NGOs and civil society remains a strategic priority because it bolsters our shared objectives, helps to address our mutual concerns, and supports the Commission’s mandate. We believe that a dynamic and autonomous civil society, able to operate freely, knowledgeable and skilled with regard to human rights, is a key element in ensuring sustainable human rights protection in the country based on the principles of respect, independence, equity and justice.

On the “Guidelines for Applications to Conduct any Activities Inside Jail Facilities” of the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP) dated March 22, 2011, we find the said guidelines restrictive and violate certain provisions of the Republic Act No. 7438 (An Act Defining Certain Rights of Person Arrested, Detained or Under Custodial Investigation as well as Duties of the Arresting, Detaining and Investigation Officers) and RA 9745 or the Anti-Torture Act of 2009 as stated in Section 20 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9745.

The guidelines are a source of obstruction to victim’s right to access to a lawyer and an independent doctor, and violate pertinent laws (as stated above).

Thus, we suggest a dialogue must be conducted among the stakeholders like representatives of the Commission, NGOs and civil society, Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) , BJMP, Bureau of Corrections, and AFP, PNP Human Rights Offices to review, modify and determine the nature of such guidelines.

Asian Federation Against Voluntary Disappearances (AFAD)
Ateneo Human Rights Center (AHRC)
Defend Central Luzon – Kilusan para sa Pambansyang Demokrasya (KPD)
Libertas-Philippines
Human Rights Defenders-Pilipinas (HRD-Pilipinas)
Philippine Alliance of Human Rights Advocates (PAHRA)
Partido ng Manggagawa (PM)
Sulong CARHRIHL

July 11, 2011

%d bloggers like this: