International Human Rights

INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS (Public International Law) Group Three Honrales, John James Tuliao, Jeremy Bulda, Ma. Zillah Dizon, Maria Pilar Sagsagat, Mariane Joy

History Human Rights

In 539 B.C., the armies of Cyrus the Great, the first king of ancient Persia, conquered the city of Babylon. But it was his next actions that marked a major advance for Man. He freed the slaves, declared that all people had the right to choose their own religion, and established racial equality. These and other decrees were recorded on a baked-clay cylinder in the Akkadian language with cuneiform script. Known today as the Cyrus Cylinder, this ancient record has now been recognized as the world’s first charter of human rights. It is translated into all six official languages of the United Nations and its provisions parallel the first four Articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Spread of Human Rights From Babylon, the idea of human rights spread quickly to India, Greece and eventually Rome. There the concept of “natural law” arose, in observation of the fact that people tended to follow certain unwritten laws in the course of life, and Roman law was based on rational ideas derived from the nature of things. Documents asserting individual rights, such as the Magna Carta (1215), the Petition of Right (1628), the US Constitution (1787), the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789), and the US Bill of Rights (1791) are the written precursors to many of today’s human rights documents. The Magna Carta (1215)

1

In 1215, after King John of England violated a number of ancient laws and customs by which England had been governed, his subjects forced him to sign the Magna Carta, which enumerates what later came to be thought of as human rights. Among them was the right of the church to be free from governmental interference, the rights of all free citizens to own and inherit property and to be protected from excessive taxes. It established the right of widows who owned property to choose not to remarry, and established principles of due process and equality before the law. It also contained provisions forbidding bribery and official misconduct. Widely viewed as one of the most important legal documents in the development of modern democracy, the Magna Carta was a crucial turning point in the struggle to establish freedom. Petition of Right (1628) The next recorded milestone in the development of human rights was the Petition of Right, produced in 1628 by the English Parliament and sent to Charles I as a statement of civil liberties. Refusal by Parliament to finance the king’s unpopular foreign policy had caused his government to exact forced loans and to quarter troops in subjects’ houses as an economy measure. Arbitrary arrest and imprisonment for opposing these policies had produced in Parliament a violent hostility to Charles and to George Villiers, the Duke of Buckingham. The Petition of Right, initiated by Sir Edward Coke, was based upon earlier statutes and charters and asserted four principles: (1) No taxes may be levied without consent of Parliament, (2) No subject may be imprisoned without cause shown (reaffirmation of the right of habeas corpus), (3) No soldiers may be quartered upon the citizenry, and (4) Martial law may not be used in time of peace. United States Declaration of Independence (1776)

2

On July 4, 1776, the United States Congress approved the Declaration

of

Independence.

Its

primary

author,

Thomas

Jefferson, wrote the Declaration as a formal explanation of why Congress had voted on July 2 to declare independence from Great Britain, more than a year after the outbreak of the American Revolutionary War, and as a statement announcing that the thirteen American Colonies were no longer a part of the British Empire. Congress issued the Declaration of Independence in several forms. It was initially published as a printed broadsheet that was widely distributed and read to the public. Philosophically, the Declaration stressed two themes: individual rights and the right of revolution. These ideas became widely held by Americans and spread internationally as well, influencing in particular the French Revolution.

3

The Constitution of the United States of America (1787) and Bill of Rights (1791)

Written during the summer of 1787 in Philadelphia, the Constitution of the United States of America is the fundamental law of the US federal system of government and the landmark document of the Western world. It is the oldest written national constitution

in

use

and

defines

the

principal

organs

of

government and their jurisdictions and the basic rights of citizens. The first ten amendments to the Constitution—the Bill of Rights—came into effect on December 15, 1791, limiting the powers of the federal government of the United States and protecting the rights of all citizens, residents and visitors in American territory. The Bill of Rights protects freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to keep and bear arms, the freedom of assembly and the freedom to petition. It also prohibits unreasonable search and seizure, cruel and unusual punishment and compelled self-incrimination. Among the legal protections it affords, the Bill of Rights prohibits Congress from making any law respecting establishment of religion and prohibits the federal government from depriving any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law. In federal criminal cases it requires indictment by a grand jury for any capital offense, or infamous crime, guarantees a speedy public trial with an impartial jury in the district in which the crime occurred, and prohibits double jeopardy. Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789)

In 1789 the people of France brought about the abolishment of the absolute monarchy and set the stage for the establishment of the first French Republic. Just six weeks after the storming of the Bastille, and barely three weeks after the abolition of feudalism, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (French: La Déclaration des Droits de l’Homme et du Citoyen) was adopted by the National Constituent Assembly as the first step toward writing a constitution for the Republic of France. The Declaration proclaims that all citizens are to be guaranteed the rights of “liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression.” It argues that the need for law derives from the fact that “...the exercise of the natural rights of each man has only those borders which assure other members of the society the enjoyment of these same rights.” Thus, the Declaration sees law as an “expression

4

of the general will, “intended to promote this equality of rights and to forbid “only actions harmful to the society.” The First Geneva Convention (1864) In 1864, sixteen European countries and several American states attended a conference in Geneva, at the invitation of the Swiss

Federal

Council,

on

the

initiative

of

the

Geneva

Committee. The diplomatic conference was held for the purpose of adopting a convention for the treatment of wounded soldiers in combat. The main principles laid down in the Convention and maintained by the later Geneva Conventions provided for the obligation to extend care without discrimination to wounded and sick military personnel and respect for and marking of medical personnel transports and equipment with the distinctive sign of the red cross on a white background. The United Nations (1945) World War II had raged from 1939 to 1945, and as the end drew near, cities throughout Europe and Asia lay in smoldering ruins. Millions of people were dead, millions more were homeless or starving. Russian forces were closing in on the remnants of German resistance in Germany’s bombed-out capital of Berlin. In the Pacific, US Marines were still battling entrenched Japanese forces on such islands as Okinawa. In April 1945, delegates from fifty countries met in San Francisco full of optimism and hope. The goal of the United Nations Conference on International Organization was to fashion an international body to promote peace and prevent future wars. The ideals of the organization were stated in the preamble to its proposed charter: “We the peoples of the United Nations are determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind.” The Charter of the new United Nations organization went into effect on October 24, 1945, a date that is celebrated each year as United Nations Day.

5

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) By 1948, the United Nations’ new Human Rights Commission had

captured

chairmanship

the

world’s

of

Eleanor

attention.

Under

the

Roosevelt—President

dynamic Franklin

Roosevelt’s widow, a human rights champion in her own right and the United States delegate to the UN—the Commission set out to draft the document that became the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Roosevelt, credited with its inspiration, referred to the Declaration as the international Magna Carta for all mankind. It was adopted by the United Nations on December 10, 1948. In its preamble and in Article 1, the Declaration unequivocally proclaims the inherent rights of all human beings: “Disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people... All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.” The Member States of the United Nations pledged to work together to promote the thirty Articles of human rights that, for the first time in history, had been assembled and codified into a single document. In consequence, many of these rights, in various forms, are today part of the constitutional laws of democratic nations. Examples of ‘humanitarian’ restrictions in war can be found in ancient texts, such as Sun Tzu’s The Art of War, as well as in religious texts from Islam, Judaism, Christianity, and in Buddhist philosophy. Modern international humanitarian law is found in treaties and customary international law. SOURCES OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW ● Treaties.

These are written international agreements between States, governed by international

law. Treaties can go by many names, including conventions, agreements, and instruments; treaties that relate to or attach in some way to previously adopted treaties are often called protocols. Treaties have the advantage of expressly setting out binding obligations for States in their conduct. However, States are often permitted to make reservations to treaties, whereby a State can modify the scope of the legal obligation owed by the State under the treaty. Treaties also require a certain number of States to ratify before the treaty can have legal effect.

6

● Customary Law. It is a form of law that derives from two elements – State practice and what is known as opinio juris – the belief that the practice is required by law. Identifying custom relies on looking to certain elements including: 

the degree of consistency and uniformity of the State practice;



the generality and duration of the practice; and



the interests of specially affected States.

There is a wealth of treaty law relating to armed conflict. However, the importance of customary international humanitarian law should not be overlooked. Customary international law has the potential to evolve and develop at a faster pace than treaty law, and can bind States where treaty law does not; customary international law thus allows for universal application of certain rules. Customary international law can also serve to fill in the gaps where the treaty law is insufficient or non-existent – as is the case with non-international armed conflict. Most international humanitarian law treaty rules are considered as having customary status. Historical Sources To identify the sources of IHL is to undertake a historical study of the development of the laws of war. IHL treaties have often been developed in response to State behaviour in specific wars – often leading to the charge that IHL is ‘one war behind reality’. Battle of Solferino A Swiss businessman, Henri Dunant, who was travelling through northern Italy, witnessed the aftermath of the June 1859 Battle of Solferino, where tens of thousands of wounded and dying soldiers had been left on the battlefield by their retreating armies. Appalled that no systematic relief was being provided to these soldiers, Dunant rallied the townsfolk of nearby Castiglione to provide water, food, and medical assistance. Upon his return home, Dunant wrote of his experience; his work Un Souvenir de Solferino (A Memory of Solferino) became a best seller. One of Dunant’s suggestions was for the creation of an international body that could coordinate relief measures for the wounded in the armed forces during wartime. In conjunction with a Swiss charitable organisation (the precursor to the International Committee of the Red Cross), Dunant lobbied European governments to implement

7

his suggestions. This advocacy resulted in the European States drafting and adopting what would become the 1864 Geneva Convention. 1864 Geneva Convention The first multilateral international law treaty on armed conflict was the 1864 Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded in the Field which provided that soldiers rendered hors de combat due to illness or injury were to be protected and cared for, regardless of their nationality or allegiance. It also provided for the protection of medical and religious personnel; and respect for the execution of their duties in wartime. Declaration of St Petersburg Four years later, further development of the law of armed conflict came with the 1868 Declaration of St Petersburg, the first of the modern laws of armed conflict to prohibit the use of a particular weapon of war. The St Petersburg Declaration banned the use of explosive projectiles under ‘400 grammes weight’ designed either to explode on contact with soft tissue, or which were loaded with ‘fulminating or inflammable substances’. (A fulminating substance is one that explodes suddenly and violently if struck or heated). The Declaration of St Petersburg banned the use of such projectiles, determining that: the progress of civilisation should have the effect of alleviating as much as possible the calamities of war; the only legitimate object which States should endeavour to accomplish during war is to weaken the military forces of the enemy … this object would be exceeded by the employment of arms which uselessly aggravate the sufferings of disabled men, or render their death inevitable; the employment of such arms would, therefore, be contrary to the laws of humanity. Marten’s Clause The 1899 Conference also adopted the Martens Clause, a clause adopted to resolve a stalemate at the conference regarding the status of resistance fighters who take up arms against an occupying authority. Named for its author, Russian delegate to the Hague Conference Fyodor von Martens, the clause was a compromise position which decreed that, until a more complete set of laws of armed conflict could be decided upon, the community of nations should not assume the law was silent on matters that were not codified. States were to consider themselves bound by certain minimum fundamental standards of behaviour, as understood by considerations of ‘humanity’ and ‘public conscience’. The Martens Clause was also included in the Preamble to the 1907 Hague Convention IV.

8

The intent of the Clause was to ensure that States did not attempt to argue that the absence of explicit rules on certain situations allowed for unilateral arbitrary action in armed conflict. Weapons limitation From the 1970s onwards, numerous weapons limitation treaties were debated and adopted. The first of these was the 1972 Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction , which banned the production of chemical and biological weapons. This was followed in 1976 with the Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques (ENMOD), prohibiting the military or other hostile use of environmental modification techniques. In 1980, the Convention on the Prohibition or Restriction on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be deemed to be Excessively Injurious or Have Indiscriminate Effects was adopted, which sought to place limitations on the use of certain conventional weapons. The Convention contains a number of protocols, which prohibit or limit the use of: weapons that injure by fragments which are not detectable in human body by X-rays (Protocol

 I); 

on-detectable anti-personnel mines (Protocol II);



incendiary weapons (Protocol III); and



laser weapons that cause permanent blindness (Protocol IV).

The fifth protocol to the Conventional Weapons Convention requires parties to the Protocol clear any unexploded ordnance, such as cluster bombs, land mines, and explosive weapons stockpiles, at the cessation of hostilities. Permissible means of warfare Additional treaties limiting the permissible means of warfare include the 1993 Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction, and the 1997 Ottawa Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction. The most recent international weapons treaty, the 2008 Cluster Munitions Convention, which banned the use of certain types of cluster munitions (weapons which contain smaller explosive sub-munitions designed to scatter in the air and thus cover a wider area with explosives).

9

10

APPLICATION OF INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW DOMESTIC APPLICATION There are two (2) theories on the domestic applicability of international human rights law: a) Monist theory – International law and domestic law comprise one legal system. In absolute monism, international law automatically becomes domestic law, without need to enact a separate national law. Domestic laws, including the Constitution, that contravene international law, may be declared invalid. The Netherlands is considered a monist state. Many States are partly dualist. International human rights law dictates domestic laws, and the State must enact domestic laws to conform to international law. b) Dualist theory - International law and domestic law are different legal systems. International law does not become obligatory to its citizens until the State passes corresponding domestic law containing its provisions. At times, local laws are considered more binding and superior by judges and legal practitioners. Most times, local laws are revisited and amended to conform to international law, but until such amendment, the local laws remain valid, although this could mean a possible violation by the State of its treaty obligations. The lex posterior principle is often resorted to in dualist systems: whichever is the latter law, prevails. This is not much of a problem for the Philippines, where its treaty obligations are usually taken into consideration in the enactment of laws.

The Philippines has signed and ratified most the important international human rights treaties, sans reservations. However, many Philippine judges still consider international laws as having less binding effect compared to domestic laws. The dualist theory is the one prevailing in the Philippines. Congress has to pass domestic Laws (e.g., Child Abuse Law for CRC; Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children or Anti-VAWC for CEDAW) in order to enforce international conventions locally. Section 2, Article II of the Philippines Constitutions contains the “incorporation clause.” The clause is not necessarily in conflict with the dualist attitude. It is specifically limited to the adoption of “generally accepted principles of international law” as part of the law of the land. Generally accepted principles of international law comprise just one of the four (4) sources international law. In so far as the other source, i.e., treaty, is concerned, such does not become a law until Congress enact one translating the treaty into a law of local application, in dualist fashion. INTERNATIONAL APPLICATION OF IHRL The consent of a State to be bound by a treaty may be expressed signature, exchange of intruments constituting a treaty, ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, or by any other means, if so agreed. Signature: Signature to a treaty, however, does not automatically mean consent of a State to be bound by said treaty, if under the national law, it is the act of ratification which operates to bind the State. Notwithstanding the signature, may only operate as a means of authentication and to show the openness of the signatory State for further discussion on the treaty-making process. A “Signature ad referendum,” means that the signature becomes definitive only once the signature is confirmed by the State. “Definitive signature” operates as the consent of the State to be bound by a treaty is not subject to ratification, acceptance or approval.

11

Exchange of the letter or notes: Consent can be expressed through exchange of letters or notes. Here, there will necessarily be two (2) letters, if the treaty is bilateral, with at least one (1) from each party. Act of formal confirmation: Where it is an international organization that intends to be bound by a treaty, instead of ratification the term used is usually “act of formal confirmation.” States Parties may be allowed to limit, restrict, or modify the application of a treaty by: 1) 2) 3) 4)

Reservation; Interpretative declaration; Modification; Denunciation.

It is important to note that a State “may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.” Reservation: Reservation means a unilateral statement, however phrased or named, made by a State, when signing, ratifying, accepting, approving or acceding to a treaty, whereby its purports to exclude or to modify the legal effect or certain provisions of the treaty in their application to the State. Reservations are not allowed when: 1) It is prohibited by the treaty; 2) It is not included in the reservations specified by the treaty; 3) It is incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty. A signatory or contracting state may object to a reservation if it believes that it is incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty. Interpretative declaration: An interpretative declaration is an instrument that is annexed to a treaty with the goal of interpreting or explaining the provisions of the latter. Modification: Modification is the variation of a certain treaty provisions only as between particular parties of a treaty, while in their n relation to the other parties the original treaty provisions remain applicable. If the treaty is silent on modifications, they are allowed only if the modifications do not affect the rights or obligations of the other parties to the treaty and do not contravene the object and the purpose of the treaty. Denunciation Denunciation means the withdrawal by a State Party from a treaty. Treaties such as the CRC, ICERD, and CAT allow denunciation; ICCPR, ICESCR and CEDAW do not allow denunciation.

12

Philippines contribution to International Human Rights Law On December 10, 1948 the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by the General Assembly by a vote of 48 in favor of the declaration, none against, and 8 abstentions. The Philippines gave its vote in favor of the declaration. Other Human Rights Treaties that the Philippines is a signatory: -

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)

-

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), ratified on October 23, 1986

-

United Nations Conventions Against Torture, Acceded on June 18, 2986

-

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, ratified September 15, 1967

-

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, ratified on June 07, 1947

-

United Nations Convention on the Protection of the Rights of all Migrant workers and Members of Their Families, ratified July 05, 1995

-

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, ratified on August 05, 1981

-

Convention on the Rights of the Child, ratified on August 21, 1990

-

Convention on the Rights of the Persons with Disabilities, ratified on April 15, 2008

The Presidential Human Rights Committee (PHRC) under the Administrative Order No. 29 dated January 27, 2002 and No. 163 dated December 08, 2006 was created to see to it that the Philippines is compliant and adheres to its obligations under the International human rights instruments, including its timely submission of treaty implementation reports to the United Nations. INTERNATIONAL BILL OF RIGHTS International human rights law lays down obligations which States are bound to respect. By becoming parties to international treaties, States assume obligations and duties under international law to respect, to protect and to fulfil human rights. The obligation to respect means that States must refrain from interfering with or curtailing the enjoyment of human rights. The obligation to protect requires States to protect individuals and groups against human rights abuses. The obligation to fulfil means that States must take positive action to facilitate the enjoyment of basic human rights. Through ratification of international human rights treaties, Governments undertake to put into place domestic measures and legislation compatible with their treaty obligations and duties. The domestic legal system, therefore, provides the principal legal protection of human rights guaranteed under international law. Where domestic legal proceedings fail to address human rights abuses, mechanisms and procedures for individual and group complaints are available at the regional and

13

international levels to help ensure that international human rights standards are indeed respected, implemented, and enforced at the local level. Through the achievements of the UDHR, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights entered into force in 1976. The two Covenants have developed most of the rights already enshrined in the UDHR, making them effectively binding on States that have ratified them. They set forth everyday rights such as the right to life, equality before the law, freedom of expression, the rights to work, social security and education. Together with the UDHR, the Covenants comprise the International Bill of Human Rights.

UNITED NATIONS CHARTER The recognition and respect of human rights is one of the main objectives of the United Nations Organization. One of the most important purpose of United Nations Organization is to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights and the dignity and worth of human person and the promotion and encouragement of respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion. Every article in the Charter which refers to the purposes of the UN is deemed to include the promotion of human rights but there are seven articles as regards to human rights. Article 10 of the Charter suggests to the General Assembly to discuss any matter within the scope of the Charter which may concern human rights. Article 13 of the UN Charter directs the General Assembly, the task of initiating studies and recommendations for the purpose of assisting in the realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Article 55(c) together with Article 56, commits the United Nations to promote “universal respect for the observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms.” It provides the legal obligations of all members to pledge themselves and take joint and separate actions in cooperation with the Organization for the advancement of the purposes set forth in Article 55 (c). Article 62 (2) of the UN Charter states that the Economical Social Council may make recommendations for the purpose of promoting respect for an observance for human rights and fundamental freedom for all. The said provision was intended to prevent discrimination, and to protect the rights of minorities. Article 69 (2) provides that the Economic and Social Council, with the approval of the General Assembly, may perform services at the request of any member state. This is the basis for the advisory

14

services program on human rights such as providing experts or granting fellowships or organizing seminars. Article 76 mandates the Trusteeship System to encourage and respect for the human rights and for fundamental freedom for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religions and to encourage recognition of the interdependence of the peoples of the world. UN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS The Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) established the UN Commission on Human Rights to assist ECOSOC in all matters relating to human rights. It is composed of 43 members and deals with all aspects of human rights issues involving the participation of all sectors of the international committee. The Commission undertakes special tasks assigned to it by the General Assembly or the ECOSOC, including the investigation of all allegations of human rights violations. It coordinates activities relating to human rights through the United Nations System. UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is generally agreed to be the foundation of international human rights law. Adopted in 1948, the UDHR has inspired a rich body of legally binding international human rights treaties. It continues to be an inspiration to us all whether in addressing injustices, in times of conflicts, in societies suffering repression, and in our efforts towards achieving universal enjoyment of human rights. It represents the universal recognition that basic rights and fundamental freedoms are inherent to all human beings, inalienable and equally applicable to everyone, and that every one of us is born free and equal in dignity and rights. Whatever our nationality, place of residence, gender, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other status, the international community on December 10 1948 made a commitment to upholding dignity and justice for all of us. The drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognized the inherent dignity and of equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family as the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world. Thus, as stated in Article 1 of UDHR: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another with a spirit of brotherhood.” The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was a mere Declaration of norms to serve a as a common standard of achievement for all nations. It is not directing members of the UN to enforce them. No sanctions or enforcement machinery was set up or available. However, Article 55 of the Charter directs members to pledge themselves to the joint and separate action in cooperation with the

15

United Nations to achieve universal respect for an observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Although it is not a legally binding document, most nations have recognized the principles of the Declaration which have gained moral weight and persuasion in the domestic offices. Its principles have been adopted in most state constitutions. THE LEGALY BINDING COVENANTS In order to achieve a positive protection of human rights two International Covenants were adopted in 1966, namely: the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights designated to be legally binding on all the States that ratify them. The two International Covenants provide wider and in more detail, the rights set forth in the UDHR. As treaties, the states that ratify them are legally obliged to respect their provisions. In addition, the two Covenants set up mechanisms through which the United Nations can oversee the implementation by the States Parties. INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS Civil and political rights are the rights which the law will enforce at the instance of individuals without discrimination for the enjoyment of their lives, liberty and means of happiness. Most of the civil and political rights enumerated in the UDHR are reiterated in more detail in the ICCPR. The Covenant was adopted by the U.N. General Assembly in 1966 and came into force in 1976. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is a key international human rights treaty, providing a range of protections for civil and political rights. The ICCPR obligates countries that have ratified the treaty to protect and preserve basic human rights, such as: the right to life and human dignity; equality before the law; freedom of speech, assembly, and association; religious freedom and privacy; freedom from torture, ill-treatment, and arbitrary detention; gender equality; the right to a fair trial, and; minority rights. The Covenant compels governments to take administrative, judicial, and legislative measures in order to protect the rights enshrined in the treaty and to provide an effective remedy. Simon vs. Commission on Human Rights G.R. No. 100150 January 05, 1994 Facts: Petitioner Mayor Simon asks to prohibit CHR from further hearing and investigating "demolition case" on vendors of North EDSA. Issue: Whether the CHR is authorized to hear and decide on the "demolition case" and to impose a fine for contempt. Ruling: Section 18, Article XIII, of the 1987 Constitution empowered the CHR to investigate all forms of human rights violations involving civil and political rights. The demolition of stalls,

16

sari-sari stores and carenderia cannot fall within the compartment of "human rights violations involving civil and political rights". Human rights are the basic rights which inhere in man by virtue of his humanity and are the same in all parts of the world. Human rights include civil rights (right to life, liberty and property; freedom of speech, of the press, of religion, academic freedom; rights of the accused to due process of law), political rights (right to elect public officials, to be elected to public office, and to form political associations and engage in politics), social rights (right to education, employment and social services. Human rights are entitlements that inhere in the individual person from the sheer fact of his humanity...Because they are inherent, human rights are not granted by the State but can only be recognized and protected by it. Human rights includes all the civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Human rights are rights that pertain to man simply because he is human. They are part of his natural birth, right, innate and inalienable.

CIVIL RIGHTS - are those that belong to every citizen and are not connected with the organization or administration of the government. POLITICAL RIGHTS - are rights to participate, directly or indirectly, in the establishment or administration of the government. INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS The ICESCR has its roots in the same process that led to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. A "Declaration on the Essential Rights of Man" had been proposed at the 1945 San Francisco Conference which led to the founding of the United Nations, and the Economic and Social Council was given the task of drafting it. Early on in the process, the document was split into a declaration setting forth general principles of human rights, and a convention or covenant containing binding commitments. The former evolved into the UDHR and was adopted on 10 December 1948. ICESCR trace their origin from the socialist doctrine which advocates the equitable sharing of economic resources, services and welfare benefits to all people. This is commonly known as social welfare rights, they are generally stated as positive undertakings or obligations of the government to ensure the economic well-being of the people. They are also called affirmative rights as they are viewed as goals or aspirations that government should provide for its citizens depending upon its resources. The core provisions of ICESCR are the labor rights, right to social security, right to family life, right to an adequate standard of living, right to health, right to education. right to participate in cultural life.

17

Article 2 of the ICESCR provides the principle of progressive realization. The said principle acknowledges that some of the rights may be difficult in practice to achieve in a short period of time, and that states may be subject to resource constraints, but requires them to act as best they can within their means. The principle differs from that of the ICCPR, which obliges parties to "respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction" the rights in that Convention.[23] However, it does not render the Covenant meaningless. The requirement to "take steps" imposes a continuing obligation to work towards the realisation of the rights. It also rules out deliberately regressive measures which impede that goal. The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights also interprets the principle as imposing minimum core obligations to provide, at the least, minimum essential levels of each of the rights. If resources are highly constrained, this should include the use of targeted programmes aimed at the vulnerable. The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights regards legislation as an indispensable means for realising the rights which is unlikely to be limited by resource constraints. The enacting of anti-discrimination provisions and the establishment of enforceable rights with judicial remedies within national legal systems are considered to be appropriate means. Some provisions, such as antidiscrimination laws, are already required under other human rights instruments, such as the ICCPR. INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT The

International

Criminal

Court

is

an

intergovernmental

organization

and

international tribunal that sits in The Hague in the Netherlands. The ICC has the jurisdiction to prosecute individuals for the international crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. The ICC is intended to complement existing national judicial systems and it may therefore only exercise its jurisdiction when certain conditions are met, such as when national courts are unwilling or unable to prosecute criminals or when the United Nations Security Council or individual states refer investigations to the Court. The ICC began functioning on 1 July 2002, the date that the Rome Statute entered into force. The Rome Statute is a multilateral treaty which serves as the ICC's foundational and governing document. States which become party to the Rome Statute, for example by ratifying it, become member states of the ICC. Currently, there are 123 states which are party to the Rome Statute and therefore members of the ICC. ICC has jurisdiction over crimes against humanity, genocide, crimes of aggression and war crimes. The Rome Statute provides that all persons are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and establishes certain rights of the accused and persons during investigations. These include the right to be fully informed of the charges against him or her; the right to have a

18

lawyer appointed, free of charge; the right to a speedy trial; and the right to examine the witnesses against him or her. To ensure "equality of arms" between defence and prosecution teams, the ICC has established an independent Office of Public Counsel for the Defence (OPCD) to provide logistical support, advice and information to defendants and their counsel. The OPCD also helps to safeguard the rights of the accused during the initial stages of an investigation. One of the great innovations of the Statute of the International Criminal Court and its Rules of Procedure and Evidence is the series of rights granted to victims. For the first time in the history of international criminal justice, victims have the possibility under the Statute to present their views and observations before the Court. Participation before the Court may occur at various stages of proceedings and may take different forms, although it will be up to the judges to give directions as to the timing and manner of participation. Participation in the Court's proceedings will in most cases take place through a legal representative and will be conducted "in a manner which is not prejudicial or inconsistent with the rights of the accused and a fair and impartial trial". The victim-based provisions within the Rome Statute provide victims with the opportunity to have their voices heard and to obtain, where appropriate, some form of reparation for their suffering. It is the aim of this attempted balance between retributive and restorative justice that, it is hoped, will enable the ICC to not only bring criminals to justice but also help the victims themselves obtain some form of justice. Justice for victims before the ICC comprises both procedural and substantive justice, by allowing them to participate and present their views and interests, so that they can help to shape truth, justice and reparations outcomes of the Court. INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW International humanitarian law is a set of rules which seek, for humanitarian reasons, to limit the effects of armed conflict. It protects persons who are not or are no longer participating in the hostilities and restricts the means and methods of warfare. International humanitarian law is also known as the law of war or the law of armed conflict. A collection of treaties and acceptable practices which govern the conduct of war, the status, treatment, rights and obligations of belligerent as well as neutral and allied States, and of Institutions and individuals involved in the armed conflict, whether as military personnel, health and relief providers, members of the media and civilians.

19

It is that branch of international law which seeks to limit the effects of armed conflict by protecting persons who are not participating in hostilities, and by restricting and regulating the means and methods of warfare available to combatants. IHL is inspired by considerations of humanity and the mitigation of human suffering. "It comprises a set of rules, established by treaty or custom, that seeks to protect persons and property/objects that are (or may be) affected by armed conflict and limits the rights of parties to a conflict to use methods and means of warfare of their choice". It includes "the Geneva Conventions and the Hague Conventions, as well as subsequent treaties, case law, and customary international law." It defines the conduct and responsibilities of belligerent nations, neutral nations, and individuals engaged in warfare, in relation to each other and to protected persons, usually meaning non-combatants. It is designed to balance humanitarian concerns and military necessity, and subjects’ warfare to the rule of law by limiting its destructive effect and mitigating human

suffering.

TWO COMPONENTS of IHL a. The laws of war or armed conflict, which were covered in The Hague Convention of 1899 and 1907. These laws define combatants and lay down the rules of combat. b. The laws for the protection of the victims of war, which were the focus of the four (4) Geneva Conventions in 1949.

RIGHTS AND FREEDOM under the INTERNATIONAL BILL OF RIGHTS Equality in dignity and rights The Universal Declaration of Human Rights starts with the declaration of equality of all human beings in dignity and rights in Article 1, thus laying down the most fundamental and basic rules for the enjoyment by every person of his human rights: the respect and protection that each human being deserves. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights echoes this declaration in its Article 3, Stating that ‘The states parties to the present Covenant undertake to ensure the equal rights of men and women to the enjoyment of all civil and political rights set forth in the present Covenant.’ This declaration ensures that every human is entitled to his/her rights regardless of sex, race, religion, status in life or political beliefs, and that no one enjoys preference or priority over another in the entitlement of human rights. This does not necessarily translate to uniformity of rights, for different classes of persons may have different rights but rather to equal opportunity to enjoy human rights.

20

Borovsky v Commissioner of Immigration Facts: Borovsky claims to be a stateless citizen, born in Shanghai, China of Russian parentage. He came to the Philippines in 1936 and had resided here ever since, if the period of his detention be included. On June 24, 1946, by the order of Commissioner of Immigration of the Philippines the petitioner was arrested for investigation as to his past activities. A warrant for deportation was issued by the Deportation board on the grounds that he has been found to be an undesirable alien, a vagrant and habitual drunkard. Petitioner was deported to China but he was not provided with an entry visa because he was not a national of China. He was therefore brought back to Manila and was confined to the New Bilibid prison in Muntinlupa. On December 8, 1947, was granted provisional release by the President through Secretary of Justice for period of Six months. Before the expiration of that period, the immigration department rearrested him and brought him to Cebu for the purpose of placing him on board a Russian vessel carrying out deportation order against him. However, said deportation failed to materialize as the captain of the ship refused to take him on board without permission from the Russian government. Petitioner then filed for a writ of habeas corpus to which the court denied as mainly on the ground that such detention was merely temporary. Over two years had elapsed since the decision was promulgated, but still the Government had not found ways and means of removing the petitioner out of the country. Issue: Whether or not petitioner be continuously detained without a fix period pending deportation. Held: Aliens illegally staying in the Philippines have no right of Asylum therein even if they are “stateless” which the petitioner claims to be a Foreign Nationals, not enemy against whom no criminal charges have been formally made or judicial order issued, may not be indefinitely kept in detention. The protection against deprivation of liberty, without due process of law except for crimes committed against the laws of the land is not limited to Philippine citizens but extends to all residents, except enemy aliens regardless of nationality. And in a resolution entitled “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” approved by the General Assembly of the United Nation of which the Philippines is a member, at its plenary meeting on December 10, 1948, the right to life and liberty and all other fundamental rights as applied to all human beings were proclaimed. It was there resolved that “All human beings are born free and equal in degree and rights” (Art 1); that “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, nationality or other opinion or other status.

21

Right to life, liberty and security Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is Article 3, which provides that ‘Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of persons.’ The key political and civil rights of a person that must be protected by the state. The Philippine Constitution contained a similar provision in its bill of rights. Art 3 provides that, ‘No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.’ Can the right to life be waived? Does it include the right to end one’s life? Does a person have a right to die? Case of Pretty v UK Mrs. Pretty suffers from motor neurone disease, and by the time her case was heard before the Strasbourg Court she was essentially paralysed from the neck downwards, had virtually no decipherable speech and had to be fed by tube. As she was frightened at the suffering and indignity she would suffer if the disease ran its course, she wanted to be able to control how and when she died and thereby be spared that suffering and indignity. She was prevented by her disease from taking such a step without assistance. She argued that she had the right to life as well as the right to die. The court ruled that the petitioner did not have the right to die, and no such right can be derived from the right to life. On the same day following the decision of Mrs. Pretty, another terminally ill patient paralysed from the neck down has won the legal right to die by having her treatment withdrawn. She ended her life in a hospital in UK with the removal by doctors of the ventilator which supported her after she was given the go-signal by the UK court. Although there was inconsistency in the decision of the two cases, there was a marked difference between the two: in the case of Mrs. Pretty she wanted to be killed while, Miss b wanted medical treatment to be stopped. The right to liberty and security is further enunciated in Article 9 and 10 of ICCPR. Article 9 states that “Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law.’

22

The right to liberty and security is not absolute and may be restricted on valid grounds, such as imprisonment of a convict by way of penalty for the commission of an offense, or the hospitalization of insane persons. Article 10(1) of ICCPR states that, “all persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.” Aim of imprisonment is the rehabilitation and reformation of the convicts. Article 10(2) of ICCPR provides for a separate treatment for convicts from those still undergoing trial, also called pre-trial prisoners. The latter enjoys the right to presumed innocent until the contrary is proved. WHAT IS HUMAN DIGNITY? Dignity of Human being is an essential concept in the society as well as in the morality, because through it the quality and honour of the people can be determined, and from the sense of dignity the concept of Human rights can also be measured. There is a common belief that the dignity of human being can be measured through commercial / economic status of the people of the society and the G.N. P (Gross National Profit) of the particular state to be used as an instrument to measure of quality of human life. But it is not absolutely correct. The quality of human life is a very complex phenomena. It is not only confined in the commercial or economic system, rather it touches the various spheres of the people. i.e. health , food, education, liberty, equality, franchise of the citizens and so on. We have a need to know, how people are enabled to live in the society in dignified manner. Right against slavery The Slavery Convention, 1926. “Slavery is the status or condition of a person over whom any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership are exercised.” Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948. “No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.” Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, The Slave Trade, and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery, 1956. “Debt bondage, serfdom, forced marriage and the delivery of a child for the exploitation of that child is all slavery like practices and requires criminalization and abolishment.”

23

Dred Scott v Sanford (1857) In Dred Scott v. Sandford (argued 1856 -- decided 1857), the Supreme Court ruled that Americans of African descent, whether free or slave, were not American citizens and could not sue in federal court. The Court also ruled that Congress lacked power to ban slavery in the U.S. territories. Finally, the Court declared that the rights of slave owners were constitutionally protected by the Fifth Amendment because slaves were categorized as property. The controversy began in 1833, when Dr. John Emerson, a surgeon with the U.S. Army, purchased Dred Scott, a slave, and eventually moved Scott to a base in the Wisconsin Territory. Slavery was banned in the territory pursuant to the

Missouri

Compromise. Scott lived there for the next four years, hiring himself out for work during the long stretches when Emerson was away. In 1840, Scott, his new wife, and their young children moved to Louisiana and then to St. Louis with Emerson. Emerson died in 1843, leaving the Scott family to his wife, Eliza Irene Sanford. In 1846, after laboring and saving for years, the Scotts sought to buy their freedom from Sanford, but she refused. Dred Scott then sued Sanford in a state court, arguing that he was legally free because he and his family had lived in a territory where slavery was banned. In 1850, the state court finally declared Scott free. However, Scott's wages had been withheld pending the resolution of his case, and during that time Mrs. Emerson remarried and left her brother, John Sanford, to deal with her affairs. Mr. Sanford, unwilling to pay the back wages owed to Scott, appealed the decision to the Missouri Supreme Court. The court overturned the lower court's decision and ruled in favor of Sanford. Scott then filed another lawsuit in a federal circuit court claiming damages against Sanford's brother, John F.A. Sanford, for Sanford's alleged physical abuse against him. The jury ruled that Scott could not sue in federal court because he had already been deemed a slave under Missouri law. Scott appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which reviewed the case in 1856. Due to a clerical error at the time, Sanford's name was misspelled in court records. The Supreme Court, in an infamous opinion written by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to take Scott's case because Scott was, or at least had been, a slave. First, the Court argued that they could not entertain Scott's case because federal courts, including the Supreme Court, are courts of "peculiar and limited jurisdiction" and may only hear cases brought by select parties involving limited claims. For example, under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, federal courts may only hear cases brought by "citizens" of the United States. The Court ruled that because Scott was "a negro, whose ancestors were imported into this country, and sold as slaves," and thus "[not] a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution," Scott was not a citizen and had no right to file a lawsuit in federal court. Second, the Court argued that Scott's status as a citizen of a free state did not necessarily give him status as a U.S. citizen. While the states were free to create their own citizenship criteria, and had done so before the Constitution even came into being, the Constitution gives Congress exclusive authority to define national citizenship. Moreover, the Court argued that even if Scott was deemed "free" under the laws of a state, he would still not qualify as an American citizen because he was black. The Court asserted that, in general, U.S. citizens are only those who

24

were members of the "political community" at the time of the Constitution's creation, along with those individuals' heirs, and slaves were not part of this community. Finally, the Court argued that, in any case, Scott could not be defined as free by virtue of his residency in the Wisconsin Territory, because Congress lacked the power to ban slavery in U.S. territories. The Court viewed slaves as "property," and the Fifth Amendment forbids Congress from taking property away from individuals without just compensation. Justice Benjamin Curtis issued a strong dissent. The decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford exacerbated rising sectional tensions between the North and South. Although the Missouri Compromise had already been repealed prior to the case, the decision nonetheless appeared to validate the Southern version of national power, and to embolden pro-slavery Southerners to expand slavery to all reaches of the nation. Unsurprisingly, antislavery forces were outraged by the decision, empowering the newly formed Republican Party and helping fuel violence between slave owners and abolitionists on the frontier. Following the Civil War, the Reconstruction Congress passed, and the states ratified, the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments, all of which directly overturned the Dred Scott decision. Today, all people born or naturalized in the United States are American citizens who may bring suit in federal court. Freedom of Movement and Right to Travel “Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State.” “Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.” In Myanmar, thousands of citizens were detained, including 700 prisoners of conscience, most notably Nobel Laureate Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. In retaliation for her political activities, she has been imprisoned or under house arrest for twelve of the last eighteen years, and has refused government offers of release that would require her to leave the country. In Algeria, refugees and asylum-seekers were frequent victims of detention, expulsion or ill treatment. Twenty-eight individuals from sub-Saharan African countries with official refugee status from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) were deported to Mali after being falsely tried, without legal counsel or interpreters, on charges of entering Algeria illegally. They were dumped near a desert town where a Malian armed group was active, without food, water or medical aid. In Kenya, authorities violated international refugee law when they closed the border to thousands of people fleeing armed conflict in Somalia. Asylum-seekers were illegally detained at the Kenyan border without charge or trial and forcibly returned to Somalia. In northern Uganda, 1.6 million citizens remained in displacement camps. In the Acholi subregion, the area most affected by armed conflict, 63 percent of the 1.1 million people displaced in 2005 were still living in camps in 2007, with only 7,000 returned permanently to their places of origin.

25

Marcos vs Manglapus Facts: Former President Ferdinand E. Marcos was deposed from the presidency via the nonviolent “people power” revolution and was forced into exile. Marcos, in his deathbed, has signified his wish to return to the Philippines to die. But President Corazon Aquino, considering the dire consequences to the nation of his return at a time when the stability of government is threatened from various directions and the economy is just beginning to rise and move forward, has stood firmly on the decision to bar the return of Marcos and his family.

Marcos filed for a petition of mandamus and prohibition to order the respondents to issue them their travel documents and prevent the implementation of President Aquino’s decision to bar Marcos from returning in the Philippines. Petitioner questions Aquino’s power to bar his return in the country. He also questioned the claim of the President that the decision was made in the interest of national security, public safety and health. Petitioner also claimed that the President acted outside her jurisdiction.

According to the Marcoses, such act deprives them of their right to life, liberty, property without due process and equal protection of the laws. They also said that it deprives them of their right to travel which according to Section 6, Article 3 of the constitution, may only be impaired by a court order.

Issue: Whether or not the President acted arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when she determined that the return of the Marcoses to the Philippines poses a serious threat to national interest and welfare and decided to bar their return. Whether this is a violation of the humanitarian rights of the Marcoses to travel.

Held: The rights Marcoses are invoking are not absolute. They’re flexible depending on the circumstances. The request of the Marcoses to be allowed to return to the Philippines cannot be considered in the light solely of the constitutional provisions guaranteeing liberty of abode and the right to travel, subject to certain exceptions, or of case law which clearly never contemplated situations even remotely similar to the present one. It must be treated as a matter that is appropriately addressed to those residual unstated powers of the President which are implicit in and correlative to the paramount duty residing in that office to safeguard and protect general welfare. In that context, such request or demand should submit to the exercise of a broader discretion on the part of the President to determine whether it must be granted or denied.

26

Freedom to Practice or Manifest religious Belief ART. 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that: “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion: this rights includes freedom to chance his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifests his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance”

ART. 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states that: “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this rights includes freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief, or his choice and freedom, either individually or in community with others or in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice or teaching.

ART. III SEC. 5 of the Philippine Constitution states that: “No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination and or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil and political rights”.

ART. XIV, SEC. 3(3) of the Philippine Constitution states that “To promote the freedom of religion, at the option expressed in writing by the parents, religion shall be allowed to be taught to their children in all public elementary and high schools within the regular class hours”

Religious Freedom is a fundamental rights, entitled to the highest priority and amplest Protection among human rights, for it involves the relationship of man to his creator. One of the preferred freedoms in human society is the freedom of religion or belief and its free exercise. Freedom of thought, which includes freedom of religious beliefs, is basic in the society of free men. No one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs and no discrimination of whatsoever is allowed for religious reasons. On November 25, 1981 the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Tolerance and of Discrimination Based on religion and Beliefs, was adopted by the UN General Assembly to provide that anyone should have the freedom of thought, conscience and religion that no one should be subjected to coercion, which will impair his/her freedom to have a religion or Belief of his/her own choice. Parents also have the right to organize family life in accordance with their religion as well as every child shall enjoy the right to have access to religious education. No child

27

should also be compelled to or receive religious teachings if it will be against the wishes of his/her parents. The said declaration also includes the right to worship, to maintain charitable or humanitarian institution, to acquire materials related to religious rights, to issue publication, to teach, and to solicit financial contributions, to train leaders, to observe holidays and to observe holidays and to communicate with others regarding religion. The most significant documents approved by the Second Vatican Council of Rome is the Declaration on the Right of The Person and Communities to Social and Civil Freedom in Matters Religious (Digdidatis Humanae). Only 1 of the 17 documents address to all people of the world. No Religious Test Art. III Sec. 5 which states that “No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.” There should be no law providing for a religious preference as a qualification for holding selective or appointive office in the Government.” Religious Freedom in Marriage The marriage law of the Philippines imposes no impediment to marriage on the account of race, color, and religion. Religious Discrimination in Education Parents may in the discharge of their duty, under state compulsory Education Laws, send their children to religious rather than Public schools. Engel vs. Vitale 370 US 421, 25 June 1962

Facts: The Board of Education of Union Free School District 9, New Hyde Park, New York, acting in its official capacity under state law, directed the School District's principal to cause the following prayer to be said aloud by each class in the presence of a teacher at the beginning of each school day: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country." This daily procedure was adopted on the recommendation of the State Board of Regents, a governmental agency created by the State Constitution to which the New York Legislature has granted broad supervisory, executive, and legislative powers over the State's public school system. These state officials composed the prayer which they recommended and published as a part of their "Statement on Moral and Spiritual Training in the Schools," saying: "We believe that this Statement will be subscribed to by all men

28

and women of good will, and we call upon all of them to aid in giving life to our program." Shortly after the practice of reciting the Regents' prayer was adopted by the School District, the parents of 10 pupils brought the action in a New York State Court insisting that use of this official prayer in the public schools was contrary to the beliefs, religions, or religious practices of both themselves and their children. Among other things, these parents challenged the constitutionality of both the state law authorizing the School District to direct the use of prayer in public schools and the School District's regulation ordering the recitation of this particular prayer on the ground that these actions of official governmental agencies violate that part of the First Amendment of the Federal Constitution which commands that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" - a command which was "made applicable to the State of New York by the

Fourteenth Amendment of the said Constitution." The New York Court of Appeals, over the dissents of Judges Dye and Fuld, sustained an order of the lower state courts which had upheld the power of New York to use the Regents' prayer as a part of the daily procedures of its public schools so long as the schools did not compel any pupil to join in the prayer over his or his parents' objection.

Issue: Whether the New York law adopting the practice of reciting the Regent’s prayer in public schools violate the Non-Establishment Clause.

Held: By using its public school system to encourage recitation of the Regents' prayer, the State of New York has adopted a practice wholly inconsistent with the Establishment Clause. There can, of course, be no doubt that New York's program of daily classroom invocation of God's blessings as prescribed in the Regents' prayer is a religious activity. It is a solemn avowal of divine faith and supplication for the blessings of the Almighty. The nature of such a prayer has always been religious. There can be no doubt that New York's state prayer program officially establishes the religious beliefs embodied in the Regents' prayer. The argument to the contrary, which is largely based upon the contention that the Regents' prayer is "non-denominational" and the fact that the program does not require all pupils to recite the prayer but permits those who wish to do so to remain silent or be excused from the room, ignores the essential nature of the program's constitutional defects. Neither the fact that the prayer may be denominationally neutral nor the fact that its observance on the part of the students is voluntary can serve to free it from the limitations of the Establishment Clause, as it might from the Free Exercise Clause, of the First Amendment, both of which are operative against the States by virtue of the

29

Fourteenth Amendment. The New York laws officially prescribing the Regents' prayer are inconsistent both with the purposes of the Establishment Clause and with the Establishment Clause itself.

Aglipay v. Ruiz GR 45459, 13 March 1937

Facts: In May 1936, the Director of Posts announced in the dailies of Manila that he would order the issuance of postage stamps commemorating the celebration in the City of Manila of the 33rd International Eucharistic Congress, organized by the Roman Catholic Church. Monsignor Gregorio Aglipay, Supreme Head of the Philippine Independent Church, in the fulfillment of what he considers to be a civic duty, requested Vicente Sotto, Esq., member of the Philippine Bar, to denounce the matter to the President of the Philippines. In spite of the protest of Sotto, the Director of Posts publicly announced that the designs of the postage for printing have been sent to the United States. The said stamps were actually issued and sold though the greater part thereof remained unsold. The further sale of the stamps was sought to be prevented by Aglipay.

Issue: Whether the stamp (containing a map of the Philippines, the location of the City of Manila, and an inscription that reads "Seat XXXIII International Eucharistic Congress, Feb. 3-7, 1937") violate the Non- establishment clause by allegedly promoting the Catholic religion.

Held: Section 13, Article VI, of the 1935 Constitution provides that “no public money or property shall ever be appropriated, applied, or used, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, sectarian institution, or system of religion, or for the use, benefit, or support of any priest, preacher, minister, or other religious teacher or dignitary as such, except when such priest, preacher, minister, or dignitary is assigned to the armed forces or to any penal institution, orphanage, or leprosarium." The prohibition is a direct corollary of the principle of separation of church and state. Act 4052 contemplates no religious purpose in view. What it gives the Director of Posts is the discretionary power to determine when the issuance of special postage stamps would be "advantageous to the Government." Of course, the phrase "advantageous to the Government" does not authorize the violation of the Constitution; i.e. to appropriate, use or apply of public money or property for the use, benefit or support of a particular sect or church. Herein, the issuance of the

30

postage stamps was not inspired by any sectarian feeling to favor a particular church or religious denominations. The stamps were not issued and sold for the benefit of the Roman Catholic Church, nor were money derived from the sale of the stamps given to that church. The purpose of the issuing of the stamps was to take advantage of an event considered of international importance to give publicity to the Philippines and its people and attract more tourists to the country. Thus, instead of showing a Catholic chalice, the stamp contained a map of the Philippines, the location of the City of Manila, and an inscription that reads "Seat XXXIII International Eucharistic Congress, Feb. 3-7, 1937." Thus, while the issuance and sale of the stamps may be said to be inseparably linked with an event of a religious character, the resulting propaganda received by the Roman Catholic Church, was not the aim and purpose of the Government. The Government should not be embarrassed in its activities simply because of incidental results, more or less religious in character, if the purpose had in view is one which could legitimately be undertaken by appropriate legislation. The main purpose should not be frustrated by its subordination to mere incidental results not contemplated.

Right to take Part in Government “Political Rights” are the rights to participate directly or indirectly in the establishment or administration of government. These are rights to enable people to participate in the affairs of the government either directly or indirectly. Right to Suffrage ART. V SEC I of the Philippine Constitution states that: “Suffrage may be exercised by all citizen of the Philippines not otherwise disqualified by law, or who are at least eighteen years of age, and who shall have resided in the Philippines for at least one year and in the place wherein they propose to vote for at least six months immediately preceding the election. No literacy, property, or other substantive requirement shall be imposed on the exercise of suffrage.” These rights include the right to vote and be voted upon in periodic elections in order that the will of the people shall be determined, as the basis of the government through genuine elections.

31

Ebralinag vs. Division Superintendent of Schools of Cebu GR 95770, 1 March 1993 Amolo vs. Division Superintendent of Schools of Cebu GR 85887

Facts: 43 students of the Daanbantayan National High School, Agujo Elementary School, Calape Barangay National High School, Pinamungajan Provincial High School, Tabuelan Central School, Canasojan Elementary School, Liboron Elementary School, Tagaytay Primary School, San Juan Primary School and Northern Central Elementary School of San Fernando, Cebu, were expelled (23 October 1990) upon order of then Acting Division Superintendent Marcelo Bacalso. Said students in the towns of Daan Bantayan, Pinamungajan, Carcar, and Taburan, Cebu province (GR 95770, Ebralinag vs. Division Superintendent) were expelled for refusing to salute the flag, sing the national anthem and recite the patriotic pledge as required by Republic Act 1265 (11 July 1955), and by Department Order 8 dated 21 July 1955 of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) making the flag ceremony compulsory in all educational institutions. This prompted some Jehovah's Witnesses in Cebu to appeal to the Secretary of Education Isidro Cariño but the latter did not answer their letter. 25 students who were similarly expelled (high school and grade school students enrolled in public schools in Asturias, Cebu [GR 95887, Amolo vs. Director Superintendent]) because Dr. Pablo Antopina, who succeeded Susana Cabahug as Division Superintendent of Schools, would not recall the expulsion orders of his predecessor. Instead, he verbally caused the expulsion of some more children of Jehovah's Witnesses. On 31 October 1990, the students and their parents filed the Special civil actions for Mandamus, Certiorari and Prohibition alleging that the Division Superintendent of Schools of Cebu, et.al. acted without or in excess of their jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion in ordering their expulsion without prior notice and hearing, hence, in violation of their right to due process, their right to free public education, and their right to freedom of speech, religion and worship. Jehovah's Witnesses admittedly teach their children not to salute the flag, sing the national anthem, and recite the patriotic pledge for they believe that those are "acts of worship" or "religious devotion" which they "cannot conscientiously give to anyone or anything except God." They feel bound by the Bible's command to "guard ourselves from idols — 1 John 5:21." They consider the flag as an image or idol representing the State. They think the action of the local authorities in compelling the flag salute and pledge transcends constitutional limitations on the State's power and invades the sphere of the intellect and spirit which the Constitution protects against official control. They stress, however, that while they do not take part in the

32

compulsory flag ceremony, they do not engage in "external acts" or behavior that would offend their countrymen who believe in expressing their love of country through the observance of the flag ceremony. They quietly stand at attention during the flag ceremony to show their respect for the right of those who choose to participate in the solemn proceedings. Since they do not engage in disruptive behavior, there is no warrant for their expulsion. On 27 November 1990, the Court issued a temporary restraining order and a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction commanding the Division Superintendent to immediately readmit the students to their respective classes until further orders from the Court. The Court also ordered the Secretary of Education and Cebu District Supervisor Manuel F. Biongcog to be impleaded as respondents in the cases.

Issue: Whether the students, who belong to the Jehovah’s Witness sect, should be expelled (following the holding in the case of Gerona) for not saluting the flag in accordance with RA 1265.

Held: Religious freedom is a fundamental right which is entitled to the highest priority and the amplest protection among human rights, for it involves the relationship of man to his Creator. The right to religious profession and worship has a two-fold aspect, vis., freedom to believe and freedom to act on one's belief. The first is absolute as long as the belief is confined within the realm of thought. The second is subject to regulation where the belief is translated into external acts that affect the public welfare. The sole justification for a prior restraint or limitation on the exercise of religious freedom is the existence of a grave and present danger of a character both grave and imminent, of a serious evil to public safety, public morals, public health or any other legitimate public interest, that the State has a right (and duty) to prevent. Absent such a threat to public safety, the expulsion of the students from the schools is not justified. By exempting the Jehovah's Witnesses from saluting the flag, singing the national anthem and reciting the patriotic pledge, this religious which admittedly comprises a "small portion of the school population" will not shake up our part of the globe and suddenly produce a nation "untaught and un inculcated in and unimbued with reverence for the flag, patriotism, love of country and admiration for national heroes." After all, what the students seek only is exemption from the flag ceremony, not exclusion from the public schools where they may study the Constitution, the democratic way of life and form of government, and learn not only the arts, science, Philippine history and culture but also receive training for a vocation or profession and be taught the virtues of "patriotism, respect for human rights,

33

appreciation for national heroes, the rights and duties of citizenship, and moral and spiritual values as part of the curricula. Expelling or banning the students from Philippine schools will bring about the very situation that this Court had feared in Gerona. Forcing a small religious group, through the iron hand of the law, to participate in a ceremony that violates their religious beliefs, will hardly be conducive to love of country or respect for duly constituted authorities. Moreover, the expulsion of members of Jehovah's Witnesses from the schools where they are enrolled will violate their right as Philippine citizens, under the 1987 Constitution, to receive free education, for it is the duty of the State to "protect and promote the right of all citizens to quality education and to make such education accessible to all." While it is certain that not every conscience can be accommodated by all the laws of the land; when general laws conflict with scruples of conscience, exemptions ought to be granted unless some "compelling state interests" intervenes. Exemptions may be accorded to the Jehovah's Witnesses with regard to the observance of the flag ceremony out of respect for their religious beliefs, however "bizarre" those beliefs may seem to others. Nevertheless, their right not to participate in the flag ceremony does not give them a right to disrupt such patriotic exercises. While the highest regard must be afforded their right to the exercise of their religion, "this should not be taken to mean that school authorities are powerless to discipline them" if they should commit breaches of the peace by actions that offend the sensibilities, both religious and patriotic, of other persons. If they quietly stand at attention during the flag ceremony while their classmates and teachers salute the flag, sing the national anthem and recite the patriotic pledge, such conduct cannot possibly disturb the peace, or pose "a grave and present danger of a serious evil to public safety, public morals, public health or any other legitimate public interest that the State has a right (and duty) to prevent." Thus, although the Court upholds the students' right under our Constitution to refuse to salute the Philippine flag on account of their religious beliefs, it hopes, nevertheless, that another foreign invasion of our country will not be necessary in order for our countrymen to appreciate and cherish the Philippine flag.

Right to Education Education is a fundamental human right and essential for the exercise of all other human rights. It promotes individual freedom and empowerment and yields important development benefits. This is recognized in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights as a human right that includes the right to free, compulsory primary education for all, an obligation to develop secondary education accessible to all, in particular by the progressive introduction of free secondary

34

education, as well as an obligation to develop equitable access to higher education, ideally by the progressive introduction of free higher education. The right to education also includes a responsibility to provide basic education for individuals who have not completed primary education. In addition to these access to education provisions, the right to education encompasses the obligation to rule out discrimination at all levels of the educational system, to set minimum standards and to improve the quality of education. Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that everyone has the right to education directed to the full deployment of human personality and parents have the prior right to choose the type of education of their children. Article 13 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights recognizes the right of everyone to free education (free for the primary level and "the progressive introduction of free education" for the secondary and higher levels). This is to be directed towards "the full development of the human personality and the sense of its dignity",and enable all persons to participate effectively in society. Article 13.2 lists a number of specific steps parties are required to pursue to realise the right of education. These include the provision of free, universal and compulsory primary education, "generally available and accessible" secondary education in various forms (including technical and vocational training), and equally accessible higher education. All of these must be available to all without discrimination. Parties must also develop a school system (though it may be public, private, or mixed), encourage or provide scholarships for disadvantaged groups. Parties are required to make education free at all levels, either immediately or progressively; "[p]rimary education shall be compulsory and available free to all"; secondary education "shall be made generally available and accessible to all by every appropriate means, and in particular by the progressive introduction of free education"; and "higher education shall be made equally accessible to all, on the basis of capacity, by every appropriate means, and in particular by the progressive introduction of free education". The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights interpret the Covenant as also requiring states to respect the academic freedom of staff and students, as this is vital for the educational process. It also considers corporal punishment in schools to be inconsistent with the Covenant's underlying principle of the dignity of the individual.

Right to Work Basis and fundamental on securing the economic well-being of a person is his right to work with fair wages and under decent working conditions. The ICESCR obliges States Parties to recognize

35

the right to work which includes the right of everyone to the opportunity to gain his living by work which he freely chooses or accepts, and to take appropriate steps to safeguard this right. Article 6 of the ICESCR states that right to work necessarily includes the right to a decent living wage, decent working conditions and the freedom of choice of work, freedom from discrimination and the right to form trade unions. It includes the right to fair wages and adequate leisure time. International Labor Organization (ILO) has pledges to support and implement the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The ILO had developed international standards of labor to be complied with by the State Parties. Bernardo et al v. NLRC & FEBTC GR No. 122917, 12 July 1999

Facts: The dismissed complainants, numbering 43, are deaf-mutes who were hired on various periods from 1988 to 1993 by respondent Far East Bank and Trust Co. as Money Sorters and Counters through a uniformly worded agreement called "Employment Contract for Handicapped Workers". Disclaiming that complainants were regular employees, respondent Far East Bank and Trust Company maintained that complainants were hired temporarily under a special employment arrangement which was a result of overtures made by some civic and political personalities to the respondent Bank; that complainant[s] were hired due to "pakiusap"; that the tellers themselves already did the sorting and counting chore as a regular feature and integral part of their duties; that through the "pakiusap" of Arturo Borjal, the tellers were relieved of this task of counting and sorting bills in favor of deaf-mutes without creating new positions as there is no position either in the respondent or in any other bank in the Philippines which deals with purely counting and sorting of bills in banking operations. The LA &, on appeal, the NLRC ruled against petitioners, holding that they could not be deemed regular employees since they were hired as an accommodation to the recommendation of civic oriented personalities whose employments were covered by Employment Contracts w/ special provisions on duration of contract as specified under Art. 80. Hence, the terms of the contract shall be the law between the parties. Issue: Whether petitioners have become regular employees. Held: Only the employees who worked for more than six months and whose contracts were renewed are deemed regular. Hence, their dismissal from employment was illegal. The facts, viewed in light of the Labor Code and the Magna Carta for Disabled Persons, indubitably show that the petitioners, except sixteen of them, should be deemed regular employees. The uniform employment contracts of the petitioners stipulated that they shall be trained for a period of one month, after which the employer shall determine whether or not they should be allowed to finish the 6-month term of the contract. Furthermore, the employer may terminate the contract at any time for a just and reasonable cause. Unless renewed in writing by the employer, the contract shall automatically expire at the end of the term.

36

The stipulations in the employment contracts indubitably conform with Art. 80 LC w/c provides for the requisites in the employment agreement between an employer who employs handicapped workers. Succeeding events and the enactment of RA No. 7277 (the Magna Carta for Disabled Persons), 13 however, justify the application of Article 280 of the Labor Code. Respondent bank entered into the aforesaid contract with a total of 56 handicapped workers and renewed the contracts of 37 of them. Verily, the renewal of the contracts of the handicapped workers and the hiring of others lead to the conclusion that their tasks were beneficial and necessary to the bank. More important, these facts show that they were qualified to perform the responsibilities of their positions. In other words, their disability did not render them unqualified or unfit for the tasks assigned to them. In this light, the Magna Carta for Disabled Persons mandates that a qualified disabled employee should be given the same terms and conditions of employment as a qualified able-bodied person. The fact that the employees were qualified disabled persons necessarily removes the employment contracts from the ambit of Article 80. Since the Magna Carta accords them the rights of qualified able-bodied persons, they are thus covered by Article 280 of the Labor Code. Without a doubt, the task of counting and sorting bills is necessary and desirable to the business of respondent bank. With the exception of sixteen of them, petitioners performed these tasks for more than six months. Thus, the twenty-seven petitioners should be deemed regular employees. The contract signed by petitioners is akin to a probationary employment, during which the bank determined the employees' fitness for the job. When the bank renewed the contract after the lapse of the six-month probationary period, the employees thereby became regular employees. 16 No employer is allowed to determine indefinitely the fitness of its employees. Moreover, it must be emphasized that a contract of employment is impressed with public interest. Provisions of applicable statutes are deemed written into the contract, and the "parties are not at liberty to insulate themselves and their relationships from the impact of labor laws and regulations by simply contracting with each other." Clearly, the agreement of the parties regarding the period of employment cannot prevail over the provisions of the Magna Carta for Disabled Persons, which mandate that petitioners must be treated as qualified able-bodied employees. An employee is regular because of the nature of work and the length of service, not because of the mode or even the reason for hiring them.

37

REFERENCES: Human Rights by Jorge R. Coquia, 2012 Edition Petralba, P.J., Hornbook on international and Philippine Human Rights Laws, 2013 Human Right Law / Human rights Culture by Rene V. Sarmiento International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights General Comments The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Human Rights Law, http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/hr_law.shtml FAQ: THE COVENANT ON CIVIL & POLITICAL RIGHTS (ICCPR), https://www.aclu.org/faq-covenantcivil-political-rights-iccpr INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON ECONOMIC,SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Covenant_on_Economic,_Social_and_Cultural_Rights INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_humanitarian_law (United States Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence: United for Human Rights), http://www.humanrights.com/what-are-human-rights/brief-history/declaration-of-independence.html

Dr. Md. Sirajul Islam (HUMAN DIGNITY AND HUMAN RIGHTS), http://www.crvp.org/conf/istanbul/abstracts/sirajul%20islam.htm

Woman wins right-to-die case (Mail Online), http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-106333/Womanwins-right-die-case.html

38