Status of Human Rights in the Philippines

The human rights crisis in the Philippines unleashed since President Rodrigo Duterte took office in June 2016 deepened in
2018 as Duterte continued his murderous “war on drugs” in the face of mounting international criticism.

In March, Duterte announced that the Philippines would withdraw from the International Criminal Court (ICC) “effective
immediately” in response to the ICC’s move in February to launch a preliminary examination of “drug war” killings to
determine whether to open a full-blown investigation.

Duterte sought to silence his critics via various means. His most prominent critic, Senator Leila de Lima, remained in
detention on politically motivated drug charges. In May, the Philippine Supreme Court took unprecedented action to
remove Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, apparent reprisal for her criticism of Duterte’s “drug war” and other abusive
policies. In September, Duterte revoked the amnesty given to Senator Antonio Trillanes IV, another Duterte critic, by the
previous administration for leading mutinies in 2003 and 2007 when he was a naval officer; in October, a Manila court
denied a Department of Justice petition to issue a warrant for his arrest.

In November, in a rare triumph of accountability in the Philippines, a Manila court found three police officers guilty for
the murder of 17-year-old Kian delos Santos in August 2017. The killing, which was caught on surveillance camera,
sparked outrage against the “drug war.” In September, a court in Bulacan province convicted ex-army Maj. Gen. Jovito
Palparan and two other military men for the kidnapping and illegal detention of Karen Empeño and Sherlyn Cadapan, two
student activists who were allegedly abducted, raped, and tortured by military agents in 2006. The two women remain
missing.

Extrajudicial Killings

The Duterte administration’s “war on drugs” continued in 2018 and expanded into areas outside the capital, Metro Manila,
including to the provinces of Bulacan, Laguna, Cavite, and the cities of Cebu and General Santos.

According to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), 4,948 suspected drug users and dealers died during
police operations from July 1, 2016 to September 30, 2018. But this does not include the thousands of others killed by
unidentified gunmen. According to the Philippine National Police (PNP), 22,983 such deaths since the “war on drugs”
began are classified as “homicides under investigation.”

The exact number of fatalities is difficult to ascertain because the government has failed to disclose official documents
about the “drug war.” It has issued contradictory statistics and, in the case of these “homicides under investigation,”
stopped releasing the figures altogether.

Masked gunmen taking part in killings appeared to be working closely with police, casting doubt on government claims
that most killings have been committed by vigilantes or rival drug gangs.

Duterte has vowed to continue his anti-drug campaign until his term ends in 2022. In July 2018, he again pledged to
continue the “war on drugs,” saying “it will be as relentless and chilling as on the day it began.”
Duterte has also vowed to protect police officers and agents carrying out the “drug war” from prosecution. Except for a
few high-profile cases, the killings have not been investigated.

Human Rights Defenders

Since February 2017, Senator Leila de Lima has been jailed on politically motivated drug charges filed against her in
apparent retaliation for leading a Senate inquiry into the “drug war” killings. Her plight has prompted international
expressions of support.

In September, Duterte ordered the arrest of a colleague of de Lima’s, Senator Antonio Trillanes IV, by revoking his
amnesty, forcing him to remain at the Senate premises for weeks. In October, a Manila court dismissed the government’s
petition to issue the arrest warrant against Trillanes. Trillanes has been Duterte’s most vocal critic since de Lima, accusing
the president and his family of corruption.

In February, the Department of Justice issued a petition that labeled more than 600 people—among them Victoria Tauli-
Corpuz, the United Nations special rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, and dozens of leftist activists—as
members of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and its armed wing, the New People’s Army (NPA). That
action put those individuals at risk of extrajudicial execution. Tauli-Corpuz called the allegation “baseless, malicious and
irresponsible.” In August, a Manila court removed her name from the petition.

Philippine presidential spokesman Harry Roque alleged in March that “some human rights groups have become unwitting
tools of drug lords to hinder the strides made by the administration.” That echoed comments made days prior by Foreign
Affairs Secretary Alan Peter Cayetano equating efforts of some unnamed human rights organizations to stop Duterte’s
murderous “war on drugs” with “being used by drug lords.”

Children’s Rights

The Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) announced in June that it was seeking to impose annual unannounced
drug screening tests on teachers and schoolchildren starting in the fourth grade. PDEA sought to  justify the move as an
attempt to identify 10-year-old potential drug users so they “can get intervention while they are still young.”

Imposing drug testing on schoolchildren when Philippine police are summarily killing alleged drug users endangers
children should they fail such a drug test. Mandatory testing may also violate children’s right to bodily integrity,
constitute arbitrary interference with their privacy and dignity, and may deter children from attending school for reasons
unrelated to any potential drug use.

Police have killed dozens of children since the start of the “war on drugs” in June 2016, deaths which Duterte has
dismissed as “collateral damage.” In February, police arrested three police officers implicated in the execution-style
summary killing of 17-year-old Kian Lloyd delos Santos in August 2017.

Attacks on Journalists
The Duterte administration ratcheted up its attack on media freedom in January 2018 by threatening the closure
of Rappler.com, an online news outlet critical of the “war on drugs.” In November, the Department of Justice indicted
Rappler and its editor and founder, Maria Ressa, for tax evasion. This followed months of attacks and harassment of
Rappler by the Duterte government and its supporters.  

New draft regulations by the Philippine House of Representatives in May would allow Congress to ban reporters who
“besmirch” the reputation of lawmakers from covering the national legislature. Journalists and some members
of Congress have denounced the proposed rule as dangerously ambiguous and stifling.

The killings of journalists continued in 2018, with six murdered by unidentified gunmen in different parts of the country.

HIV Epidemic

The Philippines faces the fastest-growing epidemic of HIV in Asia. According to the Joint United Nations Programme on
HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), the number of new HIV cases jumped from 4,400 in 2010 to 12,000 in 2017, the last year for
which data were available. Most new infections—up to 83 percent—are among men and transgender women who have
sex with men. There are now an estimated 68,000 Filipinos living with HIV.

This increase has been attributed to government policy failures to respond to the epidemic. Human Rights Watch research
shows that many sexually active young Filipinos have little or no knowledge about the role of condoms in preventing
sexually transmitted diseases because the government fails to promote condoms vigorously, among other factors.

Human Rights Watch documented that workers and employees in the Philippines living with HIV may suffer workplace
discrimination including refusal to hire, unlawful firing, and forced resignation of people with HIV. Some employers may
also disregard or actively facilitate workplace harassment of employees who are HIV positive. In February, Duterte
suggested to a group of returning overseas migrant workers that they avoid using condoms because they “aren’t
pleasurable.” 

In October, the Senate and House of Representatives approved a bill that would amend the country’s 20-year-old AIDS
law. The new law outlines a rights-based response to the epidemic and prohibits discrimination against people with
HIV in the workplace and other settings. It also makes it unlawful to disclose the HIV status of an individual without their
consent. However, the law does not include specific provisions directing the government to promote condom use.

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity

The Philippine Supreme Court heard a long-awaited argument in June that could open the door to same-sex marriage in
the overwhelmingly Catholic country. In May, the city of Mandaluyong approved an ordinance to protect the rights of
lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people—the latest in a slew of similar local laws passed across the
country.

The House of Representatives unanimously passed a federal nondiscrimination bill protecting LGBT people in September
2017, but opponents have stalled a companion bill in the Senate. Representatives also introduced a bill that would create
civil partnerships and give same-sex couples rights in adoption, insurance, inheritance, property, and medical decision-
making.

Key International Actors

In January 2018, the European Commission expressed strong concerns about the Philippines’ compliance with the human
rights obligations related to the trade preferences scheme from which it benefits.

In February, the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) announced that she would open a preliminary
examination into the “drug war” killings in the Philippines. The Duterte administration responded by withdrawing from
the Rome Statute, which takes effect in one year. In April, the European Parliament adopted a resolution calling on the
Philippines to put an end to the drug war and ensure accountability, and on the EU to use all available mean—including
suspending trade benefits if necessary—to persuade the Philippines to reverse its abusive trend.

Asian governments have expressed implicit or explicit support for the anti-drug campaign. The Indonesian government in
February awarded then-Philippine National Police Director-General Ronald dela Rosa its highest honor, the Medal of
Honor, for his “rock star-like inspiration to the Indonesian national police and the Indonesian people on how to fight the
war on drugs.”

In May, the South Korean Embassy in Manila and the Korean Police National Agency donated more than 130 vehicles to
the Philippines National Police despite its role in the “drug war” killings.

The US Congress regularly appropriates assistance to the Philippine government, including substantial financing for arms
sales as well as funds for law enforcement and military training. Law enforcement funding is restricted to drug user
treatment projects and marine and international interdiction programs. The US military also routinely provides the
Philippines military with second-hand military vehicles, ships, and non-lethal equipment.

Iceland led a joint statement on behalf of 38 states at the June session of the United Nations Human Rights Council
(HRC), building on two previous joint statements, condemning the extrajudicial killings and calling for “a more formal
Council initiative” if needed to hold the Philippines to its obligations as a member of the Council. It also called for the
Philippines to “cooperate with the international community” to ensure investigations into these deaths. On October 12, the
Philippines was elected to serve a second three-year term on the UN HRC, starting January 2019.

https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2019/country-chapters/philippines

Origin of Human Rights in the Philippines

Human Rights in the Philippines, or the absence of these rights, are better understood through the prism of colonialism.
Over the last 400 years the Filipino people have suffered under first 330 years of Spanish colonialism and then a further
45 years of American rule.  Under Spanish colonialism, many nationalists were killed simply for advocating
independence. The Spanish period was followed by a particularly brutal period of “pacification” when hundreds of
thousands of Filipinos were killed resisting integration into the new American Empire.
Following “independence” from the United States in 1945, the Philippines served as a testing ground for counter-
insurgency operation. Throughout the 1950s US advisors assisted the now independent Armed Forces of the Philippines
(AFP) with counter-insurgency operations.

With the declaration of Martial Law in 1972, human rights violations were institutionalised as an integral element of the
political control strategy of the Marcos dictatorship. Unlawful arrest, political detention and summary execution became
standard practices for the AFP in their struggle against popular democratic forces.

The end of the Marcos dictatorship in the mid-1980s however did not put an end to human rights violations. Under
Aquino, new political detainees again begin to fill the jails. In addition, military operation intensified creating tens of
thousands of internal refugees throughout the country, in the late 1980s. On another ominous note, extra-judicial killing
continued and leading activists were assassinated by military elements under the Aquino Presidency.

During successive regimes in the 1990’s human rights violations continued to be a problem but on a reduced level. This
changed dramatically with the 1998 declaration of War against the Moro peoples in Mindanao-Sulu by the Estrada
government. This launched another wave of internal refugees and witnessed massive violations of the rights of Moro
peoples through arbitrary arrests, political detention, and extra-judicial killings.

These phenomenon have become more widespread since Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo came to power.  As the army pursued
a more vigorous counter-insurgency strategy, human rights became the first casualty (under the guise of the “war on
terror”).  Members of legal political organizations such as Bayan, Bayan Muna and the human rights group Karapatan
were targeted for arrest and in some instances summary execution. Under the Macapagal-Arroyo regime nearly 2,000
members of civil society organizations were assassinated and hundreds more were imprisoned on trumped up charges.
International investigations of the situation by UN special rapporteur Philip Alston made direct connections between the
Armed Forces and the death squads responsible for the killings of the governments political opponents. 

Under the government of Rodrigo Duterte human rights have once again become a major concern.  The war on drugs has
resulted in an estimated 27,000 deaths,  the governments botched siege of Marawi in 2017 resulted in 1,000 civilian
refugees and more than 350,000 internally displaced persons. The declaration of Martial Law in Mindanao has produced
an occupation of Lumad communities and a spike the the killings of Indigenous,  Human Rights, Environmental and
Labour activists.  In December 2018 he gave instructions to the military to annihilate the Left and to kill activists in a
broad range of opposition civil society organizations.  Human Rights organizations fear the future in this context. 

https://ochrp.wordpress.com/2013/01/27/human-rights-in-the-philippines-a-brief-history/

The Current Philippine Policy on Human Rights

Philippines has ratified the following documents:

 Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhumane, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
 Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women
 Convention on the Rights of the Child
 International Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
 International Covenant Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

The following documents further define the obligations of Philippines:

 Beijing +5: Further Actions and Initiatives to Implement the Beijing Platform for Action
 Beijing Platform for Action
 Cairo Programme of Action
 UN Special Session on HIV/AIDS (UNGASS) Declaration of Commitment
  Universal Declaration of Human Rights

The documents listed above require Philippines to protect and promote the following rights:

Right to development
Right to education
Right to equal protection of the law
Right to freedom from inhuman or degrading treatment
Right to highest attainable standard of physical and mental health
Right to housing
Right to just and favorable work conditions
Right to liberty and security of the person
Right to life and survival
Right to marry and found a family
Right to non-discrimination on grounds of age
Right to non-discrimination on grounds of disability (i.e. HIV positive)
Right to non-discrimination on grounds of marital status
Right to non-discrimination on grounds of race and ethnicity
Right to non-discrimination on grounds of sex and gender
Right to non-discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation
Right to private and family life
Right to receive and impart information
Right to the benefits of scientific progress

Constitutional Protection of Rights

The Constitution of Philippines can be viewed at http://www.chanrobles.com/philsupremelaw1.htm

The Constitution of the Philippines is an important tool for the protection and promotion of human rights.

The Constitution enables the Philippines to translate international agreements into domestic law, and obliges all branches
of government to respect and ensure the rights it enunciates.

The Constitution provides for the protection of the following rights, among others. This empowers individuals in making
reproductive health decisions, and helps create the economic and social conditions conducive to good sexual and
reproductive health.

Right to a clean and healthy environment (art. II section 16)

Right to an adequate standard of housing (art. XIII section 9)
Right to education (art. XIV section 1)
Right to freedom from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment (art. III section 12(2), in relation to trial and
detention, and art. III section 19(2))
Right to freedom of association (art. III section 8)
Right to freedom of expression (art. III section 4)
Right to freedom of movement (art. III section 6)
Right to found a family (art. XV section 1)
Right to health (art. II section 15)
Right to just and favorable working conditions (art. XIII section 3)
Right to liberty and security (art. III section 1)
Right to life (art. III section 1)
Right to own private property (art. III section 1)
Right to participate in the affairs of government (art. XIII section 16)
Right to privacy (art. III section 3)
Right to receive information (art. III section 7)
Right to seek and obtain redress for violations of rights (art. III section 4)

The Constitution includes other provisions that promote and protect rights relevant for good sexual and reproductive
health.

The Constitution empowers women by requiring the Philippines to:

 recognize "the role of women in nation-building" and "ensure the fundamental equality before the law of women
and men" (art. II section 14)
 "protect working women by providing safe and healthful working conditions, taking into account their maternal
functions, and such facilities and opportunities that will enhance their welfare and enable them to realize their full
potential in the service of the nation" (art. XIII section 14).

Many principles of state policy are useful to further a policy environment conducive to good sexual and reproductive
health. The Constitution directs the Philippines to:

 "protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution," and "equally protect the life of the
mother and the life of the unborn from conception" (art. II section 12)
 promote and protect the development of youth and encourage their "involvement in public and civic affairs" (art.
II section 13)
 protect and promote "the right to health of the people and instill health consciousness among them" (art. II section
15)

The Constitution obliges the Philippines to take a number of measures regarding public health (art. XIII, sections 11-13).
The Philippines must:

 "adopt an integrated and comprehensive approach to health development"

 "endeavor to make essential goods, health and other social services available to all the people at affordable cost"
 give priority to "the needs of the under-privileged, sick, elderly, disabled, women, and children"
 "endeavor to provide free medical care to paupers"
 "establish and maintain an effective food and drug regulatory system"
 "undertake appropriate health, manpower development, and research, responsive to the country's health needs and
problems"
 "establish a special agency for disabled person for their rehabilitation, self-development, and self-reliance, and
their integration into the mainstream of society"

How can this be used? Whether this provision would apply to persons living with or affected by HIV/AIDS requires
additional research. For further research and information, please contact the Human Rights Working Group.

The Constitution addresses a number of social issues that relate to the underlying determinants of ill-health. It directs the
Philippines to:

 adopt policies that "provide adequate social services, promote full employment, a rising standard of living, and an
improved quality of life for all" (art. II section 9)
 "promote social justice in all phases of national development" (art. II section 10)
 value "the dignity of every human person" and guarantee "full respect for human rights" (art. II section 11)
 recognize and protect the family as a social institution (art. XV)
 "promote comprehensive rural development and agrarian reform" (art. II section 21)
  "give highest priority to the enactment of measures that protect and enhance the right of all the people to human
dignity, reduce social, economic, and political inequalities, and remove cultural inequities by equitably diffusing
wealth and political power for the common good" (art. XIII section 1)
 protect labor, promote full employment and ensure equality of opportunity for all (art. XIII section 3)
 provide adequate and affordable housing to under-privileged and homeless citizens, and to provide them with
employment opportunities (art. XIII section 9)

A number of principles of state policy support work with the private sector and civil society organizations. The
Philippines must:

 recognize "the indispensable role of the private sector," encourage private enterprise, and provide "incentives to
needed investments" (art. II section 20)
 encourage non-governmental, community-based, or sectoral organizations that promote the welfare of the nation
(art. II section 23)
 ensure "the right of families or family associations to participate in the planning and implementation of policies
and programs that affect them"

Other principles of state policy aim to promote good governance in the conduct of public affairs and public decision-
making:

 "maintain honesty and integrity in the public service and take positive and effective measures against graft and
corruption" (art. II section 27)
 adopt and implement "a policy of full public disclosure of all [?] transactions involving public interest" (art. II
section 28)

The Constitution provides for the creation of a Human Rights Commission with many powers of investigation,
consultation, adoption of measures necessary to protect human rights, and monitoring respect of the Philippines'
international human rights obligations (art. XIII section 17).
How can this be used? This provision creates a powerful enforcement mechanism which advocates can use to advance
sexual and reproductive health agendas. Moreover, it is the value added of human rights to public health to make public
authorities accountable for failing to ensure rights. For additional research or information, please contact the Human
Rights Working Group.

However, the Constitution allows restrictions to rights in certain cases.

The Constitution authorizes restrictions to the right to freedom of movement on the grounds of public health (art. III
section 6).

What do restrictions entail? By authorizing restrictions to rights, it is acknowledged that the Philippines may be
confronted with situations that will entail an infringement on rights. In such situations, the Philippines may take measures
to address a public health problem without violating its own constitution. Restrictions are authorized under international
law if all of the following conditions are met:

1. the restriction is provided for and carried out in accordance with the law
2. the restriction is in the interest of a legitimate objective of general interest (e.g., the protection of public health)
3. the restriction is strictly necessary in a democratic society to achieve the objective
4. there are no less restrictive means available to reach the same objective
5. the restriction is not drafted or imposed arbitrarily, i.e. in an unreasonable or otherwise discriminatory manner

http://www.policyproject.com/matrix/matrix2.cfm?country=Philippines