Roots, Rights and Respect: Human Rights and Human Wrongs: December 2005

Link to International HR Instuments

Link to International HR Instuments

Human Difnity Defined

A moral worth or status usually attributed to human persons. Persons are said to have dignity as well as to express it. Persons are typically thought to have (1) "human dignity" (an intrinsic moral worth, a basic moral status, or both, which is had equally by all persons); and (2) a "sense of dignity" (an awareness of one's dignity inclining toward the expression of one's dignity and the avoidance of humiliation). Persons can lack a sense of dignity without consequent loss of their human dignity. In Kant's influential account of the equal dignity of all persons, human dignity is grounded in the capacity for practical rationality, especially the capacity for autonomous self-legislation under the categorical imperative. Kant holds that dignity contrasts with price and that there is nothing -- not pleasure nor communal welfare nor other good consequences -- for which it is morally acceptable to sacrifice human dignity. Kant's categorical rejection of the use of persons as mere means suggests a now-common link between the possession of human dignity and human rights (see, e.g., the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights). One now widespread discussion of dignity concerns "dying with dignity" and the right to conditions conducive thereto.

Case Study: Palaparan Berdugo

HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH
A Second Brush with Palparan
Two of those who were recently killed in Central Luzon have had brushes before with Maj. Gen. Jovito Palparan, the man the victims’ relatives and friends claim as behind the killings.
BY DABET CASTAÑEDABulatlat
ANGELES CITY, Pampanga - The eldest son of slain Bayan Muna (BM) member Francisco Rivera, 34-year old Ricardo, was a picture of courage at his father’s funeral.
“Ang pagkamatay ng aking ama ay senyales ng pagsulong,” (My father’s death is a sign of the advancing people’s struggle) he said while staring at his father who lies in state at the Pangilinan Funeral Parlor in Angeles City, Pampanga.
The older Rivera, known to friends as Ka Kiko, died when unidentified men on board a white van strafed him and his friends, Dr. Angel David and Von John Maniti, while drinking coffee in a store in front of Rivera’s home in Barangay (village) Pulong Bato, same city.
All three died on the spot. Ka Kiko sustained nine gunshot wounds, most of which were at the feet and legs.
He was one of the five persons murdered in the Central Luzon region in a span of 21 hours, Oct. 25-26.
The alleged perpetrators, according to Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (New Patriotic Alliance or Bayan), were soldiers belonging to the 7th Infantry Division of the Philippine Army (ID PA) under the command of Maj. Gen. Jovito Palparan.
Since Palparan’s assumption of the post in September, 19 political dissenters have been killed in the region. The general has consistently denied the accusations but has said in media interviews that, “We have the authority to terrorize bad elements of society.”
Second brush
Teresita, 53, Ka Kiko’s wife, said it was his husband’s “second brush” with Palparan. The first was during the general’s stint as commander of the army’s 24th Infantry Battalion which operated in Pampanga, Bataan and Zambales from 1985 to 1993.
Ka Kiko was then an x-ray technician at the Angeles City General Hospital (ACGH). He was a founding member of the Medical Assistance Group (MAG)-Pampanga chapter, an organization of medical professionals who took part in community-based medical services.
As early as 1985, Teresita said Palparan had ordered the arrest of her husband and some 50 other residents of the village where they lived. They were detained for a week and projected as New People’s Army (NPA) surrenderees.
Ka Kiko was not the only activist recently killed in the region who has had a history with the general. Bayan Muna-Tarlac provincial coordinator Florante Collantes has had the same predicament, Bulatlat learned.
Collantes was a union leader in Bataan in the mid-80s. A friend, who requested anonymity, said Collantes was hunted by the military in the province because of his union activities. Collantes went into hiding and later went to Manila where he became an urban poor community organizer. His activities led to his arrest in 1988. He went missing for a few days only to be found later by friends hog-tied, badly beaten and half-dead.
On the same year, Collantes found his way to Tarlac where he opted to stay. He became Bayan Muna provincial coordinator in 2004.
A month and a half after Palparan took the top post of the 7th ID, Collantes was killed, allegedly by soldiers, on Oct. 15 inside his house.
Next generation
The Rivera family “expected” the death of Ka Kiko. They said he had been regularly receiving death threats since Palparan came back to town.
But the people whom their father had been helping need not worry, Ricardo said, because they would definitely continue their father’s legacy. “Kung inaakala ng mga pumatay sa Papa ko na masisindak kami sa ginawa nila, nagkakamali sila. Hindi kami manghihina, hindi kami mawawalan ng lakas na ipagpatuloy ang laban para sa tao,” (If my father’s killers thought we would be cowed by what they’ve done, they are mistaken. We will not weaken, we will continue to fight for the people) he said. Ricardo, who is also a Bayan Muna volunteer, was 14 years old when he joined the militant League of Filipino Students (LFS) in 1985. He said he has found a good example in his father who continued to serve the people despite the hardships and harassment from the military. Bulatlat

Case Study: CPR

The Rush for An Anti-Terror LawUsing the Calibrated Preemptive Response and Executive Order 464, the government crackdown on groups and individuals challenging the Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo presidency is in full gear. A people’s lawyer said martial rule will be in full circle once another fascist weapon, the Anti-Terrorism Bill, is signed into law.BY DABET CASTAÑEDABulatlatForcing another controversial vote, the House Committee on Justice approved the final draft of the Anti-Terrorism Bill (ATB) on Oct. 4, in an executive session attended by 31 of its 56 members. This is the same committee that killed the impeachment case against President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo Sept. 6.Since the voting happened in an executive session, media coverage was not allowed. But a reliable source from the House interviewed by Bulatlat said the committee was deliberating Section 4 (Terrorism; How Committed) of the bill when Rep. Marcelino Libanan (lone district, Eastern Samar) moved that the committee instead vote for or against the Sept. 28 draft.During the last public hearing on the ATB on Sept. 20, the committee deliberated on Sections 3 (on definition) and 4 for about three hours but could not agree on the issue. At that point, one of the bill's authors, Rep. Imee Marcos (second district, Ilocos Norte), moved that the Technical Working Group (TWG) meet to discuss the matter.A check with the committee secretariat showed that the TWG met twice, on Sept. 22 and 28. It came up with the final draft that was voted on by the committee on Oct. 4.The bill is expected to reach the Senate for deliberations this coming week if the majority once again prevails and the ATB is immediately approved during the next House plenary session. Once the Senate approves its own version, a bicameral committee will convene to enact it into law.On Oct. 5, the president certified the bill as urgent following reports of another suicide bombing incident in Indonesia, and persistent military intelligence reports that suicide bombers are now headed for Manila.By rushing the proceedings, the country may find itself with an Anti-Terror Law in the next two weeks.
Why the rush?Coupled with the Calibrated Preemptive Response (CPR) policy that practically bans street protests and freedom of expression and the controversial Executive Order 464 that prohibits public officials (including police and military personnel) to attend congressional investigations, the passage of an ATB makes martial rule in effect, public lawyers said."With this scenario," said Neri Colmenares, convenor of the Counsels for the Defense of Liberties (CODAL), "the president need not declare martial law but would have the same effect as such."Dean Pacifico Agabin of the Lyceum College of Law on the other hand said a formal martial law declaration would push people to go to the streets to defy it. "The president could be wise enough not to declare martial law so the people may still have the impression that we are under a democratic system even if we are not," he said in an interview with Bulatlat this weekend."In other words, the people are deceived into conformity. If martial law remains undeclared, it could preempt people power," he added. "She could rule in a military way without declaring it."Moreover, former Senate president and martial law prisoner Jovito Salonga said the president would not be capable of declaring Martial Law for two reasons: one, because the military is divided, and two, it is toothless under Section 7, Article 18 of the 1987 constitution that states, in part: "In case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it, (the President) may, for a period not exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law. Within forty-eight hours from the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, the President shall submit a report in person or in writing to the Congress. The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its Members in regular or special session, may revoke such proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall not be set aside by the President."Interviewed by Bulatlat, Salonga said the 1987 Constitution was drafted against the proclamation of martial law.WorseAgabin also said the ATB pending in Congress is even worse than the U.S. Patriot Act (PA) where it was supposed to be patterned.
He said while the Patriot Act is a law that authorizes electronic surveillance or outlaws money laundering for terrorists, "the proposed ATB will outlaw some forms of people power like we know it."
He said the ATB prevents rallies and demonstrations in public areas and streets - it penalizes any act that would endanger public utility, facility or transport system. The final draft also would consider transport and factory strikes which may become "violent" as "terror acts."For Colmenares, the most dangerous provision in the bill are Sections 8 (Proscription of Organization) and 9 (Membership in a Terrorist Organization). "These provisions are a recipe for frame-up and its purpose is to attack legal organizations," he told Bulatlat.He said these provisions violate the basic criminal principle of "you do the crime, you do the time" which means the criminal responsibility is not with the class but with the individual.Colmenares explains: For example a certain Pedro who is a member of an organization goes out in public and says he committed a terrorist act (that may not even be true), other members of the organization may go to jail for six years even if was Pedro who committed a crime. Thus, a person may go to jail for the acts of another person."And since there's immunity for witnesses, the person who squeals remains safe. This bill has a very loose way of implicating people and has a very nice way of immunizing the implicator," Colmenares said.Attack on oppositionRep. Roilo Golez (second district, Parañaque), one of the bill's principal authors, withdrew his authorship last week and has denounced the bill because it may be meant to be used against opposition lawmakers."This bill must be stopped. It's a draconian measure against the legal opposition," he said.The lawmaker, who also resigned from the president's political party at the onset of the congressional investigation on the "Garci tapes," said this bill would prevent Congress and Senate from investigating anomalies and scandals of the Macapagal-Arroyo administration.He added it is meant to augment EO 464 that is now under petition in the Supreme Court.The bill could also be used to curtail press freedom, Golez said. In Section 7 (Acts that Facilitate, Contribute to or Promote Terrorism), any media outfit that covers a congressional investigation can be part of the destabilization process against the government and will therefore be liable for a "terrorist act".Constitutional crisisThe current hostility between the Executive and the Legislative branches of government due to the CPR, EO 464 and the ATB could lead to a constitutional crisis, Salonga also said.A constitutional crisis, which Salonga said is a crucial moment or a very tense situation due to a breakdown in the relations of the two political departments of government, could arise once one of the two bodies insist on going over the other.Agabin however said this has been defused due the petition filed by the House Independent Block (that includes Bayan Muna, Anakpawis and Gabriela Women's Party) and other civil libertarians to the Supreme Court (SC)."The SC would have the final say on this and both branches of government are bound to follow its ruling," he said.A higher stage of constitutional crisis would however arise if one party does not abide by the SC ruling, he said. Bulatlat

© 2005 Bulatlat ■ Alipato Publications
Permission is granted to reprint or redistribute this article, provided its author/s and Bulatlat are properly credited and notified.

http://www.bulatlat.com/news/5-35/5-35-atb_printer.html

This story was taken from Bulatlat, the Philippines's alternative weekly newsmagazine (www.bulatlat.com, www.bulatlat.net, www.bulatlat.org).Vol. V, No. 38, October 30-November 5,, 2005

ANALYSIS
The Enemy Within
The call for a snap election is a sure sign of desperation, not among the opposition but among Mrs. Arroyo’s own allies, many of whom are beginning to realize how incorrigibly focused she is on staying in power, even if it be to the entire nation’s detriment.
By the Center for People Empowerment in Governance (CenPEG)Posted by Bulatlat
It would be too costly and too time-consuming. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo won’t consent to it. The Constitution doesn’t sanction it. And it probably won’t settle anything.
The call for a snap election is a sure sign of desperation, not among the opposition but among Mrs. Arroyo’s own allies, many of whom are beginning to realize how incorrigibly focused she is on staying in power, even if it be to the entire nation’s detriment.
Two of Mrs. Arroyo’s allies in the religious sector—one is tempted to describe them as among her “staunchest”—Cebu’s Ricardo Cardinal Vidal and the El Shaddai’s Mike Velarde, are said to favor an amendment to the Constitution that would allow snap elections which, depending on how fast Congress can convene into a Constituent Assembly and do its work, could presumably be done within a few months.
When confronted by the media, Cardinal Vidal displayed the kind of moral agnosticism for which some bishops of the Catholic Church are now well-known by refusing to say if he thought Mrs. Arroyo should step down. But he did say when asked what he thought of holding a snap election that an amendment was necessary for it to take place—which of course doesn’t answer the question but evades it.
El Shaddai’s Mike Velarde was not as evasive. Velarde, who expressed his distress a week ago over the unprovoked water-hosing of a group of participants in the October 14 prayer rally that tried to march to Mendiola, did not deny Senator Senator Sergio Osmena III’s claim that he and Vidal favor a snap election to resolve the political crisis.
Velarde’s, and probably Vidal’s, favoring a snap election is in the same category of desperation as former President Fidel Ramos’ advice to Mrs. Arroyo last week that she should cut her term short.
A snap election --if honest and fair-- would very likely confirm the results of several surveys which uniformly show Mrs. Arroyo’s approval rating to have hit subterranean levels. (An Ibon Foundation poll covering September and the first week of October this year, for example, found that her approval rating had fallen to negative 74.7 percent)
Such a result – assuming the election is honest and fair – would lead to the exact same thing Ramos wants: Mrs. Arroyo will have to cut her term short.
The only difference between the Velarde-Vidal proposal and Ramos’ is that Ramos is asking that Mrs. Arroyo voluntarily cut her term short. The Velarde-Vidal proposal would force Mrs. Arroyo, once the results of an honest snap election are in, to step down. The first would be a form of resignation; the second an ouster via an electoral process.
As expected, Malacañang has rejected both proposals and has instead proposed a plebiscite, in the apparent belief that a plebiscite would be easier for Mrs. Arroyo to win.
A plebiscite, in the first place, would have to convince the citizenry to go to the polls merely to answer a question with either a “yes” or a “no.” A snap election would be far more I interesting for them in that they could vote for the candidate of their choice—for either Mrs. Arroyo, or the alternative to her that Ramos said last week was not available.
The question in a plebiscite could be something like “Are you in favor of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo’s serving the rest of her term until 2010?” but it could very well also be phrased in such a way as to make a “no” practically impossible.
For example, the Commission on Elections that Mrs. Arroyo has in her pocket could frame the question into something like “Are you in favor of (Mrs. Arroyo’s) serving the rest of her term until 2010 as legally mandated by the results of the May 2004 elections and the Constitution?”
Beyond these possibilities, there is also the fact that any “solution” to the crisis that would involve the Comelec would be suspect, that body being in the first place central to the probability that Mrs. Arroyo and company manipulated the May 2004 elections.
In the end, a plebiscite or a snap election, unless the Comelec membership is radically changed and Malacañang is somehow forced not to intervene, would be no solution at all, and can even result in Mrs. Arroyo’s getting one more dubious mandate to add to her 2004 one.
The Ramos proposal Malacañang knows for what it has always been: a disguised call for Mrs. Arroyo to resign. But Mrs. Arroyo did say last July 8 that the package of which resignation later is an important part—Ramos’ declaration of support on the condition that she initiate Constitutional amendments—was acceptable.
It could not have been lost on her that what Ramos was actually saying was that she should resign—though at a later date rather than last July, specifically in the middle of 2006 once a new Constitution is in place and parliamentary elections are held.
That these proposals—all in effect saying that Mrs. Arroyo should step down, if not now, then later—are being made by some of her most important allies suggests that in their heart of hearts even these allies doubt Mrs. Arroyo’s mandate, and worse, that they doubt even more her capacity to surmount this crisis through, among other ruthless but eventually self destructive means, the suppression of free expression and assembly.
Of particular interest is the fact that the Commission on Human Rights itself has stated that it saw no legal basis for the CPR policy and the declaration of Mendiola as a no-rally zone, and that both are violative of human rights. This effectively undermines the regime’s claims that it is on solid legal grounds—in the context of a gathering “second wind” of the Oust Arroyo Movement.
And yet what other alternative does the Arroyo regime have except to withdraw into Fortress Malacañang, given its fear that the whole truth about what actually happened last May 2004 may finally come to light? Unfortunately, it is besieged not only from outside. There are mounting indications that its own allies are beginning to realize that the regime is simply incapable of rationally and effectively defending itself, quite simply because it is in the wrong. The enemy is now within. Bulatlat

© 2005 Bulatlat ■ Alipato Publications
Permission is granted to reprint or redistribute this article, provided its author/s and Bulatlat are properly credited and notified.

Rights Based Approach (CHR Philippines)

On Applying the Rights-Based Approach (RBA) to Development and Governance
Rationale for RBA
Philippine State Obligations to Implement Human Rights Standards
The Philippine is a state party to about 23 international human rights instruments under the UN system. Among these instruments are the following core human rights instruments:
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)
Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)
Convention Against Torture (CAT)
Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)
Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD)
International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families
UN Declaration on the Right to Development (RTD)
It is through the observance of these human rights standards that expanding choices and opportunities of the poor and vulnerable sectors of our society could be realized under the development process.
Need for Rights-Based Governance and Development Management
The realization of human rights is the goal of all development efforts. Governance manages development. This brings to the fore the importance of consciously and deliberately mainstreaming human rights standards in development and governance.
The Rights Based Approach (RBA for short) is a mainstreaming process to link human rights to development. As an approach to development, it essentially integrates the norms, standards and principles of the international human rights system into plans, policies and processes of development.
The RBA is founded on the UN Declaration on the Right to Development and on the various international human rights instruments to which the Philippines is a state party. Being a State Party means that the Philippine government has the primary responsibility, duty or obligation to comply with all the obligations in the ratified or signed treaties/instruments. The Philippine government and all its branches, agencies, instrumentalities and institutions will be able to comply with its obligations as it applies the RBA in governance and development.
RBA works in governance and development by facilitating the linkage between human rights and governance and development through the following:
a) Express linkage of any or all governance functions, programs and projects with human rights economic political administrative
b) Translating in operational terms HR principles, concepts, national and international standards and norms and its integration into the development plans, policies, programs and delivery processes of governance and development.
c) Programmatically applying national and international human rights standards and norms into governance decision-making, policy formulation and development, legislation, administrative issuances, development and fiscal planning, program, project and enterprise development.
d) Applying the concepts of state obligations, duty holder for both state and non-state actors, claim holder for people's rights entitlements and progressive organizational/institutional planning, review, audit and problem and situation diagnosis, etc.

Role of Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines (CHRP) in RBA Application
As the national human rights institution, both under the Philippine Constitution and the United Nation system, the CHRP shall perform the following different roles in the application of the RBA:

The RBA Framework in Development and Governance
As a result of consultations conducted by CHRP with government institutions, civil society organizations and the private sector, the following RBA framework was designed as a work in progress which ideally aims at the total convergence of human rights into development.

The total convergence means that human rights framework and principles /concepts of rights entitlements and state obligations and normative content of every right are applied systematically and methodically to development and governance processes at the strategic development planning, policy and legislation, administrative functions, programs, service delivery levels.

Function of Regional Offices in RBA
All offices, both at the CHRP Central and Regional Offices will apply the convergence of human rights and development through a conceptualization and operationalization of their individual functions along human development concerns using human rights criteria and
standards.
The 15 Regional Offices of the CHRP shall be responsible for the orientation of the local councils, LGUs , leagues of local officials, government agencies, non-government organizations and other members of the Civil Society on the RBA, providing advisory functions on the RBA at the local level and monitoring and evaluation of the progress of the RBA implementation at the local level.
The advocacy should include provision of RBA orientations to RDC Committees, local planners, regional offices, heads and faculty of academic institutions. It is a continuing commitment that should extend beyond 2004 until all duty holder agencies and individuals are oriented on the RBA to development and governance and will be applying RBA in their agency planning, budgeting, programming and policy formulation review.
Advisory of the Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines
The CHRP mandate under Article XIII 18, states among others the following powers and functions:
Article XIII
6. x x x
7. Monitor the Philippine Government's compliance with international treaty obligations on human rights;
8. x x x
9. Request the assistance of any department, bureau, office or agency in the performance of its functions.
For this purpose, the CHRP calls upon all branches of government, as duty holders through its attached regional departments, bureaus, offices or agencies including all LGUs , SUCs and all education regulating institutions such as CHED, TESDA, and DepEd to extend assistance upon appropriate representation of the Government Cooperation Office of the CHRP before all national government offices to the active and effective application of RBA in development and governance in their respective jurisdictions and as duty holders of specific human rights through any or a combination or all of the following activities:
• Actively conduct RBA orientation in their respective agency/office in which the key officials most especially those with official functions in development planning, program budgeting, legislation and policy formulation and review to attend the RBA Orientation. As a support to the human rights institution and in compliance with human rights obligations, any expenses in the conduct of the RBA orientation shall be charged to the account of the conducting agency/institution.
• Conscientiously apply the RBA in development planning, programming, budgeting and policy formulation or review in their respective agencies or offices, in accordance with the RBA framework and tools.
• Submit a periodic report as may be asked by the CHRP on RBA application in their agency/office, through its CHRP Regional office, as part of its compliance with state obligations under the human rights treaties signed/ratified by the Philippine government.
• Creatively craft an RBA best practice in their agency or office to serve as model in the contributions of the Philippine government to the goal of total convergence of human rights and development in keeping with the human rights treaty obligations.
To this end, it shall be the duty of all CHRP Regional Offices to provide the following to any regional agency or office or even Civil Society Organizations ( CSOs ) who desire to conduct RBA orientations and apply RBA in their agency/office:
• Trainors or resource speakers for the conduct of RBA orientations and application workshops;
• RBA user friendly materials to supplement or enrich knowledge gained from RBA orientations and workshops; and
• Other technical assistance or consultancy services to enable or capacitate the agency or officeapplying RBA in development planning, programming, budgeting and for policy formulation and/or review in their respective jurisdiction or chosen level of application.
Quezon City, 23 June 2004

Human RIghts by Jose Diokno

HUMAN RIGHTS By Jose W. Diokno

In this article, the late human rights lawyer and statesman Jose W. Diokno (d. 1987) reduces the question of human rights to its very basic elements, and provides a simple view remarkable for its clarity. It remains a classic Filipino document on human rights.
Each of the great documents on human rights enumerates more than 20 human rights. Because so many are listed, many of us find it hard to grasp their scope. So let us start with the basics.
First. None of us asked to be born. And regardless of who our parents are and what they own, all of us are born equally naked and helpless, yet with his/her own mind, his/her own will and talents. Because of these facts, all of us have equal right to life and share the same inherent human dignity. The right to life is more than the right to live: it is the right to live in the manner that befits our common human dignity and enables us to bring our particular talents to full flower. So each of us individually has three basic rights: the right to life, the right to dignity and the right to develop ourselves. These are traditionally known as the right of man.
Second. Even if we may not know who our parents are, we are never born without parent, and never live outside society, a society with its own peculiar culture, history, and resources. So besides our rights as person, we have the right as a society, rights which belong to each of us individually but which we can exercise collectively as a people. These rights are known as the rights of the people. They are analogous to the rights of man, and like the latter comprise three basic rights: to survive, to self-determination, and to develop as a people.
Third. Once a society reaches a certain degree of complexity, as almost all societies have, society can act only through government. Bur government always remains only an agent of society; it never becomes a society itself; it never becomes the people themselves. It is always and only an instrument of the people. Moreover, since the government is composed of men/women, each with his/her own interests and his/her own frailties, it usually happens—in fact it happens too often – that government does not seek the people’s welfare; on the contrary it oppresses the people.
These facts lead to two conclusions.
One is that, when we speak of national security, what we refer or should refer to is the security of the people, not of the governors; and when we speak of economic development, what we are talking about or should be talking about is the improvement of the standard of living of the people, not the enrichment of the governors.
The other conclusion is that since the government is merely an agent of the people, people have the system of government itself; and when the people cannot do so peacefully, they have the right, in the language of the preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, "to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression".
All the rights of men/women and all the rights of the people stem from those three basic principles.
From man’s/women’s first basic rights—his/her right to life—spring our rights to: health, own property, work, form trade unions, strike, social security, rest and leisure, move about freely within our country and freely to leave and return to it, marry, establish a family and exercise the rights of parents.
Analogously, the right of the people as a people to survive is the source of our people’s rights to: peace, non-aggression and share in international trade, receiving a just price for our products and paying no more that is fair for the products of other countries.
Man’s/woman’s second basic rights – his right to human dignity – is the source of our rights to recognition everywhere as a person, to honor and reputation, to freedom of thought, of conscience, of religion, of opinion and expression, and to seek, receive and impart information, to peaceful assembly with our fellows, to equal treatment before the law, to privacy in our family, our home and our community, as well as from arbitrary arrest, detention or exile, to be presumed innocent of crime or wrong, to fair trial, and so forth.
The analogous rights of the people to self determination is the root of our people’s rights to sovereign equality in international affairs and international organizations, to freedom from all forms of racial discrimination, to political independence and freedom from colonialism, neo-colonialism, alien domination and intervention in our national affairs, to sovereignty over our natural resources and over all economic activities, to control the activities of foreign investors and transnational corporations, and to nationalized and expropriate their assets, and freely to choose and change our political, social, cultural and economic system.
Man’s/woman’s third right – his/her right to develop – is the source of our rights to an education, to share in the cultural life of our community, to form associations with our fellows, and to live in a national and international order that allows all our rights to flower and be respected.
Similarly, the people’s right to develop as a people implies the rights to freely choose the goals and means of development to industrialize the economy, to implement social and economic reforms that ensure the participation of all the people in the process and benefits of development, to share in scientific and technological advances of the world, and as a former colony, to reparation and retribution for the exploitation to which we have been subjected.
No one has ever doubted that the rights of the people are all of peace. Equally so are the rights of man/woman. But for convenience, the rights of man/woman have been divided into two broad kinds: economic, social, and cultural rights on the one hand, and civil and political rights on the other. This distinction has led so much argument about which kind should be given priority and whether one kind can be sacrificed for the other.
My experience has convinced me that these arguments are silly. As lawyer of small farmers, fisherfolk, workers, students and urban poor, many of whom have been detained, most of whom have been threatened with detention—a few of whom have been shot and wounded when they were peacefully exercising their rights of assembly—I have learned the painful lesson that we cannot enjoy civil and political rights unless we enjoy economic, social and cultural rights, anymore that we can ensure our economic, social and cultural rights unless we can exercise our civil and political rights. True, a hungry man/woman does not have much freedom of choice. But equally true, when the well-fed man/woman does not have freedom of choice, he/she cannot protect himself against going hungry.
A more useful distinction than between economic and political rights is this: that some of man’s/woman’s individual rights are absolute, others are not. Rights which are absolute cannot be limited in any under any circumstances, not even under the gravest of emergencies. Such are for example, the right to freedom of thought, of conscience, of religion, to be everywhere recognized as person, to be free from torture and from cruel, degrading and inhuman treatment; and of course, the right not to be deprived of life arbitrarily. Not only may these rights never be denied, but nothing justifies imposing any limitation on them.
On the other hand, the rights may be and in fact must be limited to preserve social life. Such are for example, the right to freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, and freedom of association. To be valid however, limitations placed on these rights must meet three conditions: first, they must be provided by law, not by executive whim; second, they must be necessary to preserve society, or protect public health, public morals, or similar rights of others; and third, they must not exceed what is strictly necessary to achieve their purpose.
These rights and some others—such as, for instance, the right to be free from arbitrary detention and arrest and the right to a remedy for every violation of fundamental rights—may even be denied in times of grave emergency. But to justify such a denial, the emergency must be so grave that it truly threatens the life of the nation; the existence of the emergency must be publicly proclaimed; and the denial may go no further than is strictly required by the exigencies of the situation.

Notes:Human Rights Primer

Notes of Justin v. Nicolas: Primer on Human Rights
What are human rights?
A right is a claim or entitlement that someone can assert before someone else. It is exercised to the extent that it does not interfere with the rights of someone else. It has been said that one person's right is another person's duty.
Rights are determined from human needs. All persons wish to attain the fullness of life and aspire to achieve a status of being not only to stay alive but also to maximize their human potentials. People establish states and governments in order to build societies that can best fulfill all human needs. Human Rights are that which make us human. In a very real way, States have a duty to do everything in their power to ensure the development of the human person. Thus, a human right is an entitlement or legal claim you - by virtue of being human—have against the State.
Human Rights are enshrined in our moral and legal systems. All societies have different laws that recognize, advance and protect human rights. It is for these reasons that we observe that human rights are protected in the Constitutions and national laws of many States around the world.
Human Rights are likewise recognized by the community of nations and are protected by various international enforcement mechanisms. Human Rights are also protected by treaties which governments have signed to oblige them to ensure that rights and freedoms will be protected in their territories.

What precipitated the recognition of these rights?
The principles that form the basis for human rights are as ageless as the history of humanity itself. However, it was not until the end of the World War II that the member States of the newly established United Nations agreed on a Universal Declaration of Human Rights and set down for the first time a list of human rights and fundamental freedoms. These are considered by the community of nations to be basic minimum standards by which governments should treat citizens.
As member states of the United Nations, All countries pledge to promote, respect, and observe the human rights recognized under the United Nations Charter. There exists an International Bill of Human Rights and other human rights conventions that make up a set of standards called international human rights law. Because of these developments, how a government treats its citizens is now a legitimate concern of the international community.
Former Secretary General of the UN, Boutros Boutros - Ghali, said that:
It is the State that the international community should principally entrust with ensuring the protection of individuals. However, the issue of international action must be raised when States prove unworthy of this task ... and when—far from being protectors of individuals—they become tormentors... In these circumstances, the international community must take over from the States that fail to fulfil their obligations.
... whether a State has the right to expect absolute respect from the international community when it is tarnishing the noble concept sovereignty by openly putting that concept to a use that is rejected by the conscience of the world and by the law. Where sovereignty becomes the ultimate argument put forward by authoritarian regimes to support their undermining of the rights and freedoms of men, women and children, such sovereignty - and I state this as a sober truth— is already condemned by history.
Slowly but surely governments are becoming aware of the importance of a good human rights record. A poor human rights record reflects badly on governments. It is bad for the image of the country; it is bad for business. Previously, governments have been able to get away with violations partly because people do not know what are their rights in law. For this reason, the slogan of the World Conference in Vienna was:
Human Rights: Know them, Demand them, Defend them.
Educating people, informing them and the outside world of what is happening will make it difficult for the State to issue credible denials or claim ignorance and may make the international community act.
Who are entitled to the enjoyment of these rights?
You do - they belong to every human being. They are UNIVERSAL, INALIENABLE, INTERDEPENDENT and INDIVISIBLE. They belong to everyone EQUALLY. Everyone is born with the same rights. They cannot be taken away, lost or surrendered regardless of a person’s character or status in life. A person’s rights must at all times be respected.
Which of all these rights come first?
None of them. They are all interrelated and indivisible. The pledge all member states of the United Nations take to advance human rights is a pledge to promote all human rights, as the General Assembly has observed:
Promotion and protection of one category of rights should never exempt or excuse States from the promotion and protection of another.
What does respect mean?
To respect the rights of another person is to value that person's humanity rather than just that person’s personality. Respecting human rights involves:
a conscious effort to find our common essence beyond our apparent divisions, our temporary differences, our ideological and cultural barriers.
— Boutros Boutros-Ghali, UN Secretary-General, in opening the World Conference on Human Rights 1993)
Human Rights is about protecting individuals from discrimination. Persons should not be discriminated against simply because of who they are or what they believe in.
Why should we respect the rights of persons who themselves have shown no humanity or respect for other people’s rights—such as torturers, murderers, and other criminals?
Because s/he is still a human being. Everyone has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty, otherwise how do we know that s/he committed these serious crimes? Everyone has the right to a fair and public hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal and to be sentenced according to law if found guilty. This is what is meant by the rule of law.
Of course criminals should be brought to justice. However, the law is not about passion or emotion. It is about establishing what happened and attempting to ascertain the truth. This involves listening to each side and giving the person a chance to explain his/her actions. The law must after all hear before it condemns. Respecting human rights does not imply condoning the wrong committed – as justice requires that punishment be imposed after due process of law – but it is always about recognizing the humanity of other persons.

What is the difference between a human rights violation and a criminal offence?
Both involve wrongdoing. A crime is an act done by one or more persons that violates the domestic law of the country which forbids certain things from being done or considers certain acts to be harmful to society. A human rights violation, on the other hand, is committed by the State through its agents (the police, armed forces and anyone acting with the authority of the State) against the individual. It may also be a crime if domestic law has chosen to characterize it as such—as it should.
But aren't 'human rights' something imposed on the rest of the world by the West?
Human rights are not a western invention, nor do they encompass merely western values. They are to be found in each culture and in each of the world's great religions. Emphasis may vary from region to region and from country to country. Nonetheless, they represent the common bond that binds each individual to a common humanity—because all persons, regardless of where they are from are imbued with these rights.
These all sounds very political. Why should I be concerned?
The issue of "Human Rights" is a political issue. It concerns the relationship between the State and the individual. But it is also a legal issue. Your right to life, liberty and security is your legal right not to be arbitrarily arrested, detained or "disappeared" and killed. When you demand the government respect this or any other right, your legal right becomes a political demand.
Where a government ignores the will of the people and goes further and seeks to suppress the will of the people, it becomes a tyranny. As such, it loses the legitimacy by which it pretends to govern. All persons must become aware of their rights and be prepared to defend them. Likewise, we should all be prepared to stand up for the rights of others in order to secure our own.
A religious leader once wrote:
First they came for the Jewsand I did not speak out -because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the communists and I did not speak out - because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade-unionistsand I did not speak out - because I was not a trade-unionist.
Then they came for me -and there was no one left to speak out for me.
- Pastor Martin Niemoller
What about the atrocities committed by armed opposition groups—aren't they human rights violations too?
Understandably, they are in the minds of the victims and their relatives. The State, of course, has the obligation to obtain justice for violations of the crimes of public order. The atrocities committed against individuals by armed opposition groups in the name of a cause or political goal also violate the basic standards by which human beings live. In moral terms there is little to distinguish them; but in legal terms, they are quite separate. Human Rights is primarily concerned with the way States behave towards individuals. The law is there to regulate the state in its use of power and to protect the individual from abuse.
Prepared by: Chito Gascon National INstitute for Policy Studies

SOURCE: THE HUMAN RIGHTS HANDBOOK by English & Stapleton

Roots, Rights and Respect: Human Rights and Human Wrongs

Tuesday, December 20, 2005

Link to International HR Instuments

Link to International HR Instuments

Human Difnity Defined

Case Study: Palaparan Berdugo

Case Study: CPR

Rights Based Approach (CHR Philippines)

Human RIghts by Jose Diokno

Notes:Human Rights Primer

About Me

Links

Previous Posts

Archives