Summary record of the session 20/10/03
|
UNITED NATIONS
|
CCPR |
||
| International
covenant on civil and political rights |
Distr. GENERAL CCPR/C/SR.2138 Original: ENGLISH |
||
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE
Seventy-ninth session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE 2138th MEETING
Held at the Palais Wilson, Geneva,
on Monday, 20 October 2003, at 3 p.m.
Chairperson: Mr. AMOR
CONTENTS
CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS SUBMITTED BY STATES
PARTIES UNDER
ARTICLE 40 OF THE COVENANT
Second periodic report of the Philippines
This record is subject to correction.
Corrections should be submitted in one of the working languages. They should be set forth in a memorandum and also incorporated in a copy of the record. They should be sent within one week of the date of this document to the Official Records Editing Section, room E.4108, Palais des Nations, Geneva.
Any corrections to the records of the public meetings of the Committee at this session will be consolidated in a single corrigendum, to be issued shortly after the end of the session.
GE.03-44489 (E) 221003 231003
The
meeting was called to order at 3 p.m.
CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS
SUBMITTED BY STATES PARTIES UNDER
ARTICLE 40 OF THE COVENANT (agenda item 6)
Second periodic report of the Philippines (CCPR/C/PHL/2002/2; CCPR/C/79/L/PHL)
1.
At the
invitation of the Chairperson, the members of the delegation of the Philippines
took places at the Committee table.
2.
Ms.
GUTIERREZ
(Philippines) said that the Covenant had entered into force for the Philippines
on 23 January 1987. She reaffirmed
her country’s commitment to human rights and democracy, and paid tribute to
those who had given their lives in its long and bitter struggle for
independence. The capacity of her
Government to promote and protect civil and political rights had been
strengthened considerably during the period covered by the combined second and
third periodic report (April 1989 to February 2001).
While poverty alleviation had remained the highest priority, the
Government had also focused on national reconciliation and the consolidation of
democracy. It was fully committed
to cooperating with human rights organizations and promoting a free and
responsible press. Its human rights
strategy included training programmes for law enforcement officials, and an
extensive public awareness campaign.
3.
The
CHAIRPERSON
invited the delegation to reply to questions 1 to 20 of the list of issues (CCPR/C/79/L/PHL).
4.
Ms.
GUTIERREZ
(Philippines), replying to question 1, said that, in the case of People v.
Mercado, the appellants had asserted that the reintroduction of the death
penalty constituted a violation of the Covenant. However, the Supreme Court had ruled that capital punishment
was a legitimate limitation on the right to life, pursuant to article 6 of the
Covenant, provided it was used only for the most serious offences.
The Philippines had not in fact ratified the Second Optional Protocol to
the Covenant, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty.
Republic Act 7438 and Republic Act 7309, concerning the rights of
detainees and benefits accruing to the victims of unjust imprisonment,
incorporated the relevant principles of the Covenant.
5.
Referring to question 2, she said that State agents were bound by the
provisions of the Covenant. Moreover,
the Philippine Commission on Human Rights had been established to investigate
allegations of human rights abuses committed by State agents or other armed
groups, and domestic law provided for remedial measures in relation to such
abuses. Aggrieved parties were
entitled to bring separate civil suits for damages, without prejudice to
prosecution of the violators under criminal law.
Crimes against the fundamental laws of State, such as arbitrary
detention, searching domiciles without a warrant and disruption of peaceful
meetings, were punishable under articles 124 to 131 of the revised Penal Code.
6.
The Philippine Commission on Human Rights (question 3) had been
established to investigate human rights abuses by State agents during the
martial-law period, and was free to conduct inquiries without undue political
pressure. It was an independent
constitutional body, and its recommendations were given due weight and credence
by the Philippine authorities.
7.
Victims of human rights abuses (question 4) could seek remedies through
the Commission on Human Rights. On
the basis of recommendations by the Commission, the Department of Justice was
mandated to conduct preliminary investigations and file the appropriate charges.
Victims could also seek damages for violations of their constitutional
rights and liberties, such as illegal confinement, under article 32 of the Civil
Code.
8.
Recognizing its international obligations, her Government seriously
considered all requests for interim measures of protection from the Committee
(question 5). However,
implementation of its commitments, particularly in relation to domestic law, was
strictly the prerogative of the State party.
9.
Referring to question 6, she said that adequate human rights protection
was afforded to suspects in terrorist-related investigations, so that no one was
deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. Constitutional freedoms were guaranteed at all times, and the
privilege of habeas corpus could only be removed for a period not exceeding 60
days following invasion or rebellion or if public safety so required.
Counter-terrorism legislation currently before Congress contained
provisions to protect civil and political rights even in the context of the war
against terrorism.
10.
The Constitution provided that no person should be denied the equal
protection of the law, and prohibited all forms of racial discrimination
(question 7). Pursuant to article 3
of the Labour Code, the Government also had a responsibility to ensure equal
employment opportunities for all, regardless of sex, race or creed.
11.
Progress had been made in securing better participation of women in
political life, and many women occupied important positions in government
(question 8). Statistics concerning
the participation of women in public life would be submitted at a later date.
12.
Republic Act 7659 provided for the imposition of the death penalty
(question 9) for the following heinous crimes:
treason, rape, kidnapping, serious illegal detention, robbery with
violence, intimidation, destructive arson, plunder, the importation, delivery,
sale, possession or use of prohibited drugs, murder, piracy, mutiny on the high
seas or in Philippine waters, qualified bribery, parricide and infanticide. The reintroduction of the death penalty was justified by the
recurrence of rampant criminality, and served as a powerful deterrent.
In accordance with article 3 of the Constitution, it was only applicable
to the most heinous, odious and perverse crimes, which were an outrage to the
common standards of decency and morality in a just and civilized society.
The delegation would provide details of crimes that carried a mandatory
or possible death sentence (question 10) at a later stage in the discussion.
13.
Replying to question 11, she said that, as of 1 October 2003, a total of
979 death sentences had been handed down, of which 145 had been upheld by the
Supreme Court,
and 834 were still under review. There
had been 7 executions, and 145 prisoners were awaiting execution.
However, a moratorium had been declared on application of the death
penalty for offences other than drug-related crime, and debate over its
abolition continued in Congress.
14.
Several minors had been sentenced to death (question 12) because their
age had not been determined at the time of their trial.
Of those convicted, 20 had been released subsequently,
and 7 had been transferred to medium-security prisons, pending release.
The imposition of the death penalty on minors was prohibited by law.
15.
The Government was still investigating all cases of extrajudicial
killings (question 13), and was not in a position to provide information
concerning the assassination of two human rights defenders and the abduction of
two others in April 2003. If the
Committee was referring to the case of Eden Marcellana, which had been brought
before the courts, her delegation could provide further details.
16.
A non-governmental organization (NGO) which served as a member of the
Special Committee for the Protection of Children had reported the killings of 29
suspected criminals, including youth gang members and street children in Davao
(question 14). The Special
Committee had evaluated the witnesses to determine whether they qualified under
the witness protection programme, and the case had been referred to the
Commission on Human Rights. However,
there was still insufficient evidence for the appropriate charges to be filed in
court. The lack of cooperation of
vital witnesses, for fear of reprisals, and the lack of popular support for the
victims had impeded the collection of such evidence.
17.
Neither vigilante groups nor extrajudicial killings were permitted by
Philippine law (question 15). It
was unclear how many vigilante groups existed, in view of the clandestine nature
of their activities.
18.
A draft law on the punishment of acts of torture (question 16) was on its
second reading in Congress. Torture
was defined therein as any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether
physical, mental or pharmacological, was intentionally inflicted by, or at the
instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or
other person acting in an official capacity, for such purposes as obtaining
information or a confession, punishment, intimidation or coercion.
19.
The perpetrators of acts of torture, or anyone else present during the
perpetration of such acts, were liable to criminal prosecution. An order from a superior officer could not be invoked as
justification for torture. Torture
that resulted in the death of any person would be treated as murder.
As protection against ill-treatment, detainees were subject to medical
examinations and visits by representatives of the Commission on Human Rights.
The Constitution provided that anyone arrested for an alleged offence had
the right to remain silent and to be accompanied by appropriate legal counsel,
preferably of his or her own choosing. Any
confession obtained through torture or ill-treatment was deemed to be null and
void.
20.
The Government was taking steps to update its list of official places of
detention and to compile a database of detainees, which would be accessible to
the bar associations and the general public (question 17).
21.
Evidence obtained from a detainee in an unofficial place of detention was
presumed to have been obtained by irregular means (question 18). Where there were indications that any evidence had been
obtained through the use of force, intimidation, threats, undue pressure or
trickery, it was deemed inadmissible in court.
Under Republic Act 7438, any extrajudicial confession made by a person
arrested, detained or under custodial investigation should be in writing and
signed by that person in the presence of counsel or, in the latter’s absence
upon a valid waiver, in the presence of parents, elder brothers or sisters, or a
spouse, municipal major, municipal judge, district school supervisor, priest or
minister of the church, depending on the wishes of the person concerned.
Otherwise extrajudicial confessions were inadmissible as evidence in any
proceedings. Moreover, any waiver
made by a person arrested or detained under article 125 of the revised Penal
Code or under custodial investigation was null and void unless made in writing
and signed in the presence of counsel.
22.
Turning to question 19, she said that a pending bill in Congress, House
Bill No. 2433 entitled “Act Enhancing the Administration of Juvenile
Justice”, established the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention under the Department of Justice and a Juvenile Training Centre at the
Bureau of Corrections. Rules and
regulations governing the establishment of detention centres in coordination
with the Department of the Interior and Local Government had been issued to
local government units.
23.
Responding to question 20, she said that the Bureau of Corrections had
promulgated an operating manual to ensure uniform and humane treatment of
prisoners. It included provisions
for bedding and food to ensure that they complied with the United Nations
Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners.
24.
Mr. SHEARER
said he regretted that 13 years had elapsed since the State party’s submission
of its initial report. At the same
time, he welcomed the Philippine authorities’ openness to the work of both
local and international NGOs, which had provided the Committee with a wide range
of supplementary information.
25.
The delegation’s answers to questions 1 to 20 of the list of issues had
not been sufficiently detailed. In
particular, the Committee would have liked to know more about specific measures
to counteract impunity for human rights violations. It would appreciate a description, backed by statistics if
possible, of how the legislation mentioned by the delegation was implemented in
practice.
26.
The delegation’s response to question 5 concerning implementation of
the Committee’s Views under the Optional Protocol on the case of Carpo et
al. v. The Philippines had been extremely brief and somewhat dismissive.
He asked for further explanation of the Government’s reaction to the
Views.
27.
With regard to question 13, a number of NGOs and other sources had
informed the Committee that extrajudicial killings were a major problem in the
Philippines. According to the
delegation, the Government was still “consolidating” information on the
subject so that it could not yet be made public.
The case referred to was indeed that of the two human rights defenders,
Eden Marcellana and Eddie Gumanoy, who had been abducted by masked men and
shot dead in April 2003 on returning from a human rights fact-finding mission.
He was unsure what the delegation meant when it stated that the case had
been “filed in court”. Had the collection of evidence been impeded by intimidation
or fear of retaliation? He wondered
what kind of obstacles could be impeding the attainment of justice in respect of
such a serious violation of human rights.
28.
The delegation had referred to a “lack of popular support” for the
victims of the killings mentioned in question 14.
If the local population did not support vigorous action by the
authorities against extrajudicial executions or ill-treatment in those cases,
was it because of the victims’ political associations, their ethnicity, their
religion or some other factor?
29.
On question 15, the State party had said it was unable to verify how many
vigilante groups were currently operating.
He asked the delegation to explain the Government’s apparent inability
to take vigorous action against groups that so clearly violated not only
Philippine law but also the Covenant.
30.
Mr. RIVAS
POSADA said that
the delay in submission of the second periodic report of the Philippines made it
more difficult for the Committee to fulfil its human rights monitoring role.
Moreover, the State party had been unable to benefit from an ongoing
dialogue with the Committee. The
delegation had provided excessively detailed information on the institutional,
constitutional and legislative situation in the Philippines and insufficient
information about results achieved in practice.
He enquired about the rank of the Covenant in the constitutional and
legal hierarchy of the Philippines. What
happened where a provision of the Covenant was incompatible with domestic
legislation? The Committee was particularly interested in hearing about
practical measures to ensure that public officials did not enjoy impunity for
human rights violations and that victims of such violations were compensated, as
required by the Covenant.
31.
How did the functions of the Philippine Commission on Human Rights set up
in 1987 differ in practice from those of the Presidential Committee on Human
Rights set up shortly afterwards? He was particularly interested in hearing
about their respective investigative powers and their authority to institute
legal proceedings in response to reports of human rights violations.
32.
The delegation had mentioned provisions of the Civil Code recognizing the
right of victims of violations to pecuniary or economic compensation.
However, it had not provided a full picture of the compensation system.
It was unclear whether the mere acknowledgement by a judicial body that a
violation of a right had occurred was a sufficient ground for obtaining
compensation or whether additional judicial or administrative proceedings were
necessary.
33.
Mr. SCHEININ
commended the self-critical approach adopted in the State party but regretted
that the delegation’s answers to the questions in the list of issues had been
somewhat laconic. He also commended
the Philippines for its ratification of the Optional Protocol, permitting an
individual right of complaint which was not common in the region.
34.
With regard to question 5 of the list of issues, the delegation had
emphasized the principle of pacta sunt servanda.
While he agreed that the State party must comply in good faith with its
obligations under international law, he was troubled by the reference to its
prerogative in terms of enforcement of domestic law. In the case of individual complaints, the only way to comply
with its international obligations was to give the Committee time to conclude
its deliberations without taking such an irreversible step as execution of the
alleged victim, as had occurred in three cases. According to NGO sources, there were rumours that other
persons who had petitioned the Committee were scheduled for execution.
He asked the delegation to clarify whether the State party was committed
to refraining from executing a person whose case was pending under the
Committee’s individual complaints procedure.
35.
In the light of the reports submitted by the Philippines to the
Counter-Terrorism Committee of the Security Council, he was unsure whether
certain counter-terrorism measures taken by the State party were compatible with
the Covenant. In the second report,
for example, it had listed by name certain individuals classified as terrorists
who were currently detained pending trial.
How could that approach be reconciled with the presumption of innocence
and the guarantee of a fair trial? Both
reports stated that there was no Philippine law defining terrorism but the
Committee had heard from other sources that such a bill was pending before
Congress and would like to ensure that the definition was not unduly vague.
In some countries the crime of terrorism attracted heavy penalties but
did not include all necessary elements of crime.
The principle of legality - a non-derogable right under the Covenant -
was thus compromised. He wished to
be assured that the Philippine definition referred to terrorist intent only in
combination with an ordinary crime and not independently.
He understood from external sources that the proposed penalty for the
crime of terrorism was life imprisonment but that the death penalty was also
under discussion.
36.
With regard to requests for extradition, he asked whether the rule of
non-refoulement was absolute in the Philippines, so that nobody could be
deported if they were at risk of torture or other forms of ill-treatment.
37.
The Philippines had informed the Counter-Terrorism Committee of various
measures regarding exchanges of information, including the communication of
passenger lists. He asked what
human rights guarantees were attached to such cooperation when the country
concerned had not ratified the Covenant or the United Nations Convention against
Torture.
38.
The delegation had cited a number of political or domestic-law
justifications for the reintroduction of the death penalty.
What interested the Committee was the justification under international
law. The correct interpretation of
article 6 of the Covenant was that action to abolish the death penalty could not
be reversed. Capital punishment was
reserved for States parties that had not abolished it.
In that connection, he asked whether any crime had still been punishable
by the death penalty prior to its reinsertion in the Penal Code.
39.
Although the delegation had not yet provided the figures requested in
question 10, he had heard from other sources that 46 crimes carried the death
penalty and that the death penalty was mandatory in the case of 25 of those
crimes. The Committee had found
that mandatory capital punishment, where a court was left with no other option,
was an arbitrary deprivation of life within the meaning of article 6 (1) of the
Covenant. It had also interpreted
“most serious crimes” in article 6 as referring to a narrow category of
crimes, usually involving violence against a person leading to or intended to
lead to loss of life. The list of
crimes carrying the death penalty in the Philippines was far broader than that
interpretation. He asked the
delegation to elaborate on the concept of a “heinous” crime under domestic
law and of “most serious crimes” under the Covenant.
40.
Mr. ANDO
said that the long absence of a dialogue with the Philippines had been a major
handicap for the Committee. He
agreed with other speakers that the enumeration of legal and administrative
provisions in the report should be supplemented by details concerning
implementation.
41.
With regard to question 7 of the list of issues, he enquired about the
definition of race in the Philippines as a ground for prohibiting
discrimination. How could a person
claim that discrimination on grounds of race had occurred and what procedures
were in place to ascertain whether the claim was justified? Where it was found
that a claim was justified, what concrete remedies were available?
Referring to the Committee’s jurisprudence, he said that article 26 of
the Covenant was deemed to cover not only civil and political rights but all
public acts, whether judicial or administrative, including those relating to
social and economic rights. He
asked whether protection in the Philippines extended to all categories of
rights.
42.
Article 3 of the Covenant, which prohibited gender discrimination,
covered a wide range of issues relating not only to legal provisions but also to
education and awareness. He wished
to know what kind of awareness programmes existed at the primary, secondary and
higher levels of education and what kind of training was provided to ensure that
schoolteachers, law enforcement officials and judges did not violate article 3.
43.
Mr. KHALIL,
referring to paragraph 597 of the report, asked whether the delegation could
explain the discrepancy between the proposed new legislation on torture and
actual practice. There were
persistent reports of delays in effective investigation of cases, particularly
those involving suspected insurgents, and of a climate of impunity with regard
to ill-treatment of detainees during custodial investigation.
44.
In connection with paragraph 625, he said secret places of detention
still existed, despite the constitutional prohibition, and he wondered whether
the proposed legislation provided for their abolition. Was there a legal requirement to keep records of arrest and
detention, and if so, were such records available to directly interested
parties?
45.
Referring to paragraph 943, he said that, as one of the first States
parties to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Philippines had
introduced a wide range of legislation to protect children in conflict with the
law. Practice had not, however,
kept pace with the legislation: there
were still reports of ill-treatment of minors by officials and of minors being
held in the same cells as adults.
46.
Street children were particularly at risk.
They were sometimes beaten and handcuffed on arrest and many were
subjected to lengthy pre-trial detention, with delays in processing cases.
He wondered whether they were entitled to legal counsel.
The problem of street children in general perhaps called for closer State
supervision and support for NGOs working with children.
47.
According to the report, children appearing in court enjoyed certain
special rights, but instituting juvenile courts would surely help reduce the
number of children held in overcrowded prisons.
He wondered whether the Philippines was thinking of doing so.
48.
Mr. BHAGWATI
said it was the manner in which legislation was applied in practice that
impacted on ordinary people’s welfare, and he would have liked more details
concerning implementation. Referring
to paragraph 371 of the report, he asked what the composition of the Judicial
Academy was. How were its members
appointed, did they receive any practical training and to whom were they
answerable?
49.
With regard to the Philippine Commission on Human Rights, he said the
report gave no specific information on the number of members, how they were
appointed, whether they were removable and what their functions were. He wondered how many violations the Commission had
investigated and with what results. To
what extent were NGOs involved in the Commission’s work?
He would also like to know whether draft legislation was put to the
Commission in order to check for potential human rights violations.
Lastly, he asked how many recommendations the Commission had made and how
many of those had been implemented.
50.
The provisions of the Covenant had been incorporated into domestic law.
He wondered, however, whether any of the rights protected under the
Covenant had been directly invoked or enforced in court judgements.
Were violations of those rights punishable under the law?
With regard to the State party’s prerogative to accept the
Committee’s recommendations or not, he would like to know whether the
Committee’s recommendation in the specific case mentioned in question 5 of the
list of issues had in fact been followed, and if not, why not.
51.
Mr. YALDEN
said that, notwithstanding the volume of the report, there were regrettable
omissions. It was not sufficient,
for example, merely to make reference to the State party’s reports to other
treaty-monitoring bodies, particularly as in some cases they had been submitted
several years previously.
52.
The report dealt with the issue of racial discrimination but made no
mention of discrimination on other grounds such as gender, disability or
religion. He wondered whether the
Philippine Commission on Human Rights had jurisdiction to deal with complaints
of discrimination. How were such
complaints made and dealt with? Lastly,
referring to paragraph 467 of the report, he wondered what progress had
been made with the legislation on gay rights.
53.
Ms. CHANET
said one major question addressed at the time of the Committee’s consideration
of the initial report of the Philippines had been the issue of paramilitary
forces, militias and vigilantes. The
second report revisited the issue, albeit rather briefly, and there was a lack
of detail concerning the role and powers of the various military and
paramilitary forces. She wondered
what legal provisions governed the army’s use of paramilitary forces and
whether the Government had simply accepted the military’s denial of the
allegations of human rights violations mentioned in paragraph 547 without
instituting any commission of inquiry.
54.
The Committee had been informed during its consideration of the initial
report that the Philippine Commission on Human Rights was competent to deal with
violations committed by the armed forces, which would make it the strongest
national human rights institution in the world.
It was still unclear, however, how such violations were brought to the
Commission’s attention, so she would appreciate more information on the
subject.
55.
She agreed with her colleagues’ comments concerning the reintroduction
of the death penalty, and found it difficult to tell from the report whether
that penalty was imposed only for the most serious crimes, in accordance with
article 6 of the Covenant. The
plethora of amended legislation referred to in paragraph 508, for example, was
confusing. She wondered what
definition of torture the State party applied and what jurisdictions were
competent to deal with torture cases.
56.
Information concerning the situation of children in the Philippines was
alarming, particularly in the light of article 10 of the Covenant.
What was the minimum age at which a child could be arrested, and how was
that age determined, if not on appearance alone?
There were apparently seven children currently on death row, which was
difficult to reconcile with the fact that, under the law, the death penalty
could not be imposed on minors.
57.
Mr. KÄLIN
said he shared Mr. Scheinin’s concern at the delegation’s reply to question 5
of the list of issues. He was not
sure how to interpret the Government’s position given the comments of the
Supreme Court in its ruling on the Echegaray case, to the effect that the
Philippines could not “be deemed irrevocably bound by the said Covenant and
Protocol, considering that [those] agreements [had] only reached the committee
level”. Did the Government share
that opinion? If so, on what basis
did it deal with the Committee?
58.
There appeared to be a certain amount of confusion concerning the State
party’s obligations: on the one
hand, there was no doubt that the Philippines was fully bound by the Covenant
and the Optional Protocol, which were contractual obligations vis-à-vis all the
other States parties; however, the principle of pacta sunt servanda
should be distinguished from the issue of the extent to which the Committee’s
Views in a given case were legally binding.
Strictly speaking, its recommendations were not legally binding, but at
the same time the States parties had elected the members of the Committee and
entrusted them with the task of supervising implementation of the Covenant.
It was in that context that the Committee pronounced its Views and
recommended interim measures of protection, inter alia.
59.
He would like to know, therefore, how he should interpret the
delegation’s emphasis on the State party’s prerogative.
Did it imply, for example, that there was no need to take account of the
Committee’s Views when replying to follow-up questions to the Government?
Or did it mean that, in the Government’s opinion, recommendations for
interim measures of protection were indeed simply recommendations?
In fact such recommendations - unlike the Committee’s Views on a given
case - did not address the question whether or not a human rights violation had
been committed, but reflected the Committee’s insistence on the contractual
obligation undertaken by the State party to let the Committee consider cases
under the first Optional Protocol. He
would welcome clarification of the State party’s position concerning the
content of the duty to cooperate with the Committee.
60.
Mr. GLELE
AHANHANZO said he
would have appreciated some illustrations of the effect of legislation in
practice. Many references were made
in the report to amendments to legislation, but neither the original legislation
nor the specific content of the amendments was explained.
It was therefore difficult to tell whether developments in legislation
implied movement towards greater respect for the Covenant.
In particular, he requested concrete examples of implementation of the
measures mentioned in paragraphs 401 to 405 of the report.
61.
Referring to paragraph 406, he wondered what developments had taken place
with regard to human rights education since 1994.
What was the content of human rights education and what percentage of the
population actually benefited? He
wondered which of the Philippines’ eight main languages were used as
vehicles for human rights education, and in which regions.
Lastly, he would like to know what real impact human rights education had
had on levels of police violence.
62.
He asked whether there had been any evaluations of the work of the
Philippine Commission on Human Rights. He
would like to know what impact its activities had had on human rights awareness
among the public at large and on the functioning of State institutions.
Documentation on that point would be much appreciated.
63.
Mr. LALLAH
said a central issue was the Government’s attitude to its obligations under
the Covenant, and particularly under article 2.
Like other colleagues, he had been somewhat disturbed to learn of the
attitude adopted by the courts in the various cases mentioned.
64.
He expressed concern that the judicial authorities were not properly
apprised of the provisions of the Covenant.
For example, the Supreme Court had decided that the Philippines could not
be deemed to be irrevocably bound by the Covenant and the Optional Protocol
“considering that those agreements had reached only the committee level”.
He wondered what other level there could be in terms of the
implementation of the Covenant. All State authorities, whether legislative, executive or
judicial, had a responsibility to implement the obligations undertaken by the
Government. The role of the
Committee was to monitor the actions of those authorities and indicate areas of
concern. The delegation’s
response to the Committee’s comments in that regard had not been satisfactory;
it went without saying that States parties themselves were primarily responsible
for implementing the provisions of the Covenant and the Optional Protocol.
65.
Any efforts to reintroduce the death penalty were in violation of the
Covenant. Under no circumstances
did article 6 (2) of the Covenant constitute a derogation from article 6 (1).
Conversely, as indicated in general comment No. 6, all measures to
abolish the death penalty were considered as progress in the enjoyment of the
right to life.
66.
He was concerned about the Government’s discouraging attitude towards
NGOs working in the field of human rights in the Philippines.
According to reports, a representative of one such organization had faced more than 50
charges before the courts in connection with his efforts to promote and protect
human rights, but he had never been convicted.
The Government should be more supportive of the efforts by NGOs to
implement the provisions of the international agreements to which the
Philippines was a party.
67.
By ratifying the Optional Protocol, the Philippines had expressly
recognized the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider
communications from individuals who maintained that their civil and political
rights had been violated. One such
individual, Mr. Piandong, had exercised his right under the Optional
Protocol to bring his case before the Committee.
If he was executed before the Committee had the opportunity to consider
his case, the Government of the Philippines would be sending out a clear signal
that it did not take its obligations under the Optional Protocol seriously.
68.
He wished to know more about the role of the Philippine Human Rights
Commission, particularly as there were a number of cases of human rights
violations in which it seemed that the Commission could have intervened but had
not done so. One such case had
remained unresolved for 20 years. It
was unacceptable for human rights violations to go unpunished for such a long
time.
69.
Sir Nigel
RODLEY noted with
regret that the delegation had been unable to provide concrete examples of
specific measures that had been taken to fight impunity for violations of the
Covenant committed by State agents, and had failed to describe the extent to
which offences had been investigated and offenders prosecuted and punished.
It was equally disappointing that the delegation had been unable to
provide information about cases of extrajudicial killings.
70.
On 18 May 1995, 11 persons had allegedly been killed in cold blood on
Commonwealth Avenue, Quezon City, while in the custody of law enforcement
officials. At the head of the list
of those implicated in that crime had been Chief Superintendent Panfilo Lacson.
It was alarming that, despite the substantial evidence pointing to his
involvement, Lacson had never been found guilty and, moreover, had become a
senator. A number of legal measures
had been taken on behalf of the accused to prevent any kind of judicial action
against them. Furthermore, it was alleged that key witnesses to the crime
had been driven out of the country or intimidated into withdrawing their
statements. Further information
should be provided about the current status of the case. He would be interested in knowing, in particular, whether
there had been any formal court hearings or indictments against the persons in
question, and whether any measures had been taken in response to other
extrajudicial executions alleged to have been committed by the security forces.
He would also like to know on what grounds it had been decided that
deterrence was a serious justification for reintroduction of the death penalty.
71.
One of the bills to criminalize torture that were currently being
considered by Parliament appeared to contain a very narrow definition of torture
and referred only to acts by which pain or suffering was intentionally inflicted
on a person for such purposes as obtaining information or a confession.
He wondered why the definition provided in that bill did not reflect that
contained in the Convention against Torture.
He would be interested in knowing how long it would take for the
legislation to pass through Parliament and whether the issue was receiving
priority attention.
72.
According to reports, a confession in the Philippines was inadmissible
only if it was shown to have been obtained by improper means.
Furthermore, it appeared that there was a presumption that statements
made to the police had not been coerced. It
seemed that the burden was on the accused to prove that he or she had not been
tortured. He wished to know whether
the delegation considered it appropriate to place such a burden on a person who
was in the custody of the security forces.
73.
Ms.
GUTIERREZ
(Philippines) said that her Government was negotiating mutual legal assistance
treaties with receiving States to protect trafficked Philippine women and
children. Furthermore, it had
developed a set of implementing regulations in connection with the
Anti‑Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003.
All government departments and agencies working in the field of women’s
and children’s rights were required to institute information, education and
advocacy campaigns in order to raise awareness of the adverse effects of
trafficking in persons. Under the
new legislation, a set of guidelines had been established relating to the
interception, arrest and investigation of traffickers, providing for the
immediate filing of criminal charges against persons caught in the act of
trafficking persons in the Philippines. In
addition, trafficked persons were entitled to legal protection and immunity from
prosecution. The Anti-Illegal
Recruitment Branch of the Philippine Overseas Employment Association (POEA) had
incorporated a module on trafficking into its pre-employment seminars.
The question was also being addressed at the regional level in a campaign
targeting law enforcement officials.
74.
As of September 2003, some 3,000 cases of sexual exploitation of children
and child trafficking had been reported in accordance with the Special
Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act and
its implementing regulations.
75.
Under the Constitution, no arrest could be made without a warrant issued
by a judge. The exceptions to that
rule were set out in the Rules of Criminal Procedure, according to which a
police officer without a warrant was authorized to arrest a person who had
committed, was actually committing, or was attempting to commit an offence in
his presence or when an offence had just been committed and the police officer
had personal knowledge of the facts. That
provision did not run counter to article 9 (1) of the Covenant because, in such
cases, the police officer had more than sufficient evidence to suspect that the
person was guilty of the offence. Moreover,
it would not be practical for the police officer to secure an arrest warrant
from the court as the suspect would no doubt flee and the situation would render
law enforcement ineffective. In all
cases, arresting officers were obliged to inform the arrested persons of the
reason for their arrest and apprise them of their constitutional rights.
76.
Under existing Philippine laws, an accused person enjoyed the right to a
speedy trial and also the speedy disposition of his or her case. To further ensure that right, an Act to Ensure a Speedy Trial
of All Criminal Cases had been adopted in 1998.
The principal mandate of the Public Attorney’s Office within the
Department of Justice was to provide legal aid to poor litigants.
Between 1998 and 2002, the Office had granted legal aid in almost 800,000
cases. In the private sector, the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines and a number of NGOs provided free legal
assistance to those in need.
77.
The Philippine Constitution provided that no person should be deprived of
his or her liberty or property without due process of law. In all cases involving the deportation of undesirable aliens,
due process was observed. Administrative
hearings were conducted whereby such aliens were afforded every opportunity to
defend themselves. Under Philippine
law, summary deportation was authorized for overstaying aliens and in cases
involving the expiration or cancellation of passports.
78.
All civilians had a constitutional guarantee to the liberty of abode and
travel and could therefore not normally be displaced.
However, that guarantee did not apply during armed conflicts, when
displacements were sometimes necessary in order to protect the safety of
civilians. The Department of Social
Welfare and Development and the Department of National Defence were responsible
for providing food, clothing and shelter to displaced communities during an
armed conflict. The Mindanao
Coordinating Council had been established in order to eliminate the gap between
national policies on displacement issues and actual implementation on the
ground.
79. Her Government was not aware of any zoning operations conducted by the military against indigenous populations. Such operations were a violation of the right to liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. Without a search warrant, no member of the armed forces had the right to enter and search a person’s home.
80.
The imposition of a curfew for minors was considered by the Government to
be a reasonable way of protecting them from being victimized by criminal
elements in the streets. Through
the exercise of its police powers, the Government could regulate the movement of
minors during certain hours for reasons of public safety.
81.
Although there were a number of bills relating to the legalization of
divorce pending in Congress, the question was still being debated. Existing laws allowed only the annulment of a marriage and
legal separation.
82.
Under the Family Code, any child born out of wedlock was considered to be
illegitimate. In most cases,
illegitimate children enjoyed the same rights as legitimate ones.
Steps had been taken to amend the provisions of the Civil Code so as to
improve the inheritance rights of illegitimate children under certain
conditions. A bill allowing
children born out of wedlock to use their father’s surname had been approved
on second reading in August 2003. Under the new legislation, adopted children could inherit
from their adoptive parents.
83.
The Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labour Code had been promulgated in
order to ensure that employers properly implemented the provisions of the Labour
Code that set the minimum age for the employment of children, working hours and
security at work. Children below
the age of 15 could work only under the direct responsibility of their parents
or guardians in a non‑hazardous undertaking where the work did not in any
way interfere with their schooling. Young
persons between 15 and 18 years old could be employed in any non-hazardous work.
Employers could not discriminate against such persons with regard to the
terms and conditions of their employment on account of their age.
84.
The Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and
Discrimination Act provided that every child had the right to protection against
exploitation, improper influences, hazards and other conditions or circumstances
prejudicial to his or her physical, mental, emotional, social and moral
development. For example, any child
employed in the entertainment industry must give his or her express consent
before a contract was signed and no children were allowed to be used in
advertisements for alcoholic beverages or tobacco. The Special Committee for the Protection of Children
monitored implementation of the child labour legislation in force.
The meeting rose at 6 p.m.
