We are writing to you regarding the position you have taken, as reported the Philippine Daily Inquirer on November 4, 2006, following the Philippines’ election on November 2, 2006, as a member of the United Nation’s Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). The Philippines received the most votes in the election, gaining 188 out of 192 votes. 18 seats to the 54-member Council were being contested in this election.
You were quoted as having lauded Ambassador Lauro Baja Jr., the permanent representative of the Philippines to the UN for [his] “engineering an exceptional win for the Philippines, despite criticisms and negative reports from non-governmental organizations and the media.” Your remarks seem to discredit NGOs and the media for any “negative” reports concerning the country’s human rights record and imply that these reports are unhelpful, and this despite the unquestionable fact that a large number of extra-judicial killings and forced disappearances are being perpetrated in the country.
While it can be said that the election of the Philippines to the ECOSOC Council is a victory at the diplomatic level for the country, this should not be seen as a vindication of the Philippines’ human rights record or a laundering thereof.
Having taken this position, can you confirm that you believe that the government’s current human rights record enables it to have the credibility and reputation required to represent the global community? Are you convinced that the government is in fact conducting itself in line with the highest standards concerning the implementation of human rights recognized in the International Covenants and Conventions to which the Philippines is party? Are you of the opinion that the government is effectively implementing its laws on economic and social reform, more specifically the Social Reform and Poverty Alleviation Act (RA 8425), Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 (RA 6657) and Urban Development and Housing Act (RA 7279)?
Furthermore, do you claim that your office has adequate capacity and the Constitutional mandate to investigate, seek justice and provide compensation for human rights victims involving economic and social rights?
We are disappointed by the position you have taken, since we do not believe that the situation of human rights in the Philippines is in any way a matter that can be celebrated, or that the Philippines can be considered as a credible ambassador of human rights at the international level. The attack on the credibility and roles of NGOs and the media from a person in your position is a serious concern. We strongly believe that the above questions require clear answers, in light of your recent comments. It would be interesting to understand how you can characterize the situation in the country as anything other than “negative” at present.
We would also like to draw your attention to why we believe the Philippines, under the current administration, does not deserve its ECOSOC seat or its membership in the UN Human Rights Council.
Extra-judicial killings and disappearance of social activists continue unabated
The relentless extra-judicial killing and forced disappearance as well as the continuing threats to activists and leaders from various sectors, including peasants seeking genuine land reform, fisher folks, the urban poor, labour groups and indigenous peoples’ groups, are a stark manifestation not only of the government’s inability to protect the lives of its citizens but also the undue punishment of those who seek to protect them. You are aware of the number of cases sent to your office and the fact that most of the perpetrators of these acts have not been identified, arrested and charged in court. In cases where suspects or perpetrators have been identified, there are rarely arrests and, even when there are, such cases are showing little or no progress in court. The activists and leaders facing threats, along with their families, have not been afforded any meaningful protection. The continuing insecurity of witnesses of killings and the families of the deceased is preventing the effective prosecution of perpetrators in court.
Ineffective implementation of poverty alleviation, agrarian reform and urban poor development laws
On Social Reform and Poverty Alleviation Act (RA 8425):
In September 2005, we sent you hunger-related cases from General Santos City, the Municipality of Alabel in Sarangani and Guindolungan, Maguindanao. These cases involve hunger-related deaths, severe malnutrition, villagers being forced to eat poisonous frogs for lack of food, children forced to sleep with empty stomachs and villagers facing continuing threats of hunger due to sporadic fighting. Although interventions were made on this, the AHRC is unaware of any sustained support afforded to the affected families to combat the hunger and malnutrition. In fact, the family of an infant who died due to severe malnutrition in General Santos City is still experiencing hunger and extreme poverty to date.
Even the creation of the National Anti-Poverty Commission (NAPC), which was mandated under Section 5 of RA 8425, to formulate and review policies on poverty-reduction, has had no significant positive impact on the lives of the majority of its planned beneficiaries. The rising number of hunger incidents all over the country underlines thee ineffective implementation of the NAPC’s poverty-reduction and social reform program.
On Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 (RA 6657):
After RA 6657 was enacted, most of the land reform beneficiaries have not been able to claim land ownership as provided for by the land reform law. Peasants and land reform beneficiaries are killed and harassed almost daily for asserting their Constitutional rights to land ownership. Some of the land reform beneficiaries were even only made aware of the law years after it was enacted. This is true of the cases of farm beneficiaries in Bondoc Peninsula in the province of Quezon, in Hacienda Luisita in Tarlac and in Balasan, Iloilo, as well as in other similar cases of farmers seeking genuine land reform around the country.
On Urban Development and Housing Act (RA 7279):
Although this law requires that relocation sites should be made available before urban poor villages are demolished, in practice, they are not. The AHRC is aware of a number of cases where urban poor villages have been illegally and violently demolished, with villagers being denied relocation sites and losing their livelihood due to these forced evictions. Take the case we sent to your offices regarding the settlers in Dacudao Compound in Agdao, Davao City in March 2005 and in Mactan, Lapu-lapu City in September 2006. These state-perpetrated forced evictions have had a significant negative impact on the lives of the affected settlers. They were not provided with relocation sites, compensation or alternative means of making a livelihood in order to ensure their subsistence. This is a further illustration of the government’s complete disregard for its citizens’ rights to adequate housing and economic rights.
Alongside these issues, the AHRC is also concerned that the Human Rights Commission does not have the Constitutional mandate to intervene with regard to economic, social and cultural rights violations. We are aware that Article XIII, Section 18 (1) of the Philippine Constitution stipulates that “the [Commission on Human Rights] investigates¡Kviolations involving civil and political rights.” While we appreciate that there have been efforts by the Commission to include investigation on economic, social and cultural rights violations, we are deeply concerned by its lack of a Constitutional mandate to carry out these activities. We strongly believe that unless the Commission has had a clear mandate it cannot effectively function and perform its duties. We are aware that the Commission’s ability to investigate violations of economic and social rights is restricted by mandate limitations. The capabilities of the Commission’s investigators concerning labour and agrarian related cases are not satisfactory.
How can the Commission perform its duties and function effectively with regard to economic, social and cultural rights when it has no Constitutional mandate to do so? What is the Commission doing to have this situation changed?
The AHRC is seriously concerned by your comments, notably as they appear to brand the media and NGOs as disruptive and “negative” forces when they take up human rights issues. The media and the NGOs play a significant role in the protection and promotion of human rights and in attempts to make the authorities accountable for their actions where violations occur. These activities should be welcomed by the Human Rights Commission, if it is indeed itself engaged in the protection and promotion of human rights in good faith. It is vital that the Human Rights Commission fulfill its mandate in a transparent and independent manner if it is to be of any value to the people of the Philippines – not just to the country’s authorities.
We trust that you will give serious consideration to these matters and will make a public statement of acknowledgement of the gravity of the human rights situation in the country and the importance of the roles of the free press and NGOs with regard to human rights and the creation of a just and humane society in the Philippines.
Yours sincerely,
Basil Fernando
Executive Director
Asian Human Rights Commission
