On the Proposed Law Legalizing Euthanasia

          To be known as the Magna Carta of Patients' Rights is House Bill No. 564 introduced by Representatives Raoul B. del Mar, Oscar R. Rodriguez, Hilarion J. Ramiro, Jr., Robert Ace S. Barbers, Ma. Catalina Loreto-Go, Julita Lorenzo-Villareal, Gerardo S. Espina and Gorgonio P. Unde. The bill seeks to declare the rights of patients and prescribing penalties for violations thereof. In general, the bill has laudable motives to declare as the policy of the State to insure and protect the rights of patients to decent, humane and quality health care.

          Included in said bill, however, is Section 4 (7), which reads:

 "The patient has the right to refuse diagnostic and MEDICAL treatment procedures, provided, that a) he is of age TWENTY ONE and (of sound mind) MENTALLY COMPETENT; b) he is informed of the medical consequences of his refusal; c) he releases those involved in his care from any obligation relative to the consequences of his decisions; and d) his refusal will not jeopardize public health and safety.

An adult with a sound mind may execute an advance directive for physicians not to put him on prolonged life support if, in the future, his condition is such that there is a little or no hope of reasonable recovery. The qualifications listed as a, b, and c of the preceding paragraph shall e considered as satisfied if a patient whose condition makes him unable to express his will executed an advance directive."

          The said provision will lead to "euthanasia" or the termination of the patient's life. A similar bill, House Bill No. 8148, was filed in the House of Representatives last year authorizing the patient to terminate his life upon his will or with the assistance of a physician. With the opposition from several quarters including the CHR, the bill was not acted upon by the House of Representatives.

          To make it more acceptable, the present bill allows the patient to refuse diagnostic and medical treatment procedures. The conditions are that the patient is mentally competent, is informed of the medical consequence of the refusal, and to release those involved in his case of any obligation relative to his decision, and lastly, his decision will not jeopardize public health and safety. Said provision is still "euthanasia" or mercy killing.

          "Euthanasia" is defined as the "termination of human life by painless means for the purpose of ending physical suffering." It is a form of suicide and violates the Constitutional policy that the State values the dignity of every human person (Article II, Sec. 11, Philippine Constitution). Any act or omission which in itself or by deliberate intent causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes murder and is contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to his Creator.

          The aforesaid provision also involves the moral obligation of the attending physician to administer proper medical treatment. The bill allows the physician to violate the Hypocratic Oath taken by all persons who are admitted to the medical profession and swear to protect the life of their patients. The provision makes the physician criminally liable under Article 253 of the Revised Penal Code for giving assistance to suicide.

          Section 4(8) of the bill also allows the patient to terminate his life even if it is contrary to his religious belief. This provision destroys and degrades the sacredness of religion and the basic rights of religious freedom.

          The Commission on Human Rights issues this Advisory for all concerned of the grave consequence of Section 4 (7 & 8) of the bill as morally unacceptable and violates the dignity of the human person.

          Quezon City, 22 August 2000

 

On Violations of the International Humanitarian Law

          With the termination of the major hostilities between the Philippine Armed Forces and the Muslim rebels and other elements in Mindanao, pursuant to its Constitutional mandate to monitor Philippine Government's compliance with international treaty obligations on human rights, the Commission on Human Rights renders this human rights Advisory on violations of the International Humanitarian Law (Protocol II).

          The International Humanitarian Law provided under Protocol II is a set of principles and rules which set limitations to the use of violence during armed conflicts in order to spare non-combatants, that is, persons who are not directly involved in any hostilities such as the civilians, the wounded and the shipwrecked.

          The International Humanitarian Law (Protocol II) is the law that controls the conduct of armed conflicts in non-international warfare such as what happened in Mindanao. The said law is not concerned about the legitimacy or illegitimacy of armed groups fighting the established government. It is concerned more on the protection of human rights of non-combatants not involved in armed conflict whether committed by government armed forces or rebel groups.

          As monitored by the Human Rights Regional Directors in the Mindanao are where armed conflicts have occurred, incident of killing of men by government troops have taken place such as what happened in Lanao Dakula and Indanan. Children were not spared.

          No precautionary measures were made before the armed attacks to spare civilians, especially women and children from the armed violence. In general there was no distinction between combatants and non-combatants in armed encounters.

          In Pandami, Siasi, an island town in Sulu, military planes and helicopter gunships swooped down and bombarded civilians purposely to f lush out the Abu Sayyaf group. Indiscriminate searches in houses were conducted.

          There are reports of desecrations of places of worship as what happened in a Muslim mosque in Barangay Manilop, Indanan. Big stones were allegedly placed inside the mosque, which showed that it was used for cooking by the soldiers with chicken feathers and parts of animals thrown around. The mosque was likewise reportedly looted and damaged.

          As reported, there have been illegal arrests and violation of personal liberty. The military forcibly rounded up people and herded them to the army camps.

          One of the biggest number of complaints from all affected towns is looting of household items including domestic animals like goats and chickens. A resident of Tubang Sanin, Manilop, witnessed how goods were actually loaded in 6x6 military trucks.

          Civilian houses were burned and damaged as a result of aerial bombardment by military planes. Marginal fisherfolks whose only means of livelihood is fishing were adversely affected due to the military armed attack.

          On the part of the rebels, incidents of massacre of civilian non-combatants have been committed. Rebel groups harassed or killed persons and civilians for refusal to lend support to the MILF Command.

          Incidents of attack on commercial buses which resulted in the killing of innocent passengers have been reported.

          The most serious offenses were the kidnapping for ransom committed by the Muslim groups.

          The foregoing incidents are outright violations of the International Humanitarian Law as provided in Protocol II. Principally, the violations were:

          The CHR finds that both sides of the armed conflict have grossly violated the International Humanitarian Law. Based on these unfortunate experiences in our country, there is a need to educate the people on the obligations and responsibilities of the military personnel during internal armed conflict.

                                                                 

          On the other hand, while government has no control on the behavior of the rebel groups, our government armed forces should set an example to them that they are complying with the International Humanitarian Law. As what happened to the people in the areas where the incidents occurred, the government military forces personnel have grossly violated the International Humanitarian Law and we cannot expect the rebel to comply with the law.

          Lastly, reports from the Human Rights Regional Directors, one of which came from Jolo show that lawyers and peace officers, as well as residents, have complained with indignation of the total absence of court judges in that area. People have been arrested and jailed for violation of laws and for lack of court magistrates, they remain in prison. The situation has caused criminal elements to commit crimes with impunity and lack of respect for the law.

          Pursuant to our constitutional mandate to protect and provide legal assistance to victims of human rights, we have recommended the immediate appointment of judges for Jolo and other areas in Mindanao. The reports say that some of the criminal cases have been tried in Zamboanga City which adds to the financial burden not only to the litigants but also to the government.

          The Human Rights Directors of Regions IX, X, and XII have been directed to furnish copies of this advisory translated in the dialect of their respective areas for information and guidance.

          Quezon City, 15 November 2000

 

On Allowing Children to Participate in Rallies and Demonstrations

          Inquiries have been addressed to the Commission on Human Rights on the participation of children in public rallies and demonstrations.

          Under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which the Philippines has ratified and implemented in Republic Act 7610, any person under the age of 18 is considered a child. The Convention on the Rights of the Child provides, among others, that State Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her views, the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child (Article 12 [1]).

          Article 13 of said Convention reads:

 2. The exercise of this right may be subject to certain restrictions, but       these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:

      a.  for respect of the rights or reputations of others; or

      b.  for the protection of national security or of public order (odre            public), or of public health or morals."

          Article 14 (2) also provides that

          Children also have the right to freedom of association and freedom of peaceful assembly. No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of these rights other than those imposed in conformity with the law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interest of national security or public safety, public order (odre public) , the protection of public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others. (Article 15, Convention on the Rights of the Child)

          In view of the foregoing, and pursuant to a state policy under the Philippine Constitution which guarantees sole respect for human rights, all persons shall be allowed to participate in rallies and demonstrations, as long as they are lawful and peaceful in character.

          However, parents, guardians and school authorities are hereby admonished to consider the age and maturity and the degree of discernment of the child before they either encourage children to participate in rallies and demonstration or discourage them from joining therein. Allowing children of tender age might expose them to unnecessary dangers against which they may not be capable of protecting themselves.

          The Commission on Human Rights, an independent Constitutional body, is impartial, neutral and non-partisan in political matters, issues this Advisory without taking sides in any political or religious controversy. The Commission is only concerned on the protection of human rights irrespective of persons or institutions and groups who violate said rights.

          Quezon City, 07 December 2000

 

On the Abolition of the Death Penalty

          The Commission on Human Rights has opposed the enactment of any law re-imposing the death penalty law in the Philippines on the ground that it offends the dignity of human person and human rights. Article II, Section11 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution states:

          The aforesaid provision is in accordance with the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which the Philippines had ratified, guarantees that every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.

          The Congress of the Philippines, nevertheless, enacted Republic Act No. 7659 imposing the death sentence with the motivation that the law will be a deterrent to the commission of heinous crimes, as enumerated in the aforesaid statute. Statistics, however, show that the expectation of the Philippine Congress has not been realized. Despite the enactment of the death penalty law and the execution of seven convicts, ore heinous crimes have been committed. From January to October 1999, the reported cases of rape, which is considered as a heinous crime under the statute, have substantially increased.

          Only recently, the President of the Philippines expressed his second thoughts on the imposition of the death penalty. He has commuted to life imprisonment the death sentence of prisoners in Muntinlupa. House Bill Nos. 6083, introduced by Representative Salacnib F. Baterina, and 8844, introduced by Representative Roan L. Libarios, have proposed the repeal of republic Act No. 7659.

          Indeed, the Philippines, known as a predominantly Christian country, by enacting the death penalty law, has returned to the ancient era of Lex Taliones -" life for a life, tooth for a tooth" - a system blatantly contradictory to the higher values of law and justice. Pope John Paul II, in his "Encyclical Evangelium Vitae (Gospel of Life)" issued on 25 March 1995, said that modern society now has all the means of effectively suppressing all crimes by rendering harmless without definitely denying them the chance to reform. Moreover, the concept of heinous crimes is now limited to grievous offenses like genocide or international terrorism when the security of the state is placed in danger.

          The Commission on Human Rights, since the enactment of Republic Act No. 7659 and the execution of the first death sentence of Leo Echegaray, recommended to the Philippine Senate to ratify the Second Optional Protocol to the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights aiming the Abolition of Death Penalty. The said Protocol states that the abolition of the death penalty contributes to the enhancement of the dignity and progressive development of human rights. Criminality can be fought with sincere and effective law enforcement and impartial administration of justice. The said Protocol has already been ratified by more than one-half of all the countries and territories. It is about time that the Philippines join the trend in the United Nations to eliminate death penalty in local statutes.

          The Commission on Human Rights issues this Human Rights Advisory addressed to the President and the Congress of the Republic of the Philippines for their appropriate action and all persons who value the dignity of the human person and the preservation and sanctity of life.

          Quezon City, 19 December 2000

 

On the Unlawful Searches, Arrests, and Treatment of Persons Under Custody

          Reports of CHR Investigators show that at about 3 am of January 4, 2001, about 30 men in black without name plates, armed with firearms such as M16 armalite rifles and with a warrant of arrest and search warrant, kicked and forcibly opened the door of a house at No. 113 Cotabato Street,

          Salam Compound, Barangay Culiat, Tandang Sora, Quezon City. Nearby houses at No. 117 and 116-A at the Mujahaden Street were also forcibly entered into. The occupants of said houses, including women and children, were herded in separate rooms. Seventeen men were tied with packaging tapes, and were boarded in a delivery van and detained at the ISAFP Detention Center. One of the detainees was Jamael Abtahi, a 13-year old boy and a native of Jolo, Sulu. Some of the detained persons received fist blows in the stomach and were forced to admit their participation in the bombing incident at the LRT Blumentritt Station and other places on 30 December 2000. Human rights lawyers who wanted to interview the persons were refused access to the detainees.

          Finding that most of the detainees were not involved in the alleged bombing, they were then set free the following day except for four who were to be charged for crimes they alleged committed. Further investigation shows that the names indicated in the search warrant obtained by the arresting officers were different from those who were arrested and detained. The four detainees were also released the following day.

          In a separate final report dated 12 January 2001, CHR investigators found that Emil Michael Ventura, 11 years old, residing at No. 5 Felimon Street, Mikesel Subdivision, Talon V, Las Pinas, Metro Manila, was arrested by military men and was subjected to intense questioning for 14 hours without assistance of a lawyer or a representative of the Department of Social Welfare and Development or his parents, by the Dusit Hotel security, Makati Police Investigators, and the Southern Police District investigators on his alleged involvement in the explosion of the bomb in the vicinity of the Dusit Hotel.

          Pursuant to its constitutional functions of monitoring Philippine Government's compliance with international instruments of human rights, the Commission on Human Rights finds that the arresting officers have grossly violated several provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Philippine Constitution, Republic Act 7438, defining rights of persons arrested, detained, or under custodial investigation, as well as duties of the arresting, detaining and investigative officers and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

          Article 9 of the Covenant of Civil and Political Rights reads:

 2. Anyone who is arrested shall be informed, at the time of the arrest,      of the reasons for his arrest and shall be promptly informed of any      charges against him.

 3. Anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge shall be brought      promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to      exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a      reasonable time or to release. It shall not be the general rule that      persons awaiting trial shall be detained in custody, but release may      be subject to guarantees to appear for trial, and, should occasion      arise, for execution of the judgment.

 4. Anyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be      entitled to take proceedings before a court, in order that court may      decide without delay on the lawfulness of his detention and order his      release if the detention is not lawful.

5. Anyone who has been the victim of the unlawful arrest or detention      shall have an enforceable right to compensation.

          Article 10 of the said Covenant also reads:

          Republic Act No. 7438 which implements in detail the aforesaid Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides for the rights of persons arrested or detained. Section 2 of the said act reads:

(a) Any person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation shall      at all times be assisted by counsel.

 (b) Any public officer or employee, or anyone acting under his order or       in his place, who arrests, detains or investigates any person for the       commission of an offense shall inform the latter, in a language      known to and understand by him, of his rights to remain silent and      to have competent and independent counsel, preferably of his own      choice, who shall at all times be allowed to confer in private with      the person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation. If      such person cannot afford services of his own counsel, he must be      provided with a competent and independent counsel by the      investigating officer.

xxx

          More basic are the violations of the Bill of Rights of the Philippine Constitution. Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution reads:

          Section 12 of Article III also reads:

 (2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means       which vitiate the free will shall be used against him. Secret       detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of       detention are prohibited."

          The rights of the minors who were arrested and investigated in the incident were also violated. Minors under the Convention on the Rights of the Child and Republic Act 7610 are persons below 18 years of age. The rights of the minors under Article 17 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child reads:

          State parties shall ensure that:

 (b) No child shall be deprived of his or her liberty unlawfully or        arbitrarily. The arrest, detention, or imprisonment of a child shall        in conformity with the law and shall be used only as a measure of        last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time.

(c) Every child deprived of liberty shall be treated with humanity and       respect for the inherent dignity of the human person, and in a       manner which takes into account the needs of persons of his or her       age. In particular, every child deprived of liberty shall be separated       from the adults unless it is considered in the child's best interest not       to do so and shall have the right to maintain contact with his or her       family through correspondence and visits, save in exceptional       circumstances.

 (d) Every child deprived of his or her liberty shall have the right to        prompt access to legal and other appropriate assistance, as well as        the right to challenge the legality of deprivation of his or her        liberty before a court or other competent, independent and        impartial authority and to prompt decision on any such action.

          The Commission on Human Rights observes that while the arresting officers were carrying warrants of arrest and search warrants, in their enthusiasm to apprehend the guilty persons, they have grossly abused their powers. The identity of the arresting officers, without nameplates and were not in military uniforms. Most of the arrested were persons not even listed in the warrant of arrest which shows that there was reckless and indiscriminate implementation of the warrants. Some of the arrested persons were tortured to force them to admit in the involvement in bombing incidents.

          While the Commission on Human Rights appreciates the enthusiasm of the military and police agencies to immediately arrest and bring to justice those involved in the bombing incidents, they are to be reminded of their duties and responsibilities under the aforementioned human rights instruments and the constitutional function to promote human rights of the persons who were unnecessarily arrested, detained, and even tortured.

          This advisory is addressed especially to the Secretary of National Defense, the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, the Secretary of the Department of Interior and Local Government, and the Chief of Philippine National Police for their appropriate action on their gross violations of human rights.

          Quezon City, 18 January 2001