On the Full Respect of Human Rights Under the State of Rebellion

          The events that have occurred which led to the declaration of the state of rebellion in Metro Manila by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo have raised several issues, political or otherwise. The Human Rights Commission is not concerned with its political implication. It is concerned with its constitutional function of monitoring state compliance of International Human instruments.

          The declaration of State of Rebellion in Metro Manila is a prerogative of the President under her constitutional powers, limited only to the first sentence of Article VII, Section 18 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution which reads:

          The declaration is a statement of fact according to the Secretary of Justice and is entirely different from the following sentences of Section 18, which include the power of the President to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof under Martial Law. It is not a proclamation of a state of emergency that requires a report of the President in person or in writing to Congress.

         We note by the declaration of the state of rebellion by the government conformably to Paragraph 1 of Section 18, Article VII of the Philippine Constitution, the President called in the military armed forces to assist the police functions, particularly in quelling unruly crowds who threatened the security and integrity of Malacanang Palace, the seat of power.

          Media and television coverage showed rallyists aggressively and belligerently attacking the police who manned the security perimeter of Malacanang, as a result of which six persons died, including two policemen, and 113 were injured. The television coverage also showed the police beating some of the rallyists who were already apprehended. The rallyists, in open defiance of police authorities, destroyed public and private properties, looted stores and openly torched several vehicles, including two belonging to the media group.

          With the state of rebellion declared, the Commission on Human Rights reminds the military forces which may perform police functions to observe full respect of human rights. Specifically, the rule on warrantless arrests under Rule 113 of the Rules of Court should be observed.

          At this juncture, the Commission on Human Rights appreciates the President's decisive action to protect society especially her professions for the observance of human rights. Axiomatic is the principle in our Constitutional democracy that even a national emergency cannot suspend the operation of our Constitution which includes the Bill of Rights (Section 18, Article VII, Philippine Constitution)

          Section 1 and 2 of Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights read:

          This means that there should be no derogation of human rights under Articles 6, 7, 8, 11,15, 16 and 18 of the Covenant. Article 6 refers to the inherent right to life; Article 7 refers to non-enforcement of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment; Article 8 deals with the prohibition of involuntary servitude; Article II refers to non-imprisonment for contractual debts; Article 15 speaks of liberty of movement and abode; Article 16 relates to one's right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law; and Article 18 pertains to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. It is hoped, as the government authorities have assured the public, that the declaration of the state of rebellion will be lifted in due time.

          The Commission on Human Rights respectfully addresses this Advisory to Her Excellency President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, the Honorable Secretary of Justice, the Secretary of National Defense, the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Director General of the Philippine National Police and all military and police authorities for their information.

          Quezon City, 02 May 2001

 

On the Citizen's Rights of Suffrage

          One of the basic human rights recognized in the international instruments of human rights is the right to vote and to be elected to public office at genuine periodic elections, which shall be universal and shall be held by secret ballot guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors. Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights reads:

(a) To take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through       freely chosen representatives;

 (b) To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall        be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret        ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors;

 (c) To have access, on general terms of equality, to public service in        the country."

           The said right is reiterated in Article V of the Philippine Constitution.

          The events that transpired during the elections held on May 14, 2001 to give opportunity for the citizens to choose their local government officials and the 13 vacancies in the Philippine Senate have shown the obvious lack of preparation, neglect or mismanagement in affording citizens the right to suffrage in many places in the country. Reports show the failure of elections in several places due to disenfranchisement of qualified voters to cast their ballots.

          The lack of management procedures have resulted in chaos in many places due to lack of election paraphernalia, failure of poll officials to report for duty on time and delayed payments of teachers who served in several precincts.

          There have been charges of vote buying, open defiance of election laws by candidates or their followers. Almost a hundred people, including several candidates, have been killed due to election related matters. While there may not be direct proof of deliberate acts of election officials but there was utter lack of proper management to ensure clean and orderly elections in many places.

          The right to suffrage is a basic human right, as it affords the citizens to freely participate directly and indirectly in public affairs. The officials mandated to conduct elections fell short of their responsibility in many places.

          In the fulfillment of its constitutional mandate to monitor the Philippine Government's compliance with the international instruments on human rights, this Advisory is issued to remind election and other public officials of the basic right of suffrage to preserve the integrity of the election process. The Commission on Human Rights addresses this Advisory to the Chairman and Commissioners of the Commission on Elections and their subordinates, and all other public officials involved in election matters.

          Quezon City, 18 May 2001

 

On the Requirement of All Students Enrolling in Schools to Submit a Police Clearance and Drug Test

          The Commission on Human Rights has been informed that some schools require a police clearance for new enrollees and for transferees from other schools. The police in turn require a clearance from the Narcotics Command (NARCOM) for a drug test.

          There is no legal impediment for a requirement of a police clearance as a reasonable precautionary measure of school new enrollees. The requirement of the Philippine National Police (PNP) of a drug test before a police clearance is issued makes the drug test mandatory. This additional requirement might be a restriction on the human rights of every person to education.

          Pertinent provisions of Article 13 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which the Philippines have ratified, reads:

          Article 14 of the Covenant also reads:

          Article 14, Section 1 and 2 of the Philippine Constitution also reads:

          The State shall:

          The mandatory additional requirement of submission for a drug test might unduly burden new enrollees and their parents. It is suggested that a more reasonable precautionary measure is for a school physician to examine prospective enrollees to determine who among them should be required to undergo a drug test.

          A finding that a student takes drugs should not be used as a justification to deprive him/her of attending school. Rather, a child found to be drug addict should be confined to a rehabilitation institution so that he/she may later be more fit to pursue his/her education. The child must be admitted to school upon recommendation of the rehabilitation institution after the child has been rehabilitated.

          The Commission on Human Rights, pursuant to its constitutional function of monitoring the Philippine Government's compliance with international instruments respectfully addresses this Human Rights Advisory to the Secretary of Education, Culture and Sports, the Philippine National Police and the Narcotics Command (NARCOM) for their guidance.

          Quezon City, 18 June 2001

 

On the Implementation of the Offer-Reward for the Capture of the Abu Sayyaf and its Leaders

          Her Excellency President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo has offered a reward for the capture of the Abu Sayyaf and its principal leaders involved in a series of kidnapping for ransom. This offer is laudable move to encourage all civic-minded and well-meaning citizens to cooperate in facilitating the early capture of the said Moro bandits.

          Incidents, however, have occurred especially in Basilan that in their desire to avail of the benefits of the reward, human rights have been violated among citizens, the armed forces personnel and the police.

          The Commission on Human Rights has received reports on the abuses among the citizens suspecting even the innocent to belong to the Abu Sayyaf group. The Armed Forces personnel and the police personnel operating in Basilan allegedly indiscriminately arrest and detain innocent civilians on mere suspicion that they belong to the bandit group.

          Article 9 (1 and 2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights reads:

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

          No derogation of said rights may be made even under emergency situations (Article 4(3), International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights). Accordingly, extreme care must be made to avoid any abuse of human rights in the implementation of the Executive Order on the reward.

          Pursuant to its constitutional function of monitoring Philippine Government's compliance with international instruments on human rights, the Commission on Human Rights issues this Advisory for the guidance of all concerned.

          CHR Region IX Director Jose Manuel S. Mamauag is directed to translate this Advisory and to publish it in the areas of concerned.

          Quezon City 10 July 2001

 

On the Mandatory Requirement of Drug Test for Applicants of Professional and Non-Professional Driver's Licenses

          Memorandum Circular EM-MA-01338 of the Land Transportation Office (LTO), dated 19 July 2001, was issued to require all applicants for driver licenses to operate any motor vehicle to show a negative drug test laboratory report, with a validating period of 15 days before their license is issued. The Circular is effective on 04 September 2001. The Circular cites Section 22 of Republic Act No. 4126, as amended by Batas Pambansa Blg. 398, which provides that:

          Inquiries have been made from the media and public as to whether the mandatory requirement of drug test violates the human rights of liberty of applicants for driver's license.

          The issuance of driver's license is not a right but only a privilege. It is a privilege granted only to qualified persons of sufficient age who have the capacity to operate a motor vehicle which is not only for the safety of the driver but also of persons using public highways. The license to drive can be validly suspended or withdrawn on grounds provided for under Section 27 of Republic Act No. 4136 as amended, known as the "Land Transportation and Traffic Code." With the increasing incidents of drug addicts and the possibility of violating the law, the State in its exercise of police power may validly impose restriction or limitation on the applicant's driver's license to those who are afflicted with drug addiction.

          The State Parties to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights recognize that, in the enjoyment of those rights provided by the State in conformity with the present Covenant, the State may subject such rights only to such limitations as are determined by law only in so far as this may be compatible with the nature of these rights and solely for the purpose of promoting the general welfare in a democratic society. (Article 4, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights)

          Police power is the right of the State, or a state functionary, to prescribe regulations for the good order, peace, health, protection, comfort, convenience and morals of the community, which do not violate any of the provisions of the organic law.

          The name to that inherent sovereignty which it is the right and duty of the government or its agent to exercise whenever public policy in a broad sense, demands, for the benefit of society at large, regulation to guard its morals, safety and health, order or ensure in any respect such economic conditions as an advancing civilization of a high complex character requires. (Churchill v. Rafferty, 32 Phil 603)

          In view thereof, we find that the aforesaid Memorandum Circulars is not violative of any human rights. On the other hand, it is consistent with the primary intention of screening out unfit applicants from securing any license to drive in order to minimize if not totally prevent untoward vehicular accidents that often result in serious injuries/damages to lives and properties, all applicants for driver's license will comply with the following rules and regulations.

          In order not to unduly delay the issuance of driver's licenses, steps should be taken by the Land Transportation Office to see to it that drug laboratory tests be made available near the premises of all its offices to facilitate drug tests required. The drug test should be at no cost or at least for minimal fees.

          Quezon City, 20 August 2001