goes to human rights protection page
links to human rights promotion page
link to human rights linkages development programs
link to special programs page
 
links to home page
links to about CHRP page
links to about human rights page
links to programs and services page
links to news and reports page
goes to links page
links to contact us page
links to site map
      
               
goes back to HR position paper 29-31 page
links to HR position paper 35-38 page

 

ON
HOUSE BILL NO. 1505

"An Act Prohibiting the Public Display of Persons Arrested, Accused, or under Custodial Investigation in a Degrading Manner, and Amending for such Purpose Republic Act No. 7438, Entitled An Act Defining Certain Rights of Persons Arrested, Detained or under Custodial Investigation as well as the Duties of the Arresting, Detaining and Investigating Officers and Providing Penalties for Violations Thereof"

========================

          The Commission on Human Rights (CHR) endorses the enactment of the bill introduced by Congressman Gilberto Teodoro, Jr. of Tarlac prohibiting and penalizing display of persons arrested or under custodial investigation. This bill would give further flesh and meaning to the constitutional presumption of innocence enshrined in our Bill of Rights and the right to remain silent vis-à-vis privilege against self-incrimination.

          The practice of the police and other enforcement agencies in parading suspected criminals in handcuffs with cardboard placards announcing their names and alleged crimes or in any manner causing degradation, humiliation, dishonor, discredit, ridicule, or contempt should be prohibited and should be punished. The practice is offensive to the dignity of the suspect specially when they are exposed through TV cameras and their pictures published. Republic Act No. 7438 was precisely enacted to protect the rights of person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation pursuant to the constitutional principles of presumption of innocence of persons accused of criminal offenses.

          Article 10, paragraph 1 of the International Covenant on Human Rights reads: "All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person." The practice sought to be prohibited, violates the criminal law principle of presumption of innocence as stated in Art. 14, par. 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article III, par. 14(1) of the Philippine Constitution. The mere arrest of the suspects of a crime enjoy more the presumption of innocence as they have not yet been subjected to preliminary investigation by the prosecutor. Their exposures and display to the public in TV and the media nullifies the principle of presumption of innocence. It also affects the families of the suspects.

          The very fact of custodial interrogation exacts a heavy toll on the liberty of individuals and thrives on their weakness. Hence, the government must give due accord to the dignity and integrity of its citizens. The inviolability of human rights should be maintained. Our accusatory system of criminal justice demands that the government seeking to punish an individual should rely on the strength of the evidence against the accused and not on the weakness of the latter's defense.

          There is indeed a need to define the duties of arresting, detaining and investigation officers and to safeguard the rights of arrested and detained persons, provide penalties for violation thereof.

          This position is not intended to hamper the function of police officers in solving crimes.

          While crimes must be stopped, the procedure to bring criminals to justice must be in accordance with the constitutional due process and to preserve the dignity of human person.

           The immediate passage of House Bill No. 1505 is respectfully recommended.


           Quezon City , 24 September 1998


ON
HOUSE RESOLUTION NO. 1347

A Resolution Directing the Committees on Human, Civil and Political Rights, Justice, and Transportation and Communication to conduct an immediate investigation in Aid of Legislation into the reported surveillance and wiretapping activities conducted by various State-funded Intelligence Agencies with the cooperation, collusion and/or involvement of Private Telephone and Communication Companies (Introduced by Hon. Edcel C. Lagman)

=======================

          Indubitable is the observation that the advancement of electronic technology today has rendered existing Philippine Laws on unauthorized surveillance and wiretapping unresponsive to the individual's right against arbitrary interference on one's privacy and to the right to privacy of communication and correspondence. The Commission on Human Rights therefore, finds House Resolution No. 1347 to be an added aperture for a thorough reexamination of Republic Act No. 4200 otherwise known as "the Anti-Wiretapping Law" and other related Legislative Measures and Decrees.

Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states, that:

"No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attack upon his honor and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attack."

          The same is wholly adopted in Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and has also been substantially incorporated in the Bill of Rights of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, Article 3, Section 3, thereof.

          Not with standing the aforecited human rights provisions and Republic Act No. 4200, the illegal surveillance and wiretapping activities of government Intelligence Agencies as reported in Daily Publications remains unabated. The repeated violations of the law and the difficulty of curving them, can perhaps be attributed to the use of sophisticated surveillance equipment and the cooperation, collusion and/or involvement of private telephone and communication companies.

          An investigation motu propio on wiretapping conducted by the Investigation Office of the Commission concludes that "wiretapping is being indiscriminately resorted to by various intelligence agencies in the country." (par. 5, memo report dated September 12, 1997 of Mr. Fortunato R. Reyes, NCR-CHR Special Investigator)

          The issue of wiretapping and/or authority to intercept communication was again made controversial with the recent sponsorship of two Anti-Terrorist Legislative proposals, House Bill No. 206 by Congressman Roilo Golez and Senate Bill No. 1353 by Senator Juan Ponce Enrile. The move apparently finds justification by raising the spectre of the national security interest. The Commission, however, in its Position Paper on the subject matter, opposed the passage of these two bills on the ground of their injurious effect on the people's civil liberties.

          From this backdrop, and to remedy the alarming and serious violation of the citizen's right to privacy, the Commission on Human Rights recommends, that:

1)  Republic Act No. 4200, otherwise known as "the Anti-Wiretapping Act" be amended as to make it more responsive and attuned to present realities, and

2)  A mechanism or procedure be established by Intelligence Agencies that will ensure compliance of the law and the determination of responsible individuals in the event of breach.

          In view of the foregoing premises, the Commission on Human Rights supports House Resolution No. 1347 and strongly condemns the illegal wiretapping practices of State funded Intelligence Agencies.

 

          Pasig City , 23 October 1997

ON
SENATE BILL NO. 2257

"An Act Increasing the Penalties For The Crimes Of Abandonment Of Helpless Persons And Grave Coercion, Amending For The Purpose Articles 275 And 286 Of The Revised Penal Code"
(Introduced by Senator Orlando S. Mercado )

=======================

          This bill increasing the penalties provided for under Articles 275 and 286 of the Revised Penal Code on the Abandonment of Persons in Danger and Grave Coercion, respectively, invites a reappraisal of legislative measures that touches on existing sanctions and penalties in our Penal Laws.

          At the onset, it is necessary, by way of reference, to mention two schools of thoughts on the study of penalties, namely: the classical school for which the Revised Penal Code is mainly based and the positivist theory which is primarily subscribed by the Commission on Human Rights.

          The classical school advances the belief that man is essentially a moral creature with an absolute free will to choose between good and evil, thereby placing more stress upon the effect or result of the felonious act that upon the man, the criminal himself. It is diametrically oppose to the positivist theory which offers the view that crime is essentially a social and natural phenomenon, and as such, it cannot be treated and check by the application of abstract principles of law and jurisprudence nor by the imposition of a punishment, fixed and determined a priori, but rather through the enforcement of individual measures in each particular case after a thorough, personal and individual investigation conducted by a competent body of psychiatrist and social scientist. (pp. 21 & 23, Book I, The Revised Penal Code, Luis B. Reyes, 12 edition, taken from pp. 2 & 3, Basic Principles, the Code Commission Report.)

          In the light of these two aforecited prevailing arguments on penalties, it is submitted that increasing the penalty for an offense, particularly on Crime against Security (Article 275-291, RPC), finds no cogent justification since there is no need to amend existing penalties deemed sufficient under our penal system.

           Moreover, Section 11, Article 2 of the 1987 Constitution which provides, that "The State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights" clearly upholds and gives importance to individual rights and cannot be subverted by demands arising from present events and occurrences. Applying this policy to the Senate bill in issue will make the latter appear repugnant to the promotion and protection of human rights.

          While victims of crimes deserve equal respect for their human rights, it should not be overly exercised at the expense of others.

          From a human rights perspective, it is emphasized that existing laws for crimes against abandonment of helpless persons and grave coercion, including their penalties, have already adequately address these concerns.

          Peripheral to the subject on increasing penalty, it is worth recalling that the Commission on Human Rights has been consistent in its stand against Death Penalty which has not been a deterrent to heinous crimes as intended. I fact, it has been proven as anti-poor since majority of those convicted belongs to the marginalized sector of Philippine society.

          In view of the foregoing, the Commission on Human Rights opposes the passage into Law of Senate Bill No. 2257, and strongly calls for the scrapping of similar and related proposed legislation.

           Pasig City , 29 September 1997