ON
HOUSE BILL NO. 5002

"An Act Providing for the Rights of the Accused and Persons Under Investigation for the Commission of Crime"

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

          This House Bill seeks to consolidate provisions of existing legislation on the subject. There is already an existing legislation on the matter, namely, Republic Act No. 857 and amended by Republic Act No. 7438 enacted on 07 July 1992 concerning the rights of the individuals who are arrested and subjected to custodial investigation. The bill in general provides in more detail, Article III, sections 12-22 of the Philippine Constitution and Rules 112-114 of the Rules of Court.

          As stated in Article 2 on Declaration of policy, the bill seeks to complement anti-crime campaign with the comprehensive set of safeguards on the rights of the accused. On this score, the bill should also seek to achieve effective measures to eradicate crime which is now increasing in alarming proportions. The Commission on Human Rights is mandated also to look into the human rights of victims in crimes.

1. Section 2 of the bill providing for a warning of the accused is more effective implementation of the Article III paragraph 12 of the Constitution, commonly called the "Miranda Doctrine." It is suggested, however, that the warning must be written in big letters and displayed on the wall of the room where the custodial investigation is conducted so the detained person can easily read them . This is the practice in police precincts in the United States . The words should also be clearly explained to the detained person in cases where the person is being interrogated is not sufficiently educated in the language or dialect he understands.

2. The second paragraph of Article IV Section 1 which includes mere invitation as part of custodial investigation is too sweeping and might be contrary to recent Supreme Court decisions on the matter. Please see Kimpo vs. Sandiganbayan, 232 SCRA 53; Navarro vs. Sandiganbayan, 234 SCRA 175; Aniog vs. Comelec, 237 SCRA 424 which ruled that persons merelyinvited to shed light on the commission of a crime without being informed that they are respondents were not deprived of the rights as accused. This rule also applies to right of counsel ( People vs. Marra, 236 SCRA 565; People vs. Macarin, 238 SCRA 236 ).

3. Article V, Section 9 should spell out Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code as to the maximum periods of detention for corresponding crimes.

4. The proposed bill does not provide safeguards on arrests by private persons. Arrest by private persons can be abused.

5. Article V, Section 1 should be amended by stating that all persons except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua or death when evidence of guilt is strong before convictions are bailable."

 This is to conform to Article III, section 13 of the Constitution and the new law Republic Act No. 7659 imposing death penalty for heinous crimes.

6. Article VI, section 3, second paragraph should include private bar organizations, especially those engaged in human rights protection such as the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG), MABINI, Amnesty International, etc.

7. Article VII, section 2 should include among the rights not to be detained solely by reasons of his political beliefs and aspirations as provided in Article III, section 18 of the Philippine Constitution.

8. Article X, section 2 should spell out the remedy against undue publications of criminal cases as petition for contempt of court for violators of said provision.

9. Article XII, section 1, should include the Commission on Human Rights empowered to promulgate rules and regulations to implement the provisions of the act.

          Pasig City , 10 June 1996

ON
SENATE RESOLUTION NO. 401

\"Directing the Senate Committee on Women and Family Relations to Conduct an Inquiry, in Aid of Legislation, into the Integration and Implementation of the Beijing Platform for Action in Policies, Projects and Activities of all Departments, Bureaus, Offices and Agencies of the Philippine Government"

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

          The Beijing Platform for action is already integrated in the Commission on Human Rights' Philippine Human Rights Plan (Women's Sector) for the years 1996-2000.

          The Inter-Agency Task Force for Human Rights Protection was established by President Ramos on February 7, 1995 by virtue of Memorandum Order No. 258. The Task Force is headed by the Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) with representatives from government agencies, non-government organizations and people's organizations. The Task Force has formulated sectoral action plans involving the most vulnerable and disadvantaged sectors of society. The plan has a section on women.

          Last December 1995, the CHR forwarded to the Office of the National Commission on the Role of Filipino Women, an action plan for the women's sector based on the issues identified by the national and regional consultations conducted by the Working Group of the Task Force.

          The CHR has already started implementing the Philippine Human Rights Plan. The action plan on women actually corresponds to the Beijing Plan for Action Gender-Responsive Development (by the National Commission on the Role of Filipino Women) relating to human rights issues.

          We, therefore, urge the approval of Resolution No. 401.

CONSOLIDATED
POSITION PAPER
ON

House Resolution No. 406 entitled "Resolution Urging The Philippine Government To Adopt And Ratify The Declaration On The Protection Of All Persons From Enforced Disappearance As Adopted By The United Nations General Assembly Resolution 47/133 of 13 December 1992."

- and-

House Resolution No. 635 entitled "A Resolution Supporting the Amnesty International's (AI) Call On All Governments To Implement Its Fourteen Point Program For The Prevention Of Disappearances."

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

          Considering that the subject-matter of the above-mentioned House Resolutions are the same/identical and/or interrelated (enforced disappearance), this Commission has chosen to prepare a Consolidated Position Paper thereon.

          It is of common knowledge that "enforced disappearance" intensified and reached its zenith during the martial law regime. With the dismantling of the dictatorship in 1986 thru people power revolution, there was a heightened expectation that this notorious practice will considerably subside, if not altogether eradicated. Sadly, however, it has been noted that this heinous practice continues although in a less considerable scale.

          With the assumption to power of President Corazon C. Aquino in 1986 right after the overthrow of the dictatorial regime, one of her first acts was the issuance of Executive No. 8 on 13 March 1986 creating the Presidential Committee on Human Rights. One of its functions under Section 4 (a) reads:

"a. Investigate complaints it may receive, cases known to it or to its members, and such cases as the president may, from time to time, assign to it, of unexplained or forced disappearance." (underlining ours)

          It can be safely stated, therefore, that Executive Order No. 8, series of 1986, antedated both the above-cited U.N. General Assembly Resolution 47/133 and the Fourteen Point Program of Amnesty International, which was both issued only in 1992. Stated otherwise, the Philippine Government, at the beginning of Aquino administration, has already shown serious concern and taken steps insofar as forced disappearance is concerned.

          In this connection, we wish to assure the House Committee on Civil, Political and Human Rights, thru its Honorable Chairman, Congressman Bonifacio H. Gillego, that the Commission on Human Rights fully supports House Resolution Nos. 406 and 685.

          At the risk of being repetitive, forced disappearance which is resorted to by the police, and military authorities, and security forces is a very serious human rights violation that calls for and deserves harsh sanction. As aptly stated in House Resolution No. 406, it (forced disappearance) "violates practically all basic human rights among them the right to liberty and security of person, the right to be free from torture, the right to recognition as a person before the law, the right to legal remedies, and often the right to life." Moreover, it inflicts severe suffering, not only on the victims themselves, but likewise on their families and relatives who are denied information on the whereabouts and fate of the victims thus causing them serious anxiety and agony, unable to find out if the victims are still alive or dead.

          The United Nations has condemned "disappearance" as grave violation of human rights and their systematic practice is of the nature of a crime against humanity.

          It is therefore high time for the Philippine Government to adopt and ratify the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 47/133 of 18 December 1992 , and to implement Amnesty International's (AI) Fourteen Point Program for the Prevention of Disappearance.

          In closing, we would like to emphasize that the success of this endeavor will depend essentially on the firm resolve of the Philippine Government.

ON
SENATE BILL NO. 1398

"An Act Defining Domestic Violence, Providing Penalties Therefor and Providing For Protection Orders"
(Introduced by Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago)

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

          The Commission ardently supports the move that provides sanction to the Constitutional mandate that " the state recognizes the Filipino family as the foundation of the nation. Accordingly, it shall strengthen its solidarity and actively promote its total development. Marriage as inviolable social institution is the foundation of the family and shall be protected by the State"
(Article XV, Sec. 1 and 2)

          The new Family Code provides some relief and possible recourse for battered women. Under Article 55 of the Code, habitual cruelty, violence to one's spouse and children, and attempts on the life of the spouse are now grounds for legal separation.

          The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of persons, and that no one shall be subject to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Domestic violence which affects mainly women is also contrary to the UN Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women, to which the Philippines is a signatory. Wife beating is also a violation of women's human rights.

          However, existing laws do not provide penalties against the violator/perpetrator of domestic violence as a deterrent to its commission. With the advent of this law, the victim will surface to the open and seek relief in the courts, and law enforcers will view domestic violence as a public crime and not a private trivial matter between couples. The Bill includes domestic violence even in common-law relationships where the man and woman are not married but are living as husband and wife. Considering that the present statistics show that domestic violence is a worldwide phenomenon involving millions of women, this Commission strongly recommends its immediate passage into law.

          The following comments are, however, submitted for consideration of Congress:

          The proposed penalty of one-year imprisonment or a fine of P2,000.00 is too light. It is not an effective deterrent of the crime for a habitual violent husband who will likely repeat the same crime. For an imprisonment of one-year he can be released on probation. Moreover, the penalty as proposed is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the City or Municipal Trial Court. The guilty husband can appeal easily to the RTC and the appellate courts which will usually take sometime. In the meantime, the husband is free on bail and will likely inflict harm on his wife with more revenge. It is suggested that a higher penalty be imposed to make the case within the jurisdiction of the RTC. This will be in consonance with Section 5, paragraph b whereas the petition for protection order is filed with the RTC.

          In this way, there is no necessity of filing an independent action for protection order pendente lite as the same court to whom the complaint is filed can also issue the protection order.

          (undated)