ON
HOUSE BILL NO. 6833
entitled
"An Act Prohibiting Parent(s), Guardians or any Person from Allowing, Using Coercing, Forcing or Intimidating a Child, a Ward or any other Child to Ask, Solicitor or Beg for Alms, Donations, Contributions or Act of Mendicancy in Public Places and Providing Penalty for Violation Thereof"
==========================
The proposed legislative response on this particular concern is laudable as the same is in pursuance to the declared state policy on children, that "the best interest of the children shall be the paramount consideration in all actions by the State concerning them; every effort shall be exerted to promote their welfare and enhance their opportunities for a useful and happy life." (Section 2, RA 7610)
Begging or any act of mendicancy by children to the command, coercion, assistance or supervision of parent(s) or guardian in case of a ward or any person whose custody is entrusted to them, and whether committed in public or elsewhere, is reprehensible and does not conform to our customs and tradition. It runs counter to the nature of their relationship and prejudicial to the welfare and development of the children. To punish therefore only those acts of begging or mendicancy committed in public places, to the mind of the Commission, would be a half-hearted measure. It will not fully address the problem. In fact, begging in "private places" is more vulnerable to abuse and exploitation. Hence, the Bill should not limit its coverage to public places but should include all other places.
One point of ambiguity in the Bill is the exact meaning of the phrase "repeated violations" which will deprive parents of parental authority over their children. How often should "repeated violations" occur before parental authority is lost? Should it be three (3) times or five (5) times? This matter should be clearly spelled out in the Bill.
One last point is if it is possible to incorporate a provision or Section that will establish a rehabilitative project or program for the benefit of the affected children. This will help divert their idle time from begging to something constructive.
Subject to the foregoing observations, the Commission fully supports the enactment into law of House Bill No. 6833.
Undated
ON
HOUSE BILL NO. 5494
"An Act Institutionalizing Respect And Fostering Human Rights In the System Of Formal And Informal Education In The Philippines And For Other Purposes" (Sponsored by Hons. Bonifacio H. Gillego and Lally Laurel-Trinidad)
===========================
There would have been no need for this bill had the then Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports implemented Order No. 27 issued by President Corazon C. Aquino on 04 July 1986 . The said Executive Order, citing the urgent need to educate the people in their human rights, mandated the above cited Ministry to include the study and understanding of human rights in the curricula of all levels of education and training in all schools in the country. Additionally, the defunct Presidential Committee on Human Rights under the Office of the President (forerunner of the present Constitutional Commission on Human Rights) was primarily tasked to assist the President in the discharge of her duty vis-à-vis to respect and foster human rights, for which it recommended that the system of formal and informal education be utilized for the aforesaid purposes.
Regrettably, however, E. O. No. 27 remained unimplemented and was thus consigned to the dustbin of history.
We are therefore fortunate to have Representatives Gillego and Trinidad who have chosen to review or resurrect the noble and salutary objectives of EO No. 27, by sponsoring House Bill No. 5494. Needless to state, the latter is more forceful considering that it fleshes out and implements Article XIV, Section 3(2) of the Constitution, which reads:
"They (all educational institutions) shall inculcate patriotism, foster love of humanity, respect for human rights , appreciation of the role of national heroes in the historical development of the country, teach the rights and duties of citizenship, strengthen ethical and spiritual values." (Underlining supplied)
Premises considered, and considering that subject House Bill will doubtless protect, enhance and foster respect and promotion of human rights, this Commission strongly recommends its enactment into law.
ON
LEGAL RAMIFICATION
OF SIMON RULING ONCHR JURISDICTION
AND REPUBLIC ACT 7279
=========================
COMMENT:
This paper seeks to analyze and discuss the legal effects and implication of the ruling of the Supreme Court in Brigido Simon, Jr. et. al. vs. Commission on Human Rights et. al., and on Republic Act No. 7279, otherwise known as the "Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992."
In brief, the Simon ruling reiterated the Carino holding to the effect that the CHR is not a court nor quasi-judicial body and, therefore, cannot issue cease and desist orders or writs of injunction and/or restraining order to stop an actual or impending demolition. The only recourse of the CHR is to provide preventive measure to victims of human rights violation by applying with the proper court for a restraining order and/or writs of injunction to stop the said demolition. Secondly, the Simon ruling stated that the most the Commission on Human Rights can do in the investigation of human rights violation is to receive evidence and make findings of facts as regards claimed human rights violation involving civil and political rights but it cannot adjudicate. Thirdly, the Simon ruling dealt with the extent of CHR's investigative power by resorting to the deliberation of the framers of the Constitution. The intent of the framers being to make the CHR more effective by delineating the parameters of its task and delimiting, as much as possible, without prejudice to future expansion, the coverage of the concept and jurisdictional area of the term "Human Rights" as referring only to civil and political rights as enshrined in the Bill of Rights of the 1987 Constitution and international instruments on human rights such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Supreme Court, citing the Constitutional Commission deliberation, cited the six areas where the CHR could focus its attention effectively, namely:
1. protection of rights of political detainees,
2. treatment of prisoners and the prevention of tortures,
3. fair and public trials,
4. cases of disappearance,
5. salvaging and hamletting, and
6. other crimes committed against the religious.
Accordingly, pending the enactment of law expanding its jurisdiction as to cover violations of economic, social and cultural rights, the CHR will focus its investigation initially to the aforementioned violations. However, the Supreme Court said that the above-cited enumerated violations are not meant to have any preclusive effect but rather they are just a mere expression of a statement of priority which must be given attention by the Commission. (Underscoring supplied).
A careful analysis of the Simon ruling would therefore show that while the CHR should give priority to the aforementioned cases, it is not barred from investigating other severe cases of human rights violation which may fall within its jurisdiction such as unlawful arrest and illegal searches and seizures, arbitrary detention and other crimes against the fundamental laws of the state, crimes against persons such as massacre of a family, genocide or crimes against liberty.
Corollarily, as regards the issue of demolition and in the light of the enactment of R.A. 7279, the CHR respectfully submits that it still has jurisdiction over human rights violation as a result of the demolition. As previously explained, the ratio decidendi in the Simon case is that since the CHR is neither a court nor a quasi-judicial body, it can not issue an "order to desist" to stop a demolition. It can only provide for a preventive measure to the victims of human rights violation by applying for an injunctive relief with the proper courts. Secondly, Simon says that "since the order for demolition of the stalls, sari-sari stores and carinderias of the private respondents can not fall within the compartment of human rights violations involving civil and political rights intended by the Constitution," the CHR has no jurisdiction to investigate the same as in the first place, there is no human rights violation. A careful analysis of the ratio decidendi of Simon would therefore indicate that if a human rights violation is committed in the course of implementing a demolition order, then the CHR has jurisdiction to investigate the said violation. It is, therefore, our respectful submission that while the Commission has no authority motu propio to stop the demolition per Simon ruling, it has the authority to investigate human rights violations committed as a result of or because of violent and unlawful demolition. Thus, if during or as a result of an illegal , unjust , and inhumane demolition , some people are injured, manhandled, intimidated, harassed or tortured by unscrupulous law enforcement authorities or in cases where the demolition is used as a tool for political harassment directed against the urban poor who refuse to vote for or have voted during election time against a certain powerful politician in their areas or the demolition is conducted not in accordance with R.A. 7279 particularly the non-compliance with the mandatory conditions set forth in Section 28 thereof, then, we submit that there is a human rights violation which the Commission may investigate. In other words, in these cases, what the Commission is investigating is not the demolition per se but the manner it is implemented which is done in an illegal, unjust and inhumane manner.
Lastly, the CHR is constitutionally mandated to monitor the government's compliance with international treaty obligations on human rights such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child and other international treaties and conventions. Thus, while the CHR cannot issue a restraining order or injunction to prevent violation of human rights, nonetheless, being the only government agency constitutionally mandated to monitor government's compliance with international treaty obligations on human rights, it may call upon the Government to observe its obligations under international law and call the attention of the agencies that are violating certain provisions of an international human rights instrument to which it is a party. Thus, for example, the Philippine Government is a state party to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Therefore, it must comply with the provisions thereof on the right of the people to an adequate housing. Thus, while the Supreme Court ruled that CHR has no power to stop demolitions, it cannot be prevented from monitoring the government's compliance with the provisions of ICESCR on housing. It follows that, if there are human rights violation being committed during the demolition such as non-compliance with R.A. 7279, the CHR still has the constitutional mandate to investigate and stop the said violations by calling upon the agency concerned regarding the violation and, if not listened to, request the assistance of other agencies concerned or resort to judicial remedy thru injunctive writs or restraining order from the court.
CONCLUSION:
In the light of the foregoing discussion, it is therefore our respectful submission that the Commission on Human Rights has the authority to investigate human rights violations committed in the course of or arising from an illegal, unjust and/or inhumane demolition. Likewise, the CHR has the authority to monitor demolitions conducted by the government. This authority flows from its constitutional mandate to monitor the government's compliance with international treaty obligations such as the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to which the Philippine is a signatory which mandates state parties to ensure and guarantee the right to an adequate housing which includes the right against illegal or forced eviction.
Verily, to hold that the CHR has NO AUTHORITY AT ALL to investigate violations of human rights committed as a result of an illegal demolition is tantamount to transforming the CHR into a mere paper tiger. To quote the dissenting opinion of Supreme Court Associate Justice Teodoro Padilla, "CERTAINLY, THE CAUSE OF HUMAN RIGHTS IS NOT ENHANCED WHEN THE VERY CONSTITUTIONAL AGENCY TASKED TO PROTECT AND VINDICATE HUMAN RIGHTS IS TRANSFORMED BY US, FROM THE START, INTO A TIGER WITHOUT DENTURES BUT WITH MAIMED LEGS TO BOOT ."
undated
ON
HOUSE BILL NO. 7436
entitled
"An Act Prohibiting the Arrest of Any Person by Virtue of a Warrant During Weekends and Holidays, Except in Certain Instances, Prescribing Penalties for Violation Therefor, and for Other Purposes"
(I ntroduced by Cong, Romeo R. Salalima)
=========================
The present bill seeks to remedy the abhorrent practice of police or warrant officers of serving warrant of arrests on weekends or on holidays which in effect prevents the accused to immediately avail himself of his right to bail guaranteed under the constitution. For lack of legal sanction, the practice has been known to be source of abuse and rich pasture for graft and corruption of police and court authorities. Hopefully, with the proscription of such practice under the present bill, the condemnable practice will be lessened if not totally eliminated.
The Commission supports in principle the passage of this bill, as it protects human rights of persons who are entitled to bail.
The penalty of 6 years and 1 day to 12 years and a fine of P20,000,00 of the proposed bill is too harsh and disproportionate to the offense punished. It is suggested that the penalty of prision correctional and a fine of P10,000.00 plus an administrative disciplinary action be imposed.
The proposed bill should also include the punishment of judges who issue warrants of arrests past the period of office hours or on holidays unless there is an urgent necessity. If the issuance of warrants of arrests at night or on holidays is to prevent the suspect from securing a bailbond, then the judges who issued said warrants are likewise guilty. It should also be considered a criminal offense.
In the alternative, since judges can be investigated only by the Supreme Court and not by the Ombudsman on acts committed in connection with their official duties, as ruled by the Supreme Court in Maceda vs.Ombudsman, G.R. 102781 April 1993, a provision in the bill should include a proper endorsement to the Supreme Court for the imposition of appropriate disciplinary action for erring judges. A similar incident occurred in 1977 when Judge Pio Marcos of Baguio issued a search warrant at 12:00 midnight and ordered the execution of the warrant at 2:00 AM to seize the "Golden Buddha" from Rogelio Roxas. The Secretary of Justice filed an administrative charge against Judge Marcos (Secretary of Justice vs. Marcos 76 SCRA 301).
As a whole, the Commission supports the earnest passage of this bill but with certain reservations of the penalty provision and the suggestion to include also judges.
Undated
|
