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 papers 57-58 page
links to HR position papers 61-63 page

 

POSITION PAPER

          Referred to the Commission is the request by the Committee on Civil, Political and Human Rights as to its comment on the human rights implication arising from the setting up of Barangay Registration and Identification System by the local government units.

          For lack of factual basis in the absence of any law mandating and/or allowing the enactment of an ordinance setting up Barangay Registration and Identification System by the local government, this position paper is specifically directed on Ordinance No. 123, Series of 1996 in the Municipality of Marikina .

          The pertinent provisions of the Constitution of the Philippines provide:

"Section 11, Article II - The State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights."

 "Section 1, Article III - No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws."

 Section 6, Article III - The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety or public health, as may be provided by law." (Underlining ours)

          Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides:

"1. Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty or movement and freedom to choose his residence.

 2. Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.

 3. The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order, public health or morals, or the right and freedom of others, and are inconsistent with the other rights in the present covenant." (Underlining ours)

4. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country."

           In both the Constitution of the Philippines and in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which the Philippines is a signatory, will show that the only limitation and/or impairment of the right to locomotion, the liberty of abode, the right to travel, the right to liberty or movement and freedom to choose his residence are when said impairment and/or limitations are necessary to protect national security, public order, public health or morals, or to protect the rights and freedom of others.

          There is nothing in Ordinance 123 to show that there is a national situation and/or condition necessitating the mandatory registration and identification system to protect national security, or to protect public health, public order or public morals. Neither is there a situation and/or condition justifying the institution of the compulsory registration under payment of a fine in order to protect the rights and freedom of others.

          Let it be said that, generally, instituting a barangay registration and identification system is not questionable per se. The validity of such system will depend upon the purpose for which it is installed and the prevailing circumstances in the community. For, the system could be a tool for efficiency or at the same time, a weapon of repression. If the purpose is to facilitate transaction and improve government's operation and providing citizens with certain benefits, then it can be sustained on constitutional ground. A case in point is the U.S. ID system in the form of social security system procured by citizens and residents to be used as identification to facilitate transactions and dealings with government.

          On the other hand, a registration and ID system which has for principal purpose of keeping track of every person's whereabouts and literally requires a person to justify his presence in a community run counter with the very basic human rights to liberty of abode and of changing the same, his right to travel and move wherever he wants. Other than requiring registration for "whatever use by the municipality", there are no other purposes of national import. Section 1(e) of Ordinance No. 123 provides that this system of registration and identification can "perform such other functions that may be provided by law, executive circular or ordinance."

          The Commission feels that the "exemption" provided by the Constitution of the Philippines and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is not satisfactorily met.

          Another thing, the authority of local government to enact this so-called barangay registration and identification system is doubtful, nay, unauthorized. It is submitted that a national enabling law authorizing local government to enact this kind of system is necessary. Otherwise, it will come to a point that the 1,540 municipalities and 65 cities, more or less, will have different ordinances denying the equal protection of the law.

          undated

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.