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
links to links page
links to contact us page
links to site map
      
               
goes back to about HR position page
links HR position papers 3-4 page


ON
HOUSE BILL NO. 608
and
SENATE BILL NO. 751
(Magna Carta for Household Helpers)

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

          From the records of the Philippine Congress, Senate Bill No. 751 and House Bill No. 608 were introduced by Senator Loren Legarda-Leviste and Congressman Jack Enrile respectively. Both Bills deal with the same subject matter - 'the batas kasambahay' - seeking to institutionalize and uplift the minimum working parameters and standards of the household help industry. At the same time, the bills recognize the domestic household help as an essential institution and an integral aspect of Philippine society which is deeply rooted in its history and the culture of its people. A cursory reading of the Bills shows that they contain identical provisions. Hence, this consolidated position paper.

          The Commission on Human Rights (CHR) fully supports these bills representing a substantial contribution to a big leap in the development of human rights measures in the country. The CHR shares the objective of the two bills in providing the basic structure that would uphold the dignity and protect the rights and privileges of the domestic household helpers.It is clear from Article 23 No. 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) that "everyone who works has the right to just and favorable remuneration ensuring for himself an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented if necessary by other means of social protection." (emphasis supplied).

          The preamble of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights further states that "in accordance with the UDHR, the ideal of free human beings enjoying freedom from fear and want can only be achieved if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy his economic, social and cultural rights as well as civil and political rights."

          The Bills put into context promotion and protection of the rights of household help by qualifying their provisions as priority legislative proposals further to the State policy embodied in Section 11, Article II of the Philippine Constitution which provides that "(T)he State valuesthe dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights."

          It is observed that the above-cited human rights principles, among others, are addressed in the proposed Batas Kasambahay. The inherent dignity and equality in the enjoyment of the inalienable rights of all members of the human family are the foundation of freedom for which reason, househelpers unequivocally deserve a law that protects their human rights and interest.

          There are however some issues that need to be clarified, and the CHR submits the following observations and recommendations:

          1. While the proposed provisions of the bills are contextually sound, their effective implementation orenforceability remains dubious. It must be considered that househelpers come from rural settings/areas putting them in a disadvantaged situation when dealing with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) as the local interagency department on "Kasambahay" matters.

          It is suggested that the Commission on Human Rights be the lead agency instead, as it has the sensitivity and focus to attend to matters concerning househelpers.

          2. The proposed bills should allow househelpers to form organizations or unions. This must be encouraged, and assistance must be given by the barangay and the Commission on Human Rights.

          3. Employment contracts between the employer and household helpers must be attested to by the Commission on Human Rights and copy furnished the barangay where the household residence is located. This will protect the 'Kasambahay' from legal "inconveniences" that may fail to advance their interest.

          In view of the foregoing, the Commission on Human Rights seeks for the early passage into law House Bill No. 608 and Senate Bill No. 751.

          Quezon City , August 22, 2002

ON
SENATE BILL NO. 782

entitled "An Act Legalizing Divorce, Amending For The Purpose Title II And Articles 55 To 67 Thereunder Of Executive Order No. 209, As Amended By Executive Order No. 227, Otherwise Known As The Family Code Of the Philippines" ( Introduced by Senator Rodolfo G. Biazon)

 and

HOUSE BILL NO. 878

entitled " "An Act Legalizing Divorce, Amending For The Purpose Title II And Articles 55 To 67 Thereunder Of Executive Order No. 209, As Amended By Executive Order No. 227, Otherwise Known As The Family Code Of the Philippines" (Introduced by Representative Bellaflor J. Angara-Castillo)

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

           Senate Bill No. 782, introduced by Senator Rodolfo G. Biazon and House Bill No. 878, introduced by Honorable Bellaflor J. Angara-Castillo, with the same title, are similar to House Bill No. 6993, introduced by Congressman Manuel C. Ortega of La Union in the previous Congress, to which the Commission on Human Rights had opposed. The said Senate and House Bills add another ground for absolute divorce by showing a breakdown of the marriage due to irreconcilable marital differences and immediate breakdown of the marriage relationship. These Senate and House Bills seeks to amend Articles 55 to 67 of the Family Code by providing that all the ten (10) grounds for legal separation under the Family Code will be the grounds for absolute divorce of spouses.

          Based purely on human rights principles, the Commission on Human Rights manifests its opposition to Senate Bill No. 782 and House Bill No. 878 on the following grounds:

          1. The proposal to legalize absolute divorce with the right to remarry violates relevant international instruments on human rights. Article 16(3) of the United Nation Declaration of Human Rights provides:

           2.The innocent spouse and the children in most cases may suffer economic difficulties. Aside from being abandoned by the guilty spouse, the innocent spouse and children, in most cases, will suffer untold economic difficulties. While both the Senate and House Bills provide that the children of divorce spouses are entitled to support in accordance with the Family Code, the divorced spouses who will remarry will have to maintain another family of their own. It is possible that more families will have to be maintained, as there is no prohibition of another divorce. The average income of the breadwinner of a family in the Philippines is hardly sufficient to maintain one family. Needless to state, that almost one-half of the Filipino families are living within the poverty line.

          3. The human rights of the innocent spouse is violated. The guilty spouse in the divorce case is allowed to abandon or neglect his obligation to provide company and care of the innocent spouse and the children, thus violating Article 68 of the Family Code which reads:

"The husband and wife are obliged to live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity and render mutual help and support."

          4. Irrespective of any religious beliefs, divorce of spouses with right to remarry constitutes a grave offense against a natural law. Divorce is unnatural and immoral as it causes disorder in the family and society. Divorce brings grave harm to the deserted spouse and the children who are traumatized by the separation of their parents are often torn between them. Because of its contagious effect in society, it becomes a plague on society. A divorce invites another divorce. The innocent spouse who has not contravened any law is unlawfully deserted.

          5. Absolute divorce is destructive of the family as a social institution mandated under the Constitution. One of the basic policies of the State, as declared in the principles of the Philippine Constitution reads:

"The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception. The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the young for civic inefficiency and the development of moral charactershall receive the support of the government."
( Article 11, Section 12)

          To implement this state policy, Article XV, Sections 1-3 of the Philippine Constitution read:

"Sec. 1. The State recognizes the Filipino family as the foundation of the nation. Accordingly, it shall strengthen its solidarity and actively promote its total development.

 Sec. 2. Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the family and shall be protected by the state. The State shall defend:

          1)  The right spouses to found a family in accordance with their religious convictions and           the demands of responsible parenthood;

           2)  The right of children to assistance, including proper care and nutrition, and special           protection from all forms of neglect, abuse, cruelty, exploitation, and other conditions           prejudicial to their environment;

          3)  The right of the family to a family living wage and income; and

          4)  The right of the families or family associations to participate in the planning and           implementation of policies and programs that affects them.

 

          The aforesaid constitutional provisions will have to be amended before the divorce bills will be enacted into law.

          6. Absolute divorce violates the concept of marriage, a permanent union of man and woman. The Family Code defines marriage as a permanent union of man and woman. Article 1 of the Family Code reads:

" Marriage is a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman entered into in accordance with law for the establishment of conjugal family life. It is the foundation of the family and an inviolable social institution whose nature, consequences, and incidents are governed by law and not subject to stipulation, except that marriage settlements may fix the property relations during the marriage within the limits provided by this Code."

                                                                                                                                                                  The Civil Code also provides for the presumption of the solidarity of the family and the indissolubility of marriage bonds.

          Article 220 of the Civil Code reads:

"In case of doubt, all presumptions favor the solidarity of the family. Thus, every intendment of law or facts lean toward the validity of marriage, the indissolubility of marriage bonds, the legitimacy of children, the community of property during marriage, the authority of the parents over their children, and the validity of defense for any member of the family in case of unlawful aggression."

           Absolute divorce destroys the very concept of family as an inviolable social institution. The purpose of the proponents of the Senate and House Bills that it will give an opportunity for spouses to separate from an intolerable spouse and by entering into a new marriage is not altogether an assurance that the new marriage will be a happy and permanent one. The experience in countries where divorces are allowed and easily obtained, such as the United States , is that people divorces have experienced multiple divorces and have remarried several times in their selfish desire to get rid of unwanted spouses by intentionally creating the cause of the divorce.

          In view thereof, the Commission on Human Rights manifests its strong opposition to the two aforesaid bills.

          Quezon City , 18 July 2001

 

ADOPTING THE CHR RULES OF PROCEDURES
ON THE CONTEMPT POWER OF THE COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

WHEREAS , pursuant to Section 18 (1), Article XIII of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) has the powers and functions to, among others, “(1) Investigate, on its own or on complaint by any party, all forms of human rights violations involving civil and political rights;” (2) Adopt its operational guidelines and rules of procedure, and cite for contempt for violation thereof in accordance with the Rules of Court; xxx (4) Exercise visitorial powers over jails, prisons, or detention facilities; xxx (7) Monitor the Philippine Government’s compliance with international treaty obligations on human rights;”

WHEREAS, the implementing laws of the above cited-constitutional provisions are Executive Order 163, s. 1987, wherein Section 3(2) thereof provides that the Commission has the authority to “Adopt its operational guidelines and rules of procedures, and cite for contemptfor violations thereof in accordance with the Rules of Court; and Executive Order No. 292, otherwise known as the Administrative Code of 1987, wherein Section 2(2), Title II, Subtitle A of Book V likewise specifically provides that the Commission has the power “to adopt its operational guidelines and rules of procedures, and cite for contempt violations thereof in accordance with the Rules of Court”;

WHEREAS, pursuant to the above constitutional provision, the Commission adopted Resolution No. A-89-109A dated 19 July 1989 , promulgating its Revised Rules in the Conduct of Investigation/Hearing of Complaints for Violation of Human Rights;

WHEREAS, to strengthen the foregoing revised rules, the Commission issued Resolution No. A93-047 dated 11 August 1993 , providing guidelines in pursuing complaints for human rights violations;

WHEREAS, to give teeth to its human rights investigation, visitorial and monitoring powers, there is need to promulgate the corresponding rules of procedures relative to the enforcement of the contempt power of the Commission against anyone who commits contumacious acts as defined in the herein rules on contempt of the Commission.

WHEREFORE, the Commission resolved, as it hereby resolves, to adopt and promulgate the following rules of procedures governing its contempt power, to wit:

 

RULES ON CONTEMPT

A. DIRECT CONTEMPT

Section 1. Acts Punished As Direct Contempt.-- Any person who misbehaves in the presence of or so near the Commission or any of its members, as to obstruct, interrupt, frustrate or impede the proceedings before the same, including disrespect thereof or resort to the use of insulting language or derogatory remarks in the pleadings, memoranda and/or position papers, offensive personalities towards others, or refusal to be sworn or to answer as a witness, or to subscribe and affirm under oath an affidavit or deposition when lawfully required to do so, may be summarily adjudged in direct contempt of the Commission.

Section 2. Penalty. -- A person adjudged in direct contempt of the Commission may be publicly reprimanded or censured and/or punished by a fine not exceeding Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00).

Section 3. Remedy Of Person Adjudged In Direct Contempt. – A person adjudged in direct contempt of the Commission may not appeal said judgment or order, but may avail himself / herself of the remedies of certiorari or prohibition pursuant to Section 2 of Rule 71 of the Rules of Court.

B. INDIRECT CONTEMPT

Section 4. Acts Punished As Indirect Contempt. -- Any person who commits any of the following acts may be cited for indirect contempt:

      • Disobedience or resistance to a lawful writ, process, order, decision, resolution, ruling, summons, subpoena or command of the Commission;
      • Any abuse of or any unlawful interference with the processes or proceedings of the Commission not constituting direct contempt as previously described in these Rules;
      • Any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, delay, hamper or degrade the implementation of any lawful writ, process, order, decision, resolution, ruling or command of the Commission not constituting direct contempt as set forth in this Rules;
      • Deliberate failure to obey a subpoena or subpoena duces tecum or subpoena duces tecum ad testificandum duly served without valid justification therefore.

Section 5. Complaint. -- No person shall be cited for indirect contempt without a formal complaint filed by an aggrieved party or by the Commission motu proprio by issuing an order or any other formal charge requiring the respondent to answer within ten (10) days from receipt of such order or summons and to show cause why he / she should not be punished for contempt. The Commission en banc shall calendar for hearing the contempt proceedings within fifteen (15) days from the expiration of the ten (10) days show cause period given to respondent.

Section 6. Authority Of The Commission To Investigate And Monitor Human Rights Incidents And Situations. — CHR Special Investigator/s or special fact-finding or investigative monitoring team on mission to conduct investigation or fact-finding of human rights violations / incidents, or to pursue investigative monitoring of economic, social and cultural rights situations shall bring with him/her/them an official document addressed to the concerned party clearly showing the Commission’s authority to investigate and/or monitor human rights violations /incidents or human rights situations of vulnerable sectors. Such document shall indicate therein the actions expected of the person/s to whom such document is issued.

The said document shall be duly issued and signed by the Commission en banc, or for the Commission: by the Chairperson or any Commissioner; or by authority of the Commission: by the Regional Director, in cases within the area of responsibility or jurisdiction of the regional office concerned.

Section 7. Formal Hearing. -- Indirect contempt shall be imposed only after due proceedings and an opportunity given to the respondent to be heard by himself or by counsel. On the day set for the hearing, the Commission shall proceed to investigate the charge and consider such answer or evidence which the respondent may adduce in his / her behalf.

Nothing in this Section shall be construed as to prevent the Commission from issuing processes or orders, or requiring the respondent to appear or be present before the Commission, or from holding him / her in custody pending such proceedings.

Section 8. Penalty. -- A person adjudged guilty of indirect contempt may be punished by a fine of Three Thousand Pesos (P3,000.00) for every act thereof. Each day of defiance of, or disobedience to, or non-enforcement of a final order, resolution, decision, ruling, or processes, shall constitute an indirect contempt of the Commission. If the contempt consists in the violation of or omission to do an act which is still within the power of the respondent to perform, the respondent may also be held liable for all damages sustained as a consequence thereof by the aggrieved party.

Damages shall refer to the amount of salaries and/or other monetary benefits that shall have accrued to the aggrieved party had the final order, decision, resolution, ruling, or processes of the Commission been enforced or implemented on time.

Section 9. Appeals in Indirect Contempt. -- The decision or order of the Commission declaring the respondent guilty of indirect contempt may be appealed by respondent to the Supreme Court by petition for certiorari within fifteen (15) days from notice or receipt of a copy of the decision or order. Otherwise, the same shall be final and executory.

Section 10. Contempt Powers of Regional Directors. -- In cases of contempt committed by any person/s against any CHR Regional Director or deputized Hearing Officer/s, the Regional Director concerned, shall apply or petition before the Commission en banc to declare a person within their jurisdiction in indirect contempt for any of the acts or omissions set forth in these Rules.

Section 11. Publication. -- These rules shall be published by the filing of three (3) certified copies thereof with the University of the Philippines Law Center .

SECTION 12. Effectivity. – These rules shall take effect upon the expiration of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of the required copies thereof by the U.P. Law Center.

Quezon City, 20 September 2005,