7 JANUARY 2010

CHR ON CEBU PACIFIC'S ALLEGED DISCRIMINATION AGAINST A SPECIAL CHILD: “NO AIRLINE POLICY SHOULD DISTINGUISH DISABLED PASSENGERS FROM OTHER PASSENGERS”

Today, January 7, 2010 , various news outfits had reported that on December 23, 2009 , a female passenger of a Cebu Pacific flight from Hong Kong bound for Manila was asked to deplane by reason of the disability of her son, who was on board the same flight. Based on a broadcasted interview, Maritess Alcantara explained that she was asked by the crew prior to departure if her son, John Arvin, was ill. She responded that he was not, albeit he was a special child with Global Developmental Delay, a condition that impedes the normal development of the child's faculties. The crew responded that it was company policy that no 2 special children/persons may board the same flight, and insisted that she disembark together with her son. Based on other news reports, it appeared that there was another passenger on board who had down syndrome.

After over a delay of about an hour, the Cebu Pacific crew relented and allowed Alcantara and her son to remain on board. Alcantara, having been subjected to the crew's intimidating demeanor and the humiliation in the presence of other passengers, is now suing Cebu Pacific for discrimination directed against her son.

Reacting to the news, CHR Chairperson Leila De Lima said, “We are deeply concerned and dismayed by the reported incident on the 23 rd of December. Special children require special attention and protection. And by special attention, we do not mean attention that discriminates unfavorably against the child. If attention does not serve to accommodate and facilitate equal enjoyment of the same rights and privileges that other persons enjoy, then it is clearly prohibited.”

“The law provides very clear and simple parameters to prevent discrimination against the special children and the Disabled in general,” De Lima added. “Transport providers, specifically, are identified by statute to ensure that the Disabled are not discriminated against.”

The statute De Lima referred to is the Magna Carta for Disabled Persons (R.A. 7277). The said statute provides, to wit:

 

“ DISCRIMINATION ON TRANSPORTATION

Sec. 34. Public Transportation. — It shall be considered discrimination for the franchisees or operators and personnel of sea, land, and air transportation facilities to charge higher fare or to refuse to convey a passenger, his orthopedic devices, personal effects, and merchandise by reason of his disability.” (Emphasis supplied)

De Lima continued, “Whether or not there is in fact a Cebu Pacific policy against freely accommodating the Disabled has yet to be seen. All things told, however, I cannot imagine how such a policy can be worded without violating the Magna Carta for Disabled Persons.”

“I am particularly concerned over this alleged policy because I am a mother of a special child,” De Lima remarked. “There are no words to describe how important it is to parents, such as Ms. Alcantara, that their children be treated with the same regard as other children, despite their disability.”

On what measure should be undertaken in light of the looming law suit against Cebu Pacific, De Lima said, “Particularly, airlines, together with other public utilities and common carriers, must now review their policies and make the necessary changes to comply with the law. Also, I propose that mandatory human rights training be made a part of employee development for common carriers like Cebu Pacific, in order to ensure that frontline personnel, who directly interact with the public, are sensitized to the special concerns of special children, the Disabled, and their companions.”

On whether the issued apology of Cebu Pacific is sufficient, De Lima added, “As far as the damages caused to Ms. Alcantara are concerned, let us allow the judicial process to decide. But beyond that, I think this incident is an eye-opener for airlines and other public utilities, because in their line of work, which is a public service, they must be fully accommodating of every segment of the public, disabled or not. Their industry is imbued with public interest, and thus, all their functions, policies and staff must act with public interest in mind.”