 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|||
 |
||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
||||||||
Traders Hotel, Manila , Philippines
11 Feruary 2009
delivered by
LEILA M. DE LIMA
Chairperson
UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities:
The Challenges of Implementation
Good morning.
I would like to thank the organizers from Rehabilitation International and the International Disability Alliance for this opportunity for the Commission on Human Rights to once again speak on the rapidly developing field of human rights for persons with disabilities.
Since the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities had come into force last year on 3 May 2008, initiated by the first twenty (20) nations to ratify the same, a landslide of support from the rest of the world has generated enormous momentum for our intrepid endeavor to advance the rights of the differently-abled. To date, there are 137 signatory states to the Convention, with 47 ratifications and accessions. The Optional Protocol has 81 signatories, including 28 ratifications and accessions. The Philippines is yet to sign and ratify the Optional Protocol.
The crafting of the Convention and the international support it has so far garnered has been described as a dramatic shift in perspective in relation to persons with disabilities.
For the longest time, the disenfranchisement of persons with disabilities had been characterized by an insidious affliction – not so much as directly delivered blows to their rights, but by a systemic construction of society that designed special care for differently-abled persons that results in their exclusion. Simply put, care was equated with exclusion. Exclusion, in turn, has resulted in the “invisibility” of persons with disabilities. How many differently-abled children in generations past had been kept hidden in homes, and away from outside-world participation? How many had made it far enough to attend special schools only to grow up and return to the idleness of remaining at home? In the realm of truly meaningful participation in society, from gainful employment to the electoral process, we had lost almost literally, generations of differently-abled.
Only in recent years running up to the creation of the Convention had this relationship between care and exclusion been viewed as ironic and paradoxical. The re-examination of our manner of designing humane societies had rendered obsolete the view that persons with disabilities are objects of protection, thus ushering in the affirmation that all persons, including PWDs, are subjects of human rights and the law.
The rights-based approach to disability essentially means viewing persons with disabilities as subjects of law. Its final aim is to empower disabled persons, and to ensure their active participation in political, economic, social, and cultural life in a way that is respectful and accommodating of their difference. This approach is normatively based on international human rights standards and operationally directed to enhancing the promotion and protection of the human rights of persons with disabilities. Strengthening the protection of human rights is also a way to prevent disability.
Four core values of human rights law are of particular importance in the context of disability:
The paradigm shift is now galvanized in the international convention. National governments have signified their consent. What remains now is the daunting question of how to translate this rhetoric, the written document and the signatures, into actual practice. The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is the template by which we can resurrect generations of disenfranchised differently-abled persons. But as with any template, we now must meet the challenge of implementation.
The documents that guarantee human rights are only as effective as those organizations and governments charged with ensuring that the rights are realized. For this reason, the organizations working with PWDs and the Commission on Human Rights must work together to bring other organizations, all differently-abled persons, the National Government and the rest of society to join ranks to promote the paradigm that the Convention brings.
The CHR, in its role in the implementation of the CRPD, is mandated by the Philippine Constitution to perform the following functions and exercise the following powers:
On the CHR's investigative function, the CHR currently does not distinguish between complaints filed by or against PWDs from other complainants, except in those instances where the condition of the PWD warrants special assistance.
On the power to request assistance, the CHR has signed a Memorandum of Agreement for the creation of an inter-agency Task Force for the effective implementation of laws on accessibility that prohibit discrimination of public utilities against PWDs. Yet accessibility on public transportation is not the only issue of accessibility that faces persons with disabilities. We have declared time and time again, in line with the crescendo leading up to next year's elections, that accessibility to polling precincts is another issue that must be addressed to meet the needs of PWD voters.
On the Commission's monitoring functions, there is evidence of a shortfall that is doubled-edged. The internal database of the CHR is able to identify specific cases involving PWDs, but we do not have a separate protocol specific to these cases. And as we've reported before KAMPI, there is only an average of 4 cases involving PWDs per year. These case comprise less than 1% of all cases filed with the CHR.
Beyond the database of the CHR, there, too, seems to be the problem of minimal “positioning” of the CHR that effectively enables PWDs to come to the Commission for assistance. This includes a lack of strong partnerships and connection between the CHR and the PWD organizations, government agencies concerned with PWDs and PWDs themselves.
The CHR is not capable of effectively undertaking the task on its own. As I have discussed in a previous engagement with KAMPI, the budgetary limitations of the CHR leaves much to be done in order to successfully carry out the provisions of the Convention. Be that as it may, the Commission is committed to carrying out the following measures:
There is much more to be done. There is a need to appoint one non-governmental organization as a lead, implementing agent for every Article of the United Nations Convention on the Rights and Dignity of People with Disabilities. In addition, we need to identify and provide a public forum for disability “watchdogs” that report inadequate adherence to the Convention’s standards. We have to provide disability related human rights literature and instructional materials to non-governmental organizations, academic institutions, and government agencies. To educate society and reorient everyone on the new paradigm embodied by the Convention requires massive manpower and funding for materials and logistics. It follows that we must advocate and encourage foundations and other sources of financial support to create disability specific grant opportunities.
This is only the beginning. We need to strengthen the position of organizations such as Rehabilitation International and International Disability Alliance in order to bring new discussions and reports on developments within the international human rights disability community to our own country. And just as we are fighting to bring heightened human rights news exposure through the various media outlets, we must ensure that disability related issues are given fair coverage as well. We have to encourage and promote the development of innovative research and emerging non-governmental organizations by p roviding educational and networking resources.
We have gone a long way. We are not without our own successes in finding ways to promote the integration of persons with disabilities. The Philippines has been recognized for its outstanding social legislation, despite the many challenges to full and meaningful implementation. The Magna Carta for Disabled Persons, for example, provides deductions from the gross income of private entities in the amount of 25% of total salaries paid to differently-abled persons, for purposes of tax base computations. Modifications to the physical facilities that provide reasonable accommodation for disabled persons also entitles private entities to additional deductions from their net taxable income. The DSWD, DOH and DepEd are also enjoined by the same law to allocate 5% of all casual emergency and contractual positions to disabled persons.
Local government has undertaken projects also that promote economic opportunities for the differently-abled. Last year, the Provincial Government of Bulacan, together with Provincial Social Welfare and Development Office, launched free livelihood training seminars for differently-abled persons to either improve or acquire relevant skills pertaining to in-demand business opportunities such as candle and soap making.
Tahanang Walang Hagdanan, an NGO in Cainta, Rizal, employs handicapped workers for the manufacture of wheelchairs, school desks and educational aids.
St. Joseph the Worker Parish, through its Livelihood and Training Center , has been one of the many church-based responses to the call of equal opportunities for the differently-abled. During the graduation of the first batch of the Food Processing Seminar, one graduate, a polio victim walked in his crutches to receive his diploma. Asked why he had taken the seminar, he replied, “ Nag-aral akong magluto sapagka't kahit hindi na ako makakapagtrabaho sa pamamagitan ng aking mga paa, makakapagtrabaho pa ako sa pamamagitan ng aking mga kamay.”
We have so many examples of Filipinos who are differently-abled who have managed to incorporate their disabilities into meaningful and industrious lives. The example of Roselle Ambubuyog comes to mind. She graduated summa cum laude in BS Math from Ateneo de Manila University. She was a scholar and an outstanding student. She was also visually impaired. The enormity of the challenges not just for Roselle to succeed, but for the school administration and faculty to accommodate a visually impaired student, is a model for incorporating and mainstreaming the disabled. From lectures and exams in Braille or audio to the physical set-up of the campus, so much had to be done to tap the potential that Roselle had.
And we are fraught with examples of parents and teachers who have given every opportunity to our children with disabilities to succeed. Roselle Ambubuyog's father, who literally stood by his daughter's side during her tenure at Ateneo, was one of them. I am one of them. My eldest son had been diagnosed with autism. I am one of many who are like you, who still fight to bring about a change that gives our differently-abled countrymen, our children, the same opportunities and treatment before the eyes of men and before the law.
The change cannot come from me, a mother of a special child. It cannot come only from us who work with persons with disabilities. We must bring everyone into the fold, all those who are able and disabled, to create a world that is kind and egalitarian, where we are all truly equal.
Thank you and good day to all of you.