 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|||
 |
||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
||||||||
Philippine International Convention Center , Pasay City
7 December 2009
delivered by
LEILA M. DE LIMA
Chairperson
HUMAN RIGHTS EDUCATION PROGRAM IN THE PHILIPPINES
The Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines (CHR) was created in the aftermath of the Marcos administration. During those years, human rights violations were widespread and commonplace, with enforced disappearances, torture, and extrajudicial killings, among some of the many abuses which happened.
The response was, ‘Never again.’ Never again would we allow our nation to be held under the sway of an autocrat. Never again would we allow a powerful few to decide with impunity, who lives and who dies, who is taken away from his family, and whose physical person is violated or mutilated. Never again would we allow human rights violations to become the norm, and a culture of impunity to pervade our society.
In order to help ensure that human rights would be respected and protected after the Marcos years, the 1987 Philippine Constitution introduced a number of key provisions.
One of the developments introduced by the Constitution was the creation of an independent body known as the Commission on Human Rights (CHR), with powers and functions aimed at helping to ensure respect for the human dignity of all people, of all Filipinos.
That is who we are. That is what the CHR is all about. And one of the functions designated to the CHR by the Constitution is that of establishing a continuing program of research, education, and information to enhance respect for the primacy of human rights. (Art. XIII, Sec. 18[5])
Let me now turn more specifically to some of the legal underpinnings of the importance of human rights education, in the world and in the Philippines .
From the very beginning of the modern human rights movement, human rights education has been emphasized as necessary and important. Its significance is shown by the many international human rights treaties and instruments, which mandate education and awareness raising.
One of the foundations of the international human rights movement is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was promulgated in the aftermath of the Second World War, when its horrors and atrocities were still fresh in the minds of government leaders and the public at large, alike.
In its Article 26, it provides that:
“Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.”
Several decades later, the two other international human rights treaties which form the bedrock of international human rights law, came into being. These two treaties are the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
The Philippines is a Party to both these treaties, which means that our government is legally bound to comply with their provisions.
The ICESCR provides, in Art. 13, that:
“They [States Parties] agree that education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and the sense of its dignity, and shall strengthen the respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.”
There is the clear message in this treaty that human rights education is an essential component of any attempt to strengthen respect for human rights. And again, as a Party to this international treaty, the Philippine government has an international legal obligation to comply with its provisions.
The Philippines is also a Party to the ICCPR, and is therefore bound by its treaty provisions. Now, the primary international body with the authority to interpret the provisions of this treaty is from the United Nations.
In 2004, that body released an interpretative comment, where it said that:
“Article 2 requires that States Parties [such as the Philippines ] adopt … educative and other appropriate measures in order to fulfil their legal obligations. The Committee believes that it is important to raise levels of awareness about the Covenant not only among public officials and State agents but also among the population at large.”
We can see here that our international treaty obligations require the Philippines to make use of education and awareness-raising, not only to inform public officials and members of the government, but also the entire public.
Many other international human rights treaties contain provisions which focus on the need for human rights education. Allow me to give you a sample of these treaties.
From the UDHR in 1948, to the most recent human rights treaty, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 2006, human rights education has been included, emphasized and required, which makes clear just how important it is in order to fully protect and promote human rights movement.
The significance of human rights education is further emphasized when the United Nations General Assembly, in its resolution 49/184 of December 23, 1994 , proclaimed 1994 to 2004 as the U.N. Decade for Human Rights Education.
In a report of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, it was stated that:
“[H]uman rights education, training and public information were essential for the promotion and achievement of stable and harmonious relations among communities and for fostering mutual understanding, tolerance and peace.”
That report further called on all States and institutions:
“[T]o include human rights, humanitarian law, democracy and the rule of law as subjects in the curricula of all learning institutions in formal and non-formal settings.”
What is it I would like to leave with you, after this short discussion of the basis for human rights education under international law?
One , human rights education has been repeatedly emphasized, over the last several decades, in many international human rights treaties, as a critical component of the effort to help ensure respect for human dignity.
Two , as a Party to many of these international human rights treaties, there is in fact an international legal obligation on the part of the Philippine government, to provide an effective framework for human rights education in the country.
This is not optional. This is not something that can be done, when it is convenient, or when it is easy. It is in fact, mandatory. It is a duty, and an obligation, and if the government does not comply with these provisions, it is in breach of its international legal obligations.
Three , human rights education makes sense, and is in all our best interests. We all benefit when the human rights of all persons are meaningfully respected and protected by the government. Human rights education makes all of us better off because it precisely promotes mutual understanding, tolerance and peace, which contributes to a more stable and more harmonious society.
So again, human rights education is not optional. It is an obligation and a duty, but in addition to that, it is something that will make our society and our lives better, as well as the lives of future generations.
As noted earlier, international law and our international treaty obligations require the Philippines to put in place a framework for and effective implementation of, human rights education.
We have not been standing still in this regard. In fact, the Philippines already has in place many legal provisions with respect to human rights education. We are by no means already completely fulfilling our obligations, but there is much here that we can be proud of as a country.
Let us look first to the highest law of the land, the 1987 Philippine Constitution.
In Art. II, Sec. 11, the Constitution provides that:
“The State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights.”
And in Art. XIV, Sec. 3, the Constitution provides that:
“All educational institutions shall include the study of the Constitution as part of the curricula.
xxx
They [all educational institutions] shall foster … love of humanity [and] respect for human rights.”
This is the highest law of our land, and already it contains specific and clear provisions which require all educational institutions in the Philippines to foster respect for human rights.
Thus, even at the level of national law, it is plain to see that human rights education is a requirement for all educational institutions, without exception. And this Constitutional provision is further bolstered by even more detailed administrative issuances, which I will now go over briefly.
As relatively early as 1986, former President Corazon Aquino issued Executive Order No. 27, which provides that:
“The [then] Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports shall include the study and understanding of human rights in the curricula of all levels of education and training in all schools in the country.”
Many other presidential and administrative issuances followed, during the Aquino and subsequent administrations, making more concrete the framework for human rights education in the Philippines .
This Order was aimed at maximizing respect for human rights by the police, the military, and other arresting and investigating personnel.
This Proclamation constituted a National Inter-Agency Multi-Sectoral Committee, composed of representatives from both the public and private sectors, tasked with formulating, establishing and implementing programs for human rights education, throughout the country, in close coordination with the Commission on Human Rights (CHR).
These Orders directed all department secretaries, heads of agencies and government-owned and controlled corporations, to integrate human rights concepts in their training and education programs, to help people internalize human rights, and to serve as a deterrent against future abuses. The private sector was likewise encouraged to undertake similar training and education activities.
These are only a few of the Presidential Issuances promulgated in order to mandate human rights education, training and information dissemination. This mandate was directed to a broad swathe of institutions, from schools, to law enforcement, to the military, to all departments, agencies, and government corporations, as well as the private sector.
The policy here is clear. Human rights education must be transmitted throughout the vast machinery of government, as well as the rest of the public at large, in order to forestall potential abuses, and in order to help ensure actions in line with our obligations under international human rights law.
In order to further implement the instructions contained in the presidential issuances, government agencies promulgated their own Orders, further cascading the instructions of the President down to their various hierarchical levels.
For instance, the [then] Department of Education, Culture and Sports issued Memorandum Orders No. 61 and 180, while the Commission on Higher Education issued Memorandum Order No. 31, relating to human rights education.
Also, a number of key government agencies entered into Memoranda of Agreement with the Commission on Human Rights (CHR), in order to further enhance the human rights content and substance of their actions.
Specifically, the ‘80’s and ‘90’s saw Memoranda of Agreement taking place with respect to parties such as the [then] Department of Education, Culture and Sports, the Department of the Interior and Local Government, the Department of Justice, the Department of National Defense, the Commission on Higher Education, and the Philippine Information Agency, among others.
What does this all mean? It means that from the Office of the President, down to the various agencies and offices, movement was taking place in terms of integrating mandatory human rights education, in the programs, training and information dissemination of these institutions.
The efforts taking place culminated, to a certain extent, in the proclamation of 1998 to 2007 as the Philippine Decade for Human Rights Education, following on the similar proclamation from the United Nations earlier on. From a policy perspective at least, it was clear that human rights education was an important and required component of each agency’s agenda.
From the 1987 Constitution, to presidential issuances, to administrative memoranda, memoranda of agreement, and many other more specific documents and instructions, the policy basis for human rights education is clear.
Its scope is comprehensive as it reaches out to all parts of the government machinery, especially particularly relevant agencies such as those relating to education and the uniformed services. It also reaches out even further, encouraging developments even in the private sector, and with respect to the public at large.
How does this all look then?
The Human Rights Education Framework in the Philippines can be divided into two areas, the Formal Sector and the Informal Sector.
The Formal Sector has three main parts: the Civil Service, the Uniformed Services which include the police, the military and other security forces, and finally, the Educational System.
With respect to the Civil Service, human rights education comes in, in the form of in-service education and training, as well as by introducing a human rights aspect to the requirements for eligibility.
Law enforcement, the military, and other security forces are of course, a principal focus and priority, given that human rights knowledge is critical to the decisions made during the conduct of their operations, and especially given the potential for violations and abuse.
Human rights education takes place in terms of in-service education and training, as well as pre-service and career courses. I will touch on this a little more later.
Much emphasis must also, of course, be placed on the Philippine educational system, because of the importance of imparting knowledge of human rights to young persons, and the next generation of leaders and citizens.
Human rights education here breaks down into even further sub-categories:
The curricular human rights education involves separate courses focused primarily on human rights, specific academic degrees on human rights, and very importantly, the integration of human rights learning throughout the various subjects taught, at all levels of the education system.
The co-curricular human rights education process involves such things as reaching out to student organizations, for instance, or engaging in education campaigns aimed at the public at large.
Moving to the informal sector, human rights education takes place here, through such channels as the barangays and local communities, and the private sector. A vital component is the HR awareness being propagated through the BHRAC program.
Again, what does this all mean? It means that from an ideal point of view, human rights education should be pervasive through the government system, as well as encouraged and promoted in the private sphere.
Human rights education should be integrated into the teaching of other subjects throughout the elementary, secondary and tertiary levels of instruction at academic institutions. In addition, standalone subjects and courses on human rights should also exist, and in certain cases should be mandatory.
Police officers, soldiers and other security personnel should be receiving human rights education at various stages in their careers, upon entry, upon promotion, and at other regular and timely intervals.
The government civil service should be receiving regular doses of human rights education, sufficient to enable our government leaders, officials and employees to make informed decisions, with human rights consequences.
And finally, it should mean that the private sector and the public at large, will also find themselves reached by training, education and information-dissemination on human rights.
And throughout all these areas, across these different agencies and institutions, the Commission on Human Rights, for more than two decades, has been working to provide technical and other assistance on human rights training, when given the opportunity.
Again, that is how things should stand, and there is some real progress being made in terms of these different areas. In fact, in 1994, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, or UNESCO, awarded the UNESCO Prize for the Teaching of Human Rights, to the Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines .
That prize was something that we could all be proud of, the fact that the human rights education framework involving the CHR, the academe, the uniformed services, and other institutions, received such recognition at the international level.
That said, that does not mean that the human rights education situation in the Philippines has reached its ideal. In fact, we remain very far from it. Even a cursory look at the headlines and recent news affirms that human rights education, as it now stands, is not doing anywhere near enough to inculcate and institutionalize a culture of human dignity.
We have all borne witness to the atrocity which took place in Maguindanao, where women, media personnel, lawyers, and civilians were brutally executed, in a horrifyingly brazen manner, involving such potentially gruesome acts as torture, rape and mutilation.
Clearly, we are a long way off from the human rights ideal, if something so evil could take place in our country, especially when we know that what happened in Maguindano is not some random, isolated event, but forms part of a larger picture of human rights abuses.
There is a need to improve things drastically, and one area we need to take a long hard look at, is human rights education.
We know that human rights education is mandated, in the Constitution, by the Executive Department, and by the government agencies tasked with regulating our academic institutions. That much is clear.
The real question, however, is whether the subject of human rights really is being meaningfully taught in our schools.
Several years ago, monitoring was carried out involving the CHR, where an attempt was made to determine if schools really were carrying out their responsibilities, in terms of human rights education. The results then were not encouraging. As the years have passed since then, and as attempts have been made to improve the situation, we are again looking to conduct monitoring in order to gauge if improvement has taken place.
I understand that reasons have been given explaining why human rights education has not been properly introduced in some schools. These range from issues of heavy workloads to lack of resources, to preconceived notions and a number of myths relating to human rights.
We, at the CHR alongside other public and private institutions, are working to address some of these issues.
For instance, from the ‘90’s all the way to several years ago, we have been working to develop human rights teaching exemplars for elementary and high school education. More concretely, from 2003 to 2004, the CHR produced three guide books, aimed at providing teachers a comprehensive guide on how to teach human rights in the classroom, in an integrated manner.
We are however mindful of certain constraints. These teaching exemplars exist, for instance, but not enough have been printed, so that copies have not been distributed to each and every school nationwide. These guides as well as other human rights materials do not result in significant change because unfortunately, they are not reaching the schools and classrooms which need them, throughout the archipelago. This will continue to be a significant issue, one for which we must seek creative and innovative solutions.
At the same time, however, the mandate is clear. There is an international as well as national legal obligation to carry out human rights education in our classrooms. This is our duty. In addition, to do this makes sense. We do not wish to live in a society where the killings of Maguindanao become commonplace, or where human rights abuses will continue to haunt our headlines as well as our communities.
We must all find ways to bring about real change, and one way we can do this is by helping to ensure that our children, the next generation, are able to fully understand the meaning of human rights, and just how important it is for us to respect these and protect them.
Many of the issues which hound the educational system, hound the uniformed services as well. Yes, human rights training does take place, but does the training last long enough? Does it happen regularly, at timely intervals? Is it effective? Do the soldiers and police officers truly absorb what is being taught? Or is the effect of the training merely fleeting, or simply lost when they find themselves in the heat of military or police operations?
The Commission on Human Rights is currently working with the military in order to improve the curriculum of the human rights education provided to its soldiers. The hope here is that a better designed curriculum will allow the training to be better inculcated by the trainees, but this is only one of the many things we need to be looking at, with regard to the education of our soldiers.
Other specific challenges exist. There is a need to monitor compliance with human rights education obligations, throughout the civil service. With respect to law schools, in particular, where many of our future leaders and litigators are trained, human rights education is limited, and we would like to see it become mandatory, again in keeping with out international legal obligations.
In summary, the policy framework is there. The international and national obligations are clear. What we face is the need to compare what is on paper with what the reality is on the ground. We need to verify whether individuals and institutions are truly complying with our human rights education obligations.
And finally, where the training and education programs exist, we need to take a long hard look at whether these programs are anywhere near enough, or if there is a need to make them last longer, improve their design and content, and disseminate them further to each and every member of our agencies and institutions.
The human rights situation of the Philippines needs to improve. Recent events have eloquently and horrifyingly demonstrated that the reality on the ground is still quite far from the human rights ideal that we find provided for in our laws, and in international treaties.
Education is critical to any change, to any future improvement. We cannot allow the next generation of leaders and citizens to grow up without an understanding of the importance of human rights. We cannot allow them to make the avoidable errors of judgment which today plague our society and our nation.
Of course, education will not solve everything. There are, and there will be leaders and individuals who know what they should be doing, and yet still choose to do the opposite. There will be persons who will knowingly choose to act in ways which are illegal and inhuman. We know this.
But what we are trying to help prevent is future abuse carried out by virtue of ignorance, or human rights violations exacerbated by the lack of knowledge on the part of the perpetrators.