 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|||
 |
||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
||||||||
A pleasant afternoon to all who are present here today! It is an honor to be here today to speak about Electoral Process from
the Human Rights perspective, specifically, to share with you the CHR’s advocacy for zero voter disenfranchisement come 2010 Elections. For this,
I would like to thank CENPEG for recognizing the role of the Commission
on Human Rights in ensuring that the 2010 elections will be a fair, free and
genuine one.
It was once said that “The highest manifestation of life consists in this: that a being governs its own actions (Saint Thomas Aquinas).” This is the very essence of the right to self-determination. The international community has recognized this right as the most fundamental of human rights, from which the enjoyment and realization of every other human right depends. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), and the very first Article of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (IESCR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) declared that:
All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
The realization of this right to self-determination is the reason why elections are important threads in the fabric of our nation. They link the people to the State in such a way that, instead of being passive subjects ruled by a few, every person regularly, after given intervals, exercises some form of participation in the running of government. When we vote, we assert our right to participate in the governance of the State. When we vote, we realize, to a certain extent, our right to self-determination.
This is why elections, particularly the coming 2010 Presidential elections, are of particular interest to the Commission on Human Rights. As stated in the United Nations Centre for Human Rights “Handbook on the Legal, Technical and Human Rights Aspects of Elections”:
Elections themselves are human rights events: first, because they give voice to the political will of the people involved; and secondly, because, to be truly free and fair consistent with international standards, they must be conducted in an atmosphere which is respectful of basic human rights.
Unfortunately, our history suggests that Philippine elections are held– not so much as to encourage people’s participation, to hear their voice, or to have them weigh in on the governance of the country – as to get a few powerful and influential individuals elected into power. For as long as there are enough people casting their votes to provide a semblance of legitimacy to an election, full electoral participation was never truly encouraged or even sought to be facilitated. Aside from reports of irregularities in relation to vote-buying and other forms of election fraud, we have this issue of disenfranchisement to contend with.
According to the statistics gathered by the Records and Statistics Division of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) and the National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB), the May 2007 Elections was decided by the votes cast by a mere 36.58% of the entire population (32.40M actually voted out of the estimated 88.57 total population), or a mere 73.11% of the total number of registered oters. Unfortunately, because there is no statistics available to account for the voting-aged population as of the May 2007 elections, we cannot even account for those who are eligible to vote but were not able to register.
These disenfranchised voters, as difficult as it seems to achieve their
full participation in elections, are not that hard to identify. The 1987
Constitution itself has recognized their situation, and has tried to address
the problem of their representation and participation through the party-list
system, wherein “the seats allocated to party-list representatives shall be
filled, as provided by law, by selection or election from the labor, peasant,
urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, women, youth, and such
other sectors as may be provided by law.” To give flesh and blood to this
Constitutional provision, Congress enacted Republic Act 7941 (or the
Party-List System Act), which declared that “[t]he State shall promote
proportional representation in the election of representatives to the House
of Representatives through a party-list system, … which will enable
Filipino citizens belonging to the marginalized and underrepresented
sectors,” among others, “to become members of the House of
Representatives.”
The system was devised and given Constitutional imprimatur because, although it is recognized that sectoral groups will have difficulty winning representation in government “when they compete with the politicians who belong to the traditional political parties,”1 the framers of the Constitution also realized the importance of their participation in government. As a member of a party list group once wrote about the party-list system in the Philippines: “A party-list system can help create a healthy democracy, providing a citizen’s voice in Congress… [It] aims to increase the representation, particularly of “marginalized and underrepresented” sectors and enhance transparency and accountability, leading to more efficient government. [It] challenges moneyed and patronage politics that have bred corruption and inefficiency, hindering the country’s development.”2
Regrettably, as many critics of the current Philippine Party-List System will readily observe, the present system has not been as successful as envisioned. In the 2004 party-list election, only 24 out of 53 seats were filled up. The same thing happened in the previous 1998 and 2001 partylist elections, where the entire number of available seats was not allocated either.3
Although experts blame the mathematics (the “Panganiban formula”) for the seat allocation method for the disappointing performance of the system, there is another more basic reason for the glitches in the system: the failure of the individual voters, who are supposed to be represented by these sectoral party-list groups, to go out to register and vote during elections. If the constituencies of these groups – the indigenous peoples, the youth, and so forth – are not able to manifest their will to support their representatives through the ballot, there is little hope for this party-list system to survive, much less to fulfill the function it was envisioned to perform.
1 Dr. Wilfredo Villacorta’s statements during the 1986 Constitutional Commission deliberations.
2 Article entitled “The Party-List System in the Philippines” of Irynn Abano of AKBAYAN, which appeared in KASAMA Vol. 17
No.3/July-August-September 2003/Solidarity Philippines Australia Network
(http://cpcabrisbane.org/Kasama/2003/V17n3/PartyList.html).
3 Article entitled “On the Contradiction of the Party-List System Act (RA 7941) to the Principle of Proportional Representation” by Dr. Felix P. Muga, II of the Mathematics Department of the Ateneo de Manila University, which was published on Bulatlat (http://www.bulatlat.com) dated 6-12 May 2007.
This is the problem that the Commission has been focusing on of late. Last 17 September 2008, the CHR, in cooperation with partners like the International Foundation for Electoral Systems – Philippines (IFES-Phil.) and Task Force 2010, held a forum on Zero Disenfranchisement, entitled “Ensuring the Right to Electoral Participation: Giving Access to Vulnerable Sectors in 2010.”
The Forum sought to reach out to these vulnerable sectors in an effort
to find solutions to their multifarious and, at times, divergent concerns in
relation to the exercise of their right of suffrage. Specifically, it sought to
identify the numerous situational and physical constraints that contribute to
the disenfranchisement of vulnerable sectors.
The CHRP’s interest in the upcoming national elections is one thing, and one thing only: to ensure that the fundamental right to participatory government, as recognized by our Constitution and the UDHR, is fully promoted and realized through the employment of the Rights-based Approach to Achieving Full Political Participation in 2010, which is characterized by:
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Article 21 states:
The UDHR speaks of universal and free suffrage. However, this right is not fully enforced for millions of Filipinos. The Commission has identified some of the most consistently disenfranchised, or the most vulnerable groups in the country:
1. First time voters;
2. The internally displaced;
3. The indigenous communities;
4. The detainees;
5. The differently-abled; and
6. The elderly.
The youth sector, in recent years, has been one of the sectors most enthusiastic about exercising their right to suffrage. However, these firsttime voters (FTVs) are not able to vote simply because they are not able to register. They are not given any information that they are already qualified to vote, and that year-round, they can register any time at COMELEC offices. There appears to be not enough information drive on new voter registration. Ways of ensuring registration of first-time voters are not being done. School-based registration, for example, has never happened. In fact, leading up to the May 2001 elections, Akbayan-Youth, in behalf of allegedly around 4M youth who failed to register during the regular registration period, petitioned the Supreme Court to direct the COMELEC to conduct a special registration of new voters. For the 2010 elections, it has been reported that many youth organizations have begun pushing their plans for voters’ registration and first-time voters’ education. The 17 September Forum was one of the Commission’s ways of showing support for these plans.
Because of the obvious difficulties presented by their plight as victims of internal armed conflict, the internally displaced population (IDPs) also deserves special attention. In fact, according to the Records and Statistics Division of the COMELEC, Region XII – which is composed of North Cotabato, Sarangani, South Cotabato and Sultan Kudarat – registered the second lowest voter turn-out during for the May 2007 elections, with only 67.9% of the registered voters actually voting. IDPs are not able to vote because, quite simply, they have nowhere to vote because they have been uprooted from their places of residence and original polling places.
Indigenous peoples (IPs) are not able to vote either because they are not registered, the inaccessibility of voting precincts and sheer lack of education. The government has identified 110 IP groups. Population estimates range from 6.5 million for the National Commission for Culture and the Arts (NCCA), 7.5 million for the Kalipunan ng Katutubong Mamamayan ng Pilipinas (KAMP) to more than 12 million for the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP), or between 10 and 15 percent of the total national population.
The detainees, although remaining to be presumed innocent of the accusations against them, have their right to vote curtailed. They are disenfranchised because there are no mechanisms for them to vote. To date, it is mostly the big personalities, such as Nur Misuari and former President Joseph Estrada, who are allowed to vote during their detention. According to the statistics of the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP), the number of individuals detained without a sentence comprise about 95% of the total jail population. This means, that, without the proper mechanism allowing these detainees to exercise their right to vote, they are being effectively disenfranchised without due process of law.
Persons with disabilities (PWDs) are not able to vote either because of
lack of access to voting Precincts, or because of their incapacity to read
and/or write on the ballot. Some PWDs need special ramps to go to higher
Elections
floors. In fact, during the May 2007 elections, disabled voters reportedly
decried lack of facilities in the polling places. Some found themselves
assigned to precincts located at the third floor. This lack of handicappedfriendly
facilities in the polling places discourages some voters.
Admittedly, there is no specific provision providing for a convenient place
for handicapped voters.4 The COMELEC does not seem to know the
PWDs. They need to be assisted by volunteers present in voting areas and
the COMELEC has to prepare a different voters list for them, so that they
do not have to be burdened in looking for their voting precincts.
The same problems basically confront our elderly voters. The elderly voters have difficulty in searching for their precincts especially when not assisted. They need to be assisted by any of their family members, or volunteers. They also need to have their own separate voters list, so that they do not have to spend time looking for their voting precincts. According to the NSO Population and Housing Census of 2000, there are about 4.6M Filipinos aged 60 years old and above. About 5.4% live alone. 7.21% have some form of disability. Low vision is the most common. Others suffer from partial to total blindness. Interestingly, however, their demographic are still quite active in the labor force. In fact, more than 57% are gainfully employed, mostly as farmers, forestry workers or fishermen, laborers and unskilled workers. Therefore, this is another vulnerable sector identified as deserving the Commission’s aid in promoting and protecting their right of suffrage.
Methodology / Process and Workshop Mechanics
Forum participants were members of the identified vulnerable sectors, together with their support groups, civil society organizations, church-based organizations, government agencies, and concerned international organizations. Break-out workshop groups were, then, convened to address the disenfranchisement issues of each vulnerable sector.
Each participant was provided with a kit, which contained a copy of the “Workshop Matrix,” which each workshop group filled up based on their discussions.
4 http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/metro/view_article.php?article_id=65850.
Identified Rights |
Applicable Laws |
Identified Issues |
Root Causes |
Gaps |
Accoun-table Stake-holers |
Responsibilities and Participation |
Actions/ Measures |
||
Stakeholders |
Sector |
Stakeholders |
Sector |
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
After the break-out sessions, a plenary reporting session followed,
wherein a representative from each workshop group reported on the results
of their consultation, with particular emphasis on three columns: (1)
Identified Issues, (2) Gaps, and (3) Acions and Measures.
Thereafter, a special committee consolidated and analyzed the outputs of the groups, and came up with a comprehensive paper, which is intended to be submitted to the COMELEC as the recommendations of the participating groups, organizations and agencies.
The following are some of the recommendations of the participating sectors.
The Youth and First Time Voters recommended:
To ensure the political participation of the IDPs, the following are some of the recommendations of the participants of the IDP workshop group:
To prevent discrimination against Indigenous Peoples and to promote their full and effective participation in all matters that concern them, the following measures or courses of action were recommended by the Workshop Group for IPs in order to promote, protect and fulfill their right of suffrage and its component rights, and to address the identified issues:
1. Intensify values and civic education efforts (in their language), and mobilize all institutions (schools, church, media, and family) for the molding of the consciousness of IPs
2. Enact new laws specific for IPs for accessibility, literacy and culture appropriateness.
3. Pilot test automated elections in IP areas.
4. Institute or establish a Mobile Registration System and Late Birth Registration for IPs.
5. Establish separate precincts for IPs.
6. Give equal media accommodation to the situation of the IPs.
Detainees
Root Cause:
The joint workshop group for the elderly and the PWDs proposed:
It must be emphasized that these groups who were invited to participate in the September 17 Forum do not exhaust all the sectors that are vulnerable to disenfranchisement. There are other sectors - such as the Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs) - that also deserve attention. Their needs will hopefully be addressed in similar future fora.
In the near future, the CHR also intends to conduct a Right of Suffrage Monitoring project, which aims, primarily to:
1. To produce a manual that will serve as guide to those who will
conduct human rights monitoring in times of elections.
2. To capacitate the Commission and its volunteers in monitoring the
human rights situation during elections, and in acting expeditiously
on reports received.
3. To establish and maintain a national cadre of well-trained
volunteers for right of suffrage monitoring.
We, in the Commission, realize that there are a lot to be done if we are to effect positive changes in time for the 2010 elections. Therefore, it heartens us to see that, even now, there is so much interest in this issue coming from so many quarters. To guide and synchronize our efforts, therefore, we must make sure that we are on the same page: that our ultimate goal is the same. In this light, I would like to leave you with the statement made in the 1991 Report of the UN Secretary General:
Elections in and of themselves do not constitute democracy. They are not an end but a step, albeit an important and often essential one, on the path towards the democratization of societies and the realization of the right to take part in the governance of one’s country as enunciated in major international human rights instruments. It would be unfortunate to confuse the end with the means and to forget that democracy implies far more than the mere act of periodically casting a vote, but covers the entire process of participation by citizens in the political life of their country.
That is all. Thank you, once again, for inviting me here today, and a pleasant day to everyone.