Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases Treaty bodies
COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE BEGINS REVIEW OF REPORT OF THE PHILIPPINES
28 April 2009
Share
Committee against Torture
MORNING
28 April 2009
The Committee against Torture this morning began its consideration of the second periodic report of the Philippines on the efforts of that country to give effect to the provisions of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
Introducing the report, Eduardo Ermita, Executive Secretary in the Office of the President of the Philippines and Chairman of the Presidential Human Rights Committee, said that the Philippines had a long standing commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights on a global scale. The Philippines had been a founding member of both the United Nations and the former Commission on Human Rights, as well as a member of the drafting group of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In the last decade, the Philippine Government had acceded to eight core international human rights treaties. Last year, the Philippines had also been honoured to have been elected as Vice-President of the Human Rights Council, a position it still held.
Activists of all political and ideological persuasions were vocal and free to air their views through peaceful and democratic expression in the Philippines. Human Rights defenders were routinely consulted in government decision making. The Philippines also took pride in being one of the first few countries, if not the first country, to enshrine the creation of a Commission on Human Rights in its Constitution. After having signed and ratified the second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 2006, the President had immediately signed into law the effective removal of the death penalty. In 2008, the President had also signed the Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture, said Mr. Ermita. Their commitment to human rights was paramount, even in the midst of challenges, such as the global financial crisis, an active Communist insurgency and a Muslim secessionist movement in the southern part of the country. Likewise they had the scourge of local terrorism, specifically by the Abu Sayaf group which had ties to foreign terrorist organizations. Such challenges had never distracted the Government from fulfilling its sovereign duty to promote and protect human rights.
Serving as Rapporteur for the report of the Philippines, Committee Expert Felice Gaer regretted that although the Philippines had been one of the first countries to report to the Committee, it had been 20 years since the country had last reported to the Committee. She wondered how the challenges of armed and terrorist threats had affected the country’s legislation. Information given to the Committee showed that safeguards against the use of torture were not enforced in practice. In the period between arrest and detention there was a broad record of ill-treatment. The information available showed that arrested persons had no possibility to seek counsel immediately after arrest. On the detention of persons without an arrest warrant, the Committee had received information of 409 existing cases of illegal arrest and detention between 2001 and 2007.
Xuexian Wang, the Committee Expert serving as Co-Rapporteur for the report of the Philippines, said that he had been able to notice, during a recent visit to the Philippines, the very significant improvements the country had made in the last 30 years. However, he noted that in prisons, male officers were authorized to guard female detainees and had the right to conduct body searches. What could the delegation say on this issue? Also, some 1,026 torture cases had been reported by an organization between 2001 and March 2009, said Mr. Wang. Did the Government know about these cases? Did it do anything to investigate these cases?
Other issues of concern raised by Experts included the situation of migrant women in the Philippines. On the situation of visits to detention places, could unplanned visits by judges or other public officials be carried out? On the issue of attacks against human rights defenders and their protection, at least ten judges had been assassinated since 2001. Had the deaths of these judges been investigated properly and had the criminal responsibility been determined in these cases? The Committee had received a huge mass of information from civil society organizations. Amongst it was the fact that if somebody wanted to file a complaint for torture, the complaint would not be accepted unless there was an independent witness that could testify. But very often, victims had not even access to an independent medical doctor. She underscored that impunity did not serve the provisions of the Convention.
Also representing the delegation of the Philippines were members of the Philippine Mission to the United Nations Office at Geneva, the Presidential Human Rights Committee of the Philippine, the Office of the Executive Secretary, the Department of Interior and Local Government, the Supreme Court of the Philippines, the Departement of Foreign Affairs, the Departement of Labour and Employment, the Directorate for Investigation and Detective Management of the Philippine National Police, the Armed Forces of the Philippines, the Philippine Mission to the United Nations in New York, the Department of Justice, the National Commission on Indigenous People and the Bureau of Corrections.
The delegation will return to the Committee at 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 29 April 2009, to provide its responses to the questions raised today.
The Philippines is among the 146 States parties to the Convention and as such it must present periodic reports to the Committee on how it is implementing the provisions of the Convention.
When the Committee reconvenes at 3 p.m. this afternoon, it is scheduled to hold a meeting with States parties.
Report of the Philippines
The second periodic report of the Philippines (CAT/C/PHL/2) notes that although passage of a law on torture remains pending in Congress, there are enough legislative, judicial, and administrative measures that give effect to the provisions of the Convention. The bills presently negotiating through the legislative mill in Congress are comprehensive enough in themselves to cover all acts which may constitute torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Yet until the law that should finally and categorically define torture is passed, the implementation of the Convention against Torture remains imperfect. In the meantime that the independent-minded Congress fails to deliver that law, the Philippines as a State Party will have to continually and progressively work on building upon available legislative, administrative and judicial measures towards effective conformity with the Convention’s provisions.
Also, the Revised Penal Code guarantees that all acts of torture are classified as criminal offences with corresponding penalties under Philippine laws and several new laws have been passed since the submission of the initial report which have contributed to the prevention of acts which could be considered as torture, or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment. Further, the Philippines is on the verge of ratifying the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture. The major line agencies and departments of the Executive Branch comprising the core members of the Presidential Human Rights Committee have all affixed their signatures to a Resolution called: “Recommending the Accession and Concurrence to the Optional Protocol to the U.N. Convention Against Torture.”
Government agencies responsible for the custody of persons have issued administrative regulations reiterating the prohibition against the use of torture. The 2002 Operational Procedures of the Philippine National Police prohibits the use of torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation or any other means which violate the free will. It also prohibits secret detention places, solitary confinement (incommunicado) or other similar forms of detention. Pursuant to its mandate and in compliance with the Convention against Torture, the Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines conducted five Regional Workshops on the role of medical officers and jail personnel on the recognition, documentation and reporting cases of torture in 2005. In the Philippine National Police, the prohibition of torture is included in subjects of its Revised Police Basic Recruit Course.
Presentation of Report
EDUARDO ERMITA, Executive Secretary in the Office of the President of the Philippines and Chairman of the Presidential Human Rights Committee, said that Her Excellency President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo was very much aware of the relevance of the work of the Committee. The Government of the Republic of the Philippines was also fully committed to the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Further, the Philippines had a long standing commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights on a global scale. The Philippines had been a founding member of both the United Nations and the former Commission on Human Rights, as well as a member of the drafting group of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In fact, the Philippines, in the person of foremost Filipino diplomat General Carlos P. Romulo had co-authored Article I of the Declaration. To this day, the Philippines remained committed to this vision of the Universal Declaration to attain “dignity and justice for all.”
In the last decade, the Philippine Government had acceded to eight core international human rights treaties. Last year, the Philippines had also been honoured to have been elected as Vice-President of the Human Rights Council, a position it still held. In this capacity the Philippines promoted constructive engagements and dialogues within the Council and between the Council and States on human rights issues and challenges. In the region, the Philippines continued to be a strong advocate for the enhancement of the human rights environment on the ASEAN region and the decision to create an ASEAN human rights body had been a major Philippines’ initiative. Further, the international advocacy and commitment of the Philippines to the advancement of human rights was reflected in the government’s policies and programmes in the country, said Mr. Ermita.
The people of the Philippines cherished their dynamic democracy. Their history had painfully taught them that they could neither afford to forego nor disregard human rights in pursuit of national development of national security goals, said Mr. Ermita. Activists of all political and ideological persuasions were vocal and free to air their views through peaceful and democratic expression. Human Rights defenders were routinely consulted in government decision making. The Philippines also took pride in being one of the first few countries, if not the first country, to enshrine the creation of a Commission on Human Rights in its Constitution. After having signed and ratified the second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 2006, the President had immediately signed into law the effective removal of the death penalty.
In 2008, the President had also signed the Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture, said Mr. Ermita. Offhand with the Optional Protocol, the National Preventive Mechanism should be established with the Commission on Human Rights taking the lead in its operation, along with members of the civil society and non-governmental organizations. Also in 2008, the Philippines had undergone the Universal Periodic Review, making it one of the first countries to submit itself to the process.
In the December 2008 celebration of the sixtieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the President had issued an order directing concerned executive branches of the government to institute policies, programmes and projects that would further enhance human rights in the country. The directive included, among others, enhancing human rights education and the building of a strong human rights constituency among military and police authorities. All the recent developments were geared towards strengthening governance strongly anchored on human rights, noted Mr. Ermita. The Philippines Human Rights Commission was now also spearheading nation-wide consultations to formulate the country’s second National Human Rights Action Plan. This was an outcome and a participative process which took into consideration the recommendations stemming from the Universal Periodic Review.
Mr. Ermita noted that the Philippines had signed the Convention Against Torture in 1986 and was fully committed in complying with its obligations therein. No less than the Philippines Constitution prohibited the use of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment on any person under investigation. This included the prohibition of the use of secret detention places, solitary confinements and other similar forms of detention where such illegal acts might be committed.
Another positive development was the directive of the national police commission to activate human rights desks in all police stations nationwide, to be manned by officers who were educated and trained in the field of human rights, said Mr. Ermita. The Department of the Interior and Local Government had also begun initiating a pro-poor human rights initiative, dubbed “Access to Justice for the Poor”. Also noteworthy was the novelty and success of the mobile courts programme of the Supreme Court, called “Justice on Wheels”. It was intended to decongest the various youth reception and detention centers within the Metro Manila area and to decongest the heavy caseloads of the designated Family courts in Metro Manila.
Mr. Ermita said that the Government was proud of the gains it had achieved with regard to its compliance with the Convention Against Torture. Their commitment to human rights was paramount, even in the midst of challenges, such as the global financial crisis, an active Communist insurgency and a Muslim secessionist movement in the southern part of the country. Likewise they had the scourge of local terrorism, specifically by the Abu Sayaf group which had ties to foreign terrorist organizations. Such challenges had never distracted the Government from fulfilling its sovereign duty to promote and protect human rights.
Questions Raised by Committee Experts
FELICE GAER, the Committee Chairperson serving as Rapporteur for the report of the Philippines, said that having a very large delegation with staff coming from abroad was a huge opportunity for the Committee to understand the situation in the country better. However, she regretted that although the Philippines had been one of the first countries to report to the Committee, it had been 20 years since the country had last reported to the Committee. The quality of the report indicated that the delegation knew how these UN committees worked. However, there were not many examples included in the report and these could offer far much insight.
Ms. Gaer noted that the Committee had also received information from civil society and had been able to hold a meeting with the National Human Rights Institution, which was a different body from the Presidential Human Rights Committee.
Turning to questions, Ms. Gaer wondered how the challenges of armed and terrorist threats had affected the country’s legislation. The Committee was glad to hear that the legislation was going forward. But it had been 10 years since the Anti-torture Bill had been under discussion in the Congress. What were the major obstacles and what was the Government doing to overcome those obstacles?
There was currently no law that prohibited and criminalized torture, as the Convention required it, observed Ms. Gaer. How was mental torture addressed in the proposed bills before the Senate and Congress? Had the administration been involved in the legislative process?
Information given to the Committee showed that safeguards against the use of torture were not enforced in practice. In the period between arrest and detention there was broad record of ill-treatment, said Ms. Gaer. The information available showed that arrested persons had no possibility to seek counsel immediately after arrest. What previsions were available to pregnant women in detention?
On the right to see a doctor, non-governmental organizations had told the Committee that this right was not absolute, said Ms. Gaer. It had also been reported that people had not been able to see a doctor as long as their bruises were still visible. How did the delegation answer these allegations? There had also been cases where the National Human Rights Institution’s visiting authority had been turned down. Why was that so?
On the detention of persons without an arrest warrant, the Committee had received information of 409 existing cases of illegal arrests and detentions between 2001 and 2007, many of whom seemed to be human rights and labour activists. Could the delegation comment about this? The Committee was also concerned with the Anti-terrorist Act’s lack of liability, said Ms. Gaer. What was the Government doing to ensure that the Human Rights Commission remained independent?
On gender-based torture and ill-treatment, the Committee had not been able to identify a specific bill dealing with this issue. The Committee had received wide-spread allegations of torture of female detainees, noted Ms. Gaer. Also, people apparently did not report abuse due to fear of retaliation. The “Organisation Mondiale Contre la Torture” (OMCT) had also reported sexual violence being conducted by the Army; women were also forced to prostitution in army camps.
Ms. Gaer also noted that the last time the Philippines had reported to the Committee, the country had three extradition treaties. This number had now risen to 12. However, the Committee had not been able to identify where in the current extradition treaties were the legal safeguards provided by the Convention Against Torture included.
XUEXIAN WANG, the Committee Expert serving as Co-Rapporteur for the report of the Philippines, said he had noticed, during a recent visit to the Philippines, the very significant improvements the country had made in the last 30 years.
Turning to issues and questions, Mr. Wang said that training programmes of police and army forces should be evaluated by the Presidential Human Rights Committee. He also noted that in prisons, male officers were authorized to guard female detainees and had the right to conduct body searches. Could the delegation comment on this issue?
Some 1,026 torture cases had been reported by an organization between 2001 and March 2009, said Mr. Wang. Did the Government know about these cases? Did it do anything to investigate these cases? Also, the Special Rapporteur on Arbitrary Detention had noted the lack of an effective witness protection system in the country and one non-governmental organization had told the Committee about three witnesses that had been killed.
Further, Mr. Wang wondered whether the Government envisaged the possibility to put up an independent torture investigation body, separate from the police. The Secretary-General’s Special Representative for Children and Armed Conflict had noted that the Philippines was one of the countries where the gravest violations against children were taking place; could the delegation comment on that?
Other Committee Experts asked questions related to, among others the situation of migrant women in the Philippines, and what was the country doing to develop its collaboration with neighbouring countries where Filipino women were working? On training, the lack of training was often an issue in several violations of national and international legal safeguards. Had there been any follow-up of the training workshops that had been conducted in 2005? Were there any programmes planned for the rehabilitation of victims of torture?
On the situation of visits to detention places, were there any unplanned visits by judges or other public officials being carried out, asked another Expert. On the issue of attacks against human rights defenders and their protection, at least ten judges had been assassinated since 2001. Had the deaths of these judges been investigated properly and had the criminal responsibility been determined in these cases? On the programme to ensure access to justice to the poor, could the delegation elaborate on what this programme included?
In the country’s Universal Periodic Review report, an Expert noted that there was a mention of a projected charter for women. When would this charter be adopted and what was exactly contained in it? Did it include such international instruments as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women? Another Expert noted that it was highly important to have, as soon as possible, a definition of torture in the State’s legislation.
One Expert noted that yesterday the Committee had received a huge mass of information from civil society. Amongst it was the fact that if somebody wanted to file a complaint for torture, the complaint would not be accepted unless there was an independent witness that could testify. But very often, victims did not even have access to an independent medical doctor. She underscored that impunity did not serve the provisions of the Convention.
On the National Human Rights Commission, what guarantees were stipulated in the laws guaranteeing that its members could do their work in an independent manner? What were the means and powers available to its members? On the protection of witnesses, how did the State ensure this?
On confessions, one Expert noted that these were suspicious, as confessions were often extracted through torture. The whole progress of criminal law in history had been based on the rejection of torture and confessions. The issue of disappearances was also a problem as one Senator had indicated that there were some 180 persons that had disappeared in past years. What had the country been doing to address this issue? Further, there were no laws criminalizing and penalizing enforced disappearances, what had prevented the Philippines from adopting a criminal framework to address these issues?
__________
For use of the information media; not an official record
MORNING
28 April 2009
The Committee against Torture this morning began its consideration of the second periodic report of the Philippines on the efforts of that country to give effect to the provisions of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
Introducing the report, Eduardo Ermita, Executive Secretary in the Office of the President of the Philippines and Chairman of the Presidential Human Rights Committee, said that the Philippines had a long standing commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights on a global scale. The Philippines had been a founding member of both the United Nations and the former Commission on Human Rights, as well as a member of the drafting group of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In the last decade, the Philippine Government had acceded to eight core international human rights treaties. Last year, the Philippines had also been honoured to have been elected as Vice-President of the Human Rights Council, a position it still held.
Activists of all political and ideological persuasions were vocal and free to air their views through peaceful and democratic expression in the Philippines. Human Rights defenders were routinely consulted in government decision making. The Philippines also took pride in being one of the first few countries, if not the first country, to enshrine the creation of a Commission on Human Rights in its Constitution. After having signed and ratified the second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 2006, the President had immediately signed into law the effective removal of the death penalty. In 2008, the President had also signed the Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture, said Mr. Ermita. Their commitment to human rights was paramount, even in the midst of challenges, such as the global financial crisis, an active Communist insurgency and a Muslim secessionist movement in the southern part of the country. Likewise they had the scourge of local terrorism, specifically by the Abu Sayaf group which had ties to foreign terrorist organizations. Such challenges had never distracted the Government from fulfilling its sovereign duty to promote and protect human rights.
Serving as Rapporteur for the report of the Philippines, Committee Expert Felice Gaer regretted that although the Philippines had been one of the first countries to report to the Committee, it had been 20 years since the country had last reported to the Committee. She wondered how the challenges of armed and terrorist threats had affected the country’s legislation. Information given to the Committee showed that safeguards against the use of torture were not enforced in practice. In the period between arrest and detention there was a broad record of ill-treatment. The information available showed that arrested persons had no possibility to seek counsel immediately after arrest. On the detention of persons without an arrest warrant, the Committee had received information of 409 existing cases of illegal arrest and detention between 2001 and 2007.
Xuexian Wang, the Committee Expert serving as Co-Rapporteur for the report of the Philippines, said that he had been able to notice, during a recent visit to the Philippines, the very significant improvements the country had made in the last 30 years. However, he noted that in prisons, male officers were authorized to guard female detainees and had the right to conduct body searches. What could the delegation say on this issue? Also, some 1,026 torture cases had been reported by an organization between 2001 and March 2009, said Mr. Wang. Did the Government know about these cases? Did it do anything to investigate these cases?
Other issues of concern raised by Experts included the situation of migrant women in the Philippines. On the situation of visits to detention places, could unplanned visits by judges or other public officials be carried out? On the issue of attacks against human rights defenders and their protection, at least ten judges had been assassinated since 2001. Had the deaths of these judges been investigated properly and had the criminal responsibility been determined in these cases? The Committee had received a huge mass of information from civil society organizations. Amongst it was the fact that if somebody wanted to file a complaint for torture, the complaint would not be accepted unless there was an independent witness that could testify. But very often, victims had not even access to an independent medical doctor. She underscored that impunity did not serve the provisions of the Convention.
Also representing the delegation of the Philippines were members of the Philippine Mission to the United Nations Office at Geneva, the Presidential Human Rights Committee of the Philippine, the Office of the Executive Secretary, the Department of Interior and Local Government, the Supreme Court of the Philippines, the Departement of Foreign Affairs, the Departement of Labour and Employment, the Directorate for Investigation and Detective Management of the Philippine National Police, the Armed Forces of the Philippines, the Philippine Mission to the United Nations in New York, the Department of Justice, the National Commission on Indigenous People and the Bureau of Corrections.
The delegation will return to the Committee at 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 29 April 2009, to provide its responses to the questions raised today.
The Philippines is among the 146 States parties to the Convention and as such it must present periodic reports to the Committee on how it is implementing the provisions of the Convention.
When the Committee reconvenes at 3 p.m. this afternoon, it is scheduled to hold a meeting with States parties.
Report of the Philippines
The second periodic report of the Philippines (CAT/C/PHL/2) notes that although passage of a law on torture remains pending in Congress, there are enough legislative, judicial, and administrative measures that give effect to the provisions of the Convention. The bills presently negotiating through the legislative mill in Congress are comprehensive enough in themselves to cover all acts which may constitute torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Yet until the law that should finally and categorically define torture is passed, the implementation of the Convention against Torture remains imperfect. In the meantime that the independent-minded Congress fails to deliver that law, the Philippines as a State Party will have to continually and progressively work on building upon available legislative, administrative and judicial measures towards effective conformity with the Convention’s provisions.
Also, the Revised Penal Code guarantees that all acts of torture are classified as criminal offences with corresponding penalties under Philippine laws and several new laws have been passed since the submission of the initial report which have contributed to the prevention of acts which could be considered as torture, or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment. Further, the Philippines is on the verge of ratifying the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture. The major line agencies and departments of the Executive Branch comprising the core members of the Presidential Human Rights Committee have all affixed their signatures to a Resolution called: “Recommending the Accession and Concurrence to the Optional Protocol to the U.N. Convention Against Torture.”
Government agencies responsible for the custody of persons have issued administrative regulations reiterating the prohibition against the use of torture. The 2002 Operational Procedures of the Philippine National Police prohibits the use of torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation or any other means which violate the free will. It also prohibits secret detention places, solitary confinement (incommunicado) or other similar forms of detention. Pursuant to its mandate and in compliance with the Convention against Torture, the Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines conducted five Regional Workshops on the role of medical officers and jail personnel on the recognition, documentation and reporting cases of torture in 2005. In the Philippine National Police, the prohibition of torture is included in subjects of its Revised Police Basic Recruit Course.
Presentation of Report
EDUARDO ERMITA, Executive Secretary in the Office of the President of the Philippines and Chairman of the Presidential Human Rights Committee, said that Her Excellency President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo was very much aware of the relevance of the work of the Committee. The Government of the Republic of the Philippines was also fully committed to the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Further, the Philippines had a long standing commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights on a global scale. The Philippines had been a founding member of both the United Nations and the former Commission on Human Rights, as well as a member of the drafting group of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In fact, the Philippines, in the person of foremost Filipino diplomat General Carlos P. Romulo had co-authored Article I of the Declaration. To this day, the Philippines remained committed to this vision of the Universal Declaration to attain “dignity and justice for all.”
In the last decade, the Philippine Government had acceded to eight core international human rights treaties. Last year, the Philippines had also been honoured to have been elected as Vice-President of the Human Rights Council, a position it still held. In this capacity the Philippines promoted constructive engagements and dialogues within the Council and between the Council and States on human rights issues and challenges. In the region, the Philippines continued to be a strong advocate for the enhancement of the human rights environment on the ASEAN region and the decision to create an ASEAN human rights body had been a major Philippines’ initiative. Further, the international advocacy and commitment of the Philippines to the advancement of human rights was reflected in the government’s policies and programmes in the country, said Mr. Ermita.
The people of the Philippines cherished their dynamic democracy. Their history had painfully taught them that they could neither afford to forego nor disregard human rights in pursuit of national development of national security goals, said Mr. Ermita. Activists of all political and ideological persuasions were vocal and free to air their views through peaceful and democratic expression. Human Rights defenders were routinely consulted in government decision making. The Philippines also took pride in being one of the first few countries, if not the first country, to enshrine the creation of a Commission on Human Rights in its Constitution. After having signed and ratified the second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 2006, the President had immediately signed into law the effective removal of the death penalty.
In 2008, the President had also signed the Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture, said Mr. Ermita. Offhand with the Optional Protocol, the National Preventive Mechanism should be established with the Commission on Human Rights taking the lead in its operation, along with members of the civil society and non-governmental organizations. Also in 2008, the Philippines had undergone the Universal Periodic Review, making it one of the first countries to submit itself to the process.
In the December 2008 celebration of the sixtieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the President had issued an order directing concerned executive branches of the government to institute policies, programmes and projects that would further enhance human rights in the country. The directive included, among others, enhancing human rights education and the building of a strong human rights constituency among military and police authorities. All the recent developments were geared towards strengthening governance strongly anchored on human rights, noted Mr. Ermita. The Philippines Human Rights Commission was now also spearheading nation-wide consultations to formulate the country’s second National Human Rights Action Plan. This was an outcome and a participative process which took into consideration the recommendations stemming from the Universal Periodic Review.
Mr. Ermita noted that the Philippines had signed the Convention Against Torture in 1986 and was fully committed in complying with its obligations therein. No less than the Philippines Constitution prohibited the use of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment on any person under investigation. This included the prohibition of the use of secret detention places, solitary confinements and other similar forms of detention where such illegal acts might be committed.
Another positive development was the directive of the national police commission to activate human rights desks in all police stations nationwide, to be manned by officers who were educated and trained in the field of human rights, said Mr. Ermita. The Department of the Interior and Local Government had also begun initiating a pro-poor human rights initiative, dubbed “Access to Justice for the Poor”. Also noteworthy was the novelty and success of the mobile courts programme of the Supreme Court, called “Justice on Wheels”. It was intended to decongest the various youth reception and detention centers within the Metro Manila area and to decongest the heavy caseloads of the designated Family courts in Metro Manila.
Mr. Ermita said that the Government was proud of the gains it had achieved with regard to its compliance with the Convention Against Torture. Their commitment to human rights was paramount, even in the midst of challenges, such as the global financial crisis, an active Communist insurgency and a Muslim secessionist movement in the southern part of the country. Likewise they had the scourge of local terrorism, specifically by the Abu Sayaf group which had ties to foreign terrorist organizations. Such challenges had never distracted the Government from fulfilling its sovereign duty to promote and protect human rights.
Questions Raised by Committee Experts
FELICE GAER, the Committee Chairperson serving as Rapporteur for the report of the Philippines, said that having a very large delegation with staff coming from abroad was a huge opportunity for the Committee to understand the situation in the country better. However, she regretted that although the Philippines had been one of the first countries to report to the Committee, it had been 20 years since the country had last reported to the Committee. The quality of the report indicated that the delegation knew how these UN committees worked. However, there were not many examples included in the report and these could offer far much insight.
Ms. Gaer noted that the Committee had also received information from civil society and had been able to hold a meeting with the National Human Rights Institution, which was a different body from the Presidential Human Rights Committee.
Turning to questions, Ms. Gaer wondered how the challenges of armed and terrorist threats had affected the country’s legislation. The Committee was glad to hear that the legislation was going forward. But it had been 10 years since the Anti-torture Bill had been under discussion in the Congress. What were the major obstacles and what was the Government doing to overcome those obstacles?
There was currently no law that prohibited and criminalized torture, as the Convention required it, observed Ms. Gaer. How was mental torture addressed in the proposed bills before the Senate and Congress? Had the administration been involved in the legislative process?
Information given to the Committee showed that safeguards against the use of torture were not enforced in practice. In the period between arrest and detention there was broad record of ill-treatment, said Ms. Gaer. The information available showed that arrested persons had no possibility to seek counsel immediately after arrest. What previsions were available to pregnant women in detention?
On the right to see a doctor, non-governmental organizations had told the Committee that this right was not absolute, said Ms. Gaer. It had also been reported that people had not been able to see a doctor as long as their bruises were still visible. How did the delegation answer these allegations? There had also been cases where the National Human Rights Institution’s visiting authority had been turned down. Why was that so?
On the detention of persons without an arrest warrant, the Committee had received information of 409 existing cases of illegal arrests and detentions between 2001 and 2007, many of whom seemed to be human rights and labour activists. Could the delegation comment about this? The Committee was also concerned with the Anti-terrorist Act’s lack of liability, said Ms. Gaer. What was the Government doing to ensure that the Human Rights Commission remained independent?
On gender-based torture and ill-treatment, the Committee had not been able to identify a specific bill dealing with this issue. The Committee had received wide-spread allegations of torture of female detainees, noted Ms. Gaer. Also, people apparently did not report abuse due to fear of retaliation. The “Organisation Mondiale Contre la Torture” (OMCT) had also reported sexual violence being conducted by the Army; women were also forced to prostitution in army camps.
Ms. Gaer also noted that the last time the Philippines had reported to the Committee, the country had three extradition treaties. This number had now risen to 12. However, the Committee had not been able to identify where in the current extradition treaties were the legal safeguards provided by the Convention Against Torture included.
XUEXIAN WANG, the Committee Expert serving as Co-Rapporteur for the report of the Philippines, said he had noticed, during a recent visit to the Philippines, the very significant improvements the country had made in the last 30 years.
Turning to issues and questions, Mr. Wang said that training programmes of police and army forces should be evaluated by the Presidential Human Rights Committee. He also noted that in prisons, male officers were authorized to guard female detainees and had the right to conduct body searches. Could the delegation comment on this issue?
Some 1,026 torture cases had been reported by an organization between 2001 and March 2009, said Mr. Wang. Did the Government know about these cases? Did it do anything to investigate these cases? Also, the Special Rapporteur on Arbitrary Detention had noted the lack of an effective witness protection system in the country and one non-governmental organization had told the Committee about three witnesses that had been killed.
Further, Mr. Wang wondered whether the Government envisaged the possibility to put up an independent torture investigation body, separate from the police. The Secretary-General’s Special Representative for Children and Armed Conflict had noted that the Philippines was one of the countries where the gravest violations against children were taking place; could the delegation comment on that?
Other Committee Experts asked questions related to, among others the situation of migrant women in the Philippines, and what was the country doing to develop its collaboration with neighbouring countries where Filipino women were working? On training, the lack of training was often an issue in several violations of national and international legal safeguards. Had there been any follow-up of the training workshops that had been conducted in 2005? Were there any programmes planned for the rehabilitation of victims of torture?
On the situation of visits to detention places, were there any unplanned visits by judges or other public officials being carried out, asked another Expert. On the issue of attacks against human rights defenders and their protection, at least ten judges had been assassinated since 2001. Had the deaths of these judges been investigated properly and had the criminal responsibility been determined in these cases? On the programme to ensure access to justice to the poor, could the delegation elaborate on what this programme included?
In the country’s Universal Periodic Review report, an Expert noted that there was a mention of a projected charter for women. When would this charter be adopted and what was exactly contained in it? Did it include such international instruments as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women? Another Expert noted that it was highly important to have, as soon as possible, a definition of torture in the State’s legislation.
One Expert noted that yesterday the Committee had received a huge mass of information from civil society. Amongst it was the fact that if somebody wanted to file a complaint for torture, the complaint would not be accepted unless there was an independent witness that could testify. But very often, victims did not even have access to an independent medical doctor. She underscored that impunity did not serve the provisions of the Convention.
On the National Human Rights Commission, what guarantees were stipulated in the laws guaranteeing that its members could do their work in an independent manner? What were the means and powers available to its members? On the protection of witnesses, how did the State ensure this?
On confessions, one Expert noted that these were suspicious, as confessions were often extracted through torture. The whole progress of criminal law in history had been based on the rejection of torture and confessions. The issue of disappearances was also a problem as one Senator had indicated that there were some 180 persons that had disappeared in past years. What had the country been doing to address this issue? Further, there were no laws criminalizing and penalizing enforced disappearances, what had prevented the Philippines from adopting a criminal framework to address these issues?
__________
For use of the information media; not an official record
VIEW THIS PAGE IN: