COMMITTEE ON RIGHTS OF CHILD CONSIDERS REPORT OF PHILIPPINES UNDER OPTIONAL PROTOCOL ON CHILDREN IN ARMED CONFLICT

Committee on the Rights
of the Child

30 May 2008



The Committee on the Rights of the Child this afternoon considered the initial report of the Philippines on the implementation of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on children in armed conflict.

Celia C. Yangco, Undersecretary of the Department of Social Welfare and Development of the Philippines and head of the delegation, said the Philippines was a young country with a young population, with children comprising almost half of its population. The country placed utmost importance to the development of the welfare of the Filipino children because they were considered the country’s most valuable resource. She pointed out that various laws existed for the protection of children, some of them already existing before the ratification of the Convention and the Optional Protocol. She stressed that these laws made clear that the State party did not permit recruitment or employment of children in its Armed Forces. It did not condone any wrongdoing of any of its personnel, especially against children, and if there would be any such act, disciplinary systems were in place. Concerning child soldiers, rescued children or children who surrendered after being involved in armed conflict were turned over to the Department of Social Welfare and Development for psychological intervention for eventual re-integration in the community.

In his preliminary observations, David Brent Parfitt, the Committee Expert who served as country Rapporteur to the report of the Philippines, said that the Committee welcomed the openness of the delegation in the constructive dialogue. The recommendations of the Committee might reflect concerns expressed by the Committee regarding the Citizenship Advancement Training and intentions to include children and child issues in the peace process.

At the beginning of the meeting, Mr. Parfitt said that the Philippines was very committed to the implementation of the Optional Protocol. The report was very clear and comprehensive. However, there were a lot of children affected by the armed conflict, resulting in a lot of children being internally displaced. Child victims of armed hostilities needed to receive the services set out under the Convention and the Optional Protocol. Also, despite efforts, there was apparently still recruitment of child soldiers in the country.

Main concerns of other Committee Experts centred on, among other things, the number of children affected by the armed conflict; the conviction of offenders under the existing laws; the work of the national human rights committee; the status and promotion of the Optional Protocol within the Armed Forces and military groups; recruitment of indigenous children; and the effects of poverty on the number of children joining armed rebel groups.

The Committee will release its formal, written concluding observations and recommendations on the report of the Philippines towards the end of its three-week session, which will conclude on Friday, 6 June.

The delegation of the Philippines included representatives from the Permanent Mission of the Philippines to the United Nations Office at Geneva, the Department of Justice, the Department of Interior and Local Government, the Department of National Defence, the Philippine National Police, and the Council for the Welfare of Children.

When the Committee next reconvenes in public, at 10 a.m. on Monday, 2 June, it will take up the second and third periodic reports of Eritrea (CRC/C/ERI/3).

Report of the Philippines

The initial report of the Philippines under the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on children in armed conflict (CRC/C/OPAC/PHL/1) refers basically to the policies, programmes, strategies and community level action of the Government of the Philippines in fulfillment of its obligations under the Optional Protocol. The inputs also include the outcomes of activities undertaken by non-governmental organizations which complement Government efforts on the ground. The period under review includes the intervening years from the signing of the Protocol in 2003 up to 2006.

The Philippines Government does not at all allow the direct participation of the country’s minors in warfare. This is manifest in the policy of the Armed Forces of the Philippines to enlist into the armed forces only persons who are 18 years old and above. Summarizing its accomplishments, the report states that the Government has already adopted and implemented an array of measures to fulfill its obligations under the Protocol. So far, the policy environment in the country furnishes very fertile grounds for child protection and the promotion of child rights. With the particular constitutional provisions at hand as a legal foundation, the requirements of the Optional Protocol are recognized and directly enforced by the courts of law, special tribunals and the relevant administrative authorities in the country. However, the effects of the local economic crunch and the political strife are even magnified by the natural/environmental disasters that have been striking the country in the last few years. The disasters have significantly eroded available national resources, energies and capacities. More and more, the dwindling capacities have caused curtailments on the programmes and services of the Government in order to promote its goals of protecting children.

Presentation of the Report

CELIA C. YANGCO, Undersecretary of the Department of Social Welfare and Development of the Philippines and Head of the Delegation, said that the Philippines was a young country with a young population, with children comprising almost half of its population. It placed utmost importance to the development of the welfare of the Filipino children because they were considered the country’s most valuable resource. A Child and Youth Welfare Code existed before the ratification of the Convention and the Optional Protocol. A Special Protection Act of 1992 included protection of children in armed conflict even before the ratification of the Optional Protocol. Other laws existed which protected children not only in general but also in armed conflict. The laws made clear that the State party did not permit recruitment or employment of children in its Armed Forces. It did not condone any wrongdoing of any of its personnel, especially against children, and if there would be any such acts, disciplinary systems were in place.

The office of the Ombudsman had certain jurisdiction over military personnel. There were no recorded cases of trafficked children engaged in armed activities in the Philippines or abroad in the last five years. The country could assume extra-territorial jurisdiction should the war crime of conscripting or enlisting children under the age of 15 into the armed forces or using them to participate actively in hostilities, or involvement in hostilities of a person under 18 if committed outside the Philippines, by or against a Philippine citizen, fall under the Revised Penal Code.

A compulsory Citizenship Advancement Training of the Department of Education for fourth year high school students had been restructured and aimed to enhance students’ social responsibility and development of their ability to uphold law and order. The Philippines continued to pursue a comprehensive peace process to address armed conflict with rebel groups. Programmes and services for affected families and communities at risk in general were continuously being implemented. Specifically, the Department of Social Welfare and Development provided a package of social services and interventions designed to protect and rehabilitate children affected directly or indirectly by armed forces, as well as services for families affected. The Emergency Operation Philippines – Assistance to Conflict Affected Mindanao - addressed food security needs of vulnerable populations living in conflict affected communities and the Days of Peace Campaign sought to reinforce the delivery of basic services. Rescued children or children who surrendered after being involved in armed conflict were turned over to the Department of Social Welfare and Development for psychological intervention for eventual re-integration in the community. According to the Juvenile Justice Act, children under 15 years were free from criminal liabilities. In the Philippines, there had not been recorded or reported cases of children in armed conflict from among the ranks of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front who had been rescued/recovered or apprehended and turned over to local authorities.

Lastly, Ms. Yangco turned to arms and rules and regulations in the production, sale and distribution of small arms and weaponry in the country, which was regulated through the Philippine National Police which had the mandate to administer, enforce and implement the firearms and explosive laws, rules and regulations in the country.

Questions by the Committee Experts

DAVID BRENT PARFITT, the Committee Expert Serving as Country Rapporteur for the Report of the Philippines, said that the country was very committed to the implementation of the Protocol. The report was very clear and comprehensive. However, there were a lot of children affected by armed conflict, resulting in a lot of children being internally displaced. Child victims of armed hostilities needed to receive the services set out under the Convention and the Optional Protocol. Despite efforts, there was still apparently recruitment of child soldiers in the country. Legislation had criminalized this behavior with harsh penalties up to 20 years in prison; he asked if there had been charges lately under these laws and if there had been convictions.

Mr. Parfitt asked whether the Optional Protocol was used in the day-to-day work of the national human rights committee. What ability did the human rights agencies in the country have to launch investigations? There was a programme in place to treat child soldiers, but there had been examples of situations where the military may have exploited these young children through the media. He therefore asked what the State party would do to ensure this would not happen again. It was disturbing that child soldiers had been prosecuted under criminal legislation, in spite of the focus of Optional Protocol on rehabilitation and reintegration, not prosecution.

Would there be consideration given to amending public acts to ensure child soldiers were given the services they deserved, or, alternatively, was treatment ensured in accordance with international standards of juvenile justice, Mr. Parfitt asked? Concerning the Citizenship Advancement Training programme, its curriculum showed a considerable time spent on military issues; how was that working with initiatives of peace building attempts? How did the Government ensure that military groups respected the Optional Protocol and how was the Protocol involved in negotiations? Concerning the issue of small arms, what controls were in place to ensure that small arms did not fall in the hands of individuals, groups or small countries which used child soldiers?

Among questions raised by other Committee Experts, one Expert asked for more information regarding the recruitment of indigenous children in specific areas. Another Expert asked about plans for the ratification of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. How was the Protocol implemented within the Armed Forces, and were the rebel groups aware of the Convention and the Optional Protocol? Child soldiers seemed to be treated as offenders rather than victims – was this true and under the criminal procedures instigated against the leaders of war terrorism, did the State party give particular status to such children, given the circumstances? Poverty was one of the main reasons for children to join the rebel groups; what did the Government do to prevent this. The delegation had said that there had been considerable progress in terms of juvenile justice; however, the conditions in detention centers and prisons seemed to be very serious. Concerning landmines, did a special programme to deal with the landmines still exist in many parts of the country, and how did the Government prevent these landmines from getting into the hands of children?

Answers by the Delegation

In response to the questions, the delegation of the Philippines said that on the matter of the office of the Ombudsman, indeed the Ombudsman was an independent body and had the power to investigate all cases of criminal acts of all persons and government employees, including military personnel. All cases filed against military and police were given to the special deputy ombudsman for the military and police. Concerning extra-territorial jurisdiction, the Philippines could request extradition of people who had committed a crime on Philippine soil, such as the recruitment of child soldiers under 18.

The Citizenship Advancement Training programme was part of the curricula of high school students. It was not an army training, but citizen advancement training. The students received information about various aspects of the military in order to make them good citizens who understood the requirements of good citizenship. The Citizenship Advancement Training was carried out by the Department of Education, not by the military. Thus, the link between this programme and responsible citizenship was based on its placement within education. The knowledge of the laws of the country and its institutions was seen as important for the development of good citizenship and becoming a responsible adult. The context of the teaching was to never fight and to actively pursue peace in the country. The drills that were taught to the children were on evacuation in disasters, fire drills in case of calamity, and how to help the population. There was no introduction of arms to the children.

Many Experts expressed their concern about military aspects being one of the three main aspects of the training. The delegation stressed that there was no such thing as a militarization of children in this training.

The aim of the Government was to end all armed conflict, with the root of this being the protection of human rights. The role of the peace policy included the conclusion of peace agreements with rebel groups until 2010 and the mainstreaming of all rebel group members through enhanced amnesty programmes, reintegration and rehabilitation. All peace programmes were under the office of the presidential assistant on the peace progress.

There were no cases of girl child soldiers giving birth in the jungle. All captured or surrendered children were turned over to the Department of Social Welfare and Development for further care. The Department helped the children to overcome traumas and other psychological or physical problems, and provided them with further education to reintegrate them into schools or skills training programmes. If the child could be taken back by the parents, i.e. if the parents were not themselves involved in armed conflict, the child was returned. The Department of Social Welfare championed children and their protection. In areas of armed conflict, children were the first to be evacuated and treated as the centre of protection.

Concerning access to small arms, national laws regulated all aspects of possession, manufacturing, import or export of such weapons. Compulsory licences and permits had to be acquired. The minimum age for access to firearms was 21. The National Police had been very active in the prevention and fight against illegal possession of firearms. The Bureau of Customs monitored the import and export of firearms all over the country. The law specifically provided that children below 18 were exempt from any liability from criminal proceedings, so that children caught with firearms were not convicted and were released within 24 hours upon rescue/arrest/surrender, but the firearms were certainly removed. The delegation stressed that no child in armed conflict, whether he/she had carried out an offence or not, could be prosecuted but could only be turned over to the Department of Social Welfare and Development for social and psychological help.

The Experts raised the concern that there was information that three children were in detention and awaiting trial. The delegation said that if the child was sick or had other problems, it had to be brought to the hospital, or other relevant examination and treatment institutions. The new juvenile justice law stated that a child which was over 15 and below 18 and acting with assortment, he/she must be responsible, however, again, the child would be brought to the rehabilitation services, and would not be put in prisons for adults. If the child was receptive to the rehabilitation goals, he or she could return to the parents or a foster family. If the parents were not capable of taking the child back, he or she stayed in the rehabilitation services under the supervision of the Government.

The Department of Justice had issued a statement concerning the observation of the rights of the child by courts and prosecutors. In case of a child being involved in armed conflict, without certain facts, the prosecutor was obligated to immediately dismiss the case. All legal assistance should be given to the child in the absence of legal representatives. There had not been any prosecutions or convictions of people who had engaged children in armed conflict. The Interagency Committee prohibited recruitment of children and such recruitment was prosecuted.

The Committee pointed out the disparity between child soldiers actually being recruited in the country but no cases of prosecution being reported. One Expert said that some children were killed because they were related to somebody in a rebel group. This did not get into the formal system, as they could not be identified as victim or offenders. Were there attempts to punish this activity in this grey area?

The delegation said that up to today, there was no peace agreement to bind all the parties. As such, the provision of amnesty could not be talked about yet. Concerning indigenous people, the laws prohibited the recruitment from these groups. The Armed Forces were a voluntary army, with a lot of people wanting to join the army, and the Government rejected the recruitment of indigenous people. Allocations concerning the recruitment of indigenous children were false and were contested by the Government. The report of the Special Rapporteur could not be accepted as it was not based on any facts.

The delegation stressed that the fight against poverty had been accelerated. An Anti-Poverty-Plan had been developed which aimed to give all possible resources to the fight against poverty. The livelihood programmes had also been accelerated, as well as other programmes for the members of the families. The Government had increased its capacity building activities in several regions.

The situation in the prisons had been greatly improved in recent years, and there were no more children in the detention centres, as children could no longer be imprisoned. The Philippines did not use any landmines, and there were no reports of children dying of landmines. Landmines were in the possession of and used by rebel groups, but not by the Government. With regard to the dissemination of laws pertaining to children involved in armed conflict, awareness raising programmes and policy information and dissemination were carried out by the police. Special human rights training was provided in several regions of the country. All laws regarding children and children in armed conflict had been included in the development of the curriculum of the criminal justice system.

Concerning girl child soldiers, protective behaviour sessions were conducted with girl children from an early age on, teaching them ways to protect themselves, also against abuse within the family.

The Commission on Human Rights was a constitutional independent body, mandated with the investigation of all human rights abuses committed by anybody within the Philippine territory. The Commission could file cases and prosecute offenders. Both, the Ombudsman and the Commission could investigate cases, and could complement each others’ investigations. However, the focus on the investigations of the Ombudsman was wider and also focused on administrative and criminal aspects of the case. The Commission had recommended the suspension of certain officers of the police in cases taken up by the Ombudsman. The Commission could investigate in all cases of violations of international treaties ratified by the Philippines. There were specialized family courts handling juvenile cases.

One Expert made a comment, stating that there had been other countries which had undergone conflict and managed to reach an agreement with the opponents. The Committee had experience with countries looking after the protection of children even before the peace agreement was concluded, with children being the first step to the peace agreement, such as Nepal.

Concluding Remarks

DAVID BRENT PARFITT, the Committee Expert Serving as Rapporteur for the Report of the Philippines, in preliminary concluding remarks, said that the Committee welcomed the openness of the delegation in the constructive dialogue. The recommendations might reflect concerns expressed by the Committee regarding the Citizenship Advancement Training programme and intentions to include children and child issues in the peace process.

____________

For use of the information media; not an official record