Human Rights

I. INTRODUCTION TO HUMAN RIGHTS 1. Individual Rights – Those rights being

Human Rights and Study of Law: Why every accorded to individuals.
aspiring lawyer ought to study human rights law? 2. Collective Rights (“People’s Rights” or
o As future lawyers, it is our responsibility to “Solidarity Rights”) Rights of the society,
respect, protect, and promote the rights of all those than can be enjoyed only in company with
people. others.
o Human Rights Education affirms the
interdependence of the human family. It promotes C. According to Aspect of Life
understanding of the complex global forces that 1. Civil Rights – Rights which the law will enforce
create abuses, as well as ways in which abuses can at the instance of private individuals for the
be abolished and avoided. purpose of securing to them the enjoyment of
their means of happiness.
Human Rights – Human Rights are inalienable 2. Political Rights – Rights which enable is to
fundamental rights to which a person is inherently participate in running the affairs of the
entitled simply because she or he is a human being. government either directly or indirectly.
3. Economic and Social Rights – Those which the
Human Dignity – An individual or group’s sense of law confers upon the people to enable them to
self-respect and self-worth, physical and achieve social and economic development
psychological integrity and empowerment. thereby ensuring them their well-being,
o It is the conceptual basis for the formulation and happiness and financial security
execution of human rights and is neither granted 4. Cultural Rights – Rights that ensure the well-
by the society nor can it be legitimately granted being of the individual and foster the
by the society. preservation, enrichment, and dynamic
o Every human being should be regarded as a very evolution of natural culture based on the
invaluable member of the community with a principle of unity in diversity in a climate of free
uniquely free expression of their right to life, artistic and intellectual expression.
integrated bodily attributes and their spiritual
nature. D. According to Struggle for Recognition
o Worth of a human being. 1. First Generation of Human Rights – Civil and
o Human rights and human dignity go hand in hand. political rights which derives primarily from the
17th and 18th centuries reformists theories and
Human Rights Culture – Human rights as a way of which are associated with the English,
living. American and French Revolutions.
✓ Favors the abstention rather than the
Characteristics of Human Rights intervention of government in the exercise of
1. Inherent – They are not granted by any person or freedoms and in the quest for human dignity.
authority. Human rights do not have to be bought, 2. Second Generation of Human Rights –
earned or inherited; they belong to people simply Economic, social and cultural rights which find
because they are human. their origin primarily in the socialist tradition
2. Inalienable – Human rights cannot be taken and have been variously promoted by
away; no one has the right to deprive another revolutionary struggles and welfare movements.
person of them for any reason. Human Rights are 3. Third Generation of Human Rights – Covers
inalienable because: collective rights.
a) They cannot be rightfully taken away from a
free individual. E. According to Derogability
b) They cannot be given away or be forfeited. 1. Non-Derogable (Absolute Rights) – Those that
3. Universal – Human Rights are universal in cannot be suspended nor taken away nor
application and the apply irrespective of one’s restricted/limited in extreme emergency and
origin, status, or condition or place where one even if the government invokes national
lives. Human rights are the same for all human security.
beings regardless of race, sex, religion, political or 2. Derogable (Relative Rights) – Right that may
other opinion, national or social origin. be suspended or restricted or limited depending
on the circumstances which call for the
Classification of Human Rights preservation of social life.
A. According to Source: Requirements for Restriction on Individual Rights:
1. Natural Rights – God-given rights, a. It is provided for by law which is made
acknowledged by everybody to be morally known to every citizen.
good. They are unwritten but they prevail as b. There is a state emergency which necessitates
norms of the society. the urgent preservation of the public good,
2. Constitutional Rights – Right which are public safety, and public moral.
conferred and protected by the Constitution and c. It does not exceed what is strictly necessary
which cannot be modified or taken away by the to achieve the purpose.
law-making body.
3. Statutory – Rights vested by law and can be Export Processing Zone Authority v. The
taken away by the law-making body. Commission on Human Rights
Facts: The case involves a parcel of land brought by
B. According to Recipient the Export Processing Zone Authority (EPZA) from
FilOil Refinery Corporation.

1
PAR
Human Rights

CHR in the way of adjudicative power is that it may

Before EPZA could take possession of the area, investigate, i.e., receive evidence and make findings of
several individuals had entered the premises and fact as regards claimed human right violation
planted agricultural products therein without involving civil and political rights. But fact finding is
permission from the owner or its predecessor, Filoil. not adjudication, and cannot be likened to the judicial
function of a court of justice or even a quasi-judicial
To convince them to vacate the premises peacefully, agency or official.
EPZA paid occupants who, in turn, accepted the
financial assistance. The constitutional provision directing the CHR to
“provide for preventive measures and legal aid
Ten years later, the private respondents filed in CHR a services to the underprivileged whose human rights
joint complaint praying for “justice and other relief have been violated or need protection” may not be
remedies”. The CHR conducted an investigation of the construed to confer jurisdiction on the Commission to
complaint. The private respondent alleged that issue a restraining order or writ of injunction for, if that
EPZA’s engineer, accompanied by his subordinates, were the intention, the Constitution would have
brought a bulldozer and a crane to level the area expressly said so.
occupied by them. The respondents tried to stop them
by showing a letter from the President of the Evidently, the “preventive measure and legal aid
Philippines ordering the postponement of the services” mentioned in the Constitution refer to
bulldozing. However, the letter was ignored. extrajudicial and judicial remedies which the CHR
may seek from the proper courts on behalf of the
The CHR then issued an Order of Injunction victims of human rights.
commanding EPZA to desist from committing further
acts of demolition, terrorism and harassment until Carino v. The Commission on Human Rights
further orders from the Commission and appear before Facts: 800 public school teachers undertook a mass
the Commission for a dialogue. However, despite the concerted actions to dramatize and highlight their
said order, the same group bulldozed the area. As a plight resulting from the alleged failure of the public
result, the CHR Chairman issued another injunction authorities to act upon grievances that had time and
reiterating the order and expanded it to include the again been brought to the latter’s attention.
Secretary of DPWH, the contractors and their
subordinates. The mass actions consisted of staying away from their
classes, converging at the Liwasang Bonifacio,
EPZA filed a motion to lift the order of injunction for gathering in peaceable assemblies, etch.
lack of jurisdiction to issue writs and TRO with the
CHR. However, it was denied by the latter. The Secretary of Education, Isidro Carino, served and
order to return to work within 24 hours or face
The petitioner then filed in the SC a special civil action dismissal. Notwithstanding the order, the mass actions
of certiorari and prohibition with a prayer for the continued with more teachers joining in the days that
issuance of a restraining order, alleging that the CHR followed.
acted in excess of its jurisdiction with grave abuse of
discretion. For failure to heed the return-to-work order, the private
respondents were administratively charged on the
When the Supreme Court issued a TRO ordering the basis of the principal’s report. They were also
CHR to cease and desist from enforcing the questioned preventively suspended and were temporarily
injunction orders, the latter asked for the immediate replaced.
lifting of the Court’s TRO and asked for an order
restraining EPZA from doing further acts of The teachers submitted sworn statements to the CHR
destruction and harassment. The CHR contents that its to complain that while they were participating in
principal function under the Constitution is not limited peaceful mass actions, they suddenly learned of their
to mere investigation because it mandated, among replacements as teachers, allegedly without notice and
others to: “xxx Provide appropriate legal measures for consequently for reasons completely unknown to
the protection of human rights of all persons within the them. In connection therewith, the Commission
Philippines, as well as Filipinos residing abroad, and scheduled a “dialogue” and sent a subpoena to
provide for preventive measure and legal aid services Secretary Carino requiring his attendance therein.
to the underprivileged whose human rights have been
violated or need protection; xxx” During the “dialogue”, the counsel of the complainants
explained that his clients had been denied due process
Issue: Whether or not the Commission on Human and suspended without formal notice, and unjustly,
Rights has jurisdiction to issue a writ of injunction or since they did not join the mass leave. The
restraining order against supposed violators of human Commission then issued an order asking Secretary
rights. Carino to enlighten them regarding the issue.
Otherwise, the CHR will resolve the complaint on the
Ruling: No, the CHR has no authority to issue a writ basis of the complainants’ evidence.
of injunction or restraining order against supposed
violators of human rights. Secretary Carino filed a motion to dismiss the case
alleging that the complaint states no cause of action
The CHR is not a court of justice nor even a quasi- and that the CHR has no jurisdiction over the case. In
judicial body. The most that may be conceded to the an order, the Commission denied Carino’s motion to

2
PAR
Human Rights

dismiss and held that the “striking teachers” were Commission and ordering the petitioners to appear
denied due process of law; that they should not have before the CHR.
been replaced without a chance to the administrative
charges; and that there had been a violation of their A motion to dismiss was filed by the petitioners,
civil and political rights which the Commission was stating that the Commission’s authority should be
empowered to investigate. understood as being confined only to the investigation
of violations of civil and political rights, and that “the
Issue: Whether or not the Commission on Human rights allegedly violated in this case were not civil and
Rights can take cognizance of the case and adjudicate political rights, but their privilege to engage in
the case at bar. business.

Ruling: No, the Commission on Human Rights has no In an Order, the CHR cited the petitioners in contempt
jurisdiction over the case. Hence, it cannot take for carrying out the demolition of the stalls, sari-sari
cognizance and adjudicate the case at bar. stores and carinderia despite the Order to Desist. The
CHR opined that it was not the intention of
The Commission on Human Rights have no such Constitutional Commission to create only a paper tiger
power and it was not meant by the fundamental law to limited only to investigating civil and political rights,
be another court or quasi-judicial agency in this but its should be considered a quasi-judicial body with
country, or duplicate much less take over the functions the power to provide appropriate legal measures for
of the latter. the protection of human rights of all persons within the
Philippines.
The Constitution clearly and categorically grants the
commission the power to investigate all forms of The Supreme Court issued a resolution in which it
human rights violation involving civil and political issued a temporary restraining order, directing the
rights. It can exercise that power on its own initiative CHR to cease and desist from further hearing the case
or on complaint of any person. It may exercise that filed by the private respondents.
power pursuant to such rules of procedures as it may
adopt and, in cases of violations of said rules, cite for Issue(s): (1) Whether or not the CHR is a quasi-
contempt in accordance with the Rules of Court. judicial body.
(2) Whether or not the CHR has the power to cite or
However, it cannot try and decide cases as courts of hold any person in direct or indirect contempt.
justice, or even quasi-judicial bodies do. To (3) Whether or not the CHR has the power to issued
investigate is not to adjudicate or adjudges. Adjudicate Writ of Preliminary Injunction.
means “to settle in the exercise of judicial authority.
To determine finally” and adjudge means “To pass on Ruling(s): (1) No, the CHR is not a quasi-judicial
judicially, to decide, settle or decree, or to sentence or body. Hence, it cannot exercise adjudicating power.
condemn”.
In an Order, the CHR theorizes that the intention of the
Hence, the Commission on Human Rights, having members of the Constitutional Commission is to make
merely the power “to investigate”, cannot and should CHR a quasi-judicial body. However, it is not the case
not try and resolve on the merits the matters involved according to the Supreme Court. It observed that only
in the case, CHR cannot do so even if there be a claim the first enumerated power and functions that bears
that in the administrative disciplinary proceedings resemblance to adjudicating or adjudgment, but
against the teachers, their human rights, or civil or resemblance can in no way be synonymous to the
political rights had been transgressed. adjudicatory power itself.

Simon, Jr. v. Commission on Human Rights The Commission on Human Rights was not meant by
Facts: A demolition notice was signed by the the fundamental law to be another court or quasi-
Executive Officer of Quezon City, Carlos Quimpo, judicial agency in this country. The most that may be
was sent to and received by the private respondents conceded to the Commission in the way of
who were vendors. The respondents were given a adjudicative power is that it may investigate, i.e.,
grace period of three days within which to vacate the receive evidence and make findings of fact as regards
questioned premises of North EDSA. claimed human rights violations involving civil and
political rights.
Prior to their receipt of the demolition notice, the
private respondents were informed by Quimpo that The function of receiving evidence and ascertaining
their stalls should be removed to give way to the therefrom the facts of a controversy is not a judicial
“People’s Park”. function. To be considered as such, the faculty of
receiving evidence and making factual conclusions in
The group, led by their President, Roque Fermo, filed a controversy must be accompanied by the authority of
a letter complaint with the CHR against the petitioners applying the law to those factual conclusions to the end
asking the Chairman for a letter addressed to the then that the controversy may be decided or determined
Mayor of Quezon City, Brigido Simon, Jr., to stop the authoritatively, finally and definitively, subject to such
demolition of their stalls, sari-sari store and carinderia. appeals or modes of review as may be provided by law.

The CHR then issued an order, directing the petitioners (2) Yes, the CHR has the power to cite or hold any
to desist from demolishing the stalls and shanties persons in contempt.
pending resolution of the vendors complaint before the

3
PAR
Human Rights

The CHR is constitutionally authorized to adopt its laws on juvenile offenders and its obligations under
operational guidelines and rules of procedure, and cite the Covenant.
for contempt for violations thereof in accordance with
the Rules of Court. The State party contested the admissibility of the
communication. The State party argues that the
Accordingly, the CHR acted within its authority in Supreme Court’s decision resulted in the case before
providing in its revised rules, its power “to cite or hold the HRC being considered moot.
any person in direct or indirect contempt, and to
impose the appropriate penalties in accordance with Issue(s): (1) Whether or not the communication is
the procedure and sanctions provided for in the Rules admissible.
of Court. That power to cite for contempt, however, (2) Whether or not the issues raised by Baroy in his
should be understood to apply only to violations of its communication shall be treated as moot.
adopted operational guidelines and rules of procedure
essential to carry out its investigatorial powers. Ruling(s): (1) No, the communication made by Baroy
is inadmissible.
(3) No, the CHR has no power to issue a Writ of
Preliminary Injunction. The Committee observes that sentencing a person to
death and placing him or her on death row in
The “order to desist” in this case is not investigatorial circumstances where his or her minority has been
in character but prescinds from an adjudicative power finally determined raises serious issues.
that it does not possess.
The Committee observes, however, with respect to the
The constitutional provisions directing the CHR to exhaustion of domestic remedies, that Baroy has filed
provide for preventive measures and legal aid services a “Partial Motion for Reconsideration”, currently
to the underprivileged whose human rights have been pending before the Supreme Court, requesting the
violated or need protection may not be construed to Court to reconsider its treatment of his minority in its
confer jurisdiction on the Commission to issue a judgment.
restraining order or writ of injunction for, it that were
the intention, the Constitution would have expressly The Committee recalls that its position in relation to
said so. issues of exhaustion of domestic remedies is that,
absent exceptional circumstances, this aspect of a
Alfredo Baroy v. The Philippines registered communication is to be assessed at the time
Facts: On March 2, 1998, Baroy and a co-accused was of its consideration of the case.
charged with three counts of rape. At the trial, the
defense introduced the issue of minority through In the present case, accordingly, the Committee
Baroy, who claims to have been born in 1984 making considers that the questions of Baroy’s age and the
him only 14 years old when the crime was committed. means by which it was determined by the courts are,
by the author’s own action, currently before a judicial
Despite the pieces of evidence presented, the trial court forum with authority to resolve. It follows that the
considered that Baroy’s true date of birth was January issues arising from the author’s age and the manner in
19, 1980 thus making him over 18 years old at the time which the courts sought to determine this question are
the offense was committed. inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies.

The Supreme Court, on automatic review, affirmed the (2) Yes, the communication shall be treated as moot.
conviction but reduced the penalty. The Court ruled as
to the issue of minority that the record showed that The Committee observes that, subsequent to the
Baroy had been coached by his mother to lie about it, submission of the communication, the Supreme Court
and it was obviously fabricated. allowed Baroy’s appeal and substituted a term of
imprisonment in place of death sentence.
In his communication, Baroy claimed that his rights
were violated, as after his conviction he was detained In this respect, the Committee considers that the issues
on death row with other convicts sentenced to death, raised by the author concerning the alleged violations
regardless of his age; and that he was not accorded through imposition of the death penalty in his case
special treatment as a minor and detained with the have become moot. Accordingly, while potentially
adult criminals. He further claimed that he was not relevant to the Committee’s assessment of the
accorded a separate procedure that would protect his remaining claims, these particular issues need not be
rights considering his legal status as a minor. Lastly, further addressed by the Committee.
Baroy claimed that his age was arbitrarily determined
to be 18, despite evidence of his birth, the court refused II. INTRODUCTION TO HUMAN RIGHTS
to treat him as a minor. LAW: GENERAL PRINCIPLES
Three Stages of Human Rights
By way of relief, the author petitioned the Committee 1. Idealization (Ideas) – Notions about human
to request the State party to determine his age and rights have started in the realm of ideas that reflect
urgently transfer an appropriate facility, consistent a consciousness against oppression,
with his status as a minor, until he reached majority. dehumanization or inadequate performance by the
Baroy petitioned the committee to request the State State.
party to take all appropriate action on the death 2. Positivization (Turn into law) – Support for the
sentences imposed upon him, consistent with its own ideas became strong and the stage is set to

4
PAR
Human Rights

incorporate them into some legal instruments, The AFP Board then investigated various reports of
whether domestic law or international law. alleged unexplained wealth of Major General Ramas
3. Realization (Implementing law) – Where these and his alleged mistress, Elizabeth Dimaano.
rights are enjoyed by the citizens of the State by Thereafter, the raiding team served a search warrant
the transformation of the citizens of the State by captioned “Illegal Possession of Firearms and
the transformation of the social, economic and Ammunition” at Dimaano’s residence. The raiding
political order. team seized the items detailed in the seizure receipt.
However, the team included items like jewelry and
Concept of State Responsibility land titles which are not included in the search warrant.
When an international obligation is to be held to have
been breached, as well as the consequences of that The PCGG then filed a petition for the forfeiture
breach, including which States are entitled to react, against Ramas. The complaint was amended to include
and the permissible means of that reaction. Elizabeth Dimaano as co-defendant. The complaint
✓ The rights accorded to states under international alleged that Ramas acquired funds, assets and
law imply responsibilities. properties manifestly out of proportion to his salary as
✓ States are liable for breaches of their obligations, an army officer and his other income from legitimately
provided that the breach is attributable to the state acquired property by taking undue advantage of his
itself. public office and/or using his power, authority and
influence as such officer of the Armed Forces of the
Three Obligations of States Philippines and as a subordinate and close associate of
1. Obligation to Respect – Commanding State the deposed President Marcos.
Parties to refrain from restricting the exercise of
civil and political rights where such is not The Sandiganbayan dismissed the amended complaint.
expressly allowed. One of the grounds for dismissing the said complaint
2. Obligation to Ensure – State Parties must be is that there was an illegal search and seizure of the
proactive to enable individuals to enjoy their items confiscated.
rights.
3. Obligation to Protect – Preventing private The petitioner raised the issue that the Sandiganbayan
individuals, groups or entities from interfering erred in declaring the properties confiscated from
with the individual’s civil and political rights. Dimaano’s house as illegally seized and therefore
inadmissible.
Components of Human Rights
1. Subject or right-holder – An individual, a group The petitioner argues that a revolutionary government
of individuals or a non-governmental organization was operative at the time of the seizure by the virtue
entitled to rights under the law and can take legal of Proclamation No. 1 announcing that President
action to protect or to promote those rights. Aquino and Vice President Laurel were taking power
2. Duty-holder – An entity, normally a State that is in the name and by will of the Filipino people. The
obliged to respect, to ensure and to protect the petitioner asserts that the revolutionary government
subject’s rights or demands. effectively withheld the operation of the 1973
3. Object – The content of any given right and any Constitution which guaranteed private respondents’
duty of the holder of the right and the holder of the exclusionary rights.
obligation.
4. Implementation – Set of measures, approaches Issue: Whether or not the search and seizure made at
and initiatives designed to realize the right the house of Elizabeth Dimaano was legal.
concerned.
Ruling: No, the residence of Elizabeth Dimaano was
Republic v. Sandiganbayan illegally searched and the confiscated items are
Facts: Following the successful EDSA Revolution, illegally seized.
then President Corazon Aquino issued EO No. 1
creating the Presidential Commission on Good A revolutionary government is bound by no
Governance. It primarily tasked to recover all ill- constitution or legal limitations except treaty
gotten wealth of former President Ferdinand E. obligations that the revolutionary government, as the
Marcos, his immediate family, relatives, subordinates, de jure government in the Philippines, assumed under
and close associates. international law.

EO No. 1 vested the PCGG the power (a) to conduct With the abrogation of the 1973 Constitution by
investigation as may be necessary in order to successful revolution, there was no municipal law
accomplish and carry out the purposes of the order; higher than the directives and orders of the
and (b) to promulgate such rules and regulations as revolutionary government. Hence, the Bill of Rights
may be necessary to carry out the purpose of the order. under the 1973 Constitution was not operative during
the interregnum. However, the protection accorded to
Accordingly, the Chairman of PCGG, Jovito Salonga, individuals under the Covenant and Declaration
created the AFP Anti-Graft and Corruption Board remained in effect during the interregnum.
which is tasked to investigate reports of unexplained
wealth and corrupt practices by AFP Personnel, The revolutionary government, after installing itself as
whether in active service or retired. the de jure government, assumed responsibility for the
State’s good faith compliance with the Covenant to
which the Philippines is a signatory.

5
PAR
Human Rights

Declaration that: (1) Everyone is entitled to all the

Article 2(1) of the Covenant requires each signatory rights and freedom set forth in this Declaration,
State to respect and ensure to all individuals within its without distinction of any kind; (2) Everyone has the
territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights right to an effective remedy by the competent national
recognized in the present Covenant. In addition, said tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights
Covenant provides that the revolutionary government granted him by the Constitution or by law; and that (3)
had the duty to ensure that no one shall be subjected to No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention
arbitrary and unlawful interference with his privacy, or exile.
family, home or correspondence.
Petitioner’s unduly prolonged detention would be
The Declaration, to which the Philippines is also a unwarranted by the law and the Constitution, if only
signatory, provides that no one shall be arbitrarily the purpose of detention is to eliminate a danger that is
deprived of his property. Although the signatories to by no means actual, present, or uncontrollable.
the Declaration did not intend it as legally binding Imprisonment to protect the society from predicted but
document, the Court has interpreted the Declaration as unconsummated offenses is so unprecedented in this
part of the generally accepted principles and binding country.
on the State. Hence, the revolutionary government was
also obligated under international law to observe the The petitioner shall be granted release with the
rights of individuals under the Declaration. conditions that he be placed under the surveillance of
the immigration authorities or their agents in such
Mejoff v. Director of Prisons form and manner as may be deemed adequate to ensure
Facts: Boris Mejoff is a Russian who was brought to that he keep peace and be available when the
the Philippines from Shanghai as a secret operative by Government is ready to deport him.
the Japanese Forces during the latter’s regime in the
Philippine Islands. Kuroda v. Jalandoni
Facts: Shigenori Kuroda, a former Lieutenant-General
Upon liberation, he was arrested as a Japanese spy, by of the Japanese Imperial Forces in the Philippines, was
the U.S. Army Counter Intelligence Corps. The Board charged before the Military Commission convened by
of Commissioners of Immigration declared that the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the
Mejoff had entered the Philippines illegally and Philippines having unlawfully disregarded and failed
ordered that he be deported on the first available to discharged his duties as such commander to control
transportation to Russia. the operations of members of his command, permitting
them to commit brutal atrocities and other high crimes
After being transferred to Cebu Provincial Jail and against noncombatant civilians and prisoners of the
then Bilibid Prison at Muntinlupa, the petitioner filed Imperial Japanese Forces, in violation of the laws and
a Writ of Habeas Corpus but it was denied. However, customs of war”.
the Court warned that too long a detention may justify
the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. The petitioner comes before the Court seeking to
establish the illegality of Executive Order No. 68 of
Two years after the denial of the Writ of Habeas the President of the Philippines. One of his arguments
Corpus, the Government, still, has not found ways and is that Executive Order No. 68 is illegal on the ground
means of removing the petitioner the petitioner out of that it violates not only the provisions of our
the country. Hence, the petitioner filed another petition constitutional law but also our local laws, to say
for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. nothing of the fact that the Philippines is not a
signatory nor an adherent to the Hague Convention on
Issue: Whether or not the second petition for a Writ of Rules and Regulations covering Land Warfare and,
Habeas Corpus shall be granted. therefore, petitioner is charged of crimes not based on
law, national and international. Hence, the
Ruling: Yes, the petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus commission is without jurisdiction to try the petitioner.
shall be granted.
Issue: Whether or not Executive Order No. 68 violated
The protection against deprivation of liberty without the provisions of our Constitutional Law.
due process of law and except for crimes committed
against the laws of the land is not limited to Philippine Ruling: No, the Executive Order 68 did not violate
Citizens but extends to all residents, regardless of any provision in our Constitution.
nationality.
The 1987 Constitution provides that “The Philippines
The Constitution provides that the Philippines adopts renounces war as an instrument of national policy, and
the generally accepted principles of international law adopts generally accepted principles of international
as part of the law of Nations, and in a resolution laws as part of law of the land, and adheres to the
entitled “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” and policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom,
approved by the General Assembly of the United cooperation, and amity with all nations”.
Nations of which the Philippines is a member, the right
to life and liberty and all other fundamental rights as In accordance with the generally accepted principles
applied to all human beings were proclaimed. of international law of the present day, all those
persons, military or civilian, who have been guilty of
It was there resolved that all human beings are born planning, preparing or waging a war of aggression and
free and equal in degree. It was provided in the of the commission of crimes and offenses

6
PAR
Human Rights

consequential and incidental thereto, in violation of the o Regulated by law

laws and customs of war, humanity and civilization, o A person is free to act but he may exercise his
are held accountable therefor. rights only in such manner as not to injure the
rights of others.
Consequently, in the promulgation and enforcement of o A person may do anything as he pleases but not
Executive Order No. 68, the President of the to the extent that it offends the public welfare.
Philippines has acted in conformity with the generally
accepted principles and policies of International Law “Property” – Anything that come under the right of
which are part of our Constitution. ownership and be the subject of contract.
o Includes all things – real, personal, tangible and
III. HUMAN RIGHTS AND CONSTITUTIONAL intangible – that are within the commerce of man.
LAW
Section 1, Article II. No person shall be deprived of Procedural Due Process – One which hears before it
life, liberty or property without due process of law. condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry and renders
Nor shall any person be denied the equal protection judgment only after trial.
of laws. o Twin requirement of notice and hearing constitute
the essential element of due process.
Due Process of Law
o Responsiveness to the supremacy of reason, Judicial Due Process
obedience to the dictates of justice. (Justice 1. There must be an impartial court or tribunal
Fernando) clothed with judicial power to hear and determine
o The embodiment of the sporting idea of fair play the matter before it.
(Justice Frankfurter) 2. Jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the
person of the defendant and over the property
Concept: A guaranty against any arbitrariness on the which the subject matter of the proceeding.
part of the government whether committed by the 3. The defendant must be given an opportunity to be
legislature, the executive or the judiciary. heard.
Purpose: To protect every person from deprivation of 4. Judgment must be rendered upon lawful hearing.
life, liberty and property.
“Impartial and Incompetent” – The litigants should
Kinds of Due Process be sure that when their rights are violated they can go
1. Substantive Due Process – Requires the intrinsic to a judge who shall give them justice.
validity of the law in interfering with the rights of
the person to his life, liberty or property. “Jurisdiction”
o Restraint to the lawmaking power. a) Actions in personam – Jurisdiction over the
2. Procedural Due Process – Requires notice and defendant is acquired by the Court by his
hearing. Hears before it condemns, which voluntary appearance or through service of
proceeds upon inquiry and renders judgment only summons upon him.
after trial. b) Actions in rem or quasi in rem – The
jurisdiction of the Court is derived from the power
Characteristics of Due Process it may exercise over the property.
1. Dynamic and resilient
2. Adaptable to every situation calling for its o Jurisdiction over the person is not essential,
application provided the relief granted by the court is limited
to such as can be enforced against the property
o If the law itself unreasonably deprives a person of itself.
his life, his liberty, or his property, he is denied ✓ Reason: The property is always presumed to be
the protection of due process. in the possession of the owner or his agent.
o If the enjoyment of his rights is conditioned on an
unreasonable requirement, due process is likewise “Hearing” – Notice to a party is essential to enable it
violated. to adduce its own evidence submitted by the other
party.
“Person” o he has the right to be notified of every incident of
1. Natural – Citizens and aliens the proceeding and to be present at every stage
2. Artificial – Corporation and partnership thereof.
o The life and liberty of artificial person are o a decision rendered without hearing is null and
deprived from and therefore subject to the void ab initio and may be attacked directly or
control of the legislature. collaterally.
o due process is not violated where a person is not
“Deprivation” – To take away forcibly, to prevent heard because he has chosen, for whatever reason,
from possessing, enjoying or using something. not to be heard.
o The denial of life, property and liberty.
A. Appeal – except when guaranteed by the
“Life” – The integrity of physical person. Constitution, appeal may be allowed or denied by the
o It is not permissible for the government to legislature in its discretion.
deprive the individual of any part of his body. o Due process is deemed satisfied as long as the
litigant is given his day in court at the trial of his
“Liberty” – The freedom to do right and never wrong.

7
PAR
Human Rights

case BUT as long as the law allows him to appeal,

denial of that remedy is a denial of due process. Persons Protected
1. Natural Persons
B. Exceptions – The essential requisites of notice and 2. Juridical Persons – Entitled to the protection
hearing may be omitted without violation of due only insofar as their property is concerned.
process.
a) Nuisance “Classification” – The grouping of persons or things
o Nuisance per se – objectionable under any all similar to each other in certain particulars and different
circumstances because it presents an immediate from all others in these particulars.
danger to the welfare of the community. o The equal protection of laws does not require the
o Nuisance per accidens – objectionable only universal application of laws.
under some but not all circumstances, there being o The law is not required to provide for equality
situations when it is perfectly legitimate and among all persons if they are not similarly
acceptable. situated.
✓ must be of trifling value only. o The legislature is allowed to classify the subjects
✓ may be abated only upon judicial authorization of legislation.
as it is difficult to ascertain or identify this kind o The classification must not be arbitrary.
of nuisance.
b) Presumptions – a statutory presumptions would Valid Classification Test
not deny the right to a hearing insofar as the 1. It must be based upon substantial distinctions
person affected is precluded from introducing 2. It must be germane to the purposes of the law
evidence to rebut presumptions. 3. It must not be limited to existing conditions only
✓ Provided there is a rational or natural connection 4. It must apply equally to all members of the class
between the fact proved and the fact ultimately
presumed from such fact. A. Substantial Distinctions
o Superficial differences do not make for a valid
“Judgment” – Due process requires that the judgment distinction.
be based upon the lawful hearing previously o Distinction between citizens and aliens – the
conducted. former had more solicitude for the national
o “No decision shall be rendered by any court interest than the latter.
without expressing therein clearly and distinctly
the facts and the law on which it is based.” B. Relevance to Purpose of Law – The classification
(Article VIII Section 14) will still be invalid if it is not germane to the purpose
of the law.
Administrative Due Process
1. The right to a hearing, which includes the right to C. Duration – The classification must be enforced not
present one’s case and submit evidence in support only for the present but as long as the problem sought
thereof. to be corrected continues to exist.
2. The tribunal must consider the evidence
presented. D. Applicability to All – The classification will be
3. The decision must have something to support regarded as invalid if all the members of the class or
itself. not similarly treated, both as to rights conferred and
4. The evidence must be substantial. obligations imposed.
5. The decision must be rendered on the evidence o Substantial similarity will suffice.
presented at the hearing, or at least contained in
the record and disclosed to the parties affected.
6. The tribunal or body should, in all controversial White Light Corporation v. City of Manila
questions, render its decision in such a manner Facts: Alfredo S. Lim, the City Mayor of Manila,
that the parties to the proceeding can know the signed into law an ordinance that prohibits short-time
various involved, and the reason for the decision admission, short-time admission rates, and wash-up
rendered. rate schemes in hotels, motels, inns, lodging houses,
7. The tribunal or body or any of its judges must act pension houses, and similar establishments in the City
on its own independent consideration of the law of Manila. The Malate Tourist Development
and facts of the controversy and not simply accept Corporation (MTDC) filed a complaint with prayer for
the views of a subordinate in arriving at a a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) with the
decision. Regional Trial Court of Manila. They also prayed that
the ordinance be declared invalid and unconstitutional.
Impartial Court – An impartial court demands the
cold neutrality of the Judge. It must not only be White Light Corporation, Titanium Corporation, Sta.
impartial but must also appear impartial. Mesa Transit and Development Corporation filed a
motion to intervene on the ground that the ordinance
Equal Protection of Laws directly affects their business interest. The RTC then
o A more specific guaranty against any form of directed the City of Manila to cease and desist from
undue favoritism or hostility from the enforcing the ordinance. The RTC rendered a decision
government. declaring the ordinance null and void. The Court of
o All person or things similarly situated should be Appeals reversed the decision of the RTC and affirmed
treated alike, both as to rights conferred and the Constitutionality of the Ordinance.
responsibilities imposed.

8
PAR
Human Rights

The Petitioners came to the Supreme Court contending World War II had ranged from 1939 to 1945, and as
that the ordinance is an invalid exercise of Police the end drew near, cities throughout Europe and Asia
Power. That their business is unlawfully interested lay in smoldering ruins. Millions of people were dead,
with the ordinance. On the other hand, the City of millions more were homeless or starving. Russian
Manila asserted that the ordinance is a valid exercise forces were closing in on the remnants of German
of police power pursuant to the Local Government resistance in Germany’s bombed-out capital of Berlin.
Code which confers on cities, among other local In the Pacific, US Marines were still battling
government units the power to regulate establishment, entrenched Japanese forces on such islands as
operation and maintenance of cafes, restaurants, Okinawa.
beerhouses, hotels, motels, inns, pension houses,
lodging houses and other similar establishments, In April 1945, delegates from fifty countries met in
including tourist guides and transports. San Francisco full of optimism and hope. The goal of
the United Nations Conference on International
Issue: Whether or not the Ordinance that prohibits Organization was to fashion an international body to
“Short –Time Admission, Short-Time Admission promote peace and prevent future wars. The ideals of
Rates and Wash-up Rate Schemes in Hotels, Motels, the organization were stated in the preamble to its
Inns, Lodging Houses, Pension Houses, and Similar proposed charter:
Establishments in the City of Manila” is a valid
exercise of Police Power. “We the peoples of the United Nations are determined
to save succeeding generations from the scourge of
Ruling: No, the ordinance is an invalid exercise of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold
police power. sorrow to mankind.”

Police power, while incapable of an exact definition, The Charter of the new United Nations organization
has been purposely veiled in general terms to went into effect on October 24, 1945, a date that is
underscore its comprehensiveness to meet all celebrated each year as United Nations Day.
exigencies and provide enough room for an efficient
and flexible response as the condition warrants. By 1948, the United Nations’ new Human Rights
Commission had captured the world’s attention. Under
The apparent goal of the ordinance is to minimize, if the dynamic chairmanship of Eleanor Roosevelt—
not eliminate, the use of the covered establishment for President Franklin Roosevelt’s widow, a human rights
illicit sex, prostitution, drug use and alike. These goals champion in her own right and the United States
by themselves, are unimpeachable and certainly fall delegate to the UN—the Commission set out to draft
within the ambit of the police power of the State. Yet, the document that became the Universal Declaration
the desirability of these ends does not sanctify the any of Human Rights. Roosevelt, credited with its
and all the means for their achievement. – Those inspiration, referred to the Declaration as the
means must align with the Constitution, and our international Magna Carta for all mankind. It was
emerging sophisticated analysis of its guarantees to the adopted by the United Nations on December 10, 1948.
people.
In its preamble and in Article 1, the Declaration
To be a valid exercise of police power, it must appear unequivocally proclaims the inherent rights of all
that the interest of public generally, as distinguished human beings: “Disregard and contempt for human
from those of a particular class, require an interference rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have
with private rights and the means must be reasonably outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of
necessary for accomplishment of the purpose and not a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of
unduly oppressive of private rights; it must also be speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has
evident that no alternative for accomplishment of the been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the
purpose less intrusive of private rights can work; and common people… All human beings are born free and
more importantly, a reasonable relation must exist equal in dignity and rights.”
between the purpose of the measure and the means
employed for its accomplishment, for even under the The Member States of the United Nations pledged to
guise of protecting the public interest, personal rights work together to promote the thirty Articles of human
and those pertaining to private property will not be rights that, for the first time in history, had been
permitted to be arbitrarily invaded. assembled and codified into a single document. In
consequence, many of these rights, in various forms,
Lacking a concurrence of the above requisites, the are today part of the constitutional laws of democratic
police measure shall be struck down as an arbitrary nations.
intrusion into private rights.
B. Structure and Content
IV. INTERNATIONAL BILL OF HUMAN 1. Preamble – Sets out the historical and social
RIGHTS: Universal Declaration of Human Rights causes that led to the necessity of drafting the
Declaration.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights – An 2. Articles 1-2 – established the basic concept of
international document that states basic rights and dignity, liberty, equality and brotherhood.
fundamental freedoms to which all human beings are 3. Articles 3-5 – established other individual
entitled. rights, such as the right to life and the
prohibition of slavery and torture.
A. History and Background

9
PAR
Human Rights

4. Article 6-11 – the fundamental legality of distinguished from those conferred by the Constitution
human rights with specific remedies cited with – would be suspended thereby.
defense when violated.
5. Articles 12-17 – the rights of the individual Government of Hong Kong Special
towards the community. Administrative Region v. Hon. Olalia
6. Article 18-21 – the so-called “constitutional Facts: Private Munoz was charged before the Hong
liberties”., and with spiritual, public, and Kong Court with “accepting an advantage as agent” in
political freedoms, such as freedom of thought, violation of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance. He
opinion, religion and conscience, word and also faces the offense of conspiracy to defraud,
peaceful association of the individual. penalized by the common law of Hong Kong.
7. Articles 22-27 – An individual’s economic, Warrants of arrest were issued against him and if
social and cultural rights. convicted, he faces a jail term.
8. Articles 28-30 – established the general ways of
using these rights, the areas in which these rights A petition for certiorari was filed by the Government
of the individual cannot be applied, and that they of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region,
cannot be overcome against the individual. represented by the Philippine Department of Justice
seeking to nullify the Order allowing Juan Antonio
1986 UN Tehran Conference on Human Rights Munoz.
Objective: To urge all peoples and Governments to
dedicate themselves to the principles enshrined in the The petitioner alleges that the order was issued by
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and to Judge Olalia with grave abuse of discretion amounting
redouble their efforts to provide for all human beings to lack or excess of jurisdiction as there is no provision
a life consonant with freedom and dignity and in the Constitution granting bail to a potential
conducive to physical, mental, social and spiritual extraditee.
welfare.
The private respondent maintained that the right to bail
Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions v. guaranteed under the Bill of Rights extends to a
The Secretary of Labor prospective extraditee; and that extradition is a harsh
Facts: The Registration of Labor Organization process resulting in a prolonged deprivation of liberty.
rendered a decision cancelling of the Social Security
System Employees Association which is affiliated to Issue: Whether or not an extraditee is entitled to bail.
the Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions.
Ruling: Yes, an extraditee may be allowed to post bail.
The reason for cancelling such registration is that
SSSEA failed to furnish copies of reports on finances The Court recognized the trends of international law,
of the union duly verified by affidavits which its to wit: (1) the growing importance of the individual
treasurer or treasurers rendered to the Bureau of Labor person in public international law; (2) the higher value
Relations. now being given to human rights; (3) the
corresponding duty of countries to observe these
The Office of the Registrar also rendered a decision Universal Human Rights in fulfilling their treaty
cancelling the SSSEA’s Registration. The President of obligations; and (4) The duty of this Court to balance
the SSSEA moved for reconsideration and prayed for the rights of the individual under our fundamental law
time within which to submit the required papers. and the law on extradition.

The SSSEA then filed a Writs of Certiorari and In the light of the recent developments in international
prohibition to restrain respondents from enforcing the law, where emphasis is given to the worth of the
order of cancellation of the registration certificate. One individual and the sanctity of human rights. Hence, an
of the grounds is that Section 23 of RA No. 875 extraditee may be allowed to post bail.
violates their freedom of assembly and association,
and is inconsistent with the Universal Declaration of Chirskoff v. Commissioner of Immigration
Human Rights. Facts: Chirskoff entered the Philippines with a
passport duly visaed by the United States Consul for
Issue: Whether or not Section 23 of RA No. 875 is the purpose of making repairs on and taking delivery
inconsistent with the Human Declaration of Human of certain vessels purchased by or in behalf of China
Rights. Trading, Co., Ltd.

Held: No, Section 23 of RA No. 875 is not Done with his taskes, the petitioner remained behind
inconsistent with the Human Declaration of Human and stayed for the reason, according to him, that the
Rights. had suffered and economic collapse and his return to
Shanghai impracticable”. He then obtained
There is no incompatibility between RA No. 875 and employment in a lumber concern. It was while
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The working that he was arrested by order of the
cancellation of the SSSEA’s registration certificate Commissioner of Immigration.
would not entail a dissolution of said association or its
suspension. The existence of the SSSEA would not be The Deportation Board ordered the petitioner’s
affected by said cancellation, although its juridical deportation to Russia on the ground that he “violated
personality and its statutory rights and privileges – as the condition of the temporary stay given him by

10
PAR
Human Rights

failing to depart from the Philippines upon expiration,

thus rendering himself subject to deportation.

The immigration authorities were unable to carry out

the deportation order, and it is alleged that because of
that inability, the petitioner repeatedly expressed his
desire to leave the country on his on account but his
requests were not heeded. The petitioner averred that
he could easily have departed from the Philippines,
without any expense on the part of the government.

Issue: Whether or not the detention is proper.

Ruling: No, the detention is not proper.

Foreign nationals, not enemy, against whom no

criminal charges have been formally made or judicial
order issued, may not indefinitely be kept in detention.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, approved by

the General Assembly of the United Nations of which
the Philippines is a member, the right to life and liberty
and all other fundamental rights as applied to human
beings were proclaimed.

The warrant of deportation, not having been able to be

executed, and the alien is being held without any
authority of law, the Court is given the power to act.
Further, the possibility that the petitioner might join
groups to overthrow the government when set free,
does not justify prolonged detention. The remedy in
that case is to impose conditions in the order of release
and exact bail in reasonable amount with sufficient
sureties.

11
PAR