Human Rights FORUM 1 Volume 2... · 2007-11-09 · ay hindi nai-package bilang isang realistikong plano tungo sa pagtatayo ng isang gobyernong kakatawan sa interes ng sambayanan

1Human Rights FORUM

2 Human Rights FORUM

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

.....

Violence and Deception:Survival Tools of the Embattled GMA Government ........................................ 3

Calibrated Preemptive Response:Preempting Democracy.............................................................................. 8

Towards Universal Abolition ....................................................................... 10

Shall we dance? ............................................................................... 13

Rains & Doom ............................................................................... 16A health digest for the 3rd Quarter 2005

To Venable or Not to Venable ...................................................................... 18

Mendiola! Mendiola!

SIMBOLIKONG TULAY sa pagitan ngmga nasa kapangyarihan at ngmamamayan, kaya hindi kataka-

takang madalas mabanggit ang Mendiola samga pahina ng ating kasaysayan.

Nagiging makabuluhan ang kapirasongdaanang ito patungo sa Malakanyang samga panahong dinidikdik ang kalayaangpulitikal ng mamamayan. Nagiging hamonat sigaw ng pagtutol ang pangalan nitokapag tinatapatan ng dahas ng estado angkalayaan ng sambayanang magpahayag,magtipon-tipon, at magprotesta.

Umalingawngaw ang mga sigaw naito noong ‘First QuarterStorm’ sa panahon ngdiktadurang Marcos.Kasama rin ito samga huling sali-tang binigkasng mga mag-s a s a k a n gnasawi noong‘ M e n d i o l aMassacre’ sa pana-hon ng pamumuno niGng. Cory Aquino.

Ngayon, si Gng.Gloria MacapagalArroyo (GMA) naman angnagkakait sa kapirasong espasyong itomula sa mamamayang ang tanging pakayay palabasin ang katotohanan sa likod ngkontrobersyang ‘Hello Garci.’ Sa bisa ngBP 880 at ng polisiyang ‘no permit, no rally,’marahas na binubusalan ang mga tanonghinggil sa mga alegasyon ng pandarayanoong 2004 eleksyon.

Ngunit nakababahalang isipin na sapagkakataong ito, ang labanan para ‘bawiin’ang Mendiola ay nalimitahan sa pagitan ngmga pulis at mga militante at pulitikongkalaban ni GMA, habang ang karamihan,bagamat gigil na gigil sa mga nasa poder,ay nanatiling nanonood sa isang tabi.

Wala na nga bang pakialam si Juan delaCruz sa ipinapahiwatig ng isangMendiolang napapalibutan ng mga pulis,barikada, at ‘barbed wires’? Titiisin na lang

ba niya at ipagkikibit-balikat ang harap-harapang paglapastangan sa kanyangkarapatan at kalayaan?

Sa tingin po namin ay hindi. Maraminang sakripisyo at labang dinaanan angsambayanang Pilipino para sa demokrasyaat kalayaan at hindi basta-basta malilimutanang mga aral na itinatak ng mga karanasangito.

May malalim na implikasyon kungbakit hindi dumagsa sa kalsada ang masamatapos patayin sa Kongreso ang‘impeachment complaint’ laban sa pangulo

at matapos ideklara ng Mala-kanyang ang ‘calibrated

preemptive res-ponse’ laban samga raliyista.

Ang kawalanng alternatibo angisa sa pinakama-laking pumigil sa

pagbagsak ni GMAmula sa kapangyarihan.

Karamihan sa mga tao aynagtatanong: kung pababag-

sakin si Gloria, sino angipapalit? Sawang-sawa atpagod na pagod na ang mga

tao sa pagluklok sa mga pare-parehong ‘trapo.’

Hindi rin nakiliti ang imahinasyon ngpubliko ng mga pormulang inihain ng mgaprogresibong grupo. Ang ‘transitionalrevolutionary government’ o TRG, bagamatnaglalatag ng mga hakbang tungo sa isangdemokratiko at makatarungang kaayusan,ay hindi nai-package bilang isangrealistikong plano tungo sa pagtatayo ngisang gobyernong kakatawan sa interes ngsambayanan.

Ibig lang sabihin, hindi maaaringmawala ang mga ideyal na sinisimbolo ngMendiola; likas sa mga tao angpagmamahal sa kalayaan. Kailangan langpag-aralang mabuti ang mga programa atsolusyong inihaharap sa kanila at huwagmagpatali sa mga tradisyunal na pananawat pamamaraan.

PHILIPPINE HUMAN RIGHTS INFORMATION CENTER

Editorial Board

NYMIA PIMENTEL-SIMBULAN DR. P.H.SONNY MELENCIOGINA DELA CRUZ

BERNARDO D. LARINEditor-in-Chief

Contributors

TRACY P. PABICOPEPITO FRIASRAMIL ANDAG

V.A.A. CICKY BUENAVENTURA

The Human Rights Forumis published quarterly

by thePhilippine Human Rights

Information Center (PhilRights)with office address at

53-B Maliksi St. BarangayPinyahan, Quezon City

Telefax: 433-1714Tel. No.: 436-5686

E-mail:[email protected]

J.M. VILLEROManaging Editors

ARNEL RIVALArt Director

PEPITO FRIASPhotographer

3Human Rights FORUM

SURVIVAL is the goal, and heightening politicalrepression and sowing fear are the meansemployed.

This aptly describes the situation of theGloria Macapagal-Arroyo government which has beenstruggling to “normalize” conditions and to keep itselfin power in the aftermath of the “Garci tapes” exposé.The embattled GMA administration is resorting to allmeans at its disposal not only to perpetuate itsillegitimate rule but also to continue implementingsocio-economic policies and programs which haveconsistently undermined the people’s rights andwelfare.

Violence and Deception:

Survival Toolsof the EmbattledGMA Government

By Nymia Pimentel-Simbulan, Dr. PH

Being a strong adherent andpractitioner of the neo-liberalphilosophy, the GMA govern-ment has taken a path that hascaused insurmountable dif-ficulties and sufferings to theimpoverished sections of thepopulation. This is evident bythe mounting mass poverty,unemployment and under-employment in the labor force,deterioration in the quality oflife of the people, and theescalating atmosphere ofdesperation and frustrationamong the populace. Within

our midst is an economic crisisthat is fast advancing and whichhas been fuelled by the politicalcrisis faced by a governmentwhose very existence is nowbeing questioned and is underattack. For the GMA admi-nistration, the means employedto address its predicament is toresort to naked brutality andshameless deception.

Heightened RepressionThe GMA government’s

answer to the growing massdiscontent and protest over its

Instead of quelling dissent, PGMA’s calibrated preemptive response(CPR) only fuelled more protest actions. (Top) Militants press againsta phalanx of battle-ready anti-riot police. (Right) DRENCHED, BUT STILLDEFIANT: Senator Jamby Madrigal, former Executive Secretary OscarOrbos, Bayan Muna Party-List Representative Satur Ocampo, formerVice President Teofisto Guingona, and ‘running priest’ Fr. Robert Reyestest GMA’s CPR. PJREPORTS/LITO OCAMPO


illegitimate assumption into thepresidency and the unabatedimplementation of anti-peopleand pro-globalization policiesand programs has been thehighly criticized “calibratedpreemptive response” and the“no permit, no rally” policy.This has been followed by theissuance of a series of pro-clamations and executive orderswhich blatantly violate thepeople’s human rights and civilliberties, notably the freedom ofexpression and peacefulassembly, the right to petitionthe government for redress ofgrievances and the right toinformation.

On the pretext of upholdingthe rule of law and protectingthe “welfare of the greatermajority”, the GMA govern-ment has toughened its stancein the midst of the escalatingpolitical crisis by prohibiting thepeople from exercising theirrights and civil liberties. Whilerecognizing the welfare andinterests of commuters,pedestrians and businessmen,the government has outrightlyignored the legitimate rights ofthe people to free expressionand assembly and to petition thegovernment, by banning peace-ful protest actions and gathe-rings. Violence, illegal arrestand detention, threats and lieshave been the government’sprincipal weapons to defenditself against the continuingexpressions of people’svigilance and dissent.

The “no permit, no rally”policy clearly violates thepeople’s rights to free expres-sion and peaceful assemblysince local chief executives, inpractice, have been given theauthority and power to eitherallow or disallow the exercise of

these rights through theissuance or denial of a permit tohold a rally, demonstrationand/or other forms of massprotest actions in public places.Justifying that the “no permit,no rally” policy is in accordancewith Batas Pambansa 880, aMarcosian decree issued in1985, the current implemen-tation of the said law contradictsthe intent and spirit of the lawitself.

Contrary to what is stipu-lated in BP 880, the GMAregime, in addition to its“calibrated preemptive res-ponse” (CPR) policy, hasoutrightly denied the people’sright to exercise their rights tofree expression, to peacefulassembly and to petition thegovernment for redress ofgrievances by violating im-portant provisions of the saidlaw. This has been shown in thefollowing actions/measures oflaw enforcement agencies in therecent past:1. Denied granting of permits

in the holding of a publicassembly even if there isobviously no “clear andpresent danger to publicorder, public safety, publicconvenience, public moralsor public health” involvedin the applications [viola-tion of Section 6(a)];

2. Disallowed the holding ofpublic assemblies even ifthe application require-ments were complied withby the applicant(s) andhave not been acted uponby the office of the mayoror the official acting in his/her behalf, two (2) workingdays after the filing of thesaid application [violationof Sect. 6(b)];

3. Failed to inform theapplicant regarding themayor’s assessment of thepresence of “imminent andgrave danger of a subs-tantive evil warranting thedenial or modification ofthe permit” in the holdingof the public assembly;moreso, hearing the side orjustification of the applicantin the holding of the publicassembly [violation of Sect.6(c)];

4. Mobilized members of lawenforcement agencies, whowere in plainclothes orwere not wearing completeuniforms and nameplates,to deal with demons-trators/rallyists [violationof Sec. 10(a)];

5. Non-observance of thepolicy of “maximumtolerance” with the violentdispersals and manhand-ling of demonstrators/

rallyists, even before theyassemble themselves fortheir protest actions [viola-tion of Sec. 10(a)];

6. The reckless use of watercannons as a means ofdispersing or breaking uppeaceful public assemblies[violation of Sec. 10(c)]; and

7. Indiscriminate arrest anddetention of leaders and/orparticipants, even withoutprovocation or violation ofany law/statute/ordi-nance, during publicassemblies [violation of Sec.11(d)];

Meanwhile, EO 464, thepolicy prohibiting adminis-tration and military officialsfrom attending congressionalhearings without priorclearance and go-signal of thePresident, is another measurethat further constricts thepeople’s right to information.

THE POPULAR CALL OF THE DAY: oust an illegitimate president.

WHEN THE PEOPLE’S BASIC RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS (OF ASSEMBLY,OF SPEECH) ARE TRAMPLED: The streets become vibrant battlegroundsfor democratic space. Photos by PJREPORTS/LITO OCAMPO

5Human Rights FORUM

While invoking the constitu-tional guarantee of separation ofpowers between the executive,legislative and judicial branchesof government, and the rule ofexecutive privilege, the GMAadministration has used EO 464to deny the public vital in-formation on the conduct ofgovernment affairs anddecisions which the people have

the right to know. It is beingused as a tool to keep away fromthe people and GMA’s critics thenumerous scandalous andobjectionable decisions andagreements made by thePresident and administrationofficials, by using the protectionof public interest and/orsecurity of the state as pretext.Moreover, while EO 464

recognizes the “rights of publicofficials appearing in legislativeinquiries in aid of legislation”,it ignores the right toinformation of the people; whileit safeguards the interests ofpublic officials in congressionalinquiries/hearings, it ignoresthe people’s interests andwelfare.

EO 464 outrightly violatesthe 1987 Philippine Consti-tution. As pointed out in theposition paper of the Free LegalAssistance Group (FLAG), “Sec.22, Art. VI of the 1987 Consti-tution simply refers to heads ofdepartments” (meaning mem-bers of the Cabinet) as requiringthe President’s consent whenappearing before both Housesof Congress. All other publicofficials do not have to get thePresident’s approval as stipu-lated in EO 464.

Despite denials that martiallaw or emergency rule will notbe declared by the chiefexecutive, there is really no needfor such formal announcementto take place. What the nation isexperiencing today, primarilythe pervasiveness of anatmosphere of repression andviolence, are signs of a de factomartial rule. A government thathas lost its legitimacy and thatno longer enjoys the trust andconfidence of the people cannotbut rule except through the useof force and deception.

Concomitant with thepolitical crisis is a sharpening ofthe economic crisis whichpermeates into the very core ofmost Filipino households. As aconsequence of its adherence tothe terms and conditions ofmultilateral financial institu-tions, specifically the IMF-WB,and the World Trade Organi-zation (WTO), the GMAadministration has pursuedprograms and policies whichhave increased the deprivations,insecurities and people’s vulne-rabilities to hunger, ignorance,disease, disabilities and death,and powerlessness.

Like the GMA government,survival has been the foremostconcern and preoccupation ofevery Filipino household. Butunlike the GMA government,the Filipino household has noexpedient power and resourcesat its means – not even the rightto peacefully petition for reliefand redress from a governmentthat has not only ignored but iseven hell-bent on abrogating thecitizen’s most basic rights andwelfare.

The World Bank has notedthat the gap between the richand the poor in the Philippineshas widened, posing a bigobstacle to the country’s growthand development (Dumlao,Sept. 5, 2005, p. A1). Accordingto the report, inequality haseffectively excluded the poorestof the poor “from social andeconomic development of thecountry.” In concrete terms, thewidening gap has beendemonstrated in the followingrealities (Dumlao, Sept. 5, 2005,p. A4; PhilRights, Jan-June 2005,pp. 14, 29; Newsbreak, October10, 2005, p. 24; PDI Research,October 19, 2005, p. A1):

• Nearly half of the 84million Filipinos live on

...................................................................

Contrary to the principles oftransparency and accounta-bility, the GMA government hasruled and pursued its plans andpriorities through the use ofdeceit, threats and bribery likethe reported P8B pork barrelallocated for LGU officials in the2006 national budget and theoffering of juicy governmentpositions to its loyal allies andsupporters. The vindictivemoves taken by the admi-nistration following the exposémade by Brig. Gen. FranciscoGudani and Col. Alexander F.Balutan on the massive cheatingcommitted during the 2004presidential elections involvingCommissioner Virgilio Garcil-lano, top military officials andthe First Gentleman, and theexposé on the Venable contract,are clear proofs of the high-handedness of the GMAgovernment which will go to theextent of even violating thePhilippine Constitution and in-fringing on the people’s rights.

A government thathas lost its legitimacyand that no longerenjoys the trust andconfidence of thepeople cannot butrule except throughthe use of force anddeception.


less than $2 (P112) a day;• One out of every 3 Filipinos

between the ages 6 and 24years has never been toschool or has dropped outof school;

• 18% of Filipino children arenot enrolled in primaryschool, 40% are not enrol-led in secondary school and66% have no means toenroll at the collegiate level;

• One in 10 Filipinos betweenthe ages 10-64 years cannotread or write;

• 2 in 10 Filipinos arefunctionally illiterate, i.e.,they lack numerical skillsand do not know how toadd, subtract, multiply ordivide;

• The Philippines remainsamong the lowest spendersin education with only $150allotment for each pupil peryear compared to Thai-land’s $950 per child peryear and Singapore’s$1,582;

• 34% of Filipinos live belowthe poverty threshold, thehighest in Southeast Asia;

• In a March 2005 survey ofthe Social Weather Station(SWS), 13.4% of the res-pondents or 2.1 millionFilipino families expressedexperiencing hunger – thehighest hunger incidence in20 years;

• Unemployment rate as ofJanuary 2005 was placed at11.3% by the Bureau ofLabor & Employment Sta-tistics (BLES), with many ofthe unemployed andunderemployed ending upin the informal sector(which now accounts formore than 50% of the totalwork force of the country);

• 4.3 million families or 26.5million Filipinos are livingbelow the poverty line.

The unparalleled increasesin the prices of fuel, electricity,water and transportation havecaused multiple burdens on thepeople especially in a situationwhere the wages and salaries ofworkers and fixed-incomeearners are not keeping pacewith the increases of basic goodsand services. Table 1 shows theincreases in transportation fares,utilities and basic commoditiesbetween 2003 and 2005.

Except for softdrinks andbrown sugar, all other essential

Diesel (per liter) P 15.61 P 32.95 - 33.83 111% - 116%Unleaded (per liter) 20.07 36.05 - 39.08 79% - 94%LPG (11-kg cylinder) 273.00 464.00 - 499.37 69% - 82%

Table 1: Changes in the prices of fuel, transportation fares, utilities & basic commodities (2003-2005)

Petroleum prices 2003 Price change Price change (%)10/2005 EVAT 10/2005 EVAT

Transportation fares 2004 2005 Price change (%)Jeepney P 5.50 P 7.50 36%Non-aircon bus 6.00 8.00 33%

UtilitiesElectricity, generation charge for P 631.05 P 937.92 49%190 kwhWater, basic charge for 30 cu. m 158.56 212.58 34%**average household consumption

Basic food commodities, peso per kg 2004 2005 Price change (%)Red onion P 40.00 P 65.00 63%Tomato 40.00 50.00 25%Ordinary rice 20.00 22.00 10%Brown sugar 22.00 24.00 9%Soft drinks (1.5 L) 30.00 32.00 7%

Fast-food 2004 2005 Price change (%)Chicken, 1 pc. P 48.00 P 55.00 15%Burger, w/o cheese 18.00 20.00 11%Burger. w/ cheese 33.00 35.20 7%

Source: PDI Staff & PDI Bureaus, Sept. 12, 2005, A12; PDI, Nov. 1, 2005, A7)

items and services haveincreased by at least 10%. Asshown in Table 1, the price ofdiesel, the fuel used by publicutility jeepneys, has more thandoubled, increasing by as muchas 116% in a span of 2 ½ years(2003 to 2005) and after theimplementation of the expan-ded value added tax (E-VAT),effective November 1, 2005.Meanwhile, the generationcharge for 190 kwh of electricityincreased by 49%, while thebasic charge for 30 cu. m ofwater, the average household

consumption, increased by 34%,from 2004 to 2005. In fact, evenfast-food items have not escapedprice increases (PDI Staff & PDIBureaus, Sept. 12, 2005, A12).

Furthermore, with theimplementation of the E-VATLaw, more increases in theprices of diesel and gasoline,LPG, transportation fares,electricity, highway toll fees,hospitalization, doctor’s andlaboratory fees will surely beexperienced by the population.

The violation of the people’seconomic, social and cultural

rights has been further escalatedby the implementation ofeconomic policies and programswhich have only benefited andserved big business and theadvanced capitalist members ofthe WTO. The implementationof trade liberalization andagricultural deregulation mea-sures by the GMA government,resulting in the smuggling anddumping of imported agricul-tural products like fruits andvegetables, has greatly weake-ned the country’s agriculturalsector (Tañada, October 10,2005, p. 23). Through the years,the government had failed toextend the necessary support tolocal industries and agriculturelike credit facilities andinfrastructure, and have leftthem on their own to compete

7Human Rights FORUM

Alamin ang inyong mgaKARAPATAN

in an uneven playing field(Tañada, October 10, 2005, p.23). Thus, it is no surprise thatmany Filipinos have expe-rienced hunger and have feltpoorer during the recent past.

In a situation where thepeople have to deal with agovernment committed to theimplementation of neo-liberalpolicies that result in the erosionof livelihoods and incomes,freeze in wages, reduction ingovernment budget for basicsocial services, and destructionof the environment, the peoplehave no recourse but to fightand assert their rights in thename of survival. Given theknee-jerk reflex of the Arroyoadministration, it will surelyretaliate against the peoples’actions with greater stateviolence and repression. Thus,a vicious cycle of violence andhuman rights violations is whatour people will witness andexperience in the weeks andmonths to come under agovernment that they no longerrecognize but is struggling tohold on to power.

The Challenge and Call ofthe Times

The signs of the times pointto the urgent need to thwart thecontinuing repression per-petrated by the GMA govern-ment to keep itself in power andpursue its anti-people goals. Itis the duty of every Filipinocommitted to the defense ofhuman rights to take immediateaction against the “calibratedpreemptive response”, “nopermit, no rally” policy, EO 464and all other measures taken bythe GMA regime to quell allforms of dissent and protest

against its illegitimate rule andoppressive activities. We areduty-bound to resist and defy aregime that no longer enjoys thepeople’s trust and confidence.

REFERENCES:REFERENCES:REFERENCES:REFERENCES:REFERENCES:

• BP 880. The Public Assembly Actof 1985, “An act ensuring thefree exercise by the people oftheir right peaceably to assemblyand petition the government andfor other purposes.” October 22,1985.

• Dumlao, D. C. Wide rich-poor gapbig obstacle to RP growth.Philippine Daily Inquirer.September 5, 2005, pp. A1 &A4.

• EO 464, “Ensuring observanceof the principle of separation ofpowers, adherence to the rule onexecutive privilege and respectfor the rights of public officialsappearing in legislative inquiriesin aid of legislation under theConstitution, and for otherpurposes.” September 26,2005.

• Free Legal Assistance Group(FLAG) Position Paper on CPR, BP880 & EO 464. October 2005.

• Newsbreak. October 10, 2005,p. 24.

• PDI Research. Prices of utilities,health care, etc. to soar.Philippine Daily Inquirer. October19, 2005, p. A1.

• PDI Staff & PDI Bureaus. “Energycrisis forces lifestyle change allover RP.” Philippine DailyInquirer. Sept. 12, 2005, p. A12.

• Philippine Daily Inquirer.November 1, 2005, A7.

• PhilRights. In Focus: Terrorismand Human Dignity. Jan-June2005, p. 14.

• Tanada, W. E. What’s the score10 years after. Newsbreak.October 10, 2005, pp. 22-23.

• Ayon sa BBBBBatas Pambansa 880, pwedeng magsagawa ngrally o iba pang pampublikong pagtitipon kahit walangpermit sa mga sumusunod:

a. sa mga ‘freedom parks’ na idineklara ng ordinansa obatas;

b. sa mga pribadong lugar na may pagsang-ayon ng may-ari;

k. sa mga pampublikong eskwelahan o pang-edukasyunalna institusyon ngunit kailangang sundin ang mgaalituntunin nito.

• Paano ang proseso ng pagkuha ng permit paramakapagsagawa ng rally o public assembly sa ilalim pa rinng BP 880?

a. Ang aplikasyon ay nasa porma ng sulatsulatsulatsulatsulat na naglalamanng mga pangalan ng mga pinuno at nag-organisa ngrally; layunin ng pagtitipon; ang petsa, oras at tagal ngaktibidad; ang posibleng dami ng taong kasali; at angmga sasakyan at sound system na gagamitin.

b. Kailangang mai-file ang aplikasyon sa opisina ng lokalna pamahalaan na nakakasakop sa lugar napagdarausan, nang hindi bababa sa limang ‘workingdays’ bago ang aktwal na pagtitipon.

c. Pagkatanggap ng aplikasyon, kailangang aksyunan itong mga lokal na opisyal at tumugon sa pamamagitandin ng sulat sa loob ng dalawang ‘working days.’ Kapaghindi ito nagawa, ituturing na pinapayagan angnasabing pagtitipon.

d. Ang isang aplikasyon ay pwede lamang baguhin oibasura kapag may malinaw at kapani-paniwalangbasehan na ang pagtitipon ay magdudulot ng ‘clear andpresent danger’ sa kaligtasan, kaayusan, moralidad, atkalusugan ng publiko.

e. Kapag nagdesisyon ang ‘mayor’ na baguhin o huwagpayagan ang isang rally, kailangang mapaalaman agadang mga nag-organisa nito. Maaari ring kwestyunin o i-protesta ng mga nag-organisa ang ganitong desisyonsa angkop na korte.

• Anu-ano ang mga tungkulin ng mga pinuno at organisadorng rally?

a. Ipaalam sa mga kalahok ang kanilang mga tungkulinsa ilalim ng permit.

b. Tiyaking maayos ang kanilang hanay upang hindimapasukan ng mga indibwal o grupong ang intensyonay magsimula ng gulo.

c. Makipag-ugnayan sa mga awtoridad upang maayos namaisagawa ang pagtitipon.

d. Disiplinahin ang mga kasali sa rally upang hindi gumawang mga bagay na labag sa karapatan ng mga hindi kasalisa pagtitipon.

• Kapag may mga grupong nag-rally nang walang permit,ang pwede lamang hulihin ng mga pulis ay ang mgapinuno at organisador,,,,, at hindi pwedeng hulihin angmga ordinaryong kalahok sa nasabing pagtitipon.


Calibrated Preemptive Response

PREEMPTINGDEMOCRACY

IT ALL started with the phrase “I am tiredof chasing the bully around the schoolyard,” coming from the tough-talkingPresident Gloria Macapagal Arroyo (PGMA).

Then came the crackdown on rallies calling for thePresident’s ouster in the wake of the ‘Hello Garci’scandal as police authorities shifted from “maximumtolerance” to “calibrated preemptive response” indealing with street protesters.

n By Bernardo D. Larin

Citing the rights of the“silent majority” affected bythese rallies, particularlycommuters, pedestrians, andbusiness establishments and theharmful impact of these oninvestors’ confidence, PGMAthrough BP 880 ordered thepolice to strictly enforce the “nopermit, no rally policy” andforcibly disperse non-complying groups.

But the opposition andprogressive groups were quickto point out that the clamp-down on protests was meant tostifle the mounting dissent afterthe impeachment complaintlodged against the Presidentwas quashed in the House ofRepresentatives. The abortedtrial of the Chief Executive, formany of her critics, was theproper venue to ferret out the

DRESSED TO THEHILT: Anti-riot

police, the state’sloyal and

unquestioning CPRattendants, prime

up for confrontationwith streetmilitants.

HELLO, GARCI; GOODBYE, GLORIA.President Arroyo’s failure to put aconvincing closure to the scandalover the wiretapped conversationthat hinted at massive cheating inthe 2004 presidential electionshave only energized the calls for herresignation.

SANTA CLAUS ISCOMING… and he wants

GMA to scram.

9Human Rights FORUM

truth behind the wiretappedconversation between thePresident and former COME-LEC official Virgilio Garcillano,which hinted at massivecheatings in last year’s polls.

The “no permit, no rally”policy, among other instru-ments of repression, criticsclaim, snatched away from theopposition, from the militants,and from the Filipino people theonly remaining option to forcethe President to shed light on theGarci tapes and admit if shereally betrayed the electoral willof the people.

Human rights groupsincluding the Commission onHuman Rights (CHR) alsocondemned the CPR and the“no permit, no rally” rule asviolative of the right to freedomof speech, expression, and theright of the people to peaceablyassemble and present theirgrievances as spelled out in Sec.4 of the Bill of Rights under the1987 Constitution.

After the joust of arguments,the battle lines were drawn.

Once again, Mendiola tookthe centerstage as activistsrisked lives and limbs toreclaim the symbolic bridgeturned into fortress bylawmen determined to keepthe “intruders” away.

The last days of Septemberand half of October saw thealmost daily clashes oftruncheons, shields, watercannons, and handcuffs of thepolice versus rocks, flagpoles,and sheer guts of the militants.Foremost of these skirmisheswas the hosing down of therunning priest, Fr. Robert Reyes,and prominent anti-GMApoliticians such as former Vice-President Teofisto Guingona,Sen. Jamby Madrigal, and OscarOrbos when they tried to hold areligious procession nearMalacañang after their prayerrally in Plaza Miranda onOctober 14.

BP 880, “No Permit, No Rally”After the first violent dis-

persal since the CPR imposition,the police defended their actionsby saying that they were justimplementing the law ondemonstrations apparentlyreferring to BP 880 titled “AnAct Ensuring The Free ExerciseBy The People Of Their RightPeaceably To Assemble AndPetition The Government For

Other Purposes.”One, it is quite out of place

or some might say inap-propriate that the government isstill using a law crafted duringthe dark years of martial rule asthe basis of its approach indealing with protest activities.

Second, it is all the moreinfuriating for police officials toharp on this Marcosian legisla-tion without even fully under-standing it and much lessorienting their personnel in thefield on how to enforce this law.

According to BP 880, anapplication for permit to hold anassembly filed at least five (5)working days before thescheduled activity, if not actedupon by the receiving localofficials within two (2) workingdays, is considered granted. Butthere were documented caseswherein the police violentlydispersed mobilizations even ifthe organizers produced dulyreceived requests for permit butwere not acted upon by localofficials.

The public also witnessedgraphically on TV and news-papers the use of unnecessaryforce and excesses of the policesuch as manhandling ofactivists, raining of blows onprotesters who were already ontheir knees, use of watercannons, and sexual harrasmentof female demonstrators.

Of course, the police wouldclaim that the “unruly”protesters have their share ofblame in the ruckus that ensued;they even attempted to filecounter-complaint of humanrights violations against thedissenters before the CHR,which complaints werepromptly dismissed.

But the key question is, whoinstigated this series of violencein the streets by suddenlyclamping down on publicassemblies? Who shifted thepolicy from “maximum tole-rance” to strictly “no permit, norally,” even if previous gathe-rings were not proven to bedisruptive and violent?

Also during these rallies,authorities indiscriminatelyarrested participants. This isanother violation of BP 880. Thelaw specifically states that onlythe leaders and organizers of anassembly without a permitwould be held liable for suchact.

Furthermore, the protesterslamented that whenever theytried to apply for a permit for aplanned mobilization, they weregiven the usual runaround bylocal authorities especially thoseloyal to PGMA.

Preempting What?It should be noted that CPR

came crashing down onprotesters while the “silentmajority,” despite theirfrustration and rage over theobvious plot to hide the truthfrom them, have not yet decidedto forcibly settle the issue in thearena of the streets.

Some political analysts evensaid that it was not possible forthe post-impeachment situationto lead to a full-blown ala-EDSAscenario because of “peoplepower fatigue.” The peoplewere tired of revolting only toend up putting the same bunchof ‘trapos’ in Malacañang.Another key factor that worksin GMA’s favor was theperceived lack of alternative: VPNoli de Castro was seen as a

lameduck politician and ill-fitted for the job.

Left alone, the protests couldhave died down. But thePresident and her boys were toomuch in a hurry to bury theHello Garci tapes literally andfiguratively.

However, CPR backfired. Itturned out that the intended fireextinguisher only served tofurther inflame the alreadyseething anger of the oppositionand the militants and to winpopular sympathy for thedissenters.

Due to its crassness andbarbarity, CPR also widened thespectrum of sectors critical ofthe administration.

Test of LegitimacyPGMA of all people should

not forget that she mainly owesher ascent to power to theparliament of the streets in 2001.And now her government islabelling it as “disruptive” andanarchic, and discrediting it byusing the usual scaring-away-the-investors rhetorics.

Whether we – especially thepowers that be – like it or not,whether bad or good for ourimage as a country, streetactions have been established asa final test of legitimacy duringpolitical standoffs when legalavenues have already beenexhausted.

No particular sector wasresponsible for this, neither thepoliticians nor the militants; weall did through EDSA I and II.

So, what do we make of aleader who is afraid to face themusic?

RRRRRefefefefeferenceserenceserenceserenceserences

• Calumpita, R. & Vicente, J. (Oct.14, 2005). Procession nearPalace to test police reaction,Manila Times.

• De Leon, M., AFP and ABS-CBNInteractive (Sept. 23, 2005).GMA loses patience with unrulyprotesters, Manila Times.

• De Quiros, C. (Sept. 26, 2005).“I refuse, part 2,” (There’s therub), Phil. Daily Inquirer; p. A14.

• Editorial. (Sept. 26, 2005).Dangerous Ground, Phil. DailyInquirer; p.A14.

• Fabella, F., et al. (Sept. 24,2005). Palace says it can vetomayors on rally permits, ManilaStandard Today; pp. A1, A2.

• Ortiz, M. (Sept. 27, 2005). Copsbreak up rally near Malacañang;13 held, Phil. Daily Inquirer; p.A4.

MOST UNPOPULAR: the calibrated preemptive response has galvanizedmore protest actions from a public impatient for the truth behind thewiretapped conversations. PJREPORTS/LITO OCAMPO


AT THE beginning of the 20th century, only threestates had permanently abolished the deathpenalty for all crimes - Venezuela (1863), SanMarino (1865), and Costa Rica (1877).

In the second half of the 20th century the internationalabolitionist movement gained significant momentumwith the development of international human rightsstandards providing tighter restrictions on theapplication of the death penalty and favoring itsprogressive abolition on the basis of human rightsnorms.

TOWARDSUNIVERSALABOLITION

n By Tracy P. Pabico

“The history of using punishment by death had not preventeddetermined men from injuring society and that death was only amomentary spectacle, and therefore a less efficacious method of deterringothers, than the continued example of a man deprived of his liberty....”

– Crime and Punishment, Cesare Beccaria, 1767...............................................................................................................................................

...................................................................

The community of nationsadopted several internationalhuman rights instrumentsbinding all states to the abolitionof the death penalty. Theseinclude the Universal Decla-ration of Human Rights(UDHR), adopted and pro-claimed by UN GeneralAssembly 217/ A (III) onDecember 10, 1948; theInternational Convention onCivil and Political Rights(ICCPR), adopted on December16, 1966 (total State parties: 154);and the Second OptionalProtocol to the InternationalConvention on Civil andPolitical Rights, adopted onDecember 15, 1989 (total Stateparties: 51).

The abolitionist trend issignificantly remarkable inEurope, the only region in theworld today where the deathpenalty has been almostcompletely abolished. TheCouncil of Europe played apioneering role in the battle forabolition, believing that the

death penalty has no place indemocratic societies under anycircumstances. The abolitionisttrend has also been significantin other continents, such asLatin America (with 10abolitionist countries so far) andAfrica (with 24).

At present, a total of 120

countries (or 61% of thecountries in the world) havealready abolished capitalpunishment. It has beenabolished in all WesternEuropean countries; othercountries in Africa, Asia-Pacificand Latin America are currentlydismantling their laws on

capital punishment. Since 1990,an average of 3 countries put anend to death penalty every year.The latest country to do so isMexico, which abolished thedeath penalty for all crimes inApril this year.

80

60

120

100

40

20

64 64 66 69

8084 88 83 84

9097 101 100 104 104 105 108 108 111 112

117 120

NUMBER OF COUNTRIES THAT HAVE ABOLISHEDTHE DEATH PENALTY IN LAW OR IN PRACTICE, BY YEAR.

140

084 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

As ofNovember

2005, thereare 1,184

Filipinosawaiting

execution. 30of them are

women.

11Human Rights FORUM

Amidst the growingworldwide abolitionist trend,the death penalty remainsembedded in the criminal justicesystem of most developingcountries. Significantly, majo-rity of the Southeast Asiancountries stubbornly pay noheed to the abolitionist trend.The Philippines is among 76countries and territories thathave yet to join the internationalcommunity of anti-deathpenalty adherents.

As of November 2005, thereare 1,184 Filipinos awaitingexecution. 30 of them arewomen.

A Global AdvocacyThe 1st World Congress

Against the Death Penaltywhich was held in Strasbourg,France on June 2001 paved theway for the creation of theWorld Coalition Against theDeath Penalty. The WorldCoalition was created in Rome

on May 13, 2002 and iscomposed of NGOs, legal andbar associations, local govern-ments, unions, and other orga-nizations involved in the strug-gle against the death penalty.

The World Coalition aims toreinforce the internationaldimension of the fight againstcapital punishment, and to

contribute everywhere it existsto the reduction and, ultimately,to the abolition of death sen-tences and executions. TheWorld Coalition was given themission to facilitate the consti-tution and the development ofnational coalitions against thedeath penalty, to take actionssuch as lobbying in international

organizations and countries,and to organize events of inter-national significance.

Since its inception, theWorld Coalition has coordi-nated various efforts of itsmembers and network to com-pel governments to declaremoratorium on executionsleading towards the abolition ofthe death penalty.

The World Coalition hasdeclared October 10th the WorldDay Against the Death Penalty.

World Day Against the DeathPenalty

The World Coalition hasbeen organizing the World DayAgainst the Death Penalty since2003. The World CoalitionAgainst the Death Penalty callson all NGOs, teachers, lawyersand magistrates, local electedofficials and parliamentarians,religious figures, artists,reporters and citizens to take theinitiative and call for the

CREATIVE EXPRESSIONS: Cebu death penalty opponents call for the repeal of RA 7659 thru street murals (above) and a die-in (below). Photos by MTB-Cebu


universal abolition of capitalpunishment.

A campaign to say “NO tothe Death Penalty” wasorganized in 2003. Over 188initiatives were organized in 63countries across 5 continents onOctober 10, 2003 in thecampaign to say “NO to thedeath penalty”.

The commemoration of theWorld Day in 2004 coincidedwith the 2nd World Congressagainst the Death Penalty whichwas held from October 6 to 9,2004 in Montreal, Canada withthe theme “Together against theDeath Penalty”. The Congressaims to accelerate the process ofuniversal abolition initiatedduring the 1st World Congress.

The members of the WorldCoalition took an active part inthe 2nd World Congress Againstthe Death Penalty. Delegatesfrom across the globe joined thepeaceful demonstration in thestreets of Montreal to expresstheir opposition to thecontinuing use of the deathpenalty and call for itsimmediate abolition. 215initiatives were put into place in24 countries for 2004.

Local InitiativesThe Mamamayang Tutol sa

Bitay-Movement for RestorativeJustice (MTB-MRJ), a nation-wide network of organizationsand individual advocatespushing for the repeal ofRepublic Act 7659 or the DeathPenalty Law, joined other anti-death penalty advocates in theobservance of the 3rd World DayAgainst the Death Penalty.

Bannering the theme “Itagu-yod ang Buhay Tungo sa MundongWalang Bitay,” MTB-MRJorganized nationwide activitiessuch as exhibits, public forums,film showings, mobilizations, adialogue, and Congress troo-ping to boost the campaign forthe repeal of the death penaltylaw in the country.

MTB-MRJ began thecommemoration of the 3rd

World Day Against the DeathPenalty with a press conferenceand launching of “PostcardsAgainst the Death Penalty” onOctober 2, 2005.

On October 10, MTB-MRJ incooperation with the HouseCommittee on Human Rights,Philippine Jesuit Prison Service(PJPS) and the Alyansa ng mgaInmates sa Death Row (ALIS-

DR) facilitated a dialoguebetween six legislators led byRep. Loretta Ann P. Rosales andtwo hundred death row inmatesat the National Bilibid Prison(NBP).

Among the issues tackledduring the dialogue were thedeteriorating prison facilities,overcrowding, food subsidy,and health care. ALIS-DR alsobrought to the attention of thesolons the incarceration of 18youth offenders and 11 elderlyin the death row which the lawprohibits.

Around 200 MTB-MRJmembers attended the plenarysession of the House of Repre-

sentatives to urge legislators tohasten deliberations on billsseeking the repeal of the deathpenalty law. Reps. Etta Rosales,Renato Magtubo and Edcel Lag-man, members of the LegislatorsAgainst the Death Penaltydelivered their privilege spee-ches urging their colleagues tojoin them in their fight againstcapital punishment. Anti-deathpenalty pins and postcards werealso distributed to the legislators.

The sixteen (16) abolitionbills filed before the HouseCommittee on Revision of Lawshave been approved andconsolidated into HB 4826.Committee Report 1142 along

with the consolidated bill wassubmitted to the Committee onRules for sponsorship and floordeliberations during the WorldDay Commemoration.

The commemoration of theWorld Day culminated in aBenefit Show for death rowinmates and their families.Dubbed “Jamming KontraBitay”, the show also served asa solidarity night for anti-deathpenalty activists. It featuredprogressive artists such as NoelCabangon, Gary Granada,Susan Fernandez, Cookie Chuaand many more.

The World Day against theDeath Penalty is a worldwideeffort to abolish the use ofcapital punishment. Despitethis milestone in the continuingstruggle for universal abolition,there is an urgent need to makethe campaign as intensive andextensive for the rest of the year.This is particularly true for allcountries that continue toemploy the death penalty intheir justice system.

REFERENCES:

Philippine Human Rights InformationCenter. “Anti-Death PenaltyLegislative Kit,” (forthcoming).www.amnesty.orgwww.mtb-mrj.comwww.worldcoalition.org

Akbayan Party-List Representative Etta Rosales is joined by families and friends of death row inmates inlaunching the “Postcards Against the Death Penalty” campaign. The postcard blitz aims to prod Philippinelegislators to hasten the abolition of the death penalty law in the country. (Photo by Vanessa Retuerma)

CONGRESS GOES TO PRISON: Alagad Partylist Representative RodanteMarcoleta and Buhay Partylist Representative Rene Velarde at theOctober 10, 2005 visit to the National Bilibid Prison, which houses 1,154death row inmates. (Photo by Vanessa Retuerma)


RIGHT in the midst of the raging controversyover the “Hello Garci” tapes, when her gripon the presidential power seemed to beslipping away as she faced the worst crisis to

challenge her 4-year leadership, President GloriaMacapagal-Arroyo revived the issue of amending the1987 Constitution. During her State of the NationAddress (SONA) at the 13th Congress on July 25, 2005,the president said that it was “time to start the greatdebate on charter change.” According to her, thecountry’s political system “has now become a hindranceto our national progress.”

SHALL WEA besiegedpresidentwants tocha-cha herway to a‘gracefulexit’

DANCE?(First of a two-part series on Charter change)

n By Pepito Frias and J.M. Villero

But Charter change forPresident Arroyo and hersupporters means shifting froma presidential to a parlia-mentary-federal form ofgovernment. And the mosteager advocate of this shift is noless than former President FidelRamos. He is peddling the ideathat the swing to parliamentarysystem would cut shortPresident Arroyo’s term.

This ought to be good newsto those who want her to stepdown, in light of allegations thather family is involved in theillegal numbers game popularly

known as “jueteng” and that shecheated her way to victory in the2004 presidential polls. ForPresident Arroyo herself, thiswould give her a “graceful exit.”She would give up thepresidency before 2010 but notin the humiliating way asdemanded by her opponents.

This seems to be a “win-win” situation, so it comes as nosurprise that this idea has foundsupport in the likes of CardinalVidal, some members of theinfluential Makati businessmen,El Shaddai leader Mike Velardeand even some anti-Gloria

formations.It seems that the 1987

Constitution, a documentcrafted during the euphoricperiod following the fall of thehated Marcos dictatorship, willsoon be fiddled with.

Yet this time, there is nofierce public outcry being heard.

That old tune, againArroyo’s call to amend the

charter is nothing new.Since the time of President

Ramos, charter change (popu-larly referred to as “cha-cha”)has been a recurring theme,resurrected every now and thenand quickly dropped in the faceof popular opposition. Ramoshad to abandon his plans torevise the Constitution after itwas widely protested as a ployto secure him a second term hehad been drooling over but wasprohibited by the Constitution.

Before he was ousted, Pre-sident Estrada also attempted torework the charter, through theConstitutional Correction forDevelopment (Concord). Eraptried to distinguish between hisConcord from Ramos’ cha-chaby declaring that he was notafter the Constitution’s 2nd termprohibition. Concord aimed torewrite the restriction on foreignownership of land and the 40%foreign equity limitation onlocal businesses.

Tinkering with theConstitution

Like a pesky fly that refusesto go away or an irritatingrefrain of a radio hit tune that

GLUM FACES. About to deliver her briefest State of the Nation Address, President Arroyo is flanked by SenatePresident Franklin Drilon and House Speaker Jose de Venecia. NEWSBREAK, AUGUST 29, 2005/ DENNIS MALLARI

HEROIC CALL: stop tinkering with the Constitution.


keeps running through one’sbrain, cha-cha calls are back.

This time though, Arroyoseems hell-bent on amendingthe Constitution. And she hasmade no secret of her intent topush for a shift to a parlia-mentary form of government.

Wise to the wiles of politi-cians, cause-oriented groupsand the Catholic Church, andeven opposition lawmakers,have assailed the latest cha-chacalls.

For one, they feel that this ishardly the time to be tinkeringwith the country’s Constitution.When the majority of the Filipinofamilies can hardly make endsmeet because of unabated increa-ses in prices of basic necessities,and when the legitimacy ofArroyo’s leadership itself isdoubted and strongly chal-lenged, debating on charteramendments can only beinterpreted as a squid tactic – abrazen stunt to deflect publicattention from the more pressingconcerns of empty stomachs andquestions of legitimacy.

“It seems that she hasdecided instead to stymie allefforts in uncovering the truthby embracing the proposedCharter change to distract heraccusers and divert the nation’senergies toward the untimelydebates on cha-cha,” a July 28statement by former members ofthe cabinet (dubbed the Hyatt10) read.

More criticisms were raisedagainst amending the Consti-tution when Congress shelvedthe impeachment proceedingsagainst the President. SenatorJoker Arroyo has commentedwhy a Consultative Commis-sion was formed when evenCongress has not yet decided tochange the Constitution.

Other groups, particularlythe Church, has also expressedreservations on amending theConstitution. Manila Archbi-shop Gaudencio Rosales said: “Ithink that ultimately anydevelopment and progress in thecountry cannot be found inchanging the system, but inchanging the values and attitudesof people within the system.”

But Arroyo was hardly fazedby popular opposition. OnAugust 19, 2005, she issuedExecutive Order No. 453 tocreate a consultative com-mission that would, amongothers, study the provisions of

the 1987 Constitution that are“no longer conducive to theeconomic requirements of the21st century,” conduct nation-wide sectoral consultations, andduly propose to Congresschanges to the charter. An initialfund of P10 M was madeavailable for the commission.

Executive Secretary EduardoErmita said the commission willbe composed of the “best andthe brightest among thecitizenry of recognized probity,competence, honesty andpatriotism who have a broadunderstanding and knowledgeof the Constitution and politicalsystems.”

A rubber-stamp?Appointed to the Consul-

tative Commission were old-time politicians, educators,newspaper columnists andbusinessmen, most of whom areenthusiastic supporters of aparliamentary-federal form ofgovernment. All of them were,unsurprisingly, supportive ofPresident Arroyo. Represen-tatives of the opposition wouldhave been welcome, accordingto Secretary Rigoberto Tiglao ofthe Presidential ManagementStaff, but “unfortunately, nopersonality identified with theopposition…seemed to beinterested.”

The initial group of 33 (butalready numbering 53 as of lastcount), promptly elected formerUP president Jose Abueva tochair the consultative body.Abueva, a leading voice of theCitizens’ Movement for aFederal Philippines (CMFP), isthe author of the book “Towards

a Federal Republic of thePhilippines with a Parlia-mentary Government by 2010.”CMFP, for its part, is known forits “Draft Constitution for aFederal Republic of the Philip-pines with a ParliamentaryGovernment.”

The consultative commis-sion has until December 31, 2005to review the Constitution, holdpublic consultations, andconduct studies on the changesthat need to be made on thefundamental law of the land. Itwill submit its proposal to thePresident, who will then presentthis to Congress.

To ensure that the commis-sion’s work stays withinbounds, Arroyo further ap-pointed a 5-person advisoryboard, composed of formerpresident Ramos, former Cen-tral Bank governor Gariel Sing-son, former Senate presidentJovito Salonga, Marcos-eraprime minister Cesar Virata andconstitutionalist Joaquin Bernas.

The party-list lawyers’group, Abakada, promptlychallenged the legitimacy of thecommission before the SupremeCourt. According to lawyerRene Gorospe, a faculty of theUniversity of Sto. TomasCollege of Law, the Abueva-ledcommission is preemptingCongressional mandate toinitiate charter amendments.The group likewise said the useof public funds for thecommission’s activities violatesthe Constitution. Furthermore,according to the petitioners, thecommission’s report wouldundoubtedly be “partisan”because all the members areappointees of the president.Abakada called the consultativebody “another well-fundedproject for a useless purpose.”The money should have beenspent for better purposes likehousing projects, the lawyerssaid.

In Cebu City, the ConCom’sconsultation was boycotted byseveral groups, including theIntegrated Bar of the Philip-pines-Cebu City Chapter andBayan Muna partylist, for being“a waste of time and money.”According to the IBP-Cebu City,the consultation is “suspectbecause its members areappointees of the President andare beholden to her.”

To its critics, what is mostreprehensible about the Con-Com is the manner by which itis conducting its supposedfunctions. Instead of soundingout the wishes and opinions ofthe people first, it is drafting theproposed amendments to theConstitution before going out toconsult the public. Thus, insteadof being a consultative body, theConCom is regarded as a well-oiled campaign team for the shiftto the parliamentary system.

Even members of theConCom are not comfortablewith the decision to approvefirst the proposed changes evenbefore the public has beenconsulted. One member calledit a “flawed procedure.” AndresBautista, a ConCom member,feared that they would become“an approve-now-consult-laterbody.” ConCom member JamesMarty Lim, national president ofthe League of Barangays,bluntly called it a “rubber-stampcommission.”

Another problem with theArroyo-appointed Consultative

...................................................................

When the majority of theFilipino families canhardly make ends meetbecause of unabatedincreases in prices ofbasic necessities, andwhen the legitimacy ofArroyo’s leadership itselfis doubted and stronglychallenged, debating oncharter amendmentscan only be interpretedas a squid tactic.

WITH BANNERS, STREAMERS AND AN EFFIGY: public loathing for apresident popularly believed to have rigged the 2004 elections.


Commission is that its recom-mendations may be snubbed byCongress.

In fact, soon after the SONA,Senators made it known thatthey will not dance to the latestcha-cha pitch. Senate PresidentFranklin Drilon has said that theproposed amendments will be“dead on arrival” at the Senate.Since the majority of thesenators are not inclined to anycharter change moves at thistime, Arroyo will find itextremely difficult to muster thenecessary number in Senate.Not only are a good number ofthe senators critical of Arroyo;their aversion to charter changeis also prompted by self-preservation. A shift to aparliamentary system wouldlead to the abolition of theSenate. Only a selfless – orstupid – politician would agreeto self-destruct.

Weak public pulseIt appears, however, that the

taxpayer who will shoulder theexpenses for the “graceful exit”does not care a whit about theongoing cha-cha moves. In fact,a survey by the Social WeatherStation released in August thisyear shows that 70% of Filipinos“have no suggested constitu-tional amendments,” as against30% who believe that “there areprovisions that need to bechanged now.” More disturbingwas the finding that 73% ofrespondents “have little oralmost no knowledge of theConstitution.”

It is within this indifferentand ill-informed public settingthat the ConCom and theArroyo-Ramos-de Veneciatriumvirate are hard-selling ashift to the parliamentary-federalform of government. But evenJose Villanueva, a ConCommember, has admitted that in theManila barangays he consulted,it was clear that the people knownothing about federalism.

This utter lack of knowledgeon the part of the majoritypublic could of course work infavor of the cha-cha peddlers,for it would be too easy to givea rosy picture of a governmentunder a federal system. Plus theenticing possibility that it wouldcut short President Arroyo’sterm of office without neces-sarily staging another “peoplepower” or going through theimpeachment hoopla.

Is the Constitution the culprit?Indeed, one would find it

impossible to look for anyprovision in the Constitutionthat if changed, it would alsochange the values and attitudesof people managing the affairsof the State. Because changinga charter or drafting a newconstitution is purely politicaland has nothing to do withchanging one’s character.

A key function of aconstitution is “to indicatehierarchies and relationships ofpower.” Drafting a new charteror amending the existing chartersignals that a new alignment ofpower is being worked out.

When the classic model ofthe modern-day constitutions—the English Magna Carta—waswritten in 1215, it was the resultof the feud between the EnglishMonarchs and the Pope. TheCharter limited the power of theKing in favor of the growinginfluence of the Church.

In the Philippines, thedrafting of the Malolos Consti-tution in 1899 established thesovereign power of the Filipinopeople after being ruled bySpanish colonial power forhundreds of years.

Changing a constitution canalso legitimize a new order ofthings. When Ferdinand Marcoscalled for the drafting of the1973 Constitution, it was mainlyto fortify his one-man rule.While the 1987 Constitutionfacilitated the restoration of thedemocratic processes and repre-sentative form of governmentthat had been eroded during theMarcos years.

It is highly doubtful that thecountry could attain nationalprogress and become econo-mically competitive in the globalscale – contrary to what Presi-dent Arroyo and company areproclaiming – even if the presentConstitution is amended. Whatit could bring about, asexpected, is a new system ofgovernment run by the samepoliticians as before.

As a former AssistantOmbudsman said: “Even if theConstitution is amended to shiftthe form of government frompresidential to parliamentary,the problem of accountability,honesty and integrity in publicoffice will not be solved. Adishonest person will always bedishonest under a presidentialgovernment as well as under a

parliamentary government.And if the public official who isdishonest is the President of thecountry, her being dishonest isnot rectified in a parliamentarygovernment.”

How do I change thee?The legal basis of President

Arroyo’s Consultative Com-mission is also under question.The Constitution does notmention such a mechanism;neither does it authorize thePresident to propose charteramendments. Under theConstitution, changes can onlybe introduced:

• by Congress, after ¾ of allits members adopt a reso-lution constituting them-selves into a ConstituentAssembly;

• by a Constitutional Con-vention, to be constitutedupon approval of 2/3 of allmembers of Congress or bythe electorate after amajority of members ofCongress agrees to submitthe question to a refe-rendum; or

• by popular initiative, via apetition of at least 12% ofregistered voters (of whichevery legislative districtmust be represented by atleast 3% of its registeredvoters).

All the proposed amend-ments must then be approvedby the electorate through aplebiscite.

Knowing that she still hasenough devotees in Congresswho can bludgeon their way toa charter amendment, the Presi-dent has expressed preferencefor the constituent assemblyapproach.

Whatever the mode used,any cha-cha exercise will burnup millions, if not billions, ofpublic funds. At a time whenthe government is plagued witha mammoth budget deficit, sucha very expensive undertakingcan only be done if thegovernment further reduces thebudget for basic sectors such aseducation, health, agricultureand social services.

The “graceful exit” willcome at a very high fee.

And every Filipino taxpayerwill be paying for it.

REFERENCES:

• Aportadera, B. (Aug. 2, 2005).“FVR option for GMA: CharterChange,” Citizen Watch.

• Aquino, L. A. “Time for CharterChange is not now, saysRosales,” The Manila BulletinOnline. http://www.mb.com.ph.

• Avendaño, C. O. (Oct. 3, 2005).“Palace names 53 ConsultativeCommission members,” http://n e w s . i n q 7. n e t / n a t i o n /index.php?index=1&story_id=50972.

• Cabacungan, G. Jr. (Sept. 17,2005). “Foreign investorswatching drive to amend RPCharter,” Phil. Daily Inquirer; p.A2.

• Corvera, A. B. “ Is It Time To CHA-CHA?” www.philstar.com.

• Cruz, N. H. (Oct. 26, 2005). “Heyguys, what about the people?http://news.inq7.net/opinion/index.php?index=2&story_id=54526.

• Labog-Javellana, J. (Oct. 24,2005). “Rubber-stamp imagebugs consultative body,” http://n e w s . i n q 7. n e t / n a t i o n /index.php?index=1&story_id=54304.

• Maglalang, F. J. (Aug. 22, 2005)“Cha-Cha commission formed,”,”,”,”,”The Manila Bulletin Online ,,,,,http://www.mb.com.ph.

• “Magna Carta.” http://e n . w i k i p e d i a . o r g / w i k i /Magna_Carta.

• Napallacan, J. (Oct. 25, 2005).Cebu lawyers boycott Concommeeting, “Magna Carta.” http:// e n . w i k i p e d i a . o r g / w i k i /Magna_Carta.

• Remollino, A.M. “Charter changea diversionary tactic, Arroyo foessay.” www.bulatlat.com.

• State of the Nation Address, July25, 2005. http://www.op.gov.ph.

The current cha-cha“debate” spins around asingle issue (the shift toparlimentary-federalism), asif this is the only provisionthat will be amended.Hardly played out in themedia and the publicdiscussions are the other(specifically the eco-nomicand nationalist) provi-sionsof the Constitution that aretargetted for amendment.These include the foreignrestrictions on land andbusiness owner-ship,exploitation of naturalresources and operation ofcommunication media,which, if amended, willimperil the economic rightsof each and every Filipino.(Next issue: “Cha-cha andhuman rights”).


&RAINSA health digest for the 3rd Quarter 2005

DOOM

As the rainy seasonprogressed during the thirdquarter, dengue once againbecame a frightening buzzwordin the health scene. The numberof people afflicted and killed bythe disease rose significantly

despite a nationwide alertdeclared by the DoH inAugust. As ofSeptember 11, thedeadly disease hasafflicted a total of18,802 persons—26

percent more than the numberof reported cases during thesame period last year—and thedeath toll has reached analarming 280 since January 1.The DoH projects that this

year’s cases could reach 20,000by the time the rainy seasonends in October.

Also during this period, thebrain drain experienced by thecountry officially became a“national hemorrhage.” TheHealth Alliance for Democracy(HEAD) reported that 80percent of government doctors

HEALTH DiGEST

RAIN OR SHINE, the health sector is always ina state of gloom. The Philippine governmentfails to provide solid and long-term solutionsto its plentiful woes. As heavily as the rains

poured during the months of July to September, so didthe three of the health sector’s perennial afflictionsaggravate. Prominent in the news during this periodwere the uncontrollable rise of dengue cases, afrightening forecast of a looming collapse of thecountry’s health care system due to the unabatedmigration of our health professionals, and theimpending cut in the Department of Health’s share inthe proposed national budget for 2006.

n By V.A.A. Cicky Buenaventura

...................................................................

As if adding insultto the alreadyinjured healthsector, a cut inthe DoH’s sharein the nationalbudget for 2006 isin the offing.

WATER, WATER EVERYWHERE….teen-age boys wade through waist-deep flood waters to get to a source of safe drinking water. A perennial problemall over the Philippines when the rains come, floods bring with them a host of diseases.


are confirmed currentlyenrolled in nursing schools,hoping to join the 5,000 whohave already left the country in2004 to work as nurses abroad.This continued mass flight ofour health specialists has led theAlliance of Health Workers(AHW) to predict a collapse ofthe country’s health care systemwithin the next two to threeyears. The AHW pointed outthat poor working conditionsand lack of opportunities locallyhave driven Filipino nurses andspecialists to seek better-payingjobs, mostly as nurses, inhospitals particularly in theMiddle East and NorthAmerica. As a result of thisunabated migration, ninehospitals in the province ofIsabela have closed, with twomore in Aklan following suit, ashospitals fail to sustainoperations due to understaffing.The term “outsourcing,” apopular term in the call centerindustry, has now even becomepart of the health sector’s jargon– referring to district hospitals’hiring of private healthpractitioners in a desperateattempt to evade closure.

As if adding insult to thealready injured health sector, acut in the DoH’s share in thenational budget for 2006 is in theoffing. The government hasearmarked P9.95 B for the DoH

for next year. The currentbudget is P10.3 B. This meansthat the agency’s share in theproposed national budget ofP1.05 trillion is a measly 0.947percent. With the pendingdecline yet again in the DoH’sallocation, Sen. Manuel Villarpointed out that the allottedP9.95 for DoH would beinsufficient to finance all of theagency’s projects and programsespecially in the light of someexpensive campaigns that theagency is scheduled toundertake in the coming year.Among the major undertakingstargeted by the DoH for nextyear is the ‘Murang Gamot’

project, with a proposed P10.6B allocation, and themaintenance of the ‘Botika saBarangay’ in 5,000 barangays allover the country. The agencyhas likewise allocated P2.9billion as health premiumsubsidy for the poor. But withthe many problems besetting thesector that requires, amongothers, enormous sums ofmoney, the big question ofwhether the pending allocationwill suffice to achieve this lacksa definite answer.

The health sector continuesto be one of the social servicessuffering the blow as thegovernment prioritizes debtservicing. At least P344.4 B (afull third) of next year’s budgetis already reserved for debtservicing (payment of interestand principal). While the 2006budget increased by P134.6 B,the increases will go to publicworks (which will get a boost ofP33.3 B next year, from itscurrent P64.5 B) and the military(which receives P8.33 B more in2006, from its already sizeable2005 budget of P44.07 B).Needless to say, with thelooming cut in DoH budget for2006, what can only be expectedis a further decline in the qualityand accessibility of health careand the worsening of theagency’s age-old problems.

With the new cut in the DoH

budget, it is a wonder how thegovernment can possibly alterthe already bleak and dismalpicture of the country’s healthsector. With insufficientallocation for massiveinformation drives andfumigation, among othernecessary interventions tocombat the outbreak, it will notbe surprising if dengue figuresshould only continue to riseduring the next rainy season.

Similarly, with no clearprospects for progress to offerour already demoralized healthworkers who are overworkedand underpaid amid thespiraling of prices of almost allcommodities, the AHWprediction may indeed justhappen. The United States alonewill be requiring around amillion nurses more within thenext 15 years. As the Philippinegovernment remains inutile ineffecting changes to bettercompensate our healthprofessionals, the number ofmigrant Filipino health workersleaving the country is expectedto multiply drastically, leavingour health care in undeniablesorry state and peril.

In light of these, one cannothelp but wonder what couldpossibly be more frightening:the next rainy season or theimminent crumbling of ourheath system.

At this point, the thought ofreviving the glory days of thetimpladas, albularyos and hilotstruly seems comforting.

REFERENCESREFERENCESREFERENCESREFERENCESREFERENCES:::::

• Dengue claims more lives (Sept.15, 2005). Philippine DailyInquirer; p. A2.

• DoH budget a drop in thebucket—Villar (Sept. 21, 2005).Manila Standard Today; p. A4.

• Esguerra, C. V. (Sept. 8, 2005).No signs of dengue letting up,Philippine Daily Inquirer; p. A4.

• Esguerra, C. V. (Sept. 17, 2005).Health care to collapse in twoyears, medics warn, PhilippineDaily Inquirer; pp. A1 & A4.

• Esguerra, C. V. (Sept. 20, 2005).RP must stanch exodus of docs,nurses, says WHO exec,Philippine Daily Inquirer; p. A4.

• Esguerra, C. V. (Sept. 21, 2005).Brain drain now a nat’l‘hemorrhage,’ ’ ’ ’ ’ Philippine DailyInquirer; p. A7.

• The other numbers game (Aug.28, 2005). Philippine DailyInquirer; p. A12.

...................................................................

The number ofmigrant Filipinohealth workersleaving thecountry isexpected tomultiplydrastically, leavingour health care inundeniable sorrystate and peril.

THE YOUNG AND THE OLD are the most vulnerable in a country whose government ignores basic health services.


TO VENABLEOR NOTTO VENABLE

MUCH has beensaid about theconsul tancycontract the

Philippine governmenthas entered into withVenable LLP, a US-basedlaw firm. Even as theexistence of multiplecontracts entered into bythe Philippine govern-ment with US-based firmswere subsequently dis-covered, no singularcontract has generatedsimilar criticisms from abroad sector of society ingeneral, and the oppo-sition in particular, as theVenable LLP contract.

After all, the Venable LLP-Philippine government contracthas all the necessary elements ofa riveting suspense novel. It isshrouded in mystery that evenhigh ranking Malacañangofficials expressed surprise at itsexistence. Millions of pesos areinvolved. A Cabinet Secretaryhas been detained at the Senate.The same Cabinet Secretarysuffered a stroke leading to anextended stay at a hospital.Members of a political party,which that cabinet secretaryheads, massed up outside thehospital calling for thedissolution of the PhilippineSenate. And, maybe, mostimportantly, no other contracthas led to the issuance of anExecutive Order whichessentially prohibits anymember of the executive branchto testify in Senate hearingsunless granted prior clearanceby the President of the Republic.

The Road to VenableThe Venable LLP contract

was entered into on July 25,2005, a consultancy agreementto boost Malacañang’s charterrevision gameplan. On thissame day, President GloriaMacapagal Arroyo deliveredher State of the Nation Address(SONA) challenging thelegislative to start the worksnecessary for charter changewhich would pave the way fora parliamentary federal form ofgovernment.

Signatories to the contract

n By Ramil Añosa Andag

HARDLY THE BEST PLACE TO BUILD A HOUSE ON: poverty incidence worsens, as the government goes on abinge hiring expensive foreign consultants.


were National Security AdviserNorberto Gonzales, on behalf ofPresident Arroyo, and lawyersJames T. Pitts and James GeorgeJatras, Venable LLP repre-sentatives.

An online copy of thecontract shows that thePhilippine government shouldpay Venable a monthly retainerof “$75,000.00 plus costs fortravel, fax, copying, etc.”Considering that the contract isgood for “one year unlessextended in writing by bothparties,” the Philippines at thevery least needed $900,000 orroughly P50.4M to cover for theservices of Venable LLP.

But the contract has beenkept from public eye untilSeptember. In fact, in subse-quent media interviews, Execu-tive Secretary Eduardo Ermita,whose function includes scru-tiny of all contracts the govern-ment enters into, expressedsurprise and admitted he wasnot aware of the Venable LLPcontract.

After the Venable deal wasbrought to public attention bythe media, Secretary Gonzalesannounced that he hasrescinded the said contract.President Arroyo herselfappeared on national televisionand declared that “she wasscrapping the contract becausethe matter of charter change got

into the picture and the contractbecame unnecessarily contro-versial.” She also promised toreview the provisions of thecontract.

Even with the contractnullified, Gonzales was not yetoff the hook. The Senate BlueRibbon Committee summonedSec. Norberto Gonzales to shedlight on the issues surroundingthe Venable LLP contract.According to Blue RibbonCommittee head Sen. JokerArroyo, even with the scrappingof the contact, there is still a needto inquire as to SecretaryGonzales’ possible oversteppinghis executive functions.

Citing reasons of nationalsecurity, Gonzales refused toanswer questions by Senatorsduring the Blue Ribbonhearings, particularly on thefunding source for the contract.For this, the Committee citedhim for contempt and put himunder Senate custody. Shortlythereafter, (that same afternoon,in fact) Secretary Gonzalessuffered a stroke and wasconfined at the Philippine HeartCenter, still under Senatecustody.

Supporters from the Partidong Demokratiko Sosyalista ngPilipinas (PDSP), whichGonzales also chairs massed upoutside the hospital and calledfor the dissolution of the

Philippine Senate fordisrespecting their leader.

On September 29, PresidentMacapagal-Arroyo issuedExecutive Order 464 whichessentially prohibits govern-ment officials from testifying incongressional hearings unless aclearance to do so is issued byher. According to Palaceofficials, these Congressionalhearings were impeachmentproceedings disguised to becarried on in aid of legislation.

Critical Venable ProvisionThe Venable LLP contract

earned public curiosity and flakfrom all sides of the fence notsolely for the exorbitant amountof money involved. What madethis contract stand out andgenerate widespread criticism isthe task of Venable to “securegrants or congressional earmarksfor support of the Charter Changeinitiative of the President of thePhilippines, which would reshapethe form of government in thePhilippines from its currentstructure into a parliamentaryfederal system.”

This provision was madeeven before the newly formedConstitutional Commissioncould decide which sections ofthe Philippine Constitutionsneeded to be changed.

Militant groups decried thisparticular provision, saying thatit lays bare the Philippinepatrimony and the existingpatriotic provisions of theConstitution to foreigninfluence and interests. Theyargued that the United Stateshas no business tinkering withthe Philippine Constitution. Thepolitical opposition was alsoquick to point out that the act ofentering into such contractconstitutes “treason.” Ac-cording to noted Constitu-tionalist Fr. Joaquin Bernas,Gonzales violated the Cons-titutional provision thatprohibits financial contributionsfrom foreign governments.

Even one of the mainprogenitors of Charter Change,former President Fidel Ramos,was quoted as saying thatcharter change must be donewithout foreign intervention.

There is also the question ofthe source of the money whichwill be used to pay for theservices of Venable. During theSenate hearings, SecretaryGonzales intimated that thePhilippine government will notbe spending for this contractbecause the money will becoming from the private sectorthat is supportive of the Charterchange measures of theadministration. Asked whothese individuals were, heinvoked reasons of nationalsecurity and refused to divulgenames. This refusal so inflamedthe Senators, they put SecretaryGonzales under Senate custody.

According to the PhilippineCenter for Investigative

...................................................................

These contractswere apparentlymade sub rosa,with the peopleunaware that theirgovernment iscontractingservicessupposedly ontheir behalf, thecosts of which willmost probably beshouldered by thepeople.

A FINE KETTLE, INDEED. Multi-million dollar consultancy contracts, to be shouldered by destitute Filipinoswho can hardly afford a decent meal.


Journalism (PCIJ), even with thenullification of the contact, thePhilippine government still hasto pay Venable as it committedthe government to pay a three-month advance. Further, thecontract can only be cancelledafter a 90-day notice.

The Senate hearing ignitedfurther controversy around theVenable contract. Even beforethe members of the Senate BlueRibbon Committee could besatisfied with Gonzales’answers, he had to be confinedat a state-run hospital for areported heart ailment. Mala-cañang officials claimed that theSenate did not show respect toand treated Secretary Gonzalesin an inhumane manner.

Malacañang also claimedthat such Senate hearings werenot being done in aid oflegislation but in aid ofdestabilization. According toPress Secretary Ignacio Bunye,“we are now seeing that they aretrying to revive the accusationslisted in the impeachment casethat was thrown out by theHouse.”

To stop similar incidentsfrom happening, and to protectthe Executive branch, a co-equalof the legislative branch, thePalace issued EO 464 whichprohibits any member of theexecutive to appear in congres-sional hearings unless allowedby the President. This orderfurther drew criticisms for itwas viewed as a signal that theExecutive is announcing war onthe Legislative branch.

EO 434 was viewedessentially as a gag order.

Postscripts to VenableThe Venable brouhaha has

led to the discovery of otheractive lobby contracts betweenthe Philippine government andseveral US-based consultancyfirms for various purposes.Based on PCIJ reports, PresidentMacapagal-Arroyo has enteredinto eight similar contracts sinceshe assumed office in 2001.According to San Juan Repre-sentative Ronaldo Zamora,these contacts are of the sameprice range – P50M to P100M.

The first casualties of EO 464were military officials. Brig.Gen. Francisco Gudani and Lt.Col. Alexander Balutan testifiedin a Senate hearing that theelection results in Mindanaowere rigged in favor of

President Macapagal Arroyo.The two were summarilyrelieved of their posts. Thebenefits of Gudani, who was setto retire a few days after hisSenate appearance, wereforfeited for defying EO 464.Gudani and Balutan now facecourt-martial proceedings.

Secretary Norberto Gonzaleshas since been released from theHeart Center of the Philippines.Even as his diagnoses andprescriptions enjoyed wide-spread media coverage, herefused to follow experts’ adviceto undergo bypass operations.

Most recently, the SupremeCourt ordered the Senate BlueRibbon Committee to produceSecretary Gonzales and justifyhis Senate detention.

Alarm BellsIt is very alarming that the

Philippine government hasentered into multiple multi-million dollar contracts withforeign lobby firms. This ismade even more suspect by thefact that these contracts wereapparently made sub rosa, withthe people unaware that theirgovernment is contractingservices supposedly on theirbehalf, the costs of which willmost probably be shouldered bythe people.

The Arroyo administrationreaction over the Venableruckus was simply to dismissthe magnitude of the issue, evenif it is already clear that we havebeen victims of secret dealswhich we end up paying. The

contracts being secret and thusloosely monitored, it is thereforealmost impossible to track theeffectiveness of these lobbyfirms. Thus, some people aremaking easy money while theFilipino people, already reelingfrom the unabated increases inall basic commodities, are left tofoot the costly bill.

It is interesting to note thatthe government has initiatedcost-saving measures to ease theeffects of the economic crisis.Spot checks are being made ongovernment offices to checktheir energy consumption. TheBureau of Internal Revenue hasfiled cases against personalitiesand high profile tax evaders tomuster the money needed forthe government to operate.

Poverty incidence reportedlywent down, not becauseFilipinos are enjoying a betterquality of life, but largely dueto belt-tightening measures.Unemployment statistics wentdown, not because there aremore jobs available, but becausethe government has changed thedefinition of “unemployed.”

Meanwhile, theadministration is entering intosecret contracts to improveinvestor confidence, doll up thePresident’s image, improvecredit ratings and secure foreignloans.

Just another day in Philip-pine governance. Meanwhile,the Filipino people continue tosuffer.

REFERENCESREFERENCESREFERENCESREFERENCESREFERENCES:::::

Avendaño, C. & TJ Burgonio (Sept.19, 2005). Senate set to probeGonzales. www.inq7.net.

Avendaño, C. & G. Cabacungan(Sept. 30, 2005). Palace slamsSenate hearings; businessmen backEO 464. www.inq7.net.

Mangahas, M. (Sept. 13, 2005).Despite hard times, GMA hires pricyforeign consultants for Charterchange. www.pcij.org.

Mangahas, M. (Sept. 20, 2005).Government splurges millions onmultiple, secret lobby contracts.www.pcij.org.

Reyes, V. (Oct. 3, 2005). Militarybelittles support for Gudani. Malaya.

Torres, T. (Oct. 4, 2005). SC sets oralarguments for petition to freeGonzales. www.inq7.net.

Tubeza, P., et al. (Sept. 20, 2005).Lawmakers see venality in Venablelobby deal. www.inq7.net.


F A C T S A N D F I G U R E S

Bilang ng mga nasa death row (Nobyembre 2005)

• Lalaki (nasa National Bilibid Penitentiary) - 1,154• Babae (nasa Correctional Institute for Women) - 30

UUUUUri ng krimeng kinasangkri ng krimeng kinasangkri ng krimeng kinasangkri ng krimeng kinasangkri ng krimeng kinasangkutanutanutanutanutan

Mga krimen ng mga napatawan ng parusang bitay, Enero2005-Mayo 24, 2005, (nahahati sa kasarian)

KRIMEN LALAKI BABAE

‘Rape and related cases’ 544 0‘Murder’ 246 5‘Kidnapping for Ransom’ 185 14‘Parricide’ 6 4‘Drugs’ 37 5‘Robbery with Homicide’ 108 0‘Serious Illegal Detention with Ransom’ 50 1‘Arson with Multiple Homicide’ - 2Kabuuang Bilang *1,176 31

* may mga death row inmates na naparusahan dahil sa 2 o mahigit pang krimen

KRIMEN LALAKI BABAE

Kabuuang bilang ng kasong death penalty naKabuuang bilang ng kasong death penalty naKabuuang bilang ng kasong death penalty naKabuuang bilang ng kasong death penalty naKabuuang bilang ng kasong death penalty na nirepaso ng SC (Sept. 2005) — 1, 438 nirepaso ng SC (Sept. 2005) — 1, 438 nirepaso ng SC (Sept. 2005) — 1, 438 nirepaso ng SC (Sept. 2005) — 1, 438 nirepaso ng SC (Sept. 2005) — 1, 438

Pagkakahati-hati ng resulta batay sa pagrebyu:

I. Affirmed (Pinagtibay) 274II. Dismissed 30III. Acquitted (Pinawalang-sala) 68IV. Ipinasa sa Court of Appeals 384V. Modified (Binago) 682

a.) ‘For Further Proceedings’ - - 37b.) ‘Indeterminate sentence’ - - 86c.) ‘Reclusion Perpetua’ - - 559

Rape 21 0Kidnapping for Ransom 6 0Murder 15 1Drugs 1 1Robbery with Homicide 3 0Others 3 0KABUUANG BILANGKABUUANG BILANGKABUUANG BILANGKABUUANG BILANGKABUUANG BILANG 4 94 94 94 94 9 22222

HINGGIL SA PARUSANG

Kasong DP na Nirepaso ng Supreme Court, Sept. 2005Kasong DP na Nirepaso ng Supreme Court, Sept. 2005Kasong DP na Nirepaso ng Supreme Court, Sept. 2005Kasong DP na Nirepaso ng Supreme Court, Sept. 2005Kasong DP na Nirepaso ng Supreme Court, Sept. 2005

19%

47%

2%

27%

5%

PinagtibayBinago

DismissedPinawalang-Sala

Ibinaba sa CA

KAMATAYAN

Aabot na sa 4242424242 ‘deathrow inmates’ angnabigyan ng ‘reprieve’reprieve’reprieve’reprieve’reprieve’o pansamantalangpagpigil sa kanilangpagbitay nitongMay 2005.

Bilang ngnasentensiyahanng parusangkamatayan mulaEnero 2005hanggangMayo 24, 2005

Lalaki 49Babae 2TTTTTOOOOOTTTTTAL 5AL 5AL 5AL 5AL 511111

Kabuuang bilang ngparusang kamatayan naipinataw ng mga ‘lower 11111,67,67,67,67,6777777

courts’ mulanoong 1994:


F A C T S A N D F I G U R E SMga Bansang Nagtanggal at Nagpanatili ng ParusangMga Bansang Nagtanggal at Nagpanatili ng ParusangMga Bansang Nagtanggal at Nagpanatili ng ParusangMga Bansang Nagtanggal at Nagpanatili ng ParusangMga Bansang Nagtanggal at Nagpanatili ng ParusangKamatayan (May 2005)Kamatayan (May 2005)Kamatayan (May 2005)Kamatayan (May 2005)Kamatayan (May 2005)

Ayon sa Amnesty International, mahigit kalahati na ng lahatng bansa sa mundo ang nagtanggal na ng parusang kamatayan,“inlaw or in practice.”

Bilang ng nagtanggal (abolitionist): 120

Bilang ng nagpanatili (retentionist): 76

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

084 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

64 64 6669

8084

8883 84

90

97101 100

104 104 105108 108

111

120117

112

MGA BANSANG NAGBAWAL NGPARUSANG KAMATAYAN, SA BATAS O SAPRAKTIKA, KADA TAON

Pinagbatayan: Amnesty International

‘Abolitionistin practice’: 2 2 2 2 244444

‘Abolitionist’ parasa lahat ng uri ngkrimen: 8585858585

‘Abolitionist’para sa ‘ordinarycrimes’: 1111111111

NNNNNITONGITONGITONGITONGITONG NAKARAANG DEKADA,HINDI BABABA SA 3 3 3 3 3 BANSABANSABANSABANSABANSA BAWAT

TAON ANG NAGBABASURA NG

KANILANG BATAS SA PARUSANG BITAY

O TULUYAN NANG NAGTANGGAL NG

PARUSANG BITAY PARA SA

LAHAT NG URI NG KRIMEN

PAGKATAPOS IPAGBAWAL ANG

PARUSANG BITAY PARA SA MGA

ORDINARYONG PAGKAKASALA.


TRiViA:HRTHE RIGHT WORDS:

Be as beneficent as the sun orthe sea, but if your rights as arational being are trenched on, dieon the first inch of your territory.

~Ralph Waldo Emerson

IN THIS QUARTER:

The Philippines signed thefollowing internationlhuman rights instruments:

the Convention on theElimination of All Formsof Discrimination AgainstWomen (CEDAW), which ismonitored by the Committeeon the Elimination ofDiscrimination againstWomen on September 4,1981

the Convention on theRights of the Child(CRC), which is monitoredby the Committee on theRights of the Child, onSeptember 20, 1990

the Optional Protocol tothe Convention on theRights of the Child (CRC-OP-AC) on the involvementof children in armed conflicton September 26, 2003

the InternationalConvention on theProtection of the Rights ofAll Migrant Workers andMembers of TheirFamilies (CMW) on July 1,2003

F A C T S A N D F I G U R E S

Ganun ba?

Pinaghalawan: Bureau of Corrections, Philippine Jesuit Prison Service, Mamamayang Tutolsa Bitay – Movement for Restorative Justice, Alyansa ng mga Inmates sa Death Row,Supreme Court of the Philippines

THE CHILD soldiers research project, a three-yearcollective undertaking of PhilRights, is a majorachievement and contribution of the institution to thestruggle to address children’s involvement in armedconflict in the country.

The book presents findings of interviews with 194 childsoldiers involved in government-backed paramilitarygroups as well as armed rebel groups. At the time ofthe study, 115 of the children were still active membersof armed groups; only 79 of them had beendemobilized. The publication delves on the profile ofFilipino child soldiers, their reasons for joining armedgroups, their experiences, the effects of soldiering onthese children, and recommendations addressing thisissue.

The book is available at P250.00 a copy at thePhilippine Human Rights Information Center(PhilRights), 53-B Maliksi St., Brgy. Pinyahan, QuezonCity (Tel. No. 436-5686/433-1714).

Deadly PlaygroundsThe Phenomenon of Child Soldiers in the Philippines

Kapasidad ng death row sa National Bilibid Prison (NBP): 600

Bilang ng death row inmates saNBP (Nob., 2005): 1,154

Perang magagastos ng gobyerno sa isang taonsa pagkain ng 1,154 death row inmates sa NBP: P16,848,400

Bilang ng mga menor de edad (wala pang 18 anyos) nangmapatawan ng parusang bitay na kasalukuyang nakapiit sa D.R: 20

Bilang ng kasalukuyang nakapiit sa deathrow na lagpas 70 anyos na ang edad: 11

Bilang ng mambabatas na kailangang pumirmapara maibasura ang RA 7659 (Death Penalty Law): 119

Bilang ng panukalang isinumite sa Mababang Kapulunganng ika-13 Kongreso na naglalayong ibasura ang RA 7659:

Bilang ng panukalang isinumite sa Senado ng ika-13Kongreso na naglalayong buwagin na ang RA 7659:

16

3


ESTABLISHED in July 1991 by the Philippine Alliance of Human Rights Advocates (PAHRA), PhilRightsseeks to undertake and disseminate human rights information, research, and analyses where and whenthey are needed.

As a service institution that exists for both PAHRA and the general public, PhilRights aims to:

• Deepen awareness, knowledge, and understanding of PAHRA and the general publicabout human rights conditions, issues, and mechanisms;

• Work for a dynamic human rights movement that is able to mobilize sectors and groupsfor timely and effective intervention in the promotion and defense of human rights bymaking available human rights information and tools in information handling anddissemination;

• Help ensure state compliance with its human rights obligations through activemonitoring and engagement;

• Strengthen cooperation and partnership with local and international networks in theconduct of human rights activities through lively exchange and sharing of information;and

• Enhance capability of human rights organizations in the promotion and defense ofhuman rights through education and training on research, advocacy and informationhandling and dissemination.

Philippine Human RightsInformation Center

PHILIPPINE HUMAN RIGHTSINFORMATION CENTER (PHILRIGHTS)53-B Maliksi St., Barangay Pinyahan1100 Quezon City

BUSINESS MAIL ENTERED ASTHIRD CLASS (PM)at Quezon City Central Post OfficePermit No.: PM-04-11-NCRValid Until 31 December 2005

RETURNED TO SENDERRefused to acceptInsufficient AddressUnknown SubscriberPerson TransferredOffice TransferredHouse Closed

Since April 2004, the Philippine Human Rights Information Center (PhilRights) has beenaccepting interns for its Internship Program. The program is open to college students,researchers or professionals who are interested in doing internship work in an NGO likePhilRights. For details, please contact Mr. Pepito D. Frias, PhilRights’ Training Associateat telephone numbers 433-17-14 & 436-56-86.

ANNOUNCEMENT

Documents

Human Rights FORUM 1 Volume 2... · 2007-11-09 · ay hindi nai-package bilang isang realistikong plano tungo sa pagtatayo ng isang gobyernong kakatawan sa interes ng sambayanan