HR Law - Atty Jamon (Compiled Reports)

ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW
Menlo St. cor. Taft Ave., Pasay city
COMPILATION OF THE REPORTS ON:

Political repression of the opposition
War on drugs
Chinese take-over of the West Philippine Sea
Rohingya Discrimination
Trump on Mexicans crossing border
Death Penalty
Persecution of Lumads
Violation of Freedom of the Press
Subject: Human Rights Law

Schedule: Wednesday 6:00pm – 9:00pm | Saturday 1:00pm – 4:00pm
Room: RH 104
Professor: Atty. Butch Jamon
1 |HUMAN RIGHTS LAW REPORTS

LIST OF GROUPS AND ASSIGNED REPORTS
GROUP 1 (Political repression of the GROUP 5 (Trump on Mexicans crossing

opposition) border)
1. Borja, Merryl 1. Lopez, Katherine
2. Carreon, Ma. Allen 2. Cañon, Vince
3. Crisologo, Jezreel 3. Villacorta, Nneka
4. Redito, Cherrie 4. Bataoil, Richmon
5. Go, Joanna 5. Galla, Mark
GROUP 2 (War on Drugs) GROUP 6 (Death Penalty)

1. Antiquiera, Eleonor 1. Guevarra, Karl
2. Villa, Mark 2. Sulit, Michelle
3. Mangotara, Raifah 3. Reniedo, Marjorie
4. Dacanay, Joshua 4. Ragos, Daniel
5. Tendenilla, Jizza 5. Cristobal, Ayla
GROUP 3 (Chinese take-over of the west

phil. sea) GROUP 7 (Persecution of Lumads)
1. Jordan, Geoffrey 1. Arugay, Marie
2. Rabuya, John 2. Baquiran, Maria
3. Castillo, Christen 3. Jazmin, Jane
4. Olaivar, Shyerwin 4. Sayao, Melissa
5. Decipulo, Rogelio 5. Sanidad, Jamyrah
GROUP 4 (Rohingya Discrimination) GROUP 8 (Violation of Freedom of the

1. Ponce, Edward Press)
2. Medida, Flemarie 1. Odiña, Danisse
3. Domalanta, Marc 2. Galang, John
4. Chiong, Benjamin 3. Caro, Felix
5. Dizon, Paolo 4. Dipol, John
5. Goling, Honeyf

GROUP 1
Members: Borja, Carreon, Crisologo, Redito, Go
POLITICAL REPRESSION OF THE OPPOSITION
Introduction
HUMAN RIGHTS LAW - is a branch of law which deals with the protection of individuals and
groups against violations by governments of the guaranteed rights and with the promotion of
these rights.
HUMAN RIGHTS - refers to the basic rights and freedoms to which all human beings are entitled
regardless of sex, race, language, religion, status and etc.
- refers to universal legal guarantees protecting individuals and groups against actions which
interfere with fundamental freedoms and human dignity
- are universal legal guarantees protecting individuals and groups against actions which interfere
with fundamental freedoms and human dignity. Human rights are generally defined as those
rights which are inherent in our nature and without which, we cannot live as human beings.
These rights and fundamental freedoms allow us to develop and use our human qualities,
intelligence, talents and conscience, and to satisfy our spiritual and other needs. The dignity of
man and human life is inviolable. From the dignity of man is derived the right of every person to
free development of his personality. It's the essence of these rights that make man human.
Basic Characteristics of Human Rights (IF-3I-UI)
1. Inherent- Not granted by any person or authority, do not need any event for their existence.
Ex: right to life and dignity as a human being.
2. Fundamental- Without them the life and dignity of man will be meaningless. Ex: right to
individual liberty and security of a person or freedom of thought and religion
3. Inalienable- Cannot be rightfully taken away from an individual. Ex: freedom from
torture
4. Imprescriptible- Cannot be lost even by a long passage of time. Ex: freedom of thought,
conscience and religion.
5. Indivisible- Not capable of being divided. Ex: freedom of belief or opinion, freedom of religion
and worship.
6. Universal- No borders, applies to all. Ex: right to life is the same whether one is in Asia or
Europe, Africa or any other countries or continent.
7. Interdependent- The fulfillment or exercise of one cannot be had without the realization of the
other. Ex: one's right to life and existence as a person cannot be realized without one's right to
work and maintain a good standard of living.
Classification of Human Rights
A. According to source - natural rights, constitutional rights, statutory rights
B. According to recipient - individual rights, collective rights

C. According to aspect of life - civil, political, economic, social, cultural rights
D. According to struggle for recognition - first, second and third generation rights
E. According to derogability - absolute or non-derogable, derogable or can-be-limited rights
Who are entitled to Human Rights/Who can exercise Human Rights?
All persons, regardless of sex, language, religion and race, may, and are entitled to human
rights.
MAIN TOPIC: Political Repression of the Oppositions
POLITICAL REPRESSION - is the act of a state entity controlling a citizenry by force for political
reasons, particularly for the purpose of restricting or preventing their ability to take part in
the political life of a society thereby reducing their standing among their fellow citizens.
- It is the maltreatment of an individual or group for political reasons, especially for the purpose of
limiting or forbidding their ability to take part in the political life of society. It is also called
as political discrimination or politicism. (uslegal.com)
- It may include harassment, surveillance/spying, bans, arrests, torture, and mass killing or extra-
judicial killings by government agents and/or affiliates within their territorial jurisdiction.
Rights which may be violated in relation to Political Repression
A. Freedom of Association
ARTICLE 3, Section 8 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution
“The right of the people, including those employed in the public and private sectors, to
form unions, associations, or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged.”
B. Freedom of Expression
B.1 ARTICLE 3, Section 4 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution
“No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press,
or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of
grievances.”
B.2 ARTICLE 3, Section 18 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution
“No person shall be detained solely by reason of his political beliefs and aspirations.”
B.3 Article 19, Section 1 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
“Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.”
C. Right to Access of Information

“The State adopts and implements a policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions
involving public interest, subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law.”
“The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized.
Access to official records, and to documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions,
or decisions, as well as to government research data used as basis for policy development, shall
be afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.”
D. Right to Peaceably Assemble and Petition the Government for Redress and Grievances
“No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press,
or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of
grievances.”
E. Right to Participate in the Government Affairs
Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without any of the distinctions
mentioned in Article 2 and without unreasonable restriction, to:
• take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
• vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections; and
• have access, on general terms of equality, to public service in the country.
Issues and Events:
1st Event: Martial Law
Martial Law is a perfect example of political repression of the oppositions. Right after the
declaration of Martial Law by former President Ferdinand Marcos in 21 September 1972, the
latter, through Letter of Instruction no. 1 ordered the closure of Media establishments
particularly Manila Times, Daily Mirror, Manila Chronicle, Manila Daily Bulletins, Philippine
Daily Inquirer, Philippine Herald, etc.
He also ordered for the arrest and detention of several media and opposition personalities
known to be critical against Marcos. These personalities were taken into military camps in
September 23 1972 for the purpose of investigation and interrogation.
Also, on September 25, 1972, he ordered the Department of Public Information to require
all mass media to get a clearance from DPI. The next day after such order, he issued a PD 33 which
prohibits the media from publishing and reporting articles and news which attacks the Marcos
administration, and failure to comply therewith will result to the revocation of the necessary
permits for such media network to operate.
With all of these happenings during the Marcos Regime, particularly during the Martial

Law, oppositions, which includes the media, were repressed politically and were prevented to
take part in the affairs of the government. They are prohibited to exercise their right to freely
express their opinion against the acts of the government. Moreso, in prohibiting the media and
the oppositions to freely express their sentiments, people are being deprived of the necessary and
current informations and situations that time.
As to the rights of those media and opposition personalities who were arrested, detained
and interrogated, they were deprived of their right to due process, right against self-incimination,
right against arbitrary detention, and other rights which are accorded to them.
2nd Event: Attack against Vice President Leni Robredo
The continuous, public and negative attack of President Rodrigo Roa Duterte against his
present Vice President Leni Robredo is also an example of political repression of the oppositions.
Although, not corroborated with a direct link that the President itself is repressing the Vice
President, actions and words uttered by the former may give the public, particularly the people
an impression that President Duterte is, at some point, attacks the Vice President in order for the
former to prevent the latter from participating in the affairs of the government, and from
exercising such other rights that she is entitled to.

GROUP 2
Members: Antiquiera, Villa, Mangotara, Dacanay, Tendenilla
WAR ON DRUGS
 Worsened Condition of Jail Facilities
The “war on drugs” has worsened the already dire conditions of Philippine jail facilities.
Bureau of Jail Management and Penology
Maximum capacity: 20,399
Current no. of detainees:132,000
 Right made vulnerable:

Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
-provides that “no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment.
 Voluntary Surrender
Rights made vulnerable:
a. Right to due process
b. Right to presumption of innocence
c. Right against self-incrimination
d. Right against self-incrimination
e. Right to privacy
 ISSUE 5 Attack Against Critics of Drug War

The following are some of the critics of drug war:
1. Opposition politicians
2. The Catholic church
3. The media
 Opposition Politicians
a. Senator Leila de Lima

Since February 2017, Senator de Lima has been jailed on politically motivated drug
charges filed against her in retaliation for leading a Senate inquiry into the drug war
killings.
b. Senator Antonio Trillanes IV

Senator Trillanes investigated the alleged death squad killings and drug smuggling linked
to the President Duterte.
 The Catholic church

The Catholic Church in the Philippines has harshly criticized the government campaign of
alleged extrajudicial killings of drug suspects that has claimed thousands of lives.
Duterte has repeatedly slammed the Church in response to its criticism.
 The media
Among the Philippines media, Rappler in particular has focused on the human toll of the
drug war, and often contested the official death counts put out by the government under the
social media campaign #RealNumbersPH, a self-described effort to counter what it calls a
“false narrative” on the war on drugs.
 ISSUE 6 Issues related to children

The Human Rights Watch (HRW) said in a new web feature Friday that the government’s
war against drugs “devastates” the lives of Filipino children.
The web feature, titled “Collateral Damage: The Children of Duterte’s War on Drugs,” shares
stories of children who have suffered from the impacts of the administration’s centerpiece
campaign.
The children who were affected by the drug war, whom the group had interviewed, had
experienced difficulty eating, stopped going to school, or developed aggressive behavior.
Three children interviewed by HRW ended up living on the streets after their parents were
killed in police operations.
 Proposed imposition of drug-testing on children

The Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) announced in June 2018 that it was seeking
to impose annual unannounced drug screening tests on teachers and schoolchildren starting
in the fourth grade. PDEA sought to justify the move as an attempt to identify 10-year-old
potential drug users so they “can get intervention while they are still young.”
Imposing drug testing on schoolchildren when Philippine police are summarily killing
alleged drug users endangers children should they fail such a drug test.
 ISSUE 7 WAR ON THE POOR

6,600 drug suspects died
"Remember, shabu is the commodity of the poor. Mao nang daghang pobre namatay kay
walay kataguan," (Remember, shabu is the commodity of the poor. That's why many poor
Filipinos died because they have nowhere to hide.) "Ang mga dato cocaine. Alam ninyo
'yan. Naay mga yate, dagko'g bay. Unlike Tondo, mo-hit ka og shabu, masimhotan ka man
gyud," he added. (The rich use cocaine. You know that. They have yachts and live in big
houses. Unlike in Tondo, when you use shabu, you'll get noticed.)

 RIGHTS VIOLATED
a. RIGHT TO SECURITY IN THE EVENT OF UNEMPLOYMENT, SICKNESS,
DISABILITY, WIDOWHOOD, OLD AGE OR OTHER LACK OF LIVELIHOOD IN
CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND HIS CONTROL (Art. 25, Par. 1, UDHR)
Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte's war on drugs takes a toll on the country's poorest
women and children, when a family's primary earner, usually a man, dies during police
operations.
b. RIGHT TO HEALTH
The right to health is a claim to a set of institutional arrangements and environmental
conditions that are needed for the realization of the highest attainable standard of health.
The right to health does not mean the right to be healthy.
The right is an inclusive right, which extends in addition to timely and appropriate health
care also to the underlying determinants of health, such as housing, food and nutrition,
water, healthy occupational and environmental conditions and access to health-related
information and education.
 ISSUE 8 CULTURE OF IMPUNITY

Impunity is defined by absence: the lack of punishment and sanction for the perpetrator of an
abuse and the failure to provide reparations for the victims. Impunity can be produced by
indifference, inadequate information, or ignorance of the abuse, as well as by active
obstruction of investigations and legal proceedings.” (Winifred Tate, “Counting the Dead,”
2007)
 RIGHTS VIOLATED
a. VICTIM’S RIGHT TO JUSTICE AND REDRESS
According to the United Nation’s Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of
Crime and Abuse of Power, Victims should be treated with compassion and respect for
their dignity. They are entitled to access to the mechanisms of justice and to prompt
redress, as provided for by national legislation, for the harm that they have suffered.
b. VICTIM’S RIGHT TO JUSTICE AND REDRESS

According to the United Nation’s Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of
Crime and Abuse of Power, Victims should be treated with compassion and respect for
their dignity. They are entitled to access to the mechanisms of justice and to prompt
redress, as provided for by national legislation, for the harm that they have suffered.
 ISSUE 9 Abuses Committed by Police Authorities

Police killings of drug suspects are not a new phenomenon in the Philippines, but have
skyrocketed under the Rodrigo Duterte administration. Between January 1, 2016 and June 15,
2016 police killed a total of 68 suspects in “anti-drug” operations. Yet, as this report goes to

publication Philippine National Police data indicates that since July 1, 2016 police have killed
2,555 “suspected drug personalities,” while the police classify 3,603 killings in the same time
period as “deaths under investigation.” Police categorize an additional 922 killings as “cases
where investigation has concluded,” but have not provided details of the results of those
investigations.
Following President Duterte’s inauguration, the Philippines National Police launched a

nationwide anti-drug operation named “PNP Oplan—Operation Double Barrel Project
Tokhang.” Working at the national, regional, and local level, “Operation Double Barrel Project
Tokhang” aimed to create “watch lists” of known drug users and drug pushers, who would
then be visited by local police and/or municipal authorities and urged to “surrender.” The
term “double barrel” meant to indicate that police operations would target both “drug
pushers and users of illegal drugs alike.” Tok-hang translates as “knock and plead,” referring
to the house visits done by police or municipal authorities to urge individuals to surrender.
However, the “Operation Double Barrel Project Tokhang” also had a more violent element,
as documented in this report: the extrajudicial killings of drug suspects in faked “buy-bust”
encounters with the police, and so-called vigilante killings by “unknown” gunmen.
(AUGUST 16, 2017) 17-YEAR OLD KILLED IN POLICE RAID
Kian delos Santos was shot to death during an Oplan Galugad operation in Caloocan City on
the night of August 16, 2017. Police claimed that Kian shot at them, forcing them to fire back.
Recovered from Kian were a caliber .45 gun and two sachets of suspected shabu. His relatives
said that neither belonged to him.
(AUGUST 18, 2017) CCTV FOOTAGE BELIES POLICE ACCOUNT
Kian's family, girlfriend, classmates, and teacher mourned his death and called for justice.
Kian's mother, an overseas Filipino worker (OFW) in the Middle East, returned to a painful
homecoming. His father wondered how he could carry a gun when he was just wearing
boxers when he was killed.
CCTV footage surfaced showing Kian being carried away by cops, contrary to their claim that
Kian resisted and tried to flee. A person who claimed to have witnessed the killing said Kian
was on the floor begging for his life before a series of gunshots. Kian would later test negative
for gunpowder nitrates. Amid the public outcry, the three Caloocan cops involved in the
killing of Kian were removed from their posts. Caloocan chief of police Senior Superintendent
Chito Bersaluna and Northern Police District (NPD) director Chief Superintendent Roberto
Fajardo were also relieved.
(AUGUST 24, 2017) CONFIRMED VIA SOCIAL MEDIA
Superintendent Chito Bersaluna, the Caloocan chief of police at the time of Kian's death, told
the Senate inquiry that the police confirmed Kian involvement in the drugs trade through the
social media. "'Yun lang po ang basis namin," Bersaluna said.
Assisted by the Public Attorney's Office (PAO), the Delos Santos family lodged complaints
for murder and torture of a minor leading to death against Police Officer 3 Arnel Oares and
Police Officers 1 Jeremias Pereda and Jerwin Cruz.

Their supervisor, precinct commander Chief Inspector Amor Cerillo, was included in the
complaint for murder.
Days later, the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) also filed complaints for murder,
violation of domicile, and planting of evidence against the four cops.
(SEPTEMBER 4, 2017) RAPS VS. COPS IN KIAN SLAY
The Philippine National Police-Internal Affairs Service said it has found probable cause to file
administrative cases against 16 members of the Caloocan City Police allegedly involved in the
killing of Kian based on circumstantial evidence. Among those charged are the four cops
implicated in the teenager's death.
Meanwhile, government prosecutors set hearings for the preliminary investigation of the
criminal case on September 12 and 19. Then Justice Secretary Vitaliano Aguirre II had said the
complaints forwarded by the PAO and NBI would be consolidated for the purpose of
preliminary investigation.
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) also filed criminal and administrative charges
against the policemen directly involved in the killing of Kian before the Office of the
Ombudsman. The policemen were named respondents in the complaints of murder, violation
of domicile, planting of evidence, violation of the rights of a person arrested, and violation of
the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act.
(SEPTEMBER 4, 2017) BATO ADMITS 'OVERKILL'
At the resumption of the Senate inquiry on Kian's death, the chairman of the barangay where
he lived confirmed that the student was not included in the drug watch list and had no
derogatory record in their area. Barangay 160 chair Helica Joyce Macalinao said that Kian
didn't have record of offences in barangay documents and the local Social Welfare and
Development office.
Then PNP chief Director General Ronald "Bato" dela Rosa admitted that based on forensic
reports, there was an overkill in the police operation that led to Kian's death. He assured that
the abuses committed by police officers will not be tolerated. The policemen involved in the
killing of Kian refused to answer questions raised by Senator Risa Hontiveros during the
inquiry.
(NOVEMBER 29, 2018) COURT CONVICTS CALOOCAN COPS
A Caloocan City court found the three policemen, Oares, Pereda, and Cruz guilty for
murder.They were sentenced to reclusion perpetua “without eligibility of parole” and
ordered to pay Delos Santos’ family for damages. The case against Loveras was ordered
archived pending his arrest. The judge directed the issuance of an alias warrant of arrest
against him.
Judge Rodolfo Azucena acknowledged the dangers faced by law enforcers in the war against
drugs but indicated that unwarranted violence and deaths were criminal.

 ISSUE 10: EJK as a State-Sanctioned Murder
Rodrigo Duterte first ran for mayor of Davao City in 1988 on a campaign to restore law and
order in the city, the largest on the main southern island of Mindanao. At that time, Davao
City was known as the “murder capital” of the Philippines. Communist insurgents and
government security forces gunned down each other—and many civilians—day and night on
Davao City’s streets and barrios.
Duterte was elected mayor in part on his reputation as a city prosecutor said to have targeted
military and rebel abuses with equal fervor. The son of a former provincial governor, Duterte
said his father taught him that elected officials must serve the greater good no matter what it
takes, like a father protecting and disciplining his family.
Duterte was Davao City mayor for most of the years between 1988 and 2016. Local activists
say death squad killings of alleged drug dealers, petty criminals, and street children in Davao
City started sometime in the mid-1990s, during Duterte’s second term. The group that claimed
to be responsible for the killings was called Suluguon sa Katawhan or “Servants of the
People,” among other names, but soon the media in Davao City began referring to it as the
Davao Death Squad.
Duterte’s active promotion of killing drug suspects led to a sharp increase in such killings
during his time as mayor: according to one estimate, at least 1,424 such killings took place in
Davao between 1998 and 2015. When confronted with the death toll during his Presidential
election campaign, Duterte responded: “They said I killed 700? They miscalculated. It was
1,700.”
The Philippine National Commission on Human Rights initiated an investigation into the
Davao Death Squad in 2009. This prompted the Office of the Ombudsman to investigate
police officers for failing to investigate the death squad killings, and in 2012 it found 21 police
officers guilty of “simple neglect of duty” and fined each of them the equivalent of one
month’s salary. The Court of Appeals overturned the Ombudsman’s verdict that same year.
To date, not one person has been convicted for involvement in any of the killings.
Human Rights Watch also investigated the Davao City killings. While our research found no
evidence that directly linked Duterte to any killing, we found complicity and at times direct
involvement of government officials and members of the police in these killings. Relatives
and friends of death squad members provided detailed and consistent information on Davao
Death Squad operations, which was corroborated by journalists, community activists, and
government officials.
In September 2016, Edgar Matobato testified at a Senate hearing that he had been a hitman
for the Davao Death Squad and had killed several people on the specific orders of Duterte
and his son Paolo, who is now Davao City’s vice mayor. These include anti-Communist radio
broadcaster and fierce Duterte critic Juan “Jun" Pala, who was shot dead by motorcycle-riding
gunmen in 2003. After winning the 2016 presidential election, Duterte railed against corrupt
journalists, who he said deserved to be killed.

In October, the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court criticized “high officials” of the
Philippine government for public statements that “seem to condone such killings and further
seem to encourage State forces and civilians alike to continue targeting these individuals with
lethal force.” The ICC prosecutor explained that the crimes committed could fall ultimately
under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court: Let me be clear: any person in the
Philippines who incites or engages in acts of mass violence including by ordering, requesting,
encouraging or contributing, in any other manner, to the commission of crimes within the
jurisdiction of the ICC is potentially liable to prosecution before the Court. When the
prosecutor of the International Criminal Court warned Duterte in October that extrajudicial
killings linked to the “war on drugs” may fall under the court’s jurisdiction as a “widespread
or systematic attack against a civilian population,” Duterte threatened to withdraw the
Philippines from the court.
 CONCLUSION
If you live in an impoverished urban area in the Philippines today, you have good reason to
fear that you or a family member could get caught up in President Rodrigo Duterte’s
murderous “war on drugs.” And if you’re a politician, activist, or journalist outspoken about
the drug war, be prepared for harassment and intimidation emanating from the highest levels
of government.
The Philippines’ descent into an all-out human rights crisis, with thousands of extrajudicial
executions and a crackdown on basic liberties, has generated an outcry, but no strong action,
from United Nations member states. The killings started soon after Duterte took office in June
2016 and continue to this day. The police insist that those killed were drug dealers and users
resisting arrest, but there have been countless credible reports of the police and their agents
planting guns and drugs on victims’ bodies to justify their execution-style killings.
In March 2019, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights said that an
estimated 27,000 people had been killed, with no one brought to justice except for in one high-
profile case. The police deny this figure but do admit to killing more than 6,600 people, only
underscoring the need for serious investigations, which the government has unsurprisingly
been unwilling to undertake.
The intrepid human rights defenders, politicians and journalists willing to report on or
denounce the “drug war” have been harassed, threatened, and arrested. Many activists and
human rights defenders have been killed in the context of the government’s
counterinsurgency campaign.
The Philippines is a member of the UN Human Rights Council and thus is expected to uphold
the highest standards of human rights. Instead, the government has refused to cooperate with
UN rights mechanisms and even publicly smeared UN experts who condemn its violations.
As early as June 2017, a large group of states expressed their concern in a joint statement at
the Council. Two further statements followed – the last of which foreshadowed formal
Council action if the situation did not improve.

GROUP 3
Members: Jordan, Rabuya, Castillo, Olaivar, Decipulo
CHINESE TAKE-OVER OF THE PHILIPPINE SEA
A unique feature of the Philippine Constitution is the definition of the national territory which is
not usually found in constitutions of other countries.
The 1987 Constitution defines the national territory as comprising the Philippine archipelago, the
archipelagic waters, and all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or
jurisdiction.
The national territory of the Philippines comprises:
1) The Philippine archipelago;

2) All other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction
PHILIPPINE ARCHIPELAGO – that body of water studded with islands which is delineated in
the Treaty of Paris (1898), as amended by the Treaty of Washington (1900) and the Treaty with
Great Britain (1930). – consists of its:
a) Terrestrial
b) Fluvial
c) Aerial domains
Including its a) Territorial sea b) The seabed c) The subsoil d) The insular shelves; and e) The
other submarine areas
INTERNAL WATERS – the waters around, between and Connecting the islands of the
archipelago, regardless of their breadth and dimensions
ALL OTHER TERRITORIES OVER WHICH THE PHILIPPINES HAS SOVEREIGNTY OR

JURISDICTION–includes any territory that presently belongs or might in the future belong to the
Philippines through any of the accepted international modes of acquiring territory.
ARCHIPELAGIC PRINCIPLE
Two elements:
1. The definition of internal waters.
2. The straight baseline method of delineating the territorial sea – consists of drawing straight
lines connecting the outermost points on the coast without departing to any appreciable extent
from the general direction of the coast.
Important distances with respect to the waters around the Philippines:

1. Territorial Sea 12 nautical miles (nautical miles)
2. Contiguous Zone 12 n.m. from the edge of the territorial sea
3. Exclusive Economic Zone 200 n.m. from the baseline - [includes T.S. and C.Z.]
NOTE: There can be a Continental Shelf without an EEZ, but not an EEZ without a Continental Shelf.
TERRITORIAL SEA
The belt of the sea located between the coast and internal waters of the coastal state on the one
hand, and the high seas on the other, extending up to 12 nautical miles from the low water mark.
CONTIGUOUS ZONE
Extends up to 12 nautical miles from the territorial sea. Although not part of the territory, the
coastal State may exercise jurisdiction to prevent infringement of customs, fiscal, immigration or
sanitary laws.
EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE
Body of water extending up to 200 nautical miles, within which the state may exercise sovereign
rights to explore, exploit, conserve and manage the natural resources
The state in the EEZ exercises jurisdiction with regard to:

1. the establishment and use of artificial islands, installations, and structures;
2. marine scientific research;
3. the protection and preservation of marine environment
RIGHTS VIOLATED OF THE CHINESE TAKEOVER OF THE WEST PHILIPPINE SEA.
China violated Philippine Sovereign Rights in the West Philippine Sea.
PRO Contention:
China has violated Philippines sovereign rights in the West Philippine Sea by preventing Filipinos
from fishing there and by constructing artificial islands. China had violated the Philippines’
sovereign rights with respect to the Philippiness exclusive economic zone and continental shelf.
(a) interfered with Philippine petroleum exploration at Reed Bank, b) purported to prohibit
fishing by Philippine vessels within the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone, (c) protected and
failed to prevent Chinese fishermen from fishing within the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone
at Mischief Reef and Second Thomas Shoal, and Recto Bank (d) constructed installations and
artificial islands at Mischief Reef without the authorization of the Philippines.
China’s actions preventing Filipino fishermen from getting to Scarborough Shoal, also known as
Panatag Shoal or Bajo de Masinloc, was illegal. China had violated its duty to respect to the
traditional fishing rights of Philippine fishermen by halting access to the shoal since 2012 and

recently ramming the Filipino fishing vessel in Recto Bank of which the Philippines has exclusive
rights.
The Chinese law enforcement vessels had repeatedly approached the Philippine vessels at high
speed and sought to cross ahead of them at close distances, creating serious risk of collision and
danger to Philippine ships and personnel, China had breached its obligations under the
Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972, and Article
94 the Convention concerning maritime safety,
Article XII, Section 2, OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION.
PRO Contention:
The constitution mandates, in accordance with Article X11, section 2, mandates that the
use and enjoyment of these resources shall be exclusively for the Filipino people. The
constitutional provision is not a thoughtless and senseless as President Duterte claims and that
all fish and mineral resources in the country’s EEZ, particularly the West Philippine Sea, belonged
exclusively Filipino under the Charter.
. This is a sovereign right which is a legal right possessed by the Philippines which enables
it to perform its official functions for the benefit of the public. Sovereign right is attributed
through authority of law, or in the case of the EEZ, the UNCLOS.
The government must protect the Philippines’ marine wealth, including its exclusive
economic zone, and reserve its use and enjoyment exclusively to Filipino citizens as mandated by
the Constitution amid a longstanding maritime row with China. “The Constitution mandates that
the ‘use and enjoyment’ of these resources shall be reserved ‘exclusively’ for the Filipino people.
The ‘use and enjoyment’ of these resources cannot be shared with, or given away, to foreign
nationals.”
This is exclusivity is not a ‘thoughtless and senseless’ provision in our Constitution as

President Rodrigo Duterte has unfortunately characterized... China itself reserves all the natural
resources in its own EEZ exclusively to Chinese citizens. Why will we not accept and protect this
exclusivity when the rest of the world is accepting and protecting this exclusivity?” China claims
most of the waterway, through which billions in trade passes annually, and has rejected a 2016
international tribunal ruling that its claim was without basis in law.
A 1982 United Nations treaty on the law of the sea gives coastal states like the Philippines
jurisdiction in exploring and exploiting marine resources over their exclusive economic zone,
including waters extending 322 kilometres (200 miles) from the shore.
China Violated the International United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
China violated international law by seizing territory in the region “with overwhelming force,”
with China over the right to exploit natural resources and fish in the West Philippine Sea by

invoking “historic rights” in claiming nearly all of the 3.5-million-square-kilometer South China
Sea.
Unclos, an international agreement reached between 1973 and 1982, guides nations on their rights
and responsibilities with respect to their use of the world’s oceans of which China is one of the
signatories, of which is considered as the constitution of the oceans.
Provisions of the Unclos precluded another state to broaden its “entitlements, sovereign rights,
or jurisdiction” over maritime areas beyond the limits of the EEZ and continental shelf it has
defined. China is not entitled to exercise what it refers to as historic rights over the waters, seabed
and subsoil beyond the limits of its entitlements under the convention.
It has finally been decided that the Philippines has exclusive sovereign rights over the West
Philippine Sea (in the South China Sea) and that China’s “nine-dash line” is invalid, according to
the Permanent Court of Arbitration
China has violated Article 11, Section 16
“The state shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord
with the rhythm and harmony of nature”
Chinese fishermen harvested endangered and threatened species and used cyanide and
explosives in their fishing. Foreign entities engaged by Chinese authorities constructed and
damaged coral reefs in the process. There is an actual violation of the constitutional right to a
balanced and healthful ecology arising from the omissions, failure, and/or refusal of government
to enforce Philippine laws in Panatag Shoal, Ayungin Shoal and Panganiban Reef.
China's large-scale land reclamation has caused severe harm to the coral reef environment and
violated its obligation to preserve and protect fragile ecosystems.
China was also remiss in failing to put a stop to the harmful "harvesting of endangered sea turtles,
coral and giant clams on a substantial scale by its fishermen.
China has violated Art XIII, Section 7
“The state shall protect the right of subsistence fishermen, especially of local communities, to the preferential
use of the communal marine and fishing resources, both inland and offshore”
Right to livelihood, the actions of China's military in forcing the Filipino fishermen to leave the
traditional and rich fishing grounds of Scarborough shoal and in preventing them from fishing
in the shoal constitutes a violation of Filipino fishermen's right to an adequate standard of living
under Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Right.
CONS:

The disputes in the South China Sea are difficult to resolve, through any means, because
the countries’ claims have some uncertainty. To start, countries have overlapping claims to
territory or land “features.” These features can take many familiar forms: islands, reefs, rocks and
so on. The Philippines, for example, has a claim to Mischief Reef, which is also claimed by China
(and Taiwan) and Vietnam. Despite the Philippines’s protests, China has controlled Mischief Reef
since the 1990s and, since last year, has built a military base on the reef.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments a plea by Palawan fisherfolk for a writ of kalikasan for
the rehabilitation and protection of the marine environment in Scarborough Shoal, Ayungin Shoal
and Panganiban Reef in the West Philippine Sea.
The SC en banc set oral arguments on the Kalayaan Palawan Farmers and Fisherfolk Association’s
petition on June 25.
The high court, in a special en banc session on May 3, issued the Writ of Kalikasan “to prevent
violations of Philippine environmental laws in Philippine Waters and in the Philippine Exclusive
Zone.”
The group is seeking the issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan and the Writ of Continuing Mandamus
to “prevent and prosecute violations of Philippine environmental laws in Philippine waters and
in the Philippine Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).”
The writ of kalikasan is a remedy formulated by the court to better protect the rights of the citizens
to a balanced and healthful ecology as enshrined in the Constitution. It is a remedy available for
persons whose constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology is violated, or threatened
with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or private
individual or entity.
The group also asked the SC to compel the government to protect and rehabilitate the Panatag
Shoal or Scarborough Shoal, Ayungin Shoal, and Mischief Reef or Panganiban Reef, which are
part of our EEZ.
The petitioners also asked the SC to direct the named government officials as respondents to
"permanently cease and desist from neglecting the performance of their duties in violation of
environmental laws resulting in environmental destruction or damage."
“There is an actual violation of Petitioners’ constitutional right to a balanced and healthful
ecology arising from the omissions, failure, and/or refusal of respondents to enforce Philippine
laws in Panatag Shoal, Ayungin Shoal and Panganiban Reef,” the petition read.
“Chinese fishermen harvested endangered and threatened species and used cyanide and
damaged coral reefs in the process,” the petitioners added.
The government has yet to file its Return of the writ or comment on the petition.

The Supreme Court issued Friday a writ of kalikasan for the rehabilitation and protection of the
marine environment in Scarborough Shoal, Ayungin Shoal and Panganiban Reef.
In a statement, the SC Public Information Office said that the justices in a special en banc session
“granted the prayer for the issuance of writ of kalikasan...to prevent violations of Philippine
environmental laws in Philippine Waters and in the Philippine Exclusive Zone.”
The SC acted on the petition filed by Kalayaan Palawan Farmers and Fisherfolk Association that
asked the court to compel the government to “prevent and prosecute violations of Philippine
environmental laws in Philippine waters and in the Philippine Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).”
The group also asked the SC to compel the government to protect and rehabilitate the Panatag
Shoal or Scarborough Shoal, Ayungin Shoal, and Mischief Reef or Panganiban Reef, which are
part of our EEZ.
The petitioners also asked the SC to direct the named government officials as respondents to
"permanently cease and desist from neglecting the performance of their duties in violation of
environmental laws resulting in environmental destruction or damage."
They petitioners raised that based on evidence submitted by the Philippines and reports from
independent experts, “the [South China Sea] Arbitral Tribunal found that Chinese fishermen and
foreign entities engaged by Chinese government authorities committed several acts that are
harmful to the environment,” which are:
 Harvesting of vulnerable, threatened and endangered species in Panatag and Ayungin shoals,
such as corals, giant clams/taklobo and marine turtles
 Use of cyanide and dynamite in Panatag Shoal and Ayungin Shoal, which is against the
Philippine Fisheries Code
 Intensive construction of artificial islands on seven coral reefs, including Panganiban Reef
“There is an actual violation of Petitioners’ constitutional right to a balanced and healthful

ecology arising from the omissions, failure, and/or refusal of respondents to enforce Philippine
laws in Panatag Shoal, Ayungin Shoal and Panganiban Reef,” the petition read.
“Chinese fishermen harvested endangered and threatened species and used cyanide and
damaged coral reefs in the process,” the petitioners added.
As critics question the presence of the Chinese ship that hit a Filipino boat near Recto Bank earlier
this month, President Duterte said China would continue to fish within the Philippines’ exclusive
economic zone (EEZ) because of the friendship between the two countries.
“I don’t think that China would do that. Why? Because we’re friends,” Duterte told reporters
Monday in Mandaluyong City, when asked if China should be prevented from fishing in the
Philippines’ EEZ.

“And they are of the same view that that should not result in any bloody confrontation,” he
added.
Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, a coastal state has sovereign rights
to explore, use, conserve and manage the natural resources in its 200-nautical- mile EEZ. Recto
Bank, known internationally as Reed Bank, is within the Philippines’ EEZ.
The Philippines and China are now investigating to determine who should be held accountable
for the boat sinking incident, but some sectors said the probe should also determine why a
Chinese vessel was in the Philippines’ EEZ in the first place.
The Chinese can fish in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the Philippines in the disputed
South China Sea, President Rodrigo Duterte's spokesman said Tuesday.
This, after Duterte said Manila and Beijing are "friends" when asked if the Philippines should
prevent China from fishing in its EEZ.
 Duterte tells Pinoy fishermen in Reed Bank incident: 'I'm sorry but that's how it is'
Kumbaga parang ito-tolerate mo lang. It’s not necessarily grant," Presidential spokesperson
Salvador Panelo told reporters.
"Kasi friends nga daw eh. Kung friend, ‘di magbibigayan kayo."
Panelo, however, said he will ask the President if allowing Chinese fishermen in Manila's EEZ is
a policy statement.
The statement comes after a Chinese ship rammed into a Filipino boat and left 22 fishermen at
sea near Reed Bank, located within Manila's 200-nautical-mile EEZ.
Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, however, said allowing China to fish in
the Philippines' EEZ is a violation of the Constitution.
Carpio cited the Constitution mandate which reads: "The State shall protect the nation’s marine
wealth in its xxx exclusive economic zone, and reserve its use and enjoyment exclusively to
Filipino citizens.”
"This means that the Philippine Government cannot allow Chinese fishermen to fish in our EEZ
in the West Philippine Sea. This also means that the 'use and enjoyment' of the fish in our EEZ is
reserved exclusively to Filipinos," he said.
The Philippines has exclusive sovereign right to exploit all the fish, oil, gas and other mineral
resources in its Exclusive Economic Zone. This sovereign right belongs to the Filipino people, and
no government official can waive this sovereign right of the Filipino people without their
consent."
Carpio said the President, as commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces, has the constitutional
duty to order the military to protect the nation’s marine wealth.

He also cited the arbitral ruling that decided with finality Manila's jurisdiction over its EEZ in the
West Philippine Sea.
Beijing, however, refuses to recognize the ruling that invalidated its economic claim to around 90
percent of the resource-rich South China Sea.Relations between the two nations have improved
considerably under Duterte, who set aside the 2016 landmark legal victory for enhanced ties.
A United Nations arbitration ruling that invalidated China's sweeping claims in the South China
Sea serves as a "bargaining leverage" for the Philippines, Malacañang said Friday.
Presidential Spokesman Salvador Panelo denied that the United Nations-backed ruling is useless,
saying it gives Manila an edge over Beijing.
"Meron kaming bargaining leverage...Kung wala yun [arbitral ruling], wala tayo, wala kang
ibibigay na, 'anong basis bakit kayo nandito?' Kaya hindi rin useless. Kaya lang, ang problema
nga ay iyong enforcement," he said.
(We have a bargaining leverage. If we didn't have that arbitral ruling, we can't say 'what is the
basis of your presence here?' It's not useless. The only problem now is the enforcement of the
ruling.)
Given Manila's closer ties with Beijing under President Duterte, Panelo said the Philippines can
deal with China through "friendly negotiations" since the economic giant refuses to recognize the
tribunal ruling.
"What we cannot get from the arbitral ruling through force or enforcement, we can get through
friendly negotiations," he said.
The Philippines in 2016 defeated China in the Hague-based international tribunal after the court
invalidated Beijing's sweeping nine-dash line claim over the South China Sea.
The ruling, which Beijing refuses to recognize, was handed down at the start of President Rodrigo
Duterte's term.
Critics have slammed Duterte for refusing to flaunt the Philippines' arbitral victory in exchange
for closer ties with Asia's economic superpower.
Duterte on Thursday said Chinese President Xi Jinping once warned him of "trouble" should
Manila decide to pursue oil exploration in the West Philippine Sea.
Panelo said Duterte is "making his enemies his friends" for the mutual benefit of the Philippines
and China.
"He is making his enemies friends so that both sides will mutually gain benefit from whatever
they have," he said.
Duterte said the Philippines cannot impose sanctions on the Chinese ship unless there is an
investigation.

“But whether or not it is acceptable to the Chinese side is something which is altogether
different,” he said.
Presidential spokesman Salvador Panelo said China would not allow itself to be barred from
fishing in Philippine EEZ because it claims historic rights over the area.
“They will not allow it because as far as they are concerned, they have historical right to that.
Two, if we will allow it because we’re friends naman, eh di magbigayan muna tayo, yun ang
punto ni Presidente (Let’s share resources. That’s the point of the President),” Panelo said at a
press briefing yesterday.
But Panelo stressed that the Philippines does not recognize China’s claim of historic rights.
“Didn’t the President ask them what was their basis for claiming the entire South China Sea? Just
because its name is South China Sea? We don’t believe that,” the spokesman said.
But Panelo said the President does not grant China the right to fish in the Philippines’ EEZ.
“Hindi naman grant, siguro parang tino-tolerate mo lang (Not really grant, perhaps you are just
tolerating it), not necessarily grant. Para kasing friends nga daw eh, kung friends eh di
magbibigayan kayo (Since we are friends, let’s share resources),” he said.
Panelo also said he would ask Duterte whether his remarks constitute a policy statement. He
claimed the President was not committing treason when he made the statement because the
arbitral court’s ruling in 2016 had noted that a state may allow another state to exploit the
resources within its EEZ.
Third party probe
Panelo stressed that Duterte is open to conducting a joint probe and having a third party conduct
an investigation on the incident. He also said China should release the findings of its
investigation.
“Kailangan ilabas na lang nila, bakit ko pa tatanungin? (They should release it. Why do I have to
ask them?)” Panelo told CNN Philippines yesterday when asked whether he inquired with
Chinese Ambassador Zhao Jianhua about the results of Beijing’s probe.
“You know, from the very start, they said they (would) hold accountable the guilty party and
they (would) not tolerate such ‘irresponsible behavior.’ That was their assurance,” he added.
Panelo said there is a need to determine whether the vessel that rammed the Filipino boat
belonged to the Chinese militia.
“So if it’s a private vessel, the government should not be involved... (If it’s a Chinese militia), they
would have a problem. They will have to do something about that,” he added.

Panelo said the administration is still waiting for China’s response on the proposal to conduct a
joint probe.
“If the findings of the two sides are the same with respect to the issues raised like the nature of
the accident, like the accountability, plus the compensation, so why is there a need to have
another party resolve it?” he said.
Panelo said Zhao had expressed optimism that the issue would be resolved.
“He said there is nothing that the best of friends will not agree on. We are friends so we can settle
this for the benefit of those involved. What is important to the Philippines is that the act of
abandoning our Filipino fishermen is condemnable and there should be accountability for that.
We’re concerned on that,” the spokesman said.
For her part, Sen. Cynthia Villar said it is unnecessary to have a third party in the probe of the
sinking of the Gem Vir 1.
Villar told local newsmen in Dagupan City yesterday after she spoke at the Pangasinan State
University commencement exercises that the Philippines should investigate the incident on its
own.
Can’t be trusted
From his first hand experience as the Philippines’ top diplomat, former foreign affairs secretary
Albert del Rosario said China “cannot be trusted.”
Speaking to “The Chiefs” Monday night on One News-Cignal TV, Del Rosario cited examples of
China’s unreliable declaration, including a transaction brokered by the United States that China
allegedly breached.
China had said in the White House that it would not militarize the South China Sea.
“As they were saying this they were militarizing. The same with another leader about island
building. At the time they were saying this, at that particular time, on the ground they were island
building,” Del Rosario added.
A US Department of Defense annual report to Congress noted that China continued militarization
in the South China Sea by placing anti-ship cruise missiles and long range surface-to-air missiles
on outposts in the Spratly Islands.
This allegedly violated a 2015 pledge by Chinese President Xi Jinping that China does not intend
to pursue militarization of the Spratly Islands, the US Department of Defense report also said.
“So I have had this experience and dealing with their ambassador as well that China cannot be
trusted, but what can you do, right? So we need to work with our allies more closely. We have
many allies,” Del Rosario said.

The Philippines’ allies, he said, want a rules-based order.
“This is the only way that we can work well together and the rule of law should be upheld,” Del
Rosario said.
Even with full accommodations being granted to China by the Philippine government, Del
Rosario pointed out that Beijing allegedly continues its unlawful actions on Filipinos
CONS
China said that it was the victim in the maritime dispute over the West Philippine Sea and that it
would never accept any decision by the United Nations (UN) arbitral tribunal.
“The origin and crux of the disputes between China and the Philippines in the South China Sea
lie in the territorial sovereignty disputes caused by the Philippines’ illegal occupation of some
islands and reefs of China’s Nansha Islands since the 1970s.
Being a victim of the South China Sea issue, China, bearing in mind the whole situation of regional
peace and stability, has been exercising utmost restraint,” indisputable sovereignty” and “historic
rights” to the South China Sea.
On issues of territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests, China will never accept any
imposed solution or unilaterally resorting to a third-party settlement
China has always adhered to and has been committed to resolving, in accordance with
international law and on the basis of respecting historical facts, relevant disputes relating to
territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests with relevant states directly concerned
through negotiation and consultation
This is China’s consistent practice, and also common practice of the international
community. China urges the Philippines to return to the right approach of resolving relevant
disputes through negotiation and consultation as soon as possible
We are the victims in dispute; won’t heed UN decision.
The correct recourse’
Duterte enjoys firm popular backing but his setting aside of the standoff with China over the
resource-rich waterway is criticized as weakness by some in the Philippines.
The issue has flared up since a Chinese fishing trawler hit and sank a Filipino boat on June 9 near
Reed Bank, an area that is within Manila's territory but which is also claimed by Beijing.

After a string of small street protests, as well as criticism from opposition politicians and former
officials, Duterte lashed out while talking to reporters late Thursday.
"Impeach me? I will arrest all of them. I dare you to do it," Duterte said.
"I tell these stupid people, I said I deal with reality," he added.
Critics had raised the spectre of impeachment after Duterte, responding to the sinking
controversy, said he allowed Chinese fishermen in Philippine waters because "we're friends".
In the same graduation speech on Saturday, Carpio said “the correct recourse is to protect our
territorial integrity through the rule of law.”
“That is why when China seized Scarborough Shoal in 2012, we did not send the Philippine
marines to retake Scarborough Shoal. We sent our lawyers to The Hague to protect our territorial
integrity by invalidating China’s nine-dashed line before an arbitral tribunal under UNCLOS,”
he said.
“We brought the resolution of the dispute to a forum where warships, warplanes, missiles and
nuclear bombs do not count, and where the dispute would be resolved only in accordance with
the rule of law. And we won an overwhelming victory. We thus protected our territorial integrity
through the rule of law,” he added
The ruling is a landmark for international law and for foreign policy in Southeast Asia,
the case is still situated within a broader diplomatic and geopolitical context. This is a context that
the Philippine government must work with in achieving the overall objectives of its foreign
policy, whose paramount considerations in the Constitution are national sovereignty, territorial
integrity, national interest and self-determination. In perspective, the case is a single salvo in a
long effort to bring the disputes to a peaceful conclusion and to preserve friendly and constructive
relations among the countries in the region to the extent possible.
Despite the large distance between the Philippines and China in terms of economic and
military might, the Philippine government decided to pursue a foreign policy, anchored on
principle, that stood against “might makes right” thinking. The lengths to which Filipinos have
upheld this commitment cannot be underestimated. No matter the outcome of Hague ruling, the
decision to is one of the country’s boldest moves since independence.
On the side of duterte administration:
Terminology
 Internationally, it’s called “South China Sea” and not the “West Philippine Sea”, so let’s start
calling it the “South China Sea” and stop using “West Philippine Sea”. We only started calling it
the latter because of former President Aquino’s 2012 administrative order [AO 29 s. 2012], but the
rest of the planet still calls it the “South China Sea”.
Issue involve in west philippine conflict

 What phillipine want and want china want
a. Philippine want to affirm in this conflict
i. China’s historic rights in the South China Sea, which forms the basis for the nine-dash line, is
invalid.
ii. All the “islands” in the Spratly islands do not generate maritime zones.
iii. China and its citizens unlawfully prevent the Philippines from exploiting its exclusive economic
zone (EEZ).
iv. China damaged the environment.
v. China’s construction activities are unlawful.
vi. China should be expressly told to respect UNCLOS.
b. China want in this conflict
i. China owns the Spratly Islands because of the nine-dash line which, according to China and
ii. is backed by China’s long and ancient history of occupation of the area.
Permanent court of arbitration resolving those issue involved in this case
1. The Nine-dash Line and Historic Rights are invalid.

 According to the decision of the Arbitration tribunal
 “The Tribunal found that China’s claim to historic rights to resources was incompatible with the
detailed allocation of rights and maritime zones in the Convention and concluded that, to the
extent China had historic rights to resources in the waters of the South China Sea, such rights
were extinguished by the entry into force of the Convention to the extent they were incompatible
with the Convention’s system of maritime zones were extinguished by the entry into force of the
Convention to the extent they were incompatible with the Convention’s system of maritime
zones.”
 Explanation
 China’s historical rights argument essentially states that China thinks the disputed areas belong
to them because history suggests that they have been in control of the area before anyone else.
However, PCA decided that this claim is incompatible with UNCLOS and even if such claim is
valid, China’s entry into UNCLOS extinguished those rights.
2. Spratly Islands DO NOT create maritime zones
 According to the decision
 “The Tribunal concluded that all of the high-tide features in the Spratly Islands...
are legally “rocks” that do not generate an exclusive economic zone or continental shelf...The
Tribunal also held that the Convention does not provide for a group of islands such as the Spratly
Islands to generate maritime zones collectively as a unit.”
 Explanation:
 Basically, the land features found within the Spratly Islands do not “legally” qualify as islands.
This distinction is important because islands generate 12 nautical mile (12 NM) territorial waters
[UNCLOS Part II Sec 3 Art 3], and everything within the area is sovereign property of the country
that owns the island. Rocks, meanwhile, generate neither territorial waters (TW) nor Exclusive
Economic Zones (EEZ) [UNCLOS Part V Art 57].
 Difference of Sovereignty vs Sovereign Rights
 Sovereignty
 bestows full rights, or supreme authority, on a country within its territorial waters, which stretch
to 12 nautical miles.

 Sovereign rights in an EEZ
 which are much further out to sea, “no longer concerns all of state activities, but only some of
them”, according to UNCLOS. In the Philippines’ case, that would include the exploration and
exploitation of its undersea natural resources.
3. Chinese Activities in the South China Sea
 China’s recent large-scale land reclamation and construction of artificial islands... The Tribunal
concluded that China had violated its obligations to refrain from aggravating or extending the
Parties’ disputes during the pendency of the settlement process.”
4. Future Conduct
 “The Tribunal considered the Philippines’ request for a declaration that, going forward, China
shall respect the rights and freedoms of the Philippines and comply with its duties under the
Convention.The Tribunal therefore considered that no further declaration was necessary
list down some of the major practical implications of this UNCLOS decision.
1. Violation vs Penalty
 PCA said China violated UNCLOS, but it clearly DID NOT prescribe any penalties, chiefly
because it has neither the power nor the authority to do so.
 This is the primary criticism against the arbitration procedures since the 2013. If there is no way
to enforce the decision, what’s the point of having to coming with a decision? Apparently, for
PNoy, the idea of being told we are right is important even if it has no real economic value.
2. Applicability
 While the PCA said China neither has territorial waters nor EEZs in the contested area, it is clear
that it did not explicitly declare that the contested area is “owned” by the Philippines. There’s a
reason behind this.
 PCA decision applies only to the parties to the case, China and the Philippines. It does not,
however, apply to all other claimants in the area. That basically means Vietnam, which claims the
ENTIRE Spratly Islands, is not affected by the decision.
 This means we still need to negotiate with Vietnam before doing anything in the Spratly Islands.
Malaysia is also a claimant of part of the Spratly Islands, so we will also need to negotiate with
them if we want to exploit areas that overlap with Malaysia’s claims.
3. Soveriegn rights
 Given that most areas in the South China Sea are contested by more than two claimants, it is
reasonable to infer that we can, at least in theory, explore those which are contested by China and
the Philippines only.
Best Course of Action
 Strike a deal with China. If the best deal possible is unconstitutional or too disadvantageous for
us, then cease discussions. The problem, however, IS WE NEVER EVEN TRIED.
 This is a win-win situation, especially because it may allow us not only to exploit previously
untappable resources, but also to leverage Mainland China’s might to silence Taiwanese dissent
over the prospective venture.

1st Speaker: ladies and gentle, to our distinguished professor a pleasant evening. As the first
speaker for the opposition side I would like to express my utter disagreement with what my
opponent had stated earlier. We on the opposition side firmly believes that China did not violate
any sovereign rights nor did it violate any human rights of any Filipino. I would discuss why
such violations did not occur. There are two points that I will discuss First, China’s historic right
over the south china sea. Second, China’s right to protect what it believes is rightfully theirs.
To discuss my first point, China did not violate the sovereign rights of the Philippines over their
so called EEZ mainly because China have a nine dash line which it has been observing ever since
before the UNCLOS and believes the nine dash line includes that part which the Philippines
claims as part of its EEZ. Also the existence of the historic right of China negates the Philippine
claim of sovereign rights over the disputed area.
According to the Chinese government in a press release before the arbitral tribunal decisioncame
out: “The activities of the Chinese people in the South China Sea date back to over 2,000 years
ago. China is the first to have discovered, named, and explored and exploited Nanhai Zhudao
[the South China Sea Islands] and relevant waters, and the first to have exercised sovereignty and
jurisdiction over them continuously, peacefully and effectively, thus establishing territorial
sovereignty and relevant rights and interests in the South China Sea.” China believes this as a
historical fact although when the arbitral decision came up it says otherwise.
The inviolability of territorial sovereignty is the basic norm of international relations and the
fundamental principle of international law and the cornerstone of the stability of international
relations. The Convention has never given a State the right to violate the territorial sovereignty
of another country by claiming the maritime jurisdiction of the Convention. The Philippines
unilaterally initiated and forcibly advanced arbitration, denying China’s territorial sovereignty
over the Nansha Islands with so-called maritime jurisdiction, was a provocation to the basic
principles of international law that respected sovereignty and territorial integrity, and shaken the
foundations of modern international law and international order.
To make it short, the South China Sea arbitration case mentioned by the Philippines is a political
farce in a legal cloak. It is impossible to change the “old pattern” or create a “new reality”. China's
sovereignty and related rights in the South China Sea were formed in the long-term historical
process. China have sufficient historical and legal basis and are adhered to by successive Chinese
governments and protected by international laws including the Convention.
Therefore, if China would agree to be bound by the decision of the arbitral tribunal it would
greatly deprive not just the Chinese fishermen depending on their catch from the south china sea
as a source of their livelihood but also all the people of China of the enjoyment of what was
historically and rightfully theirs.
Second point, it is the firm belief of the opposition that China owns the disputed area and
therefore has the right to protect its territory. The incidents that transpired in the outset of the
conflict in the south china sea are just natural occurrences in China’s move to protect its territorial

integrity. China is not depriving the filipino fishermen of their rights to livelihood, it just so
happened that they are fishing on Chinese territory and of course as a natural response the
Chinese government must drive them away or at least do something about their illegal acts.
It is basic in international law that a state has the right to protect its territory and what China is
doing is necessary to protect the latter. Basic human rights in the form of an act which is generally
considered as illegal must not be used as a justification to violate the right of another which is
protected and guaranteed by law.

GROUP 4
Members: Ponce, Medida, Domalanta, Chiong, Dizon
ROHINGYA DISCRIMINATION
THE ROHINGYA REFUGEE CRISIS
What is the Rohingya Crisis?
⮚ It is the ongoing persecutions by the Myanmar government against the Muslim Rohingyas.
⮚ Since August 25, 2017, the Burmese security forces have been carrying out a campaign of ethnic
cleansing against the Rohingya Muslims in Rakhine State.
⮚ Over half a million Rohingyas have fled to the neighboring countries such as Bangladesh and
India to escape killings, arson, gang rape and other mass atrocities.
Who are the Rohingyas?
⮚ The Rohingya people are one of the most persecuted minority groups and largest stateless
population in the world.
⮚ The Rohingyas are one of the largest percentage of Muslims ethnic minorities in Myanmar,
formerly living in the Rakhine State within Myanmar.
⮚ They have their own language and culture and said to be the descendants of the Arab traders
who have been in Myanmar for generations.
⮚ - But the government of Myanmar, a predominantly Buddhist Country, denies the Rohingya
citizenship, are not considered their citizens.They claimed that Rohingyas are illegal immigrants
from Bangladesh.
⮚ - They have officially been denied Burmese citizenship since 1982 when the Burmese nationality
law was enacted.
⮚ - They have been described as "amongst the world's least wanted“ and "one of the world's most
persecuted minorities” by the UN.
Why are they fleeing?
o The Myanmar government has effectively institutionalized discrimination against the ethnic
group through restrictions on marriage, family planning, employment, health care,education,
religious choice, and freedom of movement.
o Clashes in Rakhine broke out in August 2017, after a militant group known as the Arakan
Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA) claimed responsibility for attacks on police and army posts.
o Because of this, the Myanmar military began a major crackdown in the villages of northern
Rakhine state where majority of the Rohingya people lived.
o The government declared ARSA a terrorist organization and the military mounted a brutal
campaign that destroyed hundreds of Rohingya villages and forced nearly seven hundred
thousand Rohingya to leave Myanmar.

o Those who fled Myanmar to escape persecution reported that women had been gang raped, men
killed, houses torched, young children thrown into burning houses, and their boats were gunned
down by the Myanmar military.
o Extreme violence and brutalities were carried out by the Myanmar military against the Rohingya
people.
o But the military and civilian officials have repeatedly denied that the security forces committed
abuses during operations, claims which are contradicted by extensive evidence and witness
accounts.
o
HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION ISSUES
I. Genocide
II. Crimes against humanity
III. Rights of Stateless persons violated
IV. Racial Discrimination
V. Right to Life (natural right)
I. Genocide- the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic
group or nation.
Genocide events of the past:
A. 1915 Armenian Genocide
B. 1933 Holocaust
C. 1975 Cambodia
D. 1990 Rwanda
A. The Armenian Genocide

× Armed roundups began on the evening of April 24, 1915, as 300 Armenian intellectuals – political
leaders, educators, writers, and religious leaders in Constantinople – were forcibly taken from
their homes, tortured, then hanged or shot. The call was made the “Young Turks”, or the Turkish
government.
× In the wake of the disappearance of the Armenian population, Muslim Turks quickly assumed
ownership of everything left behind. The Turks demolished any remnants of Armenian cultural
heritage including masterpieces of ancient architecture, old libraries and archives. The Turks
leveled entire cities including the once thriving Kharpert, Van and the ancient capital at Ani, to
remove all traces of the three thousand year old civilization.

× The death marches killed roughly 1.5 million Armenians, covered hundreds of miles and lasted
multiple months. Indirect routes through wilderness areas were deliberately chosen in order to
prolong marches and keep the caravans away from Turkish villages.
B. The Holocaust
- In the German parliament, the Nazi party, led by Adolf Hitler, gained popularity. The number of
seats Nazis controlled in the parliament rose from 12 in 1928 to 230 in 1932, making them the
largest political party. The strong showing guaranteed the Nazi party would need to be part of
any political coalition. Believing he could check Hitler’s ambition, President Hindenburg
reluctantly made Hitler the Chancellor of Germany on January 30, 1933.
- Shortly after Hitler came to power, the Reichstag building, seat of the German parliament, burnt
down. Communists were blamed for setting the fire and Hindenburg declared a state of
emergency, passing the Reichstag Fire Decree that suspended basic rights like trial by jury. The
German Communist Party was suspended and over 4,000 members were detained without trial.
The next month, Hitler’s cabinet passed the Enabling Act which allowed him to enact laws
without the consent of the parliament for four years, effectively transforming the German
government into a de facto Nazi dictatorship.
- The government defined a Jewish person as someone with three or four Jewish grandparents, not
someone who had religious convictions. This meant that people who had never practiced, or
hadn’t practiced Judaism in many years, or even converted to Christianity were subjected to
persecution. Although anti-semitism was pervasive in 1930s Germany, these restrictions
frequently extended to any person the Nazis considered to be “non-Aryan”.
- When the Nazi’s rose to power they built facilities to hold and, eventually kill, their enemies.
When the first concentration camps were built in 1933, this primarily meant political dissidents
and opponents of the Nazi government, such as German Communists, Socialists, Social
Democrats but would grow to include asocial groups – Gypsies, Jehovah’s Witnesses, the
homeless, the mentally ill and homosexuals. It was not until Kristallnacht that the prisoners
became primarily Jewish.
C. The Cambodian Genocide
The Communist Party of Kampuchea, informally known as the Khmer Rouge, referencing the
majority ethnicity of the country and red as the color of communism, was originally born out of
the struggle against French colonization and was influenced by the Vietnamese. The movement
was fueled by the first Indochina War in the 1950s, evolving into an official party in 1968 and
grew over the next 20 years.
The Khmer Rouge regime was extremely brutal. The regime generally singled out doctors,
teachers, monks, journalists, the rich, artists, anyone with an education, and ethnic or religious
minorities. But they also executed people who could no longer work or make the journey to the
camps, those perceived to be in opposition to the party (whether or not this was true), as well as
the families of those were deemed undesirable so that they could not be chased down for revenge.
The killing fields were sites set up all over the country where the Khmer Rouge took people to be
killed once they could no longer work, had “confessed” to their alleged crimes, or simply just
were not seen as being useful anymore. It is estimated that over one million people were killed at
these sites and were buried in mass graves.

Today many of the killing fields have been excavated to give the victims a proper burial but some
are also inaccessible due to landmines. One of the more famous ones is Choeung Ek located on
the outskirts of Phnom Penh. Here people were taken for execution after enduring torture and
interrogation at the S-21 prison, a former high school. It has been turned into a memorial site for
visitors to learn about the genocide and pay their respects to the victims.
Unlike in other genocides or conflicts, no one was immune from being branded an enemy of the
state. Even if one was considered to be on the right side that could change the next day – many
Khmer Rouge members were also killed during purges.
Children and babies were not exempt from their cruelty; it was often noted “to stop the weeds
you must also pull up their roots.” Anyone affiliated with Lon Nol’s regime or military was also
immediately killed.
No evidence was needed in order to send one to prison and people often fabricated their
confessions of various crimes, with the belief that this would end their torment. In reality, they
were more often than not executed once they gave up a list of names of new people to arrest.
D. The Rwandan Genocide

Civil war broke out in Rwanda in 1990, exacerbating existing tensions between the Tutsi minority
and Hutu majority. The civil war began when Rwandan exiles formed a group called the
Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) and launched an offensive against Rwanda from their home base
in Uganda.
The RPF, which was comprised of mostly Tutsis, placed blame on the government for failing to
address the Tutsi refugees. All Tutsis in the country were characterized as accomplices of the RPF
and all Hutu members of the opposition parties were deemed traitors. Despite the opposition
forces reaching a peace agreement in 1992, political negotiations continued in attempts to achieve
harmony between the Tutsis and Hutus.
The president’s death provided a spark for an organized campaign of violence against Tutsi and
moderate Hutu civilians across the country. In just a matter of hours, Hutu rebels surrounded the
capital and took over the streets of Kigali. Within a day, the Hutus had successfully eliminated
Rwanda’s moderate leadership. As the weeks progressed, Tutsis and anyone suspected of having
any ties to a Tutsi, were killed.
The political vacuum enabled Hutu extremists to take control of the country. Detailed lists of
Tutsi targets were prepared in advance and government radio stations called upon Rwandans to
murder their neighbors. These specific lists included names, addresses and sometimes license
plates. Through radio hate speech, people were encouraged to take the streets and exterminate
those who matched the list.
The radio was utilized to not only list the location of specific Tutsis to be targeted, but to also
justify the genocide. Radio hosts discussed discrimination the Hutus suffered under the power
of the Tutsis. Strong connotations describing Hutus as slaves during colonization painted the
Rwandan genocide as a type of slave rebellion. Radio stories were used to anger the Hutus and
channel that anger into action. Radio was also used to dehumanize Tutsis by calling them
“cockroaches,” making acts of violence against them seem less inhumane.

The extremist Hutus strategy turned into an extermination campaign as they began to encounter
resistance from the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), a Tutsi rebel group. The RPF fought back as
the violence grew more severe, creating a toxic mix of both civil war and genocide. In response,
the Hutus changed their strategy, believing if the opposition was completely exterminated, their
majority power and status would be reassured and preserved. Thus, they set out to get rid of the
Tutsis completely.
In addition to the brutal mass killings, systematic rape was also widely used as a weapon of war
during the Rwandan genocide. The exact number is unknown, but it is estimated that between
250,000 and 500,000 women were raped. It was considered another way to destroy the Tutsi ethnic
group, through both the emotional pain (so the woman could “die of sadness”), and through the
health problems that would be a result. Often times, women did not even have to succumb to the
aftermath of rape as they were often immediately killed right after.
Over the course of the 100 days, the RPF began to make gains on both the battlefield and in the
negotiations led by Tanzania. By early July, the RPF had control of the majority of the country.
Fearing reprisal killings, hundreds of thousands of Hutus fled the country.
II. CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY
According to Article 7 of the Rome Statute of The International Criminal Court, the crimes of humanity
means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack
directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack: (MEEDITRPEAO)
(a) Murder;
(b) Extermination
(c) Enslavement
(d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
(e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental

rules of international law;

(f) Torture;
(g) Rape, sexual slavery,

enforced prostitution,
forced pregnancy, enforced
sterilization, or any other
form of sexual violence of
comparable gravity;
(h) Persecution against

any identifiable group or
collectivity on political,
racial, national, ethnic,
cultural, religious, gender
as defined in paragraph 3,
or other grounds that are
universally recognized as
impermissible under
international law, in
connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the
Court;
(i) Enforced disappearance of persons;
(j) The crime of apartheid;
(k) Other inhumane acts of

a similar character
intentionally causing great
suffering, or serious injury to
body or to mental or physical
health.
Crimes against humanity vs.

Genocide
II. Crimes against humanity is present in the Rohingya refugee crisis:

- With the ethnic cleansing campaign of the Myanmar government, the atrocities committed by the
Myanmar’s security forces including mass killings, sexual violence and widespread arson
amounts to crimes against humanity.
- Persecution against any identifiable group on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious
or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible accumulate to crimes against
humanity.
- The Rohingyas are being persecuted for the sole reason of their differing religious and ethnic
identities with the Buddhist Myanmar government.
III. RIGHTS OF THE STATELESS PERSON

“STATELESS PERSON’’- Means a person who is not considered as a national by any state under
the operation of its law (Art.1, Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Person).
Naturalization
The Contracting States shall as far as possible facilitate the assimilation and naturalization of
stateless persons. They shall in particular make every effort to expedite naturalization
proceedings and to reduce as far as possible the charges and costs of such proceedings. (Art. 32,
Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Person)
Religion
The Contracting States shall accord to stateless persons within their territories treatment at least
as favourable as that accorded to their nationals with respect to freedom to practise their religion
and freedom as regards the religious education of their children. (Art. 4, Convention Relating to
the Status of Stateless Person)
Administrative Assistance
When the exercise of a right by a stateless person would normally require the assistance of
authorities of a foreign country to whom he cannot have recourse, the Contracting State in whose
territory he is residing shall arrange that such assistance be afforded to him by their own
authorities. (Art. 25, Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Person)
Freedom of Movement
Each Contracting State shall accord to stateless persons lawfully in its territory the right to choose
their place of residence and to move freely within its territory, subject to any regulations
applicable to aliens generally in the same circumstances. (Art. 26, Convention Relating to the
Status of Stateless Person)
IV. RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

Discrimination
❖ Failure to treat everyone alike according to the standards and rules of action.

❖ Focuses on the equality, dignity and rights of human beings without distinction as to race,
nationality or religion.
❖ Sources include the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights, the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and the Convention on the Elimination of All
Forms of Discrimination Against Women.
Racial Discrimination
❖ International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
❖ Adopted in 1965
❖ Ratified by the Philippines on September 15, 1967
❖ means “Any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, color, descent, or
national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the
recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental
freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life” (Art. 1).
❖ All States Parties are obliged to eliminate racial discrimination in all its forms and to guarantee
every ethnic origin in order to achieve equality before the law (Art. 5)
❖ Ex. Apartheid – a policy adopted in South Africa that provides racial separation, segregation and
denial of all forms of political and civil rights.
Racial Discrimination of the Rohingya
❖ 1982 Citizenship law
❖ Government refusal to grant citizenship to Rohingya
❖ Stateless because most of the group’s members have no legal documentation
❖ full citizenship is primarily based on membership of the “national races” who are considered by
the State to have settled in Myanmar prior to 1824, the date of first occupation by the British.
Despite generations of residence in Myanmar, the Rohingya are not considered to be amongst
these official indigenous races and are thus effectively excluded from full citizenship.
❖ The 1982 Citizenship Law is discriminatory on the grounds of race, since access to citizenship is
primarily based on race, and excludes certain races and ethnic groups, most notably the Rohingya
hundreds of thousands for whom have been made stateless.
❖ Myanmar’s 1982 Citizenship Law violates the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which rests
on the principles of non-discrimination and provides that everyone has a right to a nationality.

❖ It violates the Convention on the Rights of the Child which obliges states to ensure a child’s right
to acquire a nationality, and international norms prohibiting discrimination of racial and religious
minorities, such as the UN General Assembly Resolution on the International Convention on the
Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination.
❖ Restrictions on marriage, family planning, employment, education, religious choice.
❖ Rohingya couples in the northern towns of Maungdaw and Buthidaung are only allowed to have
two children.
❖ Rohingya must also seek permission to marry, which may require them to bribe authorities and
provide photographs of the bride without a headscarf and the groom with a clean-shaven face,
practices that conflict with Muslim customs.
❖ To move to a new home or travel outside their townships, Rohingya must gain government
approval.
V. Right to Life
ARTICLE III - BILL OF RIGHTS
Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor
shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
Section 12. (2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate
the free will shall be used against him.
Section 5. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without
discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed.
Section 18. (1) No person shall be detained solely by reason of his political beliefs and aspirations.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)
Article 1. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
Article 3. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Article 4. No one shall be held in slavery...

Article 5. No one shall be subjected to torture...
Article 6. Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
Effects of the degradation of the Right to Life:
In these countries they continue to face discrimination as a result of their statelessness which
leads to significant challenges in accessing basic rights such as education, health and legitimate
employment.
- This in turn makes them vulnerable to exploitation, more likely to be trapped in poverty and
increases stigma against them.
- Crimes committed among themselves increase
- Vicious inter-generational cycle
Rohingyan’s Right to Life

⮚ “They are have been described as amongst the ‘world's least wanted’ and ‘one of the world's most
persecuted minorities’ by the UN.”
Legal Definition Practical/Actual Definition:
1. Bill of Rights Statefulness

vs
2. UN Charter
Statelessness
3. UDHR
Biggest Issue/Question?
Is having a nationality or being sponsored by a State a condition sine qua non whether a persons
is to be entitled to the right to life and all the protection that goes along with it?
If not, then why is no one being responsible and accountable for the atrocities which the
Rohingyan experience? Immunity or Impunity?
Duterte’s Response to the Rohingya Crisis
President Rodrigo Duterte on Tuesday (February 27,2019) offered Filipino citizenship to

Rohingya refugees as he reiterated his willingness to accept them into the country.
“I am willing to accept Rohingyas. ‘Yung talagang walang mapuntahan tatanggapin ko ‘yan,

gawain kong Pilipino,” he said in a speech before a convention of the League of Municipalities of
the Philippines at the Manila Hotel.
https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2018/04/07/1803600/philippines-accept-refugees-
myanmar-genocide

GROUP 5
Members: Lopez, Cañon, Villacorta, Bataoil, Galla
TRUMP ON MEXICANS CROSSING THE BORDER
Brief History of Mexican-Us migration
Emigration from Mexico began timidly about a century ago, but experienced a significant increase
since the 1950s following the Mexican–American War which was concluded by the Treaty of
Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, and later, the Gadsden Purchase in 1853, approximately 300,000
Mexican nationals found themselves living within the United States. The emigration
phenomenon, in the case of Mexico is diverse and varied through the country. This is due to the
economic situation that applies mainly to impoverished people, who seek better job opportunities
in other countries. More than 11% of Mexico’s native population lives abroad, making it the
country with the most emigrants in the world. 98% of all Mexican emigrants reside in the United
States, which are more than 12 million (documented and undocumented) migrants.
Immigration Law
I. Family-Based Immigration
Family unification is an important principle governing immigration policy. The family-

based immigration category allows U.S. citizens and LPRs to bring certain family
members to the United States. Family-based immigrants are admitted either as immediate
relatives of U.S. citizens or through the family preference system.
II. Employment-Based Immigration
The United States provides various ways for immigrants with valuable skills to come to
the country on either a permanent or a temporary basis.
- Temporary Visa Classifications

Temporary employment-based visa classifications permit employers to hire and petition
for foreign nationals for specific jobs for limited periods.
- Permanent Immigration
Refugees and Asylees
Protection of Refugees, Asylees, and other Vulnerable Populations
There are several categories of legal admission available to people who are fleeing
persecution or are unable to return to their homeland due to life-threatening or
extraordinary conditions.
Refugees are admitted to the United States based upon an inability to return to their home
countries because of a “well-founded fear of persecution” due to their race, membership
in a particular social group, political opinion, religion, or national origin.
Asylum is available to persons already in the United States who are seeking protection
based on the same five protected grounds upon which refugees rely. They may apply at
a port of entry at the time they seek admission or within one year of arriving in the United
States. There is no limit on the number of individuals who may be granted asylum in a
given year nor are there specific categories for determining who may seek asylum
Forms of Humanitarian Relief
Temporary Protected Status (TPS)
Granted to people who are in the United States but cannot return to their home country
because of “natural disaster,” “extraordinary temporary conditions,” or “ongoing armed
conflict.” TPS is granted to a country for six, 12, or 18 months and can be extended beyond
that if unsafe conditions in the country persist. TPS does not necessarily lead to LPR status
or confer any other immigration status.
Deferred Enforced Departure (DED)
Provides protection from deportation for individuals whose home countries are unstable,
therefore making return dangerous. Unlike TPS, which is authorized by statute, DED is
at the discretion of the executive branch. DED does not necessarily lead to LPR status or
confer any other immigration status.
Certain individuals may be allowed to enter the U.S. through parole, even though they
may not meet the definition of a refugee and may not be eligible to immigrate through
other channels. Parolees may be admitted temporarily for urgent humanitarian reasons
or significant public benefit.
Trump’s Zero Tolerance Policy
Immigrant advocacy organizations argue that migrant families are fleeing a well-documented
epidemic of gang violence from the Northern Triangle countries of El Salvador, Guatemala, and
Honduras. They have criticized the practice of family separation because it seemingly punishes
people for fleeing dangerous circumstances and seeking asylum in the United States. They posit
that requesting asylum is not an illegal act, Congress created laws that require DHS to process
and evaluate claims for humanitarian protection, DHS must honor congressional intent by

humanely processing and evaluating such claims, and many who request asylum have valid
claims and compelling circumstances that merit consideration. Immigrant advocates have also
criticized the Administration for creating what they consider to be a debacle of its own making,
characterized by frequently changing policies and justifications, what some describe as an
uncoordinated implementation process, and the absence of an effective plan to reunify separated
families. In some cases, records linking parents to children reportedly may have disappeared or
been destroyed, hampering efforts to establish relationships between family members. Media
reports have described obstacles to reuniting families after separation, including a lack of
communication between federal agencies, the absence of information about accompanying
children collected by CBP at the time of apprehension, the inability of ICE detainees to receive
phone calls without special arrangements, and a cumbersome vetting process to ensure children’s
safe placement with parents. Similar observations have since been made by government agencies.
In addition, while DOJ typically detains and prosecutes parents for illegal entry at federal
detention centers and courthouses near the U.S.-Mexico border, ORR houses their children at
shelters geographically dispersed in 17 states, in some cases thousands of miles away from the
parents. Child welfare professionals assert that family separation has the potential to cause lasting
psychological harm for adults and especially for children. Some point to the findings of a DHS
advisory panel as well as those of other organizations that discourage family detention as neither
appropriate nor necessary for families and as not being in children’s best interests. Some
immigration observers question the Administration’s ability to marshal resources required to
prosecute all illegal border crossers given that Congress has not appropriated additional funding
to support the zero tolerance policy. One news report, for example, noted that 3,769 foreign
nationals were convicted of illegal entry in criminal courts during March 2018, a month in which
37,383 foreign nationals were apprehended for illegal entry. Given the relative size of the task
they face, observers question how DOJ and DHS can channel fiscal resources to meet this
objective without compromising their other missions. They contend that the policy is
counterproductive because it prevents CBP from using risk-based strategies to pursue the most
egregious crimes, thereby making the Southwest border region less safe and more prone to
criminal activity. Some have suggested that the zero tolerance policy is diverting resources from,
and thereby hindering, other DHS operations. Some in Congress have criticized the family
separation policy because of its cost in light of alternative options, such as community-based
detention programs. They cite, for example, the Family Case Management Program (FCMP),
which monitored families seeking asylum and demonstrated reportedly high compliance rate
with immigration requirements such as court hearings and immigration appointments. The
FCMP, which began in January 2016, was terminated by the Trump Administration in April 2017.
According to DHS, the FCMP average daily cost of $36 reportedly exceeded that of “intensive
supervision” programs ($5-$7 daily), although both programs are considerably lower than the
average daily cost of family detention ($319). More broadly, immigration advocates contend that
the Administration is engaged in a concerted effort to restrict access to asylum and reduce the
number of asylum claims. They caution that prosecuting persons who cross into the United States
in order to present themselves before a CBP officer and request asylum raises concerns about
whether the United States is abiding by human rights and refugee-related international protocols.
They note a considerable current backlog of pending defensive asylum cases, which numbered
almost 325,000 (45%) of the roughly 720,000 total pending immigration cases in EOIR’s docket as
of June 11, 2018. They also cite Attorney General Sessions’ recent decision to substantially limit
the extent to which immigration judges can consider gang or domestic violence as sufficient
grounds for asylum.

US-Mexico Border Assault
80% Of Central American Women, Girls Are Raped Crossing Into The U.S.
According to a stunning Fusion investigation, 80 percent of women and girls crossing into
the U.S. by way of Mexico are raped during their journey. That’s up from a previous
estimate of 60 percent, according to an Amnesty International report. the number of
unaccompanied girls younger than 18 caught at the US-Mexico border increased by 77
percent.
But while many of these girls are fleeing their homes because of fears of being sexually
assaulted, according to the UNHCR, they are still meeting that same fate on their journey
to freedom.
Rape can be perpetrated by anyone along the way, including guides, fellow migrants,
bandits or government officials, according to Fusion. Sometimes sex is used as a form of
payment, when women and girls don’t have money to pay bribes.
Yet, though thousands of women are passing through Mexico, the unit reported that it’s seen only
six cases of assault against migrant women this year, which includes kidnapping, rape and armed
robbery.
Border agents beat an undocumented immigrant to death.
The story of Hernandez’s death at the Tijuana-San Diego border, backed up by the video
on that card, exemplified the brutality of the law enforcement officers who patrolled the
border and the impunity with which they act, advocates for Border Patrol reform say.
Refugees’ seeking asylum
Refugees’ rights that were violated:
1. Equality: this right is greatly affected by the policies imposed by the trump administration in
dealing with the asylum-seekers. The Trump administration is waging a deliberate campaign of
human rights violations against asylum seekers, in order to broadcast globally that the United
States no longer welcomes refugees.
2. Life: as evidenced by research made by Amnesty International not only on the situation of
asylum-seekers but also the conduct of US border and immigration authorities in facilitating and
processing their asylum claims under US law and international law and standards. Some of the
asylum-seekers were arbitrarily arrested and some were indefinitely detained. Those that applied
for parole with complete documents were denied with no reason at all. Intended to deter and
punish those who seek protection at the US–Mexico border, the US government expanded the
use of indefinite detention of asylum-seekers both through blanket denials of parole requests by
asylum-seekers in some regions, which a US federal court in July 2018 found likely to be arbitrary
and illegal; and through its family separations policy, by which it detained parents individually
without their children.

3. Equal protection: as we can see, the policies implemented by the Trump administration does
not exercise equal protection to the asylum-seekers. The deal with the asylum-seekers with
discrimination against race, colour, sex, language, religion, political, or other opinion, national or
social origin, property, birth or other status.
4. Privacy: this is connected with reports that the government has executed an unlawful and
politically motivated campaign of intimidation, threats, harassment, and criminal
investigations against people who defend the human rights of migrants, refugees and asylum
seekers. We can see that the policies made by trump administration does not only violate the
human rights of asylum-seekers but also of those reporters, NGOs, or those private individuals
involved in humanitarian aid or asylum advocacy.
5. Movement: this is in connection with the decision of the asylum-seekers to move out from
their country and reside within the borders of other State violated by arbitrary arrest and
indefinite detention made by US authorities.
6. Asylum: in international law, there is this so-called principle of non-refoulement which

means that the state has the obligation not to return the asylum-seekers to the State of origin
where he is in peril of execution, rejection, torture, or cruel treatment.
7. Expression: this is in relation with the reporters, journalist, NGOs, or those private
individuals involved in humanitarian aid or asylum advocacy.
8. Work: as with this one, the Mexican government has not provided work visas to asylum
seekers in the MPP program, ultimately limiting their means of survival and exposing them to
exploitation.
US Border Patrol agents have also refused to return asylum seekers’ personal identification
documents, Human Rights Watch said. Without identification, asylum seekers may not be able
to receive money sent by relatives. In addition, those without documents typically cannot travel
to seek asylum elsewhere, find safer locations within Mexico, or return home – leaving them
trapped in dangerous, ill-equipped Mexican border cities.
Migrants’ Working Condition
(For DACA VID)
On June 15, 2012, the Secretary of Homeland Security announced that certain people who come
to the United States as children and meet several key guidelines may request consideration for
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). DACA recipients are also eligible to apply for
work authorization. Individuals whose cases are deferred and who are granted work
authorization will be issued an Employment Authorization Document (EAD).
DACA has two important parts:

 Part 1: Under DACA, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) will not deport certain
undocumented people and will give them temporary permission to stay in the United States.
This temporary permission to stay in the U.S. is called “deferred action.”

 Part 2: People who are granted deferred action through DACA will be eligible for an EAD,
or “work permit,” that is valid for two years, and they can apply to renew every two years.
In other words, they can work “with papers.”
All U.S. employers must complete and retain a Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification, for
each person hired in the United States. this includes citizens and noncitizens. The Immigration
and Nationality Act prohibits employers from discriminating in the Form I-9 process against
work-authorized individuals based on their national origin or, under certain circumstances, their
citizenship or immigration status.
 Under President Trump the United States Department of Homeland Security rescinded
the expansion on June 16, 2017, while continuing to review the existence of the DACA
program as a whole.
 Plans to phase out DACA were announced by the Trump Administration on September
5, 2017; implementation was put on hold for six months to allow Congress time to pass
the Dream Act or some other legislative protection for Dreamers. Congress failed to act
and the time extension expired on March 5, 2018, but the phase-out of DACA has been
put on hold by several courts.
EFFECTS OF DACA
 The grant of deferred action does not give an applicant legal status. In addition, it does
not cure such applicant’s previous periods of unlawful presence. However, an applicant
who is granted deferred action will not accrue unlawful presence in the U.S. during the
time period when deferred action is in effect.

 Research has shown that DACA increased the wages and employment status of DACA-
eligible immigrants, and improved the mental health outcomes for DACA participants
and their children. It also reduced the number of illegal immigrant households living in
poverty.
RIGHTS OF UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS IN US
What is the difference between an "undocumented" and an “illegal” immigrant?
These two terms are sometimes used to mean the same thing. An illegal immigrant/alien is an
individual who has entered the U.S. illegally and can be deported. It may also refer to a person
who entered the U.S. legally but who has lost their legal status and can be deported. An
undocumented immigrant/worker has entered the U.S. legally but has overstayed the time limits
of their original status. Overstaying time limits makes their presence in the U.S. unlawful.
"Illegal immigrant/alien" is an offensive term to some people because it implies that the person
is somehow "illegal." While the person may be in the U.S. illegally, they are not "illegal," only their
status is. "Undocumented" better describes the situation of an immigrant who doesn't currently
have valid legal status in the U.S.
Who is protected under the law?

Federal anti-discrimination laws protect all employees in the United States, regardless of their
citizenship or work eligibility. Undocumented workers are protected as much as any
other worker.
The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) protects undocumented workers specifically. The
INA prohibits:
 citizenship status discrimination in hiring, firing, or recruitment or referral for a fee;
 national origin discrimination in hiring, firing, or recruitment or referral for a fee;
 unfair document practices in the employment eligibility verification (Form I-9), and E-Verify
processes; and
 retaliation or intimidation.bb
Can I be fired for being an undocumented worker?
Under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) it is illegal for employers to
knowingly employ undocumented workers. When employees are hired, their employer is
required to ask for documents. The documents must show their identity and authorization to
work in the U.S. Those documents must “reasonably appear to be genuine.”
 Employers must terminate, or refuse to hire, an undocumented worker if the find the
worker is unauthorized to work. But, the employer cannot use immigration status as an
excuse to fire undocumented workers who make discrimination complaints.
Undocumented workers are covered by federal discrimination laws. The law prohibits
employers from retaliating against workers who assert their legal rights. If an employer
retaliates against an employee for exercising their right to file a discrimination complaint,
the employer is breaking the law.
What remedies are available to undocumented workers for workplace discrimination or

harassment?
 Undocumented workers cannot receive prospective remedies such as back pay, front pay,
and reinstatement because they are unavailable for work.
 Civil remedies under the FLSA and Title VII, are available for workers regardless of their
immigration status. These civil remedies include damages under the anti-retaliation
provisions. Undocumented workers can also recover back pay under the FLSA. Under
FLSA, “back pay” is payment of wages the worker earned but was not paid. Under the
NLRA and anti-discrimination laws, back pay is payment of wages that the worker would
have earned if not for the unlawful termination or other discrimination. This type of back
pay is not available to undocumented workers.
As an undocumented worker, am I required to pay income taxes?
All workers, including undocumented workers, are required to report their income to the federal
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and to the state Franchise Tax Board. Even if you are paid in cash,
you are required to report your income.

If you do not have a Social Security Number to report your taxes, and if you cannot get one
because you are undocumented, you can use an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number
(ITIN) to properly report your income. The Internal Revenue Service can issue an ITIN to any
individual who earns income in the United States but is not eligible to receive a Social Security
Number.
Am I eligible for unemployment benefits as an undocumented worker?
To be eligible for unemployment insurance, immigrant workers must satisfy the same basic
requirements as other workers. First, they must be unemployed “through no fault of their own.”
Second, they must have enough wages earned or hours worked to establish a claim. Third, they
must be able and available to work, and they must be looking for, and not refuse, “suitable” work.
Under federal law, immigrant workers must also be in particular immigration categories to
qualify for unemployment insurance. Under the law, the state will look at immigrants’ status at
the time the work was performed, (the “base year”) and at the time that the worker applied for
benefits, (the “benefit year”).
The basic principle is that an immigrant worker will need to have valid employment
authorization both at the time s/he earned the wages and at the time s/he is looking for work.
Can an undocumented workers receive workers' compensation?
In many cases when undocumented workers are injured at work, employers try to use IRCA to
deny undocumented employees workers' compensation. Employers argue that since the
undocumented workers are not authorized to work in the United States, they are not legally
employees and therefore cannot collect workers' compensation. Despite employers' reliance on
IRCA, many states laws make undocumented immigrants eligible for workers' compensation.
Most states have determined that undocumented workers are entitled to workers’ compensation
benefits. With a few exceptions, the federal government permits the states to administer their
own workers’ compensation laws. At least eleven (11) states are still undecided on the issue of
workers’ compensation benefits for undocumented workers.

GROUP 6
Members: Guevarra, Reniedo, Sulit, Ragos, Cristobal
DEATH PENALTY
The right to life is a moral principle based on the belief that a human being has the right to live
and, in particular, should not be killed by another human being. The death penalty deprives a
person of his right to life.
The death penalty is internationally condemned with nearly two-thirds of countries worldwide
banning the death penalty in law or in practice. Over time, the international community has
adopted several instruments that ban the use of the death penalty, including the following:
 The Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty is a side agreement to
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It was created on 15 December
1989 and entered into force on 11 July 1991. As of September 2018, the Optional Protocol
has 86 states parties. It commits its members to the abolition of the death penalty within
their borders, though Article 2.1 allows parties to make a reservation allowing execution
"in time of war pursuant to a conviction for a most serious crime of a military
nature committed during wartime"
 Protocol 6 – restriction of death penalty
 Requires parties to restrict the application of the death penalty to times of war or
"imminent threat of war".
 Every Council of Europe member state has signed and ratified Protocol 6, except Russia,
which has signed but not ratified.
 Protocol 13 provides for the total abolition of the death penalty. Currently all Council of
Europe member states but three have ratified Protocol 13
 The Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights to Abolish the Death
Penalty, was adopted at Asunción, Paraguay, on 8 June 1990. While Article 4 of the
American Convention had already placed severe restrictions on the states' ability to
impose the death penalty – only applicable for the most serious crimes; no reinstatement
once abolished; not to be used for political offenses or common crimes; not to be used
against those aged under 18 or over 70, or against pregnant women – signing this protocol
formalizes a state's solemn commitment to refrain from using capital punishment in any
peacetime circumstance
Death Penalty in the Philippines: Through the years
 Spanish period
o Spanish colonizers brought with the Europe’s penal system including executions
o Filipinos who were executed were Magat Salamat, native clergies Gomez Burgos
Zamora who were garroted and Dr. Jose Rizal in 1896, all of them are now
enshrined as heroes
 American period
o Codigo penal was revised in 1932 where treason, parricide, piracy, kidnapping,
murder, rape and robbery with homicide were considered capital offenses 

o Macario Sakay was one of those sentenced to die for leading a resistance and was
sentenced by public hanging
 Japanese occupation
o No record of executions because extrajudicial executions were widely  practiced
as part of the pacification of the country
 Marcos Years
o “Deterrence” became the official justification for the imposition of the death
penalty. Same justification used for the declaration of Martial Law in 1972
o Jaime Jose, Basilio Pineda, and Edgardo Aquino were executed for the gang rape
of movie star Maggie dela Riva in 1972. Despite prohibitions against public
executions, the execution of the three was done in full view of the public
o Nineteen executions took place during Pre-Martial Law period. Twelve were
executed during Martial Law
o Similar to the reasons for the imposition of capital punishment during the Colonial
Periods, the death penalty during the Marcos Regime was imposed to quell
rebellion and social unrest.
 President Cory Aquino

o Death Penalty was “abolished” under the 1987 Constitution
o The Philippines became the first Asian country to abolish the death penalty for all
crimes
o All death sentences were reduced to reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment
 President Fidel Ramos

o The Ramos administration reimposed the death penalty to address the rising
criminality and incidence of heinous crimes
o The Death Penalty Law lists a total of 46 crimes punishable by death
o Republic Act No. 8177 mandates that a death sentence shall be carried out through
lethal injection
 President Joseph Estrada

o Leo Echegaray was executed in February 1999 and was followed by six other
executions for various heinous crimes
o In 1999, the bumper year for executions, the national crime volume, instead of
abating, ironically increased by 15.3 percent or a total of 82,538
o Estrada issued a de facto moratorium on executions in the face of church-led
campaigns to abolish the death penalty and in observance of the Jubilee Year
 President Gloria Arroyo

o Due to the rise in crimes related to drugs and kidnappings that targeted the
Filipino-Chinese community, she announced that she would resume executions
“to sow fear into the hearts of criminals.”
o Arroyo lifted the de facto moratorium issued by Estrada

o Even as executions were set to resume on January 2004, this did not push through
by virtue of a Supreme Court decision to reopen the Lara-Licayan case.
o Since then, the administration has been issuing reprieves on scheduled executions
without actually issuing a moratorium
o With the amendment of (Anti-Rape Law of 1997) and (Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs act of 2002), there are now 52 capital offenses, 30 of which are death
mandatory and 22 are death eligible
o 2006 she suspended death penalty
 Present
o During the campaign of 2016 elections, president Duterte supported the
reinstatement of death penalty to aid his war on drugs
o Amnesty International (AI) has called out the reintroduction of death penalty in
the Philippines last year in its public statement for Philippine lawmakers to oppose
such attempts. “The re-introduction of the death penalty would not only
represent a major setback for the promotion and protection of human rights in
the country but also violate the Philippines’ obligations under international
law,”
o AI is just one of many organizations which oppose the reimplementation of the
death penalty. Aside from citing that death penalty tarnishes a person’s natural
human rights, AI also touches on the political and erroneous side of death penalty
o According to AI, the risk of sentencing innocent people to death row is too high
o Another reason why AI believes that death penalty must be abolished is due to the
sentence being used as a political tool in skewed justice systems
Main Rights violated by Death Penalty:
 Right to life
o From Article 3 of the UDHR, the most fundamental among the rights stated in the
provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It provides the
foundation upon which all other rights rest. After the taking of one’s life, a person
will no longer be able to enjoy his rights. It is a fact that every single day, an
innocent person gets executed for a crime that he did not commit. This leads to the
point that Death Penalty is irreversible and irreparable. Appeal will no longer be
applicable once the accused is already dead
 Right to due process

o This is according to Article 6 of the UDHR. In the Philippines, extrajudicial killings
became rampant. The vigilantes bring their concept of justice by immediately
killing a person alleged to be involved in the sale of illegal drugs. These people
were deprived of their right to an impartial public trial. It is also contrary to the
presumption that an accused is to be presumed innocent until proven guilty
Other rights violated:
 Article 3 of UDHR – Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person

 Article 5 of UDHR - No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment
o Those who are in death row are subjected to solitary confinement until they reach
the time of their execution. They are deprived of any human interaction and are
even deprived of visitation from their family. This cruel treatment is classified as
torture under the Geneva Conventions
 Article 7 of UDHR - All are equal before the law and are entitled without any
discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against
any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such
discrimination
o Death Penalty violates this provision of the UDHR because not everyone has an
equal chance of proving themselves innocent through a competent lawyer
 Article 11 of UDHR
o Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until
proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the
guarantees necessary for his defense.
o No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission,
which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international, at the
time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one
that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.
Pros of Death Penalty:
 As a form of deterrence
o Belief that this kind of punishment would serve as example to other would be
criminals
o According to a study in the late 1960’s, there was a 7% crime rate increase on the
years when the law was abolished. And fewer crimes with the increase of number
of inmates in the death row who were executed each year.
 As a form of retribution
o Some form of justification that is a person committed a crime, he/she deserved to
suffer in some way or be punished
 Cost-effective solution
o Existence of death penalty as possible sentence leads to guilty pleas that save the
money spent on trials and limit the opportunity for appeals
o Life imprisonment is higher given the expenses for food, health care and other
costs of sustaining the lives of incarcerated individuals serving life
 Decreases over-population in prison

o In the US, there are more than 2.3 million people being held in state and federal
prisons, local jails and the like
o About 443,000 people have not been convicted of anything and are awaiting trial

o 41,000 are in detention in immigration centers without conviction
o 704,000 prisoners are labeled as violent offenders in state prisons
o Capital punishment laws create space for potential rehabilitation without dealing
with issues of prison over population
 Appeases victims and their families

o Death penalty can provide families of victims with some closure which may help
them to deal with their suffering
Cons of Death Penalty
 Violation of rights
o Killing human life is morally wrong under all circumstances
o Basic standards of human dignity are compromised or undermined
o It puts the life of innocent people at risk within the criminal justice system
 Revenge
o It is essentially just a form of the flawed thinking that two wrongs can make a right
 Does not address issue

o Puts more problems aka unnecessary added costs
Per amnesty international, at least 690 executions in 20 countries in 2018, a decrease

of 31% compared to 2017. China remained the world’s leading executioner. Excluding
China, 78% of all reported executions took place in just four countries – Iran, Saudi Arabia, Viet
Nam and Iraq. At the end of 2018, 106 countries (a majority of the world’s states) had abolished
the death penalty in law for all crimes, and 142 countries (more than two-thirds) had abolished
the death penalty in law or practice.
Filipinos affected by Death Penalty abroad
 Jakatia Pawa
o Charged for murder of employer’s daughter in Kuwait
o Migrant workers, muslim leaders, activists, legislators tried to protest the
execution of Pawa but failed
o Action Taken by the Philippines: Vice President Noli De Castro personally went
to Kuwait carrying then President Arroyo’s letter seeking for clemency
 Flor Contemplacion
o Charged and convicted of Murder in Singapore for murdering employee’s wife
and daughter
o She initially confessed to the crime charged but later on reversed her statement
and said that it was actually the employer who murdered the wife and daughter
but framed her by calling her home and left to see the murder scene.

o Action Taken by the Philippines: Pres. Fidel Ramos appealed to the government
of Singapore, but was rejected. Legal assistance were provided, but only when she
was already convicted at the lower court of Singapore
 Mary Jane Veloso

o Charged and convicted for carrying heroin (illegal drugs) in her suit case to
Indonesia
o She claimed that it was planted by her employer and the suitcase was also given
by her employer
o She was supposed to be executed, but it was discontinued due to the employer
surfacing and confessing of the crime in the Philippines.
o Action Taken by the Philippines: President Aquino personally asked President
Wolo of Indonesia to spare the life of Mary Jane Veloso and use her as a witness
 Joselito Zapatana
o Charged and convicted of the crime murder with robbery in Saudi Arabia
o Confessed to the commission of the crime and asked for forgiveness
o The Court declared Zapatana to pay $1.1M Blood Money in exchange of his
freedom
o Action Taken by the Philippines: Vice President Binay tried to help raise funds for
the Blood Money and personally went to Saudi Arabia to seek clemency of
Zapatana. However, President Aquino refused to provide the bloody money due
to his no blood money policy
 2011 (3) Drug Mules

o 3 filipinos were caught smuggling illegal drugs to China in different time
o They were charged and convicted for smuggling
o Action Taken by the Philippines: clemency for several times, and the execution
was delayed

GROUP 7
Members: Arugay, Baquiran, Jazmin, Sayao, Sanidad
PERSECUTION OF LUMADS
I. INTRODUCTION
A. WHO ARE THE LUMADS?
Lumad is a collective term, used since 1986, for a large number of indigenous
peoples of the Mindanao island group in the Southern Philippines. The word “Lumad” is
a Visayan term which means “born of the earth.”
The Lumads are the un-Islamized and un-Christianized Austronesian peoples of

Mindanao. They comprise 61% of the Indigenous peoples (IPs) in the Philippines and are
about 18 % of the country’s population. They are the largest indigenous group in the
Philippines.
Tilling their farmlands is their primary source of livelihood and income because their
territories are rich in natural resources, especially minerals.
In 1997, the “Indigenous Peoples Rights Act” (IPRA) was enacted to protect the
rights of the IPs and their ancestral domains. Despite being protected by the law, IPs suffer
from poverty and numerous human rights violations. They also suffer from
discrimination and are considered as one of the poorest minority groups in the world.
They do not have access to adequate and appropriate forms of social services like
education and health.
B. SOME LUMAD GROUPS IN THE PHILIPPINES
● Ata
● Bagobo
● Blaan
● Bukidnon
● Dibabawon
● Higaonon
● Mamanwa
● Mandaya
● Manguwangan
● Manobo
● Mansaka
● Subanen
● Tagakaolo
● Tasaday
● Tboli
● Tiruray
● Ubo

C. HISTORY
The name Lumad grew out of the political awakening among tribes during the martial
law regime of President Ferdinand Marcos. It was advocated and propagated by the members
and affiliates of Lumad-Mindanao, a coalition of all-Lumad local and regional organizations
which formalized themselves as such in June 1986 but started in 1983 as a multi-sectoral
organization. Lumad-Mindanao’s main objective was to achieve self-determination for their
member-tribes or, put more concretely, self-governance within their ancestral domain in
accordance with their culture and customary laws. No other Lumad organization had the express
goal in the past.
Representatives from 15 tribes agreed in June 1986 to adopt the name; there were no
delegates from the three major groups of the T'boli, the Teduray. The choice of a Cebuano word
was a bit ironic but they deemed it appropriate as the Lumad tribes do not have any other
common language except Cebuano. This marked the first time that these tribes had agreed to a
common name for themselves, distinct from that of the Moros and different from the migrant
majority and their descendants.
D. GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION
Lumads are found throughout Mindanao, in remote mountainous areas and valleys, in
low-lying plains, and in coastal areas. Over the years, the Lumad have nurtured and protected
their traditional ancestral lands, and their individual cultures.
Lumads live in the mountainous areas of Davao del Norte, Davao del Sur, Bukidnon,
Agusan del Norte, Agusan del Sur, Surigao, Zamboanga, Misamis Oriental, Misamis Occidental,
Cagayan de Oro, North Cotabato, South Cotabato and Saranggani Province.
II. THE LUMADS AND THEIR PERSECUTION
A. BOMBING OF LUMAD SCHOOLS
PASAKA-Mindanao Region, a confederation of Lumad organizations, has

documented 21 cases of aerial bombardments in southern Mindanao region. The Lumad
group said that the military’s aerial attacks targeted several indigemous communities and
schools which caused massive displacements, threats, harassment and intimidation
against unarmed civilians.
B. DEPED SHUTS DOWN LUMAD SCHOOLS
The Department of Education (DepEd) in Southern Mindanao has ordered the

temporary gift shutdown of 55 schools catering to indigenous peoples communities in the
region.
DepEd regional spokesperson Jenielito Atillo said the order was based on the
report of National Security Adviser Secretary Hermogenes Esperon Jr, who chairs the
Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict. The report alleged that the Lumad

schools deviated from the basic curriculum; that school officials made it mandatory for
the learners to join anti-government rallies; and that such officials teach them to rebel
against the government.
C. KILLING OF LUMADS
At least 60 tribal people have been killed since 2016 when Duterte came to power,
many of them in Mindanao, according to rights groups.
10 tribal members were also killed during an alleged encounter between the
military and communist rebels in a remote village in South Cotabato province on
December 11, 2017.
Some of the attacks by military personnel were based on suspicions that the Lumad
are involved with militant groups, or because they resisted mining activities on their
ancestral land.
D. ARSON OF LUMAD VILLAGES
A lumad evacuation camp in Davao City was torched early morning on

Wednesday (February 23), leaving five people wounded, including four children. The
victims were rushed to the hospital for treatment.
Unidentified men burned a dormitory used as evacuation center for internally

displaced persons (IDPs) inside the United Church of Christ in the Philippines (UCCP)-
Haran compound, the group Defend Talaingod Save Pantaron (DTSP) reported.
While investigation was still ongoing, the DTSP said the incident was
“premeditated and intentional.” The lumads believe that the Alamara, a paramilitary
group backed by the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), is behind the fire.
“These criminals have been intensifying their harassment of the Lumad and have
been serving big foreign and local capitalists who want to evict the Lumad from their land
in favor of plantation, mining and logging operations”.
E. LAND GRABBING AND LAND MINING
For decades the Lumads have been forced to physically defend their right to
control their ancestral territories against corporate plunder and militarization. Unable to
match the armed forces of the government and profiteers, the Lumads have had to flee
their communities; their lands were seized by multinational corporations and logging
companies. Wealthy Filipino migrants and multinationals are planting and exporting
palm oil, bananas, rubber and pineapple.
To date, the traditional territories or ancestral domain claims of the Lumad people
in Mindanao are now divided into different Regional Industrial Centers or RICs by the
government. In fact, projects such as construction of transportation routes are now on the
works; the development of tourist spots in the area; construction and repair of sea and
airports; putting up of communication facilities; operation of agro-industrial plantations;
mining operations, power stations and the transformation of farm lands into crop and

pasture areas for export production and other projects beneficial to global trading. These
development projects are now scattered to almost the last square centimeter of the
Lumads’ ancestral domain claims and continuously destroying to a greater extent the
environment and all natural resources therein.
III. SOURCES OF HUMAN RIGHTS
A. JUS COGENS
It is a peremptory norms of International Law from which no derogation is
permitted. This principle is actually embodied in Article 53 of Vienna Convention on Law
of Treaties, provided that, “A treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it conflicts with
a peremptory norms of general International Law is a norm accepted and recognized by
the international community of States as a whole from which no derogation is permitted
and which can be modified only by subsequent norm of general international law having
the same character.”
Examples of this prohibitions are prohibition against torture, prohibition against

genocide, prohibition against slavery and promotion of human rights.
B. UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS (UDHR)
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights arose directly from the experience of
Second World War. The effects of war and the fear of communism led the United Nations
to adopt the said Declaration in order for human beings to live in freedom, to eradicate
discrimination or deprivation of rights and to promote human rights.
It is a Declaration adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December

10, 1948. The General Assembly called upon all the member States to publicize and
disseminate the same. It was the first step in the process of formulating International Bill
of Human Rights. At present, there are more than 20 principal treaties elaborating the
human rights.
The UDHR is actually not legally binding over many years but its main principles
acquired the standards wherein all states respected. It has achieved the status of
International Customary Law for the reason that it is regarded as a common standard of
achievement for all people and it has political and moral importance. Moreover, it serves
as the foundation for a growing number of treaties, national laws and international laws
that promotes and protects human rights.
The Declaration consists 30 Articles affirming individual rights. It begins

recognizing that the inherent dignity of all members is the foundation of freedom, justice
and equality.
The Articles under UDHR guarantees protection of the person; procedural

law; freedom rights; and social and economic rights
C. OTHER TREATIES INVOLVING HUMAN RIGHTS

(1) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
It focuses on issues as to right to life, freedom of speech, freedom of religion and

voting. It prohibits discrimination and protect every individual’s rights.
(2) International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESR)
It focuses on basic needs like right to food, education, health and shelter. It also
prohibits discrimination and protect every individual’s rights.
D. BILL OF RIGHTS, 1987 CONSTITUTION
The Philippines is one of the 51 original member State of United Nations and as a
signatory, it also promotes and protects human rights. Provided under specific laws such
as Bill of Rights, R.A. 10366, Magna Carta, R.A. 7277, R.A. 9442.
Therefore, in domestic sphere, it follows and respects the Declaration in a manner

of passing these laws that will guarantee a protection on individual’s right.
E. THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLE’S RIGHTS ACT OF 1997
The bill was first filed in the Senate in 1987. It was a collective effort of advocates
who called for respect of ethnic tribes’ ancestral domain. Under the Indigenous Peoples’
Rights Act, IPs have the right to own, the right to develop, control, and use lands and
natural resources. They also have the right to stay in these territories and cannot be
relocated without their consent, among others.
Moreover, it provides for the IPs right to self government, empowerment, equal
protection, cultural integrity and education.
The bill was signed into by Fidel V. Ramos on October 20, 1977. This was in
conjunction with his program to industrialize the nation. At the time, he believed that he
can reconcile mining laws and the IPRA law.
IV. THE VIOLATED HUMAN RIGHTS OF LUMADS
PERSECUTION ISSUE HUMAN RIGHTS SOURCE OF HUMAN

VIOLATED RIGHTS
Bombing of Schools Right to Life Liberty and UDHR, 1987 Philippine

security of person
Constitution
Right to equal Protection

of Laws UDHR, 1987 Philippine
Constitution
Right to be presumed

innocent until proven
guilty
UDHR, 1987 Philippine
Constitution
Right to Education
UDHR, IPRA LAW, 1987

Right to take part in CONSTITUTION, ICESR
Cultural life
ICESR, IPRA LAW
Right of IP Children to
have their welfare
promoted and protected
IPRA LAW
Shutdown of Lumad Right to Education UDHR, IPRA LAW, 1987

Schools CONSTITUTION, ICESR
ICESR, IPRA LAW

Right to take part in
Cultural life
Right of IP Children to IPRA law

have their welfare
promoted and protected
Aron of Lumad Villages Right to Life Liberty and UDHR, 1987 Philippine
security of person
Constitution
Right to be presumed
innocent until proven UDHR, 1987 Philippine
guilty
Constitution

Right against torture
Jus Cogens
Right to be secure in their

persons, houses, papers
and effects 1987 constitution
Right against
discrimination
Right to ancestral domain

IPRA LAW
Land grabbing and land Right to Ancestral

mining Domain
Right to develop ancestral

domain and natural
resources
IPRA Law
Right to stay in the
territory
Right to participate in
decision making
Right to be secure in their

persons, houses, papers
and effects
1987 Philippine

Constitution
Pangasinan Lumad Right against IPRA law

trafficking discrimination
Right not to be subjected

to torture, inhumane and UDHR
degrading treatment or
punishment

GROUP 8
Members: Odiña, Caro, Galang, Dipol, Goling
VIOLATION OF FREEDOM OF THE PRESS
I. Introduction
The concept of "human rights," in the context of the Philippines, pertains mainly (but is not
limited) to the civil and political rights of a person.1 The primacy of human rights over property
rights in enshrined in the Bill of Rights because these freedoms are "delicate and vulnerable, as
well as supremely precious in our society" and the "threat of sanctions may deter their exercise
almost as potently as the actual application of sanctions," they "need breathing space to survive,"
permitting government regulation only "with narrow specificity.
A constitutional or valid infringement of human rights requires a more stringent criterion,

namely existence of a grave and immediate danger of a substantive evil which the State has the
right to prevent.”
A free press is not a luxury that can wait for better times; rather, it is part of the very process
which can bring about better times. Freedom of the press should not be viewed solely as the
freedom of journalists to report and comment. It is strongly correlated with the public’s right of
access to knowledge and information.3 UNESCO advocates for Freedom of the Press, alongside
with Freedom of Expression, as a Basic Human Right, in keeping with the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights (herein referred to as “UDHR”). In the Philippines, freedom of the press is a
right enshrined in the 1987 Philippine Constitution but the coverage of this right extends to what
is provided in the UDHR as the Philippines is a signatory to this document drafted by the UN in
1948.
A. Freedom of Speech, Expression, Press as Human Right vis-à-vis Constitutional Right
i. As a Constitutional Right
The 1987 Constitution provides in Section 4 that: “No law shall be passed abridging the freedom
of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and
petition the government for redress of grievances.”
Philippine jurisprudence, even as early as the period under the 1935 Constitution, has recognized
four aspects of freedom of the press. These are:
(1) Freedom from prior restraint;
(2) Freedom from punishment subsequent to publication;
(3) Freedom of access to information; and
(4) Freedom of circulation.

PRIOR RESTRAINT refers to official governmental restrictions on the press or other forms of
expression in advance of actual publication or dissemination. Freedom from prior restraint is
largely freedom from government censorship of publications, whatever the form of censorship,
and regardless of whether it is wielded by the executive, legislative or judicial branch of the
government. Thus, it precludes governmental acts that required approval of a proposal to
publish; licensing or permits as prerequisites to publication including the payment of license
taxes for the privilege to publish; and even injunctions against publication. Even the closure of
the business and printing offices of certain newspapers, resulting in the discontinuation of their
printing and publication, are deemed as previous restraint or censorship. Any law or official that
requires some form of permission to be had before publication can be made, commits an
infringement of the constitutional right, and remedy can be had at the courts. Certain previous
restraints may be permitted by the Constitution, but determined only upon a careful evaluation
of the challenged act as against the appropriate test by which it should be measured against.
Hence, it is not enough to determine whether the challenged act constitutes some form of restraint
on freedom of speech. A distinction has to be made whether the restraint is:
(1) A content-neutral regulation, i.e., merely concerned with the incidents of the speech, or one
that merely controls the time, place or manner, and under well-defined standards; or
(2) A content-based restraint or censorship, i.e., the restriction is based on the subject matter of
the utterance or speech. The cast of the restriction determines the test by which the challenged act
is assayed with.
When the speech restraints take the form of a content-neutral regulation, only a substantial
governmental interest is required for its validity. Because regulations of this type are not designed
to suppress any particular message, they are not subject to the strictest form of judicial scrutiny
but an intermediate approach—somewhere between the mere rationality that is required of any
other law and the compelling interest standard applied to content-based restrictions.
With respect to contentbased restrictions, the government must also show the type of harm the
speech sought to be restrained would bring about— especially the gravity and the imminence of
the threatened harm – otherwise the prior restraint will be invalid. Prior restraint on speech based
on its content cannot be justified by hypothetical fears, "but only by showing a substantive and
imminent evil that has taken the life of a reality already on ground." As formulated, "the question
in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature
as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that
Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree."
In CHAVEZ V. GONZALEZ it was established that:
“The scope and protection of expression is so broad that it extends protection to nearly all forms
of communication. It protects speech, print and causes and is not confined to any particular field
of human interest. The protection covers myriad matters of public interest or concern embracing
all issues, about which information is needed or appropriate.”
The said case also provided for the rules governing the exercise of the Freedom of Expression.
Generally, restraints on freedom of speech and expression are evaluated by either or a
combination of three tests:

a. THE DANGEROUS TENDENCY DOCTRINE which permits limitations on speech once a
rational connection has been established between the speech restrained and the danger
contemplated;
b. THE BALANCING OF INTERESTS TEST, used as a standard when courts need to balance
conflicting social values and individual interests, and requires a conscious and detailed
consideration of the interplay of interests obeserved in a given situation of type of situation; and
c. THE CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER RULE which rests on the premise that speech may be
restrained because there is substantial danger that the speech will likely lead to an evil the
government has a right to prevent. This rule requires that the evil consequences sought to be
prevented must be substantive, "extremely serious and the degree of imminence extremely high."
ii. Limitations to this Constitutional Right
In PEOPLE V. PEREZ on seditious remarks, criticisms against the branches of government within
the range of liberty and speech unless the intention and the effect be seditious
In GONZALES V. COMELEC on prolonged political campaigns, freedom of expression is not

absolute. The freedom of speech and free press may be identified with the liberty to discuss
publicly and truthfully any matter of public interest without censorship or punishment. There is
to be then no previous restraint to the communication of views or subsequent punishment unless
there be a clear and present danger of substantive evil that Congress has the right to prevent.
iii. As a Human Right
The UDHR provides that everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right
includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart
information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Meanwhile, the ICCPR provides that:
1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek,
receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in
writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.
3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties
and responsibilities.
It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by
law and are necessary:
(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;
(b) For the protection of national security or of public order or of public health or morals

In OBSERVER AND THE GUARDIAN V UNITED KINGDOM, the Guardian and The Observer
newspapers published excerpts from Peter Wright’s book Spycatcher, which included allegations
that MI5 had acted unlawfully. The government obtained a court order preventing the
newspapers from printing further material until proceedings relating to a breach of confidence
had finished.
But when the book was published, The Guardian complained that the continuation of the court
order infringed the right to freedom of expression. The European Court of Human Rights said
that the court order was lawful because it was in the interests of national security. However, it
also said that that wasn't enough reason to continue the newspaper publication ban once the book
had been published, because the information was no longer confidential anyway.
In a statement of the CHR on the Proposal to Limit the Constitutional Right to Free Speech on
January 24, 2018, it mentioned that the freedom of speech is a fundamental right. Most liberties
that we enjoy today were products of voices that expressed dissent against abuses and
inequalities, and were bold enough to demand accountability from erring authorities.
With the current discussions on amending our Constitution, the Commission on Human Rights
expresses grave alarm over proposals to limit freedom of speech by qualifying it with the phrase
‘responsible exercise.’ Not only is the current proposal vague in its definition of what ‘responsible
exercise’ mean, but it also allows for the subjective interpretation of the phrase. A free, democratic
society depends on the free exchange of ideas. Speaking truth to power and fighting for one’s
convictions are both anchored on our ability to exercise this freedom. Needless to say, free speech
is essential in bringing about change for social good. But, at times, discourse may cause
discomfort, especially when it starts to challenge oppressive norms that society has accepted to
be a reality. Unfair working conditions, slavery, discrimination, and even dictatorships are just
but few examples of the abuses that society has addressed because we have allowed them to be
confronted with speech founded on ethics and reason.
But it is also not true that this right is absolute. The Philippines is a signatory to the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Article 19 of the said Convention has sufficient safeguards
to the freedom of expression, such as respect for the rights or reputations of others, national
security, public order, public health and public morals. There are also domestic laws on libel,
which, at times, are ironically used to silence the press, dissenters, and those who seek the truth.
Ideas are best sharpened with constructive discussions. In the end, exercising freedoms of speech
and expression is not about lessening offence to personal sensibilities. It is about protecting our
right to express and be heard in an exchange in pursuit of a better, dignified life for all.
II. State Regulation of Media
Police Power is an inherent attribute of sovereignty. This power includes prescribing regulations
to promote the health, morals, peace, education, good order or safety and general welfare of the
people7 and to regulate liberty and property for the promotion of the general welfare.

This power of the State is co-extensive with self-protection and it is not inaptly termed “the law
of overruling necessity”, where it can restrain and regulate the use of liberty and property.
A valid exercise of police power by the State will allow it to interfere with constitutionally
protected rights – including the right of freedom of expression and of the press. Hence, Broadcast
Media – being merely a privilege emanating from the sovereign power of the State – is subject to
regulation by the state by virtue of its police power”.
Like the great powers of eminent domain and of taxation, the State’s police power is inherent in
and to any government and is, in fact, a power it may use in its duty to balance the exercise of the
freedom of expression, the obligation of Mass Media to be a vehicle for public service and their
commercial objective to be profitable.
The exercise by the State of its police power to regulate Mass Media is presumed to be a valid
exercise of the state, although it is still subject to restrictions set by the constitution. The valid
exercise of police power is such that the State can deprive persons of life, liberty and property,
provided there is due process of law; and persons may be classified into classes and groups,
provided everyone is given the equal protection of the law.
“The test or standard, as always, is reason. The police power legislation must be firmly grounded
on public interest and welfare, and a reasonable relation must exist between purposes and
means”. Therefore one can say that the proper exercise of police power requires the concurrence
of a lawful object and a lawful method.
Moreover, any valid exercise of police power must hurdle the Due Process Clause found in the
Bill of Rights of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. The said clause contains three guarantees,
procedural due process and substantive due process. Procedural due process has been defined as
a “law which hears before it condemns”.
The valid exercise of police power must also hurdle the equal protection clause found in the Bill
of Rights in the 1987 Philippine Constitution. This clause is “a specific constitutional guarantee
of the Equality of the Person” it means legal equality before the law. However, this constitutional
guarantee is not iron-clad but admits certain exceptions provided it meets the requisites laid
down in jurisprudence. A. Exceptions to Mass Media’s Constitutional Protection Against Prior
Restraint One author has said that the “freedom of expression implies the right to freely utter or
publish one’s beliefs, ideas, or opinions without prior restraint, and to be protected against any
subsequent responsibility for so doing as long as it does not violate the law or injure someone’s
character, reputation or business”.
The freedom of expression also includes the protection against subsequent punishment or the
power of the state to impose punishment after the utterance of an expression.
The first prohibition provided in the 1987 Philippine Constitution is the prohibition against prior
restraint. Prior restraint has been defined by one author as to mean “official governmental
restrictions on the press or other forms of expression in advance of actual publication of
dissemination” or a form of pre-publication injunction.
Although the Constitution commands that there be no abridgment of speech, the courts have
made certain exceptions. “The exceptions, when expression may be subject to prior restraint,

apply in this jurisdiction to only four categories of expression, namely: pornography, false or
misleading advertisement, advocacy of imminent lawless action, and danger to national security
“.
In the separate opinion of Justice Antonio T. Carpio in the case Chavez v. Gonzales, it was said
that if the expression is not the focus of prior restraint, then it is protected speech or “high value
expression.” The case further notes that “any content-based prior restraint on protected speech is
unconstitutional without exception.”
Prior restraint may be classified as either content-based or content-neutral. The treatment of

content-based restraint will be subject to strict scrutiny. If the content-based prior restraint is
directed at protected expression, courts will strike down the restraint as unconstitutional because
there can be no content-based prior restraint on protected expression. “The analysis thus hinges
on whether the prior restraint is content-based, and if so, whether such restraint is directed at
protected expression, that is, those not falling under any of the recognized categories of
unprotected expression.” On the other hand, if it is content-neutral, the object of the restraint is
to “regulate the time, place or manner of the expression in public places” and the courts will
subject the restraint to “intermediate scrutiny”. Therefore, the content-neutral restraint “enjoys
the presumption of validity and is thus enforceable subject to appeal to the courts.” The courts,
as jurisprudence provides, will uphold content-neutral restraints if it is “narrowly tailored to
serve a significant government interest, and leave open ample alternative channels of
expression.”
B. Exceptions to Mass Media’s Constitutional Protection Against ‘Subsequent Punishment’
The second Constitutional prohibition is ‘subsequent punishment’ or the limitation on the state
to impose criminal or civil liability after the utterance of an expression. Unlike prior restraint,
subsequent punishment allows the expression to be disseminated but the effect is the same.
Like prior restraint, subsequent punishment admits certain exceptions as well. The Court has
used three different tests to determine the validity of the restraint although the Chavez v
Gonzales case states that (in the Philippine jurisdiction) the prevailing test is the clear and present
danger test. However, the Court did not categorically abandon the dangerous tendency and
balancing of interests test.
The first test applied in the Philippines was the dangerous tendency test. It allowed speech to be
curtailed when it “creates a dangerous tendency which the state has the right to prevent”. The
only requirement of this test is “there be a rational connection between the speech and the evil
apprehended”.
According to a legal authority the dangerous tendency test has given way to the clear and present
danger test.

The clear and present danger test is a “standard which serves to emphasize the importance of
speech to free society without sacrificing other freedoms essential to a democracy”. This test
requires this question to be answered: “whether the words used are used in such circumstances
and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the
substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree.”
The United States Supreme Court expounded on this point in the case of Dennis v. United States:
“Obviously, the words cannot mean that, before the Government may act, it must wait until the
putsch is about to be executed, the plans have been laid and the signal is awaited. If Government
is aware that a group aiming at its overthrow is attempting to indoctrinate its members and to
commit them to a course whereby they will strike when the leaders feel the circumstances permit,
action by the Government is required. The argument that there is no need for Government to
concern itself, for Government is strong, it possesses ample powers to put down a rebellion, it
may defeat the revolution with ease needs no answer. For that is not the question. Certainly an
attempt to overthrow the Government by force, even though doomed from the outset because of
inadequate numbers or power of the revolutionists, is a sufficient evil for Congress to prevent.
The damage which such attempts create both physically and politically to a nation makes it
impossible to measure the validity in terms of the probability of success, or the immediacy of a
successful attempt. In the instant case, the trial judge charged the jury that they could not convict
unless they found that petitioners intended to overthrow the Government “as speedily as
circumstances would permit.” This does not mean, and could not properly mean, that they would
not strike until there was certainty of success. What was meant was that the revolutionists would
strike when they thought the time was ripe. We must therefore reject the contention that success
or probability of success is the criterion.”
The caveat of the clear and present danger test was explained by Professor Freund when he said:
“Even where it is appropriate the clear and present-danger test is an oversimplified judgment
unless it takes account also of a number of other factors: the relative seriousness of the danger in
comparison with the value of the occasion for speech or political activity; the availability of more
moderate controls than those the state has imposed; and perhaps the specific intent with which
the speech or activity is launched. No matter how rapidly we utter the phrase ‘clear and present
danger,’ or how closely we hyphenate the words, they are not a substitute for the weighing of
values. They tend to convey a delusion of certitude when what is most certain is the complexity
of the strands in the web of freedoms which the judge must disentangle.”
The balancing of interests test was first enunciated in the case of American Communications
Associations v. Douds, it states: “When particular conduct is regulated in the interest of public
order, and the regulation results in an indirect, conditional, partial abridgment of speech, the duty
of the courts is to determine which of these two conflicting interests demands the greater
protection under the particular circumstances presented”.
Professor Kauper, restated the balancing of interests test as follows:
“It rests on the theory that it is the Court’s function in the case before it when it finds public
interests served by legislation on the one hand, and First Amendment freedoms affected by it on
the other, to balance the one against the other and to arrive at a judgment where the greater
weight shall be placed. If on balance it appears that the public interest served by restrictive
legislation is of such a character that it outweighs the abridgment of freedom, then the Court will

find the legislation valid. In short, the balance-ofinterests theory rests on the basis that
constitutional freedoms are not absolute, not even those stated in the First Amendment, and that
they may be abridged to some extent to serve appropriate and important public interests.”
C. Regulating Broadcast Media
In the United States, broadcast media has been treated differently from the other forms of
expression. There are three reasons why broadcast media has been treated differently. First, the
number of frequencies available to the broadcast media is limited. The limited number of
frequencies was discussed in the case of Red Lion Broadcasting Company v. Federal
Communications Commission when the Court said:
“It quickly became apparent that broadcast frequencies constituted a scarce resource whose use
could be regulated and rationalized only by the Government. Without government control, the
medium would be of little use because of the cacaphony of competing voices, none of which could
be clearly and predictably heard.”
Second, as a medium it is pervasive. In the case of Federal Communications Commission v.

Pacifica Foundation the Court said:
“the broadcast media have established a uniquely pervasive presence in the lives of all
Americans.xxx the broadcast audience is constantly tuning in and out, prior warnings cannot
completely protect the listener or viewer from unexpected program content.”
And third, broadcast media can be easily accessed by the children. This was also discussed in the
Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation and the United States Supreme
Court said:
“broadcasting is uniquely accessible to children, even those too young to read.xxxThe ease with
which children may obtain access to broadcast material, coupled with the concerns recognized in
Ginsberg, amply justify special treatment of indecent broadcasting.”
In Philippine jurisprudence, the test commonly applied to content-based regulation is the clear
and present danger test, which is also applied to print and broadcast media. The difference
between print and broadcast media lies in the “regulatory scheme applied to broadcast media
that is not imposed on traditional print media, and narrowly confined to unprotected speech (e.g.,
obscenity, pornography, seditious and inciting speech), or is based on a compelling government
interest that also has constitutional protection, such as national security or the electoral process”.
The Supreme Court in the case of Eastern Broadcasting Corporation v. Dans discussed the
difference of broadcast media and print media. The Court for future reference discussed it and
said:
All forms of media, whether print or broadcast, are entitled to the broad protection of the freedom
of speech and expression clause. The test for limitations on freedom of expression continues to be
the clear and present danger rule, that words are used in such circumstances and are of such a

nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that
the lawmaker has a right to prevent.
In his Constitution of the Philippines (2nd Edition, pp. 569-570) Chief Justice Enrique M.
Fernando cites at least nine of our decisions which apply the test. More recently, the clear and
present danger test was applied in J.B.L. Reyes in behalf of the Anti-Bases Coalition v. Bagatsing.
The clear and present danger test, however, does not lend itself to a simplistic and all embracing
interpretation applicable to all utterances in all forums.
Broadcasting has to be licensed. Airwave frequencies have to be allocated among qualified users.
A broadcast corporation cannot simply appropriate a certain frequency without regard for
government regulation or for the rights of others. All forms of communication are entitled to the
broad protection of the freedom of expression clause. Necessarily, however, the freedom of
television and radio broadcasting is somewhat lesser in scope than the freedom accorded to
newspaper and print media.
The American Court in Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation (438 U.S.
726), confronted with a patently offensive and indecent regular radio program, explained why
radio broadcasting, more than other forms of communications, receives the most limited
protection from the free expression clause. First, broadcast media have established a uniquely
pervasive presence in the lives of all citizens, Material presented over the airwaves confronts the
citizen, not only in public, but in the privacy of his home. Second, broadcasting is uniquely
accessible to children. Bookstores and motion picture theaters may be prohibited from making
certain material available to children, but the same selectivity cannot be done in radio or
television, where the listener or viewer is constantly tuning in and out.
Similar considerations apply in the area of national security.
The broadcast media have also established a uniquely pervasive presence in the lives of all
Filipinos. Newspapers and current books are found only in metropolitan areas and in the
poblaciones of municipalities accessible to fast and regular transportation. Even here, there are
low income masses who find the cost of books, newspapers, and magazines beyond their humble
means. Basic needs like food and shelter perforce enjoy high priorities. On the other hand, the
transistor radio is found everywhere. The television set is also becoming universal. Their message
may be simultaneously received by a national or regional audience of listeners including the
indifferent or unwilling who happen to be within reach of a blaring radio or television set. The
materials broadcast over the airwaves reach every person of every age, persons of varying
susceptibilities to persuasion, persons of different I.Q.s and mental capabilities, persons whose
reactions to inflammatory or offensive speech would be difficult to monitor or predict. The impact
of the vibrant speech is forceful and immediate. Unlike readers of the printed work, the radio
audience has lesser opportunity to cogitate analyze, and reject the utterance.
The clear and present danger test, therefore, must take the particular circumstances of broadcast
media into account. The supervision of radio stations-whether by government or through self-
regulation by the industry itself calls for thoughtful, intelligent and sophisticated handling.
The government has a right to be protected against broadcasts which incite the listeners to
violently overthrow it. Radio and television may not be used to organize a rebellion or to signal

the start of widespread uprising. At the same time, the people have a right to be informed. Radio
and television would have little reason for existence if broadcasts are limited to bland,
obsequious, or pleasantly entertaining utterances. Since they are the most convenient and popular
means of disseminating varying views on public issues, they also deserve special protection.
The freedom to comment on public affairs is essential to the vitality of a representative

democracy. In the 1918 case of United States v. Bustos (37 Phil. 731) this Court was already
stressing that.
The interest of society and the maintenance of good government demand a full discussion of
public affairs. Complete liberty to comment on the conduct of public men is a scalpel in the case
of free speech. The sharp incision of its probe relieves the abscesses of officialdom. Men in public
life may suffer under a hostile and an unjust accusation; the wound can be assuaged with the
balm of a clear conscience. A public officer must not be too thin-skinned with reference to
comment upon his official acts. Only thus can the intelligence and dignity of the individual be
exalted. (7) Broadcast stations deserve the special protection given to all forms of media by the
due process and freedom of expression clauses of the Constitution. [Citations omitted] “On the
other hand, the transistor radio is found everywhere. The television set is also becoming
universal. Their message may be simultaneously received by a national or regional audience of
listeners including the indifferent or unwilling who happen to be within reach of a blaring radio
or television set. The materials broadcast over the airwaves reach every person of every age,
persons of varying susceptibilities to persuasion, persons of different I.Q.s and mental
capabilities, persons whose reactions to inflammatory or offensive speech would be difficult to
monitor or predict. The impact of the vibrant speech is forceful and immediate. Unlike readers of
the printed work, the radio audience has lesser opportunity to cogitate analyze, and reject the
utterance”. It is interesting to note that in the cited case, the Supreme Court differentiated print
and broadcast media. Also, the Supreme Court said that the freedom enjoyed by broadcast media
is lesser in scope as opposed to print media.
III. The Court’s Ruling on Freedom of the Press Issues
Historically, any curtailment to the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, is met with
glaring eye from the Supreme court, for it is provided by no less than the Constitution in Article
III, Section 4 which states:
“No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or the press, or the right
of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.”
The reason being is that the right of Freedom of expression occupies greater weight and
importance in the hierarchy of civil liberties. The significance of such right has been elaborated
in Philippine Blooming Employment Organization vs Philippine Blooming Mills Co, Inc. which
reads:
“The rights of free expression, free assembly and petition, are not only civil rights but also
political rights essential to man's enjoyment of his life, to his happiness and to his full and
complete fulfillment. Thru these freedoms the citizens can participate not merely in the periodic
establishment of the government through their suffrage but also in the administration of public

affairs as well as in the discipline of abusive public officers. The citizen is accorded these rights
so that he can appeal to the appropriate governmental officers or agencies for redress and
protection as well as for the imposition of the lawful sanctions on erring public officers and
employees.”
The right of freedom of expression is so broad that it covers all forms of expression such as written
work, culture and the arts, political speech, and commercial speech. But it is jurisprudentially
settled in the case of Diocese of Bacolod vs Comelec, that supreme among the aforementioned
forms of freedom of expression is the Political speech, which is accorded with more protection.
In the foregoing case, Political speech has been defined as a speech "both intended and received
as a contribution to public deliberation about some issue, fostering informed
and civic-minded deliberation. Most of the Freedom of the press guarantee often use this Political
speech. And to limit political speech, the freedom of expression, or of the press, must be exercised
with great caution not with laxity, and only in cases where there exists a clear and present danger,
or a compelling state interest. Absent the following instances, any law abridging the freedom of
speech or of expression must be declared unconstitutional.
The following are cases decided by Supreme Court which affirms the protection guaranteed by
the constitution for the press pursuant to its mandate of being the watchdog of the governmental
actions and people’s affairs. Any unjustified derogation to that right is declared as violative of
the constitution, hence void.
In Eastern Broadcasting Corporation vs. Dyre, respondent merely closed the radio station,,
without any prior hearing , and any administrative action, citing only that the station is being
used to incite people to sedition. The Supreme court held this improper, and instead provided
guidelines that the cardinal requirements laid down in Ang Tibay vs CIR must be followed before
a broadcast station may be closed for its protection; due process must be observed prior
deprivation of life, liberty, or property of the people. The same applies to the Press. Penned by
Justice Gutierrez Jr., the Supreme court cited the following reason why due process for the Press
be observed:
“All forms of media, whether print or broadcast, are entitled to the broad protection of the
freedom of speech and expression clause. The test for limitations on freedom of expression
continues to be the clear and present danger rule — that words are used in such circumstances
and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the
substantive evils that the lawmaker has a right to prevent. “ “Radio and television would have
little reason for existence if broadcasts are limited to bland, obsequious, or pleasantly entertaining
utterances. Since they are the most convenient and popular means of disseminating varying
views on public issues, they also deserve special protection.”
In the case of ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation vs COMELEC, COMELEC issued a resolution

restraining Petitioner to conduct an exit survey, allegedly upon "information from a reliable
source that ABS-CBN has prepared a project, with PR groups, to conduct radio-TV coverage of
the elections and to make an exit survey of the vote during the elections for national officials
particularly for President and Vice President, results of which shall be broadcast immediately.
The electoral body believed that such project might conflict with the official Comelec count, as
well as the unofficial quick count of the National Movement for Free Elections (Namfrel). It also
noted that it had not authorized or deputized Petitioner ABS-CBN to undertake the exit survey.

Petitioner sought this unconstitutional because it runs counter to their valid exercises of freedoms
of speech and of the press. The Supreme court ruled in favor of COMELEC holding that he
absolute ban imposed by the Comelec cannot, therefore, be justified. It does not leave open any
alternative channel of communication to gather the type of information obtained through exit
polling. On the other hand, there are other valid and reasonable ways and means to achieve the
Comelec end of avoiding or minimizing disorder and confusion that may be brought about by
exit surveys. It elaborated:
The holding of exit polls and the dissemination of their results through mass media constitute an
essential part of the freedoms of speech and of the press. Hence, the Comelec cannot ban them
totally in the guise of promoting clean, honest, orderly and credible elections. Quite the contrary,
exit polls — properly conducted and publicized — can be vital tools in eliminating the evils of
electionfixing and fraud. Narrowly tailored countermeasures may be prescribed by the Comelec
so as to minimize or suppress the the incidental problems in the conduct of exit polls, without
transgressing in any manner the fundamental rights of our people. incidental problems in the
conduct of exit polls, without transgressing in any manner the fundamental rights of our people.
In the case of Burgos vs Chief of Staff, the Petitioner’s premises--- The Metropolitan
Mail, and “We Forum newspaper” business and printing offices--- were searched of alleged
subversive documents, in view of a warrant which the High court declared as void for being in
the nature of a general warrant. As a consequence of the search and seizure, these premises were
padlocked and sealed, with the further result that the printing and publication of said newspapers
were discontinued. The Supreme court held this arbitrary closure as unconsitutional for the
reason that: “Such closure is in the nature of previous restraint or censorship abhorrent to the
freedom of the press guaranteed under the fundamental law,and constitutes a virtual denial of
petitioners' freedom to express themselves in print. This state of being is patently anathematic to
a democratic framework where a free, alert and even militant press is essential for the political
enlightenment and growth of the citizenry.”
The premium put on freedom of expression transcends local borders, and goes further to
international communities, hence a lot of nations are signatories to international human rights
instruments and its protocols to universally uphold the aforementioned freedom. And from those
international instruments become the basis of international law jurisprudence. Some of the
international law cases relating to freedom of expression and of the press are as follows: In Berik
Zhagiparov vs. Kazakhstan, an editor of regional newspaper advocating for the worker’s rights
of the city’s largest industrial plant owned by Kazakhmys Corporation was arbitrarily arrested
for the allegation of the industrial plant company that the news articles of the editor is causing
social unrest in the region. Further, the publication’s newspaper license was withdrawn, and the
public access to the website was suspended. The Human rights Committee of the United Nations
concluded that the State Party, Kazakhstan, violated Article 19(2) of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which states: “Everyone shall have the right
to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information
and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of
art, or through any other media of his choice.”
The same article was violated by Belarus in the case of Liubou Pranevich vs Belarus. In such case,
Petitioner is a Belarusian national and journalist for a Belarusian journalist’s union magazine.

While covering a book presentation by a famous journalist, she, together with 28 attendees, were
detained by the police, and subsequently charged of organizing or holding a public event outside
of established procedure. She was found guilty of the charges and merited a warning as a form
of administrative penalty. However, the author filed a complaint for a statement by the arresting
police officer which was not included in the transcript of the court proceedings. The statement
says that the journalists repeatedly wrote articles of false reports about the police, and it is highly
probable that the petitioner also had written such articles. The United Nations Human Rights
Committee recommended that the State party to comply with its obligation in upholding the right
to freedom of expression of the author mentioned uder Article 19 of the covenant on Civil and
Political rights.
A similar case of journalist persecution for criticism of police actions was elucidated in Njaru v.
Cameroon, the Petitioner was illegally arrested, beaten, and fractured by policemen for the
articles he wrote on denouncing corruption and violence of the security forces, as well as to
prevent him from freely exercising his profession as a journalist. An elaboration of the violence
was stated in the decision:
On 12 October 1997, Mr. H.N. and Mr. B.N., Chief of Post for the Brigade Mixte Mobile, stopped
their police car next to the author, who was standing on the street in Ekondo-Titi. Mr. H.N. asked
the author why he had never come to the police station, despite several summons, and again
criticized him for having written press articles denouncing police corruption in the district. When
the author answered that he had only received oral summons, which were of no legal relevance,
Mr. H.N. again threatened to arrest and torture him. He then assaulted the author, beating and
kicking him to unconsciousness, removed the author's press ID, and left.
Acting on the foregoing complaint, the United Nations Human Rights Committee held that the
State party is under an obligation to take effective measures to ensure that: (a) criminal
proceedings are initiated seeking the prompt prosecution and conviction of the persons
responsible for the author's arrest and ill treatment; (b) the author is protected from threats
and/or intimidation from members of the security forces; and (c) he is granted effective
reparation including full compensation. The State party is under an obligation to ensure that
similar violations do not occur in the future.
From the aforementioned cases, both local and international, we can logically conclude that
repression of the press is a global issue that must be addressed in a large scale action. The local
legistlations and international law human rights instruments will just remain good in paper if no
further effective enforcement of the laws will be done by State parties. To raise sovereignty to
escape liability from the violations of the Covenants is to show disregard to a shared cause that
all humans endear: peaceful and non-discriminatory nations with due respect for human rights.
IV. FREEDOM OF THE PRESS DURING MARTIAL LAW
On September 22, 1972 through Letter of Instruction no. 1, then President Ferdinand Marcos
through Letter of Instruction No.1 orders the closure of media establishments like Manila Times;
Daily Mirror; Manila Chronicle; Manila Daily Bulletin; Philippine Daily Express; Philippines
Herald; Philippine Free Press, Graphic; and the Nation as well as wire agencies.

Media and opposition personalities known to be critical against Marcos are taken to military
camps for investigation and detention. The series of interrogation of the media by the military
intelligence begins.
On September 25, 1972, the Department of Public Information (DPI) issues Order No. 1 requiring
all media publications to get a clearance from the DPI, and Order No. 2 which prohibits printers
“from producing any form of publication for mass dissemination without permis-sion from DPI.”
On this day, the Philippine Daily Express restarts publication.
On October 28, 1972, Marcos issue Presidential Decree (PD) 33 which “penalizes the printing,
possession, and distribution of leaflets and other materials, and even graffiti which ‘undermine
the integrity of the government.’”
On November 2, 1972, Marcos issues PD No. 36 canceling the franchises and permits of all mass
media facilities allegedly trying to topple his government. The decree creates the Mass Media
Council which has the power to grant certificates of authority to newspapers, radio, and TV. On
January 6, 1973, Marcos issues PD 90 penalizing rumor-mongering. Rumor, according to the
decree, is “false news and information and gossip which undermines the stability of
government.”
On May 11, 1973, Marcos issues PD 191 abolishing the Mass Media Council and creating the
Media Advisory Council.
In 1974, the Foreign Corres-pondents Association of the Philippines is formed to protect the rights
of journalists working for foreign-based news agencies. Like local journalists, foreign
correspondents undergo censorship. In an interview with PJR Reports, former New York Times
correspondent Alice Colet Villadolid says they go to Malacañang every day to have their articles
checked and approved by the Office of the Press Secretary. PD 576 abolishes the Media Advisory
Council and the Bureau of Standards for Mass Media. But, on November 11 of the same year,
Marcos authorized the organization of regulatory councils for print and broadcast media through
PD 576-A. The Philippine Council for Print Media and the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster sa
Pilipinas were formed.
On February 3, 1976, Marcos issues PD 885 forbidding the creation of “subversive” organi-
zations. It included “preparing documents, leaflets and any other types of publication, and advi-
sing and counseling members of “subversive” organizations” as among the punishable acts. The
penalty for crimes against public order is increased through PD 942.
On January 28, 1977, Marcos issues PD 1079, a decree “Revising and consolidating all laws and
decrees regulating the publication of judicial notices, advertisements for public biddings, notices
of auction sales, and other similar notices.”
On, September 12, 1980 – Marcos issues PD No 1737 or the Public Order Act. This “empowered
him to issue orders as he may deem necessary” in order to clamp down on “subversive
publications or other media of mass communication” and “ban or regulate the holding of
entertainment (or exhibitions) deemed ’detrimental to the national interest.’” Under this, he was
also ”empowered to order the preventive detention of persons and to prohibit the wearing of
certain uniforms or emblems.”

On October 8, 1980, Marcos issues PD No. 727 making “unlawful the malicious dissemination of
false information.” On January 17, 1981 – Marcos issues Proclamation No. 2045 “lifting” martial
law. On January 23, 1981, the government abolishes the print and broadcast media councils. The
right to publish without having to obtain prior license was restored. On March 9, 1982, Marcos
issues Letter of Instruction No. 1211. Called the Presidential Com-mitment Order, the presidential
issuance allows the “preventive detention” of persons for crimes mentioned in PD No. 2045.
On December 2, 1982, Marcos orders the seizure of We Forum after it came out with a series
exposing his fake medals. On July 21,
1983, The Presidential Commitment Order was replaced by Preventive Detention Action. Marcos
issues PD 1875 repealing the Public Order Act, and PD 1876 repealing the National Security Code.
On, July 25, 1983, Marcos issues PD 1835 or the Anti-Subversion Law of 1981, “increasing the
penalties for membership in subversive organizations from life imprisonment to death.”
On August 20, 1983, the Women Writers in Media Now hold a consultation on press freedom. On
August 21, 1983, Former senator Benigno Aquino Jr. is assassinated upon his return to Manila.
On September 29, 1983, Properties of the Philippine Times were seized after it published a story
implicating high government and military officials in the assassination of Ninoy Aquino.
In Mid-1985, The New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists announces that a total of 12
journalists were killed since 1984. The National Press Club, on the other hand, says that 19 were
killed and one has been missing since 1976.
V. PRESIDENT DUTERTE AND THE MEDIA
Even before President Duterte took his oath of office in 2016, he was known to have a “colorful”
relationship with the media.
In a press conference in May 2016, he said that journalists are legitimate targets of assassination
“if you're a son of a bitch.”
"Just because you're a journalist you are not exempted from assassination, if you're a son of a
bitch," Duterte said when asked how he would address the problem of media killings in the
Philippines.That was just the start of his tirades against the media. Barely two years into his
presidency, Duterte and his government have continuously threatened, harassed, and made
antagonists out of several media outlets.
In March 2017, Duterte called certain media entities "bastos" (rude) for writing supposedly unfair
news about him and his
administration.In a thinly veiled threat, the President said that karma is sure to catch up with
newspaper Philippine Daily Inquirer and television network ABS-CBN and their owners, the
Prietos and Lopezes, respectively. These threats continued in the next months.

In April 2017, Duterte said that he wants to block the renewal of ABS-CBN’s franchise, further
accusing the network of “swindling” after it did not show his already paid political ads during
the 2016 campaign season. In July 2017, Duterte turned his ire on the Inquirer and threatened to
do an “exposé” against the country’s largest broadsheet. He accused the owners of not paying
the correct taxes for their Mile Long property. He also tried to link an exofficial with a huge salary
to the Inquirer.
The same month, after being at the receiving end of threats, the Prieto family announced it was
in talks with Ramon Ang, head of San Miguel Corporation, for the sale of its majority stake in the
Inquirer. Ang was also described by Duterte as his friend. The move, according to the family, was
a “strategic decision” but insiders said it was due to continued harassment and pressure.
During his second State of the Nation Address (SONA) in July 2017, Duterte claimed that social
news site Rappler is "fully owned" by Americans, warning the company that this violates the 1987
Constitution. This claim reflects the disinformation directed by pro-Duterte bloggers and various
allies of the administration against Rappler even during the election period. The news outlet has
consistently debunked this claim.
Almost 6 months after, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) revoked Rappler's
registration for allegedly violating the Constitution and the Anti-Dummy Law. This move is
nothing short of harassment aimed at stifling press freedom in the Philippines. On December 14,
2016, the Office of the Solicitor General wrote the SEC, asking it to investigate Rappler over its
Philippine Depositary Receipts (PDRs). Rappler, however, assured its readers that it will continue
to operate as it files the necessary motions for reconsideration with the courts. Several
organizations – both local and international – have called out this action as an act against press
freedom. Meanwhile, according to data from the CMFR, 4 journalists have been killed so far
under the Duterte administration. This is only a part of a huge culture of impunity dominating
the Philippines.
VI. STATE OF THE PHILIPPINE MEDIA UNDER DUTERTE’S ADMINISTRATION
In the last 34 months under President Rodrigo R. Duterte, cases and incidents of attacks and
threats on the Philippine media continue relentlessly, with hardly any major efforts at
investigation or solution by responsible state agencies.
The latest report shows:
 An increase in the number of cases of “Killings, Attacks, and Threats” from 99

cases/incidents to 128 cases/incidents, across media platforms across the nation
 A significant increase — from six to 16 cases — in the number of incidents of intimidation,
including “red-tagging,” visits by police teams to the offices of certain media agencies,
and the exposure of independent media organizations and their officers and staff in the
so-called “associational matrix” of an “oust-Duterte plot”;
 A significant increase in the number of threats and harassment of online news
organizations from 30 to 50.
 A significant increase — from 10 to 16 cases — in the number of DDoS attacks on
alternative media sites; and

 An unchanged number of 12 journalists killed from June 30, 2016 to October 30, 2018,
under the Duterte administration.
 By gender/entity, the attacks had targeted 66 males and 33 females, and 29 media
organizations.
 By medium, of the 128 cases/incidents of attacks and threats on the press, online has shot
to top spot with 50 cases, followed by radio with 36, and print with 25, television with 13,
multimedia with 3, and photojournalism, 1.
 By region of the country, from 41 cases/incidents of attacks and threats in November 2018,
media agencies in the National Capital Region or Metro Manila recorded 63 cases by April
30, 2019. Metro Manila’s media has retained this dubious record as No. 1, by number of
cases of attacks and threats,since 2014.
 By island group, the 128 total cases include 89 cases recorded in Luzon, 26 in Mindanao,
and 13 in the Visayas.
 By alleged perpetrator or suspect, nearly half or 60 of the cases involved state agents or
public officials.
 They include 16 local government officials and employees; 14 national government offices
and officials; 11 officers of the Philippine National Police; seven officers of the Armed
Forces of the Philippines; three officers of the Presidential Security Group; two cases each
involving, ironically, an official of the Presidential Special Task Force on Media Killings
(PTFOMS) and of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency; and one case involving the
director of the Philippine Information Agency.
 The infographics for this report were produced by the Center for Media Freedom and
Responsibility (CMFR), with research by the National Union of Journalists of the
Philippines (NUJP).
VII. CLEAR VIOLATION OF FREEDOM OF THE PRESS and THE PEOPLE’S FREEDOM TO
INFORMATION
The order of the Securities and Exchange Commission to revoke the license of the digital news
media outfit Rappler can be interpreted as part of the continuing shakedown by the Duterte
administration on the independent press, which is critical of its abuses and depredations. It is
important that the necessary advance of the world towards a more highly organized political and
economic order renders a free criticism of governments, administrations and institutions
imperative. The government should not prosecute individuals or exact reprisals who convey
information, opinions or ideas through the digital media. The shutdown of Rappler is a violation
of the Filipino’s right to seek and receive information and opinion through digital journalism.
The Duterte administration, by targeting Rappler and the free press, undermines the universal
right to freedom of expression. The SEC order against Rappler betrays once more the Duterte
administration’s despotism and its intolerance of dissent and contrary views. The SEC’s
revocation of Rappler’s certificate of incorporation is yet another assault on press freedom. A
people without a free press cannot be entirely free, which is among the reasons that Freedom
House, the independent organization dedicated to the expansion of freedom and democracy
around the world, classifies the Philippines as only “partially free.” That partial status may yet
be downgraded further. The assault on Rappler and the free press can only further diminish us
as a people and a democratic citizen of the free world.


HR Law - Atty Jamon (Compiled Reports)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

HR Law - Atty Jamon (Compiled Reports)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

HR Law - Atty Jamon (Compiled Reports)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW

Menlo St. cor. Taft Ave., Pasay city

COMPILATION OF THE REPORTS ON:

Subject: Human Rights Law

1 |HUMAN RIGHTS LAW REPORTS

GROUP 1 (Political repression of the GROUP 5 (Trump on Mexicans crossing

GROUP 2 (War on Drugs) GROUP 6 (Death Penalty)

GROUP 3 (Chinese take-over of the west

GROUP 4 (Rohingya Discrimination) GROUP 8 (Violation of Freedom of the

2 |HUMAN RIGHTS LAW REPORTS

Classification of Human Rights

A. According to source - natural rights, constitutional rights, statutory rights

B. According to recipient - individual rights, collective rights

3 |HUMAN RIGHTS LAW REPORTS

E. According to derogability - absolute or non-derogable, derogable or can-be-limited rights

Who are entitled to Human Rights/Who can exercise Human Rights?

MAIN TOPIC: Political Repression of the Oppositions

ARTICLE 3, Section 8 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution

B.1 ARTICLE 3, Section 4 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution

B.2 ARTICLE 3, Section 18 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution

“Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.”

C. Right to Access of Information

ARTICLE 2, Section 28 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution

4 |HUMAN RIGHTS LAW REPORTS

ARTICLE 3, Section 7 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution

ARTICLE 3, Section 4 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution

E. Right to Participate in the Government Affairs

Issues and Events:

1st Event: Martial Law

5 |HUMAN RIGHTS LAW REPORTS

2nd Event: Attack against Vice President Leni Robredo

6 |HUMAN RIGHTS LAW REPORTS

Bureau of Jail Management and Penology

Maximum capacity: 20,399

Current no. of detainees:132,000

 Right made vulnerable:

 ISSUE 5 Attack Against Critics of Drug War

a. Senator Leila de Lima

b. Senator Antonio Trillanes IV

 The Catholic church

7 |HUMAN RIGHTS LAW REPORTS

Duterte has repeatedly slammed the Church in response to its criticism.

 ISSUE 6 Issues related to children

 Proposed imposition of drug-testing on children

 ISSUE 7 WAR ON THE POOR

8 |HUMAN RIGHTS LAW REPORTS

 ISSUE 8 CULTURE OF IMPUNITY

b. VICTIM’S RIGHT TO JUSTICE AND REDRESS

 ISSUE 9 Abuses Committed by Police Authorities

9 |HUMAN RIGHTS LAW REPORTS

Following President Duterte’s inauguration, the Philippines National Police launched a

(AUGUST 16, 2017) 17-YEAR OLD KILLED IN POLICE RAID

(AUGUST 18, 2017) CCTV FOOTAGE BELIES POLICE ACCOUNT

(AUGUST 24, 2017) CONFIRMED VIA SOCIAL MEDIA

10 |HUMAN RIGHTS LAW REPORTS

(SEPTEMBER 4, 2017) RAPS VS. COPS IN KIAN SLAY

(SEPTEMBER 4, 2017) BATO ADMITS 'OVERKILL'