Papers - Eco, Social, Cultural Rights

Table of Contents
KABUHAYAN, KARAPATAN, KATARUNGAN

A forum on economic, social, and cultural rights: violations and
remedies
August 28, 2008
PAPERS
I. “Access of the poor to justice in an elite-dominated

constitutional government and society”, Judge Romeo T.
Capulong, chairperson, National Union of People's Lawyers…….1
II. “Sama-samang Pagkilos para sa Pagpapalapit ng Hustisya”,

Chief Justice Reynto S. Puno, Supreme Court……………………………4
III. “Defending economic, social and cultural rights”, Bagong

Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan) and IBON Foundation……………….8
IV. “Anti-SLAPP rule: amending the rules to counter harassment

suits”, National Union of People's Lawyers……………………………….18
V. On the environment, Kalikasan People's Network for the

Environment……………………………………………………………………………… 29
VI. On fisherfolks, Pambansang Lakas ng Kilusang Mamamalakaya

ng Pilipinas…………………………………………………………………………….… 36
VII. On peasants, Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas……………….…....46
VIII. On labor, Kilusang Mayo Uno……………………………………………………55
IX. On women, GABRIELA…………………………………………………….……..…58
X. On children, Salinlahi Alliance for Children's Concerns…………..62
XI. On government employees, Confederation for Unity, Recognition

and Advancement of Government Employees…………………………70
XII. On public transport, Pagkakaisa ng mga Samahan ng Tsuper at

Opereytor Nationwide……………………………………………………………….73
XIII. On migrant workers, Migrante International………………………..…78
XIV. On indigenous peoples, Kalipunan ng Katutubong Mamamayan

sa Pilipinas …………………………………………………………………………………87
XV. Summary of Recommendations………………………………………………..98

KABUHAYAN, KARAPATAN, KATARUNGAN 2008
Access of the Poor to Justice in an Elite-Dominated Constitutional

Government and Society
Romeo T. Capulong
Chairperson, National Union of People’s Lawyers
President, Public Interest Law Center
In his speech on June 30, 2008 on the topic of our forum this morning, our keynote
speaker, Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, noted that “the poor complain that the
playing field in our justice system is tilted against them.” He attributed this
complaint to a variety of reasons, one of which is that judges “decide cases without
considering their social context.” Allow me to add my piece to this keen observation
by saying affirmatively that this complaint is true and unquestionably supported by
empirical data and experience. This is particularly true in the struggle of poor
Filipinos against economic, social and cultural injustice.
My topic in the program is to define the framework of this struggle from the
perspective and aspirations of the oppressed and exploited poor under the prevailing
economic, social and cultural order or, more appropriately disorder, to borrow the
terminology of a perceptive political analyst. At the outset, I wish to make it clear,
that just like the other participants, I am keenly aware of the limitations of the rule-
making power of the Supreme Court to widen the access of the poor to our justice
system. But at the same time, I think we can now agree that our discussions and
proposals cannot be confined to procedural issues and remedies. And to achieve
what I consider as our minimum objective of identifying the barriers to the poor’s
access to justice and their causes and remedies, we can set aside the fine distinction
and lump together both procedural and substantive matters. In fact, our thesis
should be to make all the three branches of government under the tripartite system
work together to address this fundamental problem of inadequate and, in most
cases, lack of access of the poor to redress injustices committed against them by the
rich and the powerful.
We all know that we live and suffer in a stratified society and under a government
that is dominated by a tiny elite. This tiny elite has a monopoly of political power
and economic resources which they use and often abuse to tilt the scales of justice in
their favor. We have a long history of anti-colonial and neo-colonial struggle against
foreign domination, particularly against the United States, transnational corporations
and multi-lateral institutions whose means and machinery of control are increasingly
becoming more sophisticated and effective.
We are endowed with rich natural resources but millions of Filipinos are mired in
deep and widespread poverty under a system characterized by a backward, agrarian
and pre-industrial economy that serves the narrow interests of foreign and domestic
elites. We have not been allowed to develop as a people and to chart our own
future. An overwhelming majority of our people continue to be disenfranchised and
victimized by human rights abuses, oppression and exploitation. Our elections are a
farce in which the people are given the illusion that they are participating in a
meaningful process. In reality, they are not being offered real choices in terms of
adopting a pro-poor and pro-Filipino program of government and choosing leaders
who will represent their genuine interests. Our electorate are being deceived, taught
and induced to sell their votes, cheated, intimidated or sometimes killed. We have
been electing to office different factions of the Filipino elite alternating in power in a
1
vicious cycle of self-interest, mutual accommodation, constantly shifting personal

and political loyalties and dynasty-building. The result is a government that is
perennially unable to provide the most basic needs of the poor in health care,
education, shelter and livelihood.
I venture the view that this, in brief, is the social context suggested by Chief Justice
Puno in understanding the problems of the judiciary and the variety of reasons why
justice and equity for the poor in their true meaning remain “an ideal that is far from
the reality of their everyday lives.” I respectfully submit that the bench and the bar
as well as policy-makers should have as their guiding and over-riding principle the
foregoing social context in the following cases and conflicts involving the poor:
1. The peasants in their struggle for genuine land reform and their legal battle
against land-grabbing and eviction in the name of so-called development by
land-grabbers masquerading as property developers;
2. The workers in their struggle for decent wages and working conditions and in
their struggle to organize trade unions and associations that empower them
and represent their genuine interests;
3. The urban poor and informal settlers, oftentimes disparagingly called

“squatters,” in the defense of their right against summary eviction and for
adequate relocation site, housing and livelihood;
4. The migrant workers in the defense of their human rights under national and
international law in the host country and in their struggle against the apathy
and callousness of their own government to their problems as migrant
workers and to the problems that beset their families in the homeland;
5. The small fisherfolk in their struggle to defend their fishing grounds against
the intrusions of local and foreign fishing magnates;
6. The indigenous people in the defense of their ancestral domain against land-
grabbers and local and foreign mining companies;
7. Political victims of violations of human, civil and political rights such as

extra-judicial killings, involuntary disappearances, torture, illegal arrests and
arbitrary detention committed by the state through its police, military and
paramilitary forces; and
8. The public in general on legal issues like environmental protection and

consumer rights.
There is almost unanimity on the ills that afflict our judicial system and the
problems of the marginalized poor in accessing this system to enforce or defend their
economic, social and cultural rights. I fully agree with the Chief Justice that the
following are seemingly insurmountable problems waiting for immediate short-term
solutions: “lack of knowledge of their rights under the law, lack of resources to fight
for their rights, exorbitant cost of justice, lack or ineffective legal representation,
delays in the dispensation of justice, complex and incomprehensible legal procedure,
anti-poor laws, judges who decide cases without considering their social context,
etc.” With due respect, may I add to this list three major weaknesses and
vulnerabilities that pervade and continue to deteriorate in our courts and among the
2
judges today. And these are: (1) bribery and corruption; (2) political and other
forms of undue pressure; and (3) our sub-culture of pakiki-sama and utang na loob.
To be candid, the victims of these judicial afflictions are generally the defenseless
poor – those who belong to the marginalized sectors I just mentioned who are forced
to go to court either to defend or to assert their economic, social and cultural rights
against formidable adversaries who have unlimited resources and the full support of
the government, including the military, police, local officials and private armies.
I believe that there are two ways of addressing the multi-level barriers that impede
the poor’s access to justice. One is to consider simple measures and remedies that
are doable in the short term. Judging from the inputs of the first forum and this
forum, the concrete proposals have been comprehensive because they are anchored
on actual experience. The other way of addressing these barriers is to examine
scientifically their roots and be part of the wider national struggle to dismantle these
roots that afflict not only the justice system but more importantly, the whole
Philippine society. I think no one will disagree with the proposition that our problems
in the judiciary, in the legislature, in the executive branch, in the rest of our
institutions and processes are inextricably intertwined and will defy lasting solutions
unless we dismantle the prevailing unjust social and economic order and establish a
truly free, democratic and sovereign nation. And this is the reason why, as a
concluding part of my brief presentation, I only have one concrete proposal which is
not only both procedural and substantive, but also fundamental and structural. With
your permission, Honorable Chief Justice, colleagues and friends, without sounding
sarcastic or skeptical because I am coming to you with clean hands and absolute
sincerity allow me to propose in this forum the adoption and promulgation not only
by the Supreme Court but by our people of what I call the writ of Andres Bonifacio.
Thank you.
August 28, 2008.
3
Sama-samang Pagkilos para sa Pagpapalapit ng Hustisya

ni
Punong Mahistrado Reynato S. Puno
Korte Suprema
Una sa lahat, nais ko pong magpasalamat sa Bagong Alyansang Makabayan o

BAYAN, sa National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers at sa mga iba pa nating kasama rito,
sa inyong pagtugon sa ating katatapos pa lamang na Forum on Increasing Access
to Justice: Bridging Gaps and Removing Roadblocks.
Umani ang nasabing pagpupulong ng mga mungkahi buhat sa iba't ibang

stakeholders ng ating justice system, partikular sa hanay ng mga mahihirap at
abang sektor ng lipunan hinggil sa kanilang mga hinaing tungkol sa access to justice.
Kabilang sa mga rekomendasyon na nakalap buhat sa ginanap na Forum ay ang

paglibre o hindi pagsali sa pagbabayad ng docket fees, bail bonds o piyansa sa mga
espesyal na kaso ng mga marginalized sectors, kabilang na ang mga kapatid nating
indigenous peoples o mga katutubo. Ang isa namang panukala ay ang pagpapababa
ng mga bayad para sa paghain ng habla sa ating mga korte, ang pagbawas sa bilang
ng hinihinging kopya ng mga pleadings o papeles na inihahain sa korte, at ang
pagbawal sa pagbenta ng mga transcript of stenographic notes (TSN) nang kada
pahina dahil na rin sa dagdag gastos na dulot nito.
Iminungkahi rin ng mga lumahok sa Forum ang pagtatatag ng mga legal clinic na
mayroong mga programang naglalayong maiangat ang antas ng kaalaman ng mga
mahihirap at mga komunidad, at ang pakikipagtulungan sa Public Attorney's Office,
Commission on Human Rights, at Integrated Bar of the Philippines upang lalong
matupad ang layuning ito.
Sa nasabing Forum, hiningi rin ang tulong ng korte upang ibsan ang mga suliraning
dulot ng language barrier o balakid na dala ng pagkakaiba sa wika o pananalita lalo
na ng mga indigenous peoples o mga katutubo at ng mga tagapagpatupad ng batas,
mga abogado, at mga huwes.
Marami pa pong mga mungkahi ang inani ng Forum na ito at ang iba ay dapat
bigyan ng aksyon ng ibang sangay ng ating pamahalaan. Sa kasalukuyan, pinag-
aaralan nang mabuti ng Korte Suprema ang natanggap na mga mungkahi na nasa
kapangyarihan nito para tugunan.
Susuriin din po namin ang mga kaisipan na lumutang sa inyong pulong ngayong
umaga. Katulad ng mga nabanggit kanina ng National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers o
ng National Federation of Small Fisherfolk Organizations in the Philippines, ng
Kalikasan People’s Network for the Environment, ng Salinlahi o Alliance for Children’s
Concern, at ng iba pa
nating mga kasama ngayon, pag-aaralan namin ang pag-amyenda sa pamamaraan
ng mga hukuman upang tugunan ang nasabing SLAPP cases o Strategic Lawsuit
Against Public Participation na ginagamit upang ligaligin, guluhin, at pigilin ang mga
nagtataguyod ng mga karapatang konstitusyonal na pang-ekonomiya, pang-
pamayanan, at pang-kultura. Kasama na rin dito ang SLAPPBack action para sa
bayad-pinsala laban sa mga nagharap ng SLAPP cases na napawalang saysay. Pag-
aaralan din namin ang mga pamamaraan sa iba’t-ibang lugar sa Amerika, Canada, at
Europa, kung saan hango ang SLAPP cases at SLAPPBack actions.
4
Aming sinusuri din ang pagbibigay-luwag sa mga alituntunin ng mga hukuman upang
ang mga karaniwang mangingisda at kanilang mga organisasyon ay payagang
tumayo bilang mga complainants sa mga kasong may kinalaman sa pangingisda at
sa kalikasan; ang pagpapahintulot sa paghain ng torture cases sa kahit saang
hukuman, nang hindi kailangang isaalang-alang ang tirahan ng defendant; ang
pagpapalawak sa saklaw ng Writ of Amparo sa pamamagitan ng pagsasailalim rin sa
proteksyon nito ng mga karapatang pang-ekonomiya, pang-pamayanan, at pang-
kultura, kabilang na ang proteksyon laban sa demolisyon at ang pagpapalapit ng
mga iba pang judicial structures sa mga kapos-palad.
Kanina ay binabasa ko iyong Philippine Daily Inquirer. Doon sa pahina 7 ay sinasabi:

“CHR sees big drop in Extra Legal Killings.” Ang sabi ni Chairperson Leila de Lima ay
ito: “Overall there has been a very significant drop in the incidence of extra-judicial
killings by as much as 70% from 2007-2008 compared to the 2005-2006 period.”
The news item also quoted Philip Alston, who “noted improvement in the situation
after the Supreme Court introduced new rules that force the army to go beyond
denials and probe allegations against troops and produce evidence.”
Habang pinag-aaralan ang mga iba’t ibang mungkahing ito, ang inyong Korte
Supreme ay ipinatutupad na ang ibang mungkahing maaari nang ipatupad. Isa sa
mga hakbang na ito ay ang pagbibigay ng panibagong sigla sa proyektong Justice on
Wheels.
Ang Justice on Wheels ay isang malaking bus na maaring maging dalawang

hukuman. Ang mobile court system na ito ay itinatag upang tulungang mailapit ang
hustisya sa mga kapatid nating mahihirap. Kasama sa mga layuning ng mobile court
system ang makapagbigay ng mabilis at libreng solusyon sa mga usaping legal sa
pamamagitan ng conciliation, mediation, o adjudication.
Sa ngayon, ang mga mobile courts na ito ay ipinadadala sa mga pook kung saan
napakaraming kaso sa mga hukuman, upang makatulong sa mabilis na pag-usad ng
mga kaso ng mga mahihirap nating kababayan. Ang mobile courts na ito ay
ipinadadala din sa mga munisipalidad na walang mga regular na korte, sa mga
detention centers, at mga youth reception centers. Dinadala rin ang mobile courts na
ito sa mga lalawigan kung saan malayo ang mga hukuman sa mga litigante.
Nitong Enero ng taong ito, ang Mobile Court Annexed Mediation System ay dinala
natin sa Taytay, Cainta, Antipolo, at San Mateo sa lalawigan ng Rizal; at sa San Jose
Del Monte, Pandi, at Baliuag sa lalawigan naman ng Bulacan. Naging maganda ang
nagawa ng ating mobile courts. Sa isang libo, apat na raan at limampu't pitong
(1,454) kaso na sumailalim sa kanilang mediation, isang libo, tatlong daan at
dalawampu't siyam (1,329) sa mga ito ang matagumpay na naresolbahan – nagtala
ng walumpu't limang porsyento o eighty-five percent (85%) na success rate.
Noong nakaraang buwan, ang Justice on Wheels ay ipinadala sa Manila City Jail at
Manila Youth Reception Center upang mapabilis ang pagdinig sa kaso ng mga
nakapiit doon. Nang araw din na iyon, labindalawa sa mga nakapiit ang pinalaya
buhat sa city jail, samantalang lima naman ang iniutos na pawalan mula sa
pangagalaga ng youth facility. Naibigan ni
5
Mayor Lim ang ginawa ng Justice on Wheels kaya’t sa susunod na linggo ay

magkakaloob sila ng dalawang bus upang mapalakas ang ating Justice on Wheels
Program.
Sa buwan na ito, tinungo ng Justice on Wheels ang Caloocan City Jail, kung saan
tatlumpu't siyam (39) na mga bilanggo ang pinalaya. Ayon sa Bureau of Jail
Management and Penology (BJMP), ang Caloocan City Jail ang may pinakamabigat at
pinakamaraming bilang ng mga kaso sa National Capital Region (NCR), at tinatayang
mayroon ditong isang libo
anim na raan at dalawampu't walong (1,628) bilanggo.
Dinala rin ang Justice on Wheels sa Quezon City, kung saan duminig ito ng may
isandaang (100) kaso ng mga bilanggo. Dalawampu't siyam (29) na mga bilanggo
ang pinawalan matapos dinggin ang kanilang mga kaso. Sa tulong ng Pamahalaang
Lungsod, nagsagawa rin doon ng inspeksyon ng mga piitan at naghatid ng
serbisyong medikal-dental ang volunteer doctors at mga dentista ni Mayor Belmonte.
Dinala rin namin ang Justice on Wheels sa Visayas, doon sa Cebu Provincial Jail.
Pitumpu't isang (71) bilanggo ang napalaya nang tapusin ang kanilang mga kaso.
Samantala, isang libo pitong daan at animnapu't dalawang (1,762) bilanggong may
karamdaman ang nilapatan ng lunas sa pagbisita ng mga doktor na kasama ng
Justice on Wheels.
Dinala rin namin ang Justice on Wheels sa Kalibo, sa lalawigan ng Aklan, na

naitalang pinakamalubhang nasalanta ng nagdaang bagyong Frank. Tumigil ang mga
gulong ng hustisya doon nang liparin ng malakas na hangin ang bubong mismo ng
ating Hall of Justice at bahain ang court records. Ipinadala roon ang mobile court
upang duminig ng mga kasong
nakabinbin habang ang ating mga korte ay humahanap ng kanilang paglilipatan.
Sa susunod pong linggo ay dadalhin namin ang ating Justice on Wheels sa Mindanao
naman. Pupunta ito sa Davao del Sur, Davao del Norte at sa Saranggani. Mayroong
nagpapayo na huwag munang dalhin ang Justice on Wheels sa Mindanao dahil sa
nangyayaring gusot doon. Sa aming palagay, ito ay hindi sapat na dahilan upang ang
ating Justice on Wheels ay tumigil sa paghahatid ng mabilis na hustisya sa ating mga
kababayan sa Mindanao. Justice does not stop even at the sound of gunfire.
Isina-pinal na rin po noong ika-dalawampu't tatlo (23) ng Hunyo ng Supreme Court

Technical Working Group ang balangkas ng Rule of Procedure for Small Claims
Cases. Sa ilalim ng panuntunang ito, pipili ang Korte Suprema ng pilot courts kung
saan maaaring idulog ang mga maliliit na usaping legal na karaniwang
kinasasangkutan ng mga mahihirap at hindi na nangangailangan ng legal
representation at masalimuot na rules of procedure. Sa pamamagitan ng sistemang
ito, mailalapit ang mabilis na hustisya sa mga tao, lalo na sa mga kapos-palad na
hindi kayang tustusan ang napakamahal na halaga ng mga paglilitis, lalung-lalo na
ang mabagal na paglilitis. Saklaw ng Rule na ito ang mga kasong sibil na nakahain
sa firstlevel courts na may kinalaman sa salapi, kung saan ang halaga ng claim ay
hindi hihigit sa isandaang libong piso (Php100,000).
Ang mga small claims courts ay matatagpuan, at tunay na nagtagumpay, sa mga

bansang Australia, Canada, Ireland, Israel, New Zealand, South Africa, Hong Kong,
Singapore, United Kingdom, at United States. Nais nating dalhin sa ating bansa ang
6
tagumpay ng mga small claims courts upang ibsan ang napakarami at tumataas
pang bilang ng mga kaso sa
ating hukuman, at upang bigyan ang ating mga kababayan -- lalo na ang mahihirap
-- ng pag-asa sa kanilang paghahangad na makamtan ang mabilis na hustisya.
Sa kasalukuyan, hawak na ng Supreme Court en banc ang balangkas ng Rule na ito

hinggil sa small claims courts, at inaasahan kong mai-propromulgate ito sa lalong
madaling panahon.
Ito ay ilan lamang sa mga ginagawa at patuloy na pinag-aaralan ng ating Korte

Suprema upang mailapit ang hustisya sa ating mga kababayan at upang mabigyan
ng buhay ang kanilang social and economic rights. Gayunpaman, kami sa Korte
Suprema ay isa lamang sa mga sangay ng pamahalaan na dapat tumugon sa
pagtataguyod ng socio-economic rights ng ating mga kababayan. Kaya naman
tinatawagan namin ang iba pang mga sektor ng lipunan upang tumulong at
makilahok sa ating laban upang mabigyang katuturan ang pagnanais na
pagkakapantay-pantay ng mga mahihirap sa ating bansa. Nawa'y marami pa ang
tumugon at sa kanikanilang mga paraan ay makatulong upang maiangat ang
kalagayan ng mga nangangailangan gaya ng ginagawa ninyo ngayon. Ang inyo pong
Korte Suprema ay maaasahan ninyo na gagawa ng lahat na kaya nitong gawin
upang ang “social justice” na isang mandato ng ating Saligang Batas ay magkaroon
ng saysay sa buhay ng ating mga kababayan.
Maraming salamat at mabuhay kayong lahat.
7
DEFENDING ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS

Prepared by the Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan) and IBON
Foundation
August 28, 2008
Organizational profile of Bayan and IBON Foundation
The Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan) was formed in May 1985 with “The Grand
Old Man of Philippine politics” himself, staunch nationalist Sen. Lorenzo Tañada, as
its founding chairperson. Bayan is an alliance composed mainly of organizations of
workers and peasants and other basic sectors committed to advance the people’s
struggle for national freedom and democracy. The local chapter in the municipal,
provincial and regional level is the basic unit of Bayan. The National Executive
Committee, through its various departments and the Popular Struggles Commission,
ensures the implementation of Bayan's General Program of action and other policies
and directives laid down by the Congress and National Council. Bayan works with
other patriotic and progressive organizations and individuals based on the principles
of consensus, independence and initiative.
IBON is a non-stock non-profit development institution committed to serve the

Filipino people through various programs in research-education-information. It
explores alternatives and promotes a new understanding of socio-economic issues
that best serve the interests and aspirations of the Filipino people. IBON commits to
bring this knowledge and information to the greatest number so that the people may
effectively participate in building a self-reliant and progressive Philippines, a nation
that is sovereign and democratic.
Introduction
The economic, social and cultural rights of tens of millions of Filipinos are
undermined and unmet daily as the direct result of the inequitable and unjust
socioeconomic system prevailing in the country. Ironically this system has been
deliberately created and is consciously sustained by the State itself which has the
duty to promote and protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms. Indeed,
the trend in recent years has even been of increasing violations of economic, social
and cultural rights in the Philippines with ever greater numbers of Filipinos falling
into poverty and deepening deprivation.
The gravity of the people’s human rights situation raises the challenge to
progressively achieve the full realization of these rights – not just in the civil and
political but also in the economic, social and cultural realm. Workers, peasants,
national minorities, women, urban poor communities and other poor sectors in the
country have long waged their local and national struggles in defense of their rights.
Their mass struggles underscore the fact that these sectors grasp the essence of
their rights and that there are strong people’s organizations that have the capacity to
assert these fundamental rights in various arenas.
Nonetheless, that the locus of such struggles so often remains with the downtrodden
and aggrieved classes and sectors draws attention to serious limitations in national
human rights mechanisms for protecting, promoting and realizing economic, social
and cultural rights. This applies as well to the judicial system which has a potentially
8
important role to play to help ensure that socioeconomic policies promote rather
than undermine or violate human rights.
International and domestic law: economic, social and cultural rights
There is a basis in international human rights law to build on or work with. The
International Bill of Human Rights is used as the primary basis of the United Nations
(UN) in its activities to promote, protect and monitor human rights and fundamental
freedoms. The Bill comprises three texts: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
(1948), the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966),
and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) and its two
optional protocols.
Particularly relevant is the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural

Rights (ICESCR) adopted by the United Nations (UN) General Assembly on 16
December 1966 and opened for signature, ratification and accession. It gained the
force of law a decade later, entering into force on 3 January 1976. It contains some
of the most significant international legal provisions establishing economic, social and
cultural rights, including rights relating to work in just and favorable conditions, to
social protection, to an adequate standard of living, to the highest attainable
standards of physical and mental health, to education and to enjoyment of the
benefits of cultural freedom and scientific progress. The Philippines ratified the
Covenant on 7 June 1974 without reservation and thereby voluntarily undertaking to
implement its norms and provisions.
There is also a basis in Philippine law to build on or work with. The 1987
Constitution, as Supreme Court Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno for instance has said,
clearly outlines the mandate of the State to promote the general welfare of the
people and enhance their socioeconomic rights.i In Puno’s words, Article XII on the
National Economy and Patrimony states in unmistakable terms the goals of the
national economy and the purpose of property. He cited two particular provisions:
Section 1. The goals of the national economy are a more equitable

distribution of opportunities, income and wealth; a sustained increase in the
amount of goods and services produced by the nation for the benefit of the
people; and an expanding productivity as the key to raising the quality of life
for all, especially the underprivileged.
Section 6. The use of property bears a social function and all economic agents
shall contribute to the common good. Individuals and private groups,
including corporations, cooperatives, and similar collective organizations, shall
have the right to own, establish and operate economic enterprises, subject to
the duty of the State to promote distributive justice and to intervene when
the common good so demands.
The Chief Justice has also recognized that there appears to be an undue prioritization
of civil and political rights over economic, social and cultural rights. Citing the UN,
Puno said that: “despite the rhetoric, violations of civil and political rights continue to
be treated as though they were far more serious, and more patently intolerable, than
massive and direct denials of economic, social and cultural rights”.
9
“The lessons of history show that economic, social and cultural rights cannot be
relegated to the sidelines because they are essential conditions for the full
enjoyment of civil and political rights. The ideals of freedom can only be made
meaningful if the individual enjoys a certain degree of material security”, Puno
added.
But the Chief Justice also acknowledged that by themselves, economic, social and
cultural rights are invaluable regardless of what they contribute to civil and political
rights. Puno highlighted the urgency and importance of ensuring the protection of
people’s economic, social and cultural rights by pointing out that “day by day, more
human lives are threatened by poverty and lack of access to food or health care than
by intentional state killings”. He noted that while there were 1.69 million victims of
extrajudicial killings worldwide in the 20th century, around 11 million children alone
die yearly in many poor countries from preventable diseases and inadequate
nutrition. Puno concluded that “eliminating human deprivation is therefore just as
essential as prohibiting state killings”.
International human rights law declares the principle of protecting the full range of
human rights required for people to have a full, free, safe, secure and healthy life. It
maintains that the right to live a dignified life can never be attained unless all basic
necessities of life – work, food, housing, health care, education and culture – are
adequately and equitably available to everyone. Beyond this, even national law as
embodied in the 1987 Constitution recognizes that the national economy exists to
serve the needs of the people and that the State has the duty to intervene when the
common good so requires.
The ratification of human rights treaties and the 1987 Constitution itself thus make
the Philippine State accountable to its citizens. The judicial system is a potentially
crucial venue for this. However even the Supreme Court has prevented itself from
subjecting to judicial review the macroeconomic trade, investment and fiscal policies
that have the most far-reaching adverse effects on the progressive realization of
economic, social and cultural rights. This is because it treats the relevant
Constitutional provisions as “not self-executory” (Simon vs. CHR, G.R. No. 100150)
and because it unduly defers to the executive and legislature on economic matters
(Tañada vs. Angara, G.R. No. 118295). These must be corrected for the country to
meet its treaty obligations under the ICESCR and for the people’s rights to food,
shelter and livelihood to be realized. Procedural reforms are welcome but these will
be mere palliatives unless the substantive problems stemming from wrongful and
faulty macroeconomic policies are addressed.
Realities on the ground: socioeconomic policies causing poverty and

deprivation
It is essential to recognize basic macro economic problems so that attempts to

identify and propose solutions will be constructive. The biggest change in economic
policy in the Philippines over the last three decades has been the economy’s
unprecedented and reckless opening up to foreign goods and capital. This has had
very adverse effects. Trade liberalization since the 1980s has resulted in Philippine
agricultural and industrial tariff barriers being among the lowest in Southeast Asia,
next only to Singapore. Likewise, investment liberalization since the 1990s has
resulted in the country having one of the most liberal investment regimes in the
10
region. The country’s trade with other countries and its direct investment from
abroad are the most they have ever been in the country’s history.
Yet joblessness has reached record highs, poverty has grown, and public resources
for social services have not been able to keep up with population growth and
inflation. Contrary to expectations, this retrogression can be directly attributed to the
drastic changes in trade and investment policy.
The past decade of lackluster, if not deteriorating, economic performance gives the
Supreme Court sufficient reason to revisit its arguments as in Tañada vs. Angara
(G.R. No. 118295) of May 2, 1997. At the time there was much “globalization” hype
and many were swayed by the promised benefits of rapid economic liberalization.
The last decade however has exposed these promises as empty and false and
vindicated the various groups that opposed the World Trade Organization (WTO). As
it is, the Doha Round of WTO talks have collapsed after seven years in part because
so many Third World countries disadvantaged by so-called “free trade” are no longer
able to accept the deeper liberalization being pushed by the world’s big powers. The
supposed protection afforded by the WTO against unfair foreign competition and
trade practices – such as anti-dumping measures, countervailing measures and
safeguards against import surges – have also proven to be ineffectual . Weak and
backward economies like the Philippines can barely avail of them while the advanced
capitalist countries like the United States (US) and European Union (EU) have
aggressively used such protectionist provisions unfairly. The big economic powers
are now on free trade offensive through the push for bilateral free trade agreements
(FTAs) to make up for their failure to seal a deal at the WTO makes this even more
imperative.
The stark and persistent violations of economic, social and cultural rights of specific
marginalized sectors and the hurdles they face in accessing the courts should most
certainly be addressed by the Supreme Court. However there are also economy-wide
effects of macroeconomic policies; directly and indirectly, the people’s ESC rights are
grievously violated. The following are among the most relevant and cut across all the
basic sectors of Philippine society that comprise the majority of the population.
1. The Philippines is facing record joblessness despite supposedly rapid

economic growth. The average annual unemployment rate of 11.3% and of
underemployment of 18.9% from 2001-2007 is the worst seven-year period
of these rates in the country’s history.i Average annual job creation in this
period has not been enough to meet the demands of a growing labor force
and there were 597,000 more jobless Filipinos and 803,000 more
underemployed in 2007 compared to 2000. By 2007, there were 4.1 million
Filipinos unemployed with another 6.8 million underemployed and still looking
for more work. The most recent quarterly unemployment figures for April
2008 also show an increase in the unemployment rate and in the number of
unemployed since a year ago.
2. Recent officially released unemployment figures give the impression that

unemployment rates have been improving since 2005. However this is
misleading because of a change in the definition of unemployment in April
2005 that statistically “removes” long-discouraged jobseekers and those not
available/willing to immediately take up work from the labor force by
classifying them as “not in the labor force” (NILF). In 2007 this had the effect
11
of dramatically reducing the number of reported jobless by some 1.4 million

and the unemployment rate by 3.5 percentage points. This definitional change
also obscures how unemployment has been more or less continuously rising
from 8.4% in 1990 to around 10.8% in 2007.
3. The Philippines is facing worsening poverty despite supposedly rapid

economic growth. There is an unambiguous worsening of poverty in the
country. Family incomes are not even keeping up with inflation and the
results of the latest Family Income and Expenditure Survey (FIES) of 2006
shows real average family income dropping from P145,000 in 2000 to
P125,000 (at constant 200 prices) in 2006. In particular, the poorest four-
fifths of Filipino families – or some 13.9 million families – saw their real
incomes fall between five and almost 13 percent.
4. The FIES 2006 in particular found that poverty – using a low poverty
threshold of P41.25 per day (or US$0.80 at then prevailing exchange rates) –
worsened from 30.0% of the population in 2003 to 32.9% in 2006. This
already means 27.6 million poor Filipinos in 2006 or a 3.8 million increase
from 2003. The top 20% of families also account for over half (52.8%) of
total income while the bottom 80% of families divide less than half (47.2%)
between them.
5. The situation is becoming even worse today with high and rising inflation
rates that reflect the punishing and rapid increases in the prices of food and
oil products. The economic, social and cultural rights of the poor are thus
being violated on an even wider scale.
6. The poor prospects for domestic livelihoods have pushed record

numbers of Filipinos abroad, at great social cost in terms of family
problems and migrants’ welfare. The official policy to promote cheap labor
export seriously diverts from the greater responsibility of the government to
ensure adequate work domestically for millions of Filipinos who are instead
forced to go abroad. There were 8.2 million overseas Filipinos as of the end of
2006 – covering 3.6 million permanent, 3.8 million temporary and 875,000
irregular Filipinos in 197 countries and territories – and 1.1 million overseas
Filipino workers (OFWs) deployed in 2007.i The economy’s dependence on
overseas work is unprecedented and the number of Filipinos overseas is
already equivalent to over a quarter of total Filipinos employed, over one-fifth
of the labor force and nearly a tenth of the population. The Philippines is the
largest among the most migration- and remittance-dependent countries in the
world which indicates a severe failure of domestic development policy.
7. There is a low priority of social services in the national budget where

severe cutbacks have been made to enable continued debt service,
and there is diminished per capita social services budget amidst
standing inadequacies in social services. National government spending
on education has fallen from a peak of 4.0% of gross domestic product (GDP)
in 1998 to just 2.5% in 2008. i Total education spending of P2,010 per Filipino
in 2008 is 14.1% less in real terms than was spent in 1998. In the period
2001-2006, interest payments on debt accounted for an average of 28.1% of
the total budget while education only received 15.3 percent. Similarly,
national government spending on health has fallen from a peak of 0.74% of
12
GDP in 1990 to 0.58% in 1997 to 0.31% in 2008. i Total health spending of

P253 per Filipino in 2008 is 27.5% less in real terms than was spent in 1997.
8. The adverse effects of these will be felt by the country’s most deprived and
vulnerable groups especially at the lowest end of the income scale. As it is,
the poorest two-fifths of the population or some 35 million Filipinos have
incomes, infant and maternal mortality rates, and access to water and
sanitation many times worse than the richest two-fifths. They are the most
vulnerable not just to insensitive social service policies but also to the impact
of flawed foreign trade and investment policies that undermine livelihoods and
incomes.
These economy-wide adverse developments in employment, poverty levels and the

national budget for social services underscore the failure of economic liberalization
policies of recent decades. These outcomes go against important Constitutional
provisions on social justice (Art. II Section 10) and on the need for policies that
provide adequate social services, promote full employment, a rising standard of
living, and an improved quality of life for all (Art. II, Sec. 9). These adverse
outcomes are the direct result of supposed government efforts to promote economic,
social and cultural rights such as, inter alia, through the official Medium Term
Development Plan (MTPDP).
MTPDPs, particularly since the mid-1980s, have been implementing policies of trade
and investment liberalization, privatization and deregulation. More than anything else
it is these economy-wide policies that have the most far-reaching effects on the
employment and poverty situation as well as on the national budget.
Acknowledgment of those adverse trends underscores the strong possibility of
conflict between such policies and the full availment of human rights, and of the
need to explore the extent to which the national government should create policy
space for the progressive realization of these rights.
Liberalization of the economy started in the early 1980s and intensified in the 1990s.
Agricultural tariffs are now one-fourth of their levels in the 1980s and manufacturing
tariffs less than one-seventh causing trade to more than double as a percentage of
gross domestic product (GDP) from 52% in 1980 to 105% in 2005. Foreign
investment liberalization since the 1990s has allowed 100% foreign ownership in all
but a few sectors causing foreign investment to nearly quadruple as a percentage of
GDP from 4% in 1980 to 14% in 2005.
Yet the share of manufacturing in GDP has fallen from 27.6% of GDP in 1980 to
23.1% in 2007 (or as low as in the 1950s) and that of agriculture from 23.5% to
18.4% (the smallest on record). The shrinking of these productive sectors deprives
millions of Filipinos the opportunity for decent work, livelihoods and their means of
subsistence. The average annual GDP per capita growth rate of 0.6% in the
“globalization” era 1981-2005 is also barely one-fourth of that in the previous period
1959-1980 (2.4%). The national economic potential has also suffered and rates of
gross domestic savings and gross domestic capital formation have dropped from
28.6% and 32.9% of GDP, respectively, in 1976 to 20.1% and 15.7% in 2005.
13
Case studies: contradictions between principles and practice
Two case studies can illustrate how the reality and experience in the Philippine
judicial system contradicts the ideals and principles of economic, social and cultural
rights that the Chief Justice, among others, is rightly promoting.
Case Study 1: Upholding the Constitutionality of the GATT-WTO
The Supreme Court’s decision upholding the constitutionality of the General

Agreement on Tariffs and Trade-World Trade Organization (GATT-WTO) on 2 May
1997 illustrates how it appreciates the provisions of the 1987 Constitution pertaining
to national patrimony and other economic matters that directly affect the people’s
economic, social and cultural rights.i
Several members of Congress and non-government organizations (NGOs) filed a

petition before the Supreme Court questioning the constitutionality of the GATT-WTO
which became effective in 1995. They cited Article II on Declaration of State
Principles and Policies Section 19 of the Constitution which states that “the State
shall develop a self-reliant and independent national economy effectively controlled
by Filipinos”.
The petitioners also cited Article XII Section 10 which states that “the Congress shall
enact measures that will encourage the formation and operation of enterprises
whose capital is wholly owned by Filipinos” and also that “in the grant of rights,
privileges and concessions covering the national economy and patrimony, the State
shall give preference to qualified Filipinos”. In addition, they claimed that ratification
of the GATT-WTO violated Section 12 of the same article that states “the State shall
promote the preferential use of Filipino labor, domestic materials, and locally
produced goods, and adopt measures to help make them competitive”.
But the Supreme Court, in rejecting the decision, countered that Article II is simply a
“declaration of principles and state policies” and are not intended to be “self-
executing principles ready for enforcement through the courts”. They are only used
by the judiciary as aids or as guides in its exercise of its power of judicial review, the
Supreme Court pointed out.
The Supreme Court noted an earlier decision which stated that “the principles and
policies enumerated in Article II and some sections of Article XII are not self-
executing provisions… they do not embody judicially enforceable constitutional rights
but guidelines for legislation”. It justified such decision by citing “basic considerations
of due process and the lack of judicial authority to wade into the unchartered ocean
of social and economic policy making”.
This argument bolstered the point raised by Puno about the differentiation between
economic, social and cultural rights and civil and political rights, implying that the
right of Filipino workers and industries to enjoy protection from undue foreign
competition is not of same level as the civil and political rights outlined in the
Constitution’s Bill of Rights.
The landmark decision of the Supreme Court helped paved the way for the massive
destruction of local industries and economic displacement of Filipinos under the
GATT-WTO regime. The most devastating impact fell on the country’s agriculture
14
sector which has been forced to compete with heavily subsidized agricultural produce
from the rich countries. From a total employment of 11.29 million in 1994,
employment in the agriculture sector (including fishery and forestry) declined to
10.34 million in 2007 as many farms became bankrupt. In addition, the country also
significantly increased its importation of agricultural goods, including food that
seriously undermined national food security. From an annual average of US$688
million in food trade surplus from 1980 to 1994, the country posted a yearly food
trade deficit of US$722.5 million under the GATT-WTO (1995-2006). The current rice
and food crisis wherein prices have been rising way beyond the reach of the poor is
largely explained by agriculture liberalization that the GATT-WTO promotes.
Case study 2: Upholding the Constitutionality of the Mining Act and the Malampaya
project
Another major decision by the Supreme Court that directly impacted on the people’s
economic, social and cultural rights is its 1 December 2004 ruling that upheld the
constitutionality of Republic Act (RA) 7942 or the Philippine Mining Act of 1995.i The
law intended to liberalize the mining sector to attract more foreign investments.
But various indigenous groups and NGOs questioned the constitutionality of the
Mining Act and sought to nullify the financial or technical assistance agreement
(FTAA) between the Philippine government and Western Mining Corp. (WMC) Inc.
The petitioners cited Article XII Section 2 of the Constitution that states that the
exploration, development and utilization of all natural resources in the country shall
be under the full control and supervision of the State.
At first, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, declaring on 27 January
2004 that certain provisions of the Mining Act violate the Constitution. The Court also
declared null and void the questioned FTAA between the government and the WMC.
The Supreme Court held that an FTAA is a Service Contract prohibited by the
Constitution.
However, on 1 December 2004, the Supreme Court reversed its earlier decision and
declared that the Mining Act is constitutional and that the FTAA is actually allowed by
the Article II Section 2 (The President may enter into agreements with foreign-owned
corporations involving either technical or financial assistance for large-scale
exploration, development and utilization of minerals, petroleum and other mineral
oils, according to the general terms and conditions provided by law…)
The Supreme Court reversal did not answer the issue of effective State control over
the country’s natural resources as far as the Service Contract system is concerned.
The term control is generally defined as the power to direct or determine, or the
exercise of authoritative power.
This point is especially glaring in the US$4.5-billion Malampaya natural gas project of
giant transnational oil corporations Royal Dutch Shell and Chevron. Malampaya is
covered by Service Contract (SC) 38 which contains terms that has made the State
practically powerless over Malampaya and seriously undermined the government’s
capacity to ensure that the Malampaya serves the national interest.
To illustrate, instead of requiring that all petroleum produced from Malampaya be

used to meet domestic requirements and further, that petroleum can only be
15
exported if such requirements were met, SC 38 merely requires the contractors to

supply a portion of domestic requirements on a pro-rata basis. SC 38 defined pro-
rata as the total volume of crude oil requirements for domestic consumption
multiplied by the ratio of total quantity of crude oil produced by Malampaya to the
entire Philippine production of crude oil.
Consequently, the country has failed to utilize for domestic consumption the
condensate and crude oil that have been extracted from Malampaya. From 2001 to
2004, Malampaya produced 9.9 million barrels of condensate, which have all been
exported to Singapore for refining. In addition, all the 1.9 million barrels of crude oil
produced between December 2001 and April 2002, during an extended well test
were also exported to Chevron refinery in South Korea. Chevron exported
Malampaya crude oil at US$16 per barrel, around US$2 per barrel cheaper than the
crude oil the Philippines was importing at that time.
Furthermore, SC 38 requires the national government, like any other buyer, to

purchase the country’s own natural resources from Shell and Chevron at a price
determined by the market. Worse, the transnational oil companies have also
effectively prevented the government to further develop the Malampaya oil rim
(which lies beneath the natural gas field) by asking for US$12 billion in indemnity
fund to be set up before the government allows any third party to encroach in the
development initiatives for the proposed oil rim. The indemnity fund, which is
stipulated in SC 38, is to “guarantee compensation for any damage to the
profitability of the natural gas business”.
The Supreme Court decision paved the way for more Service Contracts controlled by
foreign companies in the oil and gas exploration and development, the latest of
which is the Sulu Sea contract of ExxonMobil, the world’s largest oil company. In the
context of the current oil price crisis, which exacerbates poverty in the country,
effective state control over fuel resources such as Malampaya has taken a higher
level of importance that the Supreme Court must take a look into.
National human rights mechanisms
National human rights mechanisms appear extremely constrained in how they can be
of use for the progressive realization of economic, social and cultural rights. The
Commission on Human Rights (CHR), which is tasked, inter alia, to monitor
government compliance with its human rights obligations under international treaties
does not seem able to ensure government compliance with commitments to human
rights instruments and the Universal Declaration on Human Rights even as enshrined
in the 1987 Philippine Constitution. On far-reaching economy-wide violations of
human rights, there do not appear to be effective remedies available in the judicial,
administrative, and legislative institutions of the country. This is notwithstanding how
the CHR nominally takes cognizance of economic, social and cultural rights matters
as part of its mandate to monitor government compliance with international
obligations. Jurisprudence is also apparently problematic in specific areas such as
labor rights, education, health, housing, agrarian reform, eviction and displacement.
There do not then appear to be significant concrete measures to put the human
rights approach to poverty reduction into systematic practice in the country. There is
no official procedure or process in place to assess economic policies according to an
explicit economic, social and cultural rights framework. Nor are there specific
16
mechanisms through which policy-makers and other relevant state actors can be
held to account for the human rights impact of trade, investment and fiscal policies.
As a result there do not seem to be any significant examples of existing laws, rules,
procedures and practices being amended for being inconsistent with or to more fully
conform to the ICESCR.
Even the CHR does not have a record of monitoring economic, social and cultural
rights insofar as they are affected by macroeconomic policies which have the most
far-reaching influence on the progressive realization, or otherwise, of these rights.
Much also needs to be done to promote the concept of rights itself among general
public so that more become aware of their legal entitlements as well as of the legal
obligations of the State towards them.
There are also not very many effective remedies in the judicial realm. To begin with,
the most potentially meaningful Constitutional provisions that directly refer to
economic, social and cultural rights are deemed as merely general guidelines, not
self-executory and still needing further enabling legislation to be considered
operative and enforceable. Moreover, the Judiciary’s prevailing position is apparently
to defer to the Executive and Legislature on major economic policy decisions insofar
as these coequal branches of government are deemed primarily responsible for
implementing the Constitutional guidelines. The net effect is then to place the
economy-wide policies with the greatest and most far-reaching impact on such basic
rights as to work, to adequate standard of living, to health and to education beyond
judicial reach.
Recommendations
The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) is a

potentially powerful instrument for progressively realizing the achievement of the
range of economic, social and cultural rights. Many important economic, social and
cultural rights are also enshrined in the 1987 Philippine Constitution. Thus it would
be most productive for the courts to consider economic, social and cultural rights as
self-executory. On this basis, the far-reaching macro-economic policies of
government can be subjected to judicial review whether they truly uphold or in fact
violate the people’s economic, social and cultural rights.
Moreover, the government can and should:

1. Undertake measures to ensure that the country’s main economic planners,
trade negotiators, and parliamentarians responsible for crafting
socioeconomic policy are fully aware of their obligations and commitments
under the Covenant.
2. Conduct a formal review of the consistency of the country’s foreign trade and
investment policies with its human rights obligations, and assess the extent to
which these have supported and/or undermined the capacity of the
Philippines to meet its commitments under the Covenant.
3. Promote the concept of rights among citizens where they become aware of
their legal entitlements as well as of the legal obligations of the State towards
them.
4. Undertake measures to facilitate public scrutiny of economic policies
according to an explicit economic, social and cultural rights framework.
17
ANTI-SLAPP RULE:
AMENDING THE RULES TO COUNTER HARASSMENT SUITS
Prepared by the National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers (NUPL)
August 28, 2008
Profile of the NUPL
The NUPL is a nationwide voluntary association of human rights lawyers in the

Philippines committed to the defense, protection, and promotion of civil, political as
well as social, economic and cultural rights and the right to self-determination,
especially of the poor and the oppressed. The NUPL shall primarily be a mechanism
for collaboration, coordination, and facilitation of legal services in the local and
national levels. It shall also be a venue for advocacy on national and other important
issues affecting the rights of the people in order to serve them even more effectively
and efficiently and shall help seek redress for violation of the rights especially of the
poor and the oppressed.
The NUPL is a fairly new organization, founded on September 15, 2007, but many of
its members have been active in human rights lawyering going back even during the
martial law years. It currently has one hundred eighty-one (181) members
nationwide, one hundred twenty nine (129) of whom are lawyers, while the rest are
law students and paralegals. Despite the modest number of members, it is
estimated that about 70-80% of the human rights cases in the country including
petitions for the writ of amparo are handled by its members, showing the active
commitment of NUPL to human rights. NUPL currently has four chapters in Cebu,
Iloilo, Leyte and Ozamis but also counts among its ranks many of the members of
the Union of Peoples’ Lawyers in Mindanao (UPLM), the largest formation of human
rights lawyers in Mindanao.
The NUPL is an affiliate member of the International Association of Democratic

Lawyers (IADL) based in Belgium and one of the NUPL Board Members is the current
President of the International Association of Peoples Lawyers (IAPL) based in the
Netherlands. It has also established professional linkages with several other human
rights lawyers’ organizations around the world.
The NUPL was given accreditation to speak before the 7th and 8th sessions of the UN
Human Rights Council and during the 1st Universal Periodic Review (UPR) where it
provided the international community with a comprehensive account of the human
rights violations in the country today.
The NUPL, many of whose members have been targets of different forms of attack,
is an active advocate against the attacks on lawyers and judges. It continuously
monitors these attacks and compiles data on these cases.
The NUPL has actively encouraged its members to use the Writ of Amparo in an
attempt to take the opportunity being offered by the writ to provide a possible
remedy for victims of extra judicial killings and enforced disappearances. The NUPL
also encouraged its members to participate in the Access to Justice of the Poor
Workshop organized by the Supreme Court.
18
Although NUPL lawyers are also lawyers of the various sectors who are presenting
papers to Chief Justice Reynato Puno on the issue of access to justice, it also seeks
to forward on its own, a proposal to amend the Rules of Court and incorporate the
Rule on the Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation or the Anti-SLAPP Rule.
I. SLAPP: Nature and Concept
A Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) is any legal action filed
against an individual or individuals, groups, labor unions, entity or associations,
community residents, or the like by reason, or arising out, of their exercise of
freedom of speech, expression, or of the press, or of the right to peaceably assemble
or petition the government for redress of grievances in matters of public concern,
and is intended merely to harass, vex, exert undue pressure, or stifle the
resources of such individual or individuals, groups, labor unions, entity or
associations, community residents, or the like.
The subject matter of public participation or public concern shall mean anything
that involves matters of public, social, economic, community, or cultural issue,
significance, interest, importance, or welfare.
Simply put, SLAPP actions are designed to intimidate and silence critics and
opponents by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense so that they would be
forced to abandon their criticism and opposition against any acts involving matters of
public concern.
SLAPP actions typically has the environment as the subject matter of public
participation (e.g. (1) local residents who are petitioning to change zoning laws and
are protesting to prevent a real estate development in their area are sued by the
developer; (2) environmentalists are sued by mining companies for protesting
against the mining companies and mining operations).
The means used by an individual or individuals, groups, labor unions, entity or

associations, community residents, or the like to engage in public participation as
regards matters of public concern, which consequently resulted in the filing of SLAPP
actions against them, are the following:
1. The exercise of freedom of speech, expression, or of the press;

2. The exercise of the right to peaceably assemble; or
3. The exercise of the right to petition the government for redress of
grievances.
SLAPP actions adversely affect the economic, social, and cultural rights of the people
who are made defendants, respondents, or accused, as the case may be, in such
actions. When environmentalists, local residents, or indigenous people, for example,
are opposing the mining operations of a certain mining company in their locality, as
such operations likewise adversely affect their economic, social, and cultural rights,
the mining company would file against them cases like libel, alarm and scandal,
illegal assembly, direct assault, and the like whenever they would exercise the
above-mentioned constitutional rights to oppose the said mining operations.
19
This situation is likewise true in localities wherein banana plantations conduct the
aerial spraying of pesticides, or are operating without complying with the health
standards set by the existing statutes and rules and regulations. When organizations,
local residents, or individuals exercise their constitutional rights to oppose such
illegal practices, SLAPP actions are filed against them.
As result of these SLAPP actions, the social, economic, and cultural rights of the
people who are made defendants, respondents, or accused, as the case may be, in
such actions are adversely affected and violated as they now find it difficult to
perform their work or pursue their livelihood, engage in social interactions and
participation within the community, or assert their cultural rights without being
burdened, restrained, threatened, or distressed by such actions. The situation is
even worse in instances where warrants of arrest are issued against them and due to
lack of financial capacity, they could not post bail.
Hence, SLAPP actions involve a violation of the economic, social, and cultural rights
of the people who are made defendants, respondents, or accused, as the case may
be, in such actions.
But more than that, however, SLAPP actions also clog the court dockets and take
away precious judicial time and resources from resolving cases genuinely filed by
parties who are either injured or at least honestly believe they are injured. In
criminal actions, these SLAPP actions even use the prosecutorial machinery of the
State against the hapless rights advocates. This is not only an abuse of judicial
process, but the use of government resources to impinge on the exercise of
constitutional rights.
Anti-SLAPP provisions have been incorporated in the Rules of Procedures of other

jurisdictions particularly in many States in the United States of America (see
examples of anti-SLAPP provisions of other jurisdictions in Chapter III).
It cannot be denied that the defendants, respondents, or accused, as the case may
be, in SLAPP actions are up against giant corporations and influential individuals in
opposing the same. As the abuse of the judicial process by those who have the
means and resources is prevalent in the Philippine society, the real and lasting
solution against SLAPP actions is for the prosecution service and the judiciary to be
truly independent, impartial, and cognizant of the plight of the marginalized sectors.
Nevertheless, the introduction of anti-SLAPP provisions in the Philippine Rules of

Court shall provide an opportunity for the people to oppose and move for dismissal
of such actions. It is in this light that anti-SLAPP provisions are being proposed,
taking into consideration the nature and provisions of the existing Rules of Court.
Under the circumstances obtaining in SLAPP actions, it is imperative that measures
for their dismissal at the earliest opportunity be formulated in the Rules of Court to
spare the people from this special kind of harassment suits. Likewise, to discourage
and deter the filing of SLAPP actions, mechanisms for the award of damages,
litigation costs, attorney’s fees, and other reliefs as the circumstances may warrant
should also be devised in favor of the defendants, respondents, or accused, as the
case may be, of such actions.
II. Proposed Anti-SLAPP Provisions
20
A. Definition of Terms:
(a) “Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation” or SLAPP includes any

civil complaint, counter-claim, cross-claim, third (fourth, etc.) – party
complaint, or complaint-in-intervention, criminal complaint or
information, or administrative complaint filed against individual or
individuals, groups, labor unions, entity or associations, community
residents, or the like by reason, or arising out, of their exercise of
freedom of speech, expression, or of the press, or of the right to
peaceably assemble or petition the government for redress of
grievances in matters of public concern, and is intended merely to
harass, vex, exert undue pressure, or stifle the resources of such
individual or individuals, groups, labor unions, entity or associations,
community residents, or the like.
(b) “Public Concern” means anything that involves matters of public issue,
public significance, public interest, public importance, or public
welfare.
(c) “Claim” means any civil complaint, counter-claim, cross-claim, third

(fourth, etc.) – party complaint, or complaint-in-intervention.
(d) “Plaintiff” refers to the claiming party, the counter-claimant, the cross-
claimant, or the third (fourth, etc.) – party plaintiff.
(e) “Defendant” refers to the original defending party, the defendant in

counter-claim, the cross-defendant, or the third (fourth, etc.) – party
defendant.
(f) "SLAPPback" means an action for damages filed by the defendant,

respondent, or accused, as the case may be, of a SLAPP action against
the plaintiff or complainant thereof arising from the final and executory
dismissal of the said SLAPP action.
B. Duty of the court in civil cases; motion to dismiss. – Upon receipt of

any complaint or pleading asserting a claim, the court shall have the duty to
immediately make a determination whether the same is a SLAPP action.
If the court finds the same to be a SLAPP action, it shall order its dismissal
and award damages, litigation costs, attorney’s fees, and other reliefs as warranted
by the circumstances of the case to the defendant.
Subject to the right of appeal, an order dismissing the complaint or pleading

asserting a claim determined to be a SLAPP action shall bar the refilling of the same
action or claim.
The duty of the court to make such determination does not preclude the
defendant from filing a motion to dismiss on the ground that the complaint or
pleading asserting a claim is a SLAPP action. Such ground shall not be deemed
waived even if not included in a motion to dismiss.
21
C. Duty of the investigating prosecutor; motion for determination. –

Upon receipt of any complaint, the investigating prosecutor shall have the duty to
immediately make a determination whether the same is a SLAPP action.
If the investigating prosecutor finds the same to be a SLAPP action, it shall

order its dismissal. Subject to the right of appeal, an order dismissing the complaint
determined to be a SLAPP action shall bar another prosecution for the same offense.
The duty of the investigating prosecutor to make such determination does not
preclude the respondent from filing a motion for determination of the complaint as a
SLAPP action prior to the submission of his counter-affidavit and that of his witnesses
and other supporting documents relied upon for his defense.
D. Duty of the prosecutor during inquest; further investigation;

release. – When a person is arrested without a warrant whereby an inquest is
conducted in accordance with existing rules, the inquest prosecutor shall have the
duty to immediately make a determination whether the complaint is a SLAPP action.
If the inquest prosecutor finds the same to be a SLAPP action, it shall order its
dismissal. Subject to the right of appeal, an order dismissing the complaint
determined to be a SLAPP action shall bar another prosecution for the same offense.
If the inquest prosecutor finds the same to be not a SLAPP action but the
person arrested has reasonably shown during the inquest that the complaint may be
a SLAPP action, the inquest prosecutor shall order the further investigation of the
same, and the immediate release of the person arrested. The immediately preceding
section shall be applicable during the further investigation of the said complaint.
E. Duty of the court in criminal cases; motion for judicial

determination. – Upon receipt of any complaint or information, the court shall have
the duty to immediately make a determination whether the same is a SLAPP action.
If the court finds the same to be a SLAPP action, it shall order its dismissal
and award damages, litigation costs, attorney’s fees, and other reliefs as warranted
by the circumstances of the case to the accused.
Subject to the right of appeal, an order dismissing the complaint or

information determined to be a SLAPP action shall bar another prosecution for the
same offense.
The duty of the court to make such determination does not preclude the
accused from filing a motion for judicial determination of the complaint or
information as a SLAPP action within a reasonable period of time upon the receipt of
the complaint or information by the court.
F. Applicability in Summary Procedure. – The preceding provisions of

paragraphs (B) and (E) shall be applicable in cases falling under the rule on
summary procedure.
G. Non-applicability to action involving public interest. – The right to

file such motion to dismiss or motion for determination before the office of the
22
prosecutor or the court, as the case may be, shall not be applicable against any
action brought solely in the public interest or involving public concern.
H. Administrative cases. – In every case administrative case, whether in

the private or public sector, the private or public officer, as the case may be, having
the duty to decide the complaint shall have the duty to immediately make a
determination whether the same is a SLAPP action.
In case of a public officer, if he finds the same to be a SLAPP action, he shall order
its dismissal and award damages, litigation costs, attorney’s fees, and other reliefs
as warranted by the circumstances of the case to the respondent. Provided, That the
respondent shall have the right to file a SLAPPback action and recover damages,
litigation costs, attorney’s fees, and other reliefs as warranted by the circumstances
of the case, upon the favorable judgment in the said complaint becoming final and
executory.
In case of a private officer, if he finds the same to be a SLAPP action, he shall order
its dismissal. Provided, That the respondent shall have the right to file a SLAPPback
action and recover damages, litigation costs, attorney’s fees, and other reliefs as
warranted by the circumstances of the case, upon the favorable judgment in the said
complaint becoming final and executory.
The duty of the private or public officer, as the case may be, to make such
determination does not preclude the respondent from filing a motion to dismiss on
the ground that the complaint is a SLAPP action.
I. Right to file SLAPPback and recover damages, litigation costs,

attorney’s fees, and other reliefs. – Upon the final and executory dismissal of a
SLAPP action, the defendant, respondent, or accused thereof, as the case may be,
shall have the right to file a SLAPPback action for damages against the plaintiff or
complainant, as the case may be, of the SLAPP action and recover damages,
litigation costs, attorney’s fees, and other reliefs as warranted by the circumstances
of the case.
The court shall consider only the fact of the final and executory dismissal of
the SLAPP action in granting the SLAPPback action. Provided, That the court shall
consider the circumstances of the case in the determination of the amount of
damages, litigation costs, attorney’s costs, and other reliefs that shall be awarded to
the plaintiff thereof.
J. Motion to dismiss SLAPPback. – The defendant in a SLAPPback action

may file a motion to dismiss a SLAPPback action on the ground that the dismissal of
the SLAPP action from which the former arises is not final and executory, among
other grounds that may be available upon the defendant.
Provided, That if the motion to dismiss a SLAPPback action on any ground is found to
be frivolous or solely intended for delay, the court shall deny the motion and award
to the plaintiff damages, litigation costs, attorney’s fees, and other reliefs as
warranted by the circumstances of the filing and denial of the motion. Provided
further, That the same are separate from the damages, litigation costs, attorney’s
23
fees, and other reliefs that shall be awarded to the plaintiff in the SLAPPback action
upon the favorable judgment therein becoming final and executory.
K. Denial of motion to dismiss SLAPP action, motion for determination

of complaint or information, motion to dismiss SLAPPback action. – The
denial of a motion to dismiss on the ground that the complaint or pleading asserting
a claim is a SLAPP action, the motion for determination of the complaint or
information as a SLAPP action, or the motion to dismiss a SLAPPback action on the
ground that the dismissal of the SLAPP action is not final and executory is not
appealable. Provided, That the movant may file an appropriate special civil action
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
III. Anti-SLAPP Provisions of other Jurisdictions
A. The State of California (United States) has three (3) Sections of its Code of
Civil Procedure regarding SLAPP actions:
(1) Section 425.16 of the Code of Civil Procedure was enacted in 1992. It has
the following provisions intended to thwart SLAPP actions by means of a
special motion to strike the SLAPP actions:
(a) The said section was enacted to counter the “disturbing increase in
lawsuits brought primarily to chill the valid exercise of the
constitutional rights of (1) freedom of speech and (2) petition
for the redress of grievances;”
(b) SLAPP action against a person arising from the exercise of his or
her right of petition for redress of grievances or right of free
speech may be dismissed upon a special motion to strike,
unless the court determines that the plaintiff has established that
there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on his claim;
(c) If the special motion to strike is granted by the court, the

defendant is entitled to recover his or her attorney’s fees and
costs;
(d) If the special motion to strike a SLAPP action is found to be

frivolous or solely intended for delay, and is therefore denied, the
plaintiff in the SLAPP is entitled to recover attorney’s fees and
costs;
(e) The acts in furtherance of a person's right of petition or free

speech in connection with a public issue, where a special motion to
strike may be filed against a SLAPP action in case one is filed,
include:
(1) any written or oral statement or writing made before

a legislative, executive, or judicial proceeding, or any other official
proceeding authorized by law;
(2) any written or oral statement or writing made in
connection with an issue under consideration or review by a
24
legislative, executive, or judicial body, or any other official

proceeding authorized by law;
(3) any written or oral statement or writing made in a
place open to the public or a public forum in connection with an
issue of public interest;
(4) or any other conduct in furtherance of the exercise of
the constitutional right of petition or the constitutional right of free
speech in connection with a public issue or an issue of public
interest.
(f) The special motion to strike may be filed within 60 days from the
service of the complaint or, in the court's discretion, at any later
time upon terms it deems proper;
(g) The order granting or denying the special motion to strike is

appealable.
(2) Section 425.17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, enacted on September 6,

2003, is designed to prevent the abuse of the use of the special motion to
strike as the same has been used against public interest lawsuits and
class actions on public concerns filed by organizations or individuals
against corporations or real estate developers contrary to the purpose and
intent of Section 425.16. Its important provisions are the following:
(a) Section 425.16 (the right to file a special motion to strike against
SLAPP actions) does not apply to any legal action brought solely in
the public interest or on behalf of the general public.
(b) Section 425.16 does not apply to any legal action brought against
a person primarily engaged in the business of selling or leasing
goods or services, including but not limited to insurance,
securities, or financial instruments, arising from any statement or
conduct by that person if both the following conditions exist:
(1) The statement or conduct consists of representations of fact

about the following:
(i) That person's or a business competitor's business

operations, goods, or services, that is made for the
purpose of (i) obtaining approval for, (ii) promoting, or
(iii) securing sales or leases of, or (iv) commercial
transactions, in the person's goods or services;
(ii) The statement or conduct was made in the course of

delivering the person's goods or services.
(2) (2.1) The intended audience is:
(i) an actual buyer or customer; or
(ii) potential buyer or customer; or
25
(iii) a person likely to repeat the statement to, or

otherwise influence, an actual or potential buyer or
customer; or
(2.2) The statement or conduct arose out of or within the

context of a regulatory approval process, proceeding, or
investigation, except where the statement or conduct was
made by a telephone corporation in the course of a proceeding
before the California Public Utilities Commission and is the
subject of a lawsuit brought by a competitor, notwithstanding
that the conduct or statement concerns an important public
issue.
(c) However, the right to file a special motion to strike is available in

the following instances in case SLAPP actions are filed against the
persons or organizations stated hereunder:
(1) Any person enumerated in subdivision (b) of Section 2 of

Article I of the California Constitution or Section 1070 of the
Evidence Code, or any person engaged in the dissemination of
ideas or expression in any book or academic journal, while
engaged in the gathering, receiving, or processing of information
for communication to the public;
(2) Any action against any person or entity based upon the
creation, dissemination, exhibition, advertisement, or other similar
promotion of any dramatic, literary, musical, political, or artistic
work, including, but not limited to, a motion picture or television
program, or an article published in a newspaper or magazine of
general circulation;
(3) Any nonprofit organization that receives more than 50 percent

of its annual revenues from federal, state, or local government
grants, awards, programs, or reimbursements for services
rendered.
(3) Section 425.18, enacted on October 6, 2005, is intended to provide a

remedy to a victim or victims of a SLAPP action in recovering damages by
way of the so-called SLAPPback action against the corporations or
individuals after the SLAPP action filed by the latter against the former
has been dismissed. In effect, a SLAPPback action is a special kind of
malicious prosecution case.
Its important provisions are the following:
(a) A SLAPPback is consistent with the Legislature’s intent to protect

the valid exercise of the constitutional rights of free speech and
petition by its deterrent effect on SLAPP actions, and by its
restoration of public confidence in participatory democracy;
26
(b) A SLAPPback action means any cause of action for malicious

prosecution or abuse of process (1) arising from the filing or
maintenance of a prior cause of action (SLAPP action) (2) that has
been dismissed pursuant to a special motion to strike under
Section 425.16;
(c) A SLAPPback action may likewise be dismissed by way of a special

motion to strike, as in the case of a SLAPP action. However, under
this section, if the special motion to strike a SLAPPback is granted,
the defendant in the SLAPPback action is not entitled to recover
his or her attorney’s fees and costs unlike in the case of a special
motion to strike a SLAPP action which if granted entitles the
defendant therein to recover such attorney’s fees and costs.
(d) If the special motion to strike a SLAPPback action is found to be

frivolous or solely intended for delay, and is therefore denied, the
plaintiff in the SLAPPback is entitled to recover attorney’s fees and
costs;
(e) A special motion to strike a SLAPPback is filed within any of the

following periods:
(1) Within 120 days from the service of the complaint. (In a
special motion to strike a SLAPP action however, the period is
only 60 days from the service of the complaint.); or
(2) At the court’s discretion, within six (6) months or 180 days
from the service of the complaint; (In a special motion to
strike a SLAPP action however, it is upon the court’s discretion,
at any later time upon terms it deems proper, without stating
a particular period.) or
(3) At the courts discretion, at any later time in extraordinary

cases due to no fault of the defendant and upon written
findings of the court stating the extraordinary case and
circumstance. (In a special motion to strike a SLAPP action
however, it is only upon the court’s discretion, at any later
time upon terms it deems proper, without the need of any
extraordinary cases to exist.)
(f) A special motion to strike a SLAPPback may not be filed against a

SLAPPback by a party whose filing or maintenance of the prior
cause of action (SLAPP action), from which the SLAPPback arises,
was illegal as a matter of law.
(g) A special motion to strike a SLAPPback is not available to a

SLAPPback filed a public entity.
B. The State of Massachusetts (United States) has a Section concerning

SLAPP actions under its rules of procedure in civil cases:
27
(1) Part III. Court, Judicial Officers and Proceedings in Civil Cases; Title II.
Actions and Proceedings Therein; Chapter 231. Pleading and Practice;
Section59H. SLAPP; Special Motion to Dismiss:
(a) When a civil action, counterclaim, or cross claim filed against a

party is based on the said party’s exercise of the right to petition,
the said party may bring a special motion to dismiss the said
SLAPP action;
(b) The court shall grant such special motion to dismiss unless the
party against whom such special motion is made shows:
(1) The moving party’s exercise of its right to petition was devoid
of any reasonable factual support or any arguable basis in law;
and
(2) The moving party’s acts caused actual injury to the responding
party.
(c) The Attorney General, on behalf of the moving party or on behalf

of any government agency or subdivision to which the moving
party’s acts were directed, may intervene to defend or support the
moving party on such special motion;
(d) The special motion to dismiss may be filed within sixty (60) days
from the service of the complaint or, I the court’s discretion, at any
later time upon terms it deems proper;
(e) If the said special motion is granted by the court, the moving party
is awarded costs and reasonable attorney’s fees, including those
incurred for the special motion and any related discovery matters;
(f) A party’s exercise of its right of petition means:
(1) Any written or oral statement made before or submitted to a

legislative, executive, or judicial body, or any other governmental
proceeding;
(2) Any written or oral statement made in connection with an issue

under consideration or review by a legislative, executive, or
judicial body, or any other governmental proceeding;
(3) Any statement reasonably likely to encourage consideration or

review of an issue by a legislative, executive, or judicial body or
any other governmental proceeding;
(4) Any statement reasonably likely to enlist public participation in

an effort to effect such consideration; or
(5) Any other statement falling within constitutional protection of

the right to petition government.#
28
ON THE ENVIRONMENT
Prepared by the Kalikasan People’s Network for the Environment
(Kalikasan PNE)
August 28, 2008
Kalikasan PNE organizational profile
Kalikasan People's Network for the Environment (Kalikasan PNE) is a Philippine-

based network of non-government organizations (NGOs), grassroots organizations,
and environmental advocates.
Acting as a nationwide campaign center on a broad spectrum of environmental

concerns since its founding on November 25, 1997, Kalikasan PNE places primacy on
addressing environmental issues from the perspective of advancing the welfare of
the grassroots-level populace foremost. Kalikasan PNE believes that the struggle for
the environment is the struggle for the people's welfare, and frames its campaigns,
advocacy, education, and international network initiatives accordingly. It has
engaged in campaigns on mining, logging, US military toxic wastes, climate change
and biofuels.
Currently, one of our major advocacies is the campaign against mining liberalization
and projects of transnational corporations (TNCs) in the Philippine mining sector.
Since 1999, Kalikasan PNE has played a direct role in campaigns against large-scale
TNC mining projects by Canada's Placer Dome-Marcopper (Marinduque), Australia's
Lafayette Mining Limited (Rapu-Rapu island, Albay), Philex and Maricalum Mining
(Negros Island), Xstrata Mining Project (South Cotabato), and Oxiana and Oceana
Gold, Royalco, and MTL (Nueva Vizcaya), to name a few.
We were involved in the campaign against the entry of large-scale mining operations
in Rapu-rapu island in Albay, Southern Luzon. In April 2005, the Philippine
government approved the commercial open-pit operations of Australian company
Lafayette Mining Limited in the island despite opposition from the communities to be
affected, going to the extent of declaring it as the flagship mining project of the
Philippine government. After six months of Lafayette's mining operations, the
company incurred two mine tailings spills on October 11 and 31, 2005. Lafayette
admitted that they released mine wastes into the rivers that caused water
contamination and fish kills in the area.
A sustained campaign at the local, national and international levels was immediately
launched and implemented in response to this clamor for Lafayette’s closure. This
resulted in the following gains: 1.) the suspension of Lafayette mining operations for
more than a year, 2.) a government-formed Presidential Fact-finding Commission
recognized the demand of the people to close down Lafayette and implement a
mining moratorium in the island, 3.) sustained press coverage of the campaign at
the local, national and international levels, 4.) broad support through the formation
of several alliances in mining-affected areas and at different levels, and 5.) pressure
on Lafayette's financiers and stakeholders.
29
Political and legal struggles
Environmental laws and reality on the ground: a growing gap
In December 2007, the Supreme Court (SC) identified and designated 117 special
environmental courts in the interest of pursuing “improved environmental
adjudication”. This was a welcome and laudable development, especially in the
context of the country’s legislative and legal aspirations regarding the environment.
The right to a balanced and healthful ecology, for instance, is an enforceable legal
right under the 1987 Constitution.i Philippine environmental legislation has been
described as prolific and has also been considered as among the most progressive in
South East Asia. But ironically and sadly, the divide between environment-related
laws and reality on the ground has been growing wider, and deeper than ever
before.
The 1987 Constitution, for instance, mandates the State to protect the nation’s vast
and diverse marine wealth.i But such provision did not prevent the depletion and
further destruction of the country’s coastal and marine ecosystems. Within the
Philippine exclusive economic zone, fish stocks have been depleted by as much as
90 percent, sea grass beds destroyed by as much as 50 percent, and coral reefs
degraded by as much as 96 percent, all in the past 50 years.i
Furthermore, while the Constitution provides for the conservation of forest lands and
parks, deforestation continues at an alarming rate. This state of diminishing forests
is reflected in the rate of species loss where more than half of the birds, amphibians
and mammals endemic to the Philippines are either threatened or facing extinction.i
The State is also mandated by the Constitution to protect the people’s right to their
environment and to promote the national patrimony. It allows the State to fully
control and supervise the ownership, exploration, development, and utilization of the
country’s natural resources subject to the ideals of distributive justice and the
common good.i Yet massive natural resource extraction and export has been
proceeding at an unsustainable rate. Forest denudation by corporate logging firms
and wood-based industries continues. Since 1992, up to as much as 30 percent of
the country’s total land area has been potentially opened up to mining investments
under Republic Act (RA) 7942 and the Arroyo administration’s mining revitalization
program.
The country’s dwindling and vulnerable natural resources are also further jeopardized
by recent bilateral trade agreements such as the controversial Japan-Philippines
Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA) and the 19 agricultural trade agreements
with China. These agreements contain provisions that are perceived to violate
international environmental treaties and agreements which the Philippines ratified
such the Convention on Biodiversity and the Basel Convention on Hazardous Wastes.
The Judiciary’s environmental record: landmarks and limitations
The Philippine environment is currently in various stages of degradation, destruction

and resource depletion, some at levels worse than in previous decades. In this
context, the judiciary faces the particular and urgent historical challenge of acting as
a vital instrument to protect the Filipino people’s long-term interest in relation to
30
national patrimony, safeguarding the people’s health and defending the natural
environment for the welfare of present and future generations.
But the judiciary also has its inherent limitations in addressing environmental and
natural resource concerns, their jurisdiction being confined to legally demandable
rights and issues of abuse of discretion or jurisdiction. In particular, we believe that
the judiciary also operates under a larger societal and political context where there is
existing pressure on various state agencies to conform to and implement the Arroyo
administration’s thrust of extracting natural resources such as timber, minerals,
high-value crops, and energy sources largely for export.
The SC has taken initial steps to promote access to environmental justice by working
for an enhanced judiciary system with designated “green” courts. Yet from the
environmental advocate’s perspective, the judiciary’s scales have not always been
tilted in favor of the environment and national patrimony, in light of the larger
political context in which it operates. Outnumbering some laudable landmark
environmental casesi are SC decisions deferring to the Executive branch in cases
where so-called economic development (or the trajectory that the Arroyo
administration is currently pursuing) is in conflict with the need to uphold national
patrimony and sustainable natural resource utilization. These do not bode well for
communities struggling to defend their lands and lives against “development
aggression” caused by unscrupulous and profit-hungry corporations engaged in
extractive industries such as mining, logging, and energy exploration and
development.
A classic example of this would be the SC decision on the constitutionality of the

Mining Act of 1995 (RA 7942). After ruling that certain provisions in RA 7942 were
unconstitutional (La’Bugal-B’laan Tribal Association vs Ramos et al GR No. 127882),
the SC in its 1 December 2004 ruling reversed its ruling and upheld the
constitutionality of the said law.i
Policy-related limitations: Arroyo’s pro-mining liberalization program
The Arroyo administration openly urged the judiciary to reverse its decision citing
parts of RA 7942 unconstitutional. Among the justifications cited by the Arroyo
administration as crucial to the reversal of the SC decision was the fiscal crisis. The
SC deferred to such concerns in its final decision, saying that “the mining industry
plays a pivotal role in the economic development of the country and is a vital tool in
the government’s thrust of accelerated recovery”.i This was also observed in the
Fact-Finding Report on Mining in the Philippines conducted by British parliamentarian
Clare Short. The report quoted a former Speaker of the House of Representatives as
saying that the administration “mounted a strong campaign to get the SC to reverse
itself”.
This pressure on the judicial and legislative branches to support mining liberalization
is buttressed by various executive and administrative ordersi to “harmonize” existing
laws in conflict with the Mining Act. These include provisions in the Indigenous
People’s Rights Act (IPRA), the Local Government Code, the Environmental Impact
Assessment System, and the National Integrated Protected Areas System.i
Civil society organizations and people’s formations have continued their resistance
despite the favorable judicial decisions towards the mining policy of the Arroyo
31
administration. To date, RA 7942 continues to be opposed at the grassroots and

advocacy levels by communities nationwide precisely because of the human and ESC
rights violations that the mining program has spawned. In the course of
implementing the Mining Act of 1995 and approving permits covering a large portion
of Philippine landsi, mining firms have incurred a litany of human and civil rights
violations as well as violations of ESC rights. These include the displacement of
indigenous tribes from their ancestral lands, pollution and degradation of ecosystems
critical to community health and livelihoodi, killings and harassment of anti-mining
advocatesi, the deployment of police and military forces in mining-affected
communitiesi, the use of military and paramilitary forces to provide security for
mining firmsi, and harassment suits against anti-mining advocates, to name a few.
The rise in human and civil rights violations and threats on ESC rights in cases
related to mining have already been affirmed and deemed a matter of concern by
the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippinesi (CBCP) and independent
observers such as former United Kingdom Secretary of State for Overseas
Development and MP at the House of Commons Clare Short.i Short warned of the
implications of the current mining program on the country’s natural resource base
and stressed that “current mining plans will undermine the government’s own
strategy for sustainable development by destroying or severely damaging critical
ecosystems”.i
Prevalence of harassment suits against environmental defenders
Meanwhile, lawsuits filed against citizens and environmental interest groups have
also become prevalent. Environmental defenders are being subjected to forms of
legal harassment through Strategic Legal Actions Against Public Participation
(SLAPPs).i SLAPPs affect public participation by limiting freedom of speech as
enshrined in the Constitution as well as the right to seek redress of grievances.
There have been a deplorable pattern of SLAPPs filed against environmental

advocates in the course of their resistance and opposition to environmentally-
destructive projects such as mining and energy exploration and operations and
logging. CEC-Phils, for instance, has been documenting what it considers as SLAPP
cases against environmental advocates, to wit:
• Criminal Case No. 136639 (libel), People of the Philippines vs. Danilo Ramos
and Frances Quimpo (Pasig City RTC Branch 67)
• IS No. PSG-07-07-07709 (Petition for Review), Lafayette Phils. Inc., Rapu-
Rapu Phils. Inc., and Rapu-Rapu Minerals Inc. vs Danilos Ramos and Frances
Quimpo (DOJ Manila)
• Civil Case No. 29074-2002 (For damages), Lapanday Agricultural
Development Corporation vs Ilang-Ilang Quijano and Dr. Romeo F. Quijano
(RTC, Eleventh Judicial Region, Davao City, Branch XVII)
• Special CV Action No. 6830 (Injunction and prohibition with prayer for TRO
and preliminary injunction with damages), MTL Philippines Inc. (rep. by
Ernesto Mendoza) vs. Runruno Landowners Association (rep. by Kathleen
Guillao, Josie Guillao, Venencio Matidon, Ziga Gayana, Luisa Montanio, and
Frank Banji), NV RTC, Second Judicial Region, Bayombong, Branch 28
• Criminal Case No. 1307 (grave slander), MTL vs Kankaney leader and Rulanas
Secretary Josie Guillao
32
• Civil Case No. 982 (TRO and/or permanent injunction), Oxiana Philippines and
Royalco Ltd. Of Australia vs 24 indigenous peoples leaders in Kasibu, NV, RTC
Branch 37 in Bayombong (dismissed)
• Grave coercion filed by Mario Kingo (Chief of Security, Sibuyan Nickel
Properties Development Corporation) vs 85 anti-mining advocates in Sibuyan
Island, Romblon
• Libel case filed by Toronto Venture Inc. vs Bishop Manguiran in Zamboanga
(withdrawn)
Thus, we ask: What are the judicial mechanisms for upholding substantive and
procedural rights which relate to such harassment suits?
Lack of citizen-friendly procedural remedies
Another challenge facing the courts is the issue of access to justice through
procedural remedies such as citizen suits. While citizens may very easily be
“SLAPPed” by mining or logging firms, there is very limited space for them to file
citizen suits against errant corporations themselves.
Opportunities for concerned citizens and communities to pursue civil and criminal
lawsuits that could block environmentally-destructive activities or projects are few,
limiting, and little-known. There has yet to be a comprehensive anti-SLAPP
mechanism, both in substantive and procedural law. Out of the numerous Philippine
laws related to the environment, only twoi expressly provide for citizen lawsuits
against violators, agencies, or government officials: RA8749 (Clean Air Act of 1999,
Sec. 41 and 42—the first environmental act with an anti-SLAPP provision) and RA
9003 (Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000, Sec. 52-53).i
Far from being a comprehensive response that may enable citizens to pursue legal
remedies, the current laws are limited to counter-suits for the implementation of
Clean Air and Solid Waste Management Acts and excludes SLAPPs against private
individuals involved in public opposition against certain projects. The SLAPP
provisions in these laws are focused on the enforcement of legislation, meant to
protect public officers who are sued in their official capacity. Other laws even
encourage the filing of SLAPPs on the part of the corporations involved such as the
obstruction clause in the Mining Act (Sec. 104 to 107).i There are also legal
disincentives for citizens to file cases.i
Impediments to access to justice
The problems in accessing justice due to the litigant’s lack of resources,

unsympathetic judges or judges lacking awareness of environmental concerns are
aggravated and compounded by the following: 1.) increasing
militarization/involvement of police and military forces in the protection of private
corporations, particularly in mining areas, 2.) increasing number of SLAPP cases filed
against citizens who have exercised their freedom of speech and assembly in
opposing these corporations, and 3.) the limited access to judicial remedy in the
form of legislation supporting citizen suits and banning SLAPPs.
In reality, there will be no access to justice if people are unable to assert their rights
to their environment and national patrimony out of fear of being SLAPPed or
persecuted and harassed by the State’s coercive apparatus. Access to justice is a
33
mere aspiration if the people are not able to fully exercise, by some reason or
another, procedural rights such as the right to sue, to participate fully in decision-
making and to have full access to environmental information. Access to justice will
not be fully realized if potential complainants are dissuaded or discouraged from
pursuing costly and lengthy legal struggles against mining projects due to
apprehensions that the judicial system will always defer to the Executive’s “clearance
sale” policy towards foreign mining companies.
Access to judicial remedy for environmental defenders and affected communities

must be duly provided for, both in policy and procedure. While it is not expressly
mentioned at all in the International Covenant on ESCR, access to justice in the
context of environmental struggles is a principle upheld in other non-binding and
aspirational (e.g. “best practice”) international agreements and conventions to which
the Philippine government is a signatory such as the Rio Declaration at the United
Nations Conference on Environment and Development held in Rio de Janeiro on June
1992. This declaration defines public access to information and access to justice and
remedial procedures as two key elements of public participation, as stated in
Principle 10.i
Kalikasan PNE also supports the strengthening of procedural mechanisms in the

“green” courts. In late 2007, the SC designated special courts to try and decide
violations of environment laws. While we recognize and laud the potential benefits of
these green courts, we realize that this does not change the regular judicial process
and its inherent limitations. It, for instance, does not change the jurisdiction of
administrative courts, such as the Pollution Adjudication Board, and will not relieve
“green” courts of their regular cases in order for them to concentrate on those
involving environmental laws.i
We also wonder how the dismissal of environmental cases filed by environment

activists/advocates due to failure to exhaust administrative remedies can be
addressed.i How can environmental advocates be expected to put their faith in a
situation where, more often than not, government agencies that are tasked with the
protection of the environment and its rich resource base are the first to sanction its
extraction and exploitation.
Lastly, there is also the question of popularizing awareness of environmental rights

and legislation as well as basic human and civil rights among the people particularly
those who living in ecologically-critical communities.
Recommendations
1. On the issue of mining
We reiterate our challenge for the SC to defend the environment, national patrimony,
and people’s welfare – especially when there is extreme pressure on the SC to defer
to economic policies and programs of the Executive which promote the over-
extraction and exportation of the country’s mineral wealth, timber and other natural
resources to the detriment of local development, environmental security and
preserving national patrimony.
We believe that the judiciary should undergo a process of re-examination and

reflection on its role in the context of the current mining liberalization policy and
34
legislation. It should also take a look at the record of human and ESC rights
violations occurring in the implementation of the mining program, and its
implications on national patrimony, the environment, and people’s health.
2. On the issue of environmental courts
There is currently no language of law that speaks on the environmental courts and
the respective cases under their jurisdiction. We recommend that special and specific
rules and procedures on the mandate of the environmental courts be included in the
existing Rules of Court.
In accordance with the powers vested in the SC under Article VIII, Section 5.5. of
the Constitutioni, special procedures such as those governing the designated
agrarian courts must be instituted in order to define the mandate and process by
which the environmental courts would serve their purpose. We recommend that
peoples’ organizations, civil society organizations, and non-government organizations
involved in environmental research, education, legal defense, or advocacy be given
full representation and participation in the drafting of these Special Procedures.
The SC should also institute mechanisms for the public monitoring of the
effectiveness of environmental courts, again involving the widest possible number of
stakeholders and affected communities.
Lastly, we call on more solid documentary support for environmental cases and
access to information regarding environmental law.
3. On the issue of popularizing legal environmental education
There is a need to complement and strengthen public knowledge of procedural and

legal mechanisms available to environmental defenders and communities striving to
protect their lands, waters, and air space from degradation and over-extraction.
There is also a need for information-dissemination on existing jurisprudence on
environmental laws and cases.
We call on the Supreme Court to reinforce its mandate over the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) in the interest of popularizing a legal environmental education
campaign among the public and within the ranks of the judiciary. The assistance of
SC lawyers may be concretized in public education efforts through the sharing of
jurisprudence related to environmentally-critical areas, such as the extractive
industry sector (mining, logging, oil and energy exploration and development).
4. On the issue of SLAPPs
The SC should affirm the need for the Philippine legislature to pass a more
comprehensive anti-SLAPP law that will include both criminal and civil cases and
recognize cases incurred not just during the implementation of the law, but suits
designed to prevent public opposition to projects.
The SC can also support procedural mechanisms to substantially reduce the

possibilities of SLAPP cases prospering under the wings of the judiciary. It can pass a
circular prohibiting SLAPP suits and recognizing these as a ground for the dismissal
of a case.
35
ON FISHERFOLKS
Prepared by the Pambansang Lakas ng Kilusang Mamamalakaya ng Pilipinas
(Pamalakaya)
August 28, 2008
An archipelago of 7,100 islands, the Philippines is known to the world as one of the
richest countries in terms of marine biodiversities, and in terms of annual production
of fishery products. The Philippine coastline traverses an estimated 943
municipalities where 24 identified major fishing bays and gulfs are located.
A very rich fishing area, the country is home to 2,400 types of fish, 900 kinds of
Carageenan and 400 kinds of corals. The Philippines ranked 11th in the production of
fishery products according to the Food and Agriculture Organization in 2003, also
11th in the production of cultured fish products, 2nd in seaweed and aquatic plants
production and the 13th exporter of fish across the globe in the 2003 study
conducted by the UN body on food and agriculture.
In the same year the study was conducted by FAO, the country posted an annual
production of 3.6 million metric tons of fishery products, way above the 2.1 million
tons of fish products produced during 1980-1991.
According to experts in fisheries, even if the total population doubles in the next ten
to fifty years, the country would still be able to address the fish needs of every
Filipino granting these resources are protected and kept from abuse and over
exploitation.
However, it does not mean that our small Filipino fisherfolk are rich as the country’s
fishery and water resources are. The sad tale of the equation is that 80 percent to
90 percent of the 1.8 million Filipino fisherfolk are living in the deepest quagmire of
poverty.
The extremely backward fish production and the very low level of technology
employed by Filipino fishermen still dominate the country’s fisheries sector. This
situation prevents marginal fishermen from utilizing and reaping the bounty of our
seas. The average daily catch is between 5 to 10 kilos. In many instances, they
either go home with 2-3 kilos of catch per day or bring in empty nets.
This problem is further compounded by the fact that merchant usurers and traders
underprice the fisherfolk’s produce and overprice the cost of fishing gear and other
implements. The fish resources in the country’s fishing waters are practically gobbled
up by commercial fishing operators, including foreign vessels poaching the country’s
waters. In any case, the small fisherfolk are always in no-win situation.
Based on a 2002 report of the National Statistics Office, there are about 313,985
boats and vessels with engines used by municipal fishing operators; while e 653,019
fishing boats used in municipal areas that still use rafts and paddles. This mirrors
the backwardness of the fishing industry across the country.
While small fisherfolk in municipal fishing areas are reduced to earning between P50
to P150 daily, the same is true with their counterparts in commercial and
aquaculture sectors. Based on the study made by Pamalakaya, fish crews of
36
commercial fishing vessels receive an average wage of P100 per day, while those
with a higher position in commercial operations manage to get between P150 to
P180 per day.
On the other hand, fishworkers in the aquaculture sector are paid between P120 to
P200 per day during their six month stint with fishpond and fish culture enterprises.
The dominance of foreign and local fishing companies is the ultimate reason why this
modern-day slavery is taking place practically everywhere. The local big guns of the
local fishing industry in partnership with their foreign clients and partners are getting
70 to 85 percent of the profits according to industry practice and standards. This
has been going on for the longest time.
The Marcos fascist dictatorship further aggravated the problems of small fisherfolk.
It was during this time that commercial fishing operators started their aggressive
campaign in municipal fishing grounds and offshore seas. It was also during this
time that the national government started changing the orientation of fishing areas.
Huge portions of foreshore land areas located along bays, gulfs, lakes and rivers
were appropriated for industrial and commercial use. The Marcos government also
extended reclamation areas, as in the case of Manila Bay where 20,000 hectares
were reclaimed to pave the way for export processing zones, aquaculture ventures,
high end tourist spots and the likes. This reclamation program displaced around
18,000 fishing families in the early 70s.
On the other hand, the monopolistic operations and practices of commercial fishing
vessels in municipal fishing grounds and high seas remained untouched and firmly
unstoppable in using up what is reserved for marginal fishermen.
The government’s laws, programs and policies legitimized this tale of exploitation
and worsening poverty among the ranks of Filipino fisherfolk and facilitated
environmental destruction in many erstwhile productive fishing grounds.
The Organization of fisherfolk - Birth of Pamalakaya
The birth of Pambansang Lakas ng Kilusang Mamamalakaya ng Pilipinas

(Pamalakaya) on December 7, 1987 as a national federation of small fisherfolk
organizations in the Philippines stemmed from the historic struggle of the Filipino
people against the US-backed Marcos Dictatorship.
Since its birth 21 years ago, Pamalakaya’s involvement in the sectoral and national
struggles mirror the Filipino fisherfolk’s day-to-day ordeal --braving the rough seas
in search for truth, justice and emancipation in this age of modern-day slavery and
repression.
In 1974, the martial law regime enacted Presidential Decree 704, a one-page law
that declared the backward fisheries sector as lucrative arena for foreign and
domestic investments. Big capitalists here and abroad were allowed by the
dictatorship to put their money with enough guarantees from the authoritarian
government.
37
The regime sold coastal communities and foreshore land areas to the highest
bidders in exchange for fat kickbacks. Mr. Marcos allowed his business cronies to
transform these fishing villages into export processing zones, industrial enclaves and
commercial hotspots at the expense of environment and fisher people’s economic,
social and cultural rights.
The country’s archipelagic waters were offered for national exploitation to

commercial fishing monopolies both foreign and local. The Marcos regime also
allowed commercial fishing vessels to fish in municipal fishing waters previously
reserved for small or marginalized fishermen. In 1976, Marcos signed the RP-Japan
Treaty on Amity, Commerce and Navigation to allow Japanese fishing corporations to
fish in Philippine territorial waters under the guise of scientific undertaking.
The Japanese also lent their Jurassic-old commercial ships under joint venture
agreements to be able to fish in Philippine territorial waters and promoted
aquaculture for massive production of fishery export crops needed by the Japanese
food and drug industry.
These modern tales of economic slavery coupled with the rising tide of state fascism
and gross violations of basic human rights and civil liberties of the people across the
country prompted small fishermen to organize themselves and join the people’s anti-
dictatorship struggle.
From 1980 to 1985, fisherfolk built up their sectoral organizations in total defiance
against the dictatorship and to fight for their economic, social and cultural rights.
Pamalakaya chapters were established in various parts of the countries.
In the late 70s up to the dying years of Marcos dictatorship, Pamalakaya provincial
chapters in Quezon, Batangas, Negros, Cebu, Samar, Leyte and the region of Bicol
and Mindanao Island confronted the encroachment of large commercial fishing
vessels in municipal fishing waters.
Sometime in 1983, fisherfolk in Bataan, Bulacan, Navotas, Las Piñas, Parañaque and
Cavite formed Pamalakaya-Manila Bay and led the opposition against the intrusion of
big commercial fishing vessels and the commercialization of the bay.
In Laguna Lake, Pamalakaya-Laguna Lake was instrumental in opposing and

frustrating the Danish-funded Napindan Hydraulic System from preventing salt
waters of Manila Bay to pass through the Lake and kill the lake’s ecosystem and
marine system.
The fall of Marcos did not erase the problems of the fisherfolk. Which is why in
1987, leaders of 42 provincial organizations decided to form Pamalakaya as a
national federation of small fisherfolk.On December 7, 1987, it held its first National
Congress attended by some 400 fisherfolk leaders, friends and allies from different
sectors of the society.
The guiding principles behind the formation of Pamalakaya at the national level
were: freedom of fishing industry from foreign and local exploitation, the realization
of genuine agrarian and fisheries reforms as the clear blue print for sectoral
38
emancipation, preservation and sustainable development of marine and water-based

resources for the utilization and benefit of the Filipino people.
Pamalakaya is mandated to fight for the empowerment of small fisherfolk and the
Filipino people, to uphold the fisherfolks’s right to priority use and responsible and
sustainable development of marine and aquatic resources, to ensure that fisherfolk
enjoy basic social service, to protect the fish workers from unfair labor practices of
commercial fishing operators and aquaculture corporations and to fight against all
forms of exploitation and oppression.
Pamalakaya is also mandated to promote technologically-appropriate and

environment- friendly fishing methods and integrated approach to conservation of
fishery resources; build capacity and self-reliance among fisherfolk; expand and
strengthen fisherfolk organizations; project fisherfolk issues at the local, national and
international levels; partake in the campaign for genuine agrarian and fisheries
reforms; and integrate women’s issues and struggles in all fronts of its advocacy
work.
Relevant Laws that are used to deny access and realization of justice under
the present legal system
• Fisheries Code of 1998 - The central law in Philippine fisheries. The Code
legitimizes the entry of commercial fishing vessels into municipal fishing
grounds. It allows the conversion of foreshore land into corporate fishponds
and fish pens. On the other hand, the Fisheries Code and the Local
Government Code makes it unlawful for small fishermen to fish in other
coastal towns, municipalities or provinces. The law is also being used to
implement other absurd ordinances such as color-coding of fishing boats, ID
system and regressive taxation.
• Republic Act 7881 - An amendment to CARL. The law exempts hundreds of

thousands of fishponds and aquaculture and commercial farms from the
coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). This law
paved the way for the exemption of around 800,000 hectares of fishponds. It
used by big sugar landlords in Negros and other parts of the country to
convert their agricultural estates to fishponds and aquaculture farms to evade
land reform.
• Agricultural and Fisheries Modernization Act (AFMA) - The

government’s supposed safety net measure against the impact of the
country’s accession to the WTO and other neo-liberal globalization policies.
However, the measures can hardly be considered safety nets because of their
strong bias for export-oriented industries with the result that foreshore lands
along coastal areas were declared part of Strategic Agriculture and Fisheries
Development Zones (SAFDZ) promoting mass production of fishery products
for exports.
• Republic Act No. 8975, the amendatory law of P.D. 1818, is "An Act to
Ensure the Expeditious Implementation and Completion of Government
Infrastructure Projects by Prohibiting the Lower Courts from Issuing
39
Temporary Restraining Orders, Preliminary Injunctions, or Preliminary

Mandatory Injunctions, Providing Penalties for Violation Thereof, and for
Other Purposes," approved on 7 November 2000.
• This particular law bars the lower courts from issuing TROs or injunctions in
cases involving government-declared "national projects". The law is being
used and abused by government agencies and private entities to justify the
demolition of fishing villages. Thus struggling coastal peoples are denied the
immediate legal remedy to derail if not stop these state-sanctioned projects
from evicting the fisher people from their main source of livelihood and
abodes.
In most cases, the lead agency is the Philippine Reclamation Authority (PRA,
formerly the Public Estate Authority).
• Mining Act of 1995 - Since the Supreme Court reversed its ruling the Mining
Act of 1995 unconstitutional, foreign companies started to make their
presence felt particularly the offshore mining groups. Today, there are about
64 service contracts awarded by the government allowing foreign oil and gas
companies to conduct a massive oil hunt in Philippine waters. The latest to
join the mad scramble for black gold is ExxonMobil in the Sulu Sea.
• NIPAS law - The law used by the national government to declare fishing
grounds as fish sanctuaries under the guise of environmental concern. In
reality however, this law is being used and abused by commercial groups to
privatize and commercialize fishing areas for so-called eco-tourism. Fishing in
these fish sanctuaries is banned but paying tourists are allowed to enjoy
diving and other water-based recreational activities.
• Oil deregulation Law and 12 percent VAT on oil - The oil deregulation
law and the 12 percent VAT on oil caused the sharp increase in the cost of
production per fishing trip from an average of P200 in 2001 to P600 per
fishing trip at present. The cost of fuel eats up 80 percent of the average daily
cost of production per fishing trip.
• The Power of Executive Privilege – This so-called prerogative of the

Executive is being abused to hide international agreements or pacts entered
into by Malacañang with foreign entities or governments. The present
government maintains that agreements like the Japan–Philippine Economic
Partnership Agreement or Jpepa, the RP-China Agreement, the Trans-ASEAN
Gas Pipeline Agreement and the RP-US Free Trade Agreement should be
confidential and will always invoke executive privilege to keep it away from
public scrutiny. However, there is a need to closely monitor and scrutinize
these agreements for possible violations of the economic, social and cultural
rights of the people under the Constitution.
• State Policies arising from WTO- the government said it is bound to

liberalize the backward fishing sector because it is the country’s commitment
to WTO. The local fishing industry is mainly tasked to produce the demands of
international markets. On the other hand, the country is obliged to keep its
policy of anarchic importation of dumped fish and other water-based
40
products. This practice has been going on and is further exacerbated under
the WTO regime.
Some Specific Issues and Problems Lodged before LGUs and concerned
government agencies
1. Issues
¾ zoning ordinance- The local government unit is allowed to subject the

municipal fishing grounds for bidding to fishing capitalists to set up fishpens
or any business structures along the coastal area in the form lease agreement
good for one year. This practice is prevalent in Camarines Norte, Camarines
Sur, Albay and Sorsogon in Bicol, Manila Bay area, Batangas, La Union,
Cebu, Bohol and Negros Island.
¾ multiple taxation - The LGU collects various fees from small fishermen like
fisherfolk license, permit to fish, fees on fishing gears and equipment and in
some areas, the LGUs collect docking fees for fishing boats. Reports
dispatched to Pamalakaya national office revealed that fishermen in the Bicol
region, the provinces of Batangas, Quezon, La Union, Negros, Bohol and
Davao City are complaining against this kind of regressive multiple taxation.
¾ color coding – a scheme used to identify fisherfolk from their point of origin
and designated fishing territory. Fisherfolk are prevented from going beyond
their designated fishing territory; if they violate this stricture, they can be
arrested and charged for violation of the Fisheries Code of 1998 and the Local
Government Code. A case in point is that of Negros fisherfolk who went to
Cebu for fishing. They were apprehended by maritime police and Bantay
Dagat.
¾ intrusion of commercial fishing vessels - The Fisheries Code of 1998

reserves 15 kilometer from the shore of municipal fishing waters to small
fishermen. But the law also allows commercial fishing vessels to enter the
15-kilometer fishing area if it is more than 7 fathoms deep. This is one of the
controversial provisions of the code that promotes day-to-day disputes
between small fisherfolk and commercial fishing companies. This is
happening all over the country
¾ proliferation of fishpond and foreshore lease agreement - The

government allows fishing capitalists and other business groups to set up any
kind of business along foreshore land areas through the fishpond and
foreshore lease agreement. The fishpond lease contract is binding up to 10 -
25 years and can be renewed from 50 - 75 years like the fishpond lease
contracts to Del Monte and Dole Philippines. The conversion of foreshore land
areas into fishponds and other profit-oriented purposes have displaced tens of
thousands of families of fisherfolk.
¾ Demolition of fishing villages- Like the urban poor in Metro Manila and
other key cities and towns all over the country, the small fishermen are
41
perpetual victims of summary demolitions to give way to declared national

government projects.
In Luzon, particularly in Cavite, the national government is set to demolish

around 26,000 coastal families to pave the way for the Cavite Costal Road
Development Project that would link Metro Manila to other cities and towns.
Another is the demolition of fishing communities that surround Laguna Lake

including the 27 towns of Rizal and Laguna, and Metro Manila towns of Pasig,
Taguig and Muntinlupa.
The Laguna Lake Development Authority announced last month that around
50,000 fisherfolk and urban poor families will be evicted from their main
source of livelihood and abode to give way to national government projects to
be funded by private organizations.
The same case applies to many coastal communities in Batangas, Davao City,
Negros Occidental, Cebu, Bohol, Davao City and Iloilo City, Albay, Sorsogon
City, Sarangani province, General Santos City and Agusan del Sur. The joint
projects of the government and private groups vary from aquaculture
fishponds, beach resorts, high rise hotels and condominiums, casinos and
entertainment complex, to power plants and so on.
The concerned government units and agencies and Malacañang's private

funding partners in charge of national "development” projects constructed
along bays, gulfs, lakes and rivers have effectively used R.A. No. 8975 to
thwart opposition to these projects.
¾ Proliferation of offshore mining activities in Philippine fishing waters

– The government has awarded 64 service contracts for oil and gas
explorations that are to be conducted in Philippine fishing waters.
The most controversial of these offshore mining activities is that in Tañon

Strait situated between the island provinces of Negros and Cebu. In the first
phase of the oil and gas exploration, the “gangos” or “payaos” of small
fishermen were destroyed. The small fisherfolk were prevented from fishing
by the Japanese exploration firm and the provincial government of Cebu for
more than a month.
Fact-finding missions in Cebu and Negros exposed the occurrence of fish kill
and the sharp decline in fish catch, a month after the first seismic testing was
conducted. Despite the ill effects of offshore mining, the government gave
the go signal to NorAsia, an Australian mining firm to conduct oil and gas
explorations in Cebu-Bohol Strait and in the East Visayan basin that would
cover 445,000 hectares of marine waters.
The government has also given the go signal for other oil and gas exploration
groups in Palawan, Ragay Gulf in the Bicol Region, Antique, Quezon,
Romblon, Surigao del Sur, Agusan del Sur. Also included in these kinds of
activities is the ExxonMobil’s one-hundred-million- dollar offshore mining in
42
Sulu Sea. This does not include the controversial Spratly offshore mining deal
with China and Vietnam.
¾ massive importation of fish products, low prices for fish catch - The
national government encourages the continued bulk importation of fishery
products from Canary Island, USA, Peru, China, Mauritania, Taiwan, Thailand,
Indonesia, Japan and Chile despite the fact that the Philippines is capable of
producing its own fish products for the food needs of more than 80 million
Filipinos.
This practice of anarchic importation of fish products has the effect of making
the price of locally caught fish uncompetitive in the domestic market because
fish imports are even cheaper.
¾ high cost of production - The weekly increases in the prices of petroleum

products like gasoline, diesel and kerosene, that are used by small fisherfolk
has jacked up the cost of production by 200 percent per fishing trip or from
P200 per fishing trip in 2001 to P600 per fishing trip this year.
¾ fish workers in commercial fishing and aquaculture sectors are not

recognized as minimum wage earners - Fish workers in commercial
fishing and aquaculture sectors are not included and treated as minimum
wage workers. They are classified as seasonal workers whose wages are
subject to the mercy of their employers. At present there are about roughly
700,000 of them working in commercial and aquaculture sectors.
¾ Fishermen and the rest of the fishing village people are hardest hit by
regular typhoons - This sector and their families are highly vulnerable to
natural disasters like typhoons. The fishing villages are the first to be hit and
devastated by typhoons, yet the government seldom prioritizes them when it
comes to subsidies and economic assistance.
¾ Pollution - Industrial and commercial establishments treat the country’s

lakes, rivers and seas as toilet bowls without flush system. These companies
situated along the bays, lakes and rivers are consistently notorious in
dumping their solid and untreated water wastes and chemicals into these
bodies of water. This is very prevalent in areas around Laguna Lake, Manila
Bay and Pasig River.
2. Common Problems encountered in advancing the fisherfolk’s

struggles for economic rights with LGUs and concerned government
agencies
The absence of special courts for the fisheries sector or quasi judicial bodies like
the DAR Adjudicatory Board (DARAB) in the case of farmers force fisherfolk to
submit their complaints against public and private entities to local government
units. Complaints or disputes are usually brought to the municipal, city and
provincial governments or to the provincial, regional and national government
agencies like the Department of Agriculture, the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic
Resources (BFAR), the Laguna Lake Development Authority, the Philippine
43
Tourism Authority, the Department of Tourism, the Philippine Coast Guard and
the Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
For lack of available lawyers, complaints or petitions are usually prepared by the
leaders and members of the fisherfolk organizations and para-legal volunteers or
workers. Complaints are usually in the form of a community petition and are
submitted to the LGUs or government agencies concerned for speedy resolution.
However, because the processes involved in resolving the disputes are mainly in
the form of dialogues, whatever agreement or decisions arrived at or whatever
gains achieved by small fishermen from these processes can simply be
disregarded, abandoned or challenged by the opposing parties in a regular court.
Threats of eviction, filing of criminal and civil charges, court decisions in eviction
cases were used against the small fisherfolk to frustrate their assertion of their
social and economic rights. With very limited if not total lack of access to justice,
the fisher people manage to stay put in their communities and assert their
democratic rights relying mainly on their collective assertion of rights.
Specific and common problems encountered in accessing justice:
¾ Upon submission of complaints, petitions and requests for dialogues to the

LGU and concerned government agencies regarding the dispute, it usually
takes weeks, months and in some worst cases, years before the LGU and
government agencies concerned calls the first meeting or dialogue;
¾ There is the usual bureaucratic excuse; i.e. – “This is not our concern, this is
the concern of that LGU or government agency.”
¾ The dialogues on a particular concern, if held at all, can drag for weeks,
months and even years to end up without any assurance of resolving the
dispute. When the people assert their rights to collective action, military,
police and paid goons of the opposing party are employed to coerce,
intimidate and frustrate the struggle of the protesting fisherfolk for their
rights. The LGUs or government agency concerned can hardly protect them
from these threats and harassments; often times, these agencies are also
being utilized to frustrate the people’s access to justice;
¾ Some of the agreements or decisions made in favor of the fisherfolk and the
coastal villagers are implemented or realized only while the local official
sympathetic to their plight is remains in office. Once the local official
concerned is out of public office, the agreements reached or decisions made
are not honored and not recognized by the new local government
administration.
Recommendations:
• Justices, court employees, lawyers and officials of government agencies

should undergo comprehensive and substantive education on the issues and
struggles of the Filipino fisherfolk. Consider immersion and integration in
fishing communities in the education process as a form of raising awareness.
44
• The creation of special courts for the fisheries sector or quasi judicial bodies
that would attend to, address and hear cases arising from disputes pertaining
to fisheries issues and related concerns such as environment. Most of the
local cases concerning fishery issues are brought to the attention of LGUs and
local government agencies but agreements reached or decisions made are
often times disregarded and even questioned by the opposing party before a
regular court.
• In the meantime, mobile courts may be sent to fishing communities to

speedily address the cases or concerns of the fisherfolk.
• Widen the scope of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo to cover protection of the
economic, social and cultural rights of the marginalized sectors. Specifically
for the fisherfolk –
• For protection against unjust & unlawful demolition of fishing villages;
• For protection against militarization of fishing communities or

deployment of military, police and private goons or armies in areas
where there are collective actions by protesting fisherfolk or
community people;
• Prevent criminalization of disputes arising from the defense of

economic, social and cultural rights;
• The problems of the fisherfolk are principally brought about by the passage of
anti-people and anti-fishers laws and policies that only serve the interests of
the propertied class and big business groups. Hence, there is a need for a
deep, serious and comprehensive review of these laws and policies taking into
consideration the constitutional provisions on the economic, social and
cultural rights of the people. Among the relevant laws and policies that are
considered anti-poor and anti-fisherfolk which should be reviewed, if not,
outrightly repealed or discarded are the following:
• The Fisheries Code of 1998

• RA 7881 (Amendment to CARL)
• The Oil Deregulation Law
• Mining Act of 1998
• Republic Act No. 8975, "An Act to Ensure the Expeditious

Implementation and Completion of Government Infrastructure Projects
…”
• The Philippines accession to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade

should be thoroughly reviewed and Philippine accession rescinded.
• The Executive and Legislative branches of the government should pass laws
that consider the economic and social well-being of the poor; assure
protection and economic security of seasonal fish workers in commercial
fishing and aquaculture sectors.
45
ON PEASANTS
Prepared by the Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP)
August 28, 2008
The stark reality that has hounded the Filipino peasantry for centuries is landlessness.
This problem spews other related problems, aggravated by the peasantry’s lack of or nominal
access to the justice system.
The great disparity in economic, political and social relations in the country makes the
adjudication of law highly unfavorable to the peasants. Contrary to the dictum "those who have
less in life must have more in law", the affluent dominate the judicial system of the country. True
enough, they can hire the best lawyers and resort to many means, legal and illegal, to manipulate
the entire judicial proceedings and make it work in their favor. On the other hand, peasants can
hardly hire lawyers due to financial constraints and difficulties. This factual situation greatly
influences the administration of justice making it more often than not prejudicial to the peasantry.
Thus, it is timely and significant that the Supreme Court called for inputs on how to
increase the poor’s access to justice. Hopefully, the highest arbiter of all justiciable controversies
would fully appreciate the peasantry’s situation and adopt measures that would help them attain
social justice which remains elusive to this day.
Profile of the Organization: The Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP)
KMP is a democratic and militant movement of landless peasants, small farmers, farm
workers, subsistence fisher folk, rural youth and peasant women. It has effective leadership over
more than one million rural people with 58 provincial chapters and 13 regional chapters
nationwide.
As a militant and genuine peasant movement, KMP principally advocates and struggles
to achieve genuine agrarian reform and national industrialization as the foundation for over-all
economic development and progress; a sovereign nation free from foreign domination and
control; and the defense, protection and promotion of the people’s civil, political, economic, social
and cultural rights.
KMP also struggles for immediate economic relief for the peasants, launches programs
and projects for livelihood and improved production, health and sanitation, disaster relief, and
development of the farm technology.
II. THE POLITICAL AND LEGAL STRUGGLE OF THE FILIPINO PEASANTS:
The National Peasant Situation:
The Philippines is an agricultural country with a total land area of 299,404 square
kilometers or approximately 30 million hectares. However, its agriculture is still backward, semi-
feudal, export-oriented and import-dependent.
Based on the data of the Bureau of Agricultural Statistics, in 1991, the Philippines has
14.1 million hectares of agricultural land which includes those devoted to agriculture-derivative
production. Of the said total, 9,974,871 hectares are farmlands; 4 million more or less are
devoted to swine and chicken farms.
46
Sixty percent of the agricultural lands or 8,640,000 hectares are owned by 13% of the
landowners. The biggest landlords, numbering around 9,500, own more than 20% of all
agricultural lands or 2,820,000 hectares. In Quezon province alone, only 307 landlords control
71,898.50 hectares of coconut lands.
Landlessness, therefore, is the main problem of the peasantry. Seven (7) out of ten (10)
farmers are landless. The other farmers own or lease an average of one-half to one hectare of
land. Out of every one hundred (100) farmers, twenty one (21) are agricultural workers, twenty
eight (28) are unpaid family workers, twenty six (26) are under some form of tenancy relation and
only twenty five (25) own land. More than 75% of Philippine labor force is in the agricultural
sector.
As the actual tillers of the soil or the direct producers do not own the land they work on, a
situation is created that subjects them to exploitative and inequitable work conditions and
relations. Among the conditions surrounding agricultural production is the high cost of fixed land
rent, usury, high cost of production, unjust distribution of the harvest, inhumane and deplorable
work conditions and intolerably low wages for farm workers.
Aside from the aforesaid problems, the spate of extra-judicial killings and enforced
disappearances victimized mostly peasant leaders or members of militant peasant organizations.
From 2001 to June 2008, Karapatan - a human rights watchdog - recorded 908 victims of
extrajudicial killings. Almost 60% of the victims are farmers who were valiantly fighting for their
right to land and for social justice. In particular, the Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP) lost
106 of its peasant leaders and members during the said period.
Farmers likewise experience great difficulties in the legal arena. In order to destroy their
will to struggle and convince them to surrender their rights in favor of the landlords, eviction
cases, trumped-up criminal charges and harassment suits are filed against them. Agrarian
disputes are criminalized.
The court system is used to undermine land reform and to further concentrate lands into
the hands of big landlords. The courts and justice system as a whole has proven to be hardly
accessible to farmers not only because of the high cost of litigation but also due to the convoluted
and lengthy legal processes which are alien to the peasants and farm workers especially without
the aid of paralegals or public interest lawyers.
The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) and the Peasantry’s Struggle for
Genuine Agrarian Reform
There is no genuine agrarian reform program governed by a pro-peasant agrarian reform

law in the country today. The agrarian reform program under CARP is retrogressive and merely
sinks the peasantry deeper into poverty and deprivation.
CARP has many built-in loopholes that were deliberately introduced into the law for the
use of landlords evading the transfer of land ownership to their tenants. Sixty-one per cent of the
members of the 8th Congress of the Philippines that passed RA 6657 were landlords themselves
or represented landlord interests.
CARP has legalized and made possible the continuance of feudalism in the countryside
and has kept Philippine agriculture backward and with falling productivity. It did not effectively
redistribute the social wealth; on the contrary, CARP strengthened the big landlords’ grip on the
land and created ways for landlords to repossess the land after a bogus distribution program.
Under sections 3 (a), 8, and 31 of CARP, landowners are given options to choose from
the following non-land transfer schemes: corporative schemes, joint venture agreements,
47
production/profit sharing schemes, leaseback arrangement and stock distribution option (SDO) –
as alternatives to land redistribution.
From the outset, KMP states that the non-land transfer schemes negate the universal
concept of agrarian reform, which is the transfer of control and ownership over the land to the
farmers or actual tillers.
Under the non-land transfer schemes, farmer-beneficiaries would not be able to exercise
right of ownership, including the right to use and enjoy the fruits of the land. The corporation,
through its board of directors and the majority stockholders or those with the biggest block of
shares of stocks retains full control, use and ownership of the land. CARP, through the said non-
land transfer schemes, has in effect provided for a way by which landowners could still maintain
complete control and virtual ownership of their “land-reformed” landholdings.
CARP also legalized the control by multinational agribusiness corporations of vast tracts
of agricultural lands to the detriment of the farmers and agricultural workers.
Section 8 of RA 6657 allowed multinational corporations (MNCs) to maintain their control

and operation of vast tracts of agricultural lands through lease, management, grower or service
contracts for a period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-five
years.
As a result of this provision, lands leased to foreign corporations like Dole and Del Monte
remain untouched. These corporations managed to keep 220,000 hectares of agricultural lands,
which were devoted to production of export crops, because they opted to be covered by the non-
land transfer schemes of CARP.
Meanwhile section 31 of RA 6657 provided for the Stock Distribution Option (SDO) as
alternative to actual land distribution.
Under this scheme, farmers or farm workers are made to give up their ownership and
rightful claims to the agricultural lands in exchange for a nominal share in the stocks of the
corporation, declared dividends and/or employment by the corporation.
CARP has made it appear that the farmers and the big landlords are co-owners of the
land and as co-owners, they will share the produce of the land. But the fact remains that the
management, administration and control of the land as well as the other means of production
remain with the landowner while the farmer tenant, now “stockholder-owner”, remains as a hired
hand.
CARP did not only radically change the concept of agrarian reform but also the definition
of agricultural land itself. Under section 3 of CARP, “agricultural land” refers to land devoted to
agricultural activity and not classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial or industrial land.
This definition of agricultural land is not found in previous land reform laws. Under CARP, the
classification of a piece of land as agricultural depends not on actual use but on its intended use
pursuant to the classification made by the designated government entity. On this basis alone,
thousands of hectares or prime agricultural lands including irrigated rice lands were excluded
from CARP coverage.
DOJ Opinion 44 and the Natalia Realty Case:
In 1990, farmers in Langkaan, Silang, Cavite came into conflict with the developers of an
industrial estate over 232 hectares of irrigated rice land. The land was owned by a government
agency, the National Development Corporation (NDC), which planned to develop the First Cavite
48
Industrial Estate on the site in collaboration with the Marubeni Corporation of Japan. The
Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) and the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) had
opposing views on whether the land is covered by CARP or not. DTI wanted the land to be
converted for use by Marubeni but DAR claimed that since it is an irrigated rice land, it is covered
by CARP. Thus, DTI sought the opinion of the Department of Justice.
In response to the query of DTI, DOJ issued a legal opinion, Opinion Number 44, Series
of 1990, stating that the authority of DAR to rule on conversions applies only to those made after
June 15, 1988, when CARL or RA 6657 came to effect.
Simply stated, under CARP, lands already reclassified into residential, industrial or
commercial uses or purposes prior to June 15, 1988 are not considered agricultural lands eligible
for land reform under CARP. Therefore, they can not be distributed to the farmers even though
they are actually being used for agricultural purposes and even irrigated just like the irrigated rice
land in Langkaan, Cavite.
In 1993, the Supreme Court in Natalia Realty vs. DAR (225 SCRA 278) upheld the DOJ
opinion.
The DOJ Opinion 44, which was based on the flawed definition of agricultural land by
CARP and upheld by the Supreme Court in Natalia Realty has severly undermined the security
of tenure of tenants and farmers. It is used as basis by landowners to file petitions for exemption
of their vast tracts of lands from redistribution to farmers and their conversion into uses other than
agricultural.
The exemption from CARP coverage serves also as a go-signal to landowners to file
ejectment cases against the farmers or their tenants. More often than not the courts resolve the
cases in favor of the landowners. Thus CARP removed whatever rights that already inhered to
tenant-farmers prior to its passage.
DOJ Opinion 44 and the Natalia Realty Case:
In 1990, farmers in Langkaan, Silang, Cavite came into conflict with the developers of an
industrial estate over the fate of 232 hectares of irrigated rice land. The land was owned by a
government agency, the National Development Corporation (NDC), which planned to develop the
First Cavite Industrial Estate on the site in collaboration with the Marubeni Corporation of Japan.
The Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) and the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) had
opposing views on whether the land is covered by CARP or not. DTI wanted the land to be
converted for use by Marubeni but DAR claimed that since it is an irrigated rice land, it is covered
by CARP. Thus, DTI sought the opinion of the Department of Justice.
In response to the query of DTI, DOJ issued a legal opinion, Opinion Number 44, Series
of 1990, stating that the authority of DAR to rule on conversions applies only to those conversions
made after June 15, 1988, when CARL or RA 6657 came to effect.
Simply stated, under CARP, lands already reclassified into residential, industrial or
commercial uses or purposes prior to June 15, 1988 are not considered agricultural lands eligible
for land reform under CARP – even if they are still in use for agricultural purposes. Therefore,
they could not be distributed to the farmers although they are agricultural in use and irrigated like
the irrigated rice land in Langkaan, Cavite.
In 1993, the Supreme Court in Natalia Realty vs. DAR (225 SCRA 278) upheld the DOJ
opinion.
49
The DOJ Opinion 44, which was based on the flawed definition of agricultural land by
CARP and upheld by the Supreme Court in Natalia Realty undermined the security of tenure of
tenants and farmers. It was used as basis by landowners to file petitions for exemption of their
vast tracts of lands from distribution to farmers and their conversion into uses other than
agricultural.
The exemption from CARP coverage serves also as a go-signal to landowners to file
ejectment cases against the farmers or their tenants. More often than not, courts resolve the
cases in favor of the landowners. Thus, CARP removed whatever rights that already inhered to
tenant-farmers prior to its passage.
The Ejectment of Peasants from the land they till
The displacement of peasants is the logical outcome of the grant of exemption from
CARP coverage of the land that they are tilling. The following cases illustrate the rampant and
grave displacement of peasants:
In Central Luzon, there are the 74,000 hectares of the Fort Magsaysay Military
reservation. In Panay island, there are the 33,000 hectares of ancestral lands of the Tumandok
indigenous peoples that were exempted from CARP. These are agriculturally productive lands
that the peasants have been tilling for many, many years.
In Bukidnon, 400 hectares of the 3,040 hectare-land of the Central Mindanao University
(CMU) which was being cultivated by 800 farmers were exempted from CARP. Other portions of
the 3,040 hectares are being leased by CMU to local and foreign agribusiness corporations. The
decision to exempt the land from CARP coverage was decreed by the Supreme Court in the case
of Central Mindanao University vs. DARAB, (G.R. No. 100091, October 22, 1992).
Lands with eighteen percent (18%) slope and over, except those already developed
before the effectivity of the CARP, are also exempted from CARP coverage. As such, the 311-
hectare Araneta Lands in San Jose Del Monte Bulacan; the 400-hectare land of Montalban
Resources Trading, Inc. in Rodriquez, Rizal; the 76-hectare land of New San Jose Builders also
in Rodriquez, Rizal; and thousands of hectares of land in Patugo, Balayan, Batangas were all
exempted from CARP coverage.
The following cases illustrate the extent of ejectment of peasants pursuant to DOJ
Opinion No. 44 which was upheld by the Supreme Court in several cases foremost of which is the
Natalia Realty vs DAR:
Tropical Lands in Dasmarinas, Cavite. This consists of 217.hectares of irrigated

rice land located at Barangay Salawag and Paliparan, Dasmariñas, Cavite. The land was
reclassified into residential use by the municipal government before June 15, 1985. Thus,
upon application by the landowner, DAR exempted the land from CARP coverage and
the landowner was granted a conversion order. Immediately thereafter, the landowner
filed a case for ejectment against the farmers before the MTC of Dasmarinas, Cavite.
The case was decided against the farmers and they were eventually evicted from the
land.
Hacienda Looc in Nasugbu, Batangas. These 8,650 hectares of productive

agricultural land was initially covered by CARP. It was planted to rice, coconut and other
fruit-bearing trees before it was sought to be developed into a major eco-tourism hub.
Certificates of Land Ownership Awards (CLOAs) were already issued to the farmers.
However, DAR cancelled the CLOAs and Emancipation Patents (EPs) of the farmers to
pave the way for land use conversion. Hundreds of farmers have already lost their
50
crops and source of livelihood and fear for their eventual eviction. The case is still
pending before the Court.
Hacienda Agoncillo in Laurel, Batangas. These 6,000 hectares of land were

reclassified into lands for residential, industrial, and commercial use by the municipal
government prior to 1986. The land was initially covered by PD 27 but was exempted
from CARP coverage and was granted conversion clearance. The landowner filed a case
for ejectment against the farmers before the MTC of Talisay, Batangas. A writ of
execution for ejectment was issued against more than 100 farmer-families. The
landowner plans to convert the land for residential use and to construct a golf course.
400 hectaresof land in Aplaya Laiya,San Juan, Batangas. This was declared a
Tourism Development Area by the Department of Tourism. Prior to this declaration, the
land was covered by CARP and CLOAs had been issued to the farmers. However,
DAR exempted the area from CARP coverage pursuant to DOJ Opinion No. 44 and
cancelled the CLOAs of the farmers. The landowner filed a case for ejectment against
the farmers before the MTC of San Juan, Batangas. The case was decided against the
farmers and their houses were eventually demolished in implementation of the MTC
decision.
400 hectares of productive land allegedly owned by APEX and PILAR

Development Corporations in Salawag, Dasmarinas, Cavite were exempted from CARP
coverage in 1993 by DAR. There are pending cases for ejectment of farmers before the
RTC of Imus, Cavite.
90 hectares of irrigated rice land in Malolos and Calumpit, Bulacan owend by

Sta. Lucia Realty were exempted by DAR from CARP coverage. The exemption was
given pursuant to a zoning ordinance issued by the municipal government of Calumpit
and the Malolos city government reclassifying the land into a residential area. After
being granted a conversion clearance by DAR, the landowner filed a case for ejectment
against the farmers before the MTC of Malolos, Bulacan. The farmers lost the case. As
a result, forty (40) farmer-families were evicted.
Another major cause of the forcible displacement of peasants is the land use
conversion policy of the government. The following cases illustrate the farmers’ plight:
114 hectares of land denominated as Lot 13, located at Tungkong Mangga, San
Jose Del Monte, Bulacan is being converted by Sta. Lucia Realty Corp. into a residential
estate and country club.
Hacienda Francisco Fule in Alaminos, Laguna involving 96 hectares had already

been placed under the coverage of CARP. Later, however, it was excluded from CARP
coverage and was given a conversion order by DAR. The Alaminos municipal
government passed a resolution reclassifying the land from agricultural to commercial
and industrial because the Hacienda allegedly ceased to be economically feasible and
fit for agricultural purposes. Simply on that basis, DAR exempted the land from CARP
coverage and issued a conversion order to the landowner/developer.
Hacienda Jose Fule, Sto. Tomas Batangas involving 348 hectares. This land was
exempted by DAR from CARP coverage and a conversion order was issued allegedly
because the land is near San Pablo City, Laguna. The DAR simply adhered to the
argument of the landowner that the locality has allegedly become urbanized and will have
greater economic value for residential, commercial or industrial purposes.
In all the abovementioned cases, farmers were forcibly evicted from their lands.
51
The ejectment of peasants from their lands likewise results from alleged non-
payment of amortization or agricultural lease rentals (even in cases where landlords
deliberately refused to accept payments) and for alleged violations of the terms and conditions of
the agricultural lease contract. These have resulted in cancellation of CLOAs or EPs or the
revocation of the agricultural lease contract.
In September 2007, DAR reported that 5,049 EPs and 103,092 CLOAs were cancelled
involving 204,579 hectares of lands.
This figure does not include pending cases of cancellation of EPs and CLOAs before the
DAR. To date, DAR has not made an actual determination and inventory of how many
CLOAs/EPs have been cancelled. However, according to IBON Foundation, more than 2,000
EPs and CLOAs, covering 380,000 hectares of land, were cancelled in the middle of 2004 alone.
Records of DAR/DARAB likewise show that there are more or less 50,000 cases pending
before it which involve exemption, conversion and cancellation of EPs/CLOAs.
Problems Encountered in Defending and Upholding the Farmers’ Rights and Specific
Recommendations/Proposals:
1) Criminalization of Agrarian Cases
The filing of trumped-up criminal cases and other harassment suits against farmers as a
means to break their will and make them surrender their rights in favor of the landlord is one of
the main problems faced by the peasants. While a case is clearly agrarian in nature, numerous
criminal cases are filed against farmers involved in agrarian disputes.
2) Lack of Special Agrarian Courts, judges and qualified personnel to handle agrarian
cases or dispute in rural areas
The location of the offices of government agencies mandated to handle agrarian disputes
and the trial courts are situated mostly in urban centers far-away from the farmers’ villages.
Lacking in resources to face the cases, farmers either lose the case or give in to the pressures of
the landowners.
Moreover, although Special Agrarian Courts were created to hear criminal cases arising
from violations of the CARL, the designation thereof is not actually made and oftentimes farmers’
cases were heard by ordinary courts which are likely less attuned to the nature of the dispute.
Also, Special Agrarian Courts have no specialized rules of procedure and also follow the
“ordinary” Rules of Criminal Procedure in hearing criminal cases involving agrarian disputes.
3) High cost of litigation and technical and complex rules
Cases involving peasants are oftentimes dismissed due to technicalities like failure to file
pleadings or motions on time because they have no lawyer to assist them or for failure to pay
appeal fees, docket fees and other legal fees because of lack of resources. Farmers’ lack of
information on the legal remedies available to them and the complexities of the laws and rules of
procedure also cause farmers not to pursue their cases in court.
52
4). Lack of Legal Representation
Very few lawyers are willing to handle cases for the farmers and farm workers. This is
mainly due not only to the fact that their services would have to be pro bono -- since farmers lack
the capacity to pay for the legal services -- but also because of most lawyers have limited
knowledge of agrarian law and jurisprudence and the concrete situation of the farmers/farm
workers.
At present, agrarian law and jurisprudence is not a mandatory course in law school and is
not even part of the courses for the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE).
Paralegals are not recognized in courts and are not allowed to represent farmers in their
cases.
5. Rules of Procedure of the DAR/DARAB which hampers effective administration of

agrarian justice
This problem is specifically addressed to the DAR and DARAB in the exercise of their
quasi-judicial powers under RA 6657 regarding illegal conversion cases and supervision of
harvest.
Under CARP, DAR should make a determination on whether conversion is illegal before
a criminal case against a landowner or a developer can be filed. Landowners on the other hand
may directly file a criminal case against farmers before the Office of the Prosecutor, the MTC or
MCTC.
In addition, sections 2 and 4 of Rule XVII of the DARAB rules of procedure on Preliminary
Injunction/Supervision of Harvest provide that in case of an agrarian dispute, a farmer shall be
entitled only to 50% of the harvest while the remaining 50% shall be under the custody of the
Board. Of the 50% under the custody of the Board, 25% percent shall be to the account of the
landowner while the remaining 25% shall answer for damages.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
To improve the peasants’ access to justice and to uphold and protect their economic, social and
cultural rights, the KMP proposes the following:
1. Amend the rules on preliminary investigation to prohibit prosecutors and trial court judges
from taking cognizance of criminal complaints involving peasants unless a certification is
issued by the DAR that the case did not arise out of an agrarian dispute and is not purely
a harassment suit.
2. Access to courts and information on legal remedies available to farmer-litigants should be

provided specially in rural areas;
3. Special Agrarian Courts be properly designated and made known to the public.
4. Farmers be allowed to file a case as indigent litigants upon presentation of a certification

from a registered farmers’ organization that he/she is a member of their group or by the
BARC that he is a farmer.
53
5. Review and revisit the rulings of the Supreme Court in the Natalia Realty case and CMU
vs. DARAB.
6. Amend the law student practice rule to allow law students to appear in court to represent
the farmers; allow paralegals to represent farmers in courts.
7. Make agrarian law and jurisprudence a subject in law school.
8. Include agrarian law and jurisprudence as a subject in the Mandatory Continuing Legal
Education.
9. Abolish the DARAB rule on supervision of harvest; farmers should be allowed to harvest
without any interference.
10. Abolish the DARAB rule prohibiting farmers from filing criminal cases directly in court in
cases involving illegal conversion of lands. Applications for land conversion should be
enjoined either by TRO, Cease and Desist Order (CDO) or injunction.
The peasantry knows for a fact that most of their problems are brought about and could only be
remedied by a substantive law. As such, aside from the recommendations/proposals above-
stated which deal on the rules of procedure, the peasantry recommends the following:
1. Enactment of House Bill 3059 or the Genuine Agrarian Reform Bill which is now
pending before the House of Representatives.
2. Compulsory arbitration through the DAR or any other accepted person or entity
(not the courts?) should be the principal mode to settle disputes between farmer-beneficiaries
and even cases relating to tenancy, terms and conditions of work, leasehold contracts within
areas, exercise of pre-emption and redemption rights of tenants, correction and cancellation of
Certificates of Land Ownership Awards and Emancipation Patents.
54
ON LABOR
Prepared by the Kilusang Mayo Uno (KMU)
August 28, 2008
KMU organizational profile
The Kilusang Mayo Uno (KMU) was founded in 1980. It is one of the largest labor
centers in the country today with 10 major labor federations under its wing. KMU is
known for espousing genuine, nationalist, and militant trade unionism.
Since its organization, the KMU has been at the forefront of the struggle for the
protection of workers’ rights and the improvement of their lot. It has combined
parliamentary methods with meta-legal tactics in order to achieve these aims.
Among the campaigns KMU has recently spearheaded are the P125 wage hike
campaign, the campaign against oil price hike, the campaign against value added tax
(VAT), and the campaign against extra-judicial killings of trade unionists and labor
leaders. It has also sought the intervention of the Supreme Court in cases of national
importance such as the National ID System, BP 880, and the PP 1017 cases.
Judiciary and other related problems faced by the workers
Based on its experience dealing with government rules and regulations and engaging
the judicial system, KMU lists the following problems facing Filipino workers:
1. The “assumption of jurisdiction” power granted to the Secretary of

Labor under Art. 263 (j) of the Labor Code to prevent or stop a strike.
Under the law, the Secretary of Labor can prevent any intended strike or stop
any on-going strike when in his own opinion, the labor dispute involves an
industry “indispensable to the national interest”. This broad and arbitrary
power granted to the Labor Secretary has prevented the workers from using
their right to strike which is their most effective weapon against the abuses of
their employers.
2. The use of the military in labor disputes. Corollary to this is the tendency
of the Labor Secretary to deputize the military to implement his order
assuming jurisdiction over a labor dispute and enjoining the workers to stop
the strike. This creates conditions for the wanton use of state violence against
the striking workers because of the fascist mindset and training of the
military. A case in point is the Hacienda Luisita strike and the massacre that
took place in 2004.
3. The contracting out of labor. The use by employers of labor agencies and
labor contractors in their operations has become increasingly rampant.
Workers under labor contractors or agencies are deprived of their right to job
security as they are usually terminated after less than six months. Such
malpractice has been legitimized by the DOLE Dept. Order No. 10-98 and 18-
02.
4. The snail-paced resolution of labor cases. Based on the Labor Code, a

Labor Arbiter has thirty (30) days to resolve a labor case from the time the
last pleading is filed. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) has
twenty (20) days to resolve an appeal. Yet, statistics show that only 33
55
percent of cases are disposed within one year by the NLRC or the Labor
Arbiters. When a case has been finally concluded, even in favor of the
workers, the employer has closed down operations, become bankrupt or left
the country.
5. The criminalization of labor disputes. A simple labor dispute usually

spawns several criminal cases against the workers. Despite a Letter of
Instruction prohibiting prosecutors from filing criminal cases in labor disputes
without prior clearance from the Secretary of Labor, numerous criminal cases
have been filed and continue to be filed against workers involved in labor
disputes. Lacking in resources to face these criminal complaints, workers
usually have no choice but to give in to the pressures of management.
6. The prohibitive costs of filing/docket fees in labor cases. A worker

needs to pay P500 to appeal the decision of a Labor Arbiter before the NLRC.
From the NLRC, a worker would need at least P4,500 to go up on certiorari
before the Court of Appeals. From the Court of Appeals, he or she would need
at least P3,500 to go to the Supreme Court on a petition for certiorari. Such
expensive court fees have prevented many workers from pursuing their cases
against their employers.
7. The Supreme Court ruling on “strained relations”. According to the

Labor Code, if an employee is illegally dismissed, he or she is entitled to the
payment of back wages and has to be reinstated to his or her former position.
But the Supreme Court (in its decision on Esmalin vs. NLRC, GR No. 67880,
Sept. 15, 1989, FRF Enterprise vs. NLRC, GR No. 105998, April 21, 1995, and
Divine Word High School vs. NLRC, 72207, August 6, 1986 and succeeding
cases) held that an employee may no longer be reinstated if his or her
relations with the employer is already strained due to his dismissal or for
some other reasons. Under this situation, an employer only needs to provide
a separation pay, which is clearly against the provision of the Labor Code.
Many employers have used this Supreme Court decision to dismiss workers
even without a valid cause.
8. The Supreme Court ruling on non-compliance with prior notice in

termination cases. Under the Labor Code, an employer is obliged to give
prior notice to his employee before terminating him or her. Pursuant to this
provision, the Supreme Court had held then that failure to provide prior notice
makes the termination illegal and entitles the employee to reinstatement
even if there is just cause in his termination. But the court reversed itself
when it decided (in Wenphil Corporation vs. NLRC, GR No. 80587, 8 February
1989) that lack of prior notice will only make the employer liable for damages
amounting to P1,000 and is not required to reinstate the worker. The
Supreme Court, in succeeding rulings, has raised the amount that employees
need to pay but also emboldened abusive employees to dismiss workers at
whim.
9. The Supreme Court ruling on fixed-period employment. The Labor Code

states than an employee is considered regular if he or she is performing
functions which are usually necessary or are desirable to the employer’s
business or trade. Thus, he enjoys security of tenure and cannot be dismissed
from work without just or authorized cause. But if the employee has signed a
56
contract limiting his work to a certain period the employer can validly
terminate him even without valid cause upon the expiration of this period.
This is known as fixed-period employment, which Supreme Court legitimized
(in Brent School, Inc. vs. Zamora, G.R. No,48494, 5 February 1990). Many
employers are now resorting to fixed-period employment in order to
circumvent the worker’s right to security of tenure.
Recommendations
To improve the workers’ access to justice and to uphold and protect their economic,
social and cultural rights, the KMU proposes to:
1. Abolish the “ Assumption of Jurisdiction” power of the DOLE Secretary;
2. Prohibit the use of the military in the enforcement of orders and resolutions in
labor disputes;
3. Prohibit the filing of criminal cases against workers involved in labor disputes;
4. Prohibit labor-contracting of any kind;
5. Strictly implement the periods for disposing labor cases; provide sanctions for
violations of these periods and rewards for compliance with the same;
6. Abolish docket or filing fees for labor cases; exempt workers from the
payment of docket fees before the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court;
7. Review the Supreme Court ruling on “strained relations”; order the

reinstatement of workers illegally dismissed from work despite the presence of
strained relations;
8. Review the Supreme Court ruling on “fixed-period employment”; uphold at all

times the workers’ security of tenure;
9. Review the Supreme Court ruling on “violation of prior-notice”; declare a

worker’s dismissal illegal the moment there is no prior notice; and
10. Abolish the NLRC and replace it with another agency that is truly independent,
efficient and more credible to the workers in particular and to the public in
general.
57
ON WOMEN
Prepared by GABRIELA
August 28, 2008
GABRIELA organizational profile
Throughout centuries, prejudices and biases against women have embedded

themselves in Philippine culture and society. Consequently, Filipino women, most
especially those who come from the basic sectors of the toiling masses suffer
exploitation, oppression and discrimination in myriad forms. This sad state of affairs
has almost become accepted as part of “the way things are” or “the way things
should be”, so much so that it has been, and continues to be, part of the Filipino
Every woman’s life to experience some form of harassment, abuse, and the
deprivation of one’s dignity as a human being at some point in her life.
During the height of the anti-dictatorship protest movement in the early 1980s, tens
of thousands of women saw themselves united on the streets, together with their
male counterparts, driven by a strong desire to see the downfall of the Marcos fascist
tyranny and the ushering in of much-desired socio-economic and political changes.
Out of this democratic resurgence in the Filipino people’s historic struggles against
their oppressors was born the all-women’s alliance, GABRIELA (named in honor of
Gabriela Silang, the first Filipino woman general to lead the fight against the Spanish
colonial government). Founded on March 1984, GABRIELA was and remains to be the
biggest national coalition of women aspiring for and willing fight for national and
social liberation and against patriarchal oppression.
GABRIELA’s activities include 1) launching mass campaigns and public information

drives on various national, sectoral, and gender-based issues affecting women; 2)
providing appropriate health services to poor women; 3) giving psychosocial and
paralegal advice to women victims of violence including those victimized by
domestic violence, state-sanctioned violence as well as the devastating effects of
government neglect of social services; 4) making necessary referrals to doctors,
lawyers and other skilled professionals; 5) conducting basic health training and
orientation seminars regarding Violence Against Women (VAW), paralegal training
on VAW and human rights, as well as gender sensitivity seminars and workshops.
GABRIELA presently has 200 member organizations nationwide with 80% of its
membership coming from the basic sectors of peasants, workers and urban poor.
Political and legal struggles
GABRIELA provided various forms of support and services to 681 VAW victims in
2007 and to 228 victims in the first semester of 2008. At present, we are handling
about 30 cases of VAW. We support victims and their families through psychosocial
therapy sessions, finding a lawyer, case conferences with lawyers, accompanying
victims to court hearings and mounting of information drives and campaigns.
In addition, GABRIELA also assists its local chapters in handling VAW cases by
encouraging the creation of a women’s desk in the barangays. This entails the
58
conduct of VAW orientation as well as para-counseling and paralegal trainings on

VAW for GABRIELA members and women members of the barangay council. We also
coordinate with barangay officials in handling specific VAW cases in their areas.
At the same time, GABRIELA monitors and gives assistance to women victims of
human rights violations through fact-finding missions, regular visits to women
political detainees, etc. It also actively lobbies for the passage of pro-women
legislation including the Amendment to the Sexual Harassment Code, the Divorce
Law and others.
Problems encountered in defending and upholding women’s ESC rights
Based on GABRIELA’s experience, some of the major problems women have

encountered in defending and upholding their economic, social and cultural (ESC)
rights include the following:
1. The cost of litigation is too high; free legal services available to the poor,
many of whom are women, are quite limited. Only eight percent of partner or
wife battering victims who approached GABRIELA from 2001 to May 2008
have filed cases of violation of RA 9262. Even as these victim-survivors are
told that there are public attorneys and IBP (Integrated Bar of the Philippines)
members who can represent them for free, they are still deterred by the high
cost of other litigation fees such as court fees, transcript of stenographic
notes (TSN), photocopying and certification fees, and other miscellaneous
expenses.
2. Some cases involving sexual harassment, rape and VAW are already
dismissed at the preliminary investigation stage due to a general lack of
specialized training and basic education and knowledge in handling women-
related cases, to wit:
a. Lack of sufficient understanding of the psychosocial effect of gender-

based and sexual violence. For instance, some prosecutors, in
dismissing complaints use against the woman victim her perceived
inconsistencies in behavior, faulty recall of facts, and reticence to
promptly report the violence without recognizing that these could be
signs of post-traumatic stress
b. Lack of appreciation and understanding of medical and other evidence
of sexual abuse such as findings of post-traumatic stress disorder
among VAW victims, mistake the absence of hymenal lacerations as
absence of rape, etc
c. Prevalence of misconceptions about VAW among law enforcement
agents, prosecutors, judges and justices: “fight between husband and
wife is a domestic problem and should be resolved within the home”;
“wearing skimpy or revealing clothes invites sexual harassment or
rape”; “willingness to go out on a date includes consent to sexual
intercourse”; etc
d. Lack of full knowledge of laws governing VAW. For example, wife
battering according to RA 9262 includes emotional and psychological
abuse yet complaints based on such abuse are outrightly dismissed at
the preliminary hearing
59
3. There is an ongoing disjunct between RA 9262 and how it is being

implemented in the barangays, police stations and courts. For instance, most
barangay officials do not know that they could issue protection orders for
partner or wife battering cases. The issuance of temporary protection orders
(TPO) under the said law is often delayed and its implementation watered
down such that victims are exposed to further threats and actual acts of
violence from the alleged perpetrator. Some judges also become hesitant to
issue contempt orders against the husband/partner for violations of the TPO.
In some cases, the law is also used by husbands to eject their wives or
common-law wives from their homes or to wrest custody of the children from
the mother.
Recommendations
To improve women’s access to justice and ensure the protection of their ESC rights,
GABRIELA proposes:
1. That the poor be exempted from sharing the burden of raising the budget for
the judiciary to help pay for the salaries of Justices, judges and court
personnel. We recommend that the judiciary lobby for an increase in its own
budget being currently allocated by Congress so that it can further enable
itself to make justice accessible to the poor;
2. That the provisions for a pauper litigant must be further enhanced by adding
an exemption from or significant reduction of TSN cost to pauper litigants.
The same thing must be done for other litigation expenses such as
photocopying and certification fees. Court-owned photocopying machines
must be made available to pauper litigants;
3. That lawyers be given incentives for providing free services to poor women
especially victims of violence. As pro-women legislation is still relatively new
field, it is proposed that the Supreme Court initiate a rule whereby free legal
services to women or accredited women's organizations may be counted as
creditable MCLE units;
4. That a women’s desk be set-up in all barangays and that the city or municipal
or provincial governments make available to these desks funds for legal and
other support services to indigent victims of VAW;
5. That an enhanced education and training program for judges, public

prosecutors, law enforcers and court personnel be developed and
implemented to contain inputs on:
a) Women’s issues
b) Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against
Women (CEDAW) of which the Philippines has been signatory since
1981
c) psychosocial effects of VAW
d) orientation on post-traumatic stress disorder, battered wife syndrome,
etc
e) proper appreciation of medical and other types of evidences
60
f) the new laws regarding violence against women to include not only the
provisions but also a discussion of the spirit behind these laws;
6. That there be prosecutors who will be assigned to and who will specialize in
the handling of women cases akin to the designation of Family Court judges.
The same must also be done for public attorneys. This way, there will be a
designated and specialized judges, prosecutors and public attorneys who will
be primarily tasked to handle VAW and related cases;
7. That there be a serious review of jurisprudential doctrines on rape, sexual

harassment and other forms of sexual violence against women towards
discarding those that are discriminatory or that violate the CEDAW;
8. That the Supreme Court makes representations and recommendations to the

Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) and other pertinent
government offices for the designation of law enforcers and police
investigators with specialization in women and women-issues related crimes;
9. That sanctions be imposed on judges who refuse or who delay issuance of

protection orders or who hesitate to issue contempt orders to those who
violate protection orders under RA 9262;
10. That any revised IRR settle the legal question of whether or not protection
orders under RA 9262 may be availed of by husbands or male partners;
11. That the Supreme Court initiates a rule providing for protection orders for
rape, sexual harassment and sex trafficking victims.
61
ON CHILDREN
Prepared by Salinlahi Alliance for Children’s Concerns (Salinlahi)
August 28, 2008
I. Organizational profile of SALINLAHI
In Philippine society, the voices of children, most especially those who come from the
ranks of the toiling masses, remain unheard and their rights are unrecognized such
that they are rendered more vulnerable to exploitation, abuse, neglect and
manipulation within their families but especially outside in the larger society.
Recognizing that it is not possible to attain genuine social transformation if there

remains a sector whose rights remain unacknowledged, and for which advocacy is
still weak the Salinlahi Alliance for Children’s Concerns (Salinlahi) was founded in
1986 to start the work of promoting the rights and welfare of the Filipino child. Its
member organizations focused on (1) the delivery of basic services such as health
and early child care and development for children in rural and urban poor areas and
(2) the conduct of specialized research on and services for children in especially
difficult circumstances like street children, child workers, sexually abused and
prostituted children and victims of State violence.
Throughout the years, Salinlahi developed its orientation, guided by its vision to
work for a just, free and humane society which cares for its children and ensures
that each child is given all the opportunities to develop his/her own capacities, the
needed space to be healthy, creative, analytical, and the chance to grow in a non-
sexist culture that inculcates love for his or her country, fellow human beings, and
this earth that he or she lives in.
Salinlahi believes that children’s rights and welfare must be placed in the context of
the realities of a highly polarized Philippine society which is starkly divided into
classes: the ruling economic, political and cultural elite and the broad masses of the
poor, powerless, exploited and oppressed. Thus, children’s issues cannot be viewed
separately from the concrete situation of their families including their class status.
However, by virtue of their still developing capacities, children require special care,
protection and treatment.
Salinlahi’s programs and activities mirror the issues and struggles of the sectors to
which these children belong. The alliance spearheads and coordinates local, national
and even a few international campaigns on children’s issues including extraneous
issues that have a significant effect, direct or indirect, on Filipino children. It
organizes children into cultural groups to promote their rights and welfare; facilitates
educative discussions with children and their advocates on relevant local, national
and international issues; provides consultancy services on promoting the advocacy of
children’s rights and welfare; links up with other child-focused organizations for
campaigns and services; conducts researches on children’s issues; and disseminates
news, information and analyses on children’s issues.
Salinlahi counts among its network the Association for the Rights of Children in
Southeast Asia (ARCSEA), an NGO promoting child rights and focusing on child
participation at the ASEAN regional level; the Batis Aware of the Batis Center for
Women that promotes the welfare of Filipino children with Japanese fathers; the
62
Konkokyo Peace and Advocacy Center Inc., a community-based development

program for the urban poor.
II. Political and Legal Struggle
For the most part of Salinlahi’s early years, it focused on the active promotion of
children’s rights and specific issues highlighted by its member organizations such as
the child’s right to early childhood education, protection for children affected by
armed conflict and children in exploitative and oppressive situations such as child
labor, child prostitution and child trafficking. In 1989, it conducted a longitudinal
evaluation of its work and concluded that rights advocacy alone will not bring about a
lasting impact on the situation of Filipino children, if children’s issues are
disconnected from the more fundamental problems besetting Philippine society.
In the 90s, Salinlahi started looking into children’s issues as they reflect and form
part of the problems confronting the poor, deprived and powerless classes of
Philippine society. Salinlahi became involved in research on child labor starting 2001.
The research looked into the situation of sacada children in Negros and children
working as subcontracted labor, in this case, those working in the shoe industry in
Marikina City. The research was used in Salinlahi’s campaign against child labor.
Together with the progressive women’s alliance, Gabriela, Salinlahi was at the
forefront of the campaign to render justice for the child rape victim of Congressman
Romeo Jalosjos. It pursued the case to its finish to guard against whitewash and a
miscarriage of justice. At the same time, the alliance maximized the general interest
in the case by conducting a public awareness drive about child abuse and
exploitation through forums as well as children’s activities in schools and in
communities.
Salinlahi was also directly involved as a consultant in the passage of a bill on

restorative justice by Gabriela Women’s Party Representative Liza Maza in 2004. RA
9344, the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 were subsequently passed.
Salinlahi’s particular contribution was a research on arrested development that paved
the way to the establishment of the age of discernment of children in conflict with
the law.
Throughout the years, Salinlahi has been involved in the campaigns of various
people’s organizations with particular focus on children. Salinlahi and its member
organizations conduct investigative research, children’s activities, forums and media
events involving children and their communities on these particular issues. For
example, at its annual Kampo-Sining Pambata various issues have been highlighted
notably “globalization”, mining, land reform, housing issues, political violence, etc,
depending on what are the most relevant issues to children at the time.
Salinlahi and its member organization, Children’s Rehabilitation Center (CRC), are at
the forefront of the justice campaign for child-victims of human rights violations.
One particular issue that the alliance considers deserving of special attention given
the there are ongoing armed conflicts in the country is that of children who are
unjustly arrested and detained because they are accused of being “child warriors”.
In 2000, the alliance highlighted the case of Edfu, an 11-year old who was accused
of being an NPA fighter and taken into custody by the Armed Forces of the
63
Philippines. Despite protective provisions found in Republic Act No. 7610, the AFP
kept Edfu in a military camp for several days and even paraded him to the media
while he was told to assemble a high-powered rifle. CRC assisted Edfu’s relatives in
the custody battle with the government.
The two organizations also spearheaded a campaign to obtain justice for a nine-year
old girl, Grecil Buya, who was killed in 2007 by the military in Compostella Valley,
Mindanao. She was also branded as a “child warrior” of the New People’s Army.
Complaints were filed before the courts, at the Office of the Ombudsman and at the
Commission on Human Rights (CHR). Salinlahi facilitated the dialogue between
Grecil’s parents and the CHR and organized protest actions at the Office of the
Ombudsman and at the Department of National Defense. The regional CHR office
issued a ruling that the case could not be considered a human rights violation since
the girl was killed in the crossfire between the military and the NPA. Based on the
local CHR ruling, the regional trial court dismissed the case filed by the parents.
After almost a year, the national CHR office reversed the ruling of its regional office
and issued a resolution that Grecil’s death was indeed a human rights violation and
that her parents were entitled to due compensation. Unfortunately, the resolution
came too late since the case was already dismissed by the courts rendering the CHR
decision inconsequential.
With its network organization, ARCSEA, Salinlahi spearheaded the formation of

Children Act Now, an alliance of children’s advocates against bureaucratic corruption.
The alliance held activities that highlighted the children’s participation in various
educational activities that raised the awareness on corruption after the ZTE-NBN
corruption scandal erupted early this year.
III. Problems Encountered in Defending and Upholding the Sector's Rights
Children, like women, are still widely viewed as being under the dominion of the
male head of household who is also, most likely, the recognized breadwinner; i.e.
the father (or father figure if no biological father is present) has overarching
authority over the children as with the rest of the family and household.
Economically, this means that where family labor is employed as is the case in the
rural areas, the entire family is counted as one labor unit. No matter how much time
and work the children may contribute, they are counted as part of a single unit of
labor together with the rest of his or her family. The seasonal farm workers or
sacadas of Negros are the most illustrative example. Thus, even as Republic Act
No. 7610 and Republic Act No. 9231 make child labor illegal, children continue to
work, invisible and exploited.
Socio-culturally, such a conventional view of children reinforces the practice of using

corporal punishment in order to instill discipline in children or merely to keep them
docile and manageable. Unfortunately, this finds translation in the laws that, in the
Philippine setting, are generally punitive in nature. Thus, when more progressive
laws, such as those that espouse restorative justice (eg R.A. 9344 - the Juvenile
Justice and Welfare Act of 2006) are passed, they are generally misinterpreted
and/or wrongly implemented, wittingly or unwittingly. A serious cause for concern
and even outrage is the way some persons in authority, eg mayors who encourage
64
vigilantism and abusive law enforcers, just take the law into their own hands to
enforce punishment extra-judicially on juvenile offenders.
Lastly, it must be pointed out that in a society replete with inequality and social
injustice, children suffer as their families and the socio-economic sectors to which
they belong, suffer. It stands to reason that they likewise are part of the struggle
that their families and the classes they are integrated in pursue – to survive, to
assert their democratic rights and to aspire for a more just, equitable and peaceful
community and society.
LAWS and ISSUANCES RELATED TO PROTECTION OF CHILDREN’S RIGHTS

AND PROBLEM AREAS
Republic Act No. 7610 – An Act Providing for Stronger Deterrence and
Special Protection against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination, and
for Other Purposes.
This law was enacted to enforce the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and is
supposed to contain provisions that embody the best interests of the Filipino child. It
identifies circumstances which gravely threaten or endanger the survival and normal
development of children, and defines a comprehensive program against child abuse,
exploitation and discrimination. This law also supports the concept of “children as
zones of peace” promoted by the UN.
Problem areas:
1. This law is wrongfully invoked by government agencies and instrumentalities to

undermine the primordial right and responsibility of parents to care for their children,
particularly under highly politically-charged circumstances such as those relating to
armed conflicts, public demonstrations, and the like.
Examples:
• A Gabriela leader was charged with violation of R.A. 7610 by the Army
spokesperson in Iloilo City after children, who were brought by their
parents to the Labor Day rally, were hurt during the violent dispersal of
the said rally by the police.
• A recent news report also said parents from an urban poor community
were charged with violation of R.A. 7610 when they brought their children
to a protest action after their shanties were demolished.
• The Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) uses the law
to deny the right of parents and relatives to take custody of minors who –
whether willfully or inadvertently -- become involved in armed conflict
either because their relatives are members of rebel forces, they live in
areas where there is armed conflict or they are caught in the crossfire
when the military/police clash with armed rebels. Such is the case of
certain peasant children in Leyte who were taken into DSWD custody for
allegedly being NPA members. Even after their relatives had requested
65
that the children be returned to them, the children were forced to remain
in the DSWD Reception Center.
• Children’s participation, together with their parents or older siblings, in

protest mass actions, even when they are peaceful and orderly, is often
wrongfully labeled by government authorities as “using” minors for
political objectives. Recently, when children joined their parents in an
anti-corruption activity, the Education Department misconstrued their
presence as a case of “using” children for political ends.
2. Child advocates have criticized the law in that sanctions against adult perpetrators
of abuse against children are minimal or constitute a mere “slap on the wrist”. Many
of the prescribed sanctions against grave abuses are bailable. This makes the
abused child accessible once more to his/her abuser allowing for a perpetuation of
the cycle of abuse.
3. The R.A. 7610 law is seldom used by children victims, especially those coming
from poor and marginalized families as their families are not aware of the protective
features of the law, and they themselves shy away from seeking the justice system
to gain redress for their victimization because of the costs it entails, not to mention
the helplessness of the victims when faced with the threat of retaliation.
4. Despite the use of what we view as a retrogressive concept of “children as zones

of peace”, children in armed conflict are in actuality not afforded any protection.
Examples:
• Anthony Labrador, 11 years old, was killed in a Leyte massacre that
included his parents and a cousin. The military unit who conducted the
operations later branded Anthony and his mother as NPA couriers.
• Al Jakirani, a 17-year-oldpedicab driver from Basilan, was illegally

arrested, detained and tortured to force him to admit that he was a
member of the Abu Sayyaf Group.
5. Child labor is a phenomenon that cannot be solved by mere legislation if its

economic and political roots are not comprehensively addressed.
6. Publication of the name of the child and their presentation to the media has
become standard practice of military authorities in many instances, particularly
relating to counter-insurgency operations.
Republic Act No. 9344 – Juvenile Justice and Child Welfare Act of 2006
This law was enacted to address the welfare of children in conflict with the law. This
law has certain progressive features in a sense that it is “rehabilitative” rather than
punitive in nature.
Problem areas:
1. At the barangay level, barangay tanods or members of the Lupong Tagapamayapa

abuse their authority by punishing children involved in petty crimes. They justify
this with the alleged need to “to teach the child a lesson” knowing full well that they
66
cannot detain the child under R.A. 9344. Only a handful of Barangay Council for the
Protection of Children (BCPC) are in existence or are functional.
2. At the law enforcement level, this situation becomes a source of corruption. The
police extort money from the parents, who are not aware that children should not be
detained, by saying that they will release the children in exchange for a certain
amount.
3. There are worrisome reports that vigilantes are formed to liquidate street children,
and juvenile offenders, particularly in Davao. It is allegedly being replicated in Bohol
and Cebu City.
4. There are still children in adult jails because judges appear not to be conscientious
in their work of monitoring the jails and because of the lack of facilities such as
family courts and rehabilitation centers. Staff and personnel of rehabilitation centers
are not sufficiently trained to handle child offenders. Most often, child offenders feel
that they are still in prison inside the rehabilitation center since there is no effective
rehabilitation program for them. This is the reason why children escape from the
center and end up as a recidivist.
Justice delayed is youth denied. The longer these minors stay in jails, the heavier
the society’s burden of accountability for their lost youth.
5. Children can also be victims of official bias that interferes with the proper
implementation of the law. R.A. 9344, for example, requires the review of all cases
involving children in conflict with the law even retroactively. But because they are
considered “terrorists”, Muslim detainees in Camp Bagong Diwa, who were arrested
and detained when they were still minors, were not prioritized in the President’s
order to release all minors in adult jails. So they become adults while in detention
and have extreme difficulty in invoking the law to their favor.
Republic Act No. 9262 – AN ACT DEFINING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

AND THEIR CHILDREN, PROVIDING FOR PROTECTIVE MEASURES FOR
VICTIMS, PRESCRIBING PENALTIES THEREFORE, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES
Problem areas:
1. Lack of knowledge and proper understanding of the law results in a situation when
the law is even used by abusive fathers as a form of revenge against mothers who
have filed cases against the father.
2. At the barangay level, many local officials are loathe to issue protective orders
against the accused, exercising mediation or out rightly dismissing the case as a
family matter especially if the accused is highly regarded in the community.
3. Children under 18 years of age have no legal personality and thus, cannot file
cases for themselves. In cases of abuse by both father and mother, neighbors and
relatives tend to look the other way and refuse to “meddle” in family affairs.
IV. Recommendations
67
Poverty, inequality and powerlessness remain the underlying causes of the lack of
access to justice by the basic and struggling sectors of Philippine society. The poor,
exploited and oppressed sectors, who have no money to hire a lawyer, no capacity to
gather the necessary evidence to boost their case, no time and resources to attend
the long-drawn investigation and then the trial proper, back down and resign
themselves to the fact that justice comes with a price too high for them to reach.
The poor who are charged of crimes, on the other hand, cannot mount a proper
defense due to scarcity of resources as well as lack of adequate legal representation.
Disturbingly huge numbers of those detained in jails are charged with crimes that are
bailable yet because they do not have the money to post bail, they are denied their
freedom even as the evidence against them may be weak. This is the general
situation of the access to justice for the masses.
Thus, Salinlahi’s main recommendation can only be the institution of sweeping

reforms in social and economic policies and practices that render the Filipino people
deeply mired in poverty and social degradation.
However, as children’s rights and welfare advocates, we would forward some

particular recommendations.
Particular recommendations:
1. A specific law (R.A. 8369) already provides for the establishment of family courts
and the designation of justices trained to handle such cases. But there should also
be a monitoring mechanism to guarantee the existence and functionality of such
courts in each area/scope as provided by the said law and to ensure that sufficient
resources are allocated to ensure and maintain the functionality of these courts.
2. The Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) should have special attorneys assigned to cases
of children in conflict with the law (CICL), with specific training on the special
handling of child clients.
3. Prosecutors and judges who are handling cases where children are involved, either
as plaintiffs, witnesses and/or accused, should be given the proper orientation on a
child rights framework to ensure child-friendliness and sensitivity.
4. The executive, legislative and judicial branches of government should be

familiarized with child rights, contextualized to the socio-economic classes to which
children belong.
5. Law enforcers and local government executives should undergo education on laws
related to children’s rights.
6. Government social service providers (eg staff of rehabilitation centers) should

undergo education on child development and the evolving capacities of children.
7. There should be assiduous prosecution and punishment of law enforcers whether

they are with the police, the military or paramilitary who commit crimes against
children, including violation of laws that protect children.
68
9. Provide specific rules to monitor, evaluate and ensure compliance of the

Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) and other like
agencies with “En Banc A.M. No. 02-1-19-SC on the Rule on Commitment of
Children” and provide stringent sanctions for violations therefore.
10. Provide specific rules to monitor, evaluate and ensure compliance with R.A.
9344 and Administrative Circular No. 04-2002 on Special Treatment of Minor
Detainees and Jail Decongestion.
69
ON GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
Prepared by the Confederation for Unity, Recognition and Advancement of
Government Employees (COURAGE)
August 28, 2008
COURAGE organizational profile
The Confederation for Unity, Recognition and Advancement of Government

Employees or COURAGE is recognized as the leading umbrella organization of public
sector unions in the Philippines. It has under its fold more than 200 unions,
organizations, associations and 12 regional formations and a mass base of at least
300,000 workers from national government agencies, local government units, state
colleges and universities, and government-owned and controlled corporations.
The new-found vigor in union organizing among the ranks of government employees
in the Philippines, after a long silence, is an offshoot of the enduring struggle of the
basic masses which eventually brought down the rule of the Marcos dictatorship in
1986. Significantly, COURAGE was formed during this period that the clamor for
genuine change was sought by all.
Founded by just seven (7) employee’s associations/unions in May 17, 1986, its ranks
have swelled and the alliance has been continuously in the forefront of the
government employees' sectoral struggle for salaries, jobs and rights as well as on
the people’s national concerns.
Political and legal struggle
COURAGE has been actively campaigning for a just increase in salaries and other
economic benefits, security of tenure, and democratic rights including the right to
strike for government employees. Through various forms of action at the local,
sectoral and national level, we have brought our issues to our respective
managements, as well as the local and national legislative and executive offices. We
have also filed cases before the courts on particular issues affecting our economic
and political rights as well as issues related to bureaucratic corruption and similar
concerns.
The following are some of our specific campaigns:
1. The grant of the P3,000 across-the board salary increase for government
employees;
2. The struggle for the security of tenure in the face of continuing
“reorganization”, “rationalization”, privatization, physical office transfers,
streamlining, and the like;
3. The respect for full union rights including the right to self organization,
collective bargaining and negotiations, and the right to peaceful concerted
activities including the right to strike which up to now has been denied to
government workers
In addition, COURAGE has also been actively involved in campaigns against national
policies that affect not only government workers but other marginalized sectors as
well.
70
Problems encountered in defending government workers’ ESC rights
1. On the right to strike
The Constitution clearly mandates the State to recognize the right of workers to
“peaceful concerted activities including the right to strike in accordance with law”.
Despite this constitutional provision, the right to strike of government employees is
still not recognized even by the judiciary.
In two landmark decisions, the court has ruled against striking government workers.
The court has declared the 1990 strike of members of the Manila Public School
Teachers Association (MPSTA) and the 1991 strike of employees of the Social
Security System (SSS) as “illegal” because there is no “enabling law” to enforce the
right to strike of government employees. Under former President Corazon Aquino’s
Executive Order (EO) 180, “the Civil Service law and rules governing concerted
activities and strikes in government service shall be observed, subject to any
legislation that may be enacted by Congress”.
The supposed lack of an enabling law has seriously undermined the right to strike of
public sector workers. Government employees who have resorted to strike to defend
their economic rights have been suspended or dismissed such as the case of the
striking workers of the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) in October
2004.
2. On settlement of disputes
EO 180 also created the Public Sector Labor Management Council (PSLMC) to resolve
disputes between management and employees. The PSLMC serves as the “court of
last resort” when a dispute remains unresolved after exhausting all available
remedies under Civil Service laws and procedures.
But unlike in the private sector where there is a semblance of tripartism (i.e.
representatives of management, labor and government sit in quasi-judicial bodies
such as the NLRC, NCMB and NWPC), the PSLMC is dominated by “management”
representatives. To illustrate, the chairperson of the Civil Service Commission (CSC)
heads the council with the secretary of the Labor department as vice chairperson and
the secretaries of Finance and Budget departments as members.
Thus, the PSLMC is not an impartial body that aggrieved government employees
could count on to uphold and protect their rights. Recently, employees have been
allowed to sit in the council but only as observers. In a related case, the Bureau of
Labor Relations, an office under the Labor department responsible for resolving intra-
union disputes, took jurisdiction over a dispute within the Labor department.
Recommendations
1. We believe that the constitutional provision on the right to strike is worded in

a way that it is already enforceable and thus government workers must enjoy
such a fundamental right. Public sector employees must not suffer from more
than two decades of failure of Congress to pass an enabling law to accord us
this constitutional and human right. One option is that instead of waiting for
the enabling law, the pertinent provisions of the Labor Code (while still
71
restrictive and anti-labor) can be temporarily applied to public sector workers

to enforce our right to strike.
2. To ensure that dispute settlement mechanisms will be impartial, we propose

that a third party either from the judiciary or the legislative branches of
government be involved. The possibility of establishing special courts may
also be studied to provide an impartial and fair settlement of disputes
between government employees and their management.
72
ON THE INFORMAL SECTOR (PUBLIC TRANSPORT)

Prepared by Pagkakaisa ng mga Samahan ng Tsuper at Opereytor
Nationwide (PISTON)
28 August 2008
Piston organizational profile
The PAGKAKAISA NG MGA SAMAHAN NG TSUPER AT OPEREYTOR NATIONWIDE

(Nationwide Unity of Associations of Drivers and Small Operators), more popularly
known as PISTON, is a national federation of associations of drivers and operators of
public transportation in the Philippines. Most of its members come from the ranks of
jeepney drivers and small operators. But PISTON also has members from drivers of
tricycles (motorcycles with sidecars), Asian utility vehicles (AUVs), and other types of
public utility vehicles. It was established in June 1981 to uphold and promote the
basic rights and welfare of its members through organizing, education, training and
concerted actions.
Presently, PISTON has about 200,000 members spread across the regional,
provincial, city and area-wide chapters and organizing committees nationwide. It has
active chapters and committees in Cagayan Valley, Baguio City, Central Luzon, the
National Capital Region, Southern Tagalog, Bicol, Central and Western Visayas,
Cagayan de Oro, Iligan, Davao, Cotabato and General Santos areas. Through social
activism and political action, PISTON works for a future when a people-oriented
government can build and manage a modern, fast, efficient, safe and cheap
transportation system within an equitable social system, free from the domination of
foreign monopolies like the oil cartel and the automotive multinationals.
As a direct stakeholder, PISTON has played and continues to play a prominent role in
the national campaign to ensure reasonable oil prices and fight the abuses of the oil
companies. At present, it is actively involved in the campaign to repeal the Oil
Deregulation Law and to scrap the 12 percent value added tax (VAT) on oil. It also
works with other transport groups, associations and federation on various issues
directly affecting the sector such as on national and local traffic and transport rules
and regulations.
Laws & regulations affecting the ESCR of drivers and small operators
1. The Oil Deregulation Law (ODL) and the privatization of Petron
The Oil Deregulation Law and the privatization of Petron Corporation strengthened
the capacity of the big foreign companies to monopolize the local oil industry. Under
deregulation, oil firms are allowed to automatically adjust pump prices. This led to
frequent and steep increases in the prices of petroleum products. Such problem has
been most glaring in the past few months as local prices skyrocketed to
unprecedented levels. In the last week of July, the pump price of diesel had peaked
to more than P60 a liter.
Pump prices started to ease in August as global oil prices dropped significantly. But
it has been observed that rollbacks in pump prices have not been commensurate
with the reductions in global prices unlike when oil prices are increasing.
73
While the problem of high oil prices affects everyone, its impact on jeepney drivers is
more pronounced because they are direct consumers of diesel fuel. Due to rising
diesel prices, jeepney drivers are forced to petition government for fare increases.
Meanwhile, unabated oil price hikes pushed inflation to a 17-year high in July 2008.
The net effect is the rapid erosion of the income of jeepney drivers.
Small jeepney operators are also feeling the pinch of high oil prices which pulled up
the cost of spare parts and vehicle maintenance. At the same time, many jeepney
drivers could not remit their “boundary” (the colloquial term for the fixed amount
they have to turn over to the jeepney operator per daily trip) as high oil prices
further erode their already meager income. In some cases, jeepney drivers have
negotiated with their operators to reduce the “boundary” so that they may be able
to bring home their meager earnings.
There are supposedly safeguard mechanisms under the Oil Deregulation Law to
protect the consumers from abusive pricing. But experience shows that such
mechanisms have not ensured that price levels are fair and reasonable. In the
meantime, jeepney drivers and the public are forced to contend with the impact of
recurrent and sharp increases in oil prices.
Note that the Supreme Court (SC) declared the first Oil Deregulation Law, Republic
Act (RA) 8180, unconstitutional in a November 1997 decision. Months before the
decision, PISTON together with other people’s organizations had launched a huge
Welgang Bayan or People’s Strike against oil price increases. The high court said
then that “the downstream oil industry is operated and controlled by an oligopoly, a
foreign oligopoly at that”. Unfortunately, RA 8180 was immediately replaced by RA
8479 in February 1998.
2. The Value Added Tax (VAT) on Oil
Compounding the problem of escalating prices under the Oil Deregulation Law is the
imposition of the 12 percent value added tax (VAT) on oil. The policy started in
November 2005 when petroleum products and other previously exempted
commodities and services were levied with the VAT under RA 9337.
The VAT on oil has become more onerous with the weekly oil price increases in the
previous months. While it substantially increased the tax revenues of the national
government, it also translated to higher oil prices and lower income for jeepney
drivers. For example, the VAT on diesel comprises almost P7 per liter of its current
pump price and jeepney drivers need to shell out more than P200 per daily trip to
pay for this tax. PISTON and other people’s organizations have been actively
campaigning for Congress to scrap the 12 percent VAT on oil.
3. The Clean Air Act
RA 8749 or the Clean Air Act was passed in 1999 with the objective of addressing air
pollution, of which public utility jeepneys (PUJs) are supposedly one of the major
contributors. Under the said law, PUJs must pass emission tests at the Land
Transportation Office (LTO) to get registration. Random roadside inspection are also
conducted to ensure compliance to the Clean Air Act. Hefty fines ranging from
P1,000 (for first offense) to P5,000 and one-month suspension of the jeepney’s
franchise (for third offense).
74
While the objectives of the law are laudable, the law itself does not consider the
reality that the Philippines is a Third World economy which has no industrial capacity
to produce its own vehicles and jeepney operators have a limited capital. Many
jeepney units use imported second-hand Japanese engines, which are less efficient
and more polluting. Meanwhile, oil companies operating in the Philippines admit that
the diesel and gasoline they produce do not meet the standards set by the Clean Air
Act for carbon and sulfur content. To meet the law’s standard, they mix locally
refined oil products with imported oil. Thus, many PUJs fail to pass the requirements
of the Clean Air Act due to the combination of inferior engines and substandard oil
products.
Consequently, the Clean Air Act unwittingly oversimplifies the problem of air
pollution in the context of the Philippines. Instead of promoting clean technology, the
law merely imposes fines on the jeepney drivers and small operators for non-
compliance. In fact, the government does not keep a record of how many vehicles
have been converted to use “clean engines” nor does it track the reduction in air
pollutants. What it tallies are the large sums of money it has collected from the fines.
The Clean Air Act also promotes graft and corruption in the transport bureaucracy.
Agencies tasked to implement the law, in cahoots with private testing centers, collect
bribes from jeepney drivers and operators to skirt the required engine tests.
4. Land Transportation Code (RA 4136), MMDA Law (RA 7924 ), and
ordinances enacted by LGUs.
While the State needs to exercise its regulatory function on transportation and
traffic, various forms of abuse emerge from the different layers of rules and
regulations that the national government and local government units (LGUs) are
implementing. The Land Transportation Code (RA 4136) and the MMDA (Metro
Manila Development Authority) Law (RA 7924) as well as ordinances issued by the
LGUs are fraught with provisions that make life hard for jeepney drivers and small
operators, even those who are law-abiding when it comes to traffic rules and
regulations.
a. Arrested drivers for traffic and administrative violations are not accorded
presumption of innocence. A driver who is charged with a traffic
violation/s is presumed guilty and is obliged to pay the hefty fines for the
violation/s. If he wants to dispute the penalty, he has 72 hours from
receipt of the citation ticket within which he can file a petition to contest
the charges. This puts the burden on the driver to prove his innocence and
he needs to produce all the evidence to disprove the case against him.
b. Absence of an independent body to hear cases on disputed traffic

violations. If a driver decides to dispute the traffic violation/s charged on
him, he has to face a quasi-judicial body under the same agency that
enforces traffic rules. For instance, those who want to question the
violation charged by an MMDA enforcer must appear before the MMDA
Traffic Adjudication Board. This undermines chances of a fair trial or
decision. Any appeal will have to submit to the same agency’s higher
officials. A more independent set-up needs to be put in place to ensure an
impartial hearing and decision. To illustrate, t took the Supreme Court to
75
rule against the arbitrary confiscation of licenses and motor plates by

traffic enforcers.
c. Duplication of rules and regulations. Some LGUs also issue traffic rules
and regulations that are already being implemented by national
transportation agencies. This results in multiple cases and charges against
violators for the same offense. To illustrate, there is the confiscation of
driver’s license which the MMDA and LGUs in Metro Manila can both
practice. Even when a license has already been confiscated for a certain
violation, the driver can still be charged with “driving without license” by
other traffic enforcers.
PISTON has joined efforts by other public transport groups to question these unfair
policies, specifically the duplication of traffic rules and regulations at various levels.
It has filed a case against the MMDA over the issue of traffic violation receipts and
has a pending case before the Court of Appeals (CA) on the issue of ordinance
violation receipts.
5. Interference by the Executive on fare hike petitions
Drivers and operators have the right to file for a fare hike petition before the Land
Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) as a quasi-judicial body.
However, the Executive branch exercises undue control over the LTFRB that could
undermine its independence and politicize its decisions on fare adjustments. To
illustrate, through an executive order, Malacañang ordered that fare hike decisions
must be approved by the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA)
Board.
Such intrusion creates problems because any fare hike is expectedly unpopular. Thus
executive decisions on fare adjustments depend on a particular political situation
facing the President and not on the drivers and operators’ actual economic need for a
fare increase. The Arroyo administration, which nationwide perception surveys show
as the most unpopular government, has consistently blocked fare hike petitions in
spite of skyrocketing oil prices. It was only this month that the NEDA Board finally
approved long overdue fare hikes asked for by the public transport sector due to
weekly oil price increases.
Recommendations
Many of the issues and concerns facing the public transport sector are remedied by
legislation and thus must be directed to Congress. These include the repeal of the
Oil Deregulation Law which did not only fail to dismantle the oil cartel but actually
strengthened it while allowing pump prices to escalate unfairly and uncontrollably.
The same is true with regard to the cancellation of the 12 percent VAT on oil to
immediately and substantially bring down pump prices and the call to review the
Clean Air Act to consider the situation of barely surviving jeepney drivers and small
operators.
But the Supreme Court can help in promoting the economic rights of the transport
sector by providing a venue for dialogue to hear its issues and concerns on the
impact of certain overarching laws and government policies. Legislations already
scrutinized by the Supreme Court and continue to have a significant effect on the
76
livelihood and welfare of transport sector such as the laws on oil deregulation and
the VAT may become points of discussions in this dialogue. It is hoped that open and
democratic exchange of views with the transport sector may help the Supreme Court
deepen its appreciation of the principles and application of economic, social and
cultural rights in relation to marginalized groups in the country.
77
ON MIGRANT WORKERS
Prepared by the MIGRANTE INTERNATIONAL
August 28, 2008
I. Organizational Profile
History:
We are an alliance of progressive organizations composed of overseas Filipinos and

their families. We uphold and advance the rights and welfare of overseas Filipinos
within the framework of the Filipino people’s national democratic struggle.
Our founding Congress was held in December 1996 but as early as 1985, the need to
organize overseas Filipinos was recognized, thus the formation of the Committee for
the Unity of Overseas Filipinos. Subsequently, the Migrante-APME (Asia-Pacific and
Middle East) was organized.
During Migrante-APME’s first international conference in 1994, the need for a global
alliance of overseas Filipinos resulted in Migrante-APME’s transformation into
Migrante International in 1995.
Migrante Interantional currently has more than 100 member organizations in 22

countries.
Aims and Objectives:
1. Strengthen unity among organizations of overseas Filipinos & their families in the
Philippines.
2. Organize and mobilize overseas Filipinos and their families on migrants’ and
people’s issues.
3. Uphold and defend the rights and welfare of overseas Filipinos.
4. Launch education campaigns aimed at raising the political consciousness of

overseas Filipinos and their families.
5. Strengthen cooperation and solidarity with migrant organizations of other

nationalities and peoples of the host countries.
6. Support and participate in the struggle of the Filipino people for genuine freedom
and democracy.
Services
Migrante International provides services to migrant workers and other overseas

Filipinos who seek justice for abuses committed against them. We offer para-legal
support and legal referrals for those seeking intervention and other judicial action for
78
redress of their cases. We also conduct dialogues with government agencies on

issues concerning overseas Filipinos.
We provide psycho-social counseling to address common problems encountered by

overseas Filipinos, especially overseas Filipino workers (OFWs) and their families.
Networking and Alliances:
Migrante International coordinates with nongovernment and people’s organizations,

the church community, media organizations and individuals who uphold and promote
the rights and welfare of migrants and their families. We offer seminars and
orientation sessions on migrants’ issues to allied networks and groups.
PROGRAMS:
1. Campaigns
Campaigns and activities on the issues and struggles of overseas Filipinos are
launched such as on the following:
• economic concerns (i.e. wage cuts, state exaction)
• human rights issues (i.e. mysterious deaths, deportations, stranded workers)
• political issues (i.e. Gulf War, crackdowns, raids, racial profiling, terrorist-labelling
to harass and suppress overseas Filipinos )
• national issues in the home country (i.e. Purchased Power Adjustment, oil price
hike, privatization, total war policy, militarization)
• solidarity actions in support of the struggles of migrants of other nationalities.
2. Organizing and Education
Migrante International organizes overseas Filipinos in different parts of the world and
their families in the Philippines. We provide educational materials that raise the
awareness of our members and their families on issues and concerns that affect
them, both in the host countries and back home.
3. Publications
Migrante International produces a quarterly newsletter, Pahayagang Migrante and

Migrant Monitor. The latter focuses on human rights issues related to overseas
Filipinos and their families.
79
We produce other informative materials such as analyses on the multisectoral and

sectoral issues that have a significant impact on overseas Filipinos and their families.
II. Political and Legal Struggles
Generally, the migration of Filipinos abroad is the result of extreme poverty and the
worsening state of unemployment/underemployment. The country’s unabated
economic crisis is behind the forced migration of more than 2,500 documented
workers every day with approximately one-third of them unskilled. They are found in
182 countries worldwide.
1. Remittances and State Exactions - Overseas Filipinos contribute much to the

economy through their remittance of precious foreign exchange.
• From 1990 to 1995, or over a 5-year period, the remittance of overseas Filipinos
totalled US$14.543 billion;
• In 2004 alone, it had risen to US$8.5 billion;
• Government agencies rake in millions daily in the processing of documents for

overseas Filipinos, including passports, NBI and medical clearances, forced
contributions, administrative fees and a litany of other expenses.
2. OFWs Asserting ESCR in Courts (overseas and at home)
OFWs assert their democratic rights in facing their employers, the Philippine
Embassies and Consulates and other concerned government agencies such as
Philippine Overseas and Employment Association (POEA), Overseas Workers Welfare
Administration (OWWA), DOLE and DOJ.
2.1 In the Middle East, it is difficult for OFWs to obtain justice. Once they run away
from their employer/job site, they are charged with absconding and therefore, are
considered to have violated immigration law in their host country. They have no right
to resign from their jobs even if they have valid grounds. They invariably seek
assistance and protection from the Philippine Embassies/Consulates. Unfortunately,
they are more often than not advised to remain with their employers even under
unjust,exploitative and abusive work conditions. If they run away and take refuge at
the Filipino Workers Resource Center (FWRC), government officials are more inclined
to mediate amicably, instead of resolving the issues, and settlement would end up
with the OFWs being returned to their respective employers.
2.2 This occurs in many countries. OFWs are ill-advised by the Philippine embassies
and consulates. Officials urge them to return to their job sites only to be abused
further. In worse cases, they die under murky circumstances such as in the unsolved
mysterious deaths of Catherine Bautista, Louella Montenegro, Liza Pacuan, Eugenia
Baja, Fely Garcia, Jocelyn Dulnuan, Lucenda Guston, Joanna Tatoy, Ivy Collantes
Bautista, Susana Gacusan Anita Morales, and many others. These data come from
cases directly handled by Migrante International. OFWs
80
2.3 There is also a highly questionable practice of our embassies in the Middle East.
To facilitate the repatriation of runaways, embassy officials connive in implementing
what they themselves call the “backdoor policy” that is afforded only to the umrah. It
is an unofficial and illegal way to repatriate runaways in order to avoid the long time
it takes to resolve cases. More importantly, the government escapes its responsibility
of shelling out money for repatriation as they require the OFWs to pay for their own
tickets. We must note that RA 8042 has allotted P100 million annually for the OFW
repatriation fund.
2.4 Once the OFWs are repatriated, should they pursue complaints against their
recruitment agencies, OWWA has a mediation mechanism. Many times, much as
OFWs want to pursue their case, they are forced to abandon it. For one, cases
almost always must be pursued in the National Capital Region. Because many OFWs
are from the provinces, it has become very costly for them to file and pursue their
cases. OWWA only allows them to stay at the government-provided hostel for five
days. Moreover, many are discouraged by the red tape in government agencies.
2.5 In the case of illegal recruitment, specifically on overcharging of placement fees,

OFWs usually file their complaints at the Philippine Overseas Employment
Administration (POEA) through the Adjudication Office. At this level, if an OFW
decides to settle the case they are made to sign a waiver.
2.6 OFWs file monetary claims at the National Labor Relations Commission. Every
year, an average of 3,000 cases are filed by OFWs. In one committee hearing by the
House Committee on Overseas Workers Affairs in 2007, Commissioner Señeres
revealed that there are only 100 arbiters nationwide who can handle only 30,000 of
the 52,000 cases filed every year. Thus, there is a huge backlog of unresolved cases.
III. Problems Encountered in Defending and Upholding Migrant Rights
A. National and international laws governing Filipino migration:
1. RA 8042 known as the Magna Carta for Migrant Workers and Filipinos
Act of 1995
The Magna Carta pledges to uphold and protect the rights and welfare of migrant
Filipinos and families. Its title “An Act to Institute the Policies of Overseas
Employment and Establish a Higher Standard of Protection and Promotion of the
Welfare of Migrant Workers, Their Families and Overseas Filipinos in Distress, and of
Other Purposes,” assumes that the government is already providing Filipino migrants
and their families with the requisite protection and the promotion of their welfare and
that all that is needed is to raise this to a higher level.
The Declaration of Principles (Section 2 of RA 8042) speaks of human

dignity, protection of labor, creation of local employment opportunities,
equality of women, free access to the courts, ensuring participation in
decision-making, providing legal assistance, accrediting NGOs as partners
for migrant concerns and the like.
81
Reality, however, is a stark contrast to these claims. Many OFWs with pending cases
against their employers were hastily repatriated by our government.
A1.1 There are thousands of stranded overseas Filpino workers up to this day. Just
recently, the case of 500 stranded OFWs in Saudi Arabia was reported in the mass
media. All were victims of various abuses and exploitative practices: gross violations
of employment contracts (unpaid and underpayment of salaries), non payment of
benefits, long working hours, victims of rape and physical abuse, and contract
substitution. Employers and recruitment agencies in Saudi Arabia confiscated their
passports upon arrival. Furthermore, they are victims of illegal recruitment and
trafficking.
The Philippines Embassy made them surrender to the Immigration Police and they
were detained in subhuman conditions: a 20-person-capacity prison cell that where
60 people are packed, poor ventilation, lack of food, no safe water and no medicines.
Worse, many were tortured during interrogation. This year, one of those stranded,
Bryan Castillo, succumbed to a heart attack and died inside the deportation center in
Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Representatives from the Philippine Embassy and the
Philippine Consulate General hardly visited them and paid scant attention to their
needs.
A1.2 The Department of Foreign Affairs has reported in 2005 that there are 4,775
imprisoned Filipinos abroad; at present there are 35 OFWs on death row including
Rodelio Lanuza, Edison Gonzales, Rolando Gonzales, Eduardo Arcilla, Idan Tejano,
May Vecina among others. Migrante’s experiences in handling cases that involve
death row inmates has affirmed to us that there is hardly any legal protection
provided by the Philippine government abroad. A case in point is Marilou Ranario, a
domestic worker in Kuwait sentenced to death because she allegedly killed her
employer. Her death sentence was commuted to life sentence because of a very
strong campaign to save her life. Again, hardly did any representative from the
Philippine embassy came to visit her much less explain to her/and her family the
developments of her case. The Philippine Embassy raised no furor when the Kuwaiti
government provided her a lawyer who only spoke in Arabic. A close scrutiny of her
case would show there were grave violations of her basic rights with nary a cry from
the Philippine government.
A1.3 Record shows among the reported cases of executions of overseas Filipino
workers include, they include that of Flor Contemplacion, (Singapore, hanged last
17 March 1995); Orlando Lorenzo (KSA, beheaded 25 October1999); Mario
Biruna (KSA, beheaded May 2000); Miguel Fernandez (KSA, beheaded March
2005), Wilfredo Bautista (KSA, beheaded March 2005); Antonio Alvesa (KSA,
beheaded March 2005); Sergio Aldana (KSA, beheaded March 2005). It was also in
2007 that Reynaldo Cortez who was convicted for the crime of murder of a
Pakistani driver who attempted to rape him, was beheaded in June 13, Saudi Arabia.
He was first sentenced to 15 years of imprisonment, further commuted to 10 years
after an appeal, then later sentenced to die by beheading.
Section 2 (c) states that “… the State does not promote overseas
employment as a means to sustain economic growth and achieve national
development.”
82
Past and present administrations have perpetrated the institutionalization and

intensification of the labor export policy (LEP). During the administration of Marcos,
overseas employment was incorporated in the 1974 Labor Code purportedly as a
measure to curb unemployment and to generate revenues for the country’s balance
of payment deficits. The Aquino government even integrated the LEP in its economic
recovery program. The Ramos administration, through its Medium-Term Philippine
Development Program (MTPDP), practically conscripted migrant Filipinos as
commodities or products to be sold and bought at the whim of those who benefit
from cheap and docile labor. It does so under the guise of the “internationally-
shared human resources”. The Estrada administration continued to pursue this
course.
The Arroyo Administration is quite persistent in its effort to surpass its predecessors
in implementing the oppressive LEP. Mrs. Arroyo aims to deploy 1 million OFWs
annually. The Arroyo government is visibly interested in the billion dollar remittance
inflows of overseas Filipinos and, because of this, is propagating forced migration as
a tool for national development.
Letter (l) of Section 2 of the Migrants Act of 1995 states that “Government
fees and other administrative costs of recruitment, introduction, placement,
and assistance to migrant workers shall be rendered free without prejudice
to the provisions of Section 36 hereof.”
Section 36 stipulates that “Upon approval of this Act, all fees being charged by any
government office on migrant workers shall remain at the present levels and the
repatriation bond shall be abolished.” Thus, the previously cited section doesn’t
mean anything as the latter one negates it. Moreover, a concrete benefit - that of the
repatriation bond - was even abolished.
These double-edged and contradictory provisions only legalize and institutionalize

excessive government exactions from would-be and current migrant Filipinos who
are already saddled with heavy financial burdens. The government saw to it that the
collection of government fees will continue as is when the Migrants Act was drafted
and approved. The state exactions provide government billions of dollars in revenue.
Consider the following:
a. Memorandum of Instruction No. 8, or the Voluntary Membership Program:

collection of US$25 for every contract of the migrant for him or her to be able
to access government services abroad and in the country. Another is the
increase in the cost of “services” of embassies and consulates such as
authentication, passport, documentation, and the like. Our compatriots are
charged exorbitant fees not only in the country but also in Philippine
government offices abroad.
b. Department Order No. 34 increases the placement fee for overseas Filipinos.
This order sets the fee at one month’s salary of the migrant worker from the
P5,000 except in Taiwan and South Korea where the new fees are added to
the old fees.
c. The new POEA Guidelines on the Deployment of Household Service Workers

(HSWs) authorize the collection of between P8,000 to P10,000 for training fee
83
and P1,000 for training assessment fee and another P100 for the training
certificate.
d. OWWA Resolution No. 038, or the OWWA Omnibus Policies, which redirects
the thrust of OWWA from a welfare agency to an investment agency. Of the
total P10 billion fund asset of the agency, P6.8 billion are invested with the
Development Bank of the Philippines and Land Bank of the Philippines. This is
on top of the amount diverted to other purposes at the direction of President
Gloria Macapagal—Arroyo such as the release of US$ 293,500 to Middle East
Preparedness Program in support of US invasion in Iraq in 2003, transfer of P
530 million OWWA Medicare Fund to PhilHealth, and many more. With OWWA
Res. 038, the much-needed services and benefits such as medical and legal
assistance have been terminated.
e. Memorandum Circular 41 passes the responsibility of repatriating distressed

migrants to recruitment agencies. It also removes the direct hiring system
wherein migrant Filipinos can directly apply to his or her employer abroad.
Through MC 41, OFWs are compelled to apply with recruitment agencies.
Below is a table that shows how much an OFW is charged even before he applies
for a job abroad.
Document Government Fees
Passport 700
POEA processing fee (US$ 100) 4,000
OWWA mandatory membership fee (US$ 25) 1,150
TESDA Assessment for the HSW NC2 1,000
Certificate of competency
NBI Clearance 150
Birth Certificate 150
MEDICARE (yearly) 900
Authentication fees for various documents 7,600
(P100x76 signatures)
2. The United Nations Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All

Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families
The United Nations Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers
and Members of Their Families is a major international instrument in the pursuit of
global struggle for the human rights of migrants and their families. Since December
18, 1990, when the convention was approved by the UN General Assembly, we have
seen that much still has to be done in terms of the full enjoyment of the rights of
migrants and their families. Rampant violations of these rights continue. These
violations go hand in hand with the further intensification of forced migration. Forced
migration under present conditions continues to be caused, maintained and
aggravated by government policies and practices especially with the advent of the
thrust and framework of neoliberal globalization.
3. UN Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ESCR)
84
The Philippines has signed and ratified the convention in January 3, 1976.
Article 7
The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to
the enjoyment of just and favorable conditions of work which ensure, in
particular:
(a) Remuneration which provides all workers, as a minimum, with:
(i) Fair wages and equal remuneration for work of equal value without
distinction of any kind, in particular women being guaranteed conditions of
work not inferior to those enjoyed by men, with equal pay for equal work.
The cases enumerated above have proven that this right had been violated time and
again by the Philippine and receiving governments.
Looking at the report of the DFA as of 2004, bilateral agreements and labor
protection mechanisms installed before deploying a worker are ineffective. The
Arroyo government continues to deploy Filipinos in 192 country-destinations.
B. Violations of Socio-Economic and Political Rights The abuses and

exploitation that overseas Filipinos experience is alarming. These range from:
• wage cuts, contract violations, welfare neglect;
• unfair labor practices, illegal recruitment;
• racial profiling and discrimination;
• physical/verbal/sexual abuse, mysterious deaths;
• implementation of repressive migrant policies, crackdowns, raids, zoning and

summary deportation
IV. Recommendations
The peculiar condition of the OFWs complicates the available legal remedies for
them. The host countries often give preferential treatment to their nationals who are
the employers of the OFWs whenever conflicts between them arise. The same
partiality also obtains when OFWs get into trouble with the law involving other
foreign nationals, not necessarily their employers. The lawyers provided for the
OFWs sometimes cannot even communicate with them in a language they can
understand much less help them adequately prepare for their defense.
The shabby treatment of Filipinos abroad partly results from the feeble political clout
that the Philippines wields in international circles. Philippine embassies likewise tow
the unwritten policy of offering the least resistance to the excesses of the host
85
countries when it comes to legal controversies in exchange for continued “good”

relations to the detriment of Filipino workers overseas.
However, the creation of independent investigation committees composed of

dedicated legal professionals can go a long way in protecting the rights of OFWs
abroad. They can learn the applicable laws and establish contacts with the local
lawyers there and find out who are the more competent and trustworthy ones who
can represent Filipinos overseas who are wrongfully accused of crimes and various
offenses.
The government should not eschew setting aside a sizeable budget in this endeavor
for protecting the rights of Filipinos abroad. Their over-all dollar remittances greatly
help the Philippine economy.
The government should likewise decrease the excessive fees related to the
processing of documents needed for application to work abroad as some are
redundant and serve only to line the pockets of some bureaucrats.
It is also a good idea to increase the number of labor arbiters that hear cases
concerning the monetary claims of migrant workers. As of the moment, the claims
that OFWs initiate before labor tribunals are assigned to arbiters who hear cases
concerning labor disputes in general and are not made especially for overseas
Filipinos. Special courts for migrant workers’ cases are also most welcome.
OFWs would no doubt feel gratified if the government will set aside funds for their
expenses for repatriation, medical and legal assistance. After all, they deserve it for
all their toil and sacrifice.
86
ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
Prepared by Kalipunan ng Katutubong Mamamayan ng Pilipinas (KAMP)
August 28, 2008
ORGANIZATIONAL PROFILE
The KALIPUNAN NG MGA KATUTUBONG MAMAMAYAN NG PILIPINAS (KAMP)

is a national alliance of regional and provincial indigenous peoples’ organizations
representing various indigenous communities in the Philippines.
KAMP was first convened as a consultative assembly in 1983 to provide an

alternative forum where tribal leaders belonging to the 6.5 M indigenous population
may meet to share and discuss their problems and experiences.
KAMP as a federation was formed in 1987 after a series of national consultative

assemblies of tribal leaders that culminated in a “sandugo” (one blood) pact in 1984.
The formation of a national indigenous peoples’ alliance is the indigenous peoples’
response to the worsening violations of their individual and collective rights and the
impending threat of massive dislocation posed by large-scale “development”
programs of the government. Since then, KAMP has strived to work for the
attainment of genuine ancestral land rights and self-determination for the indigenous
peoples.
KAMP is now composed of ten (10) regional level indigenous peoples’ organizations
that cover local networks in the provincial, municipal and barrio levels. It has four
(4) regional formations in Luzon (Cordillera Peoples Alliance, Balatik-ST, Central
Luzon Aeta Association, and Punganay-CV), one (1) in Visayas (Tumanduk), five (5)
in Mindanao (Pasaka, Kaluhhamin, Kasalo, Kalumbay, and Salabukan Nok G’taw
Subanen), and a national indigenous women’s organization (BAI) as part of its
national council. It also has a close links with Kusog sa Katwahang Lumad or
Kalumaran, a Mindanao-wide alliance of Lumad organizations.
POLITICAL AND LEGAL STRUGGLE
Major problems and struggles of at least 13 million indigenous peoples of the

Philippines could be encapsulated in two major concerns: first is the recognition of
their right to ancestral land vis a vis existing state policies on land access and
tenure; and second, the recognition of their basic human rights vis a vis their access
to justice.
A. CENTURIES-OLD INDIGENOUS PEOPLES’ PROBLEM:

ACCESS TO LAND AND LAND TENURE
Pre-colonial
Upon the coming of Spanish colonizers, the various highlands were already inhabited
by peoples who shared, among others, common socio-economic characteristics with
neighboring lowland peoples. Relative socio-economic differences in the
characteristics of these communities could be explained by uneven processes of
development, due to the different strategies adapted by them to the different
environments and resources. At the same time, there was enough trade and other
87
interactions among neighboring communities that tended to diffuse such differences

over time.
Spanish period
Spain justified its subjugation and consequent exploitation of the Philippines by
various moral, political, and legal precepts. One stand-out, because its is still being
invoked until now by the Philippine government as a legal precept, is the Regalian
Doctrine, which states that the entire Philippine territory was the Spanish Crown’s
domain, and any parcel of land is presumed to be owned by the Crown unless backed
up by a title recognized by it. That precept was supposed to apply to the indigenous
people’s territories.
American period
After the intensely political period of the Philippine revolution (1896-1898) and the
Filipino-American war (1899-1902), US military and civilian authorities took control
of indigenous people’s ancestral land and proceeded to imposed on its communities a
new, US-sponsored socio-economic and political system. By allowing the continued
applicability of key Spanish land laws, the US conveniently utilized the same Regalian
Doctrine for its own ends. US interests in indigenous people’s territories quickly
defined themselves. The mining and logging industries took prime importance, with
the construction and transport industry closely in support of mining and logging.
Cash crop farming was also encouraged. The cash economy, which became truly
nationwide under direct US colonial rule, rapidly penetrated the mountainous
interior, and broke down the natural economy of self-sufficiency in a magnitude
never attained by the earlier Spanish-period trading patterns.
US-imposed land laws

In line with encouraging the development of extractive industries (especially mining
and logging), the US colonizers imposed laws to legally dispossess the indigenous
peoples of much of their land and natural resources, in violation of their ancestral
land rights.
American Gold prospectors began establishing claims in Ibaloy areas in
Benguet as early as 1898 (invoking Spanish mining regulations), and speeded
up after the passage of 1902 Organic Act).
The Philippine Bill, passed in 1902, upheld the effectivity of the Spanish
cadastral laws, while the Land Registration Act required Torrens titles as a
proof of private land ownership.
This was quickly followed by the Public Land Act of 1903, which declared as
public lands those without Torrens titles or unregistered under Spanish land
laws. Only a very few members of Ibaloy baknang class (rich) were aware of
the land titling procedures.
In 1918, Act No. 2874 instituted the free-patent system, providing that
people may apply for titles to alienable public lands, but exempted mineral
and timber lands, which were to be governed by special laws. IP lands were
grabbed by those few who knew how to take advantage of the procedures for
acquiring the land.
The 1905 Mining Act opened “all public lands” to exploitation, occupation, and
purchase by US citizens, virtually giving away the known mineral resources to
US capitalists and various prospectors. Another Mining Act in 1935 prohibited
the indigenous peoples from engaging in small-scale mining.
Post war period
88
Mining trends: After post war rehabilitation, Benguet enjoyed a minor copper
boom, with Philex and Lepanto taking the lead in the 50’s. By the 70’s,
however, copper mining hit the doldrums, although Philex maintained its lead
by focusing on silver. In the meantime, gold mining continued its generally
upward trend through the entire post-war period, although companies such as
Benguet Corp. suffered the pains of restructuring in the 1990’s as it
attempted to shift from underground tunnel to open-pit methods.
The Philippine government came up with the Mining Act of 1995 in its effort to
jumpstart the stalled mining industry. Essentially, this law liberalized the
mining industry far beyond the restrictions envisioned in the 1935 and 1987
Constitutions, in order to attract investors. The map of the Philippines was
transformed into a crazy quiltwork of FTAA and MPSA applications, posing
new threat to indigenous peoples and their ancestral lands.
Logging trends: During direct US rule, the logging industry was dominantly
controlled by mining companies, which needed the timber for their mines.
After World War II, the demand for lumber grew mainly in response to
Japan’s reconstruction needs, as well as mine rehabilitation needs. New
logging concessions were granted licenses to operate in IP lands.
While the logging firms reaped huge profits, forests and natural resources
rapidly dwindled, affecting indigenous peoples with forest denudation, soil
erosion, and dislocation of communities. The Philippine government
responded to this problem by adopting various policies, which ranged form
selective logging, reforestation of certain areas, pushing for agro-forestry
programs, and making a disproportionately big issue of indigenous
communities engaging in kaingin or swidden farming.
Such programs, while purporting to protect the remaining forests, actually

imposed tenurial arrangements that continued to violate ancestral land rights
in various ways, and introduced cash-crop schemes that were unacceptable or
unviable for local communities.
Dams and infrastructure: After the World War II, the government prepared a
Philippine Power Program that focused on harnessing the Agno river by cting
six dams to power hydroelectric plants along the river. The Ambuklao and
Binga dams were built in the 1950’s, and after several attempts, the third
dam, so far the target are now operating, the San Roque Multi Purpose Dam
Project in San Roque, Pangasinan.
The dam projects submerged hundreds of hectares of rich farmland,

dislocated thousands of indigenous peoples, and created other restrictions on
land and resource use in surrounding watershed reservations.
Ancestral Land Recognition

After having grabbed the choicest indigenous people’s lands (now categorized as
reservations, mineral land, or fully privatized and titled lands) for its own use or for a
favored corporate elite, the government belatedly came up with token measures to
recognize the indigenous peoples’ ancestral land rights.
89
One approach was to “give priority access” to indigenous peoples in whatever

tenurial arrangements were made available on inalienable public lands. This
was the approach to the various forestry programs, as well as in the current
NIPAS Law.
Another approach was to make the private titling process easier. This was
the approach used in series of laws: E.O 180 (1956), RA 782 or Public Land
Law (1962), RA 3872 (1964) that amended RA 782, E.O. 87, and P.D. 410 or
Ancestral Land Decree.
The most recent law, the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA), is by far the
most comprehensive government attempt to provide official recognition to
ancestral land rights by offering two new types of title: CADT and CALT. The
law, however, suffers basic flaws that render it near-inutile in practice, while
providing richer fuel for land disputes involving indigenous peoples.
The Present Situation of Indigenous Peoples

The single most powerful factor generating and aggravating land-related problems of
indigenous peoples, is the long-standing presence of big corporate interests, most of
it foreign-based or foreign-sponsored.
The 1987 Philippine Constitution pledges respect and recognition of the rights of
“indigenous cultural communities” to their culture and development, as well as their
collective rights to ancestral lands. However, subsequent legislation and government
policies and programs depart from these and other constitutional guarantees, in
effect violating indigenous peoples’ rights.
Among the ancestral land-based material resources, mineral resources are

the most precious resource that has long attracted foreign colonizers and big
business.
The incumbent Arroyo administration aggressively pursues its commitment to
open up the mining sector to foreign capital, as reflected by the program,
Revitalization of the Mining Industry. The program puts up for sale vast
mineral lands to foreign investors, as mining is seen as the solution to
improve the country’s failing economy. The massive sell-out of the country’s
mineral lands is a core issue for Philippine indigenous peoples today. Twenty-
four mining sites are designated as “priority” by the government, 53 percent
of these are found in indigenous territories.
To date, 18 out of 24 priority areas of the government for mining exploration

are on indigenous people’s areas covering 107, 933 hectares. An estimated
1.6 million hectares of indigenous peoples’ ancestral domains nationwide is
covered by MPSA, FTAA, and exploration applications and permits.
The Philippine Mining Act of 1995 grants 100 percent ownership of mineral
lands to foreign companies for 25 years. The Supreme Court rendered the law
unconstitutional, but reversed its decision in 2005. The Mining Act of 1995
serves the government’s thrust towards a vigorous mining industry and the
Free Prior Informed Consent (FPIC) under the IPRA is reduced to a mere
technical hurdle to acquire mining permits.
• Land classification and zoning also affects the IP's rights to land and
resources. The environment protection law RA 7586 or the National
Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS) aims to address the threat of
90
human activities on the ecology by demarcating “protected areas”. Though

the law is not used directly to evict indigenous peoples in NIPAS areas, it
restricts the IPs’ use and entry into their ancestral lands. In effect, indigenous
peoples suffer because their sources of livelihood are restricted since the
NIPAS disallows traditional economic activities such as swidden farming,
hunting, gathering, fishing and even prohibits entry to the IP’s sacred sites.
At present, 1.4 million hectares of IPs ancestral domains are covered as

protected areas under the National Integrated Protected Areas System.
Logging concessions/operations are legally operating in a total of 255,438 has

of IP territories. 434,388 has of IP’s lands have been awarded to private
businesses under Industrial Forest Management Agreement (IFMA) and of the
government’s project with NGOs through Community Based Forest
Management Agreement (CBFMA).
Energy and water resources within IP’s ancestral territories are being utilized
for hydroelectric, geothermal power and large scale irrigation. Ambuklao,
Binga, and San Roque dam have operating while other projects such as
Kaliwa Kanan Dam in the boundaries of Rizal and Quezon provinces, Balog
Balog Dam in Tarlac, Pulangi Dam in Misamis Oriental and Hedcor in Davao
del Sur are already in the pipeline and considered as priority projects of the
government.
The government had also given pasture licenses to private individuals and
families covering 5,323 has of ancestral land.
According to NCIP data, 5-6 million hectares of the total Philippine land areas could
be considered as ancestral land of the indigenous peoples.
The IPRA is described as landmark legislation by the government, as it ostensibly

acknowledges the rights of IPs to ownership and control of their ancestral lands. The
law provides an instrument for land titling through handing out Certificates of Land
Title/Ancestral Domain Title (CALT/CADT). It also provides mechanisms for
consultation with indigenous communities through the Free Prior Informed Consent
(FPIC).
However, some indigenous peoples groups do not find security in the weakened land
titling and FPIC processes stipulated by the IPRA, especially when national economic
agendas enter indigenous territories. The failure of the legislative intent of the IPRA
is illustrated by experiences of indigenous peoples on the ground.
Illustrative Cases
CASE # 1: CADC and Tribal Disputes in Malibcong, Abra
1.a. Background
Malibcong forms part of Abra’s Northern territory. Geographically, the

municipality of Lacub is on the north of Malibcong, on the west is Baay-Licuan, on
91
the east is province of Apayao, southwest is the Municipality of Daguioman and

on the south is Balbalan, Kalinga.
According to elders, the original inhabitants of what is now the Municipality of

Malibcong are the Adasens and Binongan tribes. The Banao tribe originally
inhabited Kalinga. The Mabaka occupied parts of Kalinga and Apayao. Better
access to game and other forest resources pushed these tribesto expand their
territory to include Malibcong.
1.b. Certificate of Ancestral Domain Claim (CADC):
On May 24, 1994, the Gaston Z. Ortigas Foundation together with other civil
society organizations convened an Ancestral Domain Congress that aimed to
achieve consensus among the three Malibcong tribes for a Malibcong-wide CADC
application. At the end of the congress, the participants united on filing a CADC
application for the peoples of Malibcong based on the bogis di vodjong, their
traditional system of land delineation.
The participants from the three tribes agreed to follow the provisions of the pagta
di vodjong. They believe that the CADC would unify the 3 groups as a means to
oppose mining companies, set aside tribal differences, sectarianism and local
political differences; and stand as a legal document attesting to their ownership
of their lands.
On March 4, 1996, DENR approved the CADC application of the Banao, Gubang,
and Mabaka tribes. On April 18, 1996 Malibcong received DENR certificate CADC-
035 covering 30,579 hectares of land within the political jurisdiction of Malibcong
municipality.
1.c. Tribal Disputes over Ancestral Land Delineation
• Sap-al, Lacub vs Mataragan: The Mabaka of Malibcong, before the

application of Malibcong-wide CADC, wanted to have their territory
surveyed under DAO#2. Protests from barangay Sap-al of Lacub made
the Mabaka cancel the survey. The main issue in the dispute is to whom
the Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA)should go with regards to income
from mining operations.
• Banao vs Baay Licuan: The disputed area is located in Mt. Pultok, which is
the boundary of Banao and Baay-Licuan. The dispute arose when Banao
started surveying for the CADC. According to Banao folk, the dispute was
only settled when Mayor Mario Baawa met with the barangay captain of
Baay Licuan.
1.d Issues
• The conduct of the ancestral land congress and workshops and the
manner by which the decision to apply a CADC was reached appears
anomalous. The information provided by the resource persons during the
congress consisted of half-truths and advise which does not address the
legal and practical questions raised by the participants. For instance,
92
tribal conflicts on territorial boundaries have to be resolved before a CADC

application prospers, as defined by the DENR AO#2. These conflicts
however were not given due notice, in fact were simply set aside by these
state agencies as something the people should resolve on their own or
should later address. It is therefore confusing on the part of the
tribesmen, which mechanism or legal instrument to use in resolving these
conflicts.
• The people clearly stated at the Ancestral Domain Congress that they
wanted a Malibcong-wide CADC delineated according to the bogis de
vodjong. There is a misunderstanding and confusion or worst, a
deliberate move to present a Malibcong-wide CADC application as
meaning the Municipality of Malibcong i.e to delineate the CADC according
to municipal boundaries.
• It may be convenient on the part of the DENR to follow municipal
boundaries, however this corrupts the whole essence of ancestral lands
from the point of view of the IPs. Tribal territories and rights over them
are shaped by years of negotiations and tribal conquests. This fact merits
recognition. With DENR DAO#2, the people have to compromise their
territories (i.e follow municipal boundaries) in order to have a legal
instrument attesting to their land ownership. Even with the approval of
CADC, the IPs of Malibcong still have different opinions regarding the
CADC. This is in contrast to the process defined by the vodjong. Unlike
vodjong wherein anything affecting territory and resources are well
discussed and agreed upon by the people, the CADC application has failed
in this, in fact has created dissension and disunity among the tribes.
CASE # 2: The Mining Revitalization Policy and the Present Update on the
Immediate Threat to Land Rights of IPs in Malibcong, Abra: A History
Repeated
2.a The Binongan indigenous peoples of Abra province, Cordillera, Philippines

expressed their protest against Canadian mining company Olympus Pacific
Minerals and its local subsidiaries Abra Industrial Mining Corporation (AMIC) and
Jabel. For the defense of their ancestral land and assertion of their right to self
determination as indigenous peoples, they presently battle against Olympus
Pacific Minerals, AMIC and Jabel’s entry and operations in Capcapo, Baay Licuan,
Abra. These companies have blatantly violated the rights of the Binongan
indigenous peoples in Baay Licuan by exploring and operating their mining
project in their ancestral domain at Capcapo without the Free, Prior and Informed
Consent (FPIC) of the communities and non-recognition of their collective rights
over their ancestral domain and environment.
Moreover, there was no FPIC process conducted with the communities as they
had no prior knowledge that there was a Mineral Production Sharing Agreement
(MPSA) approved and issued to the local subsidiaries in April 1998.
2.b Sustained community opposition has pushed the offices of the National
Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP)-Cordillera Administrative Region and
NCIP-Abra to intervene, resulting to the temporary suspension of the mining
exploration/operation of Olympus. The NCIP particularly cited the violation of the
communities’ right to FPIC as provided in the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act
(IPRA) of 1997 and its subsequent guidelines. The right to FPIC and the collective
93
rights of indigenous peoples are fundamental human rights and, in fact, are
enshrined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
(UNDRIP), of which the Philippine government is a signatory.
2.c Now, intensifying the violation of their rights is the deployment of the 41st
Infantry Batallion in the communities, sowing fear and terror therein in order to
silence the communities in their protest against Olympus and other destructive
mining companies. The military have camped under residents’ homes and have
maliciously tagged members of peoples organizations therein, specifically the
Cordillera Peoples Alliance and its member organizations KASTAN-CPA Abra and
BALITOK as members of the revolutionary New People’s Army, making the
civilians open targets to the attack of the military when in fact these legitimate
organizations are merelyt asserting their democratic rights and survival as a
people.
2.d The IPs demand:

• Stop the exploration and operation of Olympus Mines in Abra
• Stop militarization of Baay-licuan and pull-out all military elements in the area
• Revoke the Mineral Sharing and Production Agreements (MPSA) of Jabel and
AMIC and, subsequently, the cancellation of their Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA) with Olympus
• Uphold and respect the free, prior, and informed consent of the Baay Licuan
communities
• Uphold and respect the collective rights of Binongan indigenous peoples to their
ancestral domain and self determination
• Implement and respect the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of
indigenous Peoples, of which the Philippine government is a signatory
Analysis
The unprecedented occurrence of many boundary disputes in recent years among

the Cordillera peoples is the consequence of CADC/CADT, IRA, and misplaced
projects. These are let loose in the Cordillera without sufficient consideration for the
particular situation of IPs, i.e. their practice of managing their ancestral lands and
related indigenous systems. It is an essential question if these government schemes
benefit the people. Who really gains from these government interventions?
The share of local government units (LGUs) in the IRA or Internal Revenue Allocation
depends on the land area and population under the jurisdiction of the LGU. Thus,
LGUs would benefit from expanding their area of jurisdiction and the population they
serve. This in itself is a strong push that causes and/or aggravates boundary
disputes.
Efforts at social transformation that are for the people are welcome and will prevail
because they promote the people’s welfare, uphold the IP’s right to self
determination, and develop their democratic traditions. But interventions that are
deceptive, create turmoil, and concretize national oppression are practically a
declaration of war on the people and must be fought against.
From the start, our networks have criticized and exposed CADC as not truly
responding to ancestral land rights because it is still within the framework of the
94
Regalian Doctrine. We averred that CADC/CADT would be used to privatize ancestral

lands for easier acquisition by mining companies. Some individuals would gain but
majority of the IPs in the villages would be dispossessed of their access to and
communal use of ancestral lands and resources. We warned that delineation is a
delicate matter for indigenous peoples and will cause boundary problems. We are
concerned by the extent of boundary problems ignited and aggravated by
CADC/CADT.
B. ESCALATING HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS AND LACK OF ACCESS TO

JUSTICE BY INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
CASE # 3: Extra Judicial Killings of Indigenous Peoples
At present 131 indigenous persons are being killed since February 2001 up to the present. Eighty Three
(83) of these occurred since January 2003 or after the UN Special Rapporteur Prof. Rodolfo Stavenhagen’s
visit to the Philippines in December 2002. The highest incidence of state perpetrated killings of indigenous
peoples was in 2006, with a total of 43 individuals.
Nicanor Delos Santos: A Dumagat Leader, the Alleged GMA hitman
Nicanor delos Santos was a respected leader of the Dumagat and Remontado IPs of Rizal and Quezon
Provinces. He was a staunch critic of Laiban Dam, a project of the government that was projected to
curb the water crisis in Metro Manila. Nicanor was also vocal against the militarization of their
communities.
In December 8, 2001, while Nicanor and members of his organization were preparing
for the celebration of Human Rights Day, he was gunned down by elements of Task
Force Panther of the 2nd IDPA in a marketplace in Antipolo City. His wife was
enraged that in the news reports, the military claimed that he was killed during in
an encounter of the military with the New Peoples’ Army. Moreover, according to
the 2nd IDPA, he was an assassin sent to kill President Arroyo who was visiting
Antipolo City for a town fiesta that day. But the the barangay captain and residents
of his community refute this claim; they assert that Nicanor is a respected town
leader and not an NPA. He even has a Voter’s Registration Record filed at the
Commission on Elections (COMELEC) dated June 21, 1997. His wife and his
organization MASKADA, believes that he became a target for extra-judicial killing by
the military because he was an influential leader among his people, and that he was
very vocal against Laiban Dam and the militarization of their community.
His wife and the organization filed a case at the City Prosecutor’s Office in Antipolo
City on January 8, 2001 but nothing positive has come out of this. A follow-up of the
case was made during a dialogue with the Commission on Human Rights on August
2006. His family was merely promised P10, 000 assistance from CHR-NCR office.
CASE # 4: IP Leader Under Threat: Posting of PASAKA Secretary General’s

picture in DEAD OR ALIVE Wanted List in Compostela Valley Province.
95
PASAKA, Confederation of Lumad Organizations in Southern Mindanao, filed

complaints against Lt. Col. Ferdinand Buding, commanding officer of the 28th Infantry
Battalion, Philippine Army before the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) for the
showing and dissemination of a power point presentation entitled "The Army" which
included the photo of Kerlan "Lala" Fanagel, PASAKA Secretary General, who was
being accused as a communist rebel operating in Compostela Valley.
On August 11, 2008, Mr. Tony Salubre, spokesperson of Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP) who
personally knows Kerlan "Lala" Fanagel went to Compostela Valley for a speaking engagement. Upon
arrival at the Compostela bus terminal, he saw several posters prominently displayed with a list of names
and photos of accused communist rebel leaders operating in the region who had bounties on their heads.
He was surprised to see that among the photos shown was that of Kerlan "Lala" Fanagel but he was
identified in the said poster as Minandro Villanueva alias Nelso/Bos – NMRC Secretary, Davao del Norte,
Davao Oriental, Compostela Valley and a portion of Agusan del Sur, Davao del Sur and Cotabato.
III. PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED IN DEFENDING AND UPHOLDING INDIGENOUS PEOPLES RIGHTS
The abovementioned cases persist up to the present and new ones keep coming up
that remain a threat to the land, life and resources of the indigenous peoples. These
are not isolated cases but reflect their collective condition.
Essentially, the major problem IPs faces are the laws, policies and programs that
government imposes. These neither serve the IPs’ interests nor respect the IPs’
economic, social, cultural and political rights as a people.
Political repression is also another major barrier to the promotion of IP rights. IP

leaders and communities who actively fight what IPs have come to call “development
aggression” fall victim to extra-judicial killings, enforced disappearance, illegal
arrests and other forms of persecution and harassment.
It is a grim reality that government agencies and instrumentalities such as the

DENR, DAR, AFP, PNP, even the NCIP, as well as local government authorities that
are supposed to protect the IPs’ rights end up trampling over them. These
experiences have created deep distrust among IPs of the government including the
judicial system. They make the IPs hesitant to go to the courts for redress of
grievances.
But it is also true that there are some existing laws that offer IPs some kind of shield
against the gross violation of their rights, as stated in some articles in the Philippine
Constitution, as well us in international covenants.
In accessing justice using the court system, some IPs have attempted to engage the
system, mainly to defend their rights, but a big majority have not for very practical
reasons. For them, poor and powerless, the small change in their pockets can never
pay for the high cost of the entire judicial process.
Transportation expense from the remote, mountainous and interior barrios to the
fiscals’ offices and to the courts; the unaffordable docket fees; the expense of
providing the court copies of affidavits and other supporting documents; the token
96
amount for the lawyer who already gives free service; and other out-of-pocket costs
are a heavy burden for most IPs.
In the end, financial and educational limitations plus frustration due to the unduly
long and expensive process of attaining justice in the court system, force most IPs to
lay their case to rest without even trying.
IV. RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Designation of Special Courts to Handle Cases Involving Violations of IP Rights

With the aggressive stance of the present government with respect to the mining
industry coupled with the unsound decision of the Supreme Court in upholding the
validity of the Mining Law, the designation of special courts that will handle cases
involving violations of indigenous people’s rights is welcome.
Although the court may at the moment be powerless to stop the proliferation of
mining operations while the Mining Law remains valid, still it is within its authority,
once an appropriate case has been filed in a specially designated court, to ensure
that the rights of IPs, even only as stated in the IPRA Law, are respected and upheld
and that the rules and regulations related to mining operations vis a vis IP
communities are well observed.
B. Specially Designated Court Employees to Receive Complaints of IPs.

The Court may consider sending mobile courts or court personnel to far flung areas
inhabited by the IP’s specifically for the purpose of receiving complaints or validating
them and referring them to appropriate IBP chapters for the filing of the necessary
case/s to protect the rights of IPs. The rights of IPs are easily ignored and
disregarded especially in areas where there is difficulty in transportation.
C. Reconsider the Supreme Court’s Stand on the Mining Law

It is an undeniable fact that violations of indigenous people’s rights escalated when
the court sustained the constitutionality of the Mining Law. This is expected as most
of the areas identified for mining operations cover the lands of indigenous people’s.
Taking into account that IPs consider their lands as sacred, they are necessarily
averse to mining and other projects that tend to disrupt their way of life vis-à-vis
their land. Hence, mining companies, aided and abetted by government officials in
most cases, employ illegal means just to proceed with mining operations, to the
great detriment of the rights and welfare of the indigenous peoples.
The court therefore should not think twice in striking down the said law, should an
appropriate case be filed challenging anew the Mining Law, disregarding
technicalities if need be.
97
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
After several workshops and consultations with various people’s organizations

representing the marginalized sectors on how to improve the poor’s access to justice
and to uphold and protect their economic, social and cultural rights, the following
proposals emerged:
1. The Court consider sending mobile courts or court personnel to far

flung areas inhabited by Indigenous Peoples (IPs), farmers and
fisherfolk specifically for the purpose of receiving complaints or
validating them and referring them to appropriate IBP chapters for
the filing of the necessary case/s to protect the rights of IPs, farmers
and fisherfolk. The rights of IPs, farmers and fisherfolk are easily
ignored and disregarded especially in areas where there is difficulty
in transportation.
2. Widen the scope of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo to cover

protection of the economic, social and cultural rights of the
marginalized sectors. Specifically –
• To protect against unjust & unlawful demolition of fishing villages and

urban poor communities;
• To protect against militarization of communities (especially fishing,

farming, and IPs) or deployment of military, police and private goons
or armies in areas where there are collective actions by protesting
fisherfolk, peasants, IPs or community people;
• To protect against militarization of workers’ communities, workplace

and other areas where there are collective actions by protesting
workers.
• Prevent criminalization of disputes arising from the defense of

economic, social and cultural rights;
3. Consider immersion and integration in marginalized communities in

the education process as a form of raising awareness.
4. The creation of special courts for the fisheries sector or quasi judicial
bodies that would attend to, address and hear cases arising from
disputes pertaining to fisheries issues and related concerns such as
the environment.
5. Designate Special Courts that will handle cases involving violations of

Indigenous Peoples’ Rights.
6. Amend the Rules of Court to include special rules of procedure on the

mandate of environmental courts.
98
7. Peoples’ organizations, civil society organizations and non-

government organizations involved in environmental research,
education, legal defense, or advocacy be given full representation and
participation in the drafting of these special rules of procedure.
8. The SC should also institute mechanisms for the public monitoring of

the effectiveness of environmental courts, again involving the widest
possible number of stakeholders and affected communities.
9. Provide a venue for impartial and fair settlement of disputes between

government employees and their management.
10.Develop the education and training programs for judges, public

prosecutors, law enforcers and court personnel to enhance their
understanding on the following issues:
a) Women’s issues
b) Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against
Women (CEDAW) of which the Philippines has been signatory since
1981
c) psychosocial effects of VAW
d) orientation on post-traumatic stress disorder, battered wife syndrome,
etc
e) proper appreciation of medical and other types of evidences
f) the new laws regarding violence against women to include not only the
provisions but also a discussion of the spirit behind these laws;
11.Prosecutors and public attorneys be trained and specialized to handle

cases involving violence against women and other women related
cases.
12.Serious review of jurisprudential doctrines on rape, sexual

harassment and other forms of sexual violence against women be
conducted towards discarding those that are discriminatory or that
violate the CEDAW;
13. The Supreme Court initiates a rule that provide the issuance of
protection orders for victims of rape, sexual harassment and sex
trafficking.
14.Increase the number of labor arbiters that hear cases concerning the
monetary claims of migrant workers. Special courts for migrant
workers’ cases are also most welcome.
15. Abolish the “ Assumption of Jurisdiction” power of the DOLE

Secretary;
16.Prohibit the use of the military in the enforcement of orders and

resolutions in labor disputes;
99
17.Prohibit the filing of criminal cases against workers involved in labor

disputes;
18.Prohibit labor-contracting of any kind;
19.Strictly implement the periods for disposing labor cases; provide

sanctions for violations of these periods and rewards for compliance
with the same;
20.Abolish docket or filing fees for labor cases; exempt workers from
the payment of docket fees before the Court of Appeals and the
Supreme Court;
21.Review the Supreme Court ruling on “strained relations”; order the

reinstatement of workers illegally dismissed from work despite the
presence of strained relations;
22.Review the Supreme Court ruling on “fixed-period employment”;

uphold at all times the workers’ security of tenure;
23.Review the Supreme Court ruling on “violation of prior-notice”;

declare a worker’s dismissal illegal the moment there is no prior
notice; and
24.Amend the rules on preliminary investigation to prohibit prosecutors

and trial court judges from taking cognizance of criminal complaints
involving peasants unless a certification is issued by the DAR that the
case did not arise out of an agrarian dispute and is not purely a
harassment suit.
25.Special Agrarian Courts should be properly designated and made

known to the public.
26.Review and revisit the rulings of the Supreme Court in the Natalia
Realty case (225 SCRA 278) and Central Mindanao University vs.
DARAB, (G.R. No. 100091, October 22, 1992).
27.Include agrarian law and jurisprudence as major subjects in law

school.
28.Include agrarian law and jurisprudence a subject in the Mandatory

Continuing Legal Education.
29.Abolish the DARAB rule on supervision of harvest; farmers should be

allowed to harvest without any interference.
30.Abolish the DARAB rule prohibiting farmers from filing criminal cases
directly in court in cases involving illegal conversion of lands.
100
Applications for land conversion should be enjoined either by TRO,

Cease and Desist Order (CDO) or injunction.
31.Establish a monitoring mechanism to guarantee the existence and

functionality of family courts in each area/scope.
32.The Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) should have special attorneys

assigned to cases of children in conflict with the law (CICL), with
specific training on the special handling of child clients.
33.Prosecutors and judges who are handling cases where children are
involved, either as plaintiffs, witnesses and/or accused, should be
given orientation on children’s rights and framework to ensure child-
friendliness and sensitivity in the handling of cases.
34.The Executive, Judiciary and even Legislative branches of government

should be familiar with children’s rights, contextualized to the classes
to which children belong.
35.Education on laws related to child rights for law enforcers and local
executives.
36.Education on child development and the evolving capacities of

children for government service providers (rehabilitation centers).
37.Prosecution of law enforcer/military personnel who commits crimes

against children, including violation of laws affecting children.
38.Provide specific rules to monitor, evaluate and ensure compliance of

the Department of Social Work and Development (DSWD) and other
like agencies with “En Banc A.M. No. 02-1-19-SC on the Rule on
Commitment of Children and provide stringent sanctions for
violations therefore.
39. Mechanisms and institutions may be established to protect whistleblowers

from harassment by their respective managements. Policies of non-retaliatory
action should be laid out to protect employees and officials who have exposed
alleged wrong-doing.
40. Take action on the violations of the GSIS on the GSIS law and reverse the
premium-based policy and auto-Clip as initial steps; cases filed against the
GSIS officials that were dismissed by the Ombudsman be subjected to
immediate review by the Court.
PROPOSALS TO THE EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT
1. Many of the issues and concerns facing the public transport sector are
remedied by legislation and thus must be directed to Congress. These include
the repeal of the Oil Deregulation Law, cancellation of the 12 percent VAT on
oil to immediately and substantially bring down pump prices and review the
Clean Air Act to consider the situation of barely surviving jeepney drivers and
small operators.
101
2. A venue for dialogue to hear the issues and concerns of the transport sector
and the impact of certain overarching laws and government policies should be
established.
3. Conduct a serious and comprehensive review of the laws and policies affecting
the fisherfolk taking into consideration the constitutional provisions on the
economic, social and cultural rights of the people. Among the relevant laws
and policies that are considered anti-poor and anti-fisherfolk which should be
reviewed, if not, outrightly repealed or discarded are the following:
• The Fisheries Code of 1998

• RA 7881 (Amendment to CARL)
• The Oil Deregulation Law
• Mining Act of 1998
• Republic Act No. 8975, "An Act to Ensure the Expeditious

Implementation and Completion of Government Infrastructure Projects
…”
4. The Philippines’ accession to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade

should be thoroughly reviewed and subsequently rescinded.
5. The Executive and Legislative branches of the government should pass laws
that consider the economic and social well-being of the poor; assure
protection and economic security of seasonal fish workers in commercial
fishing and aquaculture sectors.
6. The Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) and other pertinent
government offices should designate law enforcers and police investigators
with specialization in women and women-issues to handle related crimes;
7. Enactment of House Bill 3059 or the Genuine Agrarian Reform Bill which is
now pending before the House of Representatives.
8. Compulsory arbitration through the DAR or any other accepted person or

entity should be the principal mode to settle disputes between farmer-
beneficiaries and even cases relating tenancy, terms and conditions of work,
leasehold contracts within areas, exercise of pre-emption and redemption
rights of tenants, correction and cancellation of Certificates of Land Ownership
Awards and EPs.
9. Abolish the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and replace it with
another agency that is truly independent, efficient and more credible to the
workers in particular and to the public in general.
10. Recognize Government workers’ right to strike. Public sector employees must
not suffer from more than two decades of failure of Congress to pass an
enabling law to accord us this constitutional and human right. One option is
that instead of waiting for the enabling law, the pertinent provisions of the
Labor Code (while still restrictive and anti-labor) can be temporarily applied to
public sector workers to enforce our right to strike.
102
11. The government decrease the excessive fees related to the processing of
documents needed for application to work abroad as some are redundant and
serve only to line the pockets of some bureaucrats.
12.Amendment to the Milk Code to include sanctions that really give

teeth to the Code.
The peoples’ organizations representing the marginalized sectors support the

initiative of Supreme Court Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno to reflect on the question
of access to justice and economic, social and cultural rights of the poor during to the
Supreme Court forum Increasing Access to Justice by the Poor: Bridging Gaps,
Removing Roadblocks held on June-30 - July 1, 2008 in Manila. Specifically, we
support and agree on the following recommendations put forward during the SC
forum:
1. Justices, court employees, lawyers and officials of government agencies

should undergo comprehensive and substantive education on the issues and
struggles of the poor and marginalized sectors.
2. Reconsider the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Mining Law.
3. Insure effective and proper legal representation of OFWs abroad.
4. The government set aside funds for expenses related to repatriation, medical
and legal assistance of OFWs.
5. Complement and strengthen public knowledge of the procedural and legal

mechanisms available to environmental defenders and communities striving
to protect their lands, waters, and air space from degradation and over-
extraction.
6. Conduct information-dissemination of existing jurisprudence on environmental

laws and cases.
7. Popularize a legal environmental education campaign among the public and

within the ranks of lawyers and the judiciary.
8. For Congress to pass a comprehensive anti-SLAPP law that will include both
criminal and civil cases and recognize cases incurred not just during the
implementation of the law, but suits designed to prevent public opposition to
projects.
9. Institute procedural mechanisms to substantially reduce the possibilities of

SLAPP cases prospering under the wings of the judiciary. It can pass a
circular prohibiting SLAPP suits and recognizing these as grounds for the
dismissal of a case.
10. Develop documentation of environmental cases and enhance access to

information regarding environmental law.
11. Liberalize the requirements to be considered indigent litigant;
103
12. Lawyers be given incentives for providing free services to marginalized

sectors;
13. Issue rules whereby free legal services to women or accredited women's
organizations may be counted as creditable MCLE units;
14. Set-up women’s desk in all barangays, and city/municipal or provincial

governments make available to these desks funds for legal and other support
services to indigent victims of Violence Against Women;
15. Sanctions be imposed on judges who refuse or who delay issuance of

protection orders or who hesitate to issue contempt orders to those who
violate protection orders under RA 9262;
16. Amend the law student practice rule to allow law students to appear in court
to represent the farmers; allow paralegals to represent farmers in courts.
17. Provide specific rules to monitor, evaluate and ensure compliance with R.A.
9344 and Administrative Circular No. 04-2002 on Special Treatment of Minor
Detainees and Jail Decongestion.
***
104

Papers - Eco, Social, Cultural Rights

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Papers - Eco, Social, Cultural Rights

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Table of Contents

KABUHAYAN, KARAPATAN, KATARUNGAN

I. “Access of the poor to justice in an elite-dominated

II. “Sama-samang Pagkilos para sa Pagpapalapit ng Hustisya”,

III. “Defending economic, social and cultural rights”, Bagong

IV. “Anti-SLAPP rule: amending the rules to counter harassment

V. On the environment, Kalikasan People's Network for the

VI. On fisherfolks, Pambansang Lakas ng Kilusang Mamamalakaya

VII. On peasants, Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas……………….…....46

VIII. On labor, Kilusang Mayo Uno……………………………………………………55

IX. On women, GABRIELA…………………………………………………….……..…58

X. On children, Salinlahi Alliance for Children's Concerns…………..62

XI. On government employees, Confederation for Unity, Recognition

XII. On public transport, Pagkakaisa ng mga Samahan ng Tsuper at

XIII. On migrant workers, Migrante International………………………..…78

XIV. On indigenous peoples, Kalipunan ng Katutubong Mamamayan

XV. Summary of Recommendations………………………………………………..98

Access of the Poor to Justice in an Elite-Dominated Constitutional

vicious cycle of self-interest, mutual accommodation, constantly shifting personal

3. The urban poor and informal settlers, oftentimes disparagingly called

7. Political victims of violations of human, civil and political rights such as

8. The public in general on legal issues like environmental protection and

Sama-samang Pagkilos para sa Pagpapalapit ng Hustisya

Una sa lahat, nais ko pong magpasalamat sa Bagong Alyansang Makabayan o

Umani ang nasabing pagpupulong ng mga mungkahi buhat sa iba't ibang

Kabilang sa mga rekomendasyon na nakalap buhat sa ginanap na Forum ay ang

Kanina ay binabasa ko iyong Philippine Daily Inquirer. Doon sa pahina 7 ay sinasabi:

Ang Justice on Wheels ay isang malaking bus na maaring maging dalawang

Mayor Lim ang ginawa ng Justice on Wheels kaya’t sa susunod na linggo ay

Dinala rin namin ang Justice on Wheels sa Kalibo, sa lalawigan ng Aklan, na

Isina-pinal na rin po noong ika-dalawampu't tatlo (23) ng Hunyo ng Supreme Court

Ang mga small claims courts ay matatagpuan, at tunay na nagtagumpay, sa mga

Sa kasalukuyan, hawak na ng Supreme Court en banc ang balangkas ng Rule na ito

Ito ay ilan lamang sa mga ginagawa at patuloy na pinag-aaralan ng ating Korte

Maraming salamat at mabuhay kayong lahat.

DEFENDING ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS

Organizational profile of Bayan and IBON Foundation

IBON is a non-stock non-profit development institution committed to serve the

International and domestic law: economic, social and cultural rights

Particularly relevant is the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural

Section 1. The goals of the national economy are a more equitable

Realities on the ground: socioeconomic policies causing poverty and

It is essential to recognize basic macro economic problems so that attempts to

1. The Philippines is facing record joblessness despite supposedly rapid

2. Recent officially released unemployment figures give the impression that

of dramatically reducing the number of reported jobless by some 1.4 million

3. The Philippines is facing worsening poverty despite supposedly rapid

6. The poor prospects for domestic livelihoods have pushed record

7. There is a low priority of social services in the national budget where

GDP in 1990 to 0.58% in 1997 to 0.31% in 2008. i Total health spending of

These economy-wide adverse developments in employment, poverty levels and the

Case studies: contradictions between principles and practice

Case Study 1: Upholding the Constitutionality of the GATT-WTO

The Supreme Court’s decision upholding the constitutionality of the General

Several members of Congress and non-government organizations (NGOs) filed a

To illustrate, instead of requiring that all petroleum produced from Malampaya be

exported if such requirements were met, SC 38 merely requires the contractors to

Furthermore, SC 38 requires the national government, like any other buyer, to

National human rights mechanisms

The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) is a

Moreover, the government can and should:

Profile of the NUPL

The NUPL is a nationwide voluntary association of human rights lawyers in the