PARAS, DIVINE MAE V.

HUMAN RIGHTS LAW

FINAL EXAMINATION

1. a. Yes. The molding of a child’s character must always start at home. Parents shall strive
hard to maintain an environment that is conducive to the child’s upbringing. They
should be the first ones guiding their children physically, emotionally, mentally, and
morally because every child has the right to be brought up in an environment where it
would help them develop and strengthen their character; an environment that is free
from harmful and destructive influences and not an environment where it encourages a
child to do such immoral acts. The act of brutally killing innocent people in front of your
minor daughter could possibly cause the child to live an immoral life. Being the head of
the family, a minor child would look up to them thinking that their acts are right and
just, more so that the father is a policeman whose duty is to serve and protect its
people. He should have acted like one.
Based on the given facts, the acts of the policeman-father could be very detrimental to
the welfare of the minor child. It is an unjustifiable negligence in his performance to
nurture the child. It could affect the daughter’s well-being. On the other hand, the acts
of the daughter who seemed not affected at all, who even smirked during the
commotion, reflects what kind of atmosphere she grew up to and what kind of
guardians she grew up with. Hence, under the responsibility to promote and protect the
welfare of the child, the State may file a case against the father for allowing his minor
child to witness such act of violence.
b. Intent is not necessary in the commission of the crime of child abuse. For as long as
the action prejudices and affects the child and its rights, already constitutes child abuse.
This includes acts of negligence, abuse, cruelty, exploitation and other conditions
prejudicial to the child’s development. As discussed in the cases of Salazar v. People,
there was a negligence on the part of the accused for allowing his child to witness the
killing of the victims. This could cause trauma to the child and could greatly affect his
growth and development as it is mentally disturbing to personally witness an act of
immorality such as the killing of the victims. Thus, this act constitutes child abuse
because children are the most vulnerable members of the society who should not be
protected by any means of violence.

2. Same sex marriage is prohibited in the Philippines because the Family Code specifically
states that marriage is a permanent union between a man and a woman. It is clear that
a couple of the same sex cannot be a subject of marriage for under our laws, they are
not covered by one of its requisites. Hence, if a couple of the same sex enter into
marriage, it becomes void ab initio due to the absence of the most fundamental
 requisites of marriages – that one party must be a man, and the other must be a
woman.

3. No. Said situation is a way different from the case of The Ladlad party. Hence, it should
not be a basis to allow LGBTQ to use comfort rooms and be regarded as per gender
identification. Some people may easily pretend to be a member of the LGBTQ to have an
easy access to comfort rooms where they can do immoral acts against the opposite sex.

4. The Supreme Court ruled on the following issues: 1) That religion cannot be used as a
basis for refusal to accept the petition. Article III, Section 5 of the Philippine Constitution
specifically states that "no law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise”. With respect to the neutrality in religious matters, the
Supreme Court held that the COMELEC committed a grave violation of the non-
establishment clause for using the Bible and the Koran to justify the exclusion of Ang
Ladlad; 2) The petitioners did not, in any way, committed public morals; 3) that the
COMELEC violated the equal protection clause, as provided for in Article III, section 1; 4)
that petitioners are entitled to Freedom of Expression and Association, where they have
the utmost right to promote its agenda, and as citizens of a democratic country, we are
free of every opinion, every prejudice, every aspiration, and every moral discernment;
and 5) that the COMELEC violated the Non-Discrimination and International Law by
denying the Ang Ladlad’s petition just because of their gender. The government has the
obligation to make sure that all persons are equal before the law and that they are
entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. Our laws shall
prohibit any discrimination and shall guarantee all persons equal and effective
protection against any form of discrimination.

5. a. I will conduct a thorough investigations to make sure who the real perpetrators were.
If there is already a sufficient evidence to prove that the killings were done by the said
military men, I will file a case of torture resulting in the death of the father and his sons,
as penalized under Anti Torture Act of 2009, for the death of the victims who suffered
an inhumane act inflicted by the said officers.
b. If the family has filed a case before the Philippine court and has already exhausted all
their efforts to give justice to the victims and still to no avail, then they could file a case
before an International Tribunal for failure of the government to conduct an adequate
investigation with respect to alleged violation. However, if by all means, the government
of the Philippines try their very best to conduct and pursue with the case, then the
family could not directly go to the International Tribunal and file a case before them.

6. a. They can only file a case before an International Tribunal if the government failed to
conduct an adequate investigation with respect to alleged violation. However, if by all
 means, the government of Philippines and its corresponding agencies try their very best
to conduct and pursue with the case, then it cannot directly go to the International
Tribunal.
b. Yes. It is the duty of the said Commission to investigate any forms of human rights
violation and to provide appropriate legal measures for the protection of all citizens
against human rights violations. Hence, if there exists substantial evidence to point out
the accused, the CHR could assist the family in filing the case against the government.
c. For as long as due process is met and is proven before the court that the accused-
policemen are found guilty of the crime, I will hold them liable and let them suffer the
consequences of their actions, in pursuant to the penalties as prescribed by laws.

7. Trial Chamber found Musema guilty of genocide and crimes against humanity for
extermination and rape. and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The Prosecutor
charged Musema with genocide under Articles 6(1) and 6(3) of the Statute and under
Count for complicity in genocide. These Counts relate to the Accused's role in the rape
and death of a Tutsi woman and the death of her son, as well as in the attack against
Tutsi refugees and the rape of a young Tutsi woman during this attack at Mumataba Hill
and at Nyakavumu cave. The accused was also charged with conspiracy to commit
genocide for the same acts alleged under Counts 1 and 2. Moreover, he was also
charged with extermination as a crime against humanity for his participation in the
attacks against Tutsis at Muyira Hill. The Prosecution further charged him with other
inhumane acts and rape as crimes against humanity, as well as serious violations of
Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.

8. Human rights are the basic rights and freedom of every person regardless of race, color,
gender, age, nationality, origin and status in life, simply because we are human beings.
These rights are inherent and should never be taken away from us.