HUMAN

RIGHTS
Group 1
Alviola, Loura Mae
Sabenicio, Imari C
Eparwa, Michael
Oliver, Richard
 Today’s Discussion
● STATE RESPONSIBILITY ● HISTORY, SOURCES OF
The State
HUMAN RIGHTS LAW
International State Responsibility
History
Derivative State responsibility for complicity
Prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures Theories of Sources of Rights
Writ of Habeas Data Origins of Human Rights in the
Solidarity right to a healthy environment Philippines
Writ of Kalikasan Basic source of HR Law
Command Responsibility
Commission on Human Rights
Obligation of State Parties
STATE RESPONSIBILITY

The State

The State shall protect and defend them from discrimination,

exploitation, trafficking, assault, battery and other forms of
abuse and violence.
STATE RESPONSIBILITY

The State

The State is not the giver of human rights because these are
inherent in all human beings.
The role of the State in the social order is to see to it that
members of society acknowledge its authority and that it
governs the people properly.
In turn, the State must recognize that the people have rights
and freedoms that are inherent in them and cannot be taken
away.
VIDEO LINK
STATE RESPONSIBILITY

The State

No such guarantee exists on the part of private entities and

civilians.
If a security guard at a shopping mall checks a customer's bag
upon entrance, the customer cannot invoke the protection
against warrantless and illegal searches and sue the mall for
violation of his/her human rights for the guard's act.
STATE RESPONSIBILITY

International State Responsibility

Whenever a state ratifies a human rights treaty, it commits

itself not only to observe the standards set forth in the treaty
and see to it that its against do likewise, but also to enact
domestic laws and regulations in order to hold private
individuals accountable . the traditional principle in
international law is that individuals are not directly bound by
it, for individuals are not subjects of international law.
STATE RESPONSIBILITY

International State Responsibility

In turn , the State has to ensure that the obligations under

the treaty are observed within its jurisdiction by its people.

Hence, the duty to enact the corresponding laws of local

application.
STATE RESPONSIBILITY

International State Responsibility

The state’s responsibility to ensure compliance with

international human rights obligations does not end with the
enactment of local laws;
it should also see to it that those aggrieved by the violations of
these laws must have adequate judicial remedy. It is thus
important that its judiciary has the mechanisms, the integrity,
and the accessibility to dispense justice for victims of human
rights abuses.
STATE RESPONSIBILITY

International State Responsibility

International State responsibility for internationally wrongful

acts:
In the international level, State liability may be incurred for
internationally wrongful acts. on Responsibility of States for
Internationally Wrongful Acts adopted by the International Law
Commission in 2001, provides in Article 1 that, "Every
internationally wrongful act of a State entails the international
responsibility of that State,"
Article 2 of the Articles enumerates the following elements of
STATE RESPONSIBILITY

International State Responsibility

International State responsibility for internationally wrongful

acts:
Article 2 of the Articles enumerates the following elements of
an internationally wrongful act of the State:
l.) The act or omission is attributable to the State under
international law;
2) The conduct constitutes a breach of an international
obligation of the State,
STATE RESPONSIBILITY

Derivative State responsibility for complicity

The general rules on attributing State Responsibility were

mentioned earlier, i.e.,
(a) direct responsibility of the State committed by State actors,
and
(b) responsibility for acts committed by non-State actors when
the State failed to pass laws, prevent and punish violations,
and to provide adequate legal remedies.
STATE RESPONSIBILITY

Derivative State responsibility for complicity

Under our domestic criminal laws, a person can be held liable

for the acts of another by reason of conspiracy, or when he
contributes to the commission of the crime or to the success
of the criminal as a principal, accomplice, or accessory.
STATE RESPONSIBILITY

Derivative State responsibility for complicity

Under International Law, a State may be held liable for a

human rights violation even if it did not directly commit the act
constituting the violation, provided that it assisted in the
commission of the act or allowed it to happen, similar to a
conspirator, accomplice, or accessory in our criminal law.
STATE RESPONSIBILITY

Derivative State responsibility for complicity

Articles 16 and 17 of the Articles on State Responsibility provide

for "derivative responsibility," which is present where (a) the
State aids and assists in the commission by another of the
internationally wrongful act and, (b) the State exercises
direction and control over the commission of the act.
STATE RESPONSIBILITY

PHILIPPINE CASES ON STATE RESPONSIBILITY

Prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures

The constitutional proscription against unlawful searches and seizures therefore
applies as a restraint directed only against the government and its agencies tasked
with the enforcement of the law. Thus, it could only be invoked against the State to
whom the restraint against arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of power is
imposed.

For one thing, the constitution, in laying down the principles of the government and
fundamental liberties of the people, does not govern relationships between
individuals.
STATE RESPONSIBILITY

Prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures

"Similarly, the admissibility of the evidence procured by an individual effected

through private seizure equally applies, in pari passu, to the alleged violation,
non-governmental as it is, of appellant's constitutional rights to privacy and
communication."
STATE RESPONSIBILITY

PEOPLE v. ANDRE MARTI, GR No. 81561, 1991-01-18

FACTS:

This is an appeal from a decision[*] rendered by the Special Criminal Court of

Manila (Regional Trial Court, Branch XLIX) convicting accused-appellant of a
violation of Republic Act 6425, as amended, otherwise known as the Dangerous
Drugs Act.
STATE RESPONSIBILITY

PEOPLE v. ANDRE MARTI, GR No. 81561, 1991-01-18

FACTS:
"On August 14, 1987, between 10:00 and 11:00 a.m., the appellant and his common-law
wife, Shirley Reyes, went to the booth of the "Manila, Packing and Export Forwarders"
in the Pistang Pilipino Complex, Ermita, Manila, carrying with them four (4)
gift-wrapped... packages.
Anita Reyes (the proprietress and no relation to Shirley Reyes) attended to them. The
appellant informed Anita Reyes that he was sending the packages to a friend in
Zurich, Switzerland.
Appellant filled up the contract necessary for the transaction,... writing therein his
name, passport number, the date of shipment and the name and address of the
consignee, namely, "WALTER FIERZ, Mattacketr II, 8052 Zurich, Switzerland".
"Anita Reyes then asked the appellant if she could examine and inspect the
packages.
STATE RESPONSIBILITY

PEOPLE v. ANDRE MARTI, GR No. 81561, 1991-01-18

FACTS:
Appellant, however, refused, assuring her that the packages simply contained books,
cigars, and gloves and were gifts to his friend in Zurich. In view of appellant's
representation,... Anita Reyes no longer insisted on inspecting the packages. The
four (4) packages were then placed inside a brown corrugated box one by two feet in
size (1' x 2'). Styro-foam was placed at the bottom and on top of the packages before
the box was sealed with masking... tape, thus making the box ready for shipment.
Before delivery of appellant's box to the Bureau of Customs and/or Bureau of Posts,
Mr. Job Reyes (propietor and husband of Anita Reyes), following standard operating
procedure, opened the boxes for final inspection. When he opened appellant's box,
a peculiar odor... emitted therefrom. His curiosity aroused, he squeezed one of the
bundles allegedly containing gloves and felt dried leaves inside.
STATE RESPONSIBILITY

PEOPLE v. ANDRE MARTI, GR No. 81561, 1991-01-18

FACTS:
Opening one of the bundles, he pulled out a cellophane wrapper protruding from
the opening of one of the gloves..
He made an opening on one of the cellophane wrappers and took several grams of
the contents thereof .
"Job Reyes forthwith prepared a letter reporting the shipment to the NBI and
requesting a laboratory examination of the samples he extracted from the
cellophane wrapper He brought the letter and a sample of appellant's shipment to
the Narcotics Section of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) He was
interviewed by the Chief of Narcotics Section.
Job Reyes informed the NBI that the rest of the shipment was still in his office.
Therefore, Job Reyes and three (3) NBI agents, and a photographer, went to the
Reyes' office at Ermita, Manila "
STATE RESPONSIBILITY

PEOPLE v. ANDRE MARTI, GR No. 81561, 1991-01-18

FACTS:
Job Reyes brought out the box in which appellant's packages were placed and, in
the presence of the NBI agents, opened the top flaps, removed the styro-foam and
took out the cellophane wrappers from inside the gloves.
Dried marijuana leaves were found to have been contained inside the cellophane
wrappers
The NBI agents made an inventory and took charge of the box and of the contents
thereof, after signing a "Receipt" acknowledging custody of the said effects.
On August 27, 1987, appellant, while claiming his mail at the Central Post Office, was
invited by the NBI to shed light on the attempted shipment of the seized dried
leaves.
On the same day the Narcotics Section of the NBI submitted the dried leaves to the
Forensic Chemistry Section for laboratory examination. It turned out that the dried
leaves were marijuana flowering tops as certified by the forensic chemist.
STATE RESPONSIBILITY

PEOPLE v. ANDRE MARTI, GR No. 81561, 1991-01-18

Issue:
The evidence subject of the imputed offense had been obtained in violation of his
constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seizure and privacy of
communication (Sec. 2 and 3. Art. III, Constitution) and therefore argues that the
same... should be held inadmissible in evidence (Sec. 3 [2], Art. III).
STATE RESPONSIBILITY

PEOPLE v. ANDRE MARTI, GR No. 81561, 1991-01-18

Ruling:
It must be noted, however, that in all those cases adverted to, the evidence so
obtained were invariably procured by the State acting through the medium of its
law enforcers or other authorized government agencies.
On the other hand, the case at bar assumes a peculiar character since the
evidence sought to be excluded was primarily discovered and obtained by a private
person, acting in a private capacity and without the intervention and participation
of State authorities.
Under the circumstances,
● Can accused/appellant validly claim that his constitutional right against
unreasonable searches and seizure has been violated?
● Stated otherwise, may an act of a private individual, allegedly in violation of
appellant's constitutional rights, be invoked against the State?
STATE RESPONSIBILITY

PEOPLE v. ANDRE MARTI, GR No. 81561, 1991-01-18

Ruling:
We hold in the negative. In the absence of governmental interference, the liberties
guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be invoked against the State.

In the case cited, the accused was convicted in violation of the dangerous drugs
law when he attempted to ship marijuana through a courier.

It was found out upon by the courier as part of standard operating procedure that
the package contained marijuana. The Supreme Court ruled that the illegal articles
could be admitted as evidence even if these were products of a search conducted
without a warrant, because the person who conducted the search was a civilian, not
a government agent.
STATE RESPONSIBILITY

PHILIPPINE CASES ON STATE RESPONSIBILITY

SECTION 1. Writ of Habeas Data.

The writ of habeas data is a remedy available to any person whose right to
privacy in life, liberty or security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or
omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity
engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of data or information
regarding the person, family, home and correspondence of the aggrieved
party.
STATE RESPONSIBILITY

Writ of Habeas Data

SEC. 2. Who May File.

Any aggrieved party may file a petition for the writ of habeas data. However, in
cases of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances, the petition may be
filed by:

(a) Any member of the immediate family of the aggrieved party, namely: the
spouse, children and parents; or
(b) Any ascendant, descendant or collateral relative of the aggrieved party
within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity, in default of those
mentioned in the preceding paragraph
STATE RESPONSIBILITY

Writ of Habeas Data

It is an independent and summary remedy designed to protect the image,

privacy, honor, information, and freedom of information of an individual, and
to provide a forum to enforce one’s right to the truth and to informational
privacy. It seeks to protect a person’s right to control information regarding
oneself, particularly in instances in which such information is being collected
through unlawful means in order to achieve unlawful ends.

In developing the writ of habeas data, the Court aimed to protect an

individual’s right to informational privacy, among others. A comparative law
scholar has, in fact, defined habeas data as “a procedure designed to
safeguard individual freedom from abuse in the information age.”
STATE RESPONSIBILITY

Writ of Habeas Data

The writ of habeas data is not only confined to cases of extralegal killings and
enforced disappearances

The writ of habeas data can be availed of as an independent remedy to

enforce one’s right to privacy, more specifically the right to informational
privacy. The remedies against the violation of such right can include the
updating, rectification, suppression or destruction of the database or
information or files in possession or in control of respondents. Clearly then, the
privilege of the Writ of Habeas Data may also be availed of in cases outside of
extralegal killings and enforced disappearances.
STATE RESPONSIBILITY

Writ of Habeas Data

The writ of habeas data is not only confined to cases of extralegal killings and
enforced disappearances

The writ of habeas data can be availed of as an independent remedy to

enforce one’s right to privacy, more specifically the right to informational
privacy. The remedies against the violation of such right can include the
updating, rectification, suppression or destruction of the database or
information or files in possession or in control of respondents. Clearly then, the
privilege of the Writ of Habeas Data may also be availed of in cases outside of
extralegal killings and enforced disappearances.
STATE RESPONSIBILITY

Solidarity Right to a Healthy Environment

● Is a justiciable issue that can be properly raised before

the courts of law in our jurisdiction
● Particularly significant because this right is a newly
evolved right, a third generation right, and because in
the international arena, there had been much debate,
still unsettled up to this time, as to who has responsibility
for violations of solidarity rights, in the spate of disasters
brought about by corporate negligence.
STATE RESPONSIBILITY

Solidarity Right to a Healthy Environment

● Article II of the 1987 Constitution Declaration of Principles and State
Policies
Sec. 16. The State shall protect and advance the right of the
people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the
rhythm and harmony of nature.
● This right unites with the right to health which is provided for in the
preceding section of the same article:
Sec. 15. The State shall protect and promote the right to health of
the people and instill health consciousness among them.
STATE RESPONSIBILITY

Solidarity Right to a Healthy Environment

● The right to healthful environment necessarily carries with it the

correlative duty of not impairing the same and, therefore, sanctions
may be provided for impairment of environmental balance.
STATE RESPONSIBILITY: Solidarity Right to a Healthy Environment

Oposa vs. Factoran, Jr., 224 SCRA 792 (1993)

FACTS:

The principal plaintiffs therein, now the principal petitioners, are all minors duly represented and joined by their
respective parents. Impleaded as an additional plaintiff is the Philippine Ecological Network, Inc. (PENI), a domestic,
non-stock and non-profit corporation organized for the purpose of, inter alia, engaging in concerted action
geared for the protection of our environment and natural resources. The complaint was instituted as a taxpayers'
class suite and alleges that the plaintiffs "are all citizens of the Republic of the Philippines, taxpayers, and entitled
to the full benefit, use and enjoyment of the natural resource treasure that is the country's virgin tropical forests."
The minors further asseverate that they "represent their generation as well as generations yet unborn."4
Consequently, it is prayed for that judgment be rendered: ordering defendant, his agents, representatives and
other persons acting in his behalf to —
(1) Cancel all existing timber license agreements in the country;

(2) Cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing or approving new timber license
agreements and granting the plaintiffs ". . . such other reliefs just and equitable under the premises.“
STATE RESPONSIBILITY: Solidarity Right to a Healthy Environment

Oposa vs. Factoran, Jr., 224 SCRA 792 (1993)

ISSUE:

Whether the said petitioners have a cause of action to "prevent the misappropriation or impairment" of Philippine rainforests
and "arrest the unabated hemorrhage of the country's vital life support systems and continued rape of Mother Earth.

RULING:

After a careful perusal of the complaint in question and a meticulous consideration and evaluation of the issues raised and
arguments adduced by the parties, We do not hesitate to find for the petitioners and rule against the respondent Judge's
challenged order for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
● The court did not agree with the trial court's conclusions that the plaintiffs failed to allege with sufficient definiteness a
specific legal right involved or a specific legal wrong committed, and that the complaint is replete with vague
assumptions and conclusions based on unverified data. The complaint focuses on one specific fundamental legal right
— the right to a balanced and healthful ecology.
● It must, nonetheless, be emphasized that the political question doctrine is no longer, the insurmountable obstacle to the
exercise of judicial power or the impenetrable shield that protects executive and legislative actions from judicial inquiry
or review. As provides by the second paragraph of section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution.
● The court was not persuaded by the last ground invoked by the trial court dismissing the complaint because of the
non-impairment of contracts clause found in the Constitution. A timber license is not a contract but is merely a permit
or priviledge to do what otherwise would be unlawful.
● Being impressed with merit, the instant Petition is hereby GRANTED, and the challenged Order of respondent Judge of
18 July 1991 dismissing Civil Case No. 90-777 is hereby set aside. The petitioners may therefore amend their complaint to
implead as defendants the holders or grantees of the questioned timber license agreements.
STATE RESPONSIBILITY: Solidarity Right to a Healthy Environment

Doctrine of Intergenerational Responsibility

The present generation holds the natural resource treasures of the earth in
trust for the benefit, enjoyment and use of the generation of
humankind yet to come, and the State has the responsibility to protect and
see to it that this be realized.
STATE RESPONSIBILITY

Writ of Kalikasan
● The writ is a remedy available to a natural or juridical person, entity authorized by
law, people’s organization, non-governmental organization, or any public interest
group accredited by or registered with any government agency, on behalf of persons
whose constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology is violated, or
threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or
employee, or private individual or entity, involving environmental damage of such
magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in two or more
cities or provinces.
● Another boost to a balanced and healthful ecology
● Provided with the issuance of the Rule of Procedure on Environmental Cases (A.M. No.
09-6-8-SC, particularly Rule 7) April 13, 2010
● It shall be filed with the Supreme Court or any of the stations of the Court of Appeals.
● It shall be exempt from payment of docket fees.
STATE RESPONSIBILITY

Writ of Kalikasan of the petition

Contents of the Petition:
(a) The personal circumstances of the petitioner;

(b) The name and personal circumstances of the respondent or if the name and personal circumstances
are unknown and uncertain, the respondent may be described by an assumed appellation;

(c) The environmental law, rule or regulation violated or threatened to be violated, the act or omission
complained of, and the environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or
property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.

(d) All relevant and material evidence consisting of the affidavits of witnesses, documentary evidence,
scientific or other expert studies, and if possible, object evidence;

(e) The certification of petitioner under oath that: (1) petitioner has not commenced any action or filed any
claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency, and no such other action
or claim is pending therein; (2) if there is such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of its
present status; (3) if petitioner should learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is
pending, petitioner shall report to the court that fact within five (5) days therefrom; and

(f) The reliefs prayed for which may include a prayer for the issuance of a TEPO.
STATE RESPONSIBILITY

HOW IS IT ISSUED?
Within three (3) days from the date of filing of the petition, if the petition is sufficient in form and
substance, the court shall give an order:

(a) issuing the writ; and

(b) requiring the respondent to file a verified return

The clerk of court shall forthwith issue the writ under the seal of the court including the issuance of a
cease and desist order and other temporary reliefs effective until further order.

HOW IS IT SERVED?
by a court officer or any person deputized by the court, who shall retain a copy on which
to make a return of service.

In case the writ cannot be served personally, the rule on substituted service shall apply.
STATE RESPONSIBILITY

Penalty for refusal to issue or serve the writ

Punished by the Court for Contempt without prejudice to other civil, criminal or administrative actions

Return of respondent
Within a non-extendible period of TEN (10) DAYS after service of the writ.
NOTE: All defenses not raised in the return shall be deemed waived
A general denial of allegations shall be considered as an admission

Prohibited Pleadings and Motion

(a) Motion to dismiss;
(b) Motion for extension of time to file return;
(c) Motion for postponement;
(d) Motion for a bill of particulars;
(e) Counterclaim or cross-claim;
(f) Third-party complaint;
(g) Reply; and
(h) Motion to declare respondent in default.
STATE RESPONSIBILITY

Command Responsibility

● Doctrine of Command Responsibility

○ Liability for violations of human rights can be incurred by an act or omission.
○ The offender can be made to answer for his action or inaction when these result
in human rights violation.
○ Failure of a superior officer to stop human rights violations committed by his
subordinates, though he did not directly ordered the commission of such acts,
could make him liable as well.
● “YAMASHITA STANDARD”
○ Based on the Rome Statute, a “military commander or person effectively acting
as a military commander shall be criminally responsible for crimes committed
by forces under his or her effective command and control, or effective authority
and control as a result of his or her failure to exercise control property over
such forces.”
STATE RESPONSIBILITY: Command Responsibility

In Re Yamashita, 327 us 1 (1946)

FACTS:
General Tomoyuki Yamashita, the commander of the Japanese Imperial Army in the Philippines,
was charged for violations of the laws of war by “unlawfully disregarding and failing to discharge
his duty as a commander to control the acts of members of his command by permitting them to
commit war crimes. It was alleged that the Japanese army under his command engaged in a
“deliberate plan to massacre and exterminate a large part of the civilian population of Batangas
Province. As a result, more than 25,000 unarmed men, women and children were brutally
mistreated and killed.
ISSUE:
W/N General Yamashita committed violations on law of war.
RULING:
The court ruled that under International Law on the law of war, violations of war “have to be
avoided through the control of the operations of war by commanders who to some extent are
responsible for their subordinates.” As commander, General Yamashita was under an “affirmative
duty to take such measures as were within his power and appropriate in the circumstances to
protect prisoners of war and the civilian population.
STATE RESPONSIBILITY

Obligations of the State Parties

● International human rights law lays down obligations which States are bound to respect. By
becoming parties to international treaties, States assume obligations and duties under
international law to respect, to protect and to fulfil human rights.
○ The obligation to RESPECT means that States must refrain from interfering with or
curtailing the enjoyment of human rights
○ The obligation to ENSURE means that States must take positive action to facilitate the
enjoyment of basic human rights.
○ The obligation to PROTECT requires States to protect individuals and groups against
human rights abuses.
STATE RESPONSIBILITY: Obligations of the State Parties

Obligation to Respect
● Article 2(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) contain
the obligation to respect. It indicates the negative character of civil and political
rights, commanding State Parties to refrain from restricting the exercise of these
rights where such is not expressly allowed.
○ “1. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to
ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the
rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such
as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or
social origin, property, birth or other status.”
STATE RESPONSIBILITY: Obligations of the State Parties

Obligation to Ensure
● Article 2(1) of the same International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
containing the obligation to ensure indicates the positive character of the civil and
political rights and the economic, social, and cultural rights.
● Under the obligation, State Parties must be proactive to enable individuals to enjoy
their rights.
● In concrete, this means that State Parties has the obligation under Article 2(2) to
adopt executive, judicial, and legislative measures, to provide an effective remedy to
victims of human rights violators under Article 2(3) and to safeguard certain rights by
means of procedural guarantees and legal institutions.
STATE RESPONSIBILITY: Obligations of the State Parties

Obligation to Protect

● The obligation to ensure includes the obligation to protect. And this means
preventing private individuals, groups or entities from interfering with the individual’s
civil and political rights.
STATE RESPONSIBILITY: Obligations of the State Parties

Constitutional Policy of the Philippines on Human rights

Philippine Constitution
-contains the BILL OF RIGHTS which lays down the bases for all the civil,
political, economic, social and cultural rights of persons.
 History,
Sources of
Human Rights Law
 Today’s Discussion
STATE RESPONSIBILITY ● HISTORY, SOURCES OF
The State
HUMAN RIGHTS LAW
International State Responsibility
History
Derivative State responsibility for complicity
Prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures Theories of Sources of Rights
Writ of Habeas Data Origins of Human Rights in the
Solidarity right to a healthy environment Philippines
Writ of Kalikasan Basic source of HR Law
Command Responsibility
Commission on Human Rights
Obligation of State Parties
History, Sources of Human Rights Law

What is Human Rights?

Human rights make man human. No cause is more worthy than the cause of human rights.

HUMAN RIGHTS are freedoms and entitlements inherent to ALL human beings. There is NO
requirement to have human rights other than that of being human.

HUMAN RIGHTS LAW is a broad field, and includes not only the relationship between men
and government, or the civil and political rights of the people, but extends as well to their
economic, social and cultural rights, to the right to development and a peaceful and clean
environment when they could develop ALL facets as human beings.
History, Sources of Human Rights Law

History
Rights of men are as old as man himself- human rights existed when man began to exist.

I. Tyrannical Rulers of Greece to the royal autocracy of Kings and princes of the
Middle-Ages men

II. Divine Rights of Kings

III. 1215 Magna Carta by King John- First English Constitution, contains personal liberties
and civil rights

IV. Bill of Rights of 1689- prevent arbitrary royal rule and establish freedom from cruel and
unusual punishment and excessive fines

V. Bill of Rights 1776- all men are free. Inherent Rights of life and liberty and property.
Freedom of Speech and Press, freedom to exercise religion.

VI. 1789 French Declaration of Rights of Man- all men are free and equal
History, Sources of Human Rights Law

History
V. Bill of Rights 1776- all men are free. Inherent Rights of life and liberty and property.
Freedom of Speech and Press, freedom to exercise religion.

VI. 1789 French Declaration of Rights of Man- all men are free and equal
THEORIES OF
SOURCES OF RIGHTS
THEORIES OF SOURCES OF RIGHTS

1. Religious and Theological Approach

The concept of dignity of man.

He possesses dignity as being created in the image of God and
it places him with high value.
Common creator means common humanity and common
fundamental rights. Brotherhood of men.
Disadvantage: only stands as long as man believes in God.
THEORIES OF SOURCES OF RIGHTS

2. The Natural Law Theory

Certain rights are so essential to any real personal life that they should be called
natural.

All people have inherent rights, conferred not by act of legislation but by "God,
nature, or reason."

To be explained further, natural law incorporates the idea that humans understand
the difference between “right” and “wrong” inherently

The Social impulse to live peacefully and in harmony with others. Whatever is
disturbing to social harmony is wrong and unjust.

Embodied in Magna Carta of England 1215, 1689 England’s Bill of Rights and
American Declaration of Independence 1776. It leaves vague what is part of the
law of nations and, therefore is, inalienable.
THEORIES OF SOURCES OF RIGHTS

3. Positive Theory/Legal Positivism

There are no rights that are inherent in men, they are created and
maintained by the State.
The only law is what has been commanded by the sovereign.
Natural rights are recognized only if they are enforced by the state.
Main Criticism:
● The Law alone does not create rights, rather it recognizes and
protect them
● positivism negates the moral philosophical basis of human rights.
THEORIES OF SOURCES OF RIGHTS

4. Historical Theory

Human rights are not created by the State, but are the products of
historical evolution.
They existed gradually, spontaneous and evolutionary without any
arbitrary will of any authority.
“Those rights which people think they ought to have are just those
rights which they have been accustomed to have, or which they have
a tradition of having once possessed” - Ritchie
THEORIES OF SOURCES OF RIGHTS

5. Theory of Marxism

Individual freedom can only be recognized after the interest of society

is served. It is concerned with economic and social rights over civil or
political rights of community.
THEORIES OF SOURCES OF RIGHTS

6. Functional/Sociological Approach

Human rights existed as a means of social control.

It exists to serve the social interest of the society.
Focuses on rights in terms of people’s wants and concern.
THEORIES OF SOURCES OF RIGHTS

7. Utilitarian Theory

Based on the notion of rights in terms of tendencies to promote

specified ends such as common good.
The principle of greatest happiness of the greatest number
Everyone is counted equally but not treated equally.
“We have rights so that we may contribute to the common good. My rights
are, accordingly, built upon my contribution to the well-being of society” -
Harold Laski
THEORIES OF SOURCES OF RIGHTS

8. Theory based on the Dignity of Man

Based on the premise that human rights means sharing values of

all identified policies upon which human rights depend on.
The ultimate goal is world community where there is democratic
sharing and distribution of values.
Referred to as policy science approach.
THEORIES OF SOURCES OF RIGHTS

9. Theories of Justice

Each person possesses inviolability founded on justice.

The conception is of fairness and social primary goods and wealth
are to be distributed equally.
THEORIES OF SOURCES OF RIGHTS

10. Theory Based on Equality and Respect

Recognition of individual rights in the enjoyment of basic

freedoms (speech, religion, assembly, fair trial and access to
courts).
Origin
of Human Rights in the
Philippines
Origin of Human Rights in the Philippines

Timeline of the Origin of Human Rights in the PH

● 1896 - educated Filipinos were already aware of the basic constitutional
guarantees mentioned in the American and English Bill of Rights
● June 20, 1899 - Malolos Constitution was adopted - established a Republican
Government which contained several provisions of Civil and Political rights
● 1901- upon assumption of US Sovereignty over the PH, President McKinley
directed application of the American Bill of Rights through his Instruction to
the PH Commision
● 1935- First Philippine Constitution was adopted
● 1937- Philippine Constitution was reiterated and the Bill of Righs are now
known as Civil and Political Rights
● 1945- after the Japanese Military rule, civil and political rights of Filipinos
were restored
● 1970’s - Filipinos were again subjected to violation of Human Rights
● 1986 - EDSA Revolution--- gave birth to the 1987 Constitution
Origin of Human Rights in the Philippines

Cariño v. Commission on Human Rights 204 SCRA 483

FACTS:
Some 800 public school teachers undertook “mass concerted actions” to protest the
alleged failure of public authorities to act upon their grievances.

The “mass actions” consisted in staying away from their classes, converging at the
Liwasang Bonifacio, gathering in assemblies, etc.

The Secretary of Education served them with an order to return to work within 24
hours or face dismissal.

For failure to heed the return-to-work order, eight teachers at the Ramon
Magsaysay High School were administratively charged, preventively suspended for
90 days pursuant to sec. 41, P.D. 807 and temporarily replaced.
Origin of Human Rights in the Philippines

Cariño v. Commission on Human Rights 204 SCRA 483

FACTS:
An investigation committee was consequently formed to hear the charges.

When their motion for suspension was denied by the Investigating Committee, said
teachers staged a walkout signifying their intent to boycott the entire proceedings.
Eventually, Secretary Carino decreed dismissal from service of Esber and the suspension
for 9 months of Babaran, Budoy and del Castillo.

In the meantime, a case was filed with RTC, raising the issue of violation of the right of
the striking teachers’ to due process of law. The case was eventually elevated to SC.
Also in the meantime, the respondent teachers submitted sworn statements to
Commission on Human Rights to complain that while they were participating in peaceful
mass actions, they suddenly learned of their replacement as teachers, allegedly without
notice and consequently for reasons completely unknown to them.

While the case was pending with CHR, SC promulgated its resolution over the cases
Origin of Human Rights in the Philippines

Cariño v. Commission on Human Rights 204 SCRA 483

FACTS:
While the case was pending with CHR, SC promulgated its resolution over the cases
filed with it earlier, upholding the Sec. Carino’s act of issuing the return-to-work
orders.

Despite this, CHR continued hearing its case and held that the “striking teachers”
were denied due process of law; they should not have been replaced without a
chance to reply to the administrative charges; there had been violation of their
civil and political rights which the Commission is empowered to investigate.
Origin of Human Rights in the Philippines

Cariño v. Commission on Human Rights 204 SCRA 483

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Commission on Human Rights has jurisdiction or adjudicatory

powers over, or the power to try and decide, or hear and determine, certain specific
type of cases, like alleged human rights violations involving civil or political rights.

RULING: No. The Court declares the Commission on Human Rights to have no such
power; and that it was not meant by the fundamental law to be another court or
quasi-judicial agency in this country, or duplicate much less take over the functions
of the latter for These are matters within the original jurisdiction of the Sec. of
Education, being within the scope of the disciplinary powers granted to him under
the Civil Service Law, and also, within the appellate jurisdiction of the CSC.
Origin of Human Rights in the Philippines

Brigido Simon, Jr vs CHR 229 SCRA 117

FACTS:

A demolition notice, signed by one of the Petitioners, Carlos Quimpo, in his capacity
as Executive officer of QC Intergrated Hawkers Management Council under the
office of the City Mayor was sent to private respondents (Respondents here are
officers of the North EDSA Vendors Association, Incorporated)

Respondents were given a grace period of 3 days (up to July 12, 1990) to vacate the
premises of North EDSA to give way to the People’s Park.

Respondents filled a letter-complaint with the CHR Chairman Bautista to stop the
demolition of the private respondents’ stalls, sari-sari stores and carinderia along
North Edsa
Origin of Human Rights in the Philippines

Brigido Simon, Jr vs CHR 229 SCRA 117

FACTS:

The CHR, in a resolution, ordered the disbursement of financial assistance of not

more than 200,000 in favor of the private respondents to purchase light housing
materials and food under the Commission's supervision and again directed the
petitioners to desist from further demolition, with the warning that the violation of
said order would lead to a citation of contempt and arrest.

A motion to dismiss, questioned the CHR’s jurisdiction.

ISSUE: Whether or not the commissioner has jurisdiction to investigate the

violations of the business rights of the respondents, to impose a find, and to
provide financial aid?
Origin of Human Rights in the Philippines

Brigido Simon, Jr vs CHR 229 SCRA 117

RULING:

What is the extend of the CHR’s investigative power? (Section 18, Article XIII of the
1987 Constitution) - empowered the CHR to “investigate, on its own or on complaint
by any party, all forms of human rights violations involving civil and political rights.”

Civil Rights - are those that belong to every citizen of the state of the country

Political Rights - right to participate, directly or indirectly, in the establishment or

administration of government. The right to suffrage, the right to hold public office,
the right to petition and, in general the rights appurtenant to citizenship vis-a-vis
the management of the Government
Origin of Human Rights in the Philippines

Brigido Simon, Jr vs CHR 229 SCRA 117

In this case at hand, there is no cavil that what are sought to be demolished are the
stalls, sari-sari stores and carinderia.

The location where these stalls are is the land that adjoins North Edsa of QA, which
is a busy National Highway. The consequent danger of life and limb is not thus to
be likewise simply ignored.

The order of the demolition of the stalls etc., of the private respondents does not
fall within the compartment of Human Rights violation involving civil and political
rights as intended by the Constitution.
BASIC SOURCE OF
Human Rights
LAW
BASIC SOURCE OF HR LAW

1987 CONSTITUTION

● 1st Generation of Rights

○ Aricle III Bill of Rights

● 2nd Generation of Rights

○ Aricle XII National Economy and Patrimony
○ Aricle XIII Social Justice and Human Rights
○ Article XIV Education, Science and Technology, Arts, Culture and Sports

● 3rd Generation of Rights

○ Aricle II Declaration of Principles and State Policies
○ Article XV The Family
THEORIES OF SOURCES OF RIGHTS

1ST GENERATION OF RIGHTS

Article III of the Philippine Constitution

(Bill of Rights)
It established the relationship of the individual to the
state and defines the rights of the individual by limiting the
lawful powers of the state.
THEORIES OF SOURCES OF RIGHTS

2ND GENERATION OF RIGHTS

Article XII of the Philippine Constitution (National Economy and Patrimony)
A more equitable distribution of opportunities, income and wealth, a
sustained increase in the amount of goods and service produce by the nation for
the benefit of the people.
Article XIII of the Philippine Constitution (Social Justice and Human Rights)
The Congress shall give highest priority to the enactment of measures that
protect and enhance the right of all people to human dignity, reduce social,
economic, and political inequalities and remove cultural inequities by equitably
diffusing wealth and political power for the common good.
THEORIES OF SOURCES OF RIGHTS

2ND GENERATION OF RIGHTS

Article XIV of the Philippine Constitution
(Education Science and Technology, Arts, Culture and Sports)

The State shall protect and promote the rights of all citizens to quality education at
all levels and shall take appropriate steps to make such education to all.
THEORIES OF SOURCES OF RIGHTS

3RD GENERATION OF RIGHTS

Article II of the Philippine Constitution (Declaration of Principles and
State Policies)
To shed light on the meaning of the other provisions of the
constitution. To guide all departments in the implementation of the
Constitution directed to lay down the primary rules characterizing our
government system.
THEORIES OF SOURCES OF RIGHTS

3RD GENERATION OF RIGHTS

Article XV of the Philippine Constitution (The Family)

The State recognizes the Filipino Family as the foundation of

the nation. Accordingly, it shall strengthen its solidarity and
actively promote its total development.
SOURCES OF
INTERNATIONAL HUMAN
RIGHTS LAW
SOURCES OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW

International Agreements

More commonly known as treaties. Usually called conventions or covenants.

Treaty - legally binding written agreement concluded between States

The core international Human Treaties are:

SOURCES OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW

International Customary Law: Elements

To be considered international customary law there must be:

● The objective element of acts amounting to settled practice of States
● The subjective element consisting of a belief that this practice is
rendered obligatory by the existence of a rule of law requiring it.
SOURCES OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW

International Customary Law: Jus Cogens

Jus cogens
'compelling law'. It is absolute in nature which means that there can be
no defense for the commission of any act that is prohibited by jus
cogens
This group of fundamental norms is superior to other sources of
international law and need not be agreed upon by States in a treaty in
order to form part of their jurisprudence. They are deemed to be
inderogable as well.
SOURCES OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW

International Customary Law: Jus Cogens

Elements of jus cogens:

● It is a peremptory norm of general international law
● It is accepted and recognized by the international community
● There can be no derogation therefrom;
● It can be modified only by a subsequent norm of general international
law having the same character
SOURCES OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW

International Customary Law: Jus Cogens

Universally-accepted norms:
● Rights against slavery
● Genocide
● Acts of Aggression
● Racial Discrimination
SOURCES OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW

International Customary Law: Obligatio erga omnes

These are obligations that are owed by States to ALL, regardless of the
presence or absence of their assent to be bound thereby.
Where human rights laws which are of paramount importance for the
international community are violated, all states have a legal interest in
their protection, for they are obligations owed by the States to the
community of the States.
They are obligations erga omnes
SOURCES OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW

International Customary Law: Universal Jurisdiction

When discussing jus cogens and erga omnes obligations, reference is

usually made to the concept of Universal Jurisdiction.
Under the principle of Universal Jurisdiction, a State may prosecute a
crime committed elsewhere if such a crime is a jus cogens crime.
This concept has met a lot of criticism due to the possible intervention of
a State’s sovereignty over its citizens.
Now that we have the International Criminal Court (ICC) and other
international criminal tribunals, the need for the exercise or individual
States of Universal Jurisdiction has been reduced
SOURCES OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW

International Customary Law: Actio Popularis

Prosecution of jus cogens crimes may be initiated by another person or

group of persons for the benefit of another through a complaint actio
popularis
Actio Popularis is a rule of procedure in bringing a suit on another’s
behalf -- example: NGOs of good standing in the international community
may be allowed to sue for and on behalf of victims who do not have the
means to do so.
SOURCES OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW

Incorporation Clause

The Philippine Constitution adopts the generally accepted Principles of

International Law as part of the law of the land.
Example:
Kuroda vs Jalandoni - the SC ruled that the Military Commission created
by the President of the Philippines which tried Gen Shigenori Kuroda of the
Japanese Imperial Army for the war crimes committed in the PH Territory
was considered valid and constitutional by virtue of the incorporation
clause (despite the fact that the PH was not yet a signatory to the Hague
and Geneva convention)
SOURCES OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW

Judicial Decisions and Teaching

International Case Law is recognized in Article 38 of the Vienna

Convention on the Law on Treaties as a subsidiary means for the
determination of rules of law.
These may consist of judgements of international tribunals, the regional
courts and even domestic courts although international tribunals rarely
look to decisions of domestic courts in ruling an international dispute.
The teachings of the most highly qualified publicist may also be consulted
in ruling an international dispute.
SOURCES OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW

Judicial Decisions and Teaching

International Regional Tribunals:

● International Court of Justice (ICJ)
● International Criminal Court (ICC)
● Ad hoc criminal tribunals
● Regional Courts