EASTERN SAMAR STATE UNIVERSITY

College of Criminal Justice System

BS CRIMINOLOGY
CLJ 211 – Human Rights Education

SWOT Analysis in 1987 Constitution

of The Republic of the Philippines

Submitted by:
ESTROBO, GIL KAIZER KENNETH C
BS CRIMINOLOGY 2-A

Submitted to:

ALMER E. BALISE, RCRIM., CSP, MSCJ(c)

Lecturer
SUMMARY:
In her first act as president, Aquino undid several of the Marcos-era laws that had oppressed the
populace for so long. She unilaterally declared the establishment of a temporary constitution in
March. The President was granted a large deal of power and authority by this constitution, but
Aquino pledged to only use it to establish democracy again under a new one. A 48-member
Constitutional Commission was tasked with writing the new constitution in 133 days, and on
February 2, 1987, the public approved it in a vote. In addition to incorporating Roman, Spanish, and
Anglo law, it was primarily modeled after the US Constitution, which had a significant effect on the
1935 Constitution.

Three distinct and independent parts of government—the Executive, the Legislature, which has two
houses, and the Judiciary—are each given a certain amount of authority under the 1987
Constitution, which created a representative democracy. The Commission on Audit, the Commission
on Civil Service, and the Commission on Elections were three more independent constitutional
bodies. A comprehensive Bill of Rights, which protected fundamental civil and political rights and
stipulated free, fair, and regular elections, was incorporated into the Constitution. Many Filipinos
emerging from twenty years of political repression and persecution saw this Constitution as perfect
in contrast to the shoddy instrument that had provided Marcos with a legal fiction to hide behind.
Following the murder of opposition leader Benigno Aquino Jr. upon his return from exile in 1983,
Marcos was compelled by popular indignation to call "snap" elections one year ahead of schedule.

Even though Marcos and his allies rigged the election, he nonetheless declared himself the winner in
accordance with the constitution, sparking demonstrations across the country and foreign censure.
A small group of military rebels attempted to stage a coup, but their attempt was discovered, leading
to the international celebration of the "People Power" revolution as large crowds of people,
eventually numbering in the millions, poured into the streets to defend the rebels. Marcos and his
family, facing pressure from the US, escaped into exile. On February 25, 1986, Corazon, the widow of
Benigno Aquino Jr., his opponent in the election, was sworn in as president.

INTRODUCTION:
The Philippines were colonized by the Spanish and then by the Americans because they were long
utilized as a commercial port in Asia. Catholicism is still the most popular religion in the nation,
having been adopted by the majority of the populace by the Spanish. As the more than 300 years of
Spanish rule came to an end, nationalist sentiment started to spread among groups of Indios, or the
Filipino people as the Spanish called them. This sentiment was largely stoked by the writings of
national hero Jose Rizal, who was later put to death by the Spanish, and other ilustrados, or the
Filipino intelligence. On June 12, 1898, a revolt against Spanish rule was started at Kawit, Cavite, and
the insurgents proclaimed Philippine independence. The first Philippine constitution, also known as
the Malolos Constitution, was approved on January 20, 1899, ushering in the First Philippine
Republic. The Malolos Congress was called to order on September 15, 1898. The revolutionaries
supported the Americans in the 1898 Spanish-American War, believing that if Spain was defeated,
the US would grant the Philippines independence. But this was not the case. Following Spain's sale of
the islands to the US in the Treaty of Paris, the US launched an aggressive campaign to put an end to
the Philippine independence movement.
The Jones Act, passed by the US in 1916, stated that independence would only be awarded upon the
establishment of a stable democratic government modeled after the US, not the French model as had
been the case under the previous constitution. In 1934, the US approved a ten-year plan for transition,
and in 1935, it drafted a new constitution. But that plan was derailed by the Second World War and the
Japanese invasion on December 8, 1941. After heroic Filipino resistance against overwhelming odds
finally ended with the fall of Bataan and Corregidor in 1942, a Japanese “republic” was established, in
reality, a period of military rule by the Japanese Imperial Army.

The Kapisanan sa Paglilingkod ng Bagong Pilipinas (Kalibapi), a group of Filipino collaborators, ratified
a new constitution in 1943. The Japanese occupation was resisted by a guerilla movement that
remained active. This sad chapter ended in 1944 when the Allies ultimately defeated the Japanese
forces. On July 4, 1946, Philippine independence was finally attained. The 1935 Constitution went
into effect, establishing a political structure that was almost exact to the American one. A bicameral
Congress, an independent judiciary, and a President elected at large to a four-year term (subject to
one reelection) were the components of the system.
From the moment of independence, Filipino politics have been plagued by the twin demons of
corruption and scandal. Notwithstanding, Presidents Ramon Magsaysay (1953-57), Carlos Garcia
(1957-61), and Diosdado Macapagal (1961-65) managed to stabilize the country, implement
domestic reforms, diversify the economy, and build Philippine ties not only to the United States, but
also to its Asian neighbours.

Ferdinand Marcos was elected president in 1965 and was re-elected in 1969, the first president to
be so re-elected. Desirous of remaining in power beyond his legal tenure, he declared martial law in
1972, just before the end of his second and last term, citing a growing communist insurgency as its
justification. He then manipulated an ongoing Constitutional Convention and caused the drafting of a
new constitution – the 1973 Constitution – which allowed him to rule by decree until 1978 when the
presidential system of the 1935 Constitution was replaced with a parliamentary one. Under this new
system, Marcos held on to power and continued to govern by decree, suppressing democratic
institutions and restricting civil freedoms. In 1981, martial law was officially lifted, but Marcos
continued to rule by the expedient of being “re-elected” in a farce of an election to a new 6-year
term. He continued to suppress dissent and thousands of vocal objectors to his rule either
mysteriously disappeared or were incarcerated. Despite economic decline, corruption allowed
Marcos and his wife Imelda to live extravagantly, causing resentment domestically and criticism
internationally.

The Constitution also establishes three independent Constitutional Commissions. The Civil Service
Commission acts as a central agency in charge of government personnel. The Commission on
Elections enforces and administers all election laws and regulations to ensure that they are free and
fair for all involved. Finally, the Commission on Audit examines all funds, transactions, and property
accounts of the government and its agencies. Each of these Commissions is given governing and
financial autonomy from the other branches of government to ensure unbiased decision-making. All
decisions made by these Commissions are reviewable by the Supreme Court. To further ensure the
ethical and lawful functioning of the government, the Constitution also creates an Office of the
Ombudsman to investigate complaints regarding public corruption, unlawful behaviour of public
officials, and other public misconduct. The Ombudsman can then charge such misbehaving public
officials before a special court called the Sandiganbayan. The Ombudsman is also independent
administratively and financially from the other branches of government, although the President is
vested with the power to appoint the Ombudsman and his Deputies (from a list also prepared by the
Judicial and Bar Council) for single 7-year terms. Only the House has the power to initiate
impeachment of the President, the members of the Supreme Court, and a few other constitutionally
protected public officials like the Ombudsman. The Senate is then supposed to try the impeachment
case. Each of these aforementioned independent agencies was created for the purpose of promoting
moral and ethical conduct in government

Executive Branch
The Executive branch is headed by the President and his appointed Cabinet. The President is the
head of the state and the chief executive, but he is subject to significant checks from the other
branches, especially in times of emergency, which, given the history of the country, was obviously
intended to be a safeguard against a repeat of Marcos’ martial law despotism. For example, in cases
of national emergency, the President can still declare martial law, but not for a period longer than 60
days. Congress can revoke this decision by a majority vote, or it can also extend it for a period to be
determined by the Congress. Additionally, the Supreme Court can review the declaration to decide if
there were sufficient facts to justify martial law. The President can grant pardons and amnesty. He is
also empowered to make or accept foreign loans. He cannot, however, enter into treaties without
the consent of the Senate. The President and Vice-President are elected at large by a direct vote, but
the President may only serve one 6-year term. The Cabinet, consisting of the President’s advisers
and heads of departments, is appointed by the President and it assists him in his governance
functions.

Legislative Branch
The legislative power is vested in a Congress which is divided into two Houses, the Senate and the
House of Representatives. The 24 members of the Senate are elected at large by a popular vote and
can serve no more than two consecutive 6-year terms. The House is composed of 250 elected
members. Most of these Representatives are elected by district for 3-year terms, but 20% of the
total membership is chosen in proportion to party representation. Besides the exclusive power to
legislate, one of the most important powers of Congress is the ability to declare war, which it can
through a two-thirds vote in both houses. Even the power to legislate, however, is subject to an
executive check. The President retains the power to veto a bill passed by both houses, and Congress
may override this veto only with a two-thirds vote in both houses.

Judicial Branch
The Court system in the Philippines exercises the judicial power of government and it is made up of a
Supreme Court and lower courts created by law. The Supreme Court is a 15-member court
appointed by the President without need for confirmation by Congress. Appointment, however, is
limited to a list of nominees presented to the President by a constitutionally-specified Judicial and
Bar Council. This Council consists of 7 members: the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the
Secretary of Justice, a representative from Congress, a representative of the Integrated Bar, a
professor of law, a retired member of the Supreme Court, and a representative of the private sector.
The first four serve for four years, the law professor for three, the retired Justice for two, and the
private sector representative for one year. The Supreme Court Justices may hear, on appeal, any
cases dealing with the constitutionality of any law, treaty, or decree of the government, cases where
questions of jurisdiction or judicial error are concerned, or cases where the penalty is sufficiently
grave. It may also exercise original jurisdiction over cases involving government or international
officials. The Supreme Court also is charged with overseeing the functioning and administration of
the lower courts and their personnel.
STRENGTHS:
ARTICLE VII Executive Department
 Separation of powers: Article 7 clearly separates the powers of the executive branch from
the legislative and judicial branches. This ensures a system of checks and balances,
preventing the concentration of power in one branch and promoting equal distribution of
authority.

 Powers and duties of the President: Article 7 outlines the powers and duties of the
President, providing a clear framework for the executive branch's role in governance. From
appointing officials to ensuring the enforcement of laws, these provisions enable effective
administration and decision-making.

 Term limits: Article 7 sets a limit on the President's term in office. The constitution currently
allows for a single term of six years with no re-election. This provision helps prevent the
potential abuse of power and promotes democratic transition through regular elections.

 Accountability mechanisms: Article 7 includes provisions for the President's accountability,

such as the requirement to deliver an annual State of the Nation Address (SONA) and the
possibility of impeachment for certain offenses. These mechanisms ensure that the
President remains answerable to the people and the legislature.

 Command function: Article 7 grants the President the authority as Commander-in-Chief of

the Armed Forces of the Philippines. This provision provides a clear line of authority during
times of crisis or when military decisions need to be made, ensuring the efficient and
effective exercise of leadership in national security matters.

ARTICLE III Bill Of Rights

 Comprehensive protection: Article 3 provides a comprehensive list of rights that are
essential for the well-being and dignity of individuals. These include the right to life, liberty,
and property; freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition; right to due
process of law; right against unreasonable searches and seizures; and many others. Such
comprehensive protection ensures that basic human rights are recognized and safeguarded.

 Equal protection: Article 3 explicitly mandates equal protection under the law. It prohibits
discrimination on the basis of race, religion, ethnicity, gender, or social status. This provision
promotes equality and fairness, ensuring that every individual is entitled to the same rights
and opportunities, regardless of their background.

 Judicial review: Article 3 empowers the judiciary to review and declare any law, order, or
regulation that violates the rights and liberties protected in the Bill of Rights as
unconstitutional. This provision allows the courts to serve as a safeguard, protecting
individuals from any abusive exercise of power by the government.
  Prohibition of torture and cruel punishment: Article 3 explicitly prohibits torture, cruel,
inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. This provision reinforces the commitment
to respect and protect the dignity and physical integrity of individuals, even in situations
where there may be a perceived threat to national security or public interest.

 Freedom of expression: Article 3 guarantees freedom of speech, press, and expression. This
provision enables citizens to freely voice their opinions, participate in public discourse, and
hold the government accountable for its actions. It is vital for a functioning democracy,
promoting transparency and open dialogue.

WEAKNESSES:
ARTICLE VIII Judicial Department
 Judicial backlog and delays: One major weakness of the Judicial Department is the significant
backlog of cases and delays in the resolution of disputes. This can be attributed to various
factors, such as limited resources, complex legal processes, and a high volume of cases.
Lengthy delays in the judicial system can undermine the timely administration of justice and
erode public trust in the judiciary.

Corruption and unethical practices: Like any institution, the Judiciary is not immune to
corruption and unethical practices. Instances of bribery, influence-peddling, and other forms
of misconduct within the judicial system have been reported. Such actions weaken the
integrity and credibility of the judiciary, impairing its ability to provide fair and impartial
decisions.

Lack of transparency and accountability: Another weakness is the perceived lack of

transparency and accountability within the Judicial Department. There is limited public
access to the internal processes, decision-making procedures, and disciplinary actions taken
against judges and court personnel. This lack of transparency can create a perception of
favoritism or uneven application of the law, undermining public confidence in the judiciary.

Insufficient resources: The Judicial Department often faces issues related to insufficient
resources, including budget constraints, inadequate court facilities, and a shortage of
qualified personnel. This can result in a strain on the efficiency and effectiveness of the
judicial system, further contributing to case backlogs and delays.

Limited diversity and representation: The Judicial Department also faces challenges related
to limited diversity and representation among the judges. The lack of diverse perspectives
can potentially affect the interpretation and application of laws, particularly in cases
involving marginalized groups. A more diverse judiciary can contribute to a more inclusive
and equitable justice system.
 Case decongestion. The failure to invest sufficient resources in the justice sector has grave
consequences, particularly on poor and vulnerable citizens. The judiciary has been
continuously saddled with courts being congested with cases. While the courts' output has
been improving partly through the various initiatives introduced, the high disposition rates
 coupled with low clearance rates point to prior years' accumulated cases. On average, the
annual caseload of lower courts from 2004 to 2009 was approximately 700,000 cases. An
analysis of available data shows that, given the enormity of the problem and with the
current reform measures being implemented, it might take more than 20 years before the
courts can be cleared of the pending cases. Furthermore as pointed out in various studies,
the problem of case decongestion stems from different factors not solely attributable to the
judiciary. To unburden the courts of the accumulated cases, the justice sector agencies will
have to find ways to drastically reduce the number of pending cases at any given time, and
to improve court processes. Fundamental in addressing this problem is the commitment and
coordinated effort of justice sector agencies.
 Jail decongestion. The long wait before cases can be heard is a prime contributor to the
problem of jail congestion. The average length of time spent in jail by a detained accused of
a simple crime before a court disposes his case is 5 years. Currently, 95% of local jail
populations have not yet been proven guilty by a court. Many factors contribute to the
injustice caused by the delays in the trial of the detained accused: the problem brought
about by manual inmate record systems; absence of prosecutors and public defenders
during court hearings; delays by law enforcement officers in turning over evidence to courts;
nonappearance of witnesses; and inadequate capital resources required to improve
facilities, sustain day-to-day operations, and hire, train, and retain competent personnel.
 Interagency coordination. Many of the fundamental issues facing the justice sector agencies
are actually sector-wide issues, resolution of which will require close coordination with other
agencies. Building a criminal justice information database, for example, does not depend
solely on the efforts of the justice department but will necessarily need inputs from the
courts and law enforcement agencies. Coordination among different agencies has not
materialized in part because of their different mandates reinforced by a constitutional divide
between the judicial and executive branches of Government. Until of late, no coordinated
mechanism has been put in place to deal with common concerns among the agencies. The
ongoing dialogue under the GJSRP has provided a venue to strengthen the recognition of the
agencies of the interdependence of their functions and of their mutual interests. This has led
to the establishment of the Justice Sector Coordination Council, where issues of common
concern and requiring collaboration are identified and discussed at justice sector-wide
dialogues. With leadership from the Supreme Court, Department of Justice (DOJ), and
Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG), the council, through its regular
monthly meetings of the working groups, and with the heads of agencies forming the council
meeting twice a year, is expected to provide a mechanism for continuous dialogue on issues
of common interest from the perspective of both the policy-makers and the officials who are
responsible for implementation of the initiatives.

B. Government’s Sector Strategy

 Philippine Development Plan (PDP), 2011–2016. The PDP includes extensive discussions on
the rule of law and the needed governance reforms in justice sector institutions. It envisions
a justice system that is efficient and fair, accessible and transparent, and independent and
autonomous — expected to restore public trust and confidence in the Government system.
The resulting trust and confidence will in turn lead to a socioeconomic environment that is
stable and predictable, resulting in possible increases in investments and stronger investor
confidence. The PDP envisions the following reforms: (i) strengthen the oversight bodies; (ii)
foster effective and speedy resolution of cases in courts and quasi-judicial bodies; (iii) reduce
 the cost of litigation; (iv) avoid law suits involving Government contracts; (v) enhance the
integrity and competence of justices, judges, court personnel, and all other officers of the
judiciary and quasi-judicial bodies; (vi) increase resources for justice sector agencies and
quasi-judicial bodies; (vii) improve access to justice of all sectors of society, particularly
vulnerable groups; (viii) promote the use of alternative dispute resolution; and (ix)
institutionalize existing justice sector coordination mechanisms.

C. ADB Sector Experience and Assistance Program

 Past ADB engagement. ADB was engaged in the Philippine justice sector reform as far back
as 2003, starting with a technical assistance (TA) that provided support in detailing a range
of administrative reform actions that had broadly been scoped in the APJR.6 One of the
recommendations of the TA was strengthening judicial independence by improving the
judiciary's budget and further reducing executive control over the exaction of budget. ADB
also provided a TA to the judiciary for the establishment of a pilot decentralized RCAO.7 The
TA also covered the development of a long-term justice sector development strategy that is
consistent with the PDP which acknowledges that reforms have remained largely disjointed
and sometimes redundant or overlapping.8 Taking off from this recommendation, ADB
supported, through a program loan, judicial fiscal autonomy and justice sector
accountability, integrity of justice sector personnel, governance and efficiency of justice
sector agencies, access to justice, and alternative dispute resolution.
 ADB's strategic vision for the justice sector. Governance and judiciary reforms have been
identified as critical constraints to inclusive growth in the Philippines. Improving the rule of
law and corruption indicators would bring significant economic benefits to the country and
would in particular impact on private sector development. The Special Evaluation Study on
ADB's Support to Legal and Justice Sector Reform in Developing Member Countries (2009)
concluded from ADB's justice sector work in the Philippines and elsewhere that law and
justice reform assistance to developing member countries is complicated and should be
viewed as a long-term and intensive engagement based on sector assessments and
updates.10 Moreover, strong country ownership is necessary for justice sector programs to
work. These factors were present in the case of ADB's engagement with the Philippine
justice sector, which is anchored on key outcomes and outputs of the Government's national
priorities.11 The reform appears to be fairly advanced as a result of long-term advisory TA,
which has deepened policy dialogue with stakeholders. The fundamental change required in
a complex environment such as the justice sector will take time before results may be
appreciated. Given the web-like relationships among justice sector institutions, it is
important to focus on key areas and build sufficient capacity and consensus necessary for
undertaking the reform measures.
 Possible areas for intervention by ADB. ADB's long-standing engagement with Philippine
justice sector agencies has provided the opportunity to deepen policy dialogue and leverage
the expertise gained by ADB from such dialogue.12 Given that reforms in the justice sector
will occur over a long term, ADB will continue its intervention by focusing on increasing
resources of the agencies, improving their financial management to make better use of
available resources, strengthening integrity, and improving the efficiency of the whole
justice sector. The relationship ADB has with the Department of Finance and the
Department of Budget and Management as a result of assistance through the Development
Policy Support Program,13 will be useful in turning ADB into an honest broker with regard to
discussions with both agencies, and the justice sector agencies, regarding the necessary
 initiatives in justice sector to increase the resources and financial management capacities of
the agencies. An equally important area that ADB should prioritize is to help address the
twin problems of case delay and congestion. The delay in the resolution of cases and court
congestion, which necessarily relates to the challenge to effectively and efficiently
administer justice, has put a dent in public confidence in the justice system.
 Addressing these twin problems will require various levels of intervention not just in the
judiciary, but in other justice sector agencies as well.

ARTICLE XI Accountability Of Public Officers

 Weak implementation and enforcement: One weakness of Article 11 is the lack of consistent
and effective implementation and enforcement. Despite the existence of provisions that
hold public officers accountable for their actions, there are instances where accountability
measures are not properly enforced, leading to a culture of impunity and corruption.

 Lengthy legal processes: The legal processes involved in holding public officers accountable
can be lengthy and complex, often resulting in delayed justice. This can discourage
whistleblowers and impede the timely resolution of cases, allowing public officers to escape
accountability.

 Insufficient resources and capacity: The institutions responsible for ensuring accountability,
such as the Ombudsman and the Commission on Audit, may struggle with limited resources
 and capacity. This can hinder their ability to effectively investigate cases, gather evidence,
and hold public officers accountable for their actions.

 Politicization and selective enforcement: There is a risk of politicization and selective

enforcement when it comes to holding public officers accountable. Political affiliations and
power dynamics can influence the decision-making process, potentially leading to bias in the
investigation and prosecution of cases.

 Lack of transparency and public participation: While Article 11 emphasizes accountability,

there can be a lack of transparency and public participation in the accountability processes.
Limited access to information and citizen engagement can undermine the effectiveness and
legitimacy of accountability mechanisms.

 Inadequate protection for whistleblowers: Whistleblowers play a crucial role in exposing

corrupt practices and holding public officers accountable. However, there are concerns
about the inadequate protection provided to whistleblowers, leaving them vulnerable to
retaliation and discouraging others from coming forward.

OPPORTUNITIES: ARTICLE XII National Economy and Patrimony

 Protection of Filipino-owned businesses: Article 12 promotes the protection and
advancement of Filipino-owned businesses. This provides opportunities for local
entrepreneurs and investors to thrive in various sectors of the economy, contributing to
economic growth, job creation, and sustainable development.

 Promotion of agriculture and rural development: The Constitution emphasizes the

promotion of agricultural productivity, agrarian reform, and rural development. These
provisions provide opportunities to develop and enhance the agriculture sector, address
rural poverty, and foster sustainable farming practices.

 Conservation and sustainable use of natural resources: Article 12 recognizes the need to
protect and preserve the country's natural resources. It provides opportunities for the
development of policies and practices that promote sustainable resource management,
including responsible mining, eco-tourism, and renewable energy sources.

 Encouraging foreign investments: While Article 12 gives priority to Filipino citizens in the
ownership of land, natural resources, and public utilities, it also allows for the entry of
foreign investments. This provision offers opportunities for foreign companies to invest in
the Philippines, bringing in capital, technology, and expertise that can contribute to
economic growth and job creation.

 Development of micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs): Article 12 recognizes the
importance of MSMEs in creating jobs, promoting entrepreneurship, and fostering economic
 inclusivity. This provides opportunities for the government to create supportive policies,
financial assistance programs, and capacity-building initiatives to help MSMEs flourish.

 Protection of consumers: The Constitution also ensures the protection of consumer rights
and the promotion of fair trade practices. This presents opportunities for the government to
enforce consumer protection laws, formulate policies to ensure fair markets, and enhance
consumer education and awareness.

THREATS: ARTICLE XIII Social Justice and Human Rights

 Poverty and Inequality: Despite the constitutional provisions for social justice, poverty and
inequality persist in the Philippines. Income disparities, lack of access to quality education,
healthcare, housing, and basic services pose a significant threat to achieving social justice
and human rights.

 Limited Access to Justice: Many individuals, especially marginalized groups, face barriers in
accessing justice. Limited legal representation, high costs, and slow judicial processes can
hinder people from defending their rights, particularly in cases of labor exploitation,
discrimination, or land disputes.

 Violations of Workers' Rights: There are instances where workers' rights, such as fair wages,
safe working conditions, and the right to organize and collectively bargain, may not be fully
protected. Some employers may exploit gaps in enforcement or engage in unfair labor
practices, compromising workers' well-being and violating their rights.

 Discrimination and Marginalization: Discrimination based on gender, religion, ethnicity, and

other factors remains a challenge in society. This discriminative behavior may undermine
the principles of social justice and human rights, depriving certain groups of equal
opportunities and access to resources.

 Weak Implementation and Enforcement: One of the threats to achieving social justice and
human rights is the weak implementation and enforcement of laws and policies. Inadequate
resources, corruption, and ineffective monitoring mechanisms can impede the proper
implementation of measures designed to safeguard these rights.

 Emerging Challenges: New challenges may arise with the rapid advancement of technology,
such as privacy concerns, digital rights violations, and the potential for cyber exploitation.
These issues can pose threats to individuals' rights to privacy, freedom of expression, and
access to information.

The changing economic and political landscape towards the end of the 20th century has posed new
threats and challenges to the human rights of the Filipino people. Globalization and the war against
terror have created conditions and provided justifications for governments worldwide to adapt
national policies and programs resulting to their non-compliance to and abandonment of their
human rights obligations. In the name of global competitiveness, states have pursued the
liberalization of agricultural products, privatization of public utilities and social services like water,
transportation and health, freezing of workers’ wages, reduction of national allocation for basic
social services like health, education, housing, and the imposition of new taxes. Meanwhile, in the
name of national security and public safety, governments have passed antiterrorism laws, pushed
for the institutionalization of a national identification (ID) system, conducted illegal and arbitrary
arrest, search and seizure activities, and authorized the use of torture on suspected terrorists. All
these state actions have resulted to the curtailment of people’s civil and political rights and
freedoms, and the violations of their economic, social and cultural rights. Like its predecessors, Pres.
Gloria Macapagal Arroyo has not had any clear-cut human rights program from the very start she
assumed power. What is stark clear is the GMA government’s unflagging commitment and its all-out
support to globalization and the US-led war against terror as manifested in its priorities, policies and
pronouncements. Trade liberalization, payment of the country’s huge external debt, privatization of
government owned and controlled corporations and facilities, concessions to the military and the
employment of militarist strategies in the handling of the Moro problem, have dominated the
concerns of the GMA administration. Consequently, human rights violations continue to be
unabated in the Philippines with the members of the Philippine National Police (PNP) and the Armed
Forces of the Philippines (AFP) remaining as the top human rights violators in the country. Human
rights violations cover the whole range of the people’s rights ---- civil, political, economic, social and
cultural rights.

Political and Civil Rights Violations:

A Persistent Reality Political Arrest and Detention The state of civil and political rights under the
GMA administration is reminiscent of the martial law years under former Pres. Ferdinand E. Marcos.
Human rights violations like illegal arrest and detention, extrajudicial executions, disappearances,
excessive use of violence, trumped up or fabricated charges, criminalization of political offenses,
torture and other forms of inhuman treatment and punishment, of suspected criminal elements and
those considered as “enemies of the state”, have never disappeared from the political realm of the
Philippines. According to the Task Force Detainees of the Philippines, as of the December 31, 2004, a
total of 225 political prisoners/detainees continue to languish in 55 detention centers and prisons
throughout the country. In terms of geographical distribution, 96 of the political prisoners/detainees
are in Luzon, 59 are in the Visayas and 70 are in Mindanao. Included in the 225 are
prisoners/detainees belonging to vulnerable sectors like the elderly (7), women (6), children (8), the
sickly (7) and Muslims (49). Majority of the political prisoners has been languishing in jail/prison
under subhuman conditions for more than a decade. Many of them have no prospect of immediate
release despite the ongoing peace negotiations between the Philippine government and the
National Democratic Front & Communist Party of the Philippines.
Death Penalty: A Violation of the Individual’s Right to Life Way back in 1987, the Philippine
government took a historic step in protecting the people’s right to life by abolishing the death
penalty with the ratification of the 1987 Philippine Constitution [Article 3, section 19(1)] and
becoming the first Asian country to do so. However, 7 years after due to the clamor of certain
sections of the population, the death penalty was reimposed on January 1994 by virtue of the
passage of RA 7659 (An Act to Impose the Death Penalty on Certain Heinous Crimes, Amending for
that Purpose the Revised Penal Code as Amended, Other Special Penal Law, and for other Purposes)
by the Philippine Congress. Under RA 7659, 46 crimes considered heinous are eligible for the death
sentence although 25 of these crimes are labeled “mandatory death offenses”, meaning anyone who
is charged and found guilty for any of the 25 crimes will surely be meted out with the death
sentence. Crimes classified under “mandatory death sentence” include qualified robbery, 11 types of
rape, 12 types of crimes related to illegal drugs, and 2 types of kidnapping, and destructive arson. As
of January 5, 2005, 1,081 Filipinos (1,051 males and 30 females) are on death row, and most of them
come from poor families who did not have the resources to get the services of competent lawyers
during their defense, if ever there was one. One of the 30 women on death row is an 83 year old
woman convicted for drug trafficking. At the time of her conviction, the old woman was more 70
years old which means she should not have been sentenced to death but given the next lower
sentence of reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment in accordance with a provision of RA 7659. 5
Meanwhile, as of the end of 2004, the Philippine Action for Youth Offenders reported 21 children
have been meted out the death sentence. Fourteen of them are together with the adult death row
inmates at the state penitentiary for males in Muntinglupa while 6 are imprisoned at Camp
Sampaguita. There is one female minor who is staying at the Correctional Institute for Women. The
presence of the 21 children on death row is clearly a violation of the death penalty law. Rape (44%),
murder (20%) and kidnapping (17%) are the top three crimes for which the death row inmates have
been convicted.
 Profile of Death Row Convicts, Philippines, January 2005

The continued imposition of the death penalty by lethal injection has resulted to a very disturbing
development. Since 2004, six (6) political prisoners have been meted out with a death penalty
sentence, a consequence of the criminalization of political offences which became rampant starting
the Cory Aquino government and persisted up to the present in the treatment of political offenders.
To deny the existence of political prisoners/detainees or individuals arrested and imprisoned
because of their political beliefs and activism, the State through the police and the AFP have been
filing criminal charges like murder, illegal possession of firearms, arson, kidnapping, robbery, etc.
instead of political crimes like rebellion, sedition and insurrection against alleged members and
leaders of the CPP-NPA-NDF, Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) and other rebel groups in the
country. This political maneuver of the State has made political offenders not only vulnerable to
being given the death penalty sentence like what happened to the 6 political prisoners but has also
made it doubly hard for them to be released on bail and defend themselves in court. Although no
death row convict has been executed under the GMA administration, the likelihood that executions
will take place in the near future is high because of the presence of a death penalty law. Besides, the
inability of the present government to withstand political pressure especially if this comes from
highly influential groups in society has been exposed during the last quarter of 2003. To appease the
Filipino-Chinese business community which has been victimized by a series of kidnapping for ransom
activities in 2003, Pres. Arroyo lifted the moratorium on the death penalty and ordered the
resumption of executions particularly of kidnappers on death row. It was difficult for the president to
ignore the clamor of this very 6 powerful economic and political block considering that 2004
presidential election was fast approaching and the support of this sector in Philippine society was
critical in her bid for the presidency in the May 2004 election. The State’s position to maintain the
death penalty in the country’s jurisprudence is unmistakably a violation of the fundamental right to
life of every Filipino citizen. Contrary to claims of the State and supporters of death penalty, the law,
which has primarily affected the impoverished and marginalized sections of the population, has not
been an effective deterrent to crime in society as shown in crime statistics particularly for heinous
crimes like murder, rape and kidnapping. As anti-death penalty advocates in the country argue, the
most effective deterrent to the commission of crimes in any society lies not in the gravity of the
punishment but in the guarantee that offenders or criminals are quickly and properly apprehended,
brought to trial and punished.

Extrajudicial Executions and Disappearances Under the Arroyo government, the Philippines has
started to gain the reputation of being the summary execution capital of the world with the
increasing number of unsolved cases of summary killings in various parts of the country. Three
groups have often been the targets and victims of the series of summary executions in the
Philippines: journalists, small-time criminal elements like petty thieves and cell phone snatchers, and
members of militant organizations and political parties. The attack on the right to information and
freedom of expression has been evident with the series of killings of journalists earning for the
country to be identified by the Paris-based Reporters Sans Frontieres (Reporters without Borders or
RSF) as one of the most dangerous places for journalists to practice their profession. Also, recently,
the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), a New York-based NGO dedicated to the defense of press
freedom worldwide, labeled the Philippines as “the most murderous country for journalists”,
followed by Iraq, Colombia, Bangladesh and Russia. Since 1986 after the overthrow of the Marcos
dictatorship, a total of 66 Filipino journalists in the line of duty were summarily executed. Seventeen
(17) journalists were killed during the Aquino administration, 14 under the Ramos, 5 during the
unfinished term of deposed Pres. Estrada and 30 since the start of Pres. Arroyo’s rule in 2001. In
2004 alone, a total of 13 journalists have been assassinated while 3 have been murdered during the
first quarter of 2005. During the first quarter of 2005, three journalists have already been killed. The
most recent to be included in the long lists of journalist killed in the line of duty is Klein Cantoneros,
a broadcaster of a local radio station DXAA in Dipolog City, Misamis Occidental in Mindanao. Except
for 8 cases which occurred in Metro Manila, the killings of journalists predominantly took place in
the provinces.

Number of Journalists Killed, Philippines, 1986-May 2005

The series of killings of journalists have compelled the Brussels-based International Federation of
Journalists (IFJ) together with the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP) to conduct a
fact-finding mission late last 2004. The IFJ stated that: When such a culture (of violence) is allowed
to flourish at an official level, it is little wonder that aggrieved local strongmen or political figures
turn to hitmen to get even with media. It is important to note that at the time of their death, most of
these journalists have been vigilant in reporting or exposing cases of corruption, abuse of authority,
drug-trafficking, organized crime, smuggling, etc. which oftentimes involved local government
officials, military and police officers. Thus, the basis for the statement made by the IFJ since most of
the journalists murdered seriously endangered the economic and political interests of powerful and
highly influential persons in society with their exposes. What further aggravates the situation is the
persistence of a culture of impunity and the seeming indifference of the government that allows the
murderers to go scot-free. Since 1986, not a single perpetrator of these killings had been
apprehended and convicted for killing a journalist. Besides journalists, members and leaders of
militant groups and political parties have also been the targets of summary executions. For 2004, the
TFDP documented 7 cases of these cases involving 8 victims. Included in the list are two (2) members
of the party list Bayan Muna in Mindoro, namely, Vice-Mayor Atty. Juvy Magsino and Bayan Muna
Coordinator Leima Fortu. On August 24, 2004, Rashid “Jun” Manahan, the Davao coordinator of
Mamamayang Tutol sa Bitay (Citizens Against the Death Penalty)-Movement for Restorative Justice
(MTB-MRJ), a broad network of anti-death penalty advocates, was gunned down in broad daylight at
the Ponce Suites, Davao City. Mr. Manahan together with two human rights defenders and a
member of the European Commission were about to proceed to a human rights forum organized by
Manahan himself on the death penalty and summary executions, when the incident took place. A
gunman without any cover on his face casually approached Rashid and fired 4 shots from a .45
caliber pistol, all hitting the victim’s upper body. Extrajudicial killings or summary executions have
become commonplace in Davao City with street children, youth gang members from urban poor
communities, suspected small-time criminal elements such as petty thieves, cellphone snatchers,
illegal drug peddlers, as the usual 8 victims. In this city alone, more than 320 people suspected of
petty crimes have reportedly been killed since 1998. The Davao City-based NGO Coalition Against
Summary Execution (CASE) was able to compile 247 cases of summary execution in the city from
August 1, 1998 to June 30, 2004.

Number of Victims of Summary Executions, 1998-2004, Davao City

The seeming indifference on the part of local government and police officials on the series of killings
taking place in the city have caused local human rights NGOs to suspect the approval and
involvement of the former in the use of summary executions as an effective method of combating
crime. Up to now, no perpetrator has been apprehended and brought to trial. The families and loved
ones of those killed are still waiting for justice. This includes a mother whose three teenage sons, the
youngest of whom was 14 years of age, were summarily executed. The youngest son, Bobby Alia,
was accused of theft and possession of a knife. Perpetrators of the series of killings have been
attributed to local vigilante groups tagged as the “Davao Death Squads” (DDS), judging from the
manner by which the killings have been executed. Witnesses to the killings report that the gunmen
with no masks covering their faces are usually on board motorcycles. Furthermore, pronouncements
made by the local chief executive of Davao City, Mayor Rodrigo Duterte, indicate his support for this
inhuman way of dealing with criminal elements. In a 2004 election rally, Mayor Duterte was
reported to have told a crowd: If I win, more criminals will get killed because I have vowed to protect
the people of the city….. I’ve been telling criminals it’s a place where you can die any time. It that’s a
cue for anybody, that’s fine. In a radio interview, Mayor Duterte stated that in his city, there are no
human rights for criminal elements and dared human rights advocates to charge him formally in

court. The phenomenon of extrajudicial killing as a means of curbing criminality and maintaining
peace and order has likewise been used in Cebu City, another key city in the Philippines. During 9 the

last week of December 2004, five (5) suspected criminals were shot dead in various parts of Cebu
City. These events took place after Mayor Tomas Osmeña announced his plan to create a team that
will “seek and destroy” criminal elements operating in the city. The team which has been referred to
in the local media as Osmena’s “Hunter Team” will be composed of 16 sharpshooters from the Cebu
City police force. As an incentive, a policeman on-duty who is able to capture a person committing a
crime will be given Php 20,000 (about US$372.00 or 285 Euros) while for those who are not on-duty
will receive half of the promised amount. Undeniably, these developments in both cities of Cebu and
Davao have serious human rights implications, especially since those victimized are children,
adolescents and young adults who belong to poor families. Most of those killed have not been given
a day in court and up to this day justice has not been served. Aside from summary executions,
involuntary disappearance is another human rights violation which has persisted in the country.
Since the time Pres. GMA assumed power in 2001 up to December 2004, the Families of Victims of
Involuntary Disappearances (FIND), a human rights NGO, recorded a total of 31 cases involving 78
victims of involuntary disappearance in various parts of the country. All 78 victims were affiliated
with either militant groups or political parties like Bayan Muna and Alab Katipunan or suspected
members and/or sympathizers of non-state armed opposition groups like the NPA and the MILF.

Number of Cases & Victims of Involuntary Disappearance, Philippines, February 2001- December
2004

Source: FIND Report on Involuntary Disappearance, 2005

The National ID System Like other world leaders aligned with the “Coalition of the Willing” led by the
US, the GMA government has recently issued EO 420 euphemistically called “a multi-purpose ID
system” instead of the negatively perceived National ID System. The presidential directive is part of a
package of anti-terrorism measures together with several anti-terror bills filed in the Philippine
Congress that has been taken by the current dispensation. Although the imposition of the ID system
had been justified as a measure to facilitate business transactions with government offices, there are
apprehensions on the part of human rights NGOs that this will be used to violate the human rights
particularly of individuals, groups and political parties critical of government programs and policies.
By the very nature of the system it is a part of, i.e. corrupt and abusive, there is a high probability
that the multi-purpose ID system will be used by State agents to gather information and build up
dossiers against those labeled “terrorists” 10 and “enemies of the state”. Moreover, the ID system
can be used as a tool to ban legitimate dissent and to control movements of individuals.

The Erosion of the People’s Economic, Social & Cultural Rights The Right to Work and Decent Wages
Employment and income are two critical factors for people to be able to satisfy their basic needs and
for them to be able to live decently like human beings. The table below gives you an idea of the state
of the people’s economic and social rights based on the minimum wage they are receiving, if ever
the said amount is complied with by employers, and the living wage, i.e., the amount pegged by the
National Wages and Productivity Commission for a family of six to be able to meet the essential
requirements for human existence. As shown in the table below, there is a big gap between the
minimum and living wages. For instance, in Metro Manila, the daily wage that an ordinary factory

worker receives is Php300 or Php363 short of the living wage. The situation is even worse in the
Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) since the gap between the minimum wage
pegged at Php170 and the living wage set at Php824 is a staggering Php654 or almost 500%
difference (National Wages & Productivity Commission, March 2005).
 MINIMUM AND LIVING WAGES IN PESOS (as of March 2005)

* Amount is for the whole of Region IV Source: National Wages & Productivity Commission

Unemployment and low and unstable incomes are two of the major problems which have resulted
to the perpetuation of poverty and gross violations of the people’s economic, social and cultural
rights, especially the rights to food, water, housing, health and education. As of the end of October
2004, the unemployment rate of the country was 10.9%, a slight improvement from the 11.7% rate
of July 2004 (National Statistics Office, 2005). During this period (October 2004), the National Capital
Region (NCR) registered the highest unemployment rate at 12.2%, followed by Central Luzon at 9.4%
(Philippine Labor Force Survey, October 2004)
(http://www.census.gov.ph/data/pressrelease/2004/lf040tx.html). The lack of good paying jobs has
served as a major push factor for the flight of millions of Filipinos abroad. It is estimated that there
are about 7-8 million Filipinos working in different parts of the globe mostly as domestic helpers,
entertainers, professionals, construction workers and seafarers. Concomitant with unemployment is
the problem of mass poverty. According to the National Economic and Development Authority
(NEDA), as of 2001, 34% or 25.8 million Filipinos were living below the poverty threshold. Right to
Food and Right to Health In urban and rural poor communities, malnutrition continues to affect a
significant portion of Filipino children and youth having detrimental consequences on their
intellectual and productive capabilities. The subhuman existence of many Filipino families is further
illustrated by their inability to eat breakfast every morning. According to the Commission on
Population, about 15.3 million Filipinos start their day without any breakfast on the table
(Sarmiento, 2001, p. 1). If ever they are able to eat, this would constitute food of low nutritional
quality like instant noodles and other forms of junk food due to their high salt, sugar and fat
contents. The rising costs of basic goods and services have resulted to these food items gradually
becoming the staple food of poor Filipino families, next to rice. A single pack of instant noodle
costing Php 5.00 a pack (.07 Euros) plus rice, can feed a family of 5-6 members. Thus, it is not
surprising that based on the 2003 Food and Nutrition Research Institute (FNRI) Report on the
Nutritional Status of Filipinos, for every 100 preschoolers, 32 are anemic, 30 under height, 28
underweight and 1 is overweight; and for every 100 young school children, 41 are under height, 33
underweight and 1 is overweight. Furthermore, the 2003 FNRI Report revealed that among pregnant
and lactating women, 40 in every 100 are anemic. The government’s failure to create jobs for its
labor force and ensure decent wages to its workers resulting to the inability of the latter to buy
enough quality food on the table, has likewise made the population more vulnerable to all kinds of
communicable but preventable diseases. A classic example is tuberculosis (TB) which continues to be
the 6th leading cause of mortality and morbidity in the Philippines affecting the productive age
group, 25-49 years, despite decades of implementation of a National TB Control Programme. It is
estimated that 75 Filipinos die of TB daily, making the Philippines the 8th among 22 countries with
the highest TB burden (National 12 Statistics Office, 2003) Diarrhea, a filth-related disease, has
consistently been the number 1 leading cause of morbidity especially among infants and children, an
indication of the people’s inability to access and afford basic social services particularly safe drinking
water, proper waste disposal and sanitation systems, and decent housing. As of 2000, about 24% of
households throughout the country still do not have access to safe water supply, while 31% of
households nationwide do not have sanitary toilets. Among the regions, the ARMM has the highest
percentage of households with no access to water supply at 38% and with no sanitary toilet at 57%
(http://www.doh.gov.ph/data_stat/html/fhsis_environment.htm) as derived from the Field Health
Service Information System, National Epidemiology Center). The government’s negligence to make
clean water available and accessible to the local population can be demonstrated with the outbreak
of cholera and gastroenteritis in a number of northern Luzon provinces last year (2004). Based on an
article in the Philippine Daily Inquirer (PDI Northern Luzon Bureau, January 5, 2005, A15), in the
Ilocos region alone, from May – September 2004, 13,682 people were afflicted with acute
gastroenteritis and 619 with cholera, both water-borne diseases. The province of Pangasinan was
the hardest hit by the epidemic with 8,819 cases of acute gastroenteritis and 464 individuals afflicted
with cholera. The people’s access to quality and affordable health care services has not been that
encouraging, too, during the past years especially with the implementation of neoliberal policies and
programs by the Arroyo government and manifested in the privatization or “corporatization” of
public health facilities and services. According the 2003 National Demographic and Health Survey,
77% of mothers with children under-5 said they encounter problems in accessing health care when
they are sick and 67% shared this was primarily due to lack of money for treatment. Other related
problems cited by the respondents were not wanting to go alone (28%), distance of the health
facility (27%) and having to commute to go to the health center (26%). Poverty and lack of education
of mothers have been identified as major factors for the high infant and under-5 mortality rates of
the Philippines which are among the highest in Southeast Asia. As revealed in the 2003 National
Demographic and Health Survey, for every 1,000 births, 29 children will die before reaching their
first birthday (infant mortality rate) and 40 will die before reaching the age of 5 (under-5 mortality
rate).
 Infant mortality rate & under-5 mortality rate, Philippines, 1993-2003

Source: 2003 National Demographic and Health Survey

Although there has been a decline in both the infant and under-5 mortality rates from 1993-2003,
the change has not been that significant. The rising costs of health goods and services have made it
more difficult for poor families to go see a doctor, even in public health facilities because more often
than not, they will be given prescriptions for drugs or medicines needed for their treatment. Despite
the passage of the Generics Act of 1988 which was intended to provide safe and effective but
affordable drugs particularly to low income households, the prices of drugs and medicines in the
Philippines continue to be one of the highest in Asia. According to a former secretary of health of the
country, Dr. Alberto Romualdez, the prices of drugs and medicines in the Philippines are 250 to
1,600 percent higher than in neighboring Asian countries like Indonesia, Malaysia, India, Bangladesh
and Sri Lanka. Moreover, hospitalization cost has likewise increased with the shift to user-fee
schemes of government hospitals to compensate for the dwindling government budget for health.
There is nothing free now in government hospitals even for those classified as indigent or charity
patients. They have to pay for every cotton ball, needle, syringe used in their treatment. Patients
also have to go through very stringent screening procedures with a lot of paper work before they
can be classified as indigent to avail of the decreasing benefits provided by government health
facilities. Furthermore, due to the rising costs of health goods and services, 54% of deaths in the
country are not medically attended. This means that people die without being seen by a doctor or
health care provider. In remote rural areas of the country, large numbers of women and children die
without being seen by a doctor or a health care provider. Also, 62% of infants are born at home,
because of economic and cultural reasons. What is ironic is the fact that the Philippines is one of the
leading producers of doctors and nurses. However, due to low income and lack of professional
growth, there is a mass exodus of nurses and doctors to the USA, UK Canada, Ireland and Saudi
Arabia, which is expected to continue in the coming years. Between 2000 and 2003, it is estimated
that more than 50,000 nurses left the country (Tan, Balanon & Sanchez, 2004). A disturbing
development in the health sector during the past several years is the phenomenon of doctors, many
of whom are already consultants or specialists, taking up nursing as a second course and with the
objective of working abroad. At least 9,000 doctors have become nurses or are about to become
nurses and nursing medics. Out of this number, 1,500 have left the country, while another 1,500
have just completed taking the nursing licensure examination. The 6,000 are enrolled in shortened
1½ to 3-year nursing courses offered by nursing schools catering to the needs of doctors wanting to
become nurses (Tan, Balanon & Sanchez, 2004). The mass exodus of nurses and doctors has
contributed to the worsening state of health care delivery in rural areas due to the lack or non-
availability of health professionals. For instance, 3 hospitals in Mindanao and 2 hospitals in Isabela
have stopped operations because they have no more doctors and nurses. The nurse-patient ratio in
many government hospitals has also worsened as a consequence of the brain drain problem in the
country. The ideal nurse-patient 14 ratio is 1:4, but in the country’s leading state training hospital for
health professionals, the Philippine General Hospital (PGH), it is now 1:15-26; at the Jose Reyes
Memorial Medical Center, it is 1:30-40 while in some hospitals in Davao del Sur, the nurse-patient
ratio is 1:45-55 (Medical Action Group & INAM, 2005). The government’s failure to comply with its
obligations to protect and respect the people’s right to health as demonstrated in its lack of decisive
action to address the surmounting health problems is further manifested in the low priority given to
the health sector based on the dwindling allocation for health through the years. Since the mid-
1980s, the health budget has never gone beyond 4% of the total national appropriations. In 2005,
the health budget got a measly 1.1% compared to debt servicing which got 33% and the Department
of National Defense getting 5% of the total national budget (Medical Action Group & INAM, 2005).
Moreover, a 1993 World Bank study comparing the health care spending of 10 countries in the Asia-
Pacific region revealed that the Philippines had the second lowest per capita health expenditure and
also ranked as the second lowest in terms of health expenditure as percentage of GDP (PIDS, 1998).
The share of health spending to GNP of the country does not come close to the WHO standard of at
least 5% of GNP set for middle-income countries (DOH, 1999; PIDS, 1998). Right to Education Like
the right to health, the state of the people’s right to education has also not been given much
attention by the national government although it may be receiving a higher budget compared to
health but not as much as debt servicing. The low value placed by the state on education will partly
explain why through the years, the quality of public education has been deteriorating side-by-side
with the deterioration in the school performance of students. Data from the Department of
Education reveal that for every 1,000 Grade 1 entrants, 312 do not complete elementary education;
249 students finish the 6-year elementary education at an average of 9.6 years due to repetition.
Less than half or 439 pupils are able to complete elementary schooling in 6 years out of 1,000
entrants. Furthermore, the country’s public school system has persistently been suffering from lack
of teachers, classrooms, chairs, textbooks, oversized classes, and dilapidated and leaking school
buildings. These problems have worsened during the past 6 years because of the rise in public school
enrollment with the transfer of pupils to public schools on account of economic difficulties faced by
families. Currently, there is a shortage of 49,212 teachers, 44,716 classrooms (based on a ratio of
1:45 pupils), 4.9M classroom chairs and 24.2M textbooks (ACT, Philippines, 2005).
CONCLUSION:
In general, the Philippine Constitution of 1987 is an essential instrument that establishes the
framework for social progress, government, and the defense of citizens' rights. It gives a thorough
framework for a democratic and just society and embodies the values and goals of the Filipino
people as a whole.

The Constitution's dedication to human rights, which has aided in advancing justice, equality, and
dignity for all people, is one of its major accomplishments. It creates organizations and systems that
preserve the rule of law, guarantee the division of powers, and protect each and every Filipino's
rights and liberties.

The Constitution also aims to rectify past injustices by establishing social welfare programs, fair
wealth distribution, and land reform. It acknowledges the significance of social security, health care,
and education as necessary elements of creating a progressive society.

RECOMMENDATION:
 Uphold and respect the fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed by the constitution,
such as freedom of speech, religion, and the press.
 Promote transparency, accountability, and integrity in government, particularly in public
officials and agencies.
 Ensure equitable distribution of resources and opportunities, especially in education and
healthcare.
 Safeguard the country's sovereignty and territorial integrity.
 Promote sustainable development and environmental protection.
 Foster national unity and understanding between different cultures, traditions, and religions.
 Continuously review and update the constitution to address emerging social, economic, and
political
 REFERENCES:
https://constitutionnet.org/country/philippines#:~:text=The%201987%20Constitution%20established

%20a,bicameral%20Legislature%2C%20and%20the%20Judiciary.

© 2016, International IDEA

Abellana, Mia E. Gunmen flee after killing 4 suspects. Sun Star Cebu. Dec. 27, 2005.

Alliance of Concerned Teachers of the Philippines (ACT-Phils). What is the State of Philippines Education? 2005.

Battario, Red. Media Killings: Targeted Attacks or Culture of Violence? Human Rights Forum. 1(4), October-

December 2004. 18.

Docena, Herbert. The National ID System: A Clear and Present Multi-Purpose Danger. Focus on the Philippines.

Number 11.

Families of Victims of Involuntary Disappearance (FIND). 2004 Report on Involuntary Disappearance in the

Philippines. (Unpublished report)

Guinto, Joel Francis. Palace releases EO 420 on ‘multi-purpose ID system’. INQ7. April 21, 2005.

Manila Standard Today. May 5, 2005, p. A3.

Martel, Rene H. & Jovy S. Taghoy. CH sets bounty for hunters. Sun Star Cebu. Dec. 23, 2005.

Medical Action Group & INAM. The Philippine Right to Health Situation. 2005. National Wages & Productivity

Commission, March 2005.

National Statistics Office. The Philippine Figures. 2005.

National Statistics Office. Tuberculosis. 2003 National Demographic and Health Survey.

PDI Northern Luzon Bureau. A year of violence, diseases and upsets. Philippine Daily Inquirer. January 5, 2005.

A15.

Philippine Daily Inquirer. May 4, 2005, pp. A1-A8.

Philippine Daily Inquirer. May 8, 2005, pp. A16.

Ramos, Linette C. Police team to ‘seek and destroy’. Sun Star Cebu. Dec. 22, 2005.
 Roque, Mylah Reyes. The Forgotten Children. Newsbreak. April 11, 2005. 19.

Sarmiento, Juan V. 15M Filipinos start day with no breakfast. Philippine Daily Inquirer. July 26, 2001.

Tan, Jaime Galvez, Balanon, V. and Sanchez. The Philippine Phenomenon of Nursing Medics: Why Filipino Doctors

are Becoming Nurses. 2004.

Task Force Detainees of the Philippines. Blood Stains the Arroyo Government. Human Rights Under the Arroyo

Government, January-December 2004. (Unpublished paper)

http://www.census.gov.ph/data/pressrelease/2004/lf040tx.html

http://www.doh.gov.ph/data_stat/html/fhsis_environment.html

https://byjus.com/ias-questions/what-are-the-principal-functions-of-the-executive/#:~:text=The%20executive

%20is%20the%20branch,presidents%2C%20while%20others%20have%20chancellors