HUMAN RIGHTS LAW 1 FINALS REVIEWER

CANDELARIA, MICHELLE DULCE M | AUSL

ATTY SIMONETTE PULLIDO

III. VULNERABLE SECTORS/SPECIAL INTERESTS

I.

WOMEN

Q1: Compare and contrast the political rights afforded to women in the
CPRW (Convention on the Political Rights of Women) from those
political rights provided for in the ICCPR (International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights).
Answer:
The first three (3) articles found in the CPRW could also be found in Article 25
of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The only difference
is that the Convention on the Political Rights of Women strongly emphasizes
the applicability of these rights to the female sex. While in the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, such applicability is coined in general
terms, meaning, the contracting parties shall apply it to all human beings.
Q2: What is the limitation of the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act?
Answer:
The definition of sexual harassment in RA 7877 is limiting. It does not
specifically address the issue of "hostile environment" (resulting from) sexual
harassment between peers or co-employees. Under the law, sexual
harassment presupposes the existence of authority, influence or moral
ascendancy between the offender and the offended party. But in many
instances, both the offender and the offended party are peers or have the
same rank or status, while in some cases, the offended party happens to be

the superior officer. These circumstances could not be considered as sexual

harassment within the context of R.A. 7877.
Question 3
FACTS: Angel who is a gay and just turned 16 years old last week, dressed
and looked like a woman without any semblance of being a man, and is born
from Mindanao. She has met a handsome guy in SM mall Davao named Luis.
Believing that angel is really a woman Luis, offered her a job as entertainer in
Malaysia for a Php 40,000 per month. Being so interested with the job and
considering the highest compensation, angel agreed to take the job. However,
having no passport, Luis offered to assist in applying for her passport. She
filled out the application and agreed with the suggestion of Luis to indicate the
age of 19 instead of 16 to obtain a passport and be allowed to work as
entertainer. Angel was introduced to a Muslim guy named Manyak who
according to Luis is her employer in Malaysia and the owner of the bar she
will work for. Angel departed as per schedule believing that she will work as
guest entertainer in a bar. To her surprise, on the first day of her work she
was asked and forced by Manyak to entertain their male guest named Rapist
by having sexual intercourse with him. Having no other recourse, she did
what her boss asked her to do. Few days after, her cousin was able to contact
her and angel reported what happened to her. She was advised by her
cousin, that she will send herhusband to fetch him by pretending that he is a
customer in that bar, so that he can escape from her boss. Such plan became
successful. 20 years from the date of her release and arrival in Philippines,
she decided to file a criminal case against Luis and Manyak for qualified
Trafficking of person. Will it progress?
Decide.
Answer.The case will progress. Under R.A. 10364 or the expanded law for
trafficking of person, the prescription period of 20 years shall apply not only
for cases committed by a syndicate or by large scale but also to act of
trafficking committed against a child. The prescription shall commence from
the day the victim is delivered or released from the conditions or bondage or

from the day the child reaches the age of majority. Trafficking of person is
committed by recruiting, transporting, harboring, providing or receiving a
person (regardless of gender) by any means, including those under the
pretext of domestic or overseas employment, for purpose of prostitution or
sexual exploitation and it is qualified when it is committed against a child with
or without consent or knowledge of the victim by means of deception or fraud.
In this case, Angel, even if she is a gay and consented to work in Malaysia
and who is still a child when she was trafficked for sexual exploitation or
prostitution through fraud or deceit is a victim under Trafficking of person. The
consent or knowledge of the victim is insignificant. Furthermore, the 20 years
prescription shall only begin to run from the date she reaches the age of
majority and not from the date of her release or delivery from trafficking.
Q4: How does discrimination against women defined in the Convention
on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women?
Answer:
Article 1 of CEDAW states that the term discrimination against women Shall
mean any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which
has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment
or exercise by women, irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of
equality of men and women, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in
the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field.

Q5: In what way do the Family Code address issues on gender equality
in marriage and family relations? Does it eliminate gender based
discrimination? Why or Why not?
Answer:
The Family Code of the Philippines is believed to be rife with provisions that
implement the declared policy of the State under the Constitution to ensure
fundamental equality before the law between women and men. Among these
provisions are the womens equal right to choose family domicile, the Right to
exercise a profession and the right to administer and enjoy
community/conjugal properties which in the New Civil Code are subject to
mens preference and judgment. While it is true that the provisions of the
Family Code are considered welcome development in eliminating gender
inequality in marriage and family relations, gender based discrimination
continued in the letters of the law, specifically those which involved
administration and enjoyment of properties (Art 96 and Art 124) which
proceeded with giving preference to the decision of the husband in case of
disagreement with the wife. Under these provisions, the wife will have to
resort to filing a case in court for her decision to be respected undoubtedly
discriminatory to women.

II.

CHILDREN

Question 1. Bully, 9 years of age, was throwing stones at Bakla and calling
him sissy. Brusko, Bakla's father, confronted Bully and slapped him on the
face resulting to the latter falling to the ground and sustaining a bruise on his
cheek. The next day, Bully's mother filed a complaint for child abuse against
Brusko under Sec. 10 (a) of RA 7610. Decide.
Answer: The complaint is untenable because not every instance of the
laying of hands on a child constitutes the crime of child abuse under
Section 10 (a) of Republic Act No. 7610. Only when the laying of hands
is shown beyond reasonable doubt to be intended by the accused to
debase, degrade or demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of the child
as a human being should it be punished as child abuse. Although it is
affirmed that Brusko slapped Bully on the face causing further injuries
to the latter, his act was not intended to debase the intrinsic worth and
dignity of Bully as a human being, or that he had thereby intended to
humiliate or embarrass Bully, because he did it at the spur of the
moment and in anger, indicative of his being then overwhelmed by his
fatherly concern for the personal safety of his son who had just suffered
harm at the hands of Bully. With the loss of his self-control, he lacked
that specific intent to debase, degrade or demean the intrinsic worth
and dignity of a child as a human being that was so essential in the
crime of child abuse.
Question 2: Bruno and Beauty were married on 1989 and lived in
Commonwealth, Quezon City. A year later, Beauty gave birth to Brownie. On
1991, however, Bruno filed a petition to have his marriage to Beauty annulled
on the ground of bigamy, alleging that nine years before he married Beauty,
she had married Bogart, which marriage was never annulled. Bruno also
found out that Bogart was still alive and was residing in Kamias, Quezon City.
Beauty did not deny marrying Mario when she was 21 old but she averred
that the marriage was a sham and that she never lived with Mario at all.
The trial court ruled that Beauty's marriage to Bogart was valid and subsisting
when she married Bruno and annulled her marriage to the latter for being
bigamous and declared Brownie to be an illegitimate child as a result. The
custody of the child was awarded to Beauty while Bruno was granted
visitation rights. Beauty felt betrayed and humiliated and held Bruno

responsible for the bastardization of Brownie. She moved for the

reconsideration of the above decision insofar only as that portion of the
decision which granted bruno visitation rights. She argued that there was
nothing in the law granting visitation rights in favor of the putative father of an
illegitimate child and maintained that Brownie's surname should be changed
to her maiden name, following the rule that an illegitimate child shall use the
mothers surname.
Bruno opposed the motion and insisted on his visitation rights and the
retention of Brownie's surname. Is Bruno's assertions tenable?
Answer: NO. The Family Code provides that a child born from a valid
marriage is a legitimate child and since Brownie was born during the
subsistence of Beauty's marriage to Bogart he is therefore a legitimate
child of said couple. As a legitimate child, by law, he has the right to
bear the surnames of his father Bogart and mother Beauty, thus, Bruno
cannot impose his surname on Brownie who, in the eyes of the law, is
not related to him. As to his assertion of his visitation rights, in case of
annulment, the Family Code grants visitation rights to a parent who is
deprived of custody of his children. Such right flows from the natural
right of both parent and child to each other's company. But such parentchild relationship between Bruno and Brownie is non-existent, thus,
Bruno cannot legally demand visitation rights.
Question 3: Maganda, 17 years old, was sitting on a bench near her house
when Maharot, 25 years old, approached her and expressed his feelings for
her and asked her to accept his love and even insisted that she must accept
him because he had a job. Maganda did not like what she heard so she
dashed to her house and went inside. When she was about to close the door,
Maharot forced himself inside. Maganda pushed the door to stop him from
entering her house but Maharot was still able to enter. There he embraced
her, who struggled to extricate herself from his hold. She shouted for help but
he continued hugging her and threatened that he'll kill her if she won't accept
his love. Madiskarte, Maganda's boyfriend, arrived and pulled Maharot and
threw him outside the house. Maganda immediately closed the door and
locked herself to her room where she cried. The next day, with the help of the
police, a complaint for child abuse under Sec. 10 (a) of RA 7610 was filed
against Maharot and trial ensued. In his defense, the latter alleged that he
can only be successfully convicted of child abuse under Section 10 (a) if it is

proved that the victims development had been prejudiced and absent proof of
such prejudice, which is an essential element in the crime charged, petitioner
cannot be found guilty of child abuse under the subject provision. Decide.
Answer: Maharots contention is misplaced. In cases involving Sec. 10
(a) of RA 7610, the prosecution need not prove that the acts of child
abuse, child cruelty and child exploitation have resulted in the prejudice
of the child because an act prejudicial to the development of the child is
different from the former acts. The use of "or" in Section 10 (a) of
Republic Act No. 7610 before the phrase "be responsible for other
conditions prejudicial to the child's development" supposes that there
are four punishable acts therein, to wit: (a) the act of child abuse; (b)
child cruelty; (c) child exploitation; and (d) being responsible for
conditions prejudicial to the child's development. The fourth penalized
act cannot be interpreted, as petitioner suggests, as a qualifying
condition for the three other acts, because an analysis of the entire
context of the questioned provision does not warrant such
construction.
Question 4: Skinny, 15 years old, signed up to model a clothing brand. She
worked from 9am to 4pm on weekdays and 1pm to 6pm on Saturdays for two
weeks. She was issued a child working permit under RA 9231. Which of the
following statements is the most accurate?
A) Working permit for Skinnys employment is not required because the job is
not hazardous;
B) Her work period exceeds the required working hours for children aged 15
years old;
C) To require a 15-year old to work without obtaining the requisite working
permit is a form of child labor;
D) Skinny, who was engaged in a work that is not child labor, is a
working child.

Question 5: What is the principle of best interest of the child?

Answer: Best interest of the child refers to the totality of the
circumstances and conditions which are most congenial to the survival,
protection and feelings of security of the child and most encouraging to
the child's physical, psychological and emotional development. It also
means the least detrimental available alternative for safeguarding the
growth and development of the child.

III.

INDIGENOUS PEOPLE AND PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

1. Whether or not IPRA Law is unconstitutional as it allegedly violates

the Regalian Doctrine.
Suggested Answer: NO. SC deliberations reached same result (7-7 votes)
and due to the principle of Presumption of Constitutionality, IPRA Law was
upheld. Moreover, IPRA law enumerates the IPs rights to ownership and
development of lands and natural resources over ancestral lands and
ancestral domains. Meanwhile, the Regalian Doctrine explains the right to
ownership by the State, as well as its full control and supervision in the
exploration, development and utilization of natural resources of all lands of
public domain. Therefore, it clearly means that it does not cover ancestral
lands and ancestral domains. (Cruz vs. DENR)
2. Who are the Indigenous Peoples?
Suggested Answer: They refer to a group of people or homogeneous
societies identified by self-ascription and ascription by other, who have
continuously lived as organized community on communally bounded and
defined territory, and who have, under claims of ownership since time
immemorial, occupied, possessed customs, tradition and other distinctive
cultural traits, or who have, through resistance to political, social and cultural
inroads of colonization, non-indigenous religions and culture, became
historically differentiated from the majority of Filipinos. (IPRA Law)
3. Who are Persons with disabilities (PWDs)?
Suggested Answer: They are those suffering from restriction of different
abilities, as a result of a mental, physical or sensory impairment, to perform
an activity in the manner or within the range considered normal for a human
being. (Magna Carta for Disabled Persons)

4. What are the accessibility rights of PWDs?

Suggested Answer:
a. Barrier-Free Environment - The State shall ensure the attainment of a
barrier-free environment that will enable disabled persons to have access in
public and private buildings and establishments and such other places. (Sec.
25, Magna Carta for Disabled Persons)
b. Access to Public Transport Facilities - DSWD shall develop a program to
assist marginalized disabled persons gain access in the use of public
transport facilities. Such assistance may be in the form of subsidized
transportation fare. (Sec. 27, Magna Carta for Disabled Persons)
5. Since vulnerable sectors like PWDs and IPs are given additional
rights or privileges by law, does it violate the equal protection clause?
Suggested Answer: NO. The equal protection clause in the Constitution
provides that: nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the
laws. Although additional rights or privileges are given to vulnerable sectors,
it does not mean that they are being favored by law. The Aristotelian principle
of equality explains that: All persons/things that are similarly situated must be
treated alike. The very nature of human beings is that they are all unique and
different. It cannot mean treating everyone in an identical manner the ablebodied, the disabled, the civilized and indigenous. Their situations and
circumstances are different and require specific treatment.

IV.

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION /GENOCIDE/REFUGEES/STATELESS

PERSONS

V.

REMEDIES AGAINST HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS AND

HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSE UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW

VI.

REMEDIES UNDER NATIONAL LAW