Marcos-Arroyo

déjà vu on human rights

Raul C. Pangalangan

Professor of Law, University of the Philippines

Marcos era
HR violations
• That he achieved, first, by adopting the classic “trade-off ” argument between bread and
freedom, that liberty is meaningless unless one‟s “basic needs” are met, that “freedom” should
encompass not just “political rights alone but also [] social and economic rights”, and that
“equality rather than freedom [is the more compelling goal in a] developing country.”

• Second, having demonstrated that liberalism was not the appropriate model for a developing
country like the Philippines, Marcos links the preference for freedom, so to speak, with the
purported universalist claims of Western liberalism.

• Next, he presents himself as the true “nationalist” attuned to the needs of his people,
labels his rights-thinking critics as blind imitators of the West, and assumes the role of
champion for needs of a Third World state.

• From this point of the argument onwards, it takes just a short step for Marcos to then
proclaim himself the champion for revolutionary transformations in Philippine society.

• However, the heart of his claim to legitimacy lies in his claim that his one-man rule was
a “constitutional authoritarianism”, a label he proudly embraces in a book he himself
authored, which emphasizes that he governed according to the constitutional text and
was validated by no less than the Supreme Court
Edsa 1
Arroyo era
Hr violations
 Post-marcos
Legal order
• Codify human rights into the Constitution and law –
both civil and political rights as well as economic and
social rights
• Ratify international HR treaties
• Install institutional safeguards: Separation of Powers,
including independent Judiciary
• Install watchdog agencies: Ombudsman, Human
Rights Commission
• SO … DID ALL THESE WORK?
 IMPUNITY FOR MARCOS HR
VIOLATIONS

• FM never held liable BY ANY PHILIPPINE COURT

for HR record

• FM held liable only by 2 U.S. courts

• Class action in Honolulu: US$2.2 billion award

• Blocked by PCGG

• Victims filed action in RTC for Enforcement of

Foreign Judgment

• RTC says: First, you must pay US$8 million filing fee
 SC: hr limited to civil and
political rights

• Forced eviction of informal settlers

• They didn‟t even dare invoke right to housing

• Said it was their right to decent livelihood

• Hostage to political antipathy to squatters

• Court: Marcos used ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL

RIGHTS as his excuse to trample our CIVIL AND
POLITICAL RIGHTS. We must limit scope of HR
Commission to CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS.
 Extrajudicial
killings
• Task Force Usig: “Solved” killings of 800 Leftists by filing
21 charges against …. Leftists. Said it was all part of a
purge.

• Melo Commission: Said killings weren‟t part of government

policy. But linked General Palparan to EJK

• Alston Report:The killing of leftwing activists (at least 96

deaths confirmed, and dossiers regarding 271 other such
murders filed

• The killings of journalists (2 to 3 per year between 1986-

2002, and 7-10 between 2003-2006)
Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial,
summary or arbitrary executions

• The military has been in “state of almost total denial”

and the Senate, Congress, Justice Secretary, all in a
state of “passivity bordering on abdication of duty”

• Many of the accountability mechanisms which are

invoked as checks on governmental abuses have been
rendered ineffectual …. On paper, they remain strong.
In practice, they are of all too little use, and often
this is the result of official design. For present
purposes it is sufficient to focus upon some key
examples of institutional passivity ….
 a passivity, bordering on
abdication of responsibility

Senate Committee on Justice and “There was no role for Congress

Human Rights …no new legislation was required,
given that murder was already a
punishable offence‟
“No proactive oversight role by the
Senate regarding the executive‟s
execution of the law”
Secretary of Justice Passive role because prosecutors
must show „total impartiality‟. „If a
file presented to them was
insufficient, their role was simply to
return it and hope that the police
would do better next time.
Ombudsman 44 complaints of extrajudicial
killings by state agents between 2002-
06. Cases filed: Zero.
 Writ of Amparo

• Contrast with Writ of Habeas Corpus

• “An effective and inexpensive instrument for the

protection of constitutional rights”

• Literally, “to protect”.

• Jonas Burgos

• Jun Lozada

• Pastor Berlin
 Suppression by indirection

• Proclamation 1017: Confiscation of broadcast networks via “economic emergency”, not via commander-in-chief clause

• WHEREAS, these conspirators have repeatedly tried to bring down the President;

• WHEREAS, the claims of these elements have been recklessly magnified by certain segments of the national media;

• WHEREAS, the activities above-described, their consequences, ramifications and collateral effects constitute a clear and present danger to the safety and the integrity
of the Philippine State and of the Filipino people;

• NOW, THEREFORE, I Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, President of the Republic of the Philippines and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines,

• by virtue of the powers vested upon me by Section 18, Article 7 of the Philippine Constitution which states that: “ The President…whenever it becomes
necessary,…may call out (the) armed forces to prevent or suppress…rebellion…, “ and in my capacity as their Commander-in-Chief,

• do hereby command the Armed Forces of the Philippines, to maintain law and order throughout the Philippines, prevent or suppress all forms of lawless violence as
well any act of insurrection or rebellion and to enforce obedience to all the laws and to all decrees, orders and regulations promulgated by me personally or upon my
direction;

• and as provided in Section 17, Article 12 of the Constitution do hereby declare a State of National EmerSection 17. In times of national emergency, when the public
interest so requires, the State may, during the emergency and under reasonable terms prescribed by it, temporarily take over or direct the operation of any privately-
owned public utility or business affected with public interest.

• gen
“Processed” not
arrested
43 libel cases