Feb 1, 2018
The ICJ today expressed its concern that a constitutional amendment under consideration by the House of Representatives’ Committee on Constitutional Amendments would, if adopted, severely restrict the rights to freedom expression and assembly in the country.
The proposed amendment would limit the constitutional protection of the exercise of these rights only to what State authorities deem to be “reasonable”.
In a letter to Representative Roger G. Mercado, the Chairperson of the Committee, the ICJ urged the removal of the phrase “responsible exercise” as a precondition for the exercise of the fundamental freedoms of expression and assembly.
The ICJ stressed that this limitation is incompatible with the obligations of the Philippines under international human rights law.
“Adding the phrase ‘responsible exercise’ is unacceptable since it gives those persons or government agencies tasked to execute the law unfettered discretion to restrict freedom of expression and assembly,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ’s Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific.
“The restriction clearly impairs the essence of these rights and cannot meet the standard of legality,” he added.
Contact
Emerlynne Gil, Senior International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia, t: +662 619 8477 (ext. 206) ; e: emerlynne.gil@icj.org
Background
The 1987 Philippine Constitution provides three ways by which it can be revised or amended. First, Congress can constitute itself, upon three-fourths vote of all its Members, to act as a Constituent Assembly. Second, Congress may call a Constitutional Convention by a vote of two-thirds of all its members or submit to the electorate, by a majority vote of all its members, the question of whether to call a convention or not. Third, at least 12% of all registered voters may sign a petition to propose amendments to the Philippine Constitution.
On 7 December 2016, President Duterte issued an Executive Order constituting a Consultative Committee to conduct consultations and to review the provisions of the 1987 Constitution. Their findings shall be submitted to the Philippine Congress.
On 16 January 2018, the House of Representatives voted to constitute Congress as a Constituent Assembly to commence the amendment of the Philippine Constitution. Thus, the Committee on Constitutional Amendments was created to draft the proposed changes to the Philippine Constitution.
One of the proposals considered is to amend Section 4, Article III of the Philippine Constitution, adding the following four-word qualifier (in bold text) to the existing provision, so that it would read: “No law shall be passed abridging the responsible exercise of the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.”
Freedom of expression and peaceful assembly are protected respectively under Articles 19 and 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). They only may be restricted on narrowly specified grounds, such as where necessary to protect national security or public health. Overly broad and expansive limitations, such as protecting only expression exercised “reasonably”, goes well beyond these specified grounds.
Philippines-Congress Sub Committees-Advocacy-Open Letters-2018-ENG (Full letter in PDF)
Jan 18, 2018 | News
The ICJ today expressed concern about the impacts on freedom of expression of a decision by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that would shut down Rappler, an online news source in the Philippines.
On 11 January, after a year-long investigation, the SEC of the Philippines revoked the Certificate of Incorporation of Rappler, Inc.
The ICJ is concerned that the decision to target Rappler may have been retaliatory and politically motivated.
The investigation was initiated by a letter transmitted by the Solicitor General to the SEC requesting the latter to investigate allegations of foreign ownership of Rappler, Inc.
“The cancellation of the Certificate of Incorporation of Rappler, Inc. constitutes a significant restriction on freedom of expression,” said Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s Senior International Legal Adviser.
“The Courts must give rigorous scrutiny both to the specific basis the authorities offer for the decision concerning Rappler, Inc., and the scope and application of the foreign equity provision more generally, including an inquiry whether the law is being applied in a proportionate and non-discriminatory manner,” she added.
If such restrictions on freedom of expression are enforced with the actual aim of punishing or preventing critical political expression, or are enforced only against some political or other opinions and not others, this would violate the rights to freedom of expression and non-discrimination under the Philippine Constitution and international human rights law, the ICJ adds.
Further, under international human rights law any restriction on freedom of expression must be limited to what is necessary and proportionate both in relation to the legitimate aim it pursues and in relation to its impacts.
For instance, it would not be consistent with international human rights law to prohibit all foreign ownership of mass media or mass-media-owning entities, unless the government was able to demonstrate that the same legitimate aim could not reasonably be achieved by prohibiting only majority foreign ownership.
Contact
Emerlynne Gil, ICJ Senior International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia, t: +662 619 8477 (ext. 206) ; e: emerlynne.gil@icj.org
Philippines-Rappler-News-Web stories-2018-ENG (Full text in PDF)
Dec 18, 2017 | Multimedia items, News, Video clips
Raquel Yrigoyen Fajardo, Karabo Ozah and Charles Dinda talk about traditional justice systems in video interviews recorded at the 2017 ICJ Geneva Forum.
Dr. Raquel Yrigoyen Fajardo, Lawyer and Professor at the Law Faculty of the Pontifical Catholic University of Peru, and founding member of the International Institute on Law and Society (IIDS), describes the survival and contemporary recognition of justice systems of indigenous peoples in the Americas, despite the history of colonial domination.
She argues that indigenous justice systems often already reflect many international human rights standards, and where there may be discrepancies change should be sought through respectful engagement and consultation rather than coercive imposition.
In contrast, Ms Karabo Ozah, Deputy Director of the Centre for Child Law at the University of Pretoria in South Africa, argues that it is crucially important to ensure that customary and traditional courts respect domestic legislation and international standards on human rights.
Otherwise she warns, based on her experience, customary courts too frequently fail to protect the rights of marginalized groups, children, LGBTI, and women.
Charles Dinda, Senior Legal Adviser with the Danish Institute for Human Rights in Zambia, points out that while traditional and customary justice institutions are the most easily accessible and in many respects most credible institutions for some populations, their decisions are too often inconsistent or unfair.
To avoid this, he insists on the importance of understanding and studying the way these systems operate and on the need to engage with them to learn about their practices and to build their capacities so that they have better knowledge of international human rights standards and indeed of the national laws in the countries where they operate.
Watch the interview with Dr. Raquel Yrigoyen Fajardo
Watch the interview with Karabo Ozah
Watch the interview with Charles Dinda
NOTE:
The views expressed by the participants do not necessarily reflect those of the ICJ.
For more information about the 2017 Geneva Forum on Customary and Traditional Justice Systems, click here or contact matt.pollard(a)icj.org .
Dec 9, 2017 | Artículos, Multimedia, Noticias
Los dirigentes de comunidades indígenas que buscan proteger sus tierras y recursos naturales contra los impactos negativos de operaciones industriales y proyectos de infraestructura, han sido acusados de actividades criminales y en algunos casos detenidos de manera arbitraria.
Esta respuesta tiene como objetivo silenciar las voces de protesta y las demandas legítimas de consentimiento libre, previo e informado relativas a obras de infraestructura y otros proyectos en las comunidades indígenas.
Este video incluye entrevistas con Ramón Cadena, director de la CIJ para Centroamérica, dos dirigentes indígenas, que fueron víctimas de detención arbitraria, así como una dirigente comunitaria, explicando el impacto de la detención en la familia y toda la comunidad.
La criminalización del trabajo en defensa de los derechos humanos es un fenómeno por el cual se acusan a las y los dirigentes comunitarios de diferentes actividades criminales a causa de su oposición a un modelo de desarrollo basado en las industrias extractivas o la privatización de servicios sociales esenciales.
Este modelo de desarrollo afecta a los recursos naturales (el agua, la tierra y el medio ambiente) en los territorios de los pueblos indígenas.
Se trata de un fenómeno global que es particularmente agudo en Guatemala.
La explotación de los recursos naturales, tales como la minería a cielo abierto y las operaciones de industrias extractivas en los territorios de los pueblos indígenas, es una razón principal que explica los ataques a las protestas sociales y las acciones de defensa de los derechos humanos.
Las diferentes comunidades afectadas buscan defender sus territorios y oponerse a las diferentes formas de explotación de los recursos naturales que se hallan en sus territorios o en áreas vecinas porque puede afectar el abastecimiento en agua, la tierra y el medio ambiente.
Varios dirigentes han sido asesinados a causa de su oposición a estos proyectos.
Algunos miembros de las familias de los asesinados han asumido a su vez la tarea de oponerse a estos proyectos, y también han sido acusados de actividades criminales.
También, en Guatemala existe un conflicto social intenso por la manera de abastecimiento de electricidad.
Como resultado de la privatización del servicio en 1996, el Estado de Guatemala ha consentido concesiones a compañías nacionales e internacionales para proveer servicios de electricidad.
Durante los años, muchas y muchos usuarios se han quejado de la mala calidad y el alto coste de los servicios de estas compañías privadas.
La Comisión Nacional de Electricidad ha fallado en su deber legal de “asegurar que los concesionarios y contratistas cumplan con sus obligaciones, y proteger los derechos de los usuarios,” lo que ha sido reclamado por muchos usuarios descontentos.
Las protestas sociales conciernen las tres fases diferentes de la producción de electricidad: la generación de electricidad que incluye la construcción de presas hidroeléctricas por compañías multinacionales que causan impactos sobre los territorios de los pueblos indígenas; redes de transmisión de electricidad; y los servicios de electricidad.
Debido a esta situación, muchos usuarios de electricidad han declarado que están en resistencia citando el Artículo 45 de la Constitución de Guatemala que dice: “Es legítimo que el pueblo resista para proteger y defender los derechos y las garantías establecidos en la Constitución.”
Las acciones realizadas bajo esta protección constitucional han causado muchos ataques a los derechos humanos de muchos dirigentes comunitarios, abogados y defensores de derechos humanos.
La CIJ apoya el acceso a la justicia para las personas víctimas de tales violaciones de sus derechos humanos.
La CIJ brinda su apoyo a los abogados que defienden a estas víctimas de la criminalización de protestas sociales; actúa como observador de procesos en casos emblemáticos; promueve dialogo entre las comunidades y las autoridades estatales pertinentes, así como los alcaldes locales; y en algunos casos, apoya sumisiones de casos ante la Corte Constitucional.
Dec 5, 2017 | News
Guatemalan indigenous and peasant communities are finally finding a measure of justice and recovering lands and territories that had previously been seized by authorities or private economic actors, including during the internal armed conflict that took place from 1960 to 1996.
The ICJ learned of these encouraging developments at a workshop it held jointly with the UN Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights (OHCHR) at an International Workshop on strategic litigation in the defense of land and territory, in Guatemala City, between 9 and 10 November.
One of the successful stories, told by Don Pedro Herrera, a community leader from Tzalbal community, municipality of Nebaj, Department of Quiché (Northern Guatemala), concerns a favourable decision by a first instance judge in Nebaj, in August 2016, ordering the restitution of some 1485 hectares (33 caballerias in the old measurement system still in use in Central America) to the Tzalbal communities.
The decision is under appeal before Guatemala’s Constitutional Court, but the Workshop heard that it had already boosted morale and hope among members of local communities on prospects for restitution for violations of their land rights.
The 33 caballerias had been segregated from the rest of municipal and community land in around 1984, in the midst of the Guatemalan civil war and as part of the counter-insurgency plans drawn by the military rulers purportedly to create loyal villages in the frontline to combat insurgency.
Most members of the community at the time had fled their homes, fearing for their lives that were threatened by both the armed insurgency and State military forces.
The de facto local authorities were coerced into signing documents agreeing to the separation of the land, but much of the population had remained unconcerned with the operation.
However, in 2011 FONTIERRAS, the government land authority, revealed to the community that their land had in fact been registered as State property following the forced separation in 1984.
Since then, Tzalbal communities started to take concerted action to recover the lands that they considered to be lawfully theirs and were the places where they maintained their homes and livelihood.
Tzalbal communities have some 70 families with some 500 people of all ages. When they learned that the land they traditionally possessed was “legally” the property of the State of Guatemala, they approached the ICJ- to provide legal assistance.
An Amparo constitutional writ was filed on behalf of the Tzalbal communities requesting the court to protect the rights of property and due process under the Guatemalan Constitution and declare the entry of land property in favour of the State in the land register invalid.
In August 2016, the first instance judge ruled in favour of the communities and ordered the register to amend the entry into the land registry. However, the State representatives have appealed against the ruling and a public hearing on the case took place the first week of November 2017. A final decision on the case by the Constitutional Court is now awaited.
Land, territory and resources are crucial assets for the survival and well being of indigenous and other local communities in Guatemala and other countries. For indigenous peoples, there is also an inherent and special relationship with land and territory which many times acquires religious and cultural significance. At the Workshop on Strategic Litigation, several other groups explained how they carry on their fight for justice and in defense of their land and territory.
Several of those groups recognized the instrumental assistance from the Guatemala office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, which through its Maya Programme provides advice and support to local communities in their defense of land and territory.
One case under discussion, still underway, concerns the legal challenge to the Environmental Impact Assessment carried out by the Island Oil Company pursuant an oil exploration and exploitation contract with the government involving five municipalities of El Petén department. El Petén is the location of the largest biosphere reserve in Guatemala, where, curiously, human settlements are not allowed but some oil companies are authorized to carry out operations.
The legal battle has been led by Qeqchi, Mopan and Itza peoples and supported by the Maya Programme. An administrative remedy known as opposition was filed before MARN, the national authority for the preservation of the environment, alleging the violation of rights such as lack of consultation and consent from local communities. The administrative authority ruled in favour of the plaintiffs and ordered the exploration to stop until regulatory requirements are fully complied with.
Over time, the work of the ICJ and other groups, taken in coordination with the UN human rights office in Guatemala, has begun to show results.
More and more communities are taking concrete steps to legally challenge the actions or laws that cause or perpetuate their dispossession of their traditional land and territory.
