Tag Archives: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

[From the web] The right to vote and the UN Human Rights Committee By Atty. Harry Roque Jr.

Posted on by Leave a comment

The right to vote and the UN Human Rights Committee
By Atty. Harry Roque Jr.
May. 23, 2013

Atty. Harry Roque Photo: http://humanrightshouse.org

Atty. Harry Roque Photo: http://humanrightshouse.org

Civil society groups filed this month an unprecedented Communication with the United Nations Human Rights Committee in Geneva alleging violation of their right to vote pursuant to Art. 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The said article provides that “every citizen shall have the right to vote which shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors.”

The right to vote, according to the Committee in its General Comment 25, include guaranteeing the “ security of ballot boxes” and that “votes should be counted in the presence of the candidates or their agents.” The Committee further opined “there should be independent scrutiny of the voting and counting process so that electors have confidence in the security of the ballot and the counting of the votes”.

The Human Rights Committee is a body of experts tasked with monitoring states’ compliance with their obligations under the Covenant. The Philippines, as a party to the Additional Protocol to the ICCPR, has recognized the competence of the Committee to receive communications from citizens about their state’s breach or non-compliance with their treaty obligations. The latest view expressed by the Committee against the Philippines was a result of the communication made by Alexander

Read full article @manilastandardtoday.com

Human Rights Online Philippines does not hold copyright over these materials. Author/s and original source/s of information are retained including the URL contained within the tagline and byline of the articles, news information, photos etc.

 

sign petiton2 smallPhoto by TFDP

[Statement] “Matuwid na Daan” gone astray… Cybercrime law affront to Human Rights -HRonlinePH.com

Posted on by Leave a comment

“Matuwid na Daan” gone astray… Cybercrime law affront to Human Rights

hronlinephJose W. Diokno said it well: Human rights are not mere legal concepts they are part of the human essence. Their violation is not the mere taking away of a man has. It is taking away of what a man is.

It is a pleasant thought but one that gets to be pondered only on occasions such as the Human Rights Day. The celebration of Human Rights Day today is cast against the background of more threatening concerns generated by P-Noy’s “Matuwid na Daan” which gone astray as well as that of the administration’s penchant on attacking civil liberty like the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 or Republic Act No. 10175. Thus this occasion however speaks of a terrible irony we have in our midst. As we celebrate Human Rights Day, lest we forget in the flurry of praying, candle lighting and speeches, is the danger posed by the Cybercrime Law to our civil liberties and to enjoyment of our human rights.

While the Cybercrime Law is designed to go after online crimes, “the provisions of the law that extend to libel and ‘other offenses’ violate established global norms of free expression.” The Philippines’ existing libel law is vague, criminalizing any speech deemed ‘critical,’ including information criticizing the government or other authorities.”

The right to information opens the door to all other human rights, as the core principles of human rights are interdependent and indivisible. Internet has become a vital communications tool which individuals can use to exercise their right to freedom of expression and, exchange information and ideas. Indeed, the United Nations Human Rights Council passed a landmark resolution in June 2012 supporting freedom of expression on the Internet.

We at the HRonlinePH use the Internet as viable platform in the promotion and protection of human rights in the Philippines. We recognized that freedom of expression can be restricted in very exceptional cases like expression such as child pornography, violence against women, incitement to genocide, discrimination, hostility or violence and incitement to terrorism are all prohibited under international laws and statutes.

Some governments are using increasing sophisticated technologies which are often hidden from the public censor online content and monitor and identify individuals who disseminate critical information about the government, which more often than not lead to arbitrary arrests and detention of individuals. But the attempt to restrict Internet freedom must be in accordance with international human rights standards and must pursue legitimate grounds for restriction as set out in article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and “be proven to be necessary and proportionate.”

We should amplify our voice and increase our ranks in putting the Cybercrime Law back from the brink. The government should instead enact laws to protect human rights and to end impunity like the Anti-Enforced Disappearance Law, the Freedom of Information Act and the bill providing compensation to victims of human rights violations under Marcos regime.

We call on the Filipinos to stand up and defend our Right to Freedom of Expression, our Human Rights.

[Statement] Message of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon -Human Rights Day

Posted on by Leave a comment

HUMAN RIGHTS DAY
10 December 2012

Message of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon

English: Ban Ki-moon, South Korean politician

English: Ban Ki-moon, South Korean politician (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Everyone has the right to be heard and to shape the decisions that affect their community. This right is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and fully integrated in international law, especially in article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Over the past century, we have made undeniable progress along the path of inclusion.

Yet far too many groups and individuals face far too many obstacles. Women have the right to vote almost everywhere, but remain hugely under-represented in parliaments and peace processes, in senior government posts and corporate boardrooms, and in other decision-making positions. Indigenous people frequently face discrimination that denies them the opportunity to make full use of their guaranteed rights or fails to take account of their circumstances. Religious and ethnic minorities – as well as people with disabilities or those with a different sexual orientation or political opinion – are often hampered from taking part in key institutions and processes. Institutions and public discourse need to represent societies in all their diversity.

More generally, in several parts of the world, we have seen alarming threats to hard-won gains in democratic governance. In some countries, civil society groups face growing pressures and restrictions. Legislation has been introduced specifically targeting civil society organizations and making it almost impossible for them to operate. Champions of democracy have encountered new confrontational measures. We should all be troubled by such backsliding.

Even in societies with a good track record, there is room for improvement. No country has succeeded in ensuring that all its inhabitants are able to participate fully in public affairs, including the right to be elected to public office and to have equal access to public services. Enacting new rights or removing unjust laws is not always sufficient. Too often, discrimination persists in practice, creating barriers and mindsets that can be hard to overcome.

Vibrant civil society groups are among the keys to the well-being and functioning of any nation, and the United Nations deplores measures taken to suppress them. That is why, on this Human Right Day, the United Nations is highlighting the right to participate and the associated rights that make it possible – freedom of expression and opinion, and peaceful assembly and association.

International law is clear: No matter who you are, or where you live, your voice counts. On this Day, let us unite to defend your right to make it heard.

Human Rights Online Philippines does not hold copyright over these materials. Author/s and original source/s of information are retained including the URL contained within the tagline and byline of the articles, news information, photos etc.

[From the web] Human Rights Day 2012- Your voice, your right. Your #VoiceCounts -OHCHR

Posted on by Leave a comment

Human Rights Day 2012

Where we come from does not determine who we can become. What we look like places no limits on what we can achieve. We should all have the right to express ourselves, all have the right to be heard, all have the right to be what we can be: To reach for the sky and touch the stars. No matter who we are, no matter whether we are man or woman, or rich or poor:

My voice, my right. My voice counts.”

—Desmond Tutu, a key figure in the defeat of apartheid in South Africa, Nobel Prize Laureate, first black Archbishop of South Africa.

Inclusion and the right to participate in public life

Everybody has the right to have their voice heard and to have a role in making the decisions that shape their communities. Each one of us should be able to choose those people who will represent us in all governance institutions, to stand for public office, and to vote on the fundamental questions that shape our individual and collective destines.

The return on that investment is a society tuned to the needs and aspirations of its constituents. Where this fundamental right is respected, each and every one of us is offered the opportunity to join in the debate, to offer ideas, to campaign for change – to participate.

Fulfillment of the right to participate in public life is fundamental to the functioning of a democratic society and an effective human rights protection system. Inclusion of ALL in decision-making processes is an essential precondition to the achievement of both.

Millions of people have gone onto the streets in the past few years to have their say, to protest the unyielding, unresponsive governments which have shut them out. They have demanded and continue demanding respect for their fundamental human rights, including their right to have a voice and for that voice to count.

Elsewhere, many remain silent, unable to take any part in the public lives of their communities. Often they cannot stand for office, vote for public officials or in referenda: at times they are prohibited from expressing their views at all.

Women, people with disabilities, individuals belonging to minorities and indigenous peoples, the poor, those with little or no education, remote rural communities, continue to be disenfranchised in many places, sometimes even prohibited from participation in public life or excluded on the basis of discriminatory laws or practices or because there is no appropriate infrastructure which would facilitate their inclusion.

The focus of this year’s Human Rights Day refers directly to the articles in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which provide for the right to freedom of assembly and association, the right to take part in elections, in public life and decision-making institutions and the right to freedom of expression and opinion.

These values, endorsed by the international community, are legally binding obligations upon the 167 States Parties to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which stipulates that the right to participate in the conduct of public affairs applies to “every citizen without exception”.

In the face of the extraordinary contemporary challenges for democracy, climate change, globalization, the on-going economic and financial crises in many countries, and the explosion of global web-based communication, among others, participation and inclusion are critical in the development and implementation of durable, workable policy solutions.

Your voice, your right. Your voice counts.

On Human Rights Day 2012, you are invited to reaffirm your right to voice your opinion and to take part in public discourse and decision-making processes without shame, threat or fear.

Source: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Day2012/Pages/HRD2012.aspx

Human Rights Online Philippines does not hold copyright over these materials. Author/s and original source/s of information are retained including the URL contained within the tagline and byline of the articles, news information, photos etc.

[Press Release] UN Human Rights Committee review revealed “several areas of deficit” in the Philippine human rights records

Posted on by One comment

UN Human Rights Committee review revealed “several areas of deficit” in the Philippine human rights records

Geneva 15 – 16 October 2012. The United Nations Human Rights Committee concluded the examination of the fourth periodic report of the Philippines on the implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). This review took place on 15 and 16 October 2012 in Geneva and was attended by a dozen Civil Society Organisations (CSO) from the Philippines that submitted several reports.

On October 16, the Chair of the Human Rights Committee, Zonke Majodina, concluded the dialogue on the state of human rights in the Philippines. She referred to positive developments that took place since the previous examination in 2003, including the recent adoption of the Framework Agreement between the Government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) and the 2009 anti-torture act.

The Human Rights Committee remained concerned about many difficulties faced by the State. The Chair noted “several areas of deficit” in the implementation of the ICCPR. She expressed the need for clarification on the status of the ICCPR in domestic law, whether it was regarded as binding or only persuasive authority, and she expressed concern about the absence of existing measures to implement the Committee’s views under its individual communications procedure.

The Committee noted the continuing occurrence of extra-judicial killings and the high rate of enforced disappearances; the poor results of investigations and the lack of prosecution, including the slow progress in the 2009 Ampatuan massacre. The Committee is concerned about the role of the private armed and the military auxiliary groups as well as the high number of loose weapons in circulation in the country.

In addition, the Committee is alarmed by the problem of overcrowding in prisons in Philippines, a matter that was already raised by the Committee during the last review, but which has not been addressed to-date. With regard to torture, the Government did not provide any statistics to substantiate its claim that torture is not prevalent.

With regard to women’s rights, the Chairperson said the Committee is deeply concerned about the “sharia laws and their impact on women”. The Committee was also alarmed that reproductive rights are still not guaranteed, that access to contraception is highly restricted, and that abortion without exception is criminalized. According to the State Delegation, the maternal mortality ratio has increased by a quarter from 2006 and 2010.

The Committee welcomed the landmark AngLadlad ruling of the Supreme Court that allowed an LGBT party to participate in the election but stressed that more needs to be done due to the continuing absence of anti-discrimination legislation, presence of a vague public scandal law, and anti-LGBT prejudice by military and election officials. The State delegation responded by noting persistent, “prejudices against LGBTs.”

The Human Rights Committee will make its recommendations public at the end of its session, on 1st November 2012.

Background information:
The archived webcast of the Philippines review can be seen at treatybodywebcast.org.
• NGO reports on the Philippines
• 4th State Report on Philippines

Contacts in Philippines:
– Rose Trajano – PAHRA – pahra@philippinehumanrights.org
– Ricardo Sunga – TFDP – tfdp.1974@gmail.com
– Ging Cristobal – IGLHRC – gcristobal@iglhrc.org
– Jonas Bagas – TLF Share – jonasbagas@gmail.com
– Marie Hilao-Enriquez – KARAPATAN – karapatan.pid2@gmail.com
Contacts in Geneva:
– Stuart Halford – Center for Reproductive Rights & SRI – stuart.geneva@sri-crr.org
– Asger Kjaerum – IRCT – akj@irct.org
– Patrick Mutzenberg – CCPR-Centre – pmutzenberg@ccprcentre.org

Related articles

[Resources] UN HRC- Participation in the reporting process, Guidelines For NGOs -CCPR

Posted on by Leave a comment

UN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE- Participation in the reporting process
Guidelines For Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs)

“These guidelines make readily available to all NGOs the expertise which the Centre
for Civil and Political Rights has accrued in the area of the reporting process. The
combination of detailed practical and substantive information should make these
Guidelines extremely useful in facilitating and honing the work of NGOs in relation to
the Human Rights Committee.”

Zonke Majodina
Member of the Human Rights Committee
NGO Focal Point

Read complete guidelines @ ccprcentre.org

[Resources] Submission of KARAPATAN to UNHRC for ICCPR

Posted on by One comment

Submission of the national human rights organization KARAPATAN, Alliance for the Advancement of People’s Rights to the United Nations Human Rights Committee in its 106th Session Palais Wilson, Geneva, Switzerland, October 15-November 2, 2012

This is an alternative note of the Philippine national human rights organization, KARAPATAN Alliance for the Advancement of People’s ights to the UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) in its 106th session to review the compliance of the Philippine State Party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

The note seeks to illustrate to the HRC that extrajudicial killings and arbitrary arrests and detentions, as well as other human rights iolations like disappearances, torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment continue and persist with impunity in the Philippines.

KARAPATAN is a national human rights organization documenting and investigating cases of human rights violations in the Philippines. It also assists victims and their families in seeking remedies and justice for these violations. KARAPATAN has sixteen (16) regional offices in the archipelago that gather reports and send these to the National Office in Manila to be consolidated into quarterly and annual reports which the Alliance regularly come up with, publish and disseminate.

Read complete report @ www2.ohchr.org

[Resources] PHILIPPINES Civil Society Report on the Implementation of the ICCPR

Posted on by One comment

PHILIPPINES Civil Society Report on the Implementation of the ICCPR
(Replies to the List of Issues CCPR)

Civil Society Report to the UN Human Rights Committee, 106th Session (October 15-November 2, 2012) for the Philippines Fourth Periodic Report on the CCPR.

The preparation and submission of this report is a collaborative effort of twenty (20) CSOs and NGOs facilitated by the Task Force Detainees of the Philippines (TFDP) and the Philippine Alliance of Human Rights Advocates (PAHRA) with support from the Centre for Civil and Political Rights (CCPR).

Read complete report @ www2.ohchr.org

[Statement] Republic Act No. 10175: legislating “one (1) degree higher” for impunity -PAHRA

Posted on by Leave a comment

Republic Act No. 10175: legislating “one (1) degree higher” for impunity

Our human right to the freedom of information
has not yet been made justiciable,
already a law is readied to curtail
our human right to the freedom of expression.

Republic Act No. 10175 –

AN ACT DEFINING CYBERCRIME, PROVIDING FOR THE PREVENTION, INVESTIGATION, SUPPRESSION AND THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTIES THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES –

was drafted, discussed, signed into law with all the good intentions to decisively stop the “perpetuation of licentiousness” ( Petition for Certioriari by members of the Ateneo Human Rights Center or AHRC Petition) and other harmful acts perpetrated within the cyber communities and affecting as well millions of Filipino users of the internet. R.A. No. 10175 was to take into effect last October 3, 2012.

The Philippine Alliance of Human Rights Advocates (PAHRA) “like” / agree with the AHRC Petition arguing that singularly and / or collectively the following provisions in R.A. 10175, as they transgress the …Bill of Rights in Article III of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, are

“unconstitutional”:

Chapter II: Punishable Acts

Sec. 4. Cybercrime Offenses. – The following acts constitute the offense of cybercrime punishable under this Act: xxxxxxx

(4) Libel. – The unlawful or prohibited acts of libel as defined in Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, committed through a computer system or any other similar means which may be devised in the future.

SEC. 5. Other Offenses. – The following acts shall also constitute an offense:

(a) Aiding or abetting in the Commission of Cybercrime. – Any person who wilfully aids or abets in the commission of any of the offenses enumerated in this Act shall be liable.

(b) Attempt in the Commission of Cybercrime. — Any person who willfully attempts to commit any of the offenses enumerated in this Act shall be held liable.

SEC. 6. All crimes defined and penalized by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and special laws, if committed by, through and with the use of information and communications technologies shall be covered by the relevant provisions of this Act: Provided, That the penalty to be imposed shall be one (1) degree higher than that provided for by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and special laws, as the case may be.

SEC. 7. Liability under Other Laws. — A prosecution under this Act shall be without prejudice to any liability for violation of any provision of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, or special laws.

SEC. 19. Restricting or Blocking Access to Computer Data. — When a computer data is prima facie found to be in violation of the provisions of this Act, the DOJ shall issue an order to restrict or block access to such computer data

The above provisions are also non-compliant with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which was ratified by President Corazon Aquino and signed recently by President Benigno S. Aquino III, ironically, days before the 40th anniversary of the imposition of Martial Law which violently suppressed, among other human rights, the freedoms of information and of expression.

Furthermore, in relation to the issue of libel, the U.N. Human Rights Committee states in General Comment No. 34 (2011): “States parties should consider the decriminalization of defamation and, in any case, the application of the criminal law should only be countenanced in the most serious of cases and imprisonment is never an appropriate penalty.”

Even as early as January 24 Senate Session when Senator Vicente Sotto inserted the libel clause, provisions have been made to lodge within the said law that if implemented would be like viruses for impunity. Unwittingly or otherwise, congress has legislated

“one (1) degree higher” for impunity.

One person too many, after exercising one’s freedom of expression, have been a victim of vilification and later became a subject of extra-judicial killing or enforced disappearance or torture. Human rights defenders in exposing also through cyber bulletin boards the anomalies and abuses done by government and / or security forces officials are often harassed and criminalize, as in the case of Cocoy Tulawie. The objectionable provisions, despite protestation to the contrary, can be used to legitimize violations.

If not amended of the objectionable provisions, those directly responsible for the passage of R.A. 10175 will be held also accountable for the human rights violations and criminal acts done in its name.

PAHRA unites with all those petitioners who call on the responsibles of the Executive and Legislative Branches of Government, as well as the Supreme Court, to:

1. Facilitate the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order to desist in implementing R.A. No. 10175;

2. Schedule a Department of Justice public hearing and input its results in the Oral Arguments before the Supreme Court;

3. Amend or declare null and void Sections 4 (4), 5, 6, 7 and 19 of R.A. No. 10175.
October 8, 2012

All submissions are republished and redistributed in the same way that it was originally published online and sent to us. We may edit submission in a way that does not alter or change the original material.

Human Rights Online Philippines does not hold copyright over these materials. Author/s and original source/s of information are retained including the URL contained within the tagline and byline of the articles, news information, photos etc.

[Press Release] New ‘Cybercrime’ Law Will Harm Free Speech -Human Rights Watch

Posted on by Leave a comment

Philippines: New ‘Cybercrime’ Law Will Harm Free Speech
Supreme Court to Rule on Act That Worsens Criminal Defamation

(New York, September 28, 2012) – A new Philippine “cybercrime” law drastically increases punishments for criminal libel and gives authorities excessive and unchecked powers to shut down websites and monitor online information, Human Rights Watch said today. President Benigno Aquino III signed the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 into law on September 12, 2012.

The law’s criminal penalties for online libel and other restrictions are a serious threat to free expression in the Philippines, Human Rights Watch said. Several legal cases have been filed in the Philippines Supreme Court, including for the law to be declared unconstitutional because it violates guarantees to free expression contained in the Philippines constitution and human rights treaties ratified by the Philippines.

“The cybercrime law needs to be repealed or replaced,” said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “It violates Filipinos’ rights to free expression and it is wholly incompatible with the Philippine government’s obligations under international law.”

The new law defines several new acts of “cybercrime.” Among the acts prohibited are “cybersex,” online child pornography, illegal access to computer systems or hacking, online identity theft, and spamming.

A section on libel specifies that criminal libel, already detailed in article 355 of the Philippines Revised Penal Code, will now apply to acts “committed through a computer system or any other similar means which may be devised in the future.” The new law drastically increases the penalty for computer-related libel, with the minimum punishment raised twelve-fold, from six months to six years. The maximum punishment is doubled from six to twelve years in prison.

“Anybody using popular social networks or who publishes online is now at risk of a long prison term should a reader – including government officials – bring a libel charge,” Adams said. “Allegedly libelous speech, online or offline, should be handled as a private civil matter, not a crime.”

Human Rights Watch called on the Philippines government to repeal its existing criminal libel law. The Aquino administration has shown little inclination to support legislation pending in the Philippine Congress to decriminalize libel.

Aside from the section on libel, the new law has a provision that grants new powers to the Department of Justice, which on its own and without a warrant, can order the shutdown of any website it finds violating the law. It also authorizes police to collect computer data in real time without a court order or warrant.

The use of criminal defamation laws also has a chilling effect on the speech of others, particularly those involved with similar issues, Human Rights Watch said.

When citizens face prison time for complaining about official performance, corruption, or abusive business practices, other people take notice and are less likely to draw attention to such problems themselves, undermining effective governance and civil society.

Several journalists in the Philippines have been imprisoned for libel in recent years, leaving a blot on the country’s record on press freedom. In the case of Davao City radio journalist Alexander Adonis, who was convicted in 2007 of libel and spent two years in prison, the United Nations Human Rights Committee determined that the Philippine government violated article 19 on the right to freedom of expression and opinion of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The committee called on the Philippine government to decriminalize libel.

“So long as it stands, the new cybercrime law will have a chilling effect over the entire Philippine online community,” Adams said.

For more Human Rights Watch reporting on the Philippines, please visit:
http://www.hrw.org/asia/-philippines

To view the 2010 Human Rights Watch report “Turning Critics into Criminals,” please visit:
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2010/05/04/turning-critics-criminals

All submissions are republished and redistributed in the same way that it was originally published online and sent to us. We may edit submission in a way that does not alter or change the original material.

Human Rights Online Philippines does not hold copyright over these materials. Author/s and original source/s of information are retained including the URL contained within the tagline and byline of the articles, news information, photos etc.

[Statement] Statement of Civil Society Delegates from Southeast Asia to 2012 Asia-Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum (APrIGF)

Posted on by One comment

Statement of Civil Society Delegates from Southeast Asia to 2012 Asia-Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum (APrIGF)

July 31, 2012

Southeast Asian Civil Society Groups Highlight Increasing Rights Violations Online, Call for Improvements to Internet Governance Processes in the Region

We, the undersigned civil society delegates from Southeast Asia who attended and participated in the 2012 Asia-Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum (APrIGF) on 18-20 July 2012 in Tokyo, Japan, make this statement upon the conclusion of the meeting to highlight the concerns that we raised throughout the forum.

We engaged in this meeting with the objective of raising human rights concerns in relation to the Internet, particularly on issues of freedom of expression and access to information online, as well as the role of civil society in Internet governance and policymaking. We organised two panel discussions, namely “Internet in Asia: Space for Free Expression and Information” and “Civil Society in Internet Governance/Policymaking” during the 2012 APrIGF. Through these panel discussions, as well as in other sessions that we participated in, we raised the following human rights concerns in relation to the Internet:

Increasing censorship and attacks to online expression

The space for free expression on the Internet is shrinking. Many governments are extending censorship and control of traditional media to the Internet. In most cases, censorship measures are implemented in a non-transparent manner, which makes it difficult to determine whether the measures taken are in accordance with international laws and standards.

In some countries, citizens who make use of the free space on the internet as bloggers, citizen journalists or social media users become targets of attacks, arrest, and/or threats by state security agents. These actions by state authorities produce a chilling effect on internet users resulting in widespread self-censorship of social and political expression for fear of reprisals from the government or its agents.

We thus call upon all governments to ensure that any measure to limit freedom of expression and the right to information are in accordance with international human rights laws and standards, particularly Article 19(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which allows for limitations only on narrow and clearly-defined grounds, by passing the “three-part, cumulative test” following the principles of necessity, proportionality (ensuring that it is the least restrictive measure) and transparency. Furthermore, any limitation to freedom of expression, including censorship measures, must be determined by an independent judicial body, and not left to the arbitrary powers of governments or intermediaries. These parameters must apply in all circumstances including during state of emergency and in name of national security or public order.

New laws and legislative amendments that curb freedom of speech online

We are further alarmed by the growing number of laws and policies in Southeast Asia that negatively impact freedom of expression on the Internet. While we recognise the need to address cybercrime and legitimate national security concerns, we are concerned that such laws seek to extend media censorship and criminal defamation to the internet, and are also being used to criminalize individuals or organizations expressing or sharing legitimate social or political critique.

We reiterate that any restriction to freedom of expression on the Internet must not risk citizens’ rights to hold opinions without interference and to freedom of thought, conscience and religion as stipulated in Article 18 of the ICCPR, and it must not be subject to lawful derogation as outlined in UN General Comment No. 34. We stress that any introduction of new laws or legislative amendments, particularly those that could potentially impact human rights, must involve extensive, inclusive and meaningful public consultations. We further urge all governments in Southeast Asia to decriminalise defamation both online and offline.

Additionally, we emphasize that the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary remain among the key challenges to democracy in Southeast Asia. Law-enforcement agencies and justice systems must presume innocence until defendants are proven guilty, regardless of whether or not defamation is criminal. Certain legislation, including those laws that criminalize online speech and expression, are worth noting here as examples of legislation in Southeast Asia that warrant close monitoring of their enactment or enforcement:

· Burma – The 2004 Electronic Transactions Act

· Cambodia – The 2012 Draft Cyber-Law, the 1995 Press Law, and the 2010 Penal Code

· Malaysia – The 2012 Amendment to the Evidence Act and the 2011 Computing Professionals Bill

· Indonesia – The 2008 Law on Information and Electronic Transaction and the 2008 Law on Pornography

· The Philippines – The 2012 Data Privacy Act

· Thailand – The 2007 Computer Crimes Act, the Article 112 of the Penal Code, and the 2004 Special Case Investigation Act

· Vietnam – The 1999 Penal Code, the 2004 Publishing Law, the 2000 State Secrets Protection Ordinance, and the 2012 Draft Decree on Internet Management

Intermediary liability

We express our deep concern over the increasing pressures by governments on internet service providers and content hosts to monitor, regulate and censor online content. Consequently, such intermediaries are increasingly being held legally and criminally liable for online content, including content posted by other users.

We reiterate that the regulation of content on the Internet should be determined by an independent judicial body, and not be left to intermediaries. We further echo the call by the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression that intermediaries should not be held liable for online content.

Violations by non-State actors, including those employed by governments

Finally, we are alarmed at the rise of internet vigilante groups acting on behalf of governments or powerful institutions to help monitor sensitive information posted over the Internet through personal websites and social media. Such groups often target persons expressing unpopular opinions and subject them to abusive behaviour and threats. In some cases, such threats have been carried out off-line in the form of discriminatory treatment, physical attacks and even state prosecution of these targets. In addition, critical and independent websites are frequently being targeted for hacking and DDoS attacks.

We strongly remind all governments that it is their primary obligation to promote and protect human rights, and this includes protecting its citizens’ exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and expression from violations by non-state actors online.

Improving the APrIGF Process

While we support and uphold the multi-stakeholder process of the IGF, and value the opportunity to contribute to the global dialogue around these crucial issues, several aspects of the APrIGF are in need of improvement:

Participation by governments across Asia was minimal despite the multi-stakeholder framework that this forum purports to promote. This has inevitably limited the dialogues between the different stakeholders on Internet governance in the Asia-Pacific region.

Similarly, there was also inadequate civil society participation at the APrIGF 2012. One of the reasons to this is that there is a perception that the APrIGF is a largely ineffective forum in making needed efforts to advance human rights in cyberspace.

Multi-stakeholder discussions on and approaches to emerging human rights issues concerning the Internet were largely limited at the APrIGF 2012.

Finally, there was a marked absence or lack of critical assessment of the progress with regard to the implementation of recommendations made at the previous APrIGF. This has contributed to the perception of the APrIGF’s ineffectiveness.

Recommendations to the APrIGF Multi-stakeholder Strategy Group

In view of these shortcomings and with the hope of improving upon the 2012 APrIGF, we offer the following recommendations to the APrIGF Multi-stakeholder Strategy Group for future iterations of this event:

● To facilitate more robust dialogue and more engagement of those participants who are not speaking on panels, we recommend a more participatory process for sessions, with fewer time spent on panel presentations, and more time dedicated to questions and comments from those in the audience.

● In the interest of more a diverse dialogue, we recommend that efforts be made to enlarge and broaden the spectrum of attendees at the event. Special effort should be made to encourage government and civil society participation, especially in view of the rare opportunity to discuss such issues within the host country. Additionally, the affordability of the host city and the need for financial assistance should be taken into account as a factor that may make civil society participation more or less likely.

● To encourage broader participation in session dialogues and bolster engagement of civil society, we recommend that strong efforts be made to facilitate inbound remote participation via video conferencing. In addition to the valuable service of live web-casting, remote participants should be empowered to ask questions and make comments within a panel. This could be facilitated with greater integration of social media, within the APrIGF website.

● To ensure that all issues are well-represented within the conversations at the APrIGF, we recommend that at least one plenary session be dedicated to social issues in internet governance, such as online freedom of expression, access to information and digital divide.

● To ensure that progress is made on issues discussed at the APrIGF from one year to another, we recommend that one plenary session be dedicated to looking back at the issues raised and recommendations made at the previous APrIGF, and critically assessing progress made on those issues.

Recommendations to Southeast Asian governments
In addition, we make the following specific recommendations to our respective governments in Southeast Asia:

ASEAN governments must ensure that the ASEAN Human Rights Declaration explicitly and unequivocally protects the right to freedom of expression and freedom of information in accordance with international human rights laws and standards.
ASEAN governments should issue a joint statement to pronounce their commitment to uphold Internet freedom.

All regional governments should involve civil society meaningfully and inclusively in Internet policymaking, especially in drafting laws and policies that potentially impact human rights, including in regional-policy arena that involve the issues related to ICT and internet governance, such as:

Regional economic integration by 2015 under the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC). The AEC’s areas of cooperation include a focus on internet governance, such as: “enhanced infrastructure and communications connectivity”; and “development of electronic transactions through e-ASEAN”. Currently, the AEC encourages only business sector participation and not civil society.

The ASEAN CIO Forum under the ASEAN ICT Master Plan 2015 also opens participation only to business sectors. The forum focuses on CIO16 and its objective is to “Taking leadership in collaboration and transformation for a competitive, highly productive and envisage a concrete/positive ASEAN ICT community.” The master plan aims to minimize digital divide and make ICT in the region be empowering, transformational, inclusive, vibrant, and integrated for the people by 2015.

All regional governments should attend and engage in regional IGFs to dialogue with other stakeholders, including civil society, on regional issues concerning the Internet.

Signed by:

Arthit SURIYAWONGKUL
Coordinator
Thai Netizen Network
Bangkok, Thailand
E-mail: arthit@gmail.com
Tel: +66 87 504 2221

Pirongrong RAMASOOTA
Thai Media Policy Center Bangkok, Thailand
E-mail: pirongrong.r@gmail.com
Tel: +66 89 770 8911

Triana DYAH
Head, Information & Documentation Division
The Institute for Policy Research and Advocacy (ELSAM)
Jakarta, Indonesia
E-mail: office@elsam.or.id
Tel: +62 21 7972662, 79192564
Fax: +62 21 79192519

Edgardo LEGASPI
Alerts & Communication officer
Southeast Asian Press Alliance (SEAPA)
Bangkok, Thailand
E-mail: epl@seapa.org
Tel: +66 8 1116 5137
Fax: +66 2 2448749

Sean ANG
Executive Director
Southeast Asian Centre for e-Media (SEACeM)
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
E-mail: sean@seacem.com
Tel: +60 3 2284 3367
Fax: +60 3 2289 2579
Victorius (Ndaru) EPS
Jakarta, Indonesia

NGETH Moses
Communication Coordinator
Community Legal Education Center (CLEC)
Phnom Penh, Cambodia
E-mail: Moses@clec.org.kh
Tel: (855) 66 777 010
Fax: (855) 23 211 723
Sovathana (Nana) NEANG
Phnom Penh, Cambodia

YAP Swee Seng
Executive Director
Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)
E-mail: yap@forum-asia.org
Tel: +66 81 868 9178
Fax: +66 2 6379128

Endorsed by:

ICT Watch (Indonesian ICT Partnership Association)
Jakarta, Indonesia
Email: info@ictwatch.com
Tel: (021) 98495770
Fax: (021) 8280691

All submissions are republished and redistributed in the same way that it was originally published online and sent to us. We may edit submission in a way that does not alter or change the original material.

Human Rights Online Philippines does not hold copyright over these materials. Author/s and original source/s of information are retained including the URL contained within the tagline and byline of the articles, news information, photos etc.

[Press Release] Rights Group Warns Shrinking Space for Expression on the Internet and Social Media in Asia -Forum Asia

Posted on by Leave a comment

Rights Group Warns Shrinking Space for Expression on the Internet and Social Media in Asia

New publication highlights increasing attempts by governments and some non-state actors in Asia to reduce online spaces

(Tokyo/Bangkok, 20 July 2012): The space for free speech and expression on the Internet and social media in Asia is shrinking and faces increasing challenges, said the Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA), a Bangkok-based human rights NGO, during the launch of its latest report titled, “Internet and Social Media in Asia: Battleground for Freedom of Expression”, in Tokyo, Japan today.

Launched at the sidelines of the Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum, a multi-stakeholder meeting that involves governments, the private sector, as well as civil society across the region on issues relating to the Internet, the new publication illustrates current and emerging trends regarding the issue of freedom of expression on the Internet and social media in Asia through various case studies, and analyses legislations and policies across the region.

The publication describes the situation of freedom of expression on the Internet and social media in Asia as thus: “Voices of dissent emerging from these new spaces created by advancements on the Internet have often been met with harsh crackdown by governments. Those who express views that are contrary to dominant cultural and religious norms are particularly targeted – not only by governments but by non-state actors as well. The Internet and social media have thus become battlegrounds between those claiming and utilising the new space for free speech and expressions, and those who seek to close this space.”

Indeed, one of the main trends identified in the publication is the heightened measures to censor, block or filter out online contents during specific key political events. The publication provides several examples of this, including in Sri Lanka, where several websites were blocked on the eve of the presidential election in 2010; and in Malaysia, where severe disruptions of cellular communications were reported during a mass-scale rally demanding for free and fair elections in April 2012.

According to Yap Swee Seng, FORUM-ASIA’s executive director, “This particular trend of censoring and blocking online contents during key political events is expected to worsen considering the rise of popular movements that are critical of governments in many countries across Asia, coupled with several scheduled elections across the region in the next couple of years.”

Furthermore, most of these restrictive measures are implemented by governments in a non-transparent manner.

“The non-transparent manner of governments’ measures to restrict online contents makes it extremely difficult to determine whether these measures taken are indeed legitimate, necessary and proportionate under international human rights law,” said Yap.

The publication also highlights the increase of law amendments and new laws by governments in the region to further restrict freedom of expression on grounds of national security, cyber security, defamation and incitement to hatred. Yap said that while these laws at first glance may seem justifiable, they are often vaguely worded and overbroad, and easily open to abuse to criminalise free speech online.

Other trends noted in the publication are:

The disproportionately severe penalties for merely exercising free speech;
The increasing liability of intermediaries over online contents, and the growing pressure on intermediaries to play the role of regulating the Internet; and
Violations of freedom of expression, including cyber attacks and physical threats and harassment, by non-state actors, who in some cases are allegedly employed by governments.

Yap stressed, “Non-state actors, such as corporations and Internet service providers, are increasingly being pressured by governments to play an increased regulating role as intermediaries. Several countries in Asia have held intermediaries liable for online contents, thus forcing them to block or remove certain contents that are deemed ‘undesirable’. This is indeed a very worrying development for freedom of expression online.”

Based on these trends, FORUM-ASIA called on governments, the private sector, and judicial bodies in the region to respect, promote and protect freedom of expression and other rights in accordance to international human rights laws and standards at all times. This includes:

That any restriction to freedom of expression on the Internet must adhere to international human rights laws and standards, namely Article 19(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which provides for limitations only on narrow and clearly-defined grounds to protect the rights of others, as well as the principles of proportionality (ensuring that it is the least restrictive measure) and transparency;
That any limitation to freedom of expression must be determined by an independent judicial body, and not left to the arbitrary powers of governments or intermediaries;
That all governments should ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and ensure its implementation at the domestic level; and
That all governments should decriminalise defamation.

The findings of this publication, together with its recommendations, will be presented at the Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum, currently being held in Tokyo, Japan.

“Internet and Social Media in Asia: Battleground for Freedom of Expression”, can be downloaded from: http://www.forum-asia.org/?p=14295

For inquiries, please contact:

• Yap Swee Seng, Executive Director, FORUM-ASIA, +66818689178, yap@forum-asia.org
• John Liu, East Asia Programme Officer, FORUM-ASIA, +66802828610, johnliu@forum-asia.org

All submissions are republished and redistributed in the same way that it was originally published online and sent to us. We may edit submission in a way that does not alter or change the original material.

Human Rights Online Philippines does not hold copyright over these materials. Author/s and original source/s of information are retained including the URL contained within the tagline and byline of the articles, news information, photos etc.

SANLAKAS militantly salutes HRONLINE for a virtual year of propagating democracy with social justice and for defending our people’s rights!

Posted on by Leave a comment

SANLAKAS militantly salutes HRONLINE for a virtual year of propagating democracy with social justice and for defending our people’s rights!

30 March 2012

SANLAKAS warmly extends a clench-fisted militant salute to HROnline on the occasion of your 1st Anniversary and for having raised and waved high the banner of progressive unity in the frontlines of mass struggle for one year now! We do so as a show of proud solidarity with HROnline’s dedicated and principled cadre of human rights defenders. We do so with respect just twelve months after HROnline successfully launched a new cyber-battlefront in defense of human rights in the Philippines and across the world.

We fully recognize that HROnline has clearly proven itself to be an effective social-political platform that courageously propagates the broad progressive struggle for genuine social change. We can surely see this in the way HROnline has been able to act as a virtual campaigns contact-point which allows for a wide range of progressive organizations and individuals to come together in a concerted effort. In a sense, HROnline is also a ‘progressive forces projection-multiplier’ that can link up, magnify and re-echo the progressive mass movement’s agenda via the bourgeois-controlled mass media and to also develop alliances with other interested sectors and entities in the Philippine social-political arena. Thus, in recognition of this very important accomplishment, we in SANLAKAS wish to encourage HROnline to continue to develop this ground-breaking pathway and to even raise higher the potential level of coordination among various progressive forces.

In fact, HROnline’s just and honorable cause is not only shining a bright light on the many other progressive mass campaigns and struggles of today. It is also helping to serve the progressive mass movement with a critically vital component in relation to educating-organizing-mobilizing both the organized forces and the basic masses. Thus, HROnline helps to enhance and further develop the collective capacity of our general struggle in order to be able to one day overturn and change the ruling system, in unity with the broad working-class masses. Its ultimate outcome must be to favor the 99% social majority.

Indeed, it can only be a revolutionary mass struggle that must and can win this fight for genuine systemic change. Its principled objective is to inevitably pave the way forward to socialism as an egalitarian social-economic system that does not exploit nor oppress other fellow human beings in society. Yet for now, we must first collectively and concretely advance a universal war to essentially liberate all of humanity from all forms of oppression and exploitation on the basis of general democratic reforms. This means carrying forward a democratic struggle for structural reforms and aimed at eventually destroying and crushing the main pillars of capitalist exploitation and oppression as the root cause of systemic mass poverty in present-day Philippine society. Nevertheless, this struggle must also be pursued on an international scale if it is to be victorious because capitalism is a globalized system and hence, its systemic replacement must also be of a global nature.

And so it is, that our joint forces are now truly engaged in a global war of liberation to uphold, to protect and to defend all human rights for all. Definitely, this necessitates the formation of mass resistance fronts in all countries of the world to combat the worldwide camp of hegemony, especially that one led by US imperialism and its reactionary puppet-states (i.e. the PNoy Regime in the Philippines).

The economically and socially destructive domination and control of the international system by US imperialism today can be seen and felt in terms of the dangerous and deadly massive human rights violations worldwide. These outcomes are a direct result of the US imperialist-led neoliberal economic imposition and dictations, political maneuverings to ensure pro-US regime changes and ultimately, the subjugation of anti-imperialist states through wars of aggression. All of these are the basic elements of the US foreign policy framework aimed at absolutely securing puppet-agent states, market protection and expansion, sustained oil supplies and other strategic resources, and forward force projection through military bases, visiting forces-type agreements and other related defense arrangements.

In order to systematically and institutionally attain its imperialist objectives, the US and its international agents will never hesitate to violate any and all the key provisions of the international bill of human rights. Ever since 1948, all Philippine governments have continuously violated and stepped on the principles and provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and the many other human rights-based instruments reflective of universal norms and values that uphold and protect the human rights of all the peoples of the world. This is clearly witnessed in the unabated number of HRVs, such as: warrantless arrests, torture, enforced disappearances, state-sponsored assassinations, and also unfair labor practices and non-compliance with accepted economic and social standards.

So long as this globalized system of human rights violations continue on a massive scale all the genuinely sincere individuals and progressive and revolutionary Left forces shall have to continue on the fight for systemic change. And in this unjust environment, HROnline, SANLAKAS and all other organizations still active within the progressive mass movement will need to carry on our combined struggle until genuine social change is finally achieved for the social benefit and welfare of all.

Lastly, in total recognition of this, SANLAKAS confidently expresses its admiration for HROnline’s very good and highly positive work in strengthening and propagating our shared vision for a truly people-centered society premised on full democratic freedoms with social justice. And as we further encourage you to continue on with this noble fight, we now convey to our HROnline comrades that SANLAKAS shall also continue to firmly stand beside you and to resolutely march with you in our united struggles to build a truly free, democratic and socially just world order in the near future.

[From the web] CIVICUS Submission to the UN Universal Periodic Review 13th Session of the UPR Working Group

Posted on by Leave a comment

Philippines
Submission to the UN Universal Periodic Review 13th Session of the UPR Working Group
Submitted 28 November 2011
Submitted by CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation

1. (A) Introduction

1.1 CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation is an international movement with members in more than 100 countries worldwide. Established in 1993, CIVICUS nurtures the foundation, growth and protection of citizen action throughout the world, especially in areas where participatory democracy and citizen’s freedom of association are threatened.

1.2 In this document, CIVICUS outlines urgent concerns related to the environment in which civil society activists and human rights defenders operate in the Philippines. This submission highlights the major breaches of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

· Section B highlights concerns regarding assassinations and extra-judicial killings of
activists and other civilians
· Section C focuses on the disappearance, torture, arbitrary arrest and detention of
civilians
· Section D highlights attacks on freedom of expression and association of civil
society organisations
· Section E highlights the militarisation in rural and urban areas and the
displacement of civilians
· In Section F, CIVICUS makes a number of recommendations to the Philippine
Government.

Read full report @ upr philippines CIVICUS submission

[From the web] A triumph for free expression and press freedom – CMFR

Posted on by Leave a comment

A triumph for free expression and press freedom
BY CMFR
January 31, 2012

STATEMENT OF THE FREEDOM FUND FOR FILIPINO JOURNALISTS (FFFJ) ON THE UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE’S VIEW THAT THE PHILIPPINE LIBEL LAW IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS (ICCPR)

 THE Freedom Fund for Filipino Journalists (FFFJ) hails as a triumph for free expression and press freedom the declaration by the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC), which was adopted during the 103rd session of the United Nations, that the provisions of the Philippines’ Revised Penal Code (RPC) penalizing libel as a criminal offense is “incompatible with Article 19, paragraph three of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)” to which the Philippines is a signatory.

Recalling its General Comment No. 34 that “state parties should consider the decriminalization of defamation” the UNHRC also recommended the decriminalization of libel in the Philippines, as the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR) has been urging for nearly two decades. It also recommended the review of the libel law, and urged the Philippine government to compensate Davao City broadcaster Alexander “Alex” Adonis for time served in prison.

Under the provisions of the RPC, libel is punishable with imprisonment, although some of those convicted of the offense have also been subjected to exorbitant fines running into millions of pesos. The possibility of being arrested and imprisoned even before conviction for libel has been used to silence critical journalists. Former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo’s husband Jose Miguel Arroyo, for example, filed 11 libel suits against 46 journalists starting in 2006 in an attempt to stop press reporting on and criticism of his wife.

The UNHRC issued the declaration in response to a 2008 complaint filed by Adonis protesting his conviction and subsequent imprisonment for supposedly libeling then House Speaker Prospero Nograles when he reported over his radio program in 2006 that Nograles had run out of a hotel room without his clothes on when the husband of the woman he had supposedly spent the night with showed up. Adonis was convicted and sentenced to a prison term of five months to four years, but questioned the decision after he had served two years. Lawyer Harry Roque filed the complaint, with the CMFR and the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP) as Adonis’ co-signatories.

It is now up to the Philippine government to take the steps necessary to decriminalize libel and prevent similar occurrences, to cause the immediate dismissal of all pending cases of criminal libel, as well as to compensate Adonis and every other journalist who has been imprisoned under the provisions of the Philippine libel law. To hurry the process along, the FFFJ calls on all journalists’ and media advocacy groups as well as civil society organizations to campaign for the immediate adoption of the UNCHR recommendations, including the dropping of all pending criminal libel charges against journalists.

Founded in 2003 to stop the killing of journalists and to support journalists under threat, the Freedom Fund for Filipino Journalists (FFFJ) is a coalition of journalist and media advocacy groups Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR), Center for Community Journalism and Development (CCJD), Kapisanan ng Brodkaster ng Pilipinas (KBP), Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ), and Philippine Press Institute (PPI). CMFR is the FFFJ Secretariat.

Read full article @ www.cmfr-phil.org

[In the news] UNHRC: Philippine criminal libel law violates freedom of expression – InterAksyon.com

Posted on by One comment

UNHRC: Philippine criminal libel law violates freedom of expression
by InterAksyon.com
January 29, 2012

 MANILA, Philippines – In a landmark decision just recently released, the United Nation Human Rights Commission says Philippine laws criminalizing libel is “incompatible with Article 19, paragraph three of the International Covenant on Civil Political Rights (ICCPR)”, or freedom of expression.

This UNHRC’s view, adopted on October 26, 2011, was expressed in line with a complaint filed by Davao based broadcaster Alex Adonis. Adonis was jailed for more than two years pursuant to a conviction for libel in a complaint filed by former Speaker Prospero Nograles. In a radio broadcast in 2001, Adonis read and dramatized a newspaper report that then Congressman Nograles was seen running naked in a hotel when caught in bed by the husband of the woman with whom he was said to have spent the night with.

In a decision rendered by the Regional Trial Court of Davao, Adonis was sentenced to imprisonment from 5 months and one day to four years, six days and one day imprisonment. In the said decision, the local court concluded: “the evidence was sufficient to prove the authors guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for a malicious, arbitrary, abusive, irresponsible act of maligning the honor, reputation and good name of Congressman Nograles”.

After serving two years in prison, Adonis questioned the compatibility of criminal libel with freedom of expression under Article 19 of the ICCPR. Adonis, through his lawyer, Harry Roque of the UP College of Law and the Center for International Law (CenterLaw), argued that “the sanction of imprisonment for libel fails to meet the standard of necessity and reasonableness. Imprisonment is unnecessary since there are other effective means available for protection for the rights of others.”

Read full article @ www.interaksyon.com

[From the web] Human Rights Violations on the Basis of SOGI, and Homosexuality in the Philippines COALITION REPORT

Posted on by Leave a comment

Human Rights Violations on the Basis of Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity, and Homosexuality in the Philippines COALITION REPORT
Submission to the 103rd Session of the Human Rights Committee (17 October–‐ 4 November 2011)

This report is a joint submission by the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC) and the following lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) and human rights groups in the Philippines: Alliance of Young Health Advocates, Alliance of Young Nurse Leaders & Advocates International Inc., Amnesty International Philippines –‐ LGBT Group (AIPh–‐LGBT), Bisdak Pride, Cagayan De Oro Plus (CDO Plus), Changing Lane Women’s Group, Coalition for the Liberation of the Reassigned Sex (COLORS), Elite Men’s Circle (EMC), EnGendeRights, Inc., Filipino Freethinkers (FF), Fourlez Women’s Group, GAYAC (Gay Achievers Club), KABARO–‐ PUP, Lesbian Activism Project Inc. (LeAP!), Inc., Miss Maanyag Gay Organization of Butuan, OUT Exclusives Women’s Group, OUT Philippines, Philippine Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches (MCC), Philippine Forum on Sports, Culture, Sexuality and Human Rights (TEAM PILIPINAS), Philippine LGBT Hate Crime Watch (PLHCW), Queer Pagan Network (PQN), Rainbow Rights Project (R–‐Rights), Inc., Redbridge Books Publishing Co. (LGBTQ Publishing House), TLF Share Collective, Inc., TMC Globe Division League, Tumbalata, Inc., Ultimo Icono Group, Women on Top Women’s Group and individual activists: Arnel Rostom Deiparine and Ryan Sylverio.

It is written on the occasion of the fifth periodic report of the Government of the Philippines on the implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“the Covenant”).

The purpose of this report is to highlight the widespread and systematic human rights violations experienced by LGBT persons because of their sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI); men who have sex with men (MSM); in the Philippines despite the country’s international obligations under the Covenant. IGLHRC and the above mentioned LGBT and human rights groups draw the attention of the Committee to the following human rights violations:

  • The failure of the Philippine government to enact laws that protect LGBT persons from discrimination
  • The failure of the Philippine government to enact laws that protect LGBT persons from hate crimes and Hate Speech
  • The failure of the Philippine government to address the mental and health needs of LGBT persons
  • The failure of the Philippine government to investigate and prosecute police mistreatment of the LGBT community and hate crimes against LGBT persons
  • The absence of legal mechanisms to recognize the gender identities of transgender people
  • The absence of legal recognition of same–‐sex unions and families in the Philippines
  • The failure of the Philippine government to address the sexual and reproductive health of LGBT persons
  • The failure of the Philippine government to protect children with
  • non–‐heteronormative sexual orientation or gender identity from abuse, discrimination and violence

Click the link for the complete copy of the report: ICCPR Philippines LGBT CSO Report 01Dec2011-1

[From the web] Freedom of expression and new media – www.ohchr.org

Posted on by One comment

When the UN Human Rights Committee last clarified the rights to freedom of opinion and expression, use of the internet was limited and the effect it would have on the mainstream media was still the subject of speculation.

Today’s hand-held communication technologies have revolutionized the media © EPA/Everett Kennedy Brown

More than two decades on, the Committee seeks to give practical application to freedom of opinion and expression in the radically altered media landscape which has the internet and mobile communications centre-stage.

Describing “a global network to exchange ideas and opinions that does not necessarily rely on the traditional mass media”, the Committee says “States parties should take all necessary steps to foster the independence of these new media and to ensure access”.

Any restrictions that might be applied to websites, blogs or any other internet-based networks or support systems should be limited, the Committee says, to content only and should not be applied to entire sites and systems.

In the context of permissible restrictions generally, the Committee recommends extreme caution and provides many examples of situations where the urge to restrict freedom of expression should be resisted.  There are no circumstances which justify limiting freedom of opinion, the Committee notes in its revised General Comment.

Lawmakers, judges, prosecutors, lawyers, human rights defenders, journalists and others will turn to the General Comment for guidance on the scope and practical applications of the rights to freedom of opinion and expression.

In the  International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which sets out the right to freedom of expression, only two situations are described which justify its limitation: respect of the rights or reputations of others and protection of national security or of public order, or of public health or morals. The Covenant also prohibits advocacy of religious hatred.

Allowing for those very limited exceptions, the Committee says blasphemy laws and prohibitions on displays of disrespect for a religion or other belief systems are a contravention of the right to freedom of expression, as are laws which favour one religion over another, or religious believers over non-believers, or which prevent or punish criticism of religious leaders or commentary on religious doctrine.

The Committee notes that the Convention places a particularly high value on uninhibited debate concerning political figures and public institutions.  Laws which prohibit or restrict criticism of important people and institutions are cause for concern the Committee says.  “The mere fact that forms of expression are considered to be insulting to a public figure is not sufficient to justify the imposition of penalties… all public figures, including those exercising the highest political authority such as heads of state and government, are legitimately subject to criticism and political opposition”.  The same should apply to institutions such as the army.

Committee member, Michael O’Flaherty says, “The main point of the general comment and of the Committee adopting it is that freedom of expression is at the heart of the entire human rights system.”

“That means,” he says, “we have to put up with a lot of speech that we don’t like.

Source: www.ohchr.org

Related articles
« Older Entries