Experts of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination Commend the Philippines’ Law on HIV/AIDS, Ask Questions on the Situation of Indigenous Peoples and on Internally Displaced Persons
The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination today concluded its consideration of the combined twenty-first to twenty-fifth periodic report of the Philippines, with Committee Experts commending the law on HIV/AIDS, and asking questions on indigenous peoples, and on internally displaced persons.
One Committee Expert commended the law on HIV/AIDS, and asked what strategy was adopted and implemented by the State party in order to protect persons living with HIV/AIDS from stigmatisation and discrimination, which were real obstacles in prevention and care. The Committee also wished for disaggregated data on the number of people living with HIV in the country, in particular among the indigenous population.
Michal Balcerzak, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur for the report of the Philippines, asked the delegation to provide information about specific judgments of domestic courts that referred to protecting and promoting the rights of indigenous peoples. He noted the range of programmes and activities intended to ensure that indigenous peoples could benefit from human rights without discrimination, however, during the period under review, there had been an expansion of foreign and private large-scale projects for mining, hydropower dams, infrastructure, agribusiness, and logging, all of which had threatened indigenous peoples’ land rights and undermined indigenous customary land practices. He asked how the Government ensured that the principle of free, prior and informed consent was respected in all circumstances.
Faith Dikeldi Pansy Tlakula, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur for the report of the Philippines, said the indigenous peoples occupied a special place in the country. She also spoke of the Committee’s concerns that durable solutions for internal displacement caused by past events, including natural disasters such as typhoon Haiyan, had yet to be found, asking what frameworks for rights-based and gender-sensitive programming did the State party have in place to respond to past, ongoing, and future displacement. It appeared that the situation of internally displaced persons had continued to decline in part as a result of forced evictions of communities to make way for large-scale resource extraction projects and climate change induced related disasters that had been exacerbated by deforestation and watershed loss. She asked what had been done to protect displaced persons from the effect of climate change, disasters and deforestation.
Allan A. Capuyan, Chairperson of the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples of the Philippines and head of the delegation, said there were 17 special regions in the country, and there were discussions in the Regional Task Forces on the rights of indigenous peoples, industrial workers, youth and students and other groups in order to mainstream issues from the ground with sectoral issues. The rights of every citizen and their well-being were guaranteed through the Constitution. The National Commission on Indigenous Peoples supported human rights defenders. Almost 6 million hectares of territory had been declared ancestral lands and territories - almost one third of the country. The colour of skin did not matter, nor did clothing, what mattered were rights, which were being protected and respected.
The delegation said the Government had adopted strategies to protect the rights of persons living with HIV and AIDS and to ensure that they did not suffer from discrimination, and this included laws mandating that testing should be voluntary and free from coercion, and that the privacy of persons affected should be respected.
On internally displaced persons, the delegation said legislation provided for the protection of the rights of the indigenous in cases of armed conflict, including through the Department of Social Welfare and Development. Food and other resources were provided for internally displaced persons. Many children were exposed or vulnerable to armed conflict in various areas: the influence of violent extremism could not be denied, the delegation said. The Philippines was enacting a law on children involved in armed conflict, whose rights would now be promoted and guaranteed.
In concluding remarks, Mr. Balcerzak said the delegation had been very responsive. He supported the request expressed earlier with regard to the interim follow-up report - some issues would require response in one year in order to keep the dialogue going, and these would be indicated in the recommendations.
Mr. Capuyan said the interim report would be submitted. The Government, over past decades, had actively stood against all forms of racial discrimination, and actively worked for the protection and promotion of Filipinos and others alike. It was one nation.
The delegation of the Philippines consisted of representatives of the National Commission on Indigenous People; the Presidential Human Rights Committee Secretariat; the Council for the Welfare of Children; Department of Justice; Office of the Court Administrator; Department of Foreign Affairs; and the Permanent Mission of the Philippines to the United Nations Office at Geneva.
The Committee will issue its concluding observations on the report of the Philippines after the conclusion of its one hundred and ninth session on 28 April. Summaries of the public meetings of the Committee can be found here, while webcasts of the public meetings can be found here. The programme of work of the Committee’s one hundred and ninth session and other documents related to the session can be found here.
The Committee will next meet at 3 p.m. to review the combined twelfth and thirteenth periodic report of Tajikistan (CERD/C/TJK/12-13).
Report of the Philippines
The Committee has before it the combined twenty-first to twenty-fifth periodic report by the Philippines (CERD/C/PHL/21-25).
Presentation of Report
ALLEN A. CAPUYAN, Chairperson of the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples of the Philippines and head of the delegation, said the 1987 Philippine Constitution guaranteed the full respect of human rights and dignity of every person as well as the promotion of the rights of indigenous cultural communities within the framework of national unity and development. To reinforce this Constitutional guarantee, the Philippines had acceded to the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in 1967 and enacted the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act in 1997, which latter was the State’s landmark legislation enacted by and for the people as it went through broad nationwide consultations with indigenous peoples’ communities and support groups. It was focused on addressing the plight of Filipino indigenous peoples as a sector that was marginalised and most vulnerable to discrimination in Philippine society while correcting historical injustice and discrimination.
The Philippines took note and valued the observations made by the Committee. The report had focused on responding significantly to the Committee’s previous concluding observations and recommendations. The report reflected the inputs arising from five major consultations with non-government organizations and civil society groups, and among government agencies. From these consultations, the national report underscored the following essential feedback: the State reaffirmed its national policy to prevent and address all forms of discrimination arising from race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin, taking into account the principles of non-discrimination and the core international human rights instruments. To further put form to this policy, the State enacted 215 laws relevant to the promotion, protection and fulfilment of the rights of indigenous peoples during the period under review.
The State had enhanced its judicial processes to ensure that its laws, as properly interpreted, positively bore upon the rights of indigenous peoples, and recognised that development must be pursued in full respect of human rights and through inclusive and participatory processes. The State emphasised its high regard for the role of indigenous political structures, which were the authentic indigenous leadership and governance systems of indigenous peoples, in mitigating violations and conflicts. The State, in keeping with its responsibility to ensure that indigenous peoples’ rights were protected, acted on these and other atrocities committed against indigenous peoples by violent Leftist extremists.
With regard to milestones since the last submitted report, the Philippines had embarked on partnerships and collaborations to advance indigenous peoples’ rights and strengthen capacity to fulfil its obligations under the Convention. To date, more partnerships had been established under collaborative frameworks, such as memoranda of agreement or cooperation involving some 70 government and non-government organizations. These were forged to facilitate the streamlining of programmes, activities, and projects for indigenous peoples, women, children, youth, and elderly. Collaborations continued to expand to foreign institutions and international human rights organizations and mechanisms.
The COVID-19 pandemic became an opportunity for the State to showcase its capacity and competence to protect its indigenous peoples, especially keeping track of the varying situations of indigenous peoples in their respective communities. In March 2022, the Philippines acceded to the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. The Philippines likewise enhanced its mechanisms for refugees with the issuance of an administrative regulation to establish a fair, efficient and non-adversarial procedure for the protection and assistance of refugees and stateless persons. Moreover, an inter-agency committee was institutionalised in February 2022, tasked to facilitate access to socio-economic services by refugees and stateless persons.
The Philippines took pride in a number of institutional strengthening efforts aimed at being more responsive to the call for action on indigenous issues in the Philippines and overseas, including through establishing the Information and Communication Technology Command Centre. The State was committed to further strengthen its collection of comprehensive data on indigenous peoples for policy planning and formulation and the implementation of culturally sensitive and appropriate programmes.
All these were milestones and achievements contributing toward the implementation of the Convention and the elimination of discrimination. However, more had to be done by the State. The vulnerability of communities to external factors, such as foreign ideologies, armed groups, land grabbers, abusive politicians, criminal elements and other actors who illegally operated and extracted resources inside the ancestral domains continued to threaten the indigenous peoples’ right to self-determination and governance. The Philippines sought the help of the Committee in this regard, and asked the Committee to join it in its campaign against the abuse of the United Nations system by interest groups that were aligned with violent Leftist extremists in the country. Such bogus groups had benefited much from the good will of the United Nations and had used the same to access foreign funds that perpetuated terrorism.
The Philippines remained guided by its 11 building blocks which kept it focused and determined, including: confirmation of indigenous political structures; registration and accreditation of indigenous peoples’ organizations; delineation of ancestral domains and ancestral lands; preparation of ancestral domains sustainable development and protection plans; design of indigenous peoples wealth management, community royalty management, and development plans; implementation of socio-economic activities with indigenous peoples’ cooperatives; and operation of the ancestral domain defense system. The Philippines’ commitment to the promotion, protection and fulfilment of the rights under the Convention would not waiver, and it would eliminate discrimination that pervaded the indigenous peoples’ sector in the country.
FAYDAH MENIRI DUMARPA, Commissioner of the Commission of Human Rights of the Philippines, commended the delegation and the Government for the impressive work done over the years, recognising the efforts undertaken by the Government amid the pandemic. Laws, policies and programmes were in place, and much already had been done. However, indigenous peoples and communities still faced many challenges in enjoying their civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights. The Commission wished to stress the need to gather disaggregated data on indigenous women, children and youth, displaced persons, and indigenous elderly, thus allowing the Government to plan to address their concerns more particularly, ensuring that this was not fragmented.
There had been harassment of civil society organizations, including members of indigenous communities, and the Government should ensure that its mechanisms were not used to unjustly attack indigenous groups, civil society organizations, members of the opposition, and journalists, among others. The State should strengthen the Commission’s mandate in line with the Paris Principles. The Commission would continue to be a partner in advancing human rights in the Philippines, and monitoring the situation, including among vulnerable and disadvantaged communities, working to protect and promote the situation in the Philippines for all Filipinos.
Questions by Committee Experts
MICHAL BALCERZAK, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur for the report of the Philippines, suggested that the core document, last submitted in 1993, be updated. With regard to the Convention in domestic law, he asked about the status of comprehensive anti-discrimination bills that had been filed, whether they included consultations with indigenous communities, and whether there had been any changes to them made during the legislative process.
Mr. Balcerzak asked the delegation to provide information about specific judgments of domestic courts that referred to protecting and promoting the rights of indigenous peoples. He also asked for other examples to be provided of judicial or non-judicial measures, including complaints submitted to the Commission on Human Rights and the Ombudsman, in which the Convention was referenced. He asked for more information and preferably examples on the implementation on the Presidential Decree no. 966 that penalised acts of violence against any race or group of persons of another colour or ethnic origin. Had there been judgments that had applied the aforementioned Decree insofar as the prosecution for dissemination and advocacy of racial superiority or hatred was concerned? Had there been convictions for membership in organizations promoting or inciting racial discrimination?
Mr. Balcerzak also asked for further information on how many cases involving criminal responsibility for acts motivated by racial hatred ended up in convictions; for details on cases and convictions concerning racial hate speech; and for statistics, disaggregated by sex, age, national and ethnic origin on the complaints submitted, including to the police, the Commission on Human Rights and the Ombudsman as well as the prosecutions, sentences, and compensation determined for acts prohibited under article 4 of the Convention.
FAITH DIKELEDI PANSY TLAKULA, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur for the report of the Philippines, said the Committee welcomed all the information on the situation of the indigenous peoples, which was very useful, as the indigenous occupied a special place in the country. However, during the dialogue, the Committee would be looking at how the whole Convention was implemented in the Philippines.
The Committee had received information that lawyers and judges involved in cases concerning rights under this Convention had faced harassment, intimidation, killings and enforced disappearances. While recognising how fear of reprisal dissuaded engagement by lawyers and judges with the Convention, and in addition to information on measures taken by the State party in order to fulfil its obligation to protect lawyers and judges, Ms. Tlakula asked for further information on steps taken to guarantee victims of violations of their rights under the Convention with access to justice.
Additionally, she asked for information on any policies or practices, planned or implemented, to create an enabling environment for access to justice for cases invoking the Convention. The report was silent on the measures taken to increase the visibility of the Convention among the public and among law enforcement officials, and Ms. Tlakula asked for updated information on measures taken to popularise the Convention among the public and law enforcement agencies.
The report said there were bills pending before Congress concerning the mandate of the Commission on Human Rights, and that the bills could not be passed until issues, including on the granting of prosecutorial powers, fiscal autonomy, and power to issue restraining orders, injunctions, and contempt orders, were resolved. Ms. Tlakula asked for an update on this situation. The Committee was informed that there were numerous pending bills concerning the mandate of the Commission on Human Rights, which proposed provisions, among others, on transparency in the appointment of the members of the Commission and the tabling of the recommendations of the Commission before Congress, and she inquired whether there was a plan to consolidate these into one bill.
The Committee had received reports that a number of vacancies of Commissioners had not been filled, and Ms. Tlakula asked if this was true and if so, when would the vacancies be filled; what measures were in place to guarantee that competent, independent, and impartial candidates were appointed? The Committee had also received reports of harassment and intimidation of the members of the Commission, and asked what measures had been taken to investigate these reports?
In its previous concluding observations, the Committee recommended that the Philippines should provide concrete information on the actual scope of activities and actions of the Ombudsman in combatting racial discrimination and on institutional guarantees of its independence in its next report, and asked for information on the complaints received that had elements of racial discrimination which the Ombudsman had investigated as well as the outcome of these investigations.
GUN KUT, Committee Expert and follow-up Rapporteur, said the previous concluding observations were adopted in August 2009, and in these, the Committee, in accordance with the Convention and its amended Rules of Procedure, requested the State party to provide information in the space of one year on its follow-up to the recommendations contained in three specific paragraphs. Normally the Committee would have expected an interim report, but this never came. He reminded the State party that the follow-up procedure was a very valuable procedure both for the Committee and also for the States parties, as these gave the States parties the possibility to perform on issues that were feasible, achievable and deliverable.
Going back to 2009, the first issue had been on the situation of indigenous peoples disproportionately affected by armed groups. The Committee needed more up to date information as to the current situation as far as this recommendation was concerned. The second issue had been on the formal process for claiming collective land titles; the current report dealt with this issue in two general paragraphs, so the Committee required more information on what had been the outcome of the changes made and what happened with regard to the situation at hand. The third issue was the Mount Kalatungan case concerning mining operations taking place without the consent of the Subanon people. Mr. Kut reminded the State party that the Convention, which was duly and voluntarily signed and ratified by the Philippines, created obligations for the Committee to come up with recommendations, and not the other way around.
One Committee Expert referred to paragraph 22 of the country report, which spoke of a law on HIV/AIDS, which was worth commending, but lacked awareness-raising and training on non-stigmatisation of such persons, and asked what strategy was adopted and implemented by the State party in order to protect persons living with HIV/AIDS from stigmatisation and discrimination, which were real obstacles in prevention and care. The Committee also wished for disaggregated data on the number of people living with HIV in the country, in particular among the indigenous.
Another Expert asked if the delegation could give detailed information on the ethnic composition of the Philippines. What was the outcome for indigenous peoples following the 2020 census, she asked?
An Expert asked for more information on investigations concerning violence committed by police officers. How many civil society organizations promoted the rights of indigenous peoples and other minorities covered by the Convention?
One Expert referred to the American military intervention in the Philippines, noting that the United States had never ceased to wage war against that country since the Second World War, asking whether there were still traces and an aftermath of this atrocious war which caused so much damage to the people of the Philippines. The people of the country suffered great under-development, and indigenous peoples continued to suffer endemic challenges due to matters that should have been improved given the country’s capacity.
An Expert asked what was the difference between a Presidential Decree and the “ordinary” way of passing legislation?
Response by the Delegation
Responding to the various questions and issues raised by Committee Experts, the delegation said there were currently 28 pending anti-discrimination bills before the nineteenth Congress, and 17 Bills before the Senate.
ALLEN A. CAPUYAN, Chairperson of the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples of the Philippines, said that the National Commission and other agencies were given the opportunity to present the opinion of their agencies in bills before Congress and the Senate. Even non-governmental organizations were consulted in this context.
The delegation said the act of the Philippines in signing and ratifying the Convention had implanted all the principles and provisions therein into legislation, including the definition of racial discrimination. Even while the bills were still pending, the Convention had become a source of legal obligation to the Philippines.
ALLEN A. CAPUYAN, Chairperson of the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples of the Philippines, said there were 17 special regions in the country, and there were discussions in the Regional Task Forces on the rights of indigenous peoples, industrial workers, youth and students and other groups in order to mainstream issues from the ground with sectoral issues. The rights of every citizen and their well-being were guaranteed through the Constitution.
On harassment and attacks on human rights defenders and journalists, Mr. Capuyan said the problem in the country was that at the end of the day, some of these persons belonged to the New People’s Army and were members of the Communist Party. Some were genuine human rights advocates, but others were members of organizations that were led and run by terrorists. This was one of the challenges faced by the Philippines: when people spoke to the media, they were projecting a dual personality.
On increasing awareness of treaty body recommendations, the delegation said the State had a follow-up mechanism in this regard, including the Presidential Human Rights Secretariat, which was responsible for implementing the recommendations issued by various human rights bodies, including the Committee. It also served as the main coordinating body when reports were prepared and submitted, and facilitated consultations with civil society organizations and other stakeholders. It was responsible for monitoring the implementation of these recommendations. The Philippines remained committed to improving its follow-up to the implementation of recommendations and to increasing public awareness of the provisions of the Convention.
On strengthening the Commission for Human Rights, there were currently two bills filed which aimed to do so, and these had been referred to the House Committee on Human Rights; there had been consultations with internal and external stakeholders on the bills. The State institutionalised the Commission’s mandate and independence in its laws. In exercising its independence and constitutional mandate to visit jails and prison facilities, the Commission had visited 470 jails. The State had a proactive relationship with the Commission and other human rights organizations.
Regarding the appointment of new Commissioners for Human Rights, there was only one slot vacant, the delegation said. With regard to appointments, the same selection process had been in place since 1987. The current Commission, appointed under the current Marcos administration, was constituted of persons committed to the advancement of human rights, ensuring that its mandate was fulfilled and was in respect with the Paris Principles.
ALLEN A. CAPUYAN, Chairperson of the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples of the Philippines, said the National Commission for Human Rights had a very strong relationship with the Government and with the police force. The National Commission on Indigenous Peoples supported human rights defenders. There was a very strong partnership on the ground - no military or security personnel could be promoted without receiving human rights clearance; they had to follow training on human rights before they could be promoted. This had been the situation for almost 30 years.
Regarding the mandate of the Ombudsman, the delegation said the State established this mandate to investigate and prosecute State officials accused of corruption, and was tasked to investigate complaints in any forms made against Government bodies and individuals, and the Philippines was committed to holding them to account where this was found. The Ombudsman may investigate cases of human rights defenders where these involved public officials or other individuals in Government.
On the issue of Republic Act 188 and the protection of children in situations of armed conflict, this was enacted in 2019, and pursuant to this an inter-agency committee on the situation of children in armed conflict was created. By June 2019 it was able to adopt rules and regulations, and despite the pandemic, by 2020 it had rolled out a protocol on the handling and treatment of these children. It conducted human rights and capacity training so that there could be monitoring and response to grave situations of the violation of children’s rights.
Despite the pandemic, numerous activities had been held in this context, such as the publication of a compendium listing laws and protocols that provided a guide to officials and bodies all over the country. One of the aims of the inter-agency committee was to aid its membership to establish their own protocols to handle children and to guarantee the protection of children from all forms of abuse and exploitation. Oftentimes there were narratives about the Philippines, the delegation said, about children being detained by the armed forces and taken away from schools to be rehabilitated. The State had an obligation to protect children in situations of armed conflict, and thus it took all possible measures to avoid the recruitment of underage children, and would demobilise all such children.
ALLEN A. CAPUYAN, Chairperson of the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples of the Philippines, said on the claiming of land titles, the National Commission had significantly improved the process. The 11 building blocks were relevant in this regard. The National Commission issued national guidelines for the implementation of these building blocks, but for them to be operationalised, communities had to create their own guidelines for their implementation. The National Commission encouraged communities to self-govern. It was providing wifi access to all communities, so that they could communicate and interact with the National Commission. There were already ancestral domains that were registered with the Land Registration Agency, announcing to the whole world that a land belonged to a community, and there were almost 1,000 ancestral domains and 500 ancestral lands. Not all were registered, but this was an ongoing process.
The delegation said the Philippines had in place a most rigorous government process which began with field-level investigations by the National Commission, then continued at the level of the community with assemblies and consensus building, finally ending at the National Commission itself. If there was any irregularity, any agreed party could go to the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. There were clear mechanisms to ensure that the rights of indigenous peoples were recognised and respected.
ALLEN A. CAPUYAN, Chairperson of the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples of the Philippines, said that 400 mining applications had been received, but only four had been operated simply because there was a need for community approval. As of April 2023, a total of 188 mining projects had been granted registration pre-conditions. There were two dam projects in the North - the community had decided to stop the operation, which would remove the supply of electricity. Another community had stopped a dam, preventing maintenance. An agreement had been reached that the Government would provide corporate social responsibility to the community in this context. The rights of indigenous peoples had reached such a magnitude that they would even file a case against the National Commission if it did not act within a deadline. The Government empowered and capacitated them. More than 70 Government agencies had memoranda of understanding with the National Commission.
The delegation said the Government had adopted strategies to protect the rights of persons living with HIV and AIDS and to ensure that they did not suffer from discrimination, and this included laws mandating that testing should be voluntary and free from coercion, and that the privacy of persons affected should be respected. There were education and awareness campaigns conducted by the Department of Health. Capacity building for health workers was also conducted to ensure that they could provide non-discriminatory care.
The Government had developed and implemented other programmes linked to HIV/AIDS. There had also been a strengthening of support systems for people living with HIV/AIDS. On the data of people living with HIV/AIDS, as of 2020 there were an estimated 80,000 people affected, and there was a World Bank funded programme to create a data portal and management system that should provide accurate data on the number of indigenous peoples affected which would be used by the Government, civil society organizations and international organizations to provide appropriate and culturally-sensitive programmes to ensure that indigenous peoples affected did not suffer from double discrimination.
On the number of indigenous peoples’ groups in the Philippines, there were 422 such groups, based on the latest census, based on self-description by indigenous peoples. This included major groups and sub-groups and Muslim groups.
Follow-Up Questions by a Committee Expert
MICHAL BALCERZAK, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur for the report of the Philippines, said interesting answers had been provided on questions that had not yet been asked, and yet answers had not been provided to questions that had been asked. The information provided on the drafts and on the bills was helpful and appreciated. He had not heard an answer to questions on hate speech and criminal responsibility for these acts, and asked whether the delegation thought that this was a problem, and whether hate speech related to racial factors was an issue.
This Committee and every United Nations Committee and other body was concerned when a human rights defender was assassinated. The Committee knew that there were political issues involved, but hoped that the delegation had not been trying to say that there were good human rights defenders and bad human rights defenders. Whenever a person stood up to defend the rights of indigenous peoples and other groups there was a serious concern, and he hoped the police tried to find the perpetrators. He hoped this issue would receive an answer. There were numerous disturbing reports about human rights defenders being assassinated, and the Committee could not just pass the issue by and move forward. Could the delegation provide more information on the plans for human rights defenders, he asked, and what would be done in terms of legislation and their protection.
Response by the Delegation
Responding to this question, the delegation said the issue of human rights defenders was a very important issue that was raised by every United Nations body. The State supported the enactment of a bill on this only if it was compliant with United Nations standards, and these had currently been left out. The Philippines strongly supported the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Defenders. The law must adhere to certain requirements, ensuring that everyone could be a human rights defender. The law must ensure participation – no one or no organization had a monopoly on defending human rights. The law must not promote “othering” or the exclusion of other groups but must ensure that their rights were heard. It must be clear that anyone who claimed to be a human rights defender must be respectful of the United Nations criteria in this regard, regardless of their political inclination, and ensuring that advocacy took place in a peaceful manner. Any organization that called for the violent overthrow of a Government or that had been recognised internationally as being terrorist could not be called a human rights defender. The law must enact moral ascendency to ensure that the vast numbers of human rights defenders were now flourishing in a vibrant civil space.
Questions by Committee Experts
FAITH DIKELEDI PANSY TLAKULA, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur for the report of the Philippines, said most of the questions she had posed earlier had not been answered specifically - they had been answered in general, but required specific answers. There was an anti-discrimination law passed in 2019 – would subsequent bills that were before the different houses replace the 2019 comprehensive anti-discrimination law? She had asked about the training given to law enforcement agencies on human rights issues and the public in general, and this had not been answered. Would the bills before Parliament improve the mandate of the national human rights commission, she asked, as its Charter should be amended to ensure it could deal with economic and social rights. Regarding allegations of harassment of judges and so on by the police, these questions had also not been answered. The Committee was aware that the Court had said that the Ombudsman had to deal with issues of human rights in public service, but the Committee had asked for specific issues which the Ombudsman had investigated and what had been the outcome. She would humbly appreciate for the delegation to provide specific answers.
MICHAL BALCERZAK, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur for the report of the Philippines, said the Committee took note of the census that was conducted in the Philippines in 2020 and also of the fact that its results were gradually presented through the website of the Philippine Statistics Authority. However, some data relevant from the perspective of the Committee could not be retrieved, and he inquired whether the results of the 2020 census disaggregated by ethnicity were available and could be submitted. The Committee noted the information provided by the State party as regards to the enforcement of the 1997 Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act to prevent the recruitment of indigenous children into armed forces as well as the enactment of the 2018 law on special protection of children involved in armed conflict. He asked what was the scale of this phenomenon?
The Committee also noted the information on a range of programmes and activities intended to ensure that indigenous peoples could benefit from human rights without discrimination. However, during the period under review, there had been an expansion of foreign and private large-scale projects for mining, hydropower dams, infrastructure, agribusiness, and logging, all of which had threatened indigenous peoples’ land rights and undermined indigenous customary land practices.
Displacement and conflicts over agrarian land and natural resources, including mining projects and related environmental issues, had increased, in particular following the lifting of the moratorium on new mining contracts in 2021, which had been in place since 2012. How many certificates of ancestral domain titles had been issued in total, and how many of them were adopted in the last 10 years since the last review? Could the delegation respond to allegations that obtaining such certificates was very complicated, expensive and did not always guarantee land tenure security?
With regard to the obligation to obtain “free, prior and informed consent” of the indigenous peoples before adopting any measures that may affect them, Mr. Balcerzak said the Committee had received information that this principle was sometimes an instrument of dividing the communities and in some cases did not work. Other forms of manipulation of the process allegedly included incomplete information or misinformation about a project, improper representation, or forging signatures, and he asked how did the Government ensure that the principle of free, prior and informed consent was respected in all circumstances? Further, he asked for information about remedies that indigenous peoples could have access to in case of violation of their cultural and other rights. The Committee had jurisdiction to consider the situation with regard to indigenous peoples in countries with high numbers of these groups, and pointed out the advantages for the State party to accept this jurisdiction.
Mr. Balcerzak also asked for information on allegations of reported hardships in access to quality education experienced by indigenous children, noting that the Committee was informed of extremely disturbing cases when schools were burned down and teachers and students prevented from engaging in education activities. What steps were being taken by the Government to prevent harassment of teachers and students from indigenous communities?
The Committee welcomed the adoption of the United Nations Joint Programme for Technical Cooperation and Capacity Building for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights in the Philippines (2021-2024), which defined a number of outputs to promote and protect human rights, including trainings. Mr. Balcerzak asked for information on recent, ongoing or future trainings – conducted either under the Joint Programme or under another framework – specifically on rights enshrined in the Convention for media professionals, law enforcement officials, the private sector, and representatives of local and central governments, and how were these outputs evaluated. What were the existing commitments by the State party in terms of budget allocated to trainings to be led by civil society organizations or the Commission on Human Rights on the subject of rights under the Convention?
Had the Philippines developed and implemented national policies and action plans to combat racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, in accordance with the Convention and with the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action? Had the State party engaged in dialogue with relevant stakeholders on such policies and national action plans, including with civil society organizations and the groups most exposed to racial discrimination? What had been done in this regard over the last decade? What measures had the State party adopted for the implementation of the International Decade for People of African Descent? Had the State party engaged in collaboration with organizations and people of African descent for the design and implementation of this International Decade?
FAITH DIKELEDI PANSY TLAKULA, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur for the report of the Philippines, took up the situation of internally displaced persons, noting the Committee’s concerns that durable solutions for internal displacement caused by past events, including natural disasters such as typhoon Haiyan, had yet to be found, asking what frameworks for rights-based and gender-sensitive programming did the State party have in place to respond to past, ongoing, and future displacement?
Based on the information received, it was the understanding of the Committee that the situation of internally displaced persons had continued to decline, in part as a result of forced evictions of communities to make way for large-scale resource extraction projects and climate-change induced related disasters that had been exacerbated by deforestation and watershed loss. What had been done to protect displaced persons from the effects of climate change, natural disasters and deforestation?
According to the report of the Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines, the heightened military presence in the communities and the armed conflict between the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the New People’s Army had led to the protracted displacement of indigenous peoples. What measures were being taken to address the root cause of the conflict to deter the repeat occurrence of the protracted displacement of indigenous people in the areas they occupied?
On non-citizens, including migrants, refugees, asylum seekers, and stateless persons, Ms. Tlakula noted that the Committee had been informed of a number of measures undertaken by the State party in 2022 in relation to refugees, asylum seekers and stateless persons, including accession to the 1961 Statelessness Convention and the issuance of Executive Order no. 163, establishing an inter-agency committee and institutionalising access to protection and social services. In this context, she asked for information on measures undertaken by the State party to ensure an inclusive and human rights-based approach, both in policy as well as in practice, to programmes concerning refugees, asylum seekers and stateless persons.
Other Committee Experts noted that they had received no response to their questions posed previously. Regarding the allegations of pressure by the Government on the National Human Rights Commission, an Expert asked if this was through the members that were directly nominated by the Government. He also addressed the black/Negrito race, asking what were their rights to uphold their heritage, their land, and their right to housing?
Another Expert asked how public health took into account and reflected health risks and outcomes for the population within the purview of the Convention? Could the delegation elaborate on how public health measures took into account mortality and morbidity rates for indigenous peoples in general but also with regard to populations living close to large-scale projects? Was this reflected in services made available? How did the State party ensure the right to health of indigenous people?
Responses by the Delegation
Responding to questions raised, the delegation said a number of civil society organizations had been consulted during the formulation of the report. With regard to the query on the legal system of the Philippines, the country lodged the function of law-making to the legislature, the Congress. The Philippines had a Presidential Decree that criminalised the Convention violations in the country; it had the force and effect of a law, and had been constitutionally sanctioned. Today, all proposed legislations needed to pass through Congress before they could be signed into law by the President.
The Constitution recognised international law, including the Convention, to be part of its legal system, and the rights under the Convention were immediately enforceable and demandable from all Government institutions. Acts of racial discrimination were never tolerated, and were correspondingly penalised in the country. Creating hostile work environments due to ethnic and national background was not tolerated. The Philippines had made formally clear its intention to eliminate racism and racial discrimination as early as the 1960s. The Government was acting as one vibrant duty bearer to uphold diversity and eliminate racial discrimination in the country.
The State was fully committed to protect and promote the rights of vulnerable sectors of the population and to address the issues relating to discrimination on the basis of protected attributes, the delegation said. The Philippines had endeavoured to establish an enabling environment where indigenous peoples, children of indigenous peoples, and children in situations of armed conflict were protected, supported, and not discriminated against, and this was done through a range of laws which, among others, sought to increase their levels of protection.
In line with local, national and international legal instruments, the Philippines had undertaken initiatives to address the practice of child marriage in the context of traditional religious and ethnic practices, aiming to eliminate this practice. The Government was also working on combatting the high numbers of teenage pregnancies through legislation, which would serve as a national framework for national agencies. Children had access to existing reproductive health structures and services. There was an expanded Trafficking in Persons Act, which defined acts of trafficking in persons and classified trafficking in persons, including when the person trafficked was part of a religious or ethnic community, the delegation said.
The rights of indigenous peoples to self-determination, autonomy and self-governance had been confirmed through the Supreme Court, the delegation said, and it had ruled and recognised that ancestral domains and lands were excluded from belonging to the public domain. There was no legislation on hate speech, although there were laws on libel, including cyber-libel.
On the killings, harassment and forced disappearances of judges and lawyers and other practitioners, the delegation said the Supreme Court had pledged to take action, including calling on lower courts for details of incidents over the past 10 years. The Office of the Judiciary Marshal was primarily responsible for the security of the judiciary, including the integrity of the courts through proceedings.
The Ombudsman was the protector of the people, with the power and duty to act promptly on any complaints made against public officials, and investigate any acts of omission when this appeared to be illegal. The Office of the Special Prosecutor was in this case empowered to recommend the prosecution of any public official reported by the Ombudsman.
A diversity and inclusion programme had been formulated to consolidate national rules and procedures aimed at combatting racial discrimination against persons, and the Government sought to maintain equal opportunities and recognise the empowered thoughts and perspectives of all persons. It also sought to remove all barriers in education and training, providing programmes to ensure that all persons were properly equipped to manage diversity, and outlined programmes to ensure diversity. It provided capacity building programmes to ensure diversity and inclusion in various jurisdictions.
The State currently used the national action plan as a major tool for publicising and implementing the Convention through a range of plans, including securing ancestral lands, ensuring the rights of indigenous peoples and cultural communities, strengthening good governance, and educating all including the public on the rights of indigenous peoples.
ALLEN A. CAPUYAN, Chairperson of the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples of the Philippines and head of the delegation, said there were funds coming to ancestral domains from abroad, and the Philippines believed these should go through the appropriate process so that it came under the knowledge and power of the appropriate structures.
There had been about a 12.7 per cent increase in the number of indigenous peoples in the last census. The demographic profile, the delegation said, was ongoing, and might be completed before the end of 2023, but the available disaggregated data was on persons by sex per region.
The Government had taken measures to address hate speech, including online, and imposed penalties for offenders. The Department of Education and other bodies had taken roles in combatting racist and xenophobic political discourse and the spread of racist measures by educating students on the roles, culture and institutions of indigenous peoples. The Government had instructed Universities and schools to incorporate indigenous culture in the curricula. What concerned the State more was racism and racial discrimination perpetrated against Filipinos abroad, and the Philippines respectfully urged the Committee to take action in this matter and in the context of Asian hatred expressed in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Government was taking measures through processes and guidelines to ensure that indigenous peoples and indigenous communities could give free, fair and informed prior consent, and was currently amending the guidelines to address the present realities and challenges of the communities concerned. On the violation of these, there was a mechanism available to all, ranging from the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court.
On the possible conflict of interest, the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples had organised a legislative liaison system which advocated for the needs of indigenous peoples and indigenous communities, and developed networks through the difference branches of Government, institutionalising focal points for direct consultation with indigenous peoples and indigenous communities, avoiding possible conflict of interest.
On internally displaced persons, legislation provided for the protection of the rights of the indigenous in cases of armed conflict, including through the Department of Social Welfare and Development. Food and other resources were provided for internally displaced persons. Many children were exposed or vulnerable to armed conflict in various areas: the influence of violent extremism could not be denied, the delegation said. The Philippines was enacting a law on children involved in armed conflict, whose rights would now be promoted and guaranteed.
Recruitment, use of children, killing and maiming were some of the reported incidents emerging from some areas; 1,869 children had been disengaged from an armed group, and they were referred to Government agencies and development partners for appropriate support and services. Positive moves had been made to end child conscription in the situation of armed hostilities. Children affected by armed conflict had also been provided with psycho-social support to resolve their trauma.
ALLEN A. CAPUYAN, Chairperson of the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples of the Philippines and head of the delegation, said the decision to close schools in certain regions was taken by regional authorities in concert with the Department of Education. Students were being radicalised through pamphlets and lectures. Some students were children of radical leaders. The aim was to end child recruitment and summary exposure to radicalised groups. The Government had to ensure that children could catch up with the education missed. A field investigation was sent to investigate what occurred and a Government Education Centre was set up.
Almost 6 million hectares of territory had been declared ancestral lands and territories - almost one third of the country. Obtaining this was not complicated or expensive, Mr. Capuyan said, but changes had been made to involve community leaders in the processing. The real issue was that when the National Commission issued a title, this had to be registered so that the land could not be used by the Government without the approval of the community.
A lot of negative propaganda surrounded the registration process. Free, prior and informed consent would always end up in a memorandum of agreement, and this latter, with clear provisions on its review and on the intent of the document, was a clear indication that the rights of indigenous peoples would be protected. The free, fair and informed consent process was now ensured in all new and current projects. There were several remedies for violation of this, including conflict resolution through customary laws, through the Regional Hearing Officer, and through the courts, as ordered by the Supreme Court.
The delegation said it took note of the interest of the Committee for the State to accept the competence of the Committee to work on communications submitted to it, and recognised the value of this. Did the Committee have a specific jurisprudence to deal with how individual communications were politicised.
Follow-Up Questions by a Committee Expert
MICHAL BALCERZAK, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur for the report of the Philippines, requested the delegation to answer questions on statistics and on health issues. Apart from asking hard questions and some remaining questions, the Committee had also tried to take note of positive developments, including the arrangements for indigenous peoples.
Responses by the Delegation
ALLEN A. CAPUYAN, Chairperson of the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples of the Philippines and head of the delegation, said there had been a meeting with World Bank representatives on the statistics, and some issues had been covered there. The World Bank had convinced the Philippines to issue the data as it had it, so that it was available. A common portal for data management would be created on all issues linked to indigenous peoples, including development, poverty levels, and others. This was called “data governance”. There were currently some limitations, but the National Commission would provide the information that it had and was very excited about this. He asked for the kind indulgence and understanding of the Committee in this regard.
Questions by Committee Experts
FAITH DIKELDI PANSY TLAKULA, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur for the report of the Philippines, said with regard to the harassment of judges and lawyers, the Committee wanted to know if any action had been taken against anyone for such acts. The obligation to report was the obligation of the State and this included all organizations and bodies within the State - when there were questions about the national human rights institution, the Committee’s understanding was that the State would have consulted it on issues that the Committee might ask before it came before the Committee so that the State party was able to respond. She also asked for answers to her questions on the bills on internally displaced persons and on her questions about stateless persons.
An Expert reminded the delegation about her question on the health monitoring of indigenous peoples, in particular in the context of large projects, and asked for specific information on indigenous women such as mortality rates and what services were provided to them.
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said that the Philippines highly respected the independence of the National Human Rights Commission, which was not part of the Government, but was considered as a State-monitoring mechanism. This was why it came up with its own report to the Committee, and empowered civil society organizations to come up with their own reports. It would be better for the National Commission to be tasked with what they had done with the recommendations. The recommendations of the Committee could be a platform to enrich the relationship between the Commission and the State.
On inclusive and human rights-based policies for refugees and stateless persons, the State had a long-standing humanitarian tradition of accepting and taking care of those in need of humanitarian assistance, and had ensured their access to rights. The Philippines had made a historic move towards eradicating statelessness, becoming the seventy-eighth country to accede to the relevant international text in this regard. As of December 2022, the State had recognised 15 persons as stateless, and faithful to its humanitarian tradition had adopted a legal framework to ensure assistance institutionalising access to services for stateless persons and asylum seekers, and facilitating access to naturalisation services. The State also had a landmark initiative that provided safe and regulated avenues of admission for refugees, providing them with education and other services. The State assumed an active role in determining the credibility of applicants and other criteria.
In order to prevent displacement and increase resilience, the delegation said a national plan recognised the importance of indigenous and community knowledge, which must be mainstreamed in recovery and response projects. Indigenous peoples had different needs, and strengthening their participation at all levels of Governance was included in the plan. In order to protect groups and indigenous peoples from being stateless, there was an ongoing plan to ensure greater birth registration. The Philippines was very serious when managing the impact of displacement.
The Government had several health and education programmes aimed at improving the lives of indigenous peoples, including through the Department of Health’s tribal health programmes which aimed to improve access to health services and health-related activities. Scholarships and other education opportunities were provided to indigenous students. Efforts were made to ensure sustainable development of indigenous territories. Culturally appropriate education was provided to indigenous children and youth, through indigenous languages. On the involvement of women, the National Commission had been strengthening their involvement in planning, implementation and monitoring of programmes so as to ensure that all programmes and their implementation were more inclusive.
ALLEN A. CAPUYAN, Chairperson of the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples of the Philippines and head of the delegation, said there were nurses, midwives and doctors working at the National Commission. The problem was that the Government did not allow indigenous persons to deliver babies - they must be brought to a hospital. This affected a strong customary practice, but the Government was working to protect the children. On the Black/Negrito communities, they had the same, equal rights, and were the owners of certain territories, including former United States facilities. The colour of their skin did not matter, nor did their clothing, what mattered was their rights, which were being protected and respected.
Questions by a Committee Expert
An Expert said he had raised a concern about the investigations that were being conducted relating to a certain number of police officers who were allegedly perpetrators of murders of human rights defenders. There was also the question of the Sustainable Development Goals, which committed the Philippines and said nobody should be left behind. He asked about indigenous peoples and Afro-descendants and the Sustainable Development Goals, as well as the situation of Afro-descendants and indigenous peoples in prison, and what was their situation.
The delegation said it would provide the answers in writing.
Closing Remarks
MICHAL BALCERZAK, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur for the report of the Philippines, said the delegation had been very responsive. There were many remaining issues that could be dealt with. Encouragements would continue, in particular with regard to article 14. The Committee was aware that this was not an easy issue. It had some communications and decisions on the rights of indigenous peoples. The principles of exhaustion of domestic remedies were included in the treaty, and the Committee took every measure to ensure that the process of communications was not politicised. The Committee believed that it was important for States parties’ adherence to the Convention in this regard.
He supported the request expressed earlier with regard to the interim follow-up report - some issues would require response in one year in order to keep the dialogue going, and these would be indicated in the recommendations. He thanked all those involved in the dialogue. The Committee would be in touch with the Philippines about the remaining issues that required clarification. It had been a good opportunity to discuss the obligations under the Convention, and the delegation had not only shared responses but also experiences. He wished the Philippines good luck.
ALLEN A. CAPUYAN, Chairperson of the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples of the Philippines and head of the delegation, said the interim report would be submitted. The Government, over past decades, had actively stood against all forms of racial discrimination, and actively worked for the protection and promotion of Filipinos and others alike. It was one nation. In the dialogue the delegation had repeated the State’s unwavering commitment to the Convention, stressing its normative framework. The whole-Government and whole-Nation approach was translated through plans, programmes and projects that were responsive to the needs of indigenous peoples and other sectors of society.
Through all this, the State found itself facing challenges that made it necessary to protect its sovereignty and its people, including indigenous peoples and others. To this end, it sought an end to violent extremism aimed at violently overthrowing the Government, and the elimination of the race of indigenous peoples through various means, including murder and the overthrow of laws and traditions. The voices of indigenous peoples were echoing over the land. The presence of Mr. Capuyan, as an indigenous person himself, was evidence of a lack of discrimination. The Philippines would not and did not allow the weaponisation of human rights to destroy the nation. It was in full throttle to implement the provisions of the Convention and to eliminate all forms of racial discrimination, unifying, empowering, mobilising and capacitating its people to ensure none were left behind.
Produced by the United Nations Information Service in Geneva for use of the media;
not an official record. English and French versions of our releases are different as they are the product of two separate coverage teams that work independently.
CERD23.006E