CONVENTION ON THE ELIMINATION OF ALL FORMS

OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN

I.
1.

2.

3.

Definition/Concepts
Discrimination against women
Any distinction, exclusion, or restriction made
on the basis of sex which has the effect or
purpose of impairing or nullifying the
recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women,
irrespective of their marital status, on a basis
of equality of men and women, of human
rights and fundamental freedoms in the
political, economic, cultural, civil, or any
other field.
Gender Equality
Refers to the principle asserting the equality of
men and women and their right to enjoy equal
conditions realizing their full human potential
to contribute to and benefit from the results of
development, and with the State recognizing
that all human beings are free and equal
dignity and rights.
Gender Equity
Refers to the policies, instruments, programs,
services and actions that address the
disadvantaged position of women in society
by providing preferential treatment and
affirmative action.

OPTIONAL PROTOCOL

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the

Child (commonly
abbreviated
as
the CRC, CROC,
or UNCRC) is a human rights treaty which sets out the civil,
political, economic, social, health and cultural rights of children.
The Convention defines a child as any human being under the
age of eighteen, unless the age of majority is attained earlier
under a state's own domestic legislation.
Nations that ratify this convention are bound to it
by international law. Compliance is monitored by the
UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, which is composed of
members from countries around the world. Once a year, the
Committee submits a report to the Third Committee of
the United Nations General Assembly, which also hears a
statement from the CRC Chair, and the Assembly adopts a
Resolution on the Rights of the Child.
Governments of countries that have ratified the Convention are
required to report to, and appear before, the United Nations
Committee on the Rights of the Child periodically to be
examined on their progress with regards to the advancement of
the implementation of the Convention and the status of child
rights in their country.
CONTENTS
The Convention deals with the child-specific needs and rights. It
requires that states act in the best interests of the child. This
approach is different from the common law approach found in
many countries that had previously treated children as
possessions or chattels, ownership of which was sometimes
argued over in family disputes.

By ratifying the Optional Protocol, a State recognizes the

competence of the Committee on the Elimination of
Discrimination against Women -- the body that monitors States
parties' compliance with the Convention -- to receive and
consider complaints from individuals or groups within its
jurisdiction.

In many jurisdictions, properly implementing the Convention

requires an overhaul of child custody and guardianship laws, or,
at the very least, a creative approach within the existing laws.
The Convention acknowledges that every child has certain basic
rights, including the right to life, his or her own name and
identity, to be raised by his or her parents within a family or
cultural grouping, and to have a relationship with both parents,
even if they are separated.

The Protocol contains two procedures:

(1) A communications procedure allows individual women, or
groups of women, to submit claims of violations of rights
protected under the Convention to the Committee. The Protocol
establishes that in order for individual communications to be
admitted for consideration by the Committee, a number of
criteria must be met, including those domestic remedies must
have been exhausted.

The Convention obliges states to allow parents to exercise their

parental responsibilities. The Convention also acknowledges
that children have the right to express their opinions and to have
those opinions heard and acted upon when appropriate, to be
protected from abuse or exploitation, and to have
their privacy protected, and it requires that their lives not be
subject to excessive interference.

(2) The Protocol also creates an inquiry procedure enabling the

Committee to initiate inquiries into situations of grave or
systematic violations of womens rights. In either case, States
must be party to the Convention and the Protocol.
The Protocol includes an "opt-out clause", allowing States upon
ratification or accession to declare that they do not accept the
inquiry procedure. Article 17 of the Protocol explicitly provides
that no reservations may be entered to its terms.
CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD

The Convention also obliges signatory states to provide separate

legal representation for a child in any judicial dispute
concerning their care and asks that the child's viewpoint be
heard in such cases.
The Convention forbids capital punishment for children. In its
General Comment 8 (2006) the Committee on the Rights of the
Child stated that there was an "obligation of all state parties to
move quickly to prohibit and eliminate all corporal punishment
and all other cruel or degrading forms of punishment of
children". Article 19 of the Convention states that state parties
must "take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and

educational measures to protect the child from all forms of

physical or mental violence", but it makes no explicit reference
to corporal punishment.
OPTIONAL PROTOCOLS
Two optional protocols were adopted by the UN General
Assembly on 25 May 2000. The first, the Optional Protocol on
the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict, requires parties
to ensure that children under the age of 18 are not recruited
compulsorily into their armed forces, and calls on governments
to do everything feasible to ensure that members of their armed
forces who are under 18 years do not take part in hostilities. This
protocol entered into force on 12 July 2002.
The second, the Optional Protocol on the Sale of Children, Child
Prostitution and Child Pornography, requires parties to prohibit
the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography. It
entered into force on 18 January 2002.
A third, the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights
of the Child on a Communications Procedure, which would
allow children or their representatives to file individual
complaints for violation of the rights of children, was adopted in
December 201 and opened for signature on 28 February 2012.
The protocol currently has 48 signatures and 17 ratifications: it
entered into force on 14 April 2014 following the tenth
ratification three months beforehand.
4.

5.

6.

Principle of First Call for Children

A concept that when there is famine, or
recession or any other catastrophe, the
children should have first call on the available
resources. This should happen even more in
stable times. When governments plan for the
well-being of their nations, the first
responsibility they should consider is the
welfare of their children.
Best interest of the child
Refers to the totality of the circumstances and
conditions which are more congenial to the
survival, protection and feelings of security of
the child and most encouraging to the childs
physical, psychological and emotional
development. It also means the least
detrimental
available
alternative
for
safeguarding the growth and development of
the child.
Rights of a child
a. Right to life
b. Right to a name, nationality, and family relations
c. Right not to be separated from his or her parents
against the childs will.
d. Right to be heard in any judicial and
administrative proceedings
e. Right
to
freedom
of
expression/thought/association/privacy.

CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH

DISABILITY
7.

Person with disability

Are those suffering from restriction or
different abilities, a s a result of a mental,
physical or sensory impairment, to perform an
activity in the manner or within the range
considered normal for a human being.

Guiding principles of the Convention

There are eight guiding principles that underlie the Convention:
1. Respect
for
inherent
dignity,
individual autonomy including the freedom to make
one's own choices, and independence of persons
2. Non-discrimination
3. Full and effective participation and inclusion in society
4. Respect for difference and acceptance of persons with
disabilities as part of human diversity and humanity
5. Equality of opportunity
6. Accessibility
7. Equality between men and women
8. Respect for the evolving capacities of children with
disabilities and respect for the right of children with
disabilities to preserve their identities
Definition of disability
The Convention adopts a social model of disability, and defines
disability as including those who have long-term physical,
mental, intellectual or sensory impairments which in interaction
with various barriers may hinder their full and effective
participation in society on an equal basis with others.
Principle of "reasonable accommodation"
The Convention defines "reasonable accommodation" to be
"necessary and appropriate modification and adjustments not
imposing a disproportionate or undue burden, where needed in a
particular case, to ensure to persons with disabilities the
enjoyment or exercise on an equal basis with others of all human
rights and fundamental freedoms" at the Article 2 and demands
this all aspects of life including inclusive education.

INTERNATIONAL
CONVENTION
ON
THE
PROTECTION OF THE RIGHTS OF ALL MIGRANT
WORKERS AND MEMBERS OF THEIR FAMILIES

8.

9.

Migrant worker/OFW
Refers to a person who is to be engaged, is
engaged, or has been engaged in a
remunerated activity in a State of which he or
she is not a citizen or on a board a vessel
navigating the foreign seas other than a
government ship used for military or noncommercial purposes or on installation located
offshore on the High seas.
Kinds of migrant workers

a.

Documented or in a regular situation if they are

authorized to enter or stay and to engage in a
remunerated activity in the State of employment
pursuant to the law of the State and international
agreements to which the State is a party.
b. Non-documented or in a regular situation if they
do not comply with the conditions in (a).
10. Illegal recruitment.
Shall mean any act of canvassing, enlisting,
contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or
procuring workers and includes referring
contract services, promising or advertising for
employment abroad, whether for profit or not,
when undertaken by non-licensee or nonholder.
11. Trafficking in persons
refers to the recruitment, obtaining, hiring,
providing, offering transportation, transfer,
maintaining, harboring or receipt of persons
with or without the victims consent or
knowledge, within or across national borders
by means of threat, or use of force, or other
forms of coercion, abduction, fraud,
deception, abuse of power or of position,
taking advantage of the vulnerability of the
person, or the giving of or receiving of
payments of benefits to achieve the consent of
a person having control over another person
for the purpose of exploitation or the
prostitution of others or other forms of sexual
exploitation, forced labor or services, slavery,
servitude or the removal or sale of organs.
Notes:
RIGHTS OF A MIGRANT WORKER AND OF HIS
FAMILY:
a. Right to life
b. Right to liberty
c. Right to security of person
d. Right to due process
e. Right to freedom of opinion, expression, thought,
conscience and religion
f. Right to just and favorable conditions of work and to
rest and leisure
g. Right to social security
h. Right to have recourse to the protection and assistance
of the consular or diplomatic authorities to education
i. Right against arbitrary deprivation of property
j. Right to safeguards against confiscation, destruction or
attempts to destroy identity documents, documents
authorizing entry to or stay, residence or establishment
in the national territory or work permits and prohibits
the destruction of the passport or equivalent document
k. Right not be subject to measures of collective expulsion
and that they may be expelled from the territory of a

State party only in pursuance of a decision taken by the

competent authority
l. Right not to be expelled or deprived of his
authorization of residence or work permit merely on the
ground of failure to fulfil an obligation arising out of a
work contract unless fulfilment of that obligation
constitutes a condition for such authorization or permit
m. Right to protection and assistance of the consular or
diplomatic authorities of their State of origin
n. Right to receive any medical care that is urgently
required for the preservation of their life or avoidance
of irreparable harm to their health on the basis of
equality of treatment with nationals of the State
concerned
o. upon termination, the right to transfer their earnings
and savings as well as their personal effects and
belongings
p. Right to be informed of their rights arising out of the
Convention as well as of the conditions of their
admission and their rights and obligations under the
law and practice of the State concerned
RIGHTS OF DOCUMENTED WORKERS (BROADER
RIGHTS;
a. Right to participate in trade unions
b. Right to social security and health services
c. Right to freedom of movement/residence
d. Right to be reunited with families
NOTE SECTIONS 3 and 4 of RA 10022 (Mia):
Section 3. Section 4 of Republic Act No. 8042, as amended, is
hereby amended to read as follows:
SEC. 4. Deployment of Migrant Workers. - The State shall allow
the deployment of overseas Filipino workers only in countries
where the rights of Filipino migrant workers are protected. The
government recognizes any of the following as a guarantee on
the part of the receiving country for the protection of the rights
of overseas Filipino workers:
"(a) It has existing labor and social laws protecting the rights of
workers, including migrant workers;
"(b) It is a signatory to and/or a ratifier of multilateral
conventions, declarations or resolutions relating to the protection
of workers, including migrant workers; and
"(c) It has concluded a bilateral agreement or arrangement with
the government on the protection of the rights of overseas
Filipino Workers:
Provided, That the receiving country is taking positive, concrete
measures to protect the rights of migrant workers in furtherance
of any of the guarantees under subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c)
hereof.
Section 4. Section 5 of Republic Act No. 8042, as amended, is
hereby amended to read as follows:
"SEC. 5. Termination or Ban on Deployment. - Notwithstanding
the provisions of Section 4 hereof, in pursuit of the national
interest or when public welfare so requires, the POEA

Governing Board, after consultation with the Department of

Foreign Affairs, may, at any time, terminate or impose a ban on
the deployment of migrant workers."

4. Such offences shall be treated, for the purpose of extradition

between States Parties, as if they had been committed not only
in the place in which they occurred but also in the territories of
the States required to establish their jurisdiction in accordance
with article 5, paragraph 1.

CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE AND OTHER

CRUEL, INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR
PUNISHMENT

INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF

"COMMAND
RESPONSIBILITY"
IN
ALL
GOVERNMENT OFFICES, PARTICULARLY AT ALL
LEVELS OF COMMAND IN THE PHILIPPINE
NATIONAL
POLICE
AND
OTHER
LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES.

Torture
a.

b.

under R.A. NO. 9745

refers to an act by which severe pain or
suffering, whether physical or mental, is
intentionally inflicted on a person for such
purposes as obtaining from him/her or a third
person information or a confession; punishing
him/her for an act he/she or a third person has
committed or is suspected of having
committed; or intimidating or coercing
him/her or a third person; or for any reason
based on discrimination of any kind, when
such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the
instigation of or with the consent or
acquiescence of a person in authority or agent
of a person in authority. It does not include
pain or Buffering arising only from, inherent
in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
under R.A. NO. 9851
means the intentional infliction of severe pain
or suffering, whether physical, mental, or
psychological, upon a person in the custody or
under the control of the accused, except that
torture shall not include pain or suffering
arising only form, inherent in or incidental to,
lawful sanction.

Article 8. Extraditable Offense

1. The offences referred to in article 4 shall be deemed to be
included as extraditable offences in any extradition treaty
existing between States Parties. States Parties undertake to
include such offences as extraditable offences in every
extradition treaty to be concluded between them.
2. If a State Party which makes extradition conditional on the
existence of a treaty receives a request for extradition from
another State Party with which it has no extradition treaty, it
may consider this Convention as the legal basis for extradition
in respect of such offences. Extradition shall be subject to the
other conditions provided by the law of the requested State.
3. States Parties which do not make extradition conditional on
the existence of a treaty shall recognize such offences as
extraditable offences between themselves subject to the
conditions provided by the law of the requested State.

WHEREAS, strict and effective management and control of an

organization by the supervisor is critical in ensuring responsive
delivery of services by the government, especially in police
matters;
WHEREAS, a supervisor/commander is duty-bound and, as
such, is expected to closely monitor, supervise, direct,
coordinate, and control the overall activities of his subordinates
within his area of jurisdiction, and can be held administratively
accountable for neglect of duty in taking appropriate action to
discipline his men;
WHEREAS, in order to ensure a more effective, sustained, and
successful campaign against erring government personnel, it is
imperative that the doctrine of "command responsibility" be
institutionalized and strictly applied in all government offices
and at all levels of command in the PNP and other law
enforcement agencies.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, FIDEL V. RAMOS, President of the
Republic of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in
me by law, do hereby order:
Sec. 1. Neglect of Duty Under the Doctrine of "Command
Responsibility". - Any government official or supervisor, or
officer of the Philippine National Police or that of any other law
enforcement agency shall be held accountable for "Neglect of
Duty" under the doctrine of "command responsibility" if he has
knowledge that a crime or offense shall be committed, is being
committed, or has been committed by his subordinates, or by
others within his area of responsibility and, despite such
knowledge, he did not take preventive or corrective action either
before, during, or immediately after its commission.
Sec. 2. Presumption of Knowledge. - A government official or
supervisor, or PNP commander, is presumed to have knowledge
of the commission of irregularities or criminal offenses in any of
the following circumstances:
a. When the irregularities or illegal acts are widespread within
his area of jurisdiction;
b. When the irregularities or illegal acts have been repeatedly or
regularly committed within his area of responsibility; or
c. When members of his immediate staff or office personnel are
involved.

Sec. 3. Implementing Rules and Regulations. - The National

Police Commission (NAPOLCOM) in coordination with the
Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) and the
Civil Service Commission (CSC) shall promulgate the necessary
rules and regulations of this Executive Order within thirty (30)
days after the issuance thereof.

Sec. 4. Administrative Liability. - Any violation of this

Executive Order by any government official, supervisor, officer
of the PNP and that of any law enforcement agency shall be held
administratively accountable for violation of existing laws, rules
and regulations.
OPTIONAL PROTOCOL
The Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and
other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment (OPCAT), adopted by the General Assembly on 18
December 2002 and in force since 22 June 2006, provides for
the establishment of "a system of regular visits undertaken by
independent international and national bodies to places where
people are deprived of their liberty, in order to prevent torture
and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment," to be overseen by a Subcommittee on Prevention
of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment.

Writ of Amparo and Habeas Data

1.

2.

Sub-committee
a. Created by optional protocol
b. They make sure if there is compliance
c. Visit places and make recommendations
concerning people deprived of freedom
National committee (Preventive)
a. Local committee/ institution/ entity that looks
into the conition of our detention places

Remedies available for victims or families of enforced

disappearance

Writ of Amparo

Notes:
2 mechanisms (optional protocol):

Agents of the state

Organized groups or private individuals acting
on behalf of, with the support, ocnsent or
acquiscence of the government
State will investigate
Obligations of State Parties:
o Take measures to penalize the offense of
enforced disappearance
o Doctrine of Universal Jurisdiction applicable
o Extraditable Offense
o Cooperate with other state parties
o Undertake to prohibit secret detention places
Families or counsel of the accused should always know
his whereabouts
o
o

Spanish Amparar, meaning To Protect

Remedy available to any person whose right to life,
liberty and security is violated or threatened
Applicable in cases of extrajudicial killings, enforced
disappearnce, or threats thereof
Public official or employee and private individual or
entity may be held liable
Habeas corpus vs. Writ of Amparo
o HC can just deny that he has no custody
o WA can not just deny that he has no custody
He is required to do specific acts
Court can grant more reliefs

Habeas Data; as a legal notion

INTERNATIONAL
CONVENTION
FOR
THE
PROTECTION OF ALL PERSONS FROM ENFORCED
DISAPPEARANCE

12. Enforced disappearance

Is considered to be the arrest, detention,
abduction or any other form of deprivation of
liberty by agents of the STATE or by persons
or group of persons acting with the
authorization, support or acquiescence of the
STATE, followed by a refusal to acknowledge
the deprivation of liberty or by concealment of
the fate or whereabouts of the disappeared
person, which place a person outside the
protection of the law.

Notes:

Who may be held liable?

You should have the data

Respondent may be:
o Public official/employee
o Private individual or entity
Respondents musty be engaged in the gathering,
collecting or storing of data regarding a person or his
family
Who may file?
o GR: Aggrieved Party
o XPN: In cases of extra-judicial killings or
enforced disappearnce, members of the
immediate family (spouse, children, parents)
Where to file?
o RTC where aggrieved party resides
o RTC where the data us gathered/collected
o SC, CA, SB concerns public data
It must be shown that the right to life, liberty or
security was violated in relation to the right of privacy

13. Rule on the Writ of Amparo

The petition for a writ of amparo is a remedy
available to any person whose right of life,
liberty and security s violated or threatened
with violation by an individual act or omission
of a public official or employer, or of a private
individual or entity. The writ shall cover
extralegal
killings
and
enforced
disappearance.
THE RULE ON THE WRIT OF AMPARO
SECTION 1. Petition. The petition for a writ of amparo is a
remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty and
security is violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful
act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private
individual or entity.
The writ shall cover extralegal killings and enforced
disappearances or threats thereof.
SEC. 2. Who May File. The petition may be filed by the
aggrieved party or by any qualified person or entity in the
following order:
a. Any member of the immediate family, namely: the
spouse, children and parents of the aggrieved party;
b. Any ascendant, descendant or collateral relative of the
aggrieved party within the fourth civil degree of
consanguinity or affinity, in default of those mentioned
in the preceding paragraph; or
c. Any concerned citizen, organization, association or
institution, if there is no known member of the
immediate family or relative of the aggrieved party.
The filing of a petition by the aggrieved party suspends the right
of all other authorized parties to file similar petitions. Likewise,
the filing of the petition by an authorized party on behalf of the
aggrieved party suspends the right of all others, observing the
order established herein.
SEC. 3. Where to File. The petition may be filed on any day
and at any time with the Regional Trial Court of the place where
the threat, act or omission was committed or any of its elements
occurred, or with the Sandiganbayan, the Court of Appeals, the
Supreme Court, or any justice of such courts. The writ shall be
enforceable anywhere in the Philippines.
When issued by a Regional Trial Court or any judge thereof, the
writ shall be returnable before such court or judge.
When issued by the Sandiganbayan or the Court of Appeals or
any of their justices, it may be returnable before such court or
any justice thereof, or to any Regional Trial Court of the place
where the threat, act or omission was committed or any of its
elements occurred.
When issued by the Supreme Court or any of its justices, it may
be returnable before such Court or any justice thereof, or before
the Sandiganbayan or the Court of Appeals or any of their
justices, or to any Regional Trial Court of the place where the
threat, act or omission was committed or any of its elements
occurred.
SEC. 5. Contents of Petition. The petition shall be signed and
verified and shall allege the following:
a. The personal circumstances of the petitioner;
b. The name and personal circumstances of the
respondent responsible for the threat, act or omission,

or, if the name is unknown or uncertain, the respondent

may be described by an assumed appellation;
c. The right to life, liberty and security of the aggrieved
party violated or threatened with violation by an
unlawful act or omission of the respondent, and how
such threat or violation is committed with the attendant
circumstances detailed in supporting affidavits;
d. The investigation conducted, if any, specifying the
names, personal circumstances, and addresses of the
investigating authority or individuals, as well as the
manner and conduct of the investigation, together with
any report;
e. The actions and recourses taken by the petitioner to
determine the fate or whereabouts of the aggrieved
party and the identity of the person responsible for the
threat, act or omission; and
f. The relief prayed for.
The petition may include a general prayer for other just and
equitable reliefs.
SEC. 6. Issuance of the Writ. Upon the filing of the petition,
the court, justice or judge shall immediately order the issuance
of the writ if on its face it ought to issue. The clerk of court shall
issue the writ under the seal of the court; or in case of urgent
necessity, the justice or the judge may issue the writ under his or
her own hand, and may deputize any officer or person to serve
it.
The writ shall also set the date and time for summary hearing of
the petition which shall not be later than seven (7) days from the
date of its issuance.
SEC. 7. Penalty for Refusing to Issue or Serve the Writ. A
clerk of court who refuses to issue the writ after its allowance, or
a deputized person who refuses to serve the same, shall be
punished by the court, justice or judge for contempt without
prejudice to other disciplinary actions.
SEC. 8. How the Writ is Served. The writ shall be served upon
the respondent by a judicial officer or by a person deputized by
the court, justice or judge who shall retain a copy on which to
make a return of service. In case the writ cannot be served
personally on the respondent, the rules on substituted service
shall apply.
SEC. 9. Return; Contents. Within seventy-two (72) hours
after service of the writ, the respondent shall file a verified
written return together with supporting affidavits which shall,
among other things, contain the following:
a. The lawful defenses to show that the respondent did not
violate or threaten with violation the right to life,
liberty and security of the aggrieved party, through any
act or omission;
b. The steps or actions taken by the respondent to
determine the fate or whereabouts of the aggrieved
party and the person or persons responsible for the
threat, act or omission;
c. All relevant information in the possession of the
respondent pertaining to the threat, act or omission
against the aggrieved party; and
d. If the respondent is a public official or employee, the
return shall further state the actions that have been or
will still be taken:
i.
to verify the identity of the aggrieved party;
ii.
to recover and preserve evidence related to the
death or disappearance of the person identified

in the petition which may aid in the

prosecution of the person or persons
responsible;
iii.
to identify witnesses and obtain statements
from them concerning the death or
disappearance;
iv.
to determine the cause, manner, location and
time of death or disappearance as well as any
pattern or practice that may have brought
about the death or disappearance;
v.
to identify and apprehend the person or
persons involved in the death or
disappearance; and
vi.
to bring the suspected offenders before a
competent court.
The return shall also state other matters relevant to the
investigation, its resolution and the prosecution of the case.
A general denial of the allegations in the petition shall not be
allowed.
SEC. 10. Defenses not Pleaded Deemed Waived. All
defenses shall be raised in the return, otherwise, they shall be
deemed waived.
SEC. 12. Effect of Failure to File Return. In case the
respondent fails to file a return, the court, justice or judge shall
proceed to hear the petition ex parte.
SEC. 13. Summary Hearing. The hearing on the petition
shall be summary. However, the court, justice or judge may call
for a preliminary conference to simplify the issues and
determine the possibility of obtaining stipulations and
admissions from the parties.
The hearing shall be from day to day until completed and given
the same priority as petitions for habeas corpus.
SEC. 14. Interim Reliefs. Upon filing of the petition or at
anytime before final judgment, the court, justice or judge may
grant any of the following reliefs:
(a) Temporary Protection Order. The court, justice or
judge, upon motion or motu proprio, may order that the
petitioner or the aggrieved party and any member of the
immediate family be protected in a government agency
or by an accredited person or private institution capable
of keeping and securing their safety. If the petitioner is
an organization, association or institution referred to in
Section 3(c) of this Rule, the protection may be
extended to the officers involved.
The Supreme Court shall accredit the persons and
private institutions that shall extend temporary
protection to the petitioner or the aggrieved party and
any member of the immediate family, in accordance
with guidelines which it shall issue.
The accredited persons and private institutions shall
comply with the rules and conditions that may be
imposed by the court, justice or judge.
(b) Inspection Order. The court, justice or judge,
upon verified motion and after due hearing, may order
any person in possession or control of a designated land
or other property, to permit entry for the purpose of
inspecting, measuring, surveying, or photographing the
property or any relevant object or operation thereon.
The motion shall state in detail the place or places to be
inspected. It shall be supported by affidavits or
testimonies of witnesses having personal knowledge of

the enforced disappearance or whereabouts of the

aggrieved party.
If the motion is opposed on the ground of national
security or of the privileged nature of the information,
the court, justice or judge may conduct a hearing in
chambers to determine the merit of the opposition.
The movant must show that the inspection order is
necessary to establish the right of the aggrieved party
alleged to be threatened or violated.
The inspection order shall specify the person or persons
authorized to make the inspection and the date, time,
place and manner of making the inspection and may
prescribe other conditions to protect the constitutional
rights of all parties. The order shall expire five (5) days
after the date of its issuance, unless extended for
justifiable reasons.
(c) Production Order. The court, justice or judge,
upon verified motion and after due hearing, may order
any person in possession, custody or control of any
designated documents, papers, books, accounts, letters,
photographs, objects or tangible things, or objects in
digitized or electronic form, which constitute or contain
evidence relevant to the petition or the return, to
produce and permit their inspection, copying or
photographing by or on behalf of the movant.
The motion may be opposed on the ground of national
security or of the privileged nature of the information,
in which case the court, justice or judge may conduct a
hearing in chambers to determine the merit of the
opposition.
The court, justice or judge shall prescribe other
conditions to protect the constitutional rights of all the
parties.
(d) Witness Protection Order. The court, justice or
judge, upon motion or motu proprio, may refer the
witnesses to the Department of Justice for admission to
the Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Program,
pursuant to Republic Act No. 6981.
The court, justice or judge may also refer the witnesses
to other government agencies, or to accredited persons
or private institutions capable of keeping and securing
their safety.
SEC. 16. Contempt. The court, justice or judge may order the
respondent who refuses to make a return, or who makes a false
return, or any person who otherwise disobeys or resists a lawful
process or order of the court to be punished for contempt. The
contemnor may be imprisoned or imposed a fine.
SEC. 17. Burden of Proof and Standard of Diligence
Required. The parties shall establish their claims by
substantial evidence.
The respondent who is a private individual or entity must prove
that ordinary diligence as required by applicable laws, rules and
regulations was observed in the performance of duty.
The respondent who is a public official or employee must prove
that extraordinary diligence as required by applicable laws, rules
and regulations was observed in the performance of duty.
The respondent public official or employee cannot invoke the
presumption that official duty has been regularly performed to
evade responsibility or liability.

SEC. 19. Appeal. Any party may appeal from the final
judgment or order to the Supreme Court under Rule 45. The
appeal may raise questions of fact or law or both.
The period of appeal shall be five (5) working days from the
date of notice of the adverse judgment.
The appeal shall be given the same priority as in habeas corpus
cases.
SEC. 20. Archiving and Revival of Cases. The court shall not
dismiss the petition, but shall archive it, if upon its
determination it cannot proceed for a valid cause such as the
failure of petitioner or witnesses to appear due to threats on their
lives.
A periodic review of the archived cases shall be made by the
amparo court that shall, motu proprio or upon motion by any
party, order their revival when ready for further proceedings.
The petition shall be dismissed with prejudice upon failure to
prosecute the case after the lapse of two (2) years from notice to
the petitioner of the order archiving the case.
The clerks of court shall submit to the Office of the Court
Administrator a consolidated list of archived cases under this
Rule not later than the first week of January of every year.
SEC. 21. Institution of Separate Actions. This Rule shall not
preclude the filing of separate criminal, civil or administrative
actions.
SEC. 22. Effect of Filing of a Criminal Action. When a
criminal action has been commenced, no separate petition for
the writ shall be filed. The reliefs under the writ shall be
available by motion in the criminal case.
The procedure under this Rule shall govern the disposition of the
reliefs available under the writ of amparo.
SEC. 23. Consolidation. When a criminal action is filed
subsequent to the filing of a petition for the writ, the latter shall
be consolidated with the criminal action.
When a criminal action and a separate civil action are filed
subsequent to a petition for a writ of amparo, the latter shall be
consolidated with the criminal action.
After consolidation, the procedure under this Rule shall continue
to apply to the disposition of the reliefs in the petition.
SEC. 24. Substantive Rights. This Rule shall not diminish,
increase or modify substantive rights recognized and protected
by the Constitution.
SEC. 26. Applicability to Pending Cases. This Rule shall
govern cases involving extralegal killings and enforced
disappearances or threats thereof pending in the trial and
appellate courts.
14. Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data
The writ of habeas data is a remedy available
to any person whose right to privacy in life,
liberty or security is violated or threatened by
an unlawful act or omission of a public official
or employee, or of a private individual or
entity engaged in the gathering, collecting or
storing of data or information regarding the
person, family, home and correspondence of
the aggrieved party.
THE RULE ON THE WRIT OF HABEAS DATA

SECTION 1. Habeas Data. - The writ of habeas data is a

remedy available to any person whose right to privacy in life,
liberty or security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or
omission of a public official or employee, or of a private
individual or entity engaged in the gathering, collecting or
storing of data or information regarding the person, family,
home and correspondence of the aggrieved party.
SEC. 2. Who May File. - Any aggrieved party may file a
petition for the writ of habeas data. However, in cases of
extralegal killings and enforced disappearances, the petition may
be filed by:
(a) Any member of the immediate family of the aggrieved party,
namely: the spouse, children and parents; or
(b) Any ascendant, descendant or collateral relative of the
aggrieved party within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity
or affinity, in default of those mentioned in the preceding
paragraph; or
SEC. 3. Where to File. - The petition may be filed with the
Regional Trial Court where the petitioner or respondent resides,
or that which has jurisdiction over the place where the data or
information is gathered, collected or stored, at the option of the
petitioner.
The petition may also be filed with the Supreme Court or the
Court of Appeals or the Sandiganbayan when the action
concerns public data files of government offices.
SEC. 4. Where Returnable; Enforceable. - When the writ is
issued by a Regional Trial Court or any judge thereof, it shall be
returnable before such court or judge.
When issued by the Court of Appeals or the Sandiganbayan or
any of its justices, it may be returnable before such court or any
justice thereof, or to any Regional Trial Court of the place where
the petitioner or respondent resides, or that which has
jurisdiction over the place where the data or information is
gathered, collected or stored.
When issued by the Supreme Court or any of its justices, it may
be returnable before such Court or any justice thereof, or before
the Court of Appeals or the Sandiganbayan or any of its justices,
or to any Regional Trial Court of the place where the petitioner
or respondent resides, or that which has jurisdiction over the
place where the data or information is gathered, collected or
stored.
The writ of habeas data shall be enforceable anywhere in the
Philippines.
SEC. 6. Petition. - A verified written petition for a writ of
habeas data should contain:
(a) The personal circumstances of the petitioner and the
respondent;
(b) The manner the right to privacy is violated or threatened and
how it affects the right to life, liberty or security of the
aggrieved party;
(c) The actions and recourses taken by the petitioner to secure
the data or information;
(d) The location of the files, registers or databases, the
government office, and the person in charge, in possession or in
control of the data or information, if known;
(e) The reliefs prayed for, which may include the updating,
rectification, suppression or destruction of the database or
information or files kept by the respondent.
In case of threats, the relief may include a prayer for an order
enjoining the act complained of; and
(f) Such other relevant reliefs as are just and equitable.

SEC. 7. Issuance of the Writ. - Upon the filing of the petition,

the court, justice or judge shall immediately order the issuance
of the writ if on its face it ought to issue. The clerk of court shall
issue the writ under the seal of the court and cause it to be
served within three (3) days from the issuance; or, in case of
urgent necessity, the justice or judge may issue the writ under
his or her own hand, and may deputize any officer or person
serve it.
The writ shall also set the date and time for summary hearing of
the petition which shall not be later than ten (10) work days
from the date of its issuance.
SEC. 8. Penalty for Refusing to Issue or Serve the Writ. - A
clerk of court who refuses to issue the writ after its allowance, or
a deputized person who refuses to serve the same, shall be
punished by the court, justice or judge for contempt without
prejudice to other disciplinary actions.
SEC. 9. How the Writ is Served. - The writ shall be served
upon the respondent by a judicial officer or by a person
deputized by the court, justice or judge who shall retain a copy
on which to make a return of service. In case the writ cannot be
served personally on the respondent, the rules on substituted
service shall apply.
SEC. 10. Return; Contents. - The respondent shall file a
verified written return together with supporting affidavits within
five (5) working days from service of the writ, which period
may be reasonably extended by the Court for justifiable reasons.
The return shall, among other things, contain the following:
(a) The lawful defenses such as national security, state secrets,
privileged communications, confidentiality of the source of
information of media and others;
(b) In case of respondent in charge, in possession or in control of
the data or information subject of the petition;
(i) a disclosure of the data or information about the
petitioner, the nature of such data or information, and the
purpose for its collection;
(ii) the steps or actions taken by the respondent to
ensure the security and confidentiality of the data or
information; and,
(iii) the currency and accuracy of the data or
information held; and,
(c) Other allegations relevant to the resolution of the proceeding.
A general denial of the allegations in the petition shall not be
allowed.
SEC. 11. Contempt. - The court, justice or judge may punish
with imprisonment or fine a respondent who commits contempt
by making a false return, or refusing to make a return; or any
person who otherwise disobeys or resist a lawful process or
order of the court.
SEC. 12. When Defenses May be Heard in Chambers. - A
hearing in chambers may be conducted where the respondent
invokes the defense that the release of the data or information in
question shall compromise national security or state secrets, or
when the data or information cannot be divulged to the public
due to its nature or privileged character.
SEC. 14. Return; Filing. - In case the respondent fails to file a
return, the court, justice or judge shall proceed to hear the
petition ex parte, granting the petitioner such relief as the
petition may warrant unless the court in its discretion requires
the petitioner to submit evidence.
SEC. 15. Summary Hearing. - The hearing on the petition shall
be summary. However, the court, justice or judge may call for a

preliminary conference to simplify the issues and determine the

possibility of obtaining stipulations and admissions from the
parties.
SEC. 16. Judgment. - The court shall render judgment within
ten (10) days from the time the petition is submitted for
decision. If the allegations in the petition are proven by
substantial evidence, the court shall enjoin the act complained
of, or order the deletion, destruction, or rectification of the
erroneous data or information and grant other relevant reliefs as
may be just and equitable; otherwise, the privilege of the writ
shall be denied.
Upon its finality, the judgment shall be enforced by the sheriff or
any lawful officers as may be designated by the court, justice or
judge within five (5) working days.
SEC. 17. Return of Service. - The officer who executed the
final judgment shall, within three (3) days from its enforcement,
make a verified return to the court. The return shall contain a
full statement of the proceedings under the writ and a complete
inventory of the database or information, or documents and
articles inspected, updated, rectified, or deleted, with copies
served on the petitioner and the respondent.
The officer shall state in the return how the judgment was
enforced and complied with by the respondent, as well as all
objections of the parties regarding the manner and regularity of
the service of the writ.
SEC. 18. Hearing on Officers Return. - The court shall set the
return for hearing with due notice to the parties and act
accordingly.
SEC. 19. Appeal. - Any party may appeal from the final
judgment or order to the Supreme Court under Rule 45. The
appeal may raise questions of fact or law or both.
The period of appeal shall be five (5) working days from the
date of notice of the judgment or final order.
The appeal shall be given the same priority as in habeas corpus
and amparo cases.
SEC. 20. Institution of Separate Actions. - The filing of a
petition for the writ of habeas data shall not preclude the filing
of separate criminal, civil or administrative actions.
SEC. 21. Consolidation. - When a criminal action is filed
subsequent to the filing of a petition for the writ, the latter shall
be consolidated with the criminal action.
When a criminal action and a separate civil action are filed
subsequent to a petition for a writ of habeas data, the petition
shall be consolidated with the criminal action.
After consolidation, the procedure under this Rule shall continue
to govern the disposition of the reliefs in the petition.
SEC. 22. Effect of Filing of a Criminal Action. - When a
criminal action has been commenced, no separate petition for
the writ shall be filed. The relief under the writ shall be available
to an aggrieved party by motion in the criminal case.
The procedure under this Rule shall govern the disposition of the
reliefs available under the writ of habeas data.
SEC. 23. Substantive Rights. - This Rule shall not diminish,
increase or modify substantive rights.
15. Temporary Protection Order
Refers to the protection order issued by the
court on the date of filing of the application
after ex parte determination that such order

should be issued. A court may grant in a TPO

any, some or all of the reliefs mentioned in
this Act and shall be effective for thirty (30)
days. The court shall schedule a hearing on the
issuance of a PPO prior to or on the date of the
expiration of the TPO. The court shall order
the immediate personal service of the TPO on
the respondent by the court sheriff who may
obtain the assistance of law enforcement
agents for the service. The TPO shall include
notice of the date of the hearing on the merits
of the issuance of a PPO.
ROME
STATUTE
CRIMINAL COURT

OF

THE

INTERNATIONAL

16. Principle of complementarity

Shall mean that the Court (ICC) will only
prosecute an individual if STATES are
unwilling or unable to prosecute.
The Statute recognizes that States have the
first responsibility and right to prosecute
international crimes. The ICC may only
exercise jurisdiction where national legal
systems fail to do so, including where they
purport to act but in reality are unwilling or
unable to genuinely carry out proceedings.
The principle of complementarity is based
both on respect for the primary jurisdiction of
States and on considerations of efficiency and
effectiveness, since States will generally have
the best access to evidence and witnesses and
the resources to carry out proceedings.
Guiding principle:
a. Partnership highlights the fact that the
relationship with States that are genuinely
investigating and prosecuting can and
should be a positive, constructive one.
b. Vigilance marks the converse principle that,
at the same time, the ICC must diligently
carry out its responsibilities under the
Statute.
17. Doctrine of Universal Jurisdiction
a legal principle allowing or requiring a state
to bring criminal proceedings in respect of
certain crimes irrespective of the location of
the crime and the nationality of the perpetrator
or the victim';' The rationale behind it is based
on the notion that 'certain crimes are so
harmful to international interests that states are
obliged to bring proceedings against the
perpetrator, regardless of the location of the

a.
b.
c.

crime and the nationality of the perpetrator or

the victim.
There are basically three necessary steps to
get the principle of universal jurisdiction
working:
the existence of a specific ground for
universal jurisdiction
a sufficiently clear definition of the offence
and its constitutive elements; and
national means of enforcement allowing the
national judiciary to exercise their
jurisdiction over these crimes.

The Rome Statute established four core international

crimes: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and
the crime of aggression. Those crimes "shall not be subject to
any statute of limitations". Under the Rome Statute, the ICC can
only investigate and prosecute the four core international crimes
in situations where states are "unable" or "unwilling" to do so
themselves. The court has jurisdiction over crimes only if they
are committed in the territory of a state party or if they are
committed by a national of a state party; an exception to this rule
is that the ICC may also have jurisdiction over crimes if its
jurisdiction is authorized by the United Nations Security
Council.
Article 6. Genocide
For the purpose of this Statute, "genocide" means any of
the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or
in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b)
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to
members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of
life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in
whole or in part;
(d)
Imposing measures intended to prevent births
within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to
another group.
Article 7. Crimes against humanity
1.
For the purpose of this Statute, "crime against humanity"
means any of the following acts when committed as part of a
widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian
population, with knowledge of the attack:
(a)
(b)

Murder;
Extermination;

(c)

Enslavement;

(d)

Deportation or forcible transfer of population;

(e)
Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of
physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of
international law;
(f)

(viii)

Article 34. Organs of the Court

Torture;

The Court shall be composed of the following organs:

(g)
Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution,
forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other
form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;

(a) The Presidency is responsible for the proper

administration of the Court. It comprises the President
and the First and Second Vice Presidents 3 judges of
the court who are elected to the Presidency by their
fellow judge for a maximum of 2 3-year terms
(b) An Appeals Division, a Trial Division and a PreTrial Division (Judicial Divisions) consists of 18
judges of the court, organized into 3 chambers:

(h)
Persecution against any identifiable group or
collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic,
cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or
other grounds that are universally recognized as
impermissible under international law, in connection
with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime
within the jurisdiction of the Court;

1. Pre-Trial chamber issues the warrant of

(i)

Enforced disappearance of persons;

arrest

(j)

The crime of apartheid;

2. Trial Chamber where the accused is

brought after arrest

(k)
Other inhumane acts of a similar character
intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury
to body or to mental or physical health.

3. Appeals Chamber even if acquitted, you

can still appeal. Covers questions of fact and of law.
(c) The Office of the Prosecutor responsible for
receiving referrals and any substantiated information on
crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court, for
examining them and for conducting investigations and
prosecutions before the Court

Article 8. War crimes

1.
The Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of war
crimes in particular when committed as part of a plan or policy
or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes.
2.

Taking of hostages.

(d) The Registry responsible for the non-judicial

aspects of the administration and servicing of the court.
The Registry is headed by the Registrar who is the
principal administrative officer of the court. The
Registrar exercises his/her functions under the authority
of the President of the Court

For the purpose of this Statute, "war crimes" means:

(a) Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12
August 1949, namely, any of the following acts against
persons or property protected under the provisions of
the relevant Geneva Convention:
(i)

Wilful killing;

(ii) Torture or inhuman treatment, including

biological experiments;
(iii)
Wilfully causing great suffering, or
serious injury to body or health;
(iv) Extensive destruction and appropriation
of property, not justified by military necessity
and carried out unlawfully and wantonly;

Notes:
RA 9851 Philippine Act on Crimes Against International
Humanitarian Law, Genocide and Other Crimes Against
Humanity

(v) Compelling a prisoner of war or other

protected person to serve in the forces of a
hostile Power;
(vi) Wilfully depriving a prisoner of war or
other protected person of the rights of fair and
regular trial;
(vii)
Unlawful deportation or transfer or
unlawful confinement;

President of the Phils. is immune from this act.

Why? Pres. Gloria will not sign if Pres. is
not immune
Enacted before ratification of Rome Statute
o Why? Because US was very much against
Rome Statute
o American Service Protection Act was passed
by the US
Will not give military aid if the
country ratified Rome Statute
Phils. was afraid to ratify
Why ratified?
o US entered in a bilateral agreement with the
Phils Non-surrender Agreement
o
o

If their soldiers are here, we will not

surrender their soldiers in the ICC
Rome Statute recognizes and respects the
agreement, as such, the Phils can not be
compelled to surrender such soldiers

ICC vs ICJ
International Court of Justice(ICJ) and the International
Criminal Court (ICC) are two institutions that are focused on
human rights and humanitarian law. A court is a form of
tribunal, often a government institution, wherein everything that
goes beyond the law or human law is investigated. The
International Criminal Court (ICC) and the International Court
of Justice (ICJ) are two such courts that need to be compared
which are easily confused for one another. Both courts are
situated in The Hague, Netherlands and in most cases they are
almost the same, however, differing in their jurisdiction.
What is ICC?
International Criminal Court (ICC) is a permanent tribunal that
has been created to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes
against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression.
Basically, ICC focuses on the two bodies of international law
that deal with the treatment of individuals, the human rights and
humanitarian law. There are five situations to date on which ICC
had opened investigations: the Northern Uganda, the Democratic
Republic of the Congo, the Central African Republic, Darfur
(Sudan) and the Republic of Kenya. ICC has jurisdictions
including crimes with the jurisdiction of the court, territorial
jurisdiction, temporal jurisdiction and complimentary. ICC is
legally and functionally independent from the United Nations
(UN).
What is ICJ?
International Court of Justice (ICJ) or the World Court is the
primary judicial organ of the UN which settles legal disputes
submitted by states. ICJ also gives advisory and opinions on
legal questions forwarded by duly authorized international
organs, agencies and the UN General Assembly. It has been
noted that cases before the ICJ follow a standard procedure in
which the case is lodged by the applicant who files a written
memorial setting out the basis of the Courts jurisdiction and the
merits of its claim.
What is the difference between ICC and ICJ?
After providing definitions for these two courts, it is now easy to
identify where one has to report a case based on ones location
and situation. With the help of these two courts, criminal
investigations are made easier and faster. The only difference is
the jurisdiction of each court. If the country one belongs to is
part of the UN, citizens of that country can go directly to ICJ
and if the country in question is not a part of the UN, they are
required to go to ICC for further proceedings.
Summary:
ICC and ICJ are both tribunal courts that accommodate
criminal investigations and proceedings.

ICC and ICJ courts are both located in The Hague,

Netherlands.
International Court of Justice (ICJ) or the World Court is the
primary judicial organ of the UN which settles legal disputes
submitted by states while ICC is legally and functionally
independent from the United Nations (UN).
If the country one belongs to is part of the UN, the ICJ is
directly applicable while if not, one is required to approach the
ICC for further proceedings.
International Criminal Court (ICC) is called to be a permanent
tribunal to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against
humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression while ICJ
settles legal disputes submitted by states and ICJ also gives
advices and opinions on legal questions forwarded by duly
authorized international organs, agencies and the UN General
Assembly.
International Humanitarian Law and International Human
Rights Law
Similarities and differences
Both international humanitarian law (IHL) and international
human rights law (IHRL) strive to protect the lives, health and
dignity of individuals, albeit from a different angle. It is
therefore not surprising that, while very different in formulation,
the essence of some of the rules is similar, if not identical. For
example, the two bodies of law aim to protect human life,
prohibit torture or cruel treatment, prescribe basic rights for
persons subject to a criminal justice process, prohibit
discrimination, comprise provisions for the protection of women
and children, regulate aspects of the right to food and health. On
the other hand, rules of IHL deal with many issues that are
outside the purview of IHRL, such as the conduct of hostilities,
combatant and prisoner of war status and the protection of the
red cross and red crescent emblems. Similarly, IHRL deals with
aspects of life in peacetime that are not regulated by IHL, such
as freedom of the press, the right to assembly, to vote and to
strike.
What is international humanitarian law?
IHL is a set of international rules, established by treaty or
custom, which are specifically intended to solve humanitarian
problems directly arising from international or non-international
armed conflicts. It protects persons and property that are, or may
be, affected by an armed conflict and limits the rights of the
parties to a conflict to use methods and means of warfare of their
choice.
IHL main treaty sources applicable in international armed
conflict are the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their
Additional Protocol I of 1977. The main treaty sources
applicable in non- international armed conflict are article 3
common to the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol II
of 1977.
....and what is international human rights law?
IHRL is a set of international rules, established by treaty or
custom, on the basis of which individuals and groups can expect
and/or claim certain behavior or benefits from governments.
Human rights are inherent entitlements which belong to every
person as a consequence of being human. Numerous non-treaty
based principles and guidelines ("soft law") also belong to the

body of international human rights standards.

IHRL main treaty sources are the International Covenants on
Civil and Political Rights and on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights (1966), as
well as Conventions on Genocide (1948), Racial Discrimination
(1965), Discrimination Against Women (1979), Torture (1984)
and Rights of the Child (1989). The main regional instruments
are the European Convention for the Protection of Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1950), the American
Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man (1948) and
Convention on Human Rights (1969), and the African Charter
on Human and Peoples' Rights (1981).
While IHL and IHRL have historically had a separate
development, recent treaties include provisions from both bodies
of law. Examples are the Convention on the Rights of the Child,
its Optional Protocol on the Participation of Children in Armed
Conflict, and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal
Court.
When are they applicable?
IHL is applicable in times of armed conflict, whether
international or non- international. International conflicts are
wars involving two or more states, and wars of liberation,
regardless of whether a declaration of war has been made or
whether the parties involved recognize that there is a state of
war.
Non-international armed conflicts are those in which
government forces are fighting against armed insurgents, or
rebel groups are fighting among themselves. Because IHL deals
with an exceptional situation armed conflict no derogations
whatsoever from its provisions are permitted.
In principle, IHRL applies at all times, i.e. both in peacetime and
in situations of armed conflict. However, some IHRL treaties
permit governments to derogate from certain rights in situations
of public emergency threatening the life of the nation.
Derogations must, however, be proportional to the crisis at hand,
must not be introduced on a discriminatory basis and must not
contravene other rules of international law including rules of
IHL.
Certain human rights are never derogable. Among them are the
right to life, prohibition of torture or cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment, prohibition of slavery and
servitude and the prohibition of retroactive criminal laws.
Who is bound by these bodies of law?
IHL binds all actors to an armed conflict: in international
conflicts it must be observed by the states involved, whereas in
internal conflict it binds the government, as well the groups
fighting against it or among themselves. Thus, IHL lays down
rules that are applicable to both state and non-state actors.
IHRL lays down rules binding governments in their relations
with individuals. While there is a growing body of opinion
according to which non- state actors particularly if they
exercise government-like functions must also be expected to
respect human rights norms, the issue remains unsettled.
Are individuals also bound?
IHL imposes obligations on individuals and also provides that
persons may be held individually criminally responsible for
"grave breaches" of the Geneva Conventions and of Additional
Protocol I, and for other serious violations of the laws and

customs of war (war crimes). IHL establishes universal

jurisdiction over persons suspected of having committed all such
acts. With the entry into force of the International Criminal
Court, individuals will also be accountable for war crimes
committed in non-international armed conflict.
While individuals do not have specific duties under IHRL
treaties, IHRL also provides for individual criminal
responsibility for violations that may constitute international
crimes, such as genocide, crimes against humanity and torture.
These crimes are also subject to universal jurisdiction.
The ad hoc International Criminal Tribunals for the former
Yugoslavia and Rwanda, as well as the International Criminal
Court, have jurisdiction over violations of both IHL and IHRL.
Who is protected?
IHL aims to protect persons who do not, or are no longer taking
part in hostilities. Applicable in international armed conflicts,
the
Geneva Conventions deal with the treatment of the
wounded and sick in the armed forces in the field (Convention
I), wounded, sick and shipwrecked members of the armed forces
at sea (Convention II), prisoners of war (Convention III) and
civilian persons (Convention IV). Civilian persons include
internally displaced persons, women, children, refugees,
stateless persons, journalists and other categories of individuals
(Convention IV and Protocol I).
Similarly, the rules applicable in non- international armed
conflict (article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions and
Protocol II) deal with the treatment of persons not taking, or no
longer taking part in the hostilities.
IHL also protects civilians through rules on the conduct of
hostilities. For example, parties to a conflict must at all times
distinguish between combatants and non-combatants and
between military and non military targets. Neither the civilian
population as a whole nor individual civilians may be the object
of attack. It is also prohibited to attack military objectives if that
would cause disproportionate harm to civilians or civilian
objects.
IHRL, being tailored primarily for peacetime, applies to all
persons.
CASES:
LEE vs. ILAGAN (Writ of Habeas Data)
The Facts
In his Petition for Issuance of the Writ of Habeas Data3 dated
June 22, 2012, Ilagan alleged that he and petitioner Dr. Joy
Margate Lee (Lee) were former common law partners.
Sometime in July 2011, he visited Lee at the latters
condominium, rested for a while and thereafter,proceeded to his
office. Upon arrival, Ilagan noticed that his digital camera was
missing.4 On August 23, 2011, Lee confronted Ilagan at the
latters office regarding a purported sex video (subject video)
she discovered from the aforesaid camera involving Ilagan and
another woman. Ilagan denied the video and demanded Lee to
return the camera, but to no avail.5 During the confrontation,
Ilagan allegedly slammed Lees head against a wall inside his
office and walked away.6Subsequently, Lee utilized the said
video as evidence in filing various complaints against Ilagan,
namely: (a) a criminal complaint for violation of Republic Act

No. 9262,7otherwise known as the Anti-Violence Against

Women and Their Children Act of 2004, before the Office of
the City Prosecutor of Makati; and (b) an administrative
complaint for grave misconduct before the National Police
Commission (NAPOLCOM).8 Ilagan claimed that Lees acts of
reproducing the subject video and threatening to distribute the
same to the upper echelons of the NAPOLCOM and uploading
it to the internet violated not only his right to life, liberty,
security, and privacy but also that of the other woman, and thus,
the issuance of a writ of habeas data in his favor is warranted.9
Finding the petition prima facie meritorious, the RTC issued a
Writ of Habeas Data10 dated June 25, 2012, directing Lee to
appear before the court a quo, and to produce Ilagans digital
camera, as well as the negative and/or original of the subject
video and copies thereof, and to file a verified written return
within five (5) working days from date of receipt thereof.
In her Verified Return11 dated July 2, 2012, Lee admitted that
she indeed kept the memory card of the digital camera and
reproduced the aforesaid video but averred that she only did so
to utilize the same as evidence in the cases she filed against
Ilagan. She also admitted that her relationship with Ilagan
started sometime in 2003 and ended under disturbing
circumstances in August 2011, and that she only happened to
discover the subject video when Ilagan left his camera in her
condominium. Accordingly, Lee contended that Ilagans petition
for the issuance of the writ of habeas data should be dismissed
because: (a) its filing was only aimed at suppressing the
evidence against Ilagan in the cases she filed; and (b) she is not
engaged in the gathering, collecting, or storing of data regarding
the person of Ilagan.12
The RTC Ruling
In a Decision13 dated August 30, 2012, the RTC granted the
privilege of the writ of habeas data in Ilagans favor, and
accordingly, ordered the implementing officer to turn-over
copies of the subject video to him, and enjoined Lee from
further reproducing the same.14
The RTC did not give credence to Lees defense that she is not
engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of data regarding
the person of Ilagan, finding that her acts of reproducing the
subject video and showing it to other people, i.e., the
NAPOLCOM officers, violated the latters right to privacy in
life and caused him to suffer humiliation and mental anguish. In
this relation, the RTC opined that Lees use of the subject video
as evidence in the various cases she filed against Ilagan is not
enough justification for its reproduction. Nevertheless, the RTC
clarified that it is only ruling on the return of the aforesaid video
and not on its admissibility before other tribunals.15
Dissatisfied, Lee filed this petition.
The Issue Before the Court
The essential issue for the Courts resolution is whether or not
the RTC correctly extended the privilege of the writ of habeas
data in favor of Ilagan.

The Courts Ruling

The petition is meritorious.
A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC, or the Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data
(Habeas Data Rule), was conceived as a response, given the
lack of effective and available remedies, to address the
extraordinary rise in the number of killings and enforced
disappearances.16 It was conceptualized as a judicial remedy
enforcing the right to privacy, most especially the right to
informational privacy of individuals,17 which is defined as the
right to control the collection, maintenance, use, and
dissemination of data about oneself.18
As defined in Section 1 of the Habeas Data Rule, the writ of
habeas data now stands as a remedy available to any person
whose right to privacy in life, liberty or security is violated or
threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or
employee, or of a private individual or entity engaged in the
gathering, collecting or storing of data or information
regarding the person, family, home, and correspondence of
the aggrieved party. Thus, in order to support a petition for
the issuance of such writ, Section 6 of the Habeas Data Rule
essentially requires that the petition sufficiently alleges, among
others, [t]he manner the right to privacy is violated or
threatened and how it affects the right to life, liberty or
security of the aggrieved party. In other words, the petition
must adequately show that there exists a nexus between the
right to privacy on the one hand, and the right to life, liberty
or security on the other .19 Corollarily, the allegations in the
petition must be supported by substantial evidence showing an
actual or threatened violation of the right to privacy in life,
liberty or security of the victim.20 In this relation, it bears
pointing out that the writ of habeas data will not issue to protect
purely property or commercial concerns nor when the grounds
invoked in support of the petitions therefor are vague and
doubtful.21
In this case, the Court finds that Ilagan was not able to
sufficiently allege that his right to privacy in life, liberty or
security was or would be violated through the supposed
reproduction and threatened dissemination of the subject sex
video. While Ilagan purports a privacy interest in the
suppression of this video which he fears would somehow find
its way to Quiapo or be uploaded in the internet for public
consumption he failed to explain the connection between such
interest and any violation of his right to life, liberty or security.
Indeed, courts cannot speculate or contrive versions of possible
transgressions. As the rules and existing jurisprudence on the
matter evoke, alleging and eventually proving the nexus
between ones privacy right to the cogent rights to life, liberty or
security are crucial in habeas data cases, so much so that a
failure on either account certainly renders a habeas data petition
dismissible, as in this case.
In fact, even discounting the insufficiency of the allegations, the
petition would equally be dismissible due to the inadequacy of
the evidence presented. As the records show, all that Ilagan
submitted in support of his petition was his self-serving
testimony which hardly meets the substantial evidence
requirement as prescribed by the Habeas Data Rule. This is

because nothing therein would indicate that Lee actually

proceeded to commit any overt act towards the end of violating
Ilagans right to privacy in life, liberty or security. Nor would
anything on record even lead a reasonable mind to conclude22
that Lee was going to use the subject video in order to achieve
unlawful ends say for instance, to spread it to the public so as
to ruin Ilagans reputation. Contrastingly, Lee even made it
clear in her testimony that the only reason why she reproduced
the subject video was to legitimately utilize the same as
evidence in the criminal and administrative cases that she filed
against Ilagan.23 Hence, due to the insufficiency of the
allegations as well as the glaring absence of substantial
evidence, the Court finds it proper to reverse the RTC Decision
and dismiss the habeas data petition.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision
dated August 30, 2012 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon
City, Branch 224 in SP No. 12-71527is hereby REVERSED and
SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the Petition for Issuance of the Writ
of Habeas Data filed by respondent P/Supt. Neri A. Ilagan is
DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
GARCIA vs. DRILON
Facts:
Private respondent Rosalie filed a petition before the RTC of
Bacolod City a Temporary Protection Order against her husband,
Jesus, pursuant to R.A. 9262, entitled An Act Defining
Violence Against Women and Their Children, Providing for
Protective Measures for Victims, Prescribing Penalties Therefor,
and for Other Purposes. She claimed to be a victim of physical,
emotional, psychological and economic violence, being
threatened of deprivation of custody of her children and of
financial support and also a victim of marital infidelity on the
part of petitioner.
The TPO was granted but the petitioner failed to faithfully
comply with the conditions set forth by the said TPO, privaterespondent filed another application for the issuance of a TPO
ex parte. The trial court issued a modified TPO and extended the
same when petitioner failed to comment on why the TPO should
not be modified. After the given time allowance to answer, the
petitioner no longer submitted the required comment as it would
be an axercise in futility.
Petitioner filed before the CA a petition for prohibition with
prayer for injunction and TRO on, questioning the
constitutionality of the RA 9262 for violating the due process
and equal protection clauses, and the validity of the modified
TPO for being an unwanted product of an invalid law.
The CA issued a TRO on the enforcement of the TPO but
however, denied the petition for failure to raise the issue of
constitutionality in his pleadings before the trial court and the
petition for prohibition to annul protection orders issued by the
trial court constituted collateral attack on said law.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied.
Thus, this petition is filed.
Issues:

WON the CA erred in dismissing the petition on the theory that

the issue of constitutionality was not raised at the earliest
opportunity and that the petition constitutes a collateral attack on
the validity of the law.
WON the CA committed serious error in failing to conclude that
RA 9262 is discriminatory, unjust and violative of the equal
protection clause.
WON the CA committed grave mistake in not finding that RA
9262 runs counter to the due process clause of the Constitution
WON the CA erred in not finding that the law does violence to
the policy of the state to protect the family as a basic social
institution
WON the CA seriously erredin declaring RA 9262 as invalid
and unconstitutional because it allows an undue delegation of
judicial power to Brgy. Officials.
Decision:
1. Petitioner contends that the RTC has limited authority and
jurisdiction, inadequate to tackle the complex issue of
constitutionality. Family Courts have authority and jurisdiction
to consider the constitutionality of a statute. The question of
constitutionality must be raised at the earliest possible time so
that if not raised in the pleadings, it may not be raised in the trial
and if not raised in the trial court, it may not be considered in
appeal.
2. RA 9262 does not violate the guaranty of equal protection of
the laws. Equal protection simply requires that all persons or
things similarly situated should be treated alike, both as to rights
conferred and responsibilities imposed. In Victoriano v. Elizalde
Rope Workerkers Union, the Court ruled that all that is required
of a valid classification is that it be reasonable, which means that
the classification should be based on substantial distinctions
which make for real differences; that it must be germane to the
purpose of the law; not limited to existing conditions only; and
apply equally to each member of the class. Therefore, RA9262
is based on a valid classification and did not violate the equal
protection clause by favouring women over men as victims of
violence and abuse to whom the Senate extends its protection.
3. RA 9262 is not violative of the due process clause of the
Constitution. The essence of due process is in the reasonable
opportunity to be heard and submit any evidence one may have
in support of ones defense. The grant of the TPO exparte cannot
be impugned as violative of the right to due process.
4. The non-referral of a VAWC case to a mediator is justified.
Petitioners contention that by not allowing mediation, the law
violated the policy of the State to protect and strengthen the
family as a basic autonomous social institution cannot be
sustained. In a memorandum of the Court, it ruled that the court
shall not refer the case or any issue therof to a mediator. This is
so because violence is not a subject for compromise.
5. There is no undue delegation of judicial power to Barangay
officials. Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of
justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are

legally demandable and enforceable and to determine whether or

not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction on any part of any branch of the
Government while executive power is the power to enforce and
administer the laws. The preliminary investigation conducted
by the prosecutor is an executive, not a judicial, function. The
same holds true with the issuance of BPO. Assistance by Brgy.
Officials and other law enforcement agencies is consistent with
their duty executive function.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: writ of amparo

The petition for review on certiorari is denied for lack of merit.

Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political

Rights recognizes every human beings inherent right to life,
while Article 9 thereof ordains that everyone has the right to
liberty and security. The right to life must be protected by law
while the right to liberty and security cannot be impaired except
on grounds provided by and in accordance with law. This
overarching command against deprivation of life, liberty and
security without due process of law is also embodied in our
fundamental law.

NAVIA vs. PARDICO (Writ of Amparo)

FACTS:
A vehicle of Asian Land Strategies Corporation (Asian Land)
arrived at the house of Lolita M. Lapore. The arrival of the
vehicle awakened Lolitas son, Enrique Lapore (Bong), and
Benhur Pardico (Ben), who were then both staying in her house.
When Lolita went out to investigate, she saw two uniformed
guards disembarking from the vehicle. One of them immediately
asked Lolita where they could find her son Bong. Before Lolita
could answer, the guard saw Bong and told him that he and Ben
should go with them to the security office of Asian Land
because a complaint was lodged against them for theft of electric
wires and lamps in the subdivision. Shortly thereafter, Bong,
Lolita and Ben were in the office of the security department of
Asian Land also located in Grand Royale Subdivision.
Exasperated with the mysterious disappearance of her husband,
Virginia filed a Petition for Writ of Amparobefore the RTC of
Malolos City. A Writ of Amparo was accordingly issued and
served on the petitioners. The trial court issued the challenged
Decision granting the petition. Petitioners filed a Motion for
Reconsideration which was denied by the trial court.
Petitioners essentially assail the sufficiency of the amparo
petition. They contend that the writ of amparo is available only
in cases where the factual and legal bases of the violation or
threatened violation of the aggrieved partys right to life, liberty
and security are clear. Petitioners assert that in the case at bench,
Virginia miserably failed to establish all these. First, the petition
is wanting on its face as it failed to state with some degree of
specificity the alleged unlawful act or omission of the petitioners
constituting a violation of or a threat to Bens right to life, liberty
and security. And second, it cannot be deduced from the
evidence Virginia adduced that Ben is missing; or that
petitioners had a hand in his alleged disappearance. On the other
hand, the entries in the logbook which bear the signatures of Ben
and Lolita are eloquent proof that petitioners released Ben on
March 31, 2008 at around 10:30 p.m. Petitioners thus posit that
the trial court erred in issuing the writ and in holding them
responsible for Bens disappearance.
ISSUE: Whether or not the issuance of A Writ of Amparo is
proper?
HELD: RTCs decision is reversed and set aside.

A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC or The Rule on the Writ of Amparo was

promulgated to arrest the rampant extralegal killings and
enforced disappearances in the country. Its purpose is to provide
an expeditious and effective relief "to any person whose right to
life, liberty and security is violated or threatened with violation
by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee,
or of a private individual or entity."

The budding jurisprudence on amparo blossomed in Razon, Jr. v.

Tagitis when this Court defined enforced disappearances. The
Court in that case applied the generally accepted principles of
international law and adopted the International Convention for
the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances
definition of enforced disappearances, as "the arrest, detention,
abduction or any other form of deprivation of liberty by agents
of the State or by persons or groups of persons acting with the
authorization, support or acquiescence of the State, followed by
a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty or by
concealment of the fate or whereabouts of the disappeared
person, which place such a person outside the protection of the
law."
From the statutory definition of enforced disappearance, thus,
we can derive the following elements that constitute it:
(a) that there be an arrest, detention, abduction or any form of
deprivation of liberty;
(b) that it be carried out by, or with the authorization, support
or acquiescence of, the State or a political organization;
(c) that it be followed by the State or political organizations
refusal to acknowledge or give information on the fate or
whereabouts of the person subject of the amparo petition; and,
(d) that the intention for such refusal is to remove subject person
from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time.
As thus dissected, it is now clear that for the protective writ of
amparo to issue, allegation and proof that the persons subject
thereof are missing are not enough. It must also be shown and
proved by substantial evidence that the disappearance was
carried out by, or with the authorization, support or acquiescence
of, the State or a political organization, followed by a refusal to
acknowledge the same or give information on the fate or
whereabouts of said missing persons, with the intention of
removing them from the protection of the law for a prolonged
period of time. Simply put, the petitioner in an amparo case has
the burden of proving by substantial evidence the indispensable
element of government participation.

But lest it be overlooked, in an amparo petition, proof of

disappearance alone is not enough. It is likewise essential to
establish that such disappearance was carried out with the direct
or indirect authorization, support or acquiescence of the
government. This indispensable element of State participation is
not present in this case. The petition does not contain any
allegation of State complicity, and none of the evidence
presented tend to show that the government or any of its agents
orchestrated Bens disappearance. In fact, none of its agents,
officials, or employees were impleaded or implicated in
Virginia's amparo petition whether as responsible or accountable
persons.51 Thus, in the absence of an allegation or proof that the
government or its agents had a hand in Bens disappearance or
that they failed to exercise extraordinary diligence in
investigating his case, the Court will definitely not hold the
government or its agents either as responsible or accountable
persons.
We are aware that under Section 1 of A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC a
writ of amparo may lie against a private individual or entity. But
even if the person sought to be held accountable or responsible
in an amparo petition is a private individual or entity, still,
government involvement in the disappearance remains an
indispensable element. Here, petitioners are mere security
guards at Grand Royale Subdivision in Brgy. Lugam, Malolos
City and their principal, the Asian Land, is a private entity. They
do not work for the government and nothing has been presented
that would link or connect them to some covert police, military
or governmental operation. As discussed above, to fall within
the ambit of A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC in relation to RA No. 9851,
the disappearance must be attended by some governmental
involvement. This hallmark of State participation differentiates
an enforced disappearance case from an ordinary case of a
missing person.
DISMISSED
VERTIDO vs. JBC (CEDAW)
In 1996, Karen Tayag Vertido worked as Executive Director of
the Davao City Chamber of Commerce and Industry in the
Philippines. She filed a complaint against the then President of
the Chamber, Jose B. Custodio, accusing him of raping her. She
alleged that the accused offered her a lift home following a
business meeting one evening and that, instead, raped her in a
nearby hotel.
In April 2005, after the case had languished in the trial court for
eight years, Judge Virginia Hofilea-Europa acquitted the
accused of raping Ms Vertido, citing insufficient evidence to
prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused was guilty of
the offence charged. Her Honour based her decision to acquit
on a number of guiding principles from other rape cases and
her unfavourable assessment of the Ms Vertidos testimony
based, among other things, on her failure to take advantage of
perceived opportunities to escape from the accused.
Ms Vertido subsequently submitted a communication to the
Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women
(CEDAW Committee). She alleged that the acquittal of Mr

Custodio breached the right to non-discrimination, the right to

an effective remedy, and the freedom from wrongful gender
stereotyping, in violation of articles 2(c), 2(d), 2(f) and 5(a) of
the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination against Women (CEDAW).
In her communication, Ms Vertido claimed that the trial judges
decision had no basis in law or fact, but was grounded in
gender-based myths and misconceptions about rape and rape
victims without which the accused would have been
convicted. She further claimed that a decision grounded in
gender-based myths and misconceptions or one rendered in bad
faith can hardly be considered as one rendered by a fair,
impartial and competent tribunal, and that the Philippines had
failed in its obligation to ensure that women are protected
against discrimination by public authorities, including the
judiciary.
The Philippines observations on admissibility
The Philippines contested the admissibility of the
communication on the basis that Ms Vertido had failed to
exhaust domestic remedies, as required by article 4(1) of the
Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All
Forms of Discrimination against Women (Optional Protocol).
It claimed that Ms Vertido had failed to avail herself of the
special remedy of certiorari.
Ms Vertidos comments on the Philippines observations
Ms Vertido countered that she was not required to exhaust the
remedy of certiorari, as it could only be sought by the People of
the Philippines, represented by the Office of the Solicitor
General. In addition, she submitted that, even if the remedy
were available to her, it would have been ineffective in
redressing her particular complaint of discrimination.
CEDAW Committees admissibility decision
The CEDAW Committee declared the communication
admissible, dismissing the suggestion made by the Philippines
that Ms Vertido was required by article 4(1) of the Optional
Protocol to exhaust the remedy of certiorari.
Views
The CEDAW Committee concluded that, in failing to end
discriminatory gender stereotyping in the legal process, the
Philippines had violated articles (2)(c) and 2(f) of CEDAW, and
article 5(a) read in conjunction with article 1 and General
Recommendation No. 19 (violence against women). The
Committee declined to consider whether or not article 2(d) had
been violated, finding that it was less relevant to the case than
the other articles alleged to have been violated.
Committee member Ms Yoko Hayashi issued a separate,
concurring opinion.
Right to an effective remedy (art. 2(c))
The CEDAW Committee affirmed that implicit in CEDAW and,
in particular article 2(c), is the right to an effective remedy. It
explained that for a remedy to be effective, adjudication of a
case involving rape and sexual offenses claims should be dealt
with in a fair, impartial, timely and expeditious manner.

The Committee determined that the Philippines had failed to

comply with its obligation to ensure Ms Vertidos right to an
effective remedy. It noted that her case had languished in the
trial court for approximately eight years before a decision was
made to acquit the accused and that, consequently, it could not
be said that Ms Vertidos allegation of rape had been dealt with
in a fair, impartial, timely and expeditious manner.

The majority determined that the trial judge had expected a

certain stereotypical behaviour from the author and formed a
negative view of her creditability because she had not behaved
accordingly. It went on to say that the trial judges decision
contained several references to stereotypes about male and
female sexuality being more supportive for the credibility of the
alleged perpetrator than for the creditability of the victim.

Freedom from Wrongful Gender Stereotyping (arts. 2(f) and

5(a))
In finding violations of articles 2(f) and 5(a), the Committee
affirmed that CEDAW requires States Parties to take
appropriate measures to modify or abolish not only existing laws
and regulations, but also customs and practices that constitute
discrimination against women. It also stressed that
stereotyping affects womens right to a fair and just trial and that
the judiciary must take caution not to create inflexible standards
of what women or girls should be or . . . have done when
confronted with a situation of rape based merely on
preconceived notions of what defines a rape victim.

Recommendations
Having found violations of articles (2)(c), 2(f) and 5(a) of
CEDAW, the CEDAW Committee called on the Philippines to
provide appropriate compensation to Ms Vertido. It also made a
number of general recommendations aimed at redressing the
systemic nature of many of the violations. These included
taking effective steps to ensure that decisions in sexual assault
cases are impartial and fair and not affected by prejudices or
stereotypes.