HR Reviewer

Nulla poena sine lege (Latin for "no penalty without a law", is a legal principle,
requiring that one cannot be punished for doing something that is not prohibited
by law.

I. HUMAN RIGHTS LAWS IN THE PHILIPPINES

II. HUMAN RIGHTS, ITS ATTRIBUTES, ORIGIN AND THE THREE GENERATIONS
Human Rights – are rights which necessarily spring from being a member of the
human species.

Attributes of Human Rights: Universal, Inherent, Equal, Inalienable

Three (3) Generations of Human Rights:

First Generation – negative (shall not)
Second Generation – positive (the State shall)
Third Generation – solidary

Ill. STATE RESPONSIBILITY

State – guarantor of human rights
The role of the State in the social order is to see to it that members of society
acknowledge its authority and that it governs the people properly.
In turn, the State must recognize that the people have rights and freedoms that
are inherent in them and cannot be taken away.
People v. Andre Marti GR 81561 January 18, 1991

Nicaragua v United States of America, International Court of Justice, June 27,

1986
The Supreme Court ruled that the illegal articles could be admitted as evidence
even if these were products of a search conducted without a warrant because the
person who conducted the search was a civilian, not a government agent.

Oposa v Factoran GR 101063, July 30, 1993

The Supreme Court recognized the human right of the children-petitioners to a
balanced and healthful ecology and of the State’s duty to protect that right, nt
only for the petitioners, but also for generations yet unborn, thereby laying the
principle that the solidary right to a healthy environment is a justiciable issue that
can be properly raised before the courts of law in our jurisdiction.

Doctrine of Intergenerational Responsibility – this means that the present

generation holds the natural resource treasures of the earth in trust for the
benefit, enjoyment, and use of the generations of humankind yet to come, and
the State has the responsibility to protect and see to it that this be realized.

Doctrine of Command Responsibility – the failure fo the the superior officer to

stop human rights violations committed by his subordinates, though absent a
showing that he directly ordered the commission of these acts, could still make
him liable as well for such acts. [Article 28, Rome Statute of the International
Criminal Court]

Rule of Law

IV. SOURCES OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW

Human rights treaties

Customary law: Jus cogens, erga Barcelona Traction Light and Power Company,
omnes , Actio popularis

General Principles of law

Incorporation clause in the 1987 Constitution; Section 2, Article II

The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy, adopts the
generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land
and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation, and
amity with all nations.

Judicial Decisions and Teachings

International Court of Justice
International Criminal Court

V. INTERNATIONAL BILL OF RIGHTS

Universal Declaration of Human Rights – consists of 30 Articles
International Covenant on Civil and Political rights and 2 protocols

ICCPR has two (2) additional protocols:

The First Optional Protocol, which entered into force on March 23, 1976,
provides for the jurisdiction of the Human Rights Committee to receive and
consider communications from individuals who claim to be victims of human
rights violations set forth in the ICCPR. This was ratified by the Philippines on
August 22, 1989.

The Second Optional Protocol, which entered into force on July 11, 1991, is
aimed at the abolition of death penalty. This was ratified by the Philippines on
November 20, 2007, after it passed R.A. 9346 abolishing death penalty in June
2006.

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

Rights and Freedoms under the International Bill of rights

1. Equality in dignity and rights
2. Right to life, liberty and security
3. Right against slavery
4. Right against torture
5. Right to equal protection
6. Right to effective judicial remedy

Judicial writs
Writ of habeas corpus – a writ issued by a judge directed to the person detaining
another, commanding him to produce the body of a prisoner at a designated time
and place.

Writ of amparo – is a remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty
and security is violate 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.

Writ of habeas data - is a remedy available to any person whose right to privacy
in life, liberty and security is violate or threatened with violation 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.

Pretty v. UK. (2346/02) European Court of Human Rights,2002

Mrs. Diane Pretty petitioned the European Court of Human Rights to be allowed
to commit suicide with the help of her husband, Brian. Mrs. Pretty, then 43, was
suffering from advanced stage of motor neuron disease which paralyzed her from
the neck down. She argued that she had the right to life as well as the right to die.
The Court ruled that the petitioner did not have the right to die, and that no such
right can be derived from the right to life.

People v Cayat, GR No. L- 45987, May 5, 1935

The Supreme Court laid down the following requisits for reasonable classification:
1. It must be based on substantial distinctions which make real differences;
2. It must be germane to the purpose of the law;
3. It must not be limited to existing conditions only;
4. It must apply equally to each member of the class.

Beltran v Secretary of Health, GR 133640, 133661 and 139147, Nov 25, 2005
Marcos v. Manglapus, GR 88211, Sept 15, 1989 and Oct 27, 1989

Malcampo-Sin v. Sin, GR l' 37590 March 26, 2001

American Bible Society v City of Manila, GR No. L-9637, April 30, 1957.

Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance, GR No. 115455, October 30, 1995

Chaplinsky v. State ofNew Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942)

People v Doriquez, GR No. L-24444-45, July 29, 1968

Romualdez Marcos v Comelec, GR 119976 Sept 18, 1995

Aquino v. Comelec, GR 120265, Sept 18, 1995

VI. APPLICATION, ENFORCEMENT AND LIMITATIONS

VII. MONITORING SYSTEMS

VIII. THE UNITED NATIONS

Charter Base
1503 Procedures
1235 Procedures

Treaty Based
Human Rights Committee
Monitoring Bodies

Piandong v The Philippines Case No. 869-1999, Human Rights Committee

The Human Rights Committee ventured to say that provisional remedies are
mandatory.
The ruling of the Committee is called a “View,” which does not have a legal
binding effect. However, it may also issue interim measures similar to provisional
remedies under our rules. These interim measures can have a mandatory
character.

CASES (Midterms):
In the matter of Petition for Habeas Corpus of Leonardo Paquinto & Jesus
Cabangunay GR 115576, Aug 4, 1994
Albert Wilson v Executive Secretary, GR 189220, Dec. 7, 2016
Villar v Technological Institute of the Phils. GR L-69198, April 7, 1985
Aberca v Ver, GR L-69866, April 15, 1988
Juan Ponce Enrile v Sandiganbayan, GR 213847, Aug 18, 2015
Isidro Hildawa, v Ministry of Defense, GR L-67766, Aug 14, 1985
Chavez v Gonzales, GR 168338m Feb. 15, 2008, Concurring Opinion, Sandoval
Gutierrez
Isabelita Lahon v. Sibulo, GR 143989, July 14,
Diosdado Jose Allado v Diokno, GR 113630, May 5, 1994
Secretary of National Defense v Manalo, GR 180906, Oct. 7, 2008
Vadim Chirskoff v Commissioner of Immigrations, GR L-3802, Oct 26, 1951
Ang Ladlad LGBT Party v Comelec, GR 190582, April 8, 2010
George Tubb v Griess GR L-1325, April 7, 1947
SSS Employees Assn. v CA, GR 85279, July 28, 1989
Arreza v Gregorio Araneta University Foundation, GR L-62297, June 19, 1985
Resident Marine Mammals v Angelo Reyes, GR 180771, April 21, 2015
Bayan Karapatan v Ermita, GR 16838, April 25, 2006
P/Supt Felixberto Castillo v Dr. Amanda Cruz, GR 182165, Nov. 25, 2007
Garcia v Drilon, GR 179267, June 25, 2013
Guinguiung v CA, GR 128959 Sept 30, 2005
Edita Burgos v Pres. Gloria Arroyo, GR 183711 , June 22, 2010
Loloy Unduran v Aberrasturi, GR 181284, April 18, 2017