What is Human Rights?
Human rights are the basic rights inherent to all human beings from birth until death.
These rights include the right to life and liberty, personal security, freedom from torture,
freedom from discrimination and freedom from arbitrary arrest, among others.
Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, regardless of race, sex, nationality,
ethnicity, language, religion, or any other status. Human rights include the right to life and
liberty, freedom from slavery and torture, freedom of opinion and expression, the right to work
and education, and many more. Everyone is entitled to these rights, without discrimination.
What are the characteristics of human rights?
1. Universality and Inalienability: Human rights are universal and inalienable. All
people everywhere in the world are entitled to them. The universality of human
rights is encompassed in the words of Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.”
They are universal because everyone is born with and possesses the same rights,
regardless of where they live, their gender or race, or their religious, cultural or
ethnic background. Inalienable because people’s rights can never be taken away.
2. Indivisibility: Human rights are indivisible. Whether they relate to civil, cultural,
economic, political or social issues, human rights are inherent to the dignity of
every human person. Consequently, all human rights have equal status, and
cannot be positioned in a hierarchical order. Denial of one right invariably impedes
enjoyment of other rights. Thus, the right of everyone to an adequate standard of
living cannot be compromised at the expense of other rights, such as the right to
health or the right to education.
Indivisible and interdependent because all rights – political, civil, social, cultural
and economic – are equal in importance and none can be fully enjoyed without the
others.
3. Interdependence
and
Interrelatedness:
Human
rights
are interdependent and interrelated. Each one contributes to the realization of a
person’s human dignity through the satisfaction of his or her developmental,
physical, psychological and spiritual needs. The fulfilment of one right often
depends, wholly or in part, upon the fulfilment of others. For instance, fulfilment of
the right to health may depend, in certain circumstances, on fulfilment of the right
to development, to education or to information.
What are the classifications of Human rights?
1. CLASSIC AND SOCIAL RIGHTS
‘Classic’ rights are often seen to require the non-intervention of the state (negative
obligation), and ‘social rights’ as requiring active intervention on the part of the state
(positive obligations). In other words, classic rights entail an obligation for the state to
refrain from certain actions, while social rights oblige it to provide certain guarantees.
2. CIVIL, POLITICAL, ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS
Civil Rights
We have the right to life, liberty, security and property. We have the right to a transparent,
credible, competent and impartial justice system, free from influence and corruption,
where wrongs are redressed and justice is dispensed fairly, speedily and equitably. We
must have equal access to the courts and adequate legal assistance. We must be treated
equally before the law regardless of our political, social and economic status.
POLITICAL RIGHTS
We have the right to live in a democracy and are entitled to enjoy its benefits. The right
to meaningful representation, participation and decision-making about individual and
community concerns shall be recognized and maintained. The protection of life, liberty
and property, the upliftment of economic conditions and the promotion of the general
welfare are essential prerequisites of a truly democratic society.
SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS
We have the right to enjoy the highest standard of health. The State shall ensure that its
citizens shall be adequately nourished and free from hunger. The State has the obligation
to establish a responsive social housing program and protect the people from unjust
evictions from their homes. Protection and assistance shall be accorded marginalized
families and vulnerable sectors of society.
ECONOMIC RIGHTS
We have the right to a nationalistic and independent economic policy protected from
foreign domination and intrusion. We have the right to a self-reliant economy based on
national industrialization. We have the right to resist all forms of oppressive and
unreasonable trade liberalization, to oppose a subservient debt management strategy,
and to repudiate all foreign debts that do not benefit the people. The State shall develop
efficient and effective debt management strategies that will benefit the people and shall
give preferential treatment to local capital.
COLLECTIVE RIGHTS
We have the right to self-determination. This right provides us with the freedom to develop
ourselves as peoples, preserve our culture and retain our national identity. Our peoples
shall not be coerced into assimilation, nor shall forced evacuation, dislocation and
displacement resulting from development aggression and other State policies should be
allowed. We have the right to resist any form of political, economic, social or cultural
domination by resorting to any legitimate means.
FUNDAMENTAL AND BASIC RIGHTS
Fundamental rights are taken to mean such rights as the right to life and the inviolability
of the person. Within the UN, extensive standards have been developed which,
particularly since the 1960s, have been laid down in numerous conventions, declarations
and resolutions, and which bring already recognised rights and matters of policy which
affect human development into the sphere of human rights. Concern that a broad
definition of human rights may lead to the notion of ‘violation of human rights’ losing some
of its significance has generated a need to distinguish a separate group within the broad
category of human rights. Increasingly, the terms ‘elementary’, ‘essential’, ‘core’ and
‘fundamental’ human rights are being used.
BRIGIDO R. SIMON, JR., CARLOS QUIMPO, CARLITO ABELARDO, AND
GENEROSO
OCAMPO,
petitioners,
vs.
COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, ROQUE FERMO, AND OTHERS AS JOHN DOES
Facts:
Petitioner Carlos Quimpo is the Executive Officer of the Quezon City Integrated Hawkers
Management Council under the Office of the City Mayor. Private respondents are officers
and members of the North EDSA Vendors Association, Incorporated. .
Petitioner Quimpo signed a Demolition Notice dated July 9, 1990 which was sent to and
received by the PRs. In said Notice, PRs were given a grace-period of 3 days to vacate
the questioned premises of North EDSA. PRs were informed by petitioner Quimpo that
their stalls should be removed to give way to the "People's Park
PR President Roque Fermo filed a letter-complaint with the Commission on Human
Rights (CHR) against the petitioners. PRs asked to stop the demolition of their stalls, sarisari stores, and carinderia along North EDSA .
CHR ruled in favor of PRs; directed petitioners to stop the demolition pending resolution
of the complaint; and ordered the disbursement of financial assistance in favor of PRs to
purchase light housing materials and-food under the Commission's supervision and again
directed the petitioners to desist from further demolition, with the warning that violation of
said order would lead to a citation for contempt and arrest.
Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss and questioned CHR's jurisdiction. During the
hearing, petitioners moved for postponement, arguing that the motion to dismiss had yet
to be resolved.
Petitioners filed a supplemental motion to dismiss, stating that the CHR's authority should
be understood as being confined only to the investigation of violations of civil and political
rights, and that the rights allegedly violated in this case (were) not civil and political rights.
(but) their privilege to engage in business
CHR cited the petitioners in contempt for carrying out the demolition and fined them Php
500.00 each. CHR denied petitioners motion to dismiss and supplemental motion to
dismiss.
Issue:
Whether the CHR is authorized to hear and decide on the "demolition case" and
to impose a fine for contempt?
Ruling:
No. Section 18, Article XIII, of the 1987 Constitution empowered the CHR to investigate
all forms of human rights violations involving civil and political rights. The demolition of
stalls, sari-sari stores and carenderia cannot fall within the compartment of "human
rights violations involving civil and political rights".
Human rights are the basic rights which inhere in man by virtue of his humanity
and are the same in all parts of the world. Human rights include civil rights (right to life,
liberty and property; freedom of speech, of the press, of religion, academic freedom; rights
of the accused to due process of law), political rights (right to elect public officials, to be
elected to public office, and to form political associations and engage in politics), social
rights
(right
to
education,
employment
and
social
services.
Human rights are entitlements that inhere in the individual person from the sheer
fact of his humanity...Because they are inherent, human rights are not granted by the
State but can only be recognized and protected by it.Human rights includes all the civil,
political, economic, social and cultural rights defined in the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights. Human rights are rights that pertain to man simply because he is human.
They are part of his natural birth, right, innate and inalienable.
CIVIL RIGHTS - are those that belong to every citizen and are not connected with the
organization
or
administration
of
the
government.
POLITICAL RIGHTS - are rights to participate, directly or indirectly, in the establishment
or administration of the government.
Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization v. Philippine Blooming Mills
Co., Inc. (G.R. No. L-31195)
FACTS:
On March 4, 1969, Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization (PBMEO) decided
to stage a mass demonstration in front of Malacañang to express their grievances against
the
alleged
abuses
of
the
Pasig
Police.
After learning about about PBMEO's plans, Philippine Blooming Mills Inc. called for a
meeting with the leaders of the union. During the meeting, the planned demonstration
was confirmed by PBMEO, which noted that the demonstration was not a strike against
the company. PBMEO stated that the planned demonstration was an exercise of the
laborers' inalienable constitutional right to freedom of expression, freedom of speech and
freedom for petition for redress of grievances against police indignities.
The company asked PBMEO to cancel the demonstration, noting that the same would
constitute an interruption of the normal course of their business which may result in loss
of revenue. The company also threatened the workers that they would lose their jobs if
they
pushed
through
with
the
demonstration.
A second meeting took place where the company stressed that those from the 1st and
regular shifts should not absent themselves to participate in the demonstration, otherwise,
they
would
be
dismissed.
Since it was too late to cancel the plan, the demonstration took place. The officers of
PBMEO were eventually dismissed by the company for violation of the "No Strike and No
Lockout" clause of their Collective Bargaining Agreement.
ISSUE:
Whether the dismissal of PBMEO officers from their employment constituted a violation
of their constitutional right to freedom of expression, assembly, and petition. -- YES.
HELD:
The Supreme Court held that PBMEO needed even the first and regular shift workers for
the demonstration as their complete presence in the mass demonstration would generate
the maximum sympathy for the validity of their cause and immediate action on the part of
corresponding
agencies.
The company’s contention that it would suffer loss by reason of the absence of the
employees from 6 AM – 2 PM is a plea for the preservation of merely their property rights.
The appropriate penalty that could have been imposed by the company – if it deserves
any penalty at all – should have been simply to charge the one-day absence of the
workers
against
their
vacation
or
sick
leaves.
While the Bill of Rights protects property rights, human rights such as freedom of
expression, assembly, and petition, are supreme over property rights. Infringement on
human right requires a more stringent criterion for validation, as compared to impairment
of
property
rights.
The rights of free expression, free assembly and petition, are not only civil rights but also
political rights essential to man's enjoyment of his life, to his happiness and to his full and
complete fulfillment. Thru these freedoms the citizens can participate not merely in the
periodic establishment of the government through their suffrage but also in the
administration of public affairs as well as in the discipline of abusive public officer.
The superiority of these freedoms over property rights is underscored by the fact that a
mere reasonable or rational relation between the means employed by the law and its
object or purpose that the law is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory nor oppressive would
suffice to validate a law which restricts or impairs property rights. On the other hand, a
constitutional or valid infringement of human rights requires a more stringent criterion,
namely existence of a grave and immediate danger of a substantive evil which the State
has the right to prevent.
ERMITA-MALATE VS CITY MAYOR OF MANILA
Facts:
City Ordinance 4760 was issued by the municipal board of the City of Manila whichseeks
to regulate the operations of hotels and motels within the area.
The ordinance imposes a P6,000.00 fee per annum for first class motels
andP4,500.00 for second class motels;
It also requires the owner or the manager of a hotel or motel to refrain from entertaining or accepting any guests without him filling up the prescribed form (in-cludes
personal and private data) in the front desk that is open to public view at all timesprovides
that the premises and facilities of such hotels, motels and lodging houses would be open
for inspection either by the City Mayor, or the Chief of Po-lice, or their duly authorized
representatives.
It also prohibited a person less than 18 years old from being accepted in such
hotels or motels and the likes unless accompanied by parents or a lawful guardian and
made it unlawful for the owner, manager, keeper or duly authorized representative of such
establishments to lease any room or portion thereof more than twice every 24 hours.
It provided a penalty of automatic cancellation of the license of the offended par-ty
in case of conviction.
On 5 July 1963, the petitioners filed a petition for prohibition against the mayor of
the City of Manila in his capacity as he is charged with the general power and duty to enforce ordinances of the City of Manila and to give the necessary orders for the faithful
execution and enforcement of such ordinances.
The lower court favored the petitioners by issuing a writ of preliminary
injunction ordering of Manila lack authority to regulate motels and rendering Ordinance
4760 unconstitutional and therefore null and void
Issue:
Whether or not the ordinance is a valid exercise of police power?
Held:
Yes, the stature here questioned deals with a subject clearly within the scope of
police power. We are asked to declare it in void on the ground that the specific method of
regulation prescribed is unreasonable and hence deprives the plaintiff of due process of
law. As underlying questions of fact may condition the constitutionality of legislation of
this character, the presumption of constitutionality must prevail in the absence of some
factual foundation of record for overthrowing the statute. “No such factual foundation
being laid in the present case, the lower court deciding the matter on the pleadings and
the stipulation of facts, the presumption of validity must prevail and the judgment against
ordinance set aside.
Nor may petitioners assert with plausibility that on its face the ordinance is fatality
defective as being repugnant to the due process clause of the constitution. The mantle of
protection associated with the due process guaranty does not cover petitioners. This
particular manifestation of a police power measure being specifically aimed to safeguard
public morals is immune from such imputation of nullity resting purely on the conjecture
and unsupported by anything of substance. To hold otherwise would be unduly restrict
and narrow the scope of police power which has been properly characterized as the most
essential, insistent, and the least limitable of powers, extending as it does to all public
needs. It would be a paraphrase another leading decision, to destroy the very purpose of
the state if it could be deprived of allowed itself to be deprived of its competence to
promote the public health, public morals, public safety and the general welfare. Negatively
put, police power is that inherent and plenary power in the state which enable it to prohibit
all that is hurtful to the comfort, safety, and welfare of society.
But in Laguio and White Light, the Supre Court said, it’s mine, it states that it is an undue
restraint on a business and the right of patrons (this is third party standing-the right of
patrons who never before the court, never bothered to file a case because the owners
where the ones who filed the case.
Secondly, the Supreme Court also used this test. There is no rational basis. Take note,
it’s really very rare when it applies this no rational relation between the purpose of the
law which is to promote morals and the method chose which is to prohibit shorttime because motels can used for innocent purposes.
WHITE LIGHT COM VS CITY OF MANILA
576 SCRA 416 (2009)
Facts:
In 1992, the City of Manila enacted ordinance no. 7774, entitled an ordinance
prohibiting short time admission rate and wash up rate in hotels, motels, lodging houses,
pension houses, and inns, and similar establishment in the City of Manila.
As to title suggests, the ordinance penalizes the admittance and charging room
rates for less than 12 hrs at any given time, or the renting out of rooms more than twice
a day. The ordinance was intended to curve immoral activities.
Issue:
Is the ordinance a legitimate exercise of police power?
Held:
No, for an ordinance to be valid, it must appear that the interest of the public
generally as distinguished from those of a particular class, require an interference
with the private rights and the means must be reasonably necessary for the
accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive of private right.
It must also be evident that no other alternative for the accomplishment of the
purpose less intrusive of private rights can work. More importantly, a reasonable
relation must exist between the purposes of the measure and the means employed
for it accomplishment, for even under the guise of protecting the public interest,
personal rights, and those pertaining to private property will not be permitted to be
arbitrarily invaded.
In this case, we cannot discount other legitimate activities which the ordinance
would prescribe or impair. Any person or groups of persons in needs of comfortable
private spaces for a span of few hours with purposes other than having sex or using illegal
drugs can legitimately look to staying in a motel or hotel as a convenient alternative. In
addition, by not making any classification of places of lodging the ordinance makes no
distinction between places frequented by Patrons engaged in illicit activities and patrons
engaged in legitimate actions. Thus, it prevents legitimate use of places where illicit
activities are rare or even unheard of.
We reiterate that individual rights may be adversely affected only to the
extent that may be fairly be required by the legitimate demands of public interest
of public welfare. The state must be restrained from needlessly intruding into the
lives of its citizens. However, well-intentioned the Ordinance may be, it is in effect an
arbitrary and whimsical intrusion into the rights of the establishments as well as their
patrons. The ordinance needlessly restrains the operation of the business of the
petitioners as well restricting the right of their patrons without sufficient
justification. The ordinance rashly equates wash rate and renting out a room more
than twice a day with immorality without accommodating innocuous intention.