Font size: 
The Philippine government claimed that members of the U.N. Human Rights Council applauded the report of the Philippines. But reviewing the proceedings of the UPR reveals that this boast is not entirely accurate. The official report of the Philippine government is also full of inconsistencies and unfounded assertions. In short the Philippine government lied to convince the international community that it is doing everything to improve the human rights situation in the country.
The Philippine government reported that it held two national consultations to draft the UPR report. But civil society groups are unaware of these meetings. Recommendations of NGOs were also not integrated into the report.
The head of the Philippine delegation to the UPR highlighted the five major points of the Philippine government's current human rights policy:
1) The creation and strengthening of institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights;
2) The improvement of its human rights record, through strengthening institutions, mainstreaming human rights and improving human rights education;
3) The pursuit of good governance, in accordance with the principle of a rights-based approach to development;
4) Human rights advocacy and programs responding to the demands of vulnerable sectors; and
5) Human rights promotion and protection during the current peace processes.
These are motherhood statements. These policies should be compared to the actual achievements of the government. Human rights violations have persisted in the Philippines despite the official pronouncement of President Gloria Arroyo that her government is respecting the rights of the Filipino people.
Reacting to the presentation of the Philippine government, human rights advocates said they were "outraged by the unrepentant and self-delusional claims by the government of its human rights record before the international community." An activist lawmaker described the report as a "self-serving, selective and totally one-sided depiction of the Philippine human rights situation."
The government stressed that the Philippines is one of the first states to have ratified all of the seven core international human rights treaties. This is correct but not enough proof to assert that human rights are promoted and protected in the country. There may be enough laws, administrative orders and programs to prevent human rights abuses but most of these legal instruments are not implemented properly.
During the review process, the Philippine government argued that it has adopted several mechanisms to promote the welfare of street children, women, child soldiers, migrants, indigenous peoples and other vulnerable sectors of Philippine society. But most of these are token measures which are only good on paper.
For example, the rise in the number of extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances in the Philippines provoked an international backlash in 2006. This forced the government to institute several special bodies to investigate and help reduce human rights violations. But the killings continued and high-ranking soldiers accused of committing the crimes were not prosecuted.
Technically speaking, the government did something to minimize human rights abuses. But it was not a sincere effort. It was only meant to ease international and domestic pressure against the government's repressive policies.
The Philippine government told the local media that its UPR presentation was well-applauded. But activists who attended the UPR session insisted that the applause was initiated and came mostly from the rest of the Filipino bureaucrats who formed part of the Philippine government's 40-member team.
Forty-one delegations from U.N. member countries made statements during the UPR. The Philippine government interpreted the "constructive dialogue" as praise for the Philippine report. A lawmaker who was able to observe the proceedings said, "The government failed to recognize that 16 countries expressed concern on the extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances and, in typical diplomatic language used in the U.N., practically told the Philippines it was not doing enough on the matter."
A journal of the U.N. Human Rights Council provides a fair overview of the reaction of different countries to the Philippine presentation. The journal notes that "Several U.N. bodies were concerned about the lack of appropriate measures to deal with crimes allegedly committed by state security forces and agents and the insecurity surrounding journalists, human rights activists, and the overly vague new Human Security Act."
Additional concerns were articulated with respect to labor rights, pollution, increased food insecurity, housing crises, the abortion prohibition and high maternal mortality ratio, health policy, and discrimination against indigenous peoples.
The Philippine government failed to address the inquiry of the Netherlands about the legislative proposal to criminalize torture. The Holy See did not get a satisfactory answer to its query on whether the abolition of the death penalty would extend to an abolition of torture.
Canada recommended "that awareness-raising measures be instituted in the security forces regarding their obligations to protect the population." Canada made this suggestion after France and Switzerland expressed concern that there had been few convictions regarding the issue of extrajudicial killings.
The Philippine government claimed that its UPR report was comprehensive and transparent. But why were many countries asking for more information, elaboration of details, and additional reports on key human rights issues like torture, poverty-reduction measures and killings? Other delegates were able to recognize that the Philippine government failed to give a balanced picture of the human rights situation in the Philippines.
The U.N. Human Rights Council will issue a final report in June. There is enough time for human rights advocates to lobby and pressure U.N. member states about the urgent need to protect, promote and respect human rights in the Philippines. The Philippine government should be made accountable for abetting human rights abuses against the Filipino people. The Philippine government is unworthy of a seat in the U.N. Human Rights Council.
--
(Mong Palatino is a youth activist, regional editor for Southeast Asia of Global Voices Online, and news editor of Yehey!, a Philippine-based web portal. He can be reached at mongpalatino@gmail.com and his Web site is www.mongpalatino.motime.com. ©Copyright Mong Palatino.)