HISTORY OF CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS IN THE PHILIPPINES: A ROLLER COASTER RIDE

 

A discussion of the history of civil and political rights in the Philippines cannot be made without mentioning the government under which these rights operate. Political pundits often say that Filipinos have had the rare “opportunity” of witnessing the best (or the worst) of both worlds:  377 years in a “Spanish Convent” and 48 years in “Hollywood”.  This experience, no doubt, has significantly influenced our attitude towards human rights in general and civil and political rights in particular. Thus, the development or stagnation of these rights depends to a great extent on how a government respects and observes them and how we, as a people, struggle to assert their necessity. 

During the Spanish colonial regime, our forefathers were basically denied many of the basic civil and political rights that are now enshrined under the Constitution . It was only in the late 19th century when Filipinos, led by Dr. Jose Rizal and Marcelo H. Del Pilar, started to call for greater Filipino participation in the affairs of government; freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly; wider social and political freedoms; equality before the law; assimilation; and representation in the Spanish Cortes or Parliament. Their pleas, however, fell on deaf ears. In 1896, Andres Bonifacio, the founder of the Katipunan , launched a revolution that marked the beginning of the end of Spanish rule.

Under the Americans, most of the rights recognized by the United States were transplanted in the Philippines. But the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of De Lima v. Bidwell held that not all constitutional rights extended to areas under American control. At that time, there was a debate on how to govern these new territories in view of the silence of the United States Constitution on the matter. The 1935 Philippine Constitution adopted most of the Bill of Rights as embodied in the amendments of the United States Constitution. Article II, Section 1 (14) of the 1935 Philippine Constitution explicitly recognized the writ of habeas corpus, bringing to the Philippines the English law concept of the remedial enforcement of the right to liberty of a person.

When the Philippines gained independence in 1946, the country continued to observe the rights granted under the 1935 Constitution until President Ferdinand Marcos declared martial law on September 21, 1972, resulting in the arrest of activists and opposition leaders. Congress was abolished while media establishments were shut down to prevent critics from exposing the ills besetting the nation. It was a dark period in our history as thousands were subjected to various human rights abuses, including extra-legal killings and enforced disappearances. Press freedom and other civil liberties were arbitrarily curtailed in the guise of Marcos’ version of peace and order.

In 1986, the glory days of the dictatorship came to an abrupt end when the Edsa “People Power” Revolution forced President Marcos and his family to flee to Hawaii. A revolutionary government was then established under President Corazon C. Aquino who immediately restored democracy and created the 1986 Constitutional Commission for the purpose of drafting a new Constitution.

The 1987 Constitution, duly ratified in a plebiscite held on February 2, 1987, embodies the pronounced effort of the Commission to provide within the constitutional structure of government a remedy against the emergence of another dictator by not only providing checks and balances within the three co-equal branches of government but also by providing for other legal means for the protection of human rights.

This “other legal means for the protection of human rights” can be found in Article VIII, Section 5 (5) of the 1987 Constitution which states that the Supreme Court, among others, shall have the power to promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights. Otherwise known as the Supreme Court’s rule-making power, this is now the basis for the promulgation of the Writ of Amparo, which is seen by many as the High Court’s response to the alarming spate of human rights violations that have taken place since 2001. 

(reference:  The Rationale for the Writ of Amparo, A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC)