|
(Editor's
Note: Late last month, Philippine Executive Secretary Eduardo R. Ermita
presented the Philippine Government's roadmap for its eventual
ratification of the Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture
(OPCAT) during a workshop of non-governmental organizations and the
Philippine Commission on Human Rights.
Ermita
reiterated that Government denounces torture and does not tolerate it
and other degrading punishments in any form. But, at the same time, he
expressed that the Philippines should not be hurried into ratifying the
OPCAT. “I say we rather err on the side of prudence and thoroughness if
only to assert our capability to deliver on the longer-term,” he said,
asking not to be pushed into “early, yet flawed compliance.” He set out
a roadmap toward “unflawed” compliance in which the Philippines can
defer its obligations to the OPCAT from between 3 to 5 years from the
time it eventually ratifies the protocol.
This is an edited version of the Executive Secretary’s keynote address at the September 23 workshop.)
-----------------------
MANILA,
Oct. 04 (PNA)--When President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo signed the OPCAT
(Optional Protocol on the Convention against Torture) on April 22,
2008, upon our arrival from Geneva after attending the UPR—Universal
Periodic Review on human rights, the message the administration
underscored was this:
We
wholeheartedly join our colleagues in the community of nations in
denouncing torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or
punishment even as we assert the decent and civilized humanity that
characterizes the Filipino as an individual and as a nation.
For
indeed, in our pre-colonial history, did we not have the Code of
Kalantiaw which highly valued and respected the humanity of the
individual at the time when other civilizations were still governed by
laws bordering on the vicious?
This,
to the mind of sociologists, suggests that our capacity to be human and
to be humane is deeply rooted in who we are as a people.
Some five months ago today since it was signed, the OPCAT has yet to be ratified by the Senate.
While
there is a growing advocacy for its ratification to complete the
process for the country's full adhesion to the OPCAT, there is wisdom
in moving with caution as has been the Philippine government's previous
actions in relation to its adherence to international treaties.
Let
us have a reality check: To date, 61 countries, including the
Philippines, have signed the OPCAT, but only 35 have actually ratified
or acceded to it for some reason or another.
The
United Kingdom, for instance, in its national report to the Human
Rights Council for the Universal Periodic Review in Geneva, said it
delayed its ratification to make way for a review of all its existing
domestic monitoring mechanisms.
Isn't
it prudent and reasonable for us to likewise take stock of ourselves
and check if we have the structures and means to comply with the OPCAT?
Let
us first make one thing clear: With or without the OPCAT, laws, rules
and regulations that keep in check acts of torture, as well as cruel,
inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment are being enforced by the
Philippine government. This is the premise and the springboard for our
discussions.
Having
said that, however, I could not agree more to the need for a thorough
discussion of the various aspects of the OPCAT, especially on the
issues of detention monitoring visits and the roles of institutions and
other stakeholders constituting the domestic visiting mechanisms.
If
only to add thrust to the trajectory, let us be clear on the criteria
that will measure compliance. I propose that the criteria must hinge on
clear existing baseline data for monitoring outcomes to be realizable
and for us to be fairly measured of our compliance.
More
important than exploring the monitoring visits as attendant to the
OPCAT, I propose that our discussions allow us to see, first and
foremost, how well we have managed our own penal system in accordance
with our existing laws.
By
doing so, we can determine if the current state of our penal system is
at a level that can meet the demands that come with the effective
implementation of the OPCAT. Offhand, we may decide whether we are
prepared for this at this time, or more preparations ought to be made
to indeed ensure the successful implementation of the OPCAT.
I say we rather err on the side of prudence and thoroughness if only to assert our capability to deliver on the longer-term.
I
invite you to the results of a conference held just this June and
sponsored by the International Committee of the Red Cross, or the ICRC,
entitled, "Addressing the Appalling Human Consequences in BJMP Jails."
This
was an offshoot of a working session I organized in July last year to
discuss the ICRC's so-called Detention Report entitled "A Call for
Action – Shortcomings of the Philippine Criminal Justice System and
their Consequences for Persons in the Custody of the Bureau of Jail
Management and Penology."
Going
by the three Working Group Presentations in that gathering, there were
three main realities in our country's penal system that need focusing
on:
One,
Philippine jails are overcrowded, and the excess humanity is primarily
traced to the proverbial wheels of justice that grind ever so slow.
And
the issue that confronts us is not whether our lawyers or paralegals
are doing their jobs; it is whether we have enough lawyers or
paralegals to speak of in the first place.
Two, Philippine jails are regularly confronted with outbreaks of diseases.
Then
as now, this seemingly torturous environment has properly punished our
poor inmates long before their respective sentences have been handed
down. If only for humanitarian reasons, these same detainees could
perhaps already pray for a reduction of their sentences by half.
And
three, Philippine jails may be less hellish if logistics were enough to
create a jail environment that allows the rehabilitation and the
eventual reintegration of an inmate.
One cannot expect change to happen in an individual if the prison itself offers nothing that can facilitate that.
Let
us bear in mind that a prison is not simply a containment of society's
nemesis; it is, most importantly, a place of rebirth, a place of
remorse, and a place of repentance. And the infrastructures that are
essential to their fruition should remain a priority.
It
is for this reason that we have mainstream programs in penal management
that run the gamut of personal development – spiritual renewal,
education assistance, livelihood and skills-training, guidance and
counseling, physical fitness and recreation, and therapeutic community
programs.
We
also have the building up of operations capability, to include new jail
facilities, supplies and equipment, and the continuing development of
prison officials and personnel, that remain crucial and take us farther
in our work. But you and I know that these are not enough.
At
this point, I see the wisdom of the proposal from both government and
civil society groups for the Philippine government to move for a
deferment for three to five more years, from the date of ratification,
our country's implementation of its obligations as a State-Party to the
OPCAT.
This
move will be in the form of a formal Declaration that will be appended
as an integral part of the Instrument of Ratification. By doing so, we
will have sufficient time to upgrade all prisons, detention and
custodial facilities to international or UN standards, and spare
ourselves from future inconsistencies.
This
move shall be accompanied by the appropriate legislation that will
define the country's treaty obligations, and the sufficient fund
appropriations for such a purpose that will indeed ensure the upgrading
of facilities and the enhancement of manpower resources.
In
the end, we expect a clear road map for the ratification and the
eventual effective implementation of the OPCAT. This road map must
consider a time-table for consultations and sufficient period for an
education and information campaign that will allow ownership and
training of as many stakeholders as possible.
The
same road map must also be cognizant of our desire to preserve and
promote our integrity and sovereignty as a nation, even under scrutiny,
and of our capacity to resolve our internal problems on our own.
However,
even as we feel a certain sense of urgency at this time, let us not
allow pressure to push us into early, yet flawed compliance. As social
development workers, you and I know that the process is as equally
important as the outcomes we envision. (PNAfeatures)
|
