Righting Wrongs: Criminal Law Provisions in the Philippines related to National Security and their Impact on Human Rights Defenders III. The Philippine Legal Framework The Philippine Constitution, which took effect in 1987, is the fundamental law of the land and “deemed written in every statute and contract”. Under the doctrine of constitutional supremacy, if a law or contract violates any norm of the Constitution, that law or contract whether promulgated by the legislative or by the executive branch or entered into by private persons for private purposes, is null and void and without any force or effect.33 The Revised Penal Code or Act No. 3815, (RPC) which took effect in 1932, is the main source of criminal laws in the country. At the time the RPC was adopted, the Insular Government of the Philippine Islands governed the country. The Insular Government was a civilian administration under the Bureau of Insular Affairs, a division of the United States War Department. In 1935, the Government of the Commonwealth of the Philippines was established.34 In 1946, the Philippines became an independent Republic. No substantial amendments to the Revised Penal Code have been made since its adoption. Thus, many of the crimes defined therein, including rebellion, insurrection, and sedition still mainly reflect elements of acts of armed resistance against American rule. The Penal Code, therefore, has been widely viewed as “outdated and archaic”.35 Other criminal law provisions that remain in force in the country are set out in additional acts of the legislature, presidential decrees, or executive orders punishing offenses.36 The Philippines is party to and thus obligated to implement a number of international human rights treaties, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)37 and its two Optional Protocols;38 the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR);39 the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and its Optional Protocol;40 the Convention against Torture, and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) and its Optional Protocol;41 the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)42and two of its three Optional Protocols;43 the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families (CMW);44 the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD);45 and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD).46 Under Section 2 of Article II of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, generally accepted principles of international law are adopted as part of the law of the land. But in practice, there is a lack of clarity of the status of treaties ratified by the Philippines in its domestic law. The Supreme Court has been inconsistent in its application of norms embodied in treaties to which the Philippines is a State Party in its judicial reasoning and interpretation. In some cases, it has rendered decisions referring to provisions in treaties. For 33 Manila Prince Hotel v. Government Service Insurance System, et al., G.R. No. 122156, 3 February 1997. 34 Franklin D. Roosevelt: “Proclamation 214-Establishment of the Commonwealth of the Philippines,” 14 November 1935. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=14980 (Accessed 13 September 2013). 35 Explanatory Note of House Bill No. 2300, An Act Instituting the Philippine Penal Code of Crimes to Further Strengthen the Criminal Justice System, Repealing for the Purpose Book One of Act No. 3815, As Amended, Otherwise Known as The Revised Penal Code of the Philippines and Other Special Laws on Crimes (2013). 36 Justice Rodolfo G. Palattao, The Revised Penal Code Made Easy, Central Book Supply, Inc., Manila, Second Edition, 2005, p. 3. 37 Ratified in 1986. 38 The Philippines ratified the First Optional Protocol, which grants authority to the Human Rights Committee to consider individual complaints, in 1989, and the Second Optional Protocol, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty, in 2007. 39 Ratified in 1974. The Philippines, however, has not yet ratified its Optional Protocol, which grants the Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights jurisdiction to consider complaints that the authorities have violated one of more of the Philippines’ obligations under the Covenant. 40 Ratified CEDAW in 1981 and the Optional Protocol to CEDAW (granting authorization to the CEDAW to consider complaints) in 2003. 41 Acceded to CAT in 1986 and its Optional Protocol, (authorizing visits to places where people are deprived of liberty by the SPT and a National Preventive Mechanism) in 2012. 42 Ratified in 1990. 43 The Philippines ratified the Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict in 2003, and the Optional Protocol on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution, and Child Pornography in 2002. It has not yet ratified the Third Optional Protocol on a Communications Procedure, granting the Committee on the Rights of the Child jurisdiction to consider complaints that the authorities have failed to implement one or more of their obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child or its two Optional Protocols. 44 Ratified in 1995. 45 Ratified in 2008. The Philippines has yet to ratify the Optional Protocol, which allows for individual complaints to be submitted to the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities by individuals and groups of individuals, or by a third party on behalf of individuals and groups of individuals, alleging that their rights have been violated under the CRPD. 46 Ratified in 1967. 9