CLJ-2 Human-Rights-Education-Chapter-12

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 17

HUMAN RIGHTS EDUCATION

Danilo L. Tancango, CCPP, CSP,Ph.D and Dioscoro C. Orlan


Jr., MSCrim, LLB, CSP, Ph.D

CHAPTER I
Historical Development of Human Rights

Course Content
Historical Origin of Human Rights
Human Rights Today: A Global Context History of Human Rights
of the Philippines.

Historical Development of Human Rights


The belief that everyone, is entitled to certain human rights.
It roots, however, lie in earlier tradition and documents if many
cultures; it took the catalyst of World War II to propel human rights
onto the global stage and into the global conscience. Throughout
much of history, people acquired rights and responsibilities
through their membership in a group-a family, indigenous nation,
religion, class, community, or state. Most societies have had
traditions similar to the “golden rule” of “Do unto others as you
would have them unto you.” The Hindu code of Hammurabi, the
Bible, the Quran (Koran), and the Analects of Confucius are five
of the oldest written sources which address questions of people’s
duties, rights, and responsibilities.
The origin of human rights may be found both in Greek
philosophy and the various world religions. In the Age of
Enlightenment (18th century) the concept of human rights
emerged as an explicit category. Man/Woman came to be seen
as an autonomous individual, endowed by nature with certain
inalienable fundamental rights that could that could be invoked
against the government and should be safeguarded by it. Human
rights were henceforth seen as elementary preconditions for an
existence worthy of human dignity.
Before this period, several characters codifying rights and
freedoms had been drawn up constituting important steps towards
the idea of human rights. During the 6th century, the Achaemenid
Persian Empire of ancient Iran established unprecedented
principles of human rights. Cyrus the Great (576 or 590 BC-530
BC) issued the cyrus cylinder which declared that citizen of the
empire would be allowed to practice their religious beliefs freely
and also abolished slavery. The next generation of human rights
documents were the Magna Charta libertatum of 1215, the
Golden Bull of Hungary (1222), the Danish Erik Kluppings
Handfaestning of 1282, the Joyeuse Entrée in Brabant (Brussels),
the Union of Utrecht of 1579 (The Netherlands), and the English
Bill of Rights of 1689. These documents specified rights which
could be claimed in the light of particular circumstances (e.g.,
threats to the freedom of religion), but they did not yet contain an
all-embracing philosophical concept of individual liberty. Freedom
was often seen as rights conferred upon individuals or groups by
virtue of their rank or status.
In the centuries after the Middle Ages, the concept of liberty
became gradually separated from status and came to be seen not
as a privilege but as right of all human beings. Spanish theologist
and jurist played a prominent role in this context. Among the
former, the work of Francisco de Victoria (1486-1546) and
Bartolome de las Casas (1474-1566) should be highlighted.
These two men laid the (doctrinal) foundation for the recognition
of freedom and dignity of all humans by defending the personal
rights of the indigenous peoples in habiting the territories
colonized by the Spanish Crown.
The enlightenment was decisive in the development of
human rights concepts. The ideas of Hugo Grotius(1583-1645),
one of the fathers of modern international law, of Samuel von
Pufendorf (1632-1694), and of John Locke (1632-1704) attracted
much interest in Europe in the 18th century. Locke, for instance,
developed a comprehensive concept of natural rights; his list of
rights consisting of life, liberty and property. Jean-Jacques
Rousseau (1712-1778) elaborated the concept under which the
sovereign derived his powers and the citizens their rights from a
social contract. The team human rights appeared for the first time
in the French Declaration des Droits del’ Homme et du Citoyen
(1789).
The classic rights of the 18th and 19th centuries related to the
freedom of the individuals. Even at a time, however, some people
believed that citizens had a right to demand that the government
endeavor to improve their living conditions. Taking into account
the principles of equality as contained in the French Declaration of
1789, several constitutions drafted in Europe around 1800
contained classic rights, but also included articles which assigned
responsibilities to the government in the fields of employment,
welfare, public health, and education. Social rights of this kind
were also expressly included in the Mexican constitution of 1917,
the Constitution of the Soviet Union of 1918 and the German
Constitution of 1919.
In the 19th century, there were frequent enter-state disputes
relating to the protection of the rights of minorities in Europe.
These conflicts led to several humanitarian interventions and calls
for international protection’s arrangement. One of the first such
arrangement was the Treaty of Berlin of 1878 which accorded
special legal status to some religious group. It also serves as a
Model of Minorities System that was subsequently stablished with
the League of Nations.
The need for international standards on human rights was
first felt at the end of 19th century, when the industrial countries
began to introduced labor legislation. This legislation – which
raised the cost of labour- had the effect of worsening their
competitive position in relation to countries that had no labour
laws. Economic necessity forced the states to consult each other.
It was as a result of this that the first conventions were formulated
in which states committed themselves vis-à-vis other states in
regard to their own citizens. The Bern convention of 1906
prohibiting night-shift work by women can be seen as the first
multi-lateral convention meant to safeguard social rights. Many
more labor convention were later to be drawn up by the
International Labor Organization (ILO), founded in 1919.
Remarkable as it may seem, therefore while the classic human
rights had been acknowledged long before social rights, the later
were first embodied in international regulations. The atrocities of
World War II put an end to the traditional view that state have full
liberty to decide the treatment of their own citizens. The signing of
the Charter of the United Nation (UN) on 26 June 1945 brought
human rights with in the sphere of International Law. In particular
all UN members agreed to take measures to protect human
rights. Less than 2 years later, the UN Commission of Human
Rights (UNCHR), established early in 1946, submitted a draft
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) to the UN
General Assembly (UNGA). The assembly adopted the
declaration in Paris on 10 December 1948. That this day was later
designated Human Rights Day.
During the 1950s and 1960s, more and more countries
joined the UN. Upon joining they formally accepted the obligations
contained in the UN Charter, and in doing so subscribe the
principles and principles and ideas laid down in the UDHR. This
commitment was made explicit in the proclamation of Teheran
(1968), which was during adopted during the first World
Conference on Human Rights, and repeated in the Vienna
Declaration and Programmed of Action, which was adopted
during the second World Conference of Human Rights (1993).
Since the 1950s, the UDHR has been backed up by a
large number of international conventions. The most significant of
these conventions are the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). These two
Covenants together with the UDHR form the International Bill of
Human Right. At the same time, many supervisory mechanisms
have been created, including those responsible for monitoring
compliance with the two Covenants.
In the twentieth century, the term” human rights” has
replaced earlier expressions such as “natural right” (lex naturalis)
in classical Greek and Roman thought, “natural law” (jus naturale)
and the “law of nations” (jus gentium) in Roman Law and during
the Middle Ages, and, since the modern era and the French and
American revolutions, the” laws of nature” and the “Rights of
Man.” The origin of “natural rights” may be traced to Greeks
distinction between “nature” (physis) and “convention” (nomos).
The Greeks contrasted animals and humans insofar as the habits
of animals were uniform, whereas of the practices of humans
differed according to convention. The skeptic philosophers drew
the conclusions that what was conventional could be
deconstructed since there was no uniform force behind human
conventions. The notion of natural rights was a rebuttal to this
ancient form of deconstruction.

Human Rights Today: A Global Context


Contemporary international human rights law and the
establishment of United Nations (UN) have important historical
antecedents. Efforts in the 19th century prohibited the slave trade
and to limit the horrors of war are prime examples. In 1919,
countries established the International Labor Organization (ILO)
to oversee treaties protecting workers with respect to their rights,
including their health and safety Concerned over the protection of
certain minority group was raised by the League of Nations at the
end of the first world war. However, this organization for
international peace and cooperation, created by the victorious
European allies, never achieve goals. The League floundered
because the United States refused to join and because the
League failed to prevent Japan invasion of China and Manchuria
(1931) and Italy’s attacked in Ethiopia (1935). It finally died with
the onset of the Second World War (1939).
The idea of human rights emerged stronger after World
War II. The extermination by Nazi Germany of over six million
Jews, Sinti and Romani (gypsies), homosexuals and persons with
disabilities horrified the world. Trials were held in Nuremberg and
Tokyo World War II, an official from the defeated countries were
punished for committing war crimes, “crime against peace”, and
“crimes against humanity.”
Government then committed themselves to establishing
the United Nations, with the primary of bolstering international
peace and preventing conflicts. People wanted to insure that
never again would anyone be unjustly denied life, freedom, food,
shelter, and nationality. The essence of this emerging human
rights principles was captured in the President Franklin Delano
Roosevelts 1941 State of the Union address when he is spoke of
world founded on four essentials freedom; freedom of speech and
religion and freedom from want and fear (See Using Human
Rights Here & Now.) The calls came from across the globe for
Human Rights and standards to protect citizen from abuses by
their government, standards against with nation could be
accountable for the treatment of those living within their borders.
History of Human Rights in the Philippines
Human Rights in the Philippines, or the absence of these
rights, are better understood through the prism of the colonialism.
Over the last 400 years of Spanish colonialism and then a further
45 years of American rule. Under Spanish colonialism, many
nationalists were killed simply for advocating independence. The
Spanish period was followed by a particularly brutal period of
“pacification” when hundreds of thousands of Filipinos were killed
resisting integration into the new American Empire. Following
“independence” from the United Sates in 1945, the Philippines
served as a testing ground for counter-insurgency operation.
Throughout the 1950s US advisors assisted the now independent
Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) with counter-insurgency
operations.
The 1987 Constitution upholds the dignity of every human
person and guarantees full respect for human rights (Article II,
Sec. 11). It also requires educational institutions to promote
respect for human rights (Article XIV, Sec. 3[b]). Prior to the
ratification of the Constitution, then President Corazon C. Aquino
issued Executive Order (EO) No. 27 (4 July 1986), ordering the
then Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports (MECS) to include
the human rights courses in the curriculums of all levels of
education and training in all schools. It also ordered MECS to
initiate and maintain regular programs and special projects,
including informal education and other means, to promote
information and discussion on the respect for, human rights. The
same EO ordered the Civil Service Commission to include in the
qualifying examinations for the government service some basic
knowledge of human rights. Memorandum Order No. 20, issued
along with EO No. 27, instructed the Ministry of National Defense,
the New Armed Forces of the Philippines, the former
Constabulary, and the Integrated National Police to make the
study of human rights an integral and indispensable part of the
education and training of all police, military, and other law-
enforcement personnel, especially those in charge of detention
and of prisoners. Completion of human rights courses is a
prerequisite for such personnel’s continuance in office. The then
Presidential Committee on Human Rights was tasked to assist in
developing appropriate study courses. On 30 October 1987,
President Aquino issued Proclamation No. 177 declaring 3-10
December of every year as National Human Rights Week. It
mandated the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) to initiate
activities that would highlight the observance of Human Rights
Week. All government offices and agencies were urged to
conduct commemorative and educational activities. Pursuant to
EO No. 27, 5the education secretary issued Department of
Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) Order No. 61 (9 June
1987), ordering all schools at all levels, including non-formal,
technical, and vocational, to include in their curriculums the study
of human rights and “accompanying responsibilities.” At the
primary and secondary levels, human rights lessons may be
integrated into civics, culture, geography and history, and social
studies; and at the tertiary level in political science or history.
The schools were given the option to determine how to
determine how to integrated human rights lessons into their
courses. CHR published A Primer on Human Rights, which was
distributed to the regions to provide basic information on
formulating and developing instructional materials. The DECS
bureaus, which supervise education at various levels, including
technical, vocational, and non-formal, prepared a suggested list of
targets learning appropriate for each grade level and the
corresponding prototype teaching-learning materials to serve as a
basis for regional curriculum development and evaluation. The
regional directors were tasked to lead in integrating human rights
in values education programs, development of instructional
materials, and teacher training. They are also tasked to lead in
enhancing school-community relationship through contest and
other activities. In1990, DECS published a batch of prototype
teaching materials developed with support from the Asia
Foundation. The materials, intended for higher education, were
titled Foundations 1 and 2, Social Philosophy 1 and 2, Methods of
Teaching, Student Teaching and Health Education, and
Livelihood Education. When the materials were distributed in the
regions, the deans and heads of colleges were convened for
orientation on their use.
In 1994, Republic Act No. 7722 put the Commission on
Higher Education (CHED) in charge of supervising degree
granting programs in all post-secondary educational institutions,
public and private. On 18 October 1996, CHR, DECS, CHED, and
Amnesty International-Pilipinas signed a memorandum of
agreement to jointly undertake the nationwide GO-NGO-
Academic Consultative Workshop to define a national vision on
human rights and produce the Long-term National Plan of Action
on Human Rights Education. In April 1996, DECS started the
series of seminar-workshops for regional education officials in
cooperation with CHR. The seminar – workshops provide
knowledge on human rights as applied to teaching-learning
processes, day-to-day interaction, teacher-training and other
activities. On 16 May 1996, CHED issued memorandum Order
No.31 pursuant to the memorandum of agreement, directing all
higher educational institutions to conduct human rights
educations, and training projects, including but not limited to
integrating human rights education concepts in subjects. All
higher educational institutions were required to document their
human rights education, accomplishments and submit a
semestral or trimestral report to the CHED office in their
perspective regions. All reports submitted to regional offices were
to be consolidated and submitted to CHED. The efforts of the
Philippine government and its educational agencies to promote
human rights education, including the extent of implementation of
the different laws, policies, orders and memorandum on human
rights, have not been fully evaluated. And by virtue of CMO
number 5 and 6 series of 2018, human rights education subjects
is incorporated in the curriculum of BS in Criminology and
Industrial Security Management respectively as core professional
subject.
The Philippines has ratified a number of international
instruments of human rights including:
• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
• International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights
• Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination
Against Women (CEDAW)
• Convention on Rights of the Child
• International Convention on the Eliminations of All Forms of
Racial Discrimination, and
• Convention Against Torture
As a general obligation of state that have ratified these
instruments, government are required to undertake measures that
will promote respect for human rights. It is in this context that the
development of human rights of education programs in the
Philippines is both a response to the situation in the country as
well as a responsibility to the international community. One
means by which the Philippines fulfill this obligation is through its
Commission in Human Rights (CHR). It is a constitutionally
created institution under the 1987 constitutions with a mandate to
“established a continuing program of research, education, and
information to enhance respect for the primacy of human rights
(section 18(5), Article XVII, 1987 Philippine Constitution).
CHAPTER II
GENERAL NATURE AND DEFENITION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
COURSE CONTENT
Definition of human rights
Basic Characteristics of Human Rights Classification of Human
Rights

GENERAL NATURE AND DEFINITION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Defining Human Rights


A famous statement that we always heard is that, Human
rights are rights inherent to all human beings, regardless of race,
sex, nationality, ethnicity, language, religion, or any other status.
In our present situation, is this statement real or imaginary?
In this section we will define the technical meaning of
human rights given by different authorities or organization.
According to the definition provided by the UNITED NATIONS,
Human rights are those rights inherent in people and without
which people cannot live as true human beings.
The Philippine Commission on Human Rights on the
other hand defined human rights as supreme rights, inherent and
inalienable rights to life, dignity and self-development.it is the
essence of these rights that makes man human. With this
definition given, we will conclude that the existence of man
attached with it the protection of all his rights as human being.
Human Rights are commonly understood as being those rights
which are inherent in the mere fact of being human. the concept
of human rights is based on the belief that every human being is
entitled to enjoy her or his rights without discrimination.
To enlightened our thought with that definition, we need
to recognized the different characteristics of Human Rights. If we
said characteristics, it is a distinguishing feature of Human Rights.
Characteristics of Human Rights
The following are the basic characteristics of human rights
such as:
• Inherent- Human rights are inherent because they are not
granted by any person or authority. Human rights do not
have to be bought, earned or inherited; they belong to
people simply because they are human. Human rights are
inherent to each individual.
• Fundamental- Human Rights are fundamental rights
because without them, the life and dignity of man will be
meaningless.
• Inalienable- Human rights cannot be taken away; nonce has
the right to deprive another person of them for any reason.
People still have human rights even when the laws of their
countries cannot recognize them, or when they violate them-
for example, when slavery is practiced, slaves still have
rights even though these rights are being violated.
• Imprescriptible- Human Rights do not prescribed and
cannot be lost even if man fails to use or assert them, even
by a long passage of time.
• Indivisible- To live in dignity, all human beings are entitled
to freedom, security and decent standards of living
concurrently. Human rights are indivisible. Human rights are
not capable of being divided. They cannot be denied even
when other rights have already been enjoyed.
• Universal- Human Rights are universal in application and
they apply irrespective of one’s origin, status, or condition or
place where one lives. Human rights are enforceable without
national border. Human rights are the same for all human
beings regardless of race, sex, religion, political or other
opinion, national or social origin. We are all born free, and
equal in dignity and rights-human rights are universal.
• Interdependent- Human Rights are interdependent because
the fulfillment or exercise of one cannot had without the
realization of the other.

The above-mentioned characteristics of human rights


manifested the supremacy of human rights.
Our next lesson will deal on the different classification of
Human Rights. It is important to categorized Human Rights
in order to understand their nature.

Classification of Human Rights and the Third Generation


Human rights can be classified and organized in a number
of different ways:
According to aspect of life:
• Civil rights – are those rights which the law will enforce at
the instance of private individuals for the purpose of securing
to them the enjoyment of their means happiness.
Example: rights against involuntary servitude, rights against
imprisonment for non-payment of dept. or a poll tax, the
constitutional rights of the caused.
• Political rights-are those rights which enable us to
participate in running the affairs of the government either
directly or indirectly.
Example: right to vote, right to information on matters of public
concern, right to initiative and referendum.
• Economic rights and social rights- are those rights which
the law confers upon the people to enable them to achieve
social and economic development, thereby ensuring them
their well-being, happiness and financially security.
Example: right to property, right to education, and promotion of
social justice.
• Cultural right- are hose right that ensure that well-being of
the individual and foster the preservation, enrichment and
dynamic evolution of national culture based on the principle
of unity in diversity in a climate of free artistic and intellectual
expression.
According to source:
• Natural rights – are God-given rights, acknowledge by
everybody to be morally good. They are unwritten but they
prevail as norms of the society.
Example- rights to life, dignity and self-development
• Constitutional rights- are those rights which are conferred
and protected by the constitution and which cannot be
modified or taken away by the law-making body.

• Statutory rights- are those rights which are provided by law


promulgated by the law-making body and consequently, may
be abolished by the same body.
Another categorization, offered by Karel Vasak, is that
there are three generations of human rights:
The division of human rights into three generations was
initially proposed in 1979 by the Czech jurist Karel Vasak at
the International Institute of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
First-generation civil and political rights – these are
“liberty-oriented” and included the rights to life, liberty and
security of the individual; freedom from torture and slavery;
political participation; freedom of opinion, expression,
thought, conscience and religion; freedom of association and
assembly.
First-generation human rights, sometimes called “blue”
rights, deal essentially with liberty and participation in
political in nature:

Second-generation economic, social and culture rights-


These are “security-oriented” rights, for example the rights to
work; education; a reasonable standard of living; food;
shelter and health care.
Second-generation human rights are related equality
and began to be recognized by governments after World
War II. They are fundamentally economic, social, and
cultural in nature. They guarantee different members of the
citizenry equal conditions and treatment. Secondary rights
would include a right to food, housing and health care, as
well as social security and unemployment benefits.
These rights are sometimes referred to as “red” rights.
They impose upon the government the duty to respect and
promote and fulfill them, but this depends on the availability
of resources.

Third-generation solidarity rights- These included the


rights to live in an environment that is clean and protected
from destruction, and rights to cultural, political and
economic development, rights to self-determination, etc.
Third-generation human rights are those rights that go
beyond the mere civil and social, as expressed in many
progressive documents of international law, including the
1972 Stockholm Declaration of United Nations Conference
on the Human Environment, the 1992 Rio Declaration on
Environment and Development, and their pieces of generally
aspirational “soft law”.
The term remains largely unofficial, just as the
also-used moniker of “green” rights, and those houses an
extremely broad spectrum of rights, including: Group and
Collective rights, right to self-determination, rights to
economic and social development, right to a healthy
environment, right to a natural resources, right to
communicate and communication rights, Rights to
participation in cultural heritage, Rights to intergenerational
equality and sustainability.
Out of this generation, the third generation is the
most debated and lacks both legal and political recognition.
This categorization is at odds with the indivisibility of rights,
as it implicitly state that some rights can exist without others.

You might also like