HUMAN RIGHTS COURSE OUTLINE TABLE

TOPICS

I. HUMAN RIGHTS LAWS IN THE PHILIPPINES

“The Old Struggle for Human Rights, New Problems Posed by Security” by
Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno Supreme Court

II. HUMAN RIGHTS, ITS ATTRIBUTES, ORIGIN AND THE THREE

GENERATIONS

A. Fundamental Powers of the State:

1. Police Power
2. Eminent Domain
3. Taxation

B. Fundamental Rights of the People

1. Classification of Rights:
1.1.As to Nature: Civil Political, Economic, Social, Cultural
1.2.As to Source: Natural, Constitutional, Statutory
1.3.Life, Liberty, Property

C. Due Process
1. Substantive versus Procedural
2. Standards of Review:
2.1. Clear and Present Danger Test
2.2.Dangerous Tendency Test
2.3.Balancing of Interest Test
3. Levels of Scrutiny
3.1.Rational Basis Test
3.2.Intermediate Scrutiny Test
3.3.Strict Scrutiny Test
4. Facial Challenge:
4.1.Overbreadth
4.2.Void-for-Vagueness Test

D. Three Generations
1. Civil and Political Rights
2. Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
3. International Instruments

Readings:
- Art. II, Sec 5.; Art. III, Secs. 1 and 9, Philippine Constitution
- PBM Emp. Org. v. PBM Co., Inc. 51 SCRA 198 (1973)
- Simon v. CHR, G.R. No. 100150, 5 January 1994
- Baldoza v. Dimaano, 71 SCRA 152 (1976)
- David v. Arroyo, 489 SCRA 152 (2006)
- Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network, Inc. v. Anti-Terrorism Council 632
SCRA 146 (2010)
- Alberto T. Muyot, Philippine Law and Jurisprudence on Human Rights, The
Institute of Human Rights, University of the Philippines Law Center, U.P. Law
Center Printery, pages 1-5

III. STATE RESPONSIBILITY

State – guarantor of human rights

Rule of Law

State actors

International State Responsibility – wrongful acts

Derivative State Responsibility – Can a State be held responsible of acts of

another State?

CASE/WORDS/PHRASES

PP v. Andre Marti GR81561 January 18, 1991

Velasquez – Rodriguez v. Honduras Inter-American Court of Human Rights,
July 29, 1988 Series C, No. (1988)
Delalic, it-965-21-a, Feb. 20, 2001
Nicaragua v. United States of America International Court of Justice, Lune 27,
1988
Oposa v. Factoran GR101063, July 30, 1993
The Writ of Kalikasan, A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC Rule 7
In Re Yamashita, 327 U.S. 1(1943)
Belgium v. Spain, (1970) ICJ Rep
Barcelona Traction case –
US v. Mexico, 4 RIAA (1926) Neer Claim
France v. Mexico, (1929) Caire Claim –
UK v. Albania, Corfu Channel Case, (1949) ICJ Rep
U.S. v. Iran (1980) ICJ Rep
Home Missionary Society Claim, US v. Great Britain
Chorgow Factory Case, Germany v. Poland PCIJ
North America Dredging Company Claim (1926)
Chinese Flour Importer Assn. v. Price Stabilization Board 89 Phil 439
PP v. Chan Fook 42 Phil 230
Kwong Sing v. City of Manila 41 Phil 103
Youmans Case, U.S. v. United Mexican State 1926
U.S. vs. Panama, 6 United Rep, Intl. Arb Awards 308
Texas Cattle Case, American Mexican Claims Com. 1948
 Germany v. U.S. ICJ June 23, 2001, Las Grand Case
Buffalo Claim, Italy v. Venezuela, 10 UN Rep Intl. Arb Awards 234 (1908)

Borovsky v. Com of Immigration, 90 Phil 107

Li Sien Giap v. Director of Lands, 59 Phil 687
Radick v. Hutchins 95 US 210
U.S. v. Guatemala, Shufeldt Claim, 1930, 5 Hackworth, p 485 2 UN Rep Arb
Awards 1079
Sambiaggo Case, (Italy v. Venezuela) Venezuela Arbitration of 1903,, p 666\
Bolivar Railway Co v. Ralston, Venezuela Arb, of 1903 p 388
U.S. v. Great Britain, US – GB Claims Arb 1920 (Nielsen Report)
Rosa Gelbtrunk Claim, US v. El Salvadsor, Arb Tribunal 1902
French Co. of Venezuela Railroad Case 10 UN Rep Intl Arb Awards 285
Kummerov Case 10 UN Rep Intl arb Award 361
Dix Case 9 UN Rep Intl Arb awards 119
Ambatielos Case Greece v. UK ICJ Rep 28, 952
Estonia v. Lithuania PCIJ
Rhodore Forest Claim 3 UN Rep Intl Arb award 1406
Finnish Shipowners Claim 3 UN Rep Intl Arb awards 1484
Robert E. Brown Case 6 UN Rep Intl Arb awards 120
Debenture Holders of San Marco Co 1931, 5 UN Rep Arb awards 191
Panevetzus Saldutiskis Railway PCIJ ser. A/B no. 76 At. 16 (1939)
Mavrommatic Palestine Concessions PCIJ ser A. No. 2 at 12 (1924)

IV. SOURCES OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW

a. Human Rights treaties

b. Customary law; Jus cogens, erga omnes, Actio popularis
c. General Principles of Law
Incorporation clause in the 1987 Constitution Sec. 2 Art. II
d. Judicial Decisions and Teachings
International Court of Justice
International Criminal Court
Ad hoc criminal tribunal
Regional Courts
Hybrid or internationalized courts
Marten’s Clause

CASE/WORDS/PHRASES

North Sea Continental Shelf Case (West Germany vs. Denmark and West
Germany vs. Netherland, ICJ Feb. 20 1969)
Barcelona Traction Light and Power Company, (Belgium v. Spain)
Kuroda v. Jalandoni, GR No. L-2662 March 26, 1949
 Pacta sunt servanda
State’s consent to be bound
Customary law – objective and subjective elements
Opinio Juris (Opino juris sivc necessitates)
Doctrine of Customary Law
Peremtory norms (jus cogens)
Obligatio erga omnes
Universal Jurisdiction
Actio popularis
General principles of law
Yogyakarta Principles
Incorporation Clause in 1987 Constitution
International Criminal Court
Ad hoc criminal tribunals
Martens Clause

V. INTERNATIONAL BILL OF RIGHTS

a. Universal Declaration of Human Rights

b. International Covenant on Civil and Political rights and 2 protocols
c. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
d. Rights and Freedoms under the International Bill of Rights
e. Judicial Writs
Writ of Habeas Corpus
Writ of Amparo
Writ of Habeas Data
f. Rights of foundling
g. Rights of nationality

CASE/WORDS/PHRASES

Pretty v. UK (2346/02) European Court of Human Rights 2002

Pp v. Cayat, GR No. L-45987, May 5, 1935
Beltran v. Sec. of Health GR No. 133640,1336611 and 139147, Nov. 25, 2005
Marcos v. Manlapus, GR No. 88211, Sept. 15, 1989 and Oct. 27, 1989
American Bible Society v. City of Manila GR No. L-9637 April 30, 1957
Tolentino v. Sec. of Finance GR No. 115455, Oct. 30,1995
Sahin v. Turkey No. 44774/98 EC+HR, nov. 10, 2005
Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire 315 US 568 (1942)
PP vs. Doriquez GR No. L-24444-45 July 29, 1968
Romualdez Marcos v. Comelec GR No. 119976, Sept. 18, 1995
Aquino v. Comelec GR No. 120265, Sept.18, 1995
Agote v. Lorenzo 142675 July 22, 2005
PP vs. Ladjaalam GR No. 136149-51 Sept 19, 2000
Poe Llamanzares v. Comelec GR 221697
VI. APPLICATION, ENFORCEMENT AND LIMITATIONS

Domestic Application of IHRL

Monist Theory
Dualist Theory

International Application of IHRL

State’s Consent to be bound Enforcement Mechanism
Against Individual
-domestic enforcement
-international enforcement

States
-Court Action
-Diplomatic means
-Retorsion
-Countermeasures
-Military intervention

Restrictions and Limitations

Parameters to restrict exercise of human rights
Proportionality test

Derogation
Conditions allowing derogation of human rights

CASE/WORDS/PHRASES

Piandong v. Phil Case No. 869-1999, Human Rights Committee

PBM Emp. Org v. PBM Co., Inc. 51 SCRA 189 (1973)
Simon CHR GR 100150, 5 Jan 1994
Carino v. Commission on Human Rights 204 SCRA 483
EPZA vs. CHR, 208 SCRA 125
Baldoza v. Dimaano 71 SCRA 152 (1976)
David v. Arroyo, 489 SCRA 160 (2006
Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network Inc. v. Anti-Terrorism Council 632
SCRA 146 (2010)
Orquiola v. Tandang Sora Devt. Corp, 386 SCRA 201 (2002)
Govt. of HK v. Olalia, GR 153875, 19 April 2007
PP vs. Andre Marti 193 SCRA 57 (1991)
Waterhouse Drug v. NLRC GR 113271 (16 Oct 1997)
Zulueta v. CA 253 SCRA 699
Gamboa v. Chan 677 SCRA 385 (2012)
MMDA v. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay 18 Dec 2008 GR 171947-48
 In re Yamashita 327 US 1 (1946)

VII. MONITORING SYSTEMS

Charter Based
1503 Procedures
1235 Procedures

Treaty Based
Human Rights Committee
Monitoring bodies

CASE/WORDS/PHRASES

Piandong v. The Phil Case No. 869-1999 Human Rights Committee

Baroy v. The Phil Case No. 1045-2002 HRC
Pimentel v. The Phil Case 1320-2004 HRC
Marcellana and Gumanoy v. The Phil Case 1560 2007 HRC
Lumanog and Santos v. The Phil 1466-2006 HRC
Larranaga v. The Phil 1421-2005 HRC
La Grand (Germany v. USA)
Weiss v. Austria
Bondarenko v. Belarus
Jong Kyu Song v. Rep of Korea
Tae-Hoon Park v. Rep of Korea
Keun Tae Kim v. Rep of Korea
Ajaz et al. v. Rep of Korea
Toala v. New Zealand
Joslin v. New Zealand
Winata et al. v. Australia
A v. Australia
C v. Australia
G.T. v. Australia
Sahid et al. v. New Zealand
Rogerson v. Australia
Love et al. v. Australia
Gillot v. France
Koi v. Portugal

VIII. THE UNITED NATIONS

Purposes
Organs
Offices, Agencies, Programmes, Subsidiary
Bodies
IX. MILLENIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS

X. PHILIPPINE LAWS ON PROMOTING THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD

Read all laws on Children’s rights

Sanchez v. People GR 179090, June 5, 2009
Araneta v. People GR 274205, Junr 27, 2008

XI. THE PROTECTION OF WOMEN’S RIGHTS UNDER PHIL LAWS

Read international conventions and domestics laws on women’s rights

Ang Ladlad v. Comelec GR No. 190582 Apr 8, 2010

XII. THE RIGHTS OF MIGRANT WORKERS

Read international conventions and domestics laws on migrant workers

XIII. THE RIGHTS OF DISABLED PERSONS

Read international conventions and domestics laws on disabled persons

XIV. THE RIGHT AGAINST TORTURE

Torture – define
Non-refoulement

Read international conventions and domestics laws on TORTURE

XV. THE RIGHT AGAISNT ENFORECED DISAPPEARANCES

Enforced disappearance
2 components
Persons responsibility

Read international conventions and domestics laws on enforced

disappearances
Kurt v. Turkey (15/1997/799/1002) May 25, 1998 European Court of Human
Rights
Velasquez Rodriguez v. Honduras July 27, 1988 Inter American Court of
Human Rights

XVI. THE INTENATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT

Four Principles
The Crimes
 Organs
Command

Elements of Crimes pdf

Rome Statue

Prosecutor V. Alfred Musema ICTR-96-13-T, January 27, 2000

XVII. INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW

Definition
2 Components
Application
Origin
Geneva Convention
Hague Conventions
Fundamental Rules of IHL
IHL v. IHRL
Protected Persons
ICRC
Current Issues

Read what is International Humanitarian Law? ICRC

Tadic, IT-94-1 July 15, 1999 Intl Criminal Tribunal of Former Yugoslavia
Delalic IT-965-21-a Feb 20, 2001