Human Rights Law
College of St. Catherine Quezon City- Criminology
What is
Human
Rights?
• Defined as supreme,
inherent, and inalienable
rights to life, dignity and to
self development. The
essence of these rights
makes man a human.
• Basic rights and freedom that
belong to every person in the
world from birth to death.
Human
Human being especially a person as
distinguished from animal or in science
fiction, an alien.
Rights
Right is an entitlement to something
whether to concepts like justice and
due process, or to ownership of
property or some interest in property,
real or personal
Fundamental
Forming a necessary base or core of
central importance. It is a building
blocks of the course.
Principle
A fundamental truth or proposition that
serves as a foundation for a system of
belief or behavior or for a chain of
reasoning.
Basic Characteristics of Human Rights
1. Inherent – natural or inborn. Not granted by
any person or authority.
2. Fundamental – essential. Without them, the
life, dignity of man will be meaningless.
3. Inalienable – Cannot be rightfully taken away
from a free individual.
4. Imprescriptible – Cannot be lost even if a man
fails to use or assert them, even for a long
period of time.
Basic Characteristics of Human Rights
5. Indivisible – Not capable of being divided.
Cannot be denied even when other rights have
already been enjoyed.
6. Universal – Applies irrespective of one’s
origin, status, or condition or place where one
lives.
7. Interdependent – The fulfillment or exercise
of one cannot be had without the realization of
the other.
Five Core Principle of Human Rights
1. Dignity
2. Fairness
3. Equality
4. Respect
5. Independence
Three Generations of Human Rights
1. First Generation
• Human rights refer mostly to the political
rights and civil liberties found in the
International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights (ICCPR)
• They are the “no one shall” rights.
Three Generations of Human Rights
2. Second Generation
• Human rights are “positive” rights that
enjoin States to perform an act or do
something for the enjoyment of these
rights by the people.
• They are the “State shall” rights.
Three Generations of Human Rights
2. Third Generation
• Human rights are newly emerging rights,
such as the right to development, the right
of the people to live in a clean
environment, right to live in peace. Etc.
• They are known as “Solidarity” rights.
Classification of
Human Rights
1. According to source
2. According to recipient
3. According to aspect of life
4. According to derogability
ACCORDING TO SOURCE
1. Natural Rights – God-given rights,
acknowledged by everybody to be morally
good. Unwritten, but prevail as norms of
the society.
Example:
the right to be happy, the right to marry, the
right to live peacefully
ACCORDING TO SOURCE
2. Constitutional Rights – conferred to and
protected by the constitution and which
cannot be modified or cannot be taken
away by the law-making body.
Example:
the right to suffrage, right to speedy trial,
right to religion
ACCORDING TO SOURCE
3. Statutory Rights – rights which are
provided by law promulgated by the law-
making body. May be abolished by the
body that created them.
Example:
Rights of the accused, rights of person under
custodial investigation
ACCORDING TO RECIPIENT
1. Individual Rights – accorded to individuals
Example: Rights of the accused, rights of person under
custodial investigation
2. Collective Rights – also called people’s rights or
solidary rights. Rights of the society, those that
can be enjoyed only in company with others.
Example: Rights of association, right to cultural preservation
ACCORDING TO ASPECT OF LIFE
1. Civil Rights – rights which the law will enforce
at the instance of private individuals for the
purpose of securing to them the enjoyment of
their means of happiness.
Example: Right to marry, right of ownership
2. Political Rights – rights which enable us to
participate in running the affairs of the
government either directly or indirectly.
Example: Right vote, right run in public office
ACCORDING TO ASPECT OF LIFE
3. Economic and Social Rights – Those which the
law confers to people to enable them to achieve
social and economic independence.
Example: Right to own property, right to employees
4. Cultural Rights – rights that ensure the well
being of the individual and foster the
preservation, enrichment and dynamic evolution
of national culture based on the principle of
unity in diversity.
Example: Rights to practice one’s culture, right to use own
language
ACCORDING TO DEROGABILITY
1. Absolute or Non-Derogable Rights – those that
cannot be suspended nor taken away nor
restricted/limited even if the government invokes
national security.
Example: Right of freedom of thought, conscience
ACCORDING TO DEROGABILITY
2. Derogable or Can-be-limited Rights – those
that can be restricted or limited depending on the
circumstances which call for the preservation of
social life. It must satisfy three elements to be
valid:
i. It is provided for by law which is made known to every citizen;
ii. There is a state of emergency which needs urgent preservation of
the public good, public safety, and public moral;
iii. It does not exceed what is strictly necessary to achieve the purpose
Example: During the pandemic, right to travel may be
limited
Sources of International
Bill of Human Rights
1. International conventions;
2. International Customary Law;
3. General Principles of Law
4. Judicial Decisions and Teachings
STATE
RESPONSIBILITY
The State as a Guarantor of Human Rights
The role of the State in the social order is to
see to it that members of society acknowledge
its authority and that it governs the people
properly.
In turn, the State must recognize that the
people have rights and freedom that are
inherent in them and cannot be taken away.
Three Obligations of the State
1. The obligation to respect human rights;
2. The obligation to ensure; and
3. The obligation to protect them
A. Violations by State
Actors
B. Violation by Non-State
Actors
Violations by State Actors
Violations by Non-State Actors
INTERNATIONAL
STATE
RESPONSIBILITY
“Every internationally
wrongful act of a State
entails the
international
responsibility of that
State”
When can there be an
international wrongful
act of the State?
1. The act or omission is
attributable to the State
under International Law;
2. The conduct constitutes a
breach of an International
obligation of the State.
Derivative Responsibility
a. The State aids and assists in the
commission by another of the
internationally wrongful act;
b. The State exercises discretion
and control over the commission
of the Act.
Cases on State Responsibility
• People v. Andre Marti GR 81561 January
18, 1991
• Velasquez —Rodriguez vs Honduras,
Inter-American Court of Human rights,
July 29, 1988 Series C, No. (1988)
• Nicaragua v United States of America,
International CourtofJustice, June 27,
1986
• Oposa v Factoran GR 101063, July 30,
1993
• The Writ of Kalikasan, A.M. No. 09-6-8-
SC Rule 7
• In re Yamashita, 327 U.S. 1 (1946)
People v. Andre Marti GR 81561 January 18, 1991
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Bill of rights may be invoked against the acts of a private individual.
RULING
NO. The contraband in the case at bar having come into possession of the Government without the latter transgressing
appellant’s rights against unreasonable search and seizure, the Court sees no cogent reason why the same should not be
admitted against him in the prosecution of the offense charged. If the search is made upon the request of law enforcers, a
warrant must generally be first secured if it is to pass the test of constitutionality. However, if the search is made at the
behest or initiative of the proprietor of a private establishment for its own and private purposes, as in the case at bar, and
without the intervention of police authorities, the right against unreasonable search and seizure cannot be invoked for only
the act of private individual, not the law enforcers, is involved. In sum, the protection against unreasonable searches and
seizures cannot be extended to acts committed by private individuals so as to bring it within the ambit of alleged unlawful
intrusion by the government.
The Bill of Rights governs the relationship between the individual and the state. Its concern is not the relation between
individuals, between a private individual and other individuals. Thus, it could only be invoked against the State to whom
the restraint against arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of power is imposed.
Rodriguez vs Honduras, Inter-American Court of Human rights, July 29, 1988 Series C, No. (1988)
ISSUE:
Whether or not the State of Hondoras violated the Right to Life (Article 4, Right to Humane Treatment (Article 5), and
Right to Personal Liberty (Article 7) of Mr. Angel Manfredo VelásquezRodríguez
RULING
Yes, State of Hondoras violated the Right to Life (Article 4, Right to Humane Treatment (Article5), and Right to Personal
Liberty (Article 7) of Mr. Angel Manfredo Velásquez Rodríguez. Under Article 4 (Right to Life), in relation to
Article 1(1) of the Convention, to the detriment of Mr. Velásquez Rodríguez, because:
Article 4 (Right to Life) of the Convention protects the right of every person to have his life respected. The practice
of disappearances in Honduras often involved secret executions and concealment of bodies, the practice is a
flagrant violation of the righten shrined in Article 4. Since Mr. Velásquez Rodríguez has been disappeared for seven
years, and because his body was never discovered, the Court found there was a reasonable presumption
that he had been killed.
Article 5 (Right to Humane Treatment) of the Convention recognizes the right that every individual has to have their
physical, mental, and moral integrity respected. Article 5 also recognizes the right to be free from cruel, inhuman, or
degrading torture, punishment and treatment.
Nicaragua v United States of America, International CourtofJustice, June 27, 1986
ISSUE:
Is the jurisdiction to entertain a dispute between two states, if they both accept the Court’s jurisdiction, within
the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice?
RULING
Yes. The jurisdiction of the Court to entertain a dispute between two states if each of the States accepted the
Court’s jurisdiction is within the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. Even though Nicaragua (P)
declaration of 1929 was not deposited with the Permanent Court, because of the potential effect it had that it
would last for many years, it was valid.
Thus, it maintained its effect when Nicaragua became a party to the Statute of the I.C.J because the
declaration was made unconditionally and was valid for an unlimited period. The intention of the current
drafters of the current Statute was to maintain the greatest possible continuity between it and the Permanent
Court. Thus, when Nicaragua (P) accepted the Statute, this would have been deemed that the plaintiff had
given its consent to the transfer of its declaration to the I.C.J.
Oposa v Factoran GR 101063, July 30, 1993
ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioners have a cause of action to file the case.
RULING
Yes. the Court stated that even though the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is under the Declaration of
Principles and State Policies of the Constitution and not under the Bill of Rights, it does not follow that it is
less important than any of the rights enumerated in the latter: “[it] concerns nothing less than self-preservation
and self-perpetuation, the advancement of which may even be said to predate all governments and
constitutions”. The right is linked to the constitutional right to health, is “fundamental”, “constitutionalised”,
“self-executing” and “judicially enforceable”. It imposes the correlative duty to refrain from impairing the
environment.
The court stated that the petitioners were able to file a class suit both for others of their generation and for
succeeding generations as “the minors' assertion of their right to a sound environment constitutes, at the same
time, the performance of their obligation to ensure the protection of that right for the generations to come.”
The Writ of Kalikasan, A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC Rule 7
The writ is a remedy available to a natural or juridical person, entity
authorized by law, people’s organization, non-governmental organization, or
any public interest group accredited by or registered with any government
agency, on behalf of persons whose constitutional right to a balanced and
healthful ecology is violated, or threatened with violation by an unlawful act
or omission of a public official or employee, or private individual or entity,
involving environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life,
health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.
Sources of International
Bill of Human Rights
1. International conventions;
2. International Customary Law;
3. General Principles of Law
4. Judicial Decisions and Teachings
I. International Agreements
• Most commonly known as “treaties”
usually are officially called conventions or
covenants.
TREATY – legally binding written agreement
concluded between the States.
II. International Customary Laws
• To be considered as a customary laws,
there must be:
1. The objective element of acts amounting
to “settled practice” of States; and
2. The subjective element consisting of a
“belief that this practice is rendered
obligatory by the existence of a rule of law
requiring it”
Jus Cogens
• is a Latin phrase that literally means
“compelling law.”
• It designates norms from which no
derogation is permitted by way of particular
agreements.
• a principle of international law that is based
on values taken to be fundamental to the
international community and that cannot be
set aside (as by treaty)
Obligatio erga omnes
• obligations owed by states towards the
community of states as a whole.
• An erga omnes obligation exists because of
the universal and undeniable interest in the
perpetuation of critical rights (and the
prevention of their breach).
Example:
piracy and genocide.
Actio Popularis
• Prosecution of Jus Cogens crimes may be
initiated by another person or group of
persons for the benefit of another through
complaint Actio Popularis.
III. General Principles of Law
• These are unwritten, and uncodified
concepts from which laws are based.
• A principle of law may evolved from local
or municipal jurisprudence of a State
which is adopted by other States, from
teachings and publications, and from
works of experts.
The Incorporation Clause
• Article II of the Philippine
Constitution provides for the 'incorporation'
of the norms and principles of international
law by stating the Philippines adopts the
generally accepted principles of international
law as part of the law of the land.
IV. Judicial Decisions and Teachings
• International case law consists of
judgments of international tribunals, the
regional courts and even domestic courts,
although international tribunals rarely look
to decisions of domestic courts in ruling an
international dispute.
Marten’s Clause
“Until a more complete code of the laws of war has
been issued, the High Contracting Parties deem it
expedient to declare that, in cases not included in the
Regulations adopted by them, the inhabitants and the
belligerents remain under the protection and the rule
of the law of nations, as they result from the usages
established among civilized peoples, from the laws of
humanity and the dictates of public conscience.”
Marten’s Clause
The effect of the clause is to underline that in cases not
covered by IHL treaties, persons affected by armed
conflicts will never find themselves completely
deprived of protection.
Instead, the conduct of belligerents remains regulated
at a minimum by the principles of the law of nations,
the laws of humanity, and from the dictates of public
conscience.
1. International Court of Justice (ICJ)
2. International Criminal Court (ICC)
3. Ad hoc criminal tribunals:
a) International Criminal Tribunal of
the former Yugoslavia
b) International Criminal Tribunal for
Rwanda
4. Regional Courts
5. Hybrid or Internationalized Courts
