2013 uncrpd parallel report of the philippine coalition
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

2013 uncrpd parallel report of the philippine coalition

on

  • 741 views

What: (UNCRPD 2014) Persons With Disabilities Sensitivity Dialogue With Media Practitioners... ...

What: (UNCRPD 2014) Persons With Disabilities Sensitivity Dialogue With Media Practitioners...
Where: Luxent Hotel (51 Timog Avenue, South Triangle 1103 Quezon City, Philippines)...
When: June 30, 2014 - Monday...
What Time: 8:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M. ...

Statistics

Views

Total Views
741
Views on SlideShare
740
Embed Views
1

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
6
Comments
0

1 Embed 1

http://www.slideee.com 1

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

2013 uncrpd parallel report of the philippine coalition 2013 uncrpd parallel report of the philippine coalition Document Transcript

  •   U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities A  Parallel  Report  submitted  to  the  Committee  on  the     Rights  of  Persons  with  Disabilities  on  the  implementation  of  the   Convention  in  the  Republic  of  the  Philippines  from  2008-­‐2013  by  the   Philippine Coalition on the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities       6  December  2013   ! ! ! ! !"#$%$&&'&"(')*%+",-./0++'1"+*"+2'"3*//0++''"*4"+2'"" (052+,"*6"#'%,*4,"70+2"80,$.0&0+0',"*4"+2'"0/)&'/'4+$+0*4"*6"+2'"" 3*49'4+0*4"04"+2'"(')-.&0:"*6"+2'"#20&0))04',"6%*/";<<=>;<?@! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !"#!$%&! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! A"8':'/.'%";<?@" ! !"#$%$&&'&"(')*%+",-./0++'1"+*"+2'"3*//0++''"*4"+2'"" (052+,"*6"#'%,*4,"70+2"80,$.0&0+0',"*4"+2'"0/)&'/'4+$+0*4"*6"+2'"" 3*49'4+0*4"04"+2'"(')-.&0:"*6"+2'"#20&0))04',"6%*/";<<=>;<?@! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !"#!$%&! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! A"8':'/.'%";<?@"
  • 2   This  report  is  produced  by  the  Philippine  Coalition  on  the     U.N.  Convention  on  the  Rights  of  Persons  with  Disabilities     with  support  from  the  Australian  aid  program  in  the  Philippines.     The  findings,  interpretations,  and  conclusions  expressed  in  this  report   do  not  necessarily  reflect  the  views  of  the  Australian  Government. Cover  photos    Dennis  Rhoneil  C.  Balan   Book  design        Rhodora  M.  Gonzalez   Jakiri  S.  Sarmiento   Style  Editing      Perpilili  A.  Tiongson  
  • 3   TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction      4   Part  1.  Implementation  of  UNCRPD  since  2008   7   Background   7   Article  1:  Purpose   7   Article  2:  Definitions   8   Article  3:  General  Principles   9   Article  4:  General  Obligations   10   Article  5:  Equality  and  Non-­‐Discrimination   11   Article  6:  Women  with  Disabilities   12   Article  7:  Children  with  Disabilities   13   Article  8:  Awareness  Raising 16   Article  9:  Accessibility 16   Article  10:  Right  to  Life 18   Article  11:  Situations  of  Risk  and  Humanitarian  Emergencies 19   Article  12:  Equal  Recognition  Before  the  Law 20   Article  13:  Access  to  Justice 22   Article  14:  Liberty  and  Security  of  the  Person 24   Article  15:  Freedom  from  Torture  or  Cruel,  Inhuman  or  Degrading  Treatment   25   Article  16:  Freedom  from  Exploitation,  Violence  and  Abuse 27   Article  17:  Protecting  the  Integrity  of  the  Person 29   Article  18:  Liberty  of  Movement  and  Nationality 30   Article  19:  Living  Independently  and  Being  Included  in  the  Community 31   Article  20:  Personal  Mobility 32   Article  21:  Freedom  of  Expression  and  Opinion,  and  Access  to  Information 33   Article  22:  Respect  for  Privacy 34   Article  23:  Respect  for  Home  and  the  Family 35   Article  24:  Education 36   Article  25:  Health 38   Article  26:  Habilitation  and  Rehabilitation 39   Article  27:  Work  and  Employment 40   Article  28:  Social  Protection 43   Article  29:  Participation  in  Political  and  Public  Life 45   Article  30:  Participation  in  Cultural  Life,  Recreation,  Leisure  and  Sport 46   Article  31:  Statistics  and  Data  Collection 48   Article  32:  International  Cooperation 49   Article  33:  National  Implementation  and  Monitoring 50   Part  2.  Overall  Landscape  of  Rights  of  Persons  with  Disabilities  in  the  Philippines   Notes  on  CRPD  Compliant  Budgeting   52   53  
  • 4   INTRODUCTION 1      The  Coalition  on  the  U.N.  Convention  on  the  Rights  of  Persons  with   Disabilities  was  initially  organized  in  2010  and  formally  constituted  in February  2011.  The  core  group  is  currently  comprised  of  over  twenty disabled  people’s  organizations  (DPOs)  and  nongovernment     organizations  (NGOs),  covering  various  disability  constituencies,  and   several  national  federations.  These  include  persons  with  visual,  hearing,   speech,  mobility,  intellectual,  psychosocial,  multiple,  extensive,  chronic   illness  disabilities.    The  Coalition  as  a  whole  represents  over  65,000  Filipinos  with  disabilities.   2      Communication  within  and  among  these  national  organizations  /  federations  on  disability  rights  has  been   going  on  informally  for  decades.  However,  it  is  only  in  the  past  year,  with  the  creation  of  the  Coalition,  that   these  consultations  have  been  formalized.  Ongoing  regional  /  provincial  consultations  across  the  7,000   islands  are  a  major  activity  of  the  Coalition.  Aside  from  these  grassroots  workshops,  feedback  from  remote   areas  are  through  internet  and  mobile  phone  communications.  Other  prominent  activities  of  the  Coalition   include:  policy  review  of  domestic  law  in  the  context  of  international  commitments,  disability  budget   analysis,  engagement  with  various  national  and  local  government  agencies  for  participation  in  public   finance,  and  legislative  lobbying  with  Congress  and  Senate.  Individual  disability  member  organizations  also   participate  in  local  projects,  programs  and  services  directly  impacting  their  constituency.   3      The  framework  for  human  rights  for  all  Filipinos  is   anchored  in  the  Philippine  Constitution,  from  which  the   executive,  legislative  and  judicial  branches  of  government   draw  their  mandates  and  scope  of  responsibilities.  The   Constitution  also  provides  for  the  creation  of  the  independent   Commission  on  Human  Rights  to  monitor  government   compliance.   4      There  have  been  at  least  twelve  disability-­‐related  laws  and  executive  orders  since  the  1950s.  However,   these  have  faced  challenges  of  implementation,  monitoring  and  budgetary  appropriations  (1).   5      The  Presidential  Philippine  Human  Rights  Committee  was  also  directed  to  formulate  the  National  Human   Rights  Action  Plan.  Human  rights  entities  down  to  the  grassroots  include  inter-­‐agency  councils  (on   trafficking,  juvenile  justice,  violence  against  women  and  children,  and  others),  offices  in  the  Armed  Forces,   Philippine  National  Police  (including  Women’s  &  Children’s  Desks),  and  barangay  human  rights  action   centers.  The  Katarungang  Pambarangay  (Village  Justice  System)  assists  in  dispute  settlement  under  the   Local  Government  Code.  Particular  justice  systems  are  also  present  for  Indigenous  Peoples  and  Muslim   Filipinos.   6      The  Philippines  has  also  ratified  U.N.  core  treaties  including  the  Optional  Protocols  of  the  CEDAW  and   CRC.  It  must  be  noted  that  the  Optional  Protocol  of  the  U.N.  Convention  on  the  Rights  of  Persons  with   Disabilities  (UNCRPD)  has  not  been  ratified.  The  National  Human  Rights  Action  Plan  was  formulated  two   years  ago  but  it  has  not  been  approved  by  the  current  administration.  The  government  has  also  legislated   human  rights  laws  pertaining  to  the  rights  of  other  vulnerable  sectors  such  as  women,  children,  indigenous   peoples,  migrant  workers,  and  older  persons.   7      The  Philippines  has  a  vibrant  human  rights  movement  comprised  of  many  NGOs  and  peoples’   organizations  covering  a  wide  range  of  advocacies.  Civil  society  is  a  strong  political  force  as  vanguards  of   human  rights  as  well  as  providers  of  programs  and  services.  Within  the  sector  of  persons  with  disabilities,   civil  society  entities  are  frequently  the  frontlining  and  /  or  sole  advocates  for  policy  reform  and  sustainable,   grassroots  development  which  are  targeted  through  innovative  and  nonbureaucratic  strategies.   About the Coalition Overall Human Rights Situation in the Philippines
  • 5   8      Statistics  on  persons  with  disabilities     According  to  the  2000  census,  there  are  942,098  Filipinos  with   disabilities  who  make  up  1.23%  of  the  population.  This   includes  the  following  impairments:  visual,  hearing,  speech,   mobility,  intellectual,  psychosocial,  extensive  and  various  low   incidence  impairments.  Half  of  the  sector  are  female,  and   children  and  youth  comprise  significant  proportions.  Through   the  past  three  decades  however,  the  incidence  of  disability  has   been  reported  variably  by  different  entities  leading  to  serious  doubts  on  overall  accuracy.  National  statistics   have  been  a  longstanding  concern  as  national  /  local  legislation  and  policy  rely  heavily  on  documented   numbers  of  disadvantaged  Filipinos  to  justify  appropriations  for  programs,  activities  and  services.  In  a   developing  country  where  public  finances  are  subject  to  many  limitations,  budgets  for  various  vulnerable   sectors  will  at  times,  compete  with  each  other,  and  other  national  priorities.   9      The  majority  of  persons  with  disabilities  are  in  the  rural  areas.  The  poverty  threshold  in  2007  for  persons   with  disabilities  in  Metro  Manila  (in  the  National  Capital  Region)  was  reported  to  be  approximately  US$442  /   year;  or  about  $1/day.  In  this  independent  study  of  poverty  in  Metro  Manila,  the  proportion  of  employed   persons  with  disabilities  households  below  the  poverty  threshold  was  reported  to  be  36.5%  in  the  sample   (2).  Tracking  of  poverty  incidence  by  the  National  Statistics  Coordination  Board  from  2006  to  2009  sets   national  incidence  at  approximately  20%,  with  a  specific  estimate  for  the  National  Capital  Region  at  2.6%   (3).  Data  from  the  rural  areas  is  still  being  gathered.   10      The  only  existing  social  protection  mechanisms  are:  disability  benefits  /  pensions  for  those  who  are   employed  and  who  acquired  their  disability  while  working;  Philippine  health  insurance,  generally  afforded   only  by  persons  with  disabilities  who  have  employment;  and  a  20%  discount  on  transportation,  medicine,   medical  services,  and  services  in  eating  and  cultural  establishments.  Persons  with  disabilities  are  presumed   to  be  greater  risks  and  are  charged  higher  premiums  for  insurance.  There  are  no  disability-­‐specific   allowances  or  interventions,  considering  the  much  higher  cost  of  living  of  households  with  members  who   have  a  disability.  The  majority  of  persons  with  disabilities  are  unemployed  and  so  are  not  eligible  for  these   benefits  /  pensions  and  insurance.  Furthermore,  since  many  of  them  are  also  poor,  they  would  not  even  have   the  minimum  capacity  to  purchase  medicine,  medical  services,  etc.  in  the  first  place  so  that  they  can  avail  of   the  20%  discount.  This  20%  discount  is  not  available  in  areas  where  there  are  no  establishments  mandated   to  provide  such  discounts.  Also,  labor  market  programs  for  persons  with  disabilities  have  not  been   systematic  enough  to  have  a  significant  impact.   11      Data  collection  on  persons  with  disabilities     Throughout  the  years,  persons  with  disabilities  have  remained  largely  invisible  because  of  discrimination.   This  invisibility  has  been  the  cause  of  continual  marginalization.  Thus,  there  is  a  dire  lack  of  documentation   for  even  the  most  fundamental  information  about  Filipinos  with  disabilities.  The  fact  that  there  is  no  mention   of  any  disability  rights,  nor  any  participation  by  the  sector  in  the  1st  UPR  are  clear  evidence  of  this.  The   proposed  Freedom  of  Information  Bill  hopes  to  address  difficulties  in  accessing  data  for  the  effective   participation  of  all,  including  persons  with  disabilities.   12      This  lack  of  attention  to  the  human  rights  situation  of  the  sector  is  particularly  evident  in  access  to   justice.  In  2007,  the  Commission  on  Human  Rights  conducted  a  survey  of  41  national  government  agencies   regarding  persons  with  disabilities.  It  reported  57  victims  of  human  rights  violations  during  1987-­‐2006   (roughly  three  cases  a  year),  17.5  %  of  whom  involved  children  (4).  These  statistics  viewed  relative  to  the   cases  documented  for  a  single  disability  alone  for  only  the  past  five  years,  totaling  250  (see  Human  Rights   Situation  among  persons  with  disabilities)  point  to  great  disparities  in  national  documentation.   13      Data  has  not  been  gathered  sufficiently  nationwide,  e.g.,  regarding  the  number  of  rape  cases  against   persons  with  disabilities.  For  instance,  reported  rape  cases  of  all  other  women  have  largely  been   documented  only  for  the  National  Capital  Region.   14      By  and  large,  there  is  no  way  to  systematically  secure  information  about  cases  in  trial  courts  except  for   those  which  have  reached  the  Supreme  Court.  Request  for  assistance  by  civil  society  from  the  Supreme  Court – Office  of  the  Court  Administrator  to  track  and  follow-­‐up  cases  involving  deaf  parties  for  instance,  have Overall Situation of Persons with Disabilities in the Philippines INTRO
  • 6   yielded  only  a  few  responses  from  the  lower  courts.  Without  information  on  the  status  of  these  cases,  or mechanisms  to  secure  this  information,  the  pursuit  of  justice  by  persons  with  disabilities  becomes  very   difficult  and  pushes  them  even  deeper  into  marginalization.   15      Legislation  aside  from  the  generally  inadequate  implementation  of  disability  related  laws,  a  National   Plan  of  Action  for  the  Philippine  Decade  for  Persons  with  Disabilities  (2003-­‐2012)  formulated  by  the  (then)   National  Council  for  the  Welfare  of  Disabled  Persons,  which  is  based  on  the  Biwako  Millennium  framework,   has  not  been  fully  implemented.   16      Accessibility  in  various  areas  particularly  transportation,  the  physical  environment,  information  and   communication  are  major  concerns  of  the  different  disability  constituencies  in  both  urban  and  rural   locations.   17      Rehabilitation   Regional  and  provincial  hospitals  provide  some  rehabilitation  services  including  the  provision  of  assistive   devices.  However,  the  2010  Regional  Conference  on  ASEAN  and  disability  reports  that  less  than  1%  of   persons  with  disabilities  in  the  National  Capital  Region  are  able  to  access  center-­‐based  rehabilitation   services.  Furthermore,  since  most  service  facilities  are  concentrated  in  the  capital  i.e.,  Metro  Manila,  many   persons  with  disabilities  living  in  rural  and  isolated  communities  have  limited  access  to  any  form  of   rehabilitation  or  health  services  (5).             18      Describing  the  overall  situation  of  human  rights  reveals   violations  of  civil,  political,  cultural  and  economic  rights  as   undeniable  realities  in  the  lives  of  many  persons  with   disabilities.  These  violations  of  specific  rights  on   participation,  language  and  culture,  education,  work,   personal  mobility,  liberty  of  movement,  independent  living,   adequate  standard  of  living,  social  protection,  integrity  and   protection  against  violence,  and  access  to  justice  are  unrelentingly  experienced  in  the  home,  school,  the   workplace,  with  mass  media,  in  trial  courts,  places  of  recreation  and  leisure,  and  other  spaces.  Exclusion  and   discriminatory  practices  have  been  so  rampant  and  have  existed  for  such  a  long  time  that  it  has  covered  the   entire  sector  with  a  shroud  of  invisibility  which  has  to  date  been  very  difficult  to  overcome.   19      The  snapshot  of  the  current  human  rights  situation  among  persons  with  disabilities  in  the  Philippines  is   particularly  provocative  in  the  few,  or  even  single  reports  of  disturbing,  heinous  incidents.  One  set     of  these  incidents  almost  always  involve  women  and  young  girls:  rape  to  the  point  of  death;  gang  rape  by  as   many  as  ten  men;  rape  cases  of  girls  five  years  old  and  younger;  years-­‐long  incest  regularly  by  fathers;  sexual   violence  under  threat  of  deadly  weapons,  and  rape  by  a  religious  figure  or  teacher.   20      Another  set  of  disturbing  incidents  involve  cruel  and  inhumane  treatment  particularly  of  children  with   disabilities.  There  are  several  reports  of  children  being  battered  and  physically  abused  while  being   restrained,  chained  or  caged  by  their  own  parents.   21      Persons  with  disabilities  being  put  up  on  display  in  public  fairs  as  objects  of  novelty  because  of  their   physical  disfigurement  has  been  decreasing,  but  still  exists.   22      Persons  with  psychosocial  disabilities  are  kept  in  institutions  in  inhuman  and  despicable  conditions   which  takes  place  in  both  national  and  local  facilities.   23      Women  and  children  with  disabilities  who  live  on  the  streets,  or  face  sexual  assault  on  a  daily  basis,   including  several  prostituted  women  have  been  reported.  Women  with  disabilities  have  been  trafficked.   They  have  been  victimized  by  e-­‐VAW  (electronic  Violence  against  Women),  lured  into  online  pornographic   exposure  of  their  physical  condition  for  economic  reasons.   24      The  figures  on  gender-­‐based  violence  unearthed  among  deaf  women  and  girls  in  the  past  six  years,  and   particularly  this  last  year  epitomize  the  tip  of  the  iceberg  situation  that  likely  exists  across  all  the  disabilities.   Human Rights Situation of Persons with Disabilities INTRO
  • 7   Some  human  rights  violations  are  experienced  by  thousands  or  millions  of  persons  with  disabilities  while other  heinous  incidents  are  experienced  by  one  or  a  few  persons  with  disabilities.  Systematic  efforts  for  data   gathering  and  documentation  on  a  national  basis  have  been  so  very  meager  and  this  has  caused  continuing   cycles  of  increasing  powerlessness  and  marginalization.   25      Notably,  the  organization  and  activities  of  this  Coalition  has  tremendously  changed  the  landscape  of   human  rights  for  Filipinos  with  disabilities  for  the  past  three  years.    Several  of  milestone  changes  in   education,  social  protection,  budget  advocacy  and  others  can  be  directly  attributed  to  the  activities  of  this   Coalition.   PART 1. IMPLEMENTATION OF UNCRPD SINCE 2008 26      The  Republic  of  the  Philippines  ratified  the  UN  Convention   on  the  Rights  of  Persons  with  Disabilities  (henceforth  the Convention)  on  15  April  2008,  and  became  the  23rd  country  in   the  world  committed  to  fully  implement  all  of  the  provisions  of   this  binding  International  Treaty.  The  Convention  entered  into   international  force  on  3  May  2008,  becoming  binding  for  the   Republic  of  the  Philippines  on  May  15,  2008.  In  accordance  with  Article  35.1  of  the  Convention,  by  15  May   2010  the  Philippine  state  was  to  prepare  and  submit  the  state  report  that  represents  the  implementation  of   the  obligations  undertaken.  Till  this  day  however,  the  Philippines  has  not  even  finalized  its  official  report  and   signed  the  Optional  Protocol  of  the  Convention. 27      In  February  2011,  the  Philippine  organizations  of  persons  with  disabilities  with  the  support  of  the   International  Disability  Alliance  decided  to  form  the  Philippine  Coalition  on  the  UNCRPD  (henceforth  the   Coalition)  with  the  primary  aim  of  producing  the  Alternative  Report  on  the  state  of  the  implementation  of   the  Philippine  government  of  the  Convention.  The  Coalition  is  a  voluntary,  non-­‐hierarchic  group  based  on   the  agreement  to  cooperate  in  the  efforts  to  share  information,  manpower,  networks  and  skills  in  the   production  of  data  and  related  information  for  the  Alternative  Report.   28      Despite  the  delay  in  the  finalization  of  the  state  report,  the  Coalition  moved  on  towards  the  completion   of  the  Report  in  2013.  This  Parallel  Report  signifies  the  first  compilation  of  data  and  observations  by  the   Coalition.  It  shall  be  a  dynamic  and  evolving  document  enriched  by  experiences  of  persons  with  disabilities   and  disabled  peoples’  organizations  on  the  ground  until  the  eventual  review  of  the  State  by  the  CRPD   Committee.    It  is  the  contribution  of  this  Coalition  to  the  human  rights  movement  in  the  Philippines,  and  sets   the  stage  for  national  monitoring  of  the  implementation  of  the  Convention.   29      The  Philippine  Constitution  explicitly  declares  respect  for   International  Treaties.  Article  2.2  of  the  Philippine   Constitution  states  that  all  ratified  treaties  automatically   become  a  part  of  the  organic  law  of  the  country.  Paragraph  30   of  the  1994  Philippine  Report  to  the  UN  clearly  states  that   being  an  organic  part  of  domestic  law,  provisions  of  ratified   international  treaties  may  already  be  invoked  in  judicial   bodies  and  instrumentalities.   30      The  Coalition  however  takes  serious  concerns  that  in  the  Philippine  Report  to  the  International   Committee  on  ICCPR,  “representatives  of  the  State  party  have  argued  before  the  Supreme  Court  that  the   Covenant  cannot  be  considered  part  of  the  law  of  the  land  without  the  need  of  a  law  enacted  by  the   legislature.”  (1)   31      It  is  only  five  years  after  the  ratification  of  the  Convention,  that  efforts  to  harmonize  Philippine  laws  and   policies  to  the  provisions  of  the  Convention  were  recently  initiated  by  the  State  through  the  National  Council   ARTICLE 1 Purpose Background Article 1
  • 8   on  Disability  Affairs.  The  Coalition  particularly  highlights  the  continuing  existence  of  the  State  definition  of   persons  with  disabilities  that  is  based  on  a  purely  medical  and  functional  model.  Even  in  the  amendments  of   this  chief  legal  instrument,  the  Magna  Carta  of    Persons  with  Disabilities  (2)  and  other  legislations  enacted   after  2008,  there  is  still  a  carryover  of  this  definition  that  is  inconsistent  with  the  Convention,  e.g.,  Republic   Act  9710  (Magna  Carta  of  Women)  (3). 32      These  views  are  further  enshrined  in  gatekeeping  measures  and    social  protection  plans  and  programs   such  as  the  disability  benefits  provided  by  the  Government  Service  Insurance  System  (4),  Social  Security   System  (5),  and  the  Employee’s  Compensation  Commission  (6).   33      Branches  of  government  such  as  the  National  Council  for  Disability  Affairs  (7),  the  Department  of  Health   (8),  the  Department  of  Trade  and  Industry  and  Department  of  Agriculture  (9),  Bureau  of  Internal  Revenue   (10),  and  the  Department  of  Interior  and  Local  Government  have  applied  varying  definitions  of  who  persons   with  disabilities  are.    This  includes  ambiguous  or  conflicting  views  on  ‘impairment’,  ‘permanent  disability’,   ‘chronic  illness’  and  ‘disability’.       34      This  has  had  very  concrete  and  widespread  impact  on  access  to  services  and  entitlement  to  the  20%   disability  discount.    Persons  with  psychosocial  impairments  and  with  various  chronic  illness  conditions  are   among  those  who  are  particularly  affected  by  uncoordinated  and  inconsistent  definitions  of  disability  (11).     The  National  Council  on  Disability  Affairs  has  contested  identification  cards  issued  by  the  Department  of   Interior  and  Local  Government,  and  discourages  persons  with  chronic  illnesses  from  applying  for   identification  cards.   Sources:   (1)  Concluding  observations  on  the  fourth  periodic  report  of  the  Philippines.  Office  of  the  High  Commissioner  on  Human  Rights.   (CCPR/C/SR.2944).  www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrc/docs/co/CCPR-­‐C-­‐PHL-­‐CO-­‐4.doc   (2)    Section  4.    Definition  of  Terms.    Republic  Act  7277.    http://www.ncda.gov.ph/disability-­‐laws/republic-­‐acts/republic-­‐act-­‐ 7277/   (3)    Chapter  II.    Definition  of  Terms.  Republic  Act  9710.   http://pcw.gov.ph/sites/default/files/documents/laws/republic_act_9710.pdf   (4)    Disability.  Government  Service  Insurance  System.  http://www.gsis.gov.ph/default.php?id=41   (5)    Disability  Benefits.    Social  Security  System.    https://www.sss.gov.ph/sss/index2.jsp?secid=67&cat=4&pg=null     (6)    Title  II,  Chapter  1.    Policy  and  Definitions  –  Disability.  Presidential  Decree  626.  Employee’s  Compensation  Commission.   http://www.ecc.gov.ph/ckfinder/userfiles/files/P_D_%20626_%20as%20amended%202011%20edition.pdf   (7)    Guidelines  on  the  issuance  of  identification  card  relative  to  Republic  Act  9442.    National  Council  on  Disability  Affairs.   Administrative  Order  001  s.2008.  http://www.ncda.gov.ph/2010/12/rules-­‐ncda-­‐guidelines-­‐on-­‐  persons  with  disabilities-­‐id-­‐ card-­‐is-­‐enforceable/   (8)  Definition  of  terms.    Administrative  Order  2009-­‐0011.  Department  of  Health.  http://www.ncda.gov.ph/2009/07/doh-­‐issues-­‐ guidelines-­‐on-­‐medical-­‐discounts-­‐to-­‐persons-­‐with-­‐disabilities/   (9)  Definition  of  terms.  Joint  Department  of  Trade  and  Industry  –  Department  of  Agriculture  Administrative  Order  02  s.2008.   http://www.ncda.gov.ph/2009/07/discounts-­‐on-­‐basic-­‐commodities/  Philippine  Coalition  on  the  UNCRPD.  Communications   with  DPOs.     (10)    Definition  of  Terms.  Revenue  Regulations  No.  1-­‐2009  Bureau  of  Internal  Revenue.   ftp://ftp.bir.gov.ph/webadmin1/pdf/44005RR%201-­‐2009.pdf       (11)    Philippine  Coalition  on  the  UNCRPD.    Communications  with  Philippine  Alliance  on  Persons  with  Chronic  Illness.   35      The  core  domestic  legislation  on  disability,  Republic  Act   7277  or  the  Magna  Carta  for  Persons  with  Disabilities  (1),   defines  discrimination  only  in  the  context  of  employment,   transportation  and  use  of  public  accommodations  and   services  (Title  3),  and  furthermore  that  for  discrimination  to   be  investigated  or  for  legal  action  to  ensue,  incidents  must   ARTICLE 2 Definitions Article 2 RECOMMENDATIONS § Clarify  the  status  and  justiciability  of  provisions  of  the  Convention  in  relation  to  domestic   application.   § Ensure  that  all  current  policies  and  legislation  of  various  agencies  adopt  standard  definitions  of   disability,  persons  with  disabilities  that  are  compliant  with  the  Convention.  
  • 9   occur  repeatedly  and  be  considered  of  public  importance  (Title  4);  this  contrasts  greatly  with  non-­‐ discrimination  as  a  principle  of,  and  obligation,  as  defined  in  the  CRPD  in  Art.  2,  3.b  and  5.   36      The  law  also  defines  Reasonable  Accommodation  only  in  the  context  of  work  (R.A.  7277,  Sect.  4).    It   neglects  this  important  principle  and  obligation  in  critical  areas  of  education,  health  and  other  rights  and   freedoms. 37      Instead  of  promoting  Universal  Design  and  inclusion,  the  law  also  directs  the  State  toward  “special”     basic  education,  technical  education,  non-­‐formal  education  (Sect  12  –  17),  housing  requirements  (Sect  39),   employment  facilities  (Sect  4.g.4.i),  transportation  (Sect  4.g.4.n),  training  (Sect  21)  and  broadcast   programming  (Sect  22).    This  is  not  consistent  with  the  principle  espoused  by  the  Convention  and  lays  a  very   different  rationale  for  State  governance  and  spending.   38      There  is  also  no  explicit  mention  of  the  modes,  means  and  formats  of  communication  and  languages   which  are  vital  for  the  obligations  according  to  the  Convention.  Accessibility  (Title  2,  Chap  6)  is  defined  only   for  the  built  environment  (Art.  3.f,  9).    The  same  is  noted  for  the  Accessibility  Law  (BP  344)  (2)  which  only   addresses  accessibility  in  the  context  of  built  environments,  and  not  on  information  and  communication.   Sources:   (1)  Republic  Act  7277.    http://www.ncda.gov.ph/disability-­‐laws/republic-­‐acts/republic-­‐act-­‐7277/     (2)  Batas  Pambansa  Blg.  344.  http://www.ncda.gov.ph/disability-­‐laws/batas-­‐pambansa/batas-­‐pambansa-­‐blg-­‐344/   39      The  Magna  Carta  for  Persons  with  Disabilities,  or  Republic   Act  7277  (1),  and  even  its  amending  law,  RA  9442,  constitute   the  core  legislation  upon  which  all  State  policies,  activities  and   programs  are  based  on.    They  also  form  the  bases,  as  well  as   reflect  existing  perspectives,  customs  and  practices  for  much   of  public  governance.   40      Although  the  Magna  Carta  describes  in  its  declaration  of  policy  that  disabled  persons  "should  be  able  to   live  freely  and  as  independently  as  possible.."  it  does  not  give  full  emphasis  to  the  individual  autonomy  and   freedom  to  make  one's  choices  as  stated  in  the  principle  of  the  Convention.     41      The  Coalition  sees  the  imperative  of  an  Anti-­‐Discrimination  Law  not  just  to  address  “vilification  and   public  ridicule”  as  stated  in  the  Amendment  of  the  Magna  Carta.   42      Participation  in  the  Declaration  of  Policy  of  the  Magna  Carta  is  viewed  only  in  the  context  of   rehabilitation,  different  from  the  full  and  effective  participation  and  inclusion  described  by  the  Convention.   43      The  underlying  view  of  persons  with  disabilities  by  the  Magna  Carta  is  from  that  of  a  functional  model   (Title  1,  Sect  4)  which  contrasts  with  the  human  rights  perspective  of  the  Convention  in  viewing  disability  as   a  result  of  barriers  interacting  with  impairments,  and  of  acceptance  of  persons  with  disabilities  as  part  of   human  diversity.   ARTICLE 3 General Principles Article 3 RECOMMENDATIONS § Ensure  that  in  the  ongoing  amendment  of  Republic  Act  7277,  sections  on  discrimination,   reasonable  accommodation,  universal  design,  inclusion  and  accessibility  are  harmonized  with  the   definitions  in  the  Convention.    Within  five  years,  conduct  and  complete  a  comprehensive  review   of  all  other  domestic  legislation  and  policies  pertaining  to  persons  with  disabilities  and   harmonize  these  with  the  Convention.   § Beginning  fiscal  year  2014,  conduct  orientations  for  all  State  agencies  and  entities,  including  the   Department  of  Budget  and  Management,  and  the  Commission  on  Audit  on  these  critical   definitions  to  ensure  that  they  underlie  all  planning,  formulation  and  implementation  of  public   programs,  activities  and  projects  for  persons  with  disabilities.  
  • 10   44      Equality  of  opportunity  in  the  Magna  Carta  is  only  considered  in  the  context  of  employment  (Title  2,  Sect   5) whereas  the  Convention  considers  opportunities  in  education,  living  in  the  community,  participation  in political  and  public  life,  cultural  life  (Art.  3.e,  24,  19,  29  &  30);   45      Gender  equality  or  women  with  disabilities  and  their  multiple  marginalization  are  not  even  mentioned   in  the  Magna  Carta.  Even  amongst  their  fellow  women,  they  too  are  yet  dealt  with  as  not  equal  due  to  the   maintenance  of  the  definition  identifying  them  as  continually  “suffering  from”  and  “not  normal”  as  defined  in   Republic  Act  9710  or  the  Magna  Carta  of  Women.   46      Children  with  disabilities  are  only  mentioned  in  the  context  of  education  (Title  2,  Sect  14)  and  social   services    TItle  2,  Sect  24),  not  considering  their  multiple  marginalization,  right  to  expression  and  evolving   capacity.   47      The  Coalition  clearly  adheres  to  the  provisions  of  Article  25,  that  Persons  with  Disabilities  must  be   provided  all  types  of  health  services  as  a  matter  of  rights  of  similar  quality  as  other  citizens.    However,  the   Philippine  government  continues  to  highlight  disability  prevention  as  the  underlying  principle  for  awareness   raising  activities  for  the  sector.   48      The  Coalition  further  declares  that  rehabilitation  as  a  matter  of  right  should  be  provided.  However,   contrary  to  the  Convention,  the  Philippines  still  insists  on  viewing  rehabilitation  instead  as  a  matter  of   principle  in  dealing  with  persons  with  disabilities.   49      In  the  Civil  Code,  Family  Code  Rules  of  Court  and  other  legislation  and  policy,  substituted  decision-­‐ making  still  exists  and  there  are  yet  no  indications  that  supported  decision-­‐making  is  being  considered  (cf Articles 5, 12). Source:   (1)  Republic  Act  7277.    http://www.ncda.gov.ph/disability-­‐laws/republic-­‐acts/republic-­‐act-­‐7277/   50      This  Parallel  Report  examines  in  detail  the  obligations  of   the  State  according  to  the  Articles  of  the  Convention.     However,  the  Coalition  observes  that  in  general,  the  State,  and   even  the  Commission  on  Human  Rights  (the  National  Human   Rights  Institution  or  NHRI)  place  more  attention  to  civil  and   political  rights  rather  than  the  economic,  social  and  cultural   rights.    On  the  other  hand,  government  agencies  with  disability-­‐related  mandates  or  programs  generally  tend   to  operate  based  on  a  disability  prevention  framework,  or  mainly  from  a  health  perspective.    Because  of  this   mentality,  critical  activities  described  in  Article  4  of  the  Convention  such  as  comprehensive  policy  reviews,   research  and  development,  and  training  are  not  carried  out  regularly  or  adequately. 51      The  State  also  still  has  yet  to  operationalize  the  concepts  of  maximum  available  resources  and  progressive   realization  in  its  governance.   52      There  is  a  strong  tendency  for  consultation  with  persons  with  disabilities  to  take  place  in  the  cities  and   urban  areas,  overlooking  representation  from  many  of  persons  with  disabilities  who  are  in  the  rural  areas.     Furthermore,  persons  with  disabilities,  especially  women  with  disabilities  are  frequently  viewed  solely  as   beneficiaries  of  services,  and  not  included  or  capacitated  as  partners  in  development.   ARTICLE 4 General Obligations RECOMMENDATIONS § Integrate  these  Principles  of  the  Convention  in  national  implementation  and  monitoring  as  a  guiding   framework.   § Institutionalize  activities  which  bring  an  understanding  of  these  Principles  to  all  public  servants.   Article 4
  • 11   53      The  Coalition  acknowledges  the  presence  of   affirmative  provisions  against  discrimination  in  some   Philippine  laws.  However,  it  also  notes  that  these  anti-­‐ discrimination  provisions  are  limited  only  to  employment,   transportation  and  utilization  of  public  facilities. 54      Furthermore,  the  Coalition  is  disturbed  by  a  provision  in  Republic  Act  7277,  Sect.  44  “that  before  a   violator  of  anti-­‐discrimination  can  be  prosecuted,  the  victim(s)  must  first  prove  that  he  has  been   discriminated  by  the  same  entity  at  least  more  than  twice  before    these  could  be  considered  as  a  “pattern  or   practice  of  discrimination”  (1)  .      This  contrasts  with  the  perspective  of  the  Convention  wherein  the  denial  of   reasonable  accommodation  in  a  particular  case  (and  thus  could  be  a  single  occurring  incident)  is  also   deemed  as  discrimination.    Moreover,  such  discrimination  must  reach  a  level  of  public  importance,  and  only   then  can  the  incident  be  investigated.   55      This  law  also  defines  discrimination  in  communication  as  only  those  “barriers  that  are  structural  in   nature,  in  existing  facilities”  (Title  3,  Sect.  36.e.4).      This  neglects  many  forms  of  communication  modes  and   formats  which  do  not  involve  structural  facilities  such  as  signed  languages.   56      Laws  which  discriminate  on  the  bases  of  disabilities  and  do  not  recognize  persons  with  disabilities  as   being  legally  competent  continue  to  exist,  i.e.,  articles  of  the  Civil  Code  on  Contracts  (2)  and  Succession  (3);   several  Rules  of  Court  concerning  guardianship  (4,  5),  and  others.   57      A  range  of  discriminatory  policies  and  practices  are  encountered  in  various  government  departments   and  offices:       • An  example  is  Metrostar  Express  Order  0127  which  denies  even  entry  to  mass  transit  stations for  the  “insane  /  mentally  deranged”  (6). • Sections  of  the  Omnibus  Election  Code  deny  participation  in  electoral  processes  to  persons with  psychosocial  and  intellectual  disabilities  (7)  (cf  Article  29). • Driver’s  Licenses  issued  by  the  Land  Transportation  Office  which  states  that  deaf  individuals are  required  to  always  be  accompanied  by  a  “person  with  normal  hearing”  when  they  drive. The  (then)  National  Council  for  the  Welfare  of  Disabled  Persons  claims  that  the  fact  that  there are  licenses  issued  to  persons  with  disabilities,  including  the  deaf,  that  the  “Philippine government  does  not  discriminate  on  the  disabled”  (8). • Department  of  Health  Administrative  Order  34  imposes  a  requirement  that  masseurs  should have  a  high  school  diploma.    This  is  doubly  discriminatory  for  blind  masseurs  because  of  the reality  that  persons  with  disabilities  have  difficulty  accessing  education  to  begin  with.    In dialogues  with  Department  of  Health  officials,  they  have  verbally agreed to amend this policy, yet to date there has been no such action (cf Article 24, 27). Sources:   (1)  Republic  Act  7277.    http://www.ncda.gov.ph/disability-­‐laws/republic-­‐acts/republic-­‐act-­‐7277/   (2)  Civil  Code  of  the  Philippines.  Contracts.  Art.  1327.    http://www.chanrobles.com/civilcodeofthephilippinesbook3.htm     (3)  Civil  Code  of  the  Philippines.  Succession.  Art.  820.    http://www.chanrobles.com/civilcodeofthephilippinesbook4.htm   (4)  Rules  of  Court.  Rule  92.  http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/rulesofcourt/RULES%20OF%20COURT.htm#rule_92   (5)  Rules  of  Court.  Rule  101.  http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/rulesofcourt/RULES%20OF%20COURT.htm#rule_101.       (6)  Letter  of  complaint  to  Department  of  Transportation  and  Communication.  Jan.  11,  2013   (7)  Omnibus  Election  Code.  http://www.comelec.gov.ph/?r=laws/OmnibusElectionCode   (8)  Ronda,  R.A.  2002.    3,500  disabled  driving  on  RP  streets.  Philippine  Star.  Oct.  15,  2002.   http://www.philstar.com/nation/179901/3500-­‐disabled-­‐driving-­‐rp-­‐streets   ARTICLE 5 Equality and Non-discrimination Article 5 RECOMMENDATIONS § Review,  amend  or  abolish  all  laws,  policies  and  practices  discriminatory  to  persons  with  disabilities   § Direct  particularly  the  executive  and  legislative  branches  to  undertake  comprehensive  training  on   the  rights  of  persons  with  disabilities.  
  • 12   ARTICLE 6 Women with Disabilities Discriminatory  laws  &  practices   58      The  discrimination  that  women  and  girls  with  disabilities   in  the  Philippines  face  is  a  complex  intersection  of  gender,   disability  and  age.    These  inequalities  are  rooted  in  deeply ingrained  stereotyped  views  of  Filipino  women  in  general,  and   is  further  compounded  by  charity  and  pathological  views  of   disability.    They  live  in  a  societal  and  legal  environment  which  has  blatant  denials  of  equal  recognition  before   the  law,  compared  to  other  Filipino  women  and  girls.  Considering  that  data  so  far  shows  substantial  gender-­‐ based  violence  among  women  and  girls  with  disabilities,  discrimination  in  the  Anti-­‐Rape  Law  (Republic  Act   8353)  (1)  views  women  and  girls  with  intellectual  disabilities  as  ‘deprived  of  reason’  and  ‘incapable  of  giving   rational  consent’.    Women  with  psychosocial  disability  are  viewed  as  also  lacking  in  legal  capacity  because  of   the  view  that  they  are  unable  to  give  consent  (cf  Article  12)  (2).   59      The  Coalition  reiterates  its  concern  with  the  persistence  of  the  Philippine  government  and  laws  to  define   Women  with  Disabilities  solely  from  a  medical  model  as  stated  in  Republic  Act  9710  or  the  Magna  Carta  of   Women  (3).   60      The  Philippine  Commission  on  Women  in  particular,  should  be  inclusive  of  disability  and  the  diversity  of   its  constituency  in  all  its  plans,  programs,  activities  and  resource  allocations.    It  should  recognize  women   with  disabilities  as  a  disadvantaged  group  distinct  from  the  elderly.    This  should  include  capacitation  and   mechanisms  to  ensure  full  participation  by  women  with  disabilities  in  State-­‐sponsored  gender  promotion   activities  at  the  national  and  local  levels.    The  Commission  in  its  call  for  nominations  for  its  Commissioners   from  civil  society,  combines  the  elderly  with  the  “disabled”,  and  has  not  actively  promoted  representation   (4).    It  cursorily  mentions  women  with  disabilities  in  its  Fact  Sheets  (5).   Violence  and  abuse   61 This  multiple  vulnerability  is  evident  in  gender-­‐based  violence.    To  date,  the  only  substantial  data  is  with   deaf  women  and  girls  as  documented  by  an  NGO  (6).    From  a  total  of  346+  cases  involving  deaf  parties  from   2006-­‐2012,  violence  against  deaf  women  account  for  over  168  cases.    Of  243  cases  filed  by  deaf   complainants,  rape  cases  filed  by  deaf  women  and  girls  outnumber  all  other  complaints  in  a  ratio  of  10:1.   62      In  gathering  of  baseline  data  by  this  Coalition  on  Supreme  Court  cases  from  2008-­‐2011,  20%  of  126   cases  are  on  gender-­‐based  violence,  almost  exclusively  all  on  women  and  girls  with  intellectual  disabilities.   63      Despite  this  clear  need  for  protection  from  violence  and  abuse,  women  and  girls  with  disabilities  remain   largely  outside  of  state  programs  and  activities  for  Filipino  women  in  general.    There  are  no  specific   programs  or  monitoring  to  address  this  need  in  the  Philippine  Commission  on  Women,  the  Council  for  the   Welfare  of  Children,  the  National  Council  for  the  Welfare  of  Persons  with  Disabilities,  and  even  the  NHRI  –   the  Commission  on  Human  Rights.  There  is  some  awareness  and  beginning  research  in  academe  such  as  the University of the Philippines but this is through the initiation of DPOs such as the Filipino Deaf Women’s Health and Crisis Center. Economic,  social  and  cultural  rights   64      Filipino  girls  with  disabilities  experience  inequalities  from  a  very  young  age  in  the  family  and  home,   through  schooling  and    even  as  they  become  adult  women  facing  limitations  in  work  and  employment.  In  a   2011  study  by  the  Philippine  Institute  for  Development  Studies,  it  reports  that  twice  as  many  women  than   men  with  disabilities  do  not  complete  any  grade  (or  level  of  primary  education)  at  all,  especially  in  rural   areas  (7).   65      The  same  study  shows  strong  disparities  in  type  of  employment  and  income  of  women  with  disabilities,   compared  to  men  with  disabilities.  Female  respondents  with  disabilities  in  the  study  allot  relatively  more   time  to  household  duties  and  personal  activities  (i.e.,  meals,  grooming)  both  during  working  as  well  as  non-­‐ working  days.  Male  respondents  with  disabilities  on  the  other  hand,  spend  more  time  on  work  and  leisure,   even  during  working  days.    These  all  reflect  the  restriction  in  participation  of  girls  and  women  with   disabilities  in  education,  work,  participation  in  the  community  and  even  in  recreation  and  leisure.     Article 6
  • 13   Chapter  2   MENTALLY  RETARDED,  PHYSICALLY  HANDICAPPED,   EMOTIONALLY  DISTURBED  AND  MENTALLY  ILL  CHILDREN   Art. 168. Mentally Retarded Children. - Mentally retarded children are (1) socially incompetent, that is, socially inadequate and occupationally incompetent and unable to manage their own affairs; (2) mentally subnormal; (3) retarded intellectually from birth or early age; (4) retarded at maturity; (5) mentally deficient as a result of constitutional origin, through hereditary or disease, and (6) essentially incurable. Art. 169. Classification of Mental Retardation. - Mental Retardation is divided into four classifications: (1) Custodial Group. The members of this classification are severely or profoundly retarded, hence, the least capable group. This includes those with I.Q.s to 25. (2) Trainable Group. The members of this group consist of those with I.Q.s from about 25 to about 50; one who belongs to this group shows a mental level and rate of development which is 1/4 to 1/2 that of the average child, is unable to acquire higher academic skills, but can usually acquire the basic skills for living to a reasonable degree. He can likewise attain a primary grade level of education if he receives effective instruction. Sources:   (1)    Philippine  Coalition  on  the  U.N.  Convention  on  the  Rights  of  Persons  with  Disabilities  and  Philippine  Alliance  of  Human   Rights  Advocates.  2013.  Joint  Submission  for  Half-­‐day  General  Discussion  on  "Women  and  girls  with  disabilities"  by  the   Committee  on  the  Rights  of  Persons  with  Disabilities.   (2)    Republic  Act  8353.  http://pcw.gov.ph/law/republic-­‐act-­‐8353   (3)  Republic  Act  9710.    Magna  Carta  of  Women.  http://pcw.gov.ph/law/republic-­‐act-­‐9710   (4)  http://www.pcw.gov.ph/sites/default/files/documents/resources/cedaw_factsheet_2006.pdf   (5)  Call  for  nominations  for  NGO  representatives  to  the  PCW  Board   http://www.gov.ph/section/briefing-­‐room/philippine-­‐commission-­‐on-­‐women/   (6)  Access  to  Justice:  Case  Monitoring  Report  by  the  Philippine  Deaf  Resource  Center  (2006-­‐2012)   http://www.phildeafres.org/pdf/PDRC_Case_Monitoring.pdf   (7)  Joint  submission  on  the  Philippines  by  the  Philippine  Coalition  on  the  CRPD  &  International  Disability  Alliance.        Human   Rights  Committee,  106th  session  (15  October  -­‐  2  November  2012)     http://www.ccprcentre.org/wp-­‐content/uploads/2012/09/DPO_Philippines_HRC106.pdf   (8)  Tabuga,  A.  and  C.  Mina.  2011.    Disability  and  gender:  The  case  of  the  Philippines.  Philippine  Institute  for  Development  Studies.   Discussion  Paper  Series  No.  2011-­‐32.   https://editorialexpress.com/cgi-­‐bin/conference/download.cgi?db_name=IAFFE2011&paper_id=235   Discriminatory  laws   66      The  Coalition  is  extremely  alarmed  that  available  data   from  agencies  do  not  demonstrate  that  children  with   disabilities  are  provided  equal  protection  and  equal  benefits   in  various  laws  and  services.   67 Filipino children with disabilities live in the legal context of existing laws such as the Child and Youth Welfare Code which uses language and perspectives that are archaic, discriminatory and extremely disturbing (1). Article 7 ARTICLE 7 Children with Disabilities RECOMMENDATIONS § Amend  the  Magna  Carta  for  Women  to  harmonize  it  with  international  commitments  to  the   Convention.   § Amend  the  Anti-­‐Rape  law  and  other  legislation  to  give  equal  recognition  before  the  law  to  women   and  girls  with  disabilities.   § Mainstream  disability  in  the  laws,  policies  and  programs  for  Filipino  women  in  general,  coupled   with  regular  monitoring  and  gathering  of  disaggregated  data.   § Research,  document  and  monitor  cases  of  violence  against  women  with  disabilities  and  create   accessible  programs  that  shall  protect  them.  
  • 14   (3) Educable Group. This group's I.Q. ranges from about 50 to about 75, and the intellectual development is approximately 1/2 to 3/4 of that expected of a normal child of the same chronological age. The degree of success or accomplishment that they will reach in life depends very much on the quality and type of education they receive, as well as on the treatment at home and in the community. Many of the educable retardates may reach 5th or 6th grade educational level and can develop occupational skills which may result in partial or complete economic independence in adulthood. (4) Borderline or Low Normal Group. This is the highest group of mentally retarded, with I.Q.s from about 75 to about 89. The members of this classification are only slightly retarded and they can usually get by in regular classes if they receive some extra help, guidance and consideration. They have to spend much more time with their studies than do most children in order to pass. Those who cannot make it are usually handicapped by one or more other conditions aside from that of intelligence. Art. 170. Physically Handicapped Children. - Physically handicapped children are those who are crippled, deaf-mute, blind, or otherwise defective which restricts their means of action on communication with others. Art. 171. Emotionally Disturbed Children. - Emotionally disturbed children are those who, although not afflicted with insanity or mental defect, are unable to maintain normal social relations with others and the community in general due to emotional problems or complexes. 68      In  the  policy-­‐making  Council  for  the  Welfare  of  Children,  efforts  to  upgrade  a  sub-­‐committee  for  children   with  disabilities  into  a  full  pledged  Committee  has  not  progressed.    The  upgrading  of  the  Committee  is  aimed   at  pursuing  the  equalization  of  opportunities  for  children  with  disabilities.    Knowledge  about  children  with   disabilities  remain  very  rudimentary  even  for  the  Council,  and  thus  policies  and  programs  responsive  to   their  needs  are  not  evident.   Violence  and  abuse  (cf  Article  16)   69        There  is  a  dearth  of  data  on  violence  to  Filipino  children  with  disabilities  and  there  is  no  systematic   nationwide  entity,  mechanism  or  program  that  addresses  this  specific  need,  even  in  the  Council  for  the   Welfare  of  Children,  the  National  Council  for  Disability  Affairs,  or  Commission  on  Human  Rights.    The  only   efforts  as  of  now  are  by  civil  society  organizations  such  as  the  Philippine  Coalition  on  the  UNCRPD,  and  the   NGO  Philippine  Deaf  Resource  Center  which  have  revealed  many  cases  for  the  deaf  constituency  alone.  Over   half  of  documented  gender-­‐based  violence  cases  among  the  deaf  from  2006-­‐2012  involve  deaf  children  and   youth  (2):   Number  of  gender-­‐based  violence  cases  on  deaf  complainants  according  to  age  group   (n  =  119+  cases  with  known  data)   AGE  GROUP   NUMBER  OF  CASES   Less  than  12  years  old   13   12  to  17   53   Unspecified  minor   13+   18  and  above   40   TOTAL   119+   70      It  should  be  noted  that  a  Communication  has  been  sent  to  the  CEDAW  Committee  for  the  Optional   Protocol  on  the  rape  case  of  a  deaf  minor  wherein  the  perpetrator  was  acquitted  (3).   Education  (cf  Article  24)   71      The  situation  of  Filipino  children  in  terms  of  education  is  not  proceeding  as  expected  according  to  the   MDG  target  for  2015  (4).   72      For  children  with  disabilities,  data  has  revolved  only  on  enrollment  (at  start  of  school  year)  figures  and   thus,  is  largely  excluded  from  the  rest  of  basic  education  programs  and  targets,  and  corresponding   monitoring  and  evaluation.   Article 7
  • 15   73      Comprehensive  national  data  published  publicly  by  the  Department  of  Education  has  not  been  updated   since  2005  which  reports  about  97%  of  children  with  disabilities  as  still  unreached  by  the  public  school   system.  Partial  national  data  from  the  Department,  and  regional  field  data  reveal  conflicting  figures,  bringing   doubt  on  the  reliability  of  the  information.    Despite  increasing  national  appropriations  for  Special  Education   (for  primary  level)  subsidies,  and  an  increase  of  Special  Education  Centers  every  year,  these  resource   allocations  have  resulted  only  in  about  1.5%  increase  in  enrollment  per  decade.    The  current  number  of   Special  Education  centers  would  correspond  to  a  ratio  of  12,000-­‐18,000  children  with  disabilities  (5,  6).   74      Government  promotion  of  health  and  social  awareness  campaigns  are  not  carefully  implemented,   resulting  in  national  annual  celebrations  which  highlight  primary  prevention  of  disability,  as  well  as   materials  for  mothers  and  children  (7)  which  perpetuate  the  notion  that  a  bright  /  healthy  child  has  no   disability.   Poverty   75      An  extensive  study  of  over  700  households  with  children  with  disabilities  demonstrates  how  abject   poverty  compounds  the  problem  of  education  and  access  to  services  for  children  with  disabilities.    State   programs  have  not  addressed  this  complex  need  specifically.    Even  in  the  conditional  cash  transfer  program   (4Ps),  institutional  biases  in  implementation  allow  for  easy  substitution  of  a  child  with  a  disability  who  is   unable  to  go  to  school,  by  a  sibling.   Sources:   (1)  Chapter  2.  Mentally  Retarded,  Physically  Handicapped  and  Emotionally  Disturbed  and  Mentally  Ill  Children.    Presidential   Decree  603  Child  and  Youth  Welfare  Code  Art.  141  to  186.   http://www.chanrobles.com/childandyouthwelfarecodeofthephilippines.htm   (2)  Access  to  Justice:  Case  Monitoring  Report  by  the  Philippine  Deaf  Resource  Center  (2006-­‐2012)   http://www.phildeafres.org/pdf/PDRC_Case_Monitoring.pdf   (3)  Republic  Act  9710.    Magna  Carta  of  Women.    Women  claiming  rights  with  the  United  Nations:  Accessing  the  Optional  Protocol   of  the  CEDAW  and  the  ICCPR.    http://sexandsensibilities.com/2011/05/22/women-­‐claiming-­‐rights-­‐with-­‐the-­‐united-­‐nations-­‐ accessing-­‐the-­‐optional-­‐protocol-­‐of-­‐the-­‐cedaw-­‐and-­‐the-­‐iccpr/   (4)  MDGWatch.  http://www.nscb.gov.ph/stats/mdg/mdg_watch.asp   (5)  Philippine  Coalition  on  the  UNCRPD.    In  progress.    Enabling  CRPD  compliant  budget  advocacy.   (6)  SPED,  Department  of  Education.      In:  2012.    Poverty  reduction,  MDGs  and  education  of  children  with  disabilities:  Some   observations  and  recommendations.  UNESCAP  /  Leonard  Cheshire  Disability  Conference  on  Disability-­‐Inclusive  Development   MDGs  and  Aid  Effectiveness.  March  14,  2012,  Bangkok.   (7)    Council  for  Welfare  of  Children.    2005.  “I  am  a  healthy  growing  child”.  Mother  and  Child  Book.  2nd  printing,  p.  38. 76      Since  2008,  there  has  been  some  increase  in  visibility  of   partnerships  among  stakeholders  in  government  and  non-­‐ government  sectors.    However,  the  Coalition  believes  that   awareness  raising  is  not  merely  passing  on  of  information,  or   distribution  of  materials  about  persons  with  disabilities,  or   massive  conducting  of  UNCRPD  exposition  and  lectures.      Such   activities  must  result  in  demonstrably  changed  attitudes  and  perspectives  regarding  disability  that  are   evident  in  the  programs,  activities  and  operations  of  government  agencies.    Inevitably,  such  changes  should   ARTICLE 8 Awareness Raising RECOMMENDATIONS § Review  and  amend  laws,  policies  and  programs  that  discriminate  and  marginalize  children  with   disabilities.   § Research,  document  and  monitor  cases  of  violence  against  children  with  disabilities  and  create   accessible  programs  that  shall  protect  them.   § Ensure  the  participation  of  actual  children  with  disabilities,  and  not  just  their  families,  in  all  State   decision-­‐making  that  shall  impact  them.   § Overhaul  the  entire  Special  Education  program  options  so  that  the  majority  of  children  with   disabilities  progressively  gain  access  to  schools  within  5  years.   § Institutionalize  data  gathering  mechanisms  for  disaggregated  information  on  children  with   disabilities.     Article 8
  • 16   Article 9 lead  to  full,  meaningful  and  continuing  participation  of  Persons  with  Disabilities  in  all  affairs  of  society  as   envisioned  by  the  Convention.   77      A  case  in  point  is  the  considerable  expense  spent  for  the  annual  National  Disability  Prevention  and   Rehabilitation  Week  (NDPR),  and  all  other  celebratory  weeks  for  the  various  disabilities  throughout  the   year,  even  during  the  Biwako-­‐based  2nd  Decade  for  Persons  with  Disabilities.    Resources  are  not  put  to   maximal  use    because  these  celebrations  are  repetitive,  lacking  in  substance  from  the  perspective  of  human   rights  advocates,  and  still  perpetuate  a  medical  view  of  disability.    Because  of  these,  the  appropriateness  of   an  NDPR  Week  that  perpetuates  a  medical  view  of  disability,  its  annual  budget  appropriations  in  both  urban   and  rural  areas,  has  become  highly  questionable  in  the  context  of  human-­‐rights  based  implementation.     78      Awareness  raising  campaigns  by  the  State  for  its  ranks  remain  largely  sporadic,  and  uncoordinated,   across  time  and  across  the  various  island  of  the  archipelago.  Critical  national  agencies  such  as  the   Department  of  Budget  and  Management,  Department  of  Science  and  Technology,  Commission  on  Audit,  the   Department  of  Justice,  the  Judiciary,  and  many  others  do  not  display  a  fundamental  understanding  of   disability  as  basis  for  their  mandates.   79      Furthermore,  the  Coalition  is  disturbed  that  there  are  fora,  meetings  and  Conferences,  a  number  led  by   the  National  Council  on  Disability  Affairs  which  aim  to  promote  the  Convention.    In  reality  however,  the   Convention  is  misrepresented  by  declaring  that  it  is  merely  a  document  like  that  of  the  Magna  Carta   (Republic  Act  7277).    In  fact,  this  domestic  law  contains  provisions  diametrically  in  conflict  with  the   Convention.   80      The  Accessibility  Law  (1)  as  well  as  the  Magna  Carta  for   Persons  with  Disabilities  (2)  only  consider  accessibility  in  the   context  of  built  environments.    Accessibility  needs  in   information  and  communication  for  persons  with  sensory   disabilities,  and  intellectual  disabilities  are  not  addressed.   81      The  Coalition  observes  increasing  efforts  on  monitoring  accessibility  issues  on  the  part  of  relevant   government  agencies  in  conjunction  with  several  participating  DPOs.      However,  by  and  large,  accessibility   and  the  principles  of  Universal  Design  principles  remain  at  the  policy  level  of  only  a  few  branches  of   government,  and  are  even  unheard  of,  in  others.    Accessibility  audits  are  only  conducted  sporadically  even   for  government  structures,  and  penalties  for  violation  of  the  Accessibility  Law  have  yet  to  be  realized.   82      Even  in  the  National  Capital,  foot  bridges,  overpasses,  underpasses,  sidewalks  and  thoroughfares  are   barriers  to  persons  with  mobility  impairments.  Government  buildings,  schools,  recreation,  entertainment   and  sports  venues  are  hardly  accessible  to  persons  who  use  wheelchairs  and  crutches.    It  is  a  common  sight   to  see  persons  in  wheelchairs,  or  the  blind  walking  on  the  streets  because  sidewalk  vendors,  street  fences   and  road  structures  overrun  the  sidewalks  (3).   83      For  instance,  in  extensive  efforts  by  the  current  President  to  close  down  resource  gaps  in  education  by   2013,  the  Department  of  Education,  together  with  the  Department  of  Public  Works  and  Highways  will  be   ARTICLE 9 Accessibility RECOMMENDATIONS § The  National  Council  on  Disability  Affairs  with  the  Philippine  Information  Agency,  as  well  as  the   National  Anti-­‐Poverty  Commission,  should  formulate  a  long  range,  systematic  and  sustained   awareness  raising  master  plan  for  multiple  stakeholders  on  the  Convention,  and  on  the  rights  of   persons  with  disabilities,  using  sensitive,  rights-­‐based  language  aimed  at  changing  current   constructions  of  disability.    This  should  include  allocation  of  resources  such  as  media  campaigns   sustained  through  private-­‐public  partnerships,  and  target  both  public  and  private  sectors.   § Annually  review  all  national  and  local  celebrations,  activities  and  projects  of,  and  for  the  sector  so   as  to  ensure  that  these  are  in  line  with  the  human  rights  standards  of  the  Convention.     § Ensure  that  expositions,  translations  and  representations  of  the  Convention  are  accurate  and   sound.  
  • 17   deploying  a  total  of  P26.3  billion  to  construct  or  rehabilitate  more  than  31,000  classrooms  and  make  other   school  facilities  available  for  students.    However,  accessibility  of  these  buildings  and  compliance  to  the   Accessibility  Law  had  to  be  lobbied  by  civil  society.    Mechanisms  for  actual  implementation  and  monitoring   have  not  yet  been  clarified  (4).     84      The  same  is  seen  for  public  transport  (buses,  airplanes,  railways,  seacraft),  most  of  which  are  only  mere   policy  statements  with  no  concrete  action  plans  and  budget  allocations.  Two  of  Manila’s  three  light-­‐rail  lines   were  wheelchair  accessible,  but  stops  have  unrepaired,  and  out-­‐of-­‐service  elevators.  No  city  or  provincial   buses  have  wheelchair  lifts,  and  one  NGO  claimed  that  private  transportation  providers,  such  as  taxis,  often   overcharged  persons  with  disabilities  or  refused  them  service.  A  small  number  of  sidewalks  had  wheelchair   ramps,  which  were  often  blocked,  crumbling,  or  too  steep;  the  situation  was  worse  in  many  smaller  cities   and  towns  (5).   85      In  terms  of  information  and  communications  technology  and  website  accessibility,  a  civil  society  entity,   the  Philippine  Web  Accessibility  Group  is  the  one  who  initiated  and  monitors  accessibility.    To  date  since  the   group’s  establishment  in  2007,  only  9  government  agencies  are  certified  as  accessible  (6).    This  has  strong   impact  on  transparency  in  governance  if  there  are  accessibility  barriers.                 86      It  is  a  conspicuous  failure  of  the  State  to  have  neither  attained  or  even  initiated  significant  efforts  for  ten   years  during  the  Decade  of  Persons  with  Disabilities  (2003-­‐2012)  for  a  National  Plan  of  Action  target   towards  the  establishment  of  a  sign  language  interpreting  system  by  2007  (cf  Article  21).   87      In  broadcast  media,  despite  the  telecommunications  provision  in  the  1992  Magna  Carta  for  Persons  with   Disabilities,  no  significant  efforts  by  the  State  to  promote  institutionalized  accessibility  have  been  adapted  by   either  government  or  private  TV  stations  for  twenty  years  (cf  Article  21).  Currently,  a  single  private  station   has  daily  primetime  newscasts  which  are  interpreted.  The  National  Council  on  Disability  Affairs  with  some   efforts  to  summon  such  stations  for  these  matters  have  proven  largely  ineffectual.    No  efforts  have  been   initiated  by  the  National  Telecommunications  Commission  whatsoever  toward  this  end-­‐goal  despite  being   mandated  to  monitor  this  provision  of  the  Magna  Carta  (7).   88      In  the  Judiciary,  over  2,000  court  employees  designated  as  Court  Interpreters  in  trial  courts  throughout   the  country  assist  in  communication  needs  for  spoken  languages  in  legal  proceedings.    On  the  other  hand,   there  are  no  such  counterparts  for  sign  language  interpreting,  and  specific  institutional  budget  items  for  the   compensation  of  such  services.    Since  2006,  lobbying  and  proposals  for  comprehensive  guidelines  from  DPOs   and  NGOs  on  the  hiring  and  compensation  of  qualified  interpreters,  as  well  as  the  conduct  and  ethics  of  sign   language  interpreting  have  remained  unheeded  by  the  Judiciary  (cf  Article  13).    Of  213  cases  from  2006-­‐ 2012  involving  deaf  parties,  only  24%  have  appointed  court  interpreters.    Of  63  cases  of  unschooled  deaf   parties  requiring  deaf  relay  interpreters,  75%  have  no  interpreters  (8).   Article 9 RECOMMENDATIONS § Amend  existing  legislation  or  formulate  new  laws  to  address  all  accessibility  needs  of  all   persons  with  disabilities.   § Formulate  action  plans  within  the  next  5  years  for  the  development  of  modules  and  manuals  on   Accessibility  and  Universal  Design  for  the  institutionalization  of  training  seminars.    These   should  primarily  target  government  staff  tasked  to  implement  policies  according  to  the   Accessibility  Law  and  include  orientations  on  assisting  individuals  with  disabilities  on  the  road   and  in  built  environments;  sign  language  communication,  alternative  and  augmentative  modes   of  communication,  etc.   § Develop  a  monitoring  mechanism  for  integration  of  research  and  development  on,  and   comprehensive  and  strict  implementation  of  accessibility  policies.  Instead  of  imprisonment,   penalize  violators  and  utilize  the  revenue  generated  toward  accessibility  interventions  (similar   to  the  Road  Users  Fund).    This  shall  include  monitoring  of  all  government  agency  websites  for   full  web  accessibility.   § Establish  a  unit  within  the  Department  of  Science  &  Technology  and  other  research  entities,   including  State  Universities  and  Colleges  on  Universal  Design  for  goods,  services,  equipment   and  facilities.   §  
  • 18   Sources: (1)  Republic  Act  7277.    http://www.ncda.gov.ph/disability-­‐laws/republic-­‐acts/republic-­‐act-­‐7277/     (2)  Batas  Pambansa  Blg.  344.  http://www.ncda.gov.ph/disability-­‐laws/batas-­‐pambansa/batas-­‐pambansa-­‐blg-­‐344/   (3)    Disability  Rights  Promotion  International.  XI.  Accessibility:  Physical  and  ICT   http://drpi.research.yorku.ca/AsiaPacific/resources/PhilippinesLPPRep/xi     (4)  Education:  Close  all  education  resource  gaps  by  2013  to  support  K-­‐12  Reform  Program.  Poverty  Reduction  and   Empowerment  of  the  Poor  and  Vulnerable.    http://budgetngbayan.com/poverty-­‐reduction-­‐and-­‐empowerment-­‐of-­‐the-­‐poor-­‐and-­‐ vulnerable-­‐2/   (5)  U.S.  State  Report  on  Human  Rights  (Embassy  –  Manila)   Bureau  of  Democracy,  Human  Rights  and  Labor.    Country  reports  on  human  rights  practices  for  2011.  Philippines.     http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/humanrightsreport/index.htm#wrapper   (6)  Philippine  Web  Accessibility  Group.    List  of  accessible  websites.    http://pwag.org/   (7)  House  Bill  4121.    Sign  language  TV  news  inset.   http://housebills4deaf.webs.com/hb4121.htm   (8)  Access  to  Justice:  Case  Monitoring  Report  by  the  Philippine  Deaf  Resource  Center  (2006-­‐2012)   http://www.phildeafres.org/pdf/PDRC_Case_Monitoring.pdf   89      Violations  to  the  right  to  life,  and  an  adequate  standard  of   living,  are  seen  in  deaths  of  Filipinos  with  disabilities  resulting   from:  calamities,  gender-­‐based  violence,  detention  and   institutionalization,  or  illness.  Most  of  these  are  vaguely   documented  and  remain  anecdotal.    However,  this  lack  of   statistics  should  not  diminish  the  loss  of  individual  lives,  and   the  right  of  a  person  with  a  disability  to  live.    An  adequate   standard  of  living  shall  prevent  the  loss  of  life.   90      On  November  22  of  2012,  news  broke  out  when  a  6  year  old  boy  believed  to  be  mentally  ill  died  after  a   fire  hit  their  house  in  Las  Piñas,  Metro  Manila.  The  boy  had  been  chained  by  his  mother  and  stepfather  to   prevent  him  from  leaving  the  house  (1).     91      In  another  incident,  a  7  year  old  boy  believed  to  be  half-­‐blind  was  killed  in  a  fire  that  struck  their  home.   The  boy  was  unable  to  escape  the  fire  because  he  was  tied  to  the  bed  by  his  mother  and  her  partner  (2).     92      Several  cases  of  rape  and  trafficking  have  also  resulted  in  the  deaths  of  deaf  women  and  minors.    Law   enforcement  officers  have  virtually  been  ineffective  in  the  prevention  and  investigation  of  such  acts  of   violence  and  death  (3,  4).   93      From  a  medical  perspective,  the  Department  of  Health  recognizes  that  persons  with  disabilities  are   vulnerable  to  deficiencies  in  health  care  services,  to  secondary  conditions,  co-­‐morbid  conditions,  age-­‐related   conditions,  engaging  in  health  risk  behaviors  and  higher  rates  of  premature  death.    These  barriers  to  health   care  include  prohibitive  costs,  limited  availability  of  service,  physical  barriers,  inadequate  skills  and   knowledge  of  health  workers  (5).   94      In  the  report  published  in  the  website  of  the  National  Center  for  Mental  Health,  the  recorded  leading   causes  of  mortality  include  Decubitus  Ulcer  also  known  as  pressure  sores  caused  by  prolonged  lying  down   (6).  The  Coalition  would  like  to  know  whether  this  is  related  to  prolonged  periods  of  physical  restraint   leading  to  death.  (cf  Article  15)   ARTICLE 10 Right to life Article 10 § Establish  a  nationwide  system  of  professional  standards,  and  dispatch  for  sign  language   interpreting  for  deaf  and  deafblind  individuals.   § Ensure  the  passing  and  enactment  of  proposed  legislation  on  accessibility  in  telecommunications,   TV  insets  for  newscasts  and  court  interpreting.  
  • 19   Sources:   (1)  Mentally  ill  boy  dies  in  fire.   http://www.abs-­‐cbnnews.com/nation/metro-­‐manila/11/21/12/mentally-­‐ill-­‐boy-­‐dies-­‐fire   (2)  Las  Piñas  couple  under  fire  for  child’s  death.    http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/311401/las-­‐pinas-­‐couple-­‐under-­‐fire-­‐for-­‐childs-­‐ death     (3)  Access  to  justice:  Case  Monitoring  Report  by  the  Philippine  Deaf  Resource  Center  (2006-­‐2012).   www.phildeafres.org/pdf/PDRC_Case_Monitoring.pdf   (4)  Dumaboc,  Fe  Marie.  2009.  Teen  suspect  arrested  for  death  of  deaf-­‐mute.    Cebu  Daily  News.   http://globalnation.inquirer.net/cebudailynews/metro/view/20091017-­‐230558/Teen-­‐suspect-­‐-­‐arrested-­‐for-­‐death-­‐of-­‐deaf-­‐ mute   (5)  Department  of  Health.  Persons  with  disabilities.    http://www.doh.gov.ph/node/366.html   (6)  National  Center  for  Mental  Health.    Hospital  statistics.     http://ncmhwebsys.dyndns.org:8080/ncmh/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=68&Itemid=63   95      The  Coalition  appreciates  the  initial  visibility  of  persons   with  disabilities  concerns  in  several  planning  activities   relative  to  Inclusive  Disaster  Risk  Reduction  and  Management,   e.g.,  since  2010,  funding  IDRRM  partnerships  with representatives  of  Official  Development  Assistance  (ODA)   Japan  advocates  and  the  Ateneo  De  Manila  University.   96        The  inaction  of  the  Department  of  Science  and  Technology  (DOST)  to  the  November  2009  proposal   submitted  jointly  by  the  DPO,  the  Philippine  DAISY  (Digital  Accessible  Information  System)  Network,    and   the  National  Council  on  Disability  Affairs  is  disheartening  as  this  was  supposed  to  expedite  the  efforts  to   develop  IDDRM  (1).    The  proposal  should  have  been  more  appropriately  considered  by  Civil  Defense,  rather   than  the  DOST.     97      The  Coalition  also  calls  the  attention  of  government  in  the  non-­‐inclusion  of  explicit  policies  for  persons   with  disabilities  in  the  National  Disaster  Risk  Reduction  &  Management  Council  and  the  legislation  for   Internally  Displaced  People  which  include  those  displaced  by  calamities  and  armed  conflicts  (2,3)   98      Furthermore,  in  the  National  Anti-­‐Poverty  Commission,  the  Sectoral  Council  for  Victims  of  Calamities,   reveals  no  records  that  concerns  of  Persons  with  Disabilities  are  given  appropriate  space  in  discussions  and   planning  (4).   RECOMMENDATIONS § Gather  and  monitor  data  on  deaths  of  persons  with  disabilities  resulting  from  calamities,  gender-­‐ based  violence,  detention  and  institutionalization,  or  illness.    These  should  be  disaggregated  by   impairment,  gender  and  age,  and  compared  to  statistics  of  the  rest  of  the  population.   § There  should  be  State  programs  which  educate,  and  increase  awareness  of  families  and  carers  of   persons  with  disabilities.   § Legislation  should  be  passed  to  prevent  and  prosecute  violation  of  the  right  to  life,  and  freedom   from  inhumane  treatment,  on  the  basis  of  disability.   ARTICLE 11 Situations of Risk And Humanitarian Emergencies RECOMMENDATIONS § Review  all  policies  and  programs  of  the  National  Disaster  Risk  Reduction  &  Management  Council,   including  community  profiling,  drill  exercises,  early  warning  systems,  rescue  procedures,  as  well   as  preparation  of  information  and  materials  in  accessible  formats,  to  ensure  that  persons  with   disabilities  are  included  in  all  aspects  of  Disaster  Risk  Reduction.   § Include  active  participation  of  persons  with  disabilities  in  all  planning  and  discussions  of  the   Office  of  the  Presidential  Adviser  to  the  Peace  Process,  National  Disaster  Risk  Reduction  &   Management  Council  and  other  relevant  government  and  non-­‐government  organizations,   considering  the  accessibility  needs  of  persons  with  disabilities.     Article 11
  • 20   Sources:       (1)  Personal  communication.    2009..  Philippine  Coalition  on  the  UNCRPD.   (2)  Marikina  tests  flood  alarm  system.  Manila  Bulletin.  August  4,  2011.  http://www.questia.com/library/1G1-­‐ 263358120/marikina-­‐tests-­‐flood-­‐alarm-­‐system#articleDetails   (3)  House  passes  bill  protecting  the  rights  of  internally  displaced  persons.  House  of  Representatives,  press  release.  December  28,   2011.  http://congress.gov.ph/press/details.php?pressid=5762   (4)  Personal  communication.    2013.  Philippine  Coalition  on  the  UNCRPD.   99      The  Coalition  observes  that  the  Philippine  Constitution   recognizes  that  all  citizens  possess  legal  capacity.  However,   several  existing  laws  do  not  recognize  the  legal  capacity  of   persons  with  certain  types  of  disabilities.  The  Coalition  is   disturbed  by  the  fact  that  nearly  five  years  after  the  ratification   of  the  Convention  no  effort  yet  is  being  taken  to  address  serious   issues  as  outlined  in  this  provision  of  the  Convention.       100      From  2008  to  2011,  34  out  of  126  or  27%  of  cases  of  persons  with  disabilities  which  reached  the   Supreme  Court  invoked  nullity  of  marriage  based  on  grave,  medically  permanent  psychological  incapacity.   This  routine  and  virtually  institutionalized  legal  argument  based  on  The  Family  Code  of  the  Philippines,   Article  36  (Executive  Order  No.  209)  describes  a  person  with  psychological  incapacity  as  unable  to  enter  into   a  marital  contract.   101      In  the  Civil  Code:   1. Persons  with  psychosocial  disability,  and  deaf  individuals  who  are  not  literate,  are  not  recognized  to be  able  to  give  consent  to  a  contract:   2. The  deaf,  blind  and  persons  with  psychosocial  or  speech  impairment,  and  further,  who  are  not literate,  are  not  allowed  to  be  witnesses  to  the  execution  of  a  will: 3. Several  disability  constituencies  are  deemed  legally  incompetent  by  Rule  of  Court  92  on  guardianship and  estate  proceedings. SEC.  2.  Meaning  of  word  "incompetent."—  Under  this  rule,  the  word  "incompetent"  includes  persons  suffering  the   penalty  of  civil  interdiction  or  who  are  hospitalized  lepers,  prodigals,  deaf  and  dumb  who  are  unable  to  read  and   write,  those  who  are  of  unsound  mind,  even  though  they  have  lucid  intervals,  and  persons  not  being  of  unsound  mind,   but  by  reason  of  age,  disease,  weak  mind,  and  other  similar  causes,  cannot,  without  outside  aid,  take  care  of   themselves  and  manage  their  property,  becoming  thereby  an  easy  prey  for  deceit  and  exploitation  (5).   CHAPTER  2   TESTAMENTARY  SUCCESSION   SUBSECTION  4.  -­‐  Witnesses  to  Wills   Art.  820.  Any  person  of  sound  mind  and  of  the  age  of  eighteen  years  or  more,  and  not  blind,  deaf  or  dumb,  and  able  to   read  and  write,  may  be  a  witness  to  the  execution  of  a  will  mentioned  in  Article  805  of  this  Code  (4)   Art.  36.  A  marriage  contracted  by  any  party  who,  at  the  time  of  the  celebration,  was  psychologically  incapacitated  to   comply  with  the  essential  marital  obligations  of  marriage,  shall  likewise  be  void  even  if  such  incapacity  becomes   manifest  only  after  its  solemnization.  (As  amended  by  Executive  Order  227)  (1,  2)   ARTICLE 12 Equal Recognition Before the Law Article 12 CHAPTER  2   ESSENTIAL  REQUISITES  OF  CONTRACTS   Art.  1327.   The  following  cannot  give  consent  to  a  contract:  …  (2)  Insane  or  demented  persons,  and  deaf-­‐mutes  who  do  not  know   how  to  write    
  • 21   4. Supreme  Court  decisions  on  rape  cases  invoking  Republic  Act  8353  or  the  Anti-­‐Rape  Law: a) do  not  deem  women  /  girls  with  intellectual  disabilities  as  having  legal  capacity  as  they  are  “deprived of  reason”  (6) b) do  not  recognize  the  legal  capacity  of  women  with  psychosocial  disability  over  their  sexuality  (7) 102      The  current  Civil  and  Family  Code  have  no  instrument  that  would  facilitate  the  exercise  of  legal   capacity.  A  person  with  a  disability  affected  in  their  decision-­‐making  capacity  can  be  legally  deprived  of  legal   capacity,  relegating  the  exercise  of  that  right  to  a  guardian.   103      There  are  no  laws,  including  that  of  the  Civil  and  Family  Code  that  offer  assistance  to  persons  with   disabilities,  particularly,  persons  with  psychosocial  and  intellectual  disabilities  to  exercise  their  right  to   property  and  to  control  their  own  financial  affairs.   104      Human  Rights  Education  must  highlight  Legal  Capacity  in  the  light  of  the  Supported  Decision  making   Paradigm  vis-­‐a-­‐vis  guardianship  and  substituted  decision  making.  Particularly,  the  judiciary,  the  civil  service   and  society  at  large  must  be  educated  about  the  fact  that  persons  with  disabilities  are  persons  with  abilities   who  have  will  and  can  make  decisions  when  assisted.   Sources:   (1)  Executive  Order  209.  http://www.chanrobles.com/executiveorderno209.htm   (2)  Executive  Order  227.  http://www.lawphil.net/executive/execord/eo1987/eo_227_1987.html     (3)  Civil  Code  of  the  Philippines.  Contracts.  Art.  1327.   http://www.chanrobles.com/civilcodeofthephilippinesbook4.htm   (4)  Civil  Code  of  the  Philippines.  Succession.  Art.  820   http://www.chanrobles.com/civilcodeofthephilippinesbook4.htm   (5)  Rules  of  Court.  Rule  92.  Venue.  http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/rulesofcourt/RULES%20OF%20COURT.htm#rule_92   (6)  G.R.  No.  168932.People  of  the  Philippines  vs.  Charlie  Butiong.     http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/168932.htm   G.R.  No.  182412.People  of  the  Philippines  vs.  Jojo  dela  Paz.   http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/november2011/182412.htm   G.R.  No.  177295.  People  of  the  Philippines  v.  Marlon  Barsaga  Abella.   http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/177295.htm   G.R.  188901.People  of  the  Philippines  v.  Gilbert  Castro.   http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/188901.htm   G.R.    186533.  People  of  the  Philippines  v.  Efren  Castilo.  http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/186533.htm   G.R.  No.  186411.  People  of  the  Philippines  vs.  Arturo  Paler.   http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/186411.htm   (7)  G.R.  No.  144036.  People  of  the  Philippines  v.  Victor  Ugang.   http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/may2002/gr_144036_2002.html   105      Coalition  proposes  to  consider  that  when  persons  with   disabilities  who  either  as  complainants,  respondents  or   witnesses  are  deprived  of  systems,  support  services  that   realize  equal  protection  and  the  equal  benefit  of  the  law,   then  due  process  and  a  pursuit  of  justice  are  compromised.   RECOMMENDATIONS § Review  jurisprudence  (including  Art.  36  of  the  Family  Code  of  the  Philippines,  Rules  of  Evidence)   and  amend,  or  abolish  medicalization  of  legal  remedies,  as  well  as  other  discriminatory  laws  &   policies  that  do  not  recognize  the  legal  capacity  of  all  persons  with  disabilities,  including   provisions  relating  to  lack  of  schooling,  and  those  discriminatory  to  women  with  disabilities.   § Legislators  should  set  new  rules  for  legal  capacity  in  accordance  with  the  Convention  and  the   Government,  through  regular  appropriations  in  cooperation  with  civil  society,  should  support   model  programs  that  popularize  supported  decision-­‐making.   § Appropriate  funds  for  the  capacity-­‐building  and  education  of  supporters  of  decision-­‐making.   § Accelerate  awareness  raising  on  the  concept  and  practice  of  decision  making  in  human  rights   education,  including  that  of  the  judiciary,  department  of  justice,  civil  service  and  society  at  large.   §   ARTICLE 13 Access to Justice Article 13
  • 22   106      From  2008  to  mid  2012,  126  cases  involving  persons  with  disabilities  which  have  reached  the  Supreme   Court  are  almost  exclusively  in  these  three  areas:   • Gender-­‐based  violence • Labor  disputes  on  disability  benefits • Cases  on  psychological  incapacity  in  nullity  of  marriages 107      Of  these  Supreme  Court  cases,  92  cases  (or  73%)  were  decided  in  favor  of  the  person  with  disability   party.    This  includes  68%  of  22  cases  by  complainants  with  intellectual  disabilities  below  18  years  old   (chronological  or  mental  age).       108      Although  it  may  be  viewed  positively  that  the  Supreme  Court  eventually  ruled  in  favor  of  most  of  the   complainants  in  gender-­‐based  violence  cases,  this  finding  may  reflect  an  overall  inadequacy  of  lower  courts   to  handle  and  resolve  cases  particularly  of  girls  with  intellectual  disabilities.    It  must  also  be  noted  the   enormous  emotional  toll  as  well  as  drain  on  resources  for  persons  with  disabilities  and  their  families  to  have   to  go  through  the  appeal  process  to  reach  the  level  of  the  Supreme  Court.    The  tedious  and  resource  draining   litigations  are  discouraging  victims  of  human  rights  from  pursuing  their  cases.   109      There  are  no  concrete  policies  nor  documents  that  those  with  intellectual  or  psychosocial  disabilities   and  other  similarly  vulnerable  complainants  and  respondents  with  disabilities,  are  in  a  better  situation  in   accessing  justice  (cf  Article  6).   110      These  findings  on  Supreme  Court  cases  contrast  with  the  report  of  the  Philippine  Deaf  Resource  Center   on  monitoring  of  cases  of  deaf  parties  for  the  past  six  years.    Of  154  cases  with  known  data  on  status,  22%   have  been  decided.      The  majority  of  these  were  in  favor  of  the  deaf  complainant.  Dismissed,  archived  and   settled  cases  account  for  48%  of  these  154  cases  while  the  rest  are  still  undergoing  trial.    With  just  less  than   a  quarter  of  cases  reaching  decisions  in  lower  courts,  there  could  actually  be  a  more  accurate  picture  of  how   effective  the  administration  of  justice  in  the  lower  courts  is  if  more  cases  actually  completed  trial.    This  could   be  part  of  the  reason  why  for  this  (and  other)  constituency,  rarely  do  appealed  cases  or  those  reaching  the   Supreme  Court  appear  in  the  archives.   111      In  terms  of  procedural  accommodations,  the  Philippine  Deaf  Resource  Center  reports  for  these  cases   that:  only  24%  of  213  cases  involving  deaf  parties  have  appointed  sign  language  interpreters,  while  only   25%  of  63  cases  of  unschooled  deaf  parties  are  provided  with  deaf  relay  interpreting.  For  gender-­‐based   violence  cases,  only  13%  of  cases  filed  by  unschooled  deaf  complainants  are  provided  deaf  relay   interpreting.   112      The  root  cause  of  the  lack  of  provision  of  sign  language  interpreting  is  lack  of  awareness.    This  lack  of   awareness  includes  broadly  that  of  existing  policy  (Supreme  Court  policies)  down  to  a  practical  lack  of   knowledge  of  how  and  where  to  secure  the  services  of  a  sign  language  interpreter.   113      This  situation  contrasts  with  that  of  the  rest  of  Filipinos  who  have  available  to  themselves  over  2,000   fulltime  salaried  court  interpreters  (for  spoken  languages)  in  each  of  the  trial  courts  throughout  the  country.   Special  interpreters  for  Chinese,  and  various  ethnic  languages  are  also  provided  when  needed.   114      There  is  no  institutional  training  program  for  those  working  with  the  police  force  or  prisons,  or  for  that   matter  for  the  entire  Department  of  Justice  and  Judiciary.    There  were  some  CSO  attempts  for  a  faith-­‐based   Prison  Ministry  in  Quezon  City  jails  (in  the  National  Capital)  but  this  ran  only  for  a  few  months,  and  was   discontinued  due  to  lack  of  funds  and  support.    Recent  efforts  in  2012  by  the  Philippine  Deaf  Resource   Center  and  the  Philippine  Federation  of  the  Deaf  to  engage  with  the  Department  of  Justice  (Prosecutor’s   Office)  has  resulted  in  the  only  awareness  raising  sessions  to  date.    Efforts  in  2012  to  engage  with  the   Philippine  Commission  on  Women  and  the  Department  of  Justice  on  the  development  of  a  pool  of  deaf  relay   interpreters  have  received  very  little  (if  any)  attention  and  priority  in  the  agencies’  busy  activity  schedule.   115      As  far  back  as  2006,  the  Philippine  Deaf  Resource  Center  with  the  Philippine  Federation  of  the  Deaf  and   the  Filipino  Deaf  Women’s  Health  and  Crisis  Center,  have  led  efforts  in  proposing  policy  reform,  i.e.,  an   Amendatory  Memorandum  to  SC  Memo  59-­‐2004.    Since  that  time  that  proposal  has  been  submitted  through   each  term  of  three  different  Supreme  Court  Office  Administrators,  and  finally  even  to  the  Chief  Justice  in   2009.  In  June  2011,  the  national  Philippine  Federation  of  the  Deaf  with  the  Philippine  Deaf  Resource  Center   Article 13
  • 23   and  the  Philippine  National  Association  of  Sign  Language  Interpreters  held  a  dialogue  with  Supreme  Court   Administrator  Jose  Midas  Marquez  to  discuss  these  concerns,  and  reiterate  the  need  for  systemic  policy.     Nearly  two  years  later,  there  has  been  no  effort  in  the  Judiciary  to  consider  this  proposal  for  discussion,  or   institute  policy.   116      The  National  Council  for  Disability  Affairs  recently  created  a  Subcommittee  on  Access  to  Justice  and   Anti-­‐Discrimination.  The  Sub  Committee  however,  did  not  wish  to  address  clear  institutional  flaws  such  as   the  absence  of  a  system  for  legal  interpreting.  The  Sub  Committee  claims  that  this  is  not  within  the  scope  of   the  Sub  Committee’s  work.  The  Sub  Committee’s  current  focus  is  to  instead  provide  ‘persons  with   disabilities-­‐  friendly  free  legal  assistance’  to  complainants  by  the  Public  Attorney’s  Office.  This  is  ironic  in   that  the  Citizen’s  Charter  and  Mission  of  the  Public  Attorney’s  Office  is  actually  to  provide  ‘free  legal   representation  and  assistance’  as  a  mandate  from  the  1987  Philippine  Constitution  (1).     117      Furthermore,  the  Coalition  wonders  how  cases  filed  by  persons  with  disabilities  shall  be  ‘speedily   resolved’  (as  promised  by  the  Department  of  Social  Welfare  and  Development)  when  the  most  fundamental   barriers  to  accessibility  in  the  legal  and  justice  systems  remain  unchanged.  The  Sub  Committee  appeared  to   define  Access  to  Justice  only  in  the  context  of  Discrimination,  and  vice  versa  (2).   118      According  to  Supreme  Court  policies,  payment  of  sign  language  interpreters  is  to  be  taken  from   ‘savings’  of  the  lower  courts.    However,  these  ‘savings’  are  used  also  for  maintenance  and  repair  of  courts,  as   well  as  the  needs  of  judges  and  lawyers.  Because  of  the  absence  of  clear  administrative  guidelines,  to  date,   only  two  sign  language  interpreters  have  been  compensated  by  the  Supreme  Court  since  Memorandum  59-­‐ 2004  was  instituted  8  years  ago.   119      The  Judiciary  is  endowed  with  fiscal  autonomy  by  the  Constitution  as  protection  over  the  separation  of   powers.    Thus,  despite  CSO  lobbying  to  institutionalize  payment  for  sign  language  interpreting  for  the  past   six  years,  this  has  not  become  a  reality  (3).   120      Despite  the  creation  of  village  justice  systems  (the  Katarungang  Pambarangay),  encountered  cases   involving  the  deaf  at  the  local  level  have  been  fraught  with  the  same  serious  problems  of  lack  of  awareness   and  accessibility  (through  sign  language  interpreting)  (4).     121      Despite  requests  from  deaf  clients  and  the  Philippine  Deaf  Resource  Center,  the  Office  of  Legal  Aid  of   the  University  of  the  Philippines  (national  state  university)  which  offers  pro  bono  legal  representation  has   not  provided  sign  language  interpreting  for  the  deaf  cases  it  has  handled  since  2009.     122      Cases  filed  by  persons  with  disabilities  in  the  last  three  years  with  the  NHRI,  the  Commission  on   Human  Rights,  progress  so  slowly  leading  to  an  apparent  loss  of  document  files,  all  largely  discouraging   others  from  filing  human  rights  complaints.   RECOMMENDATIONS § Review  Supreme  Court  jurisprudence  to  analyze  why  cases  of  persons  with  disabilities  are   limited  to  the  areas  of  gender–based  violence  for  persons  with  intellectual  disabilities,   disability-­‐related  claims  of  benefits,  and  nullity  of  marriage  relating  to  psychological  incapacity.   § Institutionalize  accessibility  for  all  persons  with  disabilities  in  the  Department  of  Justice  and   Judiciary,  including  the  passing  of  proposed  legislation  for  sign  language  interpreting.   § Include  appropriations  in  the  national  and  local  budgets  to  be  utilized  for  training  on  disability,   accessibility  and  reasonable  accommodation.   § Monitor  and  document  access  to  justice  by  persons  with  disabilities  at  the  national  as  well  as   local  government  levels,  including  disaggregation  of  case  data  in  police  stations,  barangays   (villages),  Office  of  the  Prosecutor,  trial  courts,  National  Labor  Relations  Commission  and  other   relevant  agencies  and  offices.    Cases  involving  persons  with  disabilities  should  be  disaggregated   in  newly  initiated  efforts  for  an  e-­‐court  system.   § Regularly  conduct  training  and  awareness  raising  activities  in  all  the  pillars  of  justice,  including   disability  in  internationally  funded  programs  of  the  National  Barangay  Operations  Office  of  the   Department  of  Interior  and  Local  Government.   § § Article 13
  • 24   Sources:   (1)  Public  attorney’s  office.    http://www.pao.gov.ph/19/Citizen's-­‐Charter     (2)  Persons  with  disabilities  may  now  avail  of  free  legal  assistance.  2012.  http://www.ncda.gov.ph/category/sub-­‐ committees/sub-­‐committee-­‐access-­‐to-­‐justice/   (3)  Social  Watch  /Alternative  Budget  Initiative.  2012.    Persons  with  disabilities  claiming  their  rights  in  the  mainstream.    Paggugol   na  matuwid:  Kasama  ang  tao.     (4)  Access  to  justice:  Case  Monitoring  Report  by  the  Philippine  Deaf  Resource  Center  (2006-­‐2012)   www.phildeafres.org/pdf/PDRC_Case_Monitoring.pdf     123      The  World  Health  Organization  AIMS  Report  on  mental  health   systems  in  the  Philippines  states  that  “eight  percent  of  all  admissions   to  community-­‐based  inpatient  psychiatric  units  are  involuntary.    The   proportion  of  involuntary  admissions  to  mental  hospitals  is   seventeen  percent.  The  status  of  voluntary/involuntary  admission  to   other  facilities  is  in  general  not  taken  into  account.  However,  it  is   estimated  that  the  majority  of  admissions  are  involuntary.  “   124      The  Report  further  recommends  that  since  the  Philippines  has  a  constitutionally  created  Human  Rights   Commission,  the  body  should  have  the  authority  to  oversee  regular  inspections  of  mental  health  facilities   and  provide  sanctions,  if  appropriate  (1).   125      The  Coalition  is  extremely  disturbed  by  the  media  reports  which  confirms  this  documentation  of   persons  with  psychosocial  and  intellectual  disabilities  who  are  deprived  of  their  liberty,  and  forced  against   their  will  to  be  confined  in  asylums.    This  was  confirmed  during  field  visits  to  two  public  institutions  by   members  of  the  Coalition  (2).   126      The  National  Center  for  Mental  Health,  a  hospital  in  Metro  Manila  is  run  by  the  Department  of  Health.  It   has  up  to  triple  lock  up  structures  /  barricades  (metal  grills)  and  solitary  confinement  cells.    During  the  visit   of  the  Coalition  to  a  women’s  pavilion,  the  Coalition  noticed  cloth  restraints  to  wooden  beds  for  individuals   who  attempt  ‘rush  out’.    Notably,  the  staff  said  there  are  at  least  twenty  deaf,  blind,  and  women  with   intellectual  disabilities  in  the  same  Pavilion.    The  Coalition  members  did  not  see  them.   127      The  Sanctuary  Center  is  a  temporary  shelter  for  adult  women  with  improved  conditions  from  the   National  Center  for  Mental  Health.    It  is  managed  by  the  Department  of  Social  Welfare  and  Development.     Despite  it  being  a  transitional  facility,  it  also  has  lock  up  barricades,  a  solitary  confinement  cell  in  the  wards.   Clients  are  locked  in,  and  not  allowed  to  go  out  of  the  facility  (3).   128      According  to  the  Director  of  the  National  Center  for  Mental  Health,  there  are  court  orders  based  on   legal  referrals  for  the  detention  of  lawbreakers.    Once  issued,  the  Center  is  obliged  to  comply  with  these.    If   the  assessment  reveals  any  medical  findings,  the  individual  generally  remains  in  the  facility.    Otherwise,  the   individual  is  discharged.    The  rationale  for  detention  in  the  facility  appears  to  be  on  the  basis  of  disability   rather  than  because  of  their  original  conflict  with  the  law.   129      These  procedures  are  based  on  Rule  101  of  the  Philippine  Rules  of  Court  on  Proceedings  for  the   Hospitalization  of  Insane  Persons.    The  decision  to  commit  a  person  with  psychosocial  disability  to  a  mental   facility  is  filed  by:   § Improve  efficiency  and  speed  of  resolution  on  human  rights  complaints  by  persons  with  disabilities   filed  with  the  Commission  on  Human  Rights.   ARTICLE 14 Liberty and Security of the Person Article 14 “the  Director  of  Health  in  all  the  cases  where,  in  his  opinion,  such  commitment  is  for  the  public  welfare,  or  for  the   welfare  of  said  person  who,  in  his  judgment,  is  insane,  and  such  person  or  the  one  having  charged  of  him  is  opposed  to   his  being  taken  to  a  hospital  or  other  place  for  the  insane.   …  Sec.  3.  Hearing  and  judgment.  -­‐  Upon  satisfactory  proof,  in  open  court  on  the  date  fixed  in  the  order,  that  the commitment  applied  for  is  for  the  public  welfare  or  for  the  welfare  of  the  insane  person,  and  that  his  relatives  are   unable  for  any  reason  to  take  proper  custody  and  care  of  him,  the  court  shall  order  his  commitment  to  such  hospital   or  other  place  for  the  insane  as  may  be  recommended  by  the  Director  of  Health.”  (4)  
  • 25   130      This  Rule  of  Court  deprives  persons  with  psychosocial  disabilities  of  due  process,  equal  protection  of   the  law,  and  ultimately  violates  their  right  to  liberty.    However,  mental  health  facilities  only  carry  out  this   legal  directive.    Even  though  in  reality  this  is  involuntary  commitment,  because  there  are  actual  judicial   interventions  consistent  with  existing  rules  /  law,  then  such  confinement  shall  not  be  considered  illegal  (5).   131      The  2008  proposed  Mental  Health  Act  reveals  how  persons  with  psychosocial  disabilities  are  regarded.   Here,  personal  representative  are  permitted  to  represent  the  persons  with  psychosocial  disability’s  interests   in  any  specified  respect  or  of  exercising  specified  rights  on  behalf  of  persons  with  psychosocial  disability.   Aside  from  intrusive  treatment  and  involuntary  treatment  or  confinement  being  permitted,  the  draft  law   allows  procedures  to  be  conducted  without  the  informed  consent  of  the  person.  This  substituted  decision-­‐ making  clearly  violates  the  rights  of  a  person  with  disability  (cf  Article  12).   Sources:   (1)  WHO–AIMS  Report  on  mental  health  system  in  the  Philippines.   http://www.who.int/mental_health/evidence/philippines_who_aims_report.pdf    (2)  Davar,  B.    2012.  Psychosocial  Workshop:  Breaking  the  Barrier  -­‐  Field  notes.  Phil  Coalition  on  the  UNCRPD   (3)    Cambri,  J.    2012.  Psychosocial  Workshop:  Breaking  the  Barrier  -­‐  Field  visits  report.  Phil  Coalition  on  the  UNCRPD     (4)  Rule  101.  Proceedings  for  the  Hospitalization  of  Insane  Persons.   http://www.familymatters.org.ph/Procedural%20Laws/Rule%20101%20hospitalization%20of%20insane%20person.htm   (5)  Personal  communication.    Olivas-­‐Gallo,  C.  2012.   132      Reports  in  2008  and  2011  by  the  UN  Special   Rapporteur  on  Torture  have  already  included  the  inhuman   treatment  to  persons  with  disabilities  particularly  in  mental   health  institutions  as  torture.    These  include  severe  forms  of   restraint  and  seclusion  as  well  as  physical,  mental  and   sexual  violence.    Thus,  the  Special  Rapporteur  recommends   applying  the  legal  framework  for  the  protection  of  persons   with  disabilities  from  torture  (1,  2).   133      The  2007  Report  on  the  Philippines  by  the  World  Health  Organization  using  the  Assessment   Instrument  for  Mental  Health  Systems  states  that  over  20%  percent  of  patients  admitted  at  the  mental   hospitals  were  either  restrained  or  secluded  on  admission  due  to  violent  and  uncontrolled  behaviors.   Community-­‐based  psychiatric  inpatient  units,  revealed  an  estimated  11-­‐20%  of  patients  were  also  either   restrained  or  secluded  at  least  once  within  the  last  year.     134      It  further  comments  that  the  Philippines  already  has  a  constitutionally  created  Human  Rights   Commission,  and  that  the  body  should  have  the  authority  to  oversee  regular  inspections  of  these  mental   health  institutions,  and  provide  sanctions  if  appropriate.  (3)     135      Republic  Act  9745  or  the  Anti-­‐Torture  Act  was  passed  in  2009.    The  Implementing  Rules  and   Regulations  state  that  the  rationale  for  the  legislation  are:  the  Universal  Declaration  of  Human  Rights,  the   International  Covenant  on  Civil  &  Political  Rights,  the  Convention  on  the  Elimination  of  all  Forms  of   Discrimination  against  Women,  the  Convention  on  the  Rights  of  the  Child,  the  Convention  on  Torture  and  “all   ARTICLE 15 Freedom from Torture or Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment RECOMMENDATIONS § Amend  or  abolish  Rule  101  on  the  Hospitalization  of  Insane  Persons.   § Involuntary  treatment  or  confinement  and  substituted  decision-­‐making  for  persons  with   psychosocial  disabilities  should  be  prohibited  in  policy  or  practice.     § With  the  active  involvement  of  DPOS,  the  government  should  plan  and  promote  progressive   development  of  supported  services,  including  transitional  mechanisms  for  supported  decision   making  that  will  lead  to  inclusion  of  persons  with  psychosocial  disabilities  in  the  community.   § The  Coalition  proposes  that  guidelines  and  procedures  be  formulated  with  the  active   participation  of  DPOs  concerned  to  ensure  that  no  one  shall  be  detained  and  deprived  of  his   liberty  on  the  basis  of  disability  (cf  Article  4.3)   §   Article 15
  • 26   other  relevant  international  human  rights  instruments  to  which  the  Philippines  is  a  signatory”.    Though  it   was  enacted  in  2009,  it  fails  to  mention  the  Convention  on  the  Rights  of  Persons  with  Disabilities  which  was   ratified  in  2008.      Unsurprisingly,  there  is  no  mention  whatsoever  on  torture  in  relation  to  persons  with   disabilities  in  this  domestic  legislation  (4,  5).   136      Media  documentaries  describe  conditions  in  mental  health  facilities  as  absolutely  despicable  (6,  7).   137      The  Coalition  also  receives  media  reports  of  persons  with  psychosocial  disabilities  being  chained,   locked  (cf  Article  10),  and  subjected  to  electro-­‐convulsive  therapy  without  anesthesia.   138      The  Philippines  has  no  mental  health  legislation.    The  proposed  Mental  Health  Care  Act  in  2008  is  still   largely  based  on  a  medical  model  of  disability.    However,  according  to  the  WHO-­‐AIMS  Report,  the  proposal   “does  not  prohibit,  but  permits  forced  psychiatric  interventions  and  institutionalization”  (9).   139      The  stigma  of  mental  illness  is  evident  within  the  administration  of  the  Department  of  Health.     Administrators  of  the  National  Center  for  Mental  Health  decry  the  bias  they  experience  in  budget  allocations   to  the  Center  by  the  Department.    Operations  cost  per  hospital  bed  are  several  times  lower  compared  to   other  national  hospitals.    Plans  to  sell  the  land  of  the  Center  and  move  the  institution  elsewhere  has  received   resistance  from  the  health  workers.      However,  more  importantly,  the  impact  of  this  move  on  thousands  of   persons  with  psychosocial  disability  currently  housed  inside  the  hospital  has  not  visibly  or  primarily   factored  into  the  planning  and  resolution  of  the  matter.   140      The  Center  itself  envisions  a  community-­‐based  support  system  for  mental  health  but  admits  that  the   public  component  of  mental  health  services  has  been  largely  ineffectual  and  fragmented  because  of   decentralization  and  provisions  of  the  Local  Government  Code  (10,  11,  12)   141        Practices  including  those  rooted  in  folk,  cultural  or  religious  beliefs  regarding  disability  and  “cures”,   which  cause  physical,  mental,  and  psychological  pain  continue  unmonitored,  in  both  urban  and  rural  areas.   142      Various  forms  of  corporal  punishment  on  children  with  disabilities  are  also  common  even  in  formal   schools.    This  includes  physical  and  psychological  stress  of  deaf  children  in  oral  schools  who  are  forbidden   from  signing,  and  undergo  years  of  speech  training  and  therapy  beginning  at  very  young  ages.    To  persons   with  low  vision,  forcible  learning  of  braille  is  required  even  in  rehabilitation  centers,  at  times  even  as  a   requirement  for  receiving  medication.   Article 15 RECOMMENDATIONS § The  State  as  well  as  the  independent  human  rights  institution  should  conduct  a   comprehensive  review  of  existing  policies  and  practices  in  both  institutional  and  community-­‐ based  facilities,  and  protect  persons  with  disabilities  from  torture  and  inhuman  living   conditions.   § Expand  the  scope  of  the  Anti-­‐Torture  Act  to  be  consistent  with  international  standards  on   torture  and  inhuman  treatment  according  to  recommendations  of  the  Special  Rapporteur  on   Torture.   § Provide  awareness  training  on  accessibility  needs  to  professionals  and  staff  working  in   agencies  tasked  to  implement  the  Anti-­‐Torture  Law  so  that  they  may  carry  out  their  duties  in   accordance  with  the  standards  set  by  the  Convention.   § Implement  the  2008  health  policy  recommendations  of  the  Department  of  Health  regarding   the  Mental  Health  program  (15)  for  reforms  in  legislation,  creation  of  community  based  health   care,  financing,  and  other  policies.   § Above  all,  mental  health  care  and  services  should  be  in  accordance  with  the  principles  of  the   CRPD.    Condition  of  patients  in  the  mental  health  facilities  should  be  evaluated  to  ensure  that   they  receive  the  proper  treatment  and  their  needs  are  adequately  provided.    Increase  the   budget  for  mental  health  care  to  provide  services  respectful  of  provisions  of  CRPD  with  the   long  term  aim  of  providing  the  services  as  close  as  possible  to  the  community  where  persons   with  psychosocial  disabilities  reside.    Include  national,  regional  or  provincial  mental  health   facilities  in  the  visitation  mandate  of  the  Commission  on  Human  Rights  so  that  conditions  may   be  monitored  and  documented  regularly.   •
  • 27   Sources:   (1)  Interim  report  of  the  Special  Rapporteur  of  the  Human  Rights  Council  on  torture  and  other  cruel,  inhuman  or  degrading   treatment  or  punishment.    Torture  and  other  cruel,  inhuman  or  degrading  treatment  or  punishment.  A/66/268.  August  5,  2011.   (2)  Interim  report  of  the  Special  Rapporteur  on  torture  and  other  cruel,  inhuman  or  degrading  treatment  or  punishment.  Torture   and  other  cruel,  inhuman  or  degrading  treatment  or  punishment.  A/63/175.  July  28,  2008   (3)  WHO–AIMS  Report  on  mental  health  system  in  the  Philippines.   http://www.who.int/mental_health/evidence/philippines_who_aims_report.pdf   (4)  Republic  Act  9745.  Anti-­‐Torture  Act  of  2009.    http://www.congress.gov.ph/download/ra_14/RA09745.pdf   (5)  Republic  Act  9745.  Anti-­‐Torture  Act  of  2009.  Implementing  Rules  and  Regulations   http://www.chr.gov.ph/MAIN%20PAGES/about%20hr/IRR/IRR%20Anti-­‐Torture.pdf   (6)  Cesar  Apolinario.  Nakakabaliw  na  mental  hospital  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRPaBiC0hVI&feature=related   (7)  Mental.  August  10,  2007.  http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/55395/publicaffairs/reportersnotebook/mental   (8)  National  Center  for  Mental  Health  website.  Hospital  statistics.   http://ncmhwebsys.dyndns.org:8080/ncmh/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=68&Itemid=63   (9)  WHO–AIMS  Report  on  mental  health  system  in  the  Philippines.   http://www.who.int/mental_health/evidence/philippines_who_aims_report.pdf   (10)  Personal  communication.  National  Center  for  Mental  Health.  2012.  Philippine  Coalition  on  the  UNCRPD.  Disability  Rights   Budget  Analysis  project.   (11)  Cambri,  J.    2012.  Psychosocial  Workshop:  Breaking  the  Barrier  -­‐  Field  visits  report:  Lecture  by  NCMH  Director,  Dr.   Bernandino  Vicente..  Phil  Coalition  on  the  UNCRPD     (12)  Calleja,  N.  2012.  Planned  sale  of  mental  hospital  lot  opposed.    Philippine  Daily  Inquirer.     http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/45111/planned-­‐sale-­‐of-­‐mental-­‐hospital-­‐lot-­‐opposed   (13)  Philippines  Country  Report.  Save  the  Children.   http://resourcecentre.savethechildren.se/sites/default/files/documents/2594.pdf   (14)  Child  Protection  in  the  Philippines.  Save  the  Children.   http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/save%20the%20children%20CP%20in%20the%20philippines%20030 311_0.pdf   (15)  Department  of  Health.    Health  Policy  Notes.  2008.    3(5):1-­‐6.   http://www.doh.gov.ph/sites/default/files/Vol.%203%20Issue%205%20November%202008.pdf   143      The  Coalition  receives  documents  and  information  on   persons  with  disabilities  subjected  to  abuse  and  violence  yet   effective  and  appropriate  actions  could  not  be  taken  due  to   the  absence  of  policy  and  guidelines  from  the  relevant   government  agencies:  the  National  Council  on  Disability   Affairs,  the  Department  of  Interior  and  Local  Government,   and  the  Department  of  Justice.    Even  Women  and  Children’s   Protection  Desks,  and  the  Philippine  National  Police  as  a   whole,  lack  a  basic  awareness  on  addressing  the  needs  of  clients  with  disabilities.   144      Of  over  346  cases  involving  deaf  parties  by  the  NGO  the  Philippine  Deaf  Resource  Center  from  2006-­‐ 2012,  over  168  cases  are  on  gender-­‐based  violence.    The  most  frequent  site  of  violence  was  in  the  home  of   the  complainant  herself,  involving  either  neighbors  or  male  family  members  as  perpetrators.    Three-­‐fourths   of  these  gender-­‐based  violence  cases  involve  deaf  parties  younger  than  18  years  of  age  (1).     145      To  date,  there  are  no  specific  programs  in  the  Philippine  Commission  on  Women,  the  Council  for  the   Welfare  of  Children,  or  the  National  Council  on  Disability  Affairs,  to  address  and  prevent  this  continuing   violence  to  women  and  girls  with  disabilities  (cf  Articles  6,  7).   146      There  are  also  accounts  of  children  with  disabilities  who  are  left  chained  or  locked  up  in  their  homes,   resulting  in  their  deaths  during  the  breakout  of  fires  (2,  3).   Article 16 § Formulate  statutory  requirements,  annually  visit  and  monitor  all  forms  of  residential  care,  especially  for   women,  children  and  elderly  with  disabilities,  particularly  those  with  multiple  and  extensive   intellectual,  physical  and  psychosocial  disabilities.   § Prohibit  any  cruel  treatment  of  children  and  adults  with  disabilities.   ARTICLE 16 Freedom from Exploitation, Violence and Abuse
  • 28   147      Exploitation  of  women  with  disabilities  is  also  seen  in  relation  to  broadcast  media.      It  is  an  irony  that   increased  advocacy  for  persons  with  disabilities  as  a  whole  in  the  Philippines  has  brought  both  greater   visibility,  as  well  as  opportunities  for  violence.    For  instance,  in  some  TV  documentaries,  episodes  on  gender-­‐ based  violence  of  women  victims  have  purposively  or  inadvertently  divulged  personal  information  or  even   their  identity.  The  exploitation  involves  not  only  the  individuals  but  also  the  DPOs  or  NGOs  who  support  and   advocate  for  them  (1).   148      The  recent  wave  of  'reality  TV  shows'  including  'people's  court'  type  of  programs  have  featured   domestic  /  intimate  partner  violence  involving  women  with  disabilities  without  even  providing  accessibility   such  as  sign  language  interpreting.    In  the  guise  of  being  'popular  legal  education',  such  episodes  clearly  use   women  with  disabilities  for  entertainment  purposes  and  the  increase  of  broadcast  station  ratings.  The  Movie   and  Television  Review  and  Classification  Board  monitors  TV  programs  for  objectionable  content  and   presentation  to  the  viewers,  but  has  reprimanded  very  few  (if  any)  TV  stations  or  producers  for  their   treatment  of  women  with  disabilities.   149      In  other  technology-­‐based  violence,  persons  with  disabilities  (both  men  and  women)  who  promote  and   support  online  sale  of  pornographic  images,  particularly  of  women  /  girls  who  are  deaf  or  have  mobility   impairments  to  foreigners  are  known  within  the  sector.    Despite  these,  there  are  very  little  (if  any)  State   investigations  or  sanctions  on  such  activities  (4).   150      There  are  no  comprehensive  State  mechanisms  for  the  reporting  of  violence  and  abuse.    In  fact,  in  many   instances,  it  is  only  through  news  on  television  and  radio,  in  print,  or  electronic  format  that  information   regarding  persons  with  disabilities’  abuse  within  their  family  or  community  are  made  known.   151      Though  the  Anti-­‐Ridicule  and  Vilification  provisions  of  RA  9442  are  in  place,  reports  of  many  of  these   types  of  cases  are  not  taken  seriously.    Also,  despite  the  existence  of  RA  8505  (Rape  Victim  and  Assistance   Act),  procedures  and  programs,  and  even  shelters,  are  not  accessible  and  appropriate  for  women  and  girls   with  disabilities.    The  Communication  sent  for  the  Optional  Protocol  to  the  CEDAW  Committee  on  the  rape   case  of  a  deaf  minor  exemplifies  the  ineffectual  implementation  of  this  law  to  women  and  girls  with   disabilities.   152        Coalition  is  also  aware  of  the  case  of  a  blind  woman,  a  complainant  for  gang  rape,  who  in  her  stay  at  a   State-­‐run  safehouse  felt  that  she  was  ‘imprisoned’  and  the  one  whose  liberty  had  been  curtailed  rather  than   the  suspects  themselves.   RECOMMENDATIONS § Conduct  effective  awareness  raising  campaigns  in  the  agencies  of  the  Department  of  Justice,   including  the  Commission  on  Human  Rights,  to  prevent  and  report  all  forms  of  exploitation,   violence  and  abuse  to  persons  with  disabilities  particularly  children  and  women  with   disabilities.   § Review  the  gender-­‐  and  age-­‐  sensitivity  and  responsiveness  of  programs  and  services  of  the   Department  of  Justice,  the  Department  of  Social  Welfare  and  Development  and  the  Department   of  Interior  and  Local  Government  and  all  other  offices  involved  in  the  prevention  of  all  forms  of   exploitation,  violence  and  abuse  to  persons  with  disabilities.   § The  Coalition  proposes  that  guidelines  on  these  issues  be  formulated  with  the  participation  of   persons  with  disabilities  so  as  to  ensure  affordable  and  accessible  procedures,  and   mechanisms.   § Enable  the  National  Telecommunications  Commission,  the  agencies  of  the  Department  of   Justice  and  other  relevant  government  agencies  to  investigate,  sanction  and  prevent   technology-­‐related  violence  and  abuse.   § Issue  guidelines  on,  and  monitor  sensitivity  and  appropriate  handling  in  media  releases,   broadcasts  and  other  public  programs  on  documentaries,  features  or  other  involvement  of   persons  with  disabilities  in  media.   § Create  local  level  awareness  raising  campaigns  for  parents  with  children  with  disabilities  to   prevent  violence  and  abuse  in  the  home.     Article 16
  • 29   Sources:   (1)  Access  to  justice:  Case  Monitoring  Report  by  the  Philippine  Deaf  Resource  Center  (2006-­‐2012)   www.phildeafres.org/pdf/PDRC_Case_Monitoring.pdf     (2)  http://www.abs-­‐cbnnews.com/nation/metro-­‐manila/11/21/12/mentally-­‐ill-­‐boy-­‐dies-­‐fire   (3)  http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/311401/las-­‐pinas-­‐couple-­‐under-­‐fire-­‐for-­‐childs-­‐death   (4)  Joint  Submission  from:  Philippine  Coalition  on  the  U.N.  Convention  on  the  Rights  of  Persons  with  Disabilities  and  the   Philippine  Alliance  of  Human  Rights  Advocates  for  the  Half-­‐day  General  Discussion  on  "Women  and  girls  with  disabilities"  by  the   Committee  on  the  Rights  of  Persons  with  Disabilities.   153      The  use  of  forced  medication  and  electroconvulsive   therapy    (ECT)  undermine  the  physical  and  mental  integrity   of  a  person,  and  without  their  free  and  informed  consent   violate  their  right  of  legal  capacity,  right  to  health  and  right   to  freedom  from  torture.    Their  use  in  the  Philippines  with   persons  with  psychosocial  disabilities  is  purely  from  a   medical  perspective  and  overlooks  the  human  rights  aspect  (1).    Its  use  as  a  form  of  “treatment”  is  well   documented  in  the  Philippines  by  private  individuals  as  well  as  by  international  reports.    Compared  to  27   other  Asian  countries,  the  use  of  ECT  in  the  Philippines  is  “generally  well  accepted”  (2,  3).   154      There  is  also  an  increasing  trend  of  cochlear  implantation  among  deaf  children  in  the  country  (4).    Such   invasive  procedures  largely  by  private  practitioners,  especially  for  children  who  are  unable  to  express   acceptance  of  this  life-­‐changing  surgery,  have  not  been  regulated  by  the  State.    Information  on  cochlear   implants  is  almost  exclusively  given  from  a  purely  medical  and  rehabilitative  perspective,  presented  to   parents  for  their  deaf  children  to  become  “normal”.  Acquisition  of  this  extremely  expensive  implant  and   surgery  has  been  sponsored  by  foreign  donors,  and  the  State-­‐owned  Philippine  Charity  Sweepstakes  Office   (5).   155      The  Coalition  has  interacted  with  persons  with  psychosocial  disability  who  share  how  they  are  forced   to  take  medication  against  their  will.    They  do  not  like  to  take  the  medication  since  it  affects  their   personality,  and  prevents  them  from  carrying  out  daily  tasks  such  as  going  to  work  or  taking  care  of  their   children.    Parents  as  well  as  physicians  force  medication  on  them  with  threats  that  if  they  do  not  follow,  they   shall  be  brought  to  mental  institutions.    Despite  the  lack  of  statistics,  the  Coalition  believes  these  happen  to   many  Filipinos  with  psychosocial  disabilities  throughout  the  country.   156      The  WHO  Assessment  Instrument  for  Mental  Health  systems  reports  that  the  Commission  on  Human   Rights  has  not  performed  a  review  or  inspection  of  mental  hospitals  nor  conducted  training  to  staff  of  mental   hospitals  on  human  rights  protection  of  patients  with  psychosocial  disabilities  (6).   Sources:   (1)  World  Network  of  Users  and  Survivors  of  Psychiatry.  2008.  Implementation  manual  for  the  UNCRPD.   http://www.wnusp.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=18&Itemid=4   ARTICLE 17 Protecting the Integrity of the Person RECOMMENDATIONS § Review  and  harmonize  legislation,  policies  and  practices  to  uphold  the  right  to  physical  and   mental  integrity  of  all  persons  with  disabilities.   § The  State  as  well  as  Commission  on  Human  Rights  should  document,  monitor  the  use  of  ECT  and   forced  medication  in  public  and  private  mental  health  facilities.   § Conduct human rights and awareness raising trainings for all medical practitioners and staff in mental health facilities. § Legislate  the  proposed  Mental  Health  Care  Act  as  a  tool  for  domestic  implementation  of  the   Convention,  including  the  research  and  development  of  community  services  as  an  alternative  to   institutional  care.   § Ensure  full  implementation  of  the  Philippine  Patient’s  Bill  of  Rights  and  the  Principle  of  Free,   Prior  and  Informed  Consent,  in  compliance  with  this  Convention.   § Ensure  that  the  Principle  of  “best  interest  of  the  child”  derives  inputs  not  only  from  parents  or   medical  experts,  but  from  children  with  disabilities  themselves.   Article 17
  • 30   (2)    Noel.  2008.  NCMH,  ECT,  observe  experience  (blog)   http://agonyblues.multiply.com/journal/item/17   (3)    Leiknes,  K.A.,  et  al.    2012.    Contemporary  use  and  practice  of  electroconvulsive  therapy  worldwide   Brain  Behav.  2012  May;  2(3):  283–344.    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3381633/   (4)  More  deaf  Pinoys  are  hearing  today    http://businessmirror.com.ph/index.php/en/readers-­‐corner/2717-­‐more-­‐deaf-­‐pinoys-­‐are-­‐hearing-­‐today   (5)  Estimar  RS,  CM  Chiong.  Outcomes  of  Pediatric  Cochlear  Implantation  in  the  Philippines   http://www.pgh.gov.ph/index.php?q=departments/otorhinolarynology/research   (6)  WHO–AIMS  Report  on  mental  health  systems  in  the  Philippines.       http://www.who.int/mental_health/evidence/philippines_who_aims_report.pdf   157      The  Coalition  is  concerned  that  persons  identified  by   Philippine  laws  with  a  limited  capacity  to  act  could  only   acquire  passport  documentation,  and  travel  only  with  the   consent  of  their  legal  representatives  or  guardians.    This  is  in   conflict  with  paragraphs  b)  and  c)  of  Article  18.1.     158      It  is  also  a  serious  concern  that  adult  persons  with  disabilities  who  have  a  limited  capacity  to  act  cannot   apply  for  citizenship  in  person,  only  through  their  guardians  and  their  legal  representatives  (1).     159      A  Deaf  man  leaving  for  Qatar  for  a  training  program  for  persons  with  disabilities  in  2010  was  barred  by   Bureau  of  Immigrations  at  the  airport  on  the  day  of  his  flight.  Through  assistance  from  DPOs  and  CSOs,  he   was  eventually  able  to  depart  a  day  later.  The  complaint  filed  with  Commission  on  Human  Rights  is  at  a   standstill,  still  with  no  final  investigation  report  even  after  two  years  and  with  repeated  follow-­‐up  (2).   160      Through  the  years,  several  persons  from  various  disability  constituencies  have  filed  complaints  against   a  single  private  airline  for  being  denied  carriage  on  their  flights.    These  include  children  with  intellectual   disabilities  traveling  with  their  parents,  a  person  with  chronic  illness,  and  a  group  of  ten  deaf  people  en   route  together  on  a  single  flight.  However,  the  State  has  largely  been  unable  to  support  the  individual   complainants  in  their  pursuit  of  justice,  except  to  refer  them  to  the  National  Bureau  of  Investigation.  The   persons  with  disabilities  have  had  to  file  cases  on  their  own.   161      Children  with  disabilities  in  rural  or  remote  areas  are  not  registered  for  birth  certificates,  or  are   registered  at  a  much  later  date.    This  may  be  due  to  cultural  or  economic  reasons,  or  distance  of  the   household  from  the  Civil  Registrar.    Because  there  are  no  legal  penalties  for  failure  to  register  newborn   children,  children  with  disabilities  sometimes  are  not  registered  (3).   Sources:   (1)  Bureau  of  Immigrations.  Excluded  Classes.     http://immigration.gov.ph/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=41&Itemid=34     (2)  Cruz,  T.  Oct.  6,  2010.  Immigration  scandal  at  the  Ninoy  Aquino  international   airport.http://asiancorrespondent.com/41174/deaf-­‐filipino-­‐illegally-­‐refused-­‐by-­‐immigration-­‐officers-­‐in-­‐manila-­‐international-­‐ airport/#0_undefined,0_   (3)  Philippine  Coalition  member  organizations   ARTICLE 18 Liberty of Movement and Nationality RECOMMENDATIONS § The  Coalition  proposes  continuing  awareness-­‐raising  for  Bureau  of  Immigrations,  Dept  of  Foreign   Affairs,  and  other  relevant  public  and  private  agencies.   § The  National  Council  on  Disability  Affairs    and  Commission  on  Human  Rights  should  be  more  pro-­‐ active  and  lead  efforts  to  protect  rights  of  persons  with  disabilities  from  violation  by  non-­‐State   actors;     § Fully  implement  and  monitor:  RA  3753  for  the  registration  of  childbirths  to  the  Civil  Registrar   within  thirty  days  of  birth;  RA  10172  to  facilitate  even  late  registrations  of  childbirths,  and  which   allow  corrections  of  birth  certificate  entries  even  without  court  proceedings.     Article 18
  • 31   162      Due  to  the  fact  that  most  persons  with  disabilities  are   barred  by  poverty  and  other  discriminatory  family  and   community  culture  against  the  sector,  there  must  be  clear   action  plans  with  timelines  and  budgetary  projection  so  as  to   ensure  that  persons  with  disabilities  are  provided  access  to  all   community  services  support,  including  personal  assistance.   163      In  2011,  legislative  lobbying  led  by  the  DPO  Life  Haven  for  insertion  into  the  national  budget  of  an   alternative  budget  proposal  on  the  provision  of  personal  assistants  to  persons  with  extensive  or  severe   disabilities,  has  been  met  with  bureaucracy,  and  even  opposition  by  the  Department  of  Social  Welfare  and   Development  and  the  National  Council  on  Disability  Affairs.    To  date,  the  Life  Haven  has  not  received  its   rightful  appropriation.   164      The  concept  paper  on  Establishment  of  Non-­‐Handicapping  Environment  by  the  Department  of  Social   Welfare  and  Development  which  includes  development  of  support  services  in  the  community,  was  drafted   without  appropriate  consultation  with  representatives  of  persons  with  disabilities.    This  resulted  in  a  weak   concept  as  well  as  a  non-­‐sustainable  mechanism  which  relies  purely  on  volunteerism.   165      It  also  concerns  the  Coalition  that  there  are  no  comprehensive  and  well  organized  State  support   services  available  in  the  community.    This  prevents  persons  with  disabilities  who  have  high  support  needs,   significant  physical  disabilities,  or  psychosocial  disabilities  from  moving  out  of  hospitals  because  there  are   no  alternative  support  mechanisms  in  the  community  to  allow  inclusion  and  living  independently.   166      Residential  institutions  such  as  the  Elsie  Gaches  Village  for  children  with  disabilities  are  seriously   overcrowded,  affecting  the  independence  and  quality  of  life  of  its  residents  (1,  2).   167      During  the  2011  Open  Budget  Forum,  the  Secretary  of  Department  of  Social  Welfare  and  Development   gave  a  statement  regarding  assisted  living  in  one  of  their  facilities.    The  Coalition  is  concerned  as  to  whether   their  concept  of  ‘assisted  living’  conforms  to  the  human  rights  standards  of  this  Convention  (3).   Sources:   (1)    Philippines  Country  Report.  Save  the  Children.   http://resourcecentre.savethechildren.se/sites/default/files/documents/2594.pdf   (2)    Child  Protection  in  the  Philippines.  Save  the  Children.   http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/save%20the%20children%20CP%20in%20the%20philippines%20030 311_0.pdf   ARTICLE 19 Living Independently and Being Included in the Community RECOMMENDATIONS § Support  existing  Independent  Living  centers  to  develop  a  personal  assistance  service  system   characterized  by  full  and  effective  participation  of  persons  with  disabilities.     § Ensure  that  persons  with  disabilities  are  able  to  choose  the  place  and  conditions  of  their   residence  on  an  equal  basis  with  others,  providing  the  necessary  support  services  in  the   community.   § At  the  earliest  stage  of  planning,  ensure  the  full  and  effective  participation  of  persons  with   disabilities  in  the  development  of  support  services  to  facilitate  living  independently  and  being   included  in  the  community.   § Appropriate  adequate  national  and  local  government  funds  for  the  implementation  of  support   services  in-­‐home,  residential,  or  outside  the  home  for  persons  with  disabilities  living  in  the   community  to  prevent  their  isolation  and  segregation.     § Formulate  clear  strategies  on  how  to  ensure  that  persons  with  disabilities  can  live   independently  and  be  included  in  the  community  while  maintaining  respect  to  the  freedom  of   each  individual  to  make  their  own  choices.   § Fully  implement  RA  10070  which  mandates  the  creation  of  Persons  with  Disabilities  Affairs  and   Local  Assembly  of  Persons  with  Disabilities  to  take  on  the  function  of  developing  community   support  services.   Article 19
  • 32   (3)  YouTube  link  of  Open  Budget  Forum  showed  by  ANC  of  ABS-­‐CBN  TV  channel  2:   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7B1BOimJ6I&feature=youtu.be   168      The  Coalition  takes  a  liberal  view  that  bodily  carrying  of   persons  with  disabilities  as  a  means  of  personal  mobility  may   not  be  a  violation  of  Article  20.    However,  States  Parties   should  still  aim  toward  effective  measures  to  ensure  personal   mobility  with  the  greatest  possible  independence,  and  dignity,   in  the  manner  and  time  of  their  choice,  at  affordable  cost.   169      The  Coalition  acknowledges  that  in  Republic  Act  7277,  or  the  Magna  Carta  for  Persons  with  Disabilities,   a  section  on  auxiliary  services  exists.    There  are  no  comprehensive  or  systematic  pro-­‐active     national  programs  or  services  which  facilitate  the  personal  mobility  of  persons  with  disabilities  through  the   provision  of  access  to  affordable  quality  mobility  aids,  training  in  mobility  skills,  or  the  promotion  of     incentives  in  the  local  manufacture  of  these  aids.    Local  level  efforts  are  very  limited,  only  to  urban  areas  and   the  National  Capital  Region.    In  other  areas,  civil  society  organizations  are  the  only  primary  sources  or   service  providers.    Frequently,  it  is  only  through  international  cooperation  that  sustained  broad-­‐reaching   efforts  for  the  provision  of  mobility  devices  are  accomplished.   170          Innovative  local  design  of  electricity-­‐powered  wheelchairs  for  instance,  recently  launched  by  the  DPO   Tahanang  Walang  Hagdanan  was  funded  by  a  grant  from  the  Embassy  of  Japan.    State  efforts  in  technology   research  and  development,  or  budget  allocations  to  promote  it,  have  not  been  directed  to  the  needs  of   persons  with  mobility  needs  to  date  (1).     171      The  Coalition  asserts  the  imperative  for  public  transportation  policies  and  modes  to  take  into  account   the  urban  and  rural  divide,  and  the  diversity  of  personal  mobility  needs  which  further  marginalize  persons   with  disabilities.     Source:   (1)      Melican,  N.  2013.  Persons  with  disabilities  can  now  live  in  the  fast  lane.   http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/363983/  persons  with  disabilities-­‐can-­‐now-­‐live-­‐life-­‐in-­‐the-­‐fast-­‐lane   172          The  efforts  by  the  National  Council  on  Disability  Affairs   and  the  relevant  concerned  government  agencies  toward  the   establishment  of  a  system  of  sign  language  interpreting  in  the   Philippines  have  been  ineffective.    Even  as  it  has  been  a  midterm   target  in  the  National  Plan  of  Action  of  the  Decade  for  Persons   with  Disabilities  (2003-­‐2012).      To  date,  Deaf  Filipinos  continue   to  face  barriers  of  communication  in  schools,  courts,  police   stations,  workplace,  prisons,  mass  media,  hospitals,  public   transportation,  government  transactions  (including  with  the   National  Council  on  Disability  Affairs)  and  many  other  aspects  of  daily  life  (1).     ARTICLE 21 Freedom of Expression and Opinion, andAccess to Information RECOMMENDATIONS § Fully  implement  Republic  Act  7277  provisions  for  Health  under  Sec.  20.b  on  providing  an   integrated  health  service  to  address  the  needs  for  personal  mobility,  which  shall  include  the   provision  and  fitting  by  field  health  care  units  of  prosthetic  and  orthotic  appliances.   § The  National  Council  on  Disability  Affairs  should  promote,  monitor  and  report  Republic  Act  7277   Section  42.c  on  Tax  Incentives  for  local  manufacture  of  technical  aids  and  appliances  as  a   preferred  area  of  investment  following  the  Omnibus  Investments  Code.   § The  National  Council  on  Disability  Affairs  should  promote  and  coordinate  efforts  between  the   Departments  of  Health,  Interior  and  Local  Government  and  Social  Welfare  and  Development,   with  the  private  sector,  to  ensure  delivery  of  assistive  devices  and  training  for  personal  mobility   needs  particularly  in  the  rural  areas.   § Include  in  the  mandate  of  the  Department  of  Science  and  Technology,  the  research  and   development  of  locally  designed  and  manufactured  mobility  aids,  devices  and  assistive   technology.   Article 20 ARTICLE 20 Personal Mobility
  • 33   173      The  Coalition  appreciates  the  efforts  of  private  broadcast  stations  to  provide  sign  language  interpreting   insets  in  the  2011,  2012  and  2013  State  of  the  Nation  Addresses  by  the  President  and  the  impeachment   proceedings  against  the  Supreme  Court  Chief  Justice.  However,  it  is  to  be  noted  that  these  services  were   essentially,  voluntary,  and  at  the  initiative  of,  and  lobbying  by  civil  society  organizations  (3).   174      Despite  the  existence  of  the  1992  Republic  Act  7277  provision  on  telecommunications  encouraging   accessibility  of  TV  programming,  the  government  TV  station  PTV  /  NBN  4  has  had  no  accessible  newscasts  or   any  programs  for  the  past  20  years.    The  National  Telecommunications  Commission  designated  to  monitor   this  provision  has  had  no  concrete  program  of  action  to  implement  this  mandate  (2).   175      The  Coalition  appreciates  deeply  the  removal  of  the  legal  barriers  against  the  production  into   accessible  format  via  the  exemption  to  the  stringent  Copyright  Law  of  reading  and  learning  materials  for   people  with  print  disabilities  and  the  subsequent  signing  of  the  Philippines  of  the  Marrakesh  Intellectual   Property  Treaty.   176      There  are  yet  wide  gaps  in  the  provision  of  screen  readers  even  with  the  availability  of  open  source   programs.  Since  most  materials  and  information  are  in  Filipino  languages,  it  is  imperative  to  have  a  Text  to   Speech  Engine  in  Filipino.    These  are  already  available  in  State  academic  institutions  yet  they  have  not  been   made  publicly  available  or  affordable.   177      The  freedom  to  choose  one’s  way  of  communication  e.g.,  for  deaf  to  sign,  or  for  persons  with  low  vision   to  use  large  print  or  a  magnifier  instead  of  learning  Braille,  must  be  respected.   178      The  Department  of  Science  and  Technology  has  had  no  significant  program  related  to  access  to   information  for  persons  with  disabilities  to  comply  with  the  mandated  annual  agency  appropriations  for   persons  with  disabilities  during  the  entire  Decade  of  Persons  with  Disabilities  (2003-­‐2012)  (4).   179          Even  with  the  existence  of  government  policy  mandating  accessibility  of  websites  of  government   agencies,  the  majority  are  not  even  in  the  initial  stages  of  implementation.    As  of  July  2013,  only  11  out  of   over  500  government  agencies’  websites  have  passed  web  accessibility  criteria  by  the  government  mandated   Philippine  Web  Accessibility  Group.   180          In  the  most  recent  amendments  of  the  Magna  Carta,  RA  9442  a  provision  for  tax  holiday  exists,   however,  it  does  not  include  projects  related  to  access  to  information.  Tax  incentives  specified  for  Persons   with  Disabilities  (Sec.  42.c)  which  encourage  such  manufacture  of  assistive  devices  and  technical  aids  as  a   preferred  area  of  investment  under  the  Omnibus  Investment  Code  have  remained  untapped  since  the   enactment  of  the  Magna  Carta  in  1992.    Thus,  screen  readers  for  computers,  mobile  phones,  information   systems  like  DAISY  remain  quite  expensive  and  out  of  reach  of  the  typical  Filipino  with  visual  impairment.   Similarly,  for  children  with  intellectual  disabilities,  there  are  widespread  barriers  for  augmentative  and   alternative  communication  because  of  prohibitive  costs  of  imported  computer  software,  and  instructional   computer  programs  (6).   181          Meetings  with  the  National  Council  on  Disability  Affairs  and  Department  of  Social  Welfare  and   Development  and  other  high  level  national  government  meetings  almost  routinely  do  not  utilize  materials   in  Braille,  plain  language  or  other  alternative  /  accessible  formats.   Sources:   (1)  Notes  to  proposed  House  Bill  4621,  4631,  6079   RECOMMENDATIONS § Ensure  that  in  the  16th  Congress,  legislation  on  Court  Interpreting,  TV  News  Interpreting,  and  the   recognition  of  Filipino  Sign  Language,  which  were  proposed  in  the  previous  Congress  session  are   re-­‐filed  and  passed.   § Require  relevant  and  concerned  agencies  to  monitor  accessibility  of  all  government  websites  and   to  integrate  Universal  Design  in  the  design  of  their  websites.   § Actively  promote  the  research  and  development  of  local  design  and  manufacture  of  technology  for   the  information  needs  of  persons  with  disabilities  to  ensure  availability  and  affordability.   Article 21
  • 34   Article 22 (2)  Philippine  Deaf  Resource  Center  Notes  on  ANI  (Alliance  for  News  Interpreting)   (3)  Communications  with  PNASLI   (4)  Coalition  training  with  Department  of  Science  and  Technology   (5)  Philippine  Web  Accessibility  Group.    http://pwag.org   (6)  Philippine  Coalition  member  organization   182      Some  forms  in  government  agencies  or  state  institutions   require  disclosure  of  disability  (including  type  of  disability).     While  the  Coalition  encourages  efforts  to  gather  data  on  the   number  and  types  of  disabilities,  it  shall  be  necessary  that   focus  should  be  directed  on  the  social,  environment  and   attitudinal  disabling  barriers  that  truly  make  persons  with   impairments  disabled.   183      For  instance,  Personal  Data  Sheets  for  the  Civil  Service  Commission,  the  central  personnel  agency  of  the   Philippine  government,  invokes  Republic  Act  7277  for  this  requirement  of  disclosure  without  explaining  the   purpose  or  use  of  this  information:   184      It  appears  that  originally  in  2001,  the  Commission  included  this  item  to  gather  data  on  persons  with   disabilities  in  relation  to  unionization  (according  to  Executive  Order  180).    However,  with  already   established  unions,  this  requirement  for  disclosure  of  information  on  disability  is  already  questionable  (2).   185      The  College  Entrance  Test  of  the  State,  the  University  of  the  Philippines  likewise  requires  disclosure  of   disability  and  type  of  disability  in  its  Application  Form  for  Freshman  Admission  without  any  explanation  of   the  purpose  and  use  of  the  information.    Furthermore,  withholding  of  such  information  may  be  used  as  a   basis  for  disqualification  from  admission  or  dismissal.  This  type  of  Application  forms  is  common  to  State   Universities  and  Colleges  as  compliance  to  availment  of  government  subsidy  and  scholarship.   186      It  should  be  noted  that  accessibility  and  reasonable  accommodation  for  students  with  disabilities  at  the   University  of  the  Philippines  (Diliman  campus)  have  not  been  institutionally  provided  in  terms  of  the  built   environment,  and  access  to  information  and  communication.    For  example,  in  the  past  ten  years,  thirteen   deaf  students  have  been  admitted  in  various  colleges  and  programs  at  the  undergraduate  and  graduate  level   without  any  provision  for  sign  language  interpreting.    Blind  students  are  also  not  provided  academic   materials  in  accessible  format.    Only  some  of  the  buildings  on  campus  have  ramps.    There  are  no  university   policies  on  reasonable  accommodation  for  persons  with  intellectual  or  psychosocial  disability.     With  the  absence  of  such  provisions  by  the  university,  the  requirement  to  divulge  disability  without  any   clear  purpose  for  the  use  of  the  information  may  be  deemed  a  violation  of  privacy  of  information.    No  other   personal  or  health  information  of  this  nature  are  included  in  the  form  for  student  applicants  who  do  not  have   disabilities.   #41  Pursuant  to  (b)  Magna  Carta  for  Disabled  Persons  (RA  7277),   Are  you  differently  abled?      No__    Yes  __  (specify)?  (1)   #12    Do  you  have  any  PHYSICAL  DISABILITY  or  CONDITION  that  requires  special  attention  or  would   make  it  difficult  for  you  to  take  a  regular  test?   __  No    ___  Yes  (specify)   (for  persons  with  disabilities  taking  the  exam  in  Diliman,  attach  Certification  of  Disability  and  contact   the  Director)   I  affirm  that  …  (2)  All  the  information  supplied  in  this  application  form  are  true,  complete  and   accurate.    I  am  aware  that  any  or  all  the  information  furnished  in  this  application  may  be  checked   against  the  original  documents  and  that  withholding  information  or  giving  false  information  will   disqualify  me  from  admission  /will  be  a  basis  for  dismissal,  if  admitted    ____________    [Signature  of   Student]  (3)   ARTICLE 22 Respect for Privacy
  • 35   Sources:   (1)  Item  No.  41.    Civil  Service  Commission  Form  212  (Revised  2005):  http://www.pup.edu.ph/downloads/files/pds2005.pdf   (2)  Amended  Rules  and  Regulations  governing  the  exercise  of  the  right  of  government  employees  to  organize.    Executive  Order   180.  http://excell.csc.gov.ph/PSU/IRR_EO180_.pdf   (3)  UPCAT  Form  1  :  Application  for  Freshman  Admission   http://upcat.up.edu.ph/htmls/UPCAT%20Form%201%20%28PDS2013%29.pdf   187      Article  36  of  the  Family  Code  of  the  Philippines  states   that  psychological  incapacity  is  a  ground  for  annulment  of   marriage.    Such  incapacity  that  is  viewed  as  an  illness  and  is   deemed  medically  permanent,  or  incurable  is  seen  as  the  root   cause  that  an  individual  is  unable  to  assume  the  obligations  of   marriage.    This  is  a  distinction  assigned  to  the  impairment   rather  than  to  the  unrealized  behaviors  required  in  marriage.   188      The  Rule  on  Declaration  of  Absolute  Nullity  of  Void  Marriages  and  Annulment  of  Voidable  Marriages   further  says  that  the  petition  to  file  for  annulment  may  be  filed  by  the  “sane”  spouse,  or  by  any  relative,   guardian,  or  person  having  legal  charge  of  the  “insane”.   189      Such  distinctions  interfere  with  the  right  of  a  person  with  psychosocial  disability  to  marry.  This  legal   argument  is  so  deeply  entrenched  in  societal  practice,  that  examples  of  psychological  incapacity  have  been   stated  to  include:  “retardates,  epileptics  or  other  psychotic  anomalies”  (1,  2)   190      In  order  to  apply  for  a  Marriage  License,  couples  are  required  to  go  to:  Pre-­‐Marriage  Counseling  by  the   Department  of  Social  Welfare  and  Development  (for  civil  marriages),  and  a  Family  Planning  and  Responsible   Parenthood  Seminar  by  the  Municipal  /  City  Health  Officer  of  the  Department  of  Health.    There  have  been   incidents  when  persons  with  disabilities  who  undergo  these  seminars  have  been  advised  by  local   government  officers  either  not  to  get  married,  or,  not  to  have  children  because  of  the  possibility  of  giving   birth  to  children  with  disabilities.    This  is  a  violation  of  the  rights  of  persons  with  disabilities  in  matters   relating  to  marriage,  family,  and  parenthood.    Approaches  in  communicating  health  campaign  should  not  put   Persons  with  Disabilities  in  the  medical  model  context.    Persons  with  disabilities  may  just  be  provided  all  the   needed  information  on  the  possibilities  of  having  children  rather  than  simply  being  told  against  having   children  (3).   191          The  underlying  perspective,  objectives  and  definitions  of  the  Newborn  Screening  Act  presents  to   parents  a  concept  of  disability  that  is  purely  medical,  and  based  on  impairment.    Impairment  is  made   equivalent  to  disability.    Furthermore,  it  presents  heritable  conditions  (particularly  “mental  retardation”)  as   absolutely  appalling.  The  Law  is  helpful  in  order  to  identify  needed  interventions,  however,  in  the  manner   this  health  related  law  is  presented,  disability  is  presented  as  a  malady  rather  than  mere  realities  of   differences  and  diversity  of  humanity.  This  undermines  the  dignity  particularly  of  persons  with  intellectual   disabilities:   RECOMMENDATION § With  the  full  participation  of  DPOs,  review  public  forms  which  require  disclosure  of   disability  (and  type  of  disability)  to  ensure  that  the  intent  to  gather  data  does  not  violate   Art.  22.      The  purpose  for  the  need  of  the  information,  and  the  nature  of  its  use  should  be   explained.      There  should  be  an  option  not  to  disclose  information  based  on  the  right  to   privacy.   Article 23 SEC.  2.  Declaration  of  Policy.      The  National  Newborn  Screening  System  shall  ensure  that  every  baby  born  in  the   Philippines  is  offered  the  opportunity  to  undergo  newborn  screening  and  thus  be  spared  from  heritable  conditions   that  can  lead  to  mental  retardation  and  death  if  undetected  and  untreated.   SEC.  3.  Objectives.   4)  To  ensure  that  parents  recognize  their  responsibility  in  promoting  their  child's  right  to  health  and  full development,  within  the  context  of  responsible  parenthood,  by  protecting  their  child  from  preventable  causes  of   disability  and  death  through  newborn  screening.   ARTICLE 23 Respect for Home and the Family
  • 36   Sources:   (1)  Lepiten  &  Bojos  Law  Office.  Notes  on  Psychological  Incapacity  under  Article  36  of  the  Philippine  Family  Code.     http://lepitenbojos.com/old/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=222:notes-­‐on-­‐psychological-­‐incapacity-­‐under-­‐ article-­‐36-­‐of-­‐the-­‐philippine-­‐family-­‐code&catid=54:legal-­‐notes-­‐on-­‐annulmentnullity-­‐of-­‐marriage&Itemid=88   (2)  Rule  on  Declaration  of  Absolute  Nullity  of  Void  Marriages  and  Annulment  of  Voidable  Marriages     http://www.familymatters.org.ph/Procedural%20Laws/Supreme%20Court%20Rule%20on%20Annulment.htm   (3)  http://www.baguio.gov.ph/?q=content/marriage   (4)  Newborn  Screening  Act  of  2004.  Republic  Act  9288.     http://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2004/ra_9288_2004.html   192    Special  Education  as  it  has  been  implemented  up  to  the   present  time  is  a  well-­‐intentioned  program  but  has  been largely  ineffectual  and  inefficient,  and  fundamentally  non-­‐ inclusive.    The  Coalition  notes  that  education  for  children  with   disabilities  in  the  Philippines  has  been  in  existence  for  more   than  a  century  yet  there  has  not  been  regularly  updated,   verifiable  and  publicly  available  data.    As  of  Schoolyear  2004-­‐ 2005  the  Department  of  Education  reports  at  least  98%  of  Children  with  Special  Needs  are  not  in  school,   stating  that  half  of  these  are  children  with  disabilities  (1)  (cf  Article  31).       193      Analysis  of  statistics  from  the  Department  (2)  reveals  that  it  has  taken  10  years  for  enrollment  in   Special  Education  to  increase  by  1.5%.     194      The  enrollment  rate  in  Special  Education,  in  the  single  digits  since  the  nineties  (1.16%  in  1997-­‐1998;   3%  in  2007-­‐2008),  differs  markedly  from  the  82.2%  rate  for  all  other  Filipino  children  in  2006-­‐2007  (3).   195      Furthermore,  only  1.9%  of  Children  with  Special  Needs  are  in  inclusive  settings  according  to  the  2004-­‐ 2005  data  (4,  5).   196      The  Coalition  appreciates  the  Zero  Rejection  Policy  requiring  all  schools  and  educational  institutions   not  to  reject  any  enrollees,  including  those  with  disabilities.    This  policy  if  applied  appropriately  would   create  the  incentive  for  families  to  bring  their  children  with  disabilities  to  the  school  nearest  their  residence.   Despite  most  schools  not  having  sufficient  trained  teachers  or  other  personnel,  the  appropriate  built-­‐in   environment  or  devices,  implementation  of  the  Zero  Rejection  policy  shall  serve  as  increasing  pressure  to   make  the  entire  system  inclusive.   197      Most  significantly,  due  to  the  policy  that  children  with  disabilities  must  be  first  prepared  and  merited   to  access  mainstreamed  education,  this  creates  institutional  barriers  towards  inclusive  education.  The  State   must  ensure  that  “the  best  interest  of  the  child”  is  respected  according  to  the  principles  of  the  Convention.   198      Moreover,  children  with  disabilities  too  are  exempted  from  taking  the  regular  academic  performance   evaluation  test,  thus,  unlike  the  non-­‐disabled  children,  they  again  are  deprived  of  means  to  know  their   performance  and  the  performance  of  their  teachers.   RECOMMENDATIONS § Consult  with  relevant  DPOs  and  review  psychological  incapacity  as  a  ground  for  annulment  to   marriage  as  provided  in  the  Family  Code  of  the  Philippines.   § With  the  participation  of  DPOs,  review  laws  and  policies  that  tend  to  provide  authority  to  separate   parents  with  disabilities  from  their  children.   ARTICLE 24 Education Article 24 SEC.  4.  Definitions   13)  Treatment  means  the  provision  of  prompt,  appropriate  and  adequate  medicine,  medical,  and  surgical management  or  dietary  prescription  to  a  newborn  for  purposes  of  treating  or  mitigating  the  adverse  health   consequences  of  the  heritable  condition.  (4)    
  • 37   199      Field  data  collected  by  the  Philippine  Coalition  show  that  enrollment  in  the  Special  Education  programs   are  predominantly  fast  learners  /  gifted,  and  not  children  with  disabilities  (6).   200      In  recent  years,  the  education  of  children  with  disabilities  was  merged  with  other  children  requiring   specialized  teaching  approaches  through  the  Special  Education  services  (i.e.,  fast  learners  or  gifted).    Core   Indicator  data  on  the  MDGs  on  primary  education  are  not  also  disaggregated  according  to  disability.  The  only   statistic  collected  is  enrollment  at  the  start  of  schoolyear.    The  absence  of  disaggregated  data  put  learners   with  disabilities  at  a  great  disadvantage  since  there  are  no  measurable  means  by  which  education  for  them   may  be  evaluated  (7,  8).     201      Budget  utilization  of  national  budget  subsidies  for  Special  Education  Centers  display  variable   utilization,  lapsed  appropriations  and  even  misutilization.    Utilization  of  annual  budget  appropriations  for   textbooks  and  learning  materials  for  Special  Education  is  not  clearly  accounted  for.   202      The  Coalition  is  concerned  to  find  out  that  among  the  children  with  special  needs,  lower  budget   allocations  are  given  to  children  with  disabilities  and  in  most  cases  their  classrooms  are  of  inferiorly  built   quality,  dilapidated  and  not  provided  with  accessible  features  and  instructional  devices  and  gadgets  (9).       203      Despite  the  ongoing  implementation  for  a  Mother  Tongue  –  Multilingual  Education  policy  in  primary   education  for  all  Filipino  children,  the  Department  has  presented  differing  views  on  the  recognition  of   Filipino  Sign  Language  as  the  national  sign  language  in  Congress  deliberations  on  proposed  House  Bill  6079   (10).   204      In  adult  education,  policies  requiring  massage  therapists  to  have  a  high  school  diploma  discriminates   against  blind  masseurs  all  over  the  country  (cf  Article  5).   Sources:   (1)    DepEd  urges  Congress  to  pass  Special  Education  Act.  http://www.deped.gov.ph/cpanel/uploads/issuanceImg/jun3-­‐sped.pdf   (2)  DepEd  data  1997-­‐1998,  2007-­‐2008.    http://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2004/ra_9288_2004.html   (3)  Poverty,  hunger  prevent  Filipino  kids  from  getting  basic  education.  2008.   http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/111257/news/specialreports/poverty-­‐hunger-­‐prevent-­‐filipino-­‐kids-­‐from-­‐getting-­‐ basic-­‐education   (4)  Bureau  of  Elementary  Education,  Special  Education  Division  http://www.deped.gov.ph/quicklinks/quicklinks2.asp?id=34.     RECOMMENDATIONS § Carry  out  a  comprehensive  review  of  the  program  options  under  Special  Education  toward   the  goal  of  inclusion  in  all  formal,  alternative  and  vocational  educational  programs  and   services.   § Have  comprehensive,  regular,  reliable,  disaggregated  data  on  children  with  disabilities   enrollment  and  retention,  completion  in  school  as  well  as  budget  allocations  and   expenditures.   § Pass  proposed  K-­‐12  bill  with  provisions  on  inclusion,  accessibility  and  reasonable   accommodation  for  children  with  disabilities.   § Ensure  that  curricula  for  all  teacher  education  programs  must  prepare  all  teachers  to  accept   and  service  all  types  of  children  with  disabilities  in  formal,  alternative  and  vocational  settings.   § The  General  Education  curriculum  for  all  students  at  all  levels  must  include  the  rights  of   persons  with  disabilities.   § All  school  buildings  and  built-­‐in  structures  must  conform  to  accessibility  and  universal  design   standards  (including  assistive  devices,  teaching  materials),  as  well  as  reasonable   accommodation.     § Ensure  that  the  needs  of  deaf,  blind  and  deafblind  are  addressed,  including  the  application  of   the  Mother  Tongue-­‐Based  -­‐  Multilingual  Education  policy  (DepEd  Order  No.    74-­‐2009)  on  an   equal  basis  to  children  with  disabilities.   § Ensure  establishment  of  effective  and  meaningful  mechanisms  of  consultation  and  active   involvement  of  stakeholders  specially  DPOs,  organizations  of  parents  and  children  with   disabilities.   § Monitor  budget  utilization  by  the  Department  of  Education  specifically  for  children  with   disabilities.   Article 24
  • 38   (5)  Robson,  C.    2005.    Educating  children  with  disabilities  in  developing  countries:  the  role  of  data  sets.     http://www.childinfo.org/files/childdisability_RobsonEvans2005.pdf   (6)  DepEd  Central  enrollment  2010-­‐2011,  2011-­‐2012   (7)  MDGWatch
Statistics  at  a  glance  of  the  Philippines'  Progress  based  on  the  MDG  indicators  
as  of  October  2012.   http://www.nscb.gov.ph/stats/mdg/mdg_watch.asp   (8)  Philippine  Coalition  on  the  UNCRPD.  Poverty  reduction,  MDGs  and  education  of  children  with  disabilities  in  the  Philippines:   Some  observations  and  recommendations.    Conference  on  Disability-­‐Inclusive  Millennium  Development  Goals  and  Aid   Effectiveness,  http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp?id=1595#cso  www.lcint.org/download.php?id=843   (9)  Phil  Coalition  member  organization   (10)  DepEd  Order  No.    74-­‐2009   Legislation   205      Health  based  laws  like  the  Newborn  Screening  Act  (R.A.   9288)  address  the  need  for  early  and  timely  intervention  to   those  who  may  have  various  impairments  (1,  2).  However,  it   presents  these  long-­‐term  conditions  in  such  a  negative  light  as   to  perpetuate  a  stigma  of  disability.    The  perspective  on  health   by  the  Magna  Carta  for  persons  with  disabilities  (R.A.  7277,  9442)  is  also  strongly  premised  on  primary   prevention.    This  contrasts  with  the  Convention  which  discusses  prevention  only  in  the  context  of  further   disabilities,  including  children  and  older  persons  with  disabilities.   Health  care  insurance   206      There  is  no  universal  health  care  insurance  program  that  addresses  the  health  needs  of  persons  with   disabilities.    There  are  families  with  persons  with  disabilities  who  are  able  to  receive  free  PhilHealth   insurance  cards  through  the  Conditional  Cash  Transfer  program.    However,  these  do  not  systematically  or   exhaustively  include  all  persons  with  disabilities  because  disability  is  not  included  as  a  variable  for  targeting   in  this  poverty  reduction  program  (3).   207      Insurance  on  health  is  typically  limited  only  to  working  persons  with  disabilities  or  employees  who   acquire  their  disability  while  employed  in  their  work  places.   208      Though  there  are  recent  provisions  by  the  Philippine  Health  Insurance  Corporation  (Case  Type  Z   Benefit  Packages)  for  chronic  illnesses,  these  are  limited  only  to  certain  forms  of  cancers,  or  for  kidney   transplants  (4).   209      There  are  reports  from  experiences  of  persons  with  disabilities  that  the  government  Insurance   Commission  views  persons  with  disabilities  as  high  risk,  so  are  not  able  to  qualify  for  insurance  coverage.   Services  and  facilities   210      There  is  no  National  Health  Program  for  persons  with  disabilities  as  provided  for  since  1992  by  Sec.  18   of  R.A.  7277.    There  has  not  been  systematic  creation  and  monitoring  of  rehabilitation  centers  in  government   provincial  hospitals  throughout  the  country  as  intended  in  Sec.  25.b  (5).   211      It  remains  a  great  concern  to  the  Coalition  that  rehabilitation  services  in  hospitals  are  still  not  at  par   with  the  required  and  needs  in  accordance  with  human  rights  standards.   212      There  are  no  systematized  government  services  or  programs  for  palliative  and  hospice  /  end  of  life   care,  particularly  for  elderly  persons  with  disabilities,  or  those  with  chronic  illnesses,  including  children  with   disabilities.    Currently  only  privately  run  and  faith-­‐based  or  nonprofit  organizations  offer  these  services.   213      Accessibility  of  the  built-­‐in  environment,  communication  requirements  and  materials  is  extremely   wanting  in  national,  regional  and  local  health  facilities.  Persons  with  disabilities  need  appropriate  support   and  assistance  whether  they  are  being  treated  on  an  in-­‐patient  or  out-­‐patient  basis.    Very  often,  a  person   with  disability  would  have  to  be  treated  as  an  outpatient  due  to  the  non-­‐accessibility  of  the  hospitals,  clinics   and  health  centers.   ARTICLE 25 Health Article 25
  • 39   ARTICLE 26 Habilitation and Rehabilitation Awareness  raising   214      Medical  practitioners  are  purely  focused  on  the  medical  aspect  in  dealing  with  persons  with  disabilities   and  do  not  receive  any  systematic  public  training  on  human  rights,  dignity  and  autonomy  of  persons  with   disabilities  in  relation  to  their  health  needs.   Budget  allocation   215      The  National  Center  for  Mental  Health  administration  bewails  the  very  low  prioritization  for  budget   allocation  of  its  facilities  compared  to  other  national  hospitals.    They  attribute  this  as  related  to  the  stigma   towards  persons  with  psychosocial  disabilities  which  is  reflected  even  in  Department  of  Health  spending.   Sources:   (1)  Department  of  Health.    Persons  with  disabilities.    http://www.doh.gov.ph/node/366.html   (2)  Newborn  Screening  Act  of  2004.  Republic  Act  9288.    http://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2004/ra_9288_2004.html   (3)  http://www.sunstar.com.ph/tacloban/local-­‐news/2012/06/23/4ps-­‐beneficiaries-­‐assured-­‐health-­‐insurance-­‐premiums-­‐ 228344   (4)  http://www.philhealth.gov.ph/circulars/2012/circ30_2012.pdf   (5)  http://www.ccprcentre.org/wp-­‐content/uploads/2012/09/DPO_Philippines_HRC106.pdf   (6)  Philippine  Coalition  on  the  UNCRPD.  Budget  Analysis  Project   216      Section  19  of  R.A.  7277  provides  for  rehabilitation   centers  and  services  for  persons  with  disabilities.    However,   the  establishment  of  medical  rehabilitation  centers  in   government  provincial  hospitals,  to  be  funded  by   Department  of  Health  appropriations  has  not  been  widely   implemented.  Neither  have  mandated  free  rehabilitation   services  for  persons  with  disabilities  in  government  hospitals  been  implemented.   217      Rehabilitation  services  are  extremely  inadequate  and  scarce.  There  are  only  three  regional   rehabilitation  centers  and  one  national  center  in  the  country.  Information  from  the  National  Vocational   Rehabilitation  Center  reports  that  only  less  than  a  percent  of  persons  with  disabilities  in  the  National  Capital   Region  are  able  to  access  center-­‐based  rehabilitation  services  (1).   218      Furthermore,  since  most  public  service  facilities  are  concentrated  in  the  Capital,  many  persons  living  in   rural  and  isolated  communities  have  limited  access  to  any  form  of  rehabilitation  program  or  service  (2).   RECOMMENDATIONS § Formulate,  review  and  amend  health  related  legislation  to  reflect  the  right  to  health  according   to  the  Convention,  and  not  solely  from  a  medical,  primary  prevention  perspective.   § Create  and  appropriate  funds  for  a  national  health  care  program,  and  national  health  insurance   program  that  address  the  needs  of  all  disability  constituencies  on  an  equal  basis  with  all  other   Filipinos.   § Review  all  public  insurance  policy,  including  the  programs  of  the  Insurance  Commission  for   their  actuarial  bases,  and  compliance  with  international  agreements,  to  ensure  that  these  do  not   discriminate  against  persons  with  disabilities.                                                                                                                                                .   § Formulate  policies  that  adequately  address  the  high  financial  cost  of  disability-­‐related  medical   needs  for  services  and  medication,  including  those  for  multiple,  extensive  and  chronic  illness   disabilities,  particularly  of  poor  persons  with  disabilities.   § Ensure  budget  appropriations,  allocations  and  utilization  to  public  health  programs  and   facilities  which  are  available,  accessible  and  affordable  to  serve  persons  with  disabilities  on  an   equal  bases  with  others.   § Institutionalize  rights  based  training  for  all  medical  and  nonmedical  staff  of  national,  regional,   provincial  and  local  health  facilities.   Article 26
  • 40   Sources:   (1)  National  Vocational  Rehabilitation  Center.  2010.  Regional  Conference  on  ASEAN  and  Disability.  Presentation.   (2)  Edmonds,  L.J.  2005.  Disabled  people  and  development.  Asian  Development  Bank.   http://ebookbrowse.com/adb-­‐disabled-­‐people-­‐and-­‐development-­‐pdf-­‐d36846738   Unemployment   219      The  Philippine  government  has  reported  high   economic  growth  at  6.6%,  yet  ironically  has  the  highest   unemployment  level  in  the  ASEAN  (1).      This  was  used  as  an   excuse  for  persons  with  disabilities  not  to  expect  this  right  to   be  provided.   Overall  impact   220      Efforts  by  various  national  government  agencies  for  promoting  the  right  to  work  for  persons  with   disabilities  are  largely  uncoordinated  and  piece-­‐meal,  without  long  term  planning  or  comprehensive   mechanisms  for  monitoring  improvements  or  problems.    Despite  efforts  by  the  Department  of  Labor  and   Employment  to  address  the  needs  in  employment  of  persons  with  disabilities,  offices  such  as  the  Public   Employment  Services  Office  have  limited  job-­‐matching  capabilities  which  are  not  useful  and  inclusive.     Furthermore,  web-­‐based  service  is  not  accessible  to  persons  with  visual  impairments.  Programs  such  as   “Tulay  2000”  or  the  DOLE  Integrated  Livelihood  Program  are  largely  ineffective  because  of  problems  of   funding,  organization  and  coordination.    Programs  and  courses  by  the  Technical  Education  and  Skills   Development  Authority,  and  the  Department  of  Trade  and  Industry  lack  accessibility,  and  proactive   involvement  of  persons  with  disabilities  in  training,  business  development  activities  and  entrepreneurial   programs.   221      The  Philippine  Institute  for  Development  Studies  reports  that  a  large  proportion  of  persons  with   disabilities  are  either  dependent  on  transfer  income  or  completely  dependent  on  the  income  of  their   household  to  be  able  to  survive.    The  majority  of  persons  with  disabilities  in  both  rural  and  urban  areas  are   engaged  in  vulnerable  employment:  i.e.,  either  informal  employment  or  unpaid  family  work.   222      Surveys  also  reveal  that  education,  involvement  with  a  DPO  (especially  in  urban  areas),  and   encouragement  from  families  to  pursue  employment  are  all  strong  predictors  of  employment  for  persons   with  disabilities  (2).   223      A  comprehensive  study  by  the  Institute  for  Developing  Economies  with  the  Philippine  Institute  for   Development  Studies  show  that  males  and  persons  with  visual  impairment  have  more  jobs  than  women  with   disabilities,  and  other  disability  constituencies,  respectively.    Poverty  incidence  varied  also  across  the   different  disability  constituencies  and  was  as  high  as  61%  for  this  sample  (3).   Employment  and  procurement  quotas   224      There  are  two  laws  identified  as  favoring  employment  of  Persons  with  Disabilities:  RA  7277  and   Executive  Order  417.   RECOMMENDATIONS • The  Department  of  Health  must  fully  implement  Sect  19  of  RA7277  on  establishment  of  medical rehabilitation  centers  and  creation  of  services  for  persons  with  disabilities  throughout  the  country.   • Monitor  projects  and  activities  for  rehabilitation  of  persons  with  disabilities  by  the  Department  of Social  Welfare  and  Development     Article 27 ARTICLE 27 Work and Employment
  • 41   225      Executive  Order  417  or  the  Economic  Independence  policy  mandates  procurement  of10%  of   government  required  services  and  goods  from  cooperatives  and  self-­‐help  organizations  of  DPO,  yet  it  has  no   provision  for  actual  capacity  building  in  business  viability  studies  and  managements.    Thus,  Government   Financial  Institutions  are  barred  from  providing  capitalization  to  them.     226      The  10%  provision  that  the  Department  of  Education  grants  to  cooperatives  owned  and  managed  by   persons  with  disabilities  (4)  continually  suffers  from  delayed  payments  resulting  in  delayed  production   runs,  increased  expenditures  and  interest  payments.  This  also  makes  this  livelihood  from  the  production  of   school  furniture  seasonal.  Instead  of  being  able  to  typically  provide  6  months  employment  per  contract,  this   is  shortened  to  3  months.  This  also  results  in  the  departure  of  skilled  laborers  since  the  income  gained  is  just   not  enough  to  sustain  living  requirements  (5).    Despite  substantial  appropriations  of  P72  and  P87  million  for   CY  2010  and  2011  for  procurement  specifically  for  Cooperatives  of  persons  with  disabilities,  documentation   is  not  available  which  demonstrates  the  overall  impact  these  contracts  have  had  on  the  economic   independence  of  persons  with  disabilities.     227      In  a  study  done  by  PIDS  in  2008  and  2010,  more  men  with  disabilities  have  jobs  compared  to  women   with  disabilities.  Comparing  different  disability  groups,  more  visually  impaired  persons  work  in  Metro   Manila  while  more  deaf  work  in  rural  areas.      No  State  programs  address  these  disparities  (6).   Discrimination   228      Gender-­‐based  inequalities  are  seen  between  work  and  employment  situations  of  men  and  women  with   disabilities  (cf  Article  6).  The  Philippine  Institute  of  Development  Studies  gives  a  profile  of  Filipino  women   with  disabilities,  particularly  in  the  rural  areas,  as  showing  strong  disparities  in  type  of  employment  and   income,  compared  to  men  with  disabilities  (7).   229      The  Coalition  receives  accounts  of  human  rights  violations  by  employers  including  private   corporations,  DPOs  and  faith-­‐based  organizations  from  persons  with  disabilities.    Yet  mechanisms  for  labor   grievances  and  complaints  are  not  in  place  and  are  largely  intimidating,  expensive  and  inaccessible  for   persons  with  disabilities  (8).     230      Thus,  many  poor  persons  with  disabilities  suffer  the  economic  exploitation  for  fear  of  losing  their  jobs   and  small  source  of  income,  or  receiving  repercussions  on  the  record  for  future  employment.   231      Massage  has  traditionally  been  a  trade  and  profession  for  the  blind  for  years  (9,  10).  Yet  in  2010,  a   Department  of  Health  policy  arbitrarily  started  imposing  registration,  licensing,  education  and  continuing   education  requirements  for  masseurs.    Without  the  participation  of  persons  with  disabilities  in  this  critical   decision,  the  policy  essentially  disqualifies,  and  arbitrarily  discriminates  thousands  of  individuals  with  visual   impairments  on  the  basis  of  their  disability  (11,12).    Despite  resistance  from  DPOs,  the  policy  remains  (13)   (cf  Article  5,  24).   Awareness  raising   232      Very  little  (if  any)  State  efforts  are  directed  toward  promoting  the  right  to  employment  of  persons  with   disabilities  among  employers  as  a  whole  by  correcting  stereotypes.  For  instance,  respondents  in  a  study   revealed  that  employers  prefer  male  persons  with  mobility  impairment  among  others.  Even  the  education   sector  has  been  documented  to  be  the  most  apprehensive  about  the  social  cost  of  hiring  persons  with   disabilities  (14).   Data  gathering   233      There  are  no  national  comprehensive  mechanisms  or  programs  to  document  and  monitor  employment   statistics  of  persons  with  disabilities  with  the  Department  of  Labor  and  Employment,  or  the  National  Council   on  Disability  Affairs.    In  fact  data  on  employment  and  poverty  released  by  the  National  Statistics   Coordination  Board  does  not  even  list  the  sector  as  among  the  basic  sectors  of  the  poor,  even  though  it  is   identified  as  a  sector  in  the  National  Anti-­‐Poverty  Commission  (15).   Article 27
  • 42   Tax  incentives   234      Efforts  by  the  Department  of  Labor  and  Employment  to  encourage  employers  to  avail  of  tax  breaks   remains  a  yearly  repeated  public  relations  appeal  during  the  National  Disability  Prevention  and   Rehabilitation  Week  (16).       235      Yet  the  tax  incentive  provision  in  the  Magna  Carta  for  employers  employing  persons  with  disabilities   are  tedious  and  cumbersome  to  access.    Even  with  the  issuance  of  Administrative  Order  122  of  the   Department  of  Labor  and  Employment  which  aims  to  operationalize  the  tax  incentives  provisions  of  the   Magna  Carta,  to  date  there  are  no  reports  that  employers,  even  those  employers  with  disabilities  ever   successfully  benefited  from  them     Sources:   (1)    Santos,  M.  2012.    Despite  high  economic  growth  PH  has  highest  unemployment  rate  in  ASEAN.     http://business.inquirer.net/80138/despite-­‐high-­‐economic-­‐growth-­‐ph-­‐has-­‐highest-­‐unemployment-­‐rate-­‐in-­‐asean.       (2)    Philippine  Institute  of  Development  Studies.  2013.     (3)  Mori,  S.  et  al.    2009.  Poverty  reduction  for  the  disabled  in  the  Philippines.  JRP  series  151.     http://www.ide.go.jp/English/Publish/Download/Jrp/151.html   (4)          Government  Procurement  Policy  Board.    www.gppb.gov.ph     (5)        Phil  Coalition  on  the  UNCRPD.  2012.    Communication  with  DPOs.   (6)      Tabuga,  A.  &  C.  Mina.  2011.    Disability  and  gender:  The  case  of  the  Philippines.  Philippine  Institute  for  Development  Studies.   Discussion  Paper  Series  No.  2011-­‐32.   https://editorialexpress.com/cgi-­‐bin/conference/download.cgi?db_name=IAFFE2011&paper_id=235   (7)  Philippine  Institute  for  Development  Studies.  2011.   (8)  U.S.  State  Report  on  Human  Rights  (Embassy  –  Manila)   Bureau  of  Democracy,  Human  Rights  and  Labor.    Country  reports  on  human  rights  practices  for  2011.  Philippines.   http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/humanrightsreport/index.htm#wrapper     (9)    Mori,  S.  et  al.    2009.  Poverty  reduction  for  the  disabled  in  the  Philippines.  JRP  series  151.   http://www.ide.go.jp/English/Publish/Download/Jrp/151.html   (10)    Taleon,  D.  2009.  Country  Report  of  the  Philippines.    http://www.blindmassageintl.com/report/1/2009-­‐6-­‐18/Philippines-­‐Country-­‐Report.html   (11)  Department  of  Health.  Revised  implementing  rules  and  regulations  governing  massage  clinics  and  sauna  establishments.   Administrative  Order  No.  2010-­‐0034.   (12)  Presidential  Decree  856.  Sanitation  Code  of  the  Philippines.   (13)  Joint  Resolution  01-­‐2012.  Philippine  Chamber  for  Massage  Industry  for  Visually  Impaired  Persons   (14)  Ateneo  de  Manila  University  Center  for  Organization  Research  and  Development.  2013.   http://business.inquirer.net/104615/filipino-­‐employers-­‐attitudes-­‐toward-­‐persons-­‐with-­‐disabilities   (15)  Fishermen  still  the  poorest  sector  in  2009.  http://www.nscb.gov.ph/pressreleases/2012/PR-­‐201206-­‐SS2-­‐01_pov2009.asp   (16)    Chiu,  P.D.  2012.    Tax  breaks  for  companies  hiring  persons  with  disabilities.     http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/265885/economy/companies/tax-­‐breaks-­‐for-­‐companies-­‐hiring-­‐persons-­‐with-­‐ disabilities   RECOMMENDATIONS • Do  a  comprehensive  annual  review  of  all  programs,  and  activities  of  the  Departments  of  Labor and  Employment,  Department  of  Trade  and  Industry,  Technical  Education  and  Skills Development  Authority,  Cooperatives  Development  Authority,  Department  of  Social  Welfare and  Development,  and  National  Labor  Relations  Commission,  and  assess  their  expenditures, accessibility,  and  effectiveness  for  all  persons  with  disabilities. • Fully  implement  and  monitor  affirmative  action  mechanisms  and  quotas  of  legislation  and policies. • Amend  legislation  and  policies  which  discriminate  against  persons  with  disabilities  and  ensure that  the  rights  of  men  and  women  with  disabilities  are  respected  and  protected  in  all  aspects  of work  and  employment. • Improve  the  mechanics  for  the  employers  to  easily  avail  of  tax  incentives  relating  to  persons with  disabilities. • Enable  DPOs  and  self-­‐help  organizations  through  training,  loans  and  grants  and  other  technical assistance  to  be  able  to  become  independent,  self-­‐sustaining  and  profitable  endeavors. • Ensure  accessible  and  effective  means  to  report  labor  violations  for  all  persons  with  disabilities and  pursue  access  to  justice  at  the  national  and  local  levels.   Article 27
  • 43   236      The  social  protection  system  in  the  Philippines  is  multi-­‐ pillared.  In  2007,  the  Philippine  government  adopted  a  new   definition  on  social  protection  based  on  a  resolution  passed  by   the  Social  Development  Council.  According  to  resolution  no.  1   series  of  2007,  social  protection  constitutes  policies  and   programs  that  seek  to  reduce  poverty  and  vulnerability  to   risks  and  enhance  the  social  status  and  rights  of  the  marginalized  by  promoting  and  protecting  livelihood   and  employment,  protecting  against  hazards  and  sudden  loss  of  income,  and  improving  people's  capacity  to   manage  risks.   237      Despite  the  passage  of  the  Magna  Carta  for  Persons  with  Disabilities  (R.A.  7277),  social  services  are  still   not  regularly  available  to  persons  with  disabilities  because  guidelines  to  ensure  implementation  at  the  local   government  level  are  not  clear.  Specific  workplans  and  budget  appropriations  that  national  agencies  will  be   using  to  provide  technical  assistance  to  local  government  units  to  implement  this  law  are  not  available.     Maintaining  the  standard  of  life  for  persons  with  disabilities  is  not  specifically  addressed.   Disability  discount   238      The  discounts  given  to  persons  with  disabilities  touted  to  be  one  of  the  milestone  achievements  of  the   State  for  social  protection  actually  only  commonly  benefit  those  who  have  purchasing  power  and  those  who   are  in  urban  areas.    For  persons  with  disabilities  in  rural  and  remote  areas  (and  these  actually  comprise   most  of  Filipinos  with  disabilities),  they  are  unable  to  avail  of  the  discount  because  there  are  no  service   providers  to  begin  with.    This  has  been  documented  for  bus  fare  and  medical  care  discounts  by  persons  with   disabilities  residing  in  both  urban  and  rural  areas  (1).   239        Income  maintenance  is  important  to  persons  with  disabilities  particularly  as  pensions  for  older   persons  with  disabilities.  However,  the  Coalition  is  concerned  about  the  seriously  inadequate  amounts   received  by  beneficiaries  under  the  social  pension  for  senior  citizens.   Anti-­‐poverty  programs   240      In  a  study  by  the  Philippine  Institute  for  Development  Studies  of  109  households  in  selected  urban  and   rural  areas,  it  reports  a  range  of  poverty  incidence  of  31.1  %  to  60%  across  different  disability  constituencies   with  an  average  of  36.5%  (2).   241      However,  anti-­‐poverty  programs  are  not  sensitive  or  responsive  to  the  situation  of  persons  with   disabilities.  For  instance,  the  Self  Employment  Assistance  –  Kaunlaran  (SEA-­‐K)  program  of  the  Department   of  Social  Welfare  and  Development  is  intended  to  assist  individuals  who  wish  to  undertake  self-­‐employment   initiatives.    However,  the  program  requires  individual  persons  with  disabilities  to  organize  themselves  into   self-­‐help  groups.  This  means  overriding  personal  /  individual  reasons  and  interests  in  the  type  of  livelihood,   as  well  as  additional  burdens  of  costs  and  difficulties  because  of  distance  between  the  communities  where   the  individuals  reside  (3).   Conditional  Cash  Transfer   242 The Conditional Cash Transfer program in the Philippines targets poor households to mitigate hunger and improve  health  and  education  of  children  and  the  mother  as  well.  The  Department  of  Social  Welfare  and   Development  admits  that  implementation  of  this  flagship  poverty  reduction  program  has  essentially   overlooked  the  poverty  situation  of  persons  with  disabilities.    Even  with  efforts  to  formulate  a  Modified  CCT   program,  it  is  still  questionable  whether  the  benefits  that  poor  persons  with  disabilities  shall  receive  are  on   an  equal  basis  with  others  considering  disability-­‐related  extra  costs.   243      Furthermore,  based  on  experiences  so  far,  children  with  disabilities  are  unable  to  benefit  fully  in  this   program  because  of  issues  in  the  supply-­‐side  and  the  perceived  notion  of  families  that  investing  in  children   with  disabilities  is  not  worthwhile  compared  to  children  who  have  no  disability.   244      The  Department  of  Social  Welfare  and  Development  also  issued  calling  the  attention  of  the  BUS   (Beneficiary  Update  System)  Focal  Person.  The  subject  of  the  guideline  is  “Updating  of  a  Differently-­‐abled   ARTICLE 28 Social Protection Article 28
  • 44   Member  of  the  Household  and  Enhanced  BUS  Form  5”.    In  essence,  the  guideline  articulates  that  children   with  disabilities  who,  for  whatever  reason,  were  not  able  to  comply  with  the  conditionality  can  be  replaced   by  another  member  of  the  household  “capable  of  complying  with  the  conditionality.”    Clearly,  this  violates   the  rights  of  children  with  disabilities  and  their  families,  and  penalizes  them  for  what  in  reality,  are   inadequacies  of  State  educational  (e.g.  lack  of  accessible  school  in  the  community)  and  health  systems.     245      This  is  corroborated  by  data  collection  of  the  Philippine  Institute  for  Development  Studies  where  a   quarter  of  rural  households  surveyed  identified  disability  as  the  reason  for  not  being  able  to  go  school.   246      In  the  planning  to  create  the  massively  funded  poverty  reduction  Conditional  Cash  Transfer  (CCT)   program  by  the  Department  of  Social  Welfare  and  Development  with  assistance  from  the  World  Bank  and   Asian  Development  Bank,  persons  with  disabilities  had  no  opportunity  to  participate  or  give  inputs.     Consequently,  disability  was  not  considered  in  the  design  of  the  program.  The  targeting  system  did  not   consider  disability  in  the  proxy  means  variable,  thus,  undermining  the  effect  of  disability  as  one  component   causing  poverty.    After  nearly  five  years  of  implementation  and  billions  of  pesos  appropriated  to  this  flagship   project,  it  continues  to  receive  criticisms  from  the  persons  with  disabilities  sector  as  to  the  impact  that  the   program  has  had  on  poor  persons  with  disabilities.    With  increased  advocacy  in  social  protection,  the   Department  has  to  address  the  needs  of  poor  persons  with  disabilities.      In  a  recent  initial  assessment  by  the   World  Bank  of  the  program,  findings  included  barriers  of  disability  in  compliance  with  the  conditionality  in   education  by  children  with  disabilities  (2,  3).  Furthermore,  the  recently  concluded  research  on  incorporating   disability  in  the  conditional  cash  transfer  shows  huge  inequalities  on  the  impact  of  CCT  on  children  with   disabilities.  According  to  the  case  study,  42%  of  school  age  children  with  disabilities  do  not  go  to  school,  and   a  third  of  the  students  attending  school  experiences  difficulty  traveling  to  school.   Social  insurance   247      The  social  insurance  programs  are  contributory  in  nature  which  effectively  excludes  persons  with   disabilities  who  do  not  have  any  income  at  all  or  whose  income  is  insufficient  for  regular  contributions.   Water  and  housing   248      In  the  Philippines,  households  continually  face  the  challenge  of  accessing  clean  water.  The  government   strategy  of  providing  deep  wells  with  manual  pumps  presents  accessibility  barriers  to  persons  with   disabilities  who  then  have  to  shoulder  additional  costs  to  be  able  to  avail  of  clean  water.    This  burden  is  a   result  of  inequality  on  the  basis  of  disability.   249      Housing  programs  should  also  be  compliant  to  accessibility  legislation  and  standards.   Adequate  standard  of  living   250      Section  21  of  the  Magna  Carta  for  Persons  with  Disability  defines  the  provision  of  auxiliary  services  to   “marginalized”  persons  with  disabilities.    This  overlooks  all  other  persons  with  disabilities  who  have  to  deal   with  disability-­‐related  extra  costs  of  daily  living.    Whether  poor,  and  “marginalized”  or  not,  Filipinos  with     disabilities  struggle  with:  accessing  appropriate  and  affordable  assistive  devices  and  services,  the  high  cost   and  inaccessibility  of  public  transportation  in  general,  and  the  absence  of  many  other  fundamental  services   (e.g.  State  funded  personal  assistance,  sign  language  interpreting,  readers,  etc.)   251      Furthermore,  even  with  existing  legislation  and  policies,  frequently  the  lack  of  clear  implementing   guidelines  virtually  renders  these  of  no  use  to  persons  with  disabilities.    An  example  is  Section  32.h  of   Republic  Act  No.  9442  which  says  that  educational  assistance  in  the  form  of  scholarships,  grants,  financial   aids,  subsidies  and  other  incentives  including  support  for  books,  learning  materials  and  uniform  allowance   should  be  provided  to  persons  with  disabilities  at  all  levels  of  schooling.   252      However,  currently,  very  limited  kinds  of  State  assistance  exist  for  persons  with  disabilities.  The   Private  Education  Scholarship  Fund  Allocation  PESFA  provides  such  meager  amounts  that  even  qualified   beneficiaries  are  forced  to  drop  out  from  the  program.    Beneficiaries  with  disabilities  are  most  prone  to   withdraw  from  the  program  since  it  does  not  address  the  extra  cost  brought  about  by  their  particular   Article 28
  • 45   impairments  and  the  disabilities  brought  about  by  the  barriers  in  the  built  environments,  absence  of   assistive  devices  etc.   Sources:     (1)  Philippine  Institute  of  Development  Studies.  2013.   (2)  Philippine  Institute  of  Development  Studies.  2013.     (3)  Department  of  Social  Welfare  and  Development.  Administrative  Order  No.  13  series  of  2008  (Guidelines  on  Organizing   Persons  with  Disabilities  into  Self-­‐Help  Groups)   253      Domestically,  there  continue  to  exist  discriminatory   legislation  particularly  to  persons  with  psychosocial  and   intellectual  disabilities  regarding  their  constitutional  civil   and  political  rights.    Thus  for  the  past  years,  these  groups   of  persons  with  disabilities  have  been  denied  their   political  rights,  as  stated  in  Art.  1,  Sect.  12  and  Art.12,  Sec.   118  of  the  Omnibus  Election  Code  of  the  Philippines  (Batas  Pambansa  Blg.  881)  (1).  These  sections  disqualify   “insane”  and  “incompetent”  persons  (as  declared  by  an  authority)  from  voting,  running  for  candidacy  and   holding  office.    Unlike  the  convicted  criminals  and  those  found  guilty  of  treason,  disqualifying  citizens  on  the   basis  of  their  disability  violates  their  constitutionally  mandated  political  rights.   254      In  an  attempt  to  remedy  this  discrimination,  in  2012,  the  Commission  on  Elections  issued  Resolution   9845.    It  provides  regulations  for  the  establishment  of  accessible  polling  places  for  voting  by  persons  with   disabilities.  The  Resolution  was  strengthened  by  Republic  Act  10366  of  2013,  however,  the  “exclusive”   nature  of  these  Accessible  Polling  Places  essentially  violates  the  principle  of  full  inclusion.   255      Republic  Act  10366  in  its  repealing  clause  is  problematic  since  Sec.  18-­‐C  of  the  Omnibus  Election  Law   which  disqualifies  persons  with  intellectual  and  psychosocial  disabilities  from  the  political  and  electoral   processes  is  still  perpetuated.   RECOMMENDATIONS • Do  a  comprehensive  review  of  all  social  protection  programs  and  activities  to  determine  if resources  for  social  services  are  being  maximally  utilized  for  persons  with  disabilities.   • Implement  RA  9710  mandate  for  Community-­‐based  social  protection  schemes  for  women with  disabilities.   • Review  pension  policies  for  older  persons  with  disabilities  to  ensure  that  these  are  sufficient for  an  adequate  standard  of  living.   • Proposed  addition  that  is  addressing  the  extra  cost  brought  about  by  their  impairments  and disabilities?   • Ensure  that  anti-­‐poverty  programs  are  responsive  to  the  needs  of  persons  with  disabilities and  do  not  restrict  enjoyment  of  one’s  freedom,  independence  and  autonomy,  or  limit  choices   to  be  made.   • Review  and  modify  the  Conditional  Cash  Transfer  program  so  that  it  includes  persons  with disabilities  and  the  diversity  of  their  needs,  and  does  not  discriminate  against  them  due  to  the   inadequacies  of  the  supply-­‐side  of  services.   • Formulate  policies  and  mechanisms  to  improve  the  economic  status  of  persons  with disabilities  to  enable  them  to  avail  of  social  security  on  an  equal  basis  with  all  other  Filipinos.   • Ensure  that  social  services  are  available,  affordable,  accessible,  appropriate  and  of  good quality  for  all  persons  with  disabilities.   • Formulate  programs  and  activities  which  provide  for  the  rights  to  food,  water,  housing, personal  mobility  through  public  transportation,  educational  support  and  personal  assistance   at  affordable  and  timely  conditions.   ARTICLE 29 Participation in Political and Public Life Article 29
  • 46   256      In  the  international  arena,  on  March  22,  2012,  the  Philippine  Mission  to  the  United  Nations  in  Geneva   expressed  the  following  reservation  on  the  Draft  Resolution  [A/HRC/19/L.9/Rev.1]  entitled  “Promotion  and   protection  of  all  human  rights,  civil,  political,  economic,  social  and  cultural  rights,  including  the  right  to     Development,”  to  wit:   257      The  Coalition  strongly  opposed  this  Reservation  (3)  which  assigns  the  General  Comment  a  higher  legal   status  than  the  U.N.  Convention  on  the  Rights  of  Persons  with  Disabilities  as  grossly  inconsistent  with  the   Philippine  ratification  of,  and  commitment  to  the  Treaty.    The  Coalition  deems  this  Reservation  (para.  4  of   the  General  Comment,  1996)  outdated,  and  has  already  been  superseded  by  the  entry  into  force  of  the  U.N.   Convention  on  the  Rights  of  Persons  with  Disabilities.    To  date  however,  the  Geneva  based  Philippine   Mission  has  refused  to  retract  this  Reservation.   Sources:   (1)  Omnibus  Election  Code.  http://www.comelec.gov.ph/?r=laws/OmnibusElectionCode   (2)  Pangalangan,  R.  2012.  Disability  rights  -­‐  Betrayal  in  Geneva.  http://opinion.inquirer.net/26647/disability-­‐rights-­‐betrayal-­‐in-­‐ geneva.   (3)  Media  Release.  Philippine  Coalition  on  the  UNCRPD.  April  8,  2012   258      It  is  a  positive  development  that  the  Philippines  was   among  the  signatories  to  the  recently  approved  World   Intellectual  Property  Organization  Marrakesh  Treaty   allowing  Persons  with  print  disabilities  to  access  materials,   and  books  etc.  for  general  circulation.    Amendment  of   Republic  Act  8293,  the  Intellectual  Property  Code  of  the   Philippines  permit  access  to  educational  and  instructional   materials  and  manuals  of  persons  with  visual  and  print  disabilities  through  braille,  digital  audio  and   enlarged  print  formats.    Despite  these  however,  legislation  has  to  still  be  passed  to  ensure  Persons  with   visual  impairment  to  enjoy  their  rights  to  fully  access  and  enjoy  recreational,  entertainment,  leisure,  cultural   and  sports  materials  on  an  equal  basis  with  others.   259      For  the  deaf,  proposed  legislation  Declaring  Filipino  Sign  Language  as  the  National  Sign  Language  of  the   Filipino  Deaf  and  the  Official  Language  of  Government  in  All  Transactions  Involving  the  Deaf,  and  Mandating   Its  Use  in  Schools  Broadcast  Media,  and  Workplace  remained  at  an  impasse  during  15th  Congress  hearings   because  of  conflicting  and  uncoordinated  views  raised  by  the  Department  of  Education  including  Special   Education  individuals  against  the  use  of  Filipino  Sign  Language.  The  public  hearings  lean  heavily  on  the   impact  on  education,  ignoring  critical  accessibility  concerns  in  mass  media,  health  services,  and  access  to   justice.    Little  weight  (if  any)  has  been  given  during  these  deliberations  on  recognition  and  promotion  by  the   State  of  specific  cultural  and  linguistic  identity,  including  sign  language  and  deaf  culture  -­‐  strong  views   articulated  already  by  the  national  Philippine  Federation  of  the  Deaf.  Preference  is  given  to  subjective  views   of  hearing  educators  and  “experts”  who  remain  largely  unfamiliar  with  the  research  and  use  of  Filipino  Sign   Language.   260      It  should  be  noted  that  the  Department  of  Education  has  already  been  implementing  Mother  Tongue-­‐ based  Multilingual  Education  for  the  hearing  pupils  since  2009,  and  have  been  benefiting  from  better   absorption  of  knowledge  and  skills  by  being  taught  in  their  native  /  first  language.  However,  the  non-­‐ RECOMMENDATIONS § Amend  or  eliminate  all  discriminatory  laws,  policies  and  practices  which  prevent  persons   with  psychosocial,  intellectual  and  other  disabilities  from  fully  exercising  their  rights  to   political  participation.   However,  given  par.  4  of  General  Comment  No.  25,  the  Human  Rights  Committee  admits  as  an  exception,  “established   mental  incapacity”  to  the  exercise  of  the  right  of  suffrage,  under  Art.  25  of  the  ICCPR.    We  therefore  place  our   reservation  with  respect  to  OP  7  of  this  Resolution  (2)   ARTICLE 30 Participation in Cultural Life, Recreation, Leisure and Sport Article 30
  • 47   implementation  of  the  use  of  Filipino  Sign  Language  as  medium  of  instruction  continues  to  deprive  deaf   children  of  their  fully  accessible  visual  language  and  cultural  identity.       261      The  public  hearings  lean  heavily  on  the  impact  on  education,  ignoring  critical  accessibility  concerns  in   mass  media,  health  services,  and  access  to  justice.   262      In  sports,  the  proposed  legislation  aimed  to  equalize  treatment  to  athletes  with  disabilities  in  terms  of   government  incentives  also  remains  in  Congress  and  may  need  another  three-­‐year  Congressional  period  to   be  discussed  again.   263      Despite  the  existence  of  incentives  for  national  athletes  for  the  country  (3),  recognition  and  parallel   incentives  for  disabled  athletes  is  not  included  in  Republic  Act  9064  (4,5,6).    Amendments  remain  as   proposals  in  Congress.    In  addition,  several  instances  of  discriminatory  attitudes  and  treatment  of  persons   with  disabilities  who  are  national  athletes  have  been  documented  (7)   264      Development  of  local  use  of  new  technologies  such  as:  Descriptive  Video  Services,  the  use  of  Digital   Accessible  Information  System  (DAISY),  Text  to  Speech  (TTS)  Voice  Engines  in  Filipino  for  the  blind,  and   Video  Relay  Services,  Open  /  Closed    /  Real  Time  Captioning  for  the  deaf,  remain  very  much  wanting  in   policy  or  via  actual  projects  or  programs.   Sources:   (1)    Estavillo,  Maricel.  Nov.  2012.  Philippines  heads  toward  expanded  Copyright  Law.http://www.ip-­‐ watch.org/2012/11/13/philippines-­‐heads-­‐toward-­‐expanded-­‐copyright-­‐law/     (2)    Department  of  Education.    Institutionalizing  Mother-­‐Tongue  based  Multilingual  Education.    DepED  Order  No.74,  s.  2009.     (3)      Republic  .Act.  9064:  www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2001/ra_9064_2001.html.     (4)      Rosario,  B.  2010.  Retirement  cash  for  disabled  athletes  proposed.  http://www.mb.com.ph/node/292813/retirement-­‐ca   (5)      Barredo  appeals  for  differently  abled.    Henson,  J.  2010.    Sporting  chance.  The  Philippine  Star.  February  02,  2010.     http://www.philstar.com/sports/545648/barredo-­‐appeals-­‐differently-­‐abled       (6)  Proposed  House  Bill  4320  for  disabled  athletes.  http://www.congress.gov.ph/download/basic_15/HB04320.pdf       (7)      Jimenezd- David,  R.  2010.  At  Large.    A  disabled  athlete’s  ordeal  .Philippine  Daily  Inquirer.   http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view/20100706---279551/A---disabled---athletes---ordeal 265      The  Coalition  underscores  the  fact  that  the  last   comprehensive  Census  for  persons  with  disabilities  was   thirteen  years  ago,  in  2000.    For  the  past  twenty  years,   through  the  1st  and  2nd  Decades  for  Persons  with  Disabilities,   there  is  still  no  nationally  coordinated  and  comprehensive   system  for  data  collection,  verification,  and  updating  on  data   on  persons  with  disabilities.   266      The  National  Statistics  Office  has  displayed  weak  leadership  in  systematic  collection  of  comprehensive   administrative  data  from  national  to  local  level  for  planning  and  monitoring.   RECOMMENDATIONS § Require  the  various  agencies  of  the  Department  of  Science  and  Technology  to  carry  out   research  and  development  on  new  technologies  for  persons  with  disabilities  as  part  of   their  mandate,  with  appropriations  and  implementation  monitored  by  the  National   Council  on  Disability  Affairs  with  the  participation  of  the  DPOs.   § Recognize  Filipino  Sign  Language  as  the  national  sign  language  and  promote  its  use  in   all  public  domains  as  the  cultural  and  linguistic  identity  of  the  Filipino  Deaf  community.   § Amend  R.A.  9064  so  that  persons  with  disabilities  receive  recognition  and  incentives  on   an  equal  basis  with  all  other  national  athletes.   §   ARTICLE 31 Statistics and Data Collection Article 31
  • 48   267      An  epidemiological  inquiry  to  assess  the  usefulness  of  the  Manual  of  Operations  of  the  Philippine   Registry  for  Persons  with  Disabilities  for  guidance  at  the  local  level  for  the  2004  national  registration.    To   date,  scaled  up  improvements  of  the  Registry  remain  bogged  down  in  methodological  problems,  and  have   yielded  little  usable  data  (1).   268      Existing  data  gathering  activities  of  the  National  Statistics  Office,  National  Statistical  Coordination   Board,  the  National  Household  Targeting  Survey,  and  Departments  such  as  the  Department  of  Education,   Health,  Social  Welfare  and  Development,  Labor  and  Employment,  Trade  and  Industry,  etc.  for  e.g.,  the   Millennium  Development  Goals,  the  Conditional  Cash  Transfer  (4Ps  poverty  reduction  project)  and  other   national  programs,  do  not  gather  comprehensive,  usable  disability  aggregated  data.    Further  disaggregation   according  to  gender  and  age  for  multiply  vulnerable  women  and  children  with  disabilities  is  very  scarce.   269      Efforts  for  local  community  data  gathering  for  application  in  Disaster  Risk  &Reduction  Management   purposes  have  been  at  the  impetus  of  international  NGOs.    Handicap  International  attributes  the  lack  of   participation  by  persons  with  disabilities  in  the  DRR  management  response  activities  as  not  due  to   functional  impairment  but  rather  to  poor  environmental  design  and  accessibility  and  negative  societal   attitudes.  Efforts  nationwide  to  implement  these  by  the  Local  Government  Units  requires  comprehensive   monitoring  (2).    Furthermore,  whatever  little  data  is  not  publicly  available  in  accessible  formats.   270      Comprehensive  data  collection  activities  have  been  few  and  far  between,  largely  have  been  at  the   initiative  of  foreign  donors,  international  NGOs  such  as  the  Institute  of  Developing  Economies  of  the   Japanese  External  Trade  Organization  (JETRO),  the  World  Bank,  AusAID,  USAID,  Disability  Rights  Promotion   International,  CBM,  Handicap  International  and  others.   271      Data  collection  for  specific  State  programs  and  activities  are  also  critical.    For  instance,  in  monitoring   the  MDG  core  indicators  toward  universal  primary  education,  as  well  as  the  supply-­‐side  analysis  for  the   education  conditionality  of  the  Conditional  Cash  Transfer  program,  there  are  some  glaring  disparities   between  the  number  of  children  with  disabilities  in  school.      The  Department  of  Education  reports  that:  from   1997  to  1998,  of  3.5  million  children  with  disabilities  of  school-­‐going  age,  only  40,710  or  1.16%    were   actually  enrolled  in  schools.    A  decade  later  in  2007-­‐2008,  the  Department  reported  that  ninety-­‐seven   percent  of  children  with  disabilities  aged  7-­‐12  years  old  were  not  enrolled  (3,  4).   272      However,  according  to  the  2000  Census  of  the  National  Statistics  Office  (NSO),  942,098  persons  with   disabilities  were  identified.  It  reports  that  one  hundred  fifty  two  thousand  persons  with  disabilities  or   around  16.53  %  of  the  total  population  of  persons  with  disabilities  attended  school  from  June  1999  to  March   2000.    In  2011-­‐2012,  children  with  disabilities  enrolled  are  reported  to  be  111,000,  still  barely  reaching  97%   of  the  number  of  all  children  with  disabilities  (5).  Using  the  Philippine  Development  Plan  estimates  that   children  with  disabilities  account  for  30  –  40%  of  all  persons  with  disabilities.  This  means  that   approximately  282,000  to  376,000  children  with  disabilities  comprise  the  entire  population  of  persons  with   disabilities.  The  3%  estimation  of  the  Department  of  Education  would  indicate  that  only  8  –  11,000   elementary  school  children  with  disabilities  would  be  in  school.    Comparison  of  these  figures  with  the   152,000  NSO  statistics  points  to  disparities  of  thousands  of  children  with  disabilities.   273      Another  glaring  discrepancy  in  demographics  can  be  seen  between  two  other  national  agencies  in   relation  to  persons  with  psychosocial  disability.  According  to  the  Department  of  Health,  there  are  an   estimated  22.74  million  Filipinos  with  mental  health  illness  from  a  general  population  of  84.2  million  (in   2005),  based  on  1994  regional  studies  where  the  identified  prevalence  rate  was  35  percent.  A  2006  study   among  permanent  employees  of  20  national  government  agencies  in  Metro  Manila  revealed  at  least  20   percent  were  identified  with  a  diagnosis  (6).   274      Computing  even  based  on  the  lower  20%  prevalence  rate,  this  would  mean  at  least  16  million  persons   with  psychosocial  disability.    This  is  a  very  different  figure  from  the  2000  Census  report  of  942,098  total  of   all  persons  with  disabilities.    The  DOH  claims  that  their  statistics  are  consistent  with  the  WHO  global   estimates.    This  implies  that  the  Census  data  are  severely  underestimated.    This  is  not  surprising  as  the  2000   Census  only  reports  a  1.23%  incidence  of  disability,  much  lower  than  the  15%  global  demographic.   Article 31
  • 49   Sources:   (1)    Rimando-­‐Magalong,  J.  2006.  Evaluation  of  the  Philippine  Registry  for  Persons  with  Disabilities         http://chd1.doh.gov.ph/files/PDFs/research/scientific%20writings/philreg.pdf.       (2)    http://leytesamardaily.net/2010/11/lgus-­‐urged-­‐to-­‐include-­‐  persons  with  disabilities-­‐in-­‐drrm-­‐plan/       (3)    Robson,  C.    2005.    Educating  children  with  disabilities  in  developing  countries:  the  role  of  data  sets.     http://www.childinfo.org/files/childdisability_RobsonEvans2005.pdf         (4)    Bureau  of  Elementary  Education,  Special  Education  Division  http://www.deped.gov.ph/quicklinks/quicklinks2.asp?id=34   (5)  National  Statistics  Office.  2005.    Persons  with  disability  comprised  1.23  %  of  total  population.     http://www.census.gov.ph/content/persons-­‐disability-­‐comprised-­‐123-­‐percent-­‐total-­‐population.     (6)  Department  of  Health.  2008.  Scaling  up  the  mental  health  program.  Health  Policy  Notes.    3(5).   http://www.doh.gov.ph/sites/default/files/Vol.%203%20Issue%205%20November%202008.pdf   275      The  Philippines  receives  international  resources   and  support  including  Official  Development  Assistance   (ODA)  from  bilateral  and  multilateral  donors,  banks,   various  NGOs  and  other  governments,  primarily  for   infrastructure,  also  for  agro-­‐industry  and  social   development,  and  minimally  for  governance  (1).     Programming  of  such  support  hinges  on  the  Medium  Term  Philippine  Development  Plan  and  coordination   with  national  objectives  by  the  Philippine  government.    This  includes  funding  related  to  programs  and   projects  for  persons  with  disabilities  (2).   276      It  is  apparent  however,  that  the  State  has  not  provided  mechanisms  for  persons  with  disabilities  to   initiate  and  participate  in  accessing  negotiations  for  international  loans  or  grants.    For  instance,  in  2010,  the  :   Department  of  Science  &  Technology  did  not  act  on  National  Council  on  Disability  Affairs  and  the  Philippine   DAISY  Consortium  proposal  to  access  ODA  funds  on  inclusive  Disaster  Risk  Reduction  program.    This   proposal  was  an  initiative  of  a  Japanese  INGO  that  works  closely  with  the  Japanese  Ministry  of  Foreign   Affairs  and  JICA.    The  project  was  aimed  to  develop  an  Inclusive  Disaster  Risk  Reduction  Program  that  will   result  to  a  collaboration  of  the  Japanese  and  Philippine  government.   277      In  the  planning  to  create  the  massively  funded  poverty  reduction  Conditional  Cash  Transfer  (CCT)   program  by  the  Department  of  Social  Welfare  and  Development  with  assistance  from  the  World  Bank  and   Asian  Development  Bank,  persons  with  disabilities  had  no  opportunity  to  participate  or  give  inputs.     Consequently,  disability  was  not  included  as  a  proxy  variable  in  the  targeting  of  the  poor.    After  nearly  five   years  of  implementation  and  billions  of  pesos  appropriated  to  this  flagship  project,  it  continues  to  receive   criticisms  from  the  persons  with  disabilities  sector  as  to  the  impact  that  the  program  has  had  on  poor   persons  with  disabilities.    With  increased  advocacy  in  social  protection,  the  Department,  considered  a   Modified  CCT  to  address  the  needs  of  poor  persons  with  disabilities  but,  subsequently,  abandoned  the   inclusion  of  the  sector.    In  a  recent  initial  assessment  by  the  World  Bank  of  the  program,  findings  included   barriers  of  disability  in  compliance  with  the  conditionality  in  education  by  children  with  disabilities  (3,  4).   RECOMMENDATIONS § Mandate  the  National  Statistics  Office  as  the  Lead  Agency  in  data  collection,  handling  and   distribution  and  work  on  developing  consistent  methodologies  and  approaches  in  data   gathering.  Data  pertaining  to  persons  with  disabilities  should  be  disaggregated  at  the  national   and  local  levels  as  appropriate.   § Ensure  that  persons  with  disabilities  are  not  excluded  in  the  Census,    in  Disaster  Risk  Reduction   and  Management  Plans,  and  all  other  national  and  local    data  gathering  activities.   § Provide  for  transparency  of  all  budget-­‐related  data  including  those  relevant  to  persons  with   disabilities  while  ensuring    full  respect  of  privacy  and  appropriate  handling  and  sharing  of  data   gathered     § All  national  and  local  government  data  including  those  pertaining  to  persons  with  disabilities   should  be  available  in  accessible  formats.   § Actively  involve  relevant  DPOs  right  from  the  planning  to  the  implementation  of  data  gathering   and  evaluation.   ARTICLE 32 International Cooperation Article 32
  • 50   278      In  dialogues  between  the  Department  of  Education  and  the  Philippine  Federation  of  the  Deaf    in  2011   and  2012  on  the  use  of  Filipino  Sign  Language,  officials  in  Special  Education  have  stated  receiving  bilateral   donor  funding  used  in  teacher  training  to  instead  promote  an  artificial  sign  system  in  English.    This  reflects   how  planning  in  the  Department  of  Education  for  language  policy  has  largely  not  been  inclusive  of  the   participation  of  the  deaf  community  (cf.  Article  30)  (5).   Sources:   (1)  Official  Development  Assistance  to  the  Philippines.      http://www.neda.gov.ph/subweb/oda/ODA/oda.htm   (2)  Monitoring  the  human  rights  of  persons  with  disabilities:  Laws,  policies  and  programs  in  the  Philippines.  Disability  Rights   Promotion  International.  2009.   (3)  Philippine  Coalition  on  the  UNCRPD.  2012.    Poverty  reduction,  MDGs  and  education  of  children  with  disabilities  in  the   Philippines:  Some  observations  and  recommendations.    Conference  on  Disability-­‐inclusive  Millennium  Development  Goals  and   aid  effectiveness.    UNESCAP  /  LCD.  Bangkok.   (4)  Onishi,  Junko.  Presentation  of  findings  and  Open  Forum.  2013.    Promoting  inclusive  growth  in  the  Philippines:  Assessing  the   impact  of  Conditional  Cash  Transfer.  March  1,  2013,  Quezon  City.   (5)  Dialogue  between  the  Deaf  and  the  Department  of  Education.      http://vimeo.com/28876614   279      The  National  Council  on  Disability  Affairs  is   mandated  to  be  the  government  policy-­‐making,   planning,  monitoring,  coordinating  and  advocating  for   the  prevention  of  the  causes  of  disability,  rehabilitation   and  equalization  of  opportunities,  and  to  provide   direction  to  and  coordinate  and  monitor  the  activities  of   government,  non-­‐government,  and  people’s  organizations  involved  in  the  prevention  of  the  causes  of   disability,  rehabilitation,  and  equalization  of  opportunities  in  partnership  with  persons  with  disabilities?  (1).   280      However,  the  Council  has  not  created  a  formal  coordination  mechanism  across  different  agencies  at   different  levels  to  monitor  implementation  of  this  Convention.    For  instance,  there  has  been  no  disseminated   mid-­‐decade  or  end  of  decade  evaluation  of  the  2nd  decade  of  Persons  with  Disabilities  or  the  National  Plan  of   Action  (2003-­‐2012).    It  has  not  released  an  official  report  on  the  monitoring  of  mandatory  earmarked   appropriations  in  the  national  budget  for  persons  with  disabilities  for  the  entire  Decade.   281      The  ensuing  3rd  Decade  for  Persons  with  Disabilities  (2013-­‐2022),  declared  in  the  recently  signed   Presidential  Proclamation  688  does  not  cite  the  legal  imperative  of  the  Convention,  and  simply  enjoins   implementation  according  to  the  Incheon  Strategy.    Without  such  clear  directives,  enforcement  of  the   Convention  shall  not  receive  the  appropriate  attention  that  is  necessary.    Furthermore,  the  success  of  a  third   decade  is  doubtful  when  a  comprehensive  evaluation  of  the  second  decade  has  not  yet  even  been  considered   or  disseminated.   282      The  Commission  on  Human  Rights  of  the  Philippines  is  a  constitutionally  created  independent  office,   mandated  to  document,  investigate  and  address  human  rights  violations,  including  the  Philippine   government  compliance  to  international  treaties  on  human  rights  (2).   283      Despite  having  a  focal  person  for  disability-­‐related  concerns,  the  Commission  has  demonstrated  very   limited  awareness  about  rights  of  persons  with  disabilities  in  general  as  stated  in  the  Convention.    It  still   appear  to  operate  from  a  medical  /  charity  model  of  disability.  It  has  not  displayed  significant  efforts  or   instituted  procedures  since  it  was  created  in  1987  to  examine  violations  of  human  rights  of  persons  with   disabilities.      As  an  example,  at  least  two  recent  complaints  filed  by  persons  with  disabilities  in  the  National   RECOMMENDATIONS § The  State  should  institutionalize  opportunities  to  ensure  close  consultation  and  active  involvement   of  persons  with  disabilities  in  all  planning  of  programs  and  projects,  including  those  supported  by   international  cooperation.   § Institute  a  monitoring  mechanism  for  all  ODA  to  document  the  inclusiveness  of  persons  with   disabilities  in  all  aspects  of  planning  and  implementation.     ARTICLE 33 National Implementation and Monitoring Article 33
  • 51   Capital  Region  remain  pending  for  one  to  two  years,  with  no  assurance  of  timely  resolution,  despite  repeated   follow-­‐up  (3).   284      The  Commission  typically  focuses  its  attention  on  civil  and  political  rights  violations  of  the  majority  of   the  population,  largely  ignoring  the  breadth  of  human  rights  contexts  of  persons  with  disabilities.  While  the   Commission  is  often  quick  to  denounce  State’s  violation  of  other  International  Treaties  and  other  sectors   whose  human  rights  are  violated,  the  Coalition  notes  much  less  (if  any)  vigorous  efforts  and  communications   when  it  comes  to  persons  with  disabilities.    Greater  attention  is  given  to  the  other  International  Treaties  such   as  the  ICCPR,  CAT  and  others,  rather  than  this  Convention.    This  is  exemplified  in  the  controversy  that  to   date,  the  Commission  has  not  publicly  or  officially  declared  its  stand  to  the  Reservations  presented  by  the   Geneva  based  Philippine  Mission  to  the  Human  Rights  Council  in  2011,  on  the  denial  of  the  right  of  suffrage   to  persons  with  “established  mental  incapacity”.   285      Despite  its  mandate,  it  has  not  taken  on  the  function  of  an  independent  monitoring  body,  and  still  looks   to  establish  another  entity  to  do  the  task,  that  it  should  already  be  performing  (4).   286      In  2007,  the  Commission  reported  56  complaints  involving  persons  with  disabilities  over  a  14-­‐year   period  from  1987-­‐2006.    This  is  a  very  small  number  compared  to,  for  instance,  the  over  346  cases     reported  for  the  deaf  alone  for  six-­‐years  from  2006  to  2012),  or  the  126  cases  with  the  Supreme  Court  alone   for  four  years  from  2008  to  2012  by  the  Philippine  Coalition  on  the  UNCRPD,  cf  Article13  (5,  6).   287      In  its  recent  submission  for  the  Universal  Periodic  Review,  the  Commission  also  only  mentions  rights  of   persons  with  disabilities  in  relation  to:  discrimination  in  air  travel,  and  problems  with  issuance  of  disability   discounts  by  a  private  company.    It  has  ignored  the  widespread  violations  of  human  rights  of  persons  with   disabilities  including  that  relating  to  torture,  violence,  liberty  of  movement,  legal  capacity,  access  to  justice,   and  others  by  both  State  and  non-­‐state  actors  (7).   288      The  National  Human  Rights  Action  Plan  still  has  not  yet  been  approved  despite  having  been  completed,   and  after  three  years  of  consultations.   Sources:   (1)  National  Council  on  Disability  Affairs.      http://www.ncda.gov.ph/about/ncda-­‐mandate/   (2)  Constitutional  creation.  Commission  on  Human  Rights  of  the  Philippines.   http://www.chr.gov.ph/MAIN%20PAGES/about%20us/01consti_creation.htm   http://www.chr.gov.ph/MAIN%20PAGES/about%20us/03exec_order.htm   (3)    Personal  communication  with  complainants.  National  Capital  Region.   (4)      Personal  Communication.  R.  Basas.  2013.   (5)    Commission  on  Human  Rights  of  the  Philippines.    2007.  Rights  of  persons  with  disabilities  in  accessing  the  justice  system.   CHRP  Working  Paper.  http://www.chr.gov.ph/MAIN%20PAGES/about%20hr/advisories/pdf_files/FINAL%20full  persons  with   disabilitiesreport.pdf   (6)    Access  to  justice:  Case  Monitoring  Report  by  the  Philippine  Deaf  Resource  Center  (2006-­‐2012)   www.phildeafres.org/pdf/PDRC_Case_Monitoring.pdf   (7)    Commission  on  Human  Rights  of  the  Philippines.    Submission  to  the  Universal  Periodic  Review.  2012.   http://lib.ohchr.org/HRBodies/UPR/Documents/session13/PH/CHRP_UPR_PHL_S13_2012_CommissiononHumanRightsofthePh ilippines_E.pdf   RECOMMENDATIONS § The  National  Council  on  Disability  Affairs  should  institute  a  comprehensive  coordinated   mechanism  to  monitor  the  implementation  of  the  Convention  in  all  sectors  and  level  of   government,  including  the  dissemination  of  a  comprehensive  review  of  the  2nd  Decade  of   Persons  with  Disabilities.   § The  Commission  on  Human  Rights  should  carry  out  its  human  rights  mandate  toward  persons   with  disabilities  on  an  equal  basis  with  other  Filipinos  and  perform  its  independent  monitoring   task.   § Create  an  active  Working  Committee  within  the  Commission  with  relevant  DPOs  in  the   monitoring  of  the  implementation  of  the  Convention  and  in  providing  appropriate  and  prompt   actions  to  human  rights  violations  against  persons  with  disabilities.   § Review  and  approve  the  National  Human  Rights  Action  Plan  to  address  the  needs  and  present   situation  of  persons  with  disabilities.   Article 33
  • 52   PART 2. OVERALL LANDSCAPE OF RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES IN THE PHILIPPINES 289   1. Acknowledgment  that  Human Rights  Principles  and  mandates  are   essential  components  of  development  and   economic  goals   Inclusive  development  and  economic  plans   and  activities  cannot  be  developed  when  the  recognition  of  full  equality  and  inclusion  is  not  accepted  and   acted  on.   This  should  be  evident  in  inclusive  macroeconomic  assumptions  for  the  formulation  of  the  annual  national   budget  by  the  Department  of  Finance,  and  Department  of  Budget  and  Management.   2. Acknowledgment  that  anti-­‐poverty  and  addressing  the  issues  of  vulnerability  through  social  welfare perspective  is  severely  inadequate  and  is  in  fact  not  in  line  with  Article  3-­‐a,  b,  c  and  e.   Social  welfare  perspective  promotes  benefactor  to  beneficiary  relationship.    Consultation  and  active   involvement  may  happen  but  with  less  respect  to  autonomy,  equality  in  terms  of  decision  making  and   fundamental  freedom.   3. The  Philippine  Development  Plan  while  in  certain  parts  expresses  respect  to  human  rights,  however, in  the  areas  of  fiscal,  economic  and  developmental  points,  active  participation  and  budgeting  are   wanting.   Policy  planning  should  be  firmly  rooted  in  empirical  bases  provided  by  the  Philippine  Institute  for   Development  Studies,  and  the  various  State  Universities  and  Colleges.   4. While  it  can  be  appreciated  that  the  Philippines  has  institutionalized  the  Sectoral  Council  structure in  its  Anti-­‐Poverty  program  and  activities,  Article  4.1-­‐I  has  not  been  well  pronounced.       Capacity  building  modules  and  activities  must  be  reviewed  and  made  compatible  to  Article  3  of  the  UNCRPD.   The  creation  of  a  nationally  defined  Social  Protection  Floor  must  be  instituted,  inclusive  of  marginalized   sectors,  including  persons  with  disabilities.   5. Disaggregated  data  collection  is  absolutely  imperative  if  sectoral  inclusive  programs  will  be produced  and  expected  to  be  meaningful  and  realizable.   6. Access  to  justice  and  political  and  civil  participation  is  genuine  when  Article  3  of  the  UNCRPD  is acknowledged  and  is  respected  right  in  the  inception  of  policies  and  budgeting.       The  Judiciary  in  particular  should  review  and  made  compliant  to  UNCRPD  the  essence  of  portions  of  Rules  of   Court  and  judicial  procedures.    The  justiciability  of  economic  rights  has  to  be  explicitly  pronounced  in   policies  and  procedures  to  ascertain  equality  and  respect  for  inherent  dignity.   7. Liberty  and  fundamental  freedoms  to  be  realized  is  dependent  to  the  acknowledgment  first  of  Article 3-­‐a,  b,  c  and  e.    Article  3-­‐d  should  be  well  defined   8. Universal  Design  should  be  the  fundamental  underlying  principle  of  all  policies,  programs  and activities  in  the  ESCR,  judicial,  fundamental  and  economic  development  policy  and  program   formulation,  implementation  and  budgeting.   Inclusive Development: Lessons Learned, Future Challenges PART 2
  • 53   290      Despite  milestones  in  the  past  two  years   particularly  due  to  the  activities  of  this  Coalition,   rights  of  persons  with  disabilities  continue  to  still   be  the  forgotten  rights,  whether  in  State  or  non-­‐ state  contexts,  and  persons  with  disabilities,   remain  still  a  largely  invisible  sector.       291      National  and  even  regional  (ASEAN)  human  rights  efforts  continue  to  focus  largely  on  the  civil  and   political  rights  relating  to  extrajudicial  killings  and  enforced  disappearances,  neglecting  many  of  the   economic,  social  and  cultural  rights  that  heavily  impact  the  lives  of  Filipinos  with  disabilities.   292      The  Commission  on  Human  Rights  impacts  peripherally,  if  at  all,  on  rights  of  persons  with  disabilities.   Despite  having  a  Focal  Person  for  Disability,  complaints  on  human  rights  violations  by  persons  with   disabilities  drag  on  with  little  visible  progress  for  years.   293      The  full  and  effective  participation  of  persons  with  disabilities  even  in  its  pursuit  of  the  exercise  and   enjoyment  of  rights  and  fundamental  freedoms  continue  to  be  hampered  by  a  vicious  cycle  of  abject  poverty,   gravely  limited  access  to  programs  and  services,  and  severe  restriction  to  virtual  exclusion  in  local  and   national  settings,  even  in  urban  areas,  and  specially  so  for  rural  areas.   Overall  spending  for  persons  with  disabilities   294      Based  on  data  provided  by  national  government  agencies,   the  Coalition  has  attempted  to  scrutinize  areas  of  spending  and   various  public  resources  for  persons  with  disabilities.    This   data  gathering  has  revealed  two  general  areas  of  available   information  received  from  public  sources  regarding  national  government  agencies  and  corporations:  (a)   mainstream  programs  and  activities  intended  for  all  Filipinos,  from  which  persons  with  disabilities  benefit,   and  (b)  disability-­‐specific  programs  and  activities  with  individual  persons  with  disabilities  as  beneficiaries.   A  related  area  on  disability-­‐specific  spending  benefits  institutions  which  serve  persons  with  disabilities.   295      This  initial  analysis  by  the  Coalition  has  identified  19  different  areas  of  expenditure  and  resources  for   persons  with  disabilities  in  the  categories  of  health,  education,  income  and  employment,  social  protection   and  rehabilitation  (1).      For  budget  funding,  these  are  either  authorized  national  appropriations,  or  agency   allotments  for  specific  program  utilization.  Other  resources  come  in  the  form  of:  quotas  or  affirmative  action   activities;  foregone  revenue;  public-­‐private  partnerships;  Official  Development  Assistance  (ODA),  or  from   Government  Owned-­‐/Controlled-­‐Corporations  (2-­‐4).   General  Provision  in  General  Appropriations  Act  (2003-­‐2012)   296      The  Philippines  declared  2003  to  2012  as  the  2nd  Decade  for  Persons  with  Disabilities,  and  provided   mandatory  national  budget  appropriations  of  0.5%  to  at  least  1%  of  government  agency  budgets  for  persons   with  disabilities  /  senior  citizens.    This  annual  directive  for  ten  years  was  a  General  Provision  of  the  General   Appropriations  Act  for  the  authorization  of  the  national  budget  from  2003-­‐2012.    Of  63  national  government   agencies  from  which  the  Coalition  was  able  to  access  available  information,  only  13  agencies  (or  21%  of  the   agencies)  provided  quantitative  data.      These  ranged  from  variable  utilization  of  0.008%  to  0.98%  of  their   agency’s  budget  (1,  5,  6).   297      Annual  Audit  Reports  of  the  Commission  on  Audit  in  2011  (the  9th  year  of  the  2nd  Decade)  revealed  that   agencies  such  as  the  following  failed  to  “integrate  in  their  plans,  or  earmark  any  amount  for  utilization”:   Council  for  the  Welfare  of  Children,  National  Youth  Commission,  Professional  Regulation  Commission,   Technical  Education  and  Skills  Development  Authority,  the  University  of  the  Philippines,  and  others  (7).   _________________________   *(Based  on  available  data  received  by  the  Coalition  as  of  2  December  2013)   Rights of persons with disabilities and the human rights movement in the Philippines Notes on CRPD compliant budgeting* PART 2
  • 54   1. For  the  Department  of  Education,  the  2011  Audit  Report  stated  that  the  implementation  was  “partially delivered  due  to  non-­‐formulation  of  an  approved  plan  and  failure  of  some  DepEd  attached  offices  and Division  Offices  to  allocate  budget  contrary  to  the  provisions  of  Republic  Act  No.  10147…” 2. Only  two  of  the  85  agencies  under  the  Department  of  Health  provided  a  budget  for  persons  with disabilities  (and  senior  citizens),  as  required  under  Section  32  of  the  General  Provisions  of  Republic  Act No.  10147  for  2011.    Of  these  two,  the  Center  for  Health  Development  in  Metro  Manila  utilized  only P1,048,205  (or  0.7%  of  its  budget)  for  persons  with  disabilities  and  senior  citizens.    On  the  other  hand, the  Food  and  Drug  Administration  submitted  P2,029,000  in  its  budget  but  did  not  utilize  it  because  of “lack  of  programs,  projects,  and  activities.” 3. The  Audit  Report  for  the  Department  of  Transportation  and  Communication  showed  that P579,063,878.27  was  allocated  in  the  agency  budget,  while  P13,750,440.86  was  actually  utilized. 4. For  the  provision  of  services  to  community  and  center-­‐based  clients,  the  Department  of  Social  Welfare and  Development  extended  only  P198,000  worth  of  assistance  to  293  persons  with  disabilities. 5. It  should  also  be  noted  that  in  the  2011  Commission  on  Audit  Annual  Reports,  agencies  such  as  the Department  of  Labor  and  Employment,  the  National  Labor  Relations  Commission,  the  Philippine Overseas  Employment  Administration,  the  Department  of  Public  Works  and  Highways  had  no  sections about  the  implementation  of  mandatory  appropriations  for  persons  with  disabilities.    However,  there were  discussions  on  the  mandatory  5%  for  Gender  and  Development.    It  is  thus  not  clear,  whether  the absence  of  sections  pertaining  to  disability  spending  was  an  inadequacy  itself  of  the  Commission  on  Audit or  the  specific  agency. 298      Agencies  such  as  the  Council  for  the  Welfare  of  Children,  the  National  Youth  Commission  said  they   were  not  aware  of  the  mandatory  provision  of  the  General  Appropriations  Act.   299      In  2012,  the  final  year  of  the  2nd  Decade  to  implement  the  General  Provision  of  the  General   Appropriations  Act,  agencies  such  as  the  following  were  still  shown  by  Annual  Audit  Reports  of  the   Commission  on  Audit  to  have  been  non-­‐compliant:  Department  of  Interior  and  Local  Government,  and  the   Department  of  Justice.    The  National  Statistical  Coordination  Board  did  not  provide  any  information  related   to  this  directive.   300      Despite  the  Commission  on  Audit  2011  finding  and  recommendation,  and  “promise”  by  the  agency  to   comply,  the  same  finding  appeared  in  the  2012  Audit  Report  for  the  Council  for  the  Welfare  of  Children,  and   the  National  Youth  Commission.   301      This  decade-­‐long  mandatory  appropriation  was  the  legal  basis  of  the  Joint  Circular  of  the  Department   of  Social  Welfare  and  Development  and  the  Department  of  Budget  and  Management  #2003-­‐01.    The  National   Council  on  Disability  Affairs,  was  appointed  as  the  oversight  organization  to  monitor  compliance.    However,   submission  of  consolidated  Agency  Plans  and  Accomplishment  Reports  from  the  Council  to  the  Department   of  Budget  and  Management  (8),  and  the  Congress  Committee  on  Appropriations  (9)  for  yearly  evaluation   have  not  been  documented  annually  for  ten  years.     Disability-­‐  specific  spending:  Primary  education  of  children  with  disabilities   302      There  have  been  clear  increases  annually  from  2007-­‐2013  in  appropriations  for  Operations  Expense   subsidies  to  Special  Education  Centers  /  Schools  for  Children  with  Special  Needs  (cf  Article  24).  Increases  are   also  noted  in  appropriations  for  the  Integrated  Program  Package  on  Autism.  However,  it  is  difficult  to   determine  whether  these  are  a  direct  result  of  the  ratification  of  the  Convention.  The  lump  sum   appropriation  for  Purchase  of  Textbooks  /Instructional  Materials,  specifically  for  the  Handicapped  /   Children  with  Special  Needs,  has  remained  at  P100  million  pesos  from  2009-­‐2013,  with  no  increase.   303 The estimations of total spending by the Coalition for children with disabilities in Special Education include expenses for Special Education teacher compensation; subsidies for other Special Education functions within the Department structure (e.g., Division Offices; Regional Offices); and services through the Bureau of PART 2
  • 55   Alternative Learning System of the Department. In general, data on these are extremely difficulty to secure, and are not transparent to the public.   304      The  number  of  SPED  Centers  doubled  from  2009  to  2013.    The  national  government  subsidy  to  a  SPED   Center  increased  from  P300,000  in  2009  to  P500,000  in  2012  (11).  Beginning  2013  however,  the  practice  of   providing  lump  sum  appropriations  for  operations  of  the  SPED  Centers  was  discontinued.  Allocations  are   now  computed  on  a  per  student  basis  according  to  the  previous  year’s  enrollment  (12).  It  is  not  apparent   whether  the  designated  P800/  pupil  subsidy  in  Special  Education  Centers  is  comparable  to  the  cost  per   capita  of  spending  for  all  other  Filipino  children  in  the  primary  schools.   305      The  Department  of  Education  reports  increases  in  enrollment  of  children  with  disabilities  through  the   years.  However,  comparisons  by  the  Coalition  of  2012  Department  reported  enrollment  for  12  SPED  Centers,   has  revealed  70-­‐98%  discrepancies  with  other  sources.  Since  2013  allocation  for  the  subsidy  shall  rely  on   these  enrollment  figures,  the  over-­‐allocation  for  these  12  SPED  Centers  alone  already  amounts  to   P6,626,400.  The  other  sources  used  for  comparison  include:  2010  Census  Data  from  the  National  Statistics   Office;  National  Household  Targeting  Survey  Database  of  Department  of  Social  Welfare  and  Development;   online  enrollment  data  and  media  releases  independently  published  by  Special  Education  Centers,  or  the   National  Statistical  Coordination  Board;  and  field  data  gathered  by  the  Coalition  itself  for  Schoolyear  2011-­‐ 2012.   306      These  discrepancies  have  been  raised  with  the  Special  Education  officials  during  the  Strategic  Planning   for  a  Five-­‐Year  Development  Plan  for  the  education  of  children  with  disabilities.     307      Furthermore,  it  should  be  noted  that  these  annual  increases  in  spending  have  had  very  little  impact  on   the  Department’s  reported  1%  of  children  with  special  needs  in  the  mainstream  setting  (cf  Article  24).   308      Based  on  analysis  of  Coalition  field  data  in  6  regions,  budget  utilization  of  national  budget  subsidies  for   Special  Education  Centers  also  showed  variable  utilization,  lapsed  appropriations  and  even  in  some   instances,  misutilization  (1).    Utilization  of  annual  budget  appropriations  for  textbooks  and  learning   materials  for  Special  Education  is  not  clearly  planned,  or  accounted  for  (cf  Article  24).   309      In  relation  to  prioritized  general  spending    by  the  government  for  poor  municipalities,  the  Coalition  has   analyzed  that  currently  existing  Special  Education  Centers  (primary  level),  and  Special  Education  Schools   (secondary  level)  are  found  only  in  99,  and  53,  respectively,  of  identified  609  poor  municipalities  (13).    This   means  that  84%,  and  91%  of  poor  municipalities  have  no  access  to  primary  or  secondary  level  Special   Education  for  children  with  disabilities.    It  should  be  noted  that  the  Bureau  of  Alternative  Learning  System   under  the  Department  of  Education  do  not  comprehensively  address  the  needs  of  children  with  disabilities   in  their  programs.   Proportion  of  609  poor  municipalities  which  have  SPED  Centers  (primary  level)  or  SPED  Schools  (secondary  level)   Tax  Incentives   310      There  are  various  tax  incentives  available  directly  to  persons  with  disabilities,  or  indirectly  to   enterprises  /  companies  which  transact  with  persons  with  disabilities  (cf  Articles  20,  21,  27).    These  include:   tax  exemptions  on  income  tax  of  persons  with  disabilities,  and  Value  Added  Tax  (VAT)  exemptions  through   PART 2 PART 2
  • 56   the  Senior  Citizen  discount  for  elderly  (persons  with  disabilities).    On  the  other  hand,  institutional  incentives   are  given  to  those  companies  or  enterprises  which  give  the  mandated  20%  Disability  Discount  on  goods  and   services.    Hiring  of  persons  with  disabilities,  and  improvement  of  accessibility  of  built  environments  are  also   given  incentives.   311      However,  the  Bureau  of  Internal  Revenue,  has  not  kept  track  or  documented  any  of  these  foregone   revenues.    According  to  the  Bureau,  activities  relating  to  tax  exemptions  that  are  currently  conducted  are   limited  only  to  investments  (14).   Challenges  to  monitoring  State  spending   312        As  of  the  current  time,  the  Analysis  of  the  Coalition  on  spending  for  persons  with  disabilities  reveals   annual  practices  characterized  by  gaps  that  are  gravely  inadequate  and  unresponsive  to  the  majority  of   Filipinos  with  disabilities.       313      The  Coalition  enumerates  below  the  challenges  toward  examination  of,  and  continued  monitoring  of   State  spending.    These  are  critical  in  the  implementation  of  the  UNCRPD  and  State  commitment  to   international  covenants  in  general:   1.  In  order  to  truly  present  an  accurate  picture,  spending  for  persons  with  disabilities  must be  separated  from  that  of  senior  citizens  (elderly)  -­‐  legislatively  and  operationally.    For   children  with  disabilities,  data  in  education  must  be  disaggregated  from  the  other  Children   with  Special  Needs.   2.  Overall  efficiency  in  budget  execution  and  accountability  must  be  improved.    As  of  now, it  is  not  presumed  that  appropriating  or  allocating  more  resources  is  the  only  way  to   address  the  great  need  of  the  sector  of  persons  with  disabilities.    Important  also  is  the   issue  of  governance  (and  efficiency)  versus  resource  allocation.    For  an  entire  decade  from   2003-­‐2012,  there  were  “available  resources”  prioritized  by  earmarking  and  mandatory   appropriations  for  national  government  agencies.    But  the  opportunity  to  utilize  to  the   maximum  these  available  resources  appear  to  have  been  largely  wasted,  even  by  the   primary  duty-­‐bearers,  the  Department  of  Budget  and  Management,  and  Department  of   Social  Welfare  and  Development,  including  the  National  Council  on  Disability  Affairs.   3.  Priorities  in  spending  are  limited  by  their  legal  bases,  whether  they  are  domestic legislation  in  general,  or  the  specific  charters  of  the  Government  –Owned  /-­‐Controlled   Corporations.    The  gaps  in  spending  may  be  traced  to  the  gaps  in  legislation  which  include   differing  definitions  of  disability,  and  uncoordinated  and  at  times,  overlapping  activities.   4.  The  weakness  of  the  National  Council  on  Disability  Affairs  (and  the  then  National Council  for  the  Welfare  of  Disabled  Persons)  which  is  mandated  to  formulate  policy,   monitor  financing  and  implementation  of  programs  and  projects  for  persons  with   disabilities  appears  to  account  largely  for  the  situation  of  spending  for  persons  with   disabilities  specially  during  the  2nd  Decade  of  Persons  with  Disabilities.    Despite  the   ratification  of  the  CRPD  in  2008,  it  has  not  been  able  to  provide  the  needed  direction  and   guidance  toward  satisfactory  implementation  of  the  Convention.  Its  lack  of  concrete   response  to  the  lapse  of  the  1%  earmarked  appropriation  beginning  in  2013,  as  well  as  its   failure  annually  for  10  years  to  monitor  spending,  demonstrates  this  longtime   ineffectiveness.       5.  Similarly,  the  overall  ineffectiveness  of  the  National  Anti  –Poverty  Commission  in addressing  the  poverty  that  plagues  Filipinos  with  disabilities  nationwide  is  reflected  in  its   limited  spending  in  its  programs  and  activities.    
  • 57   Sources: (1) Philippine Coalition on the UNCRPD. Enabling CRPD Compliant Budget Advocacy (In progress). (2) Department of Budget and Management. http://www.dbm.gov.ph (3) Philippine Health Insurance Corporation. http://www.philhealth.gov.ph/ (4) Public-Private Partnership Center of the Philippines. http://ppp.gov.ph (5) Philippine Coalition on the UNCRPD. 2013. Communications with the Commission on Audit (6) Philippine Coalition on the UNCRPD. 2012. Communications with the Commission on Audit (7) Commission on Audit. Annual Audit Reports – 2011-2012. National Government Agencies http://www.coa.gov.ph/ Audit/AAR.htm (8) Philippine Coalition on the UNCRPD. 2013. Communications with the Department of Budget and Management (9) Philippine Coalition on the UNCRPD. 2013. Communications with the Congress Committee on Appropriations (10) General Appropriations Act. 2007 – 2014. Department of Budget and Management. http://www.dbm.gov.ph (11) Department of Education Order No. 27, 2012. http://www.deped.gov.ph/index.php/issuances/deped-orders/2012. (12) Department of Education Order No. 39, 2013. http://www.deped.gov.ph/index.php/issuances/deped-orders/2013. (13) National Anti-Poverty Commission. http://maps.napc.gov.ph/opendata/index.php/datasets/raw-data/viewdownload/3/8 (14) Philippine Coalition on the UNCRPD. 2013. Communications with the Bureau of Internal Revenue. 6.  Bodies  such  as  the  Philippine  Commission  on  Women,  Council  for  the  Welfare  of Children,  and  even  the  Commission  on  Human  Rights  continue  to  be  largely  inadequate  in   terms  of  awareness  and  prioritization  of  the  needs  of  women  and  children  with   disabilities,  and  victims  of  human  rights  violations.    This  is  reflected  in  their  spending   practices  for  persons  with  disabilities.     7.  The  relegation  of  persons  with  disabilities  in  development  plans  by  the  National Economic  and  Development  Authority  as  wards  of  the  State  has  perpetuated  a  charity   model  towards  the  sector.    Such  a  paradigm  seriously  undermines  planning  of  programs   and  projects  of  the  State  at  all  levels.    Consequently,  budgeting  and  public  finance  for   persons  with  disabilities  continue  to  be  seriously  inadequate  and  disproportionate.   8.  Lastly,  the  critical  importance  of  data  gathering,  and  statistics  is  highlighted  once  again (cf  Article  31).  This  initial  endeavor  by  the  Coalition  on  budget  analysis  faced  tremendous   challenges  in  being  able  to  secure  complete,  reliable,  and  comparable  information.    This   activity  of  the  Coalition  is  the  first  attempt,  government  or  otherwise,  to  comprehensively   examine  State  spending  for  persons  with  disabilities.  It  is  apparent  that  institutional   mechanisms  for  annual  monitoring  are  not  yet  in  place.   In  the  course  of  this  research,  and  according  to  several  public  agencies  contacted,  much  of   the  data  on  State  spending  had  to  be  extracted  manually  since  consolidated  annual  figures   are  not  a  regular  monitoring  or  evaluation  activity  for  the  sector.       Government  data  and  activities  should  be  transparent,  and  information  should  be   accessible  to  all.    The  monitoring  of  progressive  realization  cannot  be  done  without  the   concrete  budget  indicators  of  appropriation  and  utilization.    Also,  particularly  for   mainstream  programs  and  services  which  count  persons  with  disabilities  as  among  its   beneficiaries,  their  numbers  and  range  of  benefits  received  must  be  independently   tracked.    Otherwise,  persons  with  disabilities  easily  slip  into  being  invisible  once  again,  and   are  unable  to  access  services  on  an  equal  basis  with  others.   PART 2
  • 58   Philippine Coalition on the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Alyansa  ng  may  Kapansanang  Pinoy   Antipolo  Multi-­‐Sectoral  Organization   CALL  Foundation  of  the  Blind   Calamba  PWD  Federation   Deafblind  Support  Philippines   Government  Union  for  the  Integration  of  Differently-­‐Abled  Employees   Katipunan  ng  mga  Maykapansanan  sa  Pilipinas  -­‐  National  Capital  Region   Las  Piñas  Persons  with  Disability  Federation   Life  Haven   My  Refuge   National  Organization  of  Visually  Impaired  Empowered  Ladies   New  Vois  Association   Philippine  Alliance  of  Persons  with  Chronic  Illness   Philippine  Blind  Union   Philippine  Chamber  for  Massage  Industry  for  Visually  Impaired   Philippine  Deaf  Resource  Center   Philippine  Federation  of  the  Deaf   Philippine  Foundation  for  the  Rehabilitation  of  the  Disabled   Psoriasis  Philippines   Punlaka   Tahanang  Walang  Hagdanan   Visually  Impaired  Brotherhood  for  Excellent  Services   Vision-­‐Impaired  and  Striving  Individuals  Optimizing  Normalcy  Aiming   for  Resiliency  Independence  Empowerment  and  Spirituality   Women  with  Disabilities  Leap  to  Social  and  Economic  Progress   All rights for all disabilities.