2013 uncrpd parallel report of the philippine coalition

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':'/.'%";<?@"

nawruzpaguidopon

Stamp

nawruzpaguidopon

Stamp

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 inFebruary 2011. The core group is currently comprised of over twentydisabled 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 theConvention) 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 inpolitical 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 stationsfor the “insane / mentally deranged” (6).

• Sections of the Omnibus Election Code deny participation in electoral processes to personswith psychosocial and intellectual disabilities (7) (cf Article 29).

• Driver’s Licenses issued by the Land Transportation Office which states that deaf individualsare 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 thereare licenses issued to persons with disabilities, including the deaf, that the “Philippinegovernment does not discriminate on the disabled” (8).

• Department of Health Administrative Order 34 imposes a requirement that masseurs shouldhave a high school diploma. This is doubly discriminatory for blind masseurs because of thereality that persons with disabilities have difficulty accessing education to begin with. Indialogues 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

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 withrepresentatives 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 tobe able to give consent to a contract:

2. The deaf, blind and persons with psychosocial or speech impairment, and further, who are notliterate, 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 guardianshipand 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 thecommitment 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%20030311_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%20030311_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 fulldevelopment, 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 beenlargely 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 surgicalmanagement 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) MDGWatchStatistics 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 Laborand Employment, Department of Trade and Industry, Technical Education and SkillsDevelopment Authority, Cooperatives Development Authority, Department of Social Welfareand 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 andpolicies.

• Amend legislation and policies which discriminate against persons with disabilities and ensurethat the rights of men and women with disabilities are respected and protected in all aspects ofwork and employment.

• Improve the mechanics for the employers to easily avail of tax incentives relating to personswith disabilities.

• Enable DPOs and self-‐help organizations through training, loans and grants and other technicalassistance to be able to become independent, self-‐sustaining and profitable endeavors.

• Ensure accessible and effective means to report labor violations for all persons with disabilitiesand 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 withdisabilities 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 withdisabilities 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 goodquality 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_CommissiononHumanRightsofthePhilippines_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 HumanRights 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 welfareperspective 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 structurein 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 beproduced and expected to be meaningful and realizable.

6. Access to justice and political and civil participation is genuine when Article 3 of the UNCRPD isacknowledged 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 Article3-‐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 andactivities 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 “partiallydelivered due to non-‐formulation of an approved plan and failure of some DepEd attached offices andDivision 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 withdisabilities (and senior citizens), as required under Section 32 of the General Provisions of Republic ActNo. 10147 for 2011. Of these two, the Center for Health Development in Metro Manila utilized onlyP1,048,205 (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 thatP579,063,878.27 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 Welfareand 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 theDepartment of Labor and Employment, the National Labor Relations Commission, the PhilippineOverseas Employment Administration, the Department of Public Works and Highways had no sectionsabout the implementation of mandatory appropriations for persons with disabilities. However, therewere discussions on the mandatory 5% for Gender and Development. It is thus not clear, whether theabsence of sections pertaining to disability spending was an inadequacy itself of the Commission on Auditor 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 mustbe 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 domesticlegislation 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 NationalCouncil 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 inaddressing 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 ofChildren, 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 NationalEconomic 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.

2013 uncrpd parallel report of the philippine coalition

Government & Nonprofit

Transcript of 2013 uncrpd parallel report of the philippine coalition