The
Philippines has always been active in strengthening its ties with the
international community. We see this as early as 1945, when the Philippines was
one of the 51 countries (now, 193) to sign the United Nations (UN) Charter in
San Francisco (thus actually making our country one of the founders of the UN).
At
present, we continue to actively participate in the UN’s General Assemblies and
sign beneficial treatises to show support to their ideals and their vision of
making “the world a better place”[1].
To this date, the Philippines has signed at least a thousand treaties[2],
and one of them is the Convention
on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) which was signed in
1980 and ratified in 1981. Back in 2008, a case was filed in the UN by Karen Vertido, a
Filipina from Davao, who invoked certain provisions of the CEDAW. In a
nutshell, Vertido accused a prominent businessman of rape but
was acquitted by the RTC judge for failure of Vertido to escape especially when
the accused was already 60 years old. The UN then transmitted its decision to the Philippines
stating that “the State party has failed to fulfill its obligations and has
thereby violated the rights” of Vertido while recommending actions on the said
case. However, in a response by the Philippine Government (through the
Department of Justice), it said that Vertido was not able to exhaust all the available
local remedies and that the State shall “uphold the independence of its
judiciary which has exclusive jurisdiction to determine the guilt or innocence
of an accused.”[3]
Another
treaty, which is one of the most recently signed (just last 2011) by the
Philippines, is the Rome Statute of the International
Criminal Court (ICC). The ICC aims to be an
independent, permanent court that tries persons accused of the most serious
crimes of international concern, namely genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.
Both treaties are interesting to look into because, as an effect of globalization and the opening of our doors to international communities (and vice versa), our human rights become more vulnerable to abuse and exploitation. The more our kababayans cross borders, the more it becomes difficult for our government to ensure their protection (especially that we generally adhere to the principle of territoriality, thus limiting the prosecution of crimes committed within our borders).
Both treaties are interesting to look into because, as an effect of globalization and the opening of our doors to international communities (and vice versa), our human rights become more vulnerable to abuse and exploitation. The more our kababayans cross borders, the more it becomes difficult for our government to ensure their protection (especially that we generally adhere to the principle of territoriality, thus limiting the prosecution of crimes committed within our borders).
As signatories to such human rights treatises (among other more), offenders against our kababayans abroad may be prosecuted and convicted. But how can we expect
that other signatory countries will respect the decisions made
by it when we cannot even uphold an international decision made a few years ago
against a Filipino businessman?
I believe that ratifying these treaties should not be the end but a
start of a process. Under our Constitution, the Executive Branch signs, the
Legislative Branch concurs, and, in this case, the Judiciary Branch would be
the most affected because now it would have to, at some point, recognize
decisions by an international court. It is important that mechanisms (i.e.,
procedures) be in place.
The Karen Vertido case should not happen again where Filipinos—either here or in another country—who wish to seek redress from the ICC would have no idea on how to go about, thus the rejection of the State Party of its decisions. Ultimately, the goal of every signatory country, including and especially the Philippines, is to ensure that these treatises are not taken for granted, its benefits and advantages are not to be wasted, and its objectives and goals are not to be in vain.
The Karen Vertido case should not happen again where Filipinos—either here or in another country—who wish to seek redress from the ICC would have no idea on how to go about, thus the rejection of the State Party of its decisions. Ultimately, the goal of every signatory country, including and especially the Philippines, is to ensure that these treatises are not taken for granted, its benefits and advantages are not to be wasted, and its objectives and goals are not to be in vain.
No comments:
Post a Comment