XIV. Access to Justice
The monitoring team did not find documents that could serve as sources of jurisprudence in the Court Decision files. It is observed that most persons with disabilities who are victims of crimes and violations of their rights prefer to keep silent.
To date, only two cases are noted to have reached the Supreme Court sala: The Paquito Talo et. al. versus the SUKOB Foundation which resulted a decision in favor of the latter and the cases of deaf employees against the Far East Bank which ruled in favor of the rights of the deaf.
In the Commission on Human Rights data, in its existence of more than a decade, only 56 complaints were submitted. No records of their outcomes are found. Statistics on human rights violations complaints involving people with disabilities retrieved from the CHR databank show the following:
- From 1987-2006, only 57 complaints were logged, or an average of 4 per year; basing on the total average number of complaints logged for the past five years, complaints received from people with disabilities account for only .31%
- People with disabilities' complaints lodged were mostly of a sexual abuse nature (64%); others involved the right to life (murder/ frustrated murder) at 11%; physical abuse (7%) arbitrary detention and unlawful arrest (3.5%) and 1 complaint each (1.8%) involving discrimination and complaints on case handling by law enforcement, and grave slander by deed.
- Of the 57 people with disabilities alleged victims of human rights violations who sought the assistance of the Commission, a great proportion of victims are female (70%) while male people with disabilities victims accounted for 27.5%; 8 cases were specified as child victims, while 4 complaints can be said to involve children with disabilities since the complaint 20 involved a case of child abuse. Most people with disabilities victims who sought the Commission's assistance, have indicated mental and/or development disabilities.87
- Note #87
- Excerpts from KAMPI Documentation on Presentation of CHR Chairman Leila de Lima on Symposium on the Implementation of UN CRPD, Traders Hotel, August 5‐6, 2008
- Return
The Philippine Federation of the Deaf reported that at present about 50 reports on abuses has reached the organization however only two are in the court and several have been dismissed due to the severe lack of interpreters.88 In fact, to date no licensing mechanism is available to provide legitimacy to skilled interpreters so as to acquire credibility in court proceedings. This has resulted in inaction in cases involving deaf women who are vulnerable to abuse.
- Note #88
- Personal Interview with Officers of PFD of Lauro Purcil, March 15, 2009.
- Return
In December 2007, a group of 10 deaf (four from other countries and 6 from the Philippines) were forcibly disembarked from an airline just prior to take off. The airline staff declared that the group could not fly due to the absence of hearing interpreters. Later the airline explained that such is an internal airline policy. After receiving furious reactions from the sector and allies, the airline agreed to negotiate which ended in an agreement that the funds paid for the tickets would be refunded. An apology was released to the deaf community. However, instead of returning the entire amount paid for the tickets, a penalty was extracted. Advocates of the sector prompted the victims to file formal cases of discrimination. However due to Section 44 of RA 7277 and the common experiences of prolonged legal battle, none of the victims decided to go to the justice system.89
Advocates continue to exert pressure on the airline to correct its internal policy that discriminates against the sector. Executive Director Geraldine P. Ruiz of NCDA who before her appointment was the Chairperson of PASAKAY (an NGO coalition comprising transport stakeholders from the government, non government and transport groups) is currently organizing a summit conference of all transport stakeholders to develop joint policy statements to avoid similar cases. It should be noted that certain factions of the sector have decided to boycott the airline until the matter is fully addressed.
Advocates of the sector also consider that an item in the Rules of Court that declares certain persons with types of disabilities as "Legally Incompetent"should be seriously examined. Section 44 of RA 727790 is also identified as a significant barrier to access the justice mechanism of the Philippines. Section 44 states that:
Enforcement by the Secretary of Justice. – (a) Denial of Right(1) Duty to Investigate – the Secretary of Justice shall investigate alleged violation of this Act, shall undertake periodic reviews of compliance of covered entities under cause to believe that –(1) Any person or group of persons in engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination under this Act; or(2) Any person or group of persons has been discriminated against under this Act and such discrimination raises an issue of general public importance, the Secretary of Justice may commence a legal action in any appropriate court.
The prohibitive requirements for a pattern and certain level of public attention is also pointed out as discouraging victims of discrimination from filing cases. The requirement imposed on the victim of discrimination that the accused has done the same repeatedly. The other requirement imposes to the victim to call the attention of media in order to acquire public concerns.
The blatant violation of government and private sectors of the provisions of the Batas Pambansa 344 or the Accessibility91 could be due to severely disadvantaged situations of the sector in terms of legal instruments and communication and physical barriers. At present however, several daring souls continue to struggle to acquire justice. In the CHR record, two persons who use wheelchairs who were discriminated against by an airline relative to rights to transportation have filed cases with the assistance of the Commission on Human Rights and organizations of persons with disabilities.