Article 6

Right to recognition before the law

Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law. You should be legally protected in the same
way everywhere like anyone else
Human rights, according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, refers to norms that aim to protect people from
political, legal, and social abuses.
The United Nations (UN) defines human rights as universal and inalienable, interdependent and indivisible, and equal
and non-discriminatory. Which means that Human rights belong to all and cannot be taken away unless specific situations
call for it. However, the deprivation of a person's right is subject to due process.
Human rights protect all people regardless of race, nationality, gender, religion, and political leaning, among others. They
should be respected without prejudice.

Article 6: Right to Recognition Before the Law

After setting standards for dignity and freedom, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) devotes a cluster of
articles to standards for the administration of justice including what is often known as “due process.” Roughly one-fourth of
the UDHR is devoted to legal human rights. As we have already seen, in the late 1940s, the abuses of the Nazi regime
were fresh in the mind of the UDHR’s drafters, who thought these provisions would entrench the strongest protection
against future Nazi-type human rights violations. And indeed, by the late 1940s all of these provisions had been
incorporated in the legal systems of developed nations.

Articles 6-11 are closely related and for the most part focus on some of the civil and political rights all humans should
expect, with the second half of the UDHR devoted to social, economic and cultural rights. Article 6 itself, however, applies
across the entire spectrum of rights. If an individual is not recognized “as a person under the law,” numerous rights,
including ones in the social and economic spheres, may be threatened.

Article 6 has come into sharp focus with the phenomenon of enforced or involuntary disappearances – the practice of
certain countries of snatching, detaining -- and likely killing -- people, with their families seldom able to find out their fate.

People like The Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo (Asociación Madres de Plaza de Mayo) who protested for years against
the enforced disappearance of their children during Argentina’s “Dirty War” between 1976 and 1983. Wearing white
scarves to symbolize the diapers of their children, the women defied the military dictatorship to demonstrate in front of the
presidential palace to try to get information about their missing children.

“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”

- Martin Luther King, African-American civil rights activist

During the period of military rule in Argentina, security forces ‘forcibly disappeared’ – the technical term when a
kidnapping is carried out by the state – around 30,000 people, many of whom are still unaccounted for. The long list of the
disappeared even included two of the founders of the Mothers of the Plaza.  Similar policies of enforced disappearance
were pursued in several other Latin American countries run by military dictators, such as Chile, Guatemala and Peru.

However, Latin American generals did not invent the concept. During the Spanish Civil War in the late 1930s, more than
143,000 people disappeared without a trace. 

And the first instance of enforced disappearance being explicitly and unashamedly sanctioned by law occurred when
Hitler issued the directive ‘Nacht und Nebel’ (‘Night and Fog’) in December 1941, in order to secretly transfer thousands of
people to Germany from the occupied parts of Europe, many of whom were presumably later killed. The measure targeted
the civilian population, with the aimed of deterring all forms of resistance. The uncertainty of the fate of the disappeared –
removed from all the normal legal protections and processes they should have enjoyed after being picked up in the dead
of night – was deliberately designed to terrorize and paralyze society as a whole. They were, to use a term employed by
the Nazis, “transformed into mist.”

Regional bodies – such as the European Court of Human Rights, which protects the rights of some 800 million people –
have played an important part in recent years in providing remedies for victims of this crime, and deterring States from
committing it.
However, enforced disappearance is a global problem, not restricted to a specific region, with the UN Working Group on
Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances reviewing some 840 cases from 46 countries in September 2018. Amnesty
International has identified Syria and Sri Lanka as two of the worst countries for enforced disappearance. Russia and the
U.S. (with its rendition programme during the “War on Terror”) have also been accused of committing this violation.

But the problem is not necessarily confined to government security forces, with disappearances at the hands of criminal
gangs, often entwined with the authorities at some level, becoming a chronic problem in recent years in Central American
countries and Mexico, as well as in countries like Iraq. Human rights defenders and environmental defenders have
become particular targets, both in Latin America and in some countries in South-East Asia, often while standing up for the
rights of local populations against business and economic interests.

Failure to achieve recognition before the law as required by Article 6 is, of course, much broader than the issue of
enforced disappearance. In some countries women still do not have the same rights under the law as men. For example,
there are some 32 countries where women need their husband’s permission to apply for a passport, and 30 where women
cannot choose where to live.

And perhaps the biggest issue facing the world’s 3.9 million known stateless people, is that they are excluded from some
– or even all -- laws and systems designed to protect a country’s citizens. This legal limbo can have a devastating impact
not just on stateless people themselves:  their children and grandchildren may inherit their statelessness, like some
abstract genetic disease, as their births cannot be registered, because their parents do not exist in the eyes of the law.

As a result they may suffer violations of almost the entire range of social, political, economic and civil rights: unable to
vote, marry, get an education, bring a court case, or receive medical care. While some people become stateless as an
unforeseen consequence of a change or flaw in domestic legislation, a sizeable minority are, in the words of the UN
Refugee Agency, UNHCR, “the victims of a more pernicious form of statelessness: the deliberate exclusion of entire
groups because of some political, religious or ethnic discrimination.” The most egregious current example of this is the
Rohingya minority in Myanmar, who are deprived of many of their rights because they are denied citizenship. 

Many still share the dream of physicist Albert Einstein, who said in 1933, as his homeland Germany began to sink into
fascism: “As long as I have any choice, I will only stay in a country where political liberty, toleration and equality of all
citizens before the law are the rule.” But in an age when refugees are finding more and more obstacles being placed in
the way of their legal right to seek asylum from persecution, Einstein’s dream – and the pathway to it laid down in the
UDHR -- is still unattainable for many.

The right to recognition as person before the law is enshrined in

Article 6 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The right is enshrined in Article 16 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:

Everyone shall have the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

The International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their
Families contains this right in Article 24:

Every migrant worker and every member of his or her family shall have the right to recognition everywhere as a person
before the law.

The right is also contained in Article 5 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights:

Every individual shall have the right to the respect of the dignity inherent in a human being and to the recognition of his
legal status. All forms of exploitation and degradation of man particularly slavery, slave trade, torture, cruel, inhuman or
degrading punishment and treatment shall be prohibited.

The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities contains this right in Article 12:

1. States Parties reaffirm that persons with disabilities have the right to recognition everywhere as persons before the law.
2. States Parties shall recognize that persons with disabilities enjoy legal capacity on an equal basis with others in all
aspects of life.
3. States Parties shall take appropriate measures to provide access by persons with disabilities to the support they may
require in exercising their legal capacity.
4. States Parties shall ensure that all measures that relate to the exercise of legal capacity provide for appropriate and
effective safeguards to prevent abuse in accordance with international human rights law. Such safeguards shall ensure
that measures relating to the exercise of legal capacity respect the rights, will and preferences of the person, are free of
conflict of interest and undue influence, are proportional and tailored to the person's circumstances, apply for the shortest
time possible and are subject to regular review by a competent, independent and impartial authority or judicial body. The
safeguards shall be proportional to the degree to which such measures affect the person's rights and interests.
5. Subject to the provisions of this article, States Parties shall take all appropriate and effective measures to ensure the
equal right of persons with disabilities to own or inherit property, to control their own financial affairs and to have equal
access to bank loans, mortgages and other forms of financial credit, and shall ensure that persons with disabilities are not
arbitrarily deprived of their property.

Article 6 protects your right to a fair trial

You have the right to a fair and public trial or hearing if:

 you are charged with a criminal offence and have to go to court, or

 a public authority is making a decision that has a impact upon your civil rights or obligations.

In this context, your civil rights and obligations are those recognised in areas of UK law such as property law, planning
law, family law, contract law and employment law.

It is a good idea to get further advice if you think the right to a fair and public hearing might apply to your case.

What is a fair and public hearing?

You have the right to a fair and public hearing that:

 is held within a reasonable time

 is heard by an independent and impartial decision-maker
 gives you all the relevant information
 is open to the public (although the press and public can be excluded for highly sensitive cases)
 allows you representation and an interpreter where appropriate, and
 is followed by a public decision.

You also have the right to an explanation of how the court or decision-making authority reached its decision.

What rights do you have at a criminal trial?

You have the right to:

 be presumed innocent until you are proven guilty

 be told as early as possible what you are accused of
 remain silent
 have enough time to prepare your case
 legal aid (funding) for a lawyer if you cannot afford one and this is needed for justice to be served
 attend your trial
 access all the relevant information
 put forward your side of the case at trial
 question the main witness against you and call other witnesses, and
 have an interpreter, if you need one.

Everybody must have equal access to the courts under the Human Rights Act. This includes a right to bring a civil case (a
case between individuals or organisations), although this right can be restricted in some situations (see below).

See also the right to no punishment without law.

Are there any restrictions to this right?

The right to a fair and public hearing does not always apply to cases involving:
  immigration law
 extradition
 tax, and
 voting rights.

There is also no automatic right to an appeal (an application to a higher court for the reversal of the decision of a lower
court).

The right of access to the courts can be restricted, for example, if you:

 keep bringing cases without merit

 miss the time-limit for bringing a case.

There are times when the public and press are denied access to a hearing. This can happen in the interests of protecting:

 morals
 public order or national security
 children and young people, or
 privacy.

The courts might also decide to exclude the public or press if they think that their presence is not in the interests of justice.

What the law says

Article 6: Right to a fair and public hearing

1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair
and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall
be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interest of morals,
public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life
of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where
publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.

2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.

3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:

 to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the
accusation against him
 to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence
 to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to
pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require
 to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses
on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him
 to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

Example case -  DG v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (ESA) [2010]

DG appealed against a decision to refuse him Employment and Support Allowance (ESA), which was taken after a
medical examination. Even though DG requested Jobcentre Plus to contact his GP (also his nominated representative),
neither the GP nor DG’s social worker were approached for evidence. At the first stage of the independent tribunal
process (the First Tier Tribunal), DG waived his right to put his case in person at an oral hearing. This decision was based
on advice from Jobcentre Plus. The appeal was dealt with on paper and dismissed.

When DG appealed this decision, the Upper Tribunal found that DG did not have a fair hearing of his appeal as required
by Article 6. This decision took into account the bad advice from Jobcentre Plus, the claimant’s mental health problems
and the failure of both the Department for Work and Pensions and the tribunal to communicate with his GP.

-
The rights of Filipinos can be found in Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. Also called the Bill of Rights, it

includes 22 sections which declare a Filipino citizen’s rights and privileges that the Constitution has to protect, no matter

what.

Aside from various local laws, human rights in the Philippines are also guided by the UN's International Bill of Human

Rights –  a consolidation of 3 legal documents including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR),

the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and the International Covenant on Economic,

Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).

As one of the signatories of these legal documents, the Philippines is obliged to recognize and apply appropriate laws to

ensure each right’s fulfillment.

This is not always the case, however, as the Philippine Constitution lacks explicit laws to further cement specific human

rights in the local context.

For example, the Right to Adequate Food may be included in the UNDR but it is not explicitly indicated in the Philippine

Constitution. Thus the government cannot be held responsible if this is not attained. (READ: Zero Hunger: Holding gov’t

accountable)

3. Who oversees the fulfillment and protection of human rights in the Philippines?

Human rights are both rights and obligations, according to the UN. The state – or the government – is obliged to “respect,

protect, and fulfill” these rights.

Respect begets commitment from state that no law should be made to interfere or curtail the fulfillment of the stated

human rights. Protecting means that human rights violations should be prevented and if they exist, immediate action

should be made.

In the Philippines, the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) primarily handles the investigations of human rights

violations. However, it has no power to resolve issues as stated in the Supreme Court decision in 1991.

Established in 1986 during the administration of President Corazon Aquino, CHR is an independent body which ensures

the protection of human rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

Aside from investigations, it also provides assistance and legal measures for the protection of human rights guided by

Section 18 Article XIII of the Philippine Constitution.

4. Do criminals or those who break the law still enjoy human rights?

Criminals or those in conflict with the law are still protected by rights as indicated in many legal documents such as the

Philippines’ Criminal Code and UN’s Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners.

Specific human rights, however, may be removed, provided they go through due process beforehand.
In 2002, the CHR issued an advisory after the debate sparked by Davao City Mayor Rodrigo Duterte's statement during a

crime summit in Manila. He said extra-judicial or summary killings remain "the most effective way to crush kidnapping and

illicit drugs."

However, according to the CHR, summary or extra-judicial executions of criminals or suspects are prohibited under the

Philippine Constitution as these violate several sections such as Article III Section 1, which states that “no person shall be

deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the

laws."

of human rights are more explicit in Article II of Section 11, which provides that “the State values the dignity of every

human person and guarantees full respect for human rights."

Meanwhile, Section 19 of the Bill of Rights clearly states that any punishment against a prisoner or detainee shall be dealt

with by law and through due process. It also says that no “cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment” may be inflicted –

even death.

5. How does the Philippines fare when it comes to human rights violations?

In a Rappler piece, Human Rights Watch (HRW)’s Asian Division researcher Carlos H. Conde wrote that President

Benigno Aquino III had more “rhetoric than concrete action” despite his “explicit human rights commitments” in 2010.

Human rights violations – extrajudicial killings, torture, enforced disappearances, and human trafficking, among others –

may have decreased in the past years but cases still exist and remain unsolved, according to Human Rights Watch.

In its 2015 World Report, the international group lauded the efforts to resolve these violations. These include the arrest of

retired army general Jovito Palparan in relation to the disappearance and torture of two University of the Philippines

students in 2006, and the peace agreement between the government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front, among

others.

The recent issue over the killings and displacement of Lumads, however, has put the government’s way of handling

human rights issues under the spotlight. (READ: A rare time a human rights issue captivates PH social media)

Meanwhile, nearly 75,000 people filed for recognition as victims of human rights violations during the administration of

President Ferdinand Marcos in 2014. Martial Law is regarded as the “dark years from 1972-1986 due to a huge record

of abduction and torture, among others, under the dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos." (READ: A Marcos brand of

amnesia) – [Link]

ARTICLE III
BILL OF RIGHTS

Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be
denied the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable
searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of
arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or
affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched
and the persons or things to be seized.

Section 3. (1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court,
or when public safety or order requires otherwise, as prescribed by law.

(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any
proceeding.

Section 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the
people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.

Section 5. No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free
exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed.
No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.

Section 6. The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired except
upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national security, public
safety, or public health, as may be provided by law.

Section 7. The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized. Access to official
records, and to documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to government
research data used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be
provided by law.

Section 8. The right of the people, including those employed in the public and private sectors, to form unions,
associations, or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged.

Section 9. Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.

Section 10. No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed.

Section 11. Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any
person by reason of poverty.

Section 12. (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his
right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot
afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the
presence of counsel.

(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the free will shall be used against him.
Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited.

(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against
him.

(4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of this section as well as compensation to and
rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices, and their families.

Section 13. All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is
strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as may be provided by
law. The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive
bail shall not be required.

Section 14. (1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law.

(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the
right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a
speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the
attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may proceed
notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is
unjustifiable.

Section 15. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except in cases of invasion or rebellion
when the public safety requires it.

Section 16. All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or
administrative bodies.

Section 17. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.

Section 18. (1) No person shall be detained solely by reason of his political beliefs and aspirations.

(2) No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except as a punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been
duly convicted.

Section 19. (1) Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither shall
the death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides
for it. Any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua.

(2) The employment of physical, psychological, or degrading punishment against any prisoner or detainee or the use of
substandard or inadequate penal facilities under subhuman conditions shall be dealt with by law.

Section 20. No person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-payment of a poll tax.

Section 21. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. If an act is punished by a law
and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act.

Section 22. No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted.