When Retributivism Triumphs:

Challenges to the Human Rights of Prisoners in

Cebu, Philippines

A Research Paper presented by:

Yvonne Cabaron Artiaga
(Philippines)

in partial fulfilment of the requirements for obtaining the degree of

MASTERS OF ARTS IN DEVELOPMENT STUDIES

Specialization:
Human Rights, Development and Social Justice
(HDS)

Members of the Examining Committee:

Dr. Jeff Handmaker
Prof. Dr. Karin Arts

The Hague, The Netherlands

December 2012
ii
This work is dedicated to the prisoners whose individual tales
gave substance to this work. H ere’s to hoping this will be the
beginning of a dawning realization that their obscured pains
and sorrows are but a product of a punitive culture that tram-
ples their rights and dignity.

iii
Acknowledgements
I am immensely grateful to my supervisor, Dr. Jeff Handmaker, and my second
reader, Prof. Dr. Karin Arts, who provide the much needed insight and wis-
dom, for the completion of this work, from conceptualizing of its title down to
its final reflections.
I am grateful likewise to my ISS colleagues, particularly my HDS classmates,
whose critical comments contribute in shaping the form and content of this
work.
Special mention goes to the staff of ISS library, their valuable help makes it
possible for me to find the literatures needed for this study. The same goes
to the University of San Carlos School of Law and Governance Library for
providing me a conducive space to do my research and initial writing of this
paper back home in Cebu, Philippines.
I would also like to thank my family and friends for their encouragement and
support. I’m ever thankful to my parents, for the constant reminders of their
love, spoken or otherwise. The best in me I owe to them.
And ultimately, highest acknowledgment is deservedly due to the Almighty.

iv
Table of Contents
List of Tables vii  
List of Acronyms vii  
Abstract viii  
Chapter 1 Introduction 1  
1.1 Research Questions 3  
1.2 Methodology and Sources of Data 3  
1.3 Scope and Limitations 5  
1.4 Structure of the Paper 6  
Chapter 2 Investigating the Right-Reality Divide 7  
2.1 Right-Reality Divide and Effectiveness of Human Rights Norms 7  
2.2 International Human Rights Norms: Experience in Philippine Prisons 8  
2.3 Socio-Legal Approach to Evaluating the Rights Narratives 9  
2.4 Sociology of Punishment: Why It Matters? 10  
2.5 Setting the Standards Straight 12  
Chapter 3 Overview of the Philippine Prison System 14  
3.1 Retributivism in Pre-colonial and Colonial Period 14  
3.2 Prison Reforms following Independence 14  
3.3 The Current State of the Philippine Prison System 15  
Chapter 4 The Malaise Of the Right: Findings and Analysis 18  
4.1 Conditions Inconsistent with Human dignity: The Lived Realities of
Prisoners 18  
4.1.1 Severe Overcrowding and its Effects 19  
4.1.2. Undernourished and Malnourished Prisoners 20  
4.1.3. Lack or Absence of Proper Medical Care 21  
4.1.4 Poor Sanitation and Hygiene 22  
4.1.5 Paying for Space to Sleep, Water and Food Items 22  
4.1.6 Segregation Issues 23  
4.2 Not Seeing The Violations in Rights Terms and the Vulnerability Issue 24  
4.2.1 Inmates’ Perception 24  
4.2.2 Prison Officials’ Perception 25  
4.2.3 The Problem with Vulnerability 26  
4.3 Narrow(ed) Notion of the Right and What it Implies 26  
4.3.1 What Officials Say 26  

v
 4.3.2 What Inmates Say 27  
4.3.3 What Others Involved in Prison Work Say 28  
4.3.4 What the Courts Say 28  
4.3.5 Will RA 9745 Change the Restricted View of the Right? 29  
4.3.6 Implications of Restrictive View of Right 30  
4.4 Dominant Punishment Perspective and its Manifestations 31  
4.4.1 Vain Hope of Improvements in Prison Conditions 31  
4.4.2 Non-implementation of Rehabilitative Measures 32  
4.4.3 Absence or Lack of Translators 33  
4.5 Repercussions of a Punitive Society: The Bane of Prisoners’ Existence 34  
Chapter 5 A Right More ‘Declared Rather Than Lived’: Conclusion
And Reflections 36  
References 39  
Appendices 42  

vi
List of Tables
Table 1 Data of Cebu City Jail Inmates  
Table 2 Data of Mandaue City Jail Inmates
Table 3 Data of Lapu-lapu City Jail Inmates
Table 4 Other Key Informants Interview

List of Acronyms

BJMP Bureau of Jail Management and Penology

Balay Balay Rehabilitation Center
BuCor Bureau of Corrections
CAPA Cebu Archdiocesan Prison Apostolate
CAT Committee Against Torture
CHR Commission on Human Rights
DILG Department of Interior and Local Government
DOJ Department of Justice
HRC Human Rights Commission
ICCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
ICPS International Centre for Prison Studies
MAG Medical Action Group
PAO Public Attorneys’ Office
PC/INP Philippine Constabulary/Integrated National Police
SMR Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners
UDHR Universal Declaration on Human Rights
UNCAT United Nations Convention Against Torture

vii
Abstract
Why are international human rights norms plagued with the problem of huge
gap between the promise of formal rights and the harsh realities that people
they are supposed to protect experience on the ground? In answering the ques-
tion, this paper investigates the right-reality divide of the human right of pris-
oners against cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment or treatment. Using
socio-legal approach in understanding laws as not existing in a vacuum and
therefore not insulated from the socio-cultural and political economic struc-
tures of society, this paper argues that the rift between right and reality in the
case of the human right of prisoners against cruel, inhuman or degrading pun-
ishment or treatment is due to the lack of full acceptance of this right by socie-
ty. In conclusion, this paper posits that the non-acceptance of this right is
caused by the dominance of the retributive perspective of punishment in socie-
ty over the rehabilitative ideal set by human rights norms, leading to the non-
recognition and non-promotion of this right on the ground.

Relevance to Development Studies

Prisons are telltale signs of the degree of civilization a country has achieved,
hence the emphasis given to humane conditions of imprisonment no less than
by the United Nations. The study of prisoners’ rights is highly relevant to de-
velopment studies because human rights for all is a constituent and integral
element of genuine development. This study is undertaken to draw public at-
tention to the neglected issue of prisoners’ rights violations in the hope that
it will become part of public discussions and eventually making it an area of
concern for government. Its relevance is in the contribution it will make to
formulating development policies where no one is left behind, even the prison-
ers, for the ends of development is the improvement and well-being of the en-
tire population and all individuals, without discrimination.

Keywords
‘Cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment or treatment’, Socio-legal Ap-
proach, Sociology of Punishment, Retributivism, Utilitarianism,

viii
Chapter 1
Introduction

Prisoners’ rights are arguably the most neglected and oft-forgotten rights. As
Easton (2011:241), describing the prison systems in the more advanced coun-
tries of the United States and United Kingdom, puts it:

The paradox of the prisoner is that inside the modern prison or panopticon
he or she is subjected to high levels or surveillance and observation, but out-
side achieves a high level of invisibility. Prisoners are isolated, cut off from
society, physically and socially excluded and marginalized, and on the fringes
of the polity to the extent that politicians perceive concessions to prisoners as
politically damaging.

Such statement also speaks a whole lot of truth about Philippine prisons.
Issues of abuse and dire conditions in prisons are not a huge concern to socie-
ty, especially in poor countries where life outside prison is as desperate as life
inside it. The public, wary about security and protection, believes that locking
people up is the only way to protect society from these criminals, unconcerned
about what is going on inside the prisons.
Owing perhaps to the unpopularity of such a cause, there is a dearth of lit-
erature that deals comprehensively on prisoners’ rights in the Philippines. Is-
sues as to what practices constitute violations of prisoners’ rights, and how
and why these violations are widespread take a backseat compared to what
many considered the more pressing concerns of environmental degradation,
gender inequality, or child abuse. This study is being carried out to draw atten-
tion and raise awareness to this neglected issue of violations of prisoners’ rights
and to make it a part of public concern. This is a step towards opening up de-
bates and discussions and ultimately shedding light on the underlying reason
for the violations of prisoners’ rights.
While under international laws embodied in the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights (hereinafter, ICCPR), the United Nations Convention
Against Torture (hereinafter, UNCAT), and the Universal Declaration on Hu-
man Rights (hereinafter, UDHR), the latter considered to have gained formal
legal force as part of customary international law (Steiner et al. 2008: 137), and
domestic laws Filipino prisoners are guaranteed of their basic human rights,
reports of rights violations in the Philippine prisons are widespread and are a
serious cause for concern.
It became apparent when in 2008 the Philippines submitted its consolidat-
ed 2nd-5th state report covering the period 1989-2007 to the United Nations
Committee Against Torture (hereinafter, CAT), a report which received much
criticisms from the same United Nations (hereinafter, UN) body. This report
came after the initial report was submitted in 1988, exactly twenty years since
the immediately preceding one was submitted, highlighting the meager atten-
tion given to prisoners’ rights by the state. The state report mentioned that the
Philippines has always been conscious of its duty to respect, fulfill and protect

1
the rights of its citizens (UN Committee Against Torture 2008). More particu-
larly, the Philippine report asserted that it has not been remised with its treaty
obligations, and enumerated several laws, rules and regulations legislated and
adoptedto give effect to the UNCAT.
However, a joint civil society report released earlier covering the same
reporting period and presented to the CAT in the same year contradicted the
Philippine government’s claim. The civil society report depicted a grim picture
of Philippine prisons, where human rights of prisoners are constantly violated.
In sum, the report said that: ‘torture of detainees and prisoners and ill-
treatment of marginalized sectors such as women and children prisoners re-
mained unabated’ (Joint Civil Society Report on Torture and Other Cruel, In-
human or Degrading Punishment or Treatment 2008: 3).
Furthermore, figures released by the International Center for Prison Stud-
ies (hereinafter, ICPS) revealed that Philippine jails and prisons which have an
official capacity for 35,000 persons, are 300% over their capacity holding
close to 105,000 inmates by mid-2011. Out of this figure, a huge majority
(65%) are remand prisoners (International Centre for Prison Studies 2011).
In addition, in 2011 the US State Department released a report on human
rights practices in the Philippines, which enumerated widespread violations of
prisoners’ rights, including torture and other physical abuse of prisoners, sexual
abuse, harsh physical conditions of prisons and alarming number of deaths
caused by communicable diseases (US Department of State Human Rights
Country Report 2010).
Giving more credence to the civil society report over the state report, in
its 2009 concluding observations the CAT said that torture and other cruel,
degrading or inhuman treatment or punishment are still widespread. The CAT
added that severe overcrowding, use of sub-standard facilities, inadequate food
and medical attention, and denial of prison inspections by independent moni-
toring bodies remain unaddressed by the government (UN Committee Against
Torture 2009).
That the Philippines failed to comply with its international obligations is
obvious. Many legal scholars argue that failure of states to enforce international
human rights norms is due to the lack of powerful compliance mechanism in
the field of human rights. This view has been shared by Okafor, Mutua, and
Watson (Okafor 2007: 1, 41), Hathaway (2002) as and David Barnhizer (2001:
1). All argue that human rights norms are not enforced because no state is
afraid of the possibility of sanctions as human rights monitoring bodies are
inherently weak.
I will argue that this weak compliance mechanism of human rights norms,
while I do not claim it to be unseemly, tends to be too legalistic and may not
be the sole determinant for compliance. First, lack of a powerful compliance
mechanism can explain very little why some state parties perform their interna-
tional human rights obligations better than other state parties. Second, why
would ordinary criminal laws like homicide or theft for example are always en-
forced and their violations often bring sanctions against violators, compared to
human rights laws, when there is no international criminal monitoring body
that police states to enforce ordinary criminal laws to begin with?

2
 Forsythe (2009) sees the need of a broader perspective in examining the
failure of states to comply with their human rights obligations. This points us
to explanations given by socio-legal theorists. Merry (2006a: 231), Fortman
(2006), Khan (2009: 202-221) and Banakar and Travers (2005) argue that hu-
man rights laws are not insulated from the socio-cultural and political eco-
nomic environment, and it will be helpful to examine against this backdrop the
reason why they are not implemented.
The above premises considered, this paper takes on socio-legal approach
to investigate the non-implementation of the human right of prisoners’ against
cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment or treatment and argues that the lack
of full acceptance by society of this right is a crucial factor for its non-
implementation and non-enforcement enforcement on the ground.
With research data that mirrors the findings of the 2009 CAT concluding
observations and shows the dominance of the retributivist perspective of pun-
ishment, I will argue that the rift between prisoners’ rights in the books and
prisoners’ rights as practiced is deeply rooted in the triumph of retributivism
over the rehabilitative ideal of punishment set by international human rights
norms, the reason why society is non-receptive to these rights.

1.1 Research Questions

The core question that serves as a guide for this research paper is:

To what extent do the international human rights norms and the dominant
retributivist perspective of punishment shape the situation of the human
right of prisoners against cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment or
treatment in the jail facilities of Cebu City, Mandaue City, and Lapu-lapu
City?

More specifically, the following sub-questions also apply:

1.) What is the significance of the international human rights norms in

the promotion of the human right of prisoners against cruel, inhu-
man, or degrading punishment or treatment?
2.) How does the dominant retributivist perspective of punishment af-
fect the promotion of the human right of prisoners against cruel,
inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment, especially in terms
of implementation of rehabilitative measures in prison?

1.2 Methodology and Sources of Data

In investigating why the Philippines fares poorly in enforcing the international
human rights norms for humane treatment of prisoners and to answer the re-
search questions above, with the city jail facilities of Cebu City, Mandaue City,
and Lapu-lapu City – being the three biggest cities of Cebu province – as units
of analysis, this paper draws on socio-legal theories, concepts, and approaches.
As Landman (2009: 19) puts it: ‘the social sciences have problematized human
3
rights in ways that have challenged the predominance of law and opened up
new avenues of inquiry that provide greater insight into the fundamental chal-
lenges that need to be overcome for a truly global implementation of human
rights norms’.
The socio-legal approach will be linked with the utilitarian versus retribu-
tivist goals of punishment and Garland’s (1990) argument that punishment
should be seen as a combination of strategy for control espoused by Foucault
and an expression of social sentiment espoused by Durkheim, in order to af-
ford a more nuanced explanation why despite the presence of the supposedly
normative function of the international human rights laws which are further
incorporated in the constitution and laws in the Philippines, reports abound
suggesting widespread violations of prisoners’ right to humane treatment.
The term ‘international human rights norms’ is meant the international
human rights laws and resolutions that states are bound to implement and en-
force. References will be made to the ICCPR, UNCAT, and UDHR as they
specifically contain provisions on the promotion and protection of the human
right of prisoners against cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment or treat-
ment as well as to the various UN resolutions providing guidelines for the hu-
mane treatment of prisoners. They set the standards on what constitute cruel,
inhuman, or degrading punishment or treatment which will be made the basis
for assessment in this study.
This paper employs qualitative research to answer the research questions. It
relies both on primary and secondary data. The data gathering is done by way
of interviews, observation and documentary analysis.
In total, I have observed the conditions of all three jail facilities, both the
male and female dormitories of each. I have interviewed 5 wardens, 2 wardens
(male and female dormitory) for each jail facility, except in the Mandaue City
Jail whose warden for the female dormitory is due for transfer, and a total of
15 inmates, 13 of whom are remand prisoners, and 2 are serving sentence. 6 of
the 15 inmates-respondents are from the Cebu City Jail, while there are 4 in-
mates-respondents from the Mandaue City Jail and 5 from the Lapu-lapu City
Jail.
To be granted access to all three jail facilities is a long and tedious process.
I had to secure the endorsement of the Commission on Human Rights (here-
inafter, CHR) for the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (hereinafter,
BJMP) regional director of Central Visayas, in which Cebu is a part of, to issue
a letter of authority addressed to the jail wardens for me to be allowed entry
and granted interviews. While the endorsement from the CHR was given im-
mediately, it took me a week’s wait before I was finally given the authority by
the BJMP director. Though already armed with the letter of authority the first
time I visited the jail facilities, I was not able to conduct the interview right
then and there. The interviews were scheduled several days later because the
jail authorities had to find a free time convenient for both the inmates and the
wardens that I was going to interview. The inmate-interviewees were pre-
selected by the jail authorities.
I conducted the interviews with the inmates in Cebuano, the local lan-
guage. I explained to them that the purpose of the interview is strictly academ-
ic. When asked if they preferred anonymity, 13 of the 15 inmates-respondents
desired it, ‘just to be safe’, they said. Two inmates said that it was all up to me.
4
For reasons of prudence, all prisoners and wardens interviewed shall remain
anonymous.
I also interviewed a staff member of the Cebu Archdiocesan Prison Apos-
tolate (hereinafter, CAPA), the prison ministry arm of the Catholic Church in
Cebu. I interviewed as well an attorney from the CHR, a staff member of
Karapatan, a non-government organization (NGO) whose one advocacy is on
political prisoners, and two lawyers from the Public Attorneys’ Office (herein-
after, PAO) of Cebu. In order to avoid potential harm, they too shall remain
anonymous.
The real identities of persons mentioned in this paper as well as other rec-
ords kept in anonymity are in file with the author.

1.3 Scope and Limitations

This paper focuses on the jail facilities of Cebu City, Mandaue City, and Lapu-
lapu City. They are chosen as the units of analysis of this study because even
though only anecdotal evidence suggests violations of the prisoners’ human
right against cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment or treatment in these
facilities, as a human rights lawyer in Cebu, I have heard of stories about wide-
spread prison abuses and violations of prisoners’ rights. I have also personally
witnessed the pitiful conditions of these jail facilities as well as heard from the
news and word-of-mouth information from family, friends, colleagues and ac-
quaintances of abuses and violations.
These jail facilities are directly under the jurisdiction of the BJMP. It is
important to emphasize this considering that there are other detention centers
under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Corrections (hereinafter, Bucor). These
detention centers under Bucor’s jurisdiction, technically referred to as ‘prisons’,
are strictly for convicted inmates serving more than three years imprisonment;
while the detention centers technically referred to as ‘jails’ are for inmates
awaiting trial and convicts serving less than three years imprisonment and may
be under the BJMP, or the office of the governor in cases provincial jails. The
Bucor is under the supervision and control of the Department of Justice (here-
inafter, DOJ), while the BJMP and the office of the governor is under the De-
partment of Interior and Local Government (hereinafter, DILG).
Due to differing circumstances, findings and conclusions of this paper are
confined to these BJMP-supervised detention centers only. Whether the find-
ings and conclusions of this study reflect the broader realities of Philippine
prison systems in general is a good subject of further research.
One limitation of this study is that access to information from the gov-
ernment was a challenge, not only because government data are scattered and
not systematic, but more so because my inquiries touched on sensitive issues
and were unwelcome. The reason I had to secure endorsements from our hu-
man rights body and some private organizations with friendly relations to rele-
vant government agencies for access. But even that is not enough to be given
real free access to sensitive information.
Another limitation of this research is that I had no free hand in selecting
my respondents. And although there was privacy during these interviews, they
being conducted with one prisoner at a time where I and the inmate-

5
respondent were left alone in a room, there were occasional interruptions dur-
ing these interviews as jail personnel would just barge in asking how was the
interview going. Although this is with the exception of Jail A, both male and
female dormitories.
In order to address these limitations, I have gathered information from
other sources and data cross-referencing. Much of the secondary data in this
paper are sourced through the internet such as government and NGO web-
sites. Media and academic websites also provided some data. Interviews were
not limited to the inmates and prison officials only, but also extended to other
persons involved in prison works. These were done for purposes of ensuring
that all the data relied upon are verified and credible.

1.4 Structure of the Paper

This paper is organized into five chapters. The research topic is introduced in
Chapter 1. The chapter also deals with scope and limitations of this research as
well as methodology. Chapter 2 tackles the interface between international
human rights norms and sociology of punishment in answering the core ques-
tion of this study, leading to my framework of analysis. In Chapter 3, I will
present the Philippine context by providing the country’s prison system and
how it is affected by the interface between human rights norms and sociology
of punishment. Chapter 4 deals with research findings and the analysis which
will be presented by themes. Chapter 5 summarizes the results and brings back
the research questions which will be answered based on what the research data
suggests.

6
Chapter 2
Investigating the Right-Reality Divide

In this chapter, the strengths and weaknesses of the international human rights
norms in responding to human rights violations will be examined using socio-
legal approach and the sociology of punishment as analytic lenses. A combina-
tion of these two theories will be used to identify, explain and analyse the caus-
es of the right-reality divide specifically of the human right of prisoners against
cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment or treatment. For purposes of clear-
er understanding on what comes within the purview of this particular right, I
will set out here what is meant by ‘cruel, inhuman, or degrading’ punishment
or treatment by referencing to standards laid down by the international human
rights norms.

2.1 Right-Reality Divide and Effectiveness of Human

Rights Norms
There are legal scholars who argue that international human rights norms can
be standard-setting, can influence domestic policy framework, inform judicial
decisions, and can be used in monitoring human rights performance of coun-
tries.
Ignatieff (1999: 10) said in what he termed as ‘juridical revolution’ that be-
cause most modern states have ratified the international human rights conven-
tions and incorporated these conventions in their constitutions and laws, they
are now compelled to comply with their obligations. In addition to that, be-
cause of the emergence of ‘advocacy revolution’, states are pressured to fulfill
their obligations (ibid.) Ignatieff asserted further that more than naming and
shaming governments, the international human rights monitoring bodies have
now, in what he termed as ‘enforcement revolution’, devised ways to punish
violators, citing as example the international tribunals in The Hague and
Arusha as having secured the first convictions under the 1948 Genocide Con-
vention (Ibid.: 11).
Critics, on the other hand, claim that the international human rights norms
are very weak at commanding obedience and have very little success in making
states comply its obligations (Okafor 2007: 1). International legal scholars such
as Makau Mutua and Shand Watson opine that the international regime of hu-
man rights is basically weak and lacks effective enforcement (Ibid: 41). David
Barnhizer likewise asserts that the international human rights is not working as
an effective system because no one or no state is afraid of the possibility of
sanctions (Barnhizer 2001: 1).
Further, Joseph and Kyriakis (2010) said that the greatest achievements of
international human rights norms lie in, first: the normative arena, it sets
standards by way of creation of treaties that generate impressive and important
human rights jurisprudence; second: it is instrumental in the mainstreaming of
human rights into international and national institutions. This notwithstanding,
international human rights norms, in general, utterly failed to change the be-
havior of human rights abusers, either by states or non-state actors (Ibid.).
7
 Considering the failure of international human rights norms to actually
bridge the gap between formal rights and rights as practiced, it is not hard to
agree with the critics that human rights laws are weak because, in and by them-
selves, they cannot address the abuses and violations of rights. Indeed, while
human rights norms in principle are standard-setting, this does not translate to
having a meaningful and real impact to people. I agree with the assertion that
one of the biggest problems of human rights is the huge gap between the
promise of formal rights proclaimed by international human rights instruments
and the cruel realities that the people they are supposed to protect have to en-
dure (Carey et al., 2010: 12). The is echoed by Irene Khan (2009: 202) when,
speaking about the failure of international human rights law to end poverty,
she lamented that while human rights are guaranteed by international laws, they
rarely provide the whole solution for human rights violations.
The Philippine experience in the area of the human right of prisoners
against cruel, inhuman, degrading treatment or punishment supports this truth.

2.2 International Human Rights Norms: Experience

in Philippine Prisons
Article 5 of the UDHR prohibits torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment. The ICCPR, adopted by the UN in 1966
and entered into force in 1976, its Article 7 likewise prohibits torture, cruel,
inhuman, or degrading punishment or treatment. Article 10 provides that per-
sons deprived of liberty shall be treated with dignity and respect and mandates
that the penitentiary systems should aim for the reformation and rehabilitation
of prisoners. The UNCAT, adopted in 1984 and entered into force in 1987,
specifically defines what is torture and calls for its universal prohibition, and at
the same time mandates states parties to adopt national legislations against tor-
ture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment or treatment.
The Philippines is a state party to these treaties which have the force and
effect of binding international laws. It has ratified the UNCAT in June1986
and the ICCPR in October 1986 (United Nations Office of the High Commis-
sioner for Human Rights 2012).
The Philippines is likewise signatory to important UN declarations provid-
ing guidelines for humane treatment of persons in detention. These are the
Standard Minimum Rules For The Treatment Of Prisoners (hereinafter, SMR),
the 1988 General Assembly Resolution of the Body Of Principles For The
Protection Of All Persons Under Any Form Of Detention Or Imprisonment,
and the 1990 General Assembly Resolution of the Basic Principles For The
Treatment Of Prisoners. Although these resolutions are not binding, they are
issued as guidelines for the humane treatment of prisoners or detainees.
In April 2012, the Philippines signed and ratified the Optional Protocol
of the UNCAT (Ibid.) which calls for the establishment of regular visits by in-
dependent international and national bodies in places where people are de-
prived of their liberty in order to prevent the commission of torture and other
cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
In the domestic sphere, the 1987 Philippine constitution provides under
Section 2, Article II that it ‘adopts the generally accepted principles of interna-

8
tional law as part of the law of the land’. Likewise, the Bill of Rights provision
in Section 19(2), Article III prohibits the employment of physical, psychologi-
cal and degrading punishment and the use of sub-standard or inadequate pris-
on facilities as well as outlaws the use of ‘secret detention places, solitary, in-
communicado or similar forms of detention’. The infliction of cruel, inhuman
or degrading punishment is also explicitly prohibited under Section 19(1), Arti-
cle III.
Months after the CAT concluding observation was released, in compliance
with its treaty obligations the Philippines towards the end of 2009 enacted Re-
public Act 9745 , otherwise known as the ‘Anti-Torture Act of 2009’ (hereinaf-
ter, RA 9745), which explicitly defines, prohibits and penalizes torture and oth-
er cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment and even declares that
the right to freedom from torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading pun-
ishment or treatment as an absolute right.
Although the international rights norms for the humane treatment of pris-
oners are incorporated in the Philippine domestic legal system, the concluding
observations of the CAT shows that the Philippines is not able to comply with
international standards in the treatment of prisoners.
Why human rights laws rarely provide the whole solution to end human
rights violations (Khan 2009: 202-221) as shown here in the Philippine experi-
ence, will be explained using socio-legal approach, which sees human rights
laws as not existing in a vacuum and thus not insulated from the wider socio-
political and economic structures of society (Banakar and Travers: 2005)

2.3 Socio-Legal Approach to Evaluating the Rights

Narratives
Merry (2006a: 179) argued that human rights must become part of society’s
legal consciousness and must fit into the existing normative structure and
ways of thinking to make it acceptable and achieve its emancipatory potential.
That rights must be culturally legitimate (Ibid.) is crucial so that rights claims
made by people will not be treated as unimportant, unreasonable, or insignifi-
cant (Merry 2006a: 215). It is not enough that rights are legislated in the do-
mestic legal system for it may just be defeated by interests hostile to that right.
The most crucial thing is to make that right acceptable to all.
Likewise Fortman (2006: 35) said that ‘while the whole idea of human
rights is based upon the expectation that evident violations will lead to conten-
tious action resulting in redress, human rights often remain without effective
remedies. This is due to crucial deficiencies: first, the inadequacy of law to
check those in power; second, and the lack of receptivity to these rights in
many cultural and politico-economic contexts’.
One cannot very well argue against cultural legitimacy as an extremely sig-
nificant factor in determining compliance with human rights norms, it being
supported by several empirical studies. Hence, the reason socio-legal approach
is chosen as analytical framework in this study.
How does one then make human rights acceptable to society? This brings
us to the role of ‘translators’. Translators are agents whether community leaders,
NGOs, social movements that can make global ideas such as human rights be-
9
come acceptable and meaningful in a particular social setting (Merry 2006b).
Referred by Merry (2006a: 179) as ‘localizing transnational knowledge of
rights’, translators make possible the incorporation of human rights into local
cultural systems and for people to see their problems in human rights terms.
Translation enhances rights consciousness and make the most vulnerable and
in need of rights recognize their entitlements and assert their rights (ibid.).
Translation can ultimately empower people to claim their right with the aid of
the law (Khan 2009: 203).
That human rights laws are not implemented on the ground due to a hos-
tile environment (Ibid.: 205) is illustrated in the law prohibiting cruel, inhuman,
degrading punishment or treatment. This is exacerbated by research data sug-
gesting lack of translators of prisoners’ rights in Cebu. The concept of sociolo-
gy of punishment will be used as a further analytic lens in examining this phe-
nomenon.

2.4 Sociology of Punishment: Why It Matters?

Why should offenders be punished? The utilitarian answer to this question will
be ‘to prevent crime’; while the retributivist answer will be ‘because they deserve it’
(Hudson, 1996: 38). I will argue that the retributivist perspective towards pun-
ishment is resistant to the human rights norms for humane treatment of pris-
oners and in a society where retributivism remains the dominant popular sen-
timent, endeavours to making the society legally conscious of this particular
right may prove to be difficult.
Hudson (1996: 3) broadly categorized the perspectives of punishment into
two: 1.) Utilitarian – which sees the goal of punishment as to prevent future
crime; 2.) Retributivist – which holds that the aim of punishment is to exact
retribution from offenders for their crimes and is punitive in character.
Utilitarianism has an instrumentalist-functionalist view of punishment as
‘strategy for control’ through a mix of deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabili-
tation (Hudson 1998), the ultimate goal of which is to prevent future crime
(Hudson, 1996: 3). Deterrence aims to prevent the commission or re-
commission of crime through threats of negative outcomes (Dissel 2008) such
as long prison sentences (Hudson, 1996: 4). According to Dissel (2008) how-
ever, research has not proven that deterrence has any significant impact on the
crime rate. Incapacitation aims to prevent crime though rendering the offender
incapable of committing further crimes by his or her removal from society by
way of imprisonment (Ibid.). Rehabilitation aims to reintegrate the offender
into society after a period of punishment as well as to design punishment to
achieve this objective (Hudson, 1996: 26). It seeks to bring about change in
some aspect of the offender thought to cause offender’s criminal tendencies
such as attitudes, cognitive processes, personality, or mental health for the
purpose of making the offender less likely to break the law, or to reduce recidi-
vism (Dissel 2008).
Retributivism sees punishment as putting moral blame on the offender. Its
aim is not about crime prevention but retribution (Ibid.). It can best be
summed up by Immanuel Kant’s 1788 work, Critique of Practical Reason, quoted
in Rachels (2007: 510) thus:

10
 When someone delights in annoying and vexing peace loving folk receives at
last a right good beating, it is certainly an ill, but everyone approves of it and
considers it as good in itself, even nothing further results from it.

The declared purpose of imprisonment under international human rights

laws, specifically under the ICCPR is for the rehabilitation and reformation of
the prisoner. Rehabilitation stems from the idea that human behaviour is the
product of antecedent causes and that therapeutic measures like educational
and vocational training, counselling, or medical treatment can actually cure
criminal tendencies of the offender (Dissel 2008). According to Dissel (2008),
the rehabilitation ideal served as basis for penal reform originally in the West,
which later has been adopted by the UN.
Whether the rationale for punishment in the Philippines is for retribution
or rehabilitation is moot. International human rights norms and our domestic
laws, in principle, already embraced the rehabilitative ideal of punishment.
Despite the incorporation of the rehabilitative framework of punishment
into the domestic legal system, however, this hardly made a dent in Philippine
prisons as borne out by increasing crime rate (International Centre for Prison
Studies 2011) and sharply rising recidivism (National Statistics Coordination
Board 2011). One is then given to wonder whether the Philippines actually
employs rehabilitative measures which are supposed to curb criminality or is
still stuck with the retributivist ideal which has no utility at all other than being
just to be mindlessly punitive and satisfy a general desire to put moral blame
on the offender. So we ask: Why still maintain punishment when it does not
serve its purpose? Or should punishment be strictly viewed in a means-end
framework?
Garland’s theory on sociology of punishment, or ‘the body of thought
which explores the relations between punishment and society, its purpose be-
ing to understand legal punishment as a social phenomenon and thus trace its
role in social life’ (Garland 1990: 1) can be illuminating.
Commenting on Garland’s work, Hudson (1998: 554) said: ‘by focusing
on punishment as an institution in itself rather than as one among many mech-
anisms of control was able to demonstrate the distinctiveness of punishment
and to reconnect it with cultural aspects of society which are lost in the func-
tionalism of seeing punishment (merely) as a means of control, ignoring its ex-
pressive aspect’.
To Garland (1990), in order to fully comprehend modern punishment, the
Foucauldian view of punishment’s rationale as an instrument for control, must
be wedded to the Durkheimian view of punishment as something that is not
rational nor instrumental, but is irrational, unthinking emotion, such that pas-
sion is central to punishment, the essence of which is its being the expression
of the so-called conscience collective (Ibid.). Modern punishment should be
therefore understood as the ‘realm for the expression of social value and emo-
tions as well as a process for asserting control’ (ibid: 4).
This Durkheimian social sentiment thesis, viewed as the ‘direct and pow-
erful expression of conscience collective relayed through the medium of indi-
vidual consciences who composed it’ (Ibid.: 7-8) best explains the retributive
purpose of punishment. And as Garland put it: ‘The punitive reaction is thus a

11
defensive response, grounded in the individual’s sense of the sacred, and trig-
gered by any crime which violates this deeply held beliefs’ (Ibid.: 8).
The combination of the Foucauldian concept of state control and the
Durkheimian social sentiment thesis that Garland argued as ‘forces which play
a part in the process of punishment’ (Ibid.: 10) is the lens by which the wide
disparity between right and reality will be examined in the case of the human
right of prisoners’ against cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment or treat-
ment.

2.5 Setting the Standards Straight

In order to address the research problem and to effect a proper assessment
of the human rights situation in the prisons, it is important to level-off what
comes within the purview of the term ‘cruel, inhuman, or degrading punish-
ment or treatment’.
As earlier emphasized, the UDHR prohibits abusive treatment of prison-
ers in the form of torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading pun-
ishment or treatment. This UDHR provision is echoed in the ICCPR, which
further provides that persons in detention shall be treated with humanity and
respect for their dignity.
These international instruments, however, do not provide a definition of
these concepts. Only torture, although not defined under the UDHR and the
ICCPR, has been given a specific meaning by the UNCAT.
The term ‘cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’ however,
remains not defined by any of the treaties or conventions mentioned above.
Thus, the question now is: What is cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment then by international standards?
Rhona Smith (2012: 239) posits that although there is no universal defini-
tion of ‘cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’, the term can be
understood in the light of the definition of torture because it entails a lesser
degree of severity than torture.
To some international human rights expert, prison conditions are a key
consideration in determining existence of cruel, inhuman or degrading pun-
ishment or treatment as these impact most directly the experience of prisoners
while in prison (Easton, 2011: 69).
The SMR, although it does not provide in detail a model system of penal
institutions, sets a standard on what constitutes good principle and practice in
the humane treatment of prisoners. These are:
• Separate accommodation between sentenced and remand prison-
ers; male and female; adult and children
• Accommodation should meet requirements of health taking into
account climatic conditions; there should be only one person in a
cell but if this is not possible, overcrowding must be avoided; sep-
arate and sufficient bedding for each prisoner to be always kept
clean

12
 • Sanitary installations must be adequate, clean and decent as well as
adequate shower and bathing installations
• Prisoners to be allowed their own clothing, if disallowed by prison
rules the clothing provided must not be degrading or humiliating
• Provision of food must be at the usual hours and they shall be of
adequate nutritional value for health and strength and of whole-
some quality; drinking water must be made available anytime
• Prisoner to be provided the opportunity to exercise outdoors at
least one hour daily, weather permitting
• Availability of at least one medical officer for each prison facility
and the provision of adequate medical treatment to every prison-
er, including dental and psychiatric needs
• Women institutions to be provided with the necessary natal care
and treatment

Aside from the SMR, there is also the 1988 UN General Assembly Resolu-
tion called the Body of Principles For The Protection Of All Persons Under
Any Form Of Detention Of Imprisonment. This resolution reiterates the
UDHR and ICCPR principles of affording at all times the basic civil liberties
of detained persons. Two years later, in 1990, the UN General Assembly Reso-
lution named the Basic Treatment For The Treatment Of Prisoners followed
suit. It again mandates that prisoners shall be treated with the respect due their
inherent dignity and value as human beings.
The CAT considers as cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment or treat-
ment the following, among others: detention in a cell for 22 hours without
meaningful activity; prisoners having to pay for a portion of expenses related
to their imprisonment; reprisals for reporting acts of torture and other ill-
treatment; prolonged solitary confinement; prolonged incommunicado deten-
tion (Committee Against Torture 2006).
Under the ICCPR, some of the more significant pronouncements of the
Human Rights Committee (HRC) the following come within the purview of
cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment or treatment are: 1.) causing mental
or psychological suffering and physical pain to the prisoner; 2.) acute depriva-
tions such as denial of proper medical care and lack of decent food; 3.) deten-
tion in a cell without adequate bedding, natural light, and proper sanitation in-
stalments; 4.) beating of prisoners whether done by jail authorities or private
individuals such as fellow prisoners; 5.) any treatment that is humiliating (Hu-
man Rights Committee 2006).
In this paper, the concept ‘cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment or
treatment’ is meant those standards set by the international human rights bod-
ies which essentially refers to it as any act or condition that can cause physi-
cal, mental, and psychological suffering to the prisoner and necessarily includes
conditions of detention not in keeping with the dignity of the prisoner as a
human being.

13
Chapter 3
Overview of the Philippine Prison System

This chapter provides brief history and summary of the Philippine prison sys-
tem and policies. It shows the current set-up of the Philippine prison regime,
describing the evolution of the theoretical underpinnings of the Philippine
prison regime from being punitive to rehabilitative and the influence of the
international human rights norms to the government’s current prison policy
framework.

3.1 Retributivism in Pre-colonial and Colonial Period

The pre-Spanish colonial era was marked by basic political diversity. For-
mal prison system was non-existent. The main political unit was the barangay
which exercised jurisdiction within its small territorial limits composed mostly
of about 100 to 200 families (Albis et al.: 1977). Imprisonment was unheard of.
There were no prisons to house any felon since punishment was mainly retrib-
utive, with penalty ranging from death, incineration, flagellation, mutilation,
swimming under water for a fixed time, ant treatment and fines (Ibid.).
The formal prison system in the Philippines started only during the Span-
ish regime, which was established in 1847 (Bureau of Corrections, 2012a).
Spanish criminal justice system was punitive or retributive in character (Albis et
al.: 1977).
Not much changed when American rule substituted Spanish rule in the
1900s. Penal system remained to be retributive and punitive (Ibid.). However,
the Revised Penal Code, which was the codified criminal laws at that time (and
up until the present) has some redeeming features such as the mitigating and
exempting circumstances provision wherein the circumstances of the criminal
at the time of the commission of the crime are to be considered for purposes
of lowering down penalties (Ibid.).
After the colonial period, punitive or retributivist punishment began to
wane with the onslaught of reformist ideal towards imprisonment.

3.2 Prison Reforms following Independence

During the commonwealth period when the Philippines was granted self-
government but was still technically under American rule, the idea of humane
punishment began to surface. Under the 1935 Philippine Constitution, there
already was a prohibition against cruel punishment, under Article 1(19) thus:
‘Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment in-
flicted.’ When the Philippines gained independence after the Second World
War, rehabilitation or reformation of prisoners and humanizing prison condi-
tions began to be advocated. The DOJ issued rules for the treatment of pris-
oners which aimed at the rehabilitation of the criminal. The purpose for such
rules was not merely to punish the crime but likewise to rehabilitate or correct
the criminal (Ibid.).

14
 The term ‘rehabilitation’ entered the official jargon of prisons in the coun-
try in 1955. This was when the Geneva Convention introduced the United Na-
tions Standards on the Treatment of Prisoners to which the country is a signa-
tory. Considered a breakthrough in protecting the rights of the incarcerated or
those under the custody of law, rehabilitation has become the principal goal of
Philippine prisons since then (Bureau of Corrections 2012a).
The old (1935) constitution guarantee against cruel and unusual punish-
ment finds resonance in the 1973 constitution and further finds its way again in
the 1987 constitution, but, whereas in the previous two constitutions the pro-
hibition was on cruel and/or unusual punishment only, the prohibition clause
now was broadened to cover all kinds of ‘cruel, inhuman, or degrading pun-
ishment or treatment’. It must be noted that the 1987 constitution was drafted
after the Philippines signed the UNCAT that uses the terminology ‘cruel, in-
human or degrading punishment or treatment’.
Aside from the constitution, RA 9745 likewise outlaws cruel, inhuman, or
degrading punishment or treatment. The legislation is aimed towards ensuring
the promotion prisoners’ rights and in furtherance of the rehabilitation and
reformation of prisoners.
Here we see an incorporation of the international human rights norms for
humane treatment of prisoners to the Philippine domestic legal system. The
significance of this incorporation in the current Philippine prison system is
elaborated below.

3.3 The Current State of the Philippine Prison System

At the outset, it is important to recall a point made earlier that in the Philip-
pines prison and jail both mean a place of detention, although they are two
different concepts in strict technical and administrative terms and under two
different agencies of the government. Because of this set-up, both the joint
civil society report to the CAT and the US Department of State report men-
tioned earlier described the Philippine prison systems as very fragmented. Ac-
cording to the civil society report, the non-existence of one integrated prison
system makes it difficult for government to implement measures to monitor
and prevent acts of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or pun-
ishment most especially in provincial and district jails which are obscure places
from the national government’s vantage point.
The above said, the current official policy framework for both prisons and
jails in the Philippines is, in principle, for the rehabilitation and reformation of
prisoners and to respect their human rights and dignity.
Specifically with the Bucor, its official name before was Bureau of Prisons
but was changed of Bureau of Corrections in 1989 under the post-Marcos re-
gime of President Corazon Aquino, because of the overriding consideration
for rehabilitation of prisoners. Its current official mandate is stated as: ‘The prin-
cipal task of the Bureau of Corrections is the rehabilitation of national prisoners’; and their
official slogan reads: ‘Bringing back the dignity of man’ (Bureau of Corrections
2012b).

15
 The BJMP is a relatively new government agency. It was created in 1991
under Pres. Aquino in order to professionalize jail management and services
which previously was under the defunct Philippine Constabulary/Integrated
National Police (PC/INP) of the Marcos regime (Bureau of Jail Management
and Penology 2012). BJMP is tasked to take over operation and administration
of municipal, city and district jails with the primary aim of rehabilitation of
prisoners. It has four major areas of rehabilitation program, namely: Livelihood
Projects, Educational and Vocational Training, Recreation and Sports, and Re-
ligious/ Spiritual Activities. These are to be continuously implemented to elim-
inate the offenders' pattern of criminal behaviour and to reform them to be-
come law-abiding and productive citizens (Ibid.).
It is clear that the government in adopting these policies for rehabilitation
and reformation of prisoners has in mind the rehabilitative ideal of imprison-
ment set by international human rights norms. However, data suggests this is
not felt on the ground.
First, the CAT concluding observations in 2009, reported about Philippine
prison system, the following: 1.) sufficient basis to believe the widespread, con-
sistent and credible reports of use of torture and ill-treatment against persons
under detention; 2.) presence of high number of complaints of torture and ill-
treatment committed by state officials but limited number of investigations
and much more limited number of convictions; 3.) several instances that the
CHR is denied entry in certain jails, prisons and other detention facilities; 4.)
severe overcrowding, sub-standard facilities, and lack of basic facilities in jails,
prisons and other detention facilities; 5.) existence of credible reports of rape
and other forms of sexual abuse against women prisoners and the placement of
male and female prisoners in the same cell; 6.) instances that children are still
detained together with adults; and, 7.) lack of information on monitoring and
evaluation of the impact of these training programs aimed to eradicate torture
and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment or treatment (UN Com-
mittee Against Torture 2009, pars. 11-20, pp. 5-12 ).
Second, a report (US Department of State Human Rights Country Report
2010) released in 2011 by the US State Department on human rights practices
in the Philippines confirmed the CAT 2009 observations. This report enumer-
ated rampant and widespread violations of prisoners’ rights in the Philippines,
including:
• Torture as an ingrained part of the arrest and detention process
• Physical abuse of prisoners by prison officials is common
• Women vulnerable to sexual abuse by prison officials
• Harsh prison conditions characterized by overcrowding, lack of
basic infrastructure, inadequate nutrition and medical attention
• Lack of potable water, poor sanitation, poor ventilation causing
health problems
• 871 deaths in 2010 alone due to cardiopulmonary diseases and
tuberculosis
Third, the problem of increasing crime rate and rising recidivism. Current
population of Philippine prisons shows over congestion by approximately
300%, meaning more and more people are committing crime as indicated by
16
the increase in the number of prisoners from 35,000 plus in 1993 to 100,000
plus in 2009 (International Centre for Prison Studies 2011). Prison rate per
population has more than doubled, from 53 prisoners/100,000 population to
111prisoners/100,000 population (Ibid.). Likewise, recidivism has been signif-
icantly rising from 2004-2008 as one government agency has reported (Nation-
al Statistical Coordination Board 2011).
Undeniably, given the current state of Philippine prisons, the incorpora-
tion of the international human rights norms for humane treatment of prison-
ers in the constitution and the laws did not translate to actual implementation
or enforcement of these norms.

17
Chapter 4
The Malaise of the Right: Findings and
Analysis

Among the more important findings in this study is that the lived realities of
the prisoners reveal a blatant violation of the norms for the humane treatment
of prisoners. More importantly, there is a clear showing of lack of legal con-
sciousness among all actors. It is evident in what data indicates that violations
of the human right of prisoners against cruel, inhuman, or degrading punish-
ment or treatment are not seen in rights terms and the pervasive narrow notion
of the right. Knowledge of rights which will lead to legal consciousness is cru-
cial because one’s willingness to see their problems in rights terms and adopt
rights framework depends on one’s knowledge of the rights one is entitled to
(Merry 2006a: 215). In the same manner that how that right claim is treated
depends on the rights consciousness of those who are supposed to implement
and enforce it (Ibid.). By way of analysis, I will argue that this lack of legal
consciousness is due to fact that society is not fully receptive of this right, the
ultimate reason of which is the dominance of the retributivist view of punish-
ment.
The three tables in the Appendices section are the data on the inmates-
respondents. It is indicative of what Vivien Stern (1998: 114) said that most
prisoners come from the poor, the uneducated and the unemployed. It is readi-
ly noticeable in the data that there is only one inmate who graduated from col-
lege. More than half did not graduate from elementary. Few have reached high
school. All but one does not have their own lawyer. This just proves that in
prison the underprivileged and the marginalized are overrepresented. Indeed,
as what Stern said: ‘The prison is the magnifying mirror which reflects and en-
larges the social problems of the society which it serves’ (Ibid.).

4.1 Conditions Inconsistent with Human dignity: The

Lived Realities of Prisoners
In the words of one prisoner1:
When I was little my grandmother said that hell is too hot, it is the hottest of
all places. Now I am beginning to think that my jail cell, because of severe
overcrowding, with no electric fan, with a window too small, and with a smell
from the toilet that is almost unbearable because there is no water to flush the
waste, perhaps this is the hell that my grandmother in the past meant. So hell
is on earth, not a place we go to when we die.
This statement encapsulates that conditions in the prisons, laid out in de-
tails below, are inconsistent with human dignity, a clear contravention of the
human rights norms, validating what Carey et al. (2010:12) said that human

1 Personal interview with inmate 1 of Jail B

18
rights is confronted with the problem of huge gap between the promise of
formal rights and harsh realities.

4.1.1 Severe Overcrowding and its Effects

International standards provide that prison accommodation must comply with
the requirements for, adequate space, proper ventilation, and suitable sleeping
accommodation2. In the Philippines, while there is no specific policy guideline
regarding prison accommodation, jail management is guided by the BJMP vi-
sion of ‘humane safekeeping and development of inmates’3, according to the
Jail A Female Dormitory warden (hereinafter, Warden 1).
For Jail A Female Dormitory, the warden4 said that the 8 cells in the jail
are designed to accommodate 20 inmates only. But since there is a wide dispar-
ity between those who go out and who come in, prison authorities are left
without a choice but to stuff the cells beyond their designed capacity. Warden
1 said that the 20 inmates in a 25-sq. m. cell is even way below international
standards. Jail A Female Dormitory has a 32% over congestion rate, it is sup-
posed to hold only 160 inmates but in July 2012 it has a total of 211 inmates.
The same goes with the Jail B Male Dormitory. It’s warden5 (hereinafter,
Warden 2) admitted that the 52 cells in the jail with an area of 74 sq.m. are
designed to accommodate 25 inmates but all cells are now actually holding
over 30 inmates, some even hold over 40. The capacity of the male dormitory
is only 1300 but it holds 2113 inmates – a 63% over congestion rate as of July
2012. Warden 2 admitted that even if the 25 inmates per cell is followed, still
this is not in compliance with international standards.
The data also paints a picture of severely overcrowded cells in the Jail C.
In the female dormitory, the over congestion rate is 124%. It only has one jail
cell with 114 sq. m. floor area, designed to hold 38 inmates. But as of July 2012
the inmate population is 85, as revealed by the jail warden6 (hereinafter, War-
den 5).
The male dormitory of the Jail C is worse, with 243% over congestion rate
according to its jail warden7 (hereinafter, Warden 4). It has jail cells of 10 sq.
m.-size each, designed to accommodate 3 inmates each only. But as of July
2012, Warden 4 said that the average actual inmates in each cell is 20.
The Jail B male dormitory is the worst. It is 477% over congested as of Ju-
ly 2012, as revealed by its warden,8 (hereinafter, Warden 3). Its jail cells that
measure 5 sq. m. in area are designed to hold 4 inmates, but they’re actually
holding an average 15 inmates. The jail cells with 18 sq. m. floor area supposed
to accommodate 12 inmates are actually holding 40-50 inmates. There is even a
few that hold up to 60 admitted Warden 3.

2 Paragraphs 9-19, UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners

3 Personal interview with Warden 1 (hereinafter, Warden 1 interview)
4 Warden 1 interview
5 Personal interview with Warden 2 (hereinafter, Warden 2 interview)
6 Personal interview with Warden 5 (hereinafter, Warden 5 interview)
7 Personal interview with Warden 4 (hereinafter, Warden 4 interview)
8 Personal interview with Warden 3 (hereinafter, Warden 3 interview)

19
 Overcrowding has very serious effects on the day-to-day life in prison. It
brings tension and friction among prisoners. Warden 3 said that ‘inmates are so
hot-headed because the jail cells are so cramped, the reason why there is always
infighting inside the cells. So we let them go out of the cell and let them stay
in the hallway’.
An inmate of Jail A said:
Because of our very cramped cells, since I was in prison 5 years ago, I would
be very happy if I’d be able to sleep 2-3 hours in the 24-hour day. This ex-
plains why I am very thin now and always sickly9.
When asked how they sleep with severe overcrowding, one inmate of Jail
C said, smiling sarcastically: ‘well, we practice to be like a horse, we sleep while
standing’10.
Another most serious effect of severe overcrowding is the spread of dis-
eases. An interview with an inmate of Jail B had this to say:
It’s really so bad here in our cell. If one catches cough, colds, contagious skin
lesions, or sore eyes, the very next day another one gets it. The next few days
all of us will have it. 11
Spread of diseases is likewise recounted by an inmate of Jail A. He narrat-
ed that:
We would never know if and what kind of ailment each of us have, because
there is no medical check-up for there is no doctor. We would only know if
the ailment is so serious already because it becomes obvious. Then we would
know later that the ailment passed on to us if there is a medical mission by
NGOs. If the medical missions will not come in a long time, well, then no
luck for us. 12

4.1.2. Undernourished and Malnourished Prisoners

By international standards, prisoners shall be served with ‘food of nutritional
value adequate for health and strength, of wholesome quality and well prepared
and served’.13 Whether there is official written guideline on provision of food
for prisoners, Warden 3 said they have none but have a budget of PhP50/day
per inmate across the board for all BJMP-supervised jails.14 The prison man-
agement for each jail facility is given a wide leeway on how this should be
spent, with the understanding that jails must provide for the basic needs of the
inmates within this budget.15
All the jail wardens said that this PhP50-daily meal budget, roughly equiva-
lent to US$1.10, covers not only the food itself, but also operational expenses
in preparing these meals such as fuel, transportation cost in buying the food,
labour cost for the staff that prepare the meals, and incidental expenses. They

9 Personal interview with Inmate 3 of Jail A

10 Personal interview with Inmate 2 of Jail C
11 Personal interview with an Inmate 2 of Jail B
12 Personal interview with an Inmate 4 of Jail A
13 Paragraph 20(1) UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners
14 Warden 3 interview
15 Id.

20
all say that the P50-budget is too small, and not even enough for even one
cheap but decent meal in the current living standards. 16
Given the high and ever-increasing prices of basic commodities in the
Philippines, what does this mean for the prisoners?
A male inmate of Jail A commenting about prison food said: ‘The food
servings are really small. They are not really enough, you would go hungry
again in less than 2 hours. The food served is of the cheap kind, without nutri-
ents’. 17
In Jail B one inmate said: ‘The same kind of food is served. There is no
time I remembered that my meal was enough. I always feel dizzy and weak be-
cause of hunger’. 18
This prison diet of a PhP50-meal budget per day is especially hard for
pregnant inmates. Two female inmates, one from Jail B and the other from Jail
C, recounted that when they gave birth their babies are so sick and they at-
tributed this to the severe lack of nutrients while still pregnant. They said that
even when pregnant, there was no increase in the amount of serving of their
food. 19

4.1.3. Lack or Absence of Proper Medical Care

International law provides that states have an obligation to ensure adequate
and proper medical care for prisoners. The SMR further provides for the avail-
ability of one qualified medical officer for each prison facility; special accom-
modation for natal care and treatment in women’s institution; provision of
dental care; the need to examine each prisoner after admission to the detention
facility; and segregation of prisoners with contagious conditions. Although
there is no specific official policy issuance on inmates’ medical care, the BJMP
Manual of Operations (2007: 114) speaks of subjecting a new inmate to medi-
cal examination. So far this is the only written rule related to medical care in
prison, admitted Warden 5.20
How poor is the medical care in these jails is revealed by interviews with
wardens and inmates. Warden 1 said that there is only one doctor serving the
whole of the Central Visayas region, a region with four provinces composed of
several cities and hundreds of municipalities. The doctor even serves as warden
of the Jail B Female Dormitory so she is not even serving full-time as prisons
doctor for the entire Central Visayas21. Warden 3 said that compared to the
inmate population of his jail facility, the supply of medicine for common illness
such as coughs, colds, or fever and others is so inadequate, so that if inmates

16 Personal separate interviews with the Warden 1, Warden 2, Warden 3, Warden 4,

and Warden 5
17 Personal interview with Inmate 5 of Jail A
18 Personal interview with Inmate 2 of Jail B
19 Personal interview with Inmate 4 Jail of Jail B and Inmate 3 Jail C
20 Warden 5 interview
21 Warden 1 interview

21
get sick they have to wait for visits by their family and friends before they can
be given medication.22
What is extremely pitiful is this story of an inmate in Jail B:
If you have a serious sickness but which is actually curable, don’t hope that
you will be cured, because you will never really get proper treatment. It will
even get worse because all those with serious ailment will be put together in
one cell, and they will contract each other’s ailment. 23
A male inmate of Jail A who assists the staff in the jail clinic said, jokingly:
I told my fellow inmates that if they get sick, they make sure it will be on the
first week of the month because the supply of medicine from the region every
month is so insufficient, it last only in the first week, sometimes it lasts for
two weeks but this is very rare. 24

4.1.4 Poor Sanitation and Hygiene

As laid out by international standards, detention facilities are to be provided
with adequate sanitary installations, including bath and shower to enable the
prisoners to comply with the calls of nature and have bath and shower for hy-
giene25. Again even if there is no specific policy guidelines regarding this, the
BJMP general mandate is for the continuous improvement of jail facilities.26
All inmates-respondents, except the inmates in Jail A Female Dormitory,
related that they have to endure with long hours of water supply interruption
everyday resulting to un-flushed toilets in their cramped cells and skipping
baths for days in a very hot climate. One narrated that:
You would never want to breathe because it gives you headache and makes
you sick because of the various kinds of bad smell from the toilet and the
body odour of fellow inmates who haven’t been able to bathe for several
days.27

4.1.5 Paying for Space to Sleep, Water and Food Items

To reiterate, a CAT decision in 2006 said that prisoners having to pay or share
in the expense during their detention is cruel, inhuman, or degrading punish-
ment or treatment (Committee Against Torture 2006).
In contravention of this CAT pronouncement, inmates and wardens alike
admitted that prisoners have to bring their own beddings, blankets, and pillows
because these are not provided in prison. An inmate of Jail A said that on aver-
age the cells accommodate cover over 30 inmates, but usually the beds provid-
ed are good for 8 only. This meant inmates competing for bed to sleep. Bed is
available for the highest bidder and this goes to the inmates’ common fund for

22 Warden 3 interview
23 Personal interview with an Inmate 1 of Jail B
24 Personal interview with an Inmate 4 of Jail A
25 Paragraphs 12 and 13, United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment

of Prisoners
26 Warden 4 interview
27 Personal Interview with Inmate 1 of Jail C

22
that particular cell. The funds raised will be for any emergency situations for
the inmates, mostly for hospitalization, as the prison cannot provide for proper
medical care. 28
Toiletries such as shampoo, soap, toothpaste, toothbrush, and the like are
likewise not provided. Prisoners have to buy them from the store inside the
prison or have to wait for family visits to have these items.
Warden 1 said that inmates have to buy their own coffee or hot chocolate
during breakfast as these are not provided in the prison breakfast menu due to
budgetary constraints. And as narrated by an inmate in Jail C: ‘Well, for me I
don’t drink the water here in prison because I would get an upset stomach
drinking it. But there is purified water for sale so I would buy rather than risk
having an upset stomach’. 29

4.1.6 Segregation Issues

The SMR provides that sentenced prisoners shall be kept separate from the
prisoners on remand.30This can be found in the BJMP Manual of Operations
(2007: 122) stating that there shall be different classes of prisoners shall be sep-
arated from each other: sentenced from remand, male from female, or adult
from minors.
Segregation of male from female and adults from minors, while already
enforce, sentenced and remand prisoners however are still living in the same
quarters or cells in the three jail facilities. When asked why there is no segrega-
tion, Warden 3 answered: ‘Where do we place the sentenced prisoners if they
are to be kept separate? We don’t even have a place for those who are sick,
how much more the sentenced prisoners?’31. Warden 4 of Lapu-lapu City said
about segregation: ‘It’s in our Manual of Operations that sentenced prisoners
should be kept separate, but there is simply just no space. We are even so
overcrowded now because the place is too small’.32
How dire the conditions of detention in these jail facilities is obvious.
Conditions so poor that by international standards are inconsistent with human
dignity and constitute violations of the human rights norms for humane treat-
ment of prisoners. These conditions reflect what the Asian Legal Rights Center
report (Asian Human Rights Commission 2010) that describes the Philippine
prisons, as:
The prison in the country has become a dungeon, an isolation cell and a place
where prisoners had to learn how to survive. They are trapped in an envi-
ronment where not even an iota of their supposed rehabilitation and reinte-
gration to the society ever existed. The prison system itself--structurally and
systemically--dehumanizes the prisoners. It is a mockery of the government's
responsibility to rehabilitate law offenders while in prison; and to prepare for
their reintegration after completing their jail terms; or, being declared by the

28 Personal interview with an Inmate 6 of Jail A

29 Personal interview with an Inmate 1 of Jail C
30 Paragraph 8(b) of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment

Of Prisoners
31 Warden 3 interview
32 Warden 4 interview

23
 court as innocent. The prison has rather become a frightening place and a
place to escape from, not for rehabilitation of lawbreakers.
The above shows that indeed human rights is perennially plagued with
the huge gap between the promise of formal rights and the cruel realities that
people experience on the ground (Carey et al. 2010: 12). Interestingly however,
these harsh conditions in prisons are not perceived as human rights violations.

4.2 Not Seeing the Violations in Rights Terms and the

Vulnerability Issue
Both prison officials and inmates do not see these harsh conditions as consti-
tuting violations of the human right of prisoners against cruel, inhuman or de-
grading punishment or treatment.

4.2.1 Inmates’ Perception

Take for example what an inmate City Jail A said when asked about what
would she report to the CHR about a human rights violation in prison, if any:
I don’t think there is something to report about our human rights. Our war-
den is a good person, prisoners here are never physically abused. If we ask,
for example, water to drink we don’t get any physical beating for it, not like
the prisoners in Manila, I have heard that prisoners there would get some
beatings if they ask for a lot of things33.
Asked what she thought about the inhuman physical conditions, she said:
‘I accepted it already. I don’t think I have a right to protest because nobody
pushed me here but a result of something I did.’34
Similarly, an inmate of Jail B commented:
I will only complain if I’m physically beaten to death because that’s already a
violation of my human right. I will stop hoping about improvement in our
living conditions here, our country is very poor, do you think they will priori-
tize the prisoners? It’s very difficult outside the prison, while you’re having
breakfast you’ll worry how you get the money to buy the next meal. And you
even don’t have a place to stay. This is a consequence of what I did, so I
won’t complain.35
Another inmate was asked if, in the entire 6 years that she was in jail, she
heard or noticed of prisoners complaining to the CHR about the awful condi-
tions they experienced in prison, had this to say36:
We don’t complain at all. I think the people from human rights already know
our condition here because when you are inside you can see it and it is obvi-
ous. So we don’t complain because what they ask of us is also about whether
we are physically abused here or confined in ‘bartolina’ or if the officials are

33 Personal interview with Inmate 3 of Jail A

34 Id.
35 Personal interview with Inmate 2 of Jail B
36 Personal Interview with Inmate 4 of Jail C

24
 running a business inside. We don’t complain because it’s our fault, like me I
was selling ‘shabu’37 when I knew it’s a crime.
What is very interesting is this comment of another inmate, she said38:
About torture and beatings I’ll complain about it if it happens to me. With
regard to our very poor conditions here as you can see, it is our own choos-
ing. I was bad. I regret it but I have to accept my fate.

4.2.2 Prison Officials’ Perception

No less than a ranking officer of the BJMP Central Visayas insinuated that,
while his top priority will be that torture and any form of physical abuse or
mysterious deaths of prisoners will be eradicated in the jails, claimed that there
is nothing he can do about reports of dire conditions in prison because BJMP
is only operating within the very meagre budget that the government allotted it.
He added that the priorities of the government are understandable, because
even public schools and hospitals are so underfunded.39 He even posed a ques-
tion to me and said:
You, Attorney, which will you prioritize? The school children, the sick, or the
prisoners? But torture, physical abuse and solitary confinement are a clear
human rights violation. That’s in our BJMP trainings40.
This sentiment was shared by the wardens interviewed. When asked why
severe overcrowding in Jail B has never been resolved, Warden 3 said:
It’s simply not a priority of both the national and local government. The
BJMP will not construct a building if XXX41 City will not donate a piece of
land for a new jail facility. What seems to be the only constant directive from
the higher up is never to allow torture because it’s human rights violation and
we, jail officials, can go to prison for that aside from losing our job.42
It can be inferred from the statements by the inmates and prison officials
that violations of the right against cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment or
treatment relating to conditions of detention consistent with human dignity are
not considered as human rights violations. In the case of the prisoners, they
themselves believe that because it is by their own act that they landed in prison,
they don’t see a violation of their right in the inhumane conditions that they
have to endure. Prison official themselves said that prisoners are unlike the
abandoned street children or the rape victims whose fate was not of their own
choosing.
Implicit here that vulnerability is seen as a crucial factor for victimhood,
which is problematic as the situation here suggests.

37 Shabu is the local name for the drug methamphetamine, an illegal drug in the Phil-
ippines under Republic Act 9165
38 Personal interview with Inmate 5 of Jail C
39 Personal interview with the top ranking officer on 24 July 2012
40 Id.
41 For purposes of maintaining anonymity
42 Warden 3 interview

25
4.2.3 The Problem with Vulnerability
A human right violation not seen in rights term can be linked to the general
notion that vulnerability is a requisite to victimhood. This is because, as
Goodale (2007: 30-31) posited: ‘the international human rights system, though
founded on statements of largely individual rights, was nevertheless created to
protect vulnerable populations against the kind of large-scale outrages that had
plagued Europe’. The implication of this emphasis on vulnerability is that it
influences the determination who are human right victims and who are not
(Merry 2007). Thus, to be considered a human right victim, the dimension of
choice is very important (Ibid.)

4.3 Narrow(ed) Notion of the Right and What it

Implies

Whereas by international standards the right against cruel, inhuman or degrad-

ing punishment or treatment covers a very broad area, the right is viewed on a
very restricted sense not only by the prison officials but also by the prisoners.
They confine it only to acts of torture, other physical abuse, and solitary con-
finements. This view is even shared by organizations volunteering in the pris-
ons as well as by government lawyers interviewed.
The SMR provides that while discipline and order must be maintained in
the detention facility, it should be with no more restriction than is necessary
for safe custody and order.43There is a clear prohibition against corporal pun-
ishment, confinement in a dark cell or any close confinement, reduction of di-
et, or any other kind of punishment prejudicial to the mental and physical
health of the prisoners.44 These SMR rules are even transposed in the BJMP
standard operating procedures for jails (Bureau of Jail Management and Penol-
ogy Manuel of Operations 2007: 117).

4.3.1 What Officials Say

Asked about the prison policy of disciplining prisoners, Warden 2 was quick to
quip that:
There is no longer corporal punishment and ‘bartolina’45 because that’s cruel
and inhuman, otherwise we will be charged of human rights violations. It’s
only up to withholding of privileges46.

43 Paragraph 27, United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Pris-
oners
44 Paragraphs 31 and 32(1 & 2), United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the

Treatment of Prisoners
45 In the Philippines, the word ‘bartolina’ is generally understood to mean a very small

cell without window and lighting, where the one prisoner confined inside has very
limited movement because of its size. It is a form of solitary confinement.
46 Personal interview with Warden 2 (hereinafter, Warden 2 interview)

26
 When asked about the reality of severe overcrowding and lack of medical
care in his prison, the warden said:
That is inhuman, it’s in the international law standards we learned in our
trainings. But unlike torture, nobody can be charged for overcrowding. It’s
like a right which is not really a right at all.47
Warden 1 also narrated that physical punishment and solitary confinement
are no longer practiced because of human rights issues. The way prisoners are
disciplined is strictly confined to withholding of privileges only, which may
range from limitation of family visit, limiting phone calls outside, or limiting
outdoor exercise. That there is no more physical abuse because according to
her that is cruel and inhuman treatment.48

4.3.2 What Inmates Say

An inmate of Jail A likewise narrated:
Physical abuse no longer exists. We, prisoners, know it’s inhuman in the oc-
casional lectures we got from the human rights office and law students. Ac-
cording to them, we should report right away any incident of physical abuse49.
I asked this prisoner what did these organizations tell them about prob-
lems of severe crowding and other inhuman conditions of detention and she
answered:
They told us to make it a priority to report something where someone can be
charged in court. They said that for overcrowding and the like, we can never
really charge anyone in court for that. So I said to myself that maybe this kind
of living is normal for prisoners, as long as there is never any form of physical
abuse.50
But although inmates and jail authorities alike said there never have been
incidents of inhuman treatment by jail authorities, the term being understood
to mean torture and physical abuse only, it has been revealed that sometimes
physical beatings occur as a way of disciplining an inmate, but this done by the
inmate themselves. An inmate of Jail B revealed:
We prisoners have our own self-government here in prison and the jail offi-
cials respect that. In case of infighting between inmates, before we report that
to jail officials, we resolve it by ourselves first. Sometimes, whoever is at fault,
have to endure whipping by a rubber strip, from old tires.51
Asked if the prison authorities are aware of the whipping, he answered:
‘They are aware but they said it’s not inhuman because it is our self-
government’.52

47 Id.
48 Personal interview with Warden 1
49 Personal interview with Inmate 3 of Jail A
50 Id.
51 Personal Interview with Inmate 1 of Jail B
52 Id.

27
4.3.3 What Others Involved in Prison Work Say
In my interview with the CAPA personnel, I asked what is their main interven-
tion to address the inhuman conditions of prison, he said:53
Our priority is spiritual renewal so that the prisoners can accept their fate. I
think it’s given for prisons to be a bad place. But regarding torture and physi-
cal beatings, we encourage the prisoners to report these incidents because it’s
human rights violation and against the law.
In another interview, I asked a PAO lawyer, if under RA 9745, the law
that tasked the PAO to assist victims in filing of cases in violation of the law, a
case has been filed yet for what can be considered inhuman conditions other
than torture and other types of physical abuse, and he answered54:
No. There even is not a single case for torture and other physical abuse, be-
cause inmates are scared to complain, which is a clear case of RA 9745 viola-
tion, how much more these inhuman conditions of overcrowding and the
like? You know some international law provisions are just impossible, at least
here in our poor country. Who will you sue for overcrowding? It’s very nor-
mal because people keep on committing crimes and the government has no
budget to expand our prisons.
Another PAO lawyer (hereinafter, PAO lawyer 2) answered the same
question, thus55:
As far as I know there is none. Besides, those are not really our main target. A
prison even in America is not a vacation place. This is a general knowledge.
Torture is the most important priority as of now because it’s against our mo-
rality and law. Also, the courts are not likely to entertain these kinds of cases
because the Supreme Court, in one case which I forgot, said that poor physi-
cal conditions in prison have nothing to do with the right against inhuman
treatment.
This pervasive view that the right against cruel, inhuman or degrading
punishment or treatment is limited to torture and physical abuse only is con-
firmed by the CHR lawyer I have interviewed.
This is our challenge. People and even prison officials think that the right
against cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment or treatment does not ex-
tend to inhuman physical conditions. For example, if we have prison visits jail
personnel would not deny about it. But torture and physical abuse they deny
to death even if there are media reports of prison abuse.56

4.3.4 What the Courts Say

Domestic jurisprudence in the Philippines has very little to say of what consti-
tutes cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment and it is limited to
the nature of the penalty prescribed for the crime in which the prisoner is sen-

53 Interview with CAPA personnel on 10 August 2012 (hereinafter, CAPA interview)

54 Personal interview with PAO lawyer 1 on 30 July 2012 (hereinafter, PAO lawyer 1
interview)
55 Personal interview with PAO lawyer 2 on 1 August 2012 (hereinafter, PAO lawyer 2

interview)
56 Personal interview with CHR lawyer on 23 July 2012 (hereinafter, CHR interview)

28
tenced. Judicial decisions limit the term only to a penalty that is flagrantly dis-
proportionate to the offense (Bernas 2009: 573).
In the landmark case of Alejano vs. Cabuay57, the Philippine Supreme
Court dismissed the claim of the petitioners that their rights as prisoners were
violated when the visit by their counsel was regulated and that there was cruel,
inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment because of the poor physical
condition of their prison cell. In so ruling, the Court said that:
While a detainee may not be punished prior to an adjudication of guilt in
accordance with due process of law, detention inevitably interferes with a de-
tainee’s desire to live comfortably. The fact that the restrictions inherent in
detention intrude into the detainees’ desire to live comfortably does not con-
vert those restrictions into punishment.
It can be gleaned from this pronouncement that the Court in deciding
whether cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment or treatment exists, looks
only on the nature of punishment without considering the right to conditions
of detention consistent with human dignity as set by the human rights norms.
The court went on further to say that prison authorities must be accorded
a ‘wide-ranging deference’ in implementing policies to maintain security, order,
and discipline.
This is a clearly departure from what is set by the international human
rights norms for humane treatment of prisoners.

4.3.5 Will RA 9745 Change the Restricted View of the Right?

With the enactment of RA 9745, can it be expected that things will change and
improve the lot of the prisoners? Under the law, the terms ‘torture’ and ‘cruel,
inhuman, or degrading punishment or treatment’ are now legally defined and
criminalized. In essence, ‘torture’ is defined as an intentional act causing severe
mental or physical pain on the prisoner58; while ‘cruel, inhuman, or degrading
punishment or treatment’ as any treatment less than torture that causes suffer-
ing, gross humiliation, and debasement of the prisoners.59
In a 2012 study by two NGOs advocating for prisoners’ rights, Balay Re-
habilitation Center - Philippines (Balay) and Medical Action Group - Philip-
pines (MAG), revealed that while the law is a significant legal development
aimed to curb torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment or
treatment, still public knowledge about the law is very weak; incidents of viola-
tions of the law are underreported; there is lack of rigor in investigation of vio-
lations in the rare case that they are reported; cooperation between NGOs, the
civil society and the CHR is poor; attention given by prosecutors on cases
filed under the law is, at best, lackluster; and, virtually zero cooperation of the
security forces and the law enforcement officers in investigations (Anasarias, et
al., 2012).

57 Gary Alejano, et al. vs. Pedro Cabuay et. al, G.R. No. 160792, 25 August 2005
58 Article 3(a) RA 9745
59 Article 3(b) RA 9745

29
 That RA 9745 will not make a significant difference, at least insofar as
humane physical conditions in prison are concerned, is shared by the PAO,
hence:60
My opinion is that the law is worded in such a way that for the physical con-
ditions of prison, unlike torture and physical abuse, no one can be held re-
sponsible for it. If you look at the definition the implication is it’s only in tor-
ture and other physical abuse that can one be sued. Besides the law has no
corresponding budget. It’s dead and it’s designed that way because our gov-
ernment has other concerns like education for the children and others.
Scrutinizing the provisions of RA 9745, the law is not categorical and spe-
cific in its definition of ‘cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment or treat-
ment’. It uses terms that can be subjected to varying interpretations which will
not always be favorable to the cause of prisoners’ rights promotion.
Undoubtedly, the common perception towards the prisoners’ human right
against cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment or treatment is that the term
is limited to acts of torture and other types of physical abuse only.
The question is: What are the implications of this restricted view of the
right?

4.3.6 Implications of Restrictive View of Right

This restricted view of the right suggests that the old thinking of seeing rights
in hierarchy still pervades. Civil and political versus socio-economic rights.
Torture and other types of physical abuse seen as civil political rights, hence
justiciable and enforceable. While humane conditions of imprisonment falling
within socio-economic rights, thus its enforcement are contingent on the gov-
ernment’s financial capacity.
One implication with this view is the dangerous assumption by govern-
ment that economic scarcity is a convenient excuse for not implementing
measures to promote humane conditions of confinement and improve prison
conditions.
No less than a top ranking prison official said that the right against inhu-
man prison conditions is dependent on availability of resources, saying it has to
give way to nobler causes like education and public health. The wardens them-
selves do not see inhuman conditions as violation of prisoners’ rights because
of justiciability considerations, saying they cannot go to prisons for it. Cap-
tured in the words of one warden, he said: ‘But unlike torture, nobody can be
charged for overcrowding. It’s like a right which is not really a right at all’.61
That economic capacity is a requisite for the supposed justiciability of a
right can inferred from one PAO lawyer’s comment that to a certain extent the
rights against inhuman conditions in prison is impossible in a poor country like
the Philippines.62

60 PAO lawyer 1 interview

61 Warden 2 interview
62 PAO lawyer 1 interview

30
 Another implication is about the prevailing jurisprudence that the term
cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment is strictly seen in the na-
ture of the penalty outside physical conditions of prison.
The PAO lawyer interviewed said that the target of their office is only to
charge torture and other physical abuse because of a current court ruling that
does not consider poor prison conditions as violation of prisoners’ rights.63
This confirms what Boerefijn (2009) said that the attitude of the judiciary rep-
resents either a potential boost or threat to promoting international human
rights standards.
Indeed, human rights laws alone hardly ever solve human rights violations.
Even with the incorporation of prisoners’ rights in our constitution and in our
laws, particularly RA 9745, still these are not enough to counter the hostile so-
cial environment that is resistant to this right. Hence, the prevailing restrictive
view. This proves correct the argument by socio-legal theorists like Merry
(2006a: 179) and Fortman (2006) that full acceptance of a particular right is
very crucial to attain its emancipatory potential and to have effective remedies.
Why are violations not seen in human rights terms and why the pervasive
narrow notion of the human right of prisoners against cruel, inhuman or de-
grading punishment or treatment is intimately linked to how society views pun-
ishment.

4.4 Dominant Punishment Perspective and its

Manifestations
Interviews reveal that the dominant social sentiment is still stuck with the re-
tributive view of punishment. Punishment is still seen as exacting retribution
and placing moral blame on the offenders and punishing them because they
deserve it (Hudson 1996: 26, 38). This is in total disregard of the rehabilitative
ideals set by human rights norms and incorporated in the Philippine domestic
legal system.
It is manifested on why there is little hope of improving prison conditions
because it would anger the public, on why rehabilitative measures are not im-
plemented because of the actual governmental priority which is more on ensur-
ing prison security to protect the public from jail breaks, and on why there is
lack of translators because of the apathy towards prisoners’ rights advocacy.

4.4.1 Vain Hope of Improvements in Prison Conditions

In the interviews all the wardens admitted of the dire conditions in their re-
spective jails, all for the same reason of a very limited budget, despite official
policy declarations to make Philippine prisons comply with international stand-
ards.
When asked why is this so, here are some of the answers:
I believe the policy is for compliance on paper purposes only. In my experi-
ence, I asked the regional office for more budget and they answered it’s not

63 PAO lawyer 2 interview

31
 the government’s priority now. When I asked the mayor to help, he said that
it will be hard to convince the city council because voters may not vote for
them again if they know that the city donated money to the jails because peo-
ple believe prisoners are not like those abandoned children in the streets who
deserve the government’s help.64
One warden had this to say:65
Because in reality our politicians only remember the prisoners during election
time. They would come to the jails to campaign and promise to finance jail
improvements that won’t happen. Why? The public does not like it. They
would say you are a criminal coddler if you start talking about prisoners’
rights. People prefer public safety first before talking about prisoners’ welfare.
Another warden said:66
Things are really hard for prisoners. There are no NGOs that I know that go
to the government or the media advocating for improvements in the jails.
Even the media is only conscious of torture and grave physical abuse, hence
they’re the only ones reported. Nobody will go to a rally to improve prison
conditions, especially now that a lot of people have been victimized by theft
and robbery. They think prisoners get what they should get because they’re
not like those rape victims who did not choose what became of them.
This absence or lack of NGOs advocating for prisoners’ rights, at least in
Cebu, has been confirmed in an interview with a staff of Karapatan saying that
prison work advocacy is never popular with funders, compared with environ-
mental or gender rights advocacies.67 He added that even with his organization,
their work is strictly limited to political prisoners only and does not extend to
prisoners charged with common crimes due to reason of donor preference.68
All this hostile attitude towards prisoners’ rights promotion can be at-
tributed to what Stern (1998: 91) said that many people believe that prisoners
have ‘forfeited their rights to have rights’.

4.4.2 Non-implementation of Rehabilitative Measures

International and domestic laws provide that punishment is for rehabilitation
and reformation of the prisoners. Whereas on paper this is the policy adopted
in Philippine prisons, reality on the ground reveals otherwise.
No less than the wardens themselves admitted that there is no budget item
for rehabilitation programs in their respective jail facilities. When asked what is
the most overriding consideration in the actual current jail management prac-
tice, one revealed, thus:
What our superiors constantly emphasize is make sure prisoners would not be
able to escape. That’s why we have very high perimeter walls with barbed

64 Warden 2 interview
65 Warden 3 interview
66 Warden 5 interview
67 Interview with Karapatan staff on 14 August 2012 (hereinafter, Karapatan inter-

view)
68 Id.

32
 wires. We get terminated if there is a jailbreak. But we don’t get incentives if
we go out of our way to invite people outside to rehabilitate the inmates.69
Another warden answered:
It’s public safety. I think prisons exist to protect the public from the crimi-
nals. To rehabilitate prisoners maybe when our government has lots of mon-
ey. But this is not the case. Besides, there a many criminals who are beyond
redemption.70
Another one commented:
Our policies say it’s for rehabilitation, but this cannot be done. Most of our
jail personnel are even not trained how to rehabilitate. For me, I think it’s al-
ready enough that the prisoners cannot commit further crimes because they
are in custody now, they must be controlled.71
This punitive perspective on punishment, like the pervasive restricted view
of the right, is admittedly a challenge that CHR is facing. Said the CHR lawyer
in the interview:
The public view is that punishment is there to teach the criminal hard lessons
for the bad things they did that angered the public, especially the crime vic-
tims. That’s why our prisons are designed that way, it’s not in reality designed
for rehabilitation, but to assure the public that their government is tough.
This is good as long as also you don’t forget the rights of prisoners. This is
one thing that we want to change. This is a little difficult though because
based on experience we have no NGO or civil society support in this, unlike
sex trafficking or gender equality.72
Although according to one warden73 the BJMP has the so-called ‘Thera-
peutic Community Modality Program’ for prisoners who display anti-social be-
haviour and who suffer from substance abuse for the rehabilitation of prison-
ers. This program however, for lack of resources, was only implemented in Jail
A Female Dormitory, among all the jail facilities under study in this paper.
Moreover, this was discontinued due to budgetary constraints.74
It is obvious here that prison rehabilitation is the least of the government’s
priority, a manifestation of lack of political will, an official disregard of the
rehabilitative ideal of punishment.

4.4.3 Absence or Lack of Translators

What is conspicuously absent here are the translators that could frame viola-
tions of human rights norms as problems in human rights terms (Merry
2006b), whose intervention can make human rights relevant to whom it is sup-
posed to protect (Merry 2006a: 210)

69 Warden 2 interview
70 Warden 3 interview
71 Warden 5 interview
72 CHR interview
73 Warden 1 interview
74 Id.

33
 This is confirmed by Karapatan for the reason that prison work is not at-
tractive to donors75. This has been shared by one warden claiming that it is
hard to expect improvement in prison conditions because there are no NGOs
advocating for it.76 The CHR itself admitted that one greatest challenge to their
prisoners’ rights work is the lack of NGO and civil society support.77 Or even
though there is an NGO working for the prisons, their intervention is one that
does not question the system, but in fact condones it by advising prisoners to
just accept their fate and that they have to endure the harsh conditions of con-
finement.78
One foreseeable consequence of this is that the common understanding
that the right against cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment or treatment
extends to torture and other forms of physical abuse only may remain unchal-
lenged. This absence of translation to make the international human right
standards fit to society’s way of thinking can result to restricting human rights
norms to those accepted by prevailing perceptions which can lead to, accord-
ing to Marks and Clapham (2004), limiting the rights and reducing their scope.
Human rights cannot achieve its emancipatory potential if not made part of the
individual and society’s legal consciousness (Merry 2006a: 179).
In sum, data tells us that the international human rights norms for the
humane treatment of prisoners incorporated in the Philippine domestic legal
system have been ignored by prison officials, the courts, the legislature, law-
yers, interest groups, and the society in general. This clearly shows a lack of
receptivity to this right, causing the lack of legal consciousness. This I argue are
but mere repercussions of a punitive society.

4.5 Repercussions of a Punitive Society: The Bane of

Prisoners’ Existence

As Steiner et al. (2008:478) observed:

To say that there is acceptance of the principle of human rights on the do-
mestic and international planes is not to say that there is complete agreement
about the nature of such rights or their substantive scope – which is to say,
their definition. Some of the basic questions have yet to receive basic an-
swers. Whether human rights have to be viewed as divine, moral, or legal en-
titlements; whether they are to be validated by intuition, custom, social con-
tract theory, principles of distributive justice, or as prerequisites for
happiness; whether they are to be understood as irrevocable or partially revo-
cable; whether they are to be broad or limited in number and content – these
and kindred issues are matters of ongoing debate and likely will remain so as
long as there exists contending approaches to public order and scarcities
among resources.

75 Karapatan interview
76 Warden 5 interview
77 CHR interview
78 CAPA interview

34
 Steiner’s observation best sums up what has been ailing the human right
of the prisoners against cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment or treatment.
It is the malaise of the right fueled by a punitive society.
That the punitive element is the dominant perspective is demonstrated in
the prison governance that lacks specific and enabling policy guidelines for the
humane treatment of prisoners and does not recognize the right in its entire-
ty. The sentiment of prison officials that the right has to give way to more
pressing concerns and nobler endeavors and that the overriding ends of pun-
ishment is achieved when prisons are secured to protect the populace from
these criminal elements are indications of a punitive society. This is exacer-
bated by the lack of political will to improve prison conditions. Add that to the
ambivalent language of RA 9745 showing a legislature that disregards interna-
tional standards for humane treatment of prisoners. And the judicial pro-
nouncement that prison authorities must be accorded a wide discretion in im-
plementing policies to maintain security, order, and discipline, which in the
words of Easton (2011: 33), has the effect of neutralizing rights.
That this official sentiment is being fed by an equally punitive society is
evident in the fears of politicians that funding projects to alleviate prison con-
ditions would anger the voters, in the admission by CHR that their prisoners’
rights work lacks NGO and civil society support, in the statement by
Karapatan that prison work advocacy is not a concern to donors, in the opin-
ion of the persons involved in the prisons that dreadful conditions in prisons
are but normal and expected and that prisoners must learn to accept it, and
even in the fact that prisoners themselves are resigned to the idea of harsh
prison realities because they behaved badly and thus deserved it.

35
Chapter 5
A Right More ‘Declared Rather Than Lived’:
Conclusion and Reflections

‘A society should be judged not by how it treats its outstanding citizens but by how it treats
its criminals.’
Fyodor Dostoevsky, The House of the Dead

This paper begins with the argument that the rift between prisoners’ rights in
the books and prisoners’ rights as are practiced on the ground is due in large
part to the dominance of retributivist view of punishment in society.
It seeks to answer this core question:
To what extent do the international human rights norms and the dominant
retributivist perspective of punishment shape the situation of the human right
of prisoners against cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment or treatment in
the jail facilities of Cebu City, Mandaue City, and Lapu-lapu City?
With the sub-questions:
1.) What is the significance the international human rights norms in the pro-
motion of the human right of prisoners against cruel, inhuman, or degrading
punishment or treatment?
2.) How does the dominant retributivist perspective of punishment affect the
promotion of the human right of prisoners against cruel, inhuman or degrad-
ing punishment or treatment, especially in terms of implementation of reha-
bilitative measures in prison?

First, on what is the significance of international rights norms in the pro-

motion of the human right of prisoners against cruel, inhuman, or degrading
punishment or treatment. Its significance is that it is instrumental in main-
streaming the right against cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment or treat-
ment in the domestic legal system in the Philippines which found resonance in
principle to prison policy frameworks. This mainstreaming however of the
right to humane treatment does not, in actual and concrete terms, translate to
the implementation and enforcement of the right. It has been argued that there
is an evident lack of receptivity of the right in its entirety in society and a lack
of political will on the part of the government to enforce the right. This vali-
dates arguments by socio-legal scholars that laws, in and by themselves, are
insufficient to address human rights violations.
Second, on how does the dominant retributivist view of punishment affect
the promotion of this right. I have posited that there is a tension between the
prisoners’ rights for humane treatment and the right of the society to be pro-
tected from crimes. In the balance between public anxiety to be secured from
criminality and the promotion the prisoners’ right for humane treatment, that
balance is unduly tipped in favour of public protection to the detriment of
prisoners’ rights. And where society perceives punishment as a way to exact
retribution, it can serve to defeat the international and domestic legal norms
36
emphasizing the rehabilitative purpose of punishment and the promotion of
the human right of prisoners against cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment
or treatment. And as argued, the incorporation of the international human
rights norms into the Philippine domestic legal system did not translate to ac-
tual and practical implementation of rehabilitative measures in the prisons. Da-
ta reveals this is the reality on the national level, and this has further been re-
flected in the jails facilities under study.
Finally, my answer to the core question is this: To the extent that in the in-
teraction between international human rights norms and the retributivist view
punishment, the latter triumphs, and triumph it did as data in this study sug-
gested, then the recognition and promotion of the human right of prisoners
against cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment or treatment will be a very
challenging task. The international human rights norms may have sparked the
flame of hope for the recognition and promotion of prisoners’ rights but the
triumph of retributivism might just well proved to be the greatest obstacle to
the enforcement of this right.
The claim that the last few decades have seen the intensification of the so-
called ‘legalization of culture’ or the phenomenon wherein legal rights norms
have become the dominant standard of value in many societies and that we are
now in an era of a ‘global culture of rights’ (Hastrup 2003: 16) is nowhere best
rebutted than in the case of prisoners’ rights. Because no matter how much
progress has been made in international standard setting, only actual and con-
crete implementation on the ground makes the international human rights
norms real and meaningful for people.
One more thing this study enunciates is that of the dual nature of punish-
ment as instrument for control and dominance (Foucauldian view) and as ex-
pression of an angered social sentiment (Durkheimian view), it is the latter
that can provide a more convincing explanation why recognition and promo-
tion of prisoners’ rights will remain, to quote Hastrup (2003: 17), ‘declared ra-
ther than lived’.
For, to repeat a question earlier asked, if punishment is exclusively seen in
the utilitarian end-means framework, what value does it have when the ends
are hardly ever achieved? And why is it retained despite its failure as manifested
in higher crime rate, recidivism, or escalating costs in maintaining prisons (Gar-
land 1990)?
The answer to these questions leads us to Durkheim’s thesis. It is because
punishment is an expression of an irrational, unthinking emotion by a societal
collective whose cherished values have been violated by the criminal. This the
very sentiment that feeds how prisoners are to be treated, and treated harshly
as a result. To paraphrase Garland (Ibid.), this expressive manifestation of so-
cial sentiment has resonance in culture. This hostile cultural terrain is the chal-
lenge that the international law norms on the human right of prisoners against
cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment or treatment has to confront in order
for it to have a more meaningful impact on the prisoners.
Who do we blame then for a culture that is hostile to human rights? Per-
haps, there is a need to rethink human rights norms as they are currently
framed, holding the state as the sole primary duty-bearer of human rights. For
surely society and the individuals create culture and must bear responsibility for

37
the context they create. It is important to be reminded by what Ackerly (2008:
8) said:
The remoteness of the impact of our habits of daily life, institutions, practic-
es, and global interactions conceal their rights-violating implications. We need
tools for revealing these, not definitions of ‘rights’ and ‘duty-bearer’ that ob-
scure them.

38
References

Ackerly, B.A. (2008) ‘Universal Human Rights in a World of Difference: Challeng-

ing our Thinking’ (extract) in Universal Human Rights In a World of Differ-
ence. Cambridge, pp. 1-9. Available @
http://moodle.iss.nl/file.php/458/Ackerly%282008%29Universal%20huma
n%20Rights%20pp%201-9%20ca4560.pdf. Accessed 9 November 2012.
Albis, Abelardo E. Jr., Eleandro F. Madrona, Alice P. Marino and Leonides S.
Respicio (1977) ‘A Study on the Effectivity of the Philippine Prison System’,
Philippine Law Journal 52 (1): 60-68. Available @
http://law.upd.edu.ph/plj/images/files/PLJ%20volume%2052/PLJ%20Vol
ume%2052%20number%201%20-03-
%20Abelardo%20B.%20Albis,%20Jr.,%20Eleandro%20F.%20Madrona,%20
Alice%20P.%20Marino,%20Leonides%20S.%20Respicio%20-
%20A%20Study%20on%20the%20Effectivity%20of%20the%20Philippine%
20Prison%20System.pdf. Accessed 16 October 2012.
Anasarias, Ernesto A., Benito Molino, Edeliza P. Hernandez, Jerbert M. Briola
(2012) ‘Human Rights, Human Wrongs: Torture Prevention, Documentation,
and Prosecution in the Philippines’, Torture (22)1 30-18. Available @
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:el3TAuKLVCAJ:www.irct.or
g/Admin/Public/DWSDownload.aspx?File%3D%252FFiles%252FFiler%25
2FTortureJournal%252F22_S1_2012%252FHuman-rights-human-wrongs-
S1-2012.pdf+balay+rehabilitation+center+on+anti-
torture+act&hl=en&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgzsqwrRb5wE-
cxFf5eQ7Ci80L3F9bhHHp95w-OXNrBwoPPKYAQngIGYmYhywwA-
1kfu027N5IPAfOwqeABfpfRWlwQ8SKbxPBs0zNpXDyRrfl0PWTjwV2Dgf
dctTGvXztaebxW&sig=AHIEtbSsLCLggEC5WbDRTwmiPvqz6H1XyA.
Accessed 12 September 2012.
Asian Human Rights Commission (2010) ‘Philippines: Prisoners should not be
dungeons that they have become’. Available @
http://www.humanrights.asia/news/ahrc-news/AHRC-STM-229-2010. Ac-
cessed 17 October 2012.
Banakar, Reza and Travers Max (eds.) (2005) Theory and Method in Socio-Legal Re-
search. Oxford: Hart
Barnhizer, David (ed.) (2001) Effective Strategies for Protecting Human Rights. Hamp-
shire, England: Dartmouth Publishing Company
Bernas, Joaquin S.J. (2009) The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A
Commentary. Quezon City, Philippines: Rex Printing Company
Boerefijn, Ineke (2009) ‘International Human Rights in National Law’, in Catarina
Krause and Martin Scheinin (eds) International Protection of Human Rights: A
Textbook, pp. 577-599. Turku: Abo Akademi University Institute for Human
Rights
Bureau of Corrections (2012a) Available @ http://www.bucor.gov.ph/index-
3%20Programs.html. Accessed 12 October 2012.
Bureau of Corrections (2012b) Available @
http://www.bjmp.gov.ph/about.html. Accessed 12 October 2012.
Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (2007) The 2007 BJMP Manual of Opera-
tions.
39
Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (2012) Available @
http://www.bjmp.gov.ph/about.html. Accessed 12 October 2012.
Carey, Sabine C., Mark Gibney, and Steven C. Poe (2010) The Politics of Human
Rights The Quest for Dignity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press
Dissel, Amanda (2008) ‘Rehabilitation and Reintegration in African Prisons’ in
Sarkin, Jeremy (ed.) Human Rights in African Prisons, pp. 155-177. South Africa:
HSRC Press
Easton, Susan (2011) Prisoners’ Rights Principles and Practice. Oxford, UK: Routledge
Forsythe, David P. (2009) ‘Human Rights Studies: On the Dangers of Legalistic
Assumptions’ in Coomans, Fons, Fred Grunfeld, Menno T. Kamminga (eds)
Methods of Human Rights Research, pp. 59-75. Antwerp-Oxford-Portland: In-
tersentia
Fortman, G.B. (2006) ‘Poverty as a Failure of Entitlement: Do Rights-Based Ap-
proach Make Sense?’ in Williams, L. (ed.) International Poverty Law: An Emerging
Discourse, pp. 34-48. London: Zed
Garland, David (1990) ‘Frameworks of Inquiry in the Sociology of Punishment’,
The British Journal of Sociology 41(1): 1-15. Wiley-Blackwell LSE. Available
@ http://www.jstor.org/stable/591014. Accessed 24 September 2012.
Goodale, Mark (2007) ‘Locating Rights, Envisioning Law Between the Global and
the Local’, in Goodale, Mark and Sally Engle Merry (eds) The Practice of Human
Rights Tracking The Law Between the Global and the Local, pp. 1-38. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press
Hastrup, Kirsten (2003) ‘Representing the Common Good The Limits of Legal
Language’, in Wilson, Richard A. and Jon P. Mitchell (eds) Human Rights and
Global Perpectives, pp. 16-32. Oxon, Oxford: Routledge
Hathaway, Oona (2002) ‘Do Human Rights Treaties Make A Difference?’, Yale
Law Journal 111:1935-2024. Social Science Research Network. Available @
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=311359. Accessed 19
September 2012.
Hudson, Barbara (1996) Understanding Justice An Introduction to Ideas, perspectives and
Controversies in Modern Penal Theory. Pennsylvania, USA: Open University Press
Hudson, Barbara (1998) ‘Punishment and Governance’, Social and Legal Studies
7:553-559. Sage. Available @ http://sls.sagepub.com/content/7/4/553. Ac-
cessed 24 September 2012
International Centre for Prison Studies (2011) World Prison Brief. Available @
http://www.prisonstudies.org/info/worldbrief/wpb_country.php?country=1
08. Accessed 31 May 2012.
Joint Civil Society Report on Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Punishment or Treatment (2009). Available @:
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cat/docs/ngos/JCS_Philippines42.p
df. Accessed 9 May 2012.
Joseph, Sarah and Adam McBeth (eds) (2010) Research Handbook on International
Human Rights Law. UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited
Khan, Irene (2009) The Unheard Truth: Poverty and Human Rights. New York: Norton
Landman, Todd (2009)'Social Science Research Methods and Human Rights' in
Coomans, Fons, Fred Grunfeld, Menno T. Kamminga (eds) Methods of Human
Rights Research, pp. 19-44. Antwerp-Oxford-Portland: Intersentia

40
Marks, S. and A. Clapham (2004) 'Universality' in International Human Rights Lexicon,
pp. 385-398. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Merry, Sally Engle (2006a) Human Rights and Gender Violence Translating International
Law Into Local Justice. USA: The University of Chicago Press
Merry, Sally Engle (2006b) 'Transnational Human Rights and Local Activism:
Mapping The Middle', American Anthropologist 108(1): 38-51. Available @
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1525/aa.2006.108.1.38/pdf. Wiley
Online Library. Accessed 12 October 2012.
Merry, Sally Engle (2007) 'Introduction: Conditions of Vulnerability', in Mark
Goodale and Sally Engle Merry (eds) The Practice of Human Rights Tracking The
Law Between the Global and the Local, pp. 195-203. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press
National Statistical Coordination Board (2011) Statistical Indicator on Philippine Devel-
opment Chapter on Rule of Law. Available @
http://www.nscb.gov.ph/stats/statdev/2009/ruleOfLaw/Chapter_RuleOfL
aw.asp. Accessed 15 October 2012.
Rachels, James (2007) 'Punishment and Desert' in Lafollete H. (ed.) Ethics in Prac-
tice, pp. 510-518. Victoria, Australia: Blackwell Publishing
Smith, Rhona K (2012)Textbook on International Human Rights. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press
Steiner, Henry J., Philip Alston and Ryan Goodman (2008) International Human
Rights In Context. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Stern, Vivien (1998) A Sin Against The Future. England: Penguin Books
UN Committee Against Torture (2006) PART IV The Jurisprudence of the CAT
Committee. Available @
http://www.omct.org/files/2006/11/3979/handbook4_eng_04_part4.pdf.
Accessed 11 September 2012.
UN Committee Against Torture (2008) Consideration of reports submitted by States par-
ties under article 19 of the Convention : Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, In-
human or Degrading Treatment or Punishment : Philippines, 9 September
2008, CAT/C/PHL/2. Available @:
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4912d7d62.html. Accessed 30 May
2012.
UN Committee Against Torture (2009), Concluding observations of the Committee against
Torture : the Philippines, 29 May 2009, CAT/C/PHL/CO/2. Available @:
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4a9fb1672.html. Accessed 30 May
2012.
UN Human Rights Committee(2006) PART III: The Jurisprudence of the Human
Rights Committee. Available @:
http://www.omct.org/files/2006/11/3979/handbook4_eng_03_part3.pdf.
Accessed: 11 September 2012.
United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (2012).
Available @
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Countries/Pages/HumanRightsintheWorld.aspx
Accessed 23 August 2012.
US State Department (2010) Human Rights Country Report. Available @:
http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/2010/eap/154399.htm . Accessed 9
May 2012.
41
Appendices

1. Relevant UDHR Provisions

Article 5, UDHR, states that: ‘No one shall be subjected to torture or
to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment

2. Relevant ICCPR Provisions

Article 7 of the ICCPR states that: ‘No one shall be subjected to tor-
ture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In
particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medi-
cal or scientific experimentation.’
Article 10 of the ICCPR states that:
‘1. All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity
and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.
2. (a) Accused persons shall, save in exceptional circumstances, be seg-
regated from convicted persons and shall be subject to separate treat-
ment appropriate to their status as unconvicted persons;
(b) Accused juvenile persons shall be separated from adults and
brought as speedily as possible for adjudication.
3. The penitentiary system shall comprise treatment of prisoners the es-
sential aim of which shall be their reformation and social rehabilitation.
Juvenile offenders shall be segregated from adults and be accorded
treatment appropriate to their age and legal status.’

3. Relevant UNCAT Provisions

Article 1 of the UNCAT states that : ‘Torture means any act by which
severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally in-
flicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third
person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a
third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or in-
timidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based
on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted
by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a
public official or other person acting in an official capacity.’
Article 2 of the UNCAT states that:
‘1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judi-
cial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under
its jurisdiction.
2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or
a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emer-
gency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.’

42
 3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be in-
voked as a justification of torture.

4. Relevant Philippine Constitution Provisions

Section 2, Article II of the 1987 Philippine Constitution states that:
‘The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy,
adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of
the law of the land and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice,
freedom, cooperation, and amity with all nations.’
Section 19(1), Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution states
that: ‘Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or in-
human punishment inflicted. Neither shall 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.’
Section 19(2), Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution states
that: ‘The employment of physical, psychological, or degrading pun-
ishment against any prisoner or detainee or the use of substandard or
inadequate penal facilities under subhuman conditions shall be dealt
with by law.’

5. Relevant RA 9745 provisions

Article 3(a) of RA 9745 states that ‘torture is an act by which severe
pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted
on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him/her or a third
person information or a confession; punishing him/her for an act
he/she or a third person has committed or is suspected of having
committed; or intimidating or coercing him/her or a third person; or
for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or
suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or
acquiescence of a person in authority or agent of a person in authority.
It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or
incidental to lawful sanctions.’
Article 3 (b) RA 9745 states that: ‘other cruel, inhuman and degrading
treatment or punishment’ refers to a deliberate and aggravated treat-
ment or punishment not enumerated under Section 4 of this Act, in-
flicted by a person in authority or agent of a person in authority against
a person under his/her custody, which attains a level of severity caus-
ing suffering, gross humiliation or debasement to the latter.’

43
 6. Respondents’ Data on Jail A

Table 1
Jail A Inmates
Respondents Highest Dormitory Number of No. of Status Legal
of
R= Remand Educa- F=Female Inmates In Years Represen-
tional in Case
S=Sentenced Dorm Respondent’s tation
Attain- Cell Jail
M=Male
ment
/ Size of Cell
Dorm
Prisoner 1 High 38 inmates/25 1 year Prosecu- PAO
School sq.m. (est.) &9 tion yet
(R) (F)
Graduate months to pre-
sent
evidence
Prisoner 2 College 25 inmates/25 5 years De- Private
(R) graduate (F) sq.m. (est.) &6 fence’s Lawyer
months turn for
Evi-
dence
Prisoner 3 Grade 3 25 inmates/25 4 years Sen- PAO
Elemen- sq.m. (est.) &5 tenced;
(S) (F)
tary months for
transfer
Prisoner 4 Grade 5 35 inmates/74 5 years Prosecu- PAO
Elemen- sq.m.(per rec- &1 tion’s
(R) (M)
tary ord) month turn for
evidence
Prisoner 5 2nd year 33 inmates/74 6 years De- PAO
college sq.m. (per rec- &2 fence’s
(R) (M)
ord) months turn for
evidence
Prisoner 6 High 30 inmates/74 1 year Not yet PAO
School sq.m. (per rec- &1 ar-
(R) (M)
ord) month raigned
Graduate

Interviews with the 6 inmates in Jail A were conducted on 24 July 2012.

Interviews with the respective warden of the jail’s male and female dormitory
were also conducted on the same date.

44
 7. Respondents’ Data on Jail B

Table 2
Jail B Inmates
Respondents Highest Dormitory Number of No. of Status Legal
Educa- Inmates In Years of Case
R= Remand F=Female Represen-
tional Dorm Respondent’s in Jail
S=Sentenced Attain- Cell / Size of tation
ment M=Male Cell
Dorm
Prisoner 1 Grade 3 9 inmates/5.5 6 years De- PAO
(R) Elemen- (M) sq.m. (per rec- and 3 fence’s
tary ord) months turn for
evidence
Prisoner 2 Elemen- 38 inmates/18 5 years De- PAO
tary sq.m. (per rec- &7 fence’s
(R) (M)
Graduate ord) months turn for
evidence

Prisoner 3 High 60 inmates/50 2 years Prosecu- PAO

school sq.m. (per rec- &9 tion’s
(R) (F)
graduate ord) months turn for
evidence
Prisoner 4 Grade 4 37 inmates/50 4 years Prosecu- PAO
(S) Elemen- (F) sq.m. (per rec- and 5 tion’s
tary ord) months turn for
evidence

Interviews with the inmates and the male dormitory warden were con-
ducted on 2 August 2012. The warden of the female dormitory was due for
transfer, hence was not interviewed.

45
 8. Respondents’ Data on Jail C

Table 3
Jail C Inmates
Respondents Highest Jail Facility Number of No. of Status of Legal
Educa- Inmates In Years Case
R= Remand F=Female Represen-
tional Dorm Respondent’s in Jail tation
S=Sentenced Attain- Cell / Size of
ment M=Male Cell
Dorm
Prisoner 1 Grade 6 17 inmates/10 4 years Prosecu- PAO
(R) Elemen- (M) sq.m. (per rec- &1 tion’s
tary ord) month turn for
evidence
Prisoner 2 Grade 2 41 inmates/10 6 years Defence’s PAO
Elemen- sq.m. (per rec- &3 turn for
(R) (M)
tary ord) months evidence
Prisoner 3 Grade 3 29 inmates/113 7 years Defence’s PAO
(S) Elemen- (F) sq.m. (per rec- &1 turn for
ord) month evidence
tary
Prisoner 4 (R) Grade 5 21 inmates/113 2 years Prosecu- PAO
sq.m. (per rec- & 10 tion’s
Elemen- (F)
ord) months turn for
tary
evidence
Prisoner 5 Elemen- 30 inmates/113 5 years Prosecu- PAO
tary sq.m. (per rec- &5 tion’s
(R) (F)
school ord) months turn for
graduate evidence

Interviews with the inmates and the two wardens for both Jail C were
conducted on 31 July 2012.

46
9. Interview Information of other Key Informants

Table 4
Other Key Informants Interview

Person Institution Date

CHR lawyer CHR 23.7.2012
PAO lawyer 1 PAO 01.08.2012
PAO lawyer 2 PAO 01.08.2012
CAPA person- CAPA 10.08.2012
nel
Karapatan Staff Karapatan 14.10.2012

47