Tag Archives: Press release

[Statement] Press Release: PALEA asks Tourism Congress to probe safety issues at PAL

Posted on by dars0357

Philippine Airlines Employees’ Association (PALEA) called on the delegates to probe issues of passenger safety at Philippine Airlines (PAL). Photo from airplane-pictures.net

As the two-day Tourism Congress opens in Saranggani province today, the Philippine Airlines Employees’ Association (PALEA) called on the delegates to probe issues of passenger safety at Philippine Airlines (PAL). “We ask the Tourism Congress to take up the cudgels for the riding public by inquiring about safety and service concerns at PAL given that overworked and untrained replacement workers are now servicing passengers. If the Tourism Congress is anxious about the impact of the labor dispute on the influx of tourists, then it should also be worried about any possible accidents due to unsafe work practices by contractual workers,” stated Gerry Rivera, PALEA president and vice chair of Partido ng Manggagawa.

Meanwhile PALEA welcomed the call by members of the Labor Group of the Tripartite Industrial Peace Council (TIPC) for government to push for a settlement of the labor row. “A reasonable compromise to the dispute is for both parties, PAL and PALEA, to extend judicial courtesy and wait for the final decision of the courts on the legality of the outsourcing plan. In the meantime, the lockout employees must be allowed to return to their regular jobs in order to normalize flights and operations,” Rivera expounded.

PALEA’s call on the Tourism Congress came in the wake of news reports that yesterday two Danish tourists, Rasmus Georgsen Jakobsen and Kristine Jonassen, backed out of proceeding with a PAL flight to Cebu over safety concerns. According to reports, the tourists questioned PAL’s replacement workers at the check-in counter including a supervisor about safety issues but were left unsatisfied with the answers.

 

Read full statement at http://laborpartyphilippines.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=447&Itemid=1

Related articles

[Reflection] Discussion on my recent blog article

Posted on by dars0357

Book on Non-State Accountability under International Humanitarian Law. Photo from iihl.org

Danny Carranza: Darwin, good read. However, i disagree. Non-state armed groups should be held equally liable for human rights violations, especially by those who profess to respect human rights. Distinctions between violation and abuse may not even matter to victims. And from the point of view of many victims of human rights violations, they know that the their experiences constitute human rights violations.

Danny Carranza: This should have read: This is what a group called CALASAG said in their position paper during the deliberation on the anti-torture bill. The 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which is considered the highest development of international criminal law so far, both torture and enforced disappearance are key specific acts which may be committed as part or elements of a crime against humanity, under its Art. 7, par. 1 (f) and (i). The Rome Statute definitions of the crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes – “the most serious crimes of concern international community as a whole” – are not limited to commission by state agents. In fact, the very first case prosecuted in the ICC is against leaders of a NSAG, the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) of Northern Uganda.

Darwin Mendiola: Danny, that’s a good point…

Darwin Mendiola: But my reflection is quite clear… when it involves the attack against the civilian, it falls to the category of human rights transgression. while the atrocities committed by warring parties against each other, it is a breach of the law of war.

Darwin Mendiola: I don’t think we have different concept of what victims of human rights violations are. I agree that regardless of the perpetrator as long as it is in the context of power relation, victim must be accorded with rights to remedy and justice…

Darwin Mendiola: However, we must understand that state and non-state actors are not in the same footing… we expect a greater level of responsibility from the state than the non-state actors. There are outlaws in the first place and not bound by the same legal obligation. But of course, we must demand from the state the accountability of NSA for their wrongdoings…Adherence to human rights is what differentiate NSA from common criminals. So if they don’t adhere with this principle…there is no reason to dignify their criminal act…

Danny Carranza Thanks for the education, Darwin. But in fact, some non-state actors profess to be better than the current state in their observance of human rights standard. This is the reason they want to topple the state. In regard to the CPP NPA, they have entered into an agreement to respect hr-ihl under the CARIRIHL.

Danny Carranza: So how do we describe the violations under CARHRIHL? The NPAs abuse human rights and the Ph government violate human rights?

Danny Carranza: Again, I quote from the CALASAG position paper:

Danny Carranza: The CARHRIHL is in fact an agreement whereby a non-state binds itself with an obligation to respect, protect and fulfill human rights. If they themselves consider it an obligation, why do we hold on to the traditional view that only state actors can be held liable for human rights violations?

Danny Carranza: Violations under CARHRIHL are VIOLATIONS, not simply abuse of human rights. And both the Ph government and the CPP-NPA-NDF should be held liable when such violations occur.

Darwin Mendiola: Danny, sorry if i did not able to reply to you earlier… Anyway, I think we are in the same page in understanding NSA accountability. I believe that the CARHRIHL sets legal obligations on both the state and non state…. There is no question about that… But again,the convergence of HR and IHL is the protection of civilians caught in the war. It does not cover the actual atrocities between parties as a result of war. Besides, its enforcement is limited to the peace talks…Its ironic that monitoring and investigation are on the hands of both parties in a joint body… HR is not a subject of negotiation.

Darwin Mendiola: HR should not be a subject of any political negotiation… It is inherent and universal. the problem with CAHRIHL is that it is meant to be a political tool rather than a legal binding instrument…

Danny Carranza: But that is precisely how concepts and eventually major international treaties on human rights evolved: through political negotiations, although primarily by signatory states. The process of discourse making, including human rights discourse is essentially a political process. I would surmise that there were a lot of political actions and negotiations which took place before we, as Filipinos, were allowed to vote, years after the right of suffrage as a human right was deemed universal.

Darwin Mendiola: Danny, i definitely agree with you… it is indeed a historical fact…that any concepts whether political or legal including human rights evolve through negotiation. but when it becomes a socially accepted principle…it is already a law that requires enforcement… in terms of CAHRIHL, the fact that it is already agreed upon by two parties… it should be enforced… not through negotiation but through established institutional mechanisms… because if it remains to be a subject of negotiation… it defeats its own purpose of providing protection…Besides practically, it is the state which has greater responsibility to enforce such agreement than their counterpart…

Danny Carranza: When your concept of human rights is set in stone, i dont think there is any room for the evolution of that concept. It is precisely because our appreciation of human rights is evolving that we continuously negotiate. If you mean that violation of human rights by non-state actors has yet to become socially acceptable, maybe its because you dont accept it yourself.

Darwin Mendiola: Danny, don’t get me wrong…. I do recognize that NSAs are equally capable of human rights abuses… i believe my blog article was very clear on that. My only argument boils down to the question, when do we consider a violation an affront to human rights. My position as what i have put forward in my blog is that when it is an attack against the civilian whether it is perpetrated by the state or by NSAs. But when the atrocities are between warring parties (or combatants), those only fall to the category of war crime. I believe this analysis is consistent with Rome Statute and all other international human rights instruments. I personally welcome the ratification of the Rome Statute of the Philippine government. It will certainly provide better protection fro human rights against the abuses of the state and the NSAs. But again, i would like to reiterate that the aim of IHL is to strike a balance between military necessity and humanitarian concerns. It converges with human rights standards when the powerless civilians are the ones who bear the brunt of war…

Related articles

[Reflection] The Blind Side

Posted on by dars0357

Mariano Umbrero, a political prisoner suffering from lung cancer, passed away on July 15, 2011. Photo from hronlineph.wordpress.com

The news that Mariano Umbrero, a political prisoner who was suffering from stage four – lung cancer died at the National Bilibid Prison Hospital on July 15, 2011, was not only saddening but also disturbing.

It was lamentable that despite incessant appeals of the families, friends and human right advocates both here and abroad to the Pnoy administration for his immediate and unconditional release on humanitarian ground since he was diagnosed with a respiratory disease in February of this year, it was uncaringly ignored by the government as he was left to perish in jail without receiving freedom and compassion.

Umbrero was just one of more than 300 political prisoners in country. He was a suspected member of the Communist Party of the Philippines-New People’s Army (CPP-NPA) when he was arrested and detained. He was charged and convicted for a common crime of murder and kidnapping with serious illegal detention.

Political prisoner is defined under Philippine law as person who has been arrested or detained by reason of the commission of an act penalized by existing law as political crime, or by reason of any other act which is complexes with, or connected to such crime, or impelled by a political reason or motive. Or simply, a prisoner who is held for political reason.

Considered as “prisoners of conscience” under international humanitarian law, they are locked up for speaking out against their government, for exercising their rights, practicing their religion, culture, race or gender.

What is disturbing is that keeping political prisoners behind bars through criminalization of political offense as a form of repression continue to happen up to this day. What makes it more inhuman is to allow them to suffer and die in prison without giving them due recognition.

President Aquino as a son of political prisoner during Martial law should know better the plight of political prisoners and why they should be set free and as the President, he now holds the sole authority to correct the miscarriage of justice against them by granting them with an executive clemency.

If Pnoy saw the merit and substance of granting of amnesty to 300 rebel soldiers, who were involved and charged for the July 2003 Oakwood mutiny; the February 2006 Marines standoff; and the November 2007 Manila Peninsula takeover for the purpose of political reconciliation and unity, why could he not give the same consideration and equal treatment to all political prisoners in the country? If he could order to drop charges against the so-called “Morong 43“, as a confidence building measure for the resumption of the peace talks with communist rebels, why could he not demonstrate the same goodwill and compassion to free all political prisoners to show its complete sincerity to achieve long and lasting peace in this country?

By not acting decisively and urgently on the appeal for Umbrero’s immediate release before he died last Friday, Pnoy did not only miss the opportune moment to show his government’s compassion for those who have fallen victims to injustice but he also failed to prove that he would be an exact opposite of his predecessor not perhaps for intently committing gross human rights violations but rather for not doing enough to improve the human rights situation.

Ensuring respect for human dignity, ending impunity, and freeing those are imprisoned for political reason are the concerete steps that the Pnoy government needs to undertake to reassure the Filipino people that real change is coming after decades of authoritarian rule. Failing to do so only means that human rights remain at the blind side of the government’s priorities.

Related articles