The Concept of ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’ (UDHR)
| SUBJECT: The Concept of ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’ (UDHR) |
I. Introduction
This memorandum provides an exhaustive analysis of the concept of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) within the context of Philippine Political Law. The UDHR, proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1948, represents a foundational text in the modern international human rights regime. While not a legally binding treaty per se, its principles have profoundly influenced the development of constitutional law, statutory law, and jurisprudence in the Philippines. This research will trace the UDHR’s incorporation into the Philippine legal system, its jus cogens character, its status as part of the law of the land under the Constitution, and its practical application by Philippine courts.
II. Historical Context and Adoption
The UDHR was drafted in the aftermath of World War II, with the Philippines playing a significant role. Carlos P. Romulo, a Filipino diplomat, was a member of the UN Commission on Human Rights and actively participated in the drafting process. The Philippines voted in favor of its adoption in 1948. This early endorsement reflects the alignment of the Declaration’s principles with the fundamental liberties enshrined in the Philippine Malolos Constitution and the 1935 Constitution. The historical commitment to these ideals underscores the country’s recognition of human rights as essential to a just and democratic society.
III. Legal Status of the UDHR in International Law
The UDHR is formally a General Assembly resolution and, as such, is not inherently a binding treaty. However, through state practice and opinio juris, many of its provisions have attained the status of customary international law. Furthermore, core principles within it, such as the prohibitions against genocide, slavery, and torture, are widely accepted as jus cogens (peremptory norms) from which no derogation is permitted. The UDHR served as the direct inspiration and foundation for binding international treaties, most notably the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), collectively known as the International Bill of Human Rights.
IV. Incorporation into Philippine Law: The Constitutional Framework
The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines explicitly integrates international law principles into the domestic legal order. Article II, Section 2 declares, “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.” The principles enshrined in the UDHR are quintessential examples of these “generally accepted principles of international law.” Consequently, the UDHR’s norms are deemed incorporated into Philippine municipal law.
V. The UDHR as Part of the Law of the Land
The doctrine of incorporation, as articulated in Section 2, Article II, automatically adopts customary international law and general principles of law recognized by the community of nations. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the rights proclaimed in the UDHR form part of this body of law. In Republic v. Sandiganbayan (2003), the Court stated that the UDHR has been “recognized as customary international law.” Therefore, even without legislative enactment for its specific provisions that have attained customary status, the Declaration’s principles are enforceable through Philippine courts and are binding on the state.
VI. Judicial Application and Enforcement by Philippine Courts
The Philippine Supreme Court has frequently invoked the UDHR to reinforce its decisions and to interpret constitutional provisions. It is used as an interpretative tool to elucidate the scope and meaning of the Bill of Rights under Article III of the Constitution. For instance:
In Mejoff v. Director of Prisons* (1951), the Court cited the UDHR to support the principle that freedom from arbitrary detention is a fundamental right.
In The Holy See v. Rosario, Jr.* (1994), the Court referenced the UDHR in discussing the universal principle of pacta sunt servanda.
In Simon, Jr. v. Commission on Human Rights (1994), the Court acknowledged the UDHR as part of the law of the land* under the incorporation clause.
Courts may use the UDHR to fill gaps in domestic law, to guide statutory construction in favor of human rights, and to set standards for state conduct.
VII. Comparative Analysis: UDHR vs. 1987 Philippine Bill of Rights
The following table provides a comparative overview of key rights, illustrating how the UDHR’s concepts are mirrored and often expanded in the 1987 Philippine Constitution.
| UDHR Article / Concept | 1987 Philippine Constitution Provision | Comparative Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Article 3: Right to life, liberty, security. | Article III, Section 1: No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. | The Philippine text adds “property” and explicitly ties the deprivation to the due process clause, providing a specific legal mechanism. |
| Article 5: Freedom from torture, cruel/inhuman/degrading treatment. | Article III, Section 12(2): No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the free will shall be used. | The Philippine provision is more detailed, specifically mentioning “force, violence, threat, intimidation” and linking it to the rights of persons under investigation. |
| Article 9: Freedom from arbitrary arrest, detention, exile. | Article III, Section 2: Right against unreasonable searches and seizures. Section 13: Right to bail. Section 18(1): Right against detention by reason of political beliefs. | The Philippine provisions are highly procedural and specific, detailing the requirements for arrest warrants, search warrants, and the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. |
| Article 19: Freedom of opinion and expression. | Article III, Section 4: No law shall be passed abridging freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press. | The Philippine framing is a negative injunction on the State (“No law shall be passed”), creating a strong barrier against infringement. |
| Article 25: Right to a standard of living adequate for health and well-being. | Article II, Section 9: The State shall promote a just and dynamic social order. Article XIII, Section 1: Congress shall give highest priority to laws for the enhancement of human dignity. | Socio-economic rights in the Philippines are often framed as directive principles of state policy, which are not automatically judicially enforceable but guide legislative and executive action. |
VIII. The UDHR and the Philippine Commission on Human Rights (CHR)
The creation of the Commission on Human Rights under Article XIII, Section 17 of the Constitution is a direct institutional response to the principles of the UDHR. The CHR’s mandate—to investigate all forms of human rights violations, to establish a continuing program for human rights education, and to recommend policies to protect human rights—operationalizes the state’s commitment to the ideals of the Declaration. The CHR uses the UDHR, alongside other treaties and the Constitution, as its primary normative framework.
IX. Limitations and Critical Perspectives
While the UDHR is revered, its application faces challenges. Its universality has been critiqued as reflecting primarily Western liberal traditions. In the Philippine context, a key limitation is that many of its socio-economic rights (Articles 22-27) are not self-executing. They require implementing legislation to become fully justiciable, as seen in the directive principles of state policy. Furthermore, the declaration’s efficacy ultimately depends on state willingness, institutional capacity, and a functioning judiciary for enforcement, which can be strained.
X. Conclusion
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is far more than a symbolic document in Philippine Political Law. Through the doctrine of incorporation under the 1987 Constitution, its principles, particularly those that have crystallized into customary international law, are recognized as part of the law of the land. The Philippine Bill of Rights not only reflects but often elaborates and provides concrete procedural safeguards for the rights first comprehensively articulated in the UDHR. The judiciary actively employs the Declaration as an interpretative tool, and it underpins the mandate of national human rights institutions. As such, the UDHR remains a vital and dynamic component of the Philippine legal system, continuously informing the state’s obligation to respect, protect, and fulfill the human rights of every individual within its jurisdiction.