Evidence of meeting #145 for Subcommittee on International Human Rights in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was philippines.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Teresita Quintos Deles  Chairperson of the Board of Trustees, International Center for Innovation, Transformation and Excellence in Governance (INCITEGov)

1 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Anita Vandenbeld

Welcome, everybody.

I'm very pleased to be here today as we continue our study on women human rights defenders. We've been hearing from women human rights defenders around the world. Today we have Teresita Quintos Deles from the Philippines. She is a presidential adviser on the peace process and currently chairperson of the International Center for Innovation, Transformation and Excellence in Governance, INCITEGov. She has been very involved in having the Philippines become the first country in the Asia-Pacific to start, and enforce, a national action plan on women, peace and security.

We're very pleased to have you with us. We will ask you to make some initial remarks for about 10 minutes, and then we will go to questions and answers with committee members.

You can go ahead.

1 p.m.

Teresita Quintos Deles Chairperson of the Board of Trustees, International Center for Innovation, Transformation and Excellence in Governance (INCITEGov)

To the honourable chair and members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to appear before you this afternoon.

Madam chair, it is with some reluctance but also great urgency that I have come from the other side of the globe to speak of the human rights situation in the Philippines. I speak in particular about the disturbing climate of unreserved and blatant targeting and victimization of women that today prevails under the Duterte regime.

I say “reluctance” because, to be frank, human rights has not really been the focus of my work. My major efforts, especially in the last decade or so, have focused on the field of conflict resolution and peace-building. While I have dealt with the issues of women's economic rights, political empowerment, child care support and violence against women, the attacks faced by Filipina women today are different. They are vulgar, carried out publicly, without restraint and outside of any personal relationship with the targets.

The vilification of women human rights advocates appears to be without any moral or social mooring or justification. Most tellingly, it is done without any provocation other than what is well known and documented: That women have been among the first, most vocal and most consistent in speaking up against the abuses of the regime.

In short, this period is unique in our history. We had thought then that Marcos' statement directed against Cory Aquino, that women belong in the bedroom, was already the height of misogyny. The intervening years and the many gains the women's movement has attained, including broader political and social participation in government and in the private sector and the passage of a wide range of laws, including the Magna Carta of women, have contributed to our confidence, even complacence, that attacks against women of the sort, gravity, frequency, flagrancy and willfulness now being perpetrated by Duterte and his minions were a thing of the past in Philippine society. They were never acceptable, and we believed they never would be.

Yet here we are, just two and a half years into his presidency and Duterte has already succeeded in victimizing every single woman who has heard him order soldiers to shoot women rebels in the vagina to make them worthless, reminisce about sexually violating their family helper while she slept, opine that rape and sexual assault are only to be expected if a woman is attractive, and trivialize the trauma of sexual violence when he called his own daughter a drama queen for speaking up about being raped.

Early in his presidential campaign he joked that the “mayor should have been first” in raping a murdered Australian nun. He has called women who oppose him “sluts” and “immoral women” to undermine the truth that they dare speak to his power.

Thus I also come before you today with a sense of urgency. Perhaps the most dangerous thing we can do is to think that first, this behaviour by the president only affects women, and second, that Duterte is simply unhinged when he makes these statements or condones behaviour and mindsets detrimental to women. There is, in fact, method to his madness.

Duterte has weaponized the degradation of women to delegitimize their calls for the government to discharge its constitutional duty and international obligation to respect and promote human rights and to defend Philippine sovereignty and democracy.

His are calculated attacks that aim to silence dissent by making an example of the women he has publicly vilified, slut-shamed and punished in order to promote a culture of impunity. This has resulted in the narrowing of political, social and economic discourse in the country.

Along with the systematic erosion of the independence of institutions that are meant to serve as checks on the abuse and concentration of powers, he has delivered one message: If you don't want to be attacked, don't speak out against Duterte. Better yet, toe the line and support Duterte's narrative that there are no extrajudicial killings, everything is going well in Mindanao and Philippine sovereignty is robust and kicking. Everything he says to the contrary is just a joke, and every fact that points in a different direction is fake news.

He is turning the Filipina into his image of what a woman should be—easily cowed, easily silenced, unquestioning and complicit. He may attempt to cast his attacks as gender-specific but the damage he wreaks transcends gender lines.

We can see it in whom he personally targets: strong and independent women, women like Senator Leila De Lima who, as then chair of the Senate Committee on Justice and Human Rights, initiated an inquiry into the spate of extrajudicial killings apparently connected with his declared war on drugs. One day, Senator De Lima was a well-respected public servant serving her first term of office as an elected official, a lawyer by training, a defender of human rights and the rule of law by choice. The next day, all of a sudden she is the so-called “mother of all drug lords”, who today, marks her 770th day in detention, based on trumped-up illegal drug trading charges that have no evidence to back them up, save for the self-serving and perjured testimonies of actual, self-confessed drug lords.

Women like Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, who was unconstitutionally ousted from her post after she had dared call out the fakeness of Duterte's drug list, which included judges long dead or retired.

Women like Senator Risa Hontiveros, who has been charged with everything from kidnapping to wire-tapping, especially after she took steps to secure eyewitnesses to the killing of 17-year-old EJK victim, Kian Delos Santos, which to this date remains the only case, out of thousands of deaths, that has resulted in a conviction.

Women like UN special rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, who was tagged by the government as a member of a terrorist group, thus endangering her and undermining her work.

Women like Maria Ressa, who now faces 11 live cases in court and was arrested and released on bail for the seventh time last Friday after she, as CEO of the online Rappler, came under attack by the Duterte administration for publishing incisive news and commentaries on national issues, including reportage of the so-called war on drugs.

These have sent a very clear, chilling message. If this can be done to powerful and prominent women who already have a platform, resources and political and legal acumen, not just to defend others but also themselves, then can it be done to others with greater ease?

And it is being done to others, to the even more vulnerable women and children. I will now speak about the two most pressing human rights crises we now face in the Philippines: the extrajudicial killings connected to the so-called war on drugs, and the continuing crisis in Marawi city in Mindanao.

Countless women and children have been widowed and orphaned by the bloody war on drugs. The actual death toll is disputed, but the Supreme Court has established that 20,232 had already been killed by 2017; by now, the number could easily reach between 25,000 and 30,000.

While most of those killed are men, a closer examination of the facts will reveal the severe impact on the women: wives, mothers, sisters, daughters of the murdered men who are now left to pick up the pieces of their families' broken lives. Finding a livelihood, keeping children in school, addressing health issues, which now include recovery and healing from trauma, these are their immediate concerns—assuming they have managed to give their dead a decent burial.

Furthermore, a study conducted by my women's organization, PILIPINA, underscores the violation of women's rights and dignity in the way the anti-drug operations are carried out, including violent intrusion into the homes of the poor, which are supposed to be women's safe and sacred space, no matter how lowly; the denial of their rights to care for their dead or wounded; theft of their few belongings; threats of their being taken to substitute for their targeted male relatives when they are not found on the premises; and vulnerability to sexual harassment, prostitution and human trafficking. The women who have been left behind have become, in the words of the study, “a new underclass among the urban poor; often ostracized and isolated by their neighbours, terrorized by barangay officials and the murderers of their family members, vulnerable to sexual exploitation.”

To date, two petitions have been filed for the issuance of a writ of amparo, a temporary protection order prohibiting police authorities from getting near the residences and workplaces of the families of EJK victims. The second one, filed in October 2017, was on behalf of the families of 35 residents of San Andres Bukid, a poor urban community in Manila, who were killed within a 13-month period. The San Andres Bukid petitioners were led by Sister Maria Juanita Daño of the Religious of the Good Shepherd, who has been living among the poor of San Andres for many years. Sister Juanita or Sister Nenet has formed an all-women group that meets weekly to reflect on the challenge of the Gospel in their lives. Men were initially invited to join the group, but they didn't stay because they were not comfortable with the sharing process.

When the killings started, the residents thought that first death was meant only to serve as a warning to the drug users and pushers in the neighbourhood, but the killings did not stop, and the rising number of fatalities included those not involved in drugs, including several youth.

Members of Sister Nenet's core group were the first to act. In Sister Nenet's words, they were mothers. It was not okay with them that their neighbours were getting killed. They started with candle-lighting and holding prayer services for the dead—subtle actions, as Sister Nenet points out. They became even more disturbed when they heard people say that those who were killed were worthless and deserved to die. With no action forthcoming from their parish priest, Sister Nenet went to the bishop, who called for a meeting with NGO lawyers.

The most eager among the lawyers was a young woman, attorney Tin Antonio of Centerlaw. While gathering data and testimonies for the case, Attorney Antonio joined the women in cooking, washing clothes and singing with the choir at funerals.

Many of the petitioners were hesitant to join the legal action at first. They received threats from the police. The village officials got angry with them. Even their families asked if filing the case would bring the dead back to life, but they persisted. Sister told the petitioners that “even if we lose, at least you can say you fought for your loved ones”. The media report the deaths, but they have no names—only numbers. By identifying and naming them, you give them back their dignity.

Two days ago, the Supreme Court ordered the government to release all documents related to Duterte's war against drugs. The police assigned to the neighbourhood have been changed. Killings have waned, but they still happen under a different form—no longer by the police but by riding in tandem teams. Every BEC member, every core group member, now has a tarpaulin on the front door. On the tarp are written the 10 basic rights of citizens. Everyone is encouraged to memorize the list so they know what to do in case they are picked up or threatened. Sister Nenet herself narrowly escaped being identified, because she was not wearing a veil when the village ombudsman came looking for a nun.

I now will raise the second pressing human rights issue, related to the displacement caused by the five-month Marawi siege. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees reports that 77,170 families were displaced by the armed operation that began in May 2017. The city centre was completely demolished, ancestral homes looted, properties destroyed and hundreds of lives lost, including those of 45 civilians. Families were—and remain—sundered. Now, almost two years after Duterte declared the liberation of Marawi, residents have not been allowed to return to the most affected area in the centre of the city. Adding to their heartbreak, they continue to be excluded from any participation in the planning of the rehabilitation of their city.

That war and displacement place a higher burden on women than on men is well documented worldwide, but even the start of the siege was ominous. When Duterte declared martial law covering the whole of Mindanao as a response to the siege, he sought to motivate the soldiers to fight by telling them that if they were to rape up to three women, it would be on him. Today, Marawi women find themselves dealing with a new reality of scarcity, marginalization and physical and psychological insecurity, including unverified reports of sexual abuse.

The tragedy is that the human rights defenders of Marawi are themselves displaced and are among those who have lost everything. Civil society's woman leader, Samira Gutoc, was the lone Moro voice who persisted in speaking out against the declaration of martial law when the issue was debated on the floor of Congress. Her mother and three-year-old son were caught in their home at the city centre when the battle broke out. Her ancestral home and all in it were lost. Like most of her people, she identifies herself as an IDP.

Marawi civil society leaders today are organizing and strategizing to get their voices heard by government even as they are still dealing with the loss of their dead and the missing; inhuman conditions in evacuation sites; the tearing up of the tightly woven social fabric of their lives; the threatened extinction of their culture and their identity; and, the complete lack of reliable information on what will happen next. They are standing up on their own because, if not, who else will, since the government seems intent on sweeping the rubble of Marawi under the rug, as if an entire bustling city and its needs and its people have turned invisible overnight.

Now, the greatest danger—and I'll end here—in all of these cases, from the vilification of powerful and empowering women, to the victimization of other women human rights defenders, especially those in the context of drug-related EJKs and the Marawi siege, is that no one seems to be listening while the government is exerting efforts to obscure reality.

May I just end with an appeal to the international community. For survivors of EJK victims, primarily women, we have tried to work, but these remain small and, to be candid, largely disjointed efforts. There is a feeling that to do too much is to catch attention, and to catch attention at this time may be counterproductive and even dangerous, which is why many people are resorting to more subtle forms of protest, if you may call them that, such as simply refusing to laugh at his jokes during his speeches.

This is why we consider this as more than just a domestic concern. This calls for international solidarity. This, in fact, is the most appropriate time to mobilize the global community, for it is when local advocates are themselves being attacked and endangered that the international community of women human rights defenders is most needed to step up. Let our people know that someone is watching. Help us to grow the hope and courage of your vigilance and solidarity so that we may break the climate of fear and impunity.

Thus, we call on the international community not to depend on what the Philippine government says. Demand answers to your questions in the strongest possible terms. Leave the Duterte administration no doubt that a time for reckoning will come for those who refuse to respect human rights, especially those who prey on their own people for the sake of power.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and all members of the subcommittee, and good afternoon.

1:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Anita Vandenbeld

Thank you very much, Ms. Quintos Deles. We're very pleased that we were able to bring you all the way from the Philippines here to be that voice. As you know, this is a televised committee, so hopefully that will allow a lot of these issues to be aired.

I'd like to go to questions now, for seven minutes each.

We will start with Ms. Falk.

1:15 p.m.

Conservative

Rosemarie Falk Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK

Thank you so much, Chair.

Thank you for your being here and for your activism and your voice. I know, being a young woman, sometimes it's difficult to know when is the right time to speak and not to be discouraged by the louder voices that don't want me to speak. So I want to thank you for your courage and for coming here.

I have a question. During the first part of your testimony you were talking about some different senators who have suffered repercussions for speaking out. You had mentioned that one of the senators was in detention. I'm just wondering if you could explain or elaborate just what that means. What does detention mean? Does that mean exclusion or seclusion, or what?

1:20 p.m.

Chairperson of the Board of Trustees, International Center for Innovation, Transformation and Excellence in Governance (INCITEGov)

Teresita Quintos Deles

She was arrested. She is in jail, not in the regular jail, but in the custodial centre of the Philippine National Police. She is in complete seclusion, not allowed to socialize with other detainees there.

We can visit on hours. You have to submit your name a week before, and there are times when the custodial centre says, “No, you cannot.”

She is only brought out to attend hearings, and her security really take pains to keep her out of view—until we complained—raising their hands to cover her, coughing so that she will not be heard when the media asks her questions and she shouts out.

She does her legislative work with her staff who come, and there are times when she is not allowed to meet her staff in full. She has to meet them one by one and give instructions.

She has been very busy and it is very important that we do not forget she is there, so she puts out a daily dispatch. She does legislative work, but she is not allowed to vote, which has been a precedent compared with other legislators who were put in jail formerly. They would be allowed to physically go to to vote on important issues. She has not once been allowed to vote.

She was arrested in February 2017, which means she served seven months outside of custody. Since then she has been, and continues to be, in jail.

1:20 p.m.

Conservative

Rosemarie Falk Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK

I know you talked about some of these women being slut-shamed, that type of thing. How are their personal reputations attacked? What is being done, and are any of the men in the country standing up and saying anything against this, or are they just being quiet and complacent?

1:20 p.m.

Chairperson of the Board of Trustees, International Center for Innovation, Transformation and Excellence in Governance (INCITEGov)

Teresita Quintos Deles

As I said, Senator De Lima was the chair of the human rights committee in the Senate. She had started an investigation into the killings, and the president charged her with being involved in the drug trade.

She was previously the secretary of justice, and in fact was known to have been the first secretary of justice who went into prison and exposed the good conditions that some of the drug lords had there. However, the president said no, she had been in jail and had the House of Representatives, where he has a so-called supermajority, do an investigation.

Before that investigation happened, he said there was a sex video of Senator De Lima having sex with her former bodyguard and security person. It turns out that the senator had had a discreet relationship with her security person. She was married and the marriage was annulled, so it was something that was completely just their business.

During the investigation, the slut-shaming by congresspersons was terrible. They called the former security person for Senator De Lima and asked him questions about whether they enjoyed sex, what the level of enjoyment was, and so on. It was completely unreserved, and then they were all giggling and laughing.

They threatened to show the sex video. That was where one of maybe the most imaginative actions of the women's movement came in. We put out a meme on social media saying, “I would like to testify in Congress; I am the woman in the sex video.” Something that had started with only 50 women reached millions of reposts in a matter of 20 hours.

Of course, the video was not shown, because in truth, it was a fake video from pornography, but it had done damage. Senator De Lima was extraordinary in that she went from an appointed position to a national elected position, because that was how much people trusted her and believed in her work. From a 60% approval rating at the time that she ran, it had gone down by the time the slut-shaming episode had happened.

She was the one most publicly shamed, but the president likes to use it every time. When we raise questions, even the women's movement, he will say, “Oh, these are old hags who are dried up and therefore they are bitter,” women such as me.

1:25 p.m.

Conservative

Rosemarie Falk Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK

Wow.

1:25 p.m.

Chairperson of the Board of Trustees, International Center for Innovation, Transformation and Excellence in Governance (INCITEGov)

Teresita Quintos Deles

It is his favourite type of thing. He's angry with the chair of the human rights commission, who is male, and calls him a fag.

It is his most habitual thing, not just innuendos but real, outright slut-shaming.

1:25 p.m.

Conservative

Rosemarie Falk Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK

Thank you so much.

1:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Anita Vandenbeld

We're now going to move over to Ms. Khalid, who has seven minutes.

1:25 p.m.

Liberal

Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON

Thank you, Chair, and thank you very much, Madam Quintos Deles, for your testimony and the great work you're doing.

I want to talk about and pick your brain about the intersection between a robust human rights law within a country such as the Philippines and how it impacts, and could be the foundation for providing, better protections for women human rights defenders. Could you advise us a little about the state of human rights in legislation in the Philippines?

For example, I would ask what type of protections are there regarding violence against women specifically, and also about freedom of expression and how the two intersect in order to provide that defence in law for persons such as yourself.

1:25 p.m.

Chairperson of the Board of Trustees, International Center for Innovation, Transformation and Excellence in Governance (INCITEGov)

Teresita Quintos Deles

As I had said, over the years we have been able to put up a very strong architecture of legal protection for human rights, including women's rights. You have the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act. Our humanitarian law in times of war is very strong on that. Our Magna Carta of Women also has very strong protection of women. Our anti-rape law has been updated. It is no longer as it was in the beginning. A crime against chastity is a crime against persons. Rape in marriage is forbidden. It's there. Our human rights laws are there. As I said, even in times of war, that protection is in place.

As I said, we had had a sense of confidence and complacency since Marcos' time that we had reached some level that we could rest on. We were thinking, in the women's movement in particular, that our problem was now housekeeping, enforcing the laws, making sure these were done and implementing rules and regulations. We are completely unprepared for and still unable to understand what is happening now. The president says he does not care about the law, and that is the quandary. I think we believe very much that the law should protect us. It is there to protect us and those who are especially weak and needy. We need the rule of law, and over the years, have been undergoing this reform, including the reform of the security sector.

That is why I think there is so much fear and threat now and public insults. People think twice about whether they should speak out. Anyone who is there to raise a question has received verbal assaults. Just a few hours ago, when Senator Drilon, one of our veteran senators, told Duterte to be careful in the review of the contracts of government, he said, “Well, if you don't stop it, I will suspend the writ of habeas corpus, and I will arrest all of you. You are no different from rebels, criminals and drug users. I will arrest all of you.” That is what he said.

The law is important, but the assault on human rights and the rule of law, and the lack of reservation in the way personal attacks are being made, did stunt us for awhile. The law is there, so that is what we are counting on—that there will be a time of reckoning. I think with time the people are getting braver and are collectively coming together to say that this cannot be. The law is important, but the dilemma is that we now have leaders like this, who seem to think they can get away with it, and we do allow them to for awhile.

1:30 p.m.

Liberal

Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON

You spoke about having a social media campaign to collectively defend somebody who was being attacked and then slut-shamed, as you said. Can you talk a little bit about the role of social media and the Internet in raising awareness of what the law is in the land and creating a united front against people who violate that law?

1:30 p.m.

Chairperson of the Board of Trustees, International Center for Innovation, Transformation and Excellence in Governance (INCITEGov)

Teresita Quintos Deles

In the Philippines social media has been two-edged. I would have to say that the ones who weaponized it against human rights used it first. The trolling is terrible. The trolling is sexual. It threatens rape, the rape not just of you but of your children. It took a while but we realized, okay, that's the weapon of choice and we need to take it in our hands. There has been a push-back, but what we fight against is that the other side is so well-resourced. Doing a good social media program needs resources.

They have trolling. They have troll farms, as they say. Messages come. We do realize that when you learn to attack and put it to reason, they don't know how to argue back, because the only thing they know how to do is to threaten, to threaten you with rape, to call you all sorts of names. That is what is happening now. The resistance, the groups in the resistance, are also learning to use social media in various smart ways, but our disadvantage is that we don't have the resources that are needed to keep a good social media program going.

We have one social media campaign, the Bantay Bastos, to guard against crassness. They call out everyone. That's what I'm saying. It's there but hard to maintain on the level that it should be.

1:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Anita Vandenbeld

Thank you very much.

We will now move to Ms. Hardcastle for seven minutes.

1:30 p.m.

NDP

Cheryl Hardcastle NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON

Thank you.

What was the name of that social media program you just said?

1:30 p.m.

Chairperson of the Board of Trustees, International Center for Innovation, Transformation and Excellence in Governance (INCITEGov)

1:30 p.m.

NDP

Cheryl Hardcastle NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON

Is that something the international women's community, women human rights defenders in other areas, are in a better position to help with? What kind of social media controls are there? It would seem to me that you are more vulnerable speaking up in the country but that if you have an international community that remains vigilant as well, there might be an opportunity there. I don't know if that's the case or if it's really controlled?

1:30 p.m.

Chairperson of the Board of Trustees, International Center for Innovation, Transformation and Excellence in Governance (INCITEGov)

Teresita Quintos Deles

It would except that the president so far has called any international criticism part of the “yellow army”. Yes, international support would help, but also internally, when I say that we need resources, it means that we need to be able to have people who can do it full-time. We don't have that, because people like me are doing other sorts of work.

1:30 p.m.

NDP

Cheryl Hardcastle NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON

Yes.

1:30 p.m.

Chairperson of the Board of Trustees, International Center for Innovation, Transformation and Excellence in Governance (INCITEGov)

Teresita Quintos Deles

In the network we are growing, which is determined to push back, we have not yet had the resources to even have someone to do this as full-time work. Our people are doing street action action and research.

1:35 p.m.

NDP

Cheryl Hardcastle NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON

We're trying to look at this through a lens of what things Canada can do to be more proactive with. I'm not sure what the role of the UN Commission on Human Rights is at this point. Do you think there are ways that we can support that or are there opportunities in—I don't know—legal defence?

1:35 p.m.

Chairperson of the Board of Trustees, International Center for Innovation, Transformation and Excellence in Governance (INCITEGov)

1:35 p.m.

NDP

Cheryl Hardcastle NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON

Sorry to cut you off. If this president isn't respecting the rule of law, is that a waste of the limited resources you have then?