In the past
Philippine NGOs submitted an alternative report on ESC rights in 1995, in 2002 and 2008. The reports utilized data, case studies, and statistics generated also by NGOs, independent research institutions and government agencies. The reports were elaborated based on the normative contents of each ESC right (2002 report).
I-The 1995 alternative report
In 1993, housing NGOs wrote to the Committee regarding rampant demolitions. Then Committee chairperson Philip Alston wrote to the Phil. government regarding the demolitions and the non-submission of the ESC report.
In 1994, the Phil. Government submitted its report while 4 housing NGOs prepared a shadow report. The shadow report was written mainly through secondary research and consolidation of data and cases of the housing NGOs. A team of housing advocates went to Geneva to participate in the Committee hearing. The team submitted a statement, had an oral intervention, and observed during the government presentation
Impact
Most of the points raised by the housing NGOs in the shadow report were adopted by the Committee in the concluding observation. In short, the Phil government was ‘reprimanded’ over its actions that affected housing rights. The concluding observations were publicized in media but the government denied that the Committee hearing took place! The shadow report and the concluding observations were popularized through news releases, forums, and statements. The NGOs also advocated for the adoption of the Committee’s suggestions. The shadow report was also utilized for the lobby for the repeal of anti-squatting law and for the moratorium on demolitions. It was also used as a tool for education.
Limitations
During that time, it was a new field of advocacy. They were still trying to figure out the mechanics of the process. There were doubts on its effectiveness and benefits compared to the cost. The housing network was not able to fully maximize the shadow report and the concluding observations in its campaigns and lobby or negotiations with the government.
Lessons
Although the Committee had good suggestions, it did not follow-up on the government after it handed its concluding observations. The Committee has no presence in the country and the UN agencies present has no coordination with the Committee. It seems that the government does not ‘respect’ or recognize the authority of the Committee.
II- The 2002 alternative report
There was no official report, the purpose was to inform the Committee of the ESC situation in the country. Another aim was to ‘remind’ the Committee that the government’s report was long overdue. The activity was led by the Task Force Detainees of the Philippines, a member of the Philippine Alliance of Human Rights Advocates (PAHRA). Development and social groups were involved aside from the traditional HR organizations. Basic orientation on human rights had to be given to these organizations before the actual writing of the report.
The organizations were divided into sub-committees that focused on themes and particular ESC right. Only two sub-committees went through the comprehensive process of elaborating an alternative report. Naturally, only the two submitted quality and sufficient reports. The output of other sub-committees could not have withstood the scrutiny of the Committee. The data gathered were inadequate and were not verifiable.
Impact
Organizations participated in drawing out the conclusions and recommendations of the report. Participating groups gained confidence in voicing out their positions on issues and were able to identify ESC rights violations. They were also able to maximize the report during their campaigns and advocacy. The report was very useful in giving situationers of the right to food and housing to various audience. It was also utilized to propagate the HR approach among civil society actors. It was also used during negotiations and lobbying with government food and housing agencies
Limitations
The report was not submitted / used for submissions to other treaty bodies and UN mechanisms, e.g. Special Rapporteurs.
We were not able to check whether the organizations used the report in their respective lobby efforts.
Lessons
The credibility of the data and information must be ensured.
A point person should sit in every sub-committee to ensure that the process is going as planned.
The report should be publicized as much as possible to gain maximum impact.
III- Other Previous ESCR Initiatives
In early 2000, PhilRights and the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) convened inter-agency workshops with the aim of introducing the HR framework and mainstreaming HR standards and indicators among government agencies.
This initiative focused on monitoring the performance of the government in relation to its obligations obtained by signing the major HR international instruments.
In mid-2000, the Phil NGO Coalition for Food Security (PNLC) collaborated with the CHR to facilitate a GO-NGO dialogue towards uniting on common indicators for the right to food.
The second objective of the partnership was to help the GO, NGO, and the CHR come up with a situational report on right to food whether jointly or separately.
IV-The 2008 alternative report
The Philippine government submitted an ESC report last December, 2006. The Committee considered it in 2008.
In April 2007, a network of housing NGOs and people’s organizations supported by Center on Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE) decided to engage in alternative reporting as a method to advance housing rights. During same meeting, PhilRights suggested that NGOs working on other ESC rights be invited in the alternative report writing.
On October 3-4, 2007, a seminar on shadow reporting was sponsored by housing NGOs and COHRE. The first day was devoted to housing NGOs and the 2nd day was for organizations focusing on other ESC rights. During the said workshop, the organizations (around 40) present agreed to collaborate towards the production of an alternative report. An initial plan and timeline was drawn.
The output of the October workshop were later consolidated and submitted to the pre-session working group the following month. PhilRights acts as the de facto secretariat of the NGO alternative report initiative by virtue of its being the secretariat of the research committee of PAHRA.
The forty organizations that committed to join the alternative report making were divided into the following clusters: right to food, education, health, work, housing, women, children, racial or religious discrimination, water, and resource allocation.
The agreed outline of the write-up for each right: Overview (situationer / background) Cite the 1995 concluding observations Use the normative contents in evaluating the following:
- Laws/policies
- Implementation / violations
- Recommendations
- Conclusion
The agreed steps for the finalization of the shadow report:
- research and writing (cluster)
- cluster consultation
- consolidation of the full report
- general consultation (national in scope if possible)
- submission to the Committee (September)
V- Possible Role of Indicators
- Guides in choosing the substantial issues that should be raised in the report.
- Helps in assessing a particular policy affecting the implementation of a particular ESC right.
- Determine whether a government action or program is enough to meet the minimum standard prescribed
- Determine whether the result or output of government efforts meet the internationally agreed goals or targets.
VI-Possible Difficulties
Due to limited resources, NGOs could not launch a comprehensive research for the alternative report.
The quality and credibility of the data for the report might be compromised.
The report might not cover other rights and other elements of each right due to the limited data of concerned NGOs.
Not all issues and assertions of the government would be verified or challenged by the NGO report due to data limitations.
In the absence of agreed upon indicators, aside from the MDGs, it’s very hard to establish whether the government violated or neglected a particular ESC right, except in cases of obvious or gross violations of these rights.
VII-Plans for the Report
- Popularization – translation, publication, public forums, press conference
- Lobby – Present the report to relevant agencies, organize dialogues, legislative agenda, diplomatic community
- Education – Echo in communities through assemblies and discussion groups, produce popular materials
- Campaigns – Basis for statements, position papers
- Networking – strengthen collaborative efforts on ESCR, possible ESCR network formation
- Maximize the report in drafting submissions to other treaty bodies and other UN protection mechanisms.
