ZARA ALVAREZ AND THE STRUGGLE FOR
HUMAN RIGHTS
Page 1 of 11
Who is Zara Alvarez?
Zara Alvarez (1981 – 17 August 2020) was a Negros Island-based Filipino human
rights advocate, educator, paralegal and prominent social activist who predominantly
campaigned against human rights violations which were witnessed during the
administration of Rodrigo Duterte. She was well known for her active campaign on
protecting Human rights in the Philippines which became a matter of concern during
the Presidency of Rodrigo Duterte. During her career as a human rights activist, she was
often a prime target of political mafia and reported to have received numerous death
threats due to her active campaigns against human rights violations. On 17 August
2020, she was assassinated by unknown gunmen and her murder showcased a serious
major crackdown and harassment against human rights activists and civilians in the
Philippines.
Alvarez, a single mother, was actively involved in social activism and served as a
paralegal staffer helping to spotlight cases regarding human rights violations in Negros
Island to the United Nations Human Rights Council. She also worked as a volunteer for
the human rights organization Karapatan where she served as the education director
and also associated closely with the Negros Island Health Integrated Program as an
advocacy officer.
In 2018, she was mistakenly included in an official terror list among 600 individuals by
the Duterte's administration and was held in custody by the Philippine National Police.
She faced an imprisonment term of nearly two years until 2020.
On 17 August 2020, at around 8pm in the evening, she was reportedly shot several
times by unidentified gunmen along the Sta. Maria Street in Eroreco, Barangay
Mandalagan, Bacolod City.[2] She was apparently targeted by gunmen while she was
heading to her home after buying dinner.
She was killed on the day of the funeral of peace activist Randall Echanis who was
assassinated on 10 August 2020. She was the 13th member of the Karapatan
organisation to be murdered during the administration of Rodrigo Duterte since 2016.
International rights group, International Coalition for Human Rights condemned and
denounced the killing of the activist and, in an official statement, it stated that Alvarez
was a brave figure and staunch defender of farmers and Filipino rights.
Her murder sparked hot debate in the international community criticizing newly
passed Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 (Republic Act No. 11479), a measure giving the
government more powers to act against persons or groups falling under what critics say
is a dangerous and vague definition of terrorism.
Excerpt from Wikipedia
Page 2 of 11
INTRODUCTION:
It is disappointing to know from various news outlets that the Philippines is not in good
standing as far as Human Rights situation is concerned. As member of the international
Community, the Philippines has been a party to several International Conventions on
Human Rights. In fact, the core provisions of these treaties are incorporated in the
Philippine Constitution, the highest law of the land. While other provisions were
transformed into domestic law as part of compliance with such treaties requiring local
legislation of a state party.
The struggle of Zara Alvarez and her advocacy for the recognition and protection of
farmers’ human rights is something that is worthy of emulation. Zara Alvarez is truly an
epitome of human rights champion. However, her predicament is a clear manifestation of
a weak government system. Weak in the sense of its failure to curb human rights abuses
being perpetrated by its agents or state actors.
The case of Zara Alvarez reveals to us several violations of Human Rights which are as
follows:
I. Freedom of expression
Article 19 of the Universal Human Rights provides:
“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right
includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive
and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of
frontiers.”
The same is also stated in article 19 of International Convention on Civil and
Political Rights:
1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall
include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all
kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of
art, or through any other media of his choice.
Such right to freedom of expression is also enshrined in the Philippine Constitution
under Section, Article III – Bill of Rights, which provides:
“No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of
the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the
government for redress of grievances.”
Page 3 of 11
Based from these excerpts, both the international and national laws protects the
freedom of expression as a fundamental right of every human being. As a social
activist, Zara Alvarez exercised this right in her fight for the rights of farmers. She
criticized the government and its agents for abuses against the oppressed and
vulnerable members of the society in Negros Island. Unfortunately, her legitimate
exercise of her freedom of expression has resulted into her inclusion in the so called
list of “Suspected Terrorists”. The list which originally contained 600 individuals was
reduced into two names upon filing in court. This proves only the fact that Zara
Alvarez’ inclusion in the list of so-called suspected terrorist was done arbitrarily by
state agents based only on her mere active criticisms of the government. This is a
clear move aimed at suppressing the very foundation of a democratic country – the
freedom of expression.
II. Freedom of Assembly and Association
Pursuant to article 20 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights:
“(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.”
Similar provisions have been reiterated also in the International Convention for Civil
and Political Rights under Articles 21 – 22, which state:
Article 21
“The right of peaceful assembly shall be recognized. No restrictions may be
placed on the exercise of this right other than those imposed in conformity
with the law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests
of national security or public safety, public order (ordre public), the protection
of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of
others.
Article 22
1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of association with others,
including the right to form and join trade unions for the protection of his
interests.
2. No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those
which are prescribed by law and which are necessary in a democratic society
in the interests of national security or public safety, public order (ordre
public), the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the
rights and freedoms of others. This article shall not prevent the imposition of
lawful restrictions on members of the armed forces and of the police in their
exercise of this right.
3. Nothing in this article shall authorize States Parties to the International
Labour Organisation Convention of 1948 concerning Freedom of Association
and Protection of the Right to Organize to take legislative measures which
Page 4 of 11
would prejudice, or to apply the law in such a manner as to prejudice, the
guarantees provided for in that Convention.”
In its effort to protect the freedom to assembly and association, the framers of the
1987 Constitutions purposely embodied the following provisions in Sections 4 and 8
of Article III:
“Section 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of
expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble
and petition the government for redress of grievances.
Section 8. The right of the people, including those employed in the public and
private sectors, to form unions, associations, or societies for purposes not
contrary to law shall not be abridged.”
In the case of Zara Alvarez, she was a zealous member and leader of activist or left
leaning group. She had been active in Anakbayan and Karapatan whose primary
objectives are to expose human rights violations to the UN Human Rights Council
and educating the people about their rights. Being an active leader of the leftist
group, Zara Alvarez was tagged as a terrorist and was suspected of having
connections with the New People’s Army. This the red tagging being done by
government against left leaning groups critical of its policies. This red tagging is a
clear violation of the freedom to assembly and association. These organizations are
legitimate associations operating under the laws of the Philippines. They are
essential in the dynamics of our country as we struggle to balance the power of the
state with its obligation and responsibility to protect the rights of its people and to
promote social justice. Red tagging of organizations which are critical of government
policies diminishes our democratic rights and tramples our human rights.
Although, there are limitations in the exercise of this right in so far as national
security and public order are concerned, the reasons/causes for the arrest and
detention of Zara Alvarez were never proven in the Court of Law. Thus, her arrest
and detention for almost two years could be easily understood as a form of
harassment and therefore violation of human rights.
III. Right to life, liberty, and security
This right is considered to encapsulate the key political and civil rights which must
be protected by the state. Article 3 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights
provides:
“Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.”
Similarly, the same protection for the right to life is enforced under Article 6 of the
International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which states:
Page 5 of 11
Article 6
“1. Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be
protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.
2. In countries which have not abolished the death penalty, sentence of
death may be imposed only for the most serious crimes in accordance with
the law in force at the time of the commission of the crime and not contrary
to the provisions of the present Covenant and to the Convention on the
Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This penalty can only
be carried out pursuant to a final judgement rendered by a competent court.
3. When deprivation of life constitutes the crime of genocide, it is
understood that nothing in this article shall authorize any State Party to the
present Covenant to derogate in any way from any obligation assumed
under the provisions of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment
of the Crime of Genocide.
4. Anyone sentenced to death shall have the right to seek pardon or
commutation of the sentence. Amnesty, pardon or commutation of the
sentence of death may be granted in all cases.
5. Sentence of death shall not be imposed for crimes committed by persons
below eighteen years of age and shall not be carried out on pregnant
women.
6. Nothing in this article shall be invoked to delay or to prevent the abolition
of capital punishment by any State Party to the present Covenant.”
Furthermore, articles 9 and 10 of the ICCPR provide the following:
Article 9
1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be
subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his
liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as
are established by law.
2. Anyone who is arrested shall be informed, at the time of arrest, of the
reasons for his arrest and shall be promptly informed of any charges against
him.
3. Anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge shall be brought
promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise
judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to
release. It shall not be the general rule that persons awaiting trial shall be
detained in custody, but release may be subject to guarantees to appear for
trial, at any other stage of the judicial proceedings, and, should occasion
arise, for execution of the judgement.
Page 6 of 11
4. Anyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be
entitled to take proceedings before a court, in order that that court may
decide without delay on the lawfulness of his detention and order his release
if the detention is not lawful.
5. Anyone who has been the victim of unlawful arrest or detention shall have
an enforceable right to compensation.
Article 10
“1. All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and
with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.
2.
(a) Accused persons shall, save in exceptional circumstances, be
segregated from convicted persons and shall be subject to separate
treatment appropriate to their status as unconvicted persons;
(b) Accused juvenile persons shall be separated from adults and brought
as speedily as possible for adjudication.
3. The penitentiary system shall comprise treatment of prisoners the
essential aim of which shall be their reformation and social rehabilitation.
Juvenile offenders shall be segregated from adults and be accorded
treatment appropriate to their age and legal status.”
The Philippine Constitution also contains similar provision in Section 1 of Article III:
“Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without
due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of
the laws.”
It is remarkable from the foregoing that there are numerous provisions in the
International Law and even in our Constitution that protect the right of the people to
their life, liberty and security. This right is considered as a negative right because it
restrains the state from impairing the very core of one’s civil and political right.
Unfortunately, this right has been the subject of frequent violations of the state.
Like the case of Zara Alvarez who suffered two years in detention only to find out
that she’s not guilty of the charges against her. Her right to liberty and security was
violated when she was arrested on the ground of fabricated charges. Lastly, her
life was taken away without the due process of law. Although, the case is still
under investigation, the pattern and circumstantial evidences point to the state
forces as the culprit behind the death of the human rights activist. It must be
remembered that she was implicated in the deaths of some high ranking officials of
the Armed Forces of the Philippines in Negros Island. She was also very vocal
against the alleged abuses of the AFP and PNP against the peasants in their
province. Her involvement in the fight for human rights certainly cost her life.
Page 7 of 11
IV. Right to effective judicial remedy
This right is provided under article 8 of UDHR:
“Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national
tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the
constitution or by law.”
Articles 2, paragraph 3 of ICCPR obliged the states parties to:
“3. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes:
(a) To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized
are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation
has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity;
(b) To ensure that any person claiming such a remedy shall have his right
thereto determined by competent judicial, administrative or legislative
authorities, or by any other competent authority provided for by the legal
system of the State, and to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy;
(c) To ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies
when granted.”
It must be noted that the right contemplated in the foregoing provision refers to
“effective judicial remedy”. Hence, the due process of law should be the paramount
concern of this law. In the Philippine Constitution, the Bill of Rights guarantees
access to justice in Section 11:
“Section 11. Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate
legal assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason of poverty.”
In the Philippine justice system, there are judicial remedies which may be availed
when someone’s life, liberty and security have been violated or threatened. These
are the Writ of Habeas Corpus, Writ of Amparo and the Writ of Habeas Data.
Writ of habeas corpus is a writ issued by a judge directed to the person detaining
another, commanding him to produce the body of a prisoner at a designated time
and place. Based on Supreme Court Issuance, the writ of amparo is a remedy
available to any person whose right to life, liberty and security is violated or
threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or
employee or of a private individual or entity. The writ shall cover extralegal killings
and enforced disappearances or threats thereof.
On the other hand, the writ of habeas data is a remedy available to any person
whose right to privacy in life, liberty or security is violated or threatened by an
Page 8 of 11
unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or
entity engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of data or information regarding
the person, family, home and correspondence of the aggrieved party.
It can be recalled that when Zara Alvarez was still alive, she filed to the Supreme
Court for the Writ of Amparo or protection because her life and security were in
danger during that time. The petition was given to the Court of Appeals for factual
determination and eventually denied the petition without conducting hearing on the
case.
Certainly, the life of Zara Alvarez could have been saved from peril had the Court
promulgated a decision in favor of her protection. This is a clear failure of our justice
system. The death of Zara Alvarez who was a human rights activist, which was
perpetrated by unknown assailants substantiates her claim in her petition for the writ
of Amparo.
V. Right to be presumed innocent
The right to presumption of innocence is embodied in article 11 of UDHR which
provides:
“(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed
innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has
had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or
omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or
international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier
penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal
offence was committed.”
Similarly, article 14, nos. 2 and 3 of ICCPR enumerates the rights of the accused, to
wit:
“2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall have the right to be
presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
3. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, everyone shall be
entitled to the following minimum guarantees, in full equality: (a) To be
informed promptly and in detail in a language which he understands of the
nature and cause of the charge against him;
(b) To have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence and
to communicate with counsel of his own choosing;
(c) To be tried without undue delay;
Page 9 of 11
(d) To be tried in his presence, and to defend himself in person or through
legal assistance of his own choosing; to be informed, if he does not have
legal assistance, of this right; and to have legal assistance assigned to him,
in any case where the interests of justice so require, and without payment by
him in any such case if he does not have sufficient means to pay for it;
(e) To examine, or have examined, the witnesses against him and to obtain
the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same
conditions as witnesses against him;
(f) To have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or
speak the language used in court;
(g) Not to be compelled to testify against himself or to confess guilt.”
In the Philippine Constitution, Section 14, no. 2 of Article III – Bill of Rights
guarantees the following:
“(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent
until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself
and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against
him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face
to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of
witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf. However, after
arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused
provided that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is
unjustifiable.”
Zara Alvarez suffered the violation of her right to be presumed innocent until proven
guilty. She was tagged among 600 individuals in the list of terrorists which was later
reduced to only two individuals. Her removal from the list was due to lack of
evidence. The list of so called terrorists was constituted without proper verification.
Clearly, this is a violation of right to presumption of innocence. Another violation of
her right was when a murder case was filed against her. The right of Alvarez’ to
speedy trial was violated when she was detained for almost two years only to find
out that she was innocent of the charges against her.
Prepared by:
RICHIE H. SALUBRE
2nd Year Law Student
Submitted to:
ATTY. JHOY D. PALLONES
Page 10 of 11
Professor, Human Rights Law
Page 11 of 11
