The elderly sector has been
recognized as a vulnerable community in need of special protection since the
early 1990s. But twenty five (25) years
hence, still no United Nations convention or treaty has been drafted in their
favor. Compared to the other marginalized sectors such as women, children,
Persons with Disabilities (PWDs), and even migrant workers, older people have
seemingly been left behind and they still don’t have an international human
rights basis to call their own and rely on. Thus, it can be said that older
people’s rights are largely “Invisible” in international law. The explicit
recognition of older people’s rights is still absent in most international
human rights instruments. Except for the International Convention on the
Protection of the Rights of Migrant Workers and their Families, nowhere is age
discrimination specifically mentioned.
Existing International Human Rights
Law
Indeed, the Universal Declaration
on Human Rights (UDHR), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR), and the International Covenant on Social, Economic, and Cultural
Rights (ICSECR) are the basic international human rights documents meant to
promote and protect the rights of all persons, young or old, regardless of
status. But as in the case of women, children, PWDs, etc. senior citizens or
older persons are also a vulnerable
sector in need of special, if not additional, protection.
While it cannot be said that
existing human rights instruments do not protect the rights of the elderly,
these international law bases are deemed as not sufficient to address the
unique concerns of senior citizens because these documents do not capture all
the nuances and features of ageing. There must be an understanding of why the
ageing population becomes a marginalized sector by virtue of a combination of
factors and influences. These require an insight into ageing vis-à-vis gender
issues, economic status, socio-cultural beliefs and traditions, as well as
politics and social welfare services. What is critical to this framework is the
need to find a “universality” to these concerns that the international
community will finally take notice. Governments and States around the world
must acknowledge that ageing and an
elderly population is a commonality that all countries share, and any genuine
effort to address older people’s needs may entail some international standard
of elderly care and legal protection that must be based on social justice and
human rights. While concrete measures by each State may vary depending on their
resources, thru a binding international
instrument such as this, there may at least be a benchmark for a progressive
achievement of a level of care and protection for our senior citizens
worldwide. It is this scenario that will
hopefully give proper context to
approaching ageing and elderly issues, and guide our own interventions.
International Instruments on Ageing
As early as 1982, there was the UN General Assembly
Resolution that led to the Vienna International Plan of Action on Ageing adopted
during the 1st World Assembly on Ageing. It was the first time a consensus was
reached that ageing was indeed a “Life-long” process which must be given
attention early on for preparation in social, economic, and health aspects. It
was only in 1991 that the UN General Assembly adopted the 18 UN Principles for
Older Persons which focused on independence, participation, care,
self-fulfillment, and dignity. Several other UN GA Resolutions followed,
ranging from a Proclamation on Ageing to a Declaration on the International
Year of. Older Persons It was only in
1998 that the Macau Regional Plan of Action on Ageing for Asia and Pacific was
developed. This document focused on seven (7) major areas of concern which
included health and nutrition, income security, maintenance and employment,
housing and transportation, social services and community, as well as social
position of OPs. This was followed in 2002 by the Madrid Plan of Action on
Ageing which was adopted by the 2nd World Assembly on Ageing. And while this
document gave priority to security, dignity, full participation and human
rights, it set policy directions in three (3) major areas of concern, namely:
ageing and development, health and well-being, and enabling and supportive
environments. It also called for a change in attitudes, policies and practices
to put an end to age discrimination and to include ageing in global development
agendas. By the time the Shanghai Implementation Strategy came out as a
follow-up by the Asia-Pacific region to the 1999 Macau and 2002 Madrid Plan of
Actions, the three (3) Areas of Concerns also included a portion on
implementation and follow-up. The strategy provided guidelines on the
implementation of commitments on ageing made under the two previous Plans of
Action.
But while these international instruments on ageing
are recognized bases for promoting elderly issues, they are not of the same
status as international human rights
law. They are not like a treaty or convention signed and ratified by different
member States that can officially compel compliance with international
commitments and obligations. The above-mentioned documents merely provide
guidelines for the implementation of plans, programs and services for older
persons They are merely “recommendatory” at best, and governments may or may
not act upon them. These documents are also very general in scope; they do not
provide specific guidance or outline State obligations in detail. What more,
because they are not legally binding, they provide no additional incentive for
implementation or accountability.
Yet a convention would provide governments with a
clear, conceptual and legal framework, one that will mainstream human rights
issues, ensure greater visibility of older people, and provide more exposure
for senior citizens’ concerns. It can clarify States’ responsibilities,
including the minimum standards and action necessary.
Translating Rights into National Laws and Policies
The Philippines is one of those countries whose
fundamental law specifically mandates caring for our elderly. In the 1987
Constitution, every Filipino was assured of a rising standard of living and an
improved quality of life. But along with other underprivileged sectors like the
sick, disabled, women and children, the elderly were promised priority in
health and social services. And while it is still the primary duty of families to care for their elderly, the
Philippine government is obliged to design social security programs for
seniors. On the other hand, not all countries expressly mention their senior
citizens in their Constitution.
Our Filipino elderly also enjoy an assortment of
benefits and privileges under several national laws like the Republic Act No.
344 or the Accessibility Law, RA 7876 providing for the establishment of Senior
Citizens Centers in every city and municipality, RA 8425 or the Social Reform
Act allowing sectoral representation for seniors in the National Anti-Poverty
Commission (NAPC). In fact, RA 9994 is actually the third version of the Senior
Citizens Act which grants discount privileges, free services, and additional
government financial assistance for
indigent senior citizens. But the beauty of RA 9994 is that it sought to
provide for the needs of Filipino seniors under a social protection framework,
integrating a life cycle approach - a variety of “from womb to tomb”
interventions that maximizes educational
and employment opportunities to the elderly and providing for a social
security and healthcare system that will allow them greater financial
independence and self-sufficiency in the future. Other countries do not provide
this and only have “piece-meal” legislations for their senior citizens, such as
healthcare services, social security schemes, retirement or pension benefits,
and universal social pension.
We also have the Philippine Plan of Action for Senior
Citizens (PPASC). Of late, we already have a third 5-year successor plan
spanning 2012-2016, which first started as a Philippine Plan of Action for
Older Persons (PPAOP) 2000-2005, and then was followed by the Philippine Plan
of Action for Senior Citizens (PPASC) 2006-2010. These national sectoral plans
were all anchored on the Macau and Madrid Plan of Actions, and the Shanghai
Implementation Strategy. But since these are not legally binding commitments, not
every country formulated a national plan for their elderly.
These realities were evident during the 1st Regional
Meeting on Ageing and Health for the Western Pacific organized by the World
Health Organization (WHO) in July 2013. While the more affluent countries like
Australia, New Zealand, and Japan clearly have an advantage because of their
resources, the Pacific island nations admitted they were still a long way off.
Their governments had no laws to fall back on, so there are no clear national
plans or programs for their elderly. With their governments not providing
concrete interventions, families serve as primary caregivers and healthcare is
mostly out-of-pocket.
Having a United Nations Convention on the Rights of
the Elderly will certainly compel different countries to have this more
comprehensive and integrated approach to caring for their older persons - from national laws and policies, to
sectoral plans to actual programs and services. It will no longer be “optional”
as what the current international documents
on ageing only manage to do.
The Way to Go: Five
Basic Reasons for a UN Elderly Rights Instrument
Simply put, the following are the basic reasons why
pushing for a UN convention on the rights of the elderly is a good idea and a
cause worth supporting:
1. Ageing
is inevitable and good portion of any country’s population will be composed of
older people. They are already a growing demographic given the many ageing societies around the world, so
there must be deeper understanding of their needs and issues, and these must be
articulated in the language of human rights and contained in a single universal
text..
2.
Vulnerability is not only experienced by children by virtue of their minority;
elderly folk are marginalized and discriminated against by virtue of their
seniority and ageism is so prevalent, if tolerated any further it already
borders on abuse and violence.
3. Present
international human rights mechanisms neglect the rights of older people.
Besides being absent in many treaties and conventions, there are clear gaps in
protections available to older people in existing human rights standards.
4. While
general provisions in the two international covenants do apply to everyone, the
lack of specific standards around what these rights mean for older people and
in the context of old age means there is little understanding or attention to
older people’s rights.
5. There
are no specific human rights standards on issues like elderly abuse, long-term,
and palliative care. A growing body of evidence shows that many older people
face abuse and violence in their own homes, and in institutional and long-term
care facilities.
As such, the DSWD must support this effort to come up
with a UN convention for older persons to protect their rights and welfare.
No comments:
Post a Comment