NATIONAL REPORT 2016 The right to rehabilitation Under Section 19 of the Anti-Torture Act, an elaborate rehabilitation programme for torture victims has been developed through strong engagement from civil society including Balay and MAG. Implementing Rules and Regulations were issued by the President in 2010 and the Comprehensive Rehabilitation Program for Torture Victims (CRPTV) was approved for implementation by the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), the Department of Health (DoH), and the Department of Justice (DoJ) in 2014. While the legislation in in place, only a handful of victims and their family members have accessed rehabilitation service to date. Balay, for instance, was able to facilitate the free hospitalisation and medical treatment of four former detainees (one of whom underwent surgery for a head injury) in coordination with the health department and government hospitals. Fourteen other victims and their family members obtained financial assistance from the social welfare department in the last six months to alleviate their medical and subsistence needs. A survivors’ association also obtained financial capital to sustain their livelihood project. But for most torture victims, rehabilitation is not a lived reality in the Philippines. This is partially due to lack of political willingness to take responsibility for the programme and adequately fund it and partly due to technical complications in delivering healthcare and psycho-social services in rural areas in the Philippines. The government is yet to designate a lead agency to implement the programme. Aside from the DSWD and the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP), which have drafted their respective guidelines with some assistance from Balay, there is no detailed step-by step plan and concrete commitments from the relevant government agencies on how it will be put to effect. The absence of a coordinating agency creates a risk that rehabilitation services will become compartmentalised within the different responsible agencies and thus not fulfil the objective of taking a holistic approach to the victim’s needs. This lack of specificity may tempt government agencies, who have already demonstrated a lack of interest and ability in providing specialised rehabilitation services to torture survivors, to not diligently implement the programme. Regional consultations facilitated by Balay with medical practitioners, social worker officers, and members of the human rights commission have affirmed the idea that there should be a focal agency to coordinate the referral and case management process between the national agencies mandated to implement the rehabilitation program and similar mechanisms to be established at the regional and local levels. At the same time, victims should be encouraged to organise associations to empower themselves to engage with government agencies accountable for fulfilling their right to rehabilitation. As to funding, each mandated agency is expected to come up with their respective budget to implement their obligation under the law. This opens the door for government agencies to consider torture victims’ rehabilitation as one of the many service components that they are already undertaking without establishing the necessary expertise and capacity of its human resources. For most torture victims, rehabilitation is not a lived reality in the Philippines. This is partially due to lack of political willingness to take responsibility for the programme and adequately fund it and partly due to technical complications in delivering healthcare and psycho-social services in rural areas in the Philippines. page 8