A Digest of Case Law on the Human Rights of Women - Asia Pacific ...

Imelda Romualdez-Marcos v Commission on Elections and Cirilo Roy Montejo (Philippines)
Justice Romero also referred to the Women in Development and Nation Building Act
1992, which gives married women rights to act in contracts on an equal basis to that
<strong>of</strong> men. She referred to the Fourth World Conference <strong>of</strong> Women in Beijing and its
objectives, which included the removal <strong>of</strong> “all obstacles to women’s full participation
in decision making at all levels, including the family”. Justice Romero beseeched the
Supreme Court to be the first to respond to the Fourth World Conference on Women
and its clarion call “Women’s Rights are Human Rights”.
Commentary
This case is positive for women. The rights <strong>of</strong> women are categorically mentioned
and explicitly recognised. The decision recognises the rights <strong>of</strong> women to choose
their own place <strong>of</strong> domicile and not to be given the domicile <strong>of</strong> their husband upon
marriage. The judgment <strong>of</strong> Justice Romero is particularly positive as it discusses at
length the many restrictions on the personal freedoms <strong>of</strong> Philippines women, which
have since been removed in response to international norms and conventions.
More significantly, Justice Romero focuses on CEDAW as a framework for the
articulation <strong>of</strong> women’s rights. The recognition <strong>of</strong> CEDAW as a binding treaty and a
source <strong>of</strong> State obligation gives emphasis to the fact that it is not only “part <strong>of</strong> the law
<strong>of</strong> the land” (section 2, Article II <strong>of</strong> the Philippines Constitution), but part <strong>of</strong> Philippine
case law. This gives CEDAW the potential to be used as a legal basis in future cases
that involve discrimination against women, without an additional requirement to cite
a specific national law that further articulates a provision in CEDAW. The Philippines
Supreme Court does not always cite international treaties or conventions in support
<strong>of</strong> its decisions so this case signifies a positive development.
8