Karen Gomez-Dumpit
Cases- Case status
- Unknown
- Location of case in SG report
- 2021-089-001
- Relevant SG report
- Year of the report
- 2021
- From Country
- Country Geolocation
Latitude: 12.879721
Longitude: 121.774017
- Country Geolocation (linked Cases)
- Philippines
- From Region
- UN body that raised the case prior to the SG report
- UN Special Procedures: Thematic
- UN (Dep.) High Commissioner on Human Rights
- UN Human Rights Council: UN Human Rights Council - General
- Type of record
- Named individual
- Gender
- Female
- Was the victim a foreign national?
- No
- Was the victim a minor?
- No
- Individual's/organization's activity
a commissioner of the Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines
- Type of rights defended
- Unclear in SG Report
- Was the victim a civil servant or member of the security forces or of the judiciary?
- No
- Reported trigger of reprisal
made statements during the 45th session of the Human Rights Council, and subsequently to national media, expressing her disappointment regarding HRC resolution 45/33
- Engagement with UN body
- UN Human Rights Council: UN Human Rights Council - General
- Dates of engagement
- October 2020
- Type of attempted engagement
- Participation in meeting on UN premises
- Location of mentioned reprisals
- Philippines, online.
- Reprisal information
In October 2020, Ms. Karen Gomez-Dumpit, a commissioner of the Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines, made statements during the 45th session of the Human Rights Council,55 and subsequently to national media, expressing her disappointment regarding resolution 45/33. Following her statements, Ms. Gomez-Dumpit was red-tagged through a series of posts attributed to a military official on Facebook pages run by the Philippine Army (PHL 1/2021), which were disseminated by the Philippines News Agency. The Commander of the Southern Luzon Command and Spokesperson of the National Task Force to End the Communist Local Armed Conflict (NTF-ELCAC) allegedly accused Ms. Gomez-Dumpit, along with the current Chairperson of the Commission on Human Rights (see Annex II), of supporting the Communist Party of the Philippines-New People’s Army- National Democratic Front (CPP-NPA-NDF), and reportedly branded them as “termites trying to destroy our homes from the under” and accused them of benefitting the “enemies of the country”.
- Types of reprisals suffered
- Defamation / Defamation campaign
- Alleged/likely perpetrators
- Both state and non-state actors
- Was the reprisal based on new legislation?
- No
- Does the report make general comment about country’s environment for engagement with UN?
- Yes
- Government response dates
- 2 August 2021
- Government response content
On 2 August 2021, the Government responded to the note verbale sent in connection to the present report in detail. It stated that it has no policy on “red-tagging” and that it has repeatedly drawn attention to the pattern of allegations of reprisal from certain sources, especially before the UN, and it highlighted the need to take into account the country’s political context relating to the activities of the Communist Party of the Philippines-New People’s Army-National Democratic Front (CPP-NPA-NDF) in examining such allegations. As regards allegations concerning personalities of the Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines, the Government stated that it has continued to protect and support the National Commission’s mandate, ensuring that it is effectively fulfilled. In this regard, the Government stated that it has never defaulted in its budgetary support for the National Commission, and it maintains a constructive working relationship with the National Commission.
- Was the case raised by a State at the UN?
- No
- Is the country cited for a "pattern of reprisal" in the context of this case?
- No
- Is a pattern of reprisals mentioned otherwise in the context of this case?
- Yes
- Does the report cite "self-censorship" as an issue in the context of this case?
- No
- How many times has the case been followed up in subsequent SG reports?
- 0