Cluster Munition Ban Policy

Last updated: 16 August 2022


The Philippines ratified the Convention on Cluster Munitions on 3 January 2019. It has participated in every meeting of the convention, most recently in May 2022. The Philippines voted in favor of a key United Nations (UN) resolution in December 2021 urging full implementation of the convention.

The Philippines provided its initial Article 7 transparency report in October 2019, which formally confirmed that it has never produced cluster munitions and does not stockpile them, including for research or training purposes. According to the report, the Philippines destroyed a stockpile of 114 cluster munitions in May 2011.


The Republic of the Philippinessigned the Convention on Cluster Munitions on 3 December 2008 and ratified it on 3 January 2019. The convention entered into force for the country on 1 July 2019.

The Philippines reported in October 2019 that its armed forces had issued a directive in 2017 prohibiting cluster munitions from being included in “operational planning requirements.”[1] The Philippines has not indicated if it will enact specific implementation legislation for the convention.

The Philippines submitted its initial Article 7 transparency report for the convention on 11 October 2019.[2] It last provided an updated annual report on 17 April 2020, which showed no change from the first report.[3]

The Philippines actively participated in the Oslo Process that created the Convention on Cluster Munitions and sought the most comprehensive treaty possible.[4]

The Philippines has participated in every meeting of the convention, including the Second Review Conference held in November 2020 and September 2021, and the intersessional meetings in May 2022.[5] The Philippines has promoted universalization of the convention, holding a virtual meeting in July 2020 for Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) military officials.[6]

The Philippines has served alongside Chile as the convention’s co-coordinator on universalization since 2020.[7]

In December 2021, the Philippines voted in favor of a United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) resolution which urged full implementation of the convention.[8]

The Philippines has elaborated its views on certain important issues relating to the interpretation and implementation of the convention. In 2017, the Philippines told States Parties that it “continues to defend its position to prohibit the use, local and foreign stockpiling, investment, production, and transit of cluster munitions in the country.”[9] The Philippines has stated that it “has no intention to assist, encourage or induce any state, group or individual to engage in any of the prohibited activities.”[10]

Previously, in December 2020, the Philippines voted in favor of a UNGA resolution condemning use of cluster munitions in Syria.[11]

The Philippines is a State Party to the Mine Ban Treaty. It is also party to the Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW).

Use, production, and transfer

The initial Article 7 transparency report provided in October 2019 formally confirmed that the Philippines has never produced cluster munitions and does not stockpile them, including for research or training purposes.[12] In the past, the Philippines reiterated several times that it has never used or produced cluster munitions.[13]


The Philippines reported destroying a total of 114 “81mm cluster bombs” by open detonation in Cebu on 7 May 2011, after it adopted and signed the convention.[14] The specific type of cluster munition referred to by the Philippines is unclear, and no additional information has been provided in its Article 7 transparency reports.[15]

In 2014, a Department of National Defense official said that the Philippine Air Force had developed an experimental AFM-M3 cluster bomb unit in the 1990s, but the weapon was never pursued beyond the research phase and never used.[16]

An old 9kg M41A1 fragmentation bomb was cleared and destroyed from a construction site at Lanang in Davao City in 2013 by the Swiss Foundation for Mine Action (Fondation Suisse de Déminage, FSD).[17] The AN-M1A1 cluster adapter enabled six M41A1 fragmentation bombs to be deployed at the same time, making the weapon similar in function to a modern-day cluster munition.


[1] Memorandum to the Chief of Staff, Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), on the Prohibition of Cluster Munitions in the AFP Operational Requirements by the Department of National Defense, 13 December 2017. Philippines Convention on Cluster Munitions Article 7 Report, Form A, 11 October 2019. See, Convention on Cluster Munitions Article 7 Database. Previously, the Philippines stated in 2011 and 2016 that the prohibition on use of cluster munitions is part of the operational policy of the AFP. Statement of the Philippines, Convention on Cluster Munitions Second Meeting of States Parties, Beirut, 14 September 2011; and Letter from Bernadette Therese C. Fernandez, Department of Foreign Affairs of the Philippines, to Mary Wareham, Arms Division, Human Rights Watch (HRW), 25 April 2016

[2] The initial Article 7 report covered the period 1 January–31 December 2018.

[3] The updated Article 7 report, submitted in April 2020, covered the calendar year 2019.

[4] For details on the Philippines’ policy and practice regarding cluster munitions through early 2009, see HRW and Landmine Action, Banning Cluster Munitions: Government Policy and Practice (Ottawa: Mines Action Canada, May 2009), pp. 144–145.

[5] The Philippines has participated in every Meeting of States Parties. It attended the first part of the convention’s Second Review Conference held virtually in November 2020, as well as the First Review Conference in Dubrovnik, Croatia in September 2015, intersessional meetings in 2011–2015, and the Preparatory meetings for the Second Review Conference held virtually in June and September 2020.

[6]Asia-Pacific Workshop on CCM Universalization,” Convention on Cluster Munitions Quarterly Newsletter, April 2019.

[7] Chile and the Philippines, “Ways Forward on Universalization,” Convention on Cluster Munitions Working Paper, CCM/CONF/2020/12, 28 September 2020.

[8]Implementation of the Convention on Cluster Munitions,” UNGA Resolution 76/47, 6 December 2021. The Philippines has voted in favor of the annual UNGA resolution promoting the convention since it was first introduced in 2015.

[9] Statement of the Philippines, Convention on Cluster Munitions Seventh Meeting of States Parties, Geneva, 4 September 2017.

[10] Letter from Leslie B. Gatan, Permanent Mission of the Philippines to the UN in New York, 2 March 2009. The Philippines reiterated this during the Regional Conference on the Promotion and Universalization of the Convention on Cluster Munitions in Bali, Indonesia, 17 November 2009. Notes by Action on Armed Violence (AOAV).

[11]Situation of human rights in the Syrian Arab Republic,” UNGA Resolution 75/193, 16 December 2020.

[12] The relevant forms are marked “N/A” (not applicable). Philippines Convention on Cluster Munitions Article 7 Report, Forms B, C, D and E, 11 October 2019.

[13] Letter from Leslie B. Gatan, Permanent Mission of the Philippines to the UN in New York, 2 March 2009.

[14] Philippines Convention on Cluster Munitions Article 7 Report, Form B, Part II (2 and 4), 11 October 2019.

[15] These weapons were not referenced in the updated annual report provided on 30 April 2020.

[16] To date, this is the only such bomb to have been found in the Philippines, and no adaptor has been recovered. Philippines Campaign Against Cluster Munitions (PCCM) meeting with Col. Gerry Amante, Commander of the AFP Munitions Control Center, Camp Aguinaldo, Quezon City, 25 March 2014. The AFM-M3 is a copy of the United States (US) AN-M1A1 cluster adapter design. The use of an AN-M1A1 cluster adapter enabled six M41A1 fragmentation bombs to be deployed at the same time, making the weapon similar in function to a cluster munition.

[17] Philippine Campaign to Ban Landmines (PCBL), “PCBL Monitor April 2013,” 30 April 2013.

Mine Ban Policy

Last updated: 17 November 2021


The Republic of the Philippines signed the Mine Ban Treaty on 3 December 1997 and ratified it on 15 February 2000, becoming a State Party on 1 August 2000.

There is still no specific national law on landmines.[1] The Philippine Campaign to Ban Landmines (PCBL) has been advocating a “Philippines Landmines Bill” since the 12th Congress (2001–2004). Bills on national implementation measures have been before the House of Representatives and the Senate for several years, but none have been passed.[2] However, R.A. No. 9851 implements certain obligations under International Humanitarian Law which would criminalize use of antipersonnel landmines.[3] Production of improvised antipersonnel mines is also criminalized by R.A. No. 9516.[4]

The Philippines last provided an updated Article 7 transparency report in April 2020. Its previous Article 7 reports were submitted in March 2017 and cover the calendar years 2015 and 2016.[5]

The Philippines attended the Mine Ban Treaty Eighteenth Meeting of States Parties, held virtually in November 2020, and the intersessional meetings held virtually in June 2021.

The Philippines is a State Party to the Convention on Cluster Munitions. It is also party to the Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW) and its Amended Protocol II on landmines.

In June and August 2021, PCBL held virtual briefings on the use of improvised explosive devices (IEDs) which function like landmines, and condemned the use of these IEDs by non-state armed groups (NSAGs).[6]

At the June 2021 intersessional meetings, PCBL made a statement on sustainable national capacity, mine action coordination, and responsive community liaison in situations of clearance of explosive ordnance, including IEDs which function as antipersonnel mines.[7] In August 2021, PCBL provided technical details on an improvised antipersonnel landmine used by an NSAG in the Philippines at the Group of Experts meeting on CCW Amended Protocol II.[8] In February, June, and December 2019, PCBL condemned the use of landmines by the New People’s Army (NPA) rebel group.[9]

On 9 September 2021, the Philippine Commission on Human Rights (PCHR) and PCBL signed a memorandum facilitating verification missions by PCBL in incidents involving explosive weapons that appeared to function like antipersonnel mines, including risk education and advocacy.[10]

Production, transfer, stockpiling, and use

In its Article 7 report submitted in 2020, the Philippines did not report the discovery or destruction of previously unknown stocks. In its Article 7 report covering calendar year 2015, the Philippines recorded having discovered and disposed of 10 antipersonnel mines after inspections at ammunition depots. The Philippines also reported recovering and disposing of 14 improvised mines and eight IEDs. In its Article 7 report, for calendar year 2016, the Philippines recorded having discovered and disposed of one Claymore mine, 14 antivehicle mines, and seven improvised Claymore mines.[11]

The Philippines has reported that it has never produced or exported antipersonnel landmines. It destroyed its entire stockpile of antipersonnel mines—all Claymore-type mines—in 1998 and has not retained any live mines for training purposes. The Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) has stated that it has never used antipersonnel mines to combat insurgent groups within the country.

Media reports regularly state that authorities have recovered “landmines” during operations against insurgents, most of which appear to be command-detonated IEDs.[12] Previously, in December 2009, the Philippines told States Parties that all landmines and improvised mines recovered from non-state armed groups (NSAGs) are destroyed immediately.[13]

Non-state armed groups

In the past, at least four NSAGs have used antipersonnel landmines or victim-activated improvised mines in the Philippines, including the NPA, the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF), and the Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG). Some NSAGs, including MILF, have formally pledged in writing not to use antipersonnel mines.[14] In February 2017, PCBL encouraged the government and the NPA to include cessation of improvised mine use in ceasefire talks between the parties.[15]

Sporadic use of improvised antipersonnel mines has occurred in the Philippines. Most recently, in December 2020, the AFP displayed evidence of such mines, found in Barangay Itaw, South Upi, Maguindanao province, manufactured from recycled unexploded ordnance (UXO), and attributed their production to the Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom Fighters (BIFF).[16] Previously, in 2017, the AFP was engaged in battles with four allied Islamic State-aligned militant groups—ASG, Ansar Khalifa Philippines (AKP), BIFF, and Maute Group (MG)—in Marawi, Lanao del Sur province. The groups reportedly left behind many booby-traps and IEDs, resulting in casualties.[17] Periodic reports of improvised mine use attributed to the ASG have also surfaced in previous years.[18]

The Philippine government and MILF signed a comprehensive peace agreement in March 2014.[19] A provision of the Annex on Normalization of the Comprehensive Agreement on the Bangsamoro (CAB) concerns “Landmines and Unexploded Ordnance,” which mandates PCBL and the Swiss Foundation for Demining (Fondation Suisse de Déminage, FSD) to assist in mine action work in the Bangsamoro region, in the western part of the island of Mindanao. The implementation of this agreement is ongoing and is supported by the European Union (EU).[20]

The NPA continued to use command-detonated IEDs in 2020–2021.[21] Philippine authorities and the media continue to refer to these as “landmines.” The NPA, as the armed wing of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP), signed a Comprehensive Agreement to Respect Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law (CARHRIHL) with the government in 1998.[22] The CARHRIHL commits both parties to protect civilians by not violating the “right not to be subjected to...the use of landmines,” but does not define “landmines.” In June 2021, PCHR condemned antipersonnel mine use by the NPA, particularly in an incident which led to the death of two civilians in Masbate City. From available information, it is difficult to assess if the device was an improvised landmine or a command-detonated IED; but regardless, it was a criminal act under law R.A. No. 9851.[23]

In 2017, the Monitor was provided a technical drawing of remotely-detonated explosive devices used by the NPA. The devices are fitted with an antihandling device that can be turned on or off manually. When used in the antihandling mode, the device would be considered banned under the Mine Ban Treaty. It is unknown how many IEDs used by the NPA are fitted with this feature, or how often it is used.[24]

In August 2016, President Rodrigo Duterte called on the NPA to cease using landmines if it wanted to continue peace talks with the government.[25] The NPA refused, stating that its use of command-detonated landmines was not in violation of international law.[26] In response, PCBL issued a statement in August 2016 noting that NPA use of command-detonated mines might be in line with the Mine Ban Treaty but still threatened civilians, and requested the NPA publicly declare a halt to use of all types of landmines.[27]

[1] The Philippines 2017 Article 7 Report stated: “An Act Providing for a Total Ban on Anti-Personnel Landmines, for Other Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Landmines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices, Creating for this Purpose a Philippines Coordinating Committee on Landmines, and for Related Purposes” was introduced in July 2016 to the First Regular Session of the 17th Congress, had a first reading, and was referred to the Committees on National Defense, and Security and Finance, as of August 2016. Philippines Mine Ban Treaty Article 7 Report (for calendar year 2016), Form A, 3 March 2017. See, Mine Ban Treaty Article 7 Database. A corresponding Bill 239 was pending in the Senate, also as of August 2016. Implementation legislation for the Mine Ban Treaty was again introduced into both the House of Representatives and the Senate in 2016. Both bills failed to be passed in the 17th Congress. In the 18th Congress, a bill at the House of Representatives, House Bill No. 00121, “An Act Providing for a Total Ban on Anti-Personnel Landmines, for Other Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Landmines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices, Creating for this Purpose a Philippines Coordinating Committee on Landmines,” was filed by Rep. Juan Miguel Macapagal Arroyo on July 1, 2019. A similar bill has yet to be filed in the Senate. The scope of the new bills exceed the Mine Ban Treaty, in that they also prohibit “manually emplaced munitions and devices, including improvised explosives, made to kill, injure or damage, whether designed to be activated manually, by remote control, or automatically after the lapse of time.” Monitor interview with Alfredo Lubang, Coordinator, PCBL, 15 September 2021.

[2] See ICBL-CMC, “Country Profile: Philippines: Mine Ban Policy,” updated 21 November 2016.

[3] R.A. No. 9851, “Philippine Act on Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law, Genocide, and Other Crimes Against Humanity,” of 2009 is a Philippine law implementing International Humanitarian Law. Among the “war crimes” defined and penalized in Section 4 (c) (25) (iv) is: “Employing means of warfare which are prohibited under international law, such as… Weapons, projectiles and materials and methods of warfare which are of the nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering or which are inherently indiscriminate in violation of the international law of armed conflict.” The quoted provision is read as a Philippine legal characterization that the use of victim-activated antipersonnel mines, which are banned under the Mine Ban Treaty, is a war crime. R.A. No. 9851 is more expansive than the Mine Ban Treaty by not only banning victim-activated antipersonnel mines but also treating their use as a war crime. See, Soliman M. Santos, “The law on the use of landmines and the case of the NPA,” Balay Mindanaw Foundation, 13 June 2013.

[4] R.A. No. 9516, “Authority to Import or Possess Chemicals or Accessories of Explosives,” prohibits the possession of chemicals which can be used in the manufacture of explosives or explosive ingredients. While this law, and R.A. No. 9851 may criminalize use, they do not address important elements of the Mine Ban Treaty, such as victim assistance or mine action.

[5] Philippines Mine Ban Treaty Article 7 Report (for calendar year 2019). See, Mine Ban Treaty Article 7 Database. In the previous 10 years, the Philippines submitted only three annual Article 7 reports: in 2017, 2013, and 2011.

[6] See, PCBL Facebook posts, 6 and 9 June 2021. Also stated at the National International Humanitarian Law ad hoc Committee on 12 August 2021, and in email from Alfredo Lubang, Coordinator, PCBL, 15 September 2021.

[7] Statement of the PCBL, Thematic Session: Completion and Sustainable National Capacities, Mine Ban Treaty intersessional meetings, held virtually, 22–24 June 2021.

[8] Statement of the PCBL, Group of Experts meeting on CCW Amended Protocol II, 17 August 2021.

[9] PCBL Facebook posts, 11 February 2019, 2 June 2019, and 14 December 2019.

[10] PBCL Facebook post, “Closing Remarks for the CHR-PCBL MOU Virtual Signing,” 9 September 2021.

[11] Philippines Mine Ban Treaty Article 7 Report, 3 March 2017, Form G (for 2015 and 2016). See, Mine Ban Treaty Article 7 Database.

[12] See, for example, Alexander Lopez, “Tip-off leads Army to NPA landmine depot in Agusan Sur,” Philippine News Agency, 24 June 2019. The photograph and information contained in the article suggests explosive materials were for the manufacture of IEDs.

[13] Statement by Erlinda F. Basilio, Special Envoy of the President of the Philippines, Mine Ban Treaty Second Review Conference, Cartagena, 3–4 December 2009.

[14] MILF, the Rebolusyonaryong Partidong Manggagawa-Mindanao/Revolutionary People’s Army (RPM-M/RPA), Rebolusyonaryong Partidong Manggagawa-Pilipinas/Revolutionary People’s Army (RPM-P/RPA) faction of Nilo de la Cruz, and the Marxista-Leninistang Partidong Pilipinas/Rebolusyonaryong Hukbong Bayan (M-LPP/RHB) signed PCBL’s “Rebel Group Declaration of Adherence to International Humanitarian Law on Landmines.” MILF, the Revolutionary Workers Party of the Philippines/Revolutionary Proletarian Army-Alex Boncayao Brigade, and the Revolutionary Workers Party of Mindanao/Revolutionary People’s Army, signed the “Deed of Commitment under Geneva Call for Adherence to a Total Ban on Anti-Personnel Mines and for Cooperation in Mine Action.”

[15] PCBL press release, “Statement on the CPP-NPA-NDF’s offer for bilateral ceasefire agreement negotiations,” 21 February 2017. The press release states: “PCBL urges both parties to tackle the issue of improvised landmines and IEDs as part of any ceasefire agreement. Ceasefire should also mean cease-the-use-of-improvised-explosives-and-landmines. Ending the use of landmines and IEDs will definitely boost the confidence of both parties to pursue other equally difficult agenda on the negotiating table.”

[16] AFP 57th Infantry Masikap Battalion Facebook post, 12 December 2020. See also, Jeoffrey Maitem and Julie Alipala “2 soldiers, 2 militias injured as landmine planted by local IS forces blasted in MaguindanaoPhilippine Daily Inquirer, 24 October 2020.

[17] See, Vito Barcelo, “53 unexploded IEDs need recovering in Marawi City,Manila Standard, 20 August 2018; and “AFP: 2 soldiers lost legs after tripping on land mines in Marawi,” GMA News, 18 August 2017.

[18] Bong Garcia, “Bomb explosion kills farm owner in Basilan,” SunStar Zamboanga, 20 March 2017.

[19] Government of the Philippines and MILF, “Comprehensive Agreement on the Bangsamoro,” 28 March 2014.

[20] Email from Alfredo Lubang, Coordinator, PCBL, 10 October 2017.

[21] Alexander Lopez, “NPA's continued use of landmines alarming: Army official,” Philippine News Agency, 22 April 2020; and Delfin T. Mallari, “AFP slams NPA use of landmine that killed soldier in Quezon,” Philippine Daily Inquirer, 5 November 2019.

[22] CARHRIHL, Part III: Respect for Human Rights, Article 2(15), 16 March 1998. The government considers use of command-detonated devices, or any type of landmine, banned by CARHRIHL, while the NPA considers only use of victim-activated devices banned under the agreement.

[23] Soliman M. Santos, “[ANALYSIS] The law on landmines and the Masbate killings,” Rappler, 12 June 2021; and Jelly Musico, “Use of anti-personnel mines violation of IHL: CHR,” Philippine News Agency, 7 June 2021.

[24] Technical drawings of “NPA Improvised Remote Firing Switch with integral anti‐lift device,” based on a device recovered by FSD in June 2015 in Sarangani, South Cotabato province. Provided to the Monitor by email, 9 September 2017.

[25] Edith Regalado and Giovanni Nilles, “Reds told: Stop using landmines or no peace talks,” Philippine Star, 8 August 2016.

[26] Ben O. Tesiorna, “Communist leadership to combatants: Use more land mines,”CNN Philippines, 9 August 2016.

Mine Action

Last updated: 17 December 2012

Contamination and Impact

The Philippines is affected by explosive remnants of war (ERW), especially unexploded ordnance (UXO), as a result of long-running, low-level insurgencies by the New People’s Army (NPA) and other non-state armed groups, mainly in Mindanao. The extent to which it is also affected by mines is unclear.


The Philippines has consistently denied in its Mine Ban Treaty Article 7 reports, the latest of which covers 2009, that it has any mined areas containing antipersonnel mines.[1] However, the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) continue to claim that the NPA uses antipersonnel mines.[2]

The NPA has denied using mines, but acknowledges that it continues to use “command-detonated explosives” in attacks on government security forces. A 2012 statement by the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) Central Committee urges the NPA to use landmines “to impede enemy troop movement or harass any encamped force” and encourages them to “produce explosives from unexploded munitions of the enemy.”[3] Many incidents attributed to the NPA, although often reported as landmine attacks, appear to involve IEDs.[4]

Explosive remnants of war

The Philippines has UXO contamination from recent conflicts between the government and non-state armed groups, mainly on the southern island of Mindanao, causing civilian and military casualties. It also contends with large amounts of UXO and abandoned explosive ordnance (AXO), including chemical weapons that date back to World War II.

The AFP says that 30% of total ordnance in Mindanao is UXO. Fighting between armed groups associated with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) in Muslim Barangay, Guindulungan, Maguindanao, in December 2010 may have resulted in more UXO contamination in the area (see above).[5]

Some 4,000 World War II-era shells and other explosive items were collected for destruction in March (see Mine Action Program below). In other discoveries, at least 21 artillery shells were discovered in a warehouse in Binondo, Manila, in February 2012.[6] Other bombs were found in Muntinlupa City in Manila, in Calapan City in Mindoro, Kawit in Cebu City, and Surigao del Norte.[7]

Mine Action Program

The Philippines has no formal program for dealing with mines, IEDs, or ERW. Clearance has been conducted by a range of government actors, including the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and the police.

In March 2011, the Philippines and the US conducted a “Joint Explosive Ordnance Disposal Exercise” in which some 4,000 World War II-era artillery shells and other ageing ordnance, including aircraft bombs, land and sea mines, and depth charges, were collected from Caballo Island in Manila Bay and shipped to a military gunnery range in Tarlac. These were destroyed by a series of detonations, the last of them initiated by President Benigno Aquino himself. The Philippine Navy said ordnance with a total explosive weight of 364,348 lb (nearly 163 tons) had been destroyed in the exercise, which involved explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) teams of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Philippine National Police and the Coast Guard. President Aquino reportedly said the threat posed by the ordnance on Caballo Island had represented one of the major problems facing his administration.[8]

Safety of demining personnel

At least three EOD personnel from the Philippine National Police’s Special Action Force were killed in Taguig City after a mortar shell they had taken to a welding shop to be defused reportedly exploded. Another EOD team member and eight others were reported injured.[9]


[1] Article 7 Report (for calendar year 2009), Form C.

[2] See, for example, “Philippines condemns rebel landmine attack,” Agence France-Presse, 29 November 2011; Paul M. Gutierrez, “10th ID uncovers NPA ‘bomb-making complex’ in Mindanao,” Journal Online, 2 April 2011; and “Landmine Incidents (1 April 2010 to 21 February 2011),” received from the AFP Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, J3, 28 February 2011.

[3] CCP Central Committee, “Strengthen the people’s army and intensify the people’s war,” Message to the New People’s Army, 29 March 2012, p. 21.

[4] See for example, Mar S. Arguelles, “Soldiers led by colonel escape landmine blast,” Inquirer News, 7 September 2011.

[5] Email from Cliff Alvarico, Field Associate, Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Cotabato Field Office, Cotabato City, 28 January 2011.

[6] Sandy Araneta, “21 vintage bombs found in Binondo warehouse,The Philippine Star, 1 February 2012.

[7] Bernadette A. Parco,  “Vintage bombs probably used as ‘booby trap’: archaeologist,”, 1 February 2012; “Vintage bomb found in Calapan City”, The Mindoro Post, 13 November 2011; Mike U. Crismundo, “2 live vintage bombs unearthed,” Tempo, 29July 2011; Karen Boncocan, “Muntinlupa police recover vintage bomb.”, 11 May 2011; “Two killed in WWII bomb explosion in the Philippines,” The Mindanao Examiner, 20 July 2011.

[8]LSS-EOD eliminated the hazard of explosive remnants of war,” Philippine National Police Logistic Support Service, undated but accessed 24 January 2012; Aurea Calica, “Noy leads detonation of 4,000 vintage bombs at Crow Valley,” The Philippine Star, 6March 2011.

[9] Jamie Marie Elona, “4 dead, 8 injured in Taguig blast,”, 25 January 2012.

Support for Mine Action

Last updated: 22 February 2024

In 2022, the Philippines received a total of A$928,499 (approximately US$645,400) in international mine action assistance from Australia. The funds went to clearance and risk education activities implemented by the Swiss Foundation for Demining (Fondation Suisse de Déminage, FSD).[1]

Five-year support for mine action

In the five-year period from 2018–2022, the Philippines received almost US$2.5 million in international mine action assistance. No annual contributions were received in 2019–2021, but US$1.8 million was received in 2018.[2]

[1] Australia Mine Ban Treaty Article 7 Report (for calendar year 2022), Form J. See, Mine Ban Treaty Article 7 Database. Average exchange rate for 2022: A$1=US$0.6951. United States (US) Federal Reserve, “List of Exchange Rates (Annual),” 9 January 2023.

[2] See ICBL, Landmine Monitor 2019 (ICBL-CMC: Geneva, November 2019).

Casualties and Victim Assistance

Last updated: 29 September 2014

Casualties Overview

All known casualties by end 2013

571 (184 killed; 386 injured) since 1999

Casualties in 2013

0 (2012: 59)

2013 casualties by outcome

0 (2012: 6 killed; 53 injured)

In 2013, in the Republic of the Philippines no casualties from mines or explosive remnants of war (ERW) were identified from media scanning for the year. This marked the first year since 2009 that no ERW casualties were recorded. There were also no reported casualties of victim-activated improvised explosive devices (IEDs) or casualties of IEDs that were clearly determined to not have been command detonated. Media monitoring identified at least 14 casualties from IEDs that were likely command detonated but for which media reports lacked sufficient detail to confirm the means of activation.[1] Several other casualties from IEDs were identified, all of which were clearly caused by command-detonated IEDs.

The lack of victim-activated explosive casualties in 2013 represents a significant decrease from the 59 casualties in 2012 and 34 casualties in 2011.[2] Clearer reporting of device types and improved efforts to differentiate incidents caused by victim-activated and command-activated devices may account for the decrease in casualties as incidents involving a large number of military casualties in 2013 appear to have been caused by remotely activated devices.

Between 1999 and the end of 2013, the Monitor identified a total of 573 casualties from mines, ERW, and victim-activated IEDs (185 killed; 387 injured; one of unknown status).[3]

Victim Assistance

At least 387 mine/ERW survivors have been identified through the end of 2013.[4]

Created in 2008, the National Council on Disability Affairs (NCDA) is the national government agency mandated to formulate policies and to coordinate the activities of all agencies, both public and private, concerning disability issues and concerns. It is also tasked to strengthen the database on disability for both policy formulation and program development and to conduct policy review and consultation dialogues with different stakeholders.[5] According to the NCDA, there was “no specific program or even database for mine casualties, victims or survivors, because mine warfare is not common in the Philippines.”[6]

During 2013, the ICRC continued to provide support to the Davao Jubilee Rehabilitation Center. To further strengthen the service capacity and quality, the ICRC provided financial support for the construction of two new buildings; a new prosthetics and orthotics department was completed in 2012 and a new physiotherapy building was erected and equipped in 2013. During the year, 408 people benefited from various physical rehabilitation services at the ICRC-assisted center, representing an increase of close to 200% compared to 2012. Since the beginning of the ICRC assistance, the number of persons receiving services at the centers increased significantly (from 45 in 2008 to 408 in 2013). Children represented 49% and women 10% of the beneficiaries.[7]

The law prohibited discrimination against persons with disabilities in employment; education; air travel and other transportation; access to healthcare; and other social services; it also provided for equal access for persons with disabilities to all public buildings, but implementation was ineffective and many physical barriers remained.[8]

The Philippines ratified the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities on 15 April 2008.


[1] Monitor media monitoring from 1 January to 31 December 2013.

[2]Farm boy wounded by unexploded ordnance,” Minda News, 22 December 2010.

[3] See previous Landmine Monitor reports on the Philippines on the Monitor website.

[4] Ibid.

[5] ICRC Physical Rehabilitation Programme  (PRP), “Annual Report 2013,” Geneva, May 2014, p. 58.

[6] Telephone interview with Mateo A. Lee Jr., Officer-in-Charge, NCDA, 3 March 2010; and email, 15 February 2011.

[7] ICRC PRP, “Annual Report 2013,” Geneva, May 2014, p. 59.

[8] United States Department of State, “2013 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Philippines,” Washington, DC, 27 February 2014.