[av_one_full first min_height=” vertical_alignment=” space=” custom_margin=” margin=’0px’ padding=’0px’ border=” border_color=” radius=’0px’ background_color=” src=” background_position=’top left’ background_repeat=’no-repeat’ animation=”]
[av_heading heading=’EDITORIAL’ tag=’h3′ style=’blockquote modern-quote’ size=” subheading_active=’subheading_below’ subheading_size=’15’ padding=’10’ color=” custom_font=”][/av_heading]
[av_image src=’http://www.panaynews.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/editorial-cartoon-for-sept24.jpg’ attachment=’118375′ attachment_size=’full’ align=’center’ styling=” hover=” link=” target=” caption=” font_size=” appearance=” overlay_opacity=’0.4′ overlay_color=’#000000′ overlay_text_color=’#ffffff’ animation=’no-animation’][/av_image]
[av_textblock size=” font_color=” color=”]
“THE PEOPLE’S sense of shock has been anaesthetized by the escalation of the killings and disappearances despite the size of the space given to them by the print media.” This was how then Supreme Court Chief Justice Reynato Puno described the impunity prevailing under the Arroyo administration.
Fast forward to the Duterte administration, the former Chief Justice’s statement still rings a bell.
In truth, the ghosts of extrajudicial killings and forced disappearances have been haunting the Philippines since the Marcos martial law. And yet, two branches of the government – the executive and the legislative – have not formulated rules and standards that will help solve the problem on human rights cases.
Of the three branches of government, the judiciary has a limited power. Unlike the executive, it has no control over the military and any law enforcement agencies. Unlike the legislative, it has no power to conduct investigations and formulate laws. In fact, the judiciary has to rely on the cases and evidence presented to it to do its function.
However, despite its limited power, the Supreme Court took the initiative to find solutions to the spate of killings. Under then Chief Justice Puno, the high court crafted the writ of habeas data and writ of amparo to supplement the writ of habeas corpus. Habeas data not only compels military and government agents to release information about desaparecidos but require access to military and police files, while the amparo, Spanish for “protection”, bars military officers in judicial proceedings to issue denial answers regarding petitions on disappearances or extrajudicial executions, which were legally permitted in habeas corpus proceedings.
According to then Chief Justice Puno, “human rights cases are low profile especially when they affect the marginalized, or people whose existence some would hardly recognize or worse, people dismiss as invisibles of society.” This may be the reason why our elected officials appear to be imperturbable to extrajudicial slayings today.
They are more interested in high-profile issues or those with greater impact on the larger number of their constituents. But this is unacceptable. Extrajudicial killings and forced disappearances are the same threat for everyone.
[/av_textblock]
[/av_one_full]
