[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=’30’ subheading_active=’subheading_below’ subheading_size=’15’ padding=’10’ color=” custom_font=”][/av_heading]
[av_textblock size=” font_color=” color=”]
Friday. September 22, 2017
[/av_textblock]
[av_image src=’http://www.panaynews.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/editorial-cartoon-for-sept22.jpg’ attachment=’118159′ 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 HOUSE Representatives has agreed to restore the budget of the Commission on Human Rights (the proposed P649.484 million for 2018). It earlier gave the Commission a measly P1,000 budget for its alleged failure to investigate rights violations by terrorists and criminals. It also called out the Commission for allegedly focusing only on the alleged human rights violations committed by state forces.
But looking at the bigger, the problem is not just CHR’s meager budget. Despite being the favorite whipping boy of the Duterte administration for being critical of the government’s bloody war on drugs, the Commission actually has feeble authority, thus defeating the purpose for which it was created.
Under the present mandate of the Constitution, CHR is neither a judicial nor a quasi-judicial body. Its jurisdiction is limited only to civil and political rights. It has no prosecutorial power. CHR is restricted by the Constitution to preventive measures only such as initiating applications in court for judicial writs and orders, conduct investigation and receive evidence of violations of human rights, among others.
If the House really wants to make CHR more effective in its work, why not grant the Commission powers similar to that of the Department of Justice (DOJ) over all cases involving human rights violations? There was once a bill in the Senate that sought to grant prosecutorial powers for the CHR in the exercise of its jurisdiction, in addition to its investigative powers. It proposed to expand in clear terms its jurisdiction and at the same time equip it with significant power. What happened to the bill?
The prosecutorial power being sought is meant to expand the jurisdiction of the CHR to include economic, social and cultural rights. Granting the Commission quasi-judicial powers will also decrease the burden of the National Prosecution Service of the DOJ and further enhance specialization in the investigation and prosecution of human rights violations cases.
If it is a state policy to secure, protect and guarantee the dignity of its citizens and to ensure the fulfillment of such citizens’ human rights, CHR must not remain a paper tiger. But under an administration that considers human rights irrelevant, can this be realized?
[/av_textblock]
[/av_one_full]
