5 key things about the Commission on Human Rights

“Fools.” This is how the firebrand House Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez described the countless netizens, who decried the Congress’ decision to effectively defund the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) by granting it a 1000 pesos budget in 2018. Emotions are obviously running high on both sides, with critics and supporters of the human rights body engaging in spirited exchanges over the past few days.

Seldom has our Republic been so divided over the supposedly mundane issue of budget allocation. Like never before, the Congress’ prerogative over budget allocation to state agencies has become a highly polarizing issue. But what are we specifically fighting over? What is the relevance of the CHR? Why has it become such a polarizing issue? There are at least five things to keep in mind.

1. The Senate will step in. Most likely, the final budget will be much closer to the figure proposed by the government (P678 million) than the one approved by the lower house. This is because the Senate will likely intervene during the Bicameral Conference Committee. In an event of total deadlock, last year’s budget will automatically be re-enacted.

2. Toxic partisanship. This has less to do with the CHR and its specific functions than political fault lines dividing supporters and critics of President Rodrigo Duterte. To be more specific, this is about Duterte’s campaign against illegal drugs. In the past year, the CHR, under the chairmanship of Cambridge-trained lawyer Chito Gascon, has been at the forefront of exposing alleged anomalies in the conduct of Dutetre’s drug war. In particular, the CHR has raised concerns over possible extra-judicial killings of suspected drug users and dealers by law enforcers. The CHR’s works have been widely cited by both international media and international organizations such as the United Nations (UN), which has taken an increasingly tough line against the anti-drug campaign in the Philippines.

For the supporters of president Duterte, who happen to dominate the legislature, however, the CHR is a highly politicized body, which is led by a supposedly bias chairman, who has a well-established affiliation with the Liberal Party and was appointed by no less than former President Benigno Aquino III. In their view, the CHR has become a bastion of political opposition, hell bent on discrediting and undermining the current administration. Since the CHR is a constitutional body, as framers such as former Senator “Nene” Pimentel have made it clear, the administration-leaning Congress can only defund it, but not abolish it short of drafting a new constitution sans a CHR.

3. Campaign of disinformation. Amid a highly polarizing discourse, we have also witnessed a deliberate campaign of disinformation against the CHR. One line of attack, which has been unfortunately employed by well-informed lawyers and legislators, is that the CHR is effectively siding with criminals by exposing anomalies in the drug war.

To be crystal clear, the CHR’s mandate is not to protect all citizens, at all times, against all sorts of crimes. With its meager budget and limited personnel, the CHR couldn’t do that even if it wanted to. It is instead the duty of the Philippine National Police (PNP) and the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) -- along with myriad of intelligence and security agencies embedded in the state apparatus -- to protect citizens from criminals and terrorists and any threat to public order and safety.

Thus, if there are concerns and outrage over chronic crime and proliferation of illegal drugs in the country, they should be primarily targeted at state institutions, which are in charge of public safety and order. This is why one goes to the PNP, not the CHR, if there were burglaries or theft or rape in a certain community.

4. Operational mandate. The CHR’s mandate per the constitution (Sec. 18, Art. XIII) is broadly defined -- perhaps too broadly. And this is where it is a source of some (legitimate) confusion and deliberate misinformation by some politically motivated parties. One problem is that the concept of human rights and what it specifically constitutes is contested. Some maximalist definitions cover practically everything that has to do living with a dignified and healthy life. But as they say, when you cover everything, you cover nothing.

Moreover, the framers of the 1987 Constitution often used motherhood statements in defining the roles and functions of specific agencies. This is why a literalist and selective reading of the constitution isn’t helpful. Yet, a proper understanding of the CHR’s operationalized mandate is that the body was primarily created to avoid the horrors of Martial Law, namely the human rights calamity that visited the country under the Marcos dictatorship. Thus, the CHR is primarily (but not solely) tasked with protecting the political rights and civil liberties of the citizens against abusive elements in the state.

In short, if the PNP and/or the AFP engaged in activities, which violated the civil and political rights of certain citizens, it is the CHR that takes up the cudgels for the victims. Yet, as we have seen in the case of Hacienda Luisita massacre, the CHR can also get involved in investigation of mass atrocities even if it doesn’t directly involve government officials, but say, instead, influential political actors and/or oligarchs.

5. The CHR is a pillar of our liberal democracy. Its very existence is a testament to our republic’s commitment to uphold rule of law by ensuring our police and military forces respect the basic human rights of ordinary citizens. Amid growing concerns over extrajudicial killings in the country, the CHR should be strengthened, both in terms of its budget as well as functional powers.

Now, if there are concerns over the conduct of the body’s chairman, supposedly because of his political leanings, then detractors should prove it in proper court. Invoking guilt by association as a pretext to denigrate and de facto abolish the whole institution negates the foundational principles of our democratic republic.

Prof. Richard Heydarian is GMA resident analyst and author of, among others, "The Rise of Duterte: A Populist Revolt against Elite Democracy."