Statement of the Commission on Human Rights on the PHP 1,000 budget allocation

of the House of Representatives for the Commission

The Commission on Human Rights has always taken positions in favor of

human rights. It does so without fear or favor, in a non-partisan manner, and as
rightfully mandated by the 1987 Constitution. It is regretful that, in the performance
of our duties, the House of Representatives opted to undermine our role as a check-
and-balance mechanism of the government by allocating PHP 1,000 for our budget.

We regret that despite continued clarifications on our mandate, they have

wrongly perceived our role as combative rather than a collaborative effort to bolster
Philippine democracy by ensuring that all public officials are honest in the
performance of their duties and adhere to universally accepted principles of human
rights.

The CHR is a Constitutional office created to serve the people as a State

institution—separate and independent from the three principal branches of the
government—as watchdog and protector against human rights abuses. We have called
out violations and praised positive measures across administrations in promoting the
societal goals of justice and rule of law.

Congress has even expanded CHR’s role beyond the Constitution by designating
powers and functions in special laws, such as the Magna Carta for Women; the Anti-
Torture Law; the Anti-Enforced Disappearance Law; and as Children’s Ombud, among
others. It cooperates with different stakeholders and has assisted the Human Rights
Offices of the Security Sector, as well as the Presidential Human Rights Committee.

It is unfortunate that the same Lower House of Congress, who was crucial in
deliberating these laws, has now chosen to deny the Commission its ability to
meaningfully pursue its human rights protection, promotion, and policy-advisory
functions through insufficient appropriations.

At the same time, we thank the 32 Representatives, who stood up with us in our
fight for this country and human rights during the budget deliberations at the House
of Representatives today.

We believe that if there are issues regarding the particular management or

performance of the current leadership of the CHR, there are enough mechanisms or
platforms upon which we may individually or collectively bring these forward without
arbitrarily, whimsically, or capriciously exercising powers over the purse strings.

Despite these circumstances, we will not turn our backs on our Constitutional
duty to render justice for all and give everyone their due. The concern for human
rights is beyond partisanship or disagreement. We shall seek means to move forward
and navigate through the hurdles mindful of our oath to serve the people and the
Republic—because it is what is right and what is needed of the times. ###
 The Commission on Human Rights (CHR) is an independent constitutional office
created under the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, with the primary function of
investigating all forms of human rights violations involving civil and political rights
in the Philippines.

The Commission is composed of a Chairperson and four members.

Commissioners hold a term of office of seven years without reappointment. The
Philippine Constitution requires that a majority of the Commission’s members must be
lawyers. As a National Human Rights Institution, the Commission enjoys Status A
accreditation by the International Coordinating Committee of National Institutions for
the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights.

Current status
On 24 July 2017 during his State of the Nation Address (SONA), Philippine
president Rodrigo Duterte threatened to abolish the commission.[4] The CHR
responded in a statement that only a change to the 1987 Constitution could possibly
abolish it.[5] On the evening of 12 September 2017, the House of Representatives of
the Philippines voted 119-32 to give the CHR a budget of only ₱1,000 (~$25) for the
entire year of 2018, which, if made law, would effectively abolish the commission.[6]
The commission had reportedly asked Congress for a budget of ₱623,380,000
($15,351,356), and it condemned the vote.[7] The budget is not yet final, it still has to
be approved by the Senate of the Philippines and the president himself.[8] If the Senate
rejects the proposed CHR budget, such action will trigger a bicameral committee made
of members of both houses to resolve the dispute.[9]

History
After the ratification of the 1987 Philippine Constitution on 2 February 1987, which
provides for the establishment of a Commission on Human Rights, President Corazon
Aquino, signed Executive Order No. 163 on May 5, 1987, creating the Commission on
Human Rights and abolished the Presidential Committee on Human Rights. [10] The
Commission was created as an independent office mandated to investigate complaints
of human rights violations, promote the protection of, respect for and the
enhancements of the people's human rights including civil and political rights.

Core Mandates and Functions

The Commission derives its mandates from the Constitution, relevant domestic laws,
and the eight core International Human Rights Instruments to which the Philippines is
a State Party, as well as other United Nations Human Rights Conventions newly
enforced.

Under Section 18, Article XIII of the Philippine Constitution, the Commission's
sole duty is to protect the civil and political rights of citizens in the Philippines.

Based on the Philippine Constitution, the Commission has a broad mandate,

which can be categorized into three major functional areas:

Human Rights Protection - Investigation and case management of complaints of

violations, including all the powers and services in aid of investigation, of civil and
political rights as well as economic, social, and cultural rights. Such powers and
services include: citing for contempt for violations of its rules of procedure; legal aid
and counseling; visitorial powers over jails and detention facilities; application of
forensic techniques in aid of investigation; witness protection; and, financial assistance
to victims

Human Rights Promotion, which includes the wide range of strategies for policy,
advocacy, promotion, social mobilization, education, training, public information,
communication, research, networking and linkages.

Human Rights Policy Advisory derived from monitoring government’s

compliance with the treaty obligations that the Philippines has acceded to:
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), Convention Against Torture and Other
Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), Convention on the Elimination of All
Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), Convention Against Racial
Discrimination (CERD), Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), Convention on the
Protection of Migrant Workers and their Families (CMW); Convention on the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). This also includes the entire aspect of monitoring and
evaluating the performance of the Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary to translate
international human rights standards into national policies, laws, and practice.

The Supreme Court of the Philippines, in Cariño v. Commission on Human

Rights, 204 SCRA 483 (1991), declared that the Commission did not possess the power
of adjudication, and emphasized that its functions were primarily investigatory.

The Commission on Human Rights have the following powers and functions:

Investigate, on its own or on complaint by any party, all forms of human rights
violations involving civil and political rights;

Adopt its operational guidelines and rules of procedure, and cite for contempt for
violations thereof in accordance with the Rules of Court;

Provide appropriate legal measures for the protection of human rights of all persons
within the Philippines, as well as Filipinos residing abroad, and provide for preventive
measures and legal aid services to the under-privileged whose human rights have been
violated or need protection;

Exercise visitorial powers over jails, prisons, or detention facilities;

Establish a continuing program of research, education, and information to enhance

respect for the primacy of human rights;

Recommend to Congress effective measures to promote human rights and to provide

for compensation to victims of violations of human rights, or their families;

Monitor the Philippine Government's compliance with international treaty obligations

on human rights;
Grant immunity from prosecution to any person whose testimony or whose possession
of documents or other evidence is necessary or convenient to determine the truth in
any investigation conducted by it or under its authority;

Request the assistance of any department, bureau, office, or agency in the performance
of its functions

Appoint its officers and employees in accordance with law;

Perform such other duties and functions as may be provided by law.

Tenure
The chairperson and commissioners of the commission have fixed seven-year
terms, with Gascon serving as the commission's chairperson until May 5, 2022. [14] As
stated under the Article XI, Section 2 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, “The
President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Supreme Court, the Members of the
Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman may be removed from office, on
impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason,
bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust. All other
public officers and employees may be removed from office as provided by law, but not
by impeachment.”

Qualifications for CHR chairperson are as follows:

A natural-born citizen of the Philippines;

At least thirty-five years of age; and
Has not been a candidate for any elective position preceding their appointment.

Controversies
Tenure of Chairperson and Commissioners
In a Press briefing on July 27, 2017, Presidential Spokesperson Ernesto Abella
claimed that the CHR Chairperson and its commissioners "serve at the pleasure of the
president" and that they may be replaced at the President's pleasure. This claim was
based on the Executive Order No. 163-A that amended the Section 2, Sub-Paragraph (c
of Executive Order No.163, stating that "The Chairman and Members of the
Commission on Human Rights shall be appointed by the President. Their tenure in
office shall be at the pleasure of the President."

However, the said executive order was questioned in the Supreme Court in the
case: Bautista v. Salonga, G.R. No. 86439 on April 13, 1989; leading to the declaration
of the said executive order as unconstitutional. Taking a quote from the said Supreme
Court ruling, "Indeed, the Court finds it extremely difficult to conceptualize how an
office conceived and created by the Constitution to be independent as the Commission
on Human Rights-and vested with the delicate and vital functions of investigating
violations of human rights, pinpointing responsibility and recommending sanctions as
well as remedial measures therefor, can truly function with independence and
effectiveness, when the tenure in office of its Chairman and Members is made
dependent on the pleasure of the President. Executive Order No. 163-A, being
antithetical to the constitutional mandate of independence for the Commission on
Human Rights has to be declared unconstitutional."
Dictator created the country’s first human rights commission

Marcos: Two days after decree was issued, the 1986 Edsa People Power Revolution
took place.

Netizens lashing out at the House of Representatives for approving a P1,000

budget for the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) have described the attempt to
muzzle the agency as a prelude to the return of Marcos’ martial law, an era when
human rights were all but nonexistent.

But ironically, it was the dictator himself who created the CHR through
Presidential Decree No. 2036 issued on Feb. 20, 1986.

Call it an act of a dying man, an attempt to sanitize an almost 20-year rule

characterized by warrantless arrests and detention, abuses and torture, and a last-
minute bid to appease the opposition and stay in power.

After declaring martial law in September 1972, Marcos closed down Congress
and became a one-man legislative system that issued proclamations, general orders,
presidential decrees and executive orders.

He retained his power to make laws even after 1978 when the Batasang
Pambansa or National Assembly was convened.

In all, Marcos issued over 6,200 laws. The decree creating a human rights
commission was his 2,036th presidential decree, and one of his last.

Global condemnation
The decree was a response to the global condemnation of human rights abuses
in the country.

On Nov. 22, 1975, a mission by Amnesty International (AI) noted that it “had not
anticipated the extent to which torture was practiced against martial law detainees.”

In its report released in September 1976, AI documented cases of torture among

students, journalists, engineers, teachers and pastors who were arrested on mere
suspicion of rebellion and tortured in Marcos’ prisons.

Some of the detainees were charged with rebellion and conspiracy to commit
rebellion. Some did not even know why they were arrested. Many were not even
charged, the group said.
 As a result of torture, the report added, some landed in mental hospitals and
psychiatric wards.

The report detailed torture methods used on the prisoners interviewed. These
included prolonged beatings with fists, as well as kicks and karate blows; beatings
using rifle butts, heavy wooden clubs and family-size soft drink bottles; pounding
heads against walls or furniture; burning of genitals and pubic hair with cigarette
lighters; falanga, or beating the soles of the feet; and “lying on air,” or San Juanico
Bridge, which had detainees being made to lie with their head on a chair or bed and
their feet on another chair or bed. They were then beaten and kicked whenever their
body sagged.

In all, according to AI, over 100,000 were considered victims of martial law:
70,000 were arrested, 34,000 tortured, and 3,240 killed by the military and the police.

Marcos issued the decree creating the CHR in February 1986, amid the massive
protests and boycott of products of Marcos cronies that followed his declaration as
winner in the snap presidential elections reported to be fraught with fraud, violence
and the mass disenfranchisement of voters.

Attached to the Office of the President, the commission was supposed to be a

multisectoral group composed of representatives from government and the private
sector, with the Vice President and the Prime Minister as chair and vice chair,
respectively.

Its members would include the presidents of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines, the Civil Liberties Union of the Philippines, the Trade Union Congress of
the Philippines, the Federation of Free Farmers, the Civic Assembly of Women of the
Philippines, the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines, the Ulama Association
of the Philippines and the Association of Christian Churches of the Philippines.

One of its chief functions is to prepare “integrated program” to protect human

rights in the country.

The urgency of the situation behind the CHR’s creation at that time was
reflected in its provision stating that: “The commission shall constitute itself
immediately.”

Too late. Two days after the decree was issued, the 1986 Edsa People Power
Revolution took place, and the Marcoses were ousted.

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/931171/ferdinand-marcos-chr-budget-cut-commission-
on-human-rights-marcos-martial-law
 House gives Commission on Human Rights P1,000 budget for 2018

The House of Representatives on Tuesday voted to give a P1,000 budget to the

Commission on Human Rights (CHR) for 2018, a critical government agency that
Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez had threatened leaving with a measly 2018 budget.

During the House budget plenary debates, at least 119 lawmakers voted to
approve the P1,000 budget for the CHR.

Only 32 lawmakers voted against it.

Zero budget for human rights commission? Gascon fears the worst

The decision of the House to gut the CHR budget from the proposed P649.484
million (inclusive of retirement and life insurance program) down to P1,000 apparently
was the result of Alvarez making good his word to give the commission, long critical of
the administration’s war on drugs, a measly budget, which would render it ineffective
in its operations next year.

Alvarez wants zero budget for CHR

During the plenary debate, 1-Sagip Rep. Rodante Marcoleta moved for the
P1,000 budget due to the what he said was the failure of the CHR to investigate rights
violations by terrorists.

He also added that the CHR was not a valid agency having been created by an
executive order issued by President Cory Aquino in 1986 during the revolutionary
government when there was no Congress.

But Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman said Marcoleta was mistaken that CHR was not
validly created, noting that Aquino was exercising both executive and legislative
powers because the 8th Congress was not yet convened at the time.

Lagman added that it would be unconstitutional to give a practically zero

budget to a constitutional body, because the 1987 Constitution gave the CHR fiscal
autonomy.

He said the CHR has no jurisdiction over common crimes, such as those
committed by terrorists. It has jurisdiction only over rights violations perpetrated by
the state and its agents.
 “Emasculating and killing the CHR with an annual budget of only P1,000 is
unconstitutional, because it virtually abolishes a constitutional body or office by
legislation,” Lagman said. “We cannot abolish a constitutional office by legislation.”

According to him, the country needs the CHR because of “so many human rights
violations” currently being committed.

Buhay Rep. Lito Atienza said giving a zero budget to make the CHR inutile
would rid the country of a government agency to protect people against rights abuses.

“Pag ito’y inabolish natin ngayon, wala na puntahan ang bansa dahil sa ang
problema ngayon ay violation of human rights,” he said. “It should be given P2 billion
so that it could function more properly.”

Cebu City Rep. Raul Del Mar, who sponsored the CHR budget proposal, denied
that the commission was being partial in pursuing the rights violations cases involving
the police.

“Does it occur to you that many victims of human rights [violation] could also
be innocent people, even our neighbors, friends, and family?” Del Mar said. “Even
assuming the CHR was deficient in its work, the remedy is not to terminate or
immobilize the constitutionally-mandated agency.”

He said CHR, being a constitutional commission, could only be given a deficient

budget if the Constitution would be amended.

“Let the people who would vote on future amendment to the Constitution
decide the fate of the CHR, not us by mutilating and mangling its budget,” Del Mar
said.

At first, lawmakers were made to vote by viva voce. But the nays resounded over
the ayes, supposedly because of some members from the gallery participating in the
voting.

When the presiding Deputy Speaker Eric Singson said the ayes won, Atienza
cautioned his colleague “not to commit the mistake of railroading this measure.”

A headcount was then made, making the lawmakers stand up to show if they
were for or against the P1,000 CHR budget.

But because the voting was not nominal, where lawmakers would be identified
with their votes, only a headcount was made.
 Based on an initial count by the House staff, among the lawmakers who voted
against the P1,000 budget are:

Gabriela Rep. Emmi de Jesus

Quezon City Rep. Jorge Banal
Quezon City Rep. Jose Christopher Belmonte
Buhay Rep. Lito Atienza
Bayan Muna Rep. Carlos Zarate
Kabataan Rep. Sarah Elago
Magdalo Rep. Gary Alejano
Anakpawis Rep. Ariel Casilao
Gabriela Rep. Arlene Brosas
Act Teachers Rep. France Castro
Act Teachers Rep. Antonio Tinio
Cebu City Rep. Raul del Mar
Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman
Northern Samar Rep. Raul Daza
Negros Oriental Rep. Jocelyn Limkaichong
Maguindanao Rep. Bai Sandra Sema
Dinagat Islands Rep. Kaka Bag-ao
Agusan Del Norte Rep. Lawrence Fortun
Akbayan Rep. Tom Villarin

But there is no sure way of knowing who were the 119 lawmakers who wanted
to give a CHR a deficient budget.

“There is no such record as voting was by ayes and nays, which was ultimately
done with members standing to vote when the nays challenged the ruling of the chair
that the ayes had it,” Majority Leader Rodolfo Fariñas said.

Alvarez, in a televised interview with CNN Philippines, said the CHR deserved
the very low budget for being a “useless” agency and for defending the rights of
criminal syndicates.

“Ngayon, kung gusto mong protektahan yung rights ng criminal, eh kumuha ka

ng budget sa mga criminal. Ganun lang kasimple yun. Bakit ka kukuha ng budget sa
gobyerno, eh hindi mo ginagawa yung (trabaho mo),” Alvarez said in the interview.

(Now, if you want to protect the rights of the criminals, get your budget from
the criminals. It’s that simple. Why should you get budget from the government and
yet you are not doing your job.)
 Alvarez sees drug lords’ hand in teenagers’ killings

In reaction, CHR Chairman Jose Luis Martin Gascon admitted being teary-eyed –
not so much because of the amount but because 32 lawmakers showed their support
for the the commission.

“I became teary-eyed because these were tears of joy, ” he said. “Not that we lost
our budget. But because there were so many who stood up. Not the majority, but so
many. In fact of those at the first stage who did not vote aye but had to stand up also
approached me and said: That’s the politics of the majority.”

He said he would not resign from his post if that was the aim of slashing the
CHR budget. That would only put the commission at the “mercy of politics.”

“We are supposed to be insulated from politics so we can perform our mandate
in accordance to what the Constitution expects us to do,” Gascon said.

He added that he was overwhelmed by the support the commission had received
from the public.

“That solidarity, that empathy is what will carry us on,” he said. “This is just a
mere hump on the road. We will not be cowed.”

Gascon added that he would appeal the P1,000 budget before the Senate.

After session adjourned, which saw the second reading approval of the national
budget, the lawmakers lined up for a photo opportunity, flashing the clenched fist sign
of President Rodrigo Duterte.

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/930106/house-budget-deliberations-chr-p1000-budget-
speaker-alvarez
 P1,000 budget for CHR to give PH bad image — solon
By Ellson Quismorio

An administration solon in the House of Representatives (HOR) believes that

decimating the 2018 budget of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) would put the
country in a bad light in the international scene.

AKO-Bicol Party-List Rep. Rodel Batocabe said that reducing the proposed CHR budget
to a mere P1,000 — as what is purportedly being pushed by the House leadership —
will also pull the rug on President Rodrigo Duterte’s vow to hold accountable the
perpetrators behind the recent brutal killings of young boys.

“Slashing the budget of CHR might send a wrong message to the international
community that we no longer give importance to human rights so much so that we
merely give the barest minimal funding support,” said Batocabe, a lawyer and
president of the 46-member Party-List Coalition (PLC) in the HOR.

“This is quite unfortunate especially coming at a time that the President has repeatedly
assured that he will not condone indiscriminate killings by alleged police officers of
minors,” he said.

The lawmaker was obviously referring to the cases of Kian Loyd de los Santos, 17; Carl
Angelo Arnaiz, 19 and Reynaldo de Guzman, 14 — three individuals who were
successively slain in alleged incidents of summary execution by law enforcers.

Batocabe underscored that that CHR “is an office created by the Constitution precisely
to serve as a check against human rights abuses.”

The CHR is headed by Chairman Chito Gascon, an appointee of the previous Aquino
administration. It is asking for a P651.9-million budget for next year, some P73 million
less than its 2017 budget of P724.9 million.

During the Committee on Appropriations hearing on the CHR’s 2018 budget last
month, a peeved House Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez branded the office as biased toward
criminals when it should be more concerned with the criminals’ victims.

Alvarez told reporters afterward that he would push for a zero budget for the “pro-
criminal” CHR. Zero budget in this case means an allocation of at least P1,000, since
this is minimum amount that’s technically allowed.

Batocabe still saw an upside to this, however.

“But then, this move also will send the message that Congress has the power of the
purse, and a co-equal independent body from the Executive. On the upside, this will
send a message to other agencies to shape up or otherwise be shipped out,” he said.

“However, I prefer that we strenghten our oversight over CHR to ensure that people’s
money is not wasted rather than drastically slashing its budget to P1,000,” Batocabe
further said.

The plenary debates on the proposed 2018 General Appropriations Bill (GAB) are
scheduled to end on September 12. The CHR’s budget is among the last to be tackled.
http://news.mb.com.ph/2017/09/10/p1000-budget-for-chr-to-give-ph-bad-image-
solon/
 House gives CHR ₱1,000 budget for 2018
By CNN Philippines Staff

Metro Manila (CNN Philippines, September 12) — Lawmakers frustrated over the
performance of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) gave the agency a P1,000
budget for next year, effectively rendering it useless.

One-hundred nineteen lawmakers voted for the token budget, while 32 were against it.

The House of Representatives had to vote three times before a final ruling was made —
twice through voice or viva voce and the last by each member standing to indicate a
vote.

House Majority Leader Rudy Fariñas said there is no breakdown of the voice votes. So
when lawmakers with the nay votes challenged the ruling that the ayes had it, 112
members stood to affirm their aye vote, while 32 stood to vote against the measly
budget.

Reps. Raul Del Mar (1st district, Cebu) and Edcel Lagman (1st district, Albay) said
giving the CHR a P1,000 budget would mean abolishing it.

“CHR can no longer function on such ridiculous amount. We are actually abolishing,
which we don’t have the power to do so,” Del Mar said.
 Congressmen who are against giving CHR P1,000 budget.

During the first reading, the House approved the P623-million CHR budget, down from
the Department of Budget and Management's requested P678-million budget.

But even House Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez himself is unconvinced the agency is doing
its job.

"Gusto ko malinaw 'to. Hindi naman zero. P1,000. Kasi hindi nila ginagawa 'yung
trabaho nila," Alvarez told CNN Philippines' The Source on Monday.

Budget adjustments are by the thousands, so P1,000 is the lowest amount an agency
can receive.

Under the Constitution, the CHR should "investigate, on its own or on complaint by
any party, all forms of human rights violations involving civil and political rights."

The Constitution also specifies the CHR must "monitor the Philippine government's
compliance with international treaty obligations on human rights."

"Kung gusto mo protektahan yung rights ng mga kriminal, eh kumuha ka ng budget

doon sa mga kriminal," said Alvarez.

"Ano'ng mandato nila doon sa Constitution ng Republic of the Philippines? Para

protektahan ang karapatang pantao ng lahat. Hindi lang bantayan ang pulis, 'yung
gobyerno, kung maabuso," he added.

[Translation: If they want to protect criminal rights, they should get their budget from
criminals... What is their mandate of the Constitution of the Republic of the
Philippines? Protect everyone's human rights, not just watch over the police and
government for abuses.]

CHR Chair Chito Gascon said the commission will keep doing its job despite the
budget given by the House.

"For now we draw strength from the courage of our friends who supported us. We will
encourage our employees to continue doing the hard work every day," he said in an
ambush interview.

Gascon added, "We will appeal to our friends in the Senate. In the end, whatever
happens, we can reassure that the Commission on Human Rights will continue doing
its mandate."
In a statement, Gascon also expressed his gratitude to those who voted against the
budget bill.

“We are saddened by this whimsical and capricious display of vindictiveness. We were
heartened by the courage and commitment manifested by many members of the House
who stood their ground to defy the tyranny of numbers shamelessly exhibited tonight.

CHR Chairman Chito Gascon on ₱1,000 budget for 2018: We are saddened by this
whimsical and capricious display of vindictiveness. pic.twitter.com/j0CiffPnLA

— CNN Philippines (@cnnphilippines) September 12, 2017

Getting the budget back

CHR Commissioner Gwen Pimentel revealed Alvarez gave a condition on how the
commission may regain its proposed P678-million budget.

“He did mention that if the chair would step down, then probably the budget would be
increased or given to the CHR,” Pimentel said.

Gascon, however, said he will not quit.

“To threaten it with the reduction of the budget on the pretext of asking me to resign
would lead to essentially be making the institution forever at the mercy of politics,” he
said.

Aside from the CHR, the House also gave the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) and
the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) a P1,000-budget for 2018.

The Senate will have its own decision on the fate of the budgets of the CHR, NCIP, and
ERC.

The Senate will act on the proposed 2018 budget bill as approved by the House of
Representatives. Differences will be reconciled in a conference committee. The
reconciled version will be returned to the two chambers for ratification.

The administration plans to have President Rodrigo Duterte sign a new budget law
before the next fiscal year begins in January.

http://cnnphilippines.com/news/2017/09/12/Commission-on-Human-Rights-CHR-
House-budget.html
Human rights commission and political dynasties’ prohibition are looking vainly for
enabling law

First word
IT struck me that the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) is in the same boat as the
constitutional prohibition on political dynasties. Both are in suspended animation,
because of the lack of an enabling law to legitimize them.

While watching the strange Senate hearing of the blue ribbon committee last Thursday,
it occurred to me did the inquisitors find it mildly strange that the mayor and vice
mayor of Davao City are both children of President Rodrigo Duterte? Is that city so
barren of talent that it must mine only one family for people to administer its affairs?

Over at the Batasang Pambansa, does anyone care that the Commission on Human
Rights (CHR) is now desperately fighting to survive and secure a budget for itself in the
2018 General Appropriations Act? The Speaker of the House of Representatives
Pantaleon Alvarez has declared that CHR should have a zero-budget next year because
it has been undermining the state, which pays for its salaries and wages and costs of
operations.

Both phenomena are similar in some respects. Each concern is the subject of an
explicit provision in the Constitution. And each is hobbled by the lack of a law to
enforce the provision.

State of suspended animation

The protection of human rights and the prohibition of political dynasties, as provided
by the 1987 Constitution, are in a similar state of suspended animation.

The Oxford dictionaries define suspended animation as “the temporary cessation of

most vital functions without death, as in a dormant seed or a hibernating animal.”

Wikipedia amplifies the definition medically with this note: “This condition of
apparent death or interruption of vital signs may be similar to a medical interpretation
of suspended animation.”

What the Constitution says

What does the Constitution say on human rights and political dynasties?

1.In Article II, “declaration of principles and state policies,” Section 26 of the
Constitution declares:
“The state shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service, and
prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.”

2. In Article XIII, “social justice and human rights,” Section 17, the Charter provides:

Section 17,(1) there is hereby created an independent office called the Commission of
Human Rights;(2) Until this commission is constituted, the existing Presidential
Committee on Human Rights shall continue to exercise its present functions and
powers.”

No enabling law
Both provisions have languished in the vine because President Corazon Aquino was
not fully committed to getting them enacted into law.

Without the enabling law, there is no Commission on Human Rights. Without an

enabling law, there is no prohibition of political dynasties in our constitutional system.

The appalling spate of extra-judicial killings (EJKs), and the state of the political
culture are reflections of this statutory lack.

Unless Congress passes a law prohibiting political dynasties, the constitutional

prohibition cannot be enforced. Political dynasties will continue to reign over national
politics, and no new blood will irrigate our politics. Several legislators have filed bills
to activate the provision, including former mayor and speaker Feliciano Belmonte, Jr,
who oddly was secretly moving to establish his own political dynasty in Quezon City
(his daughter is now vice mayor and bracing for a run for mayor in 2019).

Unless the legislature constitutes the Commission on Human Rights, it does not have a
statutory basis to exist, and to deserve a budget. The “thereby phrase” in the
Constitution does not suffice to create the commission (no agency of government has
ever been created by a “thereby”). Neither can the CHR claim to be a constitutional
commission, because the Charter is explicit in establishing only three constitutional
commissions: the Civil Service Commission (CSC); the Commission on Audit (COA), and
the Commission on Elections (Comelec).

Cory Aquino tried to convert her Presidential Committee on Human Rights into the HR
commission by signing an executive order to constitute it. This move was inadequate.
Under the 1987 Constitution, Congress must constitute the commission by legislative
action.

CHR engaged in self-deception

The CHR survives today through self-deception, not statutory mandate. It tries to
finagle the constitutional provision as sufficient to create it.
Only CHR chairman Chito Gascon and CHR employees believe this. Not even the Liberal
and Yellow legislators will say for the record that the Cory executive order legally
created the CHR.

Even so, the bogus commission persists with the deception.

In the face of the “zero budget” initiative of the Speaker, CHR and Gascon have
launched a campaign through Facebook and the media to challenge the congressional
move, claiming that it is constitutionally entitled to existence and a budget.

CHR now falsely claims that it is one of the commissions created by the 1987
Constitution, that it is an “independent office” and guaranteed “fiscal autonomy”.

But nowhere does the Charter say that the CHR is a constitutional commission. At
most, it suggests that it will be an independent office when properly constituted.

Another CHR post contends: “If [zero budget]is given, that is a clear violation of what
is stated in the Constitution and a blatant obstruction to carrying out our mandate as
the [national human rights institute]of this country.” Institute? The word is nowhere to
be found in the constitutional provision.

Gascon tries to be visible as much as possible in the media, thinking that this way the
CHR’s existence will be legitimated. The big problem is that the more CHR barks, the
more the administration itches to abolish the agency

What is to be done?
How is abolition to be averted? What of the welfare and well-being of CHR’s
employees?

The solution is for Congress to study the issue afresh and decide whether the nation
truly needs an independent human rights commission to uphold what is enumerated
in the Bill of Rights, and protected by due process.

At a time when the UN Human Rights Commission (UNHRC) and international human
rights organizations have become more intrusive on the sovereign affairs of nations,
the idea of establishing a human rights body to police the state is not popular with
most states.

As things stand, Speaker Alvarez’s “zero budget” initiative will likely carry the day at
the House of Representatives. CHR spokesperson lawyer Jacqueline de Guia says that if
the “zero budget” plan is pushed, CHR would be constrained to “take the issue to
court, and question it for being unconstitutional.”
De Guia says the CHR remains optimistic that “support will still be there” from the
Congress, especially the Senate, which actually recommended an increase in the CHR’s
capital outlay for 2017.

I think a case can be made for taking care of CHR employees; but a stronger case can
be made for abolition, since there is no law, and government is now hard-pressed to
realize savings from the abolition of non-performing and redundant offices.

Which has a better chance of getting an enabling law—the Commission on Human

Rights or the prohibition of political dynasties? This is where fortune-tellers head for
the exits.

Introduction
The United Nations Commission on Human Rights was established in 1946 to weave
the international legal fabric that protects our fundamental rights and freedoms.
Composed of 53 States members, its brief expanded over time to allow it to respond to
the whole range of human rights problems and it set standards to govern the conduct
of States. It also acted as a forum where countries large and small, non-governmental
groups and human rights defenders from around the world voiced their concerns.

During its regular annual session in Geneva, for which over 3,000 delegates from
member and observer States and from non-governmental organizations participated,
the Commission adopted about a hundred resolutions, decisions and Chairperson's
statements on matters of relevance to individuals in all regions and circumstances. It
was assisted in this work by the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of
Human Rights, a number of working groups and a network of individual experts,
representatives and rapporteurs mandated to report to it on specific issues.