INSTITUTIONS ARE EQUALLY IMPORTANT

has been held accountable for the thousands of civilian deaths arising from the government’s anti-drug campaign.

We have also seen impunity in action in the past month. The recent Sandiganbayan conviction (but not really) of Imelda Marcos and the acquittal (but not really) of Bong Revilla arguably show this. These narratives are consistent with the country’s track record to let powerful people off the hook.

A MORE POWERFUL CHR

In connection with its primary mandate to investigate human rights abuses, the CHR can issue subpoenas addressed to the relevant government agency for the disclosure of information on matters subject of its investigation. However, should the agency fail to comply, the CHR does not have the power by itself to issue a contempt order. It must petition the relevant court for this remedy.

The weak sanction that backs up the CHR’s power of subpoena can make the work of the CHR more challenging. It also provides an incentive for noncompliance. After all, noncompliance does not immediately lead to sanction, thanks to an elaborate arrangement for the exercise of its contempt power.

Should the investigation call for prosecution, the CHR is mandated to submit its findings and recommendation to the proper prosecutorial office to act on the matter. Notably, the CHR does not have the power to prosecute, it can only investigate. The authority to prosecute for human rights violations is still lodged with the Department of Justice and the Office of the Ombudsman, which are free to disregard the CHR’s recommendations and conduct their own investigation.

The drug war exposed the flaw of this setup. Since the Department of Justice is an Executive department, it would be challenging to push for accountability for the persons most responsible for the drug war, given that this campaign is motivated by executive policy.

Thus, although the 1987 Philippine Constitution provided for the creation and independence of the CHR, the structural arrangements put in place for its operation are not well-equipped to facilitate accountability. Having our human rights spelled out in our laws is important, but we must equally ensure that an adequate system is in place to make those rights real.

Our democratic institutions must not be prone to capture if the Philippines were to live up to its commitment to promote human rights. This can be avoided by re-examining the framework that makes it excessively hard for some of our institutions to fulfill their duty to protect human rights, and exploring alternatives for those arrangements that facilitate impunity. Perhaps we should focus more on how the processes we have put in place in our system affect the exercise of the rights we have on paper. It is not enough to know what our rights are, we must also make sure we keep them by being vigilant. This is the only way to continue the remarkable progress we have made since martial law.

n