30 April 2010

THE CHR REITERATES THAT PERMIT-TO-CAMPAIGN SCHEMES
ARE REPUGNANT TO HUMAN RIGHTS

Two months ago, the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) issued an Advisory, which condemned the practice of soliciting money from candidates, in return for allowing them to campaign in certain areas unmolested. This condemnation was directed primarily at the Communist Party of the Philippines , the New People’s Army (NPA), and other armed opposition groups. The CHR sought to make it perfectly clear that these so-called Permits-to-Campaign and Permits-to-Win are absolutely repugnant to the rule of law, to the democratic process, and especially to human rights.

It is crystal clear that these extortion schemes violate human rights. Candidates have the right to liberty and security of person. They have the right to freedom of movement and freedom of expression. It is prohibited to discriminate against them on the basis of property. And in particular, they have the right to directly take part in the conduct of public affairs, and the right to be elected at genuine periodic elections.

When the NPA requires candidates to give money in order to campaign in certain localities, and when it threatens those who refuse with acts of violence, it is obvious that affected candidates are deprived of their security, their liberty and potentially their lives. Those who do not pay are denied their freedom to travel and campaign in affected areas, and to impart information and ideas to the inhabitants of certain communities. This extortion also results in blatant discrimination on the basis of property because those who have wealth can pay for access to the electorate, while candidates who lack funds are effectively locked out. And all these and more end up undermining the right of candidates to take part in public affairs, not just violating their rights, but also damaging Philippine democracy.

Candidates are not the only persons whose rights are denied by these attempts at extortion. The human rights of voters are similarly violated by these schemes. Voters also have the right to freely seek and receive information and ideas, the right to peaceful assembly, and particularly the right to take part in the conduct of public affairs through freely chosen representatives, and the right to vote at genuine periodic elections which embody the will of the electorate.

When voters are actively denied access to all candidates by armed opposition groups, the result is that they are prevented from fully learning the candidates’ platforms, their stands on key issues and other important information. Voters are also prevented from directly addressing their questions and concerns to all those who are running for public office. This makes a mockery of their right to vote and to freely choose their own representatives because in these instances, it is the armed opposition groups who are screening in advance who may run, who may campaign, and who may win, based almost solely on the ability and willingness of these candidates to pay large sums of money.

These rights which are being violated are not just found in Philippine law. They are also recognized in international law, in human rights treaties which have been ratified not just by the Philippines , but by scores of countries from all around the world. These rights are found in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), as well as other international instruments.

In addition, the obligation to respect and protect these rights does not belong to the government alone. It also applies to non-state armed groups, such as the NPA. In fact, this obligation is something that the National Democratic Front (NDF) explicitly recognized, when it entered into the Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law (CARHRIHL) in 1998. This agreement provides that the NDF must “uphold, protect and promote the full scope of human rights,” which rights include freedom from “travel restrictions for political reasons or objectives,” and the “right to universal suffrage.”

When the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) responded in February to the Advisory of the CHR (“Revolutionary authorities require candidates to observe policies within revolutionary areas,” 27 February 2010 ), it was telling that it recognizes the application of human rights obligations to the NPA. It was stated that, “[t]he CPP and the entire new democratic revolutionary movement fully respect, protect and fight for the people’s human rights and international humanitarian law, and their rights to free expression, freedom of movement, and freedom against discrimination.” So there is absolutely no question that the NPA must respect human rights. On this point, there is no debate.

It is unfortunate, however, that the CPP then went on to argue that its Permits-to-Campaign do not in fact violate human rights. It based this claim on the core assertion that the CPP-led revolutionary movement is not a “non-state actor” and that it has its own state power and runs its own government. Following this argument to its logical conclusion, however, leads to a deplorable outcome.

The CPP claims that it runs its own government in certain areas, and uses this asserted status to defend what it does in those localities. Therefore, the CPP is essentially arguing that as the de facto government in certain localities, it has the right to compel candidates to pay large sums of money, in order to campaign in those areas, and if they do not pay, then these candidates can be kept out through violent means. And as the de facto government, the CPP is implicitly claiming that it has the right to weed out those candidates who are not wealthy enough to afford its permits, or who are unwilling to pay for the “privilege” of campaigning.

This message is absolutely indefensible from the point of view of human rights. No government anywhere, whether it is the formal sitting government or a revolutionary government, has the right to do this to candidates and to voters. No government anywhere is allowed to so blatantly and reprehensibly violate the human rights of its people.

The CHR is an independent body tasked with promoting and protecting human rights in the Philippines . In keeping with this independence, the Commission stands ready to criticize abuses carried out, not just by the government, but also by armed opposition groups. And based on credible allegations made, as well as the warnings issued by the NPA itself, it is clear that the Permits-to-Campaign and Permits-to-Win are an extortion, pure and simple.

Armed opposition groups may attempt to rationalize or excuse these practices, by pointing to historical injustice, institutionalized inequality, and current abuses and violations. Injustice, inequality and abuses do exist and must be addressed, but these issues can never be used to justify threats or acts of violence, carried out in order to suppress fundamental human rights, as well as add to the coffers of armed opposition groups.

It must be reiterated and emphasized, as the CHR does here, that Permits-to-Campaign are repugnant to human rights. The CHR therefore calls on the NDF, CPP and NPA to cease and desist from this practice. The human rights rhetoric of these and other groups must be translated into concrete action, if it intends for these words to have any credibility.

The CHR also calls on the government and its security forces to carry out their own obligations under human rights law. In particular, candidates and political parties must be allowed unhampered access to all areas, peace and order must be secured especially in areas where the insurgency is active, and the right of suffrage of all citizens must be protected.

It is not enough to simply condemn and hold accountable those candidates who give in to this extortion. The government must also create an environment where candidates can exercise their own human rights, free from fear and intimidation, so that a candidate can resist these attempts at extortion without having to pay for it with his or her own life, the lives of supporters, or their loved ones.