 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|||
 |
||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
||||||||
With just a few days left in regular sessions of Congress, the Commission on Human Rights strongly urges the Senate to pass the proposed CHR Charter in their chambers to pave the way for a stronger CHR that will be better resourced to respond to persisting human rights violations.
While the House of Representatives, through the leadership of the Human Rights Committee Chairperson Lorenzo R. Tañada III, has passed their version of the CHR Charter in House Bill 6822: AN ACT STRENGTHENING THE COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES in September 16 last year, the Senate Committee on Human Rights and Justice has yet to pass its version at the Committee Level.
“There is no better time than now to pass the charter as it has covered much ground in convincing legislators that the Commission must exercise its constitutional powers to the full extent of laws without being stymied by many interpretations of unspecified or unelaborated concepts such as legal and protective measures”, according the Chairperson Leila M. de Lima.
In addressing challenges faced by the Commission in the exercise of its mandates to promote and protect human rights, the Charter features the strengthening of the CHRP through its elaborated mandates and a restructured functional organization.
In this regard, the Commission has campaigned for the passage of the CHRP Charter that is designed to provide the needed strengthened investigative powers of the Commission and an elaboration of its quasi–judicial powers that include the application of preventive and legal measures. Current versions of the proposed charter include further defining constitutionally vested powers on preventive and legal measures, to wit:
“Sec. 19. Scope of Preventive Measures. – The preventive measures under Article XIII, Sec. 18 (3) of the Constitution that may be issued by the Commission in the investigation of cases involving all forms of human rights violations shall include the following:
“a) Injunction orders directing any member of the government’s military or police forces, as well as public officials or employees, or any person acting under their control and supervision, to desist from hiding, transferring or torturing a detainee and to allow access to said detainee by the Commission, his/her counsel, physician, and relatives;
“b) Orders directing the government official or employee, or any person in control of the premises of any government agency or office, specifically police and military detention facilities, secret detention places, stations, installations, camps, bases, and training schools, as well as private land and property, to permit the inspection of said premises;
“c) Orders to transfer persons deprived of their liberty and in danger of reprisal due to the filing of a complaint in connection with his/her detention, in order to secure safety of his/her person;
“d) Restraining orders restricting respondent, his/her unit or command from entering the immediate vicinity of the affected area or residence and from searching the victim or his belongings;
“e) General writs of injunction ordering the respondent to refrain from committing any and all acts that would tend to cause irreparable harm and have the immediate effect of rendering the investigation of the Commission moot and academic.
“Sec. 20. Scope of Legal Measures. – The legal measures under Article XIII, Sec. 18 (3) of the Constitution that may be provided by the Commission shall include the following:
“a) Mandatory protection orders directing government security forces, other appropriate government agencies or private institutions to provide specific protection to victims of human rights violations;
“b) Orders to deputize government offices and private institutions for the purpose of providing protection; and
“c) Orders to deputize government and private lawyers as counsels de officio to ensure that the human rights of the victim are not further violated.
One of the novel concepts of the charter is the ‘standby or residual prosecutorial powers’ first attributed to Senator Chiz Escudero, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Human Rights and Justice, who wants to ensure that human rights violations will be addressed vigorously by the government or in the event of its inaction or refusal, the Commission will be mandated by this law to exercise prosecutorial powers. The formulation of this power was laid in legal text by Congressman Lorenzo R. Tanada III, together with the CHR Chair and key officers. The provision goes this way:
“Sec. 27. Concurrent Prosecutorial Powers and Functions . – The Commission shall exercise concurrent prosecutorial powers and functions as herein provided.
“In the event of the failure of the prosecution agency of the government to initiate a preliminary investigation within ninety (90) working days from its receipt of the case recommended for prosecution by the Commission, the latter shall conduct the preliminary investigation and upon a finding of probable cause, refer the same to the appropriate prosecution agency for the filing of the information and prosecution of the case.
“In case of failure of the prosecution agency to file the information within thirty (30)calendar daysupon receipt of the resolution of the Commission finding probable cause, the latter shall exercise concurrent prosecutorial powers by filing the information in court on its own and prosecuting the case. For this purpose, the Commission shall have the power to deputize government prosecutors or private lawyers who shall be under its direct control and supervision.
“This section shall apply in cases where the offender is a public officer as defined under Article 203 of Republic Act No. 3815, otherwise known as the Revised Penal Code as amended, and acting in his capacity as such, or any person acting on behalf or under the immediate control of the State and its agents, and where the human rights violation constitutes a criminal offense under the Revised Penal Code and special laws, as follows:
“a) Use of physical, psychological and degrading punishment, torture, force, violence, threats, and intimidation;
“b) Extra-judicial killings, summary executions, and “massacres” or mass killings;
“c) Violations of right to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures, including involuntary or enforced disappearances;
“d) Violations of the rights of persons arrested, detained, or under custodial investigation, including deprivation of the rights of political detainees;
“e) Violations of the right to a speedy, impartial and public trial or disposition of cases;
“f) Hamletting, forced evacuation or eviction, illegal demolition, development aggression and other violations of the right to travel and to freely choose one’s abode and change the same;
“g) Violations of the right to peaceably assemble, free association, and to petition the government for redress of grievances;
“h) Violations of the right to worship and the free exercise of a religion;
“i) Violations of the right to privacy;
“j) Violations of civil and political rights of persons suspected of, accused of, or detained for the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism;
“k) Political, religious, racial, ethnic, social or sexual persecution, oppression, or harassment committed with acts constituting offenses punished under the Revised Penal Code and special laws; and
“l) In general, any crime penalized under the Revised Penal Code or special laws when committed within the context of or resulting to human rights violations.
The Commission has sought for the Charter’s inclusion as an urgent measure of the Executive and Legislative Branches of Government. Chairperson Leila de Lima, in reiterating her call, stated “One of the hallmarks of good government is to establish and maintain a strong national human rights institution that will serve as its conscience and acts if officials will be unwilling or unable to squarely address the unfettered violations of human rights in the country.” The CHR Charter should be seen as a legacy of the 14 th Congress. “We are still hopeful that our legislators will continue to see the urgency in the measure”, she added.