On March 26, the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) spokesman Ed Diansuy was reported to have cautioned civil society groups inside and outside of the country from taking the matter of extrajudicial executions before the international community arguing that “other [foreign] governments might think the [Philippine] government cannot solve [this issue].” Diansuy said “Let the government solve its problem instead of going to the international arena and having foreign governments coming in and interfering, which is wrong.” He was reacting to a “guilty verdict” by a people¡¦s tribunal in the Netherlands and the continuing international pressure on the government.
The commission is the latest to invoke this doctrine of “non-interference,” arguing that the government alone has the sole responsibility for solving its own problems and any intervention outside of the country in the internal affairs of the Philippines is unacceptable and constitutes “foreign intervention.” This position is nothing new since it has been used repeatedly by public officials, the police, the military and other quarters in attempts to defend the government¡¦s human rights record. However, for a commission mandated under the Constitution to promote and protect human rights, it is unacceptable. If a symbolic tribunal cannot discuss the country’s state of human rights, even in a foreign land, what is acceptable to the government and the commission?
Can a dialogue about the human rights problems of the Philippines take place within the country where even a simple discussion of human rights is enough for people or groups to be labelled “enemies of the state” or “terrorists”? Can such a dialogue take place within urban communities or schools where people holding discussions on human rights and similar activities are likely subjected to military surveillance? Or can a dialogue initiated by the commission itself, whose own investigators often even fear for their safety as they too experience insecurity, take place? There are instances where simple activities cannot be done inside the country, and thus, other groups or members of civil society are forced to undertake actions abroad to gain international attention for the human rights problems presently plaguing the Philippines. This dialogue is the legitimate free exercise of democratic freedom, and for the commission to discourage and downplay such symbolic activities does not reflect well on it nor does it uphold its mandate.
The Philippine government, as a member of the United Nations that was elected to two of its main organs–the U.N. Human Rights Council and Economic and Social Council–is a legitimate object of scrutiny regarding its human rights record. A country who claims to uphold the promotion and protection of human rights domestically must prove it before the international community. Otherwise, it has no credibility or moral authority to sit as a member of these two U.N. councils, which involves the power to examine the human rights records of other U.N. member states. If it cannot tolerate constructive criticism, it should reconsider its membership on these councils. This viewpoint should not be new to the CHR: it is the foundation of the highest norms of international human rights standards. The obsolete doctrine of “non-interference” espoused by the Philippine government should have been rejected long ago for its inapplicability in modern democratic states.
While the government has allowed foreign involvement in recent times–the latest was an investigation conducted by the U.S. Congress and an invitation for European governments to assist the Melo Commission¡¦s ongoing investigation–the CHR is discouraging similar activities. There was no question of foreign intervention, for instance, when the government sent representatives to the U.S. Congress, although they were not permitted to attend the hearing, and even claimed that they offered to send representatives to the tribunal to hear their position. If the government cooperates with this foreign involvement without any question of foreign interference, why cannot the commission? Moreover, why does Secretary of Justice Raul Gonzalez not adhere to this policy too before writing to the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) and telling it that the organisation’s repeated letters of appeal to his office requesting investigations and his intervention on cases of human rights violations constitute “interference from foreign nationals”? If the people within the country are being killed, tortured and forcibly disappeared almost daily, then the international community is a proper venue to air the people¡¦s grievances. Otherwise, who will speak for the dead and those facing threats to their lives?
What the CHR should also understand is that foreign governments observe proper protocols and a level of diplomacy. People¡¦s tribunals, the results of fact-finding missions and continuing international campaigns against abysmal human rights conditions in the Philippines are unlikely to be the sole basis for foreign governments to conclude that the Philippine government is not solving nor stopping these killings. Raising general concern and specific issues about the country’s deteriorating human rights record is a legitimate reaction by foreign governments. This response is helpful in stimulating discussion and pressuring the Philippine government to act effectively without delay on the almost daily human rights violations plaguing the country. Instead of criticising the involvement and concern of foreign governments, the CHR should reflect on why, despite numerous recommendations, the creation of special prosecutors and courts and the strengthening of witness protection, among other measures, the extrajudicial killings and other horrendous forms of human rights abuse still continue unabated. Why is justice for victims and the prosecution of perpetrators either taking so long or appears to be impossible?
It is not the perception of the government’s helplessness and inability to solve their internal problem that is being created by foreign intervention. Rather, it exposes a continuing failure to acknowledge that stopping the extrajudicial killings in the country is more than condemnation, the creation of a police task force and commission to investigate these atrocities, special prosecutors and courts, strengthening witness protection, etc., but instead involves ensuring that these responses are effectively implemented and produce the desired outcome, i.e., the extrajudicial killings and other human rights violations end.
It is also disturbing that after the Melo Commission and U.N. Special Rapporteur Philip Alston released their report and public statement respectively in February the response, either from the government and civil society within the country or abroad, has been negligible in thoughtfully considering the findings of both the Melo Commission and the U.N. special rapporteur. The problem is not the absence of solutions but of implementing every single recommendation to solve the problem effectively. Creating a commission and inviting a U.N. special rapporteur to investigate the country¡¦s extrajudicial killings are meaningless unless their findings are taken seriously and acted upon.
Noticeably in recent times a number of officials from the government, police and military have repeatedly insisted on blaming illegal armed groups as being responsible for the continuing extrajudicial executions. They insist too on the blanket theory of an internal purge among activists as reasons for the persistent murders. A member of Congress and several policemen and members of the military have criticised local organisations and illegal armed groups respectively for not denouncing their atrocities and for murdering civilians, soldiers and policemen. They insist that the atrocities by illegal armed groups should also be condemned, documented and investigated. To compare a legitimate government’s security forces though to that of an illegal armed group is unjustifiable. Government security forces are duty bound to behave under the framework of the Constitution in order to uphold the rule of law, but illegal armed groups are not. To compare both reduces the government’s security forces–the police and military–to that of an illegal armed group, to imply that they are no different at all.
There is one unavoidable fact that the government of the Philippines cannot escape, however: whether human rights violations are committed by the security forces or illegal armed groups, the government cannot excuse itself from any responsibility for its failure to protect the lives of its citizens and to ensure that justice is rendered to its people. To respect and protect the lives of its citizens is a paramount responsibility that the Philippine government cannot shirk.
Moreover, victims have been killed for no political reason at all but merely for asserting their rights, serving the poor and defending the rights of others. To conclude that extrajudicial executions in general are a pattern of an internal purge denies them the possibility of seeking justice and equal protection under the law. The government’s failure to ensure justice for human rights victims and to uphold their basic rights reflects the incompetence of the authorities and their insincerity to deal with the blatant murder, torture, etc., of the Filipino people. It is this lack of intervention by the Philippine government on which the CHR should focus, not the intervention of foreign governments and the international community.
