Be Informed About The REAL Purpose Of The Commission On Human Rights

It's really something to consider that maybe those who claim to defend the Commission on Human Rights or CHR aren't actually defending it. It can be observed not everyone who berates Chito Gascon's lack of performance is in favor of getting rid of said government agency. Now it's time for some common sense to what CHR really is and what its purpose really is all about. As said, you want to know what caused CHR to deteriorate? It's the likes of Leila De Lima, Etta Rosales and Gascon that have caused CHR to become useless -- not the existence of said organization!

What are the real functions of the CHR? Here's what the Law Phil Project says about CHR's functions and let's see how many of these did De Lima, Rosales and Gascon bother to do properly:

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

I'd like to ask where do you read from the functions of the said organization that it will just take care of state agents who break the law? None of the above! The whole notion that CHR should just go after state agents should first ask this question on whether or not that policemen who abuse their authority are criminals or not. Another question worth asking is that don't tell me that law-abiding policemen assaulted by criminals shouldn't be considered human rights victims. This is a real travesty considering that CHR was originally established for this purpose and the first and foremost function is to investigate ON ITS OWN even without ANYBODY complaining to them concerning said violations. Policemen who are victims of human rights organizations too should be under their care. Policemen don't have to be guilty of physical brutality but also neglect should be a ground for CHR to investigate such people as being non-compliant to human rights standards. 

Next time, somebody tells you that they support CHR but end up spreading such disinformation and lies -- they need to be told of what CHR was originally intended to do. As said, the problem hasn't been the organization itself but stupid people who run it. Such people are mostly just defending the likes of De Lima, Gascon and Rosales rather than the organization itself.