CHR Was NOT Created To Defend Corrupt Politicians Like Antonio Trillanes IV

The Commission on Human Rights itself has its duties and civilians must know them. There's nowhere in its provision that will only act against state agents. Its first duty is to investigate all forms of human rights violations. A human rights violation isn't necessarily done by a state agent. Yet why does Gascon insist that CHR is only meant to investigate state agents? A good point to raise is that policemen who break the law should no longer be considered policemen but as criminals. True, government hearings should be done for state agents though CHR should still take part in investigating and documenting human rights violations done by civilians. 

Now it's time to address yet another inconsistency of the current CHR Chairperson Chito Gascon. Gascon would try to weasel himself out by saying that an act of crime and a human rights violation are two different things. Gascon himself even says that CHR is supposed to only investigate state agents. Yet, why does he defend Trillanes who had done acts of atrocity while the latter was a STATE AGENT guilty of something that endangered the public? That alone proves how Gascon only makes excuses to do his job poorly. What happened to Gascon's statement that CHR is only meant to go against state agents who break the law? Trillanes was a soldier during the time of the mutiny.

The possibility that Gascon may use CHR to defend Trillanes is there due to the ongoing Bikoy investigation. The possibility that Bikoy is none other than Trillanes may be very high. Using CHR to defend a crooked politician should already be ground for Gascon's impeachment. He doesn't even deserve his seat as CHR's chairman. Instead, he should just resign and focus on becoming Trillanes' legal counsel. Hopefully, we will see Gascon act as Trillanes' court lawyer too.