Skip to main content

How The Commission On Human Rights Can Be Reformed Under The Parliamentary System

 

Well, Happy Human Rights Day, today, right? I was thinking about how the late Chito Gascon really wasn't the best for the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) and neither were Etta Rosales and Liela Dilemma. It would be best to review the constitutional mandate of the CHR first which are as follows:

  • Investigate, on its own or on a 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 underprivileged 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.
This would mean that the CHR is tasked to investigate any form of human rights violations. In short, it was created as a check and balance mechanism. However, the CHR ends up as a screw-up in the PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEM. The reason is that the presidential system is a mess that hardly scrutinizes presidential appointees. Need I mention that the appointees are like mahjong? Gascon was an appointee of the late Noynoy Aquino while President Rodrigo R. Duterte belongs to a totally different party. It's not really a good system for check and balance compared to the parliamentary system.

So, how does the CHR become reformed under a parliamentary system?

Meanwhile, a parliamentary system defines the setup with a FORMAL opposition. That means both the government and the opposition have their own set of appointees. What's even better is that there's the weekly question hour where the government and the opposition answer each other. Government appointees are required by law to present their cases to the opposition appointees. That would also mean if there's a minister for human rights - there will also be a shadow minister for human rights.

The mandate of CHR is to investigate all forms of human rights abuses. It's also assigned to form a research body on how to enhance human rights protection and to recommend to the legislative their effective measures. However, this becomes good only on paper because the CHR isn't subjected to weekly scrutiny. However, under a parliamentary system, the CHR (or better renamed as the Ministry of Human Rights) will require its minister to give weekly updates in the weekly question hour. The human rights minister will face off against the shadow minister of human rights.

The minister of human rights will present his weekly reports such as any human rights violation data gathered and the proposal of the ministry. The human rights minister presents all his weekly data which will be scrutinized by the shadow human rights minister. One reason why Dilemma, Gascon, and Rosales, were defective is more on the lack of scrutiny. I don't think Dilemma herself may have become the justice minister under a parliamentary system. If so, Dilemma may have not lasted long either especially with the Bilibid scandal. The same may have also happened with Rosales and Gascon. Maybe, Rosales would be forced to resign or be voted out. The same can happen to Gascon if he ever fails to uphold the confidence of the parliamentary.

The problem isn't the CHR per se. The problem is the CHR doesn't get enough weekly scrutiny leading to it becoming a useless body. CHR as a government function is no different than the others - it requires frequent scrutiny. The parliamentary system can change the way the CHR is run. 

Comments