Human rights body’s power to prosecute proposed

Senator Francis Escudero Monday filed a bill granting the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) prosecutorial powers over delineated human rights cases to meet the rising demands of victims and the general public over human rights violations.

In filing Senate Bill 106, Escudero said the measure aims to revisit the CHR jurisdiction which has been categorically called a “toothless tiger” due to its ineffectiveness to properly address human rights issues.

Escudero said the CHR’s authority is lamentably limited only to political and civil rights, thus, its powers to resolve human rights cases filed before its office have been found futile.

“Hence, this bill basically seeks to strengthen the Commission by providing an effective and expanded structural and functional organization to meet the demands of human rights cases here and abroad,” Escudero explained.

“By providing the Commission with prosecutorial powers over delineated forms of human rights violations, it is hoped that the Commission will be able to meet the rising demands from victims of human rights violations and the general public for an effective and speedy resolution of all human rights cases filed with the CHR,” he said.

Citing the case of Carino vs. Commission on Human Rights on Dec. 2, 1991, he said the CHR has been observed to be neither a judicial nor a quasi-judicial body.

“It can only extend preventive measures, such as initiating applications in court for judicial writs and orders, conduct investigation and receive evidence of violations of human rights, among others,” Escudero said.

The above ruling, he said, is reiterated in the case of Simon Jr. et al vs.

CHR in Jan. 5, 1994 which revisited the powers and functions of the CHR vis-a-vis the implementation of Republic Act 7279 or the Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992.

Escudero said such incompetence of the Commission to address the protection of human rights is tied to an existing law that provides the CHR only investigative and advocacy powers.

But he said the Constitution has vested Congress the power to give the Commission “other duties and functions” to perform and to provide “other cases of violations of human rights that should fall within the authority of the Commission.”

“To make categorical the state policy that the CHR can exercise jurisdiction over cultural, economic and social rights is very important. It is to afford, in general, the CHR the unequivocal authority to step into cases involving rights excluded from the definition and scope of political and civil rights,” he said.

“It is meant in particular to erase all doubts brought about by the issue of whether or not the CHR can take cognizance of cases of demolition and resettlement pursuant to the UDHA,” added Escudero.

Escudero said that the prosecutorial power being sought to be granted is on the other hand meant to equip the CHR a significant power if only to realize its mandate under Article XIII of the Constitution.

“It is unacceptable to forever regard CHR as a toothless or paper tiger if it is a State policy to secure, protect and guarantee the dignity of its citizens and to ensure the fulfillment of such citizens’ human rights,” he said.

He also said granting the CHR with quasi-judicial powers will unclog the court dockets and further enhance specialization in the investigation and prosecution of human rights violation cases. –Manila Bulletin