Recently, the issue of human rights was at center stage when the Prime Minister of Thailand handed the Cha-am Hua Hin Declaration during the inauguration of the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights. Although officials and members of the Commission welcomed the creation of a regional human rights body as a “historic first step,” the body is regarded as “lacking in power to investigate or punish violators.” A common perception is that the proposals of the AICHR would stick to the policy of non-interference, especially with respect to the military-ruled Myanmar.

Although the Philippines was one of the last to sign the ASEAN charter, it is seen as having played an active role in establishing the mechanism for a human rights body. The European Commission which had provided a generous grant to the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) for a website, lauds initiatives that the country had taken. The other three which had established their own human rights institutions are Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand.

Our Commission on Human Rights was created by the Constitution as an independent body which would have investigative powers. It cannot prosecute or adjudicate but it should be able to determine where and why human rights are violated, and be able to recommend measures.

Soon after its creation, many had thought it was going to be a mere “paper tiger.” But over the years, it demonstrated that it had teeth, thanks to competent leadership. Because of reports on growing continuing violation of human rights all over the world, I thought of revisiting the debates at the Constitutional Commission – to confirm if the arguments and proposals at that time were able to respond and anticipate the needs of the times.

There were two principal issues during the debate. One was that of addressing the current concerns which continue to this day – violations of civil and political rights. The other was more forward-looking and envisioned moving into the – second generation rights – social and economic, and environmental. At least two – Commissioners Padilla and Rodrigo – questioned the need to establish a new body. Can the funds perhaps be used to strengthen the existing Presidential Committee on Human Rights? What if Congress refuses to allocate funds? Would an agency isolated from the Office of the President be more effective than the present one? The defenders included Commissioners Regalado, Bernas, Davide, Ople, Maambong, Nolledo, De Castro, Bengzon, Gascon, Aquino, Monsod, and Braid, and the two sponsors – Com. Sarmiento and Garcia, who argued that once the Constitution is ratified, the new Commission would replace the PCHR, that Congress is mandated to provide the resources, and that an agency, insulated from political interference would be more credible, and effective.

The goals of the CHR are modest – protection of rights of political detainees, treatment of prisoners, prevention of tortures, fair and public trials, investigating cases of disappearances, salvaging, and hamletting.

Com. Natividad, described the client orientation – preferential treatment to the underprivileged and compensation to victims of violations as a “vital innovation in the field of victimology” (study about victims of crime and abuses). The CHR will monitor the government’s compliance with international treaty obligations on human rights, and more important, will establish a continuing program of research, education and information. Generally, the purpose was to protect victims from violence perpetrated by the State or its instruments like the military or police. But Com Concepcion added that all parties, without distinction – private parties and rebel groups are included.

There is an opening for possible evolution should CHR deem it necessary to go beyond its present concerns – extrajudicial killings, impunity, individual rights. It may then have to restructure if it has to tackle issues such as “collective rights, redress of structural imbalances and social disequilibrium” (Com Aquino); “policy and peace research that examine roots of violence – inequities in social-economic life, media content, etc.” (Braid); and “expansion of CHR’s horizons beyond political towards social and economic rights” (Com. Monsod). My e-mail is florangel.braid@gmail.com.