National Institutions

Philippines HRC: Yet to get off the mark

THE Philippine Commission on Human Rights is supported by executive orders and constitutional provisions. The Commission's budget is allocated by Congress and the Commission receives funding on an annual basis. Regional Commission offices are established throughout the provinces and neighborhood offices are being established at the grass roots level. Avenues of communication are open between these outlying offices and the national center.

The Paris Principles require a national human rights institution to be vested with the power to both protect and promote human rights. The Paris Principles further indicate that national human rights institutions should have as broad of a mandate as possible. This mandate must be clearly set forth in a constitution, or other legislative text, which specifies the institution's competence

The Commission's mandate is clearly expressed in the 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, Article XIII, Section 17. In addition, further clarification and organisation is provided in Executive Order 163 and Commission Resolution No. A96-005. While the Commission is vested with the power to both protect and promote human rights, its mandate is restricted to civil and political rights.

Clearly, the list of powers granted by the Constitution to the Commission includes both the protection and promotion of human rights. The Commission's ability to protect human rights is found in the fact that Commission can investigate human rights violations on either its own initiative or on the complaint of any party.

In addition, the Commission must provide for legal services to the under-privileged. Also, the Commission has visitorial powers over jails, prisons, and detention centers. The promotion of human rights is found in Commission's mandate regarding human rights education. The Commission must promote human rights through recommendations to Congress regarding pertinent legislation and through monitoring the Philippine government's compliance with international treaty obligations.

From a procedural standpoint, the Constitution grants the Commission the ability to establish necessary operational guidelines and appoint officers/employees as needed. The Commission may also grant immunity from prosecution to those people who possess testimony or evidence needed to further an investigation.

On its face, the Commission's mandate is robust. The fact that the mandate is clearly set forth in the Constitution and backed by other supporting acts is an asset. The very existence of instruments which set out the organisation and mandate of Commission serves as national recognition of the Commission's role in the protection and promotion of human rights. However, only civil or political rights fall under the Commission's mandate. The Constitution makes no mention of economic, social, or cultural rights.

This restriction is in violation of the Paris Principles requirement that the Commission's mandate be as broad as possible. The last enumerated power, the ability to perform "such other duties and functions as may be provided by law," could be perceived as a back door through which the legislature could insert the protection and promotion of economic, social, and cultural rights. However, there is no indication that economic, social, or cultural rights will be added to the Commission's mandate.

The restriction of the Commission's mandate to political and civil rights was a deliberate choice made by the drafters of the Constitution. The Commission was instituted in 1987 and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights entered into force for the Philippines in1976. It seems unlikely that economic, social, and cultural rights were simply overlooked when the Commission's mandate was being drafted.

The Paris Principles require that national human rights institutions have an infrastructure which supports the smooth conduct of its activities. The Philippine Constitution sets out the Commission's basic organisational infrastructure. The Commission is hierarchical in nature, with the chairperson and Commissioners at the head of the organisation. Special projects and organisations within the Commission include the Child Rights Center, Barangay Human Rights Action Offices, and Regional Offices.

Philippine civil society is very supportive of the Child Rights Center. The Child Rights Center is recognised as a high functioning and effective organisation. While the Barangay Human Rights Action Offices are conceptually sound, civil society finds them to be poorly executed, trained, and supported. Regional Offices are recognised as an important entity in human rights protection, but they are perceived to be overworked, understaffed, and under-funded.

The Commission should examine the Child Rights Center and consider allocating more staff, funds, and other resources to support them in what is obviously well-respected and effective work. The Barangay Human Rights Action Offices program requires re-evaluation with an eye toward training of officers and support from Philippine civil society. Regional Offices are operating with much zeal and dedication for the protection and promotion of human rights. The Commission should communicate with Regional Offices to tailor their operations toward fulfilling the mandate handed down in the Philippine Constitution.

The Paris Principles require that a national human rights institution have funding sufficient to ensure the smooth conduct of its activities. In addition, the institution should have its own staff and premises. The purpose of this funding is to ensure that the institution is independent from government and is not subject to financial control which could affect its independence. Section 17(4), Article XIII of the Philippine Constitution requires that the Commission's approved annual appropriations be automatically and regularly released. This provision is repeated in E.O. 163, Section 5.

There are no review mechanisms in place to evaluate the Commission's performance. In place of these mechanisms, Congress seems to have turned to expenditure controls. The General Appropriations Act imposes restrictions on the Commission's decision making authority regarding specific monetary allocations within its budget. In addition, these expenditure controls are in violation of the Philippine Constitution, Article XIII, Section 7(4). This section explicitly states that the Commission's approved annual appropriations must be "automatically and regularly released." 

The Paris Principles indicate that a national human rights institution should submit to the government proposals and recommendations regarding legislative and administrative provisions relating to the protection and promotion of human rights. In addition, the institution should ensure that national legislation, regulations, and practices are in harmony with international human rights instruments to which the State is a party. The Philippine Constitution requires the Commission to recommend to Congress effective measures to promote human rights. The Commission is also required to monitor the Philippine government's compliance with international treaty obligations regarding human rights.

While the Commission has specific offices which participate in the national policy process, there is little outside awareness of the Commission's work in this area. Documents which are released have a limited circulation and impact. The Commission should seek to increase awareness among civil society of its current participation in the national policy process. After feedback has been gathered regarding current operations, the Commission should gradually increase participation to include reviewing Congressional bills on its own initiative.

The Paris Principles indicate a national human rights institution should investigate and report upon potential human rights violations at the request of government or an interested party. Also, the institution may investigate a potential violation on its own initiative, with no need for a referral. The Philippine Constitution and E.O. 163 mandate that the Commission investigate potential human rights violations on its own initiative or by referral from another interested party. The Commission has not been granted the authority to prosecute those cases which it investigates by either the Philippine Constitution or E.O. 163. Currently, prosecutorial powers are granted by the Department of Justice to lawyers within the Commission on an individual basis.

At this time, the Commission should focus on increasing the efficiency of current procedures. Expanding the current mandate to include prosecutorial powers would not be prudent. The Commission must resolve internal and external issues before seeking to take on more duties.

The Paris Principles indicate that a national human rights institution shall assist in the formulation of human rights education programs. In addition, the institution shall take steps to increase public awareness of all forms of discrimination. The Philippine Constitution and E.O. 163 echo the Paris Principles. While discrimination is not explicitly mentioned by either the Philippine Constitution or E.O. 163, it seems clear that such activities fall within the auspices of human rights education. A variety of Executive Orders support the Commission's activities in the area of human rights education.

While the Commission has implemented many human rights education programs, there are currently no evaluation procedures that gauge the impact of human rights education programs upon participants.

The Commission should begin testing the retention of concepts covered by participants during human rights education programs. NGOs, such as Amnesty International, have such evaluation programs in place. The Commission should turn to NGOs for assistance in this area.