It’s about your rights, stupid

Bencyrus Ellorin

BECAUSE the punishment for crime is harsh, there is a need to protect the right of the accused.

In criminal cases, the accused is placed against the people. That is why criminal cases are labeled People of the Philippines vs. John Doe, Juan Tambal, et al. This is in recognition of how the state values the right of the people.

Those accused of crime, although presumed innocent until proven beyond reasonable doubt, are already stripped of some of their rights. If the crime one is accused of is heinous and the evidence is strong, the accused is already stripped of his freedom while the case is still being tried. Those accused of lesser crimes can go free, albeit temporarily, but have to dig deep into their pocket to post bail.

In the hierarchy of rights, life is the highest, liberty second and property third. Those accused already risk diminution of their right to liberty and property.

As a rule, law enforcers are compelled to bring anyone accused of committing a crime to the court of law. Dead persons are not admissible in our courts. There is however as exemption: law enforcers can use reasonable force in implementing searches and arrests, and also to defend themselves.

Law enforcers are however trained to use superior force in their operations, thus making the use of reasonable force an exemption than the rule.

While it is understandable for victims of crimes to cry blood, the rule of law should be balm to comfort the pain of loss or injury of being a victim.

The Constitution lists 19 rights of the accused. That is a lot. It has been said that it would be better to free 10 guilty persons than jail an innocent man or woman. With all the authority and resources in its hands, it presumed that the accused is already leaning against the wall, thus, he or she needs to be protected from the immense powers of the state.

The Commission of Human Rights (CHR) has been created by law to protect people from excesses in the enforcement of laws. The framers of the 1987 Constitution thought it necessary to create such office to prevent a repeat of wanton human rights abuses by government security forces.

The CHR is primarily a policy recommending and investigative body. It does not have quasi-judicial powers to even mete administrative penalties. As an investigative body, its task is to investigate whether in the exercise of the coercive powers of the state, human rights, including the rights of the accused has been protected or not. If it finds evidence of abuse, it can institute cases in the proper forum.

Under our republican system, it is important to protect the right of the people – the source of sovereignty and where all government authority emanates.

The State has enormous powers which if left unfettered results in self-destruction. The Bill of Rights and our rules in criminal procedure sets limits to this power, so the source of all of government authority is protected.

The CHR is an agency of government created to ensure that government does not self-destruct. In fact, it is not the primary protector of human rights. If criminality is rampant – meaning, human rights are wantonly violated, it is not the fault of the CHR but failure of the police to maintain peace and order.

The primary protectors of human rights are the state security forces – they protect the people’s rights from being trampled. Simply put, the CHR ensures that the law enforcer does not become a law breaker.

Now in their over-eagerness, albeit ignorant, support to the government relentless drive against crimes, particularly illegal drugs, people want shortcuts to the point of egging law enforcers not to follow their rules of engagement. Swift justice is not justice at all. Our criminal justice system assigns distinct but related tasks to each of its pillars, namely police/ law enforcement; prosecution, court, penal system and community.

These over-eager supporters are pushing the line further in calling for the abolition of the CHR.

I am tempted to say: Bring it on.

As they say, if you live in a glass house, do not throw stones.

Five or so years ago, with mounting international pressure to stop human rights violations in Myanmar/Burma, the country’s military dictators established a human rights office. They did right. Otherwise the final piece of the puzzle showing total failure of their government to address human rights issues would have been cast. Total failure of government to address human rights issues is one of the elements needed for the International Criminal Court to take jurisdiction over leaders and/or citizens of a sovereign State.