HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE PHILIPPINES

I might be hated by my fellow Filipinos who are reading this, but I don't give much of a crap about our Human Rights-not human rights in general but rather the Commission of Human Rights.

"Liberty means responsibility. This is why most men dread it." - George Bernard Shaw

You see, I don't think much about the CHR and also its allies with CBCP because of the actions they have done in the past, but now they are trying to stop and protect the Filipino citizens to gain support for their political agenda which makes me even more disgusted. The CHR actually tried to defend Sen. De Lima and her actions, which is a huge red flag; additionally, the CBCP has men in its quarters that raped and molested children and expects everyone to be swayed by their apology, which is really disgusting seeing that they are using the name of God to push their political agenda.

This post is kinda all over the place, so let me try to simplify things

Leila De Lima tried to undermine the president by pushing all these fallacies as truth, hired a con man to act as if he was a past member of the infamous Death Squad, has received money from drug lords and drug cartels, and has made zero effort to solve actual problems in the Philippines while she was Secretary of Justice; furthermore, she has shed crocodile tears so many times that it bugs me, she tried to appeal as the victim which she never was, and used lies to back up her electoral campaign for Senate (just like Trump). Now, she is currently detained in jail and people are pressuring the president to free her, even though it was clear that she was lying in court and has connections with the country's drug lords.

Now, the CBCP. I believe the CBCP is an organization full of corrupt church officials that uses the words of God as a disguise, which is a whole new level of pettiness. The country has had rampant of reports regarding local priests acting on their lust and molesting innocent and young children, and the CBCP never bothered to fix this. There's also been an incident where Pres. Duterte said he was molested as a student by a priest, and the CBCP challenged his claims, only for Duterte's claim to be true. The CBCP never issued an apology and has tried using faithful Filipinos to overthrow Duterte's administration.

I won't talk about the CHR because that's a whole lot of crap that I haven't researched about, and I don't want to touch a subject I'm not fully aware of, but reading the news I can say with no regrets that I am against for what they are fighting for.



I don't see why the people in the country is so upset with the human rights issue going on in the country, its easy to see how to prevent yourself and the other victims to avoid "extra judicial killing", don't leave your home at night and make sure to say quiet. I do agree that the police should be detained for their mistakes, but I don't think its right for the masses to distrust every police officer for the mistakes of the few. Would you stop going to church when you know that most priests have sex with underage girls and boys, no? There you go.

I have a lot of thing to say about the issue, but I don't know how to simplify it and put it in a single post where people who'd read this see what I'm standing for, so I'm just going to post this post regardless of the fact that it may seem half-baked or whole.


For my fellow Filipinos, leave your comments down below, I would love to see what are your thoughts about this.



EDIT: I just figured out how to make people comment on my blog anonymously, so you can comment down below without the fear that I'll stalk you and make a blog post about your political opinion xD haha



ANOTHER EDIT: All must read this. WHAT IS THE LEGAL STATUS OF CHR?
by Jose Alejandrino
Yen Makabenta, whom I respect being one of our best columnists, claims the CHR is in "suspended animation" because of lack of an enabling law to legitimize it. Like so many people, I had assumed the CHR had a legal basis. So I went back to the 1987 Constitution which was ratified by plebiscite on Feb.2, 1987.
Article IX of the 1987 Constitution created three constitutional commissions: the Civil Service Commission, the Commission on Elections, and the Commission on Audit.
Article XIII Sec.1 states that "Congress shall give highest priority to the enactment of measures that protect and enhance the right of all the people to human dignity..."
Sec.17 states "There is hereby created an independent office called the Commission on Human Rights. Until this Commission is constituted, the existing Presidential Committee on Human Rights (located in the Office of the President) shall continue to exercise its present functions and powers."
What Sec.17 means is that the Commission on Human Rights will have to be constituted. Before that, it continues as a presidential committee in the Office of the President. Now who is given the power to constitute the Commission? Go back to Sec.1 of Article XIII. It is Congress that has to enact the measure. Did Congress enact a measure? No. It did not enact an enabling law to create a Commission. Therefore, there is no Commission on Human Rights but a presidential committee. Can the president create the Commission? No, it's very clear it is only Congress that can only do it.
Therefore, Yen Makabenta raised a valid legal point in his column. The CHR is presently a legal fiction. It has no legal basis even to call itself a Commission. It remains as a presidential committee.
Having no legal basis, Congress must first pass a law to create a Commission before it can appropriate a budget to it. Being a presidential committee under OP, any appropriation for human rights must be made to OP. Congress cannot appropriate a budget to an entity which calls itself CHR because CHR does not exist. It is a legal fiction.
Being a legal fiction, all appointees who claim to be CHR appointees can be prosecuted as usurpers of public office. Being a presidential committee, appointees to it serve at the pleasure of the president and can be fired by him at any time.
If Congress appropriates a budget to a non-legal entity its members can be charged with violating the Constitution which they swore to uphold. If the president signs an Appropriations bill into law that contains a budget for a non-existing entity, he, too, will be culpable under the Constitution.
The previous president Noynoy Aquino can be charged with negligence in approving previous budgets for a non-existent CHR. Ignorance of the law excuseth no one, says the Civil Code.
This is what happens when nobody follows or is ignorant of the Constitution which is the supreme law of the land.





[edit 10/12/17:I just created a Facebook page, make sure you like it!!!]