When might makes right

Crosshatching

President-elect Rodrigo Duterte’s attack on the Commission on Human Rights’ purported bias for criminals brings back the old debate on whether or not these “bad elements” have human rights like everyone else and thus deserve protection by the State. It’s a debate that we thought had been resolved with the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by 48 members of the United Nations, including the Philippines, in 1948.

The UN version of an international Bill of Rights reflects the idea of human rights as inalienable and based on the inherent dignity of every person regardless of class, religion, race, age, gender, or any other circumstances of origin. Human rights are thus understood to be universal or applicable to all, at all times, and in all situations.

The basic rights include the right to free expression, the right not to be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention, the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty or the right to a fair trial. Nations like the Philippines, which adhere to such universal principles inscribe the Bill of Rights in their constitutions.

It then becomes the duty of their governments to enforce the rule of law to ensure equal protection of the rights of all, excluding no one, including suspected violators of the law.

That suspected criminals continue to possess rights and deserve equal protection is not easy for the public, much less their victims, to accept. But such is the law.

Ultimately, it is for our protection as well, in the event that we or our loved one is suddenly arrested without a warrant, jailed or even killed for mere suspicion.

Who do we turn to when that happens? In a democracy, we turn to agencies like the CHR. Nobody would want to listen to the pleas of a suspected criminal.

But it is the mandate of the CHR to spare no one in the investigation of human rights cases. Such is the misfortune of human rights investigators: that they have to make sure that even the rights of criminals are not disregarded in our common pursuit of justice. It is a thankless job, an inconvenient yet necessary task that makes them prone to being misconstrued as biased in favor of the criminals.

Why not also protect the rights of the police officers or the members of the military? Of course, they too have rights and deserve protection. But given that our armed enforcers constitute what Louis Althusser calls the “repressive states apparatus,” it is only natural that State human rights investigators tend to highlight more on the plight of those who bear the brunt of the “full force of the law,” to make sure that no excess of such force is rendered.

The adoption of the international Bill of Rights by the members of the United Nations came in the wake of the end of the Second World War, which saw the free world uniting to fight against the spread of fascism. The World Wars were actually wars fought to defend universal human rights.

It was a fight to defend a race threatened by genocide. It was a fight to defend civil liberties from repression and the tyranny of despotic military regimes.

It was a fight to defend weaker nations against expansionist ambitions of imperial powers. It was a fight to defend universal human rights and other democratic values against the relativist idea of “might makes right.”

That nations now have come to agree on universal rights and other “self-evident” truths or principles is a great achievement of modern democracy. It is easier for our generation and those who are younger to take these gains for granted.

We need to be reminded of those dark periods in history when nations could not yet agree on common grounds of what consists of basic rights and freedoms.

The idea, for instance, of human rights as inalienable and inherent in the soul wasn’t always the standard of many civilizations. There were times when people belonging to a certain race or religion distinguished themselves from “barbarians” or enemies that were considered inferior or not human at all.

The ancient Romans, for example, while claiming to be civilized like their Greek predecessors, watched gladiator fights where human slaves and captives were made to kill each other in the middle of an arena for entertainment.

Revolutions were fought centuries later to end monarchies and dynasties based on “divine right of kings,” oppressive fiefdoms, theocracies, and even modern slavery.

What emerged from the rubble of the old world were societies founded on universal principles of liberty, equality and fraternity.

It is thus no wonder that the preamble of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights began by reminding us that “disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind.”

Today, our strongman leader not only aims to discredit or disparage the Commission on Human Rights, he also calls on the people to take initiatives to kill suspected criminals on the spot, even offering hefty cash rewards for the heads of dead drug lords and other criminals.

This inspired local governments to make their own version of taking the law into their hands. In Batangas, suspected criminals are paraded around public places in a shame campaign. In other parts of the country, summary executions and vigilante killings are on the rise.

With such “change” now starting, we wonder if we are taking one giant step forward as a nation or actually sliding down to a society where might makes right once again.