Under the budget gun: Rights body falls victim to pressure politics

THE COMMISSION on Human Rights (CHR) succeeded in having its budget for 2024 approved by the Senate but did not emerge from it unscathed. Its proposed PHP1.9 billion was cut down to PHP934 million. It was also forced to modify its positions on decriminalization of abortion and SOGIE equality. 

Some senator threatened to “zero” the CHR budget if it did not change its position on these two contentious policy issues. The commission had to issue apologies to the Senate and was forced to walk back on previously expressed policy positions. According to critics, the agency’s credibility significantly suffered as a result. 

Decriminalization of Abortion

At the November 14 hearing in the Senate, Senator Alan Peter Cayetano recalled that CHR Executive Director Jacqueline de Guia had earlier expressed support for legislation that would decriminalize abortion. Senator Jinggoy Estrada, the sponsor of the proposed budget, Senate President Juan Miguel Zubiri, and Senate Majority Leader Joel Villanueva likewise voiced their opposition to the CHR’s position. 

The senators cited the Philippine Constitution and their personal values to argue their point. Cayetano cited the constitutional provision for the state to “equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception.”  Estrada said he is a “devout Catholic” while Cayetano described himself as a Christian. Villanueva is the son of Representative Eddie Villanueva, evangelist and founder of the Jesus Is Lord church. 

Asked whether de Guia’s statement represented the commission, the CHR said her statement was made during the term of Jose Luis “Chito” Gascon as CHR chairman. The current commission under Richard Palpal-latoc, she said, had yet to issue a formal position on abortion. Cayetano and Estrada told de Guia that she should resign if she wished to continue advocating for the decriminalization of abortion.

Estrada threatened to give the CHR “zero” budget unless it made a “strong stand against abortion.” Villanueva then suggested that the Senate “abort” the budget deliberations until the CHR could “come up with a position” on the issue. Estrada, as sponsor of the budget, agreed with Villanueva and, just like that, the plenary debates were formally deferred. 

In any case, the CHR wrote a letter addressed to Zubiri stating that it is “against abortion, save for extreme circumstances.” Extreme circumstances include “termination for medical reasons,” Palpal-latoc explained. It worked and the Senate resumed plenary debates on the CHR’s budget on November 21.

SOGIE Equality Another Sore Point 

On the same day, Villanueva led the charge against CHR’s public support for legislation for SOGIE equality and the statements of Krissi Rubin, officer-in-charge of CHR’s Center for Gender Equality and Women’s Human Rights. The senator showed a video of Rubin at a Pride Month celebration saying CHR addressed a petition to Villanueva and the Senate to heed the LGBTQ community’s call for the passage of the SOGIE Equality bill. 

Villanueva took offense at Rubin’s statement, claiming that it was “destroying” him “personally,” and accused the commission of violating his rights. Cayetano argued that because of Rubin’s statement, Villanueva has been called “anti-LGBT,” a “bigot,” a characterization Cayetano described as “very unfair.” Zubiri said the commission should not have singled out Villanueva.

This caused Palpal-latoc to apologize, saying Rubin’s statement at the Pride event was not an official CHR position but that the commission continues to advocate for the passage of the SOGIE Equality bill.

Media reports had previously noted that Villanueva with his father Representative Eduardo Villanueva have caused delays in the passage of the legislation. The senator has said that the SOGIE measure is “not urgent” and instead has been pushing for “a more comprehensive anti-discrimination bill.”

Zubiri reminded the CHR that they had been stripped of their budget before. “Na-zero budget po kayo. (You were given a zero budget.) The Senate was the one that restored your budget, and the rest is history,” Zubiri said. He was referring to the PHP1,000 budget given to the CHR in 2017 by the House of Representatives under then House Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez. 

Media reported Zubiri’s recollection without pointing out its inaccuracy. In 2017 media reported that the House had agreed to restore the budget even before it was transmitted to the Senate. While there were several senators committed to restore the budget, it was actually a meeting between Gascon and Alvarez that brought about the change.

Undermining CHR’s Mandate and Independence

In a Rappler interview, lawyer Clara Rita Padilla, coordinator of the Philippine Safe Abortion Advocacy Network, called on the Philippine government to “maintain” the CHR’s independence as enshrined in the Constitution. 

In a November 21 statement, Bryony Lau, deputy Asia director at Human Rights Watch, stressed that the CHR is unable to fulfill its mandate when Congress threatens its existence. Slashing the CHR’s budget would “render the constitutionally mandated body useless,” Lau said.

Similar criticisms were leveled against Congress in 2017 when allies of then President Rodrigo Duterte led the House to vote in favor of a PHP1,000 budget for the commission. Agnes Callamard, then the UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial executions, called the move “reprehensible and unconscionable,” while Human Rights Watch described it as a “blow against accountability for human rights violations in the Philippines.”

The CHR’s PHP934 million approved budget is drastically less than its proposed PHP1.9 billion. In January, Rappler reported that while the CHR’s budget has been increasing, the approved amount falls short of what the crucial, yet under-resourced rights body asks for each year. 

CHR is constituted as an independent body and should not be treated by Congress as they do other bureaucracies. As a constitutional commission, it is mandated to check the misuse and abuse of state power against its citizens. The CHR power is limited to the positions it takes, having no power to enforce any of it. Indeed, it can bark as fiercely as it wants, but it has no bite. 

The media must be aware of this context and note the harm that is done when politicians hold hostage the CHR’s budget. If the body is prevented from issuing its policy positions, then even its bark is silenced. 

Media should call out the politicians for this type of pressure politics and the CHR itself for its wavering stance on important human rights issues.