CHR, NAMIMILI NG PROPROTEKSYUNAN

Marami ang nagtataka sa inaasal ni Commission on Human Rights (CHR) Chair na si Leila De Lima kaugnay sa dineklarang martial law sa probinsya ng Maguindanao. Ayon sa kaniyang pahayag ay direkta niyang ipinag-utos sa kaniyang mga tauhan ang mahigpit na pagbabantay sa mga miyembro at galaw ng 601st Brigade ng Philippine Army at iba pang pwersa ng gobyerno. Kung susuriin, nagpakita agad si De Lima ng pagka-bias dahil tahasan nitong sinabi na may magagawang pagmamalabis sa karapatang pantao ang pwersa ng gobyerno sa kanilang ginagawang pagtutugis sa mga suspek ng Maguindanao massacre na kumitil sa buhay ng 57 katao.

Ito marahil ang dahilan kung bakit nagmimistulang pipi at bingi ang CHR sa ibang kaso ng pag-aabuso sa karapatang pantao dahil ang kanilang atensyon ay nakatuon lamang parati sa pagbabantay sa gobyerno. Dahil dito, isang mensahe ang gustong iparating ng taong bayan sa pinuno ng CHR na si Leila De Lima. Marami pang grupo sa bansa ang may kapasidad na gumawa ng pang-aabuso sa karapatang pantao. Isa sa pinakamatindi ay ang mga NPA na walang habas na pumapatay sa ilang probinsya tulad ng napatunayan sa natuklasang mass graves sa Inopacan, Leyte. Ito ay bukod pa sa mga araw-araw nilang ginagawang pang-aabuso sa mga probinsya kung saan sila ay walang patumangging pumapatay ng mga sibilyang nagpapahiwatig lamang ng pagkontra o paglaban sa kanilang mga iligal na mga gawain. Hindi ba’t wala silang pinagkaiba sa pumatay sa Maguindanao?

Inamin na mismo ni De Lima na ang pagdeklara ng martial law sa Maguindanao ay nagbukas ng isang maganda oportunidad para maglakas loob ang maraming testigo na nagnanais isiwalat ang mga naging krimen ng mga pamilya Ampataun na sinasabing suspek sa naganap na masaker. Ayon mismo kay De Lima ay matagal nang nabalitaan ng kaniyang tanggapan ang ilang insidente ng pagpatay na ginagawa ng mga Ampatuan ngunit dahil na rin sa kanilang takot ay hindi nila ito maimbestigahan kung kaya’t umabot ito ng ilang buwan bago ipinag-alam sa publiko at mga kaukulang awtoridad.

Ang ahensya tulad ng Commission on Human Rights (CHR) ay hindi dapat nagproprotekta lamang ng ilang piling grupo o sektor ng lipunan. Maigi na imulat ni Chair Leila De Lima ang kaniyang mata at maging patas sa mga imbestigasyon na gagawin ng kanilang ahensya. Mainam na binabantayan nila ang sitwasyon sa Maguindanao ngunit dapat din ay maging mulat sila sa mga krimen laban sa karapatang pantao na nagaganap sa ibang panig ng bansa.

REBS’ HIGH CRIMES REVISITED “NPA's are just as guilty as the Ampatuans”

What the justice system and civil rights groups lack in its pursuit to solve high crimes in the country that includes mass murder is consistency and neutrality. Take for example the recent Maguindanao massacre that pictured terrifying political gangsterism in the country. The public hover over the issue for obvious reasons of partisan hype as it implicates an administration constituent. If it it is plainly for the underlying gravity of the murders the issue would not have propped-up this big. The 57 death toll indicted on the Ampatuans is not exactly this state’s grossly recorded victims of high crimes.

The Inopacan mass grave identified as a doing of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) gives a much higher number in casualties and extent of execution. The purging operations or anti-infiltration campaign of the CPP launched in the early 1980’s speaks well of unresolved high crimes and use of illegally acquisitioned guns and ammunitions. The mass execution initiated by the Left may not be politically-inclined but it was also a show of force directed at the weak that fought against their pushed autocracy.

Instead of condemning the traces of purging operations in Inopacan, rights groups kept their silence. They were not interested on the magnitude of the murders since they cast it aside as immaterial. The probe on the veracity of the testimonials given by rebel surrenderees in line with the implication of Leftist personalities like Saturnino Ocampo did not even push through out since it came short of the public’s pressure or interests. The case died out and was ruled-out even before the investigations could take root.

We denounce the actions of the Ampatuans and yet we condoned those of the CPP-NPA. It is noticeable that selective approach on high crimes has been taking its toll on the country’s judicial system. This should be elemental in unmasking rights groups’ intents as they marvel on one controversy to the next to give the public a bird’s eye view on how bias and unreliable most civic groups are as they associate on hullabaloos with high crimes such as mass murder. They (rights groups) do not even attend to incidents that bear actual political relevance. It is easier for them to mark out Inopacan since it was for the interest of the government against a known insurgent. Riding-on the Inopacan massacre is like commending the administration they hate.

What is being overlooked in this stigma of partisanship is that the interests of the victims and the fair execution of justice are being cut back. It is directed to create another “issue” other than encouraging best solutions. Interest on a particular case should not be limited on whether it falls on a certain group’s “business” or mantra. It should be weighed base on the seriousness of the offense that caused human lives. Double standards have no place especially when so many victims are affected.