THE SITUATION. Are human rights still protected in the time of a public health emergency? Are they still applicable during the crisis brought to the world by the coronavirus menace?
Yes to both questions.
But was Cebu Governor Gwen Garcia's case within the mandate of Commission on Human Rights (CHR)? And could public officials complain that they are entitled to human rights protection too?
CHR's call-out
It sounded odd at first for the CHR to call out Cebu Governor Gwen Garcia who publicly shamed a mother of seven children who allegedly bad-mouthed Capitol officials in her Facebook account, cussing them as "bogo" (dumb) and "kurakot" (corrupt).
The Covid-10 pandemic has been a threat to the life of the nation. And CHR says the governor -- one local government official who has been more visible and heard from than most of her peers in Cebu in the fight against Covid-19 -- did something wrong, a form of bullying. CHR must think it is a possible violation of human rights or it wouldn't have cited Governor Garcia in public.
Limits during emergency
To be sure, limits on individual rights can rightfully go with the public health crisis. Thus, the state has restricted people and groups on:
[1] right to choose their domicile (they've been confined in shelter for weeks now);
[2] freedom of movement, which severely clips the right to travel, with police exercising authority to stop, send home, or jail quarantine violators; and
[3] right to operate private businesses, from places of food, recreation, and sports to other venues of social interaction.
All that, with the limits on the government's own activities. The National Government and LGUs have also shut down most of its operations, leaving only "skeletal forces."
Curbs on state power
The state has expanded power for itself, including appropriation of huge public money for spending and the quicker way to spend it, and the curb on false information and other materials that "tend to promote disorder and chaos," which may restrain robust criticism on how public officials do their job.
Still there are some lines on human rights that government people must not cross, such as "sex-for-pass," violence, and other abuses at checkpoints; putting lockdown violators in cages or forcing them to do lewd acts; and similar incidents of ill treatment in enforcing the quarantine.
Probably none of that happened in Cebu, nothing more unseemly than making violators dance the Sinulog. At least, CHR has not spoken out about any such behavior. Instead it rang the alarm bell on Governor Garcia's alleged "propensity" to pick on critics and criticisms in social media against bureaucrats' conduct in the anti-coronavirus campaign.
Bone of contention
What seems to be the confusing part of the governor-CHR clash of views is whether government officials are not themselves covered by CHR's protection.
Recall how government leaders used to complain, "If NPAs, drug suspects and other civilians are killed, human right. If police and local officials are killed, all right."
Everyone is entitled to protection of one's rights. As a United Nations official said, "Every member of the human race is qualified." Our Constitution and the UN charter on human rights say "every person."
Why citizen is protected
But the state, the holder of power and enforcer of laws, is the protector. The plain citizen, who is weak and vulnerable against the government apparatus, is the "protectee." Public officials are part of the government, a major component of the state. It would look incongruous for one a public official complain that his human rights are violated.
Why? The public official can take care of himself and his rights. He can use his propaganda machine to answer criticism and explain his side. If there's probable cause he can sue: for libel, uttering unlawful utterance or inciting to sedition or, during the period of emergency under the "Bayanihan To Heal as One Act," spreading false information.
The public official is not helpless. Often the plain citizen is, relying only on his Facebook or Twitter platform, which can be shut down by complaint or threat of jail.
Most are penitent
Many of the "simple folk" on social media may not be fully aware that defamatory posts could send them to jail. Ignorance of the limit on free speech is often the reason for the excess in language or disrespect for the facts. That must explain why almost all of them break down and become penitent when confronted with their "offensive" material.
Many bureaucrats, on the other hand, still have to learn how to cope with the kind of criticism that regular media does not generally dish out. Maybe, the governor is trying to tell her peers how to help put some order in that untamed section of digital media.