CHR expresses ‘grave alarm’ over proposed change in Bill of Rights
The Commission on Human Rights (CHR) on Wednesday expressed “grave alarm” over the proposal to insert the phrase “responsible exercise” in the “freedom of speech” section of the Bill of Rights in the 1987 Constitution.
“With the current discussions on amending our Constitution, the Commission on Human Rights expresses grave alarm over proposals to limit freedom of speech by qualifying it with the phrase ‘responsible exercise’,” the CHR said in a statement.
“Not only is the current proposal vague in its definition of what ‘responsible exercise’ means, but it also allows for the subjective interpretation of the phrase,” it added.
Last week, House Deputy Speaker Fredenil Castro proposed to the House Sub-committee on Constitutional Amendments the insertion of the phrase “responsible exercise” in Article III, Secion 4 of the Constitution, making it: “No law shall be passed abridging the [responsible exercise] of freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people to peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.”
Castro later disclosed that the proposal actually came from the Office of the President.
Presidential spokesperson Harry Roque clarified, however, that it was not President Rodrigo Duterte’s idea but from a little-known Presidential Human Rights Committee (PHRC) secretariat.
READ: Editing Bill of Rights not Duterte’s idea, says Roque
Many groups strongly opposed the move, including the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP), which called the initiative “stupid” as it would “enshrine prior restraint as part of the basic law of the land and spell the end of the inalienable rights and freedoms this particular provision seeks to protect.”
READ: NUJP hits draft federal charter’s provision on freedom of speech
The CHR reminded the government that the Philippines was a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 19 of which ensures “safeguards to the freedom of expression, such as respect for the rights or reputations of others, national security, public order, public health and public morals.”
“There are also domestic laws on libel, which, at times, are ironically used to silence the press, dissenters, and those who seek the truth,” it added.
The CHR said that “freedom of speech is a fundamental right” and most liberties that people enjoy today “were products of voices that expressed dissent against abuses and inequalities, and were bold enough to demand accountability from erring authorities.”
It emphasized that “a free, democratic society depends on the free exchange of ideas” and free speech is “essential in bringing about change for social good.”
“In the end, exercising freedoms of speech and expression is not about lessening offence to personal sensibilities,” the CHR said. “It is about protecting our right to express and be heard in an exchange in pursuit of a better, dignified life for all.” /atm
