AICHR’s White ElephantThe Case for a Regional Protection

Framework in Asia

Professor Harry L. RoqueRoque & Butuyan Law OfficesUniversity of the Philippimes

AICHR Background• The ASEAN Intergovernmental

Commission on Human Rights (“AICHR”) was established on 23 October 2009.• ASEAN Charter Article 14• ASEAN Charter Terms of Reference (“TOR”)

• Its purpose is to promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms as an intergovernmental human rights body in the ASEAN region.

AICHR TOR• Guiding principles —

• [R]espect for the independence, sovereignty, equality, territorial integrity and national identity of all ASEAN Member States;

• [N]on-interference in the internal affairs of ASEAN Member States; and

• [R]espect for the right of every Member State to lead its national existence free from external interference, subversion and coercion.

• Form — “The AICHR is an inter-governmental body and an integral part of the ASEAN organisational structure. It is a consultative body.”

• Membership — “The AICHR shall consist of the Member States of ASEAN. […] Each ASEAN Member State shall appoint a Representative to the AICHR who shall be accountable to the appointing Government.”

• Review & assessment — “This TOR shall be initially reviewed five years after its entry into force. This review and subsequent reviews shall be undertaken by the ASEAN Foreign Ministers Meeting, with a view to further enhancing the promotion and protection of human rights within ASEAN.”

AICHR Report CardA review of AICHR’s performance in

combating state impunity in the ASEAN region.

The Philippines• Duhay v. Philippines

• Impunity against journalists• The Philippines ranks third in Committee to Protect

Journalists (“CPJ”) Impunity Index.• People v. Ampatuan

• Criminalization of libel • Cybercrime Prevention Act• Adonis v. Executive Secretary

• Absence of a freedom of expression (“FOE”) law

duhay v. philippines• Maguindanao massacre vicitims — 58 people

(32 journalists and media workers) killed on 23 November 2009.

• Maguindanao massacre perpetrators — provincial and regional governors, local mayors, local government officials, police officers, and paramilitary personnel

• AICHR petition — CenterLaw files preliminary request titled Duhay v. Philippines before AICHR on 3 February 2010.

duhay v. philippines• “Petitioners hereby make a preliminary request for an

urgent declaration from the Commission calling on the Philippine State to ensure that the perpetrators of the heinous human rights violation – who are all agents of the Philippine State – are brought to justice and adequate reparations are made to the heirs of the victims under applicable rules of international law.”

• “[T]he Philippines could have disarmed the Ampatuans […] continued to supply them with high-powered firearms so that the clan could maintain a private army.”

• The Philippines refused to send police and military personnel to protect victims and “gave assurances [highway] safe and secure”.

duhay v. philippines• AICHR response — Counsel for Duhay v.

Philippines visit the AICHR Secretriat in Jakarta on 29 March 2010.• AICHR does not have individual complaint

mechanism.• AICHR mandate is the promotion of human

rights.

• RP response — AICHR cannot get involved in any case concerning the Maguindanao massacre, which is a purely domestic issue.

INDONESIA• Udin — Udin wrote and published articles on regent

selection process. Subsequently, he was beaten to death.

• Impunity against journalists• 45: annual average of violent cases against journalists

(2010+)• Failure to investigate extrajudicial killings

• Repressive FOE laws• Law No.17 of 2011 (“Intelligence Law”) — news articles

can be a national security threat• Pending bills on state secrets, information technology,

and telematics convergence

Vietnam• 52 Vietnamese bloggers imprisoned for

alleged violations of tax and national security laws.

• Repressive state security laws• Vietnam Penal Code — Article 79 (“activities

aimed at overthrowing the people’s administration”), Article 88 (“conducting propaganda”), Article 258 (“abusing democratic freedoms to infringe upon the interests of the State”).

• Decree No. 72 — Decree on management, provision, and use of internet services requires internet companies to have at least one server in Vietnam.

SIngapore• Highly regulated media environment

• Interlocking laws designed to curb FOE — “Internal Security Act, Sedition act, Defamation act, Newspaper and Printing Presses Act, Telecommunications Act, Undesirable Publications Act, Public Order Act, and contempt of court laws.”

• License for online news sites — "Under the licensing framework, online news sites will be individually licensed if they report an average of at least one article per week on Singapore’s news and current affairs over a period of two months, and are visited by at least 50,000 unique IP addresses from Singapore each month over a period of two months.” 

• Self-censorship

Thailand• Strict lesè majeste laws — Chiranuch

Premchaiporn, editor of the Prachatai website, was sentenced to an 8-month suspended prison term and to pay a fine of 20,000 baht for comments deemed insulting the Thai Monarch which were posted by visitors on her online forum.

• Defamation suits

CAMBODIA• Limited right to freedom of speech and of

assembly • Lack of media (TV,radio, etc.) system for

opposition party.• Lack of access to real and trustworthy

information for the people