Atty. Leila de Lima: Shifting gears from election lawyer to human rights defender

Wednesday, 08 October 2008 08:29

The country’s dismal human rights records might dissuade anyone from taking on the post as head of the country’s top human rights watchdog. With national and international human rights bodies breathing down the government’s neck to improve its human rights situation, the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) faces a Herculean task of cleaning up the country’s image by ensuring the resolution of hundreds of complaints of human rights violations docketed in its office.

Notwithstanding the challenges that the country is facing, topnotch election lawyer Atty. Leila M. de Lima risked her lucrative practice to take over the helm of the CHR.

An honor student since elementary, she took up History and Political Science at the De La Salle University from 1976-1980 then pursued law in 1980 at the San Beda College where she graduated Class Salutatorian. She placed 8th in the 1985 Bar Examinations.

The chairmanship of CHR is her second government posting. She was appointed Secretary of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal in 1993. Right before her appointment as CHR Chair, Atty. De Lima handled high profile election cases including those of opposition candidate Senator Alan Peter Cayetano and defeated candidate Aquilino Pimentel III.

Politics is not something new to Atty. De Lima. As the eldest daughter of former COMELEC Commissioner Vicente De Lima, she has been exposed to the rigors of public life. She even ran for public office and was elected chair of the now-defunct Kabataan Barangay (Community Youth) in Iriga City, which qualified her to sit in the City’s Sanggunian (Council).

Switching gears

THE LOBBYiST (TL): You are one of the most noted election lawyers in the country. How do you cope with the sudden shift in your work – from election law to human rights law?

Atty. Leila de Lima (LL): Actually it’s both exciting and scary for me. Exciting because it really opened a totally new world for me, gave me new areas to explore. I’ve been doing a lot of reading from the internet and a lot of materials about human rights. But it’s also scary in the sense that we have tremendous responsibilities, there are awesome tasks ahead. I also realize how broad, how encompassing and embracing human rights issues are in this country. So far, I am actually enjoying it. I didn’t realize it is really such a “beautiful” world

TL: How would you describe the disparity between election laws and human rights laws?

LL: At first, akala ko ibang-iba (I thought it was very different), a totally different world. But I now see that suffrage rights, suffrage participation, electoral participation is basically also human rights. That is why we now have new projects on the electoral aspect – rights-based approach to electoral participation. It’s called “Target 2010,” we seek maximum participation like zero disenfranchisement, targeting vulnerable sectors (categorized as prone, more prone, most prone to disenfranchisement) like the elderly, the disabled, the indigenous peoples, the detainees. So there’s a connection. But it’s really just one aspect of the broad spectrum of human right issues.

TL: Is this your first government post?

LL: No, this is my second. I had a brief stint in 1992 to 1995 when I was taken in as the Secretary of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET). That’s where I got exposed to election law. That’s why when I resigned from the electoral tribunal, my practice shifted from labor law to election law. When I was the Secretary of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, I was sort of the operating officer of the executive operating room.

I resigned (from HRET) because I felt that it was time for me to go into election law practice because I already have the skills. That was my first exposure to election law. Before that, I was more into labor law, having been a junior partner at the Roco Law Office.

TL: Why did you accept this appointment, a shift from handling high-profile election cases?

LL: That’s really the puzzling question for many. I have been asked that every time there’s an interview. To be honest about it, I myself am not sure. This is beyond my imagination. It was never in my career path. When the President offered it to me, first through emissaries (high government officials and a client), my first reaction was “No.” I declined, saying “What am I going to do in the CHR when this is not my line?” What I knew then about human rights is what I read in the papers – nothing more, nothing less. I really said “no,” until it was the President herself who talked to me. The first question I asked was “Why me?” She said that she wants to have someone in the CHR who could be independent and credible. So that’s why I was really honored to accept it.

TL: This administration has been characterized, whether true or false, as a human rights violator. Still you accepted the appointment…

LL: That was a big challenge for me. I guess that’s one of the major reasons why I accepted. You know, I have limitations because of my limited exposure to human rights, but I think have the psyche to really strive and make some difference, one way or the other. That’s why we had the Melo Commission and the Alston report. And in 2005-2006, we saw the highest incidents of EJKs (extrajudicial killings), enforced disappearances and torture cases.

It was a challenge for me, but one thing I got from the emissaries who first talked to me were them saying that the President would not have considered me for this position if this position was not an independent constitutional office. So she knows that it is very important for me to maintain independence in the performance of this mandate.

TL: Has it ever crossed your mind that this position might entail some quid pro quo?

LL: To be honest about it, some friends really warned me and asked, “Don’t you think there’s some hidden agenda here?” Ang sabi ko naman wala akong napansin, wala akong nakita (I told them that I didn’t see anything of that sort), even when it was only the emissaries who were talking to me. I remember four emissaries who talked to me before the President herself. Even from those emissaries, I didn’t see any such agenda, any quid pro quo. Nothing, especially when I talked to the President. There was nothing there; the President just said that she thinks I am suited to this position.

Human Rights in the Philippines

TL: The Philippines has been targeted by various local and international human rights bodies as a "hotspot." How do you intend to address the challenges we face in the human rights front?

LL: First, we will have to enhance the investigative skills of our people – the lawyers and the investigators. There should be a high visibility for the Commission by maintaining and promoting a positive image, characterized by accessibility, transparency, competence and integrity. In fact, we have been experiencing a surge of complaints in the short span that I am here. (She assumed office May 19. Her appointment paper was signed May 7. She received a copy of her appointment when it was personally handed over to her by Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita on May 13. She took her oath of office May 15.)

These days, complainants who ordinarily have reported to NGOs and local and international organizations are now approaching or seeking the help of the CHR. I think it's very good for us because we have the public's trust and faith – faith in the institution. If we maintain this relationship with the public, they will not hesitate to bring HR violations to us.

We're enhancing the investigative skills of our people that’s why we're hiring more lawyers and more investigators and training them with regards to human rights standards because it is not purely legal. When you’re a lawyer, you’re not ordinarily exposed to human rights issues.

The capacity-building of our people is important, and so are the forensic skills of our doctors and the medico-legal experts. This way, we don’t have to rely on other agencies or on the expertise or equipment of the Philippine National Police, the National Bureau of Investigation, the Armed Forces of the Philippines, or even the University of the Philippines – especially when the respondents are men in uniform. That's why we should have independent forensic centers.

We also would want to foster strategic partnerships. My predecessor, Dr. Quisumbing, had some success in that area. She’s able to really link the Commission with certain international bodies. And because we have a broad mandate but limited powers of enforcement, strategic partnerships can help the CHR fulfill its mandate. Another area we want to enhance is the relationship with media. Media relationship is very important to increase awareness among the people about the existence and the mandate of the Commission. Partnerships with key agencies like the PNP should also be beefed up, although I was just recently quoted in the media to have said that the PNP is the number one human rights violator because of certain cases in areas like illegal detention, illegal arrests and torture. They have the most number of perpetrators.

We are also pushing for the passage of important HR-related bills, especially our Charter. Although the basic source of our mandate is the Constitution, it is just an enumeration of our basic powers. It did not provide for any organizational structure. There is this pending bill on the CHR Charter in Congress.

TL: Retired General Jovito Palparan's name has been mentioned several times in relation to human rights violations, what do you think of him?

LL: He is really notorious, and there are really several cases especially in Central Luzon and Southern Tagalog where the alleged perpetrator, or at least the one behind, was Gen. Palparan. In fact, there was a surge in EJKs of members of the militant organizations like Bayan Muna. The third commission had issued a strongly-worded advisory, and even protested the promotion of Gen. Palparan. Although there is no direct evidence, the field investigators involved told me na kung talaga daw ipu-pursue (if these will be really pursued), given enough support and logistics, they will be able to build a strong case against Palparan.

The records of those cases are mostly still pending and archived because they hit a snag – nawalan ng direksyon ang mga cases kasi wala na yung mga witnesses (the cases lost direction because the witnesses could not be located anymore). It was already noted in the Melo Report, as well as in Alston that there were strong circumstantial evidences linking certain elements of the military, and in most cases with Palparan behind as responsible. He is now retired, but I don’t think he could escape accountability.

It is definitely part of our mandate to resolve unresolved cases of EJKs, to look into the disappearances like the two UP students, or at least to know what happened. Dead or alive there has to be closure in these cases, or at least in some or in significant number of cases. We have very good people in terms of advocacy but no amount of advocacy for respect of human rights can substitute for the success in the protection mandate – meaning the protection mandate would be getting cases solved one way or the other and making people account for this EJKs and enforced disappearances because this is where people are really waiting for answers, for closures. Dito tayo tinitingnan sa international (The international arena looks at us in this area), so we have to look or find answers on these unresolved cases no matter what it takes. It sounds quixotic but it must be done. Otherwise it could be a failure; my seven-year stint here – because I have a fixed term – would be a failure if there’s no success at all in that area.

TL: In your opinion, what would be the top hindrances in enforcing human rights laws in the country? How do you think we can overcome them?

LL: One is culture impunity. The culture of impunity is still there because there is zero conviction. Kasi may investigative powers nga kami pero wala naman kaming prosecutorial, much less quasi-judicial powers (After investigation, we don’t have prosecutorial, much less quasi-judicial powers). After CHR, we recommend the filing of charges for prosecution either in the Justice Department or the Ombudsman for the military. So wala na sa amin yan pag nandoon na, monitoring na lang kami (We’re already out of the picture; we just monitor). We have no control over those cases once they are referred to them. But look at the record, I don’t think there have been convictions. There’s still zero conviction.

There is also the lack of internalization of constitutional principles. Public office is a public trust. Internalization is related to respect for human rights, especially if State actors are the ones really involved in HR violations and then you have the public’s lack of faith in government. They no longer believe in the system, and so they don’t report HR abuses to authorities. That is what we’re trying to change now. So we are glad with the surge in HR complaints filed this time before this body.

There's also need to foster open communication or dialogue between claim holders and duty-holders – the victims and government agencies. The NGOs also play a great part. CHR is an independent constitutional office; we are neither government nor NGO. But we owe our survival to the government for the budget, the resources. We are like a conduit between the victims represented by NGOs and the government agencies. That’s our role.

The role of CHR

TL: Related to your mandate to report out the human rights situation to the United Nations, the country was recently elected as a vice president of the United Nations Human Rights Council. What do you think of this election? Would you consider this as a vindication for the country’s human rights records?

LL: I don’t really know if it should be considered as a vindication of the country’s human rights record because personally, or even as the Chairperson, I don’t think I can agree with that. For one, we have been constantly receiving queries from different UN bodies, following up on the status of unresolved cases of human rights violations, particularly EJK cases. Pero siyempre (Of course), the Department of Foreign Affairs would want to use that development, that election, in order to defend the government against accusations of human rights violations. I think that is understandable on their part.

On the other hand, it is also understandable for claim holders like those represented by NGOs to dispute that claim. In fact it might be said that the election is made on a rotation basis and nothing more. So it’s not really some kind of recognition and affirmation of an improvement in the human rights situation of the country. It's kind of like a SOP (standard operating procedure). I see the election more as a challenge for the government to fulfill its pledges when it became a member of the UN HR Council. It bodes well for us because it gives us the opportunity to improve our image. It heightens the visibility and accountability of the Philippine government as a State party and its new high position in the Council. It provides incentives to duty-holders to respect human rights of the people.

TL: Notwithstanding the country’s election as Vice President of the UN Human Rights Council, will you still report on the human rights violations of the country?

LL: Oh yes. That’s our mandate. We are the only independent national human rights institution. It’s part on our mandate. We have to report what we see. So yes, we will be more vigilant on our reporting obligations.

TL: The Supreme Court has taken the lead in protecting human rights through various issuances like the writs of amparo and habeas data. As the main human rights watchdog, what can you do to further strengthen our human rights mechanism?

LL: In the barangay level, the priority project of 4th Commission is providing the organization of the barangay human rights action center. According to the records here, we have already organized 90% of the country’s barangays into barangay human rights action centers, but the problem is that many of them after organization became dormant. Wala, walang nang ginagawa (They're not doing anything) after selecting the so-called BHRAOs or barangay human rights action officers. Hindi na nate-train, at hindi na mino-monitor (There’s no training or monitoring). What we want to do now is really train the organized BHRAOs and then monitor them directly. To me, having BHRAOs at the grassroots level is very important because they will instill and increase awareness of human rights at the barangay level. They will also receive the complaints at the barangay level, process the complaints and refer them to the regional offices. If ma-institutionalize ang system na yan (if such a system can ne institutionalized) and people are made aware of their rights, how to defend, protect and promote them, mababawasan siguro ang mga violations (there will be reductions in violations).

Going back to the Supreme Court, the writ of amparo and writ of habeas data are still work in progress. If you read the newspapers lately, you will see that there are cases dismissed by the CA (Court of Appeals), including that of Burgos. Why is that so? I think it is also time for the Supreme Court, and we’re going to help them out, to evaluate those cases and try to find out saan nagkukulang ang remedies na ‘to (where did the remedies fail), because these remedies are supposed to be extraordinary remedies. And yet, bakit ganyan ang mga nagiging resulta (why did the results go that way)?

We’re not really saying that the decisions are wrong, but I think it’s on the matter of evidence gathering and the evidentiary presentation. But to what extent will the writ of amparo and writ of habeas data be successful? Anyway this is work in progress. We will try to evaluate, help the Supreme Court evaluate what are the loopholes, what are the deficiencies, the defects in those rules like writ of amparo and the writ of habeas data. Importante rin kasi sa amin yan in cases of EJKs (They are important to us in cases of EJKs).

TL: Would the CHR be willing to assist Claimants 1081 in recovering the Marcos wealth?

LL: What we know is that there is a bill in Congress addressing the issue. I think – I am not really familiar with that pending bill – the proposal seems to be that the CHR would be the body where claims could be filed. This is just a proposal, but if this is passed into law, the CHR will of course willingly discharge this function. We will willingly fulfill that because it is part of our mandate; what better way to ensure respect for human rights than to vindicate and give justice to the victims, although we’re talking here about the victims of the Marcos era. I understand na may mga unsolved issues pa at the committee level or hindi pa nila mai-present sa plenary level (they haven’t presented yet at the plenary level). I think even among the five party list groups elected, they haven’t agreed yet on the mechanism. I discussed this one time with Congressman Erin Tañada, who’s the chair of the House Committee on Human Rights. He was saying there are still disagreements on whether to first process all the claimants before releasing the compensation, or if it can be piece-meal – a percentage of the totality of the claimants is processed, then release the compensation partially. Different House members have different perspectives on the matter. So even in a particular issue like that, as I understand, is subject to a serious debate among the party-list representatives. But we can help; we will do whatever is given to us as our role. Right now, our role here is not yet clear.

TL: How would you comment on the allegations that CHR is a toothless tiger, a dog that is all bark with no bite?

LL: Well I don’t blame them for saying so, because really if you just take a look at our powers, which are investigative and recommendatory, no prosecutorial. We cannot pass judgment, we cannot impose sanctions or penalties on the perpetrators – mukha ngang toothless tiger (we really look like a toothless tiger). But I believe that should not be an impediment for this institution to strive more and to be more assertive of its powers and prerogatives. Nasa pagha-handle yan (It depends on the handling), and the perception of the public. Although we really do a lot of barking, we will still do a lot of barking for the next seven years and maybe even some biting. (Laughs)

TL: If you were the mother of Jonas Burgos, and given the setbacks that happened in the CA, would you give up the fight?

LL: I will not stop looking for my son. Can you imagine what she’s going through, and for that matter, the families of others who disappeared? It is the gravest form of human rights violation – enforced disappearances. It affects several others, not just the actual abduction, but several other violations. It could lead to EJK, torture while in custody, and of course the the families that were left behind. Can you imagine the families, what the son, the daughter, the mother and the father would feel not knowing what happened, and the uncertainty? I would not stop.

TL: Can the Commission act motu propio (on its own initiative) on this matter, or you need to have a complaint filed before you act?

LL: Yes, we can act motu propio or based on a complaint. Any human rights violation can be motu propio or on complaint. There is still an ongoing investigation into that. Yun na nga lang, mukhang na-stop dahil sa writ of amparo (The investigation was stopped because of the writ of amparo). But now that the amparo case was dismissed, I summoned the members of the legal and investigation office, and I got their views on how to proceed with the investigation on the Jonas Burgos case given this development. They gave me ideas. I will mull over it, then present it to the en banc. That should not be a hindrance to us in resuming an honest-to-goodness and serious investigation. There are some documents that are already here because we had some public hearings in the past but somehow, Mrs. Burgos lost interest or faith in the Commission. I really don’t know what the cause is, but I would want Mrs. Burgos to again trust the CHR.

TL: Have you talked to Mrs. Burgos?

LL: On several occasions, we have bumped into each other in some fora, even at the UN on June 10 in Geneva, when I gave a statement in behalf of the CHR on our reaction to the country report rendered by the government through Executive Secretary Ermita last April. So on June 10, it was the turn of the CHR – as the national human rights institution of this country, to give its reaction to that State report. I delivered the message and there were several NGOs present. Mrs. Burgos was there, and in several other fora we saw each other. She’s very warm to me. I discovered that she is also from Bicol. I think she had some pronouncement in the media, that she’s hoping the CHR now would help her in looking for Jonas.

TL: Do you see this case being resolved within your seven-year term?

LL: We will exert our best effort. That is really my commitment. In one of the side meetings with the representative of the UN High Commissioner while I was in Geneva, he said: “You know, the thrust now of your institution is really to maximize the exercise of the protection mandate.” Protection mandate means to resolve unresolved cases of political killings and enforced disappearances. He said that the rest of the world will be watching the Philippines. So I would want to have some success there.

TL: Is that how you want to be remembered? What will define your leadership in the Commission?

LL: Yes, I would want to be remembered as a human rights neophyte turned warrior. (Laughs) I have many ideas and I’m glad to have our team now, although we are not yet. We are supposed to be a five-member commission, but there’s only the chair and then two others, there are supposed to be two more. The two commissioners are also women: Commissioner Coco Quisumbing and Commissioner Mavic Cardona. They’re young. They’re team players. They’re dedicated, highly motivated, and energetic. We’re focused on our mandate. We have to get involved in so many areas and because I’m a lawyer, I would really want these cases to get solved.

Up close and personal

TL: What does your typical day look like?

LL: Nice question (Laughs). I thought I was already so overworked when I was in private practice. I have my own law office, with one associate and paralegals, and handling almost 95% election cases. Election cases are tedious, especially protest cases, there are recounts or revisions of ballots. We look at thousands and thousands of ballots. We review them because after every count, we photocopy them then we analyze them. I thought, and even people say, I was really overworked then. Now, it’s more than double really. Work is continuous. My day starts when I wake up at 5:30 am. I do some readings while taking breakfast, and then I'm in the office between 8 am and 9 am. I'll be there the whole day if I don’t have engagements outside. But I also have speaking engagements left and right and some meetings outside the office. Plus, my other engagements are conducted out-of-town.

Pag dito lang (If I’m just here in Manila), I leave the office between 7 pm and 9 pm. That’s my regular day. When I reach home, it's not even 10 pm yet but I can't help but close my eyes because of exhaustion. Before, I would stay up until 11:30pm or even midnight. But then there are times that I can’t sleep because I do a lot of thinking. With so many ideas, I don’t know which to prioritize.

Weekends, I’m here (in the office). Saturdays I’m here regularly. If I’m in town, I’ll be here in the morning at least, from 8am to noon, tending to paperwork. My administrative work takes so much time. Since I am the Chair – and as much I would want to avoid administrative work especially because I am not used to administrative work, I have to adjust. My documents would be like this everyday (pointing to a five-inch high bundle of paper on the table), with cases for review and documents for signing like vouchers, contracts, etc.

TL: Do you still have time to relax?

LL: On Sundays, I do relax. My therapy is my dogs. I have eight labradors at home. I’m a dog lover. There are two dogs sleeping in my room. Yung iba ipinamigay ko na kasi nakapangatlo ng panganak yung mother nila (The rest I already gave away because their mother gave birth to a third set of puppies). I distribute them to my closest friends and family, yung alam ko na mag-aalaga din sa kanila (the ones I know will take care of them). They really are my therapy.

Next to them, although I don’t want to say “next to them” because I have two grandchildren already. (Laughs) One is a two-year-old, and the other is six months old. A boy and a girl; they are adorable. They take away my anxieties. So my grandchildren and my dogs. And then driving – long distance driving. Just driving around. Reading of course is always there.

TL: What are the books you are currently reading?

LL: Human rights.(Laughs) Marami nang dumarating na mga materials (New materials are coming in), very beautiful materials. Since I have very limited time, I take any opportunity to read up, maski nga yung mga libro noon ni Senator Diokno on human rights, binabasa ko (I read even old books on human rights by Senator Diokno). Very, very beautiful literature.

TL: How about books outside human rights?

LL: Grisham books – still law-related. (Laughs) I love Grisham books, because it is not too light but also not too serious. And then there's the legal aspect, the courtroom drama.

TL: Who do you consider to be your role model?

LL: Can I name three? (Laughs) The first is the first CHR chairperson, Mary Concepcion Bautista. Hindi ko masyado nabantayan ang career niya (I never really followed her career) except now that I am in the CHR. Some of the long-timers here would say that she’s one woman whose heart is really into human rights, whose passion is into human rights. Then there’s Justice Ameurfina Herrera, for her brilliance and grace. She’s in PhilJA (Philippine Judicial Academy), andun pa rin siya (she’s still there). And former Senator Eva Kalaw, for her brilliance, eloquence, spirit and energy. Naalala ko noong bata pa ako kasi Liberal Party yung family ko (I remember when I was still a child, my family being affiliated with the Liberal Party). My family, especially my father, was a member of the LP. The other LP stalwarts before like Osmeña, Roxas, Salonga, they have been to our house several times, and former Senator Eva Kalaw was with them. I was so awed by her eloquence, and her energy and charisma.