What makes a chair a chair?

For Plato, the objects we see are imperfect representations of their ideal Forms. A chair, therefore, is not merely what we call it, but a physical representation of what a chair ought to be.

But what good is a chair if it cannot serve its purpose?

The same question can be asked of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. ASEAN champions unity in diversity, cooperation, consensus-building, peaceful settlement of disputes, noninterference and respect for sovereignty.

In short, principles of independence, nonaggression and consent. But principles are only as meaningful as their application.

On Tuesday, displaced Myanmar nationals who survived the conflict in Chin State sought help from the Philippine Court of Appeals, asking it to compel the authorities to act on their war crimes complaint against members of Myanmar’s military junta.

The petitioners want the Department of Justice (DoJ) to act on their pending motion for reconsideration, formally docket their complaint and conduct a preliminary investigation.

Among those named in the complaint was junta chief Min Aung Hlaing.

Myanmar has been under military rule since 2021, when the Tatmadaw, led by Min Aung Hlaing, overthrew the democratically elected civilian government of Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy.

The coup triggered nationwide protests, followed by a violent military crackdown that escalated into armed resistance and civil war.

In Chin State, where many residents belong to the predominantly Christian Chin ethnic minority, the military has been accused of killing civilians, burning villages, destroying churches, launching indiscriminate airstrikes and forcibly displacing communities.

These are not merely accounts of political repression. They are allegations of serious violations of international humanitarian law, including war crimes.

In October 2023, five Chin survivors and their families filed a complaint before Philippine authorities against senior Myanmar military officials, seeking accountability for atrocities allegedly committed in 2021.

Three years later, they are still seeking an investigation.

Under Republic Act 9851, the Philippines can prosecute war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity committed abroad, provided certain jurisdictional conditions are met.

The difficulty? Neither the complainants nor the accused are Filipinos, and the accused are not present in the Philippines.

The DoJ cited these jurisdictional limitations in declining to act on the complaint. The survivors, however, argue that the principle of universal jurisdiction warrants an investigation.

The legal question is complicated. Philippine law does not automatically authorize prosecution of every international crime.

But surely there is room to examine the complaint, explain the legal limitations and exhaust other avenues of accountability.

It takes an enormous leap of faith for foreigners to seek justice in another country’s courts, especially when Philippine courts themselves are notorious for slow proceedings.

Yet these Myanmar nationals have placed their faith in our institutions, hoping to find justice that their own government cannot provide.

And here lies an opportunity for the Philippines.

The country chairs ASEAN this year, at a time when the bloc’s relevance is increasingly being questioned.

ASEAN’s Five-Point Consensus on Myanmar has produced painfully limited results. Violence persists, political reconciliation remains elusive and the humanitarian crisis continues.

Now, the Philippines faces a test much closer to home. What can it actually do?

At the very least, the DoJ can provide a timely, reasoned resolution of the complaint and clarify whether any lawful avenue for investigation remains available.

If domestic jurisdiction is lacking, the government can explore cooperation with international accountability mechanisms, assist in preserving evidence and facilitate appropriate legal and humanitarian referrals.

These measures do not require the Philippines to disregard sovereignty or interfere with judicial independence. They require diplomatic initiative.

Most importantly, the Philippines has Foreign Affairs Secretary Ma. Theresa Lazaro, ASEAN chair’s special envoy on Myanmar and an experienced diplomat in regional negotiations.

Lazaro has already undertaken a humanitarian mission to Myanmar. But that engagement should not end with aid distribution and diplomatic dialogue. Humanitarian assistance may alleviate suffering, but it cannot replace accountability.

The lines of jurisdiction may be blurred. The political sensitivities are undeniable. But if the allegations are substantiated, human rights violations should never be dismissed.

And let us remember our own history.

The Philippines was once a haven for Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi persecution. We opened our doors when others closed theirs. It was a decision made amid international uncertainty, political constraints and the looming threat of war.

We did not end the persecution, but we did what we could. And for those who found refuge, that made all the difference.

ASEAN cannot forever hide behind consensus and noninterference while its own people suffer. These principles were intended to preserve regional cooperation, not become excuses for institutional paralysis.

The Philippines can do more than explain why something cannot be done. It can determine what can be done. Now is the time to prove that the chairmanship has purpose.

What good is a chair if it merely occupies a place at the table?