US could be right

The United States recent withdrawal from the “cesspool of political bias” United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) — as US Ambassador to the UN Niki Haley described it — made the world turn its head to President Rody Duterte for his reaction.

The Philippines has been the main victim of UNHRC’s political bias, particularly from special rapporteurs under its wing, who are the biggest critics of Rody’s war on drugs. Presidential spokesman Harry Roque in spite of this recently said the country is staying put in the body.

The UNHRC, however, is again testing Rody’s patience in what appears to be a face-saving move after absorbing the impact of the US pullout.

Among the focus of the general debate at the ongoing 38th session of the UNHRC in Geneva is to encourage the Philippines “to cooperate with the United Nations system — including the Human Rights Council and its special procedure mandate holders — without preconditions or limitations.”

The statement was obviously in reference to Special Rapporteur Agnes Callamard’s request for a fact-finding probe on Rody’s anti-narcotics drive.

The UNHRC, in a joint statement of 38 member states, said, “While acknowledging drug use in the Philippines is a serious problem, actions to tackle drug abuse must be carried out in full respect of the rule of law and compliance with international human rights obligations.”

The Palace said it will agree to a drugs war probe if the investigator will not be Callamard who was considered unfit to conduct an “objective and unbiased” inquiry.

With or without Callamard, the UNHRC said the Philippines should address the illegal drug problem “in full respect of the rule of law and compliance with international human rights obligations.”

The UNHRC and other human rights bodies, however, use biased figures supplied by Rody’s critics, which were also the bases for the International Criminal Court (ICC) crimes against humanity complaints of Sen. Antonio Trillanes’ cohort Jude Sabio against Rody.

Trillanes raised his claimed death count in the war on drugs to 20,000, which was a figure plucked from thin air. In comparison, the Philippine National Police (PNP) released a figure of just over 4,000 deaths from legitimate police anti-narcotics operations.

The UNHRC statement also cited alleged “harassment of persons exercising their rights to freedom of opinion and expression.”

“We call upon the Philippines to provide and guarantee a safe and secure environment for all, including journalists and Human Rights defenders,” it added.

The UNHRC also took to task the administration of Rody, saying in its statement that it is “expected to uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights during their time as members.”

The US stated in its decision to withdraw from the UN body that its move was a call for reform and that it will be happy to rejoin if changes are instituted.

The bias in the UNHRC was exemplified by UNHRC High Commissioner Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, who said last March that Rody needs “psychiatric evaluation,” which angered the President.

Rody responded, calling Zeid “empty-headed.”

A review should be done on the relevance of the UNHRC with regard to the interest of the country and the achievement of government policies.

The US criticism of political bias on the UNHRC has a strong basis. The body’s probers have the habit of intruding into domestic affairs.

Just recently, UN special rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers Diego García-Sayán said judicial independence in the country was under attack regarding the fate of lawyer Maria Lourdes Sereno, who got booted out as Chief Justice.

The Supreme Court (SC) proved Sayan wrong as it upheld the removal of Sereno by granting the quo warranto petition of Solicitor General Jose Calida.

When international commitment crosses with national interest, Rody is expected to choose a decision that will uphold the Filipinos’ welfare.