[1]

The Commission on Human Rights (CHR) is an independent National Human Rights

Institution (NHRI) created under the 1987 Philippine Constitution, established on 05

May 1987 by virtue of Executive Order No. 163.

The Commission is mandated to conduct investigations on human rights violations

against marginalized and vulnerable sectors of the society, involving civil and political

rights.[1]

CHR is an “A” accredited NHRI, fully complying with the Paris Principles adopted by the

United Nations General Assembly in 1995. As an NHRI, the Commission upholds six

fundamental characteristics — independence, pluralism, broad mandate, transparency,

accessibility, and operational efficiency.

The Commission commits to deliver prompt, responsive, accessible, and excellent

public ser vice for the protection and promotion of human rights in accordance with
[1]
universal human rights principles and standards.

The Commission of Human Rights Establish under Philippine Constitution Section 17-

18 Article XIII state that:

“There is hereby created an independent office called The Commission on

Human Rights to investigate, on its own or on complaint by any party, all forms of

human rights violations involving civil and political rights ...”

Thus, Executive Order NO. 163 issued and sign by President Corazon Aquino states

that

“I, Corazon C. Aquino, President of the Philippines... do hereby (declare) the

Commission on Human Rights as provided under Article XIII of the 1987 Constitution to

be now in existence.”

The 1987 Philippine Constitution primarily gave CHR the mandate to protect and

promote the rights and dignity of every human being in the country. The State values

the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights. (Sec.

11, Art. II, Philippine Constitution)

The Congress shall give highest priority to the enactment of measures that protect and

enhance the right of all the people to human dignity, reduce social, economic and

political inequalities, and remove cultural inequalities by equitably diffusing wealth and

political power for the common good. (Sec. 1, Art. XIII, Philippine Constitution)
 [2]
The mandates and the function of Human Rights

The Commission derives its mandates from the Constitution, relevant domestic laws,

and the eight core International Human Rights Instruments to which the Philippines is a

State Party, as well as other United Nations Human Rights Conventions newly

enforced.[2]

Under Section 18, Article XIII of the Philippine Constitution, the Commission's sole duty

is to protect the civil and political rights of citizens in the Philippines.

Based on the Philippine Constitution, the Commission has a broad mandate, which can

be categorized into three major functional areas:

 Human Rights Protection – Investigation and case management of

complaints of violations, including all the powers and services in aid of

investigation, of civil and political rights as well as economic, social, and

cultural rights. Such powers and services include: citing for contempt for

violations of its rules of procedure; legal aid and counseling; visitorial powers

over jails and detention facilities; application of forensic techniques in aid of

investigation; witness protection; and, financial assistance to victims [3]

 Human Rights Promotion, which includes the wide range of strategies for

policy, advocacy, promotion, social mobilization, education, training, public

information, communication, research, networking and linkages [3]

  Human Rights Policy Advisory derived from monitoring government’s

compliance with the treaty obligations that the Philippines has acceded

to: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), International

Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), Convention

Against Torture and Other Degrading Treatment or Punishment

(CAT), Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against

Women (CEDAW), Convention Against Racial Discrimination

(CERD), Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), Convention on the

Protection of Migrant Workers and their Families (CMW); Convention on the

Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). This also includes the entire

aspect of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the Executive,

Legislative, and Judiciary to translate international human rights standards

into national policies, laws, and practice. [4]

The Supreme Court of the Philippines, in Cariño v. Commission on Human Rights, 204

SCRA 483 (1991), declared that the Commission did not possess the power of

adjudication, and emphasized that its functions were primarily investigatory. [4]

The Commission on Human Rights have the following powers and functions:

1. Investigate, on its own or on complaint by any party, all forms of human

rights violations involving civil and political rights

2. Adopt its operational guidelines and rules of procedure, and cite for

contempt for violations thereof in accordance with the Rules of Court

3. Provide appropriate legal measures for the protection of human rights of

all persons within the Philippines, as well as Filipinos residing abroad, and

provide for preventive measures and legal aid services to the under-

privileged whose human rights have been violated or need protection

4. Exercise visitorial powers over jails, prisons, or detention facilities

5. Establish a continuing program of research, education, and information to

enhance respect for the primacy of human rights

6. Recommend to Congress effective measures to promote human rights

and to provide for compensation to victims of violations of human rights,

or their families;

7. Monitor the Philippine Government's compliance with international treaty

obligations on human rights

8. Grant immunity from prosecution to any person whose testimony or

whose possession of documents or other evidence is necessary or

convenient to determine the truth in any investigation conducted by it or

under its authority;

9. Request the assistance of any department, bureau, office, or agency in

the performance of its functions

10. Appoint its officers and employees in accordance with law

11. Perform such other duties and functions as may be provided by law [5]
Under the Article IX of the 1987 Constitution, three constitutional commissions were

established namely: the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), the Civil Service

Commission (CSC), and the Commission on Audit (COA). The Commission on Human

Rights (CHR), on the other hand, was created under the Article XIII, Section 17 of the

1987 constitution and the Administrative Code of 1987. [6][7]

In a Resolution of the Supreme Court contained in G.R. No. 155336, it ruled that the

CHR is a .."From the 1987 Constitution and the Administrative Code, it is abundantly

clear that the CHR is not among the class of Constitutional Commissions. .." [8]

CHR decision to charge corporate companies to the Philippine court for using harmful

fossil fuels to their businesses , Commission on Human Rights charge about 47 major

fossil fuel and carbon-polluting companies could be held accountable for violating the

rights of its citizens for the damage caused by climate change, Ashfaq Khalfan,

Amnesty International’s Director of Law and Policy said. The Philippines Human Rights

Commission has today created a beacon of hope for the victims of the climate crisis. 

This is the first time ever that a human rights body has said that fossil fuel corporations

can be been found legally responsible for human rights harms linked to climate change .
[9]

While the Commission’s decision has no immediate penalties for the companies in

question, their landmark announcement creates a major legal precedent. It opens the
door for further litigation, and even criminal investigations, that could see fossil fuel

companies and other major polluters either forced to pay damages, or their officials sent

to jail for harms linked to climate change. The decision also affirms that fossil fuel

companies have to respect human rights and invest in clean energy. [9]

The creation of Republic act 9262 know as Anti Violence against Women and their

children act of 2004. (VAWC Law)

Under this law, It is hereby declared that the State values the dignity of women and

children and guarantees full respect for human rights. The State also recognizes the

need to protect the family and its members particularly women and children, from

violence and threats to their personal safety and security. [10]

Towards this end, the State shall exert efforts to address violence committed against

women and children in keeping with the fundamental freedoms guaranteed under the

Constitution and the Provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the

convention on the Elimination of all forms of discrimination Against Women, Convention

on the Rights of the Child and other international human rights instruments of which the

Philippines is a party.[10]

Conclusion:

The obligation of Commission of Human Rights is to respect, to protect and fulfill

human rights, especially the right to life and right to health. [11] it is the responsibility of
CHR to ensure a better life living and makes things better to all human life. CHR Must

ensure this mandate to protect every Life of individual to right to life as human being.

Continue their programs towards their mandates to protect people from oppression. [11]

To ensure the effectiveness to their mandates, and ensure their functions as

constitutional commission. Our other branch of Government which not limited to

Executive department and judicial branch must support in term of giving access to

information to different agency to fully understand, investigate, inquire and acquire right

information for the effectiveness of their mandate. Another this is the support of

legislative branch by giving them the right and adequate funds for their office as to their

expenses to ensure the effectiveness of the commission in terms of mobilizing their

people, such to hiring well qualified personnel on the ground for them to maximize their

power in reinforcement of rights of human being across the Country to fully implement

their mandates effectively.

2. Republic Act 11479 Anti-Terrorism Law

An Act to Prevent, Prohibit and penalize terrorism, thereby repealing republic act

no 9372, otherwise known as the human security act of 2007. [12]

It is Declared a policy of the state to protect life, liberty, property from terrorism, to

condemn terrorism as inimical and dangerous to the national security of the country and

to the welfare of the people, and to make terrorism a crime against the Filipino people,

against humanity, and against the law of Nations in the implementation of the policy

stated above, the state shall uphold the basic rights and fundamental liberties of the
[13]
people as enshrined in the Constitution.

The State recognize that the fight against terrorism requires a comprehensive approach,

comprising political, economic, diplomatic , Military and legal means duly taking into

account the root causes of terrorism without acknowledging these as justifications for
[13]
terrorist and/or criminal activities.

[14]
Anti Terrorism Council Composes of:

 Executive Secretary as Chairperson

 National Security Adviser as vice Chairman

 Secretary of Foreign Affairs

 Secretary of National Defense

 Secretary of the Interior and Local Government

 Secretary of Finance

 Secretary of Justice
  Secretary of Information and communications technology and

 Executive director of the Anti-Money Laundering Council Secretariat. [14]

Function of Anti Terrorism Council:[15]

a. Formulate and adopt plans , programs and preventive and counter measures

against terrorists and terrorism I the country;

b. Coordinate all national efforts to suppress and eradicate terrorism in the country

and mobilize the entire nation against terrorism;

c. Direct the speedy investigation and prosecution of all persons detained or

accused for any crime defined and penalize under the act;

d. Monitor the progress of the investigation and prosecution of all persons accused

and /or detained for any crime defined and penalized under the act;

e. Establish and maintain comprehensive database information systems on

terrorism, terrorist activities, and counterterrorism operations;

f. Enlist the assistance of and file the appropriate action with , the AMLC to freeze

and forfeit the funs, bank deposits, placements, trust accounts, assets and

property of whatever kind and nature belonging to (i) a person suspected of or

charged with alleged violation of any of the acts defined and penalized under

sections 4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11, and 12 of the Act, (ii) members of judicially declared

and outlawed terrorist organization or association as provided in Section 26 of

the Art., (iii) designated persons defined under Section 3€ of Republic act no.

10168, (iv) an individual of such designated persons or (v) any individual,

 organization, association, or group of persons proscribed under Section 26 of the

Act;

g. Grant monetary rewards and other incentives to informers who give vital

information leading to the apprehension, arrest, detention, prosecution, and

conviction of person or persons found guilty of violation of any of the acts defined

that monetary reward shall only granted to informants after the accused demurrer

to evidence has been denied or the prosecution has rested its case and no such

demurrer has been filed;

h. Establish and maintain coordination with and the cooperation and assistance of

other states, jurisdictions, international entities and organizations in preventing

and combating international terrorism;

i. Take action on relevant resolutions issued by the UNSC acting under Chapter VII

of the UN Charter, and consistent with the national interest, take action on

foreign request to designate terrorist individuals, associations, organizations, or

group of persons;

j. Take measures to prevent the acquisition and proliferation by terrorists of

weapons of mass destruction.

k. Lead in the formulation and implementation of a national strategic plan to prevent

and combat terrorism.

l. Request the Supreme Court to designate specific divisions of the Court of

Appeals, Regional Trial Court to handle all cases involving the crimes defined

and penalized under the Act;

 m. Require other government agencies, offices, entities, and all officers and

employees and non government organizations, private entities, and individuals to

render assistance to the ATC I the performance of its mandate; and

n. Investigate motu propio or upon complaint any report of abuse, malicious

application, or improper implementation by any person of the provision of the Act;

[15]

Human Right Violation

As of August 24, 2020, 29 petitions have been filed before the Supreme Court to

challenge the newly signed law.[16]

 G.R. No. 252578 – Howard Calleja, et al. (includes the De La Salle Brothers led

by former Education Secretary Br. Armin Luistro and other civic groups)

vs. Executive Secretary, et al.[17]

 G.R. No. 252579 – Representative Edcel Lagman (Albay's 1st district)

vs. Salvador Medialdea, et al.

 G.R. No. 252580 – Melencio Sta. Maria, et al. (Far Eastern University Institute of

Law professors) vs. Salvador Medialdea, et al.

 G.R. No. 252585 – Carlos Isagani Zarate, et al. (Makabayan Bloc) vs. Rodrigo

Duterte, et al.

 G.R. No. 252613 – Former Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC)

chief Rudolf Jurado vs. Anti-Terrorism Council, et al.

 G.R. No. 252623 – Center for Trade Union and Human Rights, et al. vs. Rodrigo

Duterte, et al.

 G.R. No. 252624 – Christian Monsod, et al. (with Felicitas Arroyo, Framers of the

Constitution with Ateneo and Xavier law professors, the Ateneo Human Rights

Center, Jesuit priest Albert Alejo and the labor federation Sentro ng mga

Nagkakaisa at Progresibong Manggagawa (SENTRO)) vs. Salvador Medialdea,

et al.[18]

 G.R. No. 252646 – SANLAKAS party-list vs. Rodrigo Duterte, et al.

 G.R. No. 252702 – Federation of Free Workers (FFW), et al. (labor groups

Nagkaisa Labor Coalition (Nagkaisa) and Kilusang Mayo Uno (KMU)) vs. Office

of the President, et al.[19]

 G.R. No. 252726 – José Ferrer Jr. vs. Salvador Medialdea, et al.

 G.R. No. 252733 – Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan), et al. (includes 44

leaders and the National Union of Peoples Lawyers (NUPL), Movement Against

Tyranny, and Karapatan) vs. Rodrigo Duterte, et al.[20]

 G.R. No. 252736 – Retired Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, et

al. (Retired Supreme Court Associate Justice and former Ombudsman Conchita

Carpio-Morales with University of the Philippines law professors) vs. Anti-

Terrorism Council, et al. [21]

 G.R. No. 252741 – Columnist Ma. Ceres Doyo, et al. (Senators Kiko

Pangilinan and Leila de Lima, former senators Serge Osmeña and Bobby

Tañada, Quezon City representative Kit Belmonte, former Quezon

representative Erin Tañada, framers of the constitution Florangel Braid and Ed

 Garcia, journalists Maria Ressa, Chay Hofileña, Jo-Ann Maglipon, John Nery,

former human rights commissioner Etta Rosales, human rights lawyer Chel

Diokno—represented by the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG)) vs. Salvador

Medialdea, et al.

 G.R. No. 252747 – National Union of Journalists of the Philippines, et al. (artists

and cultural workers) vs. Anti-Terrorism Council, et al. [5]

 G.R. No. 252755 – Kabataang Tagapagtanggol ng Karapatan, et al. (16 youth

groups including student organizations from De La Salle University, Ateneo de

Manila University, University of the Philippines Diliman, and University of Santo

Tomas, represented by young lawyer Dino de Leon) vs. Executive Secretary

 G.R. No. 252759 – Algamar Latiph, et al. (Bangsamoro residents) vs. Senate, et

al. [22]

 G.R. No. 252765 – Alternative Law Groups, Inc. (ALG) (a coalition of 18 legal

resource non-governmental organizations) vs. Medialdea [23]

 G.R. No. 252767 – Manila Bishop Broderick Pabillo, San Carlos, Negros

Occidental Bishop Gerardo Alminaza, United Church of Christ in the Philippines

Bishop Emergencio Padillo and 17 others vs. Duterte, et al. [24]

 G.R. No. 252768 – Gabriela vs. Duterte, et al.

 G.R. No. UDK1663 – Lawrence Yerbo vs. Offices of the Honorable Senate

President and Speaker

 G.R. No. 252802 – Henry Abendan and other University of the Philippines

Cebu students vs. Medialdea

  G.R. No. 252809 – Concerned Online Citizens led by Mark Averilla (popularly

known as Macoy Dubs) vs. Medialdea [25]

 Anak Mindanao Party-list Rep. Amihilda Sangcopan, Deputy Speaker Mujiv

Hataman, et al. vs. Executive Secretary

 Haroun Alrashid Lucman, Jr., et al. vs. Medialdea

 G.R. No. 252903 – Concerned Lawyers For Civil Liberties members including

former Vice-President Jejomar Binay and former Senator Rene Saguisag vs.

Duterte, et al.

 G.R. No. 252904 – Int'l Indigenous Peoples Movement for Self-Determination &

Liberation global coordinator Beverly Longid, former ARMM Regional Legislative

Assembly member Samira Gutoc, et al. vs. Anti-Terrorism Council

 G.R. No. 252905 – Center for International Law, Inc., Vera Files, Lyceum of the

Philippines University College of Law faculty, et al. vs. Senate

 G.R. No. 252916 – Suspected Abu Sayyaf Group members Main Mohammad,

Jimmy Bla and Nazr Dilangalen, and Philippine Alliance of Human Advocates vs.

Executive Secretary

 G.R. No. 252921 – Several Sangguniang Kabataan officials led by Lemuel Gio

Cayabyab of Barangay Maglaking, San Carlos, Pangasinan vs. Duterte

 G.R. No. 252984 – Association of Major Religious Superiors in the Philippines, et

al. vs. Medialdea, et al.

Arrest without warrant

Critics say the Anti-terrorism Act, which repeals the Human Security Act of 2007

(HSA), allows of warrantless arrests and is unconstitutional. Suspects can be jailed for

up to 24 days without charges. Under the HAS, suspect can be detained for only three

days and would be compensated automatically if found not guilty of accusation.

However, under the new law, suspects have to file a law suit to receive compensation.
[26]

Although Section 4 of the Anti-Terrorism Bill states that terrorism “shall not include

advocacy, protest, dissent, stoppage of work, industrial or mass action,” critics maintain

that that the law functions as a deterrent to dissent and the freedom of expression.

“Red-tagging,” a longtime government tactic of labelling dissidents as terrorists or

communists, may become even more rampant as the new law grants unprecedented

power to police.

A broad swatch of civil society groups have said the bill will enable the abuse of power

by President Rodrigo Duterte, allowing him to silence critics in business, journalism, and

in academia, while distracting from the health crisis. [26]

Surveillance and interception of communications – Upon a written order from the Court

of Appeals, private communications, data, and information of any person charged with

or suspected of committing terrorism may be wiretapped, intercepted, recorded, or

collected.[27]
Waiver of bank secrecy – The Anti-Money Laundering Council (“AMLC”) has the

authority to inquire into bank deposits and investments with any banking or non-bank

financial institutions without a court order in case a person/group was designated as a

terrorist/terrorist organization or upon issuance of a preliminary order of proscription. [27]

Extra-territorial application – The Act also applies to any person who, although

physically outside the territorial limits of the Philippines, commit the crime against

Philippine citizens or persons of Philippine descent, where the citizenship or ethnicity

was a factor in the commission of the crime or commit said crime directly against the

Philippine government. In such a case, the Philippines may exercise jurisdiction only

when the individual enters or is inside Philippine territory. [27]

Removal of award for damages in case of acquittal – Under the Human Security Act,

upon acquittal, any person who is accused of terrorism shall be entitled to the payment

of damages in the amount of PHP500,000 for every day that he or she has been

detained or arrested. This provision was omitted from the Act and hence no longer

applies. [27]

Constitutional challenge

Several petitions filed by opposition senators, human rights lawyers, journalists, student

organisations, and other groups are currently pending before the Supreme Court. Some

of the petitions move to strike down the Act in its entirety while some seek to nullify

specific provisions only, the most common of which is the definition of “terrorism” or the

acts that constitute “terrorism.” [27]

According to the petitioners, the definition of terrorism is vague, unclear, and sweeping

such that it is prone to abuse. Unlike the old anti-terrorism law (i.e., the Human Security

Act) that enumerates specific predicate crimes for terrorism (e.g., piracy, rebellion, coup

d’etat, murder, hijacking, etc.), the acts constituting terrorism under the Act are said to

be very broad such that its enforcers “will have unbridled discretion to select the targets

of the new terror law including those from among critics and the opposition.” [27]

Another provision that is sought to be nullified is that which empowers the ATC, a body

composed of members of the Executive Branch of the government, to order the

warrantless arrests of persons on the basis of mere suspicion even if no charges have

been filed. According to the petitioners, this violates a person’s Constitutional rights to

due process and to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures. In addition,

the power granted to ATC is said to be violate the principle of separation of powers of

the three branches of the government (i.e., the Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary) “as

it effectively allows the [ATC] to circumvent the issuance of warrants of arrest that are

the exclusive prerogative of the Judiciary.” [27]

It has yet to be seen how the Supreme Court would rule on these issues. In the

meantime, unless and until the Act or parts thereof have been declared void with finality

by the Supreme Court, the provisions of the Act remain valid and effective. [27]
Universal Human Rights declaration singnatory Comparative differ from other countries

in relation to our R.A. 11479 Anti terrorism Law.

India

The Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (POTA) was an Act passed by the Parliament of

India in 2002, with the objective of strengthening anti-terrorism operations. The Act was

enacted due to several terrorist attacks that were being carried out in India and

especially in response to the attack on the Parliament. The Act replaced the Prevention

of Terrorism Ordinance (POTO) of 2001 and the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities

(Prevention) Act (TADA) (1985–95), and was supported by the governing National

Democratic Alliance. The Act was repealed in 2004 by the United Progressive

Alliance coalition. [28]

Similar to the provisions contained in TADA, the law provided that a suspect could be

detained for up to 180 days without the filing of a chargesheet in court. However, a very

major change was introduced, in that unlike TADA, this act had no provision to allow

preventive detention.[28][29]

Secondly, the matter of confessions made by the accused to the police. The general law

in India does not recognise confessions made to police as evidence admissible in court,

and permits a person to deny such confessions in court, but under POTA, confessions

made to a police officer were admissible as evidence in court. [30] POTA also allowed law

enforcement agencies to withhold the identity of witnesses. [28]

However, the POTA law did have some safeguards. Any decision on bail petitions or the

verdict of the special courts constituted under this Act could be appealed against, and
[28]
the appeal would be heard by a division bench of the relevant High Court.

China anti-terrorism law[31]

This law is formulated according to the Constitution Law of the People’s Republic of

China in order to prevent and punish terrorist activities, strengthen anti-terrorism work,

and safeguard national security, public safety and people’s lives and property. China

opposes all forms of terrorism and bans terrorist organizations according to law; China

will investigate and hold offenders liable for organizing, planning, preparing and

implementing terrorist activities, promoting the terrorism, inciting the implementation of

terrorist activities, organizing, leading, and participating in terrorist organizations, and

providing assistance for terrorist activities. China does not compromise to any terrorist

organizations and personnel, nor provide asylum for or give refugee status to any

personnel of terrorist activities. For the purpose of this Law, “Terrorism” refers to the

contention or behavior of creating social panic, endangering public safety, violating

personal property, or threatening state organs or international organizations through

violence, destruction, intimidation and other means, in order to realize the political,

ideological or other purposes thereof. [31]

China and india terrorism law are more stringent in implementing their anti-terrorism law

in their country. However, It was observe that there are more violative In terms of
protecting and safeguarding human right, which should ensure such to the right to life

and the right to live which in their law have no security and protection at all for the

reason that stringent penalty impose who violate their anti-terrorism laws which is death

penalty.

The rights of Filipinos can be found in Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. Also

called the Bill of Rights, it includes 22 sections which declare a Filipino citizen’s rights
[32]
and privileges that the Constitution has to protect, no matter what.

As one of the signatories of these legal documents, the Philippines is obliged to

recognize and apply appropriate laws to ensure each right’s fulfillment. This is not

always the case, however, as the Philippine Constitution lacks explicit laws to further

cement specific human rights in the local context. For example, the Right to Adequate

Food may be included in the UNDR but it is not explicitly indicated in the Philippine

Constitution. Thus the government cannot be held responsible if this is not attained.

Human rights are both rights and obligations, according to the UN. The state – or the

government – is obliged to “respect, protect, and fulfill” these rights. Respect begets

commitment from state that no law should be made to interfere or curtail the fulfillment

of the stated human rights. Protecting means that human rights violations should be
[32]
prevented and if they exist, immediate action should be made.
Reference:
[1]
http://chr.gov.ph/about-us/#:~:text=The%20Commission%20on%20Human%20Rights

%20%28CHR%29%20is%20an,1987%20by%20virtue%20of%20Executive%20Order

%20No.%20163.

[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_on_Human_Rights_(Philippines)

[3]
Strategic Action Plan 2015–2016" (PDF). Commission on Human Rights of the

Philippines. Archived from the original (PDF) on October 14, 2016. Retrieved May

20,2017.
[4]
 Cariño v. Commission on Human Rights, G.R. No. 96681, December 2, 1991, 204

SCRA 483, 492

[5]
 "Commission on Human Rights". Lawphil.net. Retrieved May 19, 2017.

[6]
"1987 Philippine Constitution". Republic of the Philippines. Retrieved September

18,2017.
[7]
"Executive Order No.. 292". Republic of the Philippines. Retrieved September

18, 2017.

[8]
"COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (CHREA)

Represented by its President, MARCIAL A. SANCHEZ, JR., Petitioner, – versus –

COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, Respondent". Archived from the original on

September 16, 2017. Retrieved September 18, 2017.

[9]
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2019/12/landmark-decision-by-philippines-

human-rights-commission-paves-way-for-climate-litigation/

[10]
Sec. 2 R.A. 9262 Anti Violence against women and children Act of 2004 (VAWC

law).

[11]
commissioner Gascon Statement over ongoing pandemic.

[12]
Republic Act 11479 Anti-Terrorism Law

[13]
section 2 declaration of policy R.A. 11479

[14]
Rule 3.2 Members of the ATC. IRR of DOJ

[15 ]
Rule 3.4 Functions of ATC, IRR of DOJ

[16]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Terrorism_Act_of_2020

[17]
News, Mike Navallo, ABS-CBN. "Anti-terror law faces first Supreme Court

challenge". ABS-CBN News. Retrieved July 4, 2020.

[18]
Buan, Lian (July 8, 2020). "Constitution framers, Ateneo professors file 6th petition

vs. anti-terror law". Rappler.

[19]
Buan, Lian (July 16, 2020). "Labor groups file 9th petition vs. anti-terror law, slam

'guilt by association'". Rappler.

[20]
Talabong, Rappler (July 19, 2020). "10th petition vs. anti-terror law assails violation

of right to bail". Rappler.

[21]
Nonato, Vince (July 23, 2020). "Unlimited Warrantless Arrests: Carpio, Morales, UP

Law Ask SC To Nullify Anti-Terrorism Act". One News.

[22]
Nonato, Vince (July 27, 2020). "Muslim Stereotypes Lead To Mistaken Identity: Why

Bangsamoro Lawyers Oppose The Anti-Terrorism Act". One News.

[23]
Patag, Kristine Joy (July 24, 2020). "Law groups file 17th legal challenge vs. anti-

terrorism law". The Philippine Star.

[24]
Lagrimas, Nicole-Anne C. (July 24, 2020). "Religious groups to Supreme Court:

Declare anti-terror law unconstitutional". GMA News Online.

[25]
Buan, Lian (July 29, 2020). "TikToker, viral angry Aling Marie file 21st petition vs.

anti-terror law". Rappler.

[26]
https://international.thenewslens.com/article/138072

[27]
https://www.zicolaw.com/resources/alerts/philippine-new-anti-terrorism-law-enacted/
[28]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevention_of_Terrorism_Act,_2002#:~:text=The

%20Prevention%20of%20Terrorism%20Act%2C%202002%20%28POTA

%29%20was,in%20response%20to%20the%20attack%20on%20the%20Parliament.

[29]
"Archived copy". Archived from the original on 21 May 2014. Retrieved 19 June2013.

[30]
Rediff.com Its goodbye to POTA Retrieved on 10 July 2007.

[31]
https://www.appinchina.co/government-documents/anti-terrorism-law-of-the-peoples-

republic-of-china/

[32]
https://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/iq/human-rights-philippines.