“The State Parties must implement the same in accordance with their national law and to the extent of their available resources”
The CHR maintained it “has fulfilled and continues to fulfill its constitutional mandate to investigate violations of the right to life, and that its power to investigate such violations is not ministerial in nature.”
For their part, the PNP and DOJ “contended the petitioners have no locus standi to file the present case and that a writ of continuing mandamus is limited only to the enforcement of environmental laws” (G.R. 233930. July 11, 2023).
They further asserted that “the acts which the petitioners seek for the PNP and the DOJ to perform are not simply ministerial but require the exercise of discretion.
The OSG also argued that requiring the PNP and the DOJ to submit periodic reports to the Court effectively makes the latter their supervisor, in violation of the basic constitutional precept of separation of powers” (op.cit.)
In denying the Petition for Mandamus, the Supreme Court said that “[b]esides conjectures and conflicting statements, the petitioners offered no concrete proof that the respondents are remiss in their duties.
“There is not even an indication that the petitioners requested the respondents to furnish them with information on the measures they are taking to address the reported spate of killings” (op.cit.)
“Their bare allegations cannot be given credence, all the more so with respect to the CHR, as Gascon submitted certified true copies of the CHR’s records for each region on their investigations on the extrajudicial and drug-related killings, and the list of trainings they conducted for the police and military sectors from 2016 to 2017” (op.cit.)
While the Supreme Court also noted the international treaties ratified by the Philippine Government, such as: (a) the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; (b) the Convention on the Rights of the Child; and (c) the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, the State Parties must implement the same in accordance with their national law and to the extent of their available resources (op.cit.)
Thus, “State parties to the ICCPR, CRC, and CMW are… afforded a wide latitude in complying with their obligations thereunder, owing to their sovereignty.
“Hence, the petitioners cannot impose on the respondents the standards and characteristics of investigation which they deem to be appropriate and sufficient through a Mandamus Petition, as it lies only to compel the performance of purely ministerial duties” (op.cit.)
“[T]he writ of continuing mandamus is available only in environmental cases and requiring the submission of periodic reports on the discharge of the respondents’ functions to the Court violates the fundamental doctrine of separation of powers, which serves to temper the official acts of each branch of the government.
“While they insist that the respondents failed to uphold their duty to protect the right to life, their contentions are speculative and mere surmises, which the Court has no jurisdiction to rule upon” (op.cit.)
