The resolution

The Duterte administration is bristling at the recent Iceland Resolution where the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) is calling on the head of the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights to prepare a “comprehensive written report on the human rights situation in the Philippines.”

Of course, the bloody campaign of the Duterte administration against illegal drugs and extrajudicial killings was mentioned. The government was urged to hold accountable those behind the killings and “prevent extrajudicial killings and forced disappearances, carry out impartial investigations and to hold perpetrators accountable in accordance with international norms and standards on due process and the rule of law.”

In spite of the claims of the Philippine National Police that the crime rate has considerably gone down, we read of killings by riding-in-tandem murderers almost on a daily basis. As of this writing, a man was killed in Makati while he and his wife were on their way to church.

A revenue collection clerk was also gunned down in Isabela as he was walking home again by riding-in-tandem assailants. Killing seems easy while finding and arresting the culprits is practically non-existent. Investigations are ongoing but I wouldn’t be surprised if the universal issue of illegal drugs come into play as if justifying the killings.

It is no surprise why the administration is reacting this way to the Iceland UNHRC resolution which, by the way, the Philippines is a member of. The mere mentioning of the words "human rights" is certain to elicit a hostile reaction from President Duterte and his official family.

The UNHRC has been accused of interfering with a supposedly successful campaign against crime and disrespecting our sovereignty. Countries that voted for the resolution were told they have no right or moral ground to accuse the country of the said violations.

The country’s top diplomat called the UNHRC a "kangaroo court", even implying that drug syndicates were behind the resolution. He also warned of far-reaching consequences against the countries that voted for the resolution. Someone even called for the cutting of diplomatic ties with Iceland. Why not cut ties with everyone else, right?

Eighteen countries voted to pass the resolution, 14 against it including the Philippines, and 15 abstentions. Taking a look at the list of countries that opposed the resolution, one will notice that most have human rights issues of their own. We seem to be in “good” company.

There is a saying that you are defined by the company you keep. If we are a member of UNHRC, why does the administration go ballistic when the words "human rights" are thrown at it? Why not allow the UNHRC to investigate if it claims it has nothing to hide?

A senator even challenged the rights group to cut his head off if they can prove the killings were state-sponsored. With this level of confidence, why not allow the UNHRC investigators into the country and conduct their investigations instead of hurling insults? Taking all of the adverse reactions of the government to the resolution into consideration, why remain a member of the UNHRC? Seems we are now on a course to becoming a pariah state.