Editorial

More silliness

The chairman of the Commission on Human Rights always surprises.

The last time we looked, she was making representations with the Supreme Court on behalf of squatters who illegally occupy private land, disregarding the rights of law-abiding property owners. She also urged the Supreme Court to prevent the Metro Manila Development Authority, a duly authorized agency of government, from doing its job?to enforce the law against illegal settlers.

Now she has turned this silliness toward the government?s war on drugs.

Specifically, the chairman says the President?s call for mandatory drug testing for high school and college students would be a violation of their rights, including those under the International Convention on the Rights of Children.

Since the chairman does not specify which of the convention?s 54 articles drug testing would violate, we can only speculate.

Perhaps it is Article 16: No child shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his or her honor and reputation. The child has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

The article, rather general, could be interpreted to include drug testing, which might be seen by some to be unduly intrusive.

On the other hand, a more specific section of the convention, Article 33, clearly states: States Parties shall take all appropriate measures, including legislative, administrative, social and educational measures, to protect children from the illicit use of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances as defined in the relevant international treaties, and to prevent the use of children in the illicit production and trafficking of such substances.

Any rational reading of the international convention, it seems, would conclude that mandatory drug testing would support Article 33, rather than violate Article 16.

Yet the chairman insists the focus on drug testing is wrong because children are the victims, and should not be treated as suspects. The government should instead focus on suppliers.

We do not argue with her second assumption, but our question to the human rights commission chairman is this: how will we know who the victims are if we do not do drug testing? Would it not be better to know who among our schoolchildren are already on drugs, not so they can be treated as suspects, but so that they can be rehabilitated?

Arguing against mandatory drug testing on the basis of human rights is at best an overreaction. At worst, it is silliness that wastes our time and saps our energy.