The Commission on Human Rights (CHR) has cautioned the Department of Transportation (DOTr) on its proposed “shame campaign” targeting repeat and grave traffic violators, emphasizing the importance of due process
In an interview on DZRH’s Damdaming Bayan, CHR Commissioner Atty. Beda Epres said publicizing the names of traffic violators is acceptable only if the individuals have already undergone legal procedures and were found liable.
“Kung ang dahilan lang naman po nito is ipublish yung mga pangalan ng mga violators... at ito po ay dumaan na ng due process... wala po kaming nakikitang problema,” Epres said.
“Pero kung ang pinakadahilan lang talaga [ng ‘Shame Campaign] is pahiyain [‘yong motorista] na hindi pa po dumaan sa due process, baka po meron itong paglabag sa karapatang pantao.”
He emphasized the presumption of innocence, warning that prematurely naming individuals could result in “public humiliation,” especially if the accusations are eventually proven false.
Epres clarified, however, that publishing the names of those already investigated, such as wanted persons or those with formal sanctions is acceptable.
The CHR-lawyer also explained that individuals who have been investigated and are evading authorities, such as those with pending warrants or formal charges, may be publicly named. He cited the standard practice of publishing photos of wanted persons, often with rewards attached, as acceptable.
“Pero kung dumaan na siya sa fiscal oh kahit ano man pong investigative body at siya po ay nagtatago na or at least nakasagot na siya at meron nang desisyon sa kanyang kaso, wala po kaming nakikitang problema na ipublish [‘yong pangalan] or kahit ipakita pa nga po ‘yong pangalan nila,” he said.
This principle also applies to administrative sanctions. Epres referred to the case of a motorist, reportedly a lawyer, who ran over a traffic enforcer in Cavite. While the case remains under investigation by the Land Transportation Office (LTO), he noted that if a finding is made and a sanction is issued, public disclosure can serve a legitimate public interest.
“Kung halimbawa ang maging desisyon ng LTO ay isapubliko ‘yong pangalan at ang purpose naman po ay para huwag nang tularan pa ng publiko, wala po akong nakikitang problema roon basta ipadaan po muna ng due process na imbestigahan, merong findings na meron po siyang violation,” CHR Commissioner Atty. Epres expressed.
The CHR emphasized that while deterrence is important, protecting rights and ensuring fair legal proceedings must remain the priority.
