The Sasot Conundrum: Can Risa Hontiveros Balance Human Rights with International Demands?

By Louis ‘Barok‘ C. Biraogo — September 5, 2024

YOU might think that a politician’s stance on human rights is straightforward, but a recent Facebook post by Sass Rogando Sasot has thrown Senator Risa Hontiveros into a complex international dilemma. The post highlights a situation involving Indonesia’s arrest of Alice Guo, a Chinese national, and its subsequent demand for the extradition of Gregor Haas, an Australian citizen facing the death penalty in Indonesia for drug smuggling. Sasot paints this as a stark dilemma for Hontiveros, who must reconcile her anti-death penalty stance with the geopolitical fallout of deciding between protecting an Australian drug smuggler or securing Guo’s release.

The Dynamics of Influence: Sasot’s Persona and the Controversy’s Context

Sasot has long been a vocal political figure, known for her robust support of President Duterte and her frequent critique of progressive and liberal politicians like Hontiveros. She has often positioned herself as a defender of national interests, using her platform to expose what she perceives as the contradictions of the “woke” left. In this particular instance, Sasot highlights the tension between Hontiveros’s principled stance against the death penalty and the realpolitik demands of international diplomacy.

The political entanglements here are deep. Hontiveros, often at odds with the Duterte and Marcos factions, has built her public image on a foundation of human rights advocacy. The issue of extraditing Haas to Indonesia—where he faces execution—presents a conflict between legal principles and diplomatic strategy, particularly since the Philippines is a signatory to the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which aims to abolish the death penalty.

Sasot’s Critique: Examining the Dilemmas Raised

In Sasot’s view, this situation exposes a hypocritical strain in the human rights discourse. She accuses Hontiveros and others of celebrating Guo’s arrest too early, failing to anticipate the geopolitical complications arising from Indonesia’s demand for Haas. Australia’s anti-death penalty stance adds another layer of complexity, as Sasot asserts that Australia would oppose Haas’s extradition to Indonesia, citing diplomatic precedents in protecting its citizens from execution abroad.

Sasot’s underlying critique is twofold: first, that human rights advocacy, as embodied by Hontiveros, falters in the face of harsh geopolitical realities, and second, that the Philippines may be caught in a diplomatic trap—forced to either betray its international commitments or compromise its interests in securing Guo’s release.

A Different Perspective: Counterarguments to Sasot’s Claims

Sasot’s framing of this issue, however, oversimplifies a situation steeped in international law, historical precedents, and nuanced diplomacy. While it is true that the Second Optional Protocol prohibits extraditing individuals to countries where they face execution, unless credible assurances are obtained, this protocol is binding only on signatory states. Indonesia, notably, has not ratified this protocol, meaning it is not legally bound to adhere to its provisions. The Philippines, on the other hand, is bound by these obligations, making it a critical player in determining Haas’s fate.

Australia, though staunchly anti-death penalty, operates with a more nuanced extradition policy. While it has intervened in high-profile cases to protect its citizens from execution abroad, this does not mean that Australia would outright block Haas’s extradition. Australia’s policy is often shaped by bilateral agreements and domestic laws, and the country has, in some cases, allowed for extraditions where diplomatic assurances against execution were obtained.

Further, Hontiveros’s role as a senator is to advocate for the broader interests of the Philippines, not to singlehandedly negotiate Haas’s fate. International human rights law, as interpreted by bodies such as the Human Rights Committee, emphasizes the need for comprehensive diplomatic efforts in such cases. This dilemma is not a simple choice between the lives of two individuals; it is a multifaceted issue that involves the legal frameworks of three countries, regional diplomatic ties, and the broader global struggle against the death penalty.

Lessons from the Past: Historical and Legal Precedents

Historically, extradition dilemmas like this are not unprecedented. In the landmark 1996 case Soering v. United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the UK could not extradite a German national to the United States where he faced the death penalty, without assurances that the penalty would not be carried out. This principle has been echoed in various international human rights instruments, reinforcing the idea that states have a duty to avoid complicity in the imposition of the death penalty abroad.

Philippine jurisprudence also offers guidance. In People v. Echegaray, the Supreme Court upheld the imposition of the death penalty, but subsequent legislative changes and international commitments have shifted the legal landscape. The Philippines’ ratification of the Second Optional Protocol reflects its clear stance against capital punishment, a position that should guide its diplomatic actions.

Barok’s Take: Analyzing the Issues and Concerns

Sasot’s presentation of the dilemma is provocative but overly reductive. It assumes that Hontiveros and her allies face an impossible choice between two conflicting values: human rights versus national interest. In reality, Hontiveros’s advocacy for human rights is entirely compatible with the Philippines’ broader international obligations. The Philippines must seek assurances that Haas will not be executed if extradited, a move that both upholds its legal commitments and protects its diplomatic relationships with Australia and Indonesia.

However, this situation also underscores the limitations of international law when it comes to non-signatory states like Indonesia. Diplomatic pressure, not legal mandates, will ultimately determine the outcome. Indonesia, despite its harsh drug laws, has shown some flexibility in negotiating the fate of foreign nationals, particularly when broader diplomatic and economic interests are at stake.

Recommendations

Moving forward, the Philippines must engage in diplomatic negotiations that emphasize the importance of human rights while also acknowledging the geopolitical sensitivities of the situation. A pragmatic approach would involve:

Engaging Australia and Indonesia in Triangular Diplomacy: The Philippines should broker discussions between all three nations, focusing on obtaining credible assurances that Haas will not be executed, in line with international human rights standards.
Reaffirming its Commitment to International Law: The Philippines should make clear that it will uphold its obligations under the Second Optional Protocol, while also working diplomatically to resolve the Guo issue.
Balancing Public Opinion and Diplomatic Realities: Hontiveros, and the Philippine government at large, must navigate the domestic pressure to secure Guo’s release without compromising on human rights principles. This will require a careful public communication strategy that emphasizes the complexity of the issue.

So, what will Risa Hontiveros do? This case is a reminder that international diplomacy is rarely about clear-cut choices. In an era where human rights principles often clash with state interests, it is vital to approach such dilemmas with nuance, ensuring that neither law nor morality is sacrificed on the altar of expediency. The answer to this question will have far-reaching implications for the future of Philippine foreign policy and its commitment to human rights.