It's definitely better than the dismissal by Makati RTC Judge Reynaldo Laigo of the class suit that our arrest, handcuffing, and detention was "justified' and even added that we were "so lucky" that the police didn't initiate criminal charges against us.

With a leader who has no respect for the Constitution and disdains truth, CHR chair Leila de Lima gives me some hope. Maybe I should thank her for making the Commission say that "there have been violations of the human rights of liberty, security of person and freedom from arbitrary arrest of the complainants in the Manila Peninsula Siege."

But I cannot bring myself to applaud all the findings and the recommendations. It's a copout, actually. I join the National Press Club and the National Union of Journalists in the Philippines in asking why the CHR didn't recommend the filing of charges against the policemen and the officers involved in the arrest for violations of the law.

Why did the Commission just recommend that the case "be referred to the DILG and the PNP for internal inquiry and filing of possible administrative/disciplinary cases and measures applied to proper personnel and to the Department of Justice for further investigation and filing of proper cases as to violations of the Revised Penal Code and special laws on the rights of persons detained."

It's disappointing that after mustering enough guts to say that the law enforcers violated the law, CHR opted to engage in a charade. Do they really believe that Local Government Secretary Ronaldo Puno and whoever would be the Police Chief when Gen. Avelino Razon retires this month would "investigate and file charges" against their men? Didn't they hear Puno say that they will do it again if a similar situation happens?

From what planet did they come from to believe that Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez will investigate and file charges against those who arrested, detained and handcuffed us?

Nevertheless, I find it comforting that the commissioners are not fond of plastic handcuffs.

CHR said: "Members of the media were restrained by using plastic handcuffs, which are instruments of restraint which is not justified under the circumstances. Under the ACPO Guidance on the Use of Handcuffs: 'Any intentional application of force to the person of another is an assault. The use of handcuffs amounts to such an assault and is unlawful unless it can be justified. Justification is achieved through establishing not only a legal right to use handcuffs, but also good objective grounds for doing so in order to show that what the officer or member of police staff did was a reasonable, necessary and proportionate use of force.'

"There is no proof that the media displayed violence nor that they tried to escape the police which could have justified their restraint. They are professionals merely doing their jobs. They were without weapons and the restraint applied to them does not pass the tests of reasonableness, necessity, and proportionality.

"The fact that some of the complainants were handcuffed while others were not demonstrates that the PNP personnel themselves did not find a grave and imminent threat of violence or escape by the media practitioners.

"Even in the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, we note that the use of restraint is taken with much caution. With more reason then that instruments of restraint should not have been applied to the media who were not even 'prisoners.'"