Showing posts with label Rodrigo Duterte. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rodrigo Duterte. Show all posts

Wednesday, 19 August 2020

Philippines death penalty: A fight to stop the return of capital punishment

Source: BBC News (16 August 2020)

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-53762570

Capital punishment opponents expect a steep battle to prevent President Rodrigo Duterte from reimposing the death penalty, as he renews calls for the law as part of a "drug war" that has already killed thousands of Filipinos.

Few were surprised when Mr Duterte last month pushed, once again, to reintroduce the death penalty for drug offenders.

Since coming to power in 2016 he has waged a brutal crackdown on suspected drug users and dealers, issuing police with shoot-to-kill orders while encouraging citizens to kill drug users too.

Officially the police say they shoot only in self-defence and data shows more than 8,000 people have been killed in anti-drug operations. The nation's human rights commission estimates a toll as high as 27,000.

The piling bodies have been documented by photojournalists whose images of dead suspects face-down in pools of blood after a police raid, or strewn on streets in suspected vigilante murders, have shocked the world.

"The death penalty would give the state another weapon in its ongoing war against drugs," said Carlos Conde, Philippines researcher for Human Rights Watch.

Mr Duterte was restrained, at first, by the upper house of parliament. But last year's mid-term elections saw his allies win control of the senate and many fear the law could now be passed.

Twenty-three bills have been filed across both houses to reinstate the death penalty for drug crimes, including possession and sales. Committee deliberations began last week.
Nuanced views

Mr Conde says he would like to be proved wrong but senses the law "is as good as passed". He points to the swift recent passing of the controversial anti-terrorism law, and the speed at which ABS-CBN, a broadcaster critical of the president, was forced off air.

The move would be a breach of international human rights law.

But this is unlikely to faze Mr Duterte, who frequently expresses his disdain for human rights checks. Last year the Philippines left the International Criminal Court as it was probing accusations of crimes linked to his drugs campaign.

Surveys by the Social Weather Stations, a pollster, have shown the war on drugs remains popular among Filipinos despite experts saying the signature policy has failed to curb drug use or supply. A majority are also in favour of reinstating capital punishment.

But a closer look at the results shows an alternative picture, says Maria Socorro Diokno, secretary-general of the Free Legal Assistance Group, a network of human rights lawyers.

When presented with alternatives to capital punishment for crimes linked to illegal drugs, for instance, most favoured other options.

"They begin to think that death is not always the answer," said Ms Diokno.

Ms Diokno, who leads her group's anti-death penalty task force, has been braced for a battle with Mr Duterte ever since he vowed to bring back the death penalty as part of his election campaign.

She knows that minds can be changed because she was part of the movement that succeeded last time.

The death penalty has been abolished twice before - first in 1987 and then again in 2006 after being reinstated in 1993.

The last push for abolition was led by the Catholic church, which holds considerable influence over Filipinos in the largely Catholic country while Mr Duterte is an open critic.

Last week the Clergy of the Archdiocese of Manila condemned the "lack of independence and imprudence" of some lawmakers in supporting the president on the issue.

"We see such acts as betrayal of the people's interests and an implicit support to the creeping authoritarian tendencies exuded by this administration," it said.
Mistaken convictions

In his annual address to the nation last month Mr Duterte claimed reinstating the death penalty by lethal injection would "deter criminality".

But there is little evidence to prove that the death penalty can be a deterrent. Instead research has shown the punishment frequently affects the most disadvantaged.

In the Philippines alone the Supreme Court said in 2004 that 71.77% of death penalty verdicts handed by lower courts were wrong.

By imposing the death penalty for drug offences, the Philippines would also be moving away from what Harm Reduction International has identified as a downward global trend in using the penalty for such crimes.

It says 35 countries and territories retain capital punishment for drug offenders but only a few carry out executions regularly. Five of the eight "high application states" are in South East Asia.

Raymund Narag, an assistant professor of criminology at Southern Illinois University, knows firsthand the problems of a flawed criminal justice system.

He spent nearly seven years jailed in the Philippines as a pre-trial detainee before he was acquitted of a campus murder that took place at his university when he was 20.

The death penalty was still intact at the time and prosecutors had sought it for the 10 men charged.

Worse than his overcrowded cell and frequent prison riots, he says, was the "agony of waiting" for hearings.

"It was traumatic thinking that you can be put to death for a crime you did not commit," said Dr Narag, speaking from the US.

Now 46, he was one of five men eventually acquitted, while the others were sentenced to life imprisonment.

The experience has shaped his career. He now researches prolonged trial detention in the Philippines, while advocating for criminal justice reform.

Dr Narag says that if he hadn't managed to track down a key witness, an overseas worker, to return home and testify, proving he wasn't at the crime scene, he may have been convicted.

Through his advocacy he wants Filipinos to know the consequences of mistaken convictions, which could become mistaken executions if the law changes, in an already struggling justice system.

The scope of and timeline for the eventual death penalty bill put to vote in parliament is uncertain, especially during the Covid-19 pandemic. Some have argued the bill should not be a priority.

Gloria Lai, Asia director of the International Drug Policy Consortium, says the death penalty has not solved the drug-related problems of any country.

"It is the poor and vulnerable who bear the harsh punishment of criminal justice systems in grossly unjust ways," she says.

Thursday, 30 July 2020

Bringing back death penalty will breach international law – CHR

Source: Manila Bulletin (29 July 2020)

https://mb.com.ph/2020/07/29/bringing-back-death-penalty-will-breach-international-law-chr/

President Duterte has long pushed for the return of the death penalty in order to bolster the government’s fight against illegal drugs, and he repeated this call during his 5th State of the Nation Address (SONA) on Monday.

“I reiterate the swift passage of a law reviving the death penalty by lethal injection for crimes specified under the Comprehensive Dangerous [Drugs] Act of 2002,” he said.

President Duterte’s statement alarmed the Commission on Human Rights (CHR), and Spokesperson Atty. Jacqueline Ann de Guia said that bringing back the capital punishment in the country “will be a breach of international law.”

In particular, the reinstatement of the death penalty will conflict the tenets of the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which the Philippines ratified in 2007.

De Guia added that it even goes against two affirmations made by the government during the 2020 SONA, which is to put human lives above all and to uphold its obligation for human rights.

“Time and again, CHR has invited the government to engage in a frank and factual discussion on the ineffectiveness of death penalty in curbing crimes,” she said. “We, too, believe that crimes must be punished. But the call for justice should not result [in] further violations of human rights, especially the right to life.”

The CHR said that a “comprehensive approach” is needed to address the threat of illegal drug trade and use, as well as other crimes. Instead of imposing punishments with little or no regard for human life and rights, de Guia said the government should focus on “restorative justice.”

The death penalty in the country was abolished back in 2006 during the term of former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. Since then, several organizations such as Amnesty International have voiced out against bringing back the death penalty in the Philippines – even if it means that it will help against the war on drugs.

“The idea that the death penalty will rid the country of drugs is simply wrong. The resumption of executions will not rid the Philippines of problems associated with drugs or deter crime. It is an inhumane, ineffective punishment and is never the solution. The Philippines’ attempts to reintroduce it are clearly unlawful. This will just earn the country notoriety as one of the few countries to revive its horrific use,” said Champa Patel, Amnesty International’s Director for Southeast Asia and the Pacific.

Thursday, 4 April 2019

Death penalty never a solution to crime: advocates

Source: Asia Times (28 March 2019)

https://www.asiatimes.com/2019/03/opinion/death-penalty-never-a-solution-to-crime-advocates/

On March 11, at the beginning of the Lent season in the Philippines, where more than 90% of the population are Catholic Christians, the brutal murder and possible sexual assault of Christine Lee Silawan, a 16-year-old girl from Cebu City, in Central Visayas region, revived the call for the death penalty. The girl’s face was skinned, and the esophagus, tongue, and trachea were missing. A 17-year-old suspect was under the police custody. He was later released because of technicalities. The girl’s gruesome death reminded the nation of President Rodrigo Duterte’s promise: reimposition of capital punishment for drug-related offenses and heinous crimes.

On March 7, 2017, House Bill 4727 was approved in Congress. If it becomes law, the bill will revive the death penalty either by hanging, firing squad, or lethal injection. It was lauded by MalacaƱang Palace as an effective measure on Duterte’s war on drugs, but the Senate does not see it as a priority.

During the 2016 presidential campaign, Duterte promised to revive the death penalty, believing that it would be a deterrent to criminals, specifically the drug lords. He believes that the “essence of the country’s penal code is retribution.”

In the 2018 Global Peace Index Report conducted by the Australian-based Institute for Economics and Peace, the Philippines ranked as the second least peaceful country in the Asia-Pacific region, despite the lower crime rate recorded by the Philippine National Police (PNP) in the same year.

According to the PNP, the crime rate was reduced to 9.13%, or a total of 473,068 crimes compared with 520,641 crimes posted in 2017. However, the murder rate in the capital city Manila was up by 112%. Common crimes in the Philippines include crime against a person – murder, rape, domestic violence – and crime against property, which includes robbery, theft and fraud. Drug trafficking and trade, human trafficking, and corruption are also rampant despite the government’s effort to curb criminality.
Crime against women

According to Edna Aquino, convener of the #Babae Ako (Iamawoman) Campaign, violence against women and girls, particularly rape, has been invoked in arguments to impose the death penalty. However, Aquino instead urges strong enforcement of existing laws such as those against rape and child abuse.

“Most women survivors of violence wish to see true and impartial justice delivered to them through fair trials and convictions, and through more robust enforcement of existing laws,” Aquino said.

According to the Center for Women’s Resources, one woman or child is raped every hour in the Philippines.

Duterte is known for his misogynistic comments and encouragement of killings. During his speech to soldiers and rebel returnees in Mindanao, he was quoted as saying that raping three women is OK, and told them to shoot female rebels in their genitals.

Davao City in Mindanao, Duterte’s bailiwick, had the highest number of rape cases in 2018, according to the PNP.

Father Flavie Villanueva, a Society of the Divine Word coordinator and the founder of Justice-Peace Integrity of Creation and also the executive director of AJ Kalinga Inc, believes that Duterte’s words have impact on how men treat women.

“Mr Duterte is not an ordinary citizen, he has the highest seat in the executive branch. When you say executive, what he says becomes a policy. There is no room here for freedom of expression. Because every expression that you create is regarded by people as something as executive,” Father Villanueva said.

‘Life is sacred’

In his second State of the Nation Address (SONA) in 2017, Duterte expressed his support for the reimposition of the death penalty, triggering criticisms from the Catholic hierarchy, from human-rights activists, and even from senators.

“In the Philippines, it is really an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. You took life, you must pay it with life. That is the only way to [make it] even. You cannot place a premium on the human mind that he will go straight,” Duterte said during the SONA.

The Commission on Human Rights (CHR) disagreed.

“We want punishment for the horrendous act committed but we do not call for the killing of a suspect nor the perpetrator who will be subjected to the imperfect justice system run by imperfect duty bearers,” CHR commissioner Karen Gomez-Dumpit said. She stressed that the death penalty is equated to a murder perpetrated by state agents because it is deliberate and premeditated and purposely kills a person. Father Villanueva agreed that it can never solve crimes, but instead creates a culture of fear and violence.

Aquino said the death penalty “threatens the fundamental rights of people, capital punishment will dismantle any hopes we have of building a peaceful, accountable and equal society which values human life and human rights; it further erodes our hopes for a people-centric governance model.”
‘Dancing with death’

In the only country in Asia to first ban the death penalty, then later reimpose it and ban it again, the international community as well as the Catholic Church and human-rights advocates are focusing again on Duterte’s latest stand on reviving capital punishment.

House Bill 4727, authored by former House Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez, was approved in Congress. The bill seeks death or life-long imprisonment on conviction of drug-related charges, including trafficking, manufacturing, importing, maintenance of drug dens and other drug-related crimes. The crime of plunder is no longer included. It will not impose the death penalty on convicted persons who were below 18 years of age or more than 70 years old during the commission of the crime.
Flawed justice

According to the Supreme Court decision on the case of People vs Mateo in 2004, after 11 years, it was found that there was a 71.77% error rate in verdicts and decisions impacting disproportionately against the poor. Before 2006, 483 death-penalty cases or 53.25% were reduced to reclusión perpetua or life imprisonment, while 65 cases were acquitted.

Blaming the CHR for the rise of crimes or why criminals get away is illogical.

“CHR does not have the mandate of being a law enforcer. We cannot digress from the issues that matter and must help, within our respective mandates and responsibilities, the police and other law-enforcement agencies’ mission to serve and protect the people. The police as a human-rights protector of all persons (without exception) need to be put at the front and center of the ‘solutions to rising criminality’ debate,” Gomez-Dumpit said.

Aquino also said there was an urgent need for reforms in the justice system. Court cases can can drags on for several years, in addition to biased and prejudicial proceedings and frequent miscarriages of justice.

In a 2018 survey of Social Weather Stations and CHR, it was found out that 7 out of 10 Filipinos do not support the death penalty.

Dual purpose

Capital punishment in the Philippines has a long history. During the Spanish period (1521-1898), American colonization, the Japanese occupation and the martial-law era under the Ferdinand Marcos regime, capital punishment was used not only to deter crimes but also used to curtail freedom.

After the People Power Revolution the death penalty was abolished by the 1987 constitution, “unless for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, Congress hereafter provides for it.” The Philippines thus became the first country in Asia to abolish the death penalty.

However, calls for the reimposition of the death penalty did not abate. The military lobbied for members of the Communist Party of the Philippines to be executed.

But it was only in 1993, during the presidency of Fidel Ramos, a Protestant, that the death penalty was restored by virtue of Republic Act 7659 because of rising criminality.

Despite the death penalty, however, the crime rate continued to soar. In 1999 it increased by 15.3%. President Joseph Estrada issued a de facto moratorium on executions because of pressure from the Catholic Church and rights groups.

Finally, on June 24, 2006, president Gloria Macapagal Arroyo signed into law the Republic Act 9346, titled “An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of the Death Penalty.” The death penalty was downgraded to life imprisonment. The Philippines entered the ratification of the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights aiming at the abolition of the death penalty in November 2007. This act in effective binds the Philippines never again to reintroduce the death penalty.

Rule of law

Father Villanueva has seen the worst in his ministry to the orphans and widows of Duterte’s drug war. Although he thinks that the Philippines is already desensitized to the point of reaching the “threshold of inhumanity,” he still believes in restorative justice, where society must provide a chance for criminals to reform.

The CHR is always anchored on the universality of human rights and to look at violations of human rights, shortcomings, abuses, and failure of government institutions to uphold the human rights of all persons. The government (the executive) has the primary duty to implement programs that respect, protect and fulfill human rights.

“We are a system of laws. We adhere to the rule of law and the right to due process for everyone. The deprivation of due process is an injustice that will mean more when it is us or family who is affected. The guarantee of due process and the rule of law will ensure that when it is our turn, we are assured that we will be treated evenly and fairly,” Gomez-Dumpit concluded.

But Duterte has already imposed the death sentence on us Filipinos whether we are guilty of heinous crimes or not. His anti-people policies and shoot-to-kill orders are enough to wipe out not only the criminals but those who are opposing him.

Wednesday, 13 February 2019

Sri Lanka ready for landmark hanging of drug convicts: Minister

Source: Channel News Asia (5 February 2019)

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asia/sri-lanka-ready-for-landmark-hanging-of-drug-convicts-minister-11204456

COLOMBO: Sri Lanka is ready to execute five drug convicts and end its 42-year capital punishment moratorium once President Maithripala Sirisena signs the death warrants and a hangman is appointed, officials said Tuesday (Feb 5).

Sirisena announced last year a tougher line on spiralling narcotics-related crime including executions for repeat drug offenders, inspired by a similar crackdown in the Philippines.

The country's justice minister told parliament Tuesday that legal and administrative procedures for the five condemned Sri Lankans were completed last month, paving the way for the first hangings since 1976.

"We have already complied with the president's request to restart capital punishment," Thalatha Athukorale said.

Five names had been sent to the president between Oct 12 and the end of January, but Sirisena was yet to sign the warrants and fix the execution dates, Athukorale added. There was no immediate comment from Sirisena's office on the cases.

Following a visit to the Philippines last month, Sirisena reaffirmed his plans to replicate his counterpart Rodrigo Duterte's "success" in dealing with illegal drugs.

Sirisena praised the "decisive action" of Duterte who has offered anti-narcotics help to Sri Lanka.

Duterte ran on a law-and-order platform that included promises to kill thousands of people involved in the drug trade, even officials.

"Even though I have not implemented some of the decisions of President Duterte, I will not bow to international non-governmental (rights) organisations and change my decision on death penalty for drug offences," Sirisena said last month.

Athukorale said there were 18 drug convicts who would qualify under Sirisena's guidelines to be hanged out of 376 convicts on death row.

But prisons spokesman Thushara Upuldeniya said authorities were still trying to fill a vacancy for an executioner.

Light work and a salary of 35,000 rupees (US$200) a month was offered in advertisements placed last year, but no suitable candidate came forward, he said.

"Technically, we don't have a hangman right now, but if the need arises, we should be able to get one fairly quickly," Upuldeniya told AFP.

While Sri Lanka's last execution was more than four decades ago, an executioner functioned until his retirement in 2014. Three replacements since have quit after short stints at the unused gallows.

Criminals are regularly given death sentences for murder, rape and drug-related crimes but their punishments have been commuted to life.

International rights groups have urged Sri Lanka not to revive capital punishment.

Source: AFP/aa

Friday, 20 July 2018

Southeast Asia Drug Use Persists Despite Death Penalty

Source: VOA News (16 July 2018)

https://www.voanews.com/a/drug-abuse-in-asia/4484308.html

HO CHI MINH CITY —

Southeast Asian authorities are not shy about doling out the death penalty to punish drug traffickers, and yet narcotics abuse has not abated. If anything, it is on the rise, which begs the question of whether the region’s war on drugs is working.

The latest report on global trends from the United Nations shows that while Colombia remains the world’s top source of cocaine, Asia is now emerging as a hub for both transportation and consumption of the drug. In 2016 cocaine seizures tripled across the continent in the span of just a year, the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime said in its June report.

But methamphetamine is making even bigger leaps in Southeast Asia because it is not as geographically restricted as cocaine, which depends on cultivation of the coca plant. Officials in countries around the Mekong region seized 65 tons of methamphetamine in tablet and crystalline form in 2017, the UNODC said in a separate report -- that is nearly 600 percent more than the amount seized a decade earlier.

The latest findings “show that drug markets are expanding, with cocaine and opium production hitting record highs, presenting multiple challenges on multiple fronts," said UNODC Executive Director Yury Fedotov.

Irony of drug policy

The apparent popularity of some drugs around the region stands in stark contrast to the “tough on crime” approach of many Southeast Asian governments, most of which have seen single ruling parties, military juntas, or authoritarian leaders consolidate power at the central level in recent decades.

In the Philippines, President Rodrigo Duterte has earned notoriety for alleged extrajudicial killings of drug crime suspects. In Vietnam, capital punishment is meted out, often to drug traffickers, more often than anywhere else on the planet except in China and Iran, Amnesty International says. The human rights group also referred to Malaysia as one of the “staunch supporters of the use of the death penalty for drug-related offenses.”

People take part in a protest against the government of Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte in front of the Philippine consulate in New York, Dec. 10, 2017.

“Mandatory death sentences and the use of the death penalty for drug-related offenses remained an issue of high concern in Southeast Asia,” Amnesty International said in its roundup of state executions worldwide in 2017.

These trends might puzzle some who expect stiffer law enforcement to blunt the use and sale of drugs. But it is a tragic irony that legal crackdowns can actually fuel the narcotics trade, according to author Johann Hari. He writes in his book Chasing the Scream that when the police crack down on drugs, they drive up prices as buyers pay sellers a premium for the legal risk. Criminalization eliminates weaker rivals and allows the big players that are left standing -- usually gangs and cartels -- to corner the market and concentrate power, Hari said.

He is part of a growing chorus of people who question or outright reject the belief that the death penalty deters or reduces crimes like drug trafficking.

“The drug problem is a complex social issue that demands a multifaceted approach towards a lasting solution,” Nymia Pimentel-Simbulan, executive director of the Philippine Human Rights Information Center, told VOA. “PhilRights has always maintained that capital punishment, being punitive and retributive in nature, is a cure worse than the poison.”

Dark web

The UNODC offers other possible explanations for the spread of drugs in Southeast Asia and elsewhere. Buyers have new online options as it becomes easier to access the dark web, where hidden sites deal in contraband from weapons to counterfeit products to drugs. The anonymity of cryptocurrencies has facilitated these purchases on illicit sites. At one point in 2017 Vietnam was among the top three countries for bitcoin trading, though much of that had to do with investment and other legal business activity.

While the U.S. is grappling with an opioid epidemic, there could be spillover effects in other regions, and for similar reasons. One cause of the U.S. crisis was the labeling change that allowed certain opioids to be marketed as non-addictive because they didn’t take full effect immediately, but had a slow release. That allowed doctors to prescribe the painkillers more widely. In Asia the opioid of choice is tramadol. The UNODC said that not only are more people abusing tramadol here, but Asia is also the main source of illegal tramadol seized around the world.

A Cataldo Ambulance medic holds used doses of naloxone after medics revived a man in his 40's who was found unresponsive from an opioid overdose in the Boston suburb of Salem, Massachusetts, Aug. 9, 2017.

As for methamphetamine, the agency said the ease of cooking rather than growing it could explain why the stimulant is taking off.

“This unique characteristic of synthetic drugs provides a comparative advantage for drug trafficking groups in the Mekong and neighboring countries,” the UNODC said, “as Asia is the center of global chemical and rapidly growing pharmaceutical industries.

There were 86 drug labs discovered in East and Southeast Asia in 2006; a decade later, the number surpassed 500, UNODC figures show. As with so much other data, it is unclear whether the abuse and sale of controlled substances are increasing -- or if authorities are just getting better at finding them.

Monday, 26 February 2018

Philippine Catholics protest drug killings, death penalty

Source: Straits Times (24 February 2018)

http://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/philippine-catholics-protest-drug-killings-death-penalty

MANILA (REUTERS) - Around a thousand Catholics in the Philippines marched in Manila on Saturday (Feb 24) to protest President Rodrigo Duterte's bloody war on drugs and his efforts to reinstate the death penalty.

The protests come a day after students in the capital and provincial universities held demonstrations against Duterte, and a day before the 32nd anniversary of the "People Power" revolution that drove dictator Ferdinand Marcos into exile.

Catholic devotees prayed the rosary and sang hymns as bishops and the Philippines' own cardinal read sermons against what they say are not "pro-life" policies in the government.

The protesters carried banners and placards with the message "Protect and Defend the Sanctity of Life and Marriage," "End Impunity" and "Stop the Killings."

Despite criticism of the Philippine leader's bloody war on drugs campaign, Duterte remains wildly popular and a trusted public official in the South-east Asian nation.

The Social Weather Station's (SWS) latest quarterly poll shows Duterte's trust rating bounced back to "excellent" in December from "very high" three months before. Another survey by the privately-run pollster gave his government the best rating so far for a Philippine administration since surveys started in the 1980s.

The Catholic Church protested the pending Bills in Congress introducing divorce and re-imposing capital punishment.

The majority of the Philippines' 105 million people are Catholic. Despite the popularity of the anti-drugs crackdown, some sectors of the church have become increasingly vocal on the drugs killings, with the church calling for justice and offering sanctuary to drug users.

"The threat is still there. We still hear news of extrajudicial killings. And still the bill of the death penalty is in Congress," said Broderick Pabillo, Manila auxillary bishop.

More than 4,000 suspected drug dealers have been killed since Duterte took office in June 2016. Police said the killings resulted from self-defence during raids and sting operations.

Wednesday, 24 January 2018

Reinstating the death penalty a violation of international law

Source: The Manila Times (20/21 January 2018)

http://www.manilatimes.net/reinstating-death-penalty-violation-international-law/375392/

http://www.manilatimes.net/reinstating-death-penalty-violation-international-law-2/375510/

AS a consequence of President Duterte’s war on drugs, there has been in the Philippines a move to reinstate death as capital punishment. On March 7, 2017, the House of Representatives approved the reimposition of the death penalty for drug-related crimes, among others, by a vote of 217 yeses and 54 no’s. The bill is pending in the Senate. As might be expected from the chamber that approves the ratification of international treaties, certain Senators have raised objections to the bill on the ground that it is violative of international law.

As noted by the late chairman of the Philippine Commission on Human Rights, Purificacion Valera Quisumbing, in her briefing paper submitted to the European Parliament in Brussels in January 2007 , the Philippines abolished the death penalty under its 1987 Constitution and became the first Asian country to abolish the death penalty for all crimes. It also became the first Asian country to abolish it only to reintroduce it later on.

The latter distinction owes to the fact that “the constitutional abolition of the death penalty, which immediately took effect upon the ratification of this Constitution, does not prevent the legislature from reimposing it at some future time (Bernas, The Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary). The Constitution in Article III, Section 1 9(1) reads that effective upon its ratification, “The death penalty shall not be imposed unless for compelling reasons, including heinous crimes the Congress hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua (life imprisonment).”

A series of serious crimes widely described as “heinous” occurred in 1993 during the administration of President Fidel V. Ramos. To arrest the rising criminality, the Death Penalty Law (Republic Act 7659) was signed in December 1993. It listed a total of 46 crimes punishable by death, 25 of which are death-mandatory and 21 are death-eligible. Republic Act 8177 mandated the death sentence be carried out by lethal injection. With the amendment of the Anti-Rape Law (RA 8533) and Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (RA9165), capital offenses were raised to 52; of these, 30 of are death-mandatory and 22 are death-eligible.

In 1999, the administration of President Joseph Estrada put to death seven death row convicts. It was observed that “1999 was a bumper year for executions which were intended to abate criminality. Instead, using the same year as baseline, criminality increased by 15.3 per cent, the total in the previous year of 71,527 crimes rising to 82,538 in1999.” Giving in to appeals from groups, including the Roman Catholic Church, President Estrada issued a moratorium on executions in observance of the Vatican’s “Jubilee Year.” The practice of carrying out executions was re-initiated and carried over to the administration of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo.

After a rise in drug trafficking and kidnappings that mainly victimized the Chinese-Filipino community, President Arroyo announced on December 5, 2003, the lifting of the de facto moratorium on executions “to sow fear into the hearts of criminals.” The resumption of executions was, however, halted with the reopening of the Lara and Licayan capital case. The Supreme Court vacated the decision of the lower court and ordered the admission of newly discovered evidence, including the testimonial evidence of two other co-accused in the same case, both of whom gave testimony exonerating Lara and Licayan from culpability. Since then successive administrations have been issuing reprieves on scheduled executions without actually issuing a moratorium.

The Commission on Human Rights vehemently objected to the reimposition of the death penalty. It cautioned against it and recommended reforms for a more effective enforcement of penal laws. It should also be mentioned that the European Union and the Roman Catholic Church, among others, waged an intensifying campaign against the death penalty.

On April 19, 2006 in a letter to the House of Representatives and the Senate, President Arroyo endorsed the immediate enactment of House Bill No. 4826 entitled “An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of the Death Penalty.” It was signed into law as Republic Act 9346 on June 24, 2006.

At this point, the Philippines might be said to be the first Asian country to abolish the death penalty for all crimes only to reimpose it on certain heinous crimes, and then only to prohibit it totally once again.

To those who have followed the twists and turns of the history of the death penalty in the Philippines, much of the arguments for and against the current move to reimpose capital punishment are not new. Oriental Mindoro Rep. Reynaldo Umali, in sponsoring the bill reimposing the death penalty, cited four “compelling” reasons: 1) The death penalty is a fitting response to increasing criminality and killings in the county; 2)The death penalty is a measure to restore respect for the laws of the land; 3) Death is a path to achieving justice; and 4) Reimposition of the death penalty is geared towards a genuine reform in the Philippines criminal justice system.

OPPOSITION to the move to reimpose the death penalty has been most eloquently expressed by Archbishop Socrates B. Villegas, president of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines, in his pastoral statement on March 19, 2017:

“On the day the death penalty was repealed by the Philippine Congress on June 24, 2006, the lights were turned on in the Colosseum in Rome. History tells us how many people, among them countless Christian martyrs. were publicly executed in that infamous arena. Perhaps to erase the darkness of inhumanity that the Colosseum has been associated with, the citizens of Rome have since made it a point to have it illuminated, each time another country decides to repeal its capital punishment law. Each illumination has been made to symbolize another advancement in human civilization. Are we to reverse that advancement by restoring the death penalty again in the Philippines?

Even with the best of intentions, capital punishment has never been proven effective as a deterrent to crime.  Obviously, it is easier to eliminate criminals than to get rid of the root causes of criminality in society. Capital punishment and a flawed legal system are always a lethal mix. And since in any human society there is never a guarantee of a flawless legal system, there is always the great likelihood that those without capital will get the punishment more quickly because it is they who cannot afford a good lawyer and a guarantee of due process. As a law, the death penalty directly contradicts the principle of inalienability of the basic human right to life, which is enshrined in most Constitutions of countries that signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”

To the arguments against the reimposition of the death penalty, an international law dimension has been added with the ratification by the Philippines on November 20, 2007 of the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

The Human Rights Commission deserves credit for this development. The late Commissioner Quisumbling in her abovementioned briefing paper said: ”Today’s challenge to the Commission on Human Rights and the Right to Life advocates is to campaign for the ratification of the Second Optional Protocol and institutionalize efforts towards the approach of restorative justice.”

The ICCPR is one of the international Bill of Rights agreements, the others being the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The ICCPR commits its parties to respect the civil and political rights of individuals, including the right to life, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, electoral rights, and rights to due process and fair trial. The ICCPR was 12 years in the making, drafted in 1954, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 19, 1965, and entered into force on March 23, 1976. The Philippines was only one of six original signatories of the covenant. (The others were Costa Rica, Cyprus, Honduras, Israel, and Jamaica.) However, it took a long time for the Philippines to ratify the covenant, doing so only on January 23, 1987. O the Asean countries, Vietnam was ahead of the Philippines in ratifying(1982), but the Philippines was ahead of Cambodia (1992), Thailand (1997), Indonesia (2006) and Laos (2009). Malaysia, Myanmar, and Singapore are neither signatories nor parties.

The ICCPR has two optional protocols, The First Optional Protocol establishes an international complaints mechanism allowing individuals to complain to the UN Human Rights Committee about violations of the covenant. As of September 2013, the First Optional Protocol has 115 states parties, including the Philippines.

The Second Optional Protocol, adopted on December 15, 1989 and which took effect on July 11, 1991, abolishes the death penalty, although countries were permitted to make a reservation allowing for the use of the death penalty for most serious crimes of a military nature committed during wartime. As of December 2017, the Second Optional Protocol has 85 parties and two states which have signed but not ratified. The Philippines signed on September 20, 2006 and ratified on November 20, 2007. It did not make any declarations or reservations to the Second Optional Protocol. So far, the Philippines is the only Asean state party to the Protocol.

About the Second Optional Protocol, the question has been asked: “Is the abolition of the death penalty in a state party definitive and irrevocable?” Experts on the subject say, “the Second Optional Protocol is significant at the national level since it virtually precludes reinstatement of the death penalty. Indeed, any State Party wishing to reintroduce the death penalty would have first to withdraw from the Protocol. The absence in the Protocol of a procedural clause for withdrawal means that once a State has ratified the Second Optional Protocol, the death penalty can never be reintroduced without violating international law.”

Today there are two countries both state parties to the Second Optional Protocol that have announced their intentions to reintroduce the death penalty: Turkey (ratified March 2006) and the Philippines. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said on October 29, 2016 that his government would ask Parliament to consider reintroducing the death penalty as a punishment for the plotters behind the July coup bid. The Philippines’ House of Representatives has voted to reimpose the death penalty for drug crimes. Should the moves of these countries prosper in the light of experts’ views that “once a State Party has ratified the Second Optional Protocol, the death penalty can never be introduced without violating international law?”

Historically, the death penalty has been used in almost every country of the world. Today it has been either abolished or discontinued in practice by a large majority of nations. Fifty-five countries have retained the death penalty in law or practice, while 103 have abolished it for all crimes and 37 have abolished it de facto. Those seeking to reimpose the death penalty appear to be out of step with the advancement of the world in human rights and moving contrary to international law.

Saturday, 11 March 2017

Philippine House approves reinstating death penalty

Source: The Straits Times (8 March 2017)

http://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/philippine-house-approves-reinstating-death-penalty

The Philippine House of Representatives approved on third and final reading a Bill to reinstate the death penalty, more than a decade after it was abolished.

Despite intense lobbying by the influential Roman Catholic church and human rights and pro-life groups, the proposal was passed yesterday 216 to 54, with one abstention, eight months after it was filed.

President Rodrigo Duterte pushed for the reinstatement to add even more teeth to his brutal war on the narcotics trade.

"The death penalty to me is retribution… You pay for what you did in this life," he said last year.

Under the House-approved Bill, so-called heinous crimes would be punishable by death. Those include some forms of rape and murder, as well as drug offences, including the import, sale, manufacture, delivery and distribution of narcotics.

Capital punishment would typically be carried out by hanging, firing squad or lethal injection.

The Philippines abolished capital punishment in 1987, shortly after dictator Ferdinand Marcos was ousted in a popular revolt. President Fidel Ramos reinstated it in 1993, citing "crime control". In 2006, President Gloria Arroyo, following a vote in Congress, suspended it.

Mrs Arroyo, now allied with Mr Duterte's party, voted against the Bill. So did Mrs Imelda Marcos.

The debate now moves to the Senate where legislators are expected to await a ruling by the Justice Department on whether it contravenes the country's commitment to international conventions.

But Justice Secretary, Mr Vitaliano Aguirre II, is a fraternity brother of Mr Duterte's, and is not expected to oppose the Act. Senate President Aquilino Pimentel III, an ally of the president, is expecting a close fight. "I'm predicting maybe anywhere from 14 versus 10 or 10 versus 14 either way," he said.

The opposition Liberal Party, of former president Benigno Aquino, is already digging in. "We maintain that the death penalty is cruel, degrading, inhuman. We commit to stopping the death penalty in the Senate," Senator Francis Pangilinan, the party president, said.

At least nine senators have said they oppose capital punishment. The Senate has to pass its own Bill, that will then have to be reconciled with the one the House passed.

Once consolidated, it will be sent to Mr Duterte for his signature.

Senator Richard Gordon, chair of the Senate justice committee, said he would hold hearings on the Bill but the soonest he expects the debates to start is June. He added that if the committee can agree on a proposal, he will have one of the death penalty advocates in the Senate sponsor it. He mentioned, in particular, Mr Manny Pacquiao, a boxing champion and Christian preacher who believes death as punishment is sanctioned in biblical teachings.

Wednesday, 21 December 2016

Duterte’s critics slam ‘barbaric’ death penalty plan to execute six criminals a day

Source: South China Morning Post (20 December 2016)


Philippine Catholic leaders and rights groups have condemned as “barbaric” President Rodrigo Duterte’s plan to restore the death penalty and execute “five or six” criminals daily.

Duterte, 71, has made reviving the death penalty in the mainly Catholic nation his top legislative priority as part of a brutal war on crime that has killed 5,300 people.

“There was death penalty before but nothing happened. Return that to me and I would do it every day: five or six (criminals). That’s for real,” Duterte said Saturday.

An official at the influential Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines said the Church “totally opposed” Duterte’s plan.

“The Philippines will be viewed as very barbaric,” Father Jerome Secillano, executive secretary at its public affairs office, said.

“It’s going to make the Philippines the capital of death penalty in the world.”

The Philippines abolished the death penalty in 2006 following fierce opposition to the penalty from the Catholic Church, the religion of 80 per cent of Filipinos.

Before assuming office in June, Duterte vowed to introduce executions by hanging, saying he did not want to waste bullets and believed snapping the spinal cord was more humane than a firing squad.

Duterte said he viewed the death penalty not as a means to deter crime but for retribution.

His allies in the House of Representatives quickly pushed for the bill and said they would vote on it by January.

The United Nations’ human rights chief, Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, said in a letter to the Philippine congress this month that reviving the death penalty would violate the country’s international obligations.

But on Saturday Duterte insisted executions were necessary to fight the drug scourge which he said was “destroying” the nation.

While his aides dismiss his incendiary statements as hyperbole, rights advocates said Duterte’s remarks were alarming.

“Setting a quota for executions is just too much. One death is too much because we are talking about lives,” Amnesty International Philippines vice chairman Romeo Cabarde said.

Catholic leaders and rights defenders have instead urged the government to reform a slow and corrupt justice system which they said was likely to send innocent people to death row.

Secillano said bishops planned to dissuade lawmakers from voting for the death penalty and would attend congressional debates next month.

Duterte’s crime war has drawn international criticism from the United States and United Nations over concerns about alleged extrajudicial killings and a breakdown in the rule of law.

Duterte won May elections in a landslide on a promise to eradicate drugs in society - a mandate he often cited to defend his controversial campaign.

A survey by Social Weather Stations released Monday showed while a majority backed Duterte’s drug war, 78 per cent of Filipinos were worried that they or someone in their family would be a victim of extrajudicial killings.

The survey also showed 71 per cent said it was “very important” that police keep drug suspects they arrested alive.

Police have repeatedly said they only shot at criminals who fought back but the nation’s rights agency has questioned this argument and has begun investigating cases.

On Monday, Philippine National Police chief Ronald dela Rosa apologised for police killings of criminal suspects but insisted these were done in self-defence.

“Lord, I hope you forgive us even if the ones we kill are bad people,” Dela Rosa said during the police’s Christmas party.

“If the life of a policeman will be lost just to preserve the life of a criminal, that’s a great injustice.”

Dela Rosa added Duterte gave police hefty bonuses for leading the crime war.

Tuesday, 13 December 2016

Philippines: Don’t Reinstate Death Penalty

Source: Human Rights Watch (3 December 2016)

https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/12/03/philippines-dont-reinstate-death-penalty

(New York) – The Philippine House of Representatives should reject a proposal to reinstate the death penalty, Human Rights Watch said today. On November 29, 2016, the Judicial Reforms Subcommittee approved Congress House Bill No. 1 (Death Penalty Law), which would reinstate capital punishment for “heinous crimes,” including murder, piracy, and the trafficking and possession of illegal drugs. A house vote on the bill is likely before the end of 2016.

“The Philippine government should acknowledge the death penalty’s barbarity and reject any moves to reinstate it,” said Phelim Kine, deputy Asia director. “The failure of the death penalty as a crime deterrent is globally recognized and the government should maintain the prohibition on its use.”

In a joint letter drafted by the International Drug Policy Consortium (IDPC), a network of nongovernmental organizations that focuses on issues related to drug production, trafficking, and use, the consortium urged all members of the Philippine House of Representatives and Senate to uphold the right to life enshrined in the 1987 Philippines Constitution. The Philippines is also party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and to the Second Optional Protocol of the ICCPR on the abolishment of the death penalty. The consortium also urged Philippine lawmakers to ensure proportionate sentencing of drug offenses to protect the vulnerable, and invest in harm reduction approaches to protect the health and wellbeing of Filipino people.

The Philippine government abolished the death penalty under article III, section 19 of the 1987 constitution. President Fidel Ramos reimposed the death penalty in 1993 as a “crime control” measure, but President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo reinstated abolition in 2006.

The alleged deterrent effect of the death penalty has been repeatedly debunked. Most recently, on March 4, 2015, the United Nations assistant secretary-general for human rights, Ivan Simonovic, stated that there was “no evidence that the death penalty deters any crime.” Even with respect to murder, an Oxford University analysis concluded that capital punishment does not deter “murder to a marginally greater extent than does the threat and application of the supposedly lesser punishment of life imprisonment.”

Human Rights Watch opposes the death penalty in all circumstances because of its inherent cruelty.

Reinstating the death penalty would violate the Philippines’ international legal obligations. The Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR states that “no one within the jurisdiction of a State Party to the present Protocol shall be executed” and that “each State Party shall take all necessary measures to abolish the death penalty within its jurisdiction.”

Where the death penalty is permitted, human rights law limits the death penalty to “the most serious crimes,” typically crimes resulting in death or serious bodily harm. In a March 2010 report, the UN Office on Drugs and Crime called for an end to the death penalty and specifically urged member countries to prohibit use of the death penalty for drug-related offenses, while urging countries to take an overall “human rights-based approach to drug and crime control.” In its 2014 annual report, the International Narcotics Control Board, the agency charged with monitoring compliance with UN drug control conventions, encouraged countries to abolish the death penalty for drug offenses. The UN Human Rights Committee and the special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions have concluded that the death penalty for drug offenses fails to meet the condition of “most serious crime.” In September 2015, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights reaffirmed that “persons convicted of drug-related offences … should not be subject to the death penalty.”

“Reinstatement of the death penalty won’t solve any drug-related societal problems that Congress House Bill No. 1 seeks to address,” Kine said. “It will only add to the already horrific death toll that President Rodrigo Duterte’s ‘war on drugs’ has inflicted on Filipinos since he took office on June 30.”

Sunday, 25 September 2016

Australia should take a stand on Veloso

Source: Lowy Interpreter (23 September 2016)

http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2016/09/23/Australia-should-take-a-stand-on-Veloso.aspx

In April last year, Australians Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran were among eight people executed by firing squad in Indonesia. Their deaths brought the issue of capital punishment to the forefront of Australia’s consciousness and reignited debate over the practice on a global scale.

The only woman in the group scheduled for execution that day, Philippines national Mary Jane Fiesta Veloso, was given a last-minute reprieve in order to give testimony against a person accused of human and drug trafficking in the Philippines. Her death sentence has not been permanently commuted and could be reinstated. Veloso’s case attracted significant support in the Philippines and Indonesia, with many protesting her innocence and claiming that Veloso was an unwitting drug mule and victim of human trafficking.

Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte has been subject to intense international scrutiny in recent months due to his promotion of vigilante attacks and extra-judicial killings of suspected drug offenders. Duterte was elected in May promising a war on drugs and has duly delivered, with over 3000 people killed on the streets since.

Earlier this month, Indonesian President Joko Widodo said that Duterte intervened in Veloso’s case, telling Jokowi:‘Please go ahead if you want to execute her.’ Duterte’s spokesman denied this claim and said Duterte merely advised Indonesia to follow its own laws in the case.

Duterte’s intervention, regardless of exactly how it was phrased, was arguably out of kilter with the general expectation that governments seek clemency for their nationals facing execution in other countries. It leaves Veloso in greater uncertainty as to what outcome she can hope for, although the Philippines Justice Secretary believes it is still possible she may be spared and perhaps even released.

Both Indonesia and the Philippines have adopted hard-line stances against drug crime which allow the punishment of death for convicted drug offenders (formally, through the courts, in Indonesia and now informally, on the streets, in the Philippines).

Although international human rights law aims for the total abolition of capital punishment, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states that, where capital punishment is still practiced, it should be used only for the ‘most serious crimes.’ In 2013, the UN Human Rights Committee condemned the country’s continued use of the death penalty for drug trafficking as not meeting the threshold of ‘most serious crimes'. The committee instead recommended a review of legislation ‘to ensure that crimes involving narcotics are not amenable to the death penalty.’

Australia’s position on capital punishment has been for some time that in all cases it is a violation of human rights and should be abolished. It offends the right to life, respected under international human rights law. As I’ve argued elsewhere, Australia should also decry the death penalty as a form of torture, due to the methods used and the inherent terror in awaiting one’s own scheduled killing.

As was clear in the case of Chan and Sukumaran, Australia’s extremely selective advocacy on the behalf of people subject to the death penalty weakens its clemency campaigns for individual Australians at risk of execution. Australia’s abolitionist advocacy must be less partial and more principled if it is to be persuasive.

Foreign Minister Julie Bishop initiated a parliamentary inquiry into Australia’s advocacy for the abolition of the death penalty following her strong but unsuccessful advocacy for clemency on behalf of Sukumaran and Chan. Its terms of reference sought to improve Australia’s capacity to advocate effectively for death penalty abolition. To the credit of the inquiry committee, its report recommended the establishment of a whole-of-government strategy for abolition of the death penalty. It further recommended:

...intervening to oppose death sentences and executions of foreign nationals, especially in cases where there are particular human rights concerns, such as unfair trials, or when juveniles or the mentally ill are exposed to the death penalty

Julie Bishop took such an approach in July this year, when she reiterated Australia’s opposition to capital punishment in all cases in advance of Indonesia’s most recent round of executions.

Should Indonesia decide to return Veloso to death row and move towards execution, it would be especially important for Australia to advocate on her behalf. At the moment, Australia is vulnerable to charges of hypocrisy, including from Indonesia. The committee’s recommendation for broader and less partial advocacy against the death penalty will enable Australia to demonstrate the strength of its abolitionist stance. In turn, Australia may hope to more effectively influence other states to abandon capital punishment in law and practice.

Tuesday, 20 September 2016

Widodo clarifies Duterte statement on Mary Jane Veloso – report

Source: GMA (16 September 2016)

http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/581647/news/pinoyabroad/widodo-clarifies-duterte-statement-on-mary-jane-veloso-report

Indonesian President Joko Widodo has clarified his earlier statement on President Rodrigo Duterte supposedly allowing the execution of Mary Jane Veloso, the Filipina convicted for drug trafficking in Indonesia.

A report on Channel News Asia quoted Widodo as saying that what Duterte told him during their September 9 meeting in Indonesia was "go ahead with the process in line with the law in Indonesia."

This confirmed MalacaƱang's earlier statement that Duterte, who was in Indonesia last week for a working visit, did not endorse Veloso's execution but instead told Widodo that he would not interfere with Indonesia's legal processes.

MalacaƱang made the clarification after a Jakarta Post report said Duterte has given the "go-ahead" to proceed with the execution of Veloso, a mother of two who was sentenced to die by firing squad for bringing 2.6 kilograms of heroin in Indonesia in 2010.

The Jakarta Post report was quoting Widodo.

Following the report, Veloso's family in the Philippines sought a meeting with Duterte so that the President could personally tell them what really transpired in his meeting with Widodo.

As of Friday afternoon, Duterte has yet to meet with the Veloso family.

Veloso's execution was put on hold last year to allow her to testify against her alleged recruiters whom she accused of tricking her into bringing the illegal drugs to the Yogyakarta Airport in 2010.

Her alleged recruiters, Ma. Cristina Sergio and Julius Lacanilao, are currently facing illegal recruitment, human trafficking and estafa cases before a local court in Nueva Ecija.

Indonesia had earlier said it would respect the legal processes in the Philippines regarding Veloso's case against her alleged recruiters. —KBK, GMA News

Monday, 12 September 2016

Duterte has given the green light for Mary Jane's execution: Jokowi

Source: The Jakarta Post (12 September 2016)

http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2016/09/12/duterte-has-given-the-green-light-for-mary-janes-execution-jokowi.html

President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo said on Monday that Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte had given the green light for the execution of Filipina death row inmate Mary Jane Veloso.

"President Duterte has given the go-ahead to proceed with the execution,” Jokowi was quoted as saying by Antara news agency in Serang, Banten.

According to Jokowi, the legal process will be followed up by Attorney General M. Prasetyo.

“I have explained to [Duterte] about Mary Jane’s situation and I told him that Mary Jane [has been found guilty] for carrying 2.6 kilograms of heroin. I also told him about the delay in the execution during the meeting,” Jokowi said.

Veloso was arrested at Adisucipto Airport in Yogyakarta in April 2010.

Veloso was excluded from the list of the third round of executions prepared by the Attorney General’s Office (AGO) in April, as legal procedures continue in a separate but related case in her country. Veloso was on the execution list last year but was granted a stay of execution because her alleged boss had been arrested in the Philippines, and the authorities there requested Indonesian assistance in pursuing the case. (dmr)

Tuesday, 9 August 2016

Philippines : Return of death penalty in PH ‘violates’ international law

Source: ADPAN (2 August 2016)

https://adpan.org/2016/08/05/adpan-urges-philippines-to-be-strong-and-reject-attempts-to-re-introduce-the-death-penalty/

By Paolo Taruc, CNN Philippines

Updated 19:30 PM PHT Tue, August 2, 2016

Metro Manila (CNN Philippines) — President Rodrigo Duterte and some lawmakers have called for the return of the death penalty as a way to strengthen the rule of law. But the Philippines could violate international law if it brings the punishment back.

The country is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)— an international treaty that, among other things, prescribes states to respect and observe fundamental freedoms. These include freedom of expression, freedom of religion, and freedom from cruel, inhumane, or degrading punishment.

Commission on Human Rights Chairperson Chito Gascon told CNN Philippines that “The death penalty is categorized as one such cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment.”

The Philippines has also ratified the ICCPR’s Second Optional Protocol which urges states to abolish the death penalty and prevents them from carrying out executions.

An Optional Protocol is a supplementary agreement to a treaty. According to U.P. Law Professor and Kabayan Party List Rep. Harry Roque, it is “optional” in the sense that those who ratified the ICCPR have the option of ratifying the additional agreement. Not all parties who ratified the ICCPR have ratified its optional protocols.

It is wrong to say that those who ratified the optional protocols may choose to disregard them any time they please.

“If a State… chooses to ratify the optional protocols, it may not disregard their obligations under the protocol. Both the ICCPR and the Optional Protocols are considered treaties under international law, and thus parties to such agreements are bound to comply with them in good faith,” Roque explained.
No turning back?

The Philippines signed the ICCPR on December 19, 1966 and ratified it on October 23, 1986. It opted to sign the Second Optional Protocol on September 20, 2006. The annex was ratified on November 20, 2007.

The Second Optional Protocol explicitly forbids the Philippines — and others states who have ratified it — from conducting executions within their respective jurisdictions: “No one within the jurisdiction of a State Party to the present Protocol shall be executed.”

However, it provides for one exception: Countries who expressed reservations only during the time of ratification or accession may resort to the death penalty in times of war for those convicted of “a most serious crime of a military nature committed during wartime.”

The Philippines cannot claim the exception because it did not make reservations when it ratified the Second Optional Protocol. “[I]n no case could death penalty be seen as acceptable under this treaty,” Roque stressed.

According to the document, countries are compelled to “take all necessary measures to abolish the death penalty.”

As treaties, the ICCPR and its Second Optional Protocol form part of international law. Other human rights treaties include the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the International Convention on Social, Economic, and Cultural Rights.

“Since the Philippines has ratified the Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR, it would be violating international law by restoring the death penalty,” Roque pointed out.

Complaints against the Philippines?

Roque explained that a complaint may be brought before the international community if the country brings back the said punishment.

“Under the First Optional Protocol (of the ICCPR) which the Philippines has also ratified, individuals may file complaints before the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC). The UNHRC could then investigate the case and provide a view if indeed there was a violation of the ICCPR or any of the Optional Protocols.”

However, he pointed out that complaints before the UNHRC are not binding decisions, as it is not a judicial tribunal. “Even if it did find violations, it would not have it would not have the authority to enforce its view upon a State.”

Death penalty is ‘retribution’

During his first press conference after the May 9 elections, Duterte said he wanted Congress to restore death penalty by hanging for convicts involved in illegal drugs, gun-for-hire syndicates, and those who commit “heinous crimes” like rapists, robbers or car thieves who kill their victims.

In a speech on June 22, he said that death penalty was a form of retribution apart from a way of deterring crime:

“Para ma-discourage ang tao mag-commit ng crime because there is the death penalty,”Duterte said. “Iyong death penalty to me is retribution. Magbayad ka sa ginawa mo sa buhay na ‘to.”

[Translation: To discourage people from committing crime because there is the death penalty. To me, death penalty is retribution. You’re going to pay for whatever you did in this life.]

Senator Panfilo Lacson also filed a bill that would mete out lethal injection for convicts of crimes including treason, murder, plunder, and rape.

“To reinstate public order and the rule of law, there is an impending need to revisit and re-impose the death penalty on certain heinous crimes,” Lacson said in a statement on July 3.

“[A] death penalty law is appropriately necessary due to the alarming upsurge of such crimes.”

According to the statement, the PNP’s Directorate for Investigation and Detective Management documented 9,646 murder cases; 31,741 cases of robbery; and, 10,298 rape cases in 2015.

“These translate to an average crime incidence of a murder every 54 minutes, a robbery every 16 minutes, and a rape case every 51 minutes,” the statement added.

At the House of Representatives, the first bill filed in the 17th Congress also seeks to reimpose lethal injection on certain heinous crimes. It was authored by House Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez with Capiz Rep. Fredenil Castro.

“The imposition of the death penalty for heinous crimes and the mode of its implementation, both subjects of repealed laws, are crucial components of an effective dispensation of both reformative and retributive justice,” read a part of the bill.

Zero-sum game?

Gascon believes that human rights and security are not mutually exclusive: the gain of one is not the loss of the other.

“In our society today what has happened is that there has been rampant criminality and there’s a demand to address that — so people often think that the only way to address it is to reduce human rights. What needs to be done is to have a more purposive process of law enforcement that will in time guarantee safety and security of the population.

“Over the long term, human rights are in fact the best guarantee of safety and security,” Gascon added.

Roque said that it was important to remember the “significance” of international law in dealing with human rights issues. For him, it’s value does not only lie on the enforceability of a certain view.

“The strength of international law lies in the normative values it represents. Rather than using international law as a tool to threaten the administration, it should be used as a reminder to the administration of what the international community expects of the Philippines as a developing nation within the greater international community.” – CNN Philippines

ADPAN Urges Philippines to be Strong and Reject Attempts to Re-Introduce the Death Penalty

Source: Anti Death Penalty Asia Network (5 August 2016)

https://adpan.org/2016/08/05/adpan-urges-philippines-to-be-strong-and-reject-attempts-to-re-introduce-the-death-penalty/

ADPAN (Anti Death Penalty Asia Network) is shocked that the Philippines seems adamant about moving forward with plans to re-introduce the death penalty. The death penalty has been suspended since 2006, and Philippines is now considered an abolitionist country.

On 28 July 2016, the newly convened Philippine Congress heard a proposal to re-impose the death penalty for “heinous crimes”, giving priority to President Rodrigo Duterte’s push for capital punishment in its first legislative session.

Since late June 2016, House Bill No.1 and several other Bills seeking to re-introduce the death penalty have been filed for consideration of the Philippines Congress. These Bill seeks to reimpose capital punishment for human trafficking, illegal recruitment, plunder, treason, parricide, infanticide, rape, qualified piracy, bribery, kidnapping, illegal detention, robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons, car theft, destructive arson, terrorism and drug-related cases.

ADPAN is hopeful that Filipinos and lawmakers that are abolitionist will prevail, and death penalty will not be reintroduced in this ASEAN nation.

Albay Representative Edcel Lagman said the measure is anti-poor and that the death penalty has not been proven to deter heinous crimes. “What deters the commission of crimes are certainty of apprehension, speedy prosecution and inevitable conviction once warranted,…The death penalty is anti-poor because indigent and marginalized accused cannot afford the high cost of [top] caliber and influential lawyers to secure their acquittal.”

Senator Leila de Lima, who continues to oppose the death penalty, is proposing a law to impose “qualified reclusion perpetua” for those found guilty of heinous crimes. Those punished with “qualified reclusion perpetua” would not be eligible for parole at all.

RE-INTRODUCTION OF DEATH PENALTY A VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

The Philippines signed International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) on December 19, 1966 and ratified it on October 23, 1986. It signed the Second Optional Protocol on September 20, 2006 which explicitly forbids states who have ratified it from conducting executions within their respective jurisdictions: “No one within the jurisdiction of a State Party to the present Protocol shall be executed.”

However, it provides for one exception: Countries who expressed reservations only during the time of ratification or accession may resort to the death penalty in times of war for those convicted of “a most serious crime of a military nature committed during wartime.”. Philippines cannot claim the exception because it did not make this reservation when it ratified the Second Optional Protocol.

As, such the re-introduction of the death penalty would also be considered a violation of international law.

RE-IMPOSITION OF DEATH PENALTY PROVEN AN INEFFECTIVE SOLUTION TO FIGHT CRIME

ADPAN joins Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, the UN high commissioner for Human Rights, in urging Phlipines ‘to remember the experience of Mongolia, which first abolished the death penalty for ordinary crimes in the 1950s, then reintroduced it, before deciding, last December, to once again stop executing people. In reaching the decision, President Tsakhiagiin Elbegdorj said the people of Mongolia had suffered enough from the death penalty. In his words: “Removing the death penalty does not mean removing punishment. Criminals fear justice, and justice must be imminent and unavoidable. But we cannot repair one death with another.” ‘

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, added, ‘Fear, despair and frustration clearly prevail among all Filipinos amid a rise in crime and drug-related offenses. But it is the duty of political leaders to adopt solutions to the country’s challenges in ways that will support the rule of law and advance the protection of human rights…The arguments are convincing and decisive: On every level—from principle to practice—use of the death penalty is wrong.

DEATH PENALTY INEFFECTIVE AND HIGH RISK OF IRREPARABLE MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE

ADPAN reiterates that there are no credible evidence that the death penalty deters crime. As an example, in Malaysia in 2012, despite the existence of the mandatory death penalty for drug trafficking, it was revealed in Parliament that there was in fact an increase of the persons arrested for drug trafficking.

The possibility of miscarriage or failure of justice in the implementation of the death penalty is irreversible and irreparable. There has just been too many cases, where persons who have languished on death row for decades have been released. We recall that in January 2011, Taiwan’s Ministry of Justice admitted that Chiang Kuo-ching, a private in the Air Force, had been executed in error in 1997 for a murder committed 15 years previously.

The global trend has been towards abolition. Philippines did us proud, when it abolished the death penalty in 2006, and it is hoped that Philippines will reaffirm its commitment to abolition when it stands strong and rejects attempts to re-introduce the draconian death penalty.

ADPAN urges the Philippine lawmakers to opposes attempts to bring back the death penalty,

Charles Hector

For and on behalf of

ADPAN (Anti Death Penalty Asia Network)

Thursday, 30 June 2016

Death penalty bills to come alive in new Philippine Senate

Source: Asia One (29 June 2016)

http://news.asiaone.com/news/asia/death-penalty-bills-come-alive-new-philippine-senate

At least two Philippine senators will file bills on July 1 to reimpose the death penalty in keeping apparently with President-elect Rodrigo Duterte's wishes.

Reviving capital punishment will be among the first 10 measures to be filed by each of Sen. Vicente Sotto III and returning Sen. Panfilo Lacson ahead of the formal opening of the 17th Congress on July 25.

All incoming members of the Senate are in the process of readying the first 10 bills each will file come July 1.

Duterte recently said in Davao City that he viewed the death penalty-which was repealed during the Arroyo administration in 2006-as retribution for one's crimes against society. "When you kill, rape someone you should pay for it," he had said.

Lacson, however, said he saw the death penalty differently.

In a text message, Lacson said this was the first time he was filing a death penalty bill and it would cover "all heinous crimes" as defined in Republic Act No. 7659, or the Death Penalty Law that was repealed in 2006.

Lacson, a former chief of the Philippine National Police, said he saw capital punishment as a deterrent to crime while Duterte saw it as retribution.

Lacson said his bill would specify death by lethal injection and not by hanging, as Duterte had said he preferred but which Lacson found to be "medieval.""I believe the mere knowledge one's death is forthcoming is the ultimate punishment," Lacson said.

The nine other bills Lacson will file include the budget reform for village empowerment act, national ID reference system act, amendments to the antimoney laundering act and bank secrecy law, and the anti-wire tapping and SIM card registration acts.

Sotto said he would refile the death penalty bill he first submitted in 2014 which seeks to revive the old capital punishment law or RA 7659. His bill would also propose death by lethal injection.

Sotto's other bills have to do with addressing the drug problem, an antidrug penal institution act, the creation of a Presidential Anti-Drug Authority, creation of a dangerous drugs court, and providing for affordable drug rehabilitation treatment for PhilHealth beneficiaries.

Monday, 6 June 2016

Philippines : President-elect Duterte Urged Not To Bring Back Death Penalty

Source: Anti Death Penalty Asia Network (31 May 2016)

https://adpan.org/2016/06/02/philippines-president-elect-duterte-urged-not-to-bring-back-death-penalty/

AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT-ELECT RODRIGO DUTERTE


Rodrigo R. Duterte

President-Elect of the Republic of the Philippines


31 May 2016


Dear President-elect Duterte,

We are writing to you today to express our concern regarding your recent statements in support of reinstating the death penalty.

The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) is a global organization of judges and lawyers. For the past 60 years, it has devoted itself to promoting the understanding and observance of the rule of law and the legal protection of human rights throughout the world.

The ICJ considers the imposition of the death penalty to be a violation of the right to life and the absolute prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Reinstating the death penalty would contravene international commitments that the Philippines has voluntarily entered into. It would also place the Philippines at odds with the repeated calls by the UN General Assembly for all states “to establish a moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing the death penalty” and for those States which have abolished the death penalty, “not to reintroduce it”.[1]

Scientific research has failed to establish any significant impact of the death penalty on the incidence of crime. On the other hand, research indicates that improving crime detection and investigation, increasing the effectiveness and efficiency of the justice system, and addressing underlying causes, is far more likely to reduce serious crime.

Obligations of the Philippines under international law

The Philippines is currently an example of global best practice on the abolition of the death penalty. It abolished the death penalty in 2006 and is the only ASEAN Member State that has ratified the 2nd Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

Under Article 1 of the 2nd Optional Protocol to the ICCPR, the Philippines is obliged not to execute any person within its jurisdiction.

The 2nd Optional Protocol to the ICCPR contains no provision on renunciation, and States may not unilaterally withdraw from their obligations under the Protocol.[2] The resumption of executions in the Philippines would therefore constitute a violation of international law and represent an alarming disregard for the international human rights system.

No evidence that death penalty deters crime

Your statements suggest that the intention to reinstate the death penalty is largely driven by the desire to reduce the occurrence of crime in the Philippines. We emphasize, however, that empirical evidence does not prove that the death penalty deters crime.

For instance, there is no proof that the death penalty deters crime at a greater rate than alternative forms of punishment,[3] and the overwhelming majority of criminologists believe that the death penalty does not provide an effective deterrent.[4]

Research also indicates that increasing the chances of actually being caught and punished can be effective in deterring criminal conduct.[5] Individuals are less likely to commit crimes when there is a high probability of actually being subjected to criminal sanctions.[6] Thus, heightened enforcement efforts that are highly visible send a clearer message to potential criminals.[7] Indeed, multiple studies demonstrate that an increased likelihood of punishment is directly associated with a decrease in crime.[8]

Based on the scientific research, then, reinstituting the death penalty in the Philippines is unproven and unlikely to have any real impact on the incidence of serious crime in the country. On the other hand, investing in improved detection and investigation techniques and capacity, and improving the effectiveness and efficiency of the justice system, is more likely to achieve real results in reducing crime.

We strongly urge that, in lieu of reinstating the death penalty, the Government of the Philippines should focus more on effective, evidence-based approaches to crime prevention. Policies and legislation that address the underlying social and economic causes of criminal activity are also vital to ensuring stability and the rule of law.

We note that there have already been initiatives in the past that, if given strong support and adequate resources, may be effective in deterring crime. For instance, the Philippine National Police has, in the past, established constructive law enforcement policies through initiatives such as the Community-Oriented Policing System, which emphasized comprehensive policing, data-driven solutions and community engagement.[9]

Reinstating capital punishment in the Philippines would constitute a huge setback not only for the promotion and protection of human rights in the country, but also for the Philippines internationally.

As mentioned above, the Philippines has in recent years shown how strong leadership and political will can be instrumental in abolishing the death penalty. The Philippines can today rightfully claim and be presented internationally and regionally as an example of global best practice in the abolition of the death penalty.

Needlessly reversing course and losing this leading role is unlikely to have any significant impact on reducing crime in the Philippines, but it will adversely affect the Philippines’ standing in the world.

We therefore hope that, under your presidency, the same strength of leadership can be applied in maintaining the current prohibition of the death penalty, and instead preventing crime in a manner that conforms to international human rights law and standards.



Very truly yours,

Sam Zarifi

Regional Director for Asia & the Pacific

International Commission of Jurists
For questions and clarifications, please contact Ms. Emerlynne Gil, Senior International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia, tel. no. +662 619 8477 or emerlynne.gil@icj.org

[1] E.g. UN General Assembly Resolution 69/186 (18 December 2014), articles 5(f) and 6.


[2] United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Human Rights, Civil and Political Rights: The Human Rights Committee, Fact Sheet No. 15 (Rev. 1), 10 (May 2005),http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/FactSheet15rev.1en.pdf.


[3] See National Research Council, Deterrence and the Death Penalty 2-3 (D. S. Nagin & J. V. Pepper eds., 2012), https://www.law.upenn.edu/live/files/1529-nagin-full-reportpdf.


[4] Michael L. Radelet & Traci L. Lacock, Do Executions Lower Homicide Rates: The Views of Leading Criminologists’, 99 J. of L. and Criminology 489, 501(2009),http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7323&context=jclc.


[5] Valerie Wright, The Sentencing Project, Deterrence in Criminal Justice: Evaluating Certainty vs. Severity of Punishment 1 (2010), http://www.sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Deterrence-in-Criminal-Justice.pdf.


[6] Id. at 4.


[7] Id. at 3-5.


[8] Id. at 4.


[9] Miguel Coronel, The Philippine Strategy and Best Practice for Crime Prevention: Community-Oriented Policing System, in Strategies and Best Practices in Crime Prevention in Particular Relation to Urban Areas and Youth at Risk: Proceedings of the Workshop Held at the 11th UN Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice 80-85 (Margaret Shaw & Kathryn Travers eds., 2005), http://www.crime-prevention-intl.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Publications/Strategies_and_Best_Practices_in_Crime_Preventi