08-0612-395 Ihra Paper.docx

What are the impacts or implications of the legalization of the death penalty in the Philippines?

In a country like the Philippines that has constituents that are predominantly traditionalist and Catholics, it is not surprising that the issue of the imposition of death penalty would create such a controversy. As the current administration pushes for the legalization of death penalty in the Philippines, the question of whether or not it is proper to make offenders dread the consequence of their wrongdoings is once again put in the limelight. To determine the propriety of the government’s thrust to reintroduce death penalty in the country, it is important to consider not just the moral but also the economic and political implications of such act. Most of the advocates of death penalty believe that its re-imposition will promote public safety by preventing the commission of heinous crimes through its deterrent influence.1 As a retributive punishment, death penalty is seen as an appropriate sentence to ensure that the citizens will feel secure in their free exercise and enjoyment of their rights. Scholars observed that revenge is a human instinct which is evident whenever he or she is wronged by another person.2 If the punishment imposed by the state is not viewed as sufficient redress for the wrong done, a person may resort to revenge crimes. Expression of such human instinct through violent acts must be curbed by ensuring that appropriate penalty is meted out to the offenders.3 Furthermore, those who support death penalty equate the latter to attaining justice and equality. They allege that the victims will be urged to prosecute their cases for they will feel as if the death penalty is their assurance that they will not be shortchanged as they were in the past. This is especially true for those who will not settle for anything less than the penalty of death which they sometimes resort to using their own hands. As a consequence, the state will be given an opportunity to protect the interest of the public instead of allowing the latter to resolve the matter outside the realm of law. Moreover, death penalty will serve as a symbol that will reiterate the fact that certain acts are fundamentally wrong and the public must refrain from doing it for fear of severe punishment. Critics of the re-imposition of death penalty anchors their claim mainly on moral grounds. The Catholic Church, which is the biggest religious institution in the Philippines, emphasized the value of life.4 The Church stressed their position against death penalty by highlighting the fact that taking the life of an offender is not the appropriate solution to decrease the crime rate in the

1

A.F Tadiar, Philosophy of a Penal Code, 52 Phil L.J 165 (1977) Id. 3 Id. 4 Reuters Asia, Thousands of Filipino Catholics march against death penalty, war on drugs, February 21, 2017, accessed from: http://www.reuters.com/article/philippines-drugs-int-idUSKBN15X03C 2

Philippines.5 It is important to note that the continuing conflict between the state and the church’s stand regarding death penalty will cause division among the Filipinos. Furthermore, it is expected that there will be incessant protests coming from human rights activists who will question the country’s decision in resorting to death penalty. Such is an alarming scenario considering the fact that the Philippines is already at the middle of several other issues on violation of human rights. As a result, a sense of national unity becomes improbable and it is likely that many citizens will lose their confidence to the government. The re-imposition of death penalty also has serious repercussions in the country’s standing in the international community. First, the Philippines is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which imposes upon the state parties the obligation to guarantee fundamental freedoms such us freedom of expression, freedom of religion, and freedom from cruel, inhumane, or degrading punishment.6 Since death penalty, by its nature, is considered as inhumane punishment, it is evident that the Philippines will be violating its obligation under such treaty in the event that the death penalty will be re-imposed. However, the ICPPR states that “in those States which have not abolished the death penalty, the sentence of death can only be applied for the most serious crimes."7 Although the ICCPR provides for an exception to the general rule that death penalty shall not be imposed, the Philippines cannot validly claim for such an exception. It has been established by the Human Rights Committee, which ensure the proper implementation of the ICCPR, that drug related cases are not covered by the phrase “most serious crimes”.8 Since the current thrust of the government is to impose death penalty to drug related cases, it can be deduced that the proposal to re-introduce death penalty will violate our international commitments. Second, the Philippines has ratified the ICCPR's Second Optional Protocol, which binds state parties to ensure the abolishment of death penalty.9 Under such commitment, the Philippines is expected to exert all its effort to prevent any execution intended to serve as a punishment for an offense.10 Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, explained that both the ICCPR and the Second Optional Protocol was drafted with deliberate intent to prevent the possibility of

5

Id, United Nations Human Rights, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, accessed from: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CCPR.aspx 7 Human Rights Watch, Philippines: Don’t Reinstate Death Penalty, December 3, 2016 accessed from: https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/12/03/philippines-dont-reinstate-death-penalty 8 Supra note 6 9 United Nations Human Rights, Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty, accessed from: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/2ndOPCCPR.aspx 10 Id. 6

future denunciation.11 Therefore, state parties have the perpetual obligation not to reintroduce death penalty. Scholars pointed out that the ICCPR and its Second Optional Protocol are part of international law.12 Hence, re-imposing death penalty in the country will be tantamount to committing violations in international law. There are major economic implications in reawakening the death penalty. Failure to ensure compliance with the Second Optional Protocol will adversely affect the country’s Generalized System of Preferences Plus (GSP+) status with the European Union.13 One of the requirements to ensure a good standing in the GSP+ is to uphold our commitment to honor twenty seven international treaties including the Second Optional Protocol to ICCPR.14 According to Karen Lucia S. Gomez Dumpit, the Commissioner on Human Rights, it is not impossible that the country will be suspended or its membership be revoked if the re-imposition of death penalty will push through.15 She explained that the country’s credibility as a trading partner is at stake if we will renege on our obligation to respect the conditions we ought to comply when we applied for the GSP+. It should be noted that the grant of the GSP+ privilege has significantly boost the country’s economy in terms of exportation. According to the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA), exports to EU has increased to 2.6% when the country was given the regular GSP+ status.16 It is evident that the continuous relationship with the EU will bring economic benefits in the country. This is not to downplay the possible impact of death penalty on the country’s national budget. Additional costs is expected to be incurred if the death penalty will be implement. Furthermore, the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) is also expected to incur additional expenses in carrying out the burden of foreseen increase in the number of children who will be orphaned because of the imposition of death penalty. Although there is widespread criminality in the country, Filipinos must not choose to resort to death penalty in the expense of violating human rights which are fundamentally important. Considering the serious implications of re-imposing death penalty in the country, it is clear that it is not the solution to a pressing problem in our society. The current administration must find ways to 11

Paterno Esmaquel II, UN on death penalty: PH will break int'l law, December 9, 2016, accessed from: http://www.rappler.com/nation/155014-un-death-penalty-philippines-violate-internationallaw 12 Supra note 4 13 Roy Stephen C. Canivel,Death penalty push could imperil Philippines’ GSP-plus privilege, December 27, 2016, accessed from: http://www.bworldonline.com/content.php?section=TopStory&title=death-penalty-push-couldimperil-philippines&8217-gsp-plus-privilege&id=138243 14 Id. 15 Id. 16 Id.

effectively guarantee the safety and security of the citizens without resorting to an inhumane penalty. The country’s existing international commitments serve as a reminder that we do not aim to create a society where impunity is a custom. The Philippines must respect its existing obligations in the realm of international law in order to maintain our integrity as a member of a greater international community.