|
No to the death penalty! We join Commission on Human Rights Chair
Leila de Lima in opposing legislators who are calling to reinstate
capital punishment in our criminal justice system.
The pro-death-penalty lawmakers are mostly using
the utilitarian argument of deterrence. They say that the grim
prospect of being strapped to the electric chair or getting a lethal
injection will make murderers and homicidal killers think twice
about killing somebody. The statistical support they give their
argument does not wash when they say there were less murders and
homicides when the death penalty was in our statute books.
No such fool-proof correlation between the
absence or decline of murder and homicides and the death penalty
exists. In fact, the PNP has been reporting improvements in the
crime situation these past two years during which Republic Act
9346—An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of the Death Penalty in the
Philippines—has been in effect. Compare this with 1999, when we
had more executions than any other year and the number of crimes
increased by 15.3 percent.
It was during the term of President Ramos when
Republic Act No. 7659 brought back capital punishment. The 1987
Constitution has a provision in the Bill of Rights abolishing the
death penalty but at the same time giving Congress the power to
reimpose it “for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes.”
President Estrada, responding to the Catholic Church-led campaign
against capital punishment, called a moratorium on executions.
Knee-jerk reaction
Once more, the surge of calls for the return of
Mr. Death to our Penal Code seems to be a knee jerk reaction to the
Laguna heist and massacres earlier this month. They have responded
to calls by the anti-crime NGO, Volunteers Against Crime and
Corruption, which has been an effective help to the police. The
Philippine Council of Evangelical Churches has also been robustly
reiterating their stand that “perpetrators of capital crimes
deserve the capital punishment” for these churchmen “uphold the
principle of life for life.”
The Roman Catholic bishops, on the other hand,
have consistently fought against the death penalty as zealously as
they oppose abortion, looking at both as acts against God’s will
and state executions of criminals as violations of Christ’s
rejection of the Old Law of Judaism that demanded “a tooth for a
tooth for a tooth, an eye for an eye and a life for a life.” What
Catholic bishops say must be done with perpetrators of heinous
crimes is to give them effective venues and mechanisms for personal
reform and redemption. Life imprisonment is what murderers should be
sentenced to.
The reality, say the pro-Death Penalty people,
is that the state does not have and cannot now afford to build these
reform and redemption facilities, and meanwhile these criminals pose
a great danger to society—if they escape (which is not a rare
event in Philippine prisons).
The anti-Capital Punishment crowd replies with
these facts. In the Philippines’ flawed criminal justice system,
many death row convicts are actually not the persons who committed
the heinous crimes for which they have been convicted. They are fall
guys for the rich and powerful perpetrators, some of whom are
partners of armed and uniformed government officers. Some are
small-time criminals who have sold their bodies to the true killers
for the sake of leaving some small wealth to their families—just
as poor Filipinos are selling their kidneys to rich foreigners.
International and economic dimensions
The proponents and supporters of the revival of
the death penalty seem to miss the international repercussions of
the victory of their advocacy.
As CHR Chair de Lima said the other day, the
re-imposition of the death penalty is a breach of international
obligations. The Philippines has signed international human rights
treaties that proscribe the death penalty. Treaties bind the
Philippine government, its lawmaking bodies and citizens.
In addition to the CHR chair’s well-advised
adherence to the principle enshrined in the 1987 Constitution giving
the state the duty to “value the dignity of every human person and
guarantee full respect for human rights,” she wishes to make sure
that our country does not run afoul of international law.
Then there is an economic dimension.
The Holy See’s and the European Union’s
praise of the Philippines and the Arroyo administration for
abolishing the death penalty drove
Western-Europe-based (and Japanese) foreign
direct investors to sink good money in this country. Being known to
be Pro-Life is an economic asset. European businessmen, investment
packagers and government officials have said so to President Arroyo
and the media.
A new law reinstituting the death penalty will
surely make the European foreign direct investors already here
uncomfortable. And those almost ready to come and bring their
investment euros and dollars here would most likely be turned off
and cancel their travel—and investment—plans.
It does not surprise us that Sen. Panfilo Lacson
is among those strongly pushing for the pro-Death advocacy. But we
are disappointed in Sen. Juan Miguel Zubiri for being also as bloody
minded—and convinced that capital punishment will put a stop to
brutal and violent killings as the ones in Laguna because the
“specter of certain death will deter even hardened criminals.”
That is not what another senator who has more
experience than Zubiri in dealing with criminals. Sen. Miriam
Defensor Santiago, who was once a trial court judge, knows that
criminals are not deterred by the fear of being executed. She says
she never saw fear or noticed a deterrent effect on criminals who
were meted the death penalty. She believes life imprisonment is a
greater deterrent while death is something to be welcomed as the end
of suffering.
Our lawmakers should heed the Catholic
Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines.
|
