[Deathpenalty] death penalty news-----worldwide

[Rick Halperin]

April 20



PHILIPPINES:

THE RIGHTS ANGLE -- Death penalty-legal but is it right?


FROM the Rights Angle, partisan politics is irrelevant when it comes to
the death penalty.

Its abolition would be a major improvement in protecting human life and
dignity in the Philippines.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that, "Everyone has the
right to life, liberty and security of person."

This basic principle is supported and elaborated upon in other
international rights instruments.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) even
specifies that this right is "inherent." Every human being has this right
without any prerequisites.

The covenant even mandates governments to protect this right by law.

However, the ICCPR does not ban the death penalty. Neither does our
Constitution.

They only limit the manner and instances in which it may be imposed.

That includes a ban on arbitrary execution.

According to the treaty, death penalty may be imposed only in accordance
with law that was already in force when the act being punished was
committed. It may be carried out only after final judgment by a competent
court.

Under the covenant, anyone sentenced to death has the right to seek pardon
or commutation.

The death penalty cannot be carried out on pregnant women. It also cannot
be imposed on persons who commit a punishable crime while they are under
18 years old.

Some of these provisions are echoed in our Constitution. The Bill of
Rights says that, "No person shall be deprived of life or liberty without
due process of law."

Under the Constitution, Congress may pass laws imposing capital punishment
"for heinous crimes."

Our laws do not violate any international law or constitutional provision.

But is it right to have the death penalty?

Today, our laws list 52 capital crimes, 30 of which are automatically
subject to the death penalty. This raises the question of whether the
definition of "heinous" is too liberal to comply with constitutional and
international law.

Is kidnapping more heinous, more horrific than genocide?

The International Criminal Court and Special Tribunals of the United
Nations try cases of genocide and other crimes against humanity. Yet, they
do not impose the death penalty.

The Commission on Human Rights Philippines (CHR) has consistently opposed
the death penalty because it has not proved an effective deterrent to
crime.

That was and is the main justification cited for capital punishment. If it
is not achieving that goal, it has no reason for being.

A few months ago the CHR held public discussions in Manila, Cebu and Davao
to discuss alternatives. This was in partnership with the European Union
(EU), which campaigns against the death penalty across the world.

The European Parliament even adopted a resolution against the penalty in
the Philippines last November.

The recent commutation of death sentences, however, won praise from the
EUs ambassador to Manila.

Advocacy NGO, Amnesty International, almost immediately issued a public
statement that welcomed what it "believes to be the largest ever
commutation of death sentences."

Like other opponents of the death penalty, it is now urging the Philippine
government to abolish it.

Interestingly, several Catholic leaders in the Philippines are not as
enthusiastic, even though the late Pope John Paul II urged death penalty
abolition 2 years ago.

They suspect that Malacaang may be working only on this issue so that the
Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines will support the Charter
change initiative.

The CBCP isnt the only skeptic accusing the President of being politically
motivated when she commuted death sentences and supported a bill to repeal
the death penalty.

On the other hand, all politicians can be charged with political
motivations in all the issues they champion or oppose.

Policy is made by politicians based on political factors. Even human
rights advocates have to work in that world to achieve their goals.

It can also be argued that its good politics to listen to advocacy groups
of every stripe and to adhere to international and constitutional
standards.

Thats why the Rights Angle focuses on the bottom line of these
developments. That is, will abolition mean progress in rights protection?

Definitely, yes.

Yet, we cannot stop at abolition.

We need solutions to the problems of crime and punishment that the death
penalty was supposed to solve (and didnt).

The next step is to look at how to reform and rehabilitate the justice and
penal systems.

Crime prevention and prison conditions need to be improved.

Without the death penalty, many more convicts will spend their lives in
jail. Even convicts have the right to live in decent humane conditions.

Priority should also be given to restorative justice, attention to the
plight of the victims.

Without a comprehensive effort on all these fronts, trying to stop the
heinous crimes that plague our country will be like trying to stay dry in
a typhoon with a folding umbrella-ultimately ineffective.

(source: The Manila Times)