The House of Representatives on Wednesday passed House Bill 4727 that seeks to reimpose the death penalty on second reading. There was no actual counting of votes; the “ayes” were simply uttered much more loudly than the “nays.”
Capital punishment was abolished during the term of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. Now, no less than President Rodrigo Duterte is pushing for it anew so that he could use it to run his campaign against illegal drugs. This time around, only drug-related offenses are included and convicts would put to death by firing squad, hanging or lethal injection.
Numerous arguments have been put forth for and against the death penalty. Those in favor of it say it is an effective deterrent of crime. It’s a decisive measure that sends a clear and unequivocal message: Crime does not pay.
Those against it, on the other hand, argue from legal, moral, religious and practical grounds. There is International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which the Philippines is a party. It calls on states to respect and observe fundamental freedoms —of expression, of religion, and from cruel, inhumane or degrading punishment.
Church groups are also vociferous in opposing the bill because teachings say, plainly and clearly, than one must not kill. Only backward states continue to have the death penalty, which runs counter to the principle of restorative justice and the notion that anybody, so long as he or she is still alive, can change for the better.
Finally many groups argue that there is no empirical evidence that supports the claim that death penalty does in fact deter crime.
This version of the capital punishment as pursued by the Duterte administration allows us to add one more to the arguments against it: The death penalty should not be an option in a state where law enforcers trifle with basic rights and mocks due process. It would be a free pass to indulge in their brand of justice that has been in effect since the middle of last year and that has been responsible for the deaths of more than 7,000 suspected drug users and pushers who supposedly showed “resistance.” Note that these punishments were given without the benefit of investigation and trial.
The only thing worse than state-sponsored killings is state-sponsored killings with basis in law.
Majority leader Rodolfo Farinas has some gall saying he and his allies just articulated the wishes of their constituents and that they were bullied by the minority. First, there is no accurate way to tell whether or not their people support or reject the measure. And, last we looked, to bully is to ensure you got your way no matter what. But who seem to be getting their way?
This is a solution that stands to beget an evil that is greater than the problem. That there will be actual voting during third reading at the House, and that the Senate does not appear as subservient to the Palace in this issue, give us some measure of relief.
We hope that relief would last.
