 |
|
Victor Avecilla
|
Arguments for restoring the death penalty
posted December 20, 2016 at 12:01 am
Opponents of
the death penalty are at it again. So-called human rights advocates and
highly politicized leaders of the Roman Catholic Church in the Philippines are
pressuring the House of Representatives to abandon its plan to restore the
death penalty in the country.
Early this
month, the House Committee on Justice approved a draft law reinstating the
death penalty for heinous crimes like drug offenses, treason, qualified piracy,
qualified bribery, parricide, murder, infanticide, rape, serious illegal
detention, robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons, arson, and
plunder.
A vocal
critic of the death penalty is the Commission on Human Rights, which insists
that the Philippines is bound under an international protocol to perpetually
abolish the death penalty in order to finally uphold the right to life.
That protocol cited by the CHR is the Second Optional Protocol to the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which purportedly binds
signatory countries to do away with the death penalty. The protocol was
signed in 2006 under the administration of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.
According to
the CHR, the restoration of the death penalty will violate constitutional
provisions regarding respect for human rights and the dignity of every person.
The CHR also claims that capital punishment by whatever method
constitutes cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment, does not accord dignity to
human beings, and has no place in a civilized society. In addition, the
CHR says that there are no studies which prove that the death penalty deters
crime.
For the CHR,
effective law enforcement and an efficient criminal justice system are the best
deterrents against crime. This proposal is echoed by local Catholic
Church leaders.
The
arguments raised by the CHR sound good, but they are devoid of legal substance.
In fact, there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution which sustains
the CHR’s position. A look at the pertinent provision of the Constitution
will set the pace.
Section 19,
Article III of the Charter states: “Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor
cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither shall the death
penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes,
the Congress hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty already imposed
shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua.
It will be
readily gleaned from the text of Section 19 that although the imposition of
cruel, degrading, or inhuman punishment is explicitly prohibited, the same
section allows Congress to impose the death penalty for heinous crimes.
This clearly means that it was never the intention of the Constitution to
consider the death penalty as a cruel, degrading, or inhuman punishment.
Every
freshman law student knows that when a particular act is explicitly allowed by
the Constitution, it is impossible for that act to be considered
unconstitutional. Therefore, since the Constitution allows Congress to
impose the death penalty for heinous crimes, the death penalty cannot be
unconstitutional. It also means that the death penalty cannot be
repugnant to any provision in the Constitution.
Thus, as far
as the Constitution is concerned, the death penalty is not a cruel, degrading,
or inhuman form of punishment, and the death penalty is not repugnant to any
provision of the Constitution.
This
effectively debunks the arguments of the CHR to the effect that the death penalty
is an unconstitutional form of punishment, and that it violates provisions of
the Constitution regarding human rights and dignity.
As for the
argument that the death penalty has no place in a civilized society, suffice it
to say that that’s a matter of opinion. The military establishment
imposes the death penalty on erring soldiers. Does that make the military
establishment uncivilized? Death sentences were carried out during the
administrations of past presidents under the 1935 Constitution.
Does that
make those administrations uncivilized? On many occasions in the past,
the Supreme Court upheld the death penalty imposed by lower courts on certain
convicts. Does that make the justices of the high court uncivilized?
Good grief!
Sure, the
Philippines signed that protocol on the abolition of the death penalty, and the
Constitution itself states that the Philippines adopts the generally accepted
principles of international law as part of the law of the land. That
notwithstanding, it is a basic principle in constitutional law that an
international protocol cannot prevail over a specific provision of the
Constitution—like Section 19, Article III which allows the imposition of the
death penalty.
Moreover,
adopting international law as part of Philippine law does not necessarily mean
that international law automatically takes precedence over the
Constitution.
The reason
for the supremacy of the Constitution over an international protocol is
obvious—the Constitution was ratified by the sovereign Filipino people; an
international protocol signed by the Philippine government does have the same
approval from the electorate.
While there
may be no empirical data to show that the death penalty is an effective
deterrent against crime, there is none to suggest that its abolition has
reduced crime.
The
proposition that effective law enforcement and an efficient criminal justice
system are the best deterrents against crime is, at best, wishful thinking.
Effective law enforcement only means that criminals will be caught and
charged. On the other hand, an efficient criminal justice system only
means crime will not go unpunished. Both do not necessarily assure that
nobody will commit crime.
Truth to
tell, overpopulation contributes to criminality. A runaway increase in
population translates to more unemployed people and, ultimately, to poverty.
Desperation results, and desperation triggers crime because it is very
difficult to be law-abiding when one is hungry and no meals are forthcoming.
Because the
Philippines has a very serious population problem, the government is promoting
a population control program. Unfortunately, the Roman Catholic Church is
not helping out because it is against contraceptives.
The Church
may not know it but by opposing population control, it tacitly condones
criminality.
So much for
the opposition to the death penalty.
INTERNET
SOURCE: http://www.thestandard.com.ph/mobile/article/224538
No comments:
Post a Comment