Outrage, resentment greet House death penalty approval

MANILA, Philippines — Swift condemnation greeted the decision of the House of Representatives on Tuesday to approve on third and final reading the bill seeking to reimpose death penalty in the country for drug-related offenses.

Ranging from legal to religious, their disapproval of the majority’s decision shows a deep abhorrence for House Bill 4727 among many legislators in the Philippines, a predominantly Catholic nation.

After eight months of bitter debates, 216 Filipino representatives on Tuesday voted in favor of the death measure, 54 voted against and one congressman abstained, a result which was widely expected given the pronouncements from the House leadership that representatives holding key posts would be removed if they voted against the measure.

However, despite the vigorous campaign of the majority led by the Speaker, Pantaleon Alvarez, the more than 50 representatives who went against the leadership were still higher than what the Alvarez predicted early Tuesday.

This dissent could not be shown more clearly than when the opportunity to explain their votes came.

Buhay Rep. Lito Atienza, one of the staunchest critics of the measure, labeled death penalty “a curse” on the Philippines.

“Inaprubahan ninyo itong batas na ito na isang sumpa sa ating bansa, a curse on our predominantly Catholic nation,” Atienza roared on the House floor.

Stifled debate?

Atienza alleged that the majority, in its eagerness to pass the bill, stifled free debate on the proposal.

“From the beginning that we tackled this bill, this 17th Congress sinimulan po ninyo na hindi payagan ang malakayang talakayan. The free debating on the basic issue of death, death penalty for our people you did not allow,” Atienza said.

He also accused the majority of abruptly terminating the period of interpellation and amendments because of “its desire not to listen to reason.”

He also lamented the fact that House members were not made to explain their decision before the voting, something that went against tradition he said.

Atienza also eviscerated the reasons put forward by the House leadership for pushing for the measure.

He argued: “We have many reasons to say no to this measure. Sapagkat ito ay labag sa ating mga nilagdaan na kasunduan sa United Nation. Ito ay labag sa Saligan Batas. Ang sabi ng Saligang Batas for compelling reason you can restore the death penalty. But what's so compelling about mismanagement about corruption in the police, in the prosecution, in the judiciary.”

The former mayor of Manila hinted that if the bill was signed into law by the president, his group would question its constitutionality at the Supreme Court.

Atienza said that the majority arrogate in itself the power to give life.

“Ang buhay ay isang lang ang may-ari. Sa hapong ito, nilagpasan ninyo ang kapangyarihang yan. Today we rule but tomorrow God and nature will rule,” he said.

Kaka Bag-ao of the Lone District of Dinagat Islands shared Atienza’s skepticism on the reasons behind the measure.

Bag-ao said that the chamber was proposing for the revival of the measure because of the dictates of the majority.

She said that the pussyfooting of the majority of the reasons was already sign that there was really no compelling reason to reinstitute death penalty.

She said that the country’s decision would have repercussions on Filipinos on death rows abroad and the country’s international obligations.

“Extrajudicial o judicial man ang tawag dyan, ang pagpatay ay pagpatay,” she said.

She also expressed her readiness to face the consequences of her decision.

“Tatanggapin ko po at yayakapin ang lahat ng kapalit ng botong ito,” she said.

'State-sponsored killings'

A visibly emotional Rep. Christopher Belmonte of the 6th District of Quezon City meanwhile said that he could not stomach the idea that the state would kill in his name.

He said that a person killed by the government was blood in his hands.

Belmonte, a member of the Liberal Party which has made a stand against the measure, said that death penalty was allowing “state-sponsored killings.” He also called the proposal an act of injustice.

He argued: “I cannot accept the thought that we the members of the House of Representatives will allow fellow human beings to be killed by our own government. Stripped of its nomenclature as a penalty, imposing the death penalty is allowing state-sponsored killings.”

Ifugao Rep. Teddy Baguilat used his faith as basis of his decision to vote against the measure.

He reasoned that every person deserved a second chance to correct his ways.

“Ang bawat tao anuman ang kanyang pagkakamali ay may karapatang mabuhay at maiwasto ang kanyang pagkaligaw ng landas,” he said.

He also punched holes into the arguments of the proponents of the bills who said that it was meant to lower the crime rate.

Baguilat said that the Philippine National Police (PNP) itself reported that the crime rate was steadily declining. He added that studies indicated that death penalty did not serve as a crime deterrence.

He also took note of the losses the Philippines would have in terms of trade if it reinstituted death penalty.

He said that Filipino products were granted reduced or no tariffs because it met certain human rights criteria including the abolition of death penalty.