MANILA, Philippines - The fate of the House bill reimposing the death penalty in the country may be known next week as Majority Leader Rodolfo Fariñas plans to ask Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez to call a majority coalition caucus and determine whether plenary debates still need to continue.
If the lawmakers decide to close the debates, the bill could be immediately set for voting, Fariñas added.
At the Senate, debates over the proposals to revive capital punishment hit a snag as legal issues on the country’s treaty commitments, particularly on the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), were raised.
Adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on Dec. 15, 1989, the treaty requires all members to abolish the death penalty in their respective jurisdictions. However, some senators argued that this was never sent to the Senate for concurrence.
“The Second Optional Protocol on death penalty was not ratified by the Senate. So, how do we classify that agreement?” asked Senate Majority Leader Vicente Sotto III during the debates.
In proposing early voting on the death penalty bill, Fariñas argued that enough time was given for lawmakers to discuss the pros and cons of re-imposing the punishment nationwide, with Alvarez promising exhaustive discussions.
The Catholic Church and some cause-oriented organizations are opposing the measure, along with a number of legislators.
“The House leadership is giving those opposed to the death penalty enough time to express their views. But it seems they do not want to take advantage of it. They are more interested in questioning the quorum,” Fariñas said to explain his move to call for a possible voting before Congress adjourns for the Holy Week on March 18.
He cited as example the abrupt termination of the session last Wednesday, just over an hour after the roll call showed the presence of 202 of the 293 House members, when Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman, who is also opposed to capital punishment, questioned the quorum.
Rep. Tomasito Villarin of party-list group Akbayan was then about to grill the sponsors of the death penalty bill when Lagman said there weren’t enough members to listen to the debates.
This led to a lengthy exchange between him and deputy speaker Batangas Rep. Raneo Abu on the relevant rules in determining a quorum. Those present agreed with Abu, who was presiding over the session.
Fariñas said there was a quorum, adding that this has always been the case between July and December, when Congress had an attendance of more than 80 percent. He admitted though that a number of members leave the session hall after their names are called to go to their rooms to see visitors and have meetings or coffee.
“Or maybe, they just don’t want to listen to the debates. Some of them find the discussions repetitive,” he added.
Last Wednesday’s session, he noted, was attended by nuns and other members of religious groups and it would have been a good opportunity for those who took the time to go to Batasan just to hear the debates and be enlightened about the bill.
For Lagman, Fariñas’ threat to close the debates earlier than scheduled was only to “signal the unwarranted railroading of the approval of the death penalty bill.” He also accused the majority of gagging members, “a thing which previous Congresses did not do.”
Second Optional Protocol
Sotto raised the question about the Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR during the plenary debates on Senate Resolution 289, which said a concurrence by the Senate is needed for a termination of or withdrawal from treaties and international agreements to be valid and effective.
The optional protocol was cited by the anti-death penalty proponents in their arguments against the restoration of capital punishment in the country, saying that doing this would be in violation of the country’s treaty obligations.
However, a number of senators argued that it was never sent to the Senate for concurrence.
Senate President Pro Tempore Franklin Drilon, the principal author and sponsor of the resolution, pointed out that the Second Optional Protocol was not ratified by the country when it came out because, during that time, the death penalty was still in effect. Thus, it would be inconsistent with State policy if the Senate had ratified it.
When the death penalty was finally repealed in 2006 with the enactment of Republic Act 9346, Drilon noted that a position was taken by then Foreign Affairs Secretary Alberto Romulo that the move was an expression of the Philippines of its support to the global community in abolishing the death penalty.
The position of the Department of Foreign Affairs, Drilon added, was that a Senate concurrence was no longer needed because of the move to abolish the death penalty. In effect, it was a completion of the ratification process.
For Sotto, it was hard to accept the DFA position as the ratification of the treaty was only implied.
But Sen. Leila de Lima and other anti-death penalty proponents argued that since there is no opt-out provision in the Second Optional Protocol, the revival of capital punishment in the country is no longer possible.
The resolution was supposed to be acted upon by the Senate last Wednesday, but Sen. Manny Pacquiao, who is in favor of restoring the penalty, managed to delay the process until Monday next week. Pacquiao said the powers being sought in the resolution might require an amendment of the Constitution so that more time is needed to study the measure.
Drilon initially rejected the appeal of Pacquiao but was convinced to defer any action on the resolution to Monday next week on the condition that it will be the first item that would be tackled in plenary. – With Marvin Sy