Upon being returned to the Philippines last Wednesday for custody at the Correctional Institute for Women (CIW), Mary Jane Veloso pleaded to Ferdinand Marcos Jr. to grant her clemency from the unjust death penalty, reduced to life imprisonment, meted by an Indonesian court for drug trafficking.
Her family in Nueva Ecija, her lawyer Edre Olalia, religious groups and various progressive people’s organizations have sustained the call for clemency over the years.
Sentenced to death in 2010 for drug trafficking, Mary Jane was spared from execution by firing squad in April 2015 and given a temporary reprieve. It was former president Benigno Aquino III who successfully persuaded the Indonesian government to do so.
In 2022, President Marcos Jr. went a step further and appealed to the Indonesian government to grant clemency to the hapless woman. Then last month he announced that Indonesia had reduced her death sentence to life imprisonment, who by then had served 14 years in an Indonesian prison. He attributed the Indonesian gesture to the “good relations” between the two governments.
But last Thursday, he appeared to hedge, cautious in his reply when asked by reporters about the prospect of his administration’s granting of clemency.
“We are still far from that,” he said. “We still have to look at what (her status really) is. And then, of course, we’re aware of the request for clemency from her representative and of course her family.”
His administration, he added, “will leave it to the judgment of our legal experts to determine whether the provision of clemency is appropriate.” However, he pointed out, “Indonesia did not set conditions so it’s really up to us.”
Given Indonesia’s generous stance, there appears to be no legal or diplomatic hindrance to set her free. And under Philippine law, the president has absolute power to do that.
So why does he hesitate to act at this crucial juncture? He can gain tremendous popular support if he granted the single mother of two young sons, with two aging parents – who have long pined to have Mary Jane back home – the very clemency he had asked the Indonesian government to perform.
Even the nation’s police forces appear inclined to see Mary Jane being granted presidential pardon soon. The STAR reported yesterday that police have started security preparations for her possible homecoming, should she be given clemency and return to Cabanatuan City, her hometown.
The sympathy for people – women in particular – getting arrested, prosecuted, imprisoned and executed for crimes related to narcotics in Indonesia apparently finds support there, at least from an independent research institution in Jakarta, Indonesia’s capital.
In fact, the Institute for Criminal Justice Reforms (ICJR) shines a light on the controversial law on criminal acts involving narcotics as it is enforced in that country. Established in 2007, ICJR focuses both on criminal law and justice, as well as on general law reforms in Indonesia, according to its website.
ICJR takes initiative by providing support on two aspects of its studies: “establishing respect for the Rule of Law” and “establishing a fervent human rights culture in the criminal justice system.”
In its study on Indonesia’s death penalty imposed on drug trafficking, ICJR examined the impact of Indonesia’s Law No. 35, enacted in 2009. It identifies various types of criminal acts related to narcotics that are punishable by the death penalty.
Following are some of the highlights of the study.
When Joko Widodo was elected president of that country in 2014 (a year before Mary Jane’s conviction for drug trafficking), he announced a “war on drugs” and instructed the execution of persons on death row, especially those convicted for drug offenses.
Widodo also emphasized that he would not give any pardon to drug-related convicts. Since then, 18 death-row inmates have been executed. All had been convicted of drug-related offenses.
Noticeably, most of these crimes cannot be classified as “the most serious,” citing certain crimes related to drugs, corruption and crimes that fall under military jurisdiction. It didn’t mention the most serious crime.
Law No. 35 identifies the following categories of criminal acts punishable by death, contained in seven separate provisions:
• The act to produce, import or distribute Narcotics Category I “in the form of plants weighing more than one kilogram or more than five trees,” or in the form of “no plant” weighing more than five grams, as well as for Narcotics Category II weighing more than five grams.
• The act to offer to sell, actually sell, purchase, be a courier/middleman in a transaction, exchange, deliver or accept the Narcotics Category I in the form of a plant weighing more than one kilogram or more than five trees, or in the form of “no plant” weighing five grams, as well as Narcotics Category II weighing more than five grams.
• “Narcotics use against others” or giving the Narcotics Category I to be used by another person resulting in the death of that other person or her/his permanent disability.
• “To order, give or promise anything, provide opportunities, encourage, provide facilities, use of force or threat, violence, deceit or persuade children to commit drug offences stipulated in the law.”
One notes how much more harshly their judicial system treats such cases over there. Compare that to the brutal, extrajudicial shortcuts made in the Philippines.
Indonesian law, however, does not classify the role of perpetrators of violations, whether “merely a user, an addict, a courier/middleman or a drug kingpin distributing a large number of illegal drugs.”
The implementation of the death penalty and its execution in Indonesia have been criticized by many parties, especially regarding the justification for applying the death penalty, as “it violates basic human rights,” ICJR observed.
Specifically, the Indonesian criminal justice system remains problematic, especially regarding violations of the right to a fair trial.
In Mary Jane’s case, only five prosecution witnesses were presented; all were investigators.