The April 15 decision of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to commute to life imprisonment the sentences of all prisoners in the Philippines facing death is an important and valuable recognition of the right to life. There are at least 1000 persons in death row who can expect to have their sentences commuted. The announcement comes after the government imposed a moratorium on executions in 2001.
The decision deserves praise; however, it still falls short of the guaranteed right to life under article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which the Philippines is a State party. The UN Human Rights Committee, which monitors compliance of the ICCPR, has noted that while
“States parties are not obliged to abolish the death penalty totally they are obliged to limit its use and, in particular, to abolish it for other than the ‘most serious crimes’. Accordingly, they ought to consider reviewing their criminal laws in this light and, in any event, are obliged to restrict the application of the death penalty to the ‘most serious crimes’. The article also refers generally to abolition in terms which strongly suggest that abolition is desirable. The Committee concludes that all measures of abolition should be considered as progress in the enjoyment of the right to life… Nevertheless, States’ reports show that progress made towards abolishing or limiting the application of the death penalty is quite inadequate.
“The Committee is of the opinion that the expression ‘most serious crimes’ must be read restrictively to mean that the death penalty should be a quite exceptional measure… The procedural guarantees therein prescribed must be observed, including the right to a fair hearing by an independent tribunal, the presumption of innocence, the minimum guarantees for the defence, and the right to review by a higher tribunal. These rights are applicable in addition to the particular right to seek pardon or commutation of the sentence.” (CCPR General Comment No. 6)
The Committee’s observation on procedural guarantees is of utmost importance to the Philippines. It is well-known that there is a severe need to improve the policing, prosecution and judicial system in the Philippines, but that the government has done little to address systemic problems. There have been persistent reports of instances where state agencies have failed to perform their duties effectively and irregularities have led to unjust convictions: including of persons subsequently sentenced to death. Forced confessions through torture are believed widespread.
Take the case of torture victim Generoso Rolida, sentenced to death allegedly for killing a member of a civilian militia. Rolida claimed that he was tortured by elements of the 74th Infantry Battalion (IB) of the Philippine Army following his arrest on 27 August 2003. His case, however, was reported to have been decided without sufficient evidence. His own testimony, obtained through torture, was the basis for his conviction. No investigation took place into his claims that he was tortured. Other similar stories abound. The country’s defective policing, prosecution and judicial system deprives the accused of their right to fair trial and then puts them at risk of capital punishment.
Under these circumstances, how can any person found guilty of a serious crime and sentenced to death in the Philippines be believed to have obtained the guarantees stipulated by the Human Rights Committee? In reality, only when the government prohibits capital punishment will there be assurances that it is truly respecting the right to life in accordance with the ICCPR. Although commuting sentences is a step to upholding human rights, it is insufficient. The existing law that permits the death penalty must be abolished. To commute sentences but not act on the law grants only temporary relief, benefiting current convicts but not others who are facing trial and may face the sentence of death. But under what circumstances can the lives of some be arbitrarily saved, while others are sacrificed? Certainly this is not the arrangement envisaged under international law.
The Asian Human Rights Commission calls on the Philippine government and all concerned persons to exert all efforts without delay to abolish capital punishment as a step towards further and more significant reforms to the country’s policing, prosecution and judicial system. An improved criminal justice system is a precondition to ensure protection of human rights in the country, of which the abolition of the death penalty together with punishments applied in accordance with international standards will be an important part. A bill before the Philippine Congress and Senate seeking to repeal Republic Act 7659 of 1994, which allows the death sentence for heinous crimes, has been pending for some time. It must now be pushed forward. The government of the Philippines could also demonstrate strength of commitment not only to the right to life but indeed to all rights to which it has subscribed through the ICCPR by ratifying its Second Optional Protocol, aiming at abolition of the death penalty. And under any circumstances, it must ensure that it complies with the rigorous guidelines established by the Human Rights Committee, in order to avoid more victims of torture and other gross abuses of human rights don’t end up on death row like Generoso Rolida.
About AHRC The Asian Human Rights Commission is a regional non-governmental organisation monitoring and lobbying human rights issues in Asia. The Hong Kong-based group was founded in 1984
