Absurd and destructive proposals

By Jose C. Sison (The Philippine Star), Mar 10, 2017

There is really something weird and absurd in the recent move of Philippine National Police (PNP) Chief “Bato” Dela Rosa inviting priests to join in the resumption of war on drugs through Oplan Tokhang part 2. It is virtually asking the priests to join the administration in hunting or shooting down suspected addicts, pushers and traffickers of prohibited drugs who resist arrest or “nanlaban”. Immediately patent and perceptible in this connection is that they are in effect involving priests in the questionable “extrajudicial killings” that provoked worldwide concern and condemnation.

More absurd in this regard is the mixing up of the separate and very distinct functions of the police and the priest. We all know that priests are more concerned in preserving and protecting people from all dangers of soul which is purely spiritual whereas the policemen are more concerned with the purely secular duty of protecting people all dangers of body. Priests and policemen undergo entirely different and rigorous training before they can do their respective jobs. But with this recent proposal, priests are actually being asked to be law enforcers without any training and experience at all on how to perform such task. Obviously it is like breaking the wall separating the Church from the State.

To be sure, if the present administration will persist in asking the priests to join them in “Oplan Tokhang” part 2, it may be violating religious freedom guaranteed our Constitution (Article III Section 5) which provides that “the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship without discrimination or preference shall forever be allowed.” The aspect in “Tokhang” that results in the killing of mere suspects who are mostly coming from poor and defenseless families is clearly contrary to the Commandment “Thou shall not kill.” Therefore, in refusing to join “Tokhang”, the priests are just exercising religious freedom. So this administration may just as well forget about this weird idea.

Another proposal which appears to break the wall of separation between Church and State is that coming from Speaker Alvarez of the Lower House. He wants to tax Catholic schools which do not accept poor students. Actually, providing education is a primary task of the government. By putting up schools, the Church is actually helping the government in carrying out this task. In fact it is even providing our people a higher standard of education. But with his proposal Alvarez is imposing a heavier burden on those who are assisting the government in providing higher standard of education to our people.

Besides, other churches have also put up schools with much higher tuition fees in order to provide quality education. With these prohibitive tuition fees, the poor cannot also study there. So why single out the Catholic schools? Passing a law taxing Catholic schools is giving preference to one religion over another. It is also a violation of the principle of separation of the Church and State enshrined in our Constitution.

Also with questionable Constitutional validity is the law re-imposing the death penalty on crimes involving illegal drugs. Our Constitution says that “no cruel, excessive, degrading or inhuman punishment shall be inflicted” (Section 19, Article III). It cannot be denied, and experience has shown that killing is inhumane. The prospect of being punished by death, whether by hanging, electrocution, or lethal injection inflicts physical and psychological suffering not only on the convicts but also on their families. The horror of being put to death against one’s will and the agony of anticipation is cruel indeed. Cutting off the hand or any part of the body is already cruel. So killing is definitely more brutal and cruel.

Furthermore, records show that death penalty has not actually deterred the commission of heinous crimes. At the end of 1994 when death penalty was first re-instated, there were 24 death convicts. By 1995 the number of death penalty convicts rose to 90, or an average of seven convicts per month which was double the monthly average of capital sentences imposed the prior year. PNP statistics show that the commission of rape increased by 44 percent. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention continue to occur with many cases unreported. In 1996, there was an average of 12 death penalty convicts per month, almost double the monthly average of capital sentences imposed in 1995. And in a matter of two years, as of the end of 1998, there were already eight hundred sixty eight (868) death convicts. Clearly, the re-imposition of the death penalty in 1994 had not deterred the commission of heinous crimes.

Then of course, there is also the risk of mistaken execution. Our judicial system is inadequate to eliminate this risk. The possibility of human error is stronger in our jurisdiction where a death convict appeals directly to the Supreme Court. In the study conducted by the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) on death penalty cases between 1976 and 1986, it found that, of the 463 cases where death penalty was imposed by the Trial Courts, the Supreme Court only affirmed the death penalty in 86 cases. In 42 cases the convicts were acquitted while in 335 cases the death penalty was reduced due to various reasons like conviction for the wrong crime, presence of mitigating circumstances and lack of necessary votes. These statistics clearly show that no system of criminal justice is free from imperfections. So the risk remains, And it may even be a bigger risk in this jurisdiction where the performance of the five pillars of criminal justice, particularly the police, is quite unreliable.

The best alternative therefore is to impose qualified life imprisonment or imprisonment of the convict for the rest of his life. This has the same effect as death penalty since the convict will be taken out of mainstream of social life for the rest of his earthly existence during which he may still be rehabilitated and reformed before meeting his creator. Under this alternative, both retributive and rehabilitative justice will be duly served.

Email: attyjosesison@gmail.com