THE President wants Congress to pass a death penalty law for plunder and “heinous crimes”. But does he have the moral ascendancy to push it?
Capital punishment is inconsistent with the majority of Filipinos’ religious beliefs; and would only abet graft and corruption in the judiciary.
The sixth of the 10 Commandments in the Bible says, “Thou shalt not kill.”
President Duterte swore by the Bible on his inauguration day (June 30, 2016) in Malacañang Palace.
Sen. Manny Pacquiao (a self-professed “born-again” Christian), during his term as congressman, shocked his colleagues in the House of Representatives when he justified capital punishment with these words: “Even Jesus was sentenced to death.”
Since Jesus was wrongly accused of blasphemy, shouldn’t Pacquiao have cited it as argument against death penalty?
Senate President Tito Sotto is likewise for the imposition of death penalty. In fact, way back in 2014, he filed Senate Bill 2080 imposing death penalty by lethal injection, but it did not pass.
I remember Sotto talking about that bill on TV, and I thought to myself, “Look who’s talking!”
He sounded as if he had forgotten that he had opposed the passage of what was then the Reproductive Health Bill because, being a Roman Catholic, he was “pro-life.”
Is he still pro-life now that he wants murderers murdered?
When a newspaper reporter asked him to comment on his apparent inconsistency, he replied, as if there is “perfection” of our justice system, “I am pro-life for the unborn and the Filipino family. I am pro-death for heinous criminals.”
Remember when, in 1997 during the era of President Fidel Ramos, Sotto himself was suspected of “protecting” a druglord named Alfredo Tiongco, who was alleged to have financed the senator’s 1992 campaign? While he decried the charge, he admitted having befriended Tiongco.
At that time, death was the maximum penalty. But there was no outcry from Sotto for Tiongco’s prosecution.
Before the Tiongco fiasco, Sotto was being floated as a possible presidential candidate in 1998. The drug scandal having scuttled his plan, he supported his friend and fellow movie actor Joseph Estrada for President.
If death penalty were not abolished during the incumbency of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, Estrada might have said “goodbye world” for his plunder conviction.
Arroyo, too, was convicted of plunder during the incumbency of President Benigno Simeon Aquino in 2012 over misuse of P366 million in Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) intelligence funds.
Early this month, Arroyo thanked President Duterte for “providing the atmosphere” that led to her acquittal by the Supreme Court.
Obviously therefore, the revival of death penalty would not scare the “well-connected”.
It would prompt corrupt prosecutors and judges to extort more money from the accused in exchange for a resolution or decision of “not guilty”.
The book For Every Tear a Victory tells how a young lawyer named Ferdinand Marcos was tried and sentenced to death in 1939 for the murder of Julio Nalundasan.
If he had not been acquitted on appeal, he would not have lived to become President of the Philippines in 1966.
A triple execution by electric chair snuffed the lives of Jaime Jose, Basilio Pineda and Edgardo Aquino for the 1967 gang rape of movie star Maggie dela Riva.
President Marcos approved the execution by firing squad of Chinese drug trafficker Lim Seng in December 1972.
Both executions have not deterred similar crimes.
China imposes death penalty to anyone found with more than 50 grams of methamphetamine. As in the Philippines, however, there is where “untouchable” drug lords lurk. (hvego31@gmail.com/PN)
