Dec. 10
SINGAPORE:
Something's not right when courts call defending poor, weak and marginalised an
abuse of process in capital case
In referring to The Straits Times article 'Stopping abuse of court process',
which explained how Singapore's top court is trying to deal with last-minute
applications from death-row convicts who try to escape the gallows, lawyer
Eugene Thuraisingam said "something's not right when our courts call defending
the poor, weak and marginalised, an abuse of process in a capital case merely
because a serious point of law, involving a new piece of legislation, could (in
their view) have been argued earlier."
Last week, the Court of Appeal comprising Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon and
Judges of Appeal Chao Hick Tin and Andrew Phang pointed out that the recent
applications before it involving capital drug offenders failed to satisfy the
necessary requirements under Section 33B of the Misuse of Drugs Act. The court
now requires lawyers who file such last-minute applications to explain why they
could not raise the arguments during earlier appeals.
Writing in his Facebook about the notice from the Court, Mr Thuraisingam said:
"this provision flies in the face of established common law that the executive
cannot decide the punishment in each individual offenders' case. It is for the
judiciary to do so. This is called separation of powers, which is trite in any
democracy. This section violates that rule."
Just in case you are not able to read the post, this is what Mr Thuraisingam
said.
--
Section 33B of the Misuse of drugs Act is a new section which came into force
in 2013. It allows for the Public Prosecutor (the executive) to decide in an
individual's case, whether the individual lives or dies.
This provision flies in the face of established common law that the executive
cannot decide the punishment in each individual offenders' case. It is for the
judiciary to do so. This is called separation of powers, which is trite in any
democracy. This section violates that rule.
Being a new section, it takes time for lawyers to come to terms with the
section and formulate serious arguments.
Unfortunately, our Courts have held that notwithstanding the fact that four men
faced the ultimate penalty for being innocent couriers, it is an abuse of
process and a waste of judicial time to bring what is at the very least a
controversial law for clarification before them, simply because it had already
been in existence for 2 years, and could have been argued earlier.
Something is not right when our courts call defending the poor, weak and
marginalised, an abuse of process in a capital case merely because a serious
point of law, involving a new piece of legislation, could (in their view) have
been argued earlier.
(source: The Independent)
PHILIPPINES:
UN warns: PH will violate pact if it restores death penalty
The United Nations (UN) High Commissioner for Human Rights warned the
Philippines that it will violate an international agreement if its government
allowed the reimposition of death penalty in the country.
Early this week, the death penalty bill hurdled the committee level in the
House of Representatives.
In an open letter addressed to Senate President Aquilino "Koko" Pimentel III
and House of Representatives Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez, UN Commissioner Zeid
Ra'ad Al Hussein expressed his concerns over the pending measure to restore
capital punishment in the Philippines.
"The Philippines would violate its obligations under international human rights
law if it reintroduced the death penalty, I appeal to you and all members of
Congress to uphold the international human rights obligations of the
Philippines and maintain the abolition of the death penalty," Al Hussein said
in his letter.
Al Hussein also reminded the Philippines that it has signed the Second Optional
Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) in
2007, which "guarantees that no one can be executed within its jurisdiction."
"International law does not permit a State that has ratified or acceded to the
Second Optional Protocol to denounce it or withdraw from it," he added.
At the same time, Al Hussein noted that the Philippines passed the Republic Act
9346 or "An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines"
under the administration of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in 2006.
In his letter, Al Hussein also acknowledged the Philippines' intensified
campaign against illegal drugs. However, he stressed that ICCPR "considers that
the use of the death penalty for drug crimes is incompatible under
international law."
The death penalty bill, which will be deliberated next at the Senate committee,
listed the use and trade of illegal drugs as some of the heinous crimes liable
for capital punishment.
"The most effective manner of addressing drug-related offences is through
strengthening the rule of law, ensuring an effective justice system and
reducing drug use by adopting a strong public health approach to prevention,
harm reduction and other forms of health care and treatment in accordance with
international standards," Al Hussein suggested.
Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, who won the presidency in a landslide
victory last May with a vow to kill drug lords and drug users to prevent the
country from becoming a "narco-state," also promised during his presidential
campaign that he will support the reimposition of capital punishment in the
country.
(source: Asian Journal)
*******************
House eyes passage of death penalty bill in May next year
House Committee on Justice Chairperson Reynaldo Umali says, the consolidated
death penalty bill may be approved by the House of Representatives on 3rd
reading in May next year.
House leaders had initially wanted the measure to be passed on 3rd and final
reading by Christmas this year.
But they also acknowledge that the bill will pass through long debates in the
plenary.
Last Wednesday, Umali's committee voted 12-6 approving the measure that merges
all other measures that seek to reimpose the capital punishment for over 20
heinous crimes.
In pushing for the passage of the bill, Umali said, "criminality will be worse
than it is now. Let us try to institute change. One of these changes is to pass
the death penalty bill."
(source: thestandard.com.ph)
*****************
Senate could block death penalty bill ---- House Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez of
Davao del Norte sees an uphill climb for the death penalty in the Senate.
Alvarez made the observation after nine senators from the Liberal Party (LP)
vowed to oppose the restoration of death penalty for heinous and drug-related
crimes.
"As far as we are concerned [in the House], we can't control the Senate. What
we know is that we want the public to know that we are doing our job [to pass
the death penalty]in the House," Alvarez said in a radio interview.
"We will do what we feel is right and is right for the people," Alvarez added.
The death penalty bill, House Bill No. 1, is breezing past the House, with the
chamber's justice committee sending the measure to plenary debates last
December 7.
Opposition lawmakers on Friday claimed the bill hurdled the committee level
because of the support of deputy speakers, whose number ballooned to 14 in the
17th Congress from 6 in the 16th Congress.
This means the "super majority" bloc of President Duterte's allies will be able
to get their pet measures passed at the committee level, as deputy speakers are
ex-officio members of all committees.
The 14 deputy speakers are Representatives Eric Singson of Ilocos Sur, Mercedes
Alvarez of Negros Occidental, Fredenil Castro of Capiz, Raneo Abu of Batangas,
Romero Quimbo of Marikina, Mylene Albano of Davao City, Gwen Garcia of Cebu,
Pia Cayetano of Taguig, Sharon Garin of AAMBIS-OWWA party-list, Gloria
Macapagal Arroyo of Pampanga, Bai Sandra Sema of Maguindanao and Cotabato City,
Ferdinand Hernandez of South Cotabato, Frederick Abueg of Palawan and Rolando
Andaya of Camarines Sur.
When the death penalty bill was put to a vote in the House Committee on
Justice, 12 lawmakers voted for the measure. 6 were against and one abstained.
Of the 12 "yes" votes, 3 were deputy speakers: Garcia, Garin and Castro. The
4th ex-officio member who voted in favor of the death penalty bill was House
Majority Leader Rodolfo Farinas of Ilocos Norte.
Without the ex-officio vote, the final tally would have been 8-6, still in
favor of the death penalty bill albeit with a narrower margin.
"Congress works through a committee system that should be a deliberative body
with regular members and limited ex-officio members. With too many ex-officio
members who are always mobilized come voting time, the committee system has
been compromised thus rendering its main function moot," Akbayan party-list
Rep. Tom Villarin, who is against the death penalty measure, told The Manila
Times.
Ifugao Rep. Teodoro Baguilat agreed. "Actually, that's one of our issues with
the leadership because they can practically dictate almost any outcome of a
committee hearing by sending all ex-officio members, including the deputy
majority floor and minority floor leaders," he said.
House justice committee chairman Reynaldo Umali of Oriental Mindoro said
majority of the members of the panel made their decisions based on position
papers submitted by various government agencies and nongovernment
organizations.
UN issues warning
On Friday, the United Nations warned the Philippine Congress of a possible
violation to the international law if it restored capital punishment.
In an open letter dated December 6, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid
Ra'ad Al Hussein said the Philippines is a signatory to an international
agreement that prohibits the country from reinstating the death penalty.
He pointed out that the Philippines ratified the Second Optional Protocol to
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 2007 that abolishes
death penalty. Congress also abolished it through Republic Act 9346 in 2006.
If the Philippines wants to revive capital punishment, the country is allowed
to impose the death sentence only on the "most serious crimes," Al Hussein
said.
Drug-related offenses do not meet the threshold of "most serious crimes," and
the International Narcotics Control Board, which monitors states' compliance
with drug control treaties, "considers that the use of the death penalty for
drug crimes is incompatible under international law."
Alvarez was adamant there was a reason the Constitution did not absolutely ban
the death penalty.
"The Constitution is clear that we can reinstate death penalty for compelling
reasons, including heinous crimes. The Constitution is supreme over any
international protocol," Alvarez argued.
(source: Manila Times)
_______________________________________________
A service courtesy of Washburn University School of Law www.washburnlaw.edu
DeathPenalty mailing list
DeathPenalty@lists.washlaw.edu
http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/listinfo/deathpenalty
Unsubscribe: http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/options/deathpenalty
