Republic of the Philippines - Campaign

More documents

Recommendations

Info

APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the Philippines vs. Fortuna, et. al. S. C. G. R. No. 141660-64 vs.Gavarra (155 SCRA 327), People vs. Atencio (156 SCRA 242), and People vs. Intino (L-69934, September 26, 1988). It is true that, later on, the Supreme Court in People vs. Munoz (G.R. No. L- 38969-70, February 9, 1989) said: “A reading of Section 19(1) of Article III will readily show that there is really nothing therein which expressly declares the abolition of the death penalty.” No express abolition, or use of the word “abolition,” but abolition nonetheless, as recognized in the aforecited Supreme Court decisions. In Munoz, to the word “abolition,” the Supreme Court preferred to use words like “not impose” and “prohibition” in characterizing constitutional attitude toward the death penalty. 2 The use of the word “reduced” rather than “commuted” in Section 19(1) reveals that the operative reality is that the death penalty no longer exists. More so when one co- relates Section 19(1) with Section 13 of Art. III: “All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties…” Indeed, in giving an exception to the right to bail, there is no mention in the Constitution of offenses punishable by death.. Recognizing reclusion perpetua as the highest penalty instead of death reveals an unmistakable intention to abolish the death penalty. Provisions of law should be construed or read, in relation to other provisions of the same law (Jueco vs. Flores, G.R. No. L-19325, February 28, 1964, affirmed in later cases). This rule of statutory, and constitutional, construction finds important application in this discussion of the constitutionality of the death penalty. The constitutional discussions in the majority opinions in the Echegaray cases were largely limited to or framed by Sec. 19(1) itself, particularly the issues of “cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment” and of “compelling reasons involving heinous crimes.” We will not revisit 2 This and some other arguments in this discussion are drawn from the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) Position Paper on the Death Penalty submitted to the Senate Committee on Justice and Human Rights in July 2002 by its Secretary General Maria Socorro I. Diokno. Page 22 of 127 22
APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the Philippines vs. Fortuna, et. al. S. C. G. R. No. 141660-64 and belabor that discussion here. We instead raise other constitutional grounds (aside still from the aforecited Sec. 13 of Art. III) for the unconstitutionality of the death penalty. The separate (dissenting) opinion in Echegaray I raises several other grounds for unconstitutionality which were never addressed in the majority opinion. These are found in the section “Other Constitutional Rights Militate Against RA 7659” in pp. 749-54. We need not repeat the discussion there. We will just add a bit to what it says about the pro- life and pro-human rights constitutional provisions: the right to life (Art. III, Sec. 1); values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights (Art. II, Sec. 11); prohibition against torture (Art. III, Sec. 12[2]); protection to the life of the mother and the unborn from the moment of conception (Art. II, Sec. 12): and the people’s right to health, a balanced ecology and education (Art. II, Secs. 15, 16 & 17). Take the core value of human dignity. As Father Fausto B. Gomez, O.P. said, “Granting for the sake of argument that capital punishment could be a deterrent to crime, it would still be against human dignity when it involves killing the offender: the human person. No human person can be made an object of exemplariness for others without thingifying him/her… The greatest dignity of the human person is being a child of God and a sister/brother of Christ, and in Christ of all other human beings. If the human being, every person, is my sister/brother, how may I want her/his death?” We don’t want or intend to go too deeply here into religion but the Constitution itself in its Preamble speaks of “imploring the aid of Almighty God.” And “Christianity, as the religion of the great majority of the people, is a fact recognized by constitutional conventions, legislatures, and courts.” 3 For the latter to draw transcendental guidance to be able to decide matters of transcendental importance is no violation of the separation of Church and State or of the non-establishment (of religion) clause. 3 Vicente G. Sinco, Philippine Political Law: Principles and Concepts (Manila: Community Publishers, Inc., 11 th ed., 1962) 678, citing US authorities. Page 23 of 127 23
Page 1 and 2: Republic of the Philippines SUPREME
Page 3 and 4: APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the P
Page 21: APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the P
Page 73 and 74:
APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the P
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127:
show all

Republic of the Philippines - Campaign

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?