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 FLAG for its part says “To protect the living, it is unnecessary for the state to end the life of another. In keeping with the value of human dignity, other means short of taking life ought to be enough. Perhaps then the way can be paved for the miracle of healing and transformation through the intervention of genuinely compassionate persons and their institutions, something that time and again has marked history and can continue to do so as triumphs of humanity.” The most basic and most important right to life is found in the very first provision of the Bill of Rights: “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.” (italics supplied) The right to life is thus tied up with the due process and equal protection clauses, the most important limitations on governmental power. We limit ourselves here to the need to look more deeply into the co-relation of the death penalty and equal protection of the law. Actually, there was a hint of this in the latter part (pp. 751-54) of the discussion under “Other Constitutional Rights Militate Against RA 7659” in the separate (dissenting) opinion in Echegaray I. We refer here to the reference made to the “Profile of 165 Death Row Convicts” submitted by FLAG. In sum, the profile “demonstrates that RA 7659 has militated against the poor and powerless in society – those who cannot afford the legal services necessary in capital crimes, where extensive preparation, investigation, research and presentation are required.” Also, at one point (p. 816) in the dissenting opinion of Echegaray II is found this relevant passage: The dark reality of the death penalty is that who is executed and who is spared is often determined not only by the nature of the crime but also by their social background, their financial means or the political opinions of the defendants. This is confirmed by the undefiled study made by Dr. Ricardo Zarco of the University of the Philippines, which showed that almost all the convicts put to death since 1947 came from the lower socio-economic class. Only three came from well-to-do families like the persons who committed rape against Maggie dela Riva. Page 24 of 127 24
APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the Philippines vs. Fortuna, et. al. S. C. G. R. No. 141660-64 These FLAG and Zarco studies were never addressed in the majority opinions of Echegaray I and Echegaray II, respectively. But neither did the dissenting opinions explicitly frame the findings in an argument invoking the equal protection clause. We do so now here, and also update the data. The significance of such data would not be lost on all those who read the quotation from the great Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in Mr. Justice Ramon C. Aquino’s “Introductory Note” found (on p. ix) in every volume of the Supreme Court Reports Annotated: “The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience.” And this is the experience with the death penalty – in practice, it does not afford equal protection of the law for “the poor and powerless in society.” The aforementioned FLAG Position Paper on the Death Penalty includes a 60- page “Socio-Economic Profile of Death Inmates” current up to June 2002 and involving 989 inmates (compared to the earlier profile of 165). Here are the key highlights from the last part on Conclusions and Recommendations: • The death penalty is disproportionately meted against those who belong to the underprivileged sectors of Philippine society – almost one-fifth are absolutely poor. Majority are unschooled and unlettered, having finished only elementary education. One third had worked in the agricultural sector – the sector that accounts for most of the poor in the country. Half speak Tagalog, the other half speak and understand the major Philippine languages. While one-half of the death inmate-respondents own their homes, most do not own the land upon which their homes are built. Most of these homes are built with wood, are without proper sanitation facilities (using the pail system of sanitation), are without access to piped water. One third of the death convicts have no access to electricity. Most death convicts had no means to employ the services of private counsel, and instead availed of government’s free legal services through the Public Attorney’s Office during trial. • The death penalty is handed down mostly for the crime of rape, raising doubts of sentence proportionality. In the United States, for instance, the US Supreme Court struck down the death penalty statutes covering the crime of rape, precisely because it held the death penalty is disproportionate, cruel and inhuman for the crime of rape. And so, all told, the constitutionality of the death penalty is to be reckoned not only on the basis of Sec. 19(1) of Art. III which specifically mentions its but also on the Page 25 of 127 25
Page 1 and 2: Republic of the Philippines SUPREME
Page 3 and 4: APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the P
Page 23: APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the P
Page 75 and 76:
APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the P
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?