TAGUM CITY — A Manila-based media watchdog said the proposal of presumptive President Rodrigo Duterte to restore death penalty will not end lawlessness across the country and branded it a “regressive step.”
“The Philippines has had the death penalty in the past, but these regimes did not see the end of lawlessness. It did not lessen crime nor temper the violence in our midst,” the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (Cmfr) said in a statement on Friday, May 20.
“Those who favor the restoration of the death penalty should review other conditions that breed crime in our country,” it added.
The media watchdog pointed out that it will be mostly the poor that will be targeted by Duterte’s “inhumane punishment” policy. The group said it joined the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) and other groups and individuals in opposing the restoration of death penalty.
Church officials and other groups have also voiced opposition to Duterte’s plan to make death penalty by public hanging as a capital punishment.
But CMFR argued that a functional criminal justice system will be a major factor that will help arrest the surge in criminality. To achieve this, the group stressed that it “requires several painstaking policy actions.”
“The Duterte campaign boasted that it would bring change. But the shoot-to-kill order and prioritizing the restoration of capital punishment are regressive steps, taking us all back to a situation when state intervention only made bad things even worse.”
Apart from the death penalty, Duterte plans also to give security forces shoot-to-kill powers for alleged suspects who will evade arrest and others involved in an organized crime.
CMFR said that several countries have rejected capital punishment because it failed to deter crimes based on the recent studies.
“The rules of court rightly favor the accused until proven guilty. But the application of this presumption is abused by legal manipulation. The president-elect, a lawyer who has served as a government prosecutor, might recall how court procedures can be interpreted to benefit wealthy and powerful defendants who can afford expensive lawyers to take advantage of the court’s latitude,” the group said. (davaotoday.com)
