POLITICS: Death Penalty: Discuss and debate first – Lacson.
The incoming President Rody Duterte has been single-minded in his determination to rid his motherland of the scourge of Crime particularly drug running and is prepared to go to any length to achieve a peaceful crime-free country.
In keeping with his earlier iron-fisted approach and ruthlessness against crime and his venerable record in ridding his city Davao, where he was Mayor for 22 years continuously, he plans to extend the same measures as he did in Davao.
But, in a democracy, the collective will of the people and their representatives will have to be kept in mind and given its due consideration; whether you agree to the different viewpoints or not. And, it is not possible that all parties will have the same views on the modus operandi in tackling various issues.
Differences are bound to exist in the perceptions of parties and individuals and, in the interest of the freedom of speech, particularly for the Senators and other public representatives, it is necessary to give all points of views a patient hearing.
And, it is the duty of the elected representatives to speak up on all issues which are in public interest or against it. In keeping with this practice, there has been a voice of dissent to the declaration of intent by the President elect Duterte.
Panfilo “Ping” Lacson, Senator elected in the recent elections has come out openly voiced his dissent to the proposal of the President-elect to usher in the death penalty which was banned in 2006.
His objection does not, probably stem from the imposition of the death per-se, it would seem that his main opposition if to two aspects of the whole episode:
- That this proposal to re-introduce the death penalty in Philippines is envisaged only for the express purpose of pleasing the incoming President; in other words, it may be interpreted as an act of opposition to the imposition of the capital punishment just because the President wants it. He is probably saying that the need to impose the death penalty should first be deliberated upon in the Senate before a decision, not a foregone one, is taken,
- The other aspect of his opposition is likely to be that this capital punishment that is being re-introduced should not be only for the next six-year term of the incoming President. This may also be interpreted to mean that the point that he is trying to make is that, if the house finds it in the fitness of things to bring in the death penalty, why keep it only for this term alone?
Keep it in force, if it is based on reason and rationality plus the express need to adopt the proposal.
He has come out openly in opposition against the restoration of the death penalty without deliberating and discussing the issue threadbare on the floor of the Senate.
According to him, any legislation that is proposed should first be discussed and debate and, if found feasible, only then should it be put to vote for confirming whether it should be made a legislation; it is a matter concerning the self-respect of the house and its members who are elected representatives of the people and thus, answerable to them.
He suggested that the proposed legislation should definitely be brought up for discussing and debating on the floor of the Senate to decide its outcome, not just because someone wants it.
It is known to all that Lacson is a supporter of the death penalty but this statement, which might sound as if he was against the proposed reintroduction; he was only responding to a comment by Senator Ralph Recto who suggested that the proposal when tabled in the Senate can have a Sunset clause that this proposal would be valid only during this six-year term of President Rody Duterte.
The reasoning that Senator Recto gave was that, since he was personally against capital punishment, he would suggest that this legislation cease to be applicable after the current term of six years lapses; this was contained in a text that he sent to the reporters.
But, like Lacson, this proposal of Recto did not get much support; in fact, the Chairman of the Senate Committee on justice, Aquilino Pimentel also did not give this suggestion any weightage since, withdrawing any legislation does not take much doing. He did admit that the proposal was novel but there was no necessity to take it up.
Like many others who reflect the popular sentiment of the general public, Pimentel is also in favor of the death penalty for unacceptable crimes like drug peddling.
Umrao Singh Umraoz.wordpress.com
Written for: Lars-Magnus Carlsson www.thephilippinepride.com
