[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----worldwide

[Rick Halperin]

March 22



BELARUS:

1st death sentence in 2017


FIDH and its member organisation in Belarus Human Rights Centre "Viasna" 
denounce the first death sentence in 2017 and regret the Belarusian authorities 
continue to ignore calls to render Europe a death penalty-free zone.

On 17 March 2017, 32-year-old Aliaksei Mikhalenya was sentenced to death by the 
Gomel Regional Court of Belarus for 2 murders committed with particular 
cruelty. Although Aliaksei Mikhalenya has the right to appeal the sentence in 
Supreme Court in Belarus, the appeal court rarely commutes death sentences and 
the chances to get the Presidential pardon are illusionary, as revealed in the 
joint FIDH-HRC report "Death penalty in Belarus: Murder on (Un)Lawful Grounds". 
As the report demonstrates, throughout investigation and trial, 
self-incrimination is used by the prosecution as the main evidence of guilt, 
whilst the right to an effective legal defence is systematically violated. In 
general, the application of death penalty in Belarus is accompagnied by severe 
human rights violations at each stage of the judicial proceedings and during 
detention.

"The UN has confirmed the violation of the right to life in 6 decisions 
concerning the use of death penalty in Belarus. The application of capital 
punishment is an indicator of authorities disrespect of international human 
rights bodies and human rights in general", commented Florence Bellivier, 
former President of the World Coalition Against the Death Penalty.

Furthermore, considerable secrecy surrounds the application of death penalty in 
Belarus. Information concerning the death penalty is withheld from the general 
public, whilst information on detention conditions for death convicts and 
execution procedures is not publicly available. The exact number of persons 
convicted to death and executed in Belarus is unknown. The families of death 
convicts are neither informed in advance of the date of the execution, nor 
immediately thereafter, the body is never handed over to relatives and the 
location of the burial site is kept secret.

"The name of Aliaksei Mikhalenya was held secret until yesterday when human 
rights defenders communicated his identity. Withholding the identity precludes 
us from providing legal aid to the person concerned and to his family", said 
Andrei Paluda, coordinator of the campaign "Human rights defenders against the 
death penalty in Belarus".

Belarus is the only country in Europe that applies death penalty. For the 
duration of negotiations around EU restrictive measures against Belarusian 
officials and businesses, the executions had been on hold. However, upon the 
lifting of sanctions in February 2016, executions resumed and by December 2016 
reached their highest number since 2008: 4 convicts executed in secrecy in 
2016.

Being a founding member of the World Coalition against the Death penalty, FIDH 
and its member organisation HRC "Viasna" urge the EU and other actors to use 
all leverages at their disposal to put an end to the capital punishment in 
Belarus.

(source: FIDH)






PHILIPPINES:

When politics and principles clash on the death penalty


18 lawmakers who voted no to the RH bill under the 15th Congress voted yes to 
the death penalty measure under the 17th Congress. How did the Church mobilize 
against the 2 controversial measures?

PART 1: What happened behind closed doors to the death penalty bill?

Somber-looking nuns seated at the House of Representatives' plenary hall could 
only look from afar when 217 lawmakers gave their approval to reimpose the 
death penalty for drug convicts.

Under any other circumstances, the overwhelming number who voted for the return 
of capital punishment may have been surprising for the Philippines, a 
predominantly Catholic country.

But not during the time of President Rodrigo Duterte, who openly said Catholic 
bishops are "full of shit" as he accused them of corruption and indulging in 
sexual escapades.

Duterte, who has not been mincing words against the Church, continues to enjoy 
strong support from the poor even as his bloody war against drugs has resulted 
in more than 7,000 deaths since July 2016.

The President also has the backing of at least 267 lawmakers allied with the 
majority bloc, whose party whips made sure the controversial death penalty 
measure - House Bill (HB) Number 4727 - would be passed on 3rd and final 
reading on March 7.

Lawmakers and political analysts alike were not surprised when legislators who 
thumbed down the Reproductive Health (RH) bill in the 15th Congress gave their 
thumbs up to the death penalty in the current 17th Congress.

Is there even a Catholic vote under the administration of Duterte?

Principled voters?

There were a total of 18 lawmakers who voted no the RH bill but said yes to the 
death penalty bill.

The RH bill waited for 14 years before lawmakers in the 15th Congress, in a 
close vote of 133-79-7, approved it on 3rd and final reading on December 17, 
2012. 4 days before that, then-president Benigno Aquino III certified the 
measure as urgent.

Reimposing the death penalty, meanwhile, was a campaign promise of Duterte. The 
measure is also included in his list of priority measures. No less than his top 
ally in the House, Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez, was a principal co-author of HB 
4727.

Manila Auxillary Bishop Broderick Pabillo is saddened by the reality that in 
Congress, it seems that political survival trumps the religious principles of 
lawmakers when they decide on controversial bills that are prioritized by the 
sitting president.

"What's frustrating is that you see the culture that there are many in the 
House who do not have convictions. So whoever is on the top, they just follow 
him or her," said Pabillo, who chairs the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the 
Philippines (CBCP) Episcopal Commission on the Laity.

But for Davao City 1st District Representative Karlo Nograles, the RH and death 
penalty measures "are 2 distinct bills."

"The reasons I voted against RH can be found in the records of Congress in the 
explanation of my vote. Particularly the legality/constitutionality of its 
provisions (and as predicted the Supreme court ruled against some of its 
provisions as being patently violative of the Constitution), the dangers they 
pose to women (and up to now there are still health questions that are 
derailing the drugs), and difference in policy and spending," said Nograles.

He still believes that population growth "will naturally adjust" without 
government intervention.

"The money will be better spent on primary healthcare, education to make sure 
our young population is healthy and educated so they will continue to help grow 
our economy sustainably for years to come, instead of spending it buying 
condoms, pills, etc," Nograles added.

Another curious case is that of Deputy Speaker Fredenil Castro. The 
representative of Capiz' 2nd District was among the lawmakers in 2006 who 
agreed to abolish the death penalty under then-president and now Pampanga 2nd 
District Representative Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

11 years later, Castro not only voted in favor of the death penalty but he was 
also a principal co-author of the measure along with Alvarez.

"I would just like to clarify first that I did not favor the abolition; I voted 
in favor of the suspension of the death penalty," said Castro.

"What is the reason? Because at the time, there was no need [for the death 
penalty], but this time, as you may know in my sponsorship speech, it has 
become so cruel, it has become so ugly, it has become so gruesome that this 
criminal has ignored even the minimum standard of norms imposed in civilized 
society," he said.

Just like the President, Castro believes capital punishment is retribution for 
the victims of heinous crimes.

According to Ateneo de Manila University political analyst Rene Raymond 
Raneses, lawmakers who were given the chance to vote on both the RH and death 
penalty bills can also ground their arguments based on their faith.

"It's about selectively choosing what the Bible says," said Raneses.

"On the one hand, there is this protection of life [argument against the RH 
bill], right? But on the death penalty, there is religious grounding on 
insisting the life of the greater majority when it comes to punishing 
criminals. So these are competing voices," he added.

A 'divided' Church

Pabillo admitted the Church may have mobliized too late to fight the death 
penalty in the House as well.

"There were signature campaigns. There were bishops who talked to House of 
Representatives members. And the faithful were asked to talk to the 
representatives if they know any of them," he said.

Manila Archbishop Luis Antonio Cardinal Tagle, CBCP president and 
Lingayen-Dagupan Archbishop Socrates Villegas, and other bishops denounced the 
plan to revive the death penalty.

Catholics also staged the "Walk for Life" grand procession on February 18. The 
procession, attended by 10,500 Filipinos, aimed to oppose drug-related 
killings, the death penalty, and other measures labeled by the Catholic Church 
as "anti-life."

"But the problem is that the mobilization of the people was a bit too late, 
right? Unlike the RH where it was discussed for a long time, the discussion on 
this was fast. It's like it came out of nowhere," said Pabillo.

Pabillo explained the Church's time last year was divided between fighting the 
spate of extrajudicial killings in the country and HB 4727's passage.

This was a far cry from the years the CBCP led the charge against the RH bill 
for more than a decade.

In the book, "Altar of Secrets: Sex, Politics, and Money in the Philippine 
Catholic Church" by the late Rappler senior investigative reporter Aries Rufo, 
the CBCP went head-to-head with former Health Secretary Juan Flavier when the 
latter promoted the use of condoms to combat HIV and AIDS.

When Flavier ran for senator in 1995, the Church mobilized its lay groups to 
campaign against him. Flavier won but wound up 5th, way below expectations.

Arroyo, a devout Catholic, also endeared herself to the Church not only by 
abolishing the death penalty in 2006, but also by aggressively promoting only 
the Church-backed natural family planning method.

The Church also remained relentless in its fight against the RH bill, with some 
dioceses even campaigning against pro-RH senatorial bets who voted in favor of 
the RH bill via its controversial "Team Patay" and "Team Buhay" tags during the 
2013 polls.

Church losing hold over flock?

According to Aries Arugay, political analyst from the University of the 
Philippines, the Church has become more "politically obscure" in the past 
years.

"It has to play a more constructive role in terms of addressing the things that 
brought Duterte to power. The Church lost its ability to be the institution of 
the poor, the marginalized, the downtrodden. They lost the ability to capture 
those sectors of society," he added. Pabillo argued, however, that Duterte's 
open attacks against the Church can be considered "unprecedented."

"It's the 1st time someone fights and curses like that openly. But we see that 
this is not only against the Church. This is against anything like the) UN 
(United Nations, former US President Barrack] Obama...That is something new. 
That is unprecedented," said Pabillo.

He admitted the Church is still figuring out the best approach to fight not 
Duterte per se, but his supposed "mismanagement of the government."

"For us, it is not against Duterte. It is against the mismanagement of whoever. 
We spoke against Gloria over corruption, against PNoy because he did not do 
anything. The problem with him (Duterte) is that he takes it personally," 
Pabillo said.

The fight continues

Now that the death penalty bill was passed by the House, how does the Church 
plan to stop the bill in the Senate?

According to Pabillo, "small groups" from within the Church have been meeting 
to draft initial plans of action.

One of the proposed plans is to once again campaign against pro-death penalty 
lawmakers who will run in the 2019 polls.

"Maybe we'll hold the representatives accountable. We'll make their votes known 
to the public. We'll post them in churches. We will remind them in 2018. At 
after that, we can put it on Facebook also. We are still going to strategize," 
said Pabillo.

The Church is also planning to stage another "Penitential Walk for Life" on 
Good Friday next month, with the Church targeting the procession to be held 
from Baclaran to the Manila Cathedral. Pabillo said the procession aims to 
"meditate on the Way of the Cross from the point of view of life."

The 217-54-1 vote for the death penalty bill at the House only shows that the 
odds are against the Church. But according to Pabillo, it is during times like 
these when the Church must continue fighting.

"Because I think we should not stop speaking about the truth. We should not 
stop defending life. That's part of the Church's mission," said the bishop.

"Because if we are silent, it's like accepting the bad things that are 
happening. Even if I am alone, even if it's just 1 voice, I'd still say, "Death 
penalty is wrong," Pabillo added.

****

When the House whips go to work for the death penalty

PART 2: Majority Leader Rodolfo Farinas leads the charge to whip the votes and 
bring back the death penalty in the country, a pet bill of President Rodrigo 
Duterte

The passage of the controversial death penalty measure was expected, but key 
members of the House made sure it would be passed on 3rd and final reading.

House Bill (HB) Number 4727 is part of the legislative agenda of President 
Rodrigo Duterte, who counts at least 267 legislators as his allies.

The House leadership also allowed several amendments to HB 4727 to make the 
measure more palatable to a majority of lawmakers, who ended up voting 217-54-1 
on the bill's final reading.

Who acted as Duterte's lieutenants in the House and made sure HB 4727 would be 
passed?

Whipping the votes

"The whips worked on that). I think the whips did their work because some of 
the people, some members of the House who would have voted otherwise, succumbed 
to the whip of the Speaker and definitely Malacanang," said Aries Arugay, 
political analyst from the University of the Philippines-Diliman.

"It only means the House is not sitting on the President's legislative agenda, 
but they are reflecting the people's will as expressed by Malacanang. They 
could have sat on it as with the freedom of information bill, but they didn't," 
he added.

Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez threatened to replace deputy speakers and committee 
chairmanships who either voted no, abstained from voting, or were absent during 
the proceedings.

But the person who led the charge of whipping the votes on the ground was 
Ilocos Norte 1st District Representative Rodolfo Farinas, the Majority Leader.

Farinas is known to be diligent in reaching out to every member of the House. 
He admitted in a television interview that he even texts all 292 of his 
colleagues to remind them to show up for the 4 pm session every Monday to 
Wednesday.

Farinas also told Rappler that he discussed the death penalty measure with all 
congressmen.

"I simply talked to each member to discuss the bill with them. And out of 
mutual respect, I found out from them their position on the matter whether for 
or against. Those belonging to the latter even took the initiative of talking 
to me to explain the reason they were against it, which I respected," said 
Farinas.

Occidental Mindoro Representative Josephine Ramirez-Sato, a member of the House 
contingent to the powerful Commission on Appointments, said she had spoken to 
Farinas thrice regarding her no vote on the death penalty bill.

As a member of the justice panel, Sato had to make a written manifestation 
explaining why she will be voting against HB 4727.

"Of course, the Majority Leader read it. He said, "Oh I didn't know you would 
be voting no. It's like we were just joking about it."

Farinas had also called her days before the 3rd reading of HB 4727.

"He was just asking me what my final vote will be...But I must emphasize that 
there was really no pressure. It was a friendly conversation," said Sato.

She had also approached Farinas minutes before the session started on March 8 
to reiterate her no vote.

Party consultations

It was a strategy that trickled down to the other parties in the House. The 22 
members of the National Unity Party (NUP), for example, discussed the 
reimposition of the death penalty in their regular lunch meetings prior to the 
vote.

"We went through a process of consultations among ourselves, our respective 
districts, and constituents. We openly discussed the issues, the pros and cons, 
especially during the times when the number of crimes was reduced from 21 to 4 
to just drugs," said Davao City 1st District Representative Karlo Nograles, 
chairman of the powerful committee on appropriations.

Deputy Speaker Fredenil Castro, who is NUP's vice president for political and 
electoral affairs, said they also did not impose a party stand.

"In the party, we are left with our own preferences. And we had our lunch with 
our members and I was just telling them that I don't even have to deliver any 
message for the members of the NUP. No need for any convincing because the 
members were independent," said Castro.

In the end, 20 NUP members voted in favor of HB 4727, while only 2 said no.

The party-list representatives, meanwhile, were whipped by their coalition 
president and AKO Bicol Representative Rodel Batocabe, as well as coalition 
secretary-general and Deputy Speaker Sharon Garin of AAMBIS-OWA.

"Yeah, we talked to members. We whipped all members to toe the line because 
that's the administration's priority, and 2nd, it's the campaign promise of 
President Duterte," said Batocabe.

He added that one of the rules for coalition officers is for them to support 
the legislative agenda of the President.

A total of 23 party-list representatives gave their nod to HB 4727. Another 18 
said no and 6 were absent during the vote.

Weak political party system

The voting turnout for HB 4727 is generally not surprising, apart from a few 
lawmakers who voted either contrary to their previous public statements or 
against their party stand.

"The House under the leadership of Alvarez is just maintaining its reputation 
that it's easily swayed by Malacanang more than the Senate. The House is 
historically like that," said Arugay.

He added, however, that the 217-54-1 vote for the death penalty bill only 
confirms how the Philippines lacks a genuine political party system.

The once ruling Liberal Party (LP) is against the death penalty. Around a week 
before the House was scheduled to vote on the death penalty bill, the 32 LP 
congressmen met with Vice President Leni Robredo, former President Benigno 
Aquino III, and Senators Paolo Benigno Aquino IV, Franklin Drilon, and Francis 
Pangilinan.

It was during this meeting that the LP congressmen said they will be deciding 
whether or not to bolt the majority bloc after the vote on HB 4727. Their 
counterparts in the Senate are already in the minority after they were stripped 
of their leadership titles. Senator Leila de Lima is also in jail facing drug 
charges.

LP stalwarts emphasized that there will no sanctions on congressmen who will 
vote in favor of HB 4727.

On March 8, 15 LP congressmen said yes to reimposing the death penalty, while 
another 15 of them said no. 2 LP lawmakers were absent during the proceedings. 
The party was divided.

Among those who voted in favor of HB 4727 was Deputy Speaker Miro Quimbo, the 
highest ranking LP member in the House, and Quezon City 4th District 
Representative Feliciano Belmonte Jr, former speaker.

"I think it reveals that for the existing parties, the party discipline is weak 
because the party line is unclear. There were LP [members] who voted yes. The 
reason given is because of the fact that their party is liberal - I think 
that's a stupid excuse that does not bode well [for] a viable party system. It 
should be very clear," said Arugay.

Loyalty check

Alvarez made good on his promise to remove deputy speakers and committee 
chairpersons who did not vote yes to the death penalty bill.

Pampanga 2nd District Representative Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo was ousted as 
deputy speaker, along with 11 other committee chairpersons, on March 15.

Alvarez used to be Arroyo's transportation secretary when the latter was 
president. It was during the Arroyo administration when the death penalty was 
abolished in 2006.

According to Ateneo de Manila University political analyst Rene Raymond 
Raneses, Alvarez' removal of deputy speakers and committee chairpersons was 
expected by Duterte's top ally in the House.

Raneses, however, advised Alvarez to make sure the replacements would be loyal 
to the majority.

The political analyst also believes those who will lose their posts will likely 
stay in the majority.

"If these people were replaced, I don't think it would strip away support from 
the administration coalition as long as the people he puts in there are people 
who have the same number of people behind them," said Raneses.

Lawmakers had previously agreed to give "full support" to Alvarez whatever he 
decides on the House reorganization.

Numbers game until the end

The death penalty bill may have breezed through the House of Representatives, 
but its fate in the Senate remains to be seen.

The measure is not a priority among senators and Senate President Aquilino 
Pimentel III said a "close fight" for the bill should be expected in the 
Senate.

Still, pro-death penalty senators are convincing their colleagues to consider 
accepting a version of the measure involving high level drug trafficking 
offenses only.

If there is one thing that is guaranteed after the House's 3rd reading of HB 
4727, it is that Duterte will have a strong legislative shield against any 
impeachment complaints for now. Magdalo Representative Gary Alejano already 
filed the 1st impeachment complaint against the President.

"Pretty much Duterte is protected because we all know all impeachment 
complaints emanate from the House. We can even equate the vote for the death 
penalty to the possible purported legislative shield that Duterte will enjoy," 
said Arugay.

The death penalty vote turnout also shows that Duterte's allies in the House is 
no-nonsense when it comes to following the President's desires.

"I think this legislative bloc that is supportive of Duterte doesn't have time 
to be friends with everyone. It's very polarizing. Either you're with us or 
against us," said Arugay.

And this is a fact known to Alvarez himself. He said he will always be open to 
debates in the House, but he also knows he has the numbers to get what he 
wants.

"Because in a democracy, we always argue, but at the end of the day, if I have 
the majority, I will prevail," said Alvarez.

***********

What happened behind closed doors to the death penalty bill


It was a little past 10:30 am on February 8 when Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez 
walked out of his office towards Macalintal Hall at the South Wing Annex of the 
House of Representatives.

Reporters flocked around Alvarez and asked why he called for a meeting with 
around 100 lawmakers belonging to the Partido Demokratiko Pilipino-Lakas ng 
Bayan (PDP-Laban), the ruling administration party under President Rodrigo 
Duterte.

"I am meeting with them to tell them that the party stand is the restoration of 
the death penalty," said Alvarez, who is also PDP-Laban's secretary-general.

It was during the same interview that the Davao del Norte 1st District 
representative told reporters that he would be replacing administration-allied 
deputy speakers and committee chairpersons should they thumb down House Bill 
(HB) Number 4727.

After an exclusive meeting with his party mates that Wednesday morning, Alvarez 
attended another caucus with around 260 lawmakers.

A month after that Wednesday meeting, the House passed on 3rd and final reading 
the controversial HB 4727, which gives judges the options to punish 
perpetrators of 7 drug crimes with either life imprisonment or death.

A total of 217 lawmakers said yes, while only 54 said no with no abstentions.

Since Alvarez and Deputy Speaker Fredenil Castro filed the first version of HB 
4727 on June 30, 2016, lawmakers and political analysts alike agreed the death 
penalty measure would be passed in the lower chamber.

How did the House manage to pass a controversial priority bill of the President 
in just 8 months?

Compromises

It was not smooth-sailing for HB 4727 in the beginning. As early as December 
2016, it was clear that a handful of representatives were still ambivalent 
about their stance on the death penalty.

Majority Leader Rodolfo Farinas broke down the numbers at the time. When he 
called for a majority caucus - which was attended by 100 of the 267 
administration-allied legislators - 50 of the legislators were pro-death 
penalty, while only 15 were strongly against it. 35 were undecided.

They were torn between following the President's legislative agenda and 
following their conscience, forcing Alvarez to extend the debate to this year.

The House leadership then had to come up with various compromises to make the 
death penalty bill more palatable to lawmakers living in a predominantly 
Catholic country.

Various caucuses were held from December 2016 to February 2017 to decide on 
these amendments.

In attendance were PDP-Laban members and lawmakers who are members of parties 
that signed coalition agreements with the administration party - Lakas CMD, 
Liberal Party, Nacionalista Party, Nationalist People's Coalition, National 
Unity Party, and the party-list-coalition.

The 1st compromise was the removal of the mandatory penalty of death provisions 
under the measure as well as the addition of safeguard measures for the 
accused.

Deputy Speaker Ferdinand Hernandez said more of his colleagues softened their 
hardline stance against the capital punishment bill when this was proposed.

"In fact, because of that position, many members of the House changed their 
position. Instead of hardline, a lot of them accepted, like they believe this 
is more palatable," said Hernandez.

The tipping point for the rest of the 217 lawmakers who voted in favor of HB 
4727 was when the list of crimes under the bill was reduced from 21 to 7, all 
involving drug-related offenses.

House justice panel chairperson Reynaldo Umali said this was finalized with the 
help of a survey conducted by the committee on rules.

"The Majority Leader and the Speaker distributed surveys, papers, to members to 
determine the sampling of the top 3 crimes they want in the bill)...It was 
really democratic and a showcase of how to build consensus," said Umali, who 
sponsored HB 4727 since he chaired the committee that approved the measure.

The top crimes that emerged from the survey were drug offenses, rape, plunder, 
and treason.

'Open' caucuses?

Another majority caucus was held on February 27, when Umali brought with him 3 
versions of HB 4727 listing different combinations of the top crimes based on 
the survey. The lawmakers were supposed to choose which version was most 
acceptable to them.

According Castro, the mood was "so open" during their caucuses.

"Everybody could make suggestions. everybody could make motions. Everybody was 
free to state and everybody was invited to speak. It was democracy," said 
Castro.

But it seems "democracy" in the House could only go as far as the numbers game 
would allow.

Umali said that during the said caucus, a "big, loud" group at the back of 
Macalintal Hall was "very vocal" about limiting the death penalty bill to drugs 
only.

It was, after all, one of the recommendations of the committee on justice when 
it probed the narcotics trade at the New Bilibid Prison.

"'We couldn't agree. If some wanted to add rape, why not this other crime? So 
they just proposed to limit it to drug-related, heinous crimes," said Umali.

He could not give an estimate on the number of lawmakers in that group, but 
Umali said they were "big enough to be able to sway the majority and the 
Speaker to agree on going back to the original plan of just pursuing [the] 
drug-related crimes."

The majority bloc eventually favored the version that listed only 7 drug crimes 
to be punishable with death.

Riding on the war against drugs

According to Ateneo de Manila University political analyst Rene Raymond 
Raneses, limiting the offenses to drugs was a good strategy to have HB 4727 
passed.

"I think it's a strategy because it actually made it more difficult on the part 
of those against the death penalty to denounce the reimposition of the death 
penalty because it's already very limited. They made it in sync with the 
popular and consensual war on drugs," said Raneses in a mix of English and 
Filipino.

"The argument of those against the death penalty is, the justice system cannot 
be trusted. So you have all these crimes. But limit the crimes that will be 
punished, it's more in sync with what the people want in the country. Some 
people don't want the death penalty, but there's an implicit consensus that the 
war on drugs is a good thing," he added.

Duterte won on a campaign anchored on a promise to eradicate drugs and 
criminality. He also promised to bring back the death penalty.

The President continues to enjoy strong support among the poor, even if more 
than 7,000 drug personalities have been killed in legitimate police operations 
and apparent summary killings nationwide.

Duterte taking a step back in the House?

Duterte, however, was not immediately informed about the amendments to the 
measure.

Reimposing the death penalty is one of his pet bills, but it seems the 
President preferred Alvarez to pull the reins in the House.

When the President was told that the bill was watered down because lawmakers 
"could not agree among themselves," Duterte said he would "let them solve" the 
issue on their own.

And so it was only during the same night when the House approved HB 4727 on 3rd 
reading that Alvarez personally explained to Duterte that rape, plunder, and 
treason had to be stricken out.

According to the Speaker, watering down the bill was needed to enable the House 
to have an "output" before the end of the 1st regular session.

"It's not a matter of convenience but you know, we have to be realistic. 
Because if we want the crimes to be added at the same time, but it would take a 
while for us to talk about it, then it's better if we do it one by one so we 
can accomplish something."

While the President was "thankful" the House passed the measure, he would have 
preferred that rape with homicide was included in the bill, too.

(source: rappler.com)






INDIA:

Abolish death penalty except in terror cases says Law Commission


The Law Commission has recommended that death penalty be abolished for all 
crimes. The commission however recommended that death penalty must remain for 
cases of terrorism. The same was informed by Hansraj Ahir, the Union Minister 
of State for Home Affairs in the Rajya Sabha.

The commission said that death penalty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal 
Code be abolished except in cases of terrorism since it does not serve the 
penological goal of deterrence any more than life imprisonment.

The panel while supporting death for those convicted in terror cases and waging 
war against the country said, although there is no valid penological 
justification for treating terrorism cases differently from other crimes, there 
is a concern raised that abolition of capital punishment for terror related 
cases and waging war will affect national security.

(source: oneindia.com)

*********************

Law Commission recommended abolition of death penalty


The Law Commission has recommended that the death penalty be abolished for all 
crimes except those related to terrorism, Rajya Sabha was informed today.

Minister of State for Home Hansraj Ahir said the Law Commission in its 262nd 
report has recommended that the death penalty be abolished for all crimes other 
than terrorism related offences and waging war.

(source: The Economic Times)