Mar 7, 2017 | News
The ICJ today condemned the move of the Philippines’ House of Representatives to reintroduce the death penalty for drug-related crimes.
The ICJ has called on the country’s Senate to block this serious threat to human rights.
Earlier today, the House of Representatives approved House Bill 4727 on third and final reading by 216 votes. 54 voted “no”, and one abstained. The bill as amended reinstates the death penalty for drug-related crimes, more than 10 years after the Philippines had legally abandoned executions.
The approved bill will be transmitted to the Senate, where it will go through the same procedure of three readings.
“The passage of the death penalty bill in the Philippine House of Representatives represents a turning point in the country, but one that is for the worse. It puts the Philippines in direct conflict with its international legal obligations,” said Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s Senior International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia.
“Now it’s up to the Philippine Senate to stop this terrible and unconscionable move and preserve the Philippines’ status as a regional leader against the death penalty,” Gil added.
Since 2007, the Philippines has been a Party to the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), requiring all parties to abolish the death penalty in law and practice. Under the ICCPR and the Second Protocol, States are prohibited from bringing back the death penalty once it has been abolished in domestic laws.
“Passing this law will send a negative message to the international community that the Philippines is incapable of observing in good faith the international obligations it has expressly bound itself to,” Gil said.
Ever since it abolished the death penalty in 2006, the Philippines has been viewed by many observers as a regional and global leader on the drive to abolish capital punishment. Not only was it the very first Southeast Asian country to ratify the Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR, it also played an instrumental role in advocating for the abolition of the death penalty worldwide.
Since 2007, the Philippines has consistently co-sponsored multiple UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a moratorium on the use of the death penalty with a view to its total abolition. These resolutions have been adopted with large majorities.
“The Duterte administration had already engaged in hundreds, if not thousands, of extrajudicial killings justified by unsubstantiated claims that such wholesale crimes will somehow respond to the country’s drug problem. The resumption of the death penalty compounds the horrors of this bloody campaign without any evidence whatsoever that this odious practice will in any way improve the alleged drug problem in the country,” Gil said.
Rather than the death penalty, studies have demonstrated that heightened enforcement efforts which increase the chances of actually being caught and punished are more effective in deterring criminal conduct.
The ICJ therefore calls on the Senate of the Philippines to reject in full the bill seeking to re-impose the death penalty in the country in accordance with the Philippines’ international obligations.
Background
The bill approved by the House of Representatives (Lower House) will be transmitted to the Senate (Upper House), where it will go through the same procedure of three readings.
If the bill is approved upon the third reading at the Senate without amendments, it will be presented to the President. The bill would become a law if and when it is signed by the President.
If, however, there are amendments on the bill at the Senate and the House of Representatives do not agree with these amendments, the differences would be settled by a Conference Committee of both Houses.
The recommendations of the Conference Committee would have to be approved by both Houses.
Contact
Ms. Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s Senior International Legal Adviser, tel. no. +66 840 923 575, email: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org
Mar 3, 2017 | News
The ICJ today urged the Philippine Congress to bring a halt to the Government’s attempt to bring back capital punishment.
The Philippine Congress’s attempt to restore this heinous practice is in blatant breach of its international legal obligations.
The ICJ condemned the approval on second reading of a bill to restore the death penalty by the Philippines’ House of Representatives on 1 March 2017 and called on legislators to vigorously oppose it and prevent it from being passed on final reading.
If adopted, the legislation will place the Philippines at odds with its legal obligation under international treaties to which it is party, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and its second Optional Protocol aiming at the abolition of the death penalty.
The ICJ also expressed concern at the manner in which the bill was effectively railroaded through the Philippine House of Representatives this week when it passed on second reading House Bill 4727, which seeks to reintroduce the death penalty for drug-related crimes.
House Bill 4727 will be put to a final vote on third reading next week. Nominal voting will be done on the third reading of the bill, which means that one by one, legislators would be called to explain their vote.
To marshal enough support for the bill, pro-death penalty legislators struck off all other crimes that were proposed in the original bill to be punishable by death, such as plunder, treason, and rape.
As it stands now, House Bill 4727 imposes capital punishment only on commission of drug-related crimes. Proponents of the bill claim that this is to support the President’s “war on drugs”.
The controversial measure was approved only eight session days after it reached the plenary for debates on 1 February 2017.
“It is obvious that proponents of State killing as means of “justice” were intent on rushing the passage of the death penalty bill by thwarting any substantial discussion thereon and by pressuring into silence those who oppose it,” said Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s Senior International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia.
A similar bill proposing to bring back the death penalty has been filed at the Philippine Senate. The Senate Committee on Justice and Human Rights conducted the first hearing on the bill last 7 February 2017. The Committee Chair, Senator Richard Gordon, indefinitely suspended the hearing until the Department of Justice is able to submit its opinion on the Philippines’ obligations under the ICCPR and its Second Optional Protocol.
“Until recently, the Philippines had set an example of regional and global best practice on the abolition of the death penalty. Reintroducing the death penalty will be an enormous move backward for the country,” Gil emphasized.
The move by the Philippines goes against a global trend towards abolition of the death penalty.
In December, the United Nations General Assembly voted by a large majority, for the sixth time, to adopt a resolution which called on states that have abolished the death penalty not to reintroduce it. It also called on all retentionist States to impose a moratorium on the death penalty with a view to abolition.
The ICJ opposes the death penalty in all cases and considers its use to be a violation of the right to life and freedom from cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment.
Background
The leadership has sought to bypass normal procedures in hastily pushing through the bill seeking to re-impose the death penalty at various stages of the Philippine Congress.
9 November 2016: the Sub-Committee on Judicial Reforms began hearings on the bill seeking to re-impose the death penalty.
29 November 2016: the Sub-Committee approved the bill after it rushed through the proceedings, ignoring important questions from other lawmakers questioning the need for such legislation. The bill was thereafter referred to the Committee on Justice for further deliberation.
7 December 2016: the Committee on Justice approved the bill and moved that it be debated in plenary.
1 February 2017: the plenary debate on House Bill 4727 began.
8 February 2017: the Speaker of the House of Representatives, in a closed-door caucus among members of the supermajority, threatened that those who oppose the bill will be stripped of their leadership posts in Congress, i.e. committee chairmanships and Deputy Speakerships.
28 February 2017: amidst vehement objections from the opposition, the debate in plenary was ended. This was done despite the fact that only nine out of at least 50 members of Congress who had registered to interpellate the sponsors of the bill had been given the opportunity to do so.
1 March 2017: during the period of individual amendments, the sponsors of the bill invoked omnibus rejection to all proposed amendments, rejecting every proposal that was deemed inconsistent with the House leadership’s agenda of immediately passing the bill. Later that day, the period of individual amendments was ended, despite calls from legislators who wished to make further changes to the bill.
Contact
Ms. Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s Senior International Legal Adviser, tel. no. +66 840923575, email: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org
Feb 28, 2017 | News
The ICJ condemns the arrest and detention of Senator Leila De Lima and calls for her immediate release.
The ICJ believes that the charges brought against Senator De Lima are fabricated and thus considers her prosecution to be politically motivated and amounting to judicial persecution.
Senator De Lima is a staunch critic of President Rodrigo Duterte.
“This is clearly meant to silence for good a vocal critic of President Rodrigo Duterte,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific.
In August 2016, Senator De Lima led an investigation by the Senate Committee on Justice and Human Rights into hundreds of cases of extrajudicial killings occurring after President Duterte assumed power.
On 19 September 2016, however, she was removed by her colleagues from her position as chairperson of the said committee due to their concerns towards her “continuous efforts to destroy the President”.
Weeks before her removal, on 25 August 2016, President Duterte had accused Senator De Lima of running a drug trafficking ring inside New Bilibid Prison during her stint as Justice Secretary.
Subsequently, on 20 September 2016, led by the President’s allies in the Congress, the House Committee on Justice began a probe into these allegations against De Lima and in turn, on 17 February 2017, the Department of Justice filed three charges against her under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (Republic Act 9165): Section 5 specifically with “trading” in illegal drugs, Section 26(b), and Section 28. If found guilty, she may face the penalty or a prison sentence ranging between twelve years to life imprisonment.
Senator De Lima was then arrested on 23 February 2017.
“If the government really wants to defeat the illegal drug trade, there should be more prosecutions before domestic courts. We do not see this, however. We only see active persecution of those who are critical of the President’s ‘war on drugs’,” Zarifi added.
The ICJ also noted with profound concern the statements of officials from the Philippine government, including the Secretary of Justice, alluding to the Senator’s guilt which – apart from being inconsistent with the right to the presumption of innocence – constitute additional evidence that the charges against her are a blatant attempt not only to silence her for good but also to discredit her in the eyes of the public.
The right to presumption of innocence is an absolute right. According to the UN Human Rights Committee, public authorities and officials have a duty to restrain from prejudging the outcome of a trial, by refraining from making public statements appearing to affirm the guilt of the accused.
The ICJ believes that public authorities and officials, including prosecutors, may inform the public about criminal investigations or charges but should not express a view as to the guilt of any defendant.
The ICJ calls on the Philippine government to immediately release Senator De Lima and immediately stop any further acts of harassment against her and other public critics of the government.
Contact
Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s Senior International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia, t: +66 2 619 8477 ext. 206 or +66 840923575 ; e: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org
Feb 27, 2017 | News, Publications, Reports, Thematic reports
The Government of Myanmar should impose a moratorium on the development of Special Economic Zones (SEZs) until it can ensure SEZs can be developed inline with international human rights laws and standards, said the ICJ at a report launch held today in Yangon.
The 88-page report, entitled Special Economic Zones in Myanmar and the State Duty to Protect Human rights, assesses the laws governing Myanmar’s SEZs and finds that the legal framework is not consistent with the State’s duty to protect human rights.
For example, a case study examining the Kyauk Phyu SEZ in Rakhine State shows that the land acquisition process initiated in early 2016 lacks transparency, does not comply with national laws on land acquisition, and risks violating the rights of 20,000 residents facing displacement.
“The SEZ Law undermines the protection of human rights, and critical legal procedures are often poorly implemented, so the Kyauk Phyu project risks repeating the rights violations that have been associated with SEZs in the past,” said Sam Zarifi, the ICJ’s Asia Director.
“The NLD-led Government can make a break from the past by ensuring economic development projects benefit Myanmar’s people, rather than rushing to facilitate projects which result in human rights violations and ultimately undermine sustainable development,” he added.
Myanmar’s legal framework for SEZs is based on the 2014 SEZ Law and incorporating national laws governing land, labour and the environment.
The report shows that while national laws require Environmental Impact Assessments and the application of international standards on involuntary resettlement, the SEZ Law does not establish clear accountabilities for the implementation of these procedures.
This has contributed to human rights violations and abuses in each of Myanmar’s three SEZs, the report says.
“It has been encouraging that government officials have emphasized their commitment to protecting human rights in SEZs in line with the rule of law,” said Sean Bain, the ICJ’s Legal Consultant in Myanmar and lead author of the report.
“The legal reforms recommended in this report will be critical to meet these commitments while fulfilling the State’s duty to protect human rights in SEZs. We also suggest that investors take heightened due diligence measures to ensure they are not complicit in rights violations,” he added.
The report was based on extensive legal research as well as interviews with over 100 people, from affected communities to investors and government officials, during 2016.
Key recommendations to the Government of Myanmar
- Protect human rights in Myanmar’s SEZs by amending the SEZ Law, through meaningful public consultation in accordance with international standards.
- Order a moratorium on the development of SEZs, and on entering related investment agreements, until the SEZ Law has been amended to ensure conformity with international human rights law and standards.
- Commission a Strategic Environmental Assessment for the Kyauk Phyu SEZ, in line with Myanmar’s environmental conservation laws. This would involve consultation to inform decision-making on the Kyauk Phyu SEZ and related projects, by identifying cumulative environmental and social impacts of all the developments in Kyauk Phyu, while considering conflict dynamics and economic development in Rakhine State.
- Suspend land acquisition in Kyauk Phyu until after the completion of a resettlement plan that is in line with international standards, as required in the EIA Procedure.
Contact
Sean Bain, ICJ Legal Consultant in Myanmar, t: +95 9263533230 ; e: sean.bain(a)icj.org
Myanmar-SEZ assessment-Publications-Reports-Thematic reports-2017-ENG (full report, in PDF)
Myanmar-SEZ assessment SUMMARY-Publications-Reports-Thematic reports-2017-ENG (executive summary of the report, in PDF)
Myanmar-SEZ assessment full-Publications-Reports-Thematic reports-2017-BUR (Burmese version of full report, in PDF)
Myanmar-SEZ assessment-Publications-Reports-Thematic reports-2017-BUR (Burmese version of the executive summary, in PDF)
Feb 13, 2017 | News
The workshop, held from 11-12 February in Sittwe, brought lawyers and civil society together to discuss of experiences of strategic litigation elsewhere in Myanmar and the region, and consider potential public purpose litigation cases in Rakhine State.
Dr Daniel Aguirre, the ICJ’s International Legal Adviser in Myanmar, provided an introduction to strategic litigation as a method for promoting accountability in a time of transition in governance.
He noted the critical role of independent lawyers in protecting human rights, by representing clients from all communities in Rakhine State.
And he emphasized the importance of strategic litigation as a means to prevent violations and abuses of human rights, or to seek reparations where violations and abuses have occurred.
Kingsley Abbot and Jintana Sakulborirak, from the ICJ’s Asia Regional Office in Thailand, discussed strategic litigation cases from the region, including in northern Thailand where community members have launched an action to appeal the legality of land acquisition for a planned SEZ in Tak Province.
The cases highlighted how media engagement is a critical part of strategic litigation, to raise public attention on human rights issues and demands for accountability in the implementation of investment projects.
Daw Aye Mon Thu, advocate from Dawei Pro Bono Lawyers Network presented the experiences of Heinda Mine cases from Dawei Region, Southern Myanmar, emphasizing the importance of trust-building and cooperation with local community as stake-holder. Such a strategic litigation cases are extremely rare in Myanmar.
Discussions followed about potential cases for strategic litigation from Kyauk Phyu and Sittwe, including issues related to land acquisition for railways construction and an SEZ appear to have been carried out unlawfully in violation of human rights.
Participants discussed the principle of undertaking litigation for broader advocacy objectives rather than solely focusing on actually winning the case in the court.
They also reflected on the challenges and limitations for Myanmar lawyers to undertake strategic litigation.
Highlighting the vital role of lawyers, speakers encouraged participants to consider strategic litigation as a means to challenge unlawful acts that violate or abuse human rights, particularly accompanying business enterprises.
Rakhine State is among Myanmar’s poorest and most isolated provinces, where lawyers and CSOs have had limited exposure to concepts of human rights and international laws.
This workshop, the first of its kind to be held in Rakhine State, is part of efforts to address this gap by building legal literacy on international human rights law and lawyers to consider litigation as a strategy to protect human rights.
Feb 9, 2017 | Advocacy, News
The ICJ today welcomed the indefinite suspension of the hearings on the death penalty bills by the Philippine Senate’s Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
The Committee’s Chairman, Senator Richard Gordon, indicated the suspension was needed until the Department of Justice is able to submit its opinion on the Philippines’ obligations under the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
That instrument requires the Philippines to maintain its abolition.
“Abolitionist States may not return to the use of the death penalty generally under the ICCPR, and States that become party to the Second Optional Protocol assume very specific obligations to that effect,” said Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s Senior International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia. “There really is no inconsistency between the Second Optional Protocol and the Philippine Constitution.”
“As a general rule, the Philippine Constitution prohibits the death penalty except for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes. But in no way does it mandate that the death penalty be put into effect,” she added.
By ratifying the Second Optional Protocol, the Philippines has voluntarily chosen to be bound by an international obligation not to impose the death penalty – which it might otherwise have had the option to do under the Constitution.
As the ICJ explains in a memorandum on this issue, this is the very essence of treaty making.
“To announce long after ratification that a treaty is inconsistent with the Constitution and so not to be treated as binding, would call into question virtually every treaty to which Philippines is a party,” Gil said.
“This would contradict the most basic foundations of the international legal system and would lead other countries to view the Philippines as virtually incapable of making a reliable international legal agreement,” she added.
The ICJ emphasized that if the Philippines brings back the death penalty into its domestic laws, it would also be in violation of its obligations under the ICCPR, which effectively prohibits States from bringing back the death penalty once it has been abolished in domestic laws.
The Philippines cannot withdraw from Second Optional Protocol, which has no denunciation or withdrawal clause, the ICJ says.
The UN Human Rights Committee has explained that a denunciation clause was deliberately omitted because once the people are accorded the protection of the rights under the Second Optional Protocol, they shall not be deprived of such protection.
Background
On 7 February 2017, the Senate Committee on Justice and Human Rights held its first hearing on the proposed measure reintroducing the death penalty for illegal drugs and other crimes.
A similar bill to restore the death penalty is also currently being debated in plenary at the House of Representatives.
At the Senate hearing, senators opposing the proposed measure recalled that the Philippines is a State Party to the Second Optional Protocol, and thus, it is obliged not to execute any person within its jurisdiction.
Senator Richard Gordon, who chairs the Committee, thereafter, called for the indefinite suspension of the hearings on this matter until there could be clarity on the ramifications on the Philippines if it breaches its obligations under the Second Optional Protocol.
Contact
Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s Senior International Legal Adviser, t +66 840923575 ; e: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org
Philippines-Memo OP2 and Const-Advocacy-2017-ENG (Memo in English, PDF)
