CHR (V) Azor8-Oo4
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
}t'}:PLTBI,IC (}}:'TTTIi P}{ II,IPI"INTiS COMI,IISSION ON HUNIAN RIGHTS ADVISORY ON OVERSEAS FILIPINO WORI(ERS ON DEATH ROW CHR (V) Azor8-oo4 Overview The Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines (hereafterthe'Commission') issues this advisory to bring the Philippines' attention to the plight of overseas Filipino workers ('OFWs') who are at risk of execution abroad. This advisory highlights the vulnerable situation many OFWs find themselves in, including poor working conditions and maltreatment. Subsequently, this advisory lists reasons why foreign nationals are disadvantaged abroad, when interacting with foreign justice systems, particularly in death penalty jurisdictions. The Philippines must retain its position as a leading abolitionist state and in doing so, will retain its ability to protect OFWs, including those facing the death penalty. This advisory reminds the Philippines that it is a State Party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and its Second Optional Protocol. The ICCPR and the Second Optional Protocol were ratified by the Philippines, and these contain express provisions defending the right to life and precluding reinstatement of the death penalty. As previous advisories issued by the Commission have stressed, the responsibility to promote, protect and fulfill human rights, and the promotion of a restorative justice system should be the agenda of the State. Modern human rights emphasize individual rights irrespective of state sovereignty.t This advisory complements the previous advisories issued by the Commission that have concerned advocacy against the death penalty and challenges to the proposed legislation to reimpose capital punishment.2 [For more details about the global trend toward the abolition of t]re death penalty, see Appendix.l l Matthew D. Mathias,'The Sacralization of the lndividual: Human Rights and theAbolition of the Death Penalty' (2013) 118(51 American Journal of Sociology 1246, L257. 2 An Act lmposing the Death Penalty on Certain Heinous Crimes, Repealing for the Purpose Republic Act No.9346, Entitled "An Act Prohibiting the lmposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines", And Furtlrer Amending Act No. 3815, As Amended, Otherwise Known as the "Revised Penal Code", rrnd Republic Act No. 9165, Otherwise Known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002" , House Bill No. 4724, House of Representatives, 17th Congress (2017). 1. Cammonovca/t/r frvcnac, U'P' Comp/e.r, Dr/iman //O/ Queeoo City P/tilrppnes Background The Philippines' ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR, r966)s in 1986 signalled its commitment to protecting and upholding civil and political rights, including the right to life, outlined underArticle 6.+ This was followed by the Philippines abolishing the death penalty through the adoption of the Constitution in r987.s As a result, the Philippines became the first country in Asia to abolish the death penalty.o The death penaltywas reintroduced in the Philippines in 1993 and executions were carried out as recently as tggg.T In zoo6, the Philippines abolished the death penalty for the second time which was followedbythe ratification of the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR 2,d OP, r98g)B.Article r of the Second Optional Protocol prohibits states from introducing the death penalty and Article 6 prevents states from withdrawing from the Protocol.s There is therefore no mechanism by which the Philippines can withdraw from the Protocol; as such, the Philippines cannot introduce the death penalty as this would be inconsistent with its obligations under international law.lo The Death Penalty as a Form of Torture, Traditionally, states have justified continued practice of capital punishment on the basis that this is provided for as a narrow exception to the right to life, on the condition that specific safeguards are uphelfl.tt Despite this, there is growing acceptance that the death penalty as currently practiced is irreconcilable with the prohibition against torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.l2 This prohibition forms international customary law and must be respected by all states, regardless of whether they have ratified instruments that contain the norm.rs The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture argues that there is no "categorical evidence that any method of execution in use today complies with the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment in every case."r4 This proposition is also supported by the recognition that being placed on death row involves significant delay, poor prison conditions and extreme mental distress which can be equated with cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.ls There is therefore evidence of an evolving standard within international law that views the death 3 1966 lnternational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, opened for signature Dec 19. 1966, 999 and 1057 U.N.T.S. 77L and 407 (entered into force March 23, 1976) [hereinafter ICCPR]. a Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines, 'On the Denunciation of and Withdrawal from lnternational Treaties to Reimpose the Death Penalty,' CHR A2017-. s lbid citing Art. lll, S 6, which states: Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither shall death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua. 6 tbid 2. 7 tbid. 8 1989 Second Optional Protocol to the lnternational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty, opened for signature Dec 15, L989,L642 U.N.T.S. (entered into forceJuly 11 1991) [hereinafter Second Optional Protocol]. e Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines, above n 4;-2 10 Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines and Dr. Christur,:her Ward, SC, Australian Bar Adjunct Professor, Australian National University, "ln Defense of the Right to Life: lnternational Law and Death Penalty in the Philippines,' 7 March 2017. <hltp:1&esnet^anu.edu.aulSrlesl,d.pfaSll/fiLes/uploads/29*17:03/ln-Defenm.qf-the- Righhjo-Lifg:ll.jind-Qeqlhf_ett-altv-in-the-Fhilinpines-pdf> (last accessed 13th September 2018). 11 General Assembly Resolution 66/LsO, "lnterim Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment: note by the Secretary-General, Al57 /279 (9th August 2012) 20, para 7 4< https:llu ndocs.qrd4l6Tl?79>. 12 lbid 18, para 66. 13 lbid 17, para 65. 14 lbid 9, para 41. 9-12 ry 2 penalty as illegal due to its contravention of the prohibition against torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. 16 Thus, there is strong authority for the proposition that as currently practiced, the death penaltyviolates international law as its application amounts to a form of torture or can be considered cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and punishment. As a state party to the ICCPR and the Second Optional Protocoi, the Philippines cannot introduce the death penalty due to its obligations under international law.r7 Situation of Overseas Filipino Workers According to the Philippines Statistics Authority, the total number of Overseas Filipino Workers ('OFWs') at any time between April and September zot6 was estimated to be around z.z million.ts There are more female OFWs than male, and most OFWs come from the z5-39 age range.ts OFWs play an important role for the Philippines througn'the contribution of cash remittance inflows; in zot6, OFWs contributed $2r.3 billion to the Filipino economy.2o Overwhelmingly, the leading destinations for OFWs are Gulf States in the Middle East - specifically, Saudi Arabia, United Ardb Emirates (.UAE), Kuwait and Qatar.2l At law, all of these states continue to apply the deatir penalty.r" The last reported execution in Qatar occurred in zoo3 however, there are still zo prisoners on death row in the country as of zot8.23 Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Kuwait all applied the death penalty in 2ot7, with Saudi Arabia carrying out 1{6 executions.24 A number of OFWs are also victims of human trafficking.zs Human Trafficking is defined in brief as the 'recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of a person by means of threat or other forms of coercion, abduction, fraud, deception or exploitation'.26 Recruitment agencies and placement firms arrange migrant workers' travel and employment, though not always legally.zz Trafficked OFWs include those who were legitimately recruited, but who are deceived on the nature of the work and conditions of employment in the destination country, particularly in the Gulf States.zs rt 15 lbid 20, para74. 17 Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines, above n 4, 5. 18 Philippine Statistics Authority, Totol Number of OFWs Estimoted ot 2.2 Million (Results from the 2076 Survey on overseos Filipinos) (April 27 2017) <https:l/nsa.ssv.phlcontentltatal-numb_eto-fwLqslitrated-2? _mil,l"igtt:tg.s-ulls: ?-0L$:$u-{ttPy-oygtsEq s:f iltpitlos>. 1s lbid. 20 Ben O. de Vera, OFW remittances hit record high in 2016, The Philippine Daily lnquirer (online) 6 February 2O!7 < http://busi ness.i nqu irer.net/ 224635 I ofw-remitta nces-h it-record-high-2016>. 21 Philippine Statistics Authority, above n 18. 22 Amnesty lnternational, Amnesty lnternationol Globol Report: Deoth Sentences ond Executions 2017 (2018), 6-7. 23 Cornell Center on the Death Penalty Worldwide, Qator (20f.8) <https://www.death penaltyworldwide.org/cou ntry-search-post.cfm?cou ntry=Q313 pv. 2a Amnesty lnternational, above n 22,6. 2sS. Cameron and E. Newman, 'Coalition against Trafficking ih i'luman Beings in the Philippines - Phase 1; Trafficking of Filipino Women to Japan: Examining the Experiences and Perspectives of Victims and Government Experts' United Nations University, Tokyo, Japan, unpublished report submitted to the United Nations lnterregional Crime and Justice Research lnstitute, 2OO3,2.