While the projected campaign of the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) to place “drug free” stickers on selected houses whose occupants are identified as non-drug users and/or reformed drug addicts is the opposite of the previous controversial “spray paint shame campaign” with words like “This is a house of a drug pusher!”, both are offensive to reputations and unconstitutional.
Households which are not recipients of the “drug free” stickers are exposed to embarrassment and ridicule since their members may be wrongfully presumed to be drug-pushers or users.
Shaming is inflicted without due process and it is anathema to the rule of law which guarantees that a person should not suffer any stigma or sanction without a fair trial.
The Court of Appeals in 2000 declared as unconstitutional Manila’s spray-painting shame ordinance for violating the constitutional guarantees on presumption of innocence and equal protection.
A laudable intention cannot be pursued by illegal and improper means.
The reputation of persons and families should not be left to the discretion of local peace and order councils which may have their own biases and favoritisms.
The correct policy is to arrest and prosecute prohibited drug offenders once they are known and identified based on evidence.
A train terminal has been installed menacingly in the plenary hall of the House of Representatives for the railroading of the approval of HB No. 4727 reimposing the death penalty.
The train’s arrival has been advanced from March 8, 2017 to February 28, 2017 when the death penalty bill has been scheduled by the House leadership for voting.
The advance voting was a reaction to the quorum calls of those objecting to the retrogressive measure.
It is a puzzle why the House leadership gets peeved when the absence of a quorum is raised considering that under the Rules no business can be conducted in the absence of a quorum.
It is the duty of the House leadership to maintain a quorum after the roll call is held in order to assure that the interpellations and debates would continue.
Moving for adjournment due to absence of a quorum under Article 75 of Rule XI is a legitimate parliamentary motion, like calling for a nominal voting under Article 116 of Rule XV.
There are seriously disturbing parallels between the murderous activities of the Davao Death Squad (DDS) and the deadly campaign against the so-called drug menace.
The odious similarities include the following:
Unabated extrajudicial killings;
Monetary rewards to the killers;
The victims are mostly poor and petty suspected criminals;
Involvement of police elements and their vigilante cohorts;
Official tolerance and complicity; and
Impunity for the executioners.
Both whistleblowers, Edgar Matobato and SPO3 Arthur Lascañas, have confessed that they were members of the DDS which summarily killed criminal suspects in Davao City and they were paid for the killings.
From 1998 to 2015, the DDS reportedly wantonly killed 1,424 individuals.
In President Duterte’s deadly campaign against drug pushers and drug users, the police and their vigilante conspirators have executed more than 7,000 victims.
Amnesty International has confirmed the veracity of long-circulating reports that cops and vigilantes received prize money for their “jobs”.
These fingerprints of incriminating similarities are too obvious to ignore.
The unwarranted railroading of the approval of the death penalty bill has been signaled by Majority Floor Leader Rodolfo Fariñas when he threatened to close the debates much earlier than the arbitrary target date of March 8, 2016 which Speaker Alvarez announced as the day when House Bill No. 4727 will be put to a vote on second reading.
The projected action of Fariñas was triggered when (a) Rep. Edcel Lagman questioned the existence of a quorum prior to Rep. Tom Villarin’s interpellation since there was no sufficient number of Members in the plenary hall and (b) when Lagman moved for a nominal voting on the presiding officer’s flawed appreciation that there were more “nays” objecting to adjournment.
The motion to adjourn and the motion for nominal voting are based on the following Rules of the House:
"A majority of all the Members of the House shall constitute a quorum. The House shall not transact business without a quorum." (Sec. 75 of Rule XI).
Upon motion of a Member, duly approved by one-fifth (1/5) of the Members present, there being a quorum, nominal voting on any question may be called. In case of nominal voting, the Secretary General shall call, in alphabetical order, the names of the Members who shall state their vote as their names are called. (Sec. 116 of Rule XV).
Fariñas based his threat to close the debates on Section 54 of Rule X which provides: "A motion to close the debate on a measure shall be in order after three (3) speeches in favor and two (2) against, or after only one (1) speech in favor and none against: Provided, That within the last fifteen (15) days before adjournment, a motion to close debate on a measure shall be in order after two (2) speeches in favor and one (1) against, or after only one (1) speech in favor and none against."
Representative Raul Daza said that Section 54 refers to the stage of the turno en contra which follows the end of the periods of interpellation and amendments.
It is a wonder that when the House leadership subjectively uses the Rules to gag interpellators like the one-hour limitation by unduly and unreasonably including the time of the answering sponsors to the one hour allocated to the interpellator, they appear to be omnipotent but when the Rules of the House are invoked by the oppositors to the death penalty bill, the House leadership is touchy even as the citation of the Rules is well-anchored.
Past Congresses did not gag Members who wished to interpellate just like in the debates of the bills on the comprehensive agrarian reform program, reimposition of the death penalty, abolition of the death penalty and the reproductive health bill, among others.
Intimidate, entice and gag constitute the trio of strategies employed by Speaker Alvarez and the majority leadership to pass by hook or by crook House Bill No. 4727 reimposing the death penalty.
Intimidation by threatening PDP-Laban members and coalition allies, particularly deputy speakers and committee chairs, with reprisals if they do not vote for the death penalty bill
According to Speaker Alvarez, those against the retrogressive measure must leave PDP-Laban, while deputy speakers and committee chairs who will vote against the death penalty bill are to be replaced if they do not resign.
Pressuring Members and officers of the House to vote against their conscience is anathema to a democratic institution like the House of Representatives.
Enticement by (a) proposing to reduce the crimes punishable by death, and (b) instead of a mandatory death penalty for at least 16 crimes, a range from life imprisonment to death is projected to be an alternative. These are supposed to mollify opposition to the bill.
As long as any crime is punishable by death and the maximum penalty is still death, the watered down bill is no less repugnant to the inviolability of life and contrary to genuine justice.
Gagging by indiscriminately and arbitrarily limiting an interpellator to a solitary hour to debate, which one hour unreasonably includes the time consumed by the answers of the bills’ sponsors.
This is a gross misconstruction and blatant misapplication of Sec. 91 of Rule XII which provides that "A Member shall not be allowed to speak for more than one (1) hour in debate on any question."
The rule unequivocally guarantees that a Member who has risen to speak has at least one hour for himself alone, excluding the time consumed by the responses of the Member being interpellated.
In committee deliberations, it is well settled that the time allotted for an interpellator does not include the time consumed by the Chair, a Member or a guest responding to the questions.
Gagging Members who oppose the death penalty bill or any measure for that matter destroys the heart and soul of a deliberative assembly which is free and untrammeled debates.
No amount of intimidation, enticement and muzzling would validate and assure the passage of the death penalty bill which is definitely not the answer to criminality, poverty, and our flawed police, prosecutorial and judicial systems.
Moreover, reviving capital punishment violates the Philippines’ international commitment not to reimpose the death penalty under the Second Optional Protocol to the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which the Philippines ratified in 2007, a year after it abolished the death penalty under RA No. 9346 .
