The politics of convenience:
How legislators voted on the death penalty

PRESIDENT Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo signed today the bill abolishing capital punishment. Arroyo says June 24 is a “good day to sign the death penalty abolition” because it is the feast of St. John the Baptist “who was a victim of death penalty in his time.”

But there are those who say that the President may have timed the abolition with her meeting with Pope Benedict XVI in Italy tomorrow, in an effort to court the Church, which had been critical of her administration.

Anti-crime groups like the Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption are indignant. They say that the decision of the President and of Congress, which voted to repeal the death penalty law on June 7, was made out of “political convenience.”

“If the death penalty is acceptable and popular, (politicians) ride on it. If it’s no longer popular, it’s abolished,” VACC official Martin Diño said, in an interview with the Inquirer.

The tables below show how legislators have flip-flopped on the death penalty, with some voting for its abolition now, even if they voted for its reimposition in 1993.

The President herself has flip-flopped on the matter. In fact, the VACC recently published a 1999 photo on the front page of the Inquirer, which showed then Vice President Arroyo, Jamby Madrigal, and then First Lady Luisa Ejercito in a rally calling for the execution of convicted rapist Leo Echegaray. Her Press secretary said Arroyo, at that time, was asking justice for the victim and not for death penalty to be meted out.

Shortly after she was sworn in as president in 2001, Arroyo announced that she was not in favor of executions and proceeded to commute the sentences of 18 death-row convicts. But a few months after, on October 15, Arroyo announced in a meeting of Filipino-Chinese businessmen that she would resume executions due to the rise of kidnappings that targeted the Tsinoy community.

True to her word, on December 2003, Arroyo lifted the de facto moratorium on executions issued by former President Joseph Estrada.

Erap himself had issued the moratorium in response to the pressure from the Church and human rights groups and in observance of the Jubilee Year in 2000.

Two-and-a-half years ago, Arroyo said she would allow the death penalty for convicted kidnappers and drug lords. But no death sentence has been carried out under her administration so far.

In 1993, Arroyo chose to abstain from voting on a bill that would reimpose the death penalty for certain heinous crimes.

She said she was “torn between a constituency that clamors for it because of the sickening examples of heinous crimes and a conscience.”

Arroyo further explained that her father, during his term as President, allowed one execution and “for weeks his conscience bothered him and never did he ever confirm a death penalty again.”

“Indeed, to be party to a man’s death does not rest easy on one’s conscience. For taking the life of another is against the natural law because it violates the right to life,” Arroyo said, in explaining her vote to the Senate.

Seventeen of her colleagues in the Senate at that time approved the reimposition, while four others voted against it. Among those who voted in favor of the reimposition were Senators Edgardo Angara and Rodolfo Biazon.

At that time, a series of crimes including rape, kidnapping, and murder were widely publicized in the papers and the notion that death penalty was necessary to fight criminality became extremely popular.

Angara agreed, saying that there was a need to make a strong statement that the government is resolved in putting down criminality and that the presence of capital punishment would be an effective deterrence to crimes.

But both Angara and Biazon, like Arroyo, would later change their stand on the death penalty issue. Along with 14 other senators, they voted on June 7 to abolish the death penalty. Similar position were taken by other opposition senators like Senate President Franklin Drilon, Panfilo Lacson, Jamby Madrigal, and Juan Ponce Enrile.

Enrile, unlike Angara and Biazon, has consistently voted against the imposition of the death penalty. As a congressman in 1993, Enrile voted against the passage of the death penalty bill. He said death penalty is against his conscience and religious beliefs. And even when Senate passed the measure penalizing crime by lethal injection in 1996, Enrile voted against it, saying he remains true to his faith and position.

Madrigal likewise said her decision to repeal the death penalty law was a “conscience vote,” though this was a complete departure from her stand years ago, when she joined the Echegaray rally. Like Arroyo, Madrigal said she was there merely to show her “indignation of a heinous crime committed against the child.”

The following tables show how senators and congressmen have voted on the death penalty:

TABLE 1: HOW THE SENATORS VOTED

TABLE 2: HOW THE CONGRESSMEN VOTED

TABLE 3: HOW THE CONGRESSMEN VOTED

In the House of Representatives, where majority of its members are administration allies, 119 representatives voted in favor of HB 4826, the measure abolishing the death penalty; only 20 were against it.

Among those who were in favor of the measure were House Speaker Jose De Venecia Jr., Negros Occidental Rep. Jose Carlos Lacson, Cebu City Rep. Raul del Mar, and Zamboanga Sibugay Rep. Belma Cabilao.

All are members of the ruling party, Lakas; but they have another thing in common: all had reversed their stand on the imposition on death penalty. In the 9th Congress, these congressmen voted in favor of death as the punishment for heinous crimes.

To be sure, there are those who have remained firm in their stand on the issue. These would be Ilocos Norte Rep. Roque Ablan Jr. and Rep. Simeon Datumanong of Maguindanao. Both are also members of the administration party, but both have not changed their stand on capital punishment. In last June’s voting, both gave a “no” vote to the abolishment of death penalty; in 1993, they voted to reimpose it.

Ablan, in his speech before the Lower House in 1993, said that he “cannot and will never subscribe to the idea that the sentence of death for heinous crimes constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.”

“I cannot in conscience find pity for the pitiless,” he said, adding that the death penalty “is intended to preserve a civilized society.”

It may also be interesting to know that some of the congressmen now in Congress have cast a different vote from that of their kin who sat in the 9th Congress.

An example would be Muntinlupa Rep. Rozzano Rufino Biazon, son of Sen. Rodolfo Biazon. The son voted against the repeal of RA 7659, while his father who sits in the Senate today favored the measure. But the position Rozanno took was the same position his father held in 1993, when the senator voted for the imposition of the capital punishment.

Another example is Iloilo Rep. Janette Loreto-Garin and father-in-law Oscar Garin. Janette favored the abolition of the death penalty. Garin, on the other hand, voted for its imposition in 1993.

But there are those like House Minority Floor Leader Francis Escudero, Bukidnon Rep. Juan Nereus Acosta Jr., and Robert Ace Barbers of Surigao del Norte who have voted consistently with their kin.

Below is a table that shows the votes of the incumbents vs. that of their relatives during the 9th Congress:

TABLE 4: HOW THE CONGRESSMEN VOTED VS. THEIR KIN

TABLE 5: HOW THE CONGRESSMEN VOTED VS. THEIR KIN