The Philippines now joins the worldwide trend towards abolition, becoming the 125th nation to repeal the penalty.

In 1987 the Philippines set a historic precedent by becoming the first Asian country in modern times to abolish the penalty for all crimes. However, it was reintroduced in late 1993 for 46 different offences, not because it was a just punishment but rather because it was a high-profile and desperate remedy for quenching public anger at the rising tide of unchecked crime.

Executions resumed in 1999, until former President Joseph Estrada in 2000 announced a moratorium, which President Gloria Arroyo has continued throughout her presidency.

On April 15 Arroyo commuted all death sentences to life imprisonment in what is believed to be the largest ever commutation of death sentences in modern times. Four days later she marked legislation to repeal the death penalty as urgent.

By a vote of 119-20 on June 6 the House of Representatives approved on a third and final reading the measure abolishing the death penalty in the Philippines.

Speaker Jose de Venecia, who presided as the final vote was taken, called the measure a step that restored the sanctity of human life in the way the country dispensed justice.

"We have taken this courageous decision because we believe in the sanctity of human life and in the value of justice not as an act of retribution. This is the mark of a higher civilisation."

"The penalty of life imprisonment is just as harsh as the death penalty," said Deputy Speaker Raul del Mar, who was a member of the 9th Congress, which had approved the death penalty.

Sixteen senators voted for the abolition, and one abstained.

Senate Minority Leader Aquilino Pimentel Jr said capital punishment had no place in a Christian nation like the Philippines.

Senator Sergio Osmena III stressed that the death penalty had proved unsuccessful in deterring heinous crimes.

Earlier, in a speech on the abolition of the penalty, Senator Richard Gordon, chairman of the Senate Committee on Constitutional Amendments, Revision of Codes and Laws, declared he supported "the abolition of the death penalty at the present time" but did so rather "haltingly and hesitatingly" and voted "to abolish the death penalty albeit temporarily". Gordon, himself a victim of a grievous crime when his father was assassinated and his niece brutally killed, stated he was doing so "not just to be merciful but to be just".

"It is so easy to kill a person to bring him to justice, but the lifetime suffering of a nation when it finds out that it has made a mistake is indelible," he added.

The bill gave weight to the argument that the death penalty was "not a deterrent to crime" and that "judicial error" was a possibility in all justice systems. It cited several other reasons for abolishing the death penalty, among them:

l It is retributive justice and therefore vengeful and barbaric.

l It is the ultimate cruel and inhuman punishment.

l It is irrevocable.

l It shuts out rehabilitative justice.

l It raises the likelihood of criminals becoming more violent, for fear of being sentenced to death.

l It is anti-poor.

The measure's proponents also argued the Philippines violated international treaties, covenants and policies by the "mere implementation" of capital punishment.

Its abolition affirms what the government is already practising, since President Arroyo's administration has not carried out a single execution.

The Philippine debate on capital punishment shows a remarkably clear discernment of the moral and practical issues involved. Rejection of the motive of retributive justice is rightly placed at the head of the list above. The ancient appeal for retribution, "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth", is rejected as vengeful and barbaric. This is at the heart of the matter, and it is not a matter of logic but rather of an informed moral sense.

The Philippines conducted a fine analysis of the balance between killing and being killed in retribution and came to the realisation that they were not equal. The appropriate balance to killing is indeed punishment, but a punishment that allows for repentance, reform and rehabilitation. We are not God; we did not create life, and having the power to take life away does not give us the right to do so.

The objection that the death penalty was irrevocable referred to wrongful convictions: of the 1,205 inmates on the Philippines' death row, many have been wrongfully convicted, say human-rights groups representing some of them. Only 230 of these convictions have been affirmed by the Supreme Court.

One study citing a July 2003 Supreme Court decision showed that the lower regional trial courts had close to a 72-per-cent wrong-conviction rate. In reviewing 907 death-penalty cases, the court admitted 26 had been dismissed, 555 modified, 65 acquitted and 31 remanded, which underlines just how flawed the system of justice is in the Philippines.

Those convicted and sentenced to death are overwhelmingly poor and unable to hire a lawyer. Public defenders, no matter how dedicated, are commonly inexperienced and undertrained and have no resources readily available for investigating a case and uncovering evidence that would exonerate a client and expose lies. Convictions are handed down even if there is a preponderance of reasonable doubt. The rich have power, influence and the best lawyers; they bribe officials and police and scare off witnesses. They almost never get convicted.

The Philippines is very much aware of problems raised by the commutation of execution to life imprisonment. Arroyo urged religious leaders to help the government in the moral and spiritual transformation of convicts, particularly those serving maximum jail terms who cannot be given parole.

She said the government would work on improving the country's prison facilities in order to create an environment that was more conducive to prisoner rehabilitation.

Instead of death, sentences will be downgraded to life imprisonment without parole, but Arroyo explained that convicts on death row could still receive a presidential pardon.

The far-sightedness of Arroyo in leaving open a window of hope for those condemned to permanent imprisonment is truly visionary. In a striking development, French prisoners whose death sentences had been commuted to perpetual imprisonment recently pleaded for execution to be restored as a better alternative to an endless jail sentence. Human beings cannot live without hope, and the Philippine legislation shows remarkable understanding.

The acknowledgement of a Christian inspiration to the abolition of capital punishment in the Philippines is noteworthy. All religions claim to be inspired by the concept of mercy. If only the other Asian nations could learn a lesson from the heroic initiative of their neighbouring country and find similar inspiration in their own religious traditions to abrogate the hateful and barbaric practice of capital punishment!

Danthong Breen is president of the Union for Civil Liberty in Bangkok.

Danthong Breen

Special to The Nation