To reiterate, the Philippines signed and ratified the Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR in 2006, and thereby became immediately obliged not to defeat the object and purpose of the Protocol. It then ratified the Second Optional Protocol in 2007. The circumstances of ratification, which are discussed below, do not permit any international law argument by the Philippines that it is not a party to the Second Optional Protocol. Article 1 of the Second Optional Protocol provides for the abolition of the death penalty to persons within a state’s jurisdiction. Article 1(1) contains an absolute prohibition upon a State party executing any person within its jurisdiction. While Article 1(2) mandates States to undertake a positive obligation to abolish the death penalty within their jurisdiction. The prohibition in Article 1(1) is absolute and unqualified. It is not capable of interpretation in a manner that allows for the implementation of the death penalty upon any person within the jurisdiction of the Philippines. The obligation in Article 1(2) is also absolute. By requiring States to take all necessary measures to abolish the death penalty within their jurisdiction, the Second Optional Protocol is completely inconsistent with a State party taking any steps towards the reintroduction of the death penalty. It follows that the Philippines, as a State party to the Second Optional Protocol: a. must not take any steps to reintroduce the death penalty within the Philippines or in relation to people within its jurisdiction; and b. must not execute any person within its jurisdiction. Following Article 2 of the Second Optional Protocol, no reservation to these obligations is permissible, save for a reservation made at the time of ratification in relation to wartime acts. In any event at the time of ratification, no reservation or declaration was made by the Philippines. Notably, the UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) may receive individual complaints in relation to allegations of failures to comply with the Second Optional Protocol unless a reservation was made at the time of ratification.12 Because no reservations or declarations were made by the Philippines at the time of ratification, that mechanism avenue for individual complaint and international scrutiny is open to any person within the jurisdiction of the Philippines. The Second Optional Protocol in the Context of the Philippines Constitution Article III, Section 19 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution purports to permit the reimposition of the death penalty in the Philippines for “compelling reasons” involving “heinous crimes.” 12 ICCPR-OP2, art. 5. Page 5 of 23