RESOLUTION CHR NO. Ag1 -033 OFFICIAL VIEW OF THE COMMISSION ON THE DEATH PENALTY WHEREAS, the Commission on Human Rights, cognizant of the bill filed before the Senate for the restoration of the death penalty for heinous crimes, has convened to put forth its position on the said bill, in the light of its mandate to promote humanrights; NOW THEREFORE, the Commission, convinced that the right to life of a person is non-derogable as specifically stated in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and the various international covenants, treaties and instruments, resolves as it hereby resolved to issue the succeeding statement as the official view of the Commission onthe death penalty: The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in Article 6 providesthat “1. Every humanbeing hasthe inherentrightto life. This right shall be protected by law. No oneshall be arbitrarily deprivedofhislife.” The peace andordersituation in the country, especially with the alarming rise in the incidence of repugnant crimes has prompted the Senate to hasten action ona bill for the restoration of the death penalty for drug—related and other so—called heinouscrimes. Weobservethat the imposition of the death penalty is currently regarded as the mosteffective solution available to the alarming crimes in our midst. In the attempt to curb criminality and drug addiction, our legislators have fallen for the emotional arguments of an outraged public crying for vengeance over the recent rash of murders. In the heat of the debate, however, they havefailed to consider other avenues available for the same purpose. Our laws have extensive provisions for sanctions in all acts or omissions considered as violative of existing laws. The problem is not that no sanctionsexist, but in strengthening these and applying them equally toall offenders. Basedon this premise, the Commissionis not fully convincedthat the death penalty is the answer to rising criminality. The proper response to criminality lies in effective law enforcement, the quick and impartial delivery of justice, and a responsive penal system. Only when such reforms are provento beineffective should the legislature begin to consider other alternatives to restore the death penalty. The administration of justice in this country needs a stronger foundation, not in terms of the restoration of the death penalty, but in the strict impiementation of penal laws and the equitable administrationof justice, in accordancewith international humanrights laws. The dangerin the current debate on the death penaltyis thatit is happening in an atmosphere of heightened passions over recent crimes and public doubts about the efficacy of our law enforcement and delivery of justice.