country is bound by generally accepted principles of international law, which are considered to be automatically part of our ownlaws. no po . A treaty engagement is not a mere moral obligation but creates a legally binding obligation on the parties x x x. A state which has contracted valid international obligations is bound to make in its legislations such modifications as may be necessary to ensure thefulfillment of the obligations undertaken.”38 23. The High Court wenton to say: “Bytheir inherent nature, treaties really limit or restrict the absoluteness ofsovereignty. By their voluntary act, nations may surrender some aspects of their state power in exchange for greater benefits granted by or derived from a convention or pact. After all, states, like individuals, live with coequals, and in pursuit of mutually covenanted objectives and benefits, they also commonly agree to limit the exercise of their otherwise absolute rights. x x x. The sovereignty of a state therefore cannotin fact andin reality be considered absolute. Certain restrictions enter intothe picture: (1) limitations imposed by the very nature of membership in the family of nations and (2) limitations imposed bytreaty stipulations. As aptly put by John F. Kennedy, Today, no nation can build its destiny alone. The ageof self-sufficient nationalism is over. The age of interdependenceis here.”39 24. Hence, the Philippines by acceding to the above international human rights treaties commits to end, in perpetuity, the capital punishment of death and to preservethe sanctityofthe right tolife. 25. Wealso recognize the discrimination that death penalty carries against the economically disadvantaged. It seems to perpetuate a system of marginalization against the poor and vulnerable, the uneducated and powerless. It is a knownfact that the justice system is biased against those whocannot afford to hire competentlegal representation. Records show that most of the people under the death sentence belong to the lower class of society. Usually financially unable to pay for counsel, the court appoints counsel de officio for them. More often, poor persons may not receive fair trials due to incompetent, inexperienced or ineffective counsel. Thus, while the law is not discriminatory, the practical effect of the death penalty is discrimination against the poor.4° . Further, Courts will always befallible and reversible but death penalty will alwaysbefinal and irreversible. They make mistakes about guilt. Inasmuch as ourcriminal justice system is flawed as it is designed and run by people, we cannot do away with the fact that miscarriage of justice will occur in every wayandthat innocentpeople will continueto be falsely accused and executed for crimes they did not commit. The Supreme Court has acknowledged in People v. Mateo4! the judicial error rate of 71.77 percent on death penalty cases based onthe statistics within the eleven-year period since the reimpositionof the death penalty law in 1993 until June 2004.42 The result was * Ibid *Tid. “° CHR Resolution on the “Re-Examination of the Death Penalty”; 6 March 1997 "' G_R. No. 147678-87, July 7, “hutp://peij-org/blog/2006/06/ 2004. 3/supreme-courts-judicial-errors-in-death-penalty-cases (accessed, 29 September2016), citing Philippine CenterforInvestigative Journalism. 62