By Catherine N. Pillas & Jovee Marie N. dela Cruz
The apparent rush to approve the bill reinstating the death penalty in Congress could cost the Philippines its special trade privileges from the European Union (EU) under the Generalized Scheme of Preferences Plus (EU-GSP+).
This is because an EU monitoring team is slated to arrive this month to assess whether the Philippines can continue to enjoy preferential trade treatment from EU member-economies, with the reimposition of capital punishment as one of the main considerations.
“That’s part of the monitoring discussion, and the team will come later this month,” EU Ambassador to the Philippines Franz Jessen said.
The EU-GSP+ is a preferential trade scheme that the Philippines has been benefiting from since December 2014. The EU-GSP+ allows the Philippines to export 6,274 products to the EU duty free.
This is an upgrade from the regular EU-GSP, which only covered 6,209 products and of which only 2,442 products are accorded duty-free privilege.
International conventions
The Philippines’s availment of this scheme, however, is subject to continuous review and is hinged on the observance of 27 international conventions.
Among these conventions is the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, of which the Philippines is a party to. The country similarly agreed to the amendments of the said convention, or the “Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.”
It is this very document that the UN High Commissioner has warned the Philippines of breaching if it goes ahead with the reimposition of the death penalty.
Trade Secretary Ramon M. Lopez has already given his backing to the administration’s push to reinstate death penalty.
He will just ask the EU for “flexibility” if the proposal is passed into law.
The monitoring team’s assessment this month will form part of a larger report of the EU’s concerned agency on the functioning of the GSP.
A full report on the application of the whole GSP Regulation will be submitted to the European Parliament and to the European Council five years after the entry into force of the GSP regulation, or by November 2017. The first monitoring partial report of the European Commission, covering the period 2014 to 2015, showed that in the first six months of 2015, the Philippines had a utilization rate of 62.8 percent for the GSP+.
Of the €1.08-billion eligible GSP+ imports from the Philippines, actual imported value was at €681 million.
“On capital punishment, we’re saying that even our closest allies have capital punishment. We work hand in hand with them too, as you know. It’s something within Europe that we have strong views on, and we promote that outside too, but we work with all our partners,” Jessen said during the launch of the European Delegation to the Philippines’s commemorative book, titled Ties that Bind, on Monday.
This means that even if the monitoring report states that the reimposition of death penalty could lead to the loss of trade privileges, the EU and the Philippines will still go back to the negotiating table.
Still, the question on whether the Philippines will continue to enjoy the preferential trade scheme now hangs with the review process.
Priority bills
The House of Representatives is eyeing the passage of the bills reviving the death penalty and lowering the age of criminal liabilities before the Congress goes on sine die adjournment in June, the chairman of the House Committee on Justice said on Monday.
In a news conference, PDP-Laban Rep. Reynaldo V. Umali of Oriental Mindoro said these anticrime measures are important to improve the country’s criminal-justice system.
“This is the part and parcel of the criminal justice system reforms that we would like to pursue and the death penalty will surely be a factor in strengthening or enhancing the criminal-justice system,” Umali said. “I am now in favor of death penalty on drug-related heinous crimes after my committee conducted a hearing on the proliferation of illegal drugs inside the National Bilibid Prison last September.”
The lawmaker said the House “will pass the death-penalty measure regardless of what action the Senate will take on the bill.”
The full debates on the death-penalty bill are expected to begin this month. The bill was principally authored by Speaker Pantaleon D. Alvarez.
Crimes covered
Under the death-penalty bill, crimes, which are punishable by death through hanging, firing squad or lethal injection, are treason; qualified piracy; qualified bribery; parricide; murder infanticide; rape; kidnapping and serious illegal detention; robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons; destructive arson; plunder; importation of dangerous drugs and or controlled precursors and essential chemicals; sale; trading; administration; dispensation; delivery; distribution and transportation of dangerous drugs and/or controlled precursors and essential chemicals; and maintenance of drug den.
Also punishable by death are the manufacture of dangerous drugs and/or controlled precursor and essential chemicals; possession of dangerous drugs; cultivation or culture of plants classified as dangerous drugs; unlawful prescription of dangerous drugs; criminal liability of public officer for misappropriation; misapplication or failure to account for the confiscated seized or surrendered drugs; criminal liability for planting evidence and carnapping.
Alvarez said the lower chamber may change the scope of the death penalty bill as they may focus only on illegal drugs-related crimes.
Criminal liabilities
Also, Umali said the measure seeking to lower the minimum age of criminal liabilities from 15 to 9 years old will also be passed before the first regular session ends.
Alvarez is also the principal author of the measure seeking to amend RA 9344, or the Juvenile Delinquency Act of 2006, also known as the Pangilinan law. RA 9344 raised the minimum age of criminal responsibility from 9 to 15 years old.
According to the Speaker, the choice of 9 years as the minimum age of criminal responsibility under the Revised Penal Code was infused with wisdom, saying, “Most children above this age, especially in these times when all forms and manner of knowledge are available through Internet and digital media, are already fully informed and should be taught that they are responsible for what they say and do.”
Under the proposal, “a child 9 years of age and above but below 18 of age shall, likewise, be exempt from criminal liability and subjected to an intervention program, unless he or she is determined to have acted with discernment, in which case he or she shall be subjected to appropriate proceedings in accordance with this act.”