ON
HOUSE BILL NO. 5200
"An Act Amending Republic Act No. 7659 and the Revised Penal Code as Amended by Penalizing the Crime of Rape with Amputation of the Male Sexual Organ of the Offender and for Other Purposes"
(Sponsored by Rep. Leopoldo San Buenaventura)
=====================
The Commission adheres to the principle that the State must protect life and must value the dignity of every person. Protection to life and respect for the dignity of every person includes the protection to the right of an individual to his body in its entirety, free from dismemberment, and extends to the enjoyment of the use of God-given faculties.
Like in the case of the death penalty, the Commission raises doubt as to the wisdom of the proposed measure as a means to deter the commission of the crime of rape. If the supreme penalty of death was proved, according to the esteemed proponent of the subject bill, to be an ineffective deterrent, with ineffective much more reason would be the mere amputation of the male sexual organ. The first exacts the very life itself while the latter would be mere dismemberment of the part of the body which was used in the commission of the crime yet the first has not deterred the commission of rape.
Many solutions have been prescribed to deter the commission of the crime of rape but certainly the amputation of the sexual organ of the sexual offender is not one of them.
Secondly, the Commission raises objection to the proposed bill on the ground that the same is degrading and inhuman punishment. The lopping of the offending part of the body of the offender is reminiscent of the Middle Ages, and is certainly a move backwards to the positivist theory of rehabilitation of the offender. It is barbaric, inhuman and shocking and has no place in the civilized society like ours. Even the sponsor of the bill concedes that the penalty he proposes is degrading, for as he says: "To a Filipino male, nothing can be more debasing or degrading than to have his sexual organ amputated." It is clear then that the penalty is designed to inflict indignity and humiliate the offender and not to rehabilitate the offender to become a useful member of the society.
Finally, being degrading, the penalty proposed in the HB 5200 can be stricken down for being unconstitutional for violating Article III, Section 19 par. 1 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution which states: "Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment be inflicted.".
The Commission being the vanguard of respect for human rights, appreciates the concern of the esteemed proponent of the bill on the proliferation of the incidence of rape. It, however, raises the caution that in offering solutions to such problems, respect for the life and dignity of human person must be foremost consideration.
Pasig City , 24 October 1996
ON
HOUSE RESOLUTION NO. 1347
A Resolution Directing the Committees on Human,Civil and Political Rights,Justice,andTransportationand Communication to conduct an immediate investigation in Aid of Legislation into the rePORT 58,69,242,251,133,47
the protection of the law against such interference or attack."
The same is wholly adopted in Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and has also been substantially incorporated in the Bill of Rights of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, Article 3, Section 3, thereof.
Notwithstanding the aforecited human rights provisions and Republic Act No. 4200, the illegal surveillance and wiretapping activities of government Intelligence Agencies as reported in Daily Publications remains unabated. The repeated violations of the law and the difficulty of curving them, can perhaps be attributed to the use of sophisticated surveillance equipment and the cooperation, collusion and/or involvement of private telephone and communication companies.
An investigation motu propio on wiretapping conducted by the Investigation Office of the Commission concludes that "wiretapping is being indiscriminately resorted to by various intelligence agencies in the country." (par. 5, memo report dated September 12, 1997 of Mr. Fortunato R. Reyes, NCR-CHR Special Investigator)
The issue of wiretapping and/or authority to intercept communication was again made controversial with the recent sponsorship of two Anti-Terrorist Legislative proposals, House Bill No. 206 by Congressman Roilo Golez and Senate Bill No. 1353 by Senator Juan Ponce Enrile. The move apparently finds justification by raising the spectre of the national security interest. The Commission, however, in its Position Paper on the subject matter, opposed thenbsp; Notwithstanding the aforecited human rights provisions and Republic Act No. 4200, the illegal surveillance and wiretapping activities of government Intelligence Agencies as reported in Daily Publications remains unabated. The repeated violations of the law and the difficulty of curving them, can perhaps be attributed to the use of sophisticated surveillance equipment and the cooperation, collusion and/or involvement of private telephone and communication companies.
An investigation motu propio on wiretapping conducted by the Investigation Office of the Commission concludes that "wiretapping is being indiscriminately resorted to by various intelligence agencies in the country." (par. 5, memo report dated September 12, 1997 of Mr. Fortunato R. Reyes, NCR-CHR Special Investigator)
The issue of wiretapping and/or authority to intercept communication was again made controversial with the recent sponsorship of two Anti-Terrorist Legislative proposals, House Bill No. 206 by Congressman Roilo Golez and Senate Bill No. 1353 by Senator Juan Ponce Enrile. The move apparently finds justification by raising the spectre of the national security interest. The Commission, however, in its Position Paper on the subject matter, opposed thenal%20projects/regional_projects.htm" />
|
