Philippine Standard Time
Monday, June 10, 2019, 2:18:54AM

In Defense of the Right to Life: International Law and Death Penalty in the Philippines

A study by the Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines and Dr. Christopher Ward, SC, Australian Bar, Adjunct Professor, Australian National University


Zimbabwe Considers Abolishing Death Penalty
Human Rights Watch |, February 15, 2024
Death penalty incompatible with right to life
OHCHR |, January 31, 2024
Debunking narratives for a return of the death penalty
WCADP |, November 13, 2023
Jury in Pittsburgh synagogue trial to begin deliberating death penalty
The New York Times |, July 31, 2023
Singapore executes a woman for first time in almost two decades
The Guardian |, July 28, 2023
Ghana votes to remove death penalty, calling it sign of ‘inhumane’ society
The Washington Post |, July 26, 2023
Comment by UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk after Ghana’s Parliament votes to abolish death penalty
UN OHCHR |, July 26, 2023
Parents in South Korea who kill newborns now face death penalty after law passed
The Straits Times |, July 19, 2023
Capitol Hill Democrats introduce bill to end federal death penalty
Catholic News Agency |, July 19, 2023
North Koreans risk death penalty for using South Korean language
Scottish Legal News |, June 30, 2023
Arizona Man Is Freed After 28 Years on Death Row
New York Times |, June 16, 2023
Two Australians facing death penalty in Vietnam granted clemency
Al Jazeera |, June 06, 2023
Japanese Supreme Court upholds mans death sentence for Manila murders
The Japan Times |, June 05, 2023
Zimbabwe’s new bill that imposes death penalty for ‘unpatriotic acts’
Africa Feeds |, June 01, 2023
Iran hangs three on drug charges amid criticism
Al Jazeera |, May 21, 2023
Singapore: OHCHR calls on authorities to halt imminent trafficking execution
United Nation News |, April 25, 2023
Washington state eliminates death penalty from law
CNN |, April 21, 2023
Malaysia ends mandatory death penalty for serious crimes
BBC News |, April 03, 2023
HC: Death penalty should be abolished in the 21st century
UN OHCHR |, April 03, 2023
HC: Death penalty should be abolished in the 21st century
UN OHCHR |, April 03, 2023
HC: Death penalty should be abolished in the 21st century
UN OHCHR |, April 03, 2023
HC: Death penalty should be abolished in the 21st century
UN OHCHR |, April 03, 2023
Surge in executions of drug offenders in 2022, more on death row
Al Jazeera |, March 16, 2023
Pope condemns Irans use of death penalty against protesters
Reuters |, January 09, 2023
Pope Francis’ prayer intention for September: ‘Abolition of the death penalty’
CBCP News |, September 01, 2022
Singapore executes two drug traffickers despite pleas for clemency
CNN |, July 07, 2022
Malaysia to abolish mandatory death penalty
Al Jazeera |, June 10, 2022
Missionary priest praises Central African Republic for abolishing death penalty
Crux |, June 02, 2022
Saudi Arabia: Release Abdullah al-Howaiti, revoke death sentence
Un News |, May 31, 2022
Rights office welcomes Zambia’s pledge to abolish the death penalty
UN News |, May 22, 2022
Kazakhstan Finalizes Commitment to Abolishing Death Penalty, Submits Ratification of Protocol to UN
The Astana Times |, March 28, 2022
Papua New Guinea abolishes death penalty
JURIST |, January 24, 2022
‘Just Mercy’ author urges Utah Legislature to abolish death penalty
Deseret News |, January 20, 2022
Macron calls for worldwide end to death penalty on 40th anniversary of French abolition
France 24 |, September 10, 2021
Virginia Becomes First Southern State to Abolish the Death Penalty
The New York Times |, March 24, 2021
Death penalty debate reemerges in Nevada after past stalls
Fox 5 (Las Vegas) |, March 24, 2021
Virginia becomes first state in US south to abolish death penalty
ALJAZEERA |, March 24, 2021
Abolish the federal death penalty
Chicago Sun-times |, March 01, 2021
Family members of murder victims speak out against the death penalty
KPVI News 6 |, March 01, 2021
Bill To Repeal Death Penalty Filed In Wyoming Legislature
Kgab |, March 01, 2021
State Senate Votes to Abolish Death Penalty
Newsradio 1140 WRVA |, February 04, 2021
Trump administration carries out 13th, final federal execution
Aljazeera |, January 16, 2021
A federal judge has granted a stay of execution for the only woman on federal death row pending a competency hearing
CNN |, January 12, 2021
Asian Nations Reject UN Vote Against Death Penalty
Human Rights Watch |, November 24, 2020
Holy See: ‘Death penalty the most shocking thing in the world
Vatican News |, October 10, 2020
Tunisia president calls for return of death penalty following brutal killing
The Guardian |, October 01, 2020
Kazakhstan takes important step towards abolishing death penalty
Amnesty Internatonal |, September 24, 2020
US Bishops stress opposition to death penalty
Independent Catholic News |, September 23, 2020
‘Travesty of justice’: Reaction to execution of Iranian wrestler
Aljazeera |, September 14, 2020
Unpacking public opinion on the death penalty
Asia Pacific Forum |, July 28, 2020
The Florida Supreme Court’s U-turn on the death penalty
Tampa Bay Times |, May 28, 2020
Man sentenced to death in Singapore via Zoom
BBC News |, May 20, 2020
Saudi Arabia ends death penalty for crimes committed by minors
The Guardian |, April 27, 2020
Catholic leaders praise abolition of death penalty in Colorado
CRUX |, March 25, 2020
Colorado Abolishes Death Penalty and Commutes Sentences of Death Row Inmates
The New York Times |, March 23, 2020
UK urged to act over men facing death in Egypt for alleged childhood crimes
The Guardian |, March 08, 2020
Berlin International Film Festival: Iranian film about executions wins top prize
BBC |, February 29, 2020
Trump condemned after claiming very powerful death penalty would reduce drug dealing
The Independent |, February 11, 2020
Outsourcing injustice: Guantanamo on the Euphrates
Al Jazeera News |, February 04, 2020
British Isis prisoners may end up in Iraq, where death sentences are handed down without due process
Independent |, February 02, 2020
Saudi Arabia executed record number of prisoners in 2019: Report
ABC News |, January 14, 2020
Death Sentence Overturned for Pervez Musharraf, Ex-Leader of Pakistan
The New York Times |, January 13, 2020
Japan executes foreigner for first time in a decade
Independent |, December 26, 2019
The Khashoggi verdict is exactly what impunity looks like. It must be denounced.
Agnes Callamard, Opinions, Washington Post |, December 24, 2019
5 foreigners in drug case could face death in Indonesia |, December 18, 2019
Pervez Musharraf: Pakistan ex-leader sentenced to death for treason
BBC News |, December 17, 2019
Botswana urged to abolish death penalty after latest execution
The Guardian |, December 09, 2019
I Oversaw Executions. We Cannot Resume the Federal Death Penalty
New York Times |, December 04, 2019
Americans Now Support Life in Prison Over Death Penalty
Gallup News |, November 25, 2019
UN criticizes Irans use of death penalty against minors
DW |, October 24, 2019
The Death Penalty for Drugs: What Public Opinion Surveys in Asia Teach Us
Giada Girelli, Filter Mag |, October 17, 2019
Malaysia: Unfair trials, secretive hangings and petty drug convictions reveal ‘cruel injustice’ of the death penalty
Amnesty International |, October 10, 2019
Against the death penalty: barrister Julian McMahon
ABC Radio |, July 25, 2019
Malaysia’s repeal of death penalty opens deep wounds, including that of Mongolian model murder
The Independent|, July 09, 2019
Why is Sri Lanka reinstating death penalty?
DW|, July 07, 2019
Debate on death penalty not very vigorous 1 year after Aum executions
Japan Today|, July 06, 2019
Prosecutor won’t seek death penalty in death of grandmother
News 4 Tucson|, July 06, 2019
SC issues Interim Order against death penalty
Daily FT|, July 06, 2019
Latter-day Saint Church defends involvement in death penalty case
Fox13 Salt Lake City|, July 06, 2019
Sri Lanka- Supreme Court issues interim order against death penalty
MenaFN|, July 05, 2019
Jury to consider death penalty in Chinese scholar killing
Federal News Network|, July 05, 2019
Death penalty debate remains muted in Japan 1 year after AUM executions
Kyodo News|, July 05, 2019
Source: Govt will not table Bill to abolish death penalty this Parliament meeting
The Star|, July 05, 2019
The murder was caught on surveillance video. The accused now faces death if convicted
Miami Herald|, July 05, 2019
Kentucky judge declares death penalty protocol unconstitutional
Crux Now|, July 04, 2019
As Malaysia eyes death penalty repeal, Al Jazeera documentary explores dilemma of capital punishment
Malay Mail|, July 04, 2019
Merced County DA is seeking the death penalty. And it could get costly, experts say
The Merced Sunstar|, July 03, 2019
Jose Martinez, The Hit Man Who Confessed To Killing Three Dozen People, Avoids The Death Penalty
BuzzFeed News|, July 03, 2019
Activists Hold Annual Fast Outside Supreme Court to Protest Death Penalty
Spektrum News|, July 02, 2019
Kentucky judge declares states death penalty protocol unconstitutional
The Courier Journal|, July 02, 2019
Lawmakers vote to substantially limit Oregon’s death penalty
Oregon Live|, June 29, 2019
Abolish the Death Penalty?
New York Times|, June 22, 2019
In Los Angeles, only people of color are sentenced to death
The Guardian|, June 18, 2019
The Intercept|, June 18, 2019
Debunking the Court’s Latest Death-Penalty Obsession
The Atlantic|, June 17, 2019
Poll finds Californians support the death penalty — and Newsom’s moratorium on executions
The LA Times|, June 17, 2019
Using Saudi death penalty vs. children is barbaric
CNN|, June 17, 2019
Reader reluctantly accepts governor’s death penalty moratorium
The LA Times|, June 14, 2019
Saudi Teenager Faces Death Sentence for Acts When He Was 10
New York Times|, June 09, 2019
GOP Lawmakers Are Quietly Turning Against the Death Penalty
The Atlantic|, June 07, 2019
Death knell: taking a stand to abolish capital punishment
Monash University |, February 26, 2019
Germany abolishes death penalty in public vote
Independent |, November 21, 2018
Pope Francis: ‘death penalty inadmissable’
Vatican News |, August 02, 2018
One Test Could Exonerate Him. Why Wont California Do It?
The New York Times|, May 17, 2018

World News

Debunking the Court’s Latest Death-Penalty Obsession

June 17, 2019, The Atlantic

On March 29, 1994, the Texas lawyer Mandy Welch rose to argue before the Supreme Court on behalf of a condemned prisoner named Frank McFarland.

Justice Antonin Scalia, however, wanted to put Welch’s law firm, the Texas Resource Center, on trial. McFarland’s petition, Scalia said, had been filed late in the process, disrupting Court procedure. He was not interested in her explanation: Her firm had originally tried to recruit volunteer counsel for McFarland, and finally had to take him on itself—one of 220 death-penalty cases being handled by 18 young lawyers. “I just want you to know that I am not happy with the performance of the Texas Resource Center in the cases that come before me as circuit justice,” Scalia said.

“I wasn’t prepared” for Scalia’s wrath, Welch told me in an interview recently. “It was easy for me to respond with the feeling that if you understood what happened, you would know that we had no control over any of [the timing].” (The case concerned McFarland’s right to counsel for a habeas corpus petition; though he won on that issue, he was eventually executed anyway.)

Scalia’s ire against the capital-defense bar has survived his death. This term, members of the new conservative majority have been in high dudgeon about death appeals. The conservatives’ complaints home in on a specific point: Capital punishment in the U.S. would go off smoothly if lawyers would just stop making up claims at the last minute. Having looked at the record in these cases, I wonder whether their anger represents judicial pique more than sober legal critique.


Where John Roberts Is Taking the Court


Is the Citizenship Question Dead?


Tell Me It’s Not About Race


Religious Monuments Are Fine Now—If They’re Old


The rumble kicked off on February 7, when the Court, in an unsigned opinion, allowed the state of Alabama to execute a Muslim inmate, Domineque Ray, without permitting his imam to join him in the death chamber. The Court argued that Ray had waited too long to raise the issue.

On March 28, the Court did grant a stay of execution to a Texas inmate who wanted a Buddhist priest in the chamber. Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch dissented; Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggested Texas just ban allspiritual advisers, which the state did a few days later.

In between those two seemingly contradictory decisions, on March 6, the Court, in a case called Bucklew v. Precythe, rejected, 5–4, a challenge by an inmate with an unusual medical condition. Because his oral cavity was full of fragile blood-filled tumors, Russell Bucklew argued that Missouri’s method of lethal injection would be so painful that it would violate the Eighth Amendment—not necessarily in general, but specifically as applied to him. In the majority opinion, Gorsuch suggested that Bucklew’s counsel had deliberately waited to raise the claim until a few weeks before his execution date. He urged lower courts to “protect settled state judgments … by invoking their ‘equitable powers’ to dismiss or curtail suits that are pursued in a ‘dilatory’ fashion.”

Justice Stephen Breyer tartly said in dissent, “[i]t might be possible to end delays by limiting constitutional protections for prisoners on death row. But to do so would require us to pay too high a constitutional price.” Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in another dissent, wrote: “There are higher values than ensuring that executions run on time.”

In yet one more death-penalty case, Justice Samuel Alito angrily returned to the Texas Buddhist-prisoner issue. “This Court receives an application to stay virtually every execution,” he wrote; “in the great majority of cases, no good reason for the late filing is apparent. By countenancing the dilatory litigation in this case, the Court, I fear, will encourage this damaging practice.”

The conservative majority has made clear how this issue looks from its perch. But how does it look to the Mandy Welches of the world—those who litigate death-penalty appeals? Let’s start with Bucklew, the case of the inmate with the medical condition.

Paul Cassell, a professor at the University of Utah School of Law, argues that Bucklew could have brought this challenge years ago. Cassell is, among other things, a former federal district judge and perhaps the nation’s most prominent advocate of victim-rights legislation. He co-wrote an amicus brief in Bucklew on behalf of a crime-victims’ group and the sister of one of the murder victims. The brief alleged Bucklew had engaged in “decades-long abusive litigation, strategic posturing, and dilatory tactics” and that his lawyers had chosen to “keep an as-applied challenge (based on his benign oral tumors) in reserve, ready to use when most strategically advantageous.” Bucklew’s lawyers, Cassell told me in an interview, had been “deploying his condition for tactical advantage” by “holding his ‘as applied’ challenge” until the last minute.

But Robert Hochman, who represented Bucklew at the high court, says that if in fact there is a problem with capital-defense lawyers, “Mr. Bucklew’s case could not have been a worse occasion to highlight it.” Most of the delay, Hochman argues, was not of Bucklew’s—or his lawyer’s—making.

The apparent delay arose in part because the appeals process for state death-penalty cases is so complex. The first step for a condemned prisoner is a “direct appeal” to the state’s highest court (if denied, it may be followed by petition for review to the U.S. Supreme Court). Under the Sixth Amendment, defendants are entitled to state-provided counsel during this stage. But after that, a defendant enters the world of state “post-conviction” proceedings—and there, the Constitution does not require appointed counsel. Some, but not all, states provide counsel at this stage. In states that don’t provide appointed counsel, the inmates must hope for volunteers from advocacy organizations or the private bar. And even states that do provide it do not necessarily offer the funding to pay lawyers, experts, and investigators—without whom a death-penalty case is unmanageable.

Prisoners who are unsuccessful in state post-conviction proceedings may file a federal habeas corpus petition. If denied, that may go up the ladder again to the Supreme Court. A statute provides funding for counsel at this stage. But Congress has strictly limited the timing and number of habeas petitions. A petition filed too soon, or too late, may be denied, leaving no chance to file another. A last-minute petition, however, may be filed when an issue could not have been raised earlier, and those may go to the high court as well. The process is like a maze where a wrong turn by a lawyer may spell death for a client.

So delay is almost built into a sentence of death. But there were specific reasons why Bucklew’s claim about his medical condition took so long to reach the high court.

Bucklew’s state appeal and post-conviction proceedings were complete by 2001, and his first federal habeas corpus petition ended in 2006. But only on April 9, 2014—more than eight years later—did Missouri announce an execution date: May 21, barely six weeks away.

Earlier, Bucklew had joined a case brought by a group of inmates alleging that the state’s execution protocol was “cruel and unusual punishment” when used against any inmate. That case was dismissed on May 2, three weeks after the execution date was set; only a week later, on May 9, Bucklew brought the “as applied” challenge. Even if the execution protocol was constitutional in most cases, he argued, it would violate the Eighth Amendment in his particular case because of his medical condition.

Hochman and Bucklew’s Missouri lawyer, Cheryl Pilate, both cite reasons why the “as applied” challenge wasn’t brought earlier. For one thing, Missouri did not announce its specific execution protocol until 2012—and it revised it in 2013. To win, Bucklew had the burden of showing that this specific protocol would cause him excessive suffering because of his specific condition. Until the protocol was announced, there was nothing to challenge.

Second, an “as applied” challenge like Bucklew’s can’t succeed without expert testimony on both the specific protocol and the effect it will have on the inmate’s medical condition. To mount an effective challenge, a lawyer will need investigators, experts in evidence, psychology, or “mitigation” factors in sentencing hearings. Many states don’t routinely supply such funds.

“You can’t make an argument that has any chance of winning unless you have a medical expert,” Pilate told me. The state consistently refused to grant her funding for expert testimony. “I had no money,” she said. “I had no experts. I had no resources.” Her four-lawyer law firm could not fund a complete defense; she tried cold-calling other lawyers and firms to recruit help: “These cases take you to the edge of financial catastrophe.” Bucklew’s family managed to put up a small amount of expense money to recruit experts, she said; after Sidley, Hochman’s firm, entered the case, it funded more expert evidence.

Bucklew’s disease, meanwhile, is progressive. His tumors had been steadily expanding during his years in prison, meaning that expert testimony in 2007—had there been any—would have been out of date by 2014. Bringing a federal habeas corpus petition based on out-of-date or incomplete medical information would have risked forfeiting Bucklew’s only shot at relief.

Because of the long delays and the rules limiting federal habeas corpus, lawyers defending condemned prisoners are shooting at a moving target. Execution protocols change. In many cases, a prisoner’s medical or mental condition is at issue—and that will change, and may worsen, as the years go by. The law changes also. During the eight years Bucklew was waiting for an execution date, the Supreme Court heard two major challenges to lethal injection as a method of execution. Either decision might have altered the landscape for his appeals.

There’s another problem faced by inmates like Bucklew. Aaron Katz of the Boston-based mega-firm Ropes & Gray argues that “on these method of execution claims … the states are pretty routinely playing hide the ball—they change drugs, change the amount of drugs,” and change the methods by which they will be administered.

Katz represented Christopher Price, an Alabama inmate who wanted the Court to forbid his execution by Alabama’s lethal-injection protocol, and instead order the state to use nitrogen gas, which is a state-approved method of execution. Price’s request was denied because of a missed filing deadline, and he was executed on May 30, after yet another round of emergency appeals—appeals that underline Katz’s point about secrecy. At Alabama’s request, the briefs and exhibits were kept “under seal,” meaning no one could read them in their entirety. The purpose of the seal was apparently to keep secret information about the state’s execution protocols. If that information were on the public record, prisoners bringing future challenges could proceed more quickly. This situation isn’t an anomaly: Since the beginning of 2011, according to the Death Penalty Information Center, “legislatures in thirteen states have enacted new secrecy statutes that conceal vital information about the execution process.”

Katz rejects the idea that inmate appeals should or could be brought well before an execution date is set. “Are we supposed to be filing shotgun litigation at random times and jamming up the federal courts?” he asks. “You’re going to have hundreds of inmates filing at all times. I don’t see why that would be better.”

Everyone agrees that a major reason for late-stage appeals is that, in many states, defendants facing a death sentence do not get the best court-appointed counsel at trial. As Brandon Garrett points out in his book End of Its Rope: How Killing the Death Penalty Can Revive Criminal Justice, many states over the past 30 years have moved to a statewide system of full-time state-paid capital defenders and away from trial counsel appointed for a small fee by the trial judge. For all its Atticus Finch romance, that system too often produced abysmal defense at trial. “By 2013,” he writes, “almost all death penalty states provided state-level capital representation at trial … and only a few holdouts, most notably Alabama, Florida, and Nevada,” do not. Death sentences have dropped dramatically in the states that have these systems. “States with shoddy lawyers for the defense,” Garrett writes, “represent what remains of the American death penalty.” That means fewer new death sentences, which, in time, will mean fewer late nights for the justices.

But that reduction will take time. More than 2,700 prisoners remain on death row across the nation. And many states, particularly in the “death belt” that stretches from Florida to Texas, are determined to keep the gurneys running.

Supporters of the death penalty regard the long delays as miscarriages of justice. “We focus a lot on defendants, and defendants have rights that should be safeguarded throughout the process,” Cassell, the former judge turned victim-rights scholar, told me. “But there is another side and that is victims, who have to put their lives on hold each time there’s a motion or a hearing.” He added, “If you look at the national statistics, you can see increasing periods of delay that cannot be explained by lack of counsel.”

There’s no doubt that death sentences usually lead to long delays. Are death-penalty lawyers really the reason for them? From my own reporting about capital punishment, the problem seems more diffuse. At very best, the recent spleen emanating from the Court’s right wing is bad manners. (The Court’s death caucus is, after all, winning most of the votes that seem to embitter them so.) But the threat goes beyond politesse: The Court’s angry pronouncements could intimidate private lawyers who would usually consider helping with death appeals, and send a message to state and federal judges that death appeals are to be given short shrift.

Capital-defense lawyers do try to halt what Justice Harry Blackmun once called “the machinery of death.” To me, that seems no different from what other lawyers do, in great cases and small. The Exxon Valdez oil tanker spilled more than 10 million gallons of crude oil into Alaska’s Prince William Sound in 1989; the company, represented by the best lawyers in America, delayed final judgment in a tort suit for 20 years. Prison-rights groups sued the state of California in 1990 over flaws in its prison mental-health system; five years later, a federal court concluded that system violated the Eighth Amendment. The state missed court-ordered deadlines to improve it for the next 15 years, before the Supreme Court called it to heel. When private and public money inspires such legal solicitude, are we surprised that capital-defense lawyers fight to preserve their clients’ lives?

“I say that you want to do everything in your client’s interest,” says Chris Adams, an experienced capital-defense lawyer in Charleston, South Carolina. “If I’m his lawyer, I’m going to litigate every legitimate issue that we have.” Aaron Katz, the lawyer who represented Christopher Price in the Alabama method-of-execution case, puts it more simply: “I genuinely don’t want our client to suffer in his last few minutes. That takes priority.”

World News index: