A Liberal Party (LP) solon highlighted on Wednesday the apparent double standard of the Executive branch when it comes to handling the implications of international laws in connection with the proposed bills calling for the return of death penalty and the erstwhile Anti-Terrorism Bill.

"Noong pinag-uusapan natin, pinag-dedebatihan natin ang Anti-Terror (bill), one of the main reasons kung bakit natin inimplement yun is magiging in default tayo sa international obligation (When we were discussing and debating over the Anti-Terror Law, one of the main reasons why we implemented it was because we would be in default of our international obligation if we failed to do so)," Quezon City Rep. Jose Christopher “Kit” Belmonte said during a virtual hearing of the House Committee on Justice.

"While I do not dispute our sovereign right to enact our own laws, parang inconsistent naman tayo ngayon (we appear to be inconsistent)," Belmonte said, referring to the Executive's desire to revive capital punishment for certain drug-related crimes despite potentially reneging on international human rights agreements.

"Dito sa death penalty, sa mga international conventions na pinirmahan din po natin, eh magiging in default tayo at magkakaroon din tayo ng penalties, eh hindi ho applicable 'yung argument ng international obligations (With death penalty, we will also be in default of the international conventions we signed and slapped with penalties if we reimpose it, and yet this argument on preserving international obligations isn't applicable)," the opposition solon pointed out.

Wednesday's hearing was the first by the Justice panel on the dozen or so House Bills (HB) seeking the reinstatement of death penalty, effectively repealing for the purpose Republic Act (RA) 9346 or the law prohibiting the imposition of death penalty in the Philippines.

The hearing took place eight days after President Duterte asked Congress to swiftly pass the measure during his fifth State -of -the- Nation Address (SoNA). It should be noted that the controversial Anti-Terrorism Law or RA 11479 had also been tagged as priority legislation by Malacañang.

"The Department of Justice (DoJ) sees no legal or constitutional impediment to reimposition of the death penalty," DoJ Assistant Secretary Nicolas Ty told the Justice committee during this short presentation.

Belmonte tried to get "enlightenment" from Ty regarding the double standard that he has observed. "Ano ho ang basis na in one law, insisting sila na obligado tayo sa international obligation, pero dito naman ay hindi tayo obligado? (What is our basis in that with one law, they are insistent about our international obligation, but not with the other?)"

"On the difference between the current situation with respect to the death penalty and the Anti-Terror Act, we are not yet certain if reimposing the death penalty would tantamount to a breach of our international obligations," Ty said.

"If we look at the language of the ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) and the Second Protocol, there does not appear to be express language that would say we are prohibited from reimposing the death penalty," noted the official.

Ty further argued that while the 1986 Constitution itself allows the Philippines to impose the capital punishment, there needs to be some kind of reconcilation between local laws and international agreements.

"The position of the DoJ is that there can't be a reconciliation that would result in the prevelance of international law over our domestic law and the Constitution," he said.

Cagayan de Oro City Rep.Rufus Rodriguez says its clear that the Philippines' adoption of the Second Protocol to the ICCPR shows the country's "commitment not to execute in our jurisdiction any person convicted of any crime." He said this was "overwhelmingly ratified" by Philippine lawmakers via RA 9346, which was enacted in 2006.

Rodriguez  chided the DoJ for its self-admitted lack of certainty as to the repercussions of not honoring these binding international agreements.

"If you are saying that we have to reconcile, it is clear that our country has an international law already approved and (it) has committed not to execute.

"So why are you saying now, professor, that you are not certain that we are obliged by the Second Protocol as part of Article 2, Section 2, which is now part of the law of the land that there should be no execution whatsoever in this jurisdiction?" he asked.

The death penalty law oppositor reckoned that the DoJ "should always be certain because you are the lawyers of government. You should be able to advise other branches of government."

Failure to meet international obligations will turn the Philippines into a "rogue state" and a pariah in the eyes of the global community, Rodriguez warned.