PopularPostMost Popular trending news
March 2017 Nationwide Survey on the Minimum Age of Criminal Liability and the Death Penalty
Pulse Asia Research, Inc. is pleased to share with you some findings on Minimum Age of Criminal Liability and the Death Penalty from the March 2017 Ulat ng Bayan national survey. We request you to assist us in informing the public by disseminating this information.
The survey fieldwork was conducted from March 15 – 20, 2017 using face-to-face interviews.
The following developments preoccupied Filipinos in the weeks leading up to the survey period as well as during the actual conduct of field interviews:
(1) The filing of an impeachment complaint against President Rodrigo R. Duterte on 16 March 2017 by Magdalo Party List Representative Gary Alejano based on charges of betrayal of public trust, culpable violation of the Philippine Constitution, bribery, corruption, and the commission of other high crimes; thereafter, an impeachment complaint against Vice-President Maria Leonor G. Robredo was filed on 20 March 2017 by Atty. Oliver Lozano on the grounds that she also violated the Constitution and betrayed public trust;
(2) The claims made by retired SPO3 Arturo Lascañas before the Senate regarding the killings he took part in as a member of the so-called Davao Death Squad (DDS) and which were supposedly ordered by then Davao City Mayor Duterte;
(3) The Senate investigation into the abduction and murder of South Korean businessman Jee Ick-Joo inside Camp Crame in October 2016, the surrender of alleged mastermind SPO3 Ricky Sta. Isabel following the issuance of an arrest warrant against him in January 2017, and his issuance of an affidavit implicating Superintendent Rafael Dumlao of the Philippine National Police (PNP) Anti-Illegal Drugs Group and Senior Superintendent Allan Macapagal of the PNP Anti-Kidnapping Group in the crime;
(4) The suspension of “Oplan Tokhang” on 30 January 2017 in the aftermath of the Jee Ick-Joo case and its relaunching on 06 March 2017 under the name “Oplan Double Barrel, Reloaded”;
(5) The issuance by Amnesty International (AI), the Human Rights Watch (HRW), and the United States (US) of separate reports highly critical of the administration’s “war on illegal drugs”; the reports claim, among others, that President Duterte and the police should be held criminally liable for the killings resulting from the anti-illegal drugs campaign and that there is an increasing level of public concern over the culture of impunity within the country’s police institution;
(6) The video message of Vice-President Maria Leonor G. Robredo shown during the annual meeting of the United Nations (UN) Commission on Narcotic Drugs in Vienna held on 16 March 2017 wherein she highlighted the issue of extrajudicial killings arising from President Duterte’s campaign against anti-illegal and denounced the so-called “palit-ulo” scheme by the police;
(7) Another Senate investigation, this time into the supposed P 50 million bribery attempt involving officials of the Bureau of Immigration (BI) and a Hong Kong-based gambling tycoon who was able to evade arrest on charges of bribery and economic sabotage; the President’s issuance of an executive order (EO) mandating the PNP and the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to embark on an anti-illegal gambling campaign targeting gambling syndicates and unlicensed gambling operators;
(8) The resumption of the peace talks between the Philippine government and communist rebels as well as the reinstatement of their unilateral ceasefire declarations following meetings in The Netherlands held on 10-11 March 2017;
(9) The threat made by the President that he will declare martial law in Mindanao if violence continues in the area as he pleaded with local government officials for them to exercise their supervisory functions over the police to ensure peace and order in their respective areas;
(10) The approval, on third reading, by the House of Representatives of the proposal to reimpose the death penalty for heinous drug-related crimes via a vote of 217-54, with a single abstention; in the aftermath of the vote, several House members belonging to the super majority coalition who rejected the bill were stripped of their posts in the Lower House;
(11) The arrest of Senator Leila M. de Lima, on 24 February 2017, on charges that she operated a drug-trafficking ring while serving as the Department of Justice (DOJ) Secretary under the Aquino administration; following her arrest, several senators who, like Senator de Lima, are either members of or allied with the Liberal Party (LP) were removed from their Senate posts by their colleagues supportive of President Duterte; oral arguments were heard by the Supreme Court (SC) beginning 15 March 2017 on Senator de Lima’s petition to stop her indictment on charges of drug trafficking;
(12) The ruling of the SC, sitting as the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET), that the electoral protest filed by former Senator Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr. contesting the results of the May 2016 vice-presidential race is sufficient in form and substance and, as such, it will proceed to conduct hearings on the matter; the camp of Vice-President Maria Leonor G. Robredo filed a motion for reconsideration on 27 February 2017;
(13) The release of a series of online articles called #NagaLeaks purportedly containing information against Vice-President Robredo, her deceased husband, and the LP of which she is a member;
(14) The manifestation submitted by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) to the 13th Division of the Court of Appeals (CA) questioning the decision of the Makati Regional Trial Court (RTC) declaring Ms. Janet Lim-Napoles guilty of illegally detaining Mr. Benhur Luy, the whistleblower in the pork barrel scam case against the former;
(15) The decision of the Office of the Ombudsman to clear former President Benigno S. Aquino III and to charge former Department of Budget and Management (DBM) Secretary Florencio Abad with usurpation of legislative power in connection with the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) case;
(16) The magnitude 6.7 earthquake which struck the province of Surigao del Norte on 10 February 2017, claiming the lives of eight (8) individuals and resulting in hundreds of injuries as well as in the destruction of properties and infrastructure estimated to reach P 665 million;
(17) The confirmation of the appointments of Department of Education (DepEd) Secretary Leonor Briones and DOJ Secretary Vitaliano Aguirre III; the rejection of the appointment of Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) Secretary Perfecto Yasay, Jr. over questions concerning his citizenship; the bypassing of Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) Secretary Rafael Mariano, Department of Health (DOH) Secretary Paulyn Jean Ubial, Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) Secretary Judy Taguiwalo, and Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Secretary Gina Lopez; the removal of National Irrigation Administration (NIA) Chief Peter Laviña amidst charges of corruption; and the appointment of Sandiganbayan Associate Justice Samuel Martires as President Duterte’s first appointee to the SC;
(18) The orders issued by DENR Secretary Lopez to suspend five (5) mining firms, close 23 mining operations, and cancel 75 mining contracts as part of the DENR’s campaign against “indiscriminate mining”; the campaign against the confirmation of DENR Secretary Lopez’s appointment by mining companies and other sectors adversely affected by her policy decisions;
(19) The forcible takeover by around 5,000 informal settlers from Metro Manila and Bulacan of government houses located in Pandi and San Jose del Monte City, both in Bulacan, allocated for members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and the PNP and urban poor beneficiaries who have applied for housing with the National Housing Authority (NHA);
(20) The commemoration of the 31st anniversary of the EDSA People Power Revolution on 25 February 2017 , with the government holding “simple rites” in Camp Aguinaldo while opposition groups trooped to the People Power Monument along EDSA to protest the burial of former President Ferdinand E. Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani (LNMB) and the continued extrajudicial killings in the country;
(21) The controversy surrounding the presence of Chinese vessels in the vicinity of Benham Rise which, according to Department of National Defense (DND) Secretary Delfin Lorenzana, appeared to be conducting surveying missions in the area; however, President Duterte himself said he allowed Chinese surveillance ships to go to the area, a decision which the DND and Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) apparently had no knowledge of; both the Senate and the House of Representatives are looking to investigate the alleged agreement between President Duterte and the Chinese government allowing its military vessels to enter the area, an act by the President referred to by his critics as tantamount to treason;
(22) Calls for President Duterte to file “a strong protest” against plans by China to build structures on Panatag Shoal which is part of the Philippine national territory; this came after the President said the Philippines is in no position to prevent China from building a radar station in the area;
(23) The observance of Ash Wednesday on 01 March 2017, with Manila Archbishop Luis Antonio Cardinal Tagle calling on the Catholic faithful to have a “change of heart”; on 19 February 2017, the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) launched its “Walk for Life” initiative which encourages Filipinos to reject drug-related killings and the return of the death penalty through “active non-violence”; and
(24) In economic and financial matters, the increase in headline inflation to 3.3% in February 2017 from 2.7% the previous month – the fastest rise in prices in 27 months as stated by the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA); the continued depreciation of the local currency vis-à-vis the US dollar; the increase in the minimum fare for jeepneys and the base rate for taxis as well as in the power rates in Metro Manila; and the release of the additional pension for pensioners of the Social Security System (SSS) amounting to P 1,000 monthly.
As in our previous Ulat ng Bayan surveys, this nationwide survey is based on a sample of 1,200 representative adults 18 years old and above. It has a ± 3% error margin at the 95% confidence level. Subnational estimates for each of the geographic areas covered in the survey (i.e., Metro Manila, the rest of Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao) have a ± 6% error margin, also at 95% confidence level. Those interested in further technical details may refer to our website (www.pulseasia.ph)
Pulse Asia Research’s pool of academic fellows takes full responsibility for the design and conduct of the survey, as well as for analyses it makes based on the survey data. In keeping with our academic nature, no religious, political, economic, or partisan group influenced any of these processes. Pulse Asia Research undertakes Ulat ng Bayan surveys on its own without any party singularly commissioning the research effort.
For any clarification or questions, kindly contact Dr. Ana Maria Tabunda, Research Director of Pulse Asia Research at 09189436816 or Ronald D. Holmes, Pulse Asia Research President at 09189335497 or via email (firstname.lastname@example.org).
For most Filipinos (55%), the lowest age of criminal liability in the Philippines should be retained at 15 years old
A little over half of Filipinos (55%) favor keeping the minimum age of criminal liability at 15 years old. This opinion is echoed by big pluralities to sizeable majorities across geographic areas and socio-economic classes (45% to 63% and 48% to 58%, respectively). Those in the rest of Luzon are more in favor of keeping the minimum age of criminal liability at 15 years old than their counterparts in Metro Manila and the Visayas (63% versus 45% to 47%). On the other hand, 20% of Filipinos favor pegging the lowest age of criminal liability at 12 years old while 9% say it should be 9 years old. As for other responses which are volunteered by survey respondents, 13% say the minimum age of criminal liability should be between 16-25 years old, 2% say it should be 10-11 years old, and 1% favor having it at 13-14 years old. (Please refer to Table 1.)
Support for the death penalty eases between July 2016 and March 2017 (-14 percentage points) although it continues to be expressed by majority of Filipinos (67%)
In March 2017, the predominant sentiment among Filipinos (67%) is one of support for the death penalty. This figure is lower than the level of support recorded by Pulse Asia Research in July 2016 (81%). This view is expressed by majorities in every geographic area and socio-economic grouping (61% to 74% and 66% to 68%, respectively). Opposition to the death penalty is expressed by a quarter of Filipinos (25%) while the rest (8%) are unable to say whether they support or do not support capital punishment. (Please refer to Table 2.)
During the period July 2016 to March 2017, support for the death penalty eases at the national level (-14 percentage points) as well as in the rest of Luzon (-21 percentage points) and in Class D (-16 percentage points). On the other hand, non-support for capital punishment becomes more notable in the Philippines as a whole (+14 percentage points) and in the rest of Luzon (+21 percentage points), the Visayas (+13 percentage points), and Class D (+16 percentage points). Indecision figures are generally unchanged at this time. (Please refer to Table 3.)
Among those who are pro-capital punishment, the most often cited crime which should be made punishable by death is rape (97%); few changes in public opinion on this matter may be noted between July 2016 and March 2017
As far as most of those in favor of the death penalty are concerned, rape (97%), murder (88%), and drug pushing (71%) are among the crimes which ought to be made punishable by death. Majorities across geographic areas and socio-economic classes say those found guilty of rape (96% to 99% and 94% to 100%, respectively), murder (74% to 95% and 84% to 92%, respectively), and drug pushing (61% to 81% and 66% to 77%, respectively) should be given the death penalty. Fewer Filipinos supportive of the death penalty think kidnap-for-ransom (46%) and plunder (33%) should be covered by such punishment. However, most Metro Manilans (55%), Visayans (59%), and those in Class ABC (57%) support the imposition of capital punishment for kidnap-for-ransom and plunder while a bare majority of those in Class ABC (51%) are in favor of the death penalty in plunder cases. (Please refer to Table 4.)
While the overall figures are generally unchanged between July 2016 and March 2017, a few movements may be observed across geographic areas and socio-economic classes. More Visayans now support imposing the death penalty for murder cases than in July 2016 (91% versus 75%). As regards kidnap-for-ransom cases, support for capital punishment declines in the rest of Luzon (-13 percentage points) but goes up in the Visayas (+20 percentage points). With regard to plunder cases, more Visayans are currently in favor of having the death penalty compared to July 2016 (40% versus 27%). (Please refer to Table 5.)