Marcos, Sotto support death penalty for ‘big-time’ drug convicts

Senators Imee Marcos and Vicente III expressed their support on imposing the death penalty for “big-time” drug convicts.

“Anti-poor ang death penalty eh… Makakakuha ng magagaling na abugado ang mayaman at ang mahirap ay hindi. Those who will only be meted the death penalty will be the poor ones,” said in an interview on ANC.

(The death penalty is anti-poor. The rich can get good lawyers, and the poor can not. Those who will only be meted the death penalty will be the poor ones.)

“Only for high-level drug traffickers I will support, not just the regular drug traffickers,” the Senate President added.

Senator Imee Marcos, in a phone interview with GMA News Online, also said she would support capital punishment for “big fishes.”

“I’m for the death penalty because the nature of the time has changed… Today, what we see in the international landscape are vast syndicates of multi-national corporations involved in drugs, terrorism, gun-running, human trafficking, and it’s very, very obvious that their tentacles extend from the police, the justice system, and even narco-policiticians, so kailangan ang death penalty as a deterrent,” Marcos said.

Also read: PDEA supports Duterte’s renewed call for death penalty

“Lahat kami capital offenses under the Dangerous Drugs law [ang isinusulong]. Big fish, big fish at saka capital offenses. ‘Yung mga big-time. Huwag naman’ yung using, possession. Kababawan. Huwag naman ganoon,” she added.

(We are all pushing for capital offenses under the Dangerous Drugs law. Big fish, big fish, and then capital offenses. Don’t impose the death penalty on drug users and those arrested for possession. It’s shallow.)

Marcos appealed to Congress to start discussing the death penalty.

“At the very least, let us commence with the debate, and let’s hear all sides, all arguments, and all sectors. Kailangan eh, at least i-debate na ‘yan. Naku ha, isang taon na ‘yan maawa’t mahabag,” the senator, who has a pending death penalty bill, said.

“That’s the only time we can make a fair judgment. If we continue to keep it on the back burner, refuse to hear it, I think we will not be doing our jobs,” she added.