Is de Lima a political prisoner?

Sen. Leila de Lima wants to take part in the debate on three controversial bills: return of death penalty, lowering age of criminal responsibility, and putting off barangay elections.

Can she do that from jail? Sen. Antonio Trillanes was allowed by tele-conference to take part in a debate on a bill when he was in prison. And Sen. Justiniano Montano in the 1950s took part in Senate sessions while he was detained for multiple murder, a non-bailable crime. De Lima cited the “precedents” in announcing her plan.

Like Trillanes and Montano, de Lima is not jailed for purely political reasons. It’s not solely due to her criticism of illegal killings ordered or encouraged by President Duterte. She is charged with trafficking in drugs and corruption allegedly committed when she was justice secretary.

Element of politics

The pure political component is one of the criteria adopted by Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (Pace), the first inter-government organization to adopt concrete criteria on what a political prisoner is.

Under Pace standards, de Lima may not qualify as political prisoner: she’s not being detained with her basic rights violated, judicial proceedings removed and she’s not treated differently from others charged with a crime. If there are violations, de Lima can seek redress from higher courts.

Amnesty International is less stringent in defining a political prisoner: “any prisoner whose case has a political element, in motivation of his or her act, the act itself or motivation of authorities in their response.” Easier to qualify de Lima as one under that criterion. Yet, A.I. is less active in seeking the release of political prisoners than prisoners of conscience. And local activist groups have not cried out to free her as a prisoner of conscience.

No need to define

But here’s the thing: there may be no need to resolve the question of what kind of a prisoner the senator is. What is crucial is whether she is afforded all the rights due her as an accused and whether evidence against her is authentic and solid and not supported by testimony bought with favors.

Should she be allowed to speak out her mind on pending vital bills? Why not if the judges allow it? It wouldn’t be special treatment because she’s no ordinary detainee, she’s a senator. If she continues to get her pay, she should earn it. For that and for this: the voice of dissent one hardly hears nowadays in Congress.

Besides, it would be good for the state’s argument that she’s no political prisoner. She’s not stifled even though she’s behind bars.