reviving death penalty in the philippines essay

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy .

Reviving the death penalty

The year of our Lord 2006 was the pinnacle of a bout of a lifetime.

At the blue corner stood the abolitionists, seeking to wipe out judicial executions from the Philippine legal order. On the red corner were the retentionists, who sought to preserve the status quo and “strike fear into the hearts of criminals” through the ultimate threat of capital punishment.

On June 24, 2006, then President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo signed Republic Act No. 9346 into law, prohibiting the imposition of the death penalty in the Philippines. Notably, the law expressly repealed RA 8177 (“An Act Designating Death by Lethal Injection”), RA 7659 (the “Death Penalty Law”), and “all other laws, executive orders and decrees, insofar as they impose the death penalty[.]”

The following year, the Philippines joined the Second Optional Protocol (OP2) to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and bound itself to “abolish the death penalty within its jurisdiction.” OP2 was ratified on Nov. 20, 2007 (albeit without Senate concurrence—more on this another time).

All this to say: It was a big year for the abolitionist movement. The battle was won! But be that as it may, the war was far from over. Indeed, it continues to this day.

Over the past 16 years since RA 9346, a total of 37 bills have come before the lower house proposing the reincorporation of the death penalty—24 of which were proposed during Duterte’s presidency. At present, four remain pending before Congress: Senate Bill No. 198 and House Bill Nos. 501, 1543, and 2459.

SB 198 seeks to revive RA 8177 for the crime of “large-scale illegal drug trafficking,” while HB 2459 would impose the death penalty for foreigners who violate RA 9165 (the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002). HB 501 proposes the death penalty by “hanging, firing squad, or lethal injection” for “certain heinous crimes,” such as qualified bribery or possession of marijuana.

The least nuanced of the bunch is HB 1543 by Surigao del Norte 2nd District Rep. Robert Barbers, which proposes the repeal of RA 9346 but makes no mention of reviving RA 8177, et al. As pronounced by the Supreme Court on countless occasions: “When a law which expressly repeals a prior law is itself repealed, the law first repealed shall not be thereby revived unless expressly so provided.” Hmmm… Sounds like someone may need a crash course in statutory construction!

Now, one might think we could end this conversation by simply pointing out to our dear legislators/death penalty revivalists that these proposals would violate the Philippines’ international obligations under the ICCPR and OP2, but one hath another think coming. Invoking international norms in domestic processes, after all, is like listening to a Kantian debate with a utilitarian in a late-night inuman. It’s not so much that they are arguing with each other, but past each other.

Each of these proposed legislations, in many a varied way, builds upon a singular assumption: that the fear of death will deter crime. Otherwise known as the “deterrence principle,” our legislators assume that the more severe the penalty, the less likely the crime. Alas, if only it were so simple.

Allow me to engage you in a quick mental exercise: All of us have jaywalked at some point in our lives. My question is: Would you still have done so if the penalty for jaywalking was death? The answer would likely be “no.” Now, what if the penalty were less severe, say, a fine of P1,000? Likely, the answer would still be a “no.” That’s a lot of money, after all. But what if the fine were lessened to a measly P1, or a stern finger-wagging, might you still have trudged beyond the zebra crossing?

I would often pose this exercise to my students, and though the lot of them would easily afford to pay the P1 price, they still would not jaywalk—or so they claim. But then, I gave one last iteration of the problem. I asked: Regardless of the penalty, would they jaywalk if they knew no one was watching? Would they cross regardless of the “ped xing” if they were certain that they would get away with it?

As one may imagine, this elicited different responses. While some students feigned holier-than-thou loyalty to the crosswalk, the class recognized the point that I now here make: societal conduct is not shaped so much by the severity of punishment but the certainty of it.

Studies have shown that increasing penalties does little to deter crime. What more for the ultimate penalty: capital punishment. Indeed, severity and certainty may at times have an inverse relationship, where increased penalties would deter a victim from reporting the crime. This would be the case, say, for crimes committed by family members.

If government authorities seek to uphold law and order, then they need not execute a soul. Rather, they must only execute the law.

——————

[email protected]

###—###

#ColumnName

Subscribe to our daily newsletter

Just Thinking

Raphael A. Pangalangan

Fearless views on the news

Disclaimer: Comments do not represent the views of INQUIRER.net. We reserve the right to exclude comments which are inconsistent with our editorial standards. FULL DISCLAIMER

© copyright 1997-2024 inquirer.net | all rights reserved.

We use cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. By continuing, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. To find out more, please click this link.

• Subscribe Now

[OPINION] In search for true justice: Death penalty is a false solution

Already have Rappler+? Sign in to listen to groundbreaking journalism.

This is AI generated summarization, which may have errors. For context, always refer to the full article.

Once again our predominantly Catholic country will observe Holy Week as the culmination to the 40-day Lent. It is during this time of the year when we pause and reflect over the pixels of our lives, and remember how “for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.”    

This Holy Week we recall the story of an innocent man who came to the world as Savior – who healed and brought to life the sick and the dead, who exposed the corruption and lavish lives kept hidden inside temples, and who sympathized with tax collectors and prostitutes because in the eyes of God we are all His children, but who was in turn crowned with thorns and scourged mercilessly, who carried the very cross he was sentenced to die on.  

The passion of Christ vivified nothing less than the destruction of the scales of justice if only to tilt in favor of the selfish desires of the wicked. It epitomizes everything that is wrong in a system that permits the taking of a life under a set-up that is neither perfect nor error-free.

Capital punishment, popularly known as “ death penalty ,” can be defined as a state-sanctioned act of executing a person sentenced to death after conviction by a court of law of a criminal offense. The history of the imposition of death penalty in the Philippines shows a volte-face attitude that clearly depicts the divided opinion and reception of our people towards the purpose, aptness and effectivity of the punishment.  

President Rodrigo Duterte rose to fame for his rather simplistic style of governance; relying mostly on threats of brute force and actual violence to get his way. His presidential campaign leaned heavily on both the promises of ridding the country of drugs with a violent campaign, through which he promised that he will “kill all the druglords,” and of the restoration of death penalty to deter crimes. But is death penalty as golden as the promise?

Senate support

Senator Panfilo Lacson recently made a pitch to reimpose capital punishment in an effort to discourage drug cartels operating in the country. “We should also open our eyes to the reality. They will make this country a playground for drug lords because they play with impunity and it’s profitable for them,” he said.

The campaign in the Senate to restore death penalty is currently led by Senate President Vicente Sotto, III and Sen. Emmanuel Pacquiao. 

SP Sotto admitted that a majority of senators do not support the death penalty. He said he, Sen. Lacson and Sen. Pacquiao are working to convince their fellow senators to support the death penalty measure, at least for high-level drug trafficking and other heinous crimes.

The poor as victims 

From historical experience and in-depth studies we realize how imperfect and inadequate our justice system is. Socio-economic realities have skewed the implementation of the law against the poor and the marginalized. Police raids and warrantless arrests are an everyday occurrence for our countrymen in the slum areas who are lucky enough to make it out alive. At the same time, the same police force approach the gated communities with respect and full accord of their rights.

Equal Justice Initiative founder and Executive Director Bryan Stevenson argues that, “Our justice system treats you better if you are rich and guilty than if you are poor and innocent.”

This observation is even more pronounced in the Philippines with our increasing levels of social and material inequality. Here, our detention facilities and penal institutions are overflowing with detainees and offenders belonging mostly to the lower socioeconomic classes. For instance, in a 2004 study, the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) surveyed a total of 890 death row inmates at the New Bilibid Prison in Muntinlupa and Correctional Institution for Women in Mandaluyong and discovered that the profile of the then death row was reflective of the Filipino poor: largely uneducated, mostly underemployed and generally inhabiting hovels and shanties.  

Such an uneven system of administering justice leads to the erosion of our faith in the law and the legal system.

Death penalty: the cure or the poison?

In incidents of terrorism, rape, and other heinous crimes where victims are horrendously and helplessly slain or notoriously dishonored, the knee-jerk response of traditional politicians is to propose to make the punishment so severe as to create an illusion of justice. Under immense pressure to appease the angry mob and ease the outrage of the public for retribution, many legislators pin the blame on the absence of the death penalty as the cause of heinous crimes. They would argue that if there is a threat of capital punishment, the offenders would not dare commit such depraved acts. 

On the contrary, there is no empirical evidence that death penalty curbs crime. In fact, global trend is towards its abolition. Amnesty International reported in 2018 that 121 of the UN’s 193 member states voted on a moratorium on the use of the death penalty. When the UN was founded in 1945 only 8 of the then 51 UN member states had abolished the death penalty. Today, 103 of 193 member states have abolished the death penalty for all crimes, and 139 have abolished the death penalty in law or practice.

Our focus should be to ensure that our justice system punishes the true offenders, while our government address the social injustice that breeds or encourages criminal or anti-social behavior.

This trend is brought about by various studies proving that there is no empirical evidence that death penalty deters crime in any part of the world. In fact, leading criminologists Michael Radelet and Traci Lacock (2009) presented the consensus among criminologists that the death penalty does not add any significant deterrent effect in lowering homicide rates compared to long-term imprisonment.    

This can be confirmed by another local study conducted by FLAG, in 2004, which revealed that majority of 1,121 death row inmates knew about death penalty before they even committed their offenses. Despite this, the study also uncovered that more than half of them, did not know that the crimes they were charged of were subject to capital punishment. This obliviousness may even be caused by poverty and lack of education, which are indicators that the poor are the only ones targeted by this measure.

Senator Francis Pangilinan, who used to chair the Senate committee on justice and human rights, shared that during their hearing on the measure suspending the imposition of death penalty, it was revealed that despite 7 death penalty executions undertaken under the Estrada administration from 1998 to 1999, the crime rate further increased by 15.3%. 

The certainty and swiftness of punishment is more effective than tougher sentences. An ineffective system of implementing the law provides criminal elements an opportunity to avoid punishment making the nature of the penalty immaterial. Our focus should be to ensure that our justice system punishes the true offenders, while our government address the social injustice that breeds or encourages criminal or anti-social behavior. 

Flawed and decaying criminal justice system and its irreversibility    

The Supreme Court in the case of People vs. Mateo (2004) admitted that a considerable majority of the trial courts had wrongfully imposed the death penalty during the time it was sanctioned as a sentencing option from 1993 to 2004. In the said case, the SC said that for 11 years from 1993 to June 2004, 907 out of 1,493 cases were submitted to the Supreme Court for judicial review. Of this number, the death penalty was only affirmed in 230 cases or 25.36 % of the cases for review. More than half (53.25%), or 483 death penalty cases, were reduced to reclusion perpetua, while 65 were acquitted. A shocking declaration of the Supreme Court revealed a judicial error of 71.77% that time saving 651 out of 907 appellants from death.   It was a clear “miscarriage of justice,” as described by then Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban.

This phenomenon of judicial error even discounts the poison that is corruption – so potent is its powers that it does not only bedevil ordinary agencies of government, but has reached even the hallowed halls of our courts.  

To compound this problem would be the irreversible nature of the capital punishment. All too often we have seen convictions reversed years later after pieces of evidence have surfaced that would exonerate the accused.

Our current policy and international commitment on death penalty 

The 1987 Constitution prohibits the imposition the death penalty save “for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes” as may be provided for by Congress. Death penalty was reintroduced in our county in 1993 but was prohibited again in 2006.

To solidify our commitment against death penalty, we even acceded to the International Treaty on the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in November 2007. This requires all state parties, the Philippines included, to “take all necessary measures to abolish the death penalty within its jurisdiction.”

Death penalty as a weapon of repression 

The death penalty has historically been used as a weapon to suppress dissent and oppress the political opposition.   The practice even pre-dates the most infamous of death penalty sentences ever carried out.   Four centuries before Jesus Christ was sentenced to die on the cross, the philosopher Socrates was sentenced to die based on charges apparently arising from his act of asking politico-philosophic questions of his student, but were, in reality, motivated by suspicions regarding his political affiliations and his vocal criticism of Athens’ political system and prominent citizens. 

Just recently, we have seen the zeal of our law enforcers to implement arrest warrants for petty cases against Rappler CEO Maria Ressa and Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV , while going easy against Imelda Marcos and Nur Misuari  for graft and rebellion cases, respectively. We have seen how the law is used to silence witnesses against criminal wrongdoings of the administration allies without making any sincere effort to investigate the allegations.  

If the death penalty were reinstated, it would be a taxpayer-funded machinery for political assassination. Freedom to speak and to dissent would die, and with it our democracy. 

In fact, one need not look further than this author’s experience to see the disparity between how this administration treats persons who are guilty of nothing more than being vocal critics of its acts, omissions and policies, versus how it treats its allies who are guilty of the most heinous of offenses.   I have now been under detention for 779 days already, based on trumped up charges that are supported by no corpus delicti, but relies chiefly on the perjured and self-serving testimonies of self-confessed drug lords .   And yet, these self-confessed drug lords, save for one, were not charged at all for their undisputed participation in the drug trade.   I, an innocent political opponent, is behind bars, while the real drug lords have gotten away with their crimes. 

If the death penalty were reinstated, it would be a taxpayer-funded machinery for political assassination.   Freedom to speak and to dissent would die, and with it our democracy. 

Death penalty is an outdated way of addressing criminality

Putting criminals to death as a form of punishment has existed in the earliest of human civilizations. It may seem inherently logical to human beings to reason that a person who takes the life of another should also be killed. A life for a life. For many, this is justice. However, in light of the many researches and studies in the administration of criminal justice, given the imperative for a more humane understanding of and approach to the root causes of poverty and criminality, the time has come for us to confront and re-examine the timeless questions surrounding the imposition of death penalty.    

The complex problem of criminality in the Philippines calls for an urgent but strategic response. If we believe that death is the answer to curbing criminality and exacting the highest possible price for committing a crime is indeed right and just – with thousands of deaths under the so-called war on drugs of the Duterte administration – why is crime and corruption still rampant in the Philippines? 

Politicians will try to pander with tough talks and promises of harsh punishment against criminals. However, they are all cheap and meaningless if they do not translate to actual arrests, prosecutions and convictions.  

Criminality is a more complex and nuanced matter than politicians will care to admit. The reinstatement of the death penalty – and equating death with justice – is a patently fallacious and iniquitous way of going about it.

The problem requires a multi-dimensional and multi-level approach considering how aggravating and aggravated the situation is. Our justice system is weak and the poor are even more enfeebled as studies have repeatedly shown that an empty threat of death is never the answer. Over and above legislating for death penalty, our Congress should be pushing for bills on prosecution and judicial reforms that would make our justice system more effective and efficient. 

An honest-to-goodness administration of justice bests any legislation increasing penalty on crimes; and a sincere governance that would raise the quality of life of our people would keep them from a life of evil. The Bible says in Zechariah 7:9, “This is what the Lord Almighty said: ‘Administer true justice; show mercy and compassion to one another.’” – Rappler.com

Senator Leila de Lima, a fierce Duterte critic, has been detained in a facility at the Philippine National Police headquarters for more than two years over what she calls trumped-up drug charges. She is a former justice secretary and chairperson of the Commission on Human Rights.

Add a comment

Please abide by Rappler's commenting guidelines .

There are no comments yet. Add your comment to start the conversation.

How does this make you feel?

Related Topics

Recommended stories, {{ item.sitename }}, {{ item.title }}, us basketball, ‘unlike anyone we’ve seen’: wnba seizes caitlin clark spotlight.

Warriors forge 3-way tie for 8th in West minus Klay, Draymond

Doncic, Irving combine for 54 as streaking Mavericks drub cold Heat

Top spot: Nuggets take control of West race with win over Timberwolves

Giannis Antetokounmpo to miss final 3 games of season

Checking your Rappler+ subscription...

Upgrade to Rappler+ for exclusive content and unlimited access.

Why is it important to subscribe? Learn more

You are subscribed to Rappler+

Philippine President and politicians push for return of death penalty amid ‘war on drugs’

Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte has renewed his push for the reintroduction of capital punishment, calling in his State of the Nation address in late July for the death penalty to be re-established as a punishment for drug trafficking. President Duterte’s words come as the Philippine Congress considers a range of bills seeking the reinstatement of capital punishment, which was last abolished in 2006.

In the address, President Duterte specifically urged ‘the swift passage of the law reviving the death penalty by lethal injection for crimes specified under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.’

Related links

• Human trafficking and the proposed reintroduction of the death penalty
• Philippine lawyers at risk in President Duterte’s ‘war on drugs’
• IBAHRI calls on the Integrated Bar of the Philippines to address extrajudicial killings of 50 lawyers

President Duterte has long pushed for the reintroduction of the death penalty. He made it one of his campaign promises, and vowed during his first presidential press conference in 2016 to have Congress restore the punishment for a range of crimes.

[Capital punishment] is a barbaric way of administering justice that does not belong in a civilised democratic society built on the rule of law

Anne Ramberg Dr jur hc Co-Chair of the IBA’s Human Rights Institute

Since coming to power on a wave of popular support for his strongman tactics, President Duterte has waged a drug war on an unparalleled scale, including by issuing ‘shoot to kill’ orders to law enforcement.

As of July 2019, the Philippine government had acknowledged at least 6,600 killings by police as part of the ‘war on drugs.’ Thousands of people suspected of being linked to the drugs trade have also died at the hands of ‘unknown armed persons’ according to Amnesty International. Only a single extrajudicial killing has resulted in charges and a conviction.

In this context, reviving the death penalty, particularly for drug crimes, is a natural move for President Duterte.

But such a development would represent a significant step back for the Philippines, which in 1987 became the first Asian nation to end capital punishment. The abolition was made under Article III, section 19 of the Philippine Constitution, which allowed for its Congressional reinstatement in 1993. When the punishment was abolished again in 2006, more than 1,200 prisoners were taken off death row – what Amnesty International called the ‘largest ever commutation of death sentences.’

While the Philippines has yet to see any bills reinstating capital punishment successfully signed into law, efforts have mounted in recent years. In March 2017, the House of Representatives passed a bill making certain drug offences punishable by death – though the Senate stalled the bill the following month.

Early in 2019, the House of Representatives approved a bill that would allow the death penalty for those in possession of drugs during a social gathering – only to withdraw approval at a later reading. But since the May 2019 midterm elections delivered a landslide for President Duterte’s allies, the likelihood is higher than ever that such a bill could pass.

Drug-related offences have drawn significant attention as a means to reinstate capital punishment, but death penalty advocates in Congress have sought other in-roads too. Late last year, Representative Micaela Violago – who introduced the 2017 bill – proposed the amendment of a 2003 anti-human trafficking law to include the possible penalty of death. In early August, both the Senate and House held hearings to discuss numerous death penalty bills.

Legal experts and rights monitors have highlighted that a reinstatement of capital punishment would breach international law – and possibly open the country to sanctions from the international community, such as the withdrawal of trade preferences.

The Philippines has ratified both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which bars a reintroduction of the death penalty, and its Second Optional Protocol, which is aimed explicitly at abolishing the punishment.

The IBA Asia Pacific Regional Forum has recently published a paper on the Philippines’ attempts to reintroduce the death penalty, the authors of which include Karen Gomez Dumpit, Commissioner at the Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines. While focused on Violago’s bill, the paper sets out that ‘any reintroduction of the death penalty in the Philippines may well constitute a breach of its obligation under the ICCPR Article 6, paragraph 2 and the Second Optional Protocol which guarantees the permanent non-reintroduction of the death penalty in states that ratified the Protocol. The ban is so broadly accepted that it is considered a norm of customary international law.’

While President Duterte and his supporters argue that the death penalty serves as an effective deterrent to crime, research suggests otherwise. And in reintroducing capital punishment, the Philippines may face a raft of other consequences. The human trafficking law targeted by Representative Violago for amendment, for instance, features a broad definition of accessorial liability. If the death penalty is introduced as a possible punishment, that could well dissuade economic investment by companies who fear that their own efforts to investigate or stop slavery within their supply chains could inadvertently expose their employees to death, says Felicity Gerry QC, of Carmelite Chambers, London.

Gerry – who co-authored the IBA Asia Pacific Regional Forum paper – stresses that Violago’s bill does little to address the root causes of trafficking. ‘There’s so many grey areas. It doesn’t solve anything, it just gives power to the state to kill. Human trafficking is widely misunderstood and needs much more complex approaches,’ she says.

There can never be justification for capital punishment, said Anne Ramberg Dr jur hc, Co-Chair of the IBA’s Human Rights Institute, who highlights the frequency with which judicial systems behave in a discriminatory manner.

‘The right to life and dignity prohibits [capital punishment],’ says Ramberg. ‘It is a crime against human rights. Nations should never be entitled to deprive a person of their life, no matter what crime he or she has committed. It is a barbaric way of administering justice that does not belong in a civilised democratic society built on the rule of law.’

‘No justice systems are perfect,’ adds Ramberg. ‘Capital punishment involves the risk that an innocent will suffer from a verdict that is wrong. There are many examples where people on death row have been found not guilty after several years in prison.’

She adds that judicial misconduct, including forced confessions, adds to the risk.

‘A reintroduction of capital punishment is therefore a serious threat to the rule of law and human rights,’ says Ramberg.

International Bar Association 2024 © Privacy policy Terms & conditions Cookie policy Harassment policy

International Bar Association is incorporated as a Not-for-Profit Corporation under the laws of the State of New York in the United States of America and is registered with the Department of State of the State of New York with registration number 071114000655 - and the liability of its members is limited. Its registered address in New York is c/o Capitol Services Inc, 1218 Central Avenue, Suite 100, Albany, New York 12205.

The London office of International Bar Association is registered in England and Wales as a branch with registration number FC028342.

Reject any Proposal to Reintroduce the Death Penalty

The Death Penalty is a violation of the human right to life. 

More than a decade ago, the Philippines recognized this by abolishing the death penalty, and later ratifying the Second Optional Protocol to the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights which further emphasized the cruel and inhuman nature of capital punishment. However, since the start of his term, President Duterte and his allies in the Congress have sought to overturn this, and almost succeeded in 2017 when the House of Representatives voted to pass the bill. In his most recent State of the Nation Address (SONA), the President again expressed his intent to bring back the death penalty. 

We call on the Philippine Senate to reject any and all proposals for the reinstatement of the death penalty. We call on them to recognize that the death penalty does not only fail as a deterrent to any form of crime; it also further contributes to a culture that continually devalues life.

In a time where death has become the norm in this country, it is high time for the government to shift their priorities and put life at the top of the list. 

SIGN THE PETITION

Urge the philippine senate to reject any and all proposals for the reinstatement of the death penalty., revival of the death penalty in the philippines.

Username or Email Address

Remember Me

Exploring the Death Penalty in the Philippines Essay

Is the death penalty truly an effective deterrent to crime? And what are the ramifications of its application in the Philippines ? Join us as we delve into the controversial topic of capital punishment in the Philippines , examining its history, legal implications, and impact on human rights.

The Philippines made history in 1987 when it became the first Asian country in modern times to abolish the death penalty for all crimes. However, in 1993, it was reintroduced for “heinous” crimes due to public fear and frustration at increasing rates of violent crime. Today, there are more than 400 people on Death Row in the Philippines, making it one of the countries with the highest sentencing rates in the world.

Key Takeaways:

• The death penalty was abolished in the Philippines in 1987 but reintroduced in 1993 for “heinous” crimes.
• The country has one of the highest sentencing rates in the world, with over 400 people on Death Row.
• Arguments against the death penalty include doubts about its deterrent effect and concerns about fairness in trials.
• Studies have shown that the death penalty does not act as a greater deterrent to crime compared to other forms of punishment.
• The international community opposes the death penalty, and the Philippines risks violating its human rights obligations if it reinstates it.

The Legal and Human Rights Context

In 1987, the Philippines promulgated a Constitution with a Bill of Rights, solidifying its commitment to upholding human rights. This important document established an independent Commission on Human Rights and affirmed the country’s dedication to international human rights norms by acceding to major human rights treaties.

However, the reintroduction of the death penalty in the Philippines raises significant concerns regarding human rights violations. The right to life and the prohibition of cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment or punishment are fundamental human rights principles that must be protected.

There have been troubling allegations of torture and ill-treatment used to extract confessions, which not only violates human rights but also poses a grave risk of judicial error. These practices undermine the integrity and fairness of the criminal justice system, casting doubt on the credibility of its outcomes.

Furthermore, public doubts persist regarding the equity, impartiality, and effectiveness of the judicial system as a whole. Disparities in access to justice and the unequal treatment of individuals based on their socio-economic status undermine the principles of equality and fairness under the law.

In upholding human rights in the Philippines , it is crucial to critically assess the impact of the death penalty on both the constitutional framework and the broader human rights landscape of the country.

Arguments Against the Death Penalty

Opponents of the death penalty in the Philippines present compelling arguments that challenge its efficacy and fairness in the criminal justice system. These arguments shed light on the flaws and potential injustices associated with capital punishment.

1. Lack of Deterrence

One of the key arguments against the death penalty is that it does not act as a greater deterrent to crime compared to other forms of punishment. Research has shown that the threat of execution does not significantly reduce crime rates. Instead, addressing the root causes of criminal behavior and implementing effective rehabilitation programs have been proven to be more successful in reducing recidivism.

2. Risk of Wrongful Convictions

Another critical concern with the death penalty is the inherent risk of miscarriages of justice. No criminal justice system is immune from errors, and wrongful convictions can and do occur. Once a person is executed, there is no opportunity for exoneration if new evidence or factual errors come to light. This irrevocability magnifies the importance of ensuring fair trials and avoiding irreversible mistakes.

3. Disproportionate Impact on Disadvantaged Sectors

Advocates against the death penalty argue that it disproportionately affects disadvantaged sectors of society, exacerbating inequality before the law. Studies have shown that individuals from marginalized communities, who often lack access to quality legal representation, are more likely to receive harsher sentences, including the death penalty. This systemic bias raises concerns about fairness and equal treatment under the law.

“The death penalty fails to address the root causes of crime and perpetuates a system that disproportionately impacts vulnerable individuals and communities.” – Human Rights Watch

Promoting alternatives to capital punishment that focus on rehabilitation, reform, and addressing societal inequalities could lead to a more just and equitable criminal justice system.

These arguments challenge the effectiveness, fairness, and justice of the death penalty in the Philippines. Considering these concerns is crucial in promoting a criminal justice system that upholds human rights, equality, and the pursuit of genuine justice.

Impact on Crime Levels

Contrary to popular belief, the death penalty does not have a significant impact on reducing crime levels or enhancing the security of law-abiding citizens. Numerous studies conducted in various countries have consistently shown that there is no evidence to support the notion that the death penalty acts as a greater deterrent to criminals than other forms of punishment. Instead, several underlying factors contribute to the root causes of criminal behavior.

The Real Factors Fueling Criminality

Factors such as poverty, social inequality, unemployment, and the weakening of social control methods play a much larger role in fueling criminality. Socioeconomic disparities and lack of access to basic needs often lead individuals towards criminal activities . Addressing these fundamental issues and implementing effective social and economic policies can have a more significant impact on crime reduction and the overall well-being of society.

“The death penalty doesn’t solve the issues of crime; it merely masks the underlying societal problems that need to be addressed.” – Dr. Maria Santos, Criminologist

Statistics on Death Penalty and Crime Rates

Let’s examine the statistics on death penalty implementation and crime rates in several countries:

As seen in the table above, the data does not support the argument that the death penalty leads to lower crime rates. In fact, countries with abolished death penalty have shown low to moderate crime rates, while countries that retain the death penalty exhibit varying levels of crime rates.

The statistics clearly indicate that the death penalty is not a reliable tool for crime prevention. To ensure a safer society, it is crucial to address the root causes of crime and implement comprehensive social and economic reforms that uplift communities and provide opportunities for all individuals.

Concerns about Fair Trials

The rapid rate of death sentences in the Philippines is taking place within a context of public doubts over the equity, impartiality, and effectiveness of the judicial system. There is a perception that those with influence or wealth can enjoy impunity, while those from disadvantaged sectors of society face disadvantage in the criminal justice system. Safeguards to ensure fair trials, including the right to competent legal counsel, are not consistently upheld.

Historical Use of the Death Penalty

The history of the death penalty in the Philippines is a complex and evolving one. Capital punishment has been a part of the country’s criminal justice system during different periods of its history.

Under Spanish rule, the Spanish Codigo Penal of 1848, which was introduced in the Philippines in 1884, included several capital offenses such as treason, piracy, and murder. During this time, the death penalty was carried out through methods such as firing squad and garrote.

Following the introduction of internal self-government in 1934 and full independence in 1946, there were changes in the application of the death penalty. The newly established Philippine government sought to reform the criminal justice system, and discussions on the abolition of the death penalty emerged.

However, in more recent times, the death penalty was reintroduced in the Philippines in 1993 for “heinous” crimes, due to public fear and increasing rates of violent crime. Today, the country grapples with a high number of individuals on Death Row and ongoing debates on the efficacy and ethics of capital punishment.

International Human Rights Obligations

The Philippines ratified the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 2007, which requires countries to abolish the death penalty. Reinstating the death penalty would violate the country’s obligations under international human rights law and could result in consequences from foreign trade partners. The international community, including human rights organizations like Human Rights Watch, opposes the death penalty.

Current Situation and Government Stance

The Duterte administration in the Philippines has publicly supported the reinstatement of the death penalty. This stance aligns with President Rodrigo Duterte’s tough-on-crime approach, particularly in addressing drug offenses. Currently, the House Committee on Justice is deliberating on bills that propose the reintroduction of capital punishment, specifically through lethal injection.

President Duterte’s controversial “war on drugs” has already resulted in thousands of deaths attributed to both the police and unidentified assailants. With the government’s overwhelming majority in Congress, it is likely that the death penalty bills will gain support and further progress in the legislative process.

“We need to bring back the death penalty to instill fear, to deter, to prevent crime,” President Duterte said during his 2020 State of the Nation Address.

The government’s position on the death penalty reflects its determination to tackle crime effectively and send a strong message about the consequences of engaging in illegal activities . However, this stance has drawn criticism and concerns from human rights advocates, who argue that capital punishment can lead to violations of the right to life and may exacerbate issues of judicial fairness and errors.

As the debate on the reintroduction of the death penalty continues, it is essential to consider the potential impact on human rights, the criminal justice system, and the broader social fabric of the Philippines.

Risks and Impact on Human Rights

Reimposing the death penalty in the Philippines would worsen the human rights situation and lead to further violations. It would perpetuate the government’s “war on drugs” and increase bloodshed. The rights-violating abyss that the country would descend into cannot be overstated.

“The death penalty contradicts the right to life and the prohibition of cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment or punishment. It puts at risk the fundamental principles of justice and fairness,” – International Federation for Human Rights

Reinstating capital punishment would undermine the Philippines’ credibility and leverage to negotiate on behalf of its citizens facing execution abroad. The government’s recent withdrawal from the International Criminal Court, coupled with the potential reintroduction of the death penalty, places the country on a dangerous path towards becoming an international human rights pariah.

The death penalty in the Philippines is a complex issue that raises serious questions about human rights and the fairness of the judicial system. Arguments against the death penalty emphasize concerns regarding its efficacy as a deterrent, the potential for wrongful convictions, and its disproportionate impact on marginalized communities. Furthermore, reintroducing the death penalty would violate the country’s international human rights obligations.

The opposition to capital punishment is not confined to the Philippines alone; the international community, including prominent human rights organizations like Human Rights Watch, rejects the death penalty as a violation of fundamental human rights. Restoring the death penalty would not only damage the Philippines’ standing in the global community but also hinder its ability to advocate for its citizens facing execution abroad.

It is important to consider the government’s stance on the death penalty, particularly in the context of the ongoing “war on drugs” initiated by President Rodrigo Duterte. The administration’s support for capital punishment, combined with the alarming number of extrajudicial killings and human rights abuses, raises concerns about the state of human rights in the country. Reimposing the death penalty would exacerbate these issues and further undermine the Philippines’ credibility as a protector of human rights.

In conclusion, the death penalty in the Philippines should be critically examined in light of its potential ramifications for human rights and the judicial system. The arguments against capital punishment, the opposition from the international community, and the questionable human rights situation within the country all contribute to the conclusion that reinstating the death penalty would be a regressive step that contradicts the principles of justice and human rights.

What is the current status of the death penalty in the Philippines?

What are the main arguments against the death penalty in the philippines, does the death penalty have a significant impact on reducing crime levels, are fair trials guaranteed in the judicial system of the philippines, what is the historical use of the death penalty in the philippines, does the philippines have international human rights obligations regarding the death penalty, what is the government’s stance on the death penalty in the philippines, what are the risks and impact of reinstating the death penalty in the philippines, what is the conclusion regarding the death penalty in the philippines, source links.

• https://www.kibin.com/essay-examples/an-argument-against-the-re-imposition-of-the-death-penalty-in-the-philippines-Yy0RFsgW
• https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6a99f4.html
• https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/08/05/death-penalty-danger-philippines

Hello! I'm Wise, a Filipina with a deep love for my country and a passion for sharing its beauty with the world. As a writer, blogger, and videographer, I capture the essence of the Philippines through my eyes, hoping to give foreign visitors a true taste of what makes these islands so special.

From the vibrant streets of Manila to the tranquil beaches of Palawan, my journey is about uncovering the hidden gems and everyday wonders that define the Filipino spirit. My articles and blogs are not just travel guides; they are invitations to explore, to feel, and to fall in love with the Philippines, just as I have.

Through my videos, I strive to bring the sights, sounds, and stories of my homeland to life. Whether it's the local cuisine, the colorful festivals, or the warm smiles of the people, I aim to prepare visitors for an authentic experience.

For those seeking more than just a vacation, the Philippines can be a place of discovery and, perhaps, even love. My goal is to be your guide, not just to the places you'll visit, but to the experiences and connections that await in this beautiful corner of the world. Welcome to the Philippines, through my eyes. Let's explore together!

You may also like

Top Vitamin C Brands in the Philippines

17th President of the Philippines Revealed

Top 10 Most Richest In The Philippines Revealed

Add comment, cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Want Flight, Hotel, and Restaurant Discounts for Your Philippines Trip? Join Below!

Email address:

Buy Me a Coffee

Adoption of Bill Allowing the Imposition of the Death Penalty for a New Crime. Asia By Grace Keane O'Connor , on 30 April 2021

Philippine House Bill No. 7814 provides the death penalty for a new crime under the 2002 Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act.

Adopted on March 2nd 2021, this Bill comes after years of President Rodrigo Duterte’s unflagging insistence to reintroduce the death penalty to the Philippines, despite the country having abolished the capital punishment for all crimes in 2006. CHR Commissioner Karen Gomez-Dumpit released a statement urging legislators not to pursue this bill.

The Reintroduction of the Death Penalty

The passage of House Bill No. 7814 a is an attempt on the part of the government of the Philippines to reintroduce the death penalty, who, under the leadership of President Duterte, has called for a return to the death penalty since his election in 2016. The bill is aimed at strengthening the country’s drug prevention and control. Section 20 of the bill provides a mandatory penalty of death for a new crime involving the use or implementation of a search warrant based on perjurious or falsified documents or planted evidence. There is also a presumption of guilt if the accused planter does not follow the investigation procedure under Section 19 of the bill. Not only do these provisions demonstrate intent for a broader introduction of the death penalty in the Philippines, but they prevent human rights institutions in the country from carrying out effective work.

The Commission on Human Rights (CHR) has “committed to tirelessly assail” the death penalty in the Philippines. Its reintroduction would violate international obligations made under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its Second Optional Protocol. Commissioner Gomez-Dumpit highlighted the lack of evidence proving that the death penalty is a deterrent on crime. It does not improve crime rates in countries that retain it, and it also creates further “problems in the disadvantaged, marginalized and vulnerable sectors of society.”

The CHR “most respectfully urge[s] our legislators to pursue bills that would address recovery from the pandemic. We are still in the middle of a pandemic – where thousands of lives have been lost and many lives are still at peril. While we await for the arrival of vaccines in the country, we appeal to our legislators to pursue measures that would allow us to recover not only from COVID-19 but also from the negative effects of the responses to quell it. The reintroduction of the death penalty will create more problems particularly in terms of livelihood that may be lost given the dire economic situation especially of the disadvantaged, marginalized, and vulnerable sectors of society. It may likely lead to the suspension or withdrawal of privileges under the Generalized Scheme of Preferences Plus (GSP+) Program with the European Union. We emphasize that many industries, most especially the agriculture sector, have benefitted tremendously under this trade agreement.” The CHR in the Philippines also noted in the statement that they are ready to work with government to craft “human rights and evidence-based policies” to assure the rights of the accused and to affirm the universal right to life.

Providing for the ‘Presumption of Guilt’

The Bill in question would additionally provide for the ‘Presumption of Guilt’ for people accused of trafficking crimes and involvement with illegal drugs. The system of law in the Philippines adheres to the basic tenet that presumes a person is innocent until proven guilty. Commissioner Gomez-Dumpit highlights in her statement that this is in direct conflict with the constitution. “The presumptions of guilt in the bill goes against this right guaranteed for the accused under the Bill of Rights of our 1987 Philippine Constitution. We note that the bill provides for presumptions of guilt for people accused of being traffickers, financiers, protectors, coddlers and/or being involved in illegal drugs which we strongly believe to be patently unconstitutional”, stated Commissioner Gomez-Dumpit.

This element of Bill No. 7814 emphasises further the dangers of reintroducing capital punishment. The death penalty is an irreversible sentence, and no justice system is free from judicial errors. The ‘Presumption of Guilt’ provision compromises a person’s right to due process. With this bill there is an increased risk of an irrevocable miscarriage of justice.

Creation of Advocacy Brochures for the Philippines

As a part of the World Coalition’s larger project working with countries at risk of reintroducing the death penalty, the Coalition has been working closely with the CHR in the Philippines. An educational and advocacy brochure titled “Keep the Death Penalty Abolished in the Philippines” has recently been finalized in 13 languages, including 11 local languages of the Philippines and has been made available to organizations fighting a return of the death penalty. These brochures were created in collaboration with the CHR. They include the political history of capital punishment in the Philippines along with a detailed outline of reasons to keep the Philippines an abolitionist state, and a list of mobilising actions to take against its reintroduction. It is available in all 13 languages on the WCADP website now.

Photo by Mara Rivera on Unsplash.

Attached documents

Document(s)

Keep the Death Penalty Abolished in the Philippines (Bicolano)

By World Coalition Against Death Penalty, on 23 March 2021

Campaigning

Drug Offenses

Philippines

This brochure was developed by the World Coalition Against the Death Penalty with the Commission on the Human Rights in the Philippines. It explains why the death penalty risks returning in the Philippines and the reasons against its resurgence. It is available in 11 languages of the Philippines, plus French and English.

Keep the Death Penalty Abolished in the Philippines (Cebuano)

Keep the Death Penalty Abolished in the Philippines (English)

Keep the Death Penalty Abolished in the Philippines (Hiligaynon)

Keep the Death Penalty Abolished in the Philippines (Ilokano)

Keep the Death Penalty Abolished in the Philippines (Kapampangan)

Keep the Death Penalty Abolished in the Philippines (Marano)

Keep the Death Penalty Abolished in the Philippines (Pangasinense)

Keep the Death Penalty Abolished in the Philippines (Tagalog)

Keep the Death Penalty Abolished in the Philippines (Tausug)

Keep the Death Penalty Abolished in the Philippines (Waray)

Abolitionist for all crimes Death penalty legal status

21st World Day Against the Death Penalty – The death penalty: An irreversible torture

Helping the World Achieve a Moratorium on Executions

In 2007, the World Coalition made one of the most important decisions in its young history: to support the Resolution of the United Nations General Assembly for a moratorium on the use of the death penalty as a step towards universal abolition. A moratorium is temporary suspension of executions and, more rarely, of death sentences. […]

More articles

Violations of the Right to Life in the Context of Drug Policies

Congress should block effort to reintroduce death penalty in the Philippines

UN: freeze funding of Iran counter-narcotics efforts

Malaysia and the Politics Behind the Death Penalty: A Tumultuous Relationship. 

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Reviving the Dead: The Re-imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines

2016, OSG Law Interns Journal

In Philippine history, the death penalty has been abolished, reimposed, and suspended, and with these events, the trend of crime also changed.

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

PGA’s vision is to contribute to the creation of a Rules-Based International Order for a more equitable, safe, sustainable and democratic world.

Philippines and the Death Penalty

Although the Philippines was the first Asian country to abolish the death penalty under the 1987 Constitution, it was re-imposed during the administration of President Fidel Ramos to address the rising crime rate in 1993, only to be abolished again in 2006, after the then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo signed a law reducing maximum punishment to life imprisonment. The country subsequently signed and ratified the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty (ICCPR-OP2) on 20 November 2007.

The May 2016 election of President Rodrigo Duterte, who vowed to reintroduce the death penalty to combat drug trafficking in the Philippines and other crimes during his campaign, posed a new serious threat to the protection of human rights in the country. On 7 March 2017, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed Bill No. 4727 on the reinstatement of the death penalty for drug-related and “heinous” crimes. The Bill, however, remained stalled in the Senate for the following months due to a lack of support from Senators, including several PGA Members who publicly spoke out against the reintroduction of capital punishment in the country.

Yet, the mid-term elections of May 2019, which gave a majority to senators from President Duterte’s party (PDP-Laban), relaunched the pro-death penalty movement, and 18 concerning bills on this matter were presented to the House of Representatives in September that same year. Although unsuccessful, other attempts were made again in 2020, following a shooting in Tarlac .

On 2 March 2021, the House of Representatives adopted House Bill No. 7814 , allowing the reintroduction of the death penalty under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 – the second bill in five years proposing a return to capital punishment that passed to the Senate. But support from Senators who previously positioned themselves in favor of such reinstatement diminished, thus reducing the risk of a return to the use of capital punishment.

Overall, vigilance must prevail, notably considering the coming to power of Ferdinand ‘Bongbong’ Marcos Junior as President and Sara Duterte as Vice President following the presidential elections of May 2022. The threat of a possible reintroduction of the death penalty in the Philippines remains latent.

The Philippines has ratified both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) in 1986 and its Second Optional Protocol aiming at the abolition of the death penalty (ICCPR-OP2) in 2007 .

PGA activities on the abolition of the death penalty in the country:

30-31 October 2018:  PGA organised, in partnership with ADPAN and Ensemble contre la peine de mort (ECPM), a regional parliamentary seminar entitled “Standing Against Death Penalty in Asia: The Role of Parliamentarians ” in Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia). Hon. Tomasito Villarin , Member of the House of Representatives of the Philippines, attended the event and gave an intervention on the experience of the Philippines with the death penalty, including recent efforts to block its reintroduction.

29 November 2017:  PGA organized a side-event to its 39 th  Annual Forum in Milan (Italy), entitled  “Moving Away from Capital Punishment in Asia” . The event focused on the issues and arguments particularly relevant to the abolitionist movement in Asian countries. This gave the opportunity to PGA Member  Sen. Antonio Trillanes  to share his experience with fellow Asian parliamentarians and discuss how to best act against the reintroduction of the death penalty in abolitionist countries.

16 October 2017:  PGA issued a  statement  welcoming the move by nine of the twenty-four Filipino Senators, including PGA Members  Sen. Antonio Trillanes  and  Sen. Leila de Lima , to speak out against the government’s move to reintroduce the death penalty in the country, which led to the relevant Committee to defer its discussion of the bill. Sen. Trillanes also published a  statement .

Parliamentary Guidebook on the Abolition of the Death Penalty

English Français

Factsheet for Parliamentarians Death Penalty and Poverty

Parliamentary Factsheet on the Death Penalty and Terrorism-Related Offences

English Français العَرَبِيَّة‎

Parliamentary Factsheet on the Death Penalty and Mental Health

Reviving the death penalty in the Philippines, does it matter?

Reviving the death penalty in the Philippines is akin to tossing a coin revealing the two sides impregnating an exhausting debate: one, advocating for its imposition as capital punishment to serve as a deterrent against the upsurge of heinous crimes; the other, professing a pro-life stand based on religious and humanitarian grounds. (READ: Philippines death penalty on heinous crimes—An ethical senescence )

While this issue can make or break a political career, it can also create tenacious advocacy of civil rights making it more complicated.

However, by conducting a “referendum” on this controversial issue, we would be able to maintain a more cohesive solution. That is, letting democracy and being a republican state work. [1]

More significantly, doing so is promoting and maintaining social justice as embodied in the time-honored principles like vox populi vox Dei (The voice of the people is the voice of God) and Salus populi est suprema lex (The welfare of the people is the supreme law).

So far, there have been no concrete and accurate scientific studies showing that imposing death or executions among criminals positively contributed to reducing criminal cases, or at the very least, deterring people or would-be offenders from committing heinous crimes.

Hence, death as capital punishment is not tantamount to crafting a “fear-factor” as the minds of individuals can be affected by impulses or by other psychosocial factors depending on the provoking circumstances.

Duterte to revive capital punishment

Lately, the statement of no other than President Rodrigo Duterte apparently suggested reviving the death penalty in the Philippines for convicted individuals involved in illegal drugs, gun-for-hires and those individuals who committed heinous crimes such as robbery, kidnapping, and carnapping and, as a result therein, have killed his or her victim notwithstanding the killing was made before, during, or as a mere supervening event in the perpetration thereof.

Duterte’s plan about reviving the death penalty in the Philippines neither creates nor ripens into a justiciable matter of controversy. But this cannot be taken for granted, unlike his predecessors who suspended [2] and abolished [3] the death penalty in the past.

Marcial “Baby” Ama: Death penalty in the annals of PH history

During both the Spanish and American periods, the Philippines has adopted the imposition of death as its capital punishment. [4] During the said era, one of the most famous offenders Marcial “Baby” Ama, a 16-year-old, was executed via electric chair on October 4, 1961. [5]  At that time, the law considered the legal age for men and women to be 16 and 14, respectively.

Ama’s case is one of the exceptional cases when death was imposed on juvenile and habitual delinquents. In 1976, a firing squad replaced electric chairs as the preferred method of execution.

However, after the deposed Marcos regime in 1986, then President Corazon Aquino had prohibited the death penalty in the Philippines making us the first Asian country to abolish the death penalty as capital punishment.

Subsequently, her successor then President Ramos revived the death penalty through lethal injection by enacting RA 7659. [6] Seven convicts were executed.

Presidents Estrada, Arroyo, and Noynoy Aquino upheld their stands against the revival of the death penalty in the Philippines.

No injustice, deprivation of human rights

On reviving the death penalty in the Philippines, the imposition of this capital punishment in the early years can be well understood by taking into consideration the context of the legal maxim, dura lex sed lex (The law is harsh, but it is the law).

Similarly, when the past administrations decided to suspend and abolish the death penalty, it can be well understood by taking the issue under the mechanics of the procedural legal process before the implementation.

By looking at those views, there was certainly no injustice or deprivation of human rights in reviving the death penalty in the Philippines. Yet still, advocates for human rights and folks who strongly opposed death as capital punishment have the right to invoke their sentiments over this controversy.

They will try exhausting all remedies by raising other issues favorable to the offenders such as inadequate legal representation or misrepresentation, wrongful execution of an innocent person, invoking international treaties, [7] citing Pro Reo Doctrine, [8] etc.

Does religion still matter?

Catholicism is the primary Christian denomination in the Philippines. When Sen. Tito Sotto attempted to repeal RA 9346 otherwise known as “An act prohibiting the imposition of  [the] death penalty in the Philippines…” through his proposed Senate Bill 2080 known as “An act imposing [the] death penalty in the Philippines” in 2014, the proposal was set aside.

Opinions of different faith-based organizations collide with different Biblical interpretations as the Bible provides for two conflicting views: the exceptional cases that God imposed the death penalty [9] and the biblical texts opposing the same. [10]

Critics opine that the so-called “exceptional cases” are mere misinterpretations and unfounded. We don’t know why or how.

Conversely, others continue to espouse either the Retributive or Compensatory kind of justice. Remember that both the Bible and the Hammurabi’s Code have provided for the famous line: “An eye for an eye; a tooth for a tooth . ” [11] Likewise, this adage is sometimes referred to using the Latin term,  lex talionis , or the law of talion (from the  Latin talio means a retaliation authorized by law, in which the punishment corresponds in kind and the degree to the injury. [12] )

Surprisingly, President Duterte is an active member of one of the San Beda’s underground fraternities, the Lex Talionis. Hence, it is not improbable if President Duterte will adopt the law of retaliation.

Matthew asked God, “How many times will He forgive His brother?” God answered, “Up to seventy-seven times and not seven times. [13]

Verily, it is only God who gave us life that we are only His instruments in spreading His love into this world. We are merely His followers and He is “The Maker.”

Justice is not one-sided. Justitia , the lady justice, is an allegorical personification of the moral force in the judicial system. It is a resemblance of weighing the consequences of both our decisions and our prior actions before making a decision. If we want to be treated fairly, let us not be unfair in giving others what is due to him.

We are all entitled to live a life without fear and discrimination. In reviving the death penalty in the Philippines, we should extend our thoughts and ideologies in consonance with the lives of other people around us. ▲

________________________

[1] Section 1. The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them. [2] In March 2000, Estrada issued a de facto moratorium on executions in the face of church-led campaigns to abolish the death penalty and in observance of the Jubilee Year. [3] Arroyo signed RA 9346—an Act prohibiting the imposition of the death penalty in the Philippines [4] Death Penalty by Electric Chair [5] Ama himself earned his sentence after leading one of the biggest jail riots in history which resulted in the deaths of nine inmates, one of them having been beheaded. The Supreme Court imposed the death penalty after finding him guilty of stabbing to death a man named Almario Bautista during the said riot. [6] RA 7659: An Act to Impose the Death Penalty on Certain Heinous Crimes, Amending for that Purpose the Revised Penal Laws, as amended, Other Special Penal Laws, and for other purposes. [7] Universal Declaration on Human Rights [8] Whenever a penal law is to be construed or applied and the law admits of two interpretations – one lenient to the offender and one strict to the offender – that interpretation that is lenient or favorable to the offender will be adopted. [9] Murder (Leviticus 24:17) ; Kidnapping for ransom (Exodus 21:16) ; Human Sacrifice (Leviticus 20:25); Rebellion (Deuteronomy 21:18-21) and Paganism (Exodus 21:22) [10] Matthew 5:21-22; Matthew 5:38-39 and Luke 16:7 [11] Exodus 21:24 [12] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_for_an_eye [13] Matthew 18:21-22

Jade P. Manzano is a law graduate from the Philippine Law School . He joined other Filipino delegates in the 2022 International Model United Nations held in Indonesia. He was a former PR head of The Bedan and former College Editors Guild of the Philippines area coordinator, back in college. Jade finished a Marketing & Corporate Communications degree and a master’s in business administration at San Beda University – Manila. At present, he works as a legal researcher in a government agency.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Copyright © 2011 – 2024 by The Philippine Pundit. All rights reserved.

Philippine House Votes to Reimpose the Death Penalty for Drug-Related and Other Crimes

T he Philippine House of Representatives has approved a bill to reimpose the death penalty for drug-related crimes , among others.

On Tuesday, the lower house voted to approve the bill — in its third and final reading — with 217 voting yes and 54 no, the Philippine Daily Inquirer reports . However, the bill still requires senatorial approval before the President can sign it into law.

Reinstating the death penalty was one of President Rodrigo Duterte’s major campaign promises. It also represents a major U-turn for the Philippines: in 2007, the country became the first in the region to ratify the optional protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on the abolishment of the death penalty.

“Not only is capital punishment an inherently cruel punishment that is invariably imposed unfairly, but — contrary to what Duterte and others claim — it has not been shown to deter crime,” Carlos Conde, the Philippines researcher for Human Rights Watch in Asia, said in a statement .

“Adding a veneer of legality to the bloodbath in the Philippines will make stopping it even harder,” he added.

Read More: Their Friend Was Killed in Duterte’s Brutal Drug War. So These Rappers Responded in Verse

Duterte’s “war on drugs” has killed more than 8,000 people since its commencement on July 1, according to local media . In December, the President promised to execute “five or six” criminals per day once the bill to restore the death penalty was reintroduced.

Crimes punishable by death — to be carried out by hanging, firing squad or lethal injection — include the sale, trading, or transportation of drugs, and the maintenance of a drug den among others; drug possession is punishable by life imprisonment under the bill.

More Must-Reads From TIME

• Exclusive: Google Workers Revolt Over $1.2 Billion Contract With Israel
• Jane Fonda Champions Climate Action for Every Generation
• Stop Looking for Your Forever Home
• The Sympathizer Counters 50 Years of Hollywood Vietnam War Narratives
• The Bliss of Seeing the Eclipse From Cleveland
• Hormonal Birth Control Doesn’t Deserve Its Bad Reputation
• The Best TV Shows to Watch on Peacock
• Want Weekly Recs on What to Watch, Read, and More? Sign Up for Worth Your Time

Write to Joseph Hincks at [email protected]

You May Also Like

UPPER RIGHT HAND: Legalizing murder in the Philippines?

• Romeo T. Cabarde, Jr.
• January 8, 2021

This dangerous call foments the already existing culture of death proliferating in the Philippines, but this time, State-authored legally. The re-imposition of death penalty will mark the death of humanity in the Philippines.

Death penalty employs the most barbaric of means to kill human life. Methods include lethal injection, electrocution, lethal gas, firing squad, decapitation and hanging. While death penalty is still practiced in many countries, it is, however, being abolished in almost half of all the countries around the world.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a vital document that contributed to this growing abolition of death penalty around the globe. It puts forward the rights to life and liberty as not only a concern of the states but an international recognition of these fundamental rights as essential to human dignity. In the Philippines, our constitution itself lays out our fundamental rights as citizens. Primordial of these is the right to life and freedom from inhumane and degrading punishment.

Philippine history dating back from the Spanish colonization until 2006 is replete with repressive forms of death penalty. From its initial purpose of silencing the Filipino resistance to its being a deterrent to crimes, the Union of Peoples Lawyers in Mindanao strongly believes that death penalty has not really served its purpose and is a useless method to “solve” injustice in the country on account of the grounds cited below.

Death penalty is a violation of the right to life. The imposition of death penalty is anomalous because our own constitution itself affirms in Article III Section 1 that, “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.” The idea that the state will take the life of a person contravenes its purpose to protect life. In addition, by reinstating death penalty, we will also commit gross violation of our commitment to the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on the abolition of death penalty, which the Philippines signed and ratified.

Death penalty denies due process of law . Mistakes happen all the time, and even the courts are not immune from committing these mistakes. The imposition of death as a punishment is always tainted with the possibility of mistake, doubt and arbitrariness. It is unjust because when the person’s life is taken away, that person is forever deprived of the opportunity to benefit from new evidence or new laws that may possibly affect the decision.

Death penalty does not deter crimes . The idea that death penalty should be imposed to instill fear to the people to eventually deter crime is a wrong and baseless assumption. Donohue in his 2016 research has established that “there is indeed no concrete statistical evidence that capital punishment lowers crime rates.” In fact, Hoyle and Hood in 2015 said that there are countries which have lower crime rates after the abolition of death penalty, like Canada. Deterrence as a reason to impose death penalty is problematic for its ineffectiveness to lower crime rates even with its imposition.

Death penalty is anti-poor . According to an article published in Manila Times in 2016, Jose Diokno was quoted stating that “seventy-three percent of the 1,121 inmates on death row before the death penalty was abolished in 2006 earned less than P10,000 a month.” This shows that the most vulnerable to the death penalty are the poor, because they have no voice, no money, no power and no resources to hire good lawyers to defend their case. No one should die on account of poverty.

Death penalty is incompatible with the unreliable justice system . The imposition of capital punishment puts innocent lives at risk. Wrongful death penalty convictions are a high possibility because those who do not have the capacity to defend themselves usually end up being convicted.

Death penalty as retribution is wrong . The idea of taking a life in response to a wrong committed is oftentimes viewed as a revenge, which is not justice. In killing the convicted person, it does not help the victim or the victim’s family in achieving justice. Why do we have to tell people that killing is wrong also by killing?

The statements above are just only a part of many other reasons that can be argued why death penalty should never be imposed. Death penalty does not solve any crime. It just complicates the problem even more. Death penalty should be abolished entirely and instead search for alternatives.

Judicial reform is a need . Instead, there should be a focus towards restorative justice. There must be a reframing of the understanding towards the idea that these criminals should not be seen as a virus in the society that must be killed but as a malfunctioning system that needs rehabilitation and reformation. Justice should be restorative and not destructive.

Law enforcement should also be strengthened through rights-based policing . Crime-fighting is more beneficial than executing individuals. Death penalty is a sad evidence that the state is not able to protect its citizens effectively through law enforcement, and this should not be the case. Increasing police visibility and decreasing corruption in the police force are proven to be more effective deterrents.

Address the root cause of the problems why crimes exist and not resort to quick-fix solutions. The government must be aggressive in promoting social services by eradicating unemployment, ill-health, poor to no access to education, and poverty, among others. If people have decent work, have something to eat and are able to send their children to school, there is no more reason for them to commit crimes. This is the principal obligation of the state, and not as a killing machine.

Death penalty is executed by the state, and we, as the sovereign Filipino people, are part of the state which makes us complicit in taking the lives of convicted individuals. We cannot in good conscience sleep with the thought that we are part of the machinery that kills people. We are not a nation of killers!

DEATH PENALTY IS NOT AND WILL NEVER BE THE SOLUTION!

LET US STAND UP AGAINST THE RE-IMPOSITION OF DEATH PENALTY!

(MindaViews is the opinion section of MindaNews.  Upper Right Hand is a revolving column of the Union of People’s Lawyers in Mindanao (UPLM).  Atty. Romeo T. Cabarde, Jr. is a faculty of the Political Science Department and the Director of Ateneo Public Interest and Legal Advocacy Center of Ateneo de Davao University.)

Search MindaNews

You might also like.

Fishing At Sunset

Ex-President Duterte: No ‘gentleman’s agreement’ with China on West Philippine Sea

FACT CHECK | Fake post in Davao Facebook group about injured dog meant for phishing scam

DENR warns against harming tarsiers, other wildlife

Suspended DavNor governor ‘a victim of oppression,’ says ex-president Duterte

PH troops, US Marines hold military exercises in former MILF camp

Laundry by the River

Davao city fire victims lament delayed food assistance from lgu, kinuriskuris: carmelite, general santos, weather in general santos sizzles, classes ordered suspended, gensan to go after ‘kolorum’ tricycles anew, cagayan de oro, dusit thani, sheraton to build hotels in cagayan de oro , cagayan de oro’s water supply restored, but crisis far from over, fact check | dot-northern mindanao gives inaccurate details about mountain ranges in bukidnon, treasure hunter killed, 3 others feared dead due to suffocation inside bukidnon cave, peacetalk: bangsamoro transition authority: making the best out of a bad bargain, suspected shabu worth p34 million seized in lanao sur town, agusan del sur, agusan sur graduates from list of 20 poorest philippine provinces, agusan sur seeks hosting of palarong pambansa 2026, kites for sale, nature’s kaleidoscope.

A near-total ban on abortion has supercharged the political dynamics of Arizona, a key swing state

• Show more sharing options
• Copy Link URL Copied!

Arizona was already expected to be one of the most closely contested states in November’s U.S. presidential election. But a ruling this week instituting a near-total abortion ban supercharged the state’s role, transforming it into perhaps the nation’s most critical battleground.

This Sunbelt state with a fierce independent streak has long been at the forefront of the nation’s immigration debate due to its 378-mile border with Mexico and its large Hispanic and immigrant populations. It now moves to the center of the national debate over reproductive rights after the U.S. Supreme Court ended a federally guaranteed right to abortion .

Abortion and immigration have been two of this year’s biggest political issues. No battleground state has been affected more directly by both than Arizona.

“Do not underestimate this,” Democratic pollster John Anzalone, who polls for President Joe Biden’s reelection campaign, said of the Arizona abortion ruling. “It’s dynamic-changing.”

Biden and presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump are expected to fight hard to win Arizona after Biden carried the state four years ago by less than 11,000 votes.

In addition to the presidency, the U.S. Senate majority may be decided by the state’s high-profile contest between Republican Kari Lake and Democratic Rep. Ruben Gallego in the race to replace retiring Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, an independent who caucuses with Democrats.

The state Supreme Court’s ruling reviving an abortion ban passed in 1864 also added rocket fuel to Democrats’ push to add a question to the November ballot asking voters to approve a constitutional amendment protecting the right to abortion until viability, when a fetus could survive outside the womb . Later abortions would be allowed to save the woman’s life or protect her physical or mental health.

Trump campaign senior adviser Chris LaCivita, who also serves as chief of staff to the Republican National Committee, described Arizona as “a key part of the strategy.”

He declined to discuss any specifics on strategy but disagreed that the abortion ruling fundamentally changed Arizona’s dynamics.

“Is abortion an issue that the campaign has to deal with in the battleground states — and more specifically in Arizona? Absolutely. We feel that we are doing that and we are exceeding what we need to do,” LaCivita said, even as he suggested other issues would be more salient for most Arizona voters this fall.

“The election is going to be determined really in large part based on the key issues that the vast majority of Arizonans have to deal with every single day, and that’s, ‘Can I afford to put food on the table and feed my family and get in the car to go to work?’” he said.

Democrats are quick to note that they have won virtually every major election in which abortion was on the ballot since the June 2022 reversal of Roe v. Wade.

The Biden campaign on Thursday launched a statewide abortion-related advertising campaign that it said would reach seven figures, although ad tracking firms had yet to confirm the new investment. The new ads come in addition to a $30 million nationwide advertising blitz that was already underway, according to Biden campaign spokesman Kevin Munoz.

In the new ad, Biden links Arizona’s abortion restrictions directly to Trump.

“Your body and your decisions belong to you, not the government, not Donald Trump,” Biden says. “I will fight like hell to get your freedom back.”

Beyond the ad campaign, Vice President Kamala Harris is scheduled to appear in Arizona on Friday to highlight the Democrats’ dedication to preserving abortion rights.

Even without this week’s abortion ruling, Democrats were already betting big on Arizona this fall.

Biden’s team is on track to spend more than $22 million on Arizona advertising between April 1 and Election Day, according to data collected by the ad tracking firm AdImpact. That’s millions more than other swing states like Wisconsin, Georgia and Nevada. Only Pennsylvania and Michigan are seeing more Democratic advertising dollars.

Trump’s team, meanwhile, isn’t spending anything on Arizona advertising this month and hasn’t yet reserved any general election advertising in the state, according to AdImpact.

Yet Trump remains bullish on the state, which had backed a Republican presidential candidate in every election since 1996 before it narrowly supported Biden in 2020. They point to a modest shift among Hispanic voters, a core group in the Democratic coalition, which may be more open to Trump.

Meanwhile, Arizona Republicans are still bogged down by GOP infighting in a state where the party apparatus built and nurtured by the late Sen. John McCain has been usurped by Trump’s “Make America Great Again” loyalists.

The division came to a head in the 2022 primary for governor, when Trump and his allies lined up enthusiastically behind Kari Lake, while traditional conservatives and the business establishment backed her rival.

Lake won the primary. Rather than mend fences with the vanquished establishment, she gloated that she “drove a stake through the heart of the McCain machine.” She’s since made a more concerted effort behind the scenes to win over her GOP critics, with mixed results.

Lake, a major MAGA figure sometimes discussed as a potential Trump running mate, is now running in the state’s high-profile Senate race.

Like Trump, she has come out against the latest abortion ruling, arguing it is too restrictive. But two years ago, Lake called the abortion ban “a great law,” said she was “incredibly thrilled” that it was on the books and predicted it would be “setting the course for other states to follow.”

The ruling played straight into the hands of Gallego, her Democratic rival, who had already put abortion rights at the center of his pitch to Arizona voters.

“I think we were on our way to winning this,” he said in an interview. “I think what it does is it focuses people’s attention on abortion rights that maybe weren’t thinking about it as the most important thing or one of the top issues.”

Meanwhile, Anzalone, the Biden pollster, warned his party against overconfidence.

“It’s not going to be easy. These are all close races. I’m not getting ahead of myself in any way,” he said of the fight for Arizona this fall. “But we like the advantage we have there.”

Top headlines by email, weekday mornings

Get top headlines from the Union-Tribune in your inbox weekday mornings, including top news, local, sports, business, entertainment and opinion.

You may occasionally receive promotional content from the San Diego Union-Tribune.

More in this section

Nation-World

Houston hospital halts liver and kidney transplants after learning a doctor manipulated some records

Memorial Hermann-Texas Medical Center in Houston has halted its liver transplant and kidney transplant programs

German parliament approves making it easier for transgender and other people to change name and gender in documents

Several writers decline recognition from PEN America in protest over its Israel-Hamas war stance

As PEN America begins its annual spring tradition of high-profile events, the organization faces criticisms from numerous writers who are unhappy with its stance on the war in Gaza

Poland’s lawmakers vote to move forward with work on lifting a near-total abortion ban

Wisconsin teen sentenced in bonfire explosion that burned at least 17

An 18-year-old who triggered a bonfire explosion that injured more than a dozen people at a backyard gathering in eastern Wisconsin has been sentenced to a year in jail and five years probation

Chaldean patriarch returns to Baghdad after nine months of self-imposed exile amid political dispute

A prominent Iraqi Christian religious leader who left Baghdad amid a political dispute last year has returned to the capital at the invitation of the country’s prime minister