You are on page 1of 5

Motion: This house supports the revival of Death Penalty.

I. Rebuttal

1. The Philippines is a signatory or state-party to the United Nations Charter on


civil and political rights the second optional protocol which provides that all state-
parties of the charter are obliged to abolish the punishment of death.

According to Article III, Section 19(1) of the 1987 Constitution:

Section 19. (1) Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel,
degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither shall death
penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling reasons involving
heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it. Any death
penalty already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua.

It is clearly stated in the Constitution that the death penalty is not


prohibited. When there is conflict between the International Law and
Constitution, the Constitution shall prevail.
In a dissenting opinion, in the case of Bayan Muna v. Alberto
Romulo, et al., G.R. No. 159618, it was cited that in Medellin v. Texas, the
U.S. Supreme Court held that while treaties may comprise international
commitments, they are not domestic law unless Congress has either
enacted implementing statutes or the treaty itself conveys an intention that
it be self-executing and is ratified on these terms. According to article 7
section 21 of Philippine Constitution, No treaty or international
agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by at least two-
thirds of all the Members of the Senate.
During the plenary debates on Senate Resolution 289 about the
Second Optional Protocol, Sen. Sotto raised the question which said a
concurrence by the Senate is needed for a termination of or withdrawal
from treaties and international agreements to be valid and effective. The
optional protocol was cited by the anti-death penalty proponents in their
arguments against the restoration of capital punishment in the country,
saying that doing this would be in violation of the countrys treaty
obligations. However, a number of senators argued that it was never sent
to the Senate for concurrence. Senate President Pro Tempore Franklin
Drilon, the principal author and sponsor of the resolution, pointed out that
the Second Optional Protocol was not ratified by the country when it came
out because, during that time, the death penalty was still in effect. Thus, it
would be inconsistent with State policy if the Senate had ratified it.
2. The judges are hesitant to convict a criminal.
Based on Rule 140 of the Rules of Court and those stipulated in
the Canons of Judicial Ethics and Code of Judicial Conduct:
SECTION 8. Serious charges
Serious charges include:
(4) Knowingly rendering an unjust judgment or order as determined
by a competent court in an appropriate proceeding the judge may be
sanctioned.
SECTION 11. Sanctions
A. If the respondent is guilty of a serious charge, any of the
following sanctions may be imposed:
1. Dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or part of the benefits
as the Court may determine, and disqualification from reinstatement
or appointment to any public office, including government-owned
or controlled corporations. Provided, however, that the forfeiture of
benefits shall in no case include accrued leave credits;
2. Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for more
than three (3) but not exceeding six (6) months; or
3. A fine of more than P20,000.00 but not exceeding P40,000.00
Based on these provisions of the Rules of Court, judges who are
hesitant in convicting criminals, in which they deserve, they can be
disciplined by the Supreme Court.
3. It is not acceptable to the norms and standards of morality by imposing a penalty
as irreversible as death in an imperfect judicial system where judges can make
mistakes and where witnesses can be bribed to tell lies.

To make the impression that death penalty should not be reinstated


because of the imperfect judicial system is the same as saying that
criminals should not be punished because the judicial system is not to be
trusted. This argument is an absolute absurdity. Privileges are given to the
accused such as the presumption of innocence and the right to undergo
due process of Law. The justice system is not whimsical in applying death
penalty as capital punishment. It undergoes a very meticulous process. It is
important to note that the hierarchy of Courts- lower to higher Courts
makes appeal and review possible to the end that justice is carried out. To
insist on the belief that judicial error is oftentimes committed by the High
Court itself in applying death penalty as the capital punishment can plant
doubts on the minds of the people and all would be clamoring to review
every decision made by the Supreme Court. It can be chaotic. It should
always be remembered that to convict a person, the guilt must be proven
beyond reasonable doubt and if there is the slightest of doubt, it is always
regarded in favor of the accused. The law even favors the accused to make
sure that there is no miscarriage of justice. The judicial system should not
be considered as a bar to prosecute barbaric criminals- criminals who rape
helpless minor, end other peoples life in a cruel and inhumane way
without justifiable cause. We need to put them to the place where they
deserve.

4. There is no slightest credible statistical evidence that capital punishment reduces


the crime rate.
Death penalty will not deter crimes in general but it will reduce the
proliferation of heinous crimes. Bureau of Corrections (BuCor) Director
Benjamin De Los Santos stated that heinous crimes rose by 3,180 percent
after the death penalty was abolished in 2006. There were 189 inmates
convicted of heinous crimes before the capital punishment was abolished
in 2006. After death penalty was revoked this figure rose to 6,200 inmates,
an astonishing (3,180%) increase of persons convicted of heinous crimes.
The PNP's Directorate for Investigation and Detective Management
documented 9,646 murder cases; 31,741 cases of robbery; and, 10,298 rape
cases in 2015. These translate to an average crime incidence of a murder
every 54 minutes, a robbery every 16 minutes, and a rape case every 51
minutes.
There may be no statistical evidence proving that the imposition of
the death penalty reduces the crime rates, but there is evidence on how the
crime rate rose from the suspension of the death penalty. The imposition of
the death penalty is not supposed to be a scare to the citizens of the State.
Rather, it be a punishment which the most immoral and merciless
criminals deserve.
5. The Constitution forbids the infliction of cruel and unusual punishment.
It is true that the constitution does not allow cruel or inhuman
punishment but the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the death
penalty is not a cruel, unjust, excessive or unusual punishment. The death
penalty is not inherently barbaric or an unacceptable mode of
punishment for crime. The Supreme Court quoted a U.S. case ruling that
punishments are cruel when they involve torture or a lingering death, but
the punishment of death is not cruel, within the meaning of that word as
used in the constitution. It implies there is something inhuman and
barbarous, something more than the mere extinguishment of life.
6. We have the responsibility to punish those who deserve it, but only to the degree
they deserve.
Death penalty is a judicious mode of punishment reserving the
harshest sentence for the most atrocious crimes. While its utility as a
deterrent to future crime is hotly disputed, capital punishment is an
effective prosecutorial tool, ensuring the greatest justice for the largest
number. It values the lives of lawful citizens above those who have
consciously sacrificed their right to live by murdering a fellow human
being. If a man is said to own himself, then there is no surer way to give up
that ownership than to irredeemably obliterate the self-ownership of
another. In what may appear to be an incongruent paradox, the death
penalty is the surest way to uphold the sanctity of life. An eye for an eye
may make the whole world blind, but allowing men to gouge the eyes of
others leaves us with a society in which only the malevolent may see. The
death penalty does not undoubtedly prevent such a society, but it is our
greatest safeguard against it.
Death penalty will not convict only those who are poor. Our
criminal justice system provides competent counsels through the public
attorneys office to be of service to our indigent brothers and sisters to
attain the justice they seek for. And our justice system is not unfair. If the
person deserves the sentence of death penalty, whether he is rich or poor,
there is no exception.

II. Conclusion

I think people would be alive today if there were a death penalty.


-Nancy Reagan, Former First Lady of the United States.
This house believes that the reinstatement of the death penalty will do the
Philippines good. There is still a great possibility of a lowered crime rate.
Filipinos by nature value their life and turn to do evil just to keep themselves and
families alive. The imposition of the death penalty will give them a fear that
doing these heinous crimes would lead to their death. Doing these heinous
crimes would do no good to their families. Who would choose life over death
when you have a family back home looking up to you?

The reinstatement of the death penalty may seem immoral but it is not.
These criminals commit crimes like its a game. They kill people like animals at
the market. They rape people like a toy to their sexual pleasures. They use and
sell illegal drugs like its candy that you can get at the store. Why should the State
spend money and space on these immoral humans? Why should a person who
raped an 18-month baby stay in the same jail as a person who was detained for
damages to property? Where is the justice in that?

Crimes will not totally dissolve in the Philippines or even in the whole
world. A world without crimes is truly impossible. But a world with lesser
crimes may be. It depends on how crimes are handled.

III - Pro Death Penalty


Samantha Jo C. Muoz Edrelynn Joy C. Palamos
Jamie Ruth V. Vivero