Joseph John Michael B.

Sale English 60

To take a life when a life has been lost is revenge, not justice. From the words of the late
Martin Luther King Jr., “returning violence for violence multiplies violence adding deeper
darkness to a night already devoid of stars”

As the third speaker of the Negative team, I strongly oppose to this resolution, Resolved,
That Death Penalty is justifiable.

First, death penalty violates a person's right to live. Article III Section 1 of the 1987
Constitution, otherwise known as the Bill of Rights, states that "No person shall be deprived
of life, liberty, or property…" furthermore, Article II, Section 11 of the 1987 Philippine
Constitution states: "The State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees
full respect for human rights". How is death penalty justified if in the first place the right of
a criminal to live is being violated? Furthermore, it is a known fact that majority of Filipinos
are Catholics. As said, we have one of the world's largest Christian populations. According
to the latest study, 86% or 88.5 million Filipinos are Catholics. As Catholics or Christians,
The Ten Commandments of the Church teaches us that thou shall not kill. Therefore,
nobody is given the right to take the lives of others. Whether that person is a criminal or
not, nobody has the right to play God and take the life that He has given. Filipinos should
respect and value the sanctity of human life and uphold the virtue and religious doctrines
that are expected of us as a dominant Christian nation.

Secondly, it is a very cruel, inhuman and irreversible practice. Once a person is killed, the
act cannot be reversed. Death penalty cannot be justified making it very impracticable
because it shall cause a plethora of constitutional and judicial conflicts and questions. Apart
from the articles stated above, it is also to be noted that Article III, Sec. 19 ( I ) of the 1987
Constitution states that “Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or
inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither shall the 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.” Furthermore,
Republic Act 9346 was also enacted which is an Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death
Penalty in the Philippines. The Commission on Human Rights has opposed the enactment
of any law re-imposing the death penalty law in the Philippines on the ground that it
Joseph John Michael B. Sale English 60

offends the dignity of human person and human rights. The abolition of the death penalty
by the 1987 Constitution was a very big step towards a practical recognition of the dignity
of every human being which has the inherent right to life which is protected by law.
Moreover, justifying death penalty would be a violation of our international commitment in
support of the worldwide abolition of capital punishment where the Philippines is a
signatory to the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human rights and the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which strongly opposes death penalty.

Lastly, death penalty is anti-poor. Majority of those who are in death row are poor, it is
mostly by reason of poverty that brought them there and many of those cannot afford to
get a good lawyer to defend them. A study showed that the death penalty is anti-poor as the
underprivileged who cannot afford the services of competent counsels are oftentimes the
ones convicted of death penalty. Further studies show that death penalty is
disproportionately imposed on the poorest, least educated and most vulnerable members
of the society. According to a former appellate judge "Imposition of the death penalty is
arbitrary and capricious. Decision of who will live and who will die for his crime turns less
on the nature of the offense and the incorrigibility of the offender and more on
inappropriate and indefensible considerations: the political and personal inclinations of
prosecutors; the defendant's wealth, race and intellect; the race and economic status of the
victim; the quality of the defendant's counsel; and the resources allocated to defense
lawyers." Clearly, a lot of considerations factors in this issue.

Do not get us wrong, we are not protecting the criminals in our contentions, but rather
those innocent people that may be executed in the process, because as stated earlier, such
act, on top of the fact of being inhuman and cruel, is also irreversible.

Death penalty is not practical in the Philippines because the culture and religion of majority
of the Filipino people opposes to it. It is against the basic and fundamental principles of our
laws and constitution and it is anti-poor which makes it very oppressive and subject to
abuse by those in position or power.to end, Death penalty is impractical and not justifiable
in the Philippine setting.