POSITION PAPER

OF
PRO-LIFE PHILIPPINES FOUNDATION, INC.
ON THE DEATH PENALTY

1. The revival of the death penalty will be a step of retrogression towards

barbaric violence

The quote “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” portrays the mindset that has been
prevalent in criminal law for much of history. Capital punishment (death penalty) was
practiced virtually almost everywhere because solving violence with violence was
seen as a means of serving justice. However, just as humanity has progressed on so
many fronts (and not just in terms of technical advances), so humanity has also
become more deeply aware of vital abstract concepts such as human dignity and the
right to life, and their implications to law. It is not an accident that in the last few
decades, one of the most decisive and visible trends in criminal justice has been the
reduction and abolition of the death penalty. Many international and regional treaties
against the death penalty have been formed. The number of abolitionist states – that
is, states that have abolished the death penalty – stood at 141 as of December
2016.

In the Philippines, the death penalty was first abolished during the presidency of
Corazon Aquino’s, only to be reinstated in the succeeding presidency and briefly
brought back to use during the brief presidency of Joseph Estrada. Finally, in June
2006, then-President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo signed Republic Act 9346, abolishing
the death penalty. This marked the accession of the Philippines to the growing rank
of countries that have realized the futility of capital punishment. However, fast
forward to today, the current president of the Philippines Rodrigo Duterte is seeking
to reinstate the death penalty as part of his campaign against crime and drugs.
While not much has changed in terms of the essential arguments between both
sides, the issue of the death penalty has itself become one of those issues where
taking a side is seen as also taking a side on the current administration, either for or
against. This is unfortunate as it obscures the essential issue, which is whether the
state should have the power to determine who must live and who must die, and
whether justice is truly served best by retrogressing towards the mentality of “an eye
for an eye “

Among the supporters of the death penalty are many who also support President
Duterte’s method of campaigning against crime and drugs in the Philippines, and
who firmly believe in retribution as a means of justice. Among those opposing the
death penalty, aside from the Church, are human rights organizations such as
Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and Pro-life Philippines Foundation.
Understandably this has given to the debate over the death penalty a certain political
color; to oppose it is considered as signifying opposition to the current administration
as a whole. But is this really the issue? It is essential to go beyond who the players
 at both sides are; the focus must be on the ideas and arguments brought by either
side to this debate.

We all should want nothing more and nothing less than what is best for the Filipino
people; the jibes of some that we oppose the death penalty “because we are for the
criminals” is completely untrue. We oppose it precisely because we stand for justice,
for human rights, and for the right to life. We do not believe that the victims of crime
are best served by the death penalty. For us, criminals ought to be punished, not
emulated; we do not fight them by becoming like them in also treating human life
with disdain.

2. There is no evidence to support the retribution and deterrence arguments of

reviving death penalty

Supporters of the death penalty bill commonly use two arguments, namely, the
retribution and deterrence arguments. The deterrence argument is that the death
penalty will deter more serious crimes by striking fear into the hearts of would-be
criminals. Although numerous people have pointed out the lack of evidence to
support this claim, the deterrence argument still is prevalent among death penalty
supporters. (We only need to ask: when the Philippines had the death penalty, even
in such brutal forms as the firing squad and the electric chair, did the culture of crime
actually weaken or disappear?) The retribution argument is, quite simply, that
criminals should suffer vengeance. Even the president of the Philippines, Rodrigo
Duterte, is a pioneer of the retribution argument in which he states “To me, death
penalty is retribution. You’re going to pay for what you did in this life.” This is the
essence of “an eye for an eye”. These are the most common arguments in support
of the death penalty. Are these justifications credible? Do we as a nation have
nothing better than to go back to a failed method of supposed “deterrence”? And do
we really want to foster in the minds of our people the idea that vengeance is good?
Indeed, in view of the current level of extrajudicial killings, the passing of the Death
Penalty bill will give even greater impetus to the mentality of violence in the country.

Supporters of the death penalty highlight the supposed capabilities of the death
penalty to act as deterrence against crime. But where is the firm evidence for this
claim? According to Donohue and Wolfers in (2006), death penalty is the product of
belief, not evidence. They describe the data as “too noisy, and the conclusions from
any study are too fragile.” The studies that state that death penalty is deterrence
simply have no direct correlation and sample sets used in these studies are too
small to draw a conclusion. In other words, the executions of these studies are
flawed. A study in the United States showed that the homicide rates in Texas,
California, and New York had fallen at roughly the same pace throughout the 1990s.
This is despite the fact that these 3 states used the death penalty very differently:
whereas Texas executed 447 people over that period, California executed just 13
people, and New York executed no one. The US National Research Council
declared in 2012 that the “research to date…is not informative about whether capital
punishment decreases, increases or has no effect on homicide rates.”
 In a study in Asia comparing the homicide rates between Singapore (which
historically has had a high number of executions), and Hong Kong (which has had
few executions), the findings showed that the homicide rates in both countries had
fallen at the same pace over 35 years. These two similar places with differing
methods of punishment showed no differences in homicide trends. All researches on
death penalty done up to the present are not conclusive on whether or not it
increases or decrease or affects homicide rates at all.

The retribution argument is rooted on the idea that justice is served when the
perpetrator of a crime is executed. That it provides closure for the victim’s families
knowing that the criminal is dead. This entails the government to engage in the
execution of the convicted citizen. However, Article II, Section 4 of the 1987
Philippine Constitution provides that “The prime duty of the Government is to serve
and protect the people.” Through this statement, we can conclude that the purpose
of the state is not to appease the retributive purpose of the death penalty in behalf of
the victim’s family but rather to serve and protect its people. Does the death penalty,
which embodies negative values like revenge and solves violence equally with
violence, mirror the positive spirit of serving and protecting the people? Besides,
would the Philippines really want to be known to implement death penalty mainly for
the sake of retribution, or revenge?

Speaking of barbaric violence, another argument to oppose the death penalty is that
it is a cruel and inhuman act. Any person, regardless whether they are a criminal or
not, deserves to be treated in accordance with his dignity as a human being and not
treated as a disposable “throw-away” object so dangerous that it should be
eliminated irrevocably. There is always the option of life imprisonment. Once the
criminal has been caught, the state is perfectly capable of rendering him or her
harmless to himself, to his fellow inmates and to society at large through
imprisonment.

Some might argue that even inside prisons there is still crime. To this we respond
that this merely reinforces our point. Surely no one here will argue that prison is
useless; the state should make it a priority to make the penal system effective
instead of giving up on it. The death penalty will be an admission of defeat on the
part of the government; by legalizing the death penalty, it is as if the government is
admitting that it is incapable of controlling criminals and so would rather choose the
quick and easy way of killing them, regardless of other consequences to itself and to
society.

3. The death penalty is an irrevocable sentence on possible innocent persons

subjected to the flawed justice system of our country

Article III, Section 1 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution provides 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 immeasurable value, the
preciousness of human life, is something taught not just by Christianity but by many
 other religious and philosophies of life. It is a fact that many countries that have
abolished the death penalty have done so not on religious but on humanistic
grounds; the preciousness of life is something that can be grasped even by those
who are secularist and have no religion. Whether or not you are a theist or atheist,
there is the innate sense that human life is precious. Precious because of its fragility
and that it is a gift which should not be taken lightly; a Christian would say that it is a
gift from God. Furthermore, there is the strong conviction, which cuts across
religious, cultural and philosophical lines, that human beings are endowed with an
inalienable human dignity. This inalienable dignity is derived from the nature
common to all humans as rational beings. One does not place one human being’s
life over another based on wealth, status, contributions etc. This is precisely why we
speak of equality before the law, and why we prize its impartiality.

The death penalty is irrevocable. The very nature of the death penalty is the
permanent taking of a life of a person. Life is precious; but once a life is taken,
bringing it back is out of the question. The thought of mistakenly executing an
innocent man orchestrated by the state should incite all Filipinos to oppose this bill.
Given the flawed justice system the Philippines currently possesses, the likelihood of
executing an innocent person is quite high. Furthermore, in any human society there
is no guarantee of a flawless justice system. Let’s not forget that those who run the
judicial system are also human beings and are not beyond committing mistakes,
even unwitting ones. There should be no room in our legal system for a punishment
that could deprive innocents of their life. Some would say: “it is okay that some
innocents are killed if this means that many more guilty people will also be
executed”. This argument is irrational and beneath the dignity of our nation. The lives
of our people should not be wagered or gambled on. Innocent people do not deserve
to be “collateral damage”. We rightly condemn criminals who victimize the innocent;
why should the State, then, put itself in the place of also running the significant risk
of making the innocent suffer and die? Does this not put the State on the same level
as the criminals?

4. The revival of death penalty is a breach of international treaty obligations

The Philippines is signatory to the Second Optional Protocol to the International

Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which aims for the abolition of the death
penalty. This was adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 44/128
on 15 December 1989.

The treaty requires all state parties to take all necessary measures to abolish the
death penalty within its jurisdiction except in times of war. The treaty was ratified
under the administrations of Ferdinand Marcos in 1986 and Gloria Macapagal-
Arroyo in 2007, respectively.

A treaty is part of the law of the land if this has been ratified by the President, and
concurred to by two-thirds of the Senate. Furthermore, based on our 1987
Constitution, the constitution adopts the generally accepted principles of
 international law as part of the law of the land. Therefore, opting out of a treaty which
has been duly ratified by our government is a breach of our international obligations.
This is by virtue of our bounden commitments with international human rights and
treaties and our adherence to the principle of pacta sunt servanda (agreements must
be kept) rule. Opting out of international treaties will bring upon us a great cloud of
distrust due to the fact that the issue of human rights has attained an unprecedented
status internationally that it did not have prior to the Second World War. Our country
will also lose its moral ascendancy when pleading for the lives of convicted OFW’s
facing capital punishment in other countries.

5. The death penalty discriminates upon the poor, the marginalized, and the most
vulnerable sectors of society

In May 2004, Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) here in the Philippines
conducted a survey on 890 death row inmates. (The Philippines still had the death
penalty on its law books at the time.) The survey revealed that 79% of death row
inmates had not reached college and 63% were previously employed in blue-collar
work in sectors like agriculture, transport, and construction. Furthermore, two-thirds
of death row inmates had been earning a monthly wage at or below the minimum
wage. Meanwhile, less than 1% of death row inmates had been earning a monthly
wage of more than P50,000. The reason rich inmates had much more access to
resources that allowed them to aggressively defend themselves in court compared
to poor inmates (for example, by hiring multiple lawyers). If the death penalty is
again implemented, then poor convicts will disproportionately suffer from the ultimate
penalty; it will be a true spectacle of “selective justice.” Also, the Philippine judiciary
is known to have serious issues with corruption, competence and overwork. With the
imposition of the death penalty, this could only lead to further unfair punishment of
poor suspects.

6. The death penalty is a direct contrast to the most basic principles of human
nature

Re-imposing the death penalty would a step backwards in humanity’s progression to

a higher and deeper understanding of human rights and dignity. Humanity is called
to progress away from a paradigm of violence and malice. Primitive paradigms of
dealing with violence should have faded away as humanity deepened its
understanding of important abstract concepts such as dignity. Solving inhumane
violence by means of using equally barbaric violence has increasingly been replaced
in many countries with rational means of deterring crime. Re-imposing the death
penalty will jeopardize this aspect of humanity’s progress.

What separates us from animals is our endowment of a higher reason by God. This
intelligence is what makes us uniquely human. Accompanied by this intelligence is
the subconscious abhorrence for murder the since it goes against the human’s
instinct for the perpetuation of the human species.
 The Philippines is one of the few Christian nations in Asia and is also the third
largest Catholic country in the world. We are about to celebrate 500 years of
Christianity in our country in 2021. Being Christians, we uphold the values of sanctity
of life, forgiveness regardless of what they did, and respect for the inalienable dignity
of each person regardless of their crimes. Fact is, regardless of their actions, the
victim and oppressor are both children of God. We believe that there will always be a
possibility of repentance and transformationm. Among all these arguments, the most
important reason we need to oppose the death penalty should be our identity as
Catholics.

Arguments presented through this paper seek to further convince you to oppose the
death penalty. Though the country is divided on this issue, our side clearly lays down
more credible and sound arguments. These arguments range from international
relations obligations to moral and religious obligations. As Christians, as Filipinos and
ultimately as human beings, our life is filled with moral obligations. We have the
obligation to oppose the death penalty for reasons stated above.

Opposing the death penalty not only seeks to deter the rise of the violence paradigm on
the country, it seeks to preserve the inherent noble values the Filipino possesses, much
of which is derived from our identity as a largely Catholic country.

Sources:
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/files/pdf/DonohueDeter.pdf

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-heroux/the-death-penalty-questio_4_b_975151.html

http://pcij.org/blog/wp-docs/flag-survey-death-row.pdf

http://www.rchss.sinica.edu.tw/cibs/law/1.%20Monthly%20Seminar%20Since
%202008/Papers/2010/20100729/Kalen%20Chien_Executions,%20Deterrence,%20and
%20Homicide.pdf

http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2017/03/02/1677123/house-oks-death-penalty

http://www.rappler.com/thought-leaders/161072-death-penalty-unnecessary-anti-poor-
error-prone