Arguments for restoring the death penalty

Anti-

Bakit nga ba hindi sumusuporta ang mga Pinoy sa muling pagbabalik ng death penalty?

Paliwanag ng isang abogado, maaaring pabor ang ilan sa capital punishment dahil saklaw nito ang
mga heinous crimes tulad ng paggagahasa at pagpatay sa kapwa. Pero maaaring hindi sang-ayon ang
mga ito dahil aniya walang patunay na nakakapagpababa ng bilang ng krimen ang pagkakaroon ng
death penalty sa isang bansa.

"Noong mga panahon na merong death penalty ay walang makikitang significant na pagkakaiba,
walang maibabanggit na batayan para sabihin na ito ay nakakapagbaba ng krimen," ani Noel Del
Prado sa "Usapang de Campanilla" nitong Huwebes.

Bukod pa rito aniya, may ilan ding nanawagan noon na wakasan ito dahil sa pagbabakasakaling
magbago pa ang mga nakagawa ng mga krimen.

"'Yung iba, sa purong usapin ... ay [nagsasabing] 'may pag-asa pang magbabago so bakit papatayin?"
sabi ni Del Prado.

Ayon sa 1987 Constitution, hindi maaaring magkaroon ng death penalty maliban na lamang kung
isasabatas ito ng Kongreso.

Ayon kay Del Prado, may kapangyarihan ang Kongreso na buhayin ang death penalty kung sa tingin ng
mga mambabatas ay kinakailangang ibalik ang parusang kamatayan sa bansa.

Isinabatas noong 1993 ang death penalty para matugunan ang tumataas na bilang ng mga krimen sa
bansa.

Noong 2007, winakasan ni Arroyo ang death penalty sa bansa sa bisa ng Republic Act No. 9346. Sa
ilalim nito, binaba rin sa reclusion perpetua o panghabambuhay na pagkakakulong ang parusa ng
lahat ng batas na may death penalty.

Pinapanukala ng Kongreso ngayon na ibalik ng parusang kamatayan sa bansa para sa mga krimeng
may kaugnayan sa droga.

Arguments for restoring the death penalty

Opponents of the death penalty are at it again. So-called human rights advocates and highly
politicized leaders of the Roman Catholic Church in the Philippines are pressuring the House of
Representatives to abandon its plan to restore the death penalty in the country.

Early this month, the House Committee on Justice approved a draft law reinstating the death penalty
for heinous crimes like drug offenses, treason, qualified piracy, qualified bribery, parricide, murder,
infanticide, rape, serious illegal detention, robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons,
arson, and plunder.
A vocal critic of the death penalty is the Commission on Human Rights, which insists that the
Philippines is bound under an international protocol to perpetually abolish the death penalty in order
to finally uphold the right to life. That protocol cited by the CHR is the Second Optional Protocol to
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which purportedly binds signatory countries
to do away with the death penalty. The protocol was signed in 2006 under the administration of
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

According to the CHR, the restoration of the death penalty will violate constitutional provisions
regarding respect for human rights and the dignity of every person. The CHR also claims that capital
punishment by whatever method constitutes cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment, does not
accord dignity to human beings, and has no place in a civilized society. In addition, the CHR says that
there are no studies which prove that the death penalty deters crime.

For the CHR, effective law enforcement and an efficient criminal justice system are the best deterrents
against crime. This proposal is echoed by local Catholic Church leaders.

The arguments raised by the CHR sound good, but they are devoid of legal substance. In fact, there is
absolutely nothing in the Constitution which sustains the CHR’s position. A look at the pertinent
provision of the Constitution will set the pace.

It will be readily gleaned from the text of Section 19 that although the imposition of cruel, degrading,
or inhuman punishment is explicitly prohibited, the same section allows Congress to impose the death
penalty for heinous crimes. This clearly means that it was never the intention of the Constitution to
consider the death penalty as a cruel, degrading, or inhuman punishment.

Every freshman law student knows that when a particular act is explicitly allowed by the Constitution,
it is impossible for that act to be considered unconstitutional. Therefore, since the Constitution
allows Congress to impose the death penalty for heinous crimes, the death penalty cannot be
unconstitutional. It also means that the death penalty cannot be repugnant to any provision in the
Constitution.

Thus, as far as the Constitution is concerned, the death penalty is not a cruel, degrading, or inhuman
form of punishment, and the death penalty is not repugnant to any provision of the Constitution.

This effectively debunks the arguments of the CHR to the effect that the death penalty is an
unconstitutional form of punishment, and that it violates provisions of the Constitution regarding
human rights and dignity.

As for the argument that the death penalty has no place in a civilized society, suffice it to say that
that’s a matter of opinion. The military establishment imposes the death penalty on erring
soldiers. Does that make the military establishment uncivilized? Death sentences were carried out
during the administrations of past presidents under the 1935 Constitution. Does that make those
administrations uncivilized? On many occasions in the past, the Supreme Court upheld the death
penalty imposed by lower courts on certain convicts. Does that make the justices of the high court
uncivilized? Good grief!

Sure, the Philippines signed that protocol on the abolition of the death penalty, and the Constitution
itself states that the Philippines adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part
of the law of the land. That notwithstanding, it is a basic principle in constitutional law that an
international protocol cannot prevail over a specific provision of the Constitution—like Section 19,
Article III which allows the imposition of the death penalty. Moreover, adopting international law as
part of Philippine law does not necessarily mean that international law automatically takes
precedence over the Constitution.

The reason for the supremacy of the Constitution over an international protocol is obvious—the
Constitution was ratified by the sovereign Filipino people; an international protocol signed by the
Philippine government does have the same approval from the electorate.

While there may be no empirical data to show that the death penalty is an effective deterrent against
crime, there is none to suggest that its abolition has reduced crime.

The proposition that effective law enforcement and an efficient criminal justice system are the best
deterrents against crime is, at best, wishful thinking. Effective law enforcement only means that
criminals will be caught and charged. On the other hand, an efficient criminal justice system only
means crime will not go unpunished. Both do not necessarily assure that nobody will commit crime.

Truth to tell, overpopulation contributes to criminality. A runaway increase in population translates

to more unemployed people and, ultimately, to poverty. Desperation results, and desperation
triggers crime because it is very difficult to be law-abiding when one is hungry and no meals are
forthcoming.

Because the Philippines has a very serious population problem, the government is promoting a
population control program. Unfortunately, the Roman Catholic Church is not helping out because it
is against contraceptives.

The Church may not know it but by opposing population control, it tacitly condones criminality.

So much for the opposition to the death penalty.

Mainit na naman ang usapin patungkol sa pagbabalik ng parusang kamatayan sa bansa.

Isinusulong ng Malacañang na mapanumbalik ang death penalty kahit pa nga tutol dito ang
Simbahang Katolika partikular si Pope Francis.

Ngayon nga ay nasa kamay na ng Senado ang desisyon kung maibabalik ba ito, partikular sa mga drug
related cases at mga karumal-dumal na krimen matapos na pumasa na ito sa Kamara.

Sa ngayon hati ang pananaw ng mga senador ukol dito, partikular na tumututol ang oposisyon, pero
sa mga kaalyado ng administrasyon partikular si Senator Manny Pacquiao, tiniyak nitong maipapasa
ito ng Senado.

Matagal na ang mga pagtatalo ukol dito, ayon nga sa mga pumapabor ay dapat na umanong maibalik
ang parusang bitay dahil na rin sa mga matitindi nang krimen na nagaganap karamihan may
kinalaman sa ilegal na droga.

Tila umano wala nang kinatatakutan ang ilan..

Sa parte naman ng mga tutol dito, hindi ito sagot para mapigilan ang nagaganap na krimen.

Mas dapat umanong unahin na maisaayos ang justice system sa bansa .

Ang paglilitis ng mga kaso, maraming taon ang binibilang bago madesisyon na ito muna ang dapat na
unahin kaysa sa pagdebatehan sa kasalukuyan ang parusang kamatayan.

Sa tagal umano nang paglilitis sa isang akusado, ilang taon na silang nagsilbi sa kulungan at sa ilang
pangyayari ang iba ay napapawalang sala. Pero komo nga matagal ang desisyon naubos na ang
kanilang panahon sa loob ng kulungan at saka lang mababatid na hindi sila nagkasala.

Sa ilan naman na pabor, mistulang ang Pilipinas kung mapapansin na walang death penalty ang
madalas na makapagtala ng mga karumal-dumal na krimen.

Maituturing na ‘deterrent’ ang parusang bitay para kung di man tuluyang masawata ay mabawasan
man lang ang matitinding krimeng nagaganap.
MARAMING karumal-dumal na krimen na nangyayari ngayon sa ating bansa. Sa higpit ng kampanya
ng gobyerno sa illegal na droga kaliwa’t kanan pa rin ang nahuhuling gumagamit at nagbebenta nito.
Ang mga kawatan lilimasin na lang ang laman ng bahay at hindi ko maintindihan kung bakit kailangan
pang patayin ang mga biktima. At ang pinakamatindi, ang mga alagad ng batas ay nilagyan ng butas
ang batas. Sa nagaganap na ito sa kapaligiran, isa lang ang nakikita kong solusyon, ibalik ang death
penalty.

Tamang pagkakataon sapagkat wala nang kinatatakutan ang mga taong gumagawa ng krimen. May
dahilan ang mga gago makulong man sila ay patuloy pa rin ang negosyo nila sa labas. Kung diretso
bitay ang mga ‘yan natuldukan na ang kanilang kawalanghiyaan.

Tiyak maraming tututol sa death penalty. Una na riyan ang Simbahang Katoliko pero wala naman
silang magawa ‘di ba? Bakit, kaya ba nilang pawiin ang sakit na nararamdaman ng mga biktima?
Maibabalik ba nila ang buhay ng kagagawan ng mga criminal? Pag nahuli ang mga salarin gagastos pa
ang gobyerno sa pagkain, elektrisidad at tubig. Masyado ng masikip ang mga kulungan ngayon
siksikan na sila, nagkakahawahan na ng iba’t ibang klaseng sakit kaya para sa akin yung may mga
mabibigat na sentensiya, bitayin na lang.

Ngayong nabanggit ni Sen. Manny Pacquiao na kaya raw nilang ipasa sa Senado ang death penalty.
Para sa akin, unahing sentensiyahan ang mga pulis na gumawa ng kagaguhan tingnan ko lang kung
hindi magtino ang iba nilang kabaro na balak din silang tularan.

Death penalty lang ang tingin kong solusyon sa mga krimen na nagaganap sa ating bansa. Sana
magtagumpay si Manny na maisulong ang batas dahil ‘yan din ang prayoridad ni Pres. Digong Duterte.