Republic of the Philippines

Region 02
Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya
Nueva Vizcaya State University Bayombong Campus
Senior High School Department

DEATH PENALTY AS LAWFUL OR UNLAWFUL ACT: VIEWS OF

THE GRADE 12 HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES STUDENTS
OF NUEVA VIZCAYA STATE UNIVERSITY

by:

Charlene Balawag

Marjorie Bantayan

Muffye Benter

Cristian Angelo Dacmay

Sara Mae Dungca

Myra Pale

Giselle Joy Manzano

Edwin Tamalay

Bryan Paul Vergara

Princess Jeremiah Villamena

 Chapter I

Background of the Study

Introduction

Death Penalty is simply defined as the punishment of death used in some countries

for people who have committed very serious or heinous crimes. According to Mintz (2006),

Death penalty is when someone is put to death using different types of methods, for a serious

crime such as murder, rape, and drug dealing. It is also known as capital punishment, which

comes from the Latin word ‘capital’ meaning ‘regarding the head’. So therefore the most

common way of capital punishment is hanging or decapitating. Although many countries refrain

from using capital punishment, many countries still practice it. Countries like USA, Saudi

Arabia, China, etc. still use capital punishment as it creates a sense of fear in the minds of the

criminals, so he/she will think twice before committing a crime. It also makes the family of the

victim get justice and they will be satisfied with the decision.

In the Philippines, Death Penalty started since the Spanish time until the regime of

the late President Marcos. Convicted criminals were killed by hanging or by firing squad and as

time passed, the execution method were changed, modernized and became more advanced.

Modernized execution methods include: Gas chamber, Electrocution (Silya Electrica) and by

lethal injection.

During EDSA People Power Revolution, President Corazon Aquino promulgated

the 1987 Constitution which abolished the Death Penalty. But in 1993, Congress passed RA

7659, or the Death Penalty Law, which re-imposed capital punishment. Under RA 7659, crimes

punishable by death included murder, rape, big-time drug trafficking, kidnapping for ransom,
treason, piracy, qualified bribery, parricide, infanticide, plunder, kidnapping and serious illegal

detention, robbery with violence or intimidation, qualified vehicle theft and arson.

In the year 2006, Philippines abolished Death Penalty under the Republic Act No. 9346, also

known as an Act Prohibiting the Imposition of the Death Penalty in the Philippines, signed by

President Gloria Macapagal – Arroyo. Arroyo said the death penalty should be abolished because

it had not proven to be a deterrent to crime and had become a dead-letter law. RA 9346

downgraded the death penalty to life imprisonment.

There are over 58 countries who still practice Death Penalty. But according to the

Death Penalty Information Center, 95% percent of all known executions were carried out in only

six countries: China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, the United States, Pakistan and Iraq. In 2007, a

minimum of 1,252 people were executed in 24 countries and at least 3,347 people were

sentenced to death in over 50 countries.

Issues concerning Death Penalty are highly debatable and divisive. Different kinds

of people have different perceptions about Death Penalty. Some people approve that death

penalty should be revived and signed into law again. While some are against it, especially some

religious organizations and Human Rights activists, countless opinions can be gathered

depending on the situations and perceptions of different respondents. Hence, this research will be

conducted.

The young but powerful minds of the Grade 12 HUMSS students of NVSU will be

tested in this study. These students will give their own views concerning Death Penalty whether

it is a lawful or unlawful act.

Statement of the Problem

This research aims to know the views of the Grade 12 HUMSS students of NVSU

Senior High School concerning the issue about Death Penalty, they will be surveyed how they

view Death Penalty if it is a lawful or unlawful act.

Specifically, it aims to seek answer for the following questions:

1. What are the demographic profile of Grade 12 HUMSS students of NVSU SHS in

terms of: age, sex, cultural affiliation, and religious affiliation.

2. What are the different views of the Grade 12 HUMSS students about Death Penalty in

terms of: a) Pro or in favour of Death Penalty. b) Anti or not in favour of Death Penalty.

3. Is there a significant relationship between the demographic profile of the students and

their views on Death Penalty?

Objectives of the Study

This study will be conducted to identify and compare the different views of the

Grade 12 HUMSS students of NVSU concerning the issue of Death Penalty. This study will

develop the reasoning skills of the human participants.

Significance of the Study

The results of the study will help to the following:

Politicians: This study is to make them aware about the issue of Death Penalty and see how

different people reacts about it.

Administrators: This study will help them to be informed about how students view Death

Penalty.

Students: The results of this study will inform them how different types of students view Death

Penalty and how they argue about this issue.

Future researchers: This paper will serve as a basis and give them additional background and

information about the topic to have more ideas in conducting the same kind of paper.

Scope and Delimitation

This research is limited only for forty-two (42) students of Grade 12 HUMSS of

Nueva Vizcaya State University. This is intended to know their views about Death Penalty.

Definition of Terms

The following are some terms that need to be define in this study for clarity and

further understanding:

Death Penalty (Capital Punishment)- the punishment of death used in some countries for people

who have committed very serious crimes.

Lawful - conforming to, permitted by, or recognized by law or rules.

Unlawful -not conforming to, permitted by, or recognized by law or rules.

Crime - an action or omission that constitutes an offense that may be prosecuted by the state and

is punishable by law.

Perception - the state of being or process of becoming aware of something through the senses.

Abolish - formally put an end to (a system, practice, or institution).

Promulgate - put (a law or decree) into effect by official proclamation.

Heinous - (of a person or wrongful act, especially a crime) utterly odious or wicked.

NVSU – Nueva Vizcaya State University; the school were the study will be conducted.

Grade 12 HUMSS – Humanities and Social Sciences; the students under this strand will be the

respondents in the study.

Conceptual Framework

STUDENTS PROFILE VIEWS ON DEATH PENALTY

(Independent Variable) (Dependent Variable)

1. Age 1. Pro or in favour – students who

view death penalty as a lawful act.
2. Sex

3. Religion
2. Anti or not favour – students who
view death penalty as an unlawful
act.

3. Undecided – students who can`t

decide whether they are pro or anti
Death Penalty
 Chapter II

Review of the Related Literature

The purpose of this literary review is to answer some of the most frequently asked

questions about Death Penalty. It generally aims to know the different perceptions of different

people about Death Penalty as a lawful or unlawful act.

Timeline of Death Penalty in the Philippines

The imposition of the death penalty in the country has had a repressive history. For

the most part (from 1848 to 1987), it was used to curtail the liberties, freedoms and rights of the

Filipino people. In recent history, however, the death penalty was reimposed as a knee-jerk

response to what has largely been seen as rising criminality in the country. The following, with

help from the Mamamayang Tutol sa Bitay-Movement for Restorative Justice, traces the death

penalty’s historical roots and context in Philippine society:

Spanish Period (1521-1898)

Spanish colonizers brought with them medieval Europe’s penal system, including

executions.Capital punishment during the early Spanish Period took various forms including

burning, decapitation, drowning, flaying, garrote, hanging, shooting, stabbing and others.Capital

punishment was enshrined in the 1848 Spanish Codigo Penal and was only imposed on locals

who challenged the established authority of the colonizers. Between 1840-1857, recorded death

sentences totaled 1,703 with 46 actual executions. Filipinos who were meted the death penalty

include Magat Salamat (1587); the native clergies Gomez, Burgos and Zamora who were
garroted in 1872; and Dr. Jose Rizal, executed on December 30, 1896. All of them are now

enshrined as heroes.

American Period (1898-1934)

The American colonizers, adopting most of the provisions under the Codigo Penal

of 1848, retain the death penalty.The Codigo Penal was revised in 1932. Treason, parricide,

piracy, kidnapping, murder, rape, and robbery with homicide were considered capital offenses

and warranted the death penalty.The Sedition Law (1901); Brigandage Act (1902);

Reconcentration Act (1903); and Flag Law (1907) were enacted to sanction the use of force,

including death, against all nationalist Filipinos.Macario Sakay was one of those sentenced to die

for leading a resistance group. He was sentenced to die by public hanging.The capital

punishment continued to be an integral part of the pacification process of the country, to suppress

any resistance to American authority.

Japanese Occupation (1941-1945)

There are no recorded or documented cases of executions through the death penalty

during this period simply because extrajudicial executions were widely practised as part of the

pacification of the country.

Post-World War II

Espionage is added to the list of capital offenses.The Anti-Subversion Law called

for the death penalty for all Communist leaders. However, no executions were recorded for any

captured communist leader.For the period of 1946-1965, 35 people were executed for offenses

that the Supreme Court labeled as “crimes of senseless depravity or extreme criminal perversity.”

The Marcos Years (1965-1986)

 Deterrence” became the official justification for the imposition of the death penalty.

This is the same justification used for the declaration of Martial Law in 1972. The number of

capital crimes increased to a total of 24. Some crimes which were made punishable by death

through laws and decrees during the Marcos period were subversion, possession of firearms,

arson, hijacking, embezzlement, drug-related offenses, unlawful possession of firearms, illegal

fishing and cattle rustling. Jaime Jose, Basilio Pineda, and Edgardo Aquino were executed for

the gang rape of movie star Maggie dela Riva in 1972. Despite prohibitions against public

executions, the execution of the three was done in full view of the public. Nineteen executions

took place during the Pre-Martial Law period. Twelve were executed during Martial Law.

Senator Benigno Aquino, Jr. was sentenced to die by firing squad for charges of murder,

subversion and illegal possession of firearm in 1977. The last judicial execution under the

Marcos years was in October 1976 when Marcelo San Jose was executed by electrocution.

Similar to the reasons for the imposition of capital punishment during the Colonial Periods, the

death penalty during the Marcos Regime was imposed to quell rebellion and social unrest.

President Corazon Cojuangco Aquino (1986-1992)

The Death Penalty was “abolished” under the 1987 Constitution. The Philippines

became the first Asian country to abolish the death penalty for all crimes. All death sentences

were reduced to reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment. In 1988, the military started lobbying

for the imposition of the death penalty for crimes committed by the CPP-NPA.

President Fidel Valdez Ramos (1993-1998)

A series of high profile crimes during this period, including the murder of Eileen

Sarmenta and Allan Gomez, created public impression that heinous crimes were on the rise. The
Ramos administration reimposed the death penalty by virtue of Republic Act No. 7659 in

December 1993 to address the rising criminality and incidence of heinous crimes. The Death

Penalty Law lists a total of 46 crimes punishable by death; 25 of these are death mandatory while

21 are death eligible. Republic Act No. 8177 mandates that a death sentence shall be carried out

through lethal injection.

President Joseph Ejercito Estrada (1998-2001)

Leo Echegaray was executed in February 1999 and was followed by six other

executions for various heinous crimes.In 1999, the bumper year for executions, the national

crime volume, instead of abating, ironically increased by 15.3 percent or a total of 82,538 (from

71,527 crimes in the previous year).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.

President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo (2001-2010)

Arroyo publicly stated that she is not in favor of executions. Due to the rise in

crimes related to drugs and kidnappings that targeted the Filipino-Chinese community, she

announced that she would resume executions “to sow fear into the hearts of criminals.” Arroyo

lifted the de facto moratorium issued by Estrada on December 5, 2003. Even as executions were

set to resume on January 2004, this did not push through by virtue of a Supreme Court decision

to reopen the Lara-Licayan case. Since then, the administration has been issuing reprieves on

scheduled executions without actually issuing a moratorium.

With the amendment of Republic Act No. 8353 (Anti-Rape Law of 1997) and Republic

Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs act of 2002), there are now 52 capital offenses,

30 of which are death mandatory and 22 are death eligible.

Duterte is Pro Death Penalty

Last July 24, 2017, During President Rodrigo Duterte`s 2nd SONA, he stated that he

wants death penalty back in the Philippines. He asked the Congress to act on pending legislation

to reimpose the death penalty, especially for heinous crimes and trafficking illegal drugs.

According to the news article of INQUIRER (2017) Duterte said the death penalty under the

Revised Penal Code was not only meant for retribution but also to prevent the criminal from

killing another person again. “In the Philippines, it`s really an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,”

Duterte said. “You took a life, then you must pay [for] it with life.”

Death Penalty as a Lawful Act

The death penalty may not be the ultimate or the best answer but like cancer

treatments that are not Just, we have to use them, they are all we have. Part of the injustice of

being murdered is when the murderer serves a minimal sentence. We need to own our

responsibility to society and each individual victim that has fallen into the ate of cold-blooded

murderous hands. Protection is a human right and best method of protection is to never let a

convicted murderer have a chance to kill again. The death penalty is not as simple as an eye for

an eye, tooth for a tooth, religious- based, reciprocal-Justice philosophy. It is a right and power to

be used as a protective agency for society. The morality we apply to an individual should reflect

the way that individual treats his fellow man. If he takes a life his life should be taken. (Koch,

2017)

Muhlhausen (2014) stated that some crimes are so heinous and inherently wrong that

they demand strict penalties – up to and including life sentences or even death. Studies of the

death penalty have reached various conclusions about its effectiveness in deterring crime. But the
majority of studies that track effects over many years and across states or counties find a

deterrent effect. Indeed, other recent investigations, using a variety of samples and statistical

methods, consistently demonstrate a strong link between executions and reduced murder rates...

In short, capital punishment does, in fact, save lives.

We have the responsibility to punish those who deserve it, but only to the degree

they deserve it. Retributivists do not justify the death penalty by the general deterrence or safety

it brings us. And we reject over-punishing no less than under-punishing. How obscene that

aggravated murderers who behave well inside prison watch movies and play softball. Regardless

of future benefits, we justify punishment because it's deserved. Let the punishment fit the crime.

Opponents [of the death penalty] wrongly equate retribution and revenge, because they both

would inflict pain and suffering on those who have inflicted pain and suffering on us. Whereas

revenge knows no bounds, retribution must be limited, proportional and appropriately directed:

The retributive punishment fits the crime. We should only execute those who most deserve it.

And not randomly. Refine our death penalty statutes and review the sentences of everyone on

death row. Release into general population those who don't really deserve to die. The rest we

should execute — worst first. (Blecker,2014)

Majority of Filipinos continue to express support for the death penalty, the latest

Pulse Asia survey showed. While the figure is lower (67 percent) compared to the level of

support in July 2016 (81 percent), the strong support for death penalty continues to be expressed

by most of Filipinos. The nationwide survey, conducted from March 15 to 20 using face-to-face

interviews, is expressed by majorities in every geographic area and socio-economic grouping, 61

to 74 percent and 66 to 68 percent, respectively. “Opposition to the death penalty is expressed by

a quarter of Filipinos (25 percent) while the rest (8 percent) could not say whether they support
or do not support capital punishment,” the survey said. Rape is cited as the crime that should be

made punishable by death at 97 percent. Other crimes that should be punishable by death are

murder (88 percent) and drug pushing (71 percent).

A measure that seeks to bring back the death penalty in the country was passed on

the third and final reading by the House of Representatives last March, but senators said it is

unlikely to get support. Meanwhile, a little over half of Filipinos (or 55 percent) believe that the

minimum age of criminal liability should be at 15 years old, according to the same survey.

Thirteen percent of the respondents said that the minimum age should be between 16 to 25 years

old, 2 percent said it should be at 10 to 11 percent, while 1 percent are in favor of having it at 13

to 14 years old.

The nationwide survey is based on a sample of 1,200 representative adults 18 years

old and above.

Death Penalty as an Unlawful Act

No one can blame victims and their families for wanting revenge, including through

the death penalty. In their pain and loss, they are entitled to that desire. However, laws exist to

prevent individuals from pursuing vengeance and their own vision of justice. If they do anyway

(if, for example, a victim kills a perpetrator) then they become perpetrators and pay the price,

both legally and morally. Although we may feel empathy with such a victim seeking revenge,

Nietzsche's warning—that when fighting monsters you must take care not to become one

yourself—should be remembered. Killing by the state is wrong as well, potentially even worse

than killing by an individual. The death penalty is morally, socially and politically wrong.

Morally, killing is wrong. Killing on behalf of a state is wrong as well. Some may believe that
the death penalty is a just and moral punishment for the most serious of crimes; victims and their

families are morally entitled to long for revenge. No national interest can justify human rights

violations such as the death penalty or torture. (Simonovic, 2015)

According to O`Malley (2015) there is a particular, fundamental flaw in our justice

system that other candidates appear to lack the commitment to address -- our failed reliance on

the death penalty. This is a tragedy both because it is a racially biased punishment, and also

ineffective in deterring crime. Reforming our criminal justice system to save and redeem more

lives is not as simple as changing just one thing. But we should be able to admit that we must do

more of what works to save lives, and we should stop doing things that do not work. the death

penalty's racial legacy could not be excused or explained away -- and that too many innocent

lives were being taken by this profoundly flawed practice.

The death penalty also is something else — a sad reminder of how our justice

system typically offers punishment instead of healing for the survivors of violent crime. For a

growing number of victims of violence, the thought of honoring our loved ones by killing

another human being is not only counter-intuitive, but abhorrent. Perhaps more than others, I

understand acutely that an execution would just visit pain on another family. Moreover, the death

penalty typically brings the opposite of what survivors of crime most need: accountability,

healing and closure. The death penalty also keeps us stuck in an angry stage of grief. The death

penalty requires all of us, victims and spectators alike, to actively summon feelings of hatred and

contempt in order to justify the murder of another human being. (Coke,2016)

Death penalty in the Philippines is not the right approach to address criminality in

the country. Aside from the fact that it is inhuman, from the angle of spirituality and morality,
though violated by most criminals, life must be preserved regardless of whatever conditions

therein that defines someone’s personality, whether he or she is a criminal or a noble person.

Filipinos are really going somewhere far beyond the right understanding about the essence of

being a human. We are victims of the biggest deception on earth that twisted our minds and

turned into becoming hostile creations ready to inflict harm and adversity unto others for the

sake of individual survival. This is where a person becomes a criminal. But beyond our know,

everything was programmed with the aid or our own IGNORANCE. (Dabon, 2017)
 CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

Research Design

The instrument to be used for this research is a combination of quantitative and qualitative

research design with the use of questionnaire and rating scale as a mean to determine the

perception of Grade 11 HUMSS about if Death Penalty is lawful or unlawful.

Respondents of the Study

The respondents are the Grade 12-HUMSS students of NVSU. The study requested the

participation of the senior high school students of NVSU with the approval and support of the

adviser of research.

Research Environment

The study was conducted in Nueva Vizcaya State University Bayombong Campus at Don

Mariano Perez Bayombong. The school is related in rural area. There is one section of the study.

There are 42 students who are used as respondents in this study. Total sampling is used in the

study.

Research Instrument

The study employed the survey type questionnaire to know the knowledge of the students

about the effects of social media on their academic performance. The questionnaire consisted of

three parts. The first part required the respondents’ profile such as gender, strand, age and

religion. Then, the second part of the questionnaire contained the knowledge of the students by
checking the questions according to their references. Lastly, the third part consists on their short

response about death penalty if it is lawful or unlawful.

Data Gathering Procedure

To determine the students’ performance, the following procedures will be done:

1. The questionnaire towards the perception of Grade 12- HUMSS about the death penalty

if it is lawful or unlawful.

2. Scores will be gathered, analyzed and interpreted to determine the student’s awareness

about death penalty.

 References

http://pcij.org/blog/2006/04/18/a-timeline-of-death-penalty-in-the-philippines

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/916936/duterte-calls-for-death-penalty-an-eye-for-an-eye-a-tooth-

https://lawessay.net/analysis-of-death-and-justice-by-edward-koch/

https://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=002000

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/894552/pulse-asia-most-filipinos-still-support-death-penalty