States have always been divided into two groups on how they view capital

punishment and its impact to its society as a whole. Retentionist refers to states that
supports death penalty while the other one, abolitionists are the non-death penalty
states. Since 2000, it has been greatly recorded that states supporting death penalty
has been declining. (Bosman, 2015)

Past leaders had greatly exerted their best efforts to abolish capital punishment
permanently but despite the actions taken to abolish it, new and emerging stories
featuring heinous crimes continuously generating clamor among the public to apply
death sentence to most severe sanctions to perpetrators. As stated by Armstrong
2010, for heinous crimes committed, the imposition of death penalty has not been
unusual to abolitionist countries. It has been greatly noted by Bohm in 2012 that by
the year 1920, five states who abolished the death penalty before had reinstated it.
Therefore, there is great possibility that states may reinstate capital punishment
subsequently even they have abolished it before.

Retentionists support death penalty considering it a retributive sanction for heinous

crimes’ murderers and convicts. (Bohm, 2010 & 2012). Such view with the imposition
of death penalty is a deserved sanction for person who committed a heinous crime
consciously and purposely which resulted in loss of life. Such action taken in
retaliating had been greatly influenced and invoke in the Mosaic Law of Justice, an
eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.

Those who support the reinstatement of death penalty also believes that it invokes
general deterrence (Gerber and Johnson, 2007).This conveys message to the
general public that persons who committed murder and other heinous crimes are
unacceptable and will suffer the ultimate sanction. And with such action, it is greatly
conceived that persons or individuals will have to greatly think over about committing
heinous crimes and will be refrain from doing because of the sanction to be given as
capital punishment.

It becomes an argument for the proponents that incapacitating effect of capital

punishment serves as a safety measure for public . With the state executing the
convicted defendant, he or she will no longer be around to commit another crime to
other citizen; also the paroled murderer will not be able to victimize again.

Some capital punishment supporters raise and argue that the death penalty is
financially less costly to citizens than a life sentence without the possibility of parole
(Bohm, 2012; Gerber & Johnson, 2007). Most of the time, unknown to the general
public that the expenses to operate and run prisons cost taxpayers gigantic amount of
money to maintain a person while in prison. Therefore, with the imposition of capital
punishment and execution of murderers and of the same will greatly relieved the tax
payers of this financial burden. With the majority of prisons around the archipelago
are currently over crowded and housing murderers and convicts of heinous crimes will
require allocating space for them for that duration while leaving the prions more
congested and over-crowded. Therefore, it is argued that the execution of the convicts
for heinous crimes will relieve and alleviate the overcrowding in the prisons (Bohm,
2012).

Finally, some advocates of capital punishment believe that the execution and death of
the convicted murders provide justice and closure for the anguished, grieving and
suffering of the secondary victims (family and friends of the victim) of murder (Bohm,
2010, 2012; Gerber & Johnson, 2007). It is argued that the state has an obligation to
surviving relatives of murder victims by satisfying their desire for vengeance or
“justice” and until the convicted murder defendant is physically eliminated through
application of the death penalty, secondary victims continue to suffer wantonly and
needlessly.

Involvement of Foreign Citizens in the Trade, Manufacture and Transport of

Illegal Drugs

The Philippines has become a target market of illicit drug production and
trafficking manufactured from overseas. Methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu
continues to be smuggled into the country through its airports, seaports, and mail and
parcel services due to the country’s porous border and long coastlines being a
archipelago with more than seven thousands islands in its jurisdiction. Authorities
closely monitor all these possible entry points and have also conducted successful
operations against syndicates attempting to smuggle drugs into the country. In almost
all of the operations, especially those where big volumes of drugs have been seized,
the involvement of foreign nationals had been very apparent. (Dangerous Drug Board,
2016)

With the strict security measures in various places and intensifying operations
conducted by law enforcers, drug traffickers have been constantly innovating ways
and other tactics in how to import and smuggle drugs. African Drug Syndicates (ADS)
have been identified to be primarily responsible for the recruitment of Filipino drug
couriers who smuggle drugs to and from other Asian countries.

Drug couriers had tried many ways and techniques to conceal drugs such as
ingesting the substance in capsules, hiding drugs in cartons of milk, shoe boxes,
books, bottles, and the secret compartments of bags and luggage. The
Chinese/Filipino-Chinese drug syndicates dominate the country’s illegal drug trade by
smuggling and manufacturing drugs in bulk. These activities ensure the abundant
supply of illegal drugs in the Philippine market. The Chinese/Filipino-Chinese drug
groups are further responsible for the establishment of clandestine laboratories and
illegal chemical warehouses nationwide. Based on records, 66% of the arrested drug
personalities from the dismantled shabu laboratories since 2002 are Chinese
nationals.

In People v Zeng Wa Shui (2008),it expressly showed the proliferation of big scale
drug trade in the country.

“After receiving reports of clandestine operation of shabu laboratories in Pampanga,

the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) conducted in January 1996 surveillance of a
piggery farm in Porac which was reportedly being used as a front. From the surveillance,
it was gathered that three Chinese nationals, namely Zeng Wa Shui (Zeng), Li Wien
Shien (Li) and Jojo Gan (Gan) occupied the farm, and Maribel frequented the place while
Zeng and Li would go over to her rented house in 2609 San Francisco, Balibago, Angeles
City which she was sharing with her Chinese common-law husband, Jose "Bobby" Yu. In
the early morning of March 14, 1996, two NBI teams, armed with search warrants,
simultaneously raided the Porac farm and the Balibago residence.
 The search of the farm, covered by Search Warrant No. 96-102, yielded no person
therein or any tell-tale evidence that it was being used as a shabu laboratory. Only pigs in
their pens, and two (2) containers or drums the contents of which when field-tested
on-the-spot by NBI chemist Januario Bautista turned out to be acetone and ethyl were
found.
With respect to the search of the Balibago residence by the other NBI team by virtue
of Search Warrant No. 96-101, since Maribel was out, she was fetched from her place of
business. They found two padlocked rooms inside the house, but with Maribel claiming
that she did not have any keys thereto, the team forcibly opened the rooms which yielded
18 big plastic containers containing liquid substance, 30 sacks containing a white
powdery substance, 10 plastic containers also containing a white powdery substance,
plastic gallons, a refrigerator, a big blower, pails, plastic bags, a big glass flask, and a .25
caliber handgun.”

In another case, People v Yang (2004), the accused Willy Yang a.k.a.”Alex Yu”,
“Yang Xing Li” and “Willy Yeung”, is a Chinese Citizen, having born in Xianmen, China,
claims to be businessmend engaged in the trading of dry goods and garments, in
partnership with his common-law wife. He was involved in drug trafficking and was
dealing prohibited drugs. Upon a buy-bust operation conducted by the NBI, he sold
5kls worth P3.5 million of Shabu. Instead of imposing the maximum penalty of death
sentence, his sentence was reduced to reclusion perpetua only.

Correlates of Support for the Death Penalty in the Philippines

It is unlikely that the expressed support for reinstatement of the death penalty in
Philippines in this study will be translated into actual re-institution in the foreseeable
future. The trend in the country is toward the elimination of the death penalty, not
restoration. Several minor attempts have been done for the reinstatement of the
capital punishment in the Philippines. Indications are the recent bills that has been
submitted in the Congress by Senators Emmanuel “Manny” Pacquiao, Ronald “Bato”
Dela Rosa and Christopher Lawrence “Bong Go” directing the imposition of death for
crimes related to the manufacture and transport of illegal drugs. It is however, not
unusual that a number in the Senate strongly opposes the reinstatement on the
grounds that it is constituted as cruel, inhumane and degrading punishment. In sum,
capital punishment has been an issue of considerable interest to criminal justice
officials and the general public.
The constitutionality of RA 7659 (An Act to Impose Death Penalty in Certain Heinous
Crimes) and RA 8177 (An Act Designating Death by Lethal Injection) has been
constantly challenged. As per curiam decision of the court, the said Acts were passed
upon in the Supreme Court in People v Echagaray and was later sustained in the
case of Pople v Mercado. The following are rulings that has been made:

1. The death penalty is not a “cruel, unjust, excessive or unusual

punishment.” It is an exercise of the state’s power to “secure society
against the threatened and actual evil.”

2. The offenses for which RA 7659 provides the death penalty satisfy
“the element of heinousness” by specifying the circumstances which
generally qualify a crime to be punishable by death.

3. RA 7659 provides both procedural and substantial safeguards to

insure its correct application.

4. The Constitution does not require that “a positive manifestation in

the form of a higher incidence of crime should first be perceived and
statistically proven” before the death penalty may be prescribed.
Congress is authorized under the Constitution to determine when the
elements of heinousness and compelling reasons are present, and the
Court would exceed its own authority if it questioned the exercise of
such discretion.

A number of justices maintain the vote of its unconstitutionality insofar as it prescribes

death penalty; They, nonetheless, submit to a majority decision that RA 7659 is
constitutional and that death penalty can be lawfully imposed.

What has been put into argument for the past decade is the imposition of death
penalty to heinous crimes. Nonetheless, the change that the new lawmakers are
proposing is focused only to drug related crimes. Those that are not limited to the
small scale buyers and pushers but to those who has the capacity to invest in big time
industry in illegal drugs.

Sources:
-170 SCRA 107 [1989]

-- 438 Phil. 235 EN BANC [ G.R. No. 154569, September 23, 2002 ]

- Anti-illegal Drug Campaign of the Philippines Fact Sheet (2017). Philippine Mission to
the United Nations and Other International Organizations. Retrieved from
http://genevapm.dfa.gov.ph/ph-campaign-against-illegaldrugs/451-fact-sheet-no-1-on-ph-
anti-illegal-drugs-campaign-28-march-2017

- AN ACT TO IMPOSE THE DEATH PENALTY ON CERTAIN HEINOUS CRIMES,

AMENDING FOR THAT PURPOSE THE REVISED PENAL CODE, AS AMENDED,
OTHER SPECIAL LAWS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, which took effect on
December 31, 1993; People v. Simon, 234 SCRA 555, 569 [1994].

- Dangerous Drugs Board (2015). Nationwide Survey on the Current Nature and Extent of
Drug Abuse in the Philippines.

- Dangerous Drugs Board (2015). National Anti-Drug Plan of Action 2015-2020.

- Dangerous Drugs Board (2016). Profile of Drug Users: Facility-based. Retrieved from

https://www.ddb.gov.ph/component/content/category/45-research-and-statistics

- Records of the Senate, October 5, 1995, p. 48. Senator Ernesto F. Herrera explained
that: "The present prescribed method in carrying out capital punishment is death by
electrocution. This will later be changed to gas poisoning, as provided by Sec. 24 of R.A.
No. 7659, as soon as the Bureau of Corrections can have the proper facilities for the
purpose.

- People v. Echegaray, G.R. No. 117472, 257 SCRA 561 [1996]. The lower Court decision
was penned by Judge Maximiano C. Asuncion.

- Pagdayawon v Secretary of Justice, 346 SCRA 256, 273 [2000] .