RESEARCH PAPER

Death Penalty in the Philippines: A Deterrent to the

Fundamental Right to Life or the Solitary Means to Effectuate

Justice?

By:

CANDELA, JOEL R.

CUMPIO, JOLINA C.

DEL PILAR, VINCENT NOEL M.

DE SAN MIGUEL, DARWIN A.

NOEL, NADIA JUNE G.

[Type here]
I. INTRODUCTION

For over how many years now, this certain issue has always been a controversy in the

judicial system—- Is the death penalty justified, or should it be abolished? According to

Wikipedia, “Capital Punishment is a matter of controversy in several countries and states, and

positions can vary within a single political ideology or cultural region” 1; in the Philippines, the

capital punishment which is the death penalty is one of the most debatable topics among the

legislature and even among the public. Our country has had past administrations run by different

presidents who implemented their own take on either the establishment or abolition of the death

penalty. The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines under the Aquino administration prohibits the

use of death penalty by stating that “death penalty shall not 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.”2 In December 1993, President Ramos’

administration re-imposed the death penalty under Republic Act (RA) 7659 adopted by Congress.

The law listed a total of 46 crimes punishable by death. Over the years, a number of new RAs and

amendments to existing ones (8177, 8353 and 9165) further defined those acts punishable by death

resulting in 52 capital offenses, 30 of which were death-mandatory and 22 death-eligible.

In 1999, President Estrada had seven death-row convicts executed through lethal injection

(RA 8177) which was reportedly intended to abate rising criminality. Following strong lobbying

by the Catholic Church and human rights groups, President Estrada issued a temporary moratorium

in March 2000 to mark the Christian ‘Jubilee Year’.

President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, on her administration then, announced the lifting of

the de-facto moratorium on executions in December 2003 in response to a reported rise in drug

trafficking and kidnapping. Executions were expected to resume in January 2004 when the

Supreme Court vacated the decision of the lower court to put to death two death-row inmates

following testimonial evidence that exonerated them of their crimes. In April 2006, President

1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment
2
Article III Section XVIII , 1987 Philippine Constitution

[Type here]
Arroyo commuted the sentences of 1,230 death row and ultimately signed RA 9346 in June 2006

which abolished the use of capital punishment. Congress had overwhelmingly supported the

abolishment of the practice in their vote for the RA earlier that month replacing the death penalty

with life imprisonment and reclusion perpetua. At present, the current administration under

President Duterte supports for the restoration of the death penalty specifically by hanging.

However, the law reinstating the death penalty stalled in the Senate in April 2017 did not appear

to have enough votes to pass.

Evidently, the choice of whether to enforce such capital punishment would also depend on

a certain administration’s resolution to implement it or not. Death penalty remains to be a vexed

topic and more and more people have been joining arguments in favour of and against it. Opposers

and advocates alike have their own conviction in averse to and expression of support for it,

respectively; each with their own stance and dogma. Thus, the seemingly unresolved question in

the country’s judiciary: Is death penalty a deterrent to the fundament right to life or a solitary

means to effectuate justice?

This research paper presents arguments on whether or not death penalty is indeed

applicable in the Philippines.

II. BODY

ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF AND AGAINST DEATH PENALTY

DEATH PENALTY AS A SOLITARY MEANS TO EFFECTUATE JUSTICE

Real justice requires people to be retributed for their wrongdoing, and to be retributed in a

way appropriate for the crime. To the average person, the most severe punishment on Earth is the

death penalty. Certain crimes are so heinous that they deserve nothing but the death penalty. "Each

criminal should get what their crime deserves and, in the case of a murderer, what their crime

[Type here]
deserves is death.”3 Not until such a person is tried and executed by the state, justice hasn’t been

served. It is only fair that a person who deliberately commits murder should also have his life taken

away from him by the state through the death penalty. It is only fair that a person who deliberately

commits murder should also have his life taken away from him by the state through the death

penalty. Imposition of appropriate punishment is the manner in which the courts respond to the

society's cry for justice against the criminals. Justice demands that courts should impose

punishment befitting the crime so that the courts reflect public abhorrence of the crime. It's often

supported with the argument "An eye for an eye".4

Many people find this argument fitting with their inherent sense of justice and here are absolute

and relevant arguments in favour of the death penalty:

REIMPOSITION OF DEATH PENALTY AS A GEAR TOWARDS REFORMATION

OF THE PHILIPPINE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

Through the many years of debating on the abolition of the death penalty, its reimposition,

its re-abolition, and then of its reimposition yet once more under different government

administrations, the Filipino public have somehow been enlightened of the pros and cons of the

issue. Those who favor its imposition have argued that it serves the ends of justice as a means by

which society avenges or punishes the acts of those who kill others.

People nowadays are not scared of committing a crime anymore because they believe they can get

away with it or they can buy their way to freedom or they can even buy justice. Innocent people

are not safe in the streets anymore because criminals believe they can escape punishment no matter

how heinous the crimes they commit. Imposing death penalty is a means of bringing back fear to

these criminals to prevent them from injecting more poison into our society.

3
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/capitalpunishment
4
Legal code by Hammurabi

[Type here]
 Capital punishment is arguably the greatest deterrent to criminals and potential criminals.

Many would agree that many people would be dissuaded from committing certain heinous crimes

if they knew the punishment for the crime would be death. Human beings naturally fear to die.

This is the reason why the death penalty is considered one of the most effective ways to discourage

certain crimes in society. The average person would think twice before committing a particular

crime if he or she knows that the punishment for the crime is death. The re-imposition of death

penalty also signifies that the Philippines, as a Republic, do not tolerate and condone justice

delivered through the hands of man, but only through the rule of law.

When one looks at the re-imposition of death penalty, one must not only look at the life of

the convicted. Also, one must look at the innocent lives of the rest of the community and all other

peace loving citizens who fear these criminals, to include men in uniform and other law

enforcement agents, who use their police power to perpetuate crimes. Moreover, one must look at

the hapless faces of victims deprived of justice and speedy resolution – agonizing for years because

criminals have found ways to skirt the law and hide from dysfunctional criminal justice system.

It is high time that people look at the impact of death penalty to the entire community – the entire

country. The police power of the state must reign, as capital punishment is not just about the life

of the criminal sentenced to death but about the welfare of the entire community. As the Supreme

Court aptly put it, “to ask what the rights are of the dying is to ask what the rights are of the living.”

People vs. Echegaray G.R. No. 117472. February 7, 1997.5

DEATH PENALTY AS CAPITAL PUNISHMENT FOR HEINOUS CRIMES

The death penalty in the Philippines was first abolished in 1987, making the Philippines

the first country in Asia to terminate death penalty. Yet, in less than a year, with the promulgation

of a new Constitution after the ouster of the Marcos dictatorship, the military establishment lobbied

for its imposition to combat the alleged intensifying offensives of the Communist Party of the

5
People vs. Echegaray G.R. No. 117472

[Type here]
Philippines/New People’s Army guerillas.

Heinous criminal activities such as rape, treason, murder, terrorism, etc can be drastically reduced

when the death penalty is practiced. This is the reason why in some countries such as Saudi Arabia,

where capital punishment is still actively practiced and where one can easily be sentenced to death

for committing certain crimes, not too many heinous crimes exist. For example, in China, one can

easily be sentenced to death if found guilty of smuggling drugs. This has drastically reduced the

usage of illegal and harmful drugs and all the vices associated with drugs. So you see how the

capital punishment can reduce the occurrence of certain serious crimes?

Statistics

In mid-1987, a bill to reinstate the death penalty was submitted to Congress, citing recent

right-wing coup attempts as example of the alarming deterioration of peace and order. In 1988, the

House of Representatives passed the bill that was being promoted as a counterinsurgency bill.

When an ex-military officer, Gen. Fidel Ramos, was elected president in 1992, Republic Act 7659

restoring the death penalty was signed into law. Political offenses, such as rebellion, were dropped

from the bill; however, the list of crimes was expanded to include economic offenses such as

smuggling and bribery. In 1996, RA 8177 was approved, stipulating lethal injection as the method

of execution. Six years after its reimposition, the number of death-penalty convicts increased—

indicating that the death penalty is not a deterrent to criminality. Certain studies cite statistics

indicating that there are no signs that criminality has gone down with the reimposition of the death

penalty.

1) From 1994 to 1995 the number of persons on death row increased from 12 to 104. From 1995

to 1996 it increased to 182. In 1997 the number of death convicts was at 520, and in 1998 the

number of inmates in death row was at 781. As of November 1999 there were a total of 956 death

convicts at the National Bilibid Prisons and at the Correctional Institute for Women.

2) As of December 31, 1999, based on the statistics compiled by the Episcopal Commission on

Prisoner Welfare of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines, there were a total of 936

convicts interned at the National Bilibid Prisons and another 23 detained at the Correctional

[Type here]
Institute for Women. Of these figures, six are minors and 12 are foreigners.

3) A review of death-penalty cases made by the Supreme Court from 1995 to 1999 indicated that

two out of every three death sentences handed down by the local courts were found to be erroneous

by the Supreme Court. Out of the 959 inmates the SC reviewed, 175 cases were reviewed from

1995 to 1999; three cases were reviewed in 1995, eight in 1996, eight in 1997, 38 in 1998 and 118

in 1999. Of the 175 cases, the SC affirmed with finality and first affirmation only 31 percent or 54

cases involving 60 inmates. Of these cases, 24 were affirmed with finality, while the remaining 36

were given first affirmation. Sixty-nine percent or 121 cases were either modified, acquitted or

remanded for retrial.

4) A study prepared by the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) on the results of the review of

cases done by the Supreme Court “point all too clearly to the imperfections, weaknesses and

problems of the Philippine justice system.” Some decisions of the trial courts were overturned for

imposing death penalty on offenses that were not subject to death penalty. Other decisions of the

lower courts were set aside because of substantive and procedural errors during arraignment and

trial. Still others were struck down because the lower court misappreciated evidences.

5) Data from the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines showed that in 1998 more than

half of the convicts earned less than the government-mandated minimum wage. In a survey

conducted among 425 convicts in 1998, 105 or 24.7 percent were agricultural workers, 103 were

construction workers, 73 were transport workers, and 42 were workers in sales and services. Only

6 percent finished college, while 32.4 percent finished various levels of high school, while the

remaining convicts did not go to school or have finished only elementary or vocational education.

ELIMINATING THE POSSIBILITY OF AN ESCAPE AND FUTURE VICTIMS

For others, there are some very violent and hardened criminals such as serial killers who

are not meant to live among the general population because of their high tendency to continue

killing. It is therefore in the public’s interest that these people are kept in prison forever. But being

sentenced to life imprisonment doesn’t always guarantee that a very violent criminal such as a

[Type here]
serial killer will be kept away from the general population forever. There are instances where these

criminals who have been sentenced to life imprisonment escape from prison and end up in society

where they continue to commit their violent and heinous crimes. Over the years, there have been

several cases of cold killers escaping from jail and going on to hurt and kill more innocent people.

Now, the lives of these innocent people could have been saved had these murderers been executed

in the first place. That is another reason why the death penalty is very important.

DEATH PENALTY AS A MEASURE TO RESTORE RESPECT IN THE LAWS OF

THE LAND

In the later months of 2016 that the Committee on Justice conducted hearings and

legislative inquiries. There were revelations during the hearings conducted by the Committee on

Justice on the proliferation of drugs inside the New Bilibid Prisons (NBP). House justice

committee chairperson Reynaldo Umali says reviving capital punishment is the answer to the

issues plaguing the criminal justice system, that they themselves have been witnesses to the various

spectacles that exposed how rotten the criminal justice system has become. To him, the Filipino

citizens were appalled with the revelations that the legislative inquiries exposed. Testimonies from

numerous witnesses led them to discover the rampant corruption inside our penitentiaries. The

people observed in frustration and disgust as the very institution which should have penalized such

convicts tolerated the commission of drug trade and other illegal activities inside the penitentiary.

Instead of being punished for their criminal acts, the prisoners were allowed to live luxuriously

inside, to the point of even ridiculing congressional offices compared to an inmate’s prison cell.

Crime syndicates in connivance with unscrupulous government officials took advantage of the

flawed system to feed their selfish interests and perpetuate the impunity of crime. Certain

revelations were: not only is crime being committed in the streets and at home; crimes are being

committed even inside the local jails and in the national prisons. Criminals continue to damage the

society even inside the national prison. Instead of suffering the consequences of their wrongdoings,

[Type here]
these so-called heinous crime offenders even live a luxurious life inside the penitentiaries. So many

queries then arose from the public: How then can the justice system strike fear in the hearts of

these criminals when they know that their prison sentence will even serve as their refuge to

continue illegal activities? When they know that they could actually live a better life inside the

prison? How can we say that justice has been achieved when instead of punishing these criminals,

they are even allowed to perpetuate their illicit activities while serving their sentence, on account

of the tara system imposed by unscrupulous prison officials?

Imagine the time, effort and resources spent by our government in investigating these

criminals, capturing them through our law enforcement agencies, prosecuting them, presenting

evidence against them, giving them a fair trial, and then finally convicting them for the crimes they

have committed, only to find out that the punishment of imprisonment has little or no effect on

their criminal activities. Imagine the taxes paid by the victims of heinous crimes that feed those

who have wronged them.

These convicts are not afraid of imprisonment. In fact, all of them are serving life sentences.

What they only feared was death – the ultimate punishment for convicted criminals that would put

an emphatic stop to their capacity to commit more crimes. Indeed, humans fear death more than

anything else. Ordinary, law-abiding citizens fear imprisonment. Hardened criminals and those

who are capable of committing heinous crimes fear nothing – except death thereby arriving to the

conclusion that there is a need to strike fear in these criminals, and the only way to do that is to

impose the punishment that they most fear – death.

THE NEED TO REFORM PUNITIVE ASPECT OF OUR PENAL SYSTEM

The Philippine government had been so expressive in its penchant desire to reimpose death

penalty. Noticeably, even since the restoration of democracy after the Martial Law up to the present

administration, the congress had made numerous legislations and debates avowing reasons on the

need to reform the punitive aspect of the present penal system of the country. One of the pressing

[Type here]
arguments brought is on the issue that certain privileged heinous crime offenders continue to

perpetuate illicit activities while serving sentence inside the prison. There are even those

committed heinous crimes and while serving sentence even granted of Good Conduct Time

Allowance (GCTA).

Zubiri and Gordon described heinous crime offenders to be repugnant and outrageous to

the common standards and norms of decency and morality in a just, civilized and ordered society

which they pose threat to the society. Zubiri added, the near release of convicted rapist and

murderer Antonio Sanchez has opened our eyes on the vulnerability and the corrupt practices in

our prison facilities and penitentiary system. The well off prisoners and leaders of syndicates

continue to live a luxurious life within the confines of our prison system. Worse, others continue

their nefarious and illegal activities such as drug dealing inside the prison cell, in cahoots with

prison personnel. It perpetuates the belief that there are two faces of justice in the country, justice

for the poor and justice for the rich. [2]

In the light of rising and mounting tide of criminality and lawlessness particularly the pestering

insurgency and the alarming incidents of violent crimes that compel the need to reform the punitive

aspect of our penal system for public order and national security and that the death penalty shall

be imposed for certain heinous crimes'.[4]

DEATH PENALTY DOES NOT REVICTIMIZE THE AFFECTED FAMILY

Some articles claim that death penalty adversely affects affected families. According to the

recent journal of Dr. Robert T. Muller, a psychologist, reports that psychological studies have have

found that the death penalty produces negative effects on families of victims.

However, number of victim families affirm that justice has been served to them upon the execution

of death penalty to the accused. Family members expressed a more spiritual belief that their loved

one could now rest in peace as the final step in the process towards justice was now complete.

[Type here]
Families find emotional closure or perceive a sense of justice when the accused is executed by the

state.

Executions as being positive for the family members of murder victims stated that the

execution was just. In expressing this view, family members very commonly that the condemned

person deserved the punishment he had received. What these statements collectively show is that

an execution can represent a necessary step in the completion of justice, a step which people expect

the state to take.

THE APPLICATION OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT CAN LIMIT PRISON

CONGESTION AND OVER POPULATION ISSUES

Capital punishment cuts down cost. It can be very expensive imprisoning criminals because

of the fact that the state will have to feed, shelter, clothe, and provide the basic things needed for

the prisoners to live in a humane way. Now, imagine a case of a person serving a life term for

murder. This person is going to be taken care of by the state until the day he dies. By the time an

offender would have finished serving his life term, he would have ended up costing the taxpayers

a lot. To others, if such a person were executed, the state would have cut down cost drastically.

This is the reason why many say that capital punishment is cost-effective.

The bureau said the increased congestion percentage in jails from 2016 to 2018 was due to

intensified anti-crime operations of law-enforcement agencies, particularly against illegal

drugs.As of March 2019, the bureau said it accommodates 136,881 inmates even as the 476 jail

faculties nationwide under its management can only cater to almost 30,000. Of the total number

of inmates, BJMP data showed about 96,620 or 70.65 percent of the total population in jail

facilities face cases related to illegal drugs.BJMP officer-in-charge Allan Iral told a press

conference that the congestion rate at jail facilities in the Metro Manila is 608 percent, higher than

the nearly 442 percent average nationwide.

[Type here]
 Prison overcrowding is one of the key contributing factors to poor prison conditions around

the world. It is also arguably the biggest single problem facing prison systems and its consequences

can at worst be life-threatening at best prevent prisons from fulfilling their proper function.Data

suggests that the number of prisoners exceeds official prison capacity in at least 115 countries.

Overcrowding is a consequence of criminal justice policy not of rising crime rates, and undermines

the ability of prison systems to meet basic human needs, such as healthcare, food, and

accommodation. It also compromises the provision and effectiveness of rehabilitation

programmes, educational and vocational training, and recreational activities.Overcrowding, as

well as related problems such as lack of privacy, can also cause or exacerbate mental health

problems, and increase rates of violence, self-harm and suicide.

Capital punishment is the best solution to the problem of overcrowded jails because all “lifers”

would be sent to death row and executed. These “lifers” would no longer require a cell or take up

space in an already crowded jail. This removal of “lifers” helps alleviate the congestion in jails

because it creates vacancies in cells for convicts serving lighter sentences. For example, a federal

penitentiary can accommodate on average 300 hardened criminals. If all convicts with life

sentences, 50, were to be removed, a more manageable 250 convicts would remain in a less

congested penitentiary. Clearly, the death penalty is the best way to eliminate overcrowded jails.

In addition to eliminating overcrowded jails, Capital punishment is also the best way to keep tax

payers content. The death penalty satisfies tax payers because it is a very cost efficient way to curb

the number of inmates sentenced to life without parole. Under the death penalty, these felons would

be executed at a price cheaper than supporting them in jail for life. Thus, the death penalty is our

best and most reasonable solution for the problems of overcrowded jails, the increasing murder

rate, keeping tax payers, and the other problems facing out criminal justice system. As we have

seen, it can serve as a deterrent and reduce the murder rate. In addition, the death penalty would

fee up space in overcrowded state and federal prisons. Moreover, it satisfies tax payers because it

requires less tax money and can eliminate the need for additional prisons. Hence, capital

punishment should be instituted everywhere.

[Type here]
 DEATH PENALTY – A DETERRENT TO THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO LIFE

Life is sacred. This is an idea that the majority of people can agree upon. For this reason,

taking the life of another has always been considered the most deplorable of crimes, one worthy

of the harshest available punishment. Thus, arises some of the greatest moral dilemmas of our

time— should taking the life of one who has taken the life of others be considered an available

punishment? Is a murderer's life any less sacred than the victim's is? Can capital punishment, the

death penalty, execution, legal murder, or whatever a society wishes to call it, be morally

justifiable? The underlying question in these issues is if any kind of killing, regardless of reason,

can be considered acceptable.

Hence, a lot of people argue that the death penalty have a lot more to consider other than

just a punishment for a heinous crime. Here are other arguments that rebut the Death Penalty:

 Violating the most fundamental human right

 Provision in the 1987 Constitution

 Human Rights advocates’/sectors’ Stand

 Philippines’ Legal Obligation under the Second Protocol to the

ICCPR

 There is no going back after the execution takes place

 How it goes beyond ethical and moral standards of society

 The strong stand of the church against killings

 Inhumane methods of execution

 How it doesn’t give the convicted a chance to change or repent

 Repent and regret of heinous crimes can be possible while in prison

 The risk of executing an innocent person

 Poor quality-defense leaves many sentenced to death

 Unfairness of trials

[Type here]
 VIOLATING THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO LIFE

The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines prohibits the use of the death penalty by

stating ‘the death penalty shall not 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’.

Although we have a national and international commitment not to carry out any executions,

Philippines is taking worrying measures toward the reinstatement of the death penalty for drug

offenses. Determined to thwart the government’s plan, the Commission on Human Rights of the

Philippines has taken various actions, including an awareness campaign for the 15th World Day

Against the Death Penalty.

Despite the enactment of “An act prohibiting the imposition of the death penalty in the

Philippines” in 2006 and the ratification of the Second Optional Protocol to the International

Covenant on Civil and Political Rights aiming at the abolition of the death penalty, President

Duterte has manifested his willingness to reinstate the death penalty for drug offenses. This

regressive bill aims at eliminating the on-going criminality in the country. In the Philippines, the

reintroduction of death penalty has been already used as an answer to rising criminality. Indeed,

although the Parliament abolished the death penalty in 1987, capital punishment was reintroduced

under Republic Act 7659 in 1993. Abolitionists had to wait until 2006 to see a complete abolition

in practice and in law. Therefore, the same abolitionists organizations were bewildered when they

heard President Duterte’s commitment to “eradicate the ills of society” with the restoration of the

death penalty. This announcement appeared as even more surprising since only 4.02% of people

on death row had been convicted of drug related offenses in 2003. These statistics, however, did

not prevent the House of Representatives to approve on third and final reading the bill restoring

the death penalty in the country.

[Type here]
 To counteract the adoption of the bill, the Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines,

in partnership with several organizations, has engaged in an awareness campaign. The first step of

this campaign was to establish a dialogue with local communities in order to debate about an

effective justice system. Legislative advocacy constituted another essential step of this campaign.

The Commission and other partners monitored discussions in Parliament and targeted some

parliamentarians by providing them social research and guidance notes. The Commission will

conduct the country's first ever comprehensive national survey to examine public opinion on death

penalty with the objective of determining the underlying perceptions, motivations and conditions

for or against its reimposition.

In addition to this, abolitionists organized media campaigns to raise public awareness for

the 15th World Day Against the Death Penalty. Information and education campaigns took place

all around the country: The Commission and the Right to Life Network distributed information

documents to communities. It also published and distributed a compendium of CHRP’s position

papers, advisories and resolutions on the death penalty to serve as resource book and inspiration

in abolishing capital punishment in the country. To reach a wide audience, the Commission

targeted social media networks: several posts, meme and infographics in partnership with the

World Coalition Against the Death Penalty were shared through Facebook.

The Commission, in partnership with the Australian National University, released “In

Defense of the Right to Life: International Law and the Death Penalty in the Philippines”. This

study aims at reminding the Philippine government of its legal obligations under international law.

Indeed, under international law, a State cannot denounce or withdraw from the Second Optional

Protocol. Thus, a reinstatement of the death penalty would be in violation of international law.

Finally, the study adds that there is any ability for the Philippines to raise constitutional provisions

as arguments against the validity or interpretation of these treaties.

Based on these arguments, the Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines hopes to

prevent the reestablishment of capital punishment in the country. Such reinstatement would be a

step backward but could also trigger a chain reaction from other nations that have not yet abolished

[Type here]
or plans to introduce the death penalty to take the same measures.

HOW IT GOES BEYOND ETHICAL AND MORAL STANDARD OF SOCIETY

6
It can be argued that the risk of killing even one innocent person outweighs the benefit of any

execution, says bioethicist Craig Klugman. "Pope Francis's recent announcement cementing the

immorality of the death penalty is a welcome declaration of support for human life. The ethics of

the death penalty are clear — taking a life in punishment for murder is not justice, but vengeance.

One does not right a wrong by creating another wrong. The usual excuse for executions, that they

are a 'deterrent' has been proven untrue, time and time again.There have been cases of people being

executed and later found innocent. The death of one innocent person should be enough to dissuade

us from state-sanctioned killing."

7
The revived debate over the death penalty already seems destined to miss the mark. It is not a

technical or empirical issue, but a moral one. As such, economists and other social scientists have

little to tell us as empirical chroniclers about the death penalty’s continued use.Although a

demonstration that the death penalty has no deterrent effect would be morally significant in curbing

its use, there is no particular or free-standing moral significance to the claim that it does have some

deterrent effect. There are all manner of punishments and innovations that might be introduced if

deterrence were the only or main determinant of its social acceptability: chopping off limbs,

stoning people and corporal punishment might be usefully retried.The fact is that the death penalty,

like limb-chopping or stoning, is a morally outrageous practice whatever its deterrent effect: it

reduces society to the ethical level of the murderer. In a society that aspires to be moral and just,

there is no room for such a state-sanctioned uncivilized practice.

6
Klugman, C.(2018).Bioethicist: The Ethics of the Death Penalty Are Clear, It’s Wrong.De Paul
University.www.newswise.com
7
Hutchinson, A.(2007).Does Death Penalty Save Lives? A New Debate?.New York Times.nytimes.com

[Type here]
 8
Even if we have no clue whether or not the death penalty actually deters, crime prevention is

only one of a handful of reasons that a jurisdiction might consider when choosing to mete out the

ultimate punishment. Retribution and the community’s expression of moral outrage are at least as

important. Failure to deter doesn’t inevitably drive us to the logical conclusion to execute the death

penalty itself.

THE STRONG STAND OF THE CHURCH AGAINST KILLING

9
Individuals from all sections of Philippine society have sought to uphold and strengthen

respect for the individual human dignity of all Filipinos by opposing the reposition and application

of the death penalty. They have included members of Church, human rights and women’s groups,

politicians, academics, lawyers and journalists from the leading Philippine newspapers. The

Roman Catholic Church (82 per cent of those on death row are Catholic) and other religious groups

have played a consistently important role in seeking to question prevailing political and popular

opinion suggesting that the answer to criminality, especially appalling heinous offences, lay in

executing prisoners. In July 1997 the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP)

responded to a government announcement that the first executions would take place in early 1998

by stating that the official push for executions was “...an implicit admission of the government’s

failure and utter helplessness in enforcing the law, improving the judicial system and setting up a

truly reformative prison program”

9
The Bishops also made clear their conviction that “The government has once again

chosen to turn a blind eye to those who will ultimately be executed -- the powerless and helpless

majority”. The CBCP’s position on the death penalty is based on the thinking articulated by the

Holy See, most recently in the 1995 Papal Encyclical, Evangelium Vitae or Gospel of Life. In this

statement Pope John Paul II brought the Church the closest it has come to calling for a ban on

8Lubin, J. (2007). Morality and the Death Penalty.New Haven.nytimes.com

9Amnesty International (1997).Philippines-The Death Penalty: Criminality, Justice and Human Rights.
www.amnesty.org

[Type here]
capital punishment by stating that, in modern societies, cases of justifiable capital punishment are

‘practically non-existent’. He noted that ‘.... there is a growing tendency, both in the Church and

in civil society, to demand that it [the death penalty] be applied in a very limited manner or even

that it be abolished completely. The problem must be viewed in the context of a system of penal

justice ever more in line with human dignity and thus, in the end, with God’s plan for man and

society’. 9
In the same statement the Pope also referred positively to the abolition of the death

penalty when, speaking of ‘signs of hope’, he cited ‘growing opposition to the death penalty,

even when such a penalty is seen as a kind of ‘legitimate defense’ on the part of society’. The

Pope went on to state that ‘Modern society in fact has the means of effectively suppressing crime

by rendering criminals harmless without definitively denying them the chance to reform’.

9
The Coalition Against the Death Penalty (CADP, known also as the Association For the

Abolition of the Death Penalty, AADP) represents a broad array of groups and individuals working

against capital punishment. Groups in the Coalition include the CBCP-Episcopal Commission

on Prisoners Welfare (ECOPRIW), Caritas Manila, the Philippine Jesuit Prison Service (PJPS),

the Manila City Jail prisoner welfare group Bisig ni Kristo, the Philippine Alliance of Human

Rights Advocates (PAHRA), Pro-Life Philippines, Amnesty International-Philippines and others.

Women’s groups have also played a significant role in opposing the death penalty. Nearly 50 per

cent of death penalty convictions have been for rape and related ‘complex’ of crimes as defined

by the Death Penalty Act.25 The high and increasing incidence of rape is a major source of

concern in the Philippines and yet women’s. In 1987 the Philippines became the first Asian country

in modern times to abolish the death penalty for all crimes. Since then many Philippine and foreign

observers have been particularly disappointed that the international leadership displayed by the

Philippines in support of the protection of human rights has not been sustained in relation to the

death penalty. Instead the Philippines now stands against a clearly emerging worldwide trend

towards the abolition of the death penalty and has put aside it’s potential for regional leadership

on the issue of the death penalty - of particular importance at a time of extended use of capital

punishment in Southeast Asia. The death penalty is no solution to the severe challenge posed by

[Type here]
criminality in the Philippines. It is the certainty of arrest, conviction and long periods of

imprisonment, not the threat of execution alone, which will act as deterrent against crime. The

frustration and fear felt by many Filipinos because of high rates of crime deserves a genuine answer

- not a short-term palliative offered through the death penalty as a means of retribution.

INHUMANE METHODS OF EXECUTION

9
A sustained program of reform of the Philippine National Police, criminal investigation

agencies and elements of the judiciary is necessary. At present law enforcers are too often

perceived as corrupted or responsible for human rights violations while justice is not seen to be

distributed fairly - the wealthy and influential are, in practice, not equal before the law. The death

penalty is being applied at an accelerating rate in the Philippines. As in the past it appears to be

imposed inconsistently and in a disproportionate way against the poor, ill-educated and

disadvantaged. The risk of judicial errors is mounting and Amnesty International is gravely

concerned over the use of illegal methods, including torture, by criminal investigative officers

seeking to extract confessions. Moreover, there is apprehension over inadequate safeguards,

especially in the lower courts, to ensure the defendants have access to competent counsel, and that

the rigorous standards of fair trial essential in capital cases are upheld. Strapping a prisoner to a

bed and injecting him or her with a cocktail of lethal drugs is brutalizing and degrading. It violates

the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), and undermines the

aspiration for a renewed respect for human rights that lay at the heart of the popular movement

that restored constitutional democracy in the Philippines in the 1980s.

HOW IT DOESN’T GIVE THE CONVICTED A CHANCE TO CHANGE OR REPENT

[Type here]
 In all societies, repression has shifted gradually from the notion of vengeance to

the rational organisation of punishment. The death penalty is irreversible. It interrupts

any process of healing, of reinsertion into society. It constitutes an admission of failure

by society to show solidarity with those on its extreme margins. Killing a human being

means eliminating him, not punishing him.

THE RISK OF EXECUTING AN INNOCENT PERSON

The death penalty alone imposes an irrevocable sentence. Once an inmate is executed,

nothing can be done to make amends if a mistake has been made. There is considerable evidence

that many mistakes have been made in sentencing people to death. Since 1973, at least 121 people

have been released from death row after evidence of their innocence emerged. During the same

period of time, over 982 people have been executed. Thus, for every eight people executed, we

have found one person on death row who never should have been convicted. These statistics

represent an intolerable risk of executing the innocent. If an automobile manufacturer operated

with similar failure rates, it would be run out of business. Our capital punishment system is

unreliable. A recent study by Columbia University Law School found that two thirds of all capital

trials contained serious errors. When the cases were retried, over 80% of the defendants were not

sentenced to death and 7% were completely acquitted.

Many of the releases of innocent defendants from death row came about as a result of

factors outside of the justice system. Recently, journalism students in Illinois were assigned to

investigate the case of a man who was scheduled to be executed, after the system of appeals had

rejected his legal claims. The students discovered that one witness had lied at the original trial, and

they were able to find the true killer, who confessed to the crime on videotape. The innocent man

who was released was very fortunate, but he was spared because of the informal efforts of

concerned citizens, not because of the justice system.

[Type here]
 In other cases, DNA testing has exonerated death row inmates. Here, too, the justice system

had concluded that these defendants were guilty and deserving of the death penalty. DNA testing

became available only in the early 1990s, due to advancements in science. If this testing had not

been discovered until ten years later, many of these inmates would have been executed. And if

DNA testing had been applied to earlier cases where inmates were executed in the 1970s and 80s,

the odds are high that it would have proven that some of them were innocent as well.

Society takes many risks in which innocent lives can be lost. We build bridges, knowing

that statistically some workers will be killed during construction; we take great precautions to

reduce the number of unintended fatalities. But wrongful executions are a preventable risk. By

substituting a sentence of life without parole, we meet society's needs of punishment and protection

without running the risk of an erroneous and irrevocable punishment.

POOR QUALITY-DEFENSE LEAVES MANY SENTENCED TO DEATH

Prosecutors seeking the death penalty for "capital" crimes, which are crimes eligible for

the death penalty, don’t always prevail. Many people found guilty of capital crimes receive the

severe sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of release. One of the biggest

predictors of who gets sentenced to death has nothing to do with relevant factors such as the

heinousness of the crime, the culpability of the accused, or the life history of the accused. Rather,

the quality of the lawyer representing the accused very often predicts who lives and who dies.

With rare exceptions, persons facing capital charges cannot afford a lawyer, and rely on

court-appointed counsel. Whether the appointed lawyers are competent and sufficiently funded

depends largely on geography and luck. In a few states, such as North Carolina, recent reforms

require both competent lawyers for persons facing capital charges and funding sufficient to raise

a serious defense. In the majority of death-penalty states, however, standards of competency are

lacking, and funding is anemic. Even in jurisdictions in which the standard of capital-defense

[Type here]
lawyering is generally adequate, an unlucky defendant can be appointed a lawyer missing the talent

and/or dedication needed to defend a capital case competently.

The quality of the defendant's counsel continues to have an outsized role even after a person

has been sentenced to death. Among other reasons, many death sentences are set aside because a

federal court finds the lawyer who represented the accused at his first trial in state court was so

incompetent that the accused’s constitutional right to effective counsel was violated (PDF). But

success in challenging a death sentence on this constitutional ground depends on the death-

sentenced inmate having a quality representation (by different lawyers) in their habeas corpus

appeal to the federal courts, which assesses the case for violations to the U.S. Constitution. And

not just any lawyer will do. Federal habeas corpus appeals are known as the "brain surgery of the

legal profession." Yet beyond the first appeal to federal court, people fighting their death sentences

have no constitutional right to a lawyer, and the quality of available counsel can be even more

abysmal in these appeals than at the trial level.

UNFAIRNESS OF TRIALS

“If you are poor, the chances of being sentenced to death are immensely higher than if you

are rich. There could be no greater indictment of the death penalty than the fact that in practice it

is really a penalty reserved for people from lower socio-economic groups. This turns it into a class-

based form of discrimination in most countries, thus making it the equivalent of an arbitrary killing.

People living in poverty are disproportionately affected by the death penalty for many

reasons. They are an easy target for the police, they cannot afford a lawyer, the free legal assistance

they might receive is of low quality, procuring expert evidence is beyond their means, tracing

witnesses is too costly, and access to appeals often depends on being able to afford extra counsel.

Many cannot afford bail and therefore remain in custody before their trials, further hindering their

efforts to prepare an effective defence.

[Type here]
 Some legal aid systems become active only at the trial stage, meaning that defendants from

low socio-economic backgrounds are often interrogated and investigated without a lawyer. By the

time the case reaches court, it may already be too late to guarantee a fair trial. Corruption of law

enforcement officials is another detrimental factor.

Poverty also compounds obstacles which vulnerable and disadvantaged groups in society

are already facing. In many countries, this especially includes people of African descent, as well

as others who are discriminated against on the basis of their gender, ethnicity, race or migration

status.

Meanwhile, migrants who find themselves caught up in the criminal justice system face

multiple obstacles in effectively challenging charges made against them, including unfamiliarity

with legal language and procedures, limited awareness of their rights, financial constraints, and

the possible lack of a supportive social network.

They may also face bias by judges, police officers and investigators, which can influence

the verdict against them, and leave them at increased risk of receiving the death sentence.

Women living in poverty are also at a severe disadvantage when faced with the risk of a

death sentence. In some States, women face the death penalty, including by stoning, not only in

cases of murder, but also for alleged adultery, same sex-relationships and drug-related offences.

Discrimination against women is compounded by intersecting factors, including their

socio-economic status. This discrimination based on gender stereotypes, stigma, harmful and

patriarchal cultural norms and gender-based violence, has an adverse impact on the ability of

women to gain access to justice on an equal basis with men.

[Type here]
 We are also concerned that it is extremely rare for domestic abuse to be treated as a

mitigating factor. Imposing the death penalty in cases where there has been evidence of self-

defense constitutes an arbitrary killing.

Poverty continues to affect prisoners - and their families – even after they reach death row.

Living conditions are worsened by difficulties in accessing food, medical care and other services.

Relatives who themselves live in poverty are unable to provide financial help. These inmates may

even lack the resources to stay in touch with their families and friends while in prison.

Around the world, death sentences continue to be imposed in violation of major

international standards, including the right to a fair trial and the principle of non-discrimination.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights makes clear that all people are entitled to

the equal protection of the law without discrimination, while UN safeguards on the use of the death

penalty make clear that people must have received a fair trial, including the right to adequate legal

assistance, at all stages.

The disproportionate impact of the death penalty on the poor shows that these international

standards are being violated.

We applaud the growing number of countries that have abolished the death penalty and

welcome the figures for 2016 showing an overall decrease in its use. However, the global effort

towards its progressive abolition must continue to grow, along with the work to end systemic

discrimination against some of the most vulnerable people in our societies.

III. CONCLUSION

Death Penalty is a highly controversial and divisive issue, and trying to stay neutral is not

always a common stand, but such capital punishment is a derision to the Constitution. The

Philippines as a state tries its best to maintain and promote a restorative criminal justice system,

[Type here]
and in doing so, it believes in bringing about a society which provides a chance for criminals to

reform.

With the disparate views pointed out by proponents and opponents of death penalty it can

be agreeable that the cons greatly outweigh the pros. It is innately acceptable that human life is

God-given and there is not any one person or state which has been given the mandate to pass such

type of prosecution.

Since society will never be free of crime, dealing with crime and controlling it has become

the focus of law enforcement. If the death penalty can be improved and made to work, it should

remain. If it cannot be changed so that it actually deters violent crimes, then perhaps it should be

done away with in favor of a system that will actually lower the crime rate and work to prevent

heinous crimes in the future.

IV. BIBLIOGRAPHY

The Philippines voted in favor of three General Assembly Resolutions on the moratorium on the
use of the death penalty: 1) A/RES/62/149, adopted Dec. 18, 2007; 2) A/RES/65/206, adopted
Dec. 21, 2010; and 3) A/RES/69/186, adopted Dec. 18, 2014.

https://businessmirror.com.ph/2019/02/04/yes-to-death-penalty/
http://www.phlsol.nl/AOOa/Pahra-death-penalty-maroo.htm

https://www.rappler.com/nation/160091-reynaldo-umali-sponsorship-speech-death-penalty-bill-
full-text https://www.nap.edu/read/18613/chapter/15

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/news/studies-death-penalty-adversely-affects-families-of-victims-
and-defendants.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/

https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/

[Type here]
Yan(2019).Philippine grapples with prison overcrowding due to lack of jail
facilities.Asia&Pacific. http://www.xinhuanet.com
Irmenger, F.(2019).Overcrowding.Penal Reform International. https://www.penalreform.org

Siegal, M.(2002).Benifits of Capital Punishment.Studyworld. https://www.studyworld.com

Klugman, C.(2018).Bioethicist: The Ethics of the Death Penalty Are Clear, It’s Wrong.De Paul
University.www.newswise.com
Hutchinson, A.(2007).Does Death Penalty Save Lives? A New Debate?.New York
Times.nytimes.com
Lubin, J. (2007). Morality and the Death Penalty.New Haven.nytimes.com

Amnesty International (1997).Philippines-The Death Penalty: Criminality, Justice and Human

Rights. www.amnesty.org

https://www.fiacat.org/en/about-us/a-christian-movement/2763-the-christian-argument-against-
the-death-penalty

https://deathpenaltycurriculum.org/student/c/about/arguments/argument3a.htm

https://www.aclu.org/blog/smart-justice/mass-incarceration/good-and-bad-lawyers-determine-
who-lives-and-who-dies

https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=22208&LangID=E

[Type here]