-NEGATIVE

-HUMAN RIGHTS

The Philippines is one of 140 countries that have abolished the death penalty either in law or in practice, as
part of a global trend away from capital punishment (Amnesty International, 2015, cited in “The Death
Penalty Worldwide”). Yet there have been repeated calls for the Philippines to reinstate capital punishment,
with current Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte wanting to restore it. (see Andolong, CNN Philippines,
2016).

The death penalty, and the legal proceedings leading up to it, could exact a huge toll on the psychological
wellbeing of victims, offenders, and their families. Majority of those on death row in the Philippines have
been convicted of rape, with incestuous rape as the most common form. Victims of incestuous rape rarely
seek the death of their offender but simply desire cessation of abuse, re-establishment of safety, and
rehabilitation of their family member. A possible death penalty sentence for these cases has been noted to
keep victims from pursuing charges, and a death sentence for the offender can bring guilt to the victim,
further sorrow, and conflict within affected families (Madrid et. al., 2001; People v Agbayani, 348 Phil. 368,
1998; Jamon and Bautista, 2016). In fact, majority of groups representing women and children in the
Philippines, who are common victims of death penalty crimes, have taken a stance against capital
punishment for rape and incest because they believe it would not solve the problem (Kandelia, 2006).

A common argument for the death penalty is that it brings closure to victims and their loved ones. Indeed,
research shows that some families do experience relief or peace upon imposition of the death penalty on
their offenders. Yet in significant number of cases, the death penalty did not bring healing or closure to
the offended (Vollum and Longmire, 2007). Instead, what seem to be therapeutic for victims’ families are to
make sense of what happened to their loved one, to make meanings out of their unpleasant experience, and
to construct an empowering and restorative narrative (Armour and Umbreit, 2012).

The judicial system’s primary goals should be the rehabilitation of those who have erred and the
restoration of a sense of dignity in those robbed of it. This is more in line with the human right to dignity
and the absolute value of all human lives, including the lives of those who commit crimes. The PAP’s position
on the death penalty is consistent with its Code of Ethics, particularly the principle of Respect for the Dignity
of Persons and Peoples, consonant with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (PAP, 2010).

Extending the human rights logic, the right to life prevails over the principle of lex talionis (i.e. an eye for
an eye). Even retributive justice, which posits that offenders must be punished and that the degree of
punishment should be proportionate to the seriousness of crime, does not automatically and necessarily
indicate death as the ultimate penal sanction (Carlsmith, Darley, and Robinson, 2002), leaving a key question
for research about the appropriate maximal penalty for the most serious crimes. Moral proportionality
(Carlsmith et al., 2002) need not be deemed opposed to principles of restorative justice and therapeutic
jurisprudence (see King, 2009). It is the task of research to help illumine how multiple perspectives
representing both abstract principles and people’s everyday sense and decision-making (Carlsmith et al.,
2002) could guide practices of prevention and rehabilitation.

REFERENCE:

https://www.pap.org.ph/position-paper/reinstituting-death-penalty
-NEGATIVE

-HUMAN RIGHTS

The death penalty adversely affects both families of murder victims and families of the accused,
according to two recent journal articles. In his Psychology Today blog, Talking About Trauma,
psychologist Dr. Robert T. Muller (pictured) reports that psychological studies have have found
that the death penalty produces negative effects on families and friends of murder victims
(referred to as “co-victims”).
One University of Minnesota study found that just 2.5% of co-victims reported achieving closure
as a result of capital punishment, while 20.1% said the execution did not help them heal. That
may be because, as one co-victim described it, “Healing is a process, not an event.” A 2012
Marquette University Law School study reported that co-victims had improved physical and
psychological health and greater satisfaction with the legal system in cases where perpetrators
received life sentences, rather than death sentences. The authors of that study said co-victims,
“may prefer the finality of a life sentence and the obscurity into which the defendant will quickly
fall, to the continued uncertainty and publicity of the death penalty.”
Lula Redmond, a Florida therapist who works with family members of murder victims, said,
“More often than not, families of murder victims do not experience the relief they expected to
feel at the execution. Taking a life doesn’t fill that void, but it’s generally not until after the
execution that families realize this.”
A number of co-victims expressed sympathy for family members of the condemned, but the
death penalty process also can polarize the families, obstructing healing for both. An article for
the University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform by Professor Michael Radelet of the University
of Colorado at Boulder describes the retributive effects of the death penalty on the family,
friends, and attorneys of death row prisoners. Radelet compares these impacts to the effect of
life without parole and argues “that the death penalty’s added punishment over LWOP often
punishes the family just as much as the inmate, and after the execution the full brunt of the
punishment falls on the family. This added impact disproportionately punishes women and
children.” These effects on people other than the inmate, he writes, “undermine the principle
that the criminal justice system punishes only the guilty and never the innocent. The death
penalty affects everyone who knows, cares for, or works with the death row inmate.”

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

-LAW NA NAGSUPPORT NA” Don’t Reinstate Death Penalty“

The Philippine House of Representatives should reject a proposal to reinstate the death penalty,
Human Rights Watch said today. On November 29, 2016, the Judicial Reforms Subcommittee
approved Congress House Bill No. 1 (Death Penalty Law), which would reinstate capital
punishment for “heinous crimes,” including murder, piracy, and the trafficking and possession of
illegal drugs. A house vote on the bill is likely before the end of 2016.

“The Philippine government should acknowledge the death penalty’s barbarity and reject any
moves to reinstate it,” said Phelim Kine, deputy Asia director. “The failure of the death penalty
as a crime deterrent is globally recognized and the government should maintain the prohibition
on its use.”

In a joint letter drafted by the International Drug Policy Consortium (IDPC), a network of
nongovernmental organizations that focuses on issues related to drug production, trafficking,
and use, the consortium urged all members of the Philippine House of Representatives and
Senate to uphold the right to life enshrined in the 1987 Philippines Constitution.
The Philippines is also party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and
to the Second Optional Protocol of the ICCPR on the abolishment of the death penalty. The
consortium also urged Philippine lawmakers to ensure proportionate sentencing of drug offenses
to protect the vulnerable, and invest in harm reduction approaches to protect the health and
wellbeing of Filipino people.

The Philippine government abolished the death penalty under article III, section 19 of the 1987
constitution. President Fidel Ramos reimposed the death penalty in 1993 as a “crime control”
measure, but President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo reinstated abolition in 2006.

Related Content

 Letter to the Philippines Congress on the Death Penalty

The alleged deterrent effect of the death penalty has been repeatedly debunked. Most recently,
on March 4, 2015, the United Nations assistant secretary-general for human rights, Ivan
Simonovic, stated that there was “no evidence that the death penalty deters any crime.” Even
with respect to murder, an Oxford University analysis concluded that capital punishment does
not deter “murder to a marginally greater extent than does the threat and application of the
supposedly lesser punishment of life imprisonment.”

Human Rights Watch opposes the death penalty in all circumstances because of its inherent
cruelty.
Reinstating the death penalty would violate the Philippines’ international legal obligations. The
Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR states that “no one within the jurisdiction of a State Party
to the present Protocol shall be executed” and that “each State Party shall take all necessary
measures to abolish the death penalty within its jurisdiction.”

Where the death penalty is permitted, human rights law limits the death penalty to “the most
serious crimes,” typically crimes resulting in death or serious bodily harm. In a March 2010
report, the UN Office on Drugs and Crime called for an end to the death penalty and specifically
urged member countries to prohibit use of the death penalty for drug-related offenses, while
urging countries to take an overall “human rights-based approach to drug and crime control.” In
its 2014 annual report, the International Narcotics Control Board, the agency charged with
monitoring compliance with UN drug control conventions, encouraged countries to abolish the
death penalty for drug offenses. The UN Human Rights Committee and the special rapporteur on
extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions have concluded that the death penalty for drug
offenses fails to meet the condition of “most serious crime.” In September 2015, the UN High
Commissioner for Human Rights reaffirmedthat “persons convicted of drug-related offences …
should not be subject to the death penalty.”

“Reinstatement of the death penalty won’t solve any drug-related societal problems that
Congress House Bill No. 1 seeks to address,” Kine said. “It will only add to the already horrific
death toll that President Rodrigo Duterte’s ‘war on drugs’ has inflicted on Filipinos since he took
office on June 30.”

REFERENCE:

https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/12/03/philippines-dont-reinstate-death-penalty

-NEGATIVE

-DEATH PENALTY UNNECESSARY

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