Accelerat ing t he world's research.

RETHINKING DEATH PENALTY IN

THE PHILIPPINES: A STUDY USING
LEVINAS' ETHICS OF THE FACE
Gilbert Mejia

Related papers Download a PDF Pack of t he best relat ed papers 

T he T hird Levinas’ t heoret ical move from an-archical et hics t o t he realm of just ice and polit ics
William Simmons

Punishment , Desert , and Equalit y: A Levinasian Analysis, in Deat h and Ot her Penalt ies, eds. Adelsberg, …
Benjamin Yost

T HE ANT HROPOCENT RIC ET HICS OF EMMANUEL LEVINAS

William David
 RETHINKING DEATH PENALTY IN THE PHILIPPINES: A STUDY USING LEVINAS’
ETHICS OF THE FACE

By: Gilbert Mejia

ABSTRACT

This paper, argues that Death Penalty is unnecessary to impose justice using Levinas’ Ethics of
the Face. Levinas said that when we encounter “the face of the other” it ordains us to be responsible over
them. When we encounter the other, whether they are good or not, it gives us responsibility over their
lives. This responsibility composes not only their attitudes towards us but also for the other members of
community. Responsibility for Levinas is “asymmetrical” where only I have the responsibility over the
Other. The government is responsible to educate their citizens of their responsibility to others. Aside from
this, those enforcers of justice have the responsibility on the life both of their citizens either good or bad.
They have responsibility to every citizen and they must secure the life of each one. Executing death
penalty will be a sign of irresponsibility of the government over its citizens, for it neglected to protect
their lives whether they are good and bad and for educating them on their responsibilities for the country
and for the Others.

Keywords: Death Penalty, Responsibility, Levinas, Ethics of the Face, Life, Justice, Justice System

INTRODUCTION

Since the last election campaign, President Rodrigo Roa Duterte said that he will reimpose the

Death Penalty for drug related and heinous crimes.1 Heinous crimes refer to crimes that are not only

illegal, but also consider hateful or culpable.2Although this word appeared in our Constitution, there is no

proper definition on how a crime qualified as heinous.3 Duterte urges his colleagues ‘dominated Senate

and House of Representative’, to pass bills to re impose it, since it was prohibited in the Philippines under

the Republic Act no. 9346 signed by former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo.4 Human Rights

1
Inquirer, #INQBACK: Rodrigo Duterte’s Agenda during the 2016 Campaign, inquirer.net, June 29, 2016,
2
Reference, What is a heinous crime?,https://www.reference.com/government-politics/heinous-crime-
cd2c41c6c091ef57, (accessed: January 31, 2017)
3
Hector S. De Leon, Hector M. De Leon, Jr, Textbook on the Philippine Constitution, Rex Bookstore, Quezon City,
2011, 192
4
Inquirer, In the Know, Death Penalty, Inquirer.net, May 17, 2016, http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/785954/in-the-
know-death-penalty, (accessed: January 31, 2017)

1
advocates stand to hinder its passage into law.5 The questions that now arise; Do we really need to

reimpose Death Penalty? Is this a good way to correct the wrong doings of the citizens? Or will this only

be a sign of irresponsibility of our government. In this paper, I will try to answer these questions with the

help of Emmanuel Levinas’ Ethics of the Face. Its main thought is responsibility over the others. This

responsibility is experienced by looking at the Face of the Other. This is a responsibility that is not

egoistic. This responsibility is asymmetrical, where the other must not repay one’s responsibility as he

discussed in his book Totality and Infinity.6 Using this notion I will prove that death penalty is not needed

to strengthen the justice system here in the Philippines.

A. Death Penalty in History

Death penalty was first recorded in history during the eighteenth century B.C. this penalty was

discover in the code of Hummurabi, a code composes of 285 crimes with corresponding punishment. This

code was made by King of Hummurabi of Babylon.7 Capital Punishment is one of the punishments used

to punish crimes such as treason, rebellion and others.

In the Philippines, the origin of death penalty can be traced in the time of the Spaniards.8 It was

introduced when the Spaniards launch the Codigo Penal of 1848 in 1884.9 When the Americans invaded

Philippines in 1884, it was still remained as main part of the criminal law. When the Penal code was

revised in 1932, crimes such as treason, piracy, parricide, murder, kidnap with rape, and robbery with

homicide were added as crimes punishable of the Death Penalty. Espionage was included only after the

5
Eimor P. Santos, Human Rights Watch calls on the Philippines to reject Death Penalty Bill, CNNPhilippines,
December 3, 2016,http://cnnphilippines.com/news/2016/12/03/Human-Rights-Watch-death-penalty-bill.html,
(Accessed: January 31, 2017)
6
KajornpatTangyin, "Reading Levinas on Ethical Responsibility." Responsibility and Commitment: Eighteen Essays in
Honor of Gerhold K. Becker (2008): 155
7
Kenny Sarisky, “History and Controversy of Capital Punishment”, 2015
8
Kevin Bryan Rivera, Background History of Death Penalty,
http://www.academia.edu/8644703/Background_History_of_Death_Penalty, (Accessed: February 6, 2017), 4
9
_________________, “Philippines: Death Penalty, Criminality, Justice and Human Rights”, Amnesty International,
1997, 4-7

2
World War II.10 During the Marcos era, especially during the rise of the Communist Part of the

Philippines and the National People’s Army, Death Penalty was intensified. In 1971-72, the Congress

again revised it, included the crimes of Hijacking, Dangerous Drugs and Carnapping.11 Since then,

President Marcos proclaimed a series of decrees to intensify death penalty, in the reason of disorder and

public safety. Crimes like subversion, possession of firearms, arson, embezzlement and illegal fishing

were included to the crimes punishable of death penalty.12 After the long reign of Marcos, Corazon

Aquino became President due to the People Power Revolution in EDSA. Death Penalty were continue

implemented until 1986. After the promulgation of the 1987 Constitution, President Corazon Aquino

declares that all existing death sentences will be reduced to reclusion perpetua or life sentence.13 This was

in accordance to the article III sec. 19 of the 1987 constitution, which states:

Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading and inhuman punishment
inflicted. Neither shall death penalty 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.14

It was again reimposed during the administration of President Fidel Ramos. By the virtue of the

Republic Act 7659, it was reimposed and signed on December 1993.15 The administration reasoned that re

imposition was due to increase of criminality. Because of this, during the Estrada Administration, in 1999

there were seven convicts who were given death sentences and were killed.16 But in the year 2000,

President Estrada issued a moratorium regarding executions in preparation of the “Jubilee Year 2000” of

the Catholic Church. But it was lifted during the term of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo due to

10
Ibid.
11
Ibid. 6
12
Ibid. 7
13
Ibid. 8
14
Hector S. De Leon, Hector M. De Leon, Jr,….190
15
Commission on Human Rights, Philippine Experience in ‘abolishing’ Death Penalty, 2007, 2
16
Ibid.

3
increasing rate of illegal drug cases, eventhough she is against to this.17 It was suspended only when

President Arroyo signed Republic Act 9346 on June 24, 2006.18

After 10 years of its prohibition in the Philippines, President Rodrigo Roa Duterte, since he was

still a candidate, he publicly announces his intention to bring back Death penalty.19 From then on he

always urged the Senate and the House of representative to pass a law that will re impose death penalty in

the Philippines.20 Today the bill has been passed in House of Representative Committee on Justice and on

its third reading.21 In the Senate, it was still debated in its own Justice Committee.22

The history of Death Penalty especially in the Philippines reflects the aspiration of every Filipino

people. Since the Filipinos advocate preservation of life, it is visible in its Constitution as stated in Article

III sec 1.23

B. Death Penalty: Pro and Con Abolitionist views

Death Penalty is a very controversial matter especially in Ethics. There are various Philosophers

and ethicist who made arguments that made Death Penalty moral or immoral. For those in favor of death

penalty it is simple, Death Penalty is the most powerful weapon against crime than prison.24 This form of

punishment instills fear to others. Life preservation is one of man’s tendencies, and death penalty will be

a treat for this, therefore instead of breaking societal norms, they will follow it and prevent to do anything

17
Rivera…
18
Ibid.
19
Domini M. Torrevillas, “Death Penalty”, Philippine Star, June 21, 2016, 9
20
Maricel Cruz & Sandy Araneta, “House to Pass death Penalty at all cost”, Manila Standard, January 17, 2017,
http://thestandard.com.ph/news/-main-stories/top-stories/226998/house-to-pass-death-penalty-bill-at-all-
costs.html, (accssed: February 7, 2017)
21
Dj Yap, House Justice Committee approves Death Penalty Bill, Inquirer.net, December 7, 2016,
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/851505/house-justice-committee-approves-death-penalty-bill, (accessed: February 7,
2017)
22
Maila Ager, “Senate Panel Begins Hearing on revival of Death Penalty”, Inquirer.net, February 7, 2017,
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/868920/senate-panel-begins-hearings-on-revival-of-death-penalty, (accessed:
February 7, 2017)
23
Jose N. Nolledo, The New Constitution of the Philippines Annotated, Philippine Graphic Arts Inc., Caloocan, 1990,
112
24
Jeffrey Olen & Vincent Barry, “Capital Punisment”, Applying Ethics, Wadsworth Publishing Company, Belmont,
1996, 273

4
against it. Others compare it to an act of self defense of the society.25 This is one of the powerful

arguments of Pro death penalty, it’s deterrence or prevention for future committing of the same crime, it

will be an effective solution for increasing number of crimes especially committed by those people who

are convicted in the in particular for those people who committed murder, since they do the same act.26

Since the society organized its common norms. If anyone violates willfully, knowingly and deliberately

the rules, not only he/she offended those rules, but also the rights of others. Therefore, the society must

punish the violators, since the norms are made to protect the welfare of all.27 The society has an obligation

to condemn those people who commit crimes especially heinous crimes.28 For these people, it is just fair

to execute these law offenders, especially those who commit heinous crimes. This kind of punishment for

them ensures peace and order in the society. In this instance we cannot deny that even Thomas Aquinas in

Summa Theologicae, affirms the use of punishment to enforce the law and to defended the common good

by infusing fear in the minds of every citizens so that they will obey laws.29

Abolitionists or those against the death penalty argue that death penalty cannot be and can never

prevent any future crimes. Actually death penalty increases violence in society.30 It is just murder

legalized.31 It never prevents violence or crime since the nature of this punishment is a crime too.

Government condemns murder and killing, but they commit the same crime too. It is against the society’s

responsibility to preserve life. Death penalty can never be just as what pro death penalty used to believe.

Death penalty is used to deprive real justice to the poor, thus corrupting the justice system of a certain

society.32 This is what the pro death penalty forget, that in each laws it must ensure the preservation of life

of every citizens. If we infuse fear to citizens, their free will to do good is eradicated. Therefore

25
Hugo Adam Bedau, “Capital Punishment” Matters of Life and Death:New introductory essays in Moral
Philosophy, McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, 1993, 117
26
Ibid, 274
27
Ibid, 170
28
Olen…, 274
29
Patricio A. Bautista, On the Moral Justification of Capital Punishment, Saint Paul Seminary, 1998, 12
30
Mark Constanzo, “Capital Punishment Cant’ Be Morally Justified”, Capital Punishments, Greenhaven Press, Inc.,
2000, San Diego, 35-49
31
Olen..,272
32
Ibid.

5
everything that the citizens will do is not willful and without their consent. Fear will be their motivation

to do good which is not good. Citizens must be motivated to do good things because it is their

responsibility. Therefore responsibility must be emphasized, not fear. And death penalty cannot

emphasize responsibility. Death penalty is not a responsible idea that corrects citizens who violate law.

Since there is a possibility of killing an innocent man is a reality in legalizing death penalty.33 If there was

mistrial happens, and in an instance, the convicted man found to be innocent, the penalty is irreversible.34

Therefore the government does an irresponsible move, since they both violate their responsibility to

preserve the life of their citizens and they also commit murder. Death penalty cannot be and never be a

powerful tool for peace and order, for any inhumane act can never be a tool to regulate itself.

Death penalty in this case relay only on its effects to the society. Pro death Penalty believes that it

is a powerful tool to promote peace and justice through fear. We cannot deny that if man fears something,

he will do anything to avoid it. But considering Abolitionists argument affirming that it is a powerful

weapon to instill fear to citizens, yet their ability to do good was suppressed by this fear. Therefore man’s

ability to realize his responsibility was trampled by this fear that they cannot do things willfully. Another

one that we must consider, a murder, whether it is legal or not cannot be justified, it is intrinsically evil.

Its inherence to evil therefore cannot give any good fruit for the society.

C. Ethics of the Face: Levinasian Responsibility Based Ethics

Levinas, in his book Ethics and Infinity, speaks of meeting of the face. Meeting of the face

happens when we encounter other people. For example, when I see a beggar on the street, this experience

of seeing the beggar is what Levinas called meeting of the face. In this meeting responsibility over the

other was realized.35 Going back to my previous example, when I see the beggar, this experience of

seeing gives me a responsibility to give alms to him, and this is how Levinas contextualizes

responsibility. Traditional responsibility as we all know, that is balanced through our rights. I am

33
Ibid.
34
Ibid.286
35
Emmanuel Levinas, “Responsibility for the Other”, Ethics and Infinity, Claretian Publishing, Pittsburgh, 1985, 96

6
responsible because I have rights meaning responsibility is only taken by our own right to choose our own

responsibility. Unlike the traditional responsibility, this responsibility is not chosen, but rather it is

belongs to him. This means I must forget my own rights in order to be responsible, I will kill my own

right to choose, as I encounter the other, I have no choice but to be responsible to him.36 Levinas’

responsibility tries to substitute Self-responsibility to responsibility to others.37How this will happen? It is

by forgetting our own gain to anything we do, because the other have his own needs that I must fill. The

selfish thinking of self must be eliminated in order to open oneself for the other.38 This substitution does

not entail of changing of place, it is not also a substitution that can be perform reversal that I can be

substitute by the other. If that so the altruism will turn into egoism.39 Levinas wants to transcend our own

conception of responsibility through substitution, which respects my own responsibility, that I am

irreplaceable, and I cannot let others replace myself, for I am not the other.40 For Levinas, this

responsibility is asymmetry; my responsibility doesn’t require other’s responsibility over me.41 My

responsibility is only mine. In this sense, we must not think that if we fail to do our responsibility. If we

fail to do our responsibility, the accountability of it belongs to us, and no one must be blame but us.

Levinas, responsibility for the others does not only involve responsibility in his deeds and suffering, but

also to all things that he does to me.42Levinas himself said that responsibility is essential, primary and

fundamental structure of subjectivity.43Why? It is because responsibility is the purpose of our being. The

beingness is realized when we also realize our own responsibility. This responsibility according to him

understand as responsibility to other, doing things that even not concern me nor have any good result for

36
Catherine Chalier, “The Philosophy of Emmanuel Levinas and the Hebraic Tradition”, Ethics as First Philosophy:
The significance of Emmanuel Levinas for Philosophy, Literature and Religion, Routledge, New York, 1995, 8
37
Bernhard Waldenfels, “Response and Responsibility in Levinas”, ”, Ethics as First Philosophy: The significance of
Emmanuel Levinas for Philosophy, Literature and Religion, Routledge, New York, 1995, 43
38
Ibid.
39
Ibid.
40
Ibid.,45
41
Taangayin..,86
42
Ibid.,47
43
Levinas,..95

7
me, which is realized by meeting the face.44 True responsibility is cannot be done if we only think of our

self-gain. Levinas wants us to alienate our self interest when we do our respective responsibilities. The

face in Levinas ethics portrays the figure of alterity.45 Responsibility for the other is urgent and not only a

matter of perception.46 For Levinas, alterity means, transcendence of a person, the infinite relationship of

one person to the other, an obligation beyond obligation.47 Our relationship to the other is affirmed by our

ability to be responsible over them. It deepens the meaning of the relationship of the “I” to the “other”

since the “I” must do his responsibility to the “Other” not because he is obliged, but because in doing his

responsibility, he able to realize his beingness. Levinas’ responsibility is not gained by knowledge, it

happens only when we encounter the face of the other.48 It is not necessary to rationalize our

responsibility, it is self-evident. When we experience the other, therefore it is imperative to act. There is

no escape on this responsibility, it is infinite. The face also contains the vulnerability in which the

bareness of the face manifests.49In this way, the nudity of the face commands, “thou shall not kill”.50 This

nudity of the face gives us our primary responsibility over the other: to preserve the life of the other. And

this is what the command “thou shall not kill” emphasizes. Preservation of life is not self-responsibility,

but is a responsibility to the other. Therefore, Levinas gives us our main responsibility. To preserve the

life of the other is this main responsibility. It is imperative for us to protect the life of the other since we

know through their face that they are vulnerable. This preservation of life means that we must think the

welfare of the other, their physical, emotional and sociological health.

44
ibid.
45
Jill Robins, “Tracing Responsibility in Levinas’s Ethical Thought”, Ethics as First Philosophy: The significance of
Emmanuel Levinas for Philosophy, Literature and Religion, Routledge, New York, 1995, 175
46
Corvellec, Hervé. "An Endless Responsibility for Justice: For a Levinasian Approach to Managerial Ethics." Levinas,
Business Ethics, 2005, 5
47
Edith Wyschogrod, “The Art in Ethics: Aesthetics, Objectivity and Alterity in the Philosophy of Emmanuel
Levinas”, Ethics as First Philosophy: Significance of Emmanuel Levinas for Philosophy, Literature and Religion,
Routledge, New York, 1995, 144
48
Tangyin..,157
49
Levinas..,86
50
Ibid.,89

8
 Levinas gives a deep meaning for life. He transcends the beingness of humanity. By centralizing

our life to the responsibility over the other, he gives meaning to every human life. Therefore by realizing

this responsibility, the “I” realize his function, it is to be responsible to the other; to his behavior, for his

welfare and most of all to his life. Levinas in his ethics of the face tries to eradicate the egoistic concepts

of responsibility and of beingness. Responsibility can give solution to the problems of egoistic society.

Levinas prepares a practical solution for these problems; and it is simple, stop being self-centered and

tries to think for the others. In this way, every act we do, every word we say, we are responsible for it.

D. The Role of Fraternity and Justice

Justice for Levinas cannot be realized without first knowing the relationship of “I” to the “Other”

since this is the foundation of Levinas idea of justice. We tackled from the last part how Levinas connect

the “I” and the “other” which is responsibility. The filiation is take place due to responsibility. Levinas’

Ethics of the Face not only pertains to responsibilities, but also to the idea of Filiation in which describes

the interpersonal relationship. Levinas idea of Filiation speaks of the “shared fatherhood”, but this shared

fatherhood never speaks of biological, nor theological idea of a universal family.51 The existence of

human face commits me to human fraternity. Remember that in this world, there are many “others”. In

this way, our responsibility is not only restrained to one “other”, but to multiple others. 5253 Since the face

of the “other” is the one communicates to me, therefore, the faces of the “other” made member of big

family since I am responsible to them. How can I be responsible if I am outside of the things that I must

be responsible for? In this way I must not alienate myself to the other in order to experience his face and

we can always realize our own responsibility. Therefore the command of “thou shall not Kill’ not only

refers to the other, but also to the other’s other, being part of this big ethical kinship.54 In this way, the

responsibility of life preservation is not only restrained to a single “other” but to all “other” being part of

this “big ethical family”. In his book Totality and Infinity, Levinas said that everything that takes place

51
John Llewelyn, Emmanuel Levinas: Genealogy of Ethics, Routledge, New York, 1995, 137
52
Ibid.
53
Ibid.,138
54
Ibid.,140

9
between the “I” and the “Other” does not only concern to them only, but also to everyone.55 Through the

other, it became a bridge that is the language of Justice.56 Justice is impossible lacking the one that

renders it finding himself in immediacy.57 Justice is always a relationship. It is in our responsibility that

connects us to the multiple “other” and this relationship finding away to made justice possible. But unlike

our contemporary idea of justice, where we think of justice as respect to my rights and my freedom,

Levinas idea of justice is opposite. For Levinas, justice is not about what the other can give to me for

being responsible to them. This idea of justice tends to break the relationship to the other and this will

limit the responsibility. The asymmetry of responsibility must be weighed in judging.58 Asymmetry of

responsibility leads us to do our responsibility without thinking of ourselves. We sometimes think that

justice is infallible, meaning justice is always justice that therefore we must seek for justice rather than to

do our responsibility. According to Levinas book Otherwise than being and beyond essence, he means

that justice arises out of the exposure to the other in which there is a surplus of duties over

rights.59Therefore our rights are suspended in order for us to do our responsibility. Justice for Levinas is a

normative term; it recommends human responsibility and forbid egocentrism in its method of substitution

and its order for the other.60 Justice can never be separated from responsibility, these two works hand in

hand. Therefore, Levinas in my own point of view wants us to interrupt our own idea of justice. We must

restrain our own rights in order to do our own purpose, which is to be responsible. For thinking of our

own rights may forbid realizing our own asymmetrical responsibility, and the worst it can also suppress

our responsibility to preserve of the life of the other. In this sense we violate our responsibility and the

command of “thou shall not kill”. The command must be in the “other”, not in the “I”. Justice can never

55
Emmanuel Levinas, “Exteriority and the Face”, Totality and infinity, Trans. AlphonsoLingis, Kluwer Academic
Publishers, Dordrecht, 1991, 212
56
Ibid. 213
57
Llwelyn..,141
58
Ibid.,
59
Patricia H. Werhane, “Levinas’s Ethics: aNormative Perspective without Metaethical Constraints”, Ethics as First
Philosophy: The significance of Emmanuel Levinas for Philosophy, Literature and Religion, Routledge, New York,
1995, 65
60
Ibid.,65

10
be justice if it is egoistic, for justice is shared. This sharing of justice is happening through observing our

responsibility to the other: meaning by thinking others welfare far from thinking our own.

Therefore for Levinas, the origin of Justice is responsibility. Justice cannot be separate from

responsibility and this is how in my own understanding what Levinas wants to say in the idea of justice.

Far from the common idea of justice is founded in my rights that justice must be given to everyone

because he has rights, the justice of Levinas want to instill in our mind that justice must be given because

it is our responsibility. But this responsibility is not only for one, but also for all. Remember that in one

family, you must not focus on the single member, but rather we must focus to all members. That is why,

in the first part of discussion of this part, I insert the idea of filiation. Our responsibility is not only for one

but for all. Therefore justice is realized collectively. Alienation of individual interest is the basic

ingredients to be truly just but responsibility is above justice therefore justice must do in subordination of

our own responsibility.

E. Ethics of the Face and Death Penalty

Death Penalty according to those who promote it is a good instrument to avoid increase of

criminal rate. In this way, death penalty became a treat on man’s tendency to preserve life, which citizens

tend to subordinate themselves to the laws since they fear to be killed. They think this how it works. But

does it really how it works? Or they violate something? In this way Ethics of the Face of Levinas enters.

First the government violates their responsibility over their citizens. How? They tend to kill people and

this is against the responsibility to preserve the life of the other. This responsibility is not a plea but is a

command according to Levinas. Therefore, they did not preserve life in killing and they admit it. It

threatens the man’s preservation of life. Second, they violate Levinas idea of justice. In his Ethics of the

Face, according to Levinas; responsibility is above justice. Justice must not affect on our ability to do our

own responsibility to the “other” and to the “others’ other”. I will call this Responsible Justice the idea of

justice that never compromises any responsibility. What they do is irresponsible justice in whom they

neglect their responsibility to preserve life and compromise it in order to give way for justice. Who

11
benefited this so called justice? Is it the community or the individual person? The government patronized

the idea of egoistic justice. And for Levinas this is not a responsible one. Death Penalty gives justice to

only one. How about the family of those people who violate law? Should they too taste justice? In this

way we cannot compromise justice, justice is must collectively distributed, not monopolized. Since

government responsibility to give justice for all, therefore they must do so. Justice is for both those who

violate and obey the law. Do the law violators have also the right to live as so as those who obey it?

Killing or punishing someone through death cannot be just. It is Government’s responsibility to his

citizens to give equal rights, whether they are law violators or not. This is responsible justice and this is a

justice Levinas wants to patronize. And I think this is good since for this method of justice really

patronize a democratic idea of justice and equality. Nevertheless Levinas idea of Responsibility and

Justice will also be one way to address the problem of increasing criminality. If an individual realizes his

responsibility towards the “other” nonetheless he will prevent any thing that can harm the other. In this

way I think the government lacks. They inflict too much efforts on thinking how to eliminate law

offenders but they did not even bother to think how to their citizens prevent to offend the law. People

especially those on the public office (especially those elected) must first of all reveal this ideology of

being responsible to others. In this way, everyone under their authority will do the same. This might be

idealistic but it will be real if every one of us will be able to think that “I am responsible on my fellow, to

his life, to his needs, to his welfare”. This is not to a single “other” but to all “others” in this way, we will

able to eliminate the idea of egoistic society. For me this is the source why they want to promote death

penalty, for they patronize egoistic society, and this society will bring destruction to itself. A society who

clings in the false idea of justice will never strengthen their idea. Never will an injustice give justice. For

killing law offenders never satisfy the “hunger for Justice” for they themselves commit injustice. Unjust

laws are hindrance for society’s success. Laws like capital punishment cannot be able to open progress to

any society, for a society who fail to recognize its responsibility over one another will pull itself down

and cannot make any step forward.

12
 In this way I see the problem of capital punishment, the idea of killing for the common

good can never be good. Maybe we can see good results, but is temporary. That capital punishment can

never gain the community, but it only endangers the life of its members. It is not a communitarian, for

what death penalty promotes an egoistic idea of justice that connotes an egoistic society. This egoistic

society can never give anything that is promoting common good. An egoistic society will only think for

itself and they will just eliminate our own responsibilities to “others”. In this way, I see that those

government promote death penalty are lead by people who never think of their responsibility towards

their fellow. They think that death penalty is the best way to strengthen their justice system, but it will

never. For the true justice is responsible justice, that in spite of disobedience I have responsible to one’s

life and I will not compromise this responsibility just to give justice to only one, there are many “others”

who needs also justice. We must realize our own asymmetrical responsibility towards the “others”, this

for me is what our government failed to consider or neglect to think about. They think of an instant

solution for criminality, compromising their responsibility. I say, death penalty can never be a solution, it

will increase criminality. Once a crime, it will always a crime even though it is legalize.

F. Rethinking Death Penalty in the Philippines

In the Philippines, the Government tries reimpose death penalty for the reason that crimes

increases especially those drug related and other crimes that according to them are heinous. But

considering what we discussed above, in the context of the Philippines, it can be a solution to crime.

Maybe there are many citizens that will support death penalty, for what the government instills to citizens

is what I called egoistic idea of community. In this egoistic idea of community, the government offered

reasons that are too egoistic or self centered. For example, one of our government’s reasons why they

want to re impose death penalty is the problem of drugs. They want to kill those drug pushers and drug

lords so that they can never sell to anyone. They always say “ what if your sons or daughters was using

drugs because these drug pusher and drug lords sell them drugs, would you like these people to live or kill

them so that they can never sell drug to any young people?” In this reason it is practically to answer “they

13
must get killed”. It is because we only protect ourselves, our own family. But do we think its result to the

family of those killed because they think that this man or woman is a drug pusher, a drug lord or a drug

user? Do they themselves need justice? If ever they are justified to be drug pushers, drug lords or drug

users, do we think that imposing death penalty to them is a just one? This is what I want to emphasize in

this paper, especially in the Philippine context. The government knows that people have their own

tendency to be egoistic and they take advantage to it. Do it really to strengthen the justice system of the

Philippines? Or there are hidden agendas why they want to eliminate those drug lords, drug pushers or

drug users. Filipinos are inherently altruistic. We prove it when we all go to EDSA to fight for

democracy. We did not do it once but twice. In this way, we can say that the government brainwashed the

people in order to promote this false justice. Death penalty cannot be justice as what the government

wants to make it appear to us. It is like the apple that the wicked witch queen offers to Snow white. It is

appearing as good and delicious apple outside, but full of poison inside. Death penalty is just like that,

they present us false promises that it can give, but when it was gain implemented, they will taste its

poison that will destroy our society.

In this way, Levinas presents us how to solve the problem society. He only gives us one word

“RESPONSIBILITY”, a word that is easy to pronounce but hard to imbibe. But it is not impossible. In the

course of history, we prove that we are responsible before Levinas formulate his Ethics of the Face, we

Filipinos gives present to the world that we are responsible to our fellowmen. EDSA I and II, the

execution of Flor Contemplacion, and other events, we fight for our fellowmen. We know that we are

responsible to our fellowmen. That beyond our rights, there are responsibility that we need to address.

And this is what we forget, we forget that we are inherently altruistic, that Philippines didn’t patronize

egoistic society, rather we promote a fraternal society where no one is secluded, where we are responsible

to everyone. In this way I think that Levinas Ethics of the Face is not an odd idea for the Philippines, we

must only need to be reminded to it.

14
 Death penalty can never be a good idea to address the problem of criminality in the Philippines. It

is just accepted by the community because the government presents false promises it can give when it was

implemented. They think this will bring “Change” in our society. Yes it can bring change, a disastrous

change. They neglect to address their responsibility that is why they just kill these law offenders. They

want an instant solution for criminality never realize their responsibility. It is laziness; our government is

too lazy to do their own responsibility to correct the wrongdoings of their citizens. In imposition of death

penalty they also offended their responsibility, to preserve the life of every Filipino citizen. Because they

want an instant change they compromise their responsibility, which is a sign that our government is too

lax to do their own job which a public servant shouldn’t be. This is a sign that our society it too

devastated by people who leading us towards an egoistic society that in the end will bring end to our

nation.

Conclusion

After studying death penalty and Levinas Ethics of the Face, I see that responsibility has a great

part in society. It is the basic virtue every man must have. This responsibility is not self-responsibility, but

rather a responsibility towards the other. And this responsibility binds every person to a single family,

where everyone is in the responsibility of each one. Responsibility is not only to be responsible for others

needs, but also for their life, for their welfare. Therefore we must preserve their life and prevent anything

that can harm them. That is why for Levinas, justice must be under this responsibility so that we can

prevent to be egoistic, trying only to think our own rights thus we forget our responsibility. In this way we

refute the idea of death penalty as a form of punishment in order to give justice and to prevent criminality.

I discuss that death penalty cannot be consider a form on justice for the reason that it negates our

responsibility to protect the life of the other, it promotes egoistic idea of society, it is also a form of

killing thus can never be a form of prevention for crime for the nature of death penalty is crime itself.

15
 In the context of Philippines, I said that the government offers false promises is order to promote

death penalty. They wake the tendency of Filipino citizens to be egoistic that is why they give reasons

that will push them to think selfishly rather than to be altruistic. I said that Filipinos are inherently

altruistic, I point out some events from our own history that reflects that we know our responsibility to the

others. But we somewhat forgetting this glorious events and tend to cling to changes that can bring

disaster to our society.

Our government thinks that death penalty can be a good solution for criminality, strengthen

justice system in the Philippines can bring change in our society. They can fool our fellow Filipinos, give

false hope and promises. They can play with our justice system for they know she is blindfolded, she can

never see if we do injustice. Justice might be blinded, but it can feel. She might never see what is

happening, but she feels if there is something happen, if she is used for personal gain. Justice might have

no eye, but she has a heart who knows how to feel. Therefore, we must reconsider, before it’s too late.

Rethink death Penalty!

Works Cited

Inquirer. Inquirer.net. 2016 йил 29-June. http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/790812/inqback-president-

rodrigo-duterte-agenda-2016-elections-campaign (accessed 2017 йил 31-January).

—. Inquirer.net. 2016 йил 17-May . http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/785954/in-the-know-death-penalty

(accessed 2017 йил 31-January).

Santos, Eimor P. CNN Philippines. 2016 йил 3-December .

http://cnnphilippines.com/news/2016/12/03/Human-Rights-Watch-death-penalty-bill.html (accessed
2017 йил 31-January).

Reference. https://www.reference.com/government-politics/heinous-crime-cd2c41c6c091ef57
(accessed 2017 йил 31-January).

Tangyin, Kajornpat. “Reading Levinas on Ethical Responsibility.” Responsibility and Commitment:

Eighteen Essays in Honor of Gerhold K. Becker, 2008: 155-172.

Rivera, Kevin Bryan. “academia.” academia.edu.

http://www.academia.edu/8644703/Background_History_of_Death_Penalty (accessed 2017 йил 6-
February).

16
Amnesty International. “Philippines: Death Penalty, Justice and Human Rights.” 1997 йил 21-October.

Sarisky, Kenny. “History and Controversies of Capital Punishment.” 2015.

Leon, Hector S. De, and Jr., Hector M. De Leon. Textbook on the Philippine Constitution. Quezon City: Rex
Bookstore, 2011.

Rights, Commision on Human. “Philippine Experience in 'Abolishing' Death Penalty.” 2007.

Torrevillas, Domini M. “Death Penalty.” Philippine Star, 2016 йил 21-June: 9.

Olen, Jeffery, and Vincent Barry. “Capital Punishment.” In Applying Ethics, by Jeffery Olen and Vincent
Barry, 265-307. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1996.

Cruz, Marice, and Sandy Araneta. Manila Standard. 2017 йил 17-January.
http://thestandard.com.ph/news/-main-stories/top-stories/226998/house-to-pass-death-penalty-bill-
at-all-costs.html (accessed 2017 йил 7-February).

Yap, Dj. Inquirer.net. 2016 йил 6-December. http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/851505/house-justice-

committee-approves-death-penalty-bill (accessed 2017 йил 7-February).

Ager, Maila. Inquirer.net. 2017 йил 07-February. http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/868920/senate-panel-

begins-hearings-on-revival-of-death-penalty (accessed 2017 йил 7-February).

Bedau, Hugo Adam. “Capital Punishment.” In Matters of Life and Death: New Introductory Essays in
Moral Philosophy, edited by Tom Regan, 160-191. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1993.

Bautista, Patricio A. On the Moral justificationn of Capital Punishment. Undergraduate Thesis, Silang:
Saint Paul Seminary, 1998.

Nolledo, Jose N. The New Constitution of the Philippines Annotated. Caloocan: Philippine Graphic Arts
Inc., 1990.

Waldenfels, Bernhard. “Response and Responsibility.” In Ethics as First Philosophy: The Significance of
Emmanuel Levinas for Philosophy, Literature and Religion, edited by Adriaan T. Peperzak, 39-52. New
York: Routledge, 1995.

Robins, Jill. "Tracing Responsibility in Levinas's Ethical Thought." In Ethics as First Philosophy: The
Significance of Emmanuel Levinas for Philosophy, Literature and Religion, edited by Adriaan T.
Peperzaak, 173-183. New York: Routledge, 1995.

Corvellec, Herve. “An Endless Responsibility for Justice - For a Levinasian Approach to Managerial
Ethics.” Levinas, Business Ethics, 2005.

Wyschogrod, Edith. "The art in Ethics:Aesthetics , Objectivity and Alterity in the Philosophy of Emmanuel
Levinas." In Ethics as First Philosophy: Significance of Emmanuel Levinas for Philosophy, Literarture and
Religion, edited by Adriaan T. Peperzak, 137-160. New York: Routledge, 1995.

17
Levinas, Emmanuel. "Responsibility for the Other." In Ethics and Infinity, 97-101. Quezon City: Claretian
Publication, 1985.

Llewelyn, John. Emmanuel Levinas: Genealogy of Ethics. New York: Routledge, 1995.

Levinas, Emmanuel. “Exteriority and the Face.” In Totality and Infinity, by Emmanuel Levinas, translated
by Alphonso Lingis. Dordrecht: Kluwen Academic Publishers, 1991.

Werhane, Patricia. “Leevinas's Ethics: A Normative Perspective without Metaethical Constraints.” In

Ethics as First Philosophy: The Significance of Emmanuel Levinas For Philosophy,Literature and Religion,
edited by Adriaan T. Peperzaak, 59-67. New York: Routledge, 1995.

Constanzo, Mark. “capital Punsihment Can't Be Morally Justified.” In Capital Punishments, edited by
Mary E. Williams, 35-49. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, Inc., 2000.

18


19