You are on page 1of 4

I.

Introduction Although its origins seem lost in obscurity, the imposition of death as punishment for violation of law or custom, religious or secular, is an ancient practice. By the dawning of civilization today, every man and woman is both an individual person with inherent human rights recognized and protected by the state and as a citizen with duty to serve the common weal and defend and preserve the society. One of the indispensable power of the state is the power to secure society against threatened and actual evil. Pursuant to this, the legislative arm of the government is enacts criminal laws that define and punish illegal acts, the executive to enforce this laws and judiciary tries and sentence criminals in accordance with this law ( People vs Echegaray 267 SCRA 682, 2007) With this, our Bill Of Rights in article III section 19 paragraph 1 clearly states that excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither shall death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it. In midst of concurring opinion of its abolition, we stand in favor of the capital punishment of death. Furthermore, the following issues must be taken into consideration: 1. Whether or not the implementation of death penalty is constitutional; and 2. Whether its practice violates human rights. Death penalty is granted by the constitution Article 19 paragraph 1 of 1987 constitution reads excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted was barrowed from an act of the British parliament of 1886, adopted by the United States and eventually came unaltered to the Philippines through various organics acts from the instruction of U.S. President McKinley. By express provision of law, the constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishments. Thus, it is worth to ask whether the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the Philippines constitution should be understood as banning capital punishment. In response, the meeting of 166-Man special committee on November 16 1972 made it clear that there was no intention to pass judgment on capital punishment as cruel and unusual.

U.S. jurisprudence Harden vs Director of prison and local cases of People vs Limaco and People vs Puda stressed that death penalty is not a cruel and unusual punishment. What is cruel and unusual is when it involves an inhumane practice such as those comparable to ancient times. ( People vs Limaco ) It was pointed out that the automatic review of capital punishment cases found that article X section 5(2) pf the 1973 constitution was implicit affirmation that capital punishment was not per se constitutional objectable. This means that punishment of death is not cruel within the meaning of the word used in the constitution. ( Harden vs Director of prison). Thus, the constitutional prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment doest not apply to death penalty nor it is right to say that capital p[punishment contradicts the spirit and true intent of the constitution. Is capital punishment granted today? No, it is not. This is so for in the ratification of the 1987 constitution immediately abolishes death penalty. However, this ratification on this matter is not absolute. As Commissioner Rumolo and Monsod said, the abolition of death penalty is not absolute for our laws are naturally arbitrary, one cannot assume to hold the wisdom of tomorrow. The constitution grants, as amended, that Death penalty be imposed upon a compelling reason involving heinous crimes so long as the congress provides for it. Is death penalty constitutional? Yes, even it is abolished by R.A. 9346, it remains constitutional subject to the discretion of the legislative body. What remains constitutional implies the wisdom and desire of the state and what is dictated by its wisdom only desires beneficial to the sovereign as a whole. Furthermore, R.A. 7659 or the death penalty law only grants its application to cases involving heinous crimes. Such crimes considered for being grievous, odious and hateful offenses and which, by reason of their inherent or manifest wickedness, viciousness, atrocity and perversity are repugnant and outrageous to the common standards and norms of decency and morality in a just, civilized and ordered society( R.A. 7659)

Crimes punishable by death are only those crimes which which has resulted not only in the loss of human lives and wanton destruction of property but also affected the nations efforts towards sustainable economic development and prosperity while at the same time has undermined the peoples faith in the Government and the latters ability to maintain peace and order in the country ( R.A. 7659 (3) ). Only those above cases which involve grave and heinous crimes affecting the nation as a whole death penalty can be imposed. With this, it is reasonable enough that R.A. 9346 which disallows capital punishment should be reconsidered and the legislative must take its consideration that death penalty is more advantages and applicable in the present scenario of our country . Death penalty does not violates human rights In People vs Mercado ( November 2000) international law was cited by the defense as an argument against capital punishment. Article 6 (1) of the covenant on civil and political rights enshrines the individuals right to life. In the above cases they argued that death penalty abridges the right of a person to life and liberty. Nevertheless, the court ruled in appose to the accused contention. Indeed, the court submits that article 6(1) of the convention must be held, however, article 6 (2) of the same convention explicitly recognized the capital punishment is an allowable limitation on the right to life, subject to the limitation that it be imposed for the most serious crime. This means international convention of human rights recognizes death penalty as a limitation to the right to life provided it involves serious crimes such as those heinous offenses. Furthermore, the equal protection clause has also been used against death penalty on the argument that it is more after used only for the poor. Such argument as the court held has been found too sweeping to merit serous consideration. While there may be perceived imbalances in the imposition of penalties, there are adequate safeguards in the constitution, the law and procedural rules to ensure due process and equal protection of the law ( People vs Echegaray )

Conclusion Lastly, the right of a person is not only to live but to live a quality life in rhyme with the rules and regulation of the society. We are obligated to respect one another and duty-bound to preserve others right to live peacefully. If we are to preserve the human society, we will have to sustain sufficient strength of character and will to do the unpleasant in order that tranquility and civilly may rule comprehensively even if it takes the imposition of the punishment of death ( Atkins vs Virginia ) Death penalty is imposed in heinous crimes because the perpetrators thereof have committed unforgivably execrable effects on the national effort to lift the masses from object poverty through organized governmental strategies based on a discipline and honesty citizenry, and because they have so caused irreparable and substantial injury to both their victim and the society and a repetition of their acts would prove actual threat to the safety of individuals and the survival of government, they must be permanently prevented from doing so. ( People vbs Cristobal ) We are not unaware for all legal procuring at heart of the issue of capital punishment is the wistful, sentimental life and death question to which all of us, would answer life of course , over death. But dealing with the fundamental question of death provides a context for struggling with even more basic question, for the grapple with the meaning of death is an indirect way to ask the meaning of life. Otherwise put to ask what the rights of the dying is to ask what the rights of the living ( People vs Echegaray) In heinous cases, life is over for the murder victims; for the rape victim, life may not be nearly so happy as it was, but it is not over and normally is not beyond repair. Finally, as the Supreme Court held in People vs Echegaray, there can be no ifs and buts in the face of evil, and we cannot afford to rest until we rub elbows before grasping it by the ears and thrashing it is demission. With this, death penalty is a must in our country.