Rivera, Jenrietta Camille J.

The Reinstitution of Death Penalty

The Philippines today is plagued with violent crimes. The imposition of the death penalty

in the country has had in a repressive history. For the most part (1848 to 1987), it was used to

curtail the liberties, freedoms and rights of the Filipino people. In recent history, however, the

death penalty was re-imposed as a knee-jerk response to what has largely been seen as rising

criminality in the country.(Cenizal, 2016) “Deterrence” became the official justification for the

imposition of the death penalty. This is the same justification used for the declaration of Martial

Law in 1972. Halfway through Marcos’ regime, the electric chair was still the chosen means of

execution. Death by firing squad was the next most-used method. (Poblete, 2016). Under the

Estrada administration, the first to be executed by this capital punishment was Leo Echagaray

who have been injected with lethal chemicals.

Death penalty in the Philippines was abolished during Aquino in 1987 under the present

Constitution making it the first Asian country to abolish capital punishment, re-introduced in

1993 by Ramos after a rise in crime, banned by Estrada in 2000, brought back by Arroyo then re-

abolished by her again on June 24, 2006 under Republic Act No. 9346 because it had not proven

to be a deterrent to crime and had become a dead-letter law. RA 9346 downgraded the death

penalty to life imprisonment. The Philippines played an important role in the region, signaling a

move away from pre-modern forms of punishment. (Torrevillas, 2016)

The Philippines became a State Party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political

Rights State Party on January 1987. The 1987 Philippines’ Constitution was the first in Asia to

prohibit the use of the death penalty, stating that: ‘the death penalty shall not be imposed unless

for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it.

In November 2007 the Philippines ratified and became a State party to the Second

Optional Protocol. States who are party to the treaty have a legal obligation to abolish the death

penalty within their borders, even in the event of future changes in national legislation.

Reintroduction of the death penalty is not allowed for any reason unless a reservation allowing

execution "in time of war pursuant to a conviction for a most serious crime of a military nature
committed during wartime" was made at the time of ratification which is not the case for the

Philippines. President Duterte, when he took office on June 30, vowed that the Philippines "will

honor treaties and international obligations" that it has entered into.

One of the controversial pronouncements of President-elect Rodrigo Duterte is his

espousal of the return of the death penalty which has drawn flak from Catholic and Protestant

churches, Amnesty International, and individuals. And after he was declared winner of the May

9 presidential election, he said he would reintroduce capital punishment and give security forces

“shoot-to-kill” orders in his war against crime, and he will urge Congress to restore the death

penalty by hanging.

Eventually, President Duterte and some lawmakers have called for the return of the death

penalty as a way to strengthen the rule of law. The senators who filed these bills calling for the

revival of the death penalty were Panfilo Lacson, Majority Leader Vicente Sotto III, Manny

Pacquiao, Joseph Victor Ejercito and Sherwin Gatchalian. The bill seeks to re-impose capital

punishment for human trafficking, illegal recruitment, plunder, treason, parricide, infanticide,

rape, qualified piracy, bribery, kidnapping, illegal detention, robbery with violence against or

intimidation of persons, car theft, destructive arson, terrorism and drug-related cases. (Romero,

2016) Most of these bills proposed in the 17th Congress take off from the government’s ongoing

“war on drugs,” which sees people involved with drugs as criminals who should be dealt with the

harshest penalty of death.

The country being a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

(ICCPR), an international treaty that, among other things, observe fundamental freedom

including freedom from cruel, inhumane or degrading punishment. According to the

Commission on Human Rights Chairperson Chito Gascon, death penalty is categorized as one

such cruel, inhumane and degrading punishment. And to reinstate the death penalty would

violate the Philippines’ international legal obligations . On the contrary, President Duterte, when

he took office on June 30, vowed that the Philippines "will honor treaties and international

obligations" that it has entered into. One of the international declarations signed by the

Philippines was a joint declaration against the death penalty in October 2015, under the Aquino

administration. Duterte’s pronouncement on international obligations came after he drew

criticism for his previous statements on other countries.

 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.” According to Kine,

deputy Asia director, deterrent effect of the death penalty has been repeatedly debunked and that

reinstatement of the death penalty won’t solve any drug-related societal problems that Congress

House Bill No. 1 seeks to address, it will only add to the already horrific death toll that President

Duterte’s ‘war on drugs’ has inflicted on Filipinos since he took office on June 30, 2016.”

(Villanueva, 2016). Romeo Cabarde, vice chairman of Amnesty Philippines, said that reviving

the death penalty would not be a successful crime deterrent. Implementing capital punishment

also implies that the country’s justice system is not working, Cabarde said, and that “if that’s the

root of criminality, then I think we have to hit the target at its very root.”

CHR Commissioner Dumpit, “No one in the jurisdiction should be executed and we have

to take all the necessary measures to abolish the death penalty within our jurisdiction. The

country is legally bound, to the international commitment to the right to life, and if passed, then

it will be a breach to international human rights law. Right to life is the supreme of all rights. The

Constitution did not really abolished the penalty, it only set it aside for the Congress to revive it

if needed. There were no reservations deposited when we embraced the optional protocol

abolishing the penalty. All efforts are to affirm the right to life. (Reviving the Death Penalty-

Karen Gomez-Dumpit CHR Commissioner , CNN Newsroom interview)

Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez, as opposed to the country being a party to the ICCPR, that

the Constitution allows the imposition of the death penalty for heinous crimes. It was only set

aside for reviving such in case needed. And that the Charter prevails over any international

protocol. Deputy Speaker Fredenil Castro of Capiz, “Crimes which victimize a lot of people

should be punishable by death. Without penalty, these criminals will just enjoy life as if nothing

happened. For one, those who swindle people have expensive cars. We should teach them a

lesson,” the lawmaker said. Another argument raised against the death penalty is that it violates

the constitutional prohibition against cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment. The prohibition is

again found in Article III, Section 19(1) of the Constitution which reads: Section 19. (1)

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. Any death penalty already imposed
shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua. The Supreme Court, however, has consistently ruled

that the death penalty is not a a cruel, unjust, excessive or unusual punishment. The death penalty

is “not inherently barbaric or an unacceptable mode of punishment for crime.” The Supreme

Court quoted a U.S. case ruling that “punishments are cruel when they involve torture or a

lingering death, but the punishment of death is not cruel, within the meaning of that word as used

in the constitution. It implies there something inhuman and barbarous, something more than the

mere extinguishment of life.” Another argument against the re-imposition of death penalty is the

absense of proof that death penalty serves as an effective deterrent against crimes. Vice-President

Leni Robredo recently questioned why the death penalty bill was passed by the House

Committee on Justice “even though its proponents failed to show sufficient evidence and studies

to support how the death penalty is deterrent to crimes.”

On Wednesday December 7th , the House justice committee approved, by a 12-6 vote, a

substitute measure reinstating the capital punishment for heinous crimes, sending the bill to the

plenary floor for deliberations on second and third reading. The vice president, who has voiced

her opposition to the death penalty in the past, the committee seems to have approved the bill

without evidence or studies showing the death penalty is effective as a deterrent to crime. She

said that questions raised by lawmakers opposed to the death penalty bill were not answered.

(Javier, 2016)

On December 9, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad

Al Hussein stated that if the Philippines wants to revive capital punishment, the country is

allowed to impose the death sentence only on the “most serious crimes.

Gordon explained that he was against the death penalty because he could not see it as a

deterrent to the commission of heinous crimes. Heinous crimes covered by the bill include

treason, qualified piracy, qualified bribery, parricide, murder, rape, kidnapping and serious

illegal detention, robbery with violence, destructive arson, plunder, carjacking, importation of

dangerous drugs and paraphernalia, sale, trading, distribution and transportation of dangerous

drugs, maintenance of a drug den, manufacture of dangerous drugs, and cultivation of culture of

plants classified as dangerous drugs. He added he would rather see the criminal behind bars,

which would have a more profound impact on a person’s life and could offer him a chance to

reform. Senator Pacquiao had been nagging Senator Gordon to call a hearing on the death
penalty bills, to which he believes is the latter’s commitment to the President. Apart from

Gordon, Senator Francis Pangilinan, Paolo Benigno Aquino IV, Leila De Lima and Senate

President Pro Tempore Franklin Drilon of the Liberal Party are also opposed to the death penalty

as a party stance. Franklin Drilon stressed out that the judicial process is something that is argued

against the re-imposition of death penalty. When you make a mistake, you can no longer correct

it.(Sy, 2016) Dinagat Representative Kaka Bag-ao, strongly objected to the approval of the bill.

He suggested that Congress should instead be making laws to fix the justice system instead of

discussing the severity of punishment for criminal offenses. According to Albay Representative

Edcel Lagmay, in recalling the early 2000s, during the campaign for the abolition of the death

penalty, he stated that 73.1% of death row inmates then belonged to the lowest and lower income

classes, while only 0.8% came from the upper socio-economic class.

Senator Ping Lacson, in an interview held on the first State of the Nation Address of

President Duterte, he pointed out that after Leo Echegaray’s execution which was under his term

as the Chief PNP, there was an influx of victims that went to PNP to report that they have been

raped. Which means that the victims saw hope that what happened to them can be served justice

after all. He also cited that the reason why the drug lords from China, Taiwan and other

neighboring countries are all going in the Philippines for shelter is that because we do not have

death penalty whereas all the other countries around us do. According to Oriental Mindoro

Representative Reynaldo Umali, the revelations of the inmates of NBP during the committee

hearings made it imperative for them to re-impose death penalty, and is one of the compelling

reasons death penalty should be restored. (Porcalla, 2016)

House Deputy Speaker Capiz Rep. Fredenil Castro informed House Speaker Pantaleon

Alvarez and Majority Floor Leader Rodolfo Farinas, his coauthors, that the proposal should not

single out drug dealing and drug use. To which the president of the anti-crime group of

Volunteers against Crime and Corruption(VACC) disagreed that in doing so, it would be

tantamount to becoming so selective.

Pantaleon Alvarez said the debate on the method of executing death convicts should

focus more on cost―the cheaper, the better. Alvarez’s preference was for a low-cost method to

save on government resources. He proposed that the Executive branch be allowed to make the

decision on the mode of execution. President Duterte has announced in his campaign he wanted
the shock value of a double hanging. (Cabacungan, 2016) Moreover, Alvarez and Capiz

Representative Fredenil Castro authored House Bill 01 which provides for lethal injection as the

mode of state-sanctioned killing for heinous crimes.

Arroyo said the death penalty should be abolished because it had not proven to be a

deterrent to crime and had become a dead-letter law. RA 9346 downgraded the death penalty to

life imprisonment. A decade after ending the use of the death penalty and taking a lead role in a

global campaign to abolish capital punishment, the Philippines is again considering sending

prisoners to the gallows. This is deeply concerning on a number of fronts. Capital punishment is,

in practice, fundamentally unjust. (Al Hussein, 2016). Death penalty often violates the right to

equality and non-discrimination. Statistics worldwide have repeatedly demonstrated that the use

of the death penalty consistently and disproportionately discriminates against the poor and most

marginalized individuals and subsequently results in social injustice.

The Philippines' two most influential Catholic bishops have spoken. The alleged deterrent

effect of the death penalty has been repeatedly debunked. Manila Archbishop Luis Antonio

Cardinal Tagle through his chancellor, Father Reginald Malicdem, released a prayer against the

death penalty. Both Manila Archbishop Luis Antonio Cardinal Tagle and Lingayen-Dagupan

Archbishop Socrates Villegas denounced the plan to revive the death penalty as pushed by

President Rodrigo Duterte and his allies in Congress and has organized a prayer rally against the

passage of the death penalty bill and the drug-related killings. Villegas urged Catholic lawmakers

to withhold support from any attempt to restore the penalty, as well as the Catholic jurists to

study the issue and to oppose through proper proceedings, the reintroduction of the capital

punishment. He also added that the government pushes for the reinstitution of the death

punishment to justify the rampant extra-judicial killings in the country allegedly perpetrated by

law enforcers.

The leader of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP), Villegas, said

improving the criminal justice system is the most effective deterrent against criminality, not the

death penalty which is being revived by Congress. Killing people through the use of the death

penalty is an irreversible act which has wrongfully killed many innocent people across the

world. It prohibits the correction of mistakes by the justice system and leaves no room for

human error, with the gravest of consequences. Democratic and just societies are, by definition,
required to provide due process to people before the law. Death penalty often violates the right to

equality and non-discrimination. Study conducted by the Free Legal Assistance Group showed

that more than half of those who were on death row were poor.

There is no credible evidence or recognized research that demonstrates that the death

penalty deters crime, including drug offenses, any more than lengthy imprisonment does. It is not

the severity of punishment that deters wrongdoers, but its certainty. To curb crime, the focus

should be on reforming the justice system, rendering it more effective, while also ensuring that it

is humane. Investing in measures to address issues of public security and crime, such as more

effective policing, and a fair and functioning criminal justice system is essential for an ethical

and just management of crime. Fear, despair and frustration clearly prevail among all Filipinos

amid a rise in crime and drug-related offenses. But it is the duty of political leaders to adopt

solutions to the country’s challenges in ways that will support the rule of law and advance the

protection of human rights. The government should hire “efficient prosecutors who can closely

collaborate with investigating bodies and other law enforcement units for a strong case buildup,

and a law enforcement sector that will implement the law to the letter.” said Senator De Lima.

(Ramos et.al, “Pro and Con of death penalty: Poe, De Lima give their views” Inquirer.net 22

March 2016) There is, however, no need to support the bill with any statistics showing the

deterrent effect of the death penalty. The Supreme Court in Echegaray that there is no

constitutional requirement that the death penalty be first proven to be a deterrent. The imposition

of the requirement that there be a rise in the incidence of criminality because of the suspension of

the death penalty, moreover, is an unfair and misplaced demand, for what it amounts to, in fact,

is a requirement that the death penalty first proves itself to be a truly deterrent factor in criminal

behavior. If there was a dramatically higher incidence of criminality during the time that the

death penalty was suspended, that would have proven that the death penalty was indeed a

deterrent during the years before its suspension. Suffice it to say that the constitution in the first

place did not require that the death penalty be first proven to be a deterrent; what it requires is

that there be compelling reasons involving heinous crimes.

Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman learned from House members who attended the majority

caucus last week that there was a sizable number who are undecided or against the re-imposition

of capital punishment for heinous crimes. Lagman considers this a victory in the “first battle” for
those opposed to one of the priority bills being pushed by President Duterte’s administration.

(Yap, 2016)

Senator Richard Gordon, chairman of the Senate committee on justice and human rights,

on the other hand, said that based on his assessment, the bill would be approved in the Senate.

However, he added that it was very likely to be limited in scope, unlike what the House was

pushing for in its version. Moreover, he would conduct public hearings on the bills filed by his

colleagues and have a healthy debate on the issue. The bills were taken up briefly during one of

the hearings of the committee on the issue of extrajudicial killings in the country, it had to be set

aside though because the resource persons were not prepared to comment on the bills. (Sy, 2016)

The supermajority in the House of Representatives lacks the numbers to pass the death

penalty bill, prompting them to push back the floor debates on the measure to next year

following the House panel’s approval of a bill seeking to reinstate capital punishment for heinous

crimes in the Philippines.(Yap, 2016)

References:

Cenizal, Joeven. “Death Penalty in the Philippines”. Linkedin.com. 19 July 2016

Cabacungan, Gil. “Death Penalty: The cheaper, the better”. Inquirer.net. 10 August 2016

Nonato, Vince. “Death penalty inches forward in House”. 30 November 2016

Sy, Marvin. “Senate tackles death penalty bill in January” The Philippine Star. page 8, 10 December

2016

Romero, Paolo. “House Bill No.: Restore death penalty”. Philstar.com. 7 July 2016

Diaz, Jess. “House defers death penalty bill approval” philstar.com 9 December 2016

Villanueva, Rodina “House asked to reject proposal reinstating death penalty” philstar.com. 4 December

2016

Al Hussein, “On every level, death penalty is wrong” inquirer.net, 21 July 2016

Javier, Kristian “Robredo: Panel’s approval of death penalty bill seems rushed” Philstar.com 8 December

2016

Reviving the Death Penalty- Karen Gomez-Dumpit CHR Commissioner , CNN Newsroom interview

Restoring the Death Penalty- Senator Ping Lacson, CNN Philippines

Torrevillas, Domini “Death Penalty” The Philippine Star, 21 June 2016

Porcalla, Delon “NBP drug trade calls for revival of death penalty” philstar.com 17 October 2016

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LEO ECHEGARAY y PILO, accused-

appellant. G.R No. 117472. February 7, 1997

Yap, Dj “Death penalty bill lacks the numbers; House debates reset” 14 December 2016

https://hronlineph.com/2016/11/27/statement-health-not-death-a-statement-opposing-the-reinstatement-

of-death-penalty-in-the-philippines-nobox-philippines/

http://www.balayph.net/news-events/features-and-articles/128-fact-sheet-note-on-the-death-penalty-and-

the-philippines-2

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/785954/in-the-know-death-penalty