c




  
  
 

Posted on March 17, 2011 10:57:46 PM

 






 

 ! !

  "#$%$&$

'()* ( + 
 
+


 !+   
,



 
  
!
!-
+!





+
 
 
+)
 

The decision of the Supreme People͛s Court of the People͛s Republic of China to execute three Filipinos convicted of drug trafficking
is final and cannot be reversed, China͛s top diplomat to the Philippines said.

"The verdict is final. There is no date yet on the execution, but the [death] penalty will be carried out sooner or later," Ambassador
Liu Jianchao said in a press conference at his residence in Makati City.

He also noted that the three -- Sally Ordinario-Villanueva, Ramon Credo and Elizabeth Batain -- are still alive amid rumors that they
have been silently executed.

The Chinese government, Mr. Liu said, had only agreed to an indefinite postponement of the execution during the visit of Vice-
President Jejomar C. Binay to China earlier this year to negotiate for a reprieve.

"The postponement of the death penalty was granted in accordance with Chinese laws, and considering the plea of the Vice-
President," he said.

"Our [China and Philippines] good exchanges and our good friendship led the government to defer the executions. The Vice-
President also raised the issue of the timing of the executions."

The death penalty verdict was announced as the Philippines dealt with strained relations with Taiwan after the deportation of 14
Taiwanese to the mainland on charges of fraud.

Mr. Liu also defended China͛s capital punishment policy, particularly its death penalty, which has been criticized in the Philippines.

"Filipino people have so much respect with human lives. China values life, too, but all concern should be shown to the victims of
crimes such as drug trafficking."

"The purpose [of death penalty] is not to take away the lives of people, but to deter such crimes," Mr. Liu said.

Sought for comment, Presidential Spokesman Edwin Lacierda echoed Mr. Liu͛s statement on the finality of the execution for the
three convicted Filipinos.

"[Postponement of the execution] is the concession that Vice-President Binay got. We respect their decision. It is sad that this has
happened, but that is really the decision of China subject to Chinese laws and rules," he said in a briefing in Malacañang.

In a separate event in Malacañang, President Benigno S. C. Aquino III said the cases of the three Filipinos "are definitely a concern,
but so are thousands [of Filipinos] in the Middle East and the thousands in Japan. I cannot just focus on one entity."

Credo was convicted for smuggling 4,113 grams (g) of heroin on Dec. 28, 2008 in Xiamen; Villanueva was convicted for smuggling
4,110g of heroin on Dec. 24, 2008 in Xiamen; and Batain was convicted of smuggling 6,800g of heroin on May 24, 2008 in Shenzhen.
 )


Meanwhile, Mr. Liu, insisted that the Spratlys, which Beijing calls Nansha Islands, are part of China͛s territory.

"We claim indisputable sovereignty over the Nansha Islands... We call on the Philippine government to avoid unilateral moves in the
area and expect a positive response for possible cooperation," he said in the same briefing.

Mr. Liu was referring to an incident earlier this month when a seismic testing ship commissioned by the Philippines to survey for oil
and gas in the Reed Bank oil and gas fields off Palawan Island was confronted by two Chinese patrol boats which allegedly tried to
ram the ship. This has prompted the Philippine Air Force to send fighter aircraft to the scene to ward off the Chinese military.

"The operations of the patrol boats were normal and regular," Mr. Liu said, without discounting that the incident may recur.

However, he said that Beijing continues to be open for talks over the dispute, reiterating that the Philippine government should
"refrain from taking any action that would make the situation more complicated."

"China and other claimants have been working hard in reaching consensus on what we should do to maintain peace and stability of
region. We have reached common ground in many aspects and we want to settle differences with the best interest of all parties," he
added. -- * 
. !

( 

  


  

/  "# 0


The history of the death penalty was extensively discussed by the Supreme Court in People vs. Echegaray.[1] As early 1886, capital
punishment had entered the Philippine legal system through the old Penal Code, which was a modified version of the Spanish Penal
Code of 1870.

The Revised Penal Code, which was enforced on 1 January 1932, provided for the death penalty in specified crimes under specific
circumstances. Under the Revised Penal Code, death is the penalty for the crimes of treason, correspondence with the enemy during
times of war, qualified piracy, parricide, murder, infanticide, kidnapping, rape with homicide or with the use of deadly weapon or by
two or more persons resulting in insanity, robbery with homicide, and arson resulting in death. The list of capital offenses
lengthened as the legislature responded to the emergencies of the times.

In 1941, Commonwealth Act (C.A.) No. 616 added espionage to the list. In the 1950s, at the height of the Huk rebellion, the
government enacted Republic Act (R.A.) No. 1700, otherwise known as the Anti-Subversion Law, which carried the death penalty for
leaders of the rebellion. From 1971 to 1972, more capital offenses were created by more laws, among them, the Anti-Hijacking Law,
the Dangerous Drugs Act, and the Anti-Carnapping Law. During martial law, Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1866 was enacted
penalizing with death, among others, crimes involving homicide committed with an unlicensed firearm.

In the aftermath of the 1986 revolution that dismantled the Marcos regime and led to the nullification of the 1973 Constitution, a
new constitution was drafted and ratified. The 1987 Constitution provides in Article III, Section 19 (1) 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. Any death penalty already imposed
shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua.

Congress passed Republic Act No. 7659 (entitled "An Act to Impose the Death Penalty on Certain Heinous Crimes, Amending for that
Purpose the Revised Penal Code, as Amended, Other Special Penal Laws, and for Other Purposes"), which took effect on 31
December 1993.

'
+
! 


This is extensively discussed in the case of People vs. Echegaray.

 
 


On 24 June 2006, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo signed into law Republic Act No. 9346, entitled "An Act Prohibiting the
Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines".

1! 


Section 5 of R.A. No. 9346 specifically provides that it shall take effect immediately after its publication in two national newspapers
of general circulation. This is pursuant to Article 2 of the Civil Code which provides that laws shall take effect after 15 days following
the completion of their publication either in the Official Gazette, or in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines, unless it
is otherwise provided.

R.A. No. 9346 was published in Malaya and Manila Times, two national newspapers of general circulation on 29 June 2006.
Accordingly, R.A. No. 9346 took effect on 30 June 2006.[2]

)+!

As a result of the abolition of the death penalty, existing penalties for death were reduced to reclusion perpetua, within the
possibility of parole. Here are illustrative cases:

The case of   
 2+! 
involves an accused who raped his 8-year old daughter, a deaf-mute. Under
Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, the imposable penalty should have been death. With the abolition of the Death Penalty,
however, the penalty was reduced to reclusion perpetua, without the possibility of parole under the Indeterminate Sentence Law.

The case of   
 
 involves the rape of a 5-year old child. The accused was meted the penalty of death
because rape committed against a ͚child below seven (7) years old͛ is a dastardly and repulsive crime which merits no less than the
imposition of capital punishment under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code. The sentence was also reduced to reclusion
perpetua, without the possibility of parole.

The case of    involves a rape of a 13-year old girl (who got pregnant), committed in a dwelling and with the aid of a
bladed weapon. The imposable penalty should have been death, but with the abolition of the Death Penalty, the Supreme Court
reduced the penalty to reclusion perpetua, without the possibility of parole.

The case of   
 3+

+ involves the murder of a victim who suffered 18 stab wounds which were all
directed to her chest, heart and lungs. Considering the existence of the qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation and the
aggravating circumstances of dwelling, and taking advantage of superior strength without any mitigating circumstance, the proper
imposable penalty would have been death. However, with the abolition of the death penalty law, the penalty imposed was reclusion
perpetua, without the possibility of parole.

.+!  


'
  

Metro Manila

3 
 '

!
.+

http://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2006/ra_9346_2006.html

Begun and held in Metro Manila, on Monday, the twenty-fifth day of July, two thousand and five.

.+! !* 45&67+
$&,$886

* '3.9():)3)*3(1)9)3)9*9-1 3(1* ;3<)*3(1();))*1

Š

 



 

 

    




 

  
  :

1'3)9*= The imposition of the penalty of death is hereby prohibited. Accordingly, Republic Act No. Eight Thousand One Hundred
Seventy-Seven (R.A. No. 8177), otherwise known as the Act Designating Death by Lethal Injection is hereby repealed. Republic Act
No. Seven Thousand Six Hundred Fifty-Nine (R.A. No. 7659), otherwise known as the Death Penalty Law, and all other laws,
executive orders and decrees, insofar as they impose the death penalty are hereby repealed or amended accordingly.

1' $ In lieu of the death penalty, the following shall be imposed.

(a) the penalty of   
  , when the law violated makes use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal
Code; or

(b) the penalty of life imprisonment, when the law violated does not make use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised
Penal Code.

1' 5 Person convicted of offenses punished with   
  , or whose sentences will be reduced to reclusion perpetua, by
reason of this Act, shall not be eligible for parole under Act No. 4180, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as
amended.

1' & The Board of Pardons and Parole shall cause the publication at least one a week for three consecutive weeks in a newspaper
of general circulation of the names of persons convicted of offenses punished with   
   or life imprisonment by
reason of this Act who are being considered or recommend for commutation or pardon;   

  , That nothing herein
shall limit the power of the President to grant executive clemency under Section 19, Article VII of the Constitutions.

1' > This Act shall take effect immediately after its publication in two national newspapers of general circulation.

Approved,

-. *?;)*.);9* 7911@1*1') 7.

President of the Senate Speaker of the House of Representatives

This Act which is a consolidation of Senate Bill No. 2254 and House Bill No. 4826 was finally passed bu the Senate and the House of
Representative on July 7, 2006.

9' . < :1 .9:1.39 * A .1*9

Secretary of Senate Secretary General
House of Represenatives

Approved: June 24, 2006

;9.)  '   ; ..9<9

  




 

 

  


ð
‘ 
  




 
!
"#
"##$

http://gmanews.tv/htmfiles/death-penalty/Death-Penalty-in-the-Philippines.html

B+
 


=4%C
According to the 1987 Constitution,
Art. III (Bill of Rights), Sec. 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.
In mid-1987, a bill to seeking to reinstate the death penalty for 15 'heinous crimes' including murder, rebellion and the import or
sale of prohibited drugs was submitted in Congress.
=4%%
In 1988, the military started lobbying for the imposition of the death penalty. Then Armed Forces of the Philippines Chief General
Fidel Ramos was prominent among those calling for the reintroduction of the death penalty for rebellion, murder and drug-
trafficking. The military campaign for the restoration of the capital punishment was primarily against the CPP-NPA, whose offensives
then included urban assassination campaigns.
Anti-death penalty groups including Amnesty International opposed the bill, but the House of Representatives voted for restoration
by 130 votes to 25.
=4%4
Three similar bills were put before the Senate. After a bloody 1989 coup, President Aquino certified as urgent one of these bills on
the prompting of Ramos. The said bill again proposed death penalty for rebellion, as well as for sedition, subversion and
insurrection.
=448
The Senate suspended the vote on death penalty for a year
=44=
The Senate did not agree to move to a decision.

.  


A series of high profile crimes during this period, including the murder of Eileen Sarmenta and Allan Gomez, created public
impression that heinous crimes were on the rise. The Ramos administration succeeded in restoring death penalty.
=44$
President Fidel Ramos during his first State of the Nation address declared that his administration would regard the restoration of
the death penalty a legislative priority, and urged Congress to take speedy action.
=445
Ramos signed into Republic Act 7659, the new death penalty law, on December 13, 1993.
=44&
Republic Act 7659 took effect on January 1, 1994.
=446
Republic Act No. 8177, which mandates that a death sentence shall be carried out through lethal injection, was approved on March
20, 1996.

1 


Seven death convicts were executed during the Estrada administration before he announced a moratorium on executions.
=444
Leo Echegaray, 38, was executed by lethal injection on February 5, 1999. He was the first to be executed after the Philippines
restored death penalty. It was the Philippine's first execution in 22 years. Six more men followed within the next 11 months.

$888
On March 24, 2000, Estrada imposed a de facto moratorium in observance of the Christian Jubilee Year. He also granted 108
Executive Clemencies to death convicts.

On December 10, 2000, Human Rights Day, Estrada announced that he would commute sentences of all death convicts to life
imprisonment. He expressed his desire to certify as urgent a bill seeking a repeal of the Death Penalty Law.

 


Please see Gloria Arroyo on death penalty--a timeline
While the Arroyo administration has been characterized by a flip-flopping stand on death penalty, no death convict has been
executed under her watch.
Voting separately, the two Houses of Congress on June 6, 2006 repealed the death penalty law.
Arroyo signed Republic Act 9346 on June 24, 2006. The law prohibited the imposition of the death penalty.
 
 


Under Article III Section 19 of the Philippine Constitution, it is so provided that death penalty shall not be imposed, ͞unless for
compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it.͟ Upon the ratification of the Constitution in
February 1987, the sentence of death penalty already imposed was reduced to reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment.

The abolition of death penalty, opened once again the debate on whether such capital punishment serves as an effective deterrent
to the commission of crimes. In mid 1987 soon after the ratification of the Constitution, a bill to reinstate the death penalty was filed
in Congress. Its explanatory note recites the alarming deterioration of peace and order and citing coup attempts to topple the
Government. A series of heinous offenses including rape, murder and kidnapping for ransom was cited in support of the bill. In 1989
three more bills for the reimposition of death penalty was filed in the House but failed to get the support of the Senate.

. C6>4
  


A year and a half after he assumed office, President Ramos signed into law RA 7659 in December 1993. This was followed in 1996 by
another law RA 8177 providing for lethal injection as the method for execution. Six years after the reinstatement of death penalty,
more than a thousand individuals have been found guilty by final judgment of crimes with death as the imposable penalty. Under
our laws when the maximum penalty of death is imposed, the same shall be subjected to automatic review by the Supreme Court
even if the convict does not appeal the judgment. However, Article 47 of the Penal Code provides for exceptions in that the guilty
person is more than 70 years of age and that upon appeal or revision of the case by the Supreme Court, all the members thereof are
not unanimous as to the propriety of imposing the death penalty. It is also provided in the same Article that in affirming the
judgment of death penalty, the Supreme Court shall render its decision per curiam which means that all justices must sign the
decision.

. C6>4 ( '+

The restoration of death penalty was questioned relentlessly by many groups, mainly that the law is infirmed and saddled with
Constitutional defects. It has been the thesis of the objectors that the Philippine Judicial System is imperfect which could result in
the conviction of the innocent. That our system is biased against the marginalized sector of our society. In a survey it was found that
most of those convicted were workers and uneducated. It is also argued that the Trial Courts have committed substantive and
procedural errors in their judgment imposing death penalty and that the convicts due to poverty did not have the benefit of
competent legal representation.

In August of 1996, the Supreme Court scheduled for oral arguments the case against RA 7659. Appearing as counsel was a set of
lawyers from the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG). Likewise, friends of the Court or Amicus Curiae were invited to express their
views and to assist the Court. Under the Rules of Court (Rule 3 Section 22), when a Treaty, Law, Executive Order, Decree or
Ordinance is questioned relative to validity or constitutionality, the Solicitor General is served notice and required to appear. Hence,
the author accompanied by his Assistants appeared in that proceedings and argued in support of the law, pointing to the recital of
facts supporting its enactment and the absence of any Constitutional flaw. The Court gave the Parties/Counsel full latitude in
expressing their views for or against the assailed law. Other ideas were ventilated during the oral arguments among which is that the
usage of the words ͞compelling reasons͟ in the Constitution which impelled Congress to reinstate the death penalty would require
the Courts to examine further or inquire rigidly on the necessity of imposing the death penalty. In other words the ͞compelling
reasons͟ are not directed solely at Congress but also at the Courts.

. C6>4 
+
. 45&6 
  


With the Supreme Court not declaring RA 7659 as unconstitutional, the death penalty remained in force. However, even with the
death penalty remaining in force, President Gloria Arroyo issued a ͞moratorium͟ suspending or putting on hold the death penalty
even when judgments imposing the same had become final and executory. This explains the reasons why there was no execution
carried out for a number of years. On June 2006 the President signed RA 9346 abolishing the death penalty in the Philippines. She
said: ͞the abolition of death penalty in the Philippines ends an era of retributive justice and paves the way for restorative justice.͟
She added that ͞we have seen a strong hand against the threat to the high moral imperatives dictated by God to walk away from
capital punishment.͟

!+

Since World War II, there has been a trend globally to abolish death penalty. As of this year, 92 countries on record had already
abolished it. In Europe, almost all countries in that continent have abolished death penalty. In the Pacific area, Australia, New
Zealand, Canada and Timor, capital punishment of death has been abolished but other countries in Asia and Africa have retained the
penalty. In the US, some States have abolished the penalty although other States retained it. The countries that recently abolished
death penalty are Gabon September 2007, South Korea December 2007 and Uzbekistan January 2008. Of course, the Philippines in
2006.

In 2007, China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, USA and Iraq represent the countries with a great number of executions. China with 470,
Iran 317, Saudi Arabia, 143, Pakistan, 135, USA 42 and Iraq 33.

'
!+

Recent events however have again opened the discussion on the death penalty. The dastardly killing of employees at the RCBC
branch in Cabuyao, Laguna; the murder of a family in Payatas, Quezon City including the razing of their residence to conceal the
crime, the occurrences of kidnapping and the beheading of soldiers, rape, murder and other heinous offenses rekindled the
justification for the reinstatement of death penalty. Recently, at the weekly meeting of the Rotary Club of Manila, the incumbent
chief of the Philippine National Police, Director General Avelino Ignacio Razon Jr. on a question asked about death penalty, he
answered without equivocation that the police force is four square for the restoration of the death penalty.

c39 :9;)(9.*9339 :9;)(3(11 3(1* ;3<; D

http://jennyjavier.wordpress.com/2006/07/05/to-abolish-or-not-to-abolish-the-death-penalty-law/

Sometime in 1999, Leo Echegaray was the first to have gone through lethal injection. He was sentenced to suffer the death penalty
for raping his stepdaughter, Baby.

According to Republic Act 7659 or the Death Penalty Law, An Act to Impose Death Penalty on Certain Heinous Crimes, Amending for
that Purpose the Revised Penal Laws and for Other Purposes, specifically Art. 335, ͞

 

 




  








  






  
 
 

1. When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by
consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim.

2. ͙x x x

Because of the foregoing, Echegaray was found guilty.

For death penalty to apply, the offense committed must be a heinous crime which, according to the law, must be grievous, odious
and hateful 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.

It is not only the crime of rape that is punishable by death. Other crimes, depending on their attendant circumstances, like treason,
qualified piracy, parricide, murder, kidnapping, robbery and arson also carries with it the penalty of death.

On June 24, 2006, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo signed Republic Act no. 9346 or ͞An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death
Penalty in the
Philippines. Because of this, the Arroyo government has gained criticisms. To the aggrieved parties ʹ condemnation and to the
accused and sentenced to death ʹ Hope!

But for me, it is therefore necessary for us to consider both sides of the issues before jumping into a desirable conclusion.

The following are the cited disadvantages of the law: (1)  

 



 .

It is not true that when there is ͞fear of death͟ it will prevent one from committing a crime because most crimes are done on the
͞heat of passion͟, that is when a person cannot think rationally.

(2) % 

 
 


   . Death is one penalty which makes error irreversible and the chance of error is inescapable
when based on human judgment. Contrary to public belief, the death penalty does not act as a deterrent to crime based on studies
and researches conducted. ͞Expert after expert and study after study have emphasized and emphasized the lack of correlation
between the threat of the death penalty and the occurrence of violent crime͟(Meador 69).

Actual statistics about the deterrent value of capital punishment are not available because it is impossible to know who may have
been deterred from committing a crime.

(3) % 

 
 
 
 
 . Everyday there are many reports of robbery hold-up, murder and kidnapping. It is
noted that what we need is an extreme penalty as a deterrent to crime. This could be a strong argument if it could be proved that
the death penalty discourages murderers and kidnappers.

(4)
  



  
. ͞It is better to free a criminal than kill an innocent man͟. Conviction of the innocent does occur
and thus resulted to miscarriage of judgment and it is irrevocable.

(5) % 

 
  


 &
. An argument against the death penalty is the basic moral issue of
conservation of human rights and humanity. The argument of retribution would be even easier to dismiss if it consisted only of a
base thirst for revenge. According to the opponents of the death penalty, ͞it demeans the moral order and execution is not legalized
murder ʹ nor is imprisonment legalized kidnapping ʹ but it is the coldest, most premeditated for of homicide of all. It does
something almost worse than lowering the state to the moral level of the criminal: it raises the criminal to moral equality with the
social order͟ (Hertzberg, 49). Indeed, one of the ironies of death penalty is that it focuses attention and sympathy on the criminal.

Despite the presence of several disadvantages, the law also has advantages.

(1) % 

  . Most people have a natural fear of death ʹ it͛s a trait man have to think about before acting. The death
penalty is important because it could save the lives of thousands of potential victims who are at stake. Death is an experience that
cannot be experienced and ends all experience. Because it is unknown as it is certain, death is universally feared.

(2)   
'  
(

 . According to those who are anti-death penalty law, there were lots of innocent men wrongly
executed. But there was no proof to the contrary!

(3) % 

 
 
 . There is never a chance given to criminals to ͞pay-back͟ or commit revenge to the family
members of the victims who never stopped until the case is closed. Repeat murders are eliminated and foreseeable murders are
deterred. Potential victims are avoided. One must consider the victim as well as the defendant. Hence, the death penalty is vital to
protect a person͛s right to live!

(4)
% 

 
   
 . If we do not know whether the death penalty will deter others from committing a crime, we will
be confronted with two uncertainties. If we have the death penalty and achieve no deterrent effect, then, the life of convicted
criminals has been expanded in vain. If we have the death sentence, and deter future murderers, we spared the lives of future
victims ʹ the prospective murderers gain, too; they are spared from punishment because they were deterred.

Death penalty is not excessive, unnecessary punishment, for those who knowingly and intentionally commits murder in
premeditation to take lives of others. Even though it is not used more often, it is still a threat to the criminals.

(5)  
'  . The belief that execution is more expensive than imprisonment is false. The expenses in maintaining in prison
many criminals for almost their lifetime far outweighs the cost of the apparatus and maintenance of the procedures attending the
death penalty.

These are only some among the many advantages and disadvantages provided by the proponents and opponents of the death
penalty law.

If people will weigh the arguments properly, and have empathy for the victims, they will be more inclined to favor the death penalty.
Death penalty help to curtail future murderers thus, can save more lives, more innocent lives. In a moralist point of view, on the
other hand, it is a mortal sin to take another͛s life. That we need not put the law into our own hands. That there is God who will
judge each one on Earth with fairness and equality.

Whether or not death penalty law is enforced, the effectiveness of which depends on its implementation and execution and the
quality of our criminal justice system. It is an internal problem. It is to be noted however, that in our society, seldom have we found
a rich and wealthy criminal sentenced to death or even sent to jail. Because it is them who can afford to avail the services of a great
lawyer who can twist and turn the arguments.

The recent admission of Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban that a ͞judicial error͟ has been committed in the conviction and execution
of Leo Echegaray has prompted a hail of criticisms regarding the infallibility of the High Court magistrates. According to Panganiban,
Echegaray should only be penalized by reclusion perpetua since it was not proven during the trial that he was the father, step-father
or grandfather of the victim, a qualifying circumstance for him to have been meted the capital punishment.

The existence or non-existence of a death penalty law is not an accurate measure for one to say that security and peace in the
society cannot be fully achieved. It will all depend on us. If we are only God fearing and morally upright, responsible enough to know
the consequences of our actions, no penalty of any sort is necessary.

But it is indeed true that there is no perfect society. All we have are only wishes and hopes to at least have a community that
supports the needs of the inhabitants in an orderly manner.

Whether or not to abolish the death penalty law is a question that will forever be talked about. One cannot actually say yes to it if he
has been a victim or a relative of such injustice, so to speak. Once death penalty it is carried out there is no reversing the outcome.
Death penalty is a matter of justice and equality.

Thus, we need to weigh both sides of the arguments carefully and make our decisions based on the action that will serve the best
humanitarian purpose of criminal law.

 


7 1+  + +, !,
! +
!
E
 
      !
  
 <,   

 
   
  


Š
 
)*
&!


 &&+*+ &% 
,"-  "+


A YEAR INTO HIS TERM, PRESIDENT ESTRADA IS SQUIRMING on an unexpected hot seat over the issue. Unexpected, because the
once-punchy president has always been cheered for his crusade against the kidnappers and murderers who plagued Filipino society
a few years back.

The public overwhelmingly supported the return of the death penalty at the end of 1993. Lawmakers and the courts have been
enthusiastic. Nearly four dozen crimes in the Philippines, including possession of pot, can now be punished by execution Ͷ one of
the broadest death codes in the free world. Justices have handed out death sentences at such a ferocious rate that, in only a few
years, the Philippines has put 1,100 men and women on death row, second in number only to the United States among democratic
nations. More people languish upon death row in the Philippines than anywhere else in Asia.

Yet, there has been nothing but trouble at the execution chamber at Muntinlupa, an hour away from Manila.

Only a handful of convicts have been put to death since February, when the Philippines executed its first inmate in 23 years. Instead,
Estrada has issued a series of last-minute reprieves, gaining an unwelcome reputation for wavering.

On June 25, only minutes after telling reporters that Eduardo Agbayani would be executed that day, the president bowed to an
appeal from Bishop Teodoro Bacani. The president phoned from home to the execution chamber, but got a busy signal, then a fax
tone. By the time an aide reached the presidential office hotline, Agbayani was dead.

There were no similar snags on July 8 when three men were executed for robbing a jeepney, a kind of local minibus, and killing an
off-duty policeman who was on board. The trio claimed innocence to the end.

Human rights groups alleged considerable legal abuse, including torture of the accused and witnesses.

Such excesses are common, according to rights monitors in the country and abroad. Only the day before the execution, the Supreme
Court ruled in favor of a new trial for another death row inmate. The court finally acknowledged the incapacity of Marlon Parazo,
who is a deaf mute with the mental age of eight years. Despite repeated defense pleas, his disability was somehow overlooked
through a series of earlier hearings.

Such occurrences have spawned new concerns about the death penalty process. Prior to the execution of rapist Leo Echegary in
February, the Supreme Court, which automatically reviews all death sentences, had made final rulings on nearly 60 cases. About an
equal number of death penalties were affirmed as commuted. In over 10 percent of the cases, the supreme court ruled for acquittal.

"This isn͛t like a state with well-defined procedures, standards and safeguards," said attorney Jose Diokno, leader of the Free Legal
Assistance Group, which handles most of the final death penalty appeals. "Here, it͛s all the process of development," he added.

FLAG lacks the funds to get involved prior to final appeals. Instead, representation is largely handled by an over-burdened Public
Attorney͛s Office. PAO officials concede that attorneys have no special training in death cases, and the office lacks investigation
abilities independent of the Department of Justice, which also oversees prosecution, the prisons and executions. Some death row
inmates claim PAO attorneys advised them to plead guilty to get a lighter sentence, unaware that the charge carried a mandatory
death sentence.

In the Philippines, the lowest courts impose the death penalty. Critics say this procedure spawned a "death rush" among justices
eager to appease the public appetite for vengeance. Indeed, many prisoners went to jail in T-shirts emblazoned with the motto,
"Guillotine Club." They were gifts from judges who ascended to the exclusive association by issuing a death decree.

Maximo Asuncion founded the club, but died before his edict on Echegary could be carried out. Ironically, Echegary wasn͛t meant to
be the first person to be put to death by Manila since 1976. The first in line was Fernando Galera. But at the last minute, after three
years on Death Row, he was judged innocent and released.

"It͛s really like a lottery in the Philippines," says Tim Parritt, a London-based Amnesty International researcher who studies the
Philippines. Even a senior prison official at Muntinlupa confided: "There are many innocent people inside, I know that."
The risk of error is so pronounced that Asiaweek Magazine, a leading regional news weekly, recently printed a cover story that
pondered: "Does Manila have the judicial maturity to mete out the ultimate penalty?"

This situation isn͛t what the Philippines had in mind when it became one of the only nations in modern times to restore the death
penalty after earlier bucking the regional trend by banning it.

Worldwide, capital punishment is on the decline, but it is entrenched in Asia, where even progressive countries like Japan, Taiwan,
Thailand and South Korea retain it. Singapore is believed to be the world͛s leader in per capita executions. Overall, 70-80 percent of
the world͛s executions occur in China, which puts to death over 1,000 people each year for crimes that include graft, corruption,
embezzlement and drug trafficking.

Drugs offenses are capital crimes across Asia. Possession of as little as three-fourths of a kilogram of marijuana can be punishable by
death in the Philippines. One Filipino farmer is currently on death row for growing seven pot plants. He feinted after the verdict was
translated to him. A poor, rural resident, he didn't speak the language in which his trial was conducted.

The Philippines banned the death penalty for all crimes in its 1987 constitution, following the overthrow of the Marcos regime,
which had put to death many political opponents. However, an outbreak of kidnappings, killings and coups at the end of the 1980s
prompted lawmakers to restore capital punishment.

Critics point out that crime rates for murders and kidnappings have actually declined steadily since 1990, years before the penalty
was reinstated.

President Estrada has repeatedly promised to excuse crimes motivated by poverty, but that is one of the few common threads on
death row. A survey of 425 death row inmates in 1998 showed that the majority earned under $6 per day. Three-fourths were
farmers, agriculture workers or common laborers.

"Death Row is a home for the poor," said Father Silvino "Jun" Borres, director of the Philippines Jesuit Prison Service.

About 53 percent of the 1,000 death row inmates are rapists. This, too, has become a matter of controversy. In a recent case, the
Supreme Court overturned a verdict of death for a rapist, bringing cries of protests from the young victim. She was due to receive
100,000 pesos ($2,700) in compensation. By quashing the death sentence, the judges automatically slashed the figure in half.

Rape convictions in the Philippines do not require corroboration or supporting evidence. Generally, the word of the victim is enough.
The rationale is that the stigma of rape is so severe, that no Filipina would falsely claim to be raped. Yet, even some women͛s groups
are questioning that logic as rape reports continue to soar, defying regional trends.

Since the executions on July 8, there has been renewed opposition to the death penalty, with a group of lawmakers calling for a total
review.

The church, a huge power in this Christian nation, has joined the call for a moratorium.

And even public sentiment seems to be changing. No reliable surveys have been done, but Jessica Soto, director of Amnesty
International Philipinas, estimates that as many as 90 percent of the public supported the restoration of the death penalty. She
thinks that support has now dwindled to about two-thirds.

That figure is about the level gauged by Adrian Sison, an attorney who conducted a phone survey on his daily radio show,
"Broadcasters Bureau."

"People really have the notion that it͛s a deterrent," said Sison, who said that belief is fading. "You can go back in time. When they
hung pickpockets publicly in England, pickpockets worked the crowd."

Indeed, studies worldwide have failed to match the death penalty with drops in crime. The United States, which has executed more
than 500 prisoners since 1977, has thousands on death row and some of the world͛s highest murder rates. These statistics have
prompted even staunch law enforcement personnel to speak out against the death penalty.
Much the same situation is beginning to happen in the Philippines where the heads of both men͛s and women͛s prisons oppose
executions.

"We͛re supposed to be in the business of rehabilitation," explained Rachel Ruelo, superintendent of the Women͛s Correctional
Institute, where 19 women await execution. "How can I rehabilitate a dead person?"

Ron Gluckman 

‘ 
   



 

 
. 



 
 
 
‘
 

 

 


 
  


/
 
 

‘ *





  
 



0 

 
)*



"1

2333
 +




  
*
 
+
% 

 +


 

 
!4Š+
Š 

 
 
 

!


 

5
 




"##6


 
  
) 
!
‘
 


 



 

  



 



 
2"##
 

% 

 +

1 3(1* ;3<1: 31

The death penalty is so 20th Century!

Most countries have abolished the death penalty altogether; most others use it rarely if ever; and a clear majority have supported a
UN Resolution against the death penalty in each of the last three years (in 2010 the majority was 109 vs 41). However, a few -
including China, the USA, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan - still regularly put people to death.

Most supporters of the death penalty believe that it is justified one or more of the following grounds: (i) as a means of retribution (ie
they should die because they deserve to die); (ii) as a deterrent to others; (iii) to prevent any danger of re-offending; (iv) because it's
cheaper than keeping people in prison.

Opponents object to the death penalty on one or more of the following grounds: (i) killing someone is always wrong, and two
wrongs can never make a right; (ii) there is in fact no evidence of a deterrent effect; (iii) life without parole is just as effective a way
to prevent someone reoffending as executing them; (iv) saving money can never be a justification for taking someone's life; and
finally, (v) mistakes are bound to happen, and that means people being put to death for a crime they didn't commit (imagine if that
were you or someone you loved).

http://www.squidoo.com/abolishthedeathpenalty

:9;)3)9*9-1 3(1* ;3<

1-)*)3)9*

According to Republic Act No. 7659, death penalty is a penalty for crimes that are "heinous 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." Death penalty is a
cruel, futile and dangerous punishment for "very serious reasons and with due judicial process." According to Amnesty International,
a worldwide movement of people working for internationally recognized human rights; death penalty is the ultimate, irreversible
denial of human rights. Thus, they worked towards abolishing it in order to "end the cycle of violence created by a system riddled
with economic and racial bias and tainted with human error."

BACKGROUND

Next, I would like to present a brief background on death penalty in the Philippines. In 1987, the Philippines made history by
becoming the first Asian country in modern times to abolish the death penalty for all crimes. However, six years later, in 1993,
the death penalty was reintroduced in the Philippines for 46 different offences. Such of those are murder, rape, parricide,
infanticide and qualified bribery, among others. Executions resumed in 1999 until year 2000 when former President Estrada
 announced a moratorium on executions. This has been continued by current President Arroyo, in practice, throughout her
presidency. Now, under her rule, the death penalty is again abolished .

STANCE

I am in favor of abolishing the death penalty law in the Philippines. Allow me to present my arguments. First, it violates the
right to live. Second, it is a very cruel practice. Third, it is anti-poor. Last, death penalty defeats its purpose.

ARGUMENTS

First, the imposition of death penalty violates a person's right to live. Article III Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution, otherwise
known as the Bill of Rights, states that "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property͙" By imposing death penalty,
the right of a criminal to live is being violated.

Furthermore, it is a known fact that majority of Filipinos are Catholics. As said, we have one of the world's largest Christian
populations. According to the Ten Commandments of the Church, thou shall not kill. Therefore, nobody is given the right to
commit the lives of others. Whether that person is a criminal or not, nobody has the right to play God and take the life that
He has given. Filipinos should "respect and value the sanctity of human life and uphold the virtue and religious doctrines that
are expected of us as a dominant Christian nation."

Second, it is a very cruel, inhuman and irreversible practice. It is very cruel and in human because persons are killed. This
alone is proof. Once a person is killed, the act cannot be reversed.

Third, death penalty is anti-poor. In a country like the Philippines with a very slow, sometimes inefficient, unfair and unjust
judicial system, death penalty is simply not viable. Majority of the 1200 people on the death row are poor. Maybe, for some,
being there is what they deserve. But for many, it is poverty that brought them there. Not everyone in that row should die.
Many are simply there because they ran against some filthy rich and powerful person or they could not afford to get a good
lawyer to defend them. A study showed that "death penalty is anti-poor as the underprivileged who cannot afford the
services of competent counsels are oftentimes the ones convicted of death penalty". "Studies have shown that the death
penalty is disproportionately imposed on the poorest, least educated and most vulnerable members of society. It takes the
lives of offenders who might otherwise have been rehabilitated."

Lastly, death penalty does not live up to its purpose. It is not able to serve its purpose which is to prevent crimes and to
preserve peace and order. According to the President, in a letter she sent to Senate President Franklin M. Drilon, the
imposition of death penalty "was shown to have not served its principal purpose of effectively deterring the commission of
heinous crimes". Clearly, even with death penalty imposed, the Philippines still continued to project high and rising crime
rates in the country. If death penalty is effective, there should have been less crimes but it is quite the contrary. Also, there
are no concrete evidence like studies or tests that could prove that the imposition of death penalty really prevents crime thus
maintaining peace and order in the country.

SUMMARY

To cap off this essay, death penalty is the punishment served to those who have committed crimes that are "heinous 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." I am in favor of the abolition of death penalty because first, its imposition violates the right to
live. Second, it is a very cruel, inhuman and irreversible act. Third, death penalty is anti-poor. Lastly, death penalty does not
serve its purpose of preventing crimes and preserving peace and order.

I wish to end this speech by saying that I commend the Congress for passing a legislation calling for the abolition of death
penalty. As CBCP puts it, this step has finally led the country "to move from justice that kills to justice that heals."

http://www.helium.com/items/68046-death-penalty-in-the-philippines
Philippines' death penalty debate

)
  
,'

+


 
 

 

But earlier this month, both houses repealed the death penalty in quick time, leaving
many analysts wondering why that bill got sudden priority while other items languish.

The move was welcomed by the influential Roman Catholic Church and human rights
groups that had put pressure on President Gloria Arroyo and previous
administrations to scrap capital punishment.
rroyo may have an eye on her legacy
But others questioned what triggered the urgency to repeal a law that was rarely applied.

"The unusual speed in a legislature constantly bogged down in gridlock raised cynical suspicions that lawmakers are in dire need of
the Catholic Church's approval and support. For what, the public can only hazard a guess," the Philippine Star newspaper said in an
editorial.

Eight in 10 Filipinos are Catholic and the Church wields considerable power, having helped to topple two presidents - Ferdinand
Marcos in 1986 and Joseph Estrada in 2001 - in popular revolts.

Mrs Arroyo, who survived an impeachment attempt last year, depends on the support of the Church as she fights persistent
allegations she cheated in the 2004 election, after taking over from Mr Estrada in 2001.

But the Arroyo government has tested that support by pushing a revival of mining to bring in foreign investment, cut debt and
reduce poverty. Some Catholic bishops oppose mining on environmental grounds.

"The abolition of the death penalty is one way of saying to the bishops I can't give you what you want over the mining but I can give
you something else, quid pro quo," said political analyst Earl Perrano of the Institute of Political and Electoral Reforms.

"The Church will still campaign strongly to stop mining operations but with the repeal of the death penalty it's one less issue she has
to worry about."

Other analysts say president Arroyo is also seeking support from bishops for her push to change the country's US-style constitution
and set up a parliamentary system.

:!


The change in the death penalty law has drawn angry protests.

The Philippines is plagued by violent crime, with guns readily available and used in even minor disputes. Besides kidnapping and
extortion gangs, there are communist and Muslim insurgencies.

Anti-crime groups said they feared that scrapping the death penalty would make matters worse.

"This government is siding with criminals and not the victims. Now some victims of heinous crimes may resort to hired killers to get
justice," said Dante Jimenez of the Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption, a prominent group whose members are relatives of
hundreds of victims.

Mr Jimenez said he suspected the Arroyo administration rushed to abolish the death penalty in an effort to please Pope Benedict
XVI, whom the president met on Monday.

F!
 F
The new law means that sentences for about 1,200 inmates on death row will be changed to life in prison.

Joel Rocamora of the Institute for Popular Democracy said the abolition of capital punishment was unpopular and saw the change in
the law as a precursor to getting Dutch authorities to deport the founder of the Communist Party of the Philippines, Jose Maria
Sison.

State lawyers in Manila have filed murder charges against Mr Sison over the death of a provincial governor in 2001.

But before Mr Sison could be returned to the Philippines from exile in the Netherlands, Mr Rocamora said the death penalty first
had to be scrapped.

"I think Arroyo herself has decided her place in Philippine history should be marked by ending the country's insurgencies. Jose Maria
Sison would almost certainly be jailed once he reaches the Philippines, but he is a crucial part of negotiations, he still leads the
Communist Party and plays a major role," Mr Rocamora said.

The communist insurgency has killed more than 40,000 people since the late 1960s, deterred investment and stunted rural
development.

This is not the first time the death penalty has been abolished in the Philippines. It was taken off the books in 1987 after President
Marcos was removed from power.

Mr Marcos used the law to execute about a dozen people convicted of rape and drug charges, but some analysts say it was revoked
as a backlash against his abuse of power and human rights during two decades in office.

But in 1994, capital punishment was re-imposed after a rise in crime. Under that law, seven executions were carried out by lethal
injection.

In 2000, President Estrada ordered a moratorium on executions after strong lobbying by the Catholic Church, the European Union
and human rights groups.

Mr Estrada said he would help to repeal the death penalty but was not able to fulfil his promise as he soon found himself on trial for
plunder, a capital offence.

Mr Parreno said the death penalty was an issue that would always divide the Philippines.

"There are often miscarriages of justice as police work in the Philippines is very sloppy and technology is outdated," he said.

"Because the justice system is very corrupt, most of the convicted are the poor because the rich bribe their way out of a sentence."

9G3;)*13  ++  


:!
+


Due to the alarming upsurge of heinous crimes which has resulted not only in the loss of human lives and wanton destruction of
property but also affected the states' efforts towards sustainable economic development and prosperity while at the same time has
undermined the people's faith in the Government and the latter's ability to maintain peace and order in the country, death penalty
is proposed to be imposed.


1. The crimes punishable by death are heinous 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.
2. The interest of justice, public order and the rule of law necessitates the imposition of death penalty.

3. To foster and ensure not only obedience to government's authority, but also to adopt such measures as would effectively
promote the maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life, liberty and property, and the promotion of the general welfare
which are essential for the enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of democracy in a just and humane society

'


1. Imposition of death penalty will not in anyway prevent commission of heinous crimes. It only reflects the failure of the
government and the society to instill proper values to its citizens.

2. Justice cannot be attained by killing the perpetrator of heinous crime. We must value life and in the same vein, the government
must not resort to imposing death penalty to find justice to the victim. A civil society should not descend to the status of murderers
by preferring revenge over far better forms of justice.

3. Punishment is supposed to reform and rehabilitate the perpetrator of a crime. Imposing the death penalty will not achieve said
goal. Death penalty is an absolute judgment against the life of a person.