The graver the theft, the more fingers were cut and if the theft was very grave, the hands was chopped off, therefore it is understandable that even in the Early periods of our history there are certain punishment for a offense, that even the code of Kalantiao imposed death penalty for rape and murder that is considered as heinous crime.
Today, the State itself has different punishment opposite to its offence, our legislators implement and pass a Bill that will sentenced a grave offender of crime, one of it is the Republic Act No. 7659 or the Death Penalty Act which gathers many controversies on its implementation, according to this act a criminal who has been proven guilty to a heinous crime with the proper due process of law will be executed.
The death penalty itself on the other hand could strike fear in the minds of those criminals and make them think twice before committing any act of violence. That the Capital punishment may act as an instrument with which the righteous may be guarded against the offender. The enforcement of Capital Punishment under proper circumstances places a high value on human life and upholds dignity of man, than making him stop to the level of criminals by lashing out at them with similar brutality in the guise of justice.
In the Philippines where there is no clean and fair justice system, there is no doubt that if ever the Republic Act No. 7659 or the Death Penalty Act is reimposed there are many Filipino who will lose their right to life and many will be sentenced with death penalty and die as it is said those who have less in life, have less in law, that the death penalty will be biased to the poor ones who could be easily accused by the rich one or those who were set up to be pointed out as the criminal. As long as bail is pegged on wealth and the enforcement of law is swayed by money, position and possessions, the death penalty will be a sword of Damocles over the head of the impoverished and the weak.
We have not repented and turned from our evil ways, we continue to miss the mark. And so we become desperate and hope to eradicate crime by wasting or executing the sinner, not the sin.
This study tested well the hypothesis that there are significant, relevant and argumentative concepts and ideas involving the analysis of death penalty under the Philippine Government. The study is an analysis of the extent of the abolishment of death penalty: Moral and Judicial debate under the Philippine Government specifically it sought answer to the following questions:
- Do death penalty control and decrease the crime rate in the Philippines?
- What are the reasons why death penalty was abolished?
- What will be the possible psychological effect of death penalty to the criminals that was in jail?
- What is the possible role of the church?
Rationale and Limitation of the Study
The study was limited to the analysis of the abolishment of the Republic Act No. 7659 or the Death Penalty Act: Moral and Judicial debate under the Philippine Government. The study does not include other phrases such as how, where, and what are the methods nor the process in death penalty.
The Capital Punishment
The expression Capital Punishment or the Death Penalty is ambiguous, referring to a species of acts, acts of executing someone for conduct judge to be criminal. It often refers to a certain kind of social institution. The institution of capital punishment is one pattern of punishment that forms part of our legal system in many, but not all, societies. It involves certain roles like those of the executioner and the criminal and certain rules such as the rule that only person condemned to death by courts is to be executed. In most society, the punishment for murder is execution. In the Philippines we have the same act, the R.A. no. 7659 or the death penalty act.
Two Theories on Death Penalty
Classical theory (on which our Revised Penal Code is based) regards crime as the product of human free will, and the purpose of penalty as retribution. Man is held accountable for felonious acts only if such free will remains unimpaired. For penal purposes, emphasis is placed more on the act than on the man himself, and a direct proportion is established between crime and penalty according to severity of the offense. Hence, the death penalty for heinous crimes.
Positivist theory, on the other hand, views human free will as a myth or at least a debatable matter. According to it, man is subdued to occasionally by a strange and morbid phenomenon which contrains him to do wrong contrary to his free will. For this reason, man as a moral being is given primacy over deed, and crime is viewed as a social phenomenon that can't be checked by retributive transactions, but by measures designed, cure or educate the criminal.
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7659
AN ACT TO IMPOSE THE DEATH PENALTY ON CERTAIN HEINOUS CRIMES, AMENDING FOR THAT PURPOSE THE REVISED PENAL LAWS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
WHEREAS, the Constitution, specifically Article III, Section 19 paragraph (1) thereof, states "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.
WHEREAS, the crimes punishable by death under this Act 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;
WHEREAS, due to the alarming upsurge of such crimes which has resulted not only in the loss of human lives and wanton destruction of property but also affected the nation's 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;
WHEREAS, the Congress, in the justice, public order and the rule of law, and the need to rationalize and harmonize the penal sanctions for heinous crimes, finds compelling reasons to impose the death penalty for said crimes;
- Sec. 1. Declaration of Policy. - It is hereby declared the policy of the State to foster and ensure not only obedience to its 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;
- Sec. 2. Article 114 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows:
Art. 114. Treason. - Any Filipino citizen who levies war against the Philippines or adheres to her enemies giving them aid or comfort within the Philippines or elsewhere, shall be punished by reclusion perpetua to death and shall pay a fine not to exceed 100,000 pesos."
No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses at least to the same overt act or on confession of the accused in open court.
Likewise, an alien, residing in the Philippines, who commits acts of treason as defined in paragraph 1 of this Article shall be punished by reclusion temporal to death and shall pay a fine not to exceed 100,000 pesos."
- Sec. 6. Article 248 of the same Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Art. 248. Murder. - Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246 shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua, to death if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances:
- With treachery, taking advantage to superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity.
- In consideration of price, reward or promise.
- By means of inundation, fire poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of vessel, derailment of assault upon a railroad, fall of an airship, or by means of motor vehicles, or with use of any means involving great waste and ruin.
- On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or of an earthquake eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic or other public calamity.
- With evident premeditation.
- With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim or outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse.
- Sec. 11. Article 335 of the same Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Art. 335. When and how rape is committed. - Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:
- By using force or intimidation.
- When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and
- When the woman is under twelve years of age or is demented.
Whenever the crime of rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death.
When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has become insane, the penalty shall be death.
When the rape is attempted or frustrated and a homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion thereof, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death.
The death penalty shall also be imposed it the crime of rape is committed with any of the following attendant circumstances:
- 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.
- When the victim is under the custody of the police or military authorities.
- When the rape is committed in full view of the husband, parent, any of the children or other relatives within the third degree of consanguinity.
- When the victim is a religious or a child below seven (7) years old.
- When the offender knows that he is afflicted with Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) disease.
- When committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the Philippines or the Philippine National Police or any law enforcement agency.
- When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has suffered permanent physical mutilation."
- Sec. 3. Importation of Prohibited Drugs. - The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, unless authorized by law, shall import or bring into the Philippines any prohibited drug.
- Sec. 22. Article 47 of the same Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Art. 47. In what cases the death penalty shall not be imposed; Automatic review of the Death Penalty Cases. - The death penalty shall be imposed in all cases in which it must be imposed under existing laws, except when the guilty person is below eighteen (18) years of age at the time of the commission of the crime or is more than seventy years of age or when upon appeal or automatic review of the case by the Supreme Court, the required majority vote is not obtained for the imposition of the death penalty, in which cases the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua.
In all cases where the death penalty is imposed by the trial court, the records shall be forwarded to the Supreme Court for automatic review and judgment by the Court en banc, within twenty (20) days but not earlier than fifteen (15) days after promulgation of the judgment or notice of denial of any motion for new trial or reconsideration. The transcript shall also be forwarded within ten (10) days from the filing thereof by the stenographic reporter."
- Sec. 25. Article 83 of the same Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Art. 83. Suspension of the execution of the death sentence. - The death sentence shall not be inflicted upon a woman while she is pregnant or within one (1) year after delivery, nor upon any person over seventy years of age. In this last case, the death sentence shall be commuted to the penalty of reclusion perpetua with the accessory penalties provided in Article 40.
In all cases where the death sentence has become final, the records of the case shall be forwarded immediately by the Supreme Court to the Office of the President for possible exercise of the pardoning power."
ARGUMENTS FOR CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
The classical and contemporary literature on the subject of capital punishment provides several very plausible arguments designed to prove that the act of executing a person for conduct judge to be criminal is sometimes right.
Capital punishment is sometimes morally justified as a means of preventing the criminal from committing additional crimes. By his past action the criminal has shown himself to be wicked and dangerous. Anyone deprived enough to murder or rape once is very likely to act in socially harmful ways again. The only sure way to prevent such a person from going on to murder or rape in the future is to execute him. Imprisonment is a far less effective means of protecting society from such dangerous criminals. Most prisoners are freed after a time-often having become most dangerous than when they entered prison-by parole, pardon or the expiration of their sentences. In any case, escape is always possible. And even within the confines of prison, a condemned criminal may murder or rape a guard, a fellow inmate or a visitor. Executing a condemned criminal is the only sure way to prevent him from committing additional acts of crime. Since it is the only right to protect the innocent member of the society from the most serious crimes, capital punishment is sometimes right.
While the arguments from preventions and deterrence look to the future and attempt to justify capital punishment by an appeal to the future harm it will avoid, the argument from retribution looks to the past and tries to justify capital punishment as the right response to the wrong that has been done. Granted that society would be unjustified in taking a person's life in punishment for any trivial crime, capital punishment is just retribution for the greatest crimes. If one person has killed another, it is only fir that he give his own life in return. Kidnapping and rape are also very wrong that the person who commits these acts deserves the greatest penalty, death. Justice demands that each individual be treated by others and by society as he deserves. The person who does good act ought to be rewarded with good, and the person who does evil ought to suffer evil-each in proportion to the good or evil done. The conception of justice implicit in this argument has traditionally been illustrated by the figure of a blindfold woman holding a set of balance scales. The woman is blindfolded so that she cannot recognize her friends and enemies and award the former more good and the latter more evil than they deserve. The balance scale symbolizes the element of retribution, the notion that good or evil are to be awarded in return to the good or evil he has done. Applied to punishment, this means that the punishment should fit the crime that the evil inflicted upon the condemned criminal should be in proportion to the degree of harm he has done. Since the only penalty bad enough to equal the greatest crime is death, and since justice requires that the criminal receive just retribution for his past misdeeds, and since it is right to do what justice requires, capital punishment or death penalty is sometimes right.
Capital punishment is sometimes right because it is sometimes an exercise of society's right to self defense. Although it is generally wrong for one human being to take the life of another, there are exceptional cases where this is morally justified, A person has right to kill his attacker if this is necessary to preserve his life or limb. Society, like the individual, has the right to preserve itself when its very existence is threatened. Now a murderer attacks not only his individual victim, but the society itself. Since society is constituted by aggregate of individuals, to kill one or more individual is already to begin to exterminate the society. Moreover, certain laws, such as the law prohibiting murder, are necessary if any collections of individuals are to live together in organized society. Hence, to break those laws that alone make the existence of society possible is to threaten that society with death. Capital punishment is sometimes right because it is right for society to exercise its self defense, and in extreme cases capital punishment or death penalty does not defend the society from the attacks of a criminal that threaten its very existence.
ARGUMENTS AGAINTS CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
Any serious moral problem is two-sided. If all or most of the relevant considerations are on one side of the fence, everyone knows where the right course of action lies and there is no real moral problem. In the case of every live moral issue, like that of capital punishment, there is room for sincere and persistent disagreement because plausible arguments on one side can be met with equally plausible argument on the other side of the issue. Having surveyed the arguments in support of capital punishment, let us look at the arguments of those who insist that capital punishment is always wrong, that it is never right to execute the condemned criminal no matter how evil his crime.
The Moral Law
Capital punishment is always wrong because it is always a violation of moral laws. The moral law consists of those rules that specify which kinds of acts are morally right and which kinds are morally wrong. Historically, it has been thought of in various ways. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, the moral law is usually taken to be the set of commands issued by God, whether limited to the Ten Commandments or including the many mandates inscribed in the book of the bible. Rationalistic philosopher have tended to ignore or reject revelation and think of moral laws as self-evident truths about right and wrong discoverable by the natural light of human reason. However the moral law may be conceived, it is usually presumed to forbid killing, to prohibit the intentional killing of human being. Since the moral law declares that killing a human being is always wrong and since the act of capital punishment is obviously an act of killing a human being, capital punishment or death penalty is always wrong.
Capital punishment or the death penalty is always wrong because it is always wrong to do monstrous harm. Although lesser evils may be outweighed by greater goods, there are some acts that do such great harm that under no circumstances could they be morally justified. The Nazi extermination of million of Jews inflicted such monstrous harm upon these innocent people that no real or imagined benefits to humanity could overweigh its wrongness. On a lesser scale, capital punishment also does almost indescribable harm. By definition, it deprives its victim of his every life. The loss of a human life is the greatest of evil because life is the most precious of all human goods. Not only is life the necessary condition of any other good at all, it is intrinsically good to the highest degree. That we prize life above all other things is shown by the way we cling to life and resist death even when everything else seems lost.
In addition to the obvious harm of inflicting death, capital punishment causes cruel and inhuman suffering. It may be that the moment of death is almost painless, although this is not always so. Still, the period of awaiting execution is one of the most unrelieved tortures. With few if any interesting activities to distract the condemned prisoner, there is little to think about but impending doom. Under these conditions, the fear of death, the deepest and most terrifying of all the fears natural to the human psyche, results in a condition anxiety approaching constant anguish.
Some evils are morally justified because they are necessary. Under duress of circumstances, it may be necessary to do evil because that is the only possible way to avoid some greater evil. The butchering of cattle, sheep and swine may be justified by the fact that this is only way of sustaining the human population. Unfortunate as it is that any animal need die, it is less bad that the brute animals perish than that human beings starve to death. This line of argument does not justify hunting wild animals for mere pleasure, of course, for hunting is an necessary evil. Only necessary evils, only those that must be done in order to prevent some worse calamity, are morally right. Now it may be argued that the execution of criminals, like the killing of cattle, is necessary evil. The suffering and death inflicted by capital punishment, evil as they are, are justified by the fact that the death penalty is the only effective means of protecting society from the even greater evils of murder, rape and kidnapping. But this is not so. Capital punishment is not necessary because there is another equally effective and less undesirable means of dealing with crime. Life imprisonment is just as effective as capital punishment in preventing and deterring crime. The condemned criminal cannot continue his evil actions under close supervision, and the fear of life imprisonment will deter potential criminal from doing wrong. Moreover, life imprisonment is a lesser evil than capital punishment. Admittedly, it inflicts loss of freedom, personal humiliation and extreme boredom upon the criminal. But suffering is required by the very nature and purpose of punishment, and these evils are less cruel than death and the agony of awaiting death. Since the death penalty is an unnecessary evil and it is always wrong to do unnecessary evil, capital punishment is always wrong.
Capital punishment is wrong because it is irremediable; there is no remedy for the act of execution. Unfortunately, there re occasion when even the sternest advocate of harsh punishment deeply desire some remedy, for innocent persons are occasionally condemned to death. Such judicial errors do not take place often, or at least are not often detected, but when they do occur, we rebel at this gratuitous loss of innocent life and yearn for some remedy. Not all punishment are beyond remedy. If someone is fined by the court as a penalty for alleged wrongdoing, his money can be restored to him if it is subsequently discovered that he is innocent. If a person's innocence is established after he has spent several years in prison, restitution is not possible. There is no way in which society can give back to someone wrongly condemned those lost years of his life or undo the suffering he has lived through. Still, some compensation is possible. Society can give its innocent victim a considerable sum of money to repay him, in part at least, for what he has suffered at its hand. It would be naively sentimental to pretend that any compensation would adequately balance the harm inflicted upon the person unjustly condemned to imprisonment, but some partial and imperfect remedy is available for any such miscarriage of justice. In the case of capital punishment, no remedy of any kind is available to make up in the slightest degree for the incalculable evil done by taking the life of an innocent human being. Neither restitution nor compensation is possible, for there is no way in which society can give a person's life back to him and no way to do good to someone who is dead and gone. Since the possibility of error can never be eradicated from any human judicial procedure, irremediable penalties are always wrong. Since capital punishment is an irremediable judicial penalty, it is always wrong.
On the Abolition of the Death Penalty
The Commission on Human Rights has opposed the enactment of any law re-imposing the death penalty law in the Philippines on the ground that it offends the dignity of human person and human rights. Article II, Section11 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution states:
"The State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights".
The aforesaid provision is in accordance with the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which the Philippines had ratified, guarantees that every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life. The Congress of the Philippines, nevertheless, enacted Republic Act No. 7659 imposing the death sentence with the motivation that the law will be a deterrent to the commission of heinous crimes, as enumerated in the aforesaid statute. Statistics, however, show that the expectation of the Philippine Congress has not been realized. Despite the enactment of the death penalty law and the execution of seven convicts, ore heinous crimes have been committed. From January to October 1999, the reported cases of rape, which is considered as a heinous crime under the statute, have substantially increased. Only recently, the President of the Philippines expressed his second thoughts on the imposition of the death penalty. He has commuted to life imprisonment the death sentence of prisoners in Muntinlupa. House Bill Nos. 6083, introduced by Representative Salacnib F. Baterina, and 8844, introduced by Representative Roan L. Libarios, have proposed the repeal of republic Act No. 7659. Indeed, the Philippines, known as a predominantly Christian country, by enacting the death penalty law, has returned to the ancient era of Lex Taliones -" life for a life, tooth for a tooth" – a system blatantly contradictory to the higher values of law and justice. Pope John Paul II, in his "Encyclical Evangelium Vitae (Gospel of Life)" issued on 25 March 1995, said that modern society now has all the means of effectively suppressing all crimes by rendering harmless without definitely denying them the chance to reform. Moreover, the concept of heinous crimes is now limited to grievous offenses like genocide or international terrorism when the security of the state is placed in danger. The Commission on Human Rights, since the enactment of Republic Act No. 7659 and the execution of the first death sentence of Leo Echegaray, recommended to the Philippine Senate to ratify the Second Optional Protocol to the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights aiming the Abolition of Death Penalty. The said Protocol states that the abolition of the death penalty contributes to the enhancement of the dignity and progressive development of human rights. Criminality can be fought with sincere and effective law enforcement and impartial administration of justice. The said Protocol has already been ratified by more than one-half of all the countries and territories. It is about time that the Philippines join the trend in the United Nations to eliminate death penalty in local statutes. The Commission on Human Rights issues this Human Rights Advisory addressed to the President and the Congress of the Republic of the Philippines for their appropriate action and all the person who value the dignity of the human person and the preservation and sanctity of life.
THE PROS AND CONS OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
Does the State have the right and authority to impose the capital punishment and put a criminal to death? Advocates of human rights oppose capital punishment and say it is cruel, inhuman, uncivilized and inconsistent with reason. The constitution of the Philippines has abolished capital punishment but does not prohibit Congress to impose death penalty for the heinous crime. Today our legislators have yet to define and rule on what constitutes a heinous crime.
Henry Davis, theologian support the view: God has given to the State the right over life and death as he has given to everyman the right of self-defense against aggression. This moral power of the State has been universally acknowledge in Christian tradition. It is explicitly declared in Scripture to have existed in the Jewish State (Exodus 22:18); it was recognized in the Roman Polity by Paul (Romans 13:4); “for he (the prince) is God's minister to them for good. But if they do that which is evil; fear; for the beareth not the sword in vain”
He therefore declared that every person has the right to live without unjust molestation from the others. Capital punishment is therefore unnecessary for peace and security of life and property. In his thinking capital punishment is deterrent so that citizen may live and go about their activities with our molestation. Nonetheless he allows capital punishment under the following conditions:
- The criminal is given due process in the court
- The crime imputed to him must be deserving of the highest possible punishment.
- The guilt of the criminal is sufficiently proved beyond any doubt
Capital Punishment or Death Penalty is a destructive action which needs a special justification, a special pleading. Capital punishment should never be compared with surgery where the intention is the preservation of life and not the extinction of life. Directly harmful actions which do not bring benefit to one who suffers them are hard to justify. Such that capital punishment for it directly destroy the life of a person, preventing him to make amends and to change his life. Indeed, it is presumed that the State has the duty to rehabilitate criminals.
Bernard Haring suggest that crimes re the result of socio environmental conditions. He declares as his personal conviction “that the State has no right to uphold the death penalty unless it has done all in time power to give better education and to care for a more just and humane environment” he notes.
Recapituation: there are two probable opinions with Christianity and within the Catholic Church regarding the death penalty. This author favor to the reimposition of death penalty for heinous crimes and for as long as the conditions providing for a just and honest trials of criminals are observed strictly Philippines situation indicates that life imprisonment is not a very promising alternative.
Newspaper Clip: Views on Reimposition Of Death Penalty
The Republic Act No. 7659 also known as the Death Penalty Act has undergone different analysis and interpretations thus its implementation says will decrease the Philippines crime rate, but it remains unquestionable.
Death Penalty for Graft and Corruption
DELICADEZA: A combination of delicadeza and public opinion led to the withdrawal of Zoe Baird, one of America's ablest women lawyers, as President Clinton's nominee for attorney general. She was the first woman ever to be nominated for the position. Reason for withdrawal: She had hired a Peruvian couple who were illegal immigrants. In the Philippines, delicadeza and public opinion cannot pry everyone who has already been nominated for a high position out of a job especially if he has already been installed. We seek refuge behind the principle that one is innocent until proven guilty. This theory leaves no room for either public opinion or delicadeza. We are only fouled weather democrats.
Death Penalty for Drugs
According to reports in the regional press, the ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Organization has urged all ASEAN member states to impose the death penalty for drug trafficking. At a recent meeting in Kuala, Lumpur, delegates from five member states, including the Philippines, agreed that trafficking in over 15 grams of heroin or morphine should be made a capital offense.
- Meriam Santiago said the number of crimes committed daily rose to 34.3 percent in 1990, during which there were 5,193 index crimes reported representing what she called a significant increase in crime against property, life and chastity.
“as an immigration commissioner, I was privy to intelligence reports on the activities of global criminal syndicates, which use the Philippines as the transhipment centers for drugs in Asia. Only the death penalty will deter the syndicate”.
She pointed out that the 1987 Constitution abolished the death penalty, and from that time, police reports show that an average of two people is killed daily.
“In Manila, from the time death penalty was abolished, the criminality rate rose by more than 100 percent”. she said.
- Bengson a practicing lawyer, said legislator as representatives of the people should now take heed of their constituents' voice. He noted that even among churchmen, there is division on weather death penalty is moral.
“In the face of such doubt, the people's voice should be the final arbiter”, he said.
He noted the near unanimity of law enforcers, prosecutors, justices, and local officials on the necessity of reimposing the death penalty.
“Letters to newspaper editors and phoned-in comments on public affairs radio and television shows popular support for the death penalty”, Bengson added.
He also contested arguments that the state will be just like the criminals if it puts murderers to death.
“A Government that is unwilling to put its most hardened and incorrigible criminals to death will find its citizens at the mercy of criminals who find nothing wrong with putting innocent people to death”, he said.
He added that outlawing or banning the death penalty will be tantamount to giving the wrong signals to criminal elements.
“We'll be saying to them: “You can kill innocent women, children, and old people but be assured that your own life is safe because we don't allow the death penalty,” he said.
- Judge Tirso Velasco, presiding judge of the Quezon City Regional Trial Court Branch 88, said his colleagues acknowledge the need for restoration of the death penalty.
- The death penalty should be implemented only according to the gravity of the crime against the person.
- The death penalty will prevent more heinous crime.
- The reimposition of the death penalty will comply with the biblical principle of an “eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.
- Judge Maximino Asuncion of RTC Branch 104 said that while he was not sure that the death penalty will reduce incidence of crime, a majority clamors its reimposition.
“Everybody should have their own share of the law,” he said
The 1986 Constitution abolished the death penalty, but allowed Congress to reimpose it on certain heinous crimes.
- Fourteen of fifteen justices of the Supreme Court, support the reimposition of the death penalty.
The association of Governors, City and Town Mayors and Councilors also favor the restoration of capital punishment.
- A 20,000- strong student organization threatened not to vote and campaign against a Senator who oppose the death penalty if they seek re-election.
- When deposed President Marcos declared Martial Law in 1972, he ordered a notorious Chinese Drug pusher executed by musketry under the dangerous drugs law. The execution sent shock waves down drug pushing, addiction and illegal importation of drugs for their sale was down to a trickle.
- The penalty for peddling drug is death in at least six Asian countries. Malaysia showed the way on July 7, 1985. Death to drug dealers is mandatory in Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Singapore. The People's Republic of China has many times reported execution of drug pusher.
- In the United States which is made up of 50 states, only 11 states have abolished capital punishment namely Kansas, North Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, Winconsin, Michigan, West Virginia, New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Maine.
- Prof. Ed Garcia, principal author of the provision abolishing the death penalty in the 1987 Constitution, cites an 1989 Amnesty International Study of the use of the death penalty in the Philippines which presents case of studies of at least eight instances where judicial mistakes had resulted in the death penalty being imposed on innocent individuals and one case in 1958 where it was carried out and blameless farmer's life snuffled out.
- Another useful statistics of study made on the death penalty in the Philippines from 1946-1976 showed that of 63 persons on whom the death penalty was imposed only three came from so called middle class family background while the rest were from what are referred to as the disadvantages sector.
- August 12, 1991 Senators who favor the return of the death penalty are confident they have enough vote to pass the proposal the next day, but their pro-life colleagues are about to give up the fight.
This study determined the debates on death penalty referring to moral and judicial control under the Philippine Government. It further elaborated on the disputes of opinions and facts regarding the unresolved issue rooming continuously to present times.
Though, it specifically answers the following questions:
- What are the revised penal laws indicated for the said capital punishment issue?
- What are the biblical oaths in accordance to death penalty offenses?
- What are the pros and cons of capital punishment?
- What are the arguments for capital punishment and arguments against capital punishment?
Significant and relevant yet argumentative views showed further concerns with the reimposition of capital punishment. Vehement forms of idealistic battles pertaining to purposive biblical, theoretical, judicial and moral facts give it's way to the complication and inconsistencies to which laws governing the country are oftenly refined.
Large numbers of politicians were merely in approvement with the reimposition as of the times heinous crimes were observed frequently during their terms of service and left death penalty as the only option for the hinderance of such pandemonium in the society and evaluations by other countries as basis for the inactment.
Abolition of Republic Act No. 7659 was much praised because it was proven that capital punishment is not always succeeding in preventing heinous crimes and will only deprive the country's capability and irredibility towards authenticity and fairness in judgement. Fundamental right of every human being to life and dignity of human person and preservation and sanctity of life were highly and truly valued.