reimposition of death penalty in the philippines essay

Username or Email Address

Remember Me

Exploring the Death Penalty in the Philippines Essay

Is the death penalty truly an effective deterrent to crime? And what are the ramifications of its application in the Philippines ? Join us as we delve into the controversial topic of capital punishment in the Philippines , examining its history, legal implications, and impact on human rights.

The Philippines made history in 1987 when it became the first Asian country in modern times to abolish the death penalty for all crimes. However, in 1993, it was reintroduced for “heinous” crimes due to public fear and frustration at increasing rates of violent crime. Today, there are more than 400 people on Death Row in the Philippines, making it one of the countries with the highest sentencing rates in the world.

Key Takeaways:

• The death penalty was abolished in the Philippines in 1987 but reintroduced in 1993 for “heinous” crimes.
• The country has one of the highest sentencing rates in the world, with over 400 people on Death Row.
• Arguments against the death penalty include doubts about its deterrent effect and concerns about fairness in trials.
• Studies have shown that the death penalty does not act as a greater deterrent to crime compared to other forms of punishment.
• The international community opposes the death penalty, and the Philippines risks violating its human rights obligations if it reinstates it.

The Legal and Human Rights Context

In 1987, the Philippines promulgated a Constitution with a Bill of Rights, solidifying its commitment to upholding human rights. This important document established an independent Commission on Human Rights and affirmed the country’s dedication to international human rights norms by acceding to major human rights treaties.

However, the reintroduction of the death penalty in the Philippines raises significant concerns regarding human rights violations. The right to life and the prohibition of cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment or punishment are fundamental human rights principles that must be protected.

There have been troubling allegations of torture and ill-treatment used to extract confessions, which not only violates human rights but also poses a grave risk of judicial error. These practices undermine the integrity and fairness of the criminal justice system, casting doubt on the credibility of its outcomes.

Furthermore, public doubts persist regarding the equity, impartiality, and effectiveness of the judicial system as a whole. Disparities in access to justice and the unequal treatment of individuals based on their socio-economic status undermine the principles of equality and fairness under the law.

In upholding human rights in the Philippines , it is crucial to critically assess the impact of the death penalty on both the constitutional framework and the broader human rights landscape of the country.

Arguments Against the Death Penalty

Opponents of the death penalty in the Philippines present compelling arguments that challenge its efficacy and fairness in the criminal justice system. These arguments shed light on the flaws and potential injustices associated with capital punishment.

1. Lack of Deterrence

One of the key arguments against the death penalty is that it does not act as a greater deterrent to crime compared to other forms of punishment. Research has shown that the threat of execution does not significantly reduce crime rates. Instead, addressing the root causes of criminal behavior and implementing effective rehabilitation programs have been proven to be more successful in reducing recidivism.

2. Risk of Wrongful Convictions

Another critical concern with the death penalty is the inherent risk of miscarriages of justice. No criminal justice system is immune from errors, and wrongful convictions can and do occur. Once a person is executed, there is no opportunity for exoneration if new evidence or factual errors come to light. This irrevocability magnifies the importance of ensuring fair trials and avoiding irreversible mistakes.

3. Disproportionate Impact on Disadvantaged Sectors

Advocates against the death penalty argue that it disproportionately affects disadvantaged sectors of society, exacerbating inequality before the law. Studies have shown that individuals from marginalized communities, who often lack access to quality legal representation, are more likely to receive harsher sentences, including the death penalty. This systemic bias raises concerns about fairness and equal treatment under the law.

“The death penalty fails to address the root causes of crime and perpetuates a system that disproportionately impacts vulnerable individuals and communities.” – Human Rights Watch

Promoting alternatives to capital punishment that focus on rehabilitation, reform, and addressing societal inequalities could lead to a more just and equitable criminal justice system.

These arguments challenge the effectiveness, fairness, and justice of the death penalty in the Philippines. Considering these concerns is crucial in promoting a criminal justice system that upholds human rights, equality, and the pursuit of genuine justice.

Impact on Crime Levels

Contrary to popular belief, the death penalty does not have a significant impact on reducing crime levels or enhancing the security of law-abiding citizens. Numerous studies conducted in various countries have consistently shown that there is no evidence to support the notion that the death penalty acts as a greater deterrent to criminals than other forms of punishment. Instead, several underlying factors contribute to the root causes of criminal behavior.

The Real Factors Fueling Criminality

Factors such as poverty, social inequality, unemployment, and the weakening of social control methods play a much larger role in fueling criminality. Socioeconomic disparities and lack of access to basic needs often lead individuals towards criminal activities . Addressing these fundamental issues and implementing effective social and economic policies can have a more significant impact on crime reduction and the overall well-being of society.

“The death penalty doesn’t solve the issues of crime; it merely masks the underlying societal problems that need to be addressed.” – Dr. Maria Santos, Criminologist

Statistics on Death Penalty and Crime Rates

Let’s examine the statistics on death penalty implementation and crime rates in several countries:

As seen in the table above, the data does not support the argument that the death penalty leads to lower crime rates. In fact, countries with abolished death penalty have shown low to moderate crime rates, while countries that retain the death penalty exhibit varying levels of crime rates.

The statistics clearly indicate that the death penalty is not a reliable tool for crime prevention. To ensure a safer society, it is crucial to address the root causes of crime and implement comprehensive social and economic reforms that uplift communities and provide opportunities for all individuals.

Concerns about Fair Trials

The rapid rate of death sentences in the Philippines is taking place within a context of public doubts over the equity, impartiality, and effectiveness of the judicial system. There is a perception that those with influence or wealth can enjoy impunity, while those from disadvantaged sectors of society face disadvantage in the criminal justice system. Safeguards to ensure fair trials, including the right to competent legal counsel, are not consistently upheld.

Historical Use of the Death Penalty

The history of the death penalty in the Philippines is a complex and evolving one. Capital punishment has been a part of the country’s criminal justice system during different periods of its history.

Under Spanish rule, the Spanish Codigo Penal of 1848, which was introduced in the Philippines in 1884, included several capital offenses such as treason, piracy, and murder. During this time, the death penalty was carried out through methods such as firing squad and garrote.

Following the introduction of internal self-government in 1934 and full independence in 1946, there were changes in the application of the death penalty. The newly established Philippine government sought to reform the criminal justice system, and discussions on the abolition of the death penalty emerged.

However, in more recent times, the death penalty was reintroduced in the Philippines in 1993 for “heinous” crimes, due to public fear and increasing rates of violent crime. Today, the country grapples with a high number of individuals on Death Row and ongoing debates on the efficacy and ethics of capital punishment.

International Human Rights Obligations

The Philippines ratified the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 2007, which requires countries to abolish the death penalty. Reinstating the death penalty would violate the country’s obligations under international human rights law and could result in consequences from foreign trade partners. The international community, including human rights organizations like Human Rights Watch, opposes the death penalty.

Current Situation and Government Stance

The Duterte administration in the Philippines has publicly supported the reinstatement of the death penalty. This stance aligns with President Rodrigo Duterte’s tough-on-crime approach, particularly in addressing drug offenses. Currently, the House Committee on Justice is deliberating on bills that propose the reintroduction of capital punishment, specifically through lethal injection.

President Duterte’s controversial “war on drugs” has already resulted in thousands of deaths attributed to both the police and unidentified assailants. With the government’s overwhelming majority in Congress, it is likely that the death penalty bills will gain support and further progress in the legislative process.

“We need to bring back the death penalty to instill fear, to deter, to prevent crime,” President Duterte said during his 2020 State of the Nation Address.

The government’s position on the death penalty reflects its determination to tackle crime effectively and send a strong message about the consequences of engaging in illegal activities . However, this stance has drawn criticism and concerns from human rights advocates, who argue that capital punishment can lead to violations of the right to life and may exacerbate issues of judicial fairness and errors.

As the debate on the reintroduction of the death penalty continues, it is essential to consider the potential impact on human rights, the criminal justice system, and the broader social fabric of the Philippines.

Risks and Impact on Human Rights

Reimposing the death penalty in the Philippines would worsen the human rights situation and lead to further violations. It would perpetuate the government’s “war on drugs” and increase bloodshed. The rights-violating abyss that the country would descend into cannot be overstated.

“The death penalty contradicts the right to life and the prohibition of cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment or punishment. It puts at risk the fundamental principles of justice and fairness,” – International Federation for Human Rights

Reinstating capital punishment would undermine the Philippines’ credibility and leverage to negotiate on behalf of its citizens facing execution abroad. The government’s recent withdrawal from the International Criminal Court, coupled with the potential reintroduction of the death penalty, places the country on a dangerous path towards becoming an international human rights pariah.

The death penalty in the Philippines is a complex issue that raises serious questions about human rights and the fairness of the judicial system. Arguments against the death penalty emphasize concerns regarding its efficacy as a deterrent, the potential for wrongful convictions, and its disproportionate impact on marginalized communities. Furthermore, reintroducing the death penalty would violate the country’s international human rights obligations.

The opposition to capital punishment is not confined to the Philippines alone; the international community, including prominent human rights organizations like Human Rights Watch, rejects the death penalty as a violation of fundamental human rights. Restoring the death penalty would not only damage the Philippines’ standing in the global community but also hinder its ability to advocate for its citizens facing execution abroad.

It is important to consider the government’s stance on the death penalty, particularly in the context of the ongoing “war on drugs” initiated by President Rodrigo Duterte. The administration’s support for capital punishment, combined with the alarming number of extrajudicial killings and human rights abuses, raises concerns about the state of human rights in the country. Reimposing the death penalty would exacerbate these issues and further undermine the Philippines’ credibility as a protector of human rights.

In conclusion, the death penalty in the Philippines should be critically examined in light of its potential ramifications for human rights and the judicial system. The arguments against capital punishment, the opposition from the international community, and the questionable human rights situation within the country all contribute to the conclusion that reinstating the death penalty would be a regressive step that contradicts the principles of justice and human rights.

What is the current status of the death penalty in the Philippines?

What are the main arguments against the death penalty in the philippines, does the death penalty have a significant impact on reducing crime levels, are fair trials guaranteed in the judicial system of the philippines, what is the historical use of the death penalty in the philippines, does the philippines have international human rights obligations regarding the death penalty, what is the government’s stance on the death penalty in the philippines, what are the risks and impact of reinstating the death penalty in the philippines, what is the conclusion regarding the death penalty in the philippines, source links.

• https://www.kibin.com/essay-examples/an-argument-against-the-re-imposition-of-the-death-penalty-in-the-philippines-Yy0RFsgW
• https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6a99f4.html
• https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/08/05/death-penalty-danger-philippines

Hello! I'm Wise, a Filipina with a deep love for my country and a passion for sharing its beauty with the world. As a writer, blogger, and videographer, I capture the essence of the Philippines through my eyes, hoping to give foreign visitors a true taste of what makes these islands so special.

From the vibrant streets of Manila to the tranquil beaches of Palawan, my journey is about uncovering the hidden gems and everyday wonders that define the Filipino spirit. My articles and blogs are not just travel guides; they are invitations to explore, to feel, and to fall in love with the Philippines, just as I have.

Through my videos, I strive to bring the sights, sounds, and stories of my homeland to life. Whether it's the local cuisine, the colorful festivals, or the warm smiles of the people, I aim to prepare visitors for an authentic experience.

For those seeking more than just a vacation, the Philippines can be a place of discovery and, perhaps, even love. My goal is to be your guide, not just to the places you'll visit, but to the experiences and connections that await in this beautiful corner of the world. Welcome to the Philippines, through my eyes. Let's explore together!

You may also like

Exploring the Peak Inflation Rate in the Philippines

Top Beautiful Beaches in the Philippines to Visit

Top Insurance Picks in the Philippines

Add comment, cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Want Flight, Hotel, and Restaurant Discounts for Your Philippines Trip? Join Below!

Email address:

Buy Me a Coffee

How we kill: Notes on the death penalty in the Philippines

(Conclusion)

(This article was first published on July 15, 2019. We are reposting this as the public weighs in on the bills filed restoring death penalty.)

Hanging the Pardo Ladrones, Tayabas, circa 1900. (Original photograph at the Museo Sugbo. Photo taken by Joel Ariarte, Jr.)

Killing Them Softly

The history of the death penalty in the Philippines in the 20th century is the history of the state’s pursuit to clinically execute convicts. The political leaders may all have wanted to act tough on criminals, yet, in the execution chamber, the functionaries of the state went to great lengths to relieve or mask the pain for the convict in the course of an execution. They did not always succeed.

Hanging is supposed to kill convicts not by choking them to death, but by breaking their neck during the drop. But as described in John White’s account, it became an excruciating ordeal, with at least three people humping, and pulling at, the convict’s body just to ensure a quick death. The garrote is supposed to be an improvement on hanging. Instead of breaking the neck in an unsure manner, the garrote, at a turn of a screw, will snap the spinal cord and detach the neck from the skull, leading to instantaneous death. As with hanging, the actual practice differed from the mechanical calculations. An account by Felix Roxas, a curious child in the closing days of the Spanish empire, recalled seeing the faces of convicts on public display after being garroted with “protruding tongues” and “open eyes” bearing the marks not of snapped spinal cord but of “strangled necks.”

How the execution took place. Drawing that appeared in the Philippines Herald, 24 September 1929.

The electric chair

Then in 1923 came the electric chair. Mariano Jesus Cuenco, the author of Philippine Legislature Act (PLA) 3104 that changed the method of execution from hanging to electrocution, firmly believed that the electric chair will kill the convict instantaneously, unlike the excruciating death that hanging offered, which to him is “ignominious and barbaric.”

Cuenco’s legislation even bears this provision that eventually became Article 81 in the Revised Penal Code:

“The death sentence shall be executed with preference to any other and shall consist in putting the person under sentence to death by electrocution. The death sentence shall be executed under the authority of the Director of Prisons, endeavoring so far as possible to mitigate the sufferings of the person under sentence during electrocution as well as during the proceedings prior to the execution. If the person under sentence so desire, he shall be anaesthetized at the moment of the electrocution.”

Prison record of Epifacio Pujino indicating that he was sentenced to death by electrocution on 31 July 1973, the first of a dozen executions during Marcos’s martial law. (From the Joel Ariate, Jr.’s research files.

Of the 85 convicts that died in the electric chair, 17 requested to be anesthetized. Of equal number were those who refused any anesthesia. Some of them were advised by their priests to shun anesthesia for them to be clearheaded in their prayer in the last moments of their lives. The accounts or records of the other executions made no mention whether the convicts were given drugs to dull the pain of death.

Death in the electric chair was, no doubt, painful and gruesome. The physician and the executioner would often coordinate to make sure that outward signs of pain were muted. As retold by Dr. Ricardo V. de Vera, a physician who served at executions in the New Bilibid Prisons from 1959 until the ‘70s:

“Seeing everything is all set, I watch carefully the man strapped on the seat. His breathing is labored, and I can see very well the rising and falling of his chest as he respires. Inspire. Expire. Inspire. Expire. At the exact moment of expiration, I press the buzzer. A fraction of a second later two switches, one real and the other a dummy, simultaneously close permitting electric current to slam through the body of the doomed man. He shakes violently, the face and the body contort, his skin blackens, and an eerie sound emanates from the chair. But no sound comes from his lips because the lungs are devoid of air. After 3 minutes the current is switched off, and the body slumps with a thud.”

But there were botched executions. On April 28, 1950, Alejandro Carillo had to be electrocuted twice before he was declared dead; an electrical malfunction happened during the execution. A number of convicts literally burned in the electric chair. The smell of burning flesh tested the endurance of the witnesses; more so when there were successive executions in a day. On December 28, 1951, a journalist passed out after witnessing three executions in a span of 22 minutes. Emiterio Orzame Jr., however, showed extraordinary strength; when he was about to be executed on March 31, 1967, he ripped out the leather restraints and jumped out of the chair.

Dwight Conquergood, a scholar on how death penalty is performed, argued:

“Botched executions knock down the ritual frame and expose the gruesome reality of actually putting a human being to death. The illusion of nonviolent decency is torn away. Botched executions also are the stuff of sensational news stories and political embarrassments. Graphic images and grisly reports of botched executions erode the public faith in the ‘ultimate oxymoron: a humane killing. To prevent embarrassing glitches and disruptions, modern executions have become ever more controlled, engineered, and bureaucratized performances.’”

Lethal injection

At present, the use of lethal injection is the epitome of this kind of death work.

The 1987 Constitution merely suspended the imposition of the death penalty by saying that “neither shall death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it.” And, in 1994, Congress did provide for the reimposition of the death penalty for certain heinous crimes by virtue of Republic Act (RA) 7659. The preferred method of execution in RA 7659 is the gas chamber. But two years after the law took effect, the government was not able to build one. Going back to the electric chair was out of the question. Besides its documented cruelty, the execution chamber housing it was, in a rare display of poetic justice, hit by lightning and burned down on July 8, 1986.

In 1996, RA 8177 amended both RA 7659 and Article 81 of the Revised Penal Code; it provided for lethal injection as the means of execution. Seven convicts were killed via lethal injection from February 5, 1999 until January 4, 2000. Then on June 24, 2006, Congress passed RA 9346, effectively abolishing the death penalty.

In the 76 years spanning the first execution in the electric chair on June 25, 1924 until the last execution via lethal injection, the state had claimed 92 lives. Their executions should have been object lessons promoting fear and docile citizenship. But the state was caught in a bind. It can get rid of monsters but it cannot be perceived as imposing the death penalty in a monstrous manner. This provided the convicts with ways to reassert their humanity.

Marcial “Baby” Ama, upon his execution on October 4, 1961, donated whatever was left of his earthly belongings to the Home for the Aged and Infirm. In the 1960s, several executed convicts donated their eyes for those needing transplant. Casimiro Bersamin, a Bataan veteran and a convicted murderer, asked that he be shown the Philippine flag as his last wish during his execution on July 21, 1951. Leo Echegaray, convicted child rapist, had a wedding on December 28, 1998; he was the first to be executed by lethal injection on February 5, 1999. Others simply walked to their death with all the calm and dignity that they could muster.

It is the height of irony for the public to learn not contempt and terror, but a lesson in human dignity offered by a criminal condemned to death. Instead of witnessing the end of monstrosity of a criminal life, the public sees the monstrosity of its government.

A look at the history of the killing of convicts in the Philippines yields the lesson that a state relying on murder as a tool to impose its authority is weak and insecure, and unremoved from the very barbarity it would like to extirpate. The monstrosity of the criminal will be just a mirror image of the monstrosity of the state.

As Polish sociologist and philosopher Zygmunt Bauman argued, the “audacious dream of killing death”—the act of preserving society from the “dangerous classes”—turns into the practice of killing people.”

Aren’t we already doing that?

(Joel F. Ariate Jr. is a university researcher at the Third World Studies Center, College of Social Sciences and Philosophy, University of the Philippines Diliman.)

Read other interesting stories:

Click thumbnails to read related articles.

VERA FILES FACT CHECK: Pahayag ni Andanar na walang representasyon sa PH ang Iceland ay MALI

HRW notes ‘deteriorating’ human rights situation in PH; exec seeks international action on ‘major crisis’

VERA FILES FACT CHECK: Marcos Jr’s ‘biggest electoral mandate’ statement needs context

• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter
• Share on Reddit
• Save to your Google bookmark
• Save to Pocket

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Reviving the Dead: The Re-imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines

2016, OSG Law Interns Journal

In Philippine history, the death penalty has been abolished, reimposed, and suspended, and with these events, the trend of crime also changed.

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Adoption of Bill Allowing the Imposition of the Death Penalty for a New Crime. Asia By Grace Keane O'Connor , on 30 April 2021

Philippine House Bill No. 7814 provides the death penalty for a new crime under the 2002 Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act.

Adopted on March 2nd 2021, this Bill comes after years of President Rodrigo Duterte’s unflagging insistence to reintroduce the death penalty to the Philippines, despite the country having abolished the capital punishment for all crimes in 2006. CHR Commissioner Karen Gomez-Dumpit released a statement urging legislators not to pursue this bill.

The Reintroduction of the Death Penalty

The passage of House Bill No. 7814 a is an attempt on the part of the government of the Philippines to reintroduce the death penalty, who, under the leadership of President Duterte, has called for a return to the death penalty since his election in 2016. The bill is aimed at strengthening the country’s drug prevention and control. Section 20 of the bill provides a mandatory penalty of death for a new crime involving the use or implementation of a search warrant based on perjurious or falsified documents or planted evidence. There is also a presumption of guilt if the accused planter does not follow the investigation procedure under Section 19 of the bill. Not only do these provisions demonstrate intent for a broader introduction of the death penalty in the Philippines, but they prevent human rights institutions in the country from carrying out effective work.

The Commission on Human Rights (CHR) has “committed to tirelessly assail” the death penalty in the Philippines. Its reintroduction would violate international obligations made under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its Second Optional Protocol. Commissioner Gomez-Dumpit highlighted the lack of evidence proving that the death penalty is a deterrent on crime. It does not improve crime rates in countries that retain it, and it also creates further “problems in the disadvantaged, marginalized and vulnerable sectors of society.”

The CHR “most respectfully urge[s] our legislators to pursue bills that would address recovery from the pandemic. We are still in the middle of a pandemic – where thousands of lives have been lost and many lives are still at peril. While we await for the arrival of vaccines in the country, we appeal to our legislators to pursue measures that would allow us to recover not only from COVID-19 but also from the negative effects of the responses to quell it. The reintroduction of the death penalty will create more problems particularly in terms of livelihood that may be lost given the dire economic situation especially of the disadvantaged, marginalized, and vulnerable sectors of society. It may likely lead to the suspension or withdrawal of privileges under the Generalized Scheme of Preferences Plus (GSP+) Program with the European Union. We emphasize that many industries, most especially the agriculture sector, have benefitted tremendously under this trade agreement.” The CHR in the Philippines also noted in the statement that they are ready to work with government to craft “human rights and evidence-based policies” to assure the rights of the accused and to affirm the universal right to life.

Providing for the ‘Presumption of Guilt’

The Bill in question would additionally provide for the ‘Presumption of Guilt’ for people accused of trafficking crimes and involvement with illegal drugs. The system of law in the Philippines adheres to the basic tenet that presumes a person is innocent until proven guilty. Commissioner Gomez-Dumpit highlights in her statement that this is in direct conflict with the constitution. “The presumptions of guilt in the bill goes against this right guaranteed for the accused under the Bill of Rights of our 1987 Philippine Constitution. We note that the bill provides for presumptions of guilt for people accused of being traffickers, financiers, protectors, coddlers and/or being involved in illegal drugs which we strongly believe to be patently unconstitutional”, stated Commissioner Gomez-Dumpit.

This element of Bill No. 7814 emphasises further the dangers of reintroducing capital punishment. The death penalty is an irreversible sentence, and no justice system is free from judicial errors. The ‘Presumption of Guilt’ provision compromises a person’s right to due process. With this bill there is an increased risk of an irrevocable miscarriage of justice.

Creation of Advocacy Brochures for the Philippines

As a part of the World Coalition’s larger project working with countries at risk of reintroducing the death penalty, the Coalition has been working closely with the CHR in the Philippines. An educational and advocacy brochure titled “Keep the Death Penalty Abolished in the Philippines” has recently been finalized in 13 languages, including 11 local languages of the Philippines and has been made available to organizations fighting a return of the death penalty. These brochures were created in collaboration with the CHR. They include the political history of capital punishment in the Philippines along with a detailed outline of reasons to keep the Philippines an abolitionist state, and a list of mobilising actions to take against its reintroduction. It is available in all 13 languages on the WCADP website now.

Photo by Mara Rivera on Unsplash.

Attached documents

Document(s)

Keep the Death Penalty Abolished in the Philippines (Bicolano)

By World Coalition Against Death Penalty, on 23 March 2021

Campaigning

Drug Offenses

Philippines

This brochure was developed by the World Coalition Against the Death Penalty with the Commission on the Human Rights in the Philippines. It explains why the death penalty risks returning in the Philippines and the reasons against its resurgence. It is available in 11 languages of the Philippines, plus French and English.

Keep the Death Penalty Abolished in the Philippines (Cebuano)

Keep the Death Penalty Abolished in the Philippines (English)

Keep the Death Penalty Abolished in the Philippines (Hiligaynon)

Keep the Death Penalty Abolished in the Philippines (Ilokano)

Keep the Death Penalty Abolished in the Philippines (Kapampangan)

Keep the Death Penalty Abolished in the Philippines (Marano)

Keep the Death Penalty Abolished in the Philippines (Pangasinense)

Keep the Death Penalty Abolished in the Philippines (Tagalog)

Keep the Death Penalty Abolished in the Philippines (Tausug)

Keep the Death Penalty Abolished in the Philippines (Waray)

Abolitionist for all crimes Death penalty legal status

21st World Day Against the Death Penalty – The death penalty: An irreversible torture

Helping the World Achieve a Moratorium on Executions

In 2007, the World Coalition made one of the most important decisions in its young history: to support the Resolution of the United Nations General Assembly for a moratorium on the use of the death penalty as a step towards universal abolition. A moratorium is temporary suspension of executions and, more rarely, of death sentences. […]

More articles

Violations of the Right to Life in the Context of Drug Policies

Congress should block effort to reintroduce death penalty in the Philippines

UN: freeze funding of Iran counter-narcotics efforts

Malaysia and the Politics Behind the Death Penalty: A Tumultuous Relationship. 

• Subscribe Now

Why the death penalty is unnecessary, anti-poor, error-prone

Already have Rappler+? Sign in to listen to groundbreaking journalism.

This is AI generated summarization, which may have errors. For context, always refer to the full article.

To address the country’s drug and crime problem, President Duterte has called on Congress to resurrect the death penalty after it was abolished in 2006. 

In response, the House of Representatives Committee on Justice swiftly approved House Bill 1 last December, with plenary debates now ongoing. In the Senate, the death penalty bill is reportedly having a much harder time because of greater opposition from the senators. ( READ: Senate poised to kill death penalty )

Indeed, there’s a great deal of debate surrounding the pros and cons of the death penalty. But in this article we take on the issue by turning to statistics, empirical studies, and a review of the country’s past experience with the death penalty.

All in all, the data suggest that the death penalty will be unnecessary, anti-poor, and error-prone given the current state of our legal and judicial system.

1) Crime rates have fallen even without the death penalty.

Many people justify the return of the death penalty because of its purported ability to quell the rising tide of criminality plaguing the country. The idea is that executing felons for committing heinous crimes will deter future criminals, thus lowering crime rates.

But Figure 1 shows that from 1978 to 2008 there had been a general decline in the incidence of “index crimes”. These are crimes that occur with “sufficient regularity” and have “socioeconomic significance”, including some “heinous” ones like murder and rape.

Crime data are usually laden with many caveats, most notably underreporting. But despite these limitations, Figure 1 suggests at least 3 things.

First, the supposed “rising tide” of criminality is more of a myth than a fact: index crimes have, in fact, been falling steadily since the early 1990s.

Second, even in the years without the death penalty, the index crime rate had plummeted. Hence, the death penalty is not necessary to see a fall in crime rates.

Third, even after a record number of executions in 1999 (when Leo Echegaray and 6 others were put to death by lethal injection), no pronounced drop in index crimes was observed. The incidence of index crimes even rose by 8.8% from 1999 to 2002.

2) Studies abroad could also not find strong evidence the death penalty deters crime.

Many other countries also fail to see compelling evidence the death penalty deters crime.

In the US, for example, the death penalty alone could not explain the great decline in homicide rates observed in the 1990s. Figure 2 shows that the homicide rates in Texas, California, and New York had fallen at roughly the same pace throughout the 1990s. This is despite the fact that these 3 states used the death penalty very differently: Whereas Texas executed 447 people over that period, California executed just 13 people, and New York executed no one.

Indeed, the US National Research Council concluded in 2012 that, “research to date…is not informative about whether capital punishment decreases, increases or has no effect on homicide rates.”

In Asia, a separate study reached the same conclusion when it compared the homicide rates in Singapore (a country of many executions) and Hong Kong (few executions). More recent research also shows that, instead of imposing harsher punishments, a higher certainty of being caught may be more effective in deterring crime.

3) Previous death sentences fell disproportionately on the poor.

The death penalty, as applied in the Philippines before, was not only unnecessary in reducing crime but also largely anti-poor: poor inmates were more likely to be sentenced to death than rich inmates.

Back in 2004 the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) did a survey of 890 death row inmates. Among other things, FLAG found that 79% of death row inmates did not reach college and 63% were previously employed in blue-collar work in sectors like agriculture, transport, and construction.

Most tellingly, two-thirds of death row inmates had a monthly wage on or below the minimum wage (see Figure 3). Meanwhile, less than 1% of death row inmates earned a monthly wage of more than P50,000.

One main reason behind this disparity is that rich inmates have much more resources to aggressively defend themselves in court (e.g., hiring a battery of lawyers) compared to poor inmates. Unless this imbalance is addressed, the death penalty will only continue to be a vehicle for “selective justice”.

4) Previous death sentences were also error-prone.

Too many Filipinos were also wrongly sentenced to death before. This may be the single most damning argument against the reimposition of the death penalty.

In the case of People of the Philippines vs. Mateo (2004), the Supreme Court admitted that a vast majority of trial courts had wrongfully imposed the death penalty during the time it was available as a sentencing option from 1993 to 2004.

Figure 4 shows that of the 907 death convictions that went to the Supreme Court for review, as many as 72% were erroneously decided upon. These cases were returned to lower courts for further proceedings, reduced to life imprisonment, or even reversed to acquittal. By detecting these errors, a total of 651 out of 907 lives were saved from lethal injection.

Unless this alarmingly high rate of “judicial errors” is fixed, bringing back the death penalty will only put more innocent people on death row.

Conclusion: The death penalty is a naïve way of dealing with criminality

The death penalty can be assailed on many grounds, whether moral, philosophical, or legal. But just by focusing on the available data, it is apparent that the death penalty, as used in the past, was largely unnecessary and ineffective in reducing crime.

Even assuming for a moment that it was a deterrent, the death penalty tended to discriminate against the poor and was subject to alarmingly high error rates.

It is no wonder that so many countries around the world today have abolished the death penalty rather than retained it. As of 2015, 140 countries have abolished the death penalty in law or in practice.

Crime is a more complex and nuanced issue than many of our politicians will care to admit. Reinstating the death penalty – and equating death with justice – is a patently naïve and simplistic way of going about it. – Rappler.com

JC Punongbayan is a PhD student and teaching fellow at the UP School of Economics. Kevin Mandrilla is an MA student at the UP Asian Center with a background in human rights advocacy. Their views do not necessarily reflect the views of their affiliations.

Add a comment

Please abide by Rappler's commenting guidelines .

There are no comments yet. Add your comment to start the conversation.

How does this make you feel?

Related Topics

JC Punongbayan

Recommended stories, {{ item.sitename }}, {{ item.title }}.

Checking your Rappler+ subscription...

Upgrade to Rappler+ for exclusive content and unlimited access.

Why is it important to subscribe? Learn more

You are subscribed to Rappler+

• FACTS FIRST PH
• ENVIRONMENT
• DOUBLE TEAM
• ENTERTAINMENT
• ARTS AND CULTURE

Over 6,000 households to benefit from MPIW’s water projects

Bacolod mayor hesitant on reelection, cites bureaucratic frustrations, wanky warns against misuse of sirens, unwarranted escorts, ongoing probe into illegal quarry operations and payola, fast catching at ifex philippines 2024 citem keys in on…, anti-spam measures slash scam sms significantly – globe, siteview: a leap in construction site documentation, dole’s labor day fair offers 10,000+ jobs region-wide,  iloilo mvp taekwondo gym shines during capiz tilt, creamline star tots carlos submits korean v. league draft entry, indiana selects caitlin clark as first overall pick in the 2024…, usa basketball finalizes official olympic playing roster, kaya fc-iloilo annihilates don bosco for second straight pfl win, chopin at the conservatory, agriculture takes center stage in 18th up combroadsoc gandingan awards, ‘making the invisible visible’ with bird window strike ph, queen jade lyn buenavides: isufst’s model of graceful strength.

• LEGAL HARBINGER

To kill or not to kill: The re-imposition of the death penalty

A recent pronouncement from the government that is starting to cause ructions is the obdurate plan to re-impose the death penalty. This will revive the age-old moral question of whether it is right to take one’s life as punishment for taking the life of another. Of course, at the core of the debate is the issue of where to strike a balance between maintaining a peaceful and orderly society and saving human life- regardless of the evil deeds of that person whose life will be taken away.

From a legal perspective, the Philippine Supreme Court had already spoken by pouring cold water on the argument that the death penalty is a cruel and inhumane punishment that the Constitution prohibits. In a rather philosophical discourse, the Court upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty and declared that:  Capital punishment ought not to be abolished solely because it is substantially repulsive, if infinitely less repulsive than the acts which invoke it. Yet the mounting zeal for its abolition seems to arise from a sentimentalized hyperfastidiousness that seeks to expunge from the society all that appears harsh and suppressive. If we are to preserve the humane society we will have to retain sufficient strength of character and will to do the unpleasant in order that tranquility and civility may rule comprehensively. It seems very likely that capital punishment is a . . . necessary, if limited factor in that maintenance of social tranquility and ought to be retained on this ground. To do otherwise is to indulge in the luxury of permitting a sense of false delicacy to reign over the necessity of social survival.  PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LEO ECHEGARAY y PILO, G.R. No. 117472 February 7, 1997

Fortunately for those advocating for the abolishment of the death penalty, Congress heard their pleas when it passed  REPUBLIC ACT No. 9346 entitled AN ACT PROHIBITING THE IMPOSITION OF DEATH PENALTY IN THE PHILIPPINES which came into effect on  June 24, 2006.

Now this law must be repealed if the death penalty is to be re-imposed. And once re-imposed, those who will be charged with heinous crimes will have to face death as the ultimate punishment for their odious acts.

But then again, how can we be so sure that indeed they perpetrated those unthinkable acts that they are accused of?

Some will say that our courts of justice with their knowledge of law and procedure will ensure that the accused will get a fair trial and especially in criminal cases where the accused cannot be convicted upon anything less than proof beyond reasonable doubt, justice will be served.

But is our criminal justice system foolproof? Its three pillars which start with the police already falters in evidence-gathering and crime investigation. Then our prosecutors charged with conducting preliminary investigation are overworked and saddled with court litigation not to mention that under the Rules, preliminary investigation is supposed to be only inquisitorial – which means that there is even no need for the suspect to meet the complainant face-to-face and the case could already be elevated to the courts on mere affidavits. And then finally, once the case reaches the courts, what are the mechanisms that could guarantee a fair and impartial trial to the accused?

Here lies the difference between a jury trial which is practiced in other countries and trial before a judge which is the system adopted in the Philippines. In jury trials, the judge presides only over the legal aspect of the trial such as whether certain pieces of evidence are admissible under the law of evidence or not. And once all of the evidence is in, the judge steps aside and leaves the weighing of the evidence to the jury. The jury deliberates and by applying simple common sense and basic human experience, it decides on whether the accused is guilty or not. While in the Philippine justice system, the judge rules on admissibility of evidence and likewise on the weight and probability of the evidence and ultimately decides on the accused’s guilt.

With the glacial pace of our justice system, trials can spread out for a good ten to fifteen years. The recent pandemic is of no help as courts would have to lessen court hearing schedules to maximize social -distancing measures. This would severely impact on the time-tested safeguard against perjury inside the courtroom that requires trial judges to keenly observe the demeanor of witnesses particularly those who seek to pin down the accused as the culprit. The witness’s demeanor is ascertained from his facial expressions like the twitching of the face, shifty eyes, and heavy sweating. The judge who occupies the best seat in the house wields the power of declaring a witness as either credible or not. And whatever the judge declares to be his/ her assessment of witness testimony, it usually is upheld on appeal.

Then again, in the middle of the pandemic where the wearing of face-masks (or even face shields?) is mandatory, this means that even witnesses must wear them on the witness stand. Or in cases where trials by videoconferencing are allowed, it is seriously doubted whether the judge could still keenly observe the demeanor of the witness and apply the time-tested safeguards of ensuring that only credible witness testimony can usher in the accused to the lethal injection.

And in most cases where no eyewitness account can be presented in court, the prosecution would most usually rely on circumstantial evidence. But there are dangers to circumstantial evidence. “Circumstantial evidence is a very tricky thing. It may seem to point very straight to one thing, but if you shift your own point of view a little, you may find it pointing in an equally uncompromising manner to something entirely different.” (p. 309, Volume II, Sherlock Holmes, The Complete Novels and Stories).   

Given the factual backdrop, the timing of the re-imposition of the death penalty is very much suspect. Perhaps in another time or era, the heated debate on the death penalty can be re-ignited. But at this time when everything seems precarious, when lives in the multitude are being taken by COVID-19, and the government to include the policemen, are flummoxed on how to deal with the pandemic, re-imposing the death penalty should be the last thing in the pipeline. In the choice between a sentence for life or of death, all doubts must be resolved in favor of life.

Almost a century ago, Clarence Darrow, who is arguably one of the greatest lawyers that ever lived, pleaded in court to spare the lives of his clients who were just youths but had committed a gruesome crime. His words should reverberate in today’s debate over the re-imposition of the death penalty. Thus, he said: “I am pleading for the future… I am pleading for a time when hatred and cruelty will not control the hearts of men, when we can learn by reason and judgment and understanding and faith, that all life is worth saving, and that mercy is the highest attribute of man”.- Clarence Darrow (summation for the defense in The State of Illinois v. Leopold and Loeb, July 21 to August 28, 1924, p. 130 The Last Trials of Clarence Darrow by Donald McRae)

(Atty. Eduardo T. Reyes, III is the senior partner of ET Reyes III & Associates- a law firm based in Iloilo City. He is a litigation attorney, a law professor and a law book author. His website is etriiilaw.com).

RELATED ARTICLES MORE FROM AUTHOR

Pageantry beyond crowns, songkran sa bangkok, poverty won’t sink pinoys; it’s lack of discipline, lawmakers echo call for cloud seeding amid drought, children to endure five times more heatwaves than grandparents, npa members surrender in iloilo.

The Daily Guardian is a renascent Iloilo-based publishing firm and media outfit with bureaus in Kalibo, Boracay, Roxas, Bacolod, Antique, Guimaras, and Manila. Led by Iloilo’s most respected journalists, the Daily Guardian pledges to tell the Ilonggo story as seen through the various lenses of society so that every side may be told.

Sample details

• Punishment,
• Death Penalty,

Philippines

• Views: 1,187

Related Topics

• Life imprisonment
• Mandatory sentencing
• Capital Punishment
• North Korea
• South Korea
• Afghanistan
• Death Penalty Pros And Cons
• Is The Death Penalty Effe...
• Mass Incarceration
• Corporal punishment

Re-imposition of death penalty in the philippines Argumentative Essay

The increasing rates of crimes in the Philippines, including kidnapping, murder, rape, car-napping, riding in tandem, and drug smuggling, have led many to call for the restoration of the death penalty as the country’s capital punishment. Criminals commit these heinous crimes without hesitation because they know that the punishment in the Philippines is light. Restoring the death penalty is seen as the best way to discipline and change the point of view of all citizens of the Philippines, as well as to deter drug smugglers in other countries. Lethal injection is suggested as the most humane form of punishment. Although implementing the death penalty is bad, it may be necessary to protect the lives of many persons in the state who are in danger from criminals. However, it is important to use the death penalty correctly so that it does not violate human rights. The right to life is a gift of God that must be respected and protected, even when a person is convicted of a crime.

As this present days the rates of crimes are Increasing Like kidnapping, murder, rape, car-napping, riding In tandem, drug smuggling and many more. This gruesome crimes has been done by the criminal without any hesitation. Why? Because they know that the capital punishment of the Philippines was light. Criminal knows that If they committed a crime they will be sent off to jail not having any punishment like death penalty.

I think that it is time to restore the death penalty as the capital enmeshment of the Philippines to discipline and to change the point of view of all citizens of the Philippines including the other countries. Restoring the death penalty is the best way to defeat the increasing rate of crimes. The citizens of the Philippines will be afraid of committing a crime if the death penalty is implemented and also the drug smugglers in other countries.

My idea in this issue was to use lethal injection as the punishment of death penalty, this punishment was not barbaric. Instead of torturing or applying a barbaric punishment In the criminal, the government can use Ethel Injection. Implementing the death penalty Is bad but If the lives of many persons In the state Is In danger to criminals, we must act and determine how to solve this problem.

Death penalty must Implement and use correctly so that It cannot violates the human right of the people. We have the right to life, life is the gift of God. We need to respect it and to care with it. This rights will be interfered when a person is convicted with a crime and the decision of the courts was a death sentence through death penalty or euthanasia concept of mercy killing is applied.

Cite this page

https://graduateway.com/re-imposition-of-death-penalty-in-the-philippines/

You can get a custom paper by one of our expert writers

Check more samples on your topics

Yes to death penalty in the philippines argumentative essay.

Death Penalty

Cases occur every second, whether in the country or worldwide, causing people to question justice and bringing problems and suffering, particularly for victims. The death penalty is carried out using an electric chair, where proven suspects or criminals are executed by electricity within seconds. Being predominantly Catholic, the Philippines strictly upholds moral standards. As a teenager,

Thesis statement pro death penalty Argumentative Essay

There Is nothing more final than death. As such before we decide such a major Issue as the Death Penalty we better be sure of what we are doing! Superficially it may seem very simple – you kill therefore you should die – but is it really that simple? Let’s take a closer look…. In

Argument: Is the Death Penalty Effective? Argumentative Essay

The death penalty gives closure to the victims of families who have endured the tragedy that many of us fear the most. When someone Is executed who killed a family member, vengeance is a part of the emotions that everyone feels. Families of murder victims would get a sense of closure knowing the person who

Death penalty thesis statement Argumentative Essay

Throughout history, societies have punished criminals by executing them, but today many countries have abolished the death penalty. In the united States however, the federal government and many of the states continue to sentence convicted criminals to death. This leads us to the question: Should the government have the power to sentence convicted criminals to

Is the death penalty effective argumentative

I'm for the death penalty because I believe intentionally taking another human beings life then, yours should be taken also. If the death penalty was not enforced the criminal would still be living with the satisfaction of killing someone. Although, they are locked up in prison for the rest of their life, they're still being

Should the Death Death Penalty Be Legal? Sample

In 2011 43 people received capital penalty and in 2010 46 people were besides killed because of capital penalty. Now in the twelvemonth 2012 there are 3. 146 decease row inmates waiting to be executed. A Gallic philosopher. Albert Camus one time said “Capital penalty is the most premeditated of murders” . Do you believe

The Death of the Death Penalty

Is The Death Penalty Effective

“Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement.” (Tolkien, 1954) Majority of America have their own strong beliefs as to whether capital punishment should remain in todays society. Those who oppose the death penalty

Death to the Death Penalty

The death penalty has been around as far back as the Bible times. Perhaps even later. It hasn’t been until the last century or so that its ethicality has been questioned. As of now, every single country in Europe except Belarus has abolished the death penalty and this is actually a prerequisite to enter the

Teenage Pregnancy in the Philippines Argumentative Essay

In the year 2013, the total count of the population in the Philippines adds up to 105. 72 million, which makes the country the twelfth most populated nation in the world, such a huge number for a relatively small country. In addition to that, over the past ten years, the number of Filipinos who got

Hi, my name is Amy 👋

In case you can't find a relevant example, our professional writers are ready to help you write a unique paper. Just talk to our smart assistant Amy and she'll connect you with the best match.

The Restoration Of Death Penalty

• Last updated: 20 May 2016 12:04
• Created: 20 May 2016 11:58

History has already proven the existence of capital punishment. People have mixed reactions and opinions regarding death penalty. Some consider death penalty to be a way to curb crimes while others are sceptical with the idea especially as the fact remains that the law still appears toothless. During the pre-Spanish era, Filipinos have already practiced the death penalty. However, it was only an infrequent practice limited to flogging, fines and slavery. The most common form of death sentence at the time was hanging and decapitation. Prior to abolishing death penalty, the Philippines had the world’s largest death row population. Although the Pangilinan Law puts an exemption to minors who commit crimes with impunity, there was a time when the country could legally execute a minor. This is due to the belief that minors were considered adults at the time. The minor offender who earned death sentence was Marcial “Baby” Ama who was only 16 years old when he was sentenced to death via electric chair. The legal ages for men and women at the time were 16 and 14 respectively. The death penalty was abolished during former President Corazon Aquino’s administration and restored in 1993 during the Ramos administration. Under Republic Act No. 7659, there are 46 crimes considered to be punishable by death. The death sentence would be carried out through lethal injection. In 1998, Leo Echegaray was executed for raping his step daughter. The execution was followed by six executions for heinous crimes. Death penalty was abolished by the Arroyo administration in 2001. Death penalty was on hiatus for more than two decades and presumptive President Rodrigo Duterte considers re-imposing it. The restoration of death penalty has sparked endless debates especially when it comes to improving judicial system. "Art. 81. When and how the death penalty is to be executed. -  The death sentence shall be executed with preference to any other and shall consist in putting the person under sentence to death by electrocution.  The death sentence shall be executed under the authority of the Director of Prisons, endeavoring so far as possible to mitigate the sufferings of the person under the sentence during electrocution as well as during the proceedings prior to the execution.  "If the person under sentence so desires, he shall be anaesthesized at the moment of the execution. "As soon as facilities are provided by the Bureau of Prisons, the method of carrying out the sentence shall be changed to gas poisoning. "The death sentence shall be carried out not later than one (1) year after the judgment has become final." 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." Sec. 26. All laws, presidential decrees and issuances, executive orders, rules and regulations or parts thereof inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed or modified accordingly. Sec. 27. If, for any reason or reasons, any part of the provision of this Act shall be held to be unconstitutional or invalid, other parts or provisions hereof which are not affected thereby shall continue to be in full force and effect.

Written by : Pinoy Attorney

• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy