INFORMATION ABOUT DEATH PENALTY

I. History of the Death Penalty in the Philippines

❖ National Context
➢ The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines prohibits the use of the death penalty by stating the
death penalty shall not be imposed unless for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the
Congress hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to
reclusion perpetua’.

➢ In December 1993,President Ramos’ administration re-imposed the death penalty under

Republic Act (RA) 7659 adopted by Congress. The law listed a total of 46 crimes punishable by
death. Over the years, a number of new RAs and amendments to existing ones (8177, 8353
and 9165) further defined those acts punishable by death resulting in 52 capital offenses, 30 of
which were death-mandatory and 22 death-eligible.

➢ In 1999, President Estrada had seven death-row convicts executed through lethal injection (RA
8177)which was reportedly intended to abate rising criminality. Following strong lobbying by the
Catholic Church and human rights groups, President Estrada issued a temporary moratorium in
March 2000 to mark the Christian ‘Jubilee Year’.

➢ President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo announced the lifting of the de-facto moratorium on

executions in December 2003 in response to a reported rise in drug trafficking and kidnapping.
Executions were expected to resume in January 2004 when the Supreme Court vacated the
decision of the lower court to put to death two death-row inmates following testimonial evidence
that exonerated them of their crimes.

➢ In April 2006, President Arroyo commuted the sentences of 1,230 death row and ultimately
signed RA 9346 in June 2006 which abolished the use of capital punishment. Congress had
overwhelmingly supported the abolishment of the practice in their vote for the RA earlier that
month replacing the death penalty with life imprisonment and reclusion perpetua.

➢ RA 9346 states, inter alia, ‘The imposition of the penalty of death is hereby prohibited.
Accordingly, Republic Act No. Eight Thousand One Hundred Seventy-Seven (R.A. No. 8177),
otherwise known as the Act Designating Death by Lethal Injection is hereby repealed, Republic
Act No. Seven Thousand Six Hundred Fifty-Nine (R.A. No. 7659), otherwise known as the
Death Penalty Law, and all other laws, executive orders and decrees, insofar as they impose
the death penalty are hereby repealed or amended accordingly.

❖ International Context
➢ The Philippines is party to 8 of the 9 core international human rights treaties. The right to life is
at the center of these international treaties and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

➢ The Philippines has led the way in Asia in prohibiting the use of the death penalty. The 1987
Philippines’ Constitution was the first in Asia to prohibit the use of the death penalty, stating
that:‘the death penalty shall not be imposed unless for compelling reasons involving heinous
crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it.
 ➢ The Philippines was one of 104 UN Member States to vote at the 2007 UN General Assembly in
favor of a worldwide moratorium on executions in the aim of abolishing the death penalty, and
voted in favor of every subsequent death penalty resolution in 2008, 2010 and 2012.

➢ The Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights aimed
at the abolition of the death penalty:

➢ In November 2007 the Philippines ratified and became a State party to the Second Optional
Protocol. States who are party to the treaty have a legal obligation to abolish the death penalty
within their borders, even in the event of future changes in national legislation. Reintroduction of
the death penalty is not allowed for any reason unless a reservation allowing execution "in
time of war pursuant to a conviction for a most serious crime of a military nature committed
during wartime" was made at the time of ratification which is not the case for the
Philippines.

➢ There is no withdrawal or denunciation mechanism for State’s that are party to the Second
Optional Protocol. The absence in the Protocol of a procedural clause for withdrawal means that
once a State has ratified the Second Optional Protocol the death penalty can never be
reintroduced without violating international law.

II. House Bill No. 4727 (Bill Reviving Death Penalty)

❖ Important Points
[Source: House overwhelmingly passes death penalty bill, 08-March-2017, 09:12:34 AM retrieved
from http://congress.gov.ph/press/details.php?pressid=9979]

➢ The House of Representatives, voting 217-54 with one abstention, passed Tuesday night House
Bill 4727 or the proposed “Death Penalty Law,” which seeks to reinstate the punishment of
death for drug-related heinous crimes.

➢ The re-imposition of the death penalty will require the repeal of Republic Act No. 9346 entitled
“An Act Prohibiting the Imposition Of Death Penalty in the Philippines”, and further amendment
of Act No. 3815, as amended, or “The Revised Penal Code,” and Republic Act No. 9165,
otherwise known as the “Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act Of 2002.”

​ rievous, odious and hateful offenses, which by reason of

➢ The bill defines ​heinous crimes as ​“g
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
orderly society.​ ”

➢ It cites the policy of the State “to foster peace and order, and ensure obedience to its authority,
to protect life, liberty and property and to promote the general welfare which are essential for the
enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of democracy in a just and humane society.”

➢ Towards this end, and in the interest of justice, public order and the rule of law, and the need to
rationalize and harmonize penal sanctions, Congress finds compelling reasons to impose the
death penalty on heinous crimes committed by offenders who are a continuous threat to society.
 ➢ Under the bill, the death penalty shall be imposed on the following offenses: (1) i​mportation of
dangerous drugs; (2) ​sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution, and
transportation ​of dangerous drugs; (3) ​maintenance of a den, dive, or resort​ where any
dangerous drug is used or sold; (4) ​manufacture of dangerous drugs; and (5) ​possession of
10 grams or more ​of dangerous drugs.

➢ The death penalty shall also be enforced when the ​crime is committed under the influence of
​ r
dangerous drugs, provided that the offense committed is ​punishable by reclusion temporal o
12 years and one day up to 20 years.

➢ However, the imposition of capital punishment is ​not automatic​, as the proposed law provides
for an automatic review by the Court of Appeals or by the Supreme Court, and a majority vote is
required for it to be imposed.

➢ Moreover, death penalty shall ​not be imposed when the offender is below 18 years old or ​more
than 70​ years old when the crime was committed.

III. Statistics / Figures

❖ Global Figures
➢ At least 1,634 people were executed in 25 countries in 2015. This represents a stark increase
on the number of executions recorded I 2014 of more than 50%; in 2014 Amnesty International
recorded 1,061 executions in 22 countries worldwide. This is the highest number of executions
recorded in more than 25 years (since 1989).

➢ Most executions took place in China, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the USA – in that order.
China remained the world’s top executioner – but the true extent of the use of the death penalty
in China is unknown as this data is considered a state secret; the figure of 1,634 excludes the
thousands of executions believed to have been carried out in China. Excluding China, almost
90% of all executions took place in just three countries –Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

➢ During 2015, 25 countries, about one in 10 of all countries worldwide, are known to have carried
out executions–a rise from 22 in 2014. This number has decreased significantly from two
decades ago (39 countries carried out executions in 1996).

➢ 140 countries worldwide, more than two-thirds, are abolitionist in law or practice.

➢ In 2015, four countries – Fiji, Madagascar, the Republic of Congo and Suriname – abolished the
death penalty for all crimes. In total,102 countries have done so – a majority of the world’s
states. In 2015, Mongolia also passed a new criminal code abolishing the death penalty which
will come into effect later in 2016.

➢ Commutations or pardons of death sentences were recorded in 34 countries in 2015. At least 71

people who had been sentenced to death were exonerated in six countries in 2015: China (1),
Egypt (1), Nigeria (41), Pakistan (at least 21), Taiwan (1) and USA (6).
 ➢ At least 1,998 death sentences were recorded in 61 countries in 2015, a decline from 2014 (at
least 2,466 death sentences in 55 countries).

➢ At least 20,292 people were on death row at the end of 2015.

➢ The following methods of execution were used across the world: beheading, hanging, lethal
injection and shooting.

➢ Reports indicated that at least nine people who were under 18 at the time of the crime for which
they were sentenced to death were executed in 2015 – four in Iran and five in Pakistan.

➢ In many countries where people were sentenced to death or executed, the proceedings did not
meet international fair trial standards. In some cases this included the extraction of ‘confessions’
through torture or other ill-treatment, including in Bahrain, China, Iran, Iraq, North Korea and
Saudi Arabia.

➢ People continued to be sentenced to death and executed for offences that do not meet the
“most serious crimes” threshold of “intentional killing” as set out in international law and
standards. These offences included drug-related crimes in at least 12 countries in Asia and the
Middle East, as well as committing “adultery” (Maldives, Saudi Arabia), economic crimes (China,
North Korea, Viet Nam), “apostasy” (Saudi Arabia) and “insulting the prophet of Islam” (Iran).

❖ Philippine Figures (Why is it Unnecessary)

[Source: Why the death penalty is unnecessary, anti-poor, error-prone by JC Punongbayan and
Kevin Mandrilla, retrieved from
https://www.rappler.com/thought-leaders/161072-death-penalty-unnecessary-anti-poor-error-prone]

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.
 Figure 1. Source: PSA, PNP.
Note: Data cover 1978 to 2008.
According to the PNP, 'index
crimes' are those considered to
have socioeconomic
significance and 'occur with
sufficient regularity to be
meaningful'. These include the
following crimes against
persons (e.g., murder,
homicide, physical injury, rape)
and crimes against property
(e.g., robbery, theft,
carnapping). Also note that the
PNP made methodological
changes since 2009 making
data thereon incomparable to
previous data.

➢ 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.
 Figure 2. Source: Nagin & Pepper
[2012] Deterrence and the death
penalty. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press. Note: Data cover
1974 to 2009.

➢ 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”.
 Figure 3. Source: FLAG (2004)
'Socio-economic profile of capital offenders
in the Philippines'. Note: Income brackets
are in nominal terms.

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.

Figure 4. Source: People v. Mateo, G.R. No.

147678-87, July 7, 2004. Note: Data were
collected by the Judicial Records Office of
the Supreme Court as of June 8, 2004.

➢ 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.

DEATH PENALTY UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW

[Sources: (1) The Death Penalty under International Law: A Background Paper to the International Bar
Association HRI Resolution on the Abolition of the Death Penalty, May 2008; (2) Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, United Nations]

- While the death penalty is not prohibited by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR) or any other virtually universal international treaty, there are a number of instruments in force
with fewer states parties that do abolish capital punishment.
- Similarly, international customary law does not prohibit the death penalty at the current time, but
custom is rapidly changing towards a position in favour of worldwide abolition.
- most important treaty provision relating to the death penalty is Article 6 of the ICCPR.
➢ Article 6 of the ICCPR states​:
1. 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.

2. In countries which have not abolished the death penalty, sentence of death may be imposed
only for the most serious crimes in accordance with the law in force at the time of the
commission of the crime and not contrary to the provisions of the present Covenant and to the
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This penalty can only
be carried out pursuant to a final judgement rendered by a competent court.

3. When deprivation of life constitutes the crime of genocide, it is understood that nothing in this
article shall authorize any State Party to the present Covenant to derogate in any way from any
obligation assumed under the provisions of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment
of the Crime of Genocide.

4. Anyone sentenced to death shall have the right to seek pardon or commutation of the
sentence. Amnesty, pardon or commutation of the sentence of death may be granted in all
cases.
 5. Sentence of death shall not be imposed for crimes committed by persons below eighteen
years of age and shall not be carried out on pregnant women.

6. Nothing in this article shall be invoked to delay or to prevent the abolition of capital
punishment by any State Party to the present Covenant.

- ​ of the death penalty,

from this article that there are a number of ​strict limitations on the imposition
including (but not limited to) the following:
● Right to a fair trial before the imposition of the death penalty
○ a fair trial before the imposition of the death penalty under two heads: the protection
against being ‘arbitrarily deprived’ of one’s life; and the requirement that the death
penalty not be imposed when the Covenant is otherwise breached. This has been
interpreted by the Human Rights Committee (the body responsible for monitoring States
Parties compliance with the ICCPR ), to mean that in all capital trials a fair trial that
observes all the provisions of the ICCPR must be held, without which the death penalty
may not be imposed.

○ a fair trial before the imposition of the death penalty under two heads: the protection
against being ‘arbitrarily deprived’ of one’s life; and the requirement that the death
penalty not be imposed when the Covenant is otherwise breached. This has been
interpreted by the Human Rights Committee (the body responsible for monitoring States
Parties compliance with the ICCPR ), to mean that in all capital trials a fair trial that
observes all the provisions of the ICCPR must be held, without which the death penalty
may not be imposed.

● Limitation of the death penalty to only the most serious crimes

○ it lacks definition and agreement. In 1984, the Economic and Social Council published
the Safeguards Guaranteeing the Protection of the Rights of Those Facing the Death
Penalty, which stipulated that the most serious crimes should not go beyond intentional
crimes with lethal or other extremely grave consequences. While these Safeguards are
not legally binding, they were endorsed by UN General Assembly, indicating strong
international support. Similarly, the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or
Arbitrary Executions has stated that the death penalty should be eliminated for economic
crimes, drug-related offences, victimless offences, and actions relating to moral values
including adultery, prostitution and sexual orientation. However, this interpretation is
contested by a number of countries, and so cannot be regarded as universally accepted.
○ While the Committee’s findings are non-binding, they are nonetheless highly persuasive
in interpreting the ICCPR, particularly when read in conjunction with the Safeguards
endorsed by the General Assembly and the UN Special Rapporteur’s position. However
interpreted, it is clear that this provision restricts the application of the death penalty to a
very limited number of crimes. Consequently, under international law, the death penalty
must only be used as an exceptional measure, carried out under strict conditions.

● Prohibition against imposing the death penalty when other ICCPR rights have been
violated;
○ The assertion that the death penalty constitutes torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment is gaining ground.
 ○ Under current international law, progress towards considering the death penalty to
constitute torture remains slow. It is more likely that in the near future most methods of
carrying out the death penalty will be seen as a breach of the protection against cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment, and eventually, the penalty itself will be regarded as a
breach of the right to life.

● Prohibition against retroactive imposition of the death penalty;

● Right to seek pardon or commutation of a death penalty sentence;
● Prohibition against the execution of persons who were under the age of eighteen at the
time the offence was committed; and
● Prohibition against the execution of pregnant women.

- The General Assembly, proclaims the ​Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common
standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ
of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to
promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and
international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the
peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

➢ Relevant Provisions:
○ Article 3​ - Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
○ Article 5 - No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment.

REASONS WHY OR WHY NOT IT SHOULD BE REVIVED

First Source:

PROS CONS

1. Prison: There are three purposes for prison. First, 1. Prison: It is often believe that prison is a viable
prison separates criminals for the safety of the alternative to executing a person. However as
general population. Second, prison is a form of mentioned above, even imprisonment for life with
punishment. Third and finally, the punishment of no chance of parole still has issues.
prison is expected to rehabilitate prisoners; so that
when prisoners are released from prison, these 2. Not Humane: Killing a person is not humane, even
ex-convicts are less likely to repeat their crimes andif the criminal is not humane. What is humane is
risk another prison sentence. The logic for capital subjective to a person’s upbringing, education,
punishment is that prisons are for rehabilitating beliefs, and religion. Therefore different people
convicts who will eventually leave prison, interpret what is humane differently. For instance,
and therefore prison is not for people who would some people consider putting a pet asleep is
never be released from prisons alive. humane if the animal is in great pain, but doing the
same thing for a person is often not considered
2. Cost of Prison: Typically, the cost of imprisoning humane. Other people would not kill an animal even
someone for life is much more expensive than for food. In some cultures, mercy killings are
executing that same person. However with the honorable.
expensive costs of appeals in courts of law, it is
arguable if capital punishment is truly cost effective 3. Fairness: The life of the criminal can not
when compared with the cost of life imprisonment. compensate for the crime committed. Basically, two
wrongs do not make a right.
3. Safety: Criminals who receive the death penalty
are typically violent individuals. Therefore for the 4. Pain of Death: Executing a person can be quick
safety of the prison’s guards, other prisoners, and and painless, or executing a person can be slow and
the general public (in case a death row inmate painful. The method, and therefore the pain, of
escapes capital punishment is also subjective to society’s
prison), then logic dictates that safety is a reason for norms. Some cultures prefer suffering, others do not.
capital punishment.
5. Violates Human Rights: Some groups of people
4. Deters Crime: There is no scientific proof that deem death a violation of the person’s right to live.
nations with capital punishment have a lower rate of Other groups of people disagree that the death
crime, therefore the risk of the death penalty does penalty is a cruel and unusual punishment. There is
not seem to deter crime. no clear definition of what human rights are, so there
will always be disagreements with whether it violates
5. Extreme Punishment: The logic is that the more human rights.
severe the crime, then the more severe the
punishment is necessary. But what is the most 6. Wrongly Convicted: Some people executed were
severe punishment: lifetime in prison or execution? I proven too late to be wrongly convicted of a crime
am not sure that anyone alive is qualified to answer that they did not commit.
this question.
7. Playing God: Some people believe that all deaths
6. Appropriate Punishment: It is commonly believed should be natural. Other people believe murder is a
that the punishment of a crime should equal the part of nature.
crime, if possible. This is also known as "an
eye for eye justice. Therefore using this logic, the 8. Salvation: Felons have less time and likelihood of
appropriate punishment for murder is death. finding spiritual salvation if they are executed. The
obvious question for this reasoning is salvation a
7. Vengeance: Some crimes are so horrific that some valid concern for the state?
people think that revenge or retribution is the only
option. This reasoning is not based on logic; but 9. Forgiveness: Criminals have less time and
rather, it is based on emotions. Therefore, this likelihood to seek forgiveness for their crimes if they
reason should not be deemed a valid justification. are executed. Again, is forgiveness a valid concern
for the government?

10. Amends: Executing someone decreases the time

and likelihood for the criminal to repair any damage
from the crime. Should the state be concerned over
this too?

11. Family Hardship: It is often said that the family

members of the executed needlessly suffer too, yet
the crime itself has victims and family members too.

FOR AND AGAINST

1. Religion: Different religions have different beliefs concerning capital punishment. Even individual religions
have contradictory beliefs. For instance, the Bible clear states the death penalty as valid and just, yet at
the same time murder is not allowed and salvation must be offered.
Since not everyone is of the same religion and each person can even interpret the same religion differently,
the role of religion concerning the death penalty is very unclear. This is why governments should separate
state and church.

2. Morality: The morality of killing a person is also subjective for each person. Throughout the life of an
individual, their beliefs and morality can and most likely will change.

Second Source:

PROS CONS

1. It daunt people to commit dreadful crimes. 1. There are innocent people wrongly executed.
Criminals will get scared of committing crimes Critics believed that they keep on sending innocent
because they will suffer such harsh punishment. The people who are wrongly accused to death row and
fear of suffering will discouraged this potential the sad thing about this is that, innocence is proven
criminals to commit crimes. after the execution has been carried out.

2.Death penalty costs the government less, 2. Critics also argue that death penalty does not
compared to the costs of life imprisonment because really deter criminals from committing crimes, since
they will be given the expenses of food, health care there are criminals who suffer from mental illness
and other costs that will sustain their lives. Some and death sentence will not prevent them from doing
critics says that spending for people who committed things they can no longer control without proper
such heinous crimes is impractical and just a waste medication.
of taxpayers’ money.
3. Pro death penalty believed that feeding the
3. Death Penalty will reduce the number of crime rate inmates is much more expensive than
in the country because criminals will just be taking death penalty. On contrary to that, Anti- death
advantage of people without harsh punishments. penalty believes that the drug used in lethal injection
and other expenses related to execution is much
4. It is what hardened criminals deserve. Criminals more costly.
become bolder and careless to commit crimes
knowing that they will only be imprisoned that is why 4. Death penalty is a form of revenge. While pro
they are not scared of repeating heinous crimes. death penalty thinks that capital punishment is a form
Thus, these type of people should be put to death to of retribution, Anti death penalty also believes that to
project the majority. avenge a crime committed by individual may be
understandable yet killing someone is also
5. Death penalty is just punishable to drug related unconstitutional. It is also a crime that is only masked
crimes only, which was stated under the House Bill by the term capital punishment but the reality is, it
Number 4727. However, President Rodrigo “Digong” only continues the series of violence.
Duterte wants plunder, rape to be next in line among
the heinous crimes punishable with death penalty. 5. People who have been involved in the process of
death penalty suffer from depression out of guilt from
having to end another person’s life. Former
executioner once stated that people who participated
in executions were later destroyed, some of them
turned to drugs and alcohol to feel better.

6. It is a platform that is anti-poor because accused

people who are poor are mostly the ones who get the
death penalty, since these people lack finances to
 pay for a powerful defense attorneys.

7. It is not humanity and cannot be undone. Those

innocent criminals who got executed and then latter
would have proven the person’s innocence, he or
she can never be brought back to life anymore.

Third Source:
[WHY AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL OPPOSES THE DEATH PENALTY THE DEATH PENALTY IS WRONG
http://www.amnesty.org.ph/forum/why-amnesty-international-opposes-the-death-penalty/]

DENIAL OF HUMAN RIGHTS.

Sentencing someone to death denies them the right to life – enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights.

IRREVERSIBLE AND MISTAKES HAPPEN.

Execution is the ultimate, irrevocable punishment: the risk of executing an innocent person can never be
eliminated. Since 1973, for example, 150 US prisoners sent to death row have later been exonerated. Others
have been executed despite serious doubts about their guilt.

DOES NOT DETER CRIME.

Countries who execute commonly cite the death penalty as a way to deter people from committing crime. This
claim has been repeatedly discredited, and there is no evidence that the death penalty is any more effective in
reducing crime than imprisonment.

OFTEN USED WITHIN SKEWED JUSTICE SYSTEMS.

Some of the countries executing the most people have deeply unfair legal systems. The ‘top’ three executing
countries – China, Iran and Iraq – have issued death sentences after unfair trials. Many death sentences are
issued after ‘confessions’ that have been obtained through torture.

DISCRIMINATORY.
You are more likely to be sentenced to death if you are poor or belong to a racial, ethnic or religious minority
because of discrimination in the justice system. Also, poor and marginalized groups have less access to the
legal resources needed to defend themselves.

USED AS A POLITICAL TOOL.

The authorities in some countries, for example Iran and Sudan, use the death penalty to punish political
opponents.

Read:
http://www.amnesty.org.ph/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Submission-Amnesty-International-Philippines-Positio
n-Paper-on-the-Death-Penalty.pdf

The alleged deterrent effect of the death penalty has been repeatedly debunked. Most recently, on March 4,
2015, the United Nations assistant secretary-general for human rights, Ivan Simonovic, stated that there was
“no evidence that the death penalty deters any crime.” Even with respect to murder, an Oxford University
analysis concluded that capital punishment does not deter “murder to a marginally greater extent than does the
threat and application of the supposedly lesser punishment of life imprisonment.” -

COMMENTS AND REMARKS FROM ORGANIZATIONS AND DISTINGUISHED PERSONS

➢ The UN Human Rights Committee and the special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary
executions have concluded that the death penalty for drug offenses fails to meet the condition of “most
serious crime.” In September 2015, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights reaffirmed that
“persons convicted of drug-related offences … should not be subject to the death penalty.” ​[Philippines:
Don’t Reinstate Death Penalty Capital Punishment for Drug Crimes Violates International Law retrieved
from https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/12/03/philippines-dont-reinstate-death-penalty]

➢ The alleged deterrent effect of the death penalty has been repeatedly debunked. Most recently, on
March 4, 2015, the United Nations assistant secretary-general for human rights, Ivan Simonovic, stated
that there was “no evidence that the death penalty deters any crime.” Even with respect to murder, an
Oxford University analysis concluded that capital punishment does not deter “murder to a marginally
greater extent than does the threat and application of the supposedly lesser punishment of life
imprisonment.” ​[Philippines: Don’t Reinstate Death Penalty Capital Punishment for Drug Crimes
Violates International Law retrieved from
https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/12/03/philippines-dont-reinstate-death-penalty]​

➢ Rep. Ruwel Peter Gonzaga (2nd District, Compostela Valley) likewise voted in favor of the bill, saying
the enactment into law of HB 4727 will not violate the International Convention on Civil and Political
Rights (ICCPR). He said the late President Corazon Aquino ratified the ICCPR on October 23, 1986.
The Batasan Pambansa did not concur with the ratification made by the President of the ICCPR simply
because the Batasan Pambansa was abolished by virtue of Proclamation No. 3 signed by Mrs. Aquino
establishing a Revolutionary Government.

“ICCPR could not have attained the status of a treaty, thus it has no binding effect here in our
Philippines jurisdiction. On the other hand, assuming ICCPR is a legitimate treaty, still HB 4727, if
enacted into law, will not violate the ICCPR,”said Gonzaga.

Gonzaga said Article 6 Paragraph 2 of the ICCPR states “In countries which have not abolished the
death penalty, sentence of death may be imposed only for the most serious crimes.’’

Gonzaga said this comment was interpreted by the ICCPR Human Rights Committee by issuing
General Comment No. 6 dated July 7, 1982, stating that, ‘’while it follows from Article 6 Paragraph 2 to
Paragraph 6 that state parties are not obliged to abolish the death penalty totally, they are obliged to
limit its use, and in particular, to abolish it to other than the most serious crimes.’’

Gonzaga also said that Fr. Joaquin Bernas, in his book, Philippine Constitution: Comprehensive
Reviewer, states, ‘’Article 6 Paragraph 2 of the covenant explicitly recognizes that capital punishment is
an allowable limitation on the life to right, subject to the limitation that it may be imposed for the most
serious crimes.’’
 The second issue clarified by Gonzaga is that the death penalty, if enacted into law, will not violate the
Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR. “The Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR is not a treaty
nor an international agreement because the ratification of the President did not have the concurrence of
at least two-thirds of all members of the Senate as required under Section 21 Article 7 of the
Constitution,” said Gonzaga.

Gonzaga said as to whether the death penalty is cruel, unconstitutional, excessive, and so on, the
Supreme Court had ruled, unchangingly, and answered this issue in the negative in the cases of
Harden vs Director, People vs Limaco, People vs Camano, People vs Puda, People vs Marcos, and
People vs Echegarray. ​[House overwhelmingly passes death penalty bill, 08-March-2017, 09:12:34 AM,
​ ttp://congress.gov.ph/press/details.php?pressid=9979]​
retrieved from h

➢ To curb crime, the focus should be on reforming the justice system, rendering it more effective, while
also ensuring that it is humane. Investing in measures to address issues of public security and crime,
such as more effective policing, and a fair and functioning criminal justice system is essential for an
ethical and just management of crime.

EFFECTS OF REINSTATEMENT OF DEATH PENALTY

➢ Reinstating the death penalty would violate the Philippines’ international legal obligations. The Second
Optional Protocol to the ICCPR states that “no one within the jurisdiction of a State Party to the present
Protocol shall be executed” and that “each State Party shall take all necessary measures to abolish the
death penalty within its jurisdiction.” ​[Philippines: Don’t Reinstate Death Penalty Capital Punishment for
Drug Crimes Violates International Law retrieved from
https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/12/03/philippines-dont-reinstate-death-penalty]​

➢ “Reinstatement of the death penalty won’t solve any drug-related societal problems that Congress
House Bill No. 1 seeks to address,” [Phelim] Kine said. “It will only add to the already horrific death toll
that President Rodrigo Duterte’s ‘war on drugs’ has inflicted on Filipinos since he took office on June
30.” ​[Philippines: Don’t Reinstate Death Penalty Capital Punishment for Drug Crimes Violates
International Law retrieved from
https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/12/03/philippines-dont-reinstate-death-penalty]

➢ abolition of the death penalty could be posited as an entry into a trading bloc or partnership. Having
capital punishment on your statute books is a barrier to entering the EU, for example. Turkey abolished
the death penalty in a bid to qualify for membership, although there has been talk of bringing it back
following the July coup attempt. ​[The Philippines should not reinstate the death penalty, even for Peter
Scully by Brigid Delaney retrieved from
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/29/the-philippines-should-not-reinstate-the-deat
h-penalty-even-for-peter-scully]

➢ Bringing back a flawed system to kill a rotten individual means that we dispense with the individual but
are stuck with the system.​ [id]