Death Penalty in the Philippines

Santos Lamban, PAHRA

The Philippines was the first Asian country that abolished the death penalty in 1987. But six years after it has reimposed
the death penalty, the Philippines has overtaken its Asian neighbors and has the most number of death convicts.
The repeal of death penalty came about with the promulgation of a new Constitution after the ouster of the Marcos
dictatorship. The lesson of Martial Law, underscored by the more than 10,000 victims who were either tortured,
disappeared or summarily executed, was that the state alone should not be given the awful power of life and death over
its citizens.
Within less than a year, however, the military establishment was lobbying for its reimposition as a means to combat the
"intensifying" offensives of the CPP/NPA guerrillas. Gen. Fidel V. Ramos, then Chief of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines and later elected President of the Philippines in 1992, was among those who were strongly calling for the
reintroduction of the death penalty against rebellion, murder and drug trafficking.
In mid 1987, a bill to reinstate the death penalty was submitted to Congress. Military pressure was very much evident in
the preamble which cited the pestering insurgency as well as the recommendations of the police and the military as
compelling reasons for the reimposition of the death penalty. The bill cited recent right wing coup attempts as an example
of the alarming deterioration of peace and order and argued for the death penalty both as an effective deterrent against
heinous crimes and as a matter of simple retributive justice .
The bill which was promoted as a counter-insurgency bill was passed by the House of Representatives in 1988. Three
similar bills, introduced in 1989 failed to get approval of the Senate and the bill was shelved into the archives.
However, in the preceding five years, public opinion, articulated by leading political figures had been flowing in the
direction of support for the death penalty as a form of 'retributive justice'. A series of horrific, widely publicized crimes
including rape, murder and kidnapping-for-ransom reinforced public fears that lawlessness and criminality had reached
unprecedented levels. The tabloid reports painted a bloody picture, widely reporting on high profile murder, rape and
kidnapping cases. The view that the death penalty was necessary to fight criminality became a popular notion.
When Ramos was elected as President in 1992, he declared that the reimposition of the death penalty would be one of
his priorities. Political offenses such as rebellion were dropped from the bill. However, the list of crimes was expanded
to include economic offenses such as smuggling and bribery.
In December 1993, RA 7659 restoring the death penalty was signed into law. The law makers argued the deteriorating
crime situation was a compeling reason for its reimposition. The main reason given was that the death penalty is a
deterrent to crime. In 1996, RA 8177 was approved, stipulating lethal injection as the method of execution.

Six years after

Last February 5, 1999, Leo Echegaray, a house painter, was executed for repeatedly raping his stepdaughter. He was
the first convict to be executed since the re-imposition of death penalty in 1995.
His execution sparked once again a heated debate between the anti and the pro-death penalty forces in the Philippines
with a huge majority of people calling for the execution of Echegaray. That there was a strong clamor for the imposition
of the death penalty should be viewed from the point of view of a citizen who is desperately seeking ways to stop
criminality.
The Estrada administration peddled the death penalty as the antidote to crime. The reasoning was that if the criminals
will be afraid to commit crimes if they see that the government is determined to execute them. Oppositors maintained
that the death penalty is not a deterrent and that there have been studies already debunking the deterrence theory.
Legislators and politicians refused to heed the recommendation of the Supreme Court for Congress to review the death
penalty riding on the popularity of the pro-death penalty sentiment.
Six years after its reimposition, more than 1,200 individuals have been sentenced to death and seven convicts have
been executed through lethal injection. Yet today, there are no signs that criminality has gone down.
From February 6, 1999, a day after Leo Echegaray was executed, to May 31 1999 two leading newspapers reported a
total of 163 crimes which could be punishable by death penalty. But perhaps the best indicator that this law is not a
deterrent to criminality is the ever-increasing number of death convicts.
From 1994 to 1995 the number of persons on death row increased from 12 to 104. From 1995 to 1996 it increased to
182. In 1997 the total death convicts was at 520 and in 1998 the inmates in death row was at 781. As of November 1999
there are a total of 956 death convicts at the National Bilibid Prisons and at the Correctional Institute for Women.
As of December 31, 1999, based on the statistics compiled by the Episcopal Commission on Prisoner Welfare of the
Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines, there were a total of 936 convicts interned at the National Bilibid Prisons
and another 23 detained at the Correctional Institute for Women. Of these figures, six are minors and 12 are foreigners.
One of the reasons as to why human rights groups oppose the death penalty is because of the weaknesses and
imperfections of the Philippine justice system. This is very much evident in the review of death penalty cases made by
the Supreme Court from 1995 to 1999. Two out of every three death sentences handed down by the local courts were
found to be erroneous by the Supreme Court.
Out of the 959 inmates the SC reviewed 175 cases involving 200 inmates from 1995 to 1999; 3 cases were reviewed in
1995, 8 in 1996, 8 in 1997, 38 in 1998, 118 in 1999.
Of these 175 cases, the SC affirmed with finality and first affirmation only 31% or 54 cases involving 60 inmates. Of
these cases 24 were affirmed with finality, while the remaining 36 were given first affirmation.
Sixty nine percent (69%) or 121 cases were either modified, acquitted or remanded for retrial. Eighty four (84) cases
involving 95 inmates were modified to reclusion perpetua, 10 cases involving 11 inmates were modified to indeterminate
penalty, 11 cases involving 11 inmates were remanded to lower court for retrial and 16 cases involving 23 inmates were
acquitted by the SC..
In a study prepared by the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG), it pointed out that the result of the review of cases
done by the Supreme Court "point all too clearly to the imperfections, weaknesses and problems of the Philippine justice
system". Some decisions of the trial courts were overturned for imposing death penalty on offenses which were not
subject to death penalty. Other decisions of the lower courts were set aside because of substantive and procedural
errors during arraignment and trial. Still others were struck down because the lower court mis-appreciated evidences.
The Philippine justice system is so imperfect that it is often tipped against the poor and marginalized sectors of society.
Because they are poor, majority of the death convicts could not even afford to hire private lawyers so that in most cases
conviction is most likely to occur.
Nineteen ninety eight data form the Catholic Bishops conference of the Philippines showed that more than half of the
convicts earned less than the government mandated minimum wage.
In a survey conducted among 425 convicts in 1998, 105 or 24.7% were agricultural workers, 103 were construction
workers, 73 were transport workers, and 42 were in workers in sales and services. Only 6% finished college while 32.4
% finished various levels of high school while the remaining did not go to school or have finished only elementary or
vocational education.
It is perhaps important to point out that out of these 46 crimes punishable by death, the death penalty has been applied
to only 17 crimes. No one has been convicted of qualified bribery, qualified piracy and plunder. Interestingly also, no
public official has been sentenced to death for crimes involving public officials.
That the death penalty is not a deterrent to crime has already been demonstrated. That there are severe imperfections
in the justice system which could likely result in a situation where innocent victim might be executed can be seen in the
review of cases by the Supreme Court. That it is biased against the poor and the marginalized can be seen in the socio-
economic profile of the convicts. It is violation of the right to life and the right not to be treated cruelly.
Yet, the government maintains that it is effective in combatting crime. Under the death penalty law, 46 crimes are
considered heinous and are now subject to the death penalty. It imposes the mandatory death penalty on 21 crimes
while the other 25 crimes are death eligible. These are crimes for which a range of penalties including the death penalty
is imposed.
Some Congressmen and Senators are proposing other lists of crimes to add to the above. Some even contemplated
lowering the age of those punishable by the death penalty to include youthful offenders.
The death penalty is an easy way out for a government in the face of a strong outcry from the citizenry who wanted the
government to stop criminality. It is being used to create the illusion that the government is doing something to stop the
crimes when in fact it is not.
Sad though it maybe, more lives would be lost unless the death penalty in the Philippines is repealed
 ABOLITION OF DEATH PENALTY

DEFINITION

According to Republic Act No. 7659, death penalty is a penalty for crimes that are "heinous for being grievous, odious
and hateful offenses and which, by reason of their inherent or manifest wickedness, viciousness, atrocity and perversity
are repugnant and outrageous to the common standards and norms of decency and morality in a just, civilized and
ordered society." Death penalty is a cruel, futile and dangerous punishment for "very serious reasons and with due
judicial process." According to Amnesty International, a worldwide movement of people working for internationally
recognized human rights; death penalty is the ultimate, irreversible denial of human rights. Thus, they worked towards
abolishing it in order to "end the cycle of violence created by a system riddled with economic and racial bias and tainted
with human error."

BACKGROUND

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

STANCE

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

ARGUMENTS

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

Furthermore, it is a known fact that majority of Filipinos are Catholics. As said, we have one of the world's largest
Christian populations. According to the Ten Commandments of the Church, thou shall not kill. Therefore, nobody is given
the right to commit the lives of others. Whether that person is a criminal or not, nobody has the right to

play God and take the life that He has given. Filipinos should "respect and value the sanctity of human life and uphold
the virtue and religious doctrines that are expected of us as a dominant Christian nation."

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

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

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

SUMMARY

To cap off this essay, death penalty is the punishment served to those who have committed crimes that are "heinous for
being grievous, odious and hateful offenses and which, by reason of their inherent or manifest wickedness, viciousness,
atrocity and perversity are repugnant and outrageous to the common standards and norms of decency and morality in a
just, civilized and ordered society." I am in favor of the abolition of death penalty because first, its imposition violates the
right to live. Second, it is a very cruel, inhuman and irreversible act. Third, death penalty is antipoor. Lastly, death penalty
does not serve its purpose of preventing crimes and preserving peace and order.