Death penalty, also called capital punishment, is when a government or state

executes (kills) someone, usually but not always because they have committed a serious crime. A
crime that can be punished with the death penalty is called a capital crime or a capital offense.
Executions in most countries have become rarer in recent centuries. The death penalty is a disputed
and controversial topic.

Yes to death penalty?

https://businessmirror.com.ph/2019/02/04/yes-to-death-penalty/
The death penalty in the Philippines was first abolished in 1987, making the Philippines the
first country in Asia to terminate death penalty. Yet, in less than a year, with the promulgation of a
new Constitution after the ouster of the Marcos dictatorship, the military establishment lobbied for its
imposition to combat the alleged intensifying offensives of the Communist Party of the
Philippines/New People’s Army guerillas.
In mid-1987, a bill to reinstate the death penalty was submitted to Congress, citing recent
right-wing coup attempts as example of the alarming deterioration of peace and order. In 1988, the
House of Representatives passed the bill that was being promoted as a counterinsurgency bill. When
an ex-military officer, Gen. Fidel Ramos, was elected president in 1992, Republic Act 7659 restoring
the death penalty was signed into law. 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 1996, RA 8177 was approved, stipulating lethal injection as the method of execution. Six
years after its reimposition, the number of death-penalty convicts increased—indicating that the
death penalty is not a deterrent to criminality. Certain studies cite statistics indicating that there are
no signs that criminality has gone down with the reimposition of the death penalty

1) 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 number of death convicts was at 520, and in 1998 the
number of inmates in death row was at 781. As of November 1999 there were a total of 956
death convicts at the National Bilibid Prisons and at the Correctional Institute for Women.

2) 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.

3) A review of death-penalty cases made by the Supreme Court from 1995 to 1999 indicated that 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 were reviewed from
1995 to 1999; three cases were reviewed in 1995, eight in 1996, eight in 1997, 38 in 1998 and
118 in 1999. Of the 175 cases, the SC affirmed with finality and first affirmation only 31 percent
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 or 121 cases were either modified,
acquitted or remanded for retrial.

4) A study prepared by the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) on the results 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
1
 death penalty on offenses that 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 misappreciated evidences.

5) Data from the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines showed that in 1998 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 percent were agricultural workers, 103 were
construction workers, 73 were transport workers, and 42 were workers in sales and services.
Only 6 percent finished college, while 32.4 percent finished various levels of high school, while
the remaining convicts did not go to school or have finished only elementary or vocational
education.

On June 24, 2006, then-President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, apparently giving in to the call of
the Catholic Church, signed into law RA 9346, “An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in
the Philippines.” All crimes punishable by death were commuted to life imprisonment (reclusion
perpetua).

Mayor Rodrigo Duterte, then candidate for president, said in one of the presidential debates
that he wants capital punishment for criminals involved in illegal drugs, gun-for-hire syndicates and
those who commit “heinous crimes,” such as rape, robbery or car theft where the victim is murdered.
He vowed “to litter Manila Bay with the bodies of criminals.” Sen. Grace Poe then also stated that the
capital punishment should apply to criminals convicted of drugs and multiple crimes where involved
people can no longer be rehabilitated.

Following the election of Mayor Duterte as president, a bill to reinstate capital punishment for
certain heinous offenses was swiftly reported out of the Justice Committee into the full House of
Representatives in February 2017. The death penalty bill died in the Senate.

The recent surge in heinous crimes—terrorist bombings, drug trafficking, plunder, rape,
murders, extrajudicial killings, smuggling, kidnaping for ransom, gun for hire —has opened the
discussion on reinstating the death penalty. Tabloids, which widely publicize horrific crimes in the
front pages, reinforce public fears that lawlessness and criminality have reached unprecedented
levels. Certain senatorial candidates (e.g., Raffy Alunan, Harry Roque) in a recent CNN debate
indicated a “Yes” vote for the restoration of death penalty.

Is death penalty the antidote to crime? Will criminals be afraid to commit a crime if they see
that the government is determined to execute them? Oppositors have cited several studies debunking
the deterrence theory.

I agree! What would prevent people from committing crimes is the certainty of apprehension,
speedy prosecution and, if warranted, conviction. At present, severe imperfections in our justice
system, where justice can be bought, could likely result in a situation where the innocent, who
cannot afford the services of adequate legal counsel due to poverty, might be executed. I prefer a
discussion on the “pros” and “cons” of reinstituting the death penalty—rather than a debate on

2
lowering the age of criminal liability to 12. I shudder at the thought that our children could be “death
eligible” if the death penalty were imposed!

In the midst of a strong outcry from citizens who want the government to stop criminality, let
the response be genuine, effective and equitable reforms in our Criminal Justice System. The Five
Pillars of the Criminal Justice System—(1) The Community, (2) The Law Enforcement, (3) The
Prosecution, (4) The Courts and (5) Corrections —should function like a chain of links. A weakness in
any of these links breaks the chain, resulting in a breakdown of the system, inordinate delays in the
proceedings, acquittal of the guilty and conviction of the innocent.

But the biggest problem would be, in my view, a people that have become cynical, indifferent,
callous, frustrated, hardened and uncaring. This is one of the bigger challenges facing this
government.

What is the purpose of death penalty in Philippines?

AN ACT TO IMPOSE THE DEATH PENALTY ON CERTAIN HEINOUS CRIMES, AMENDING FOR THAT
PURPOSE THE REVISED PENAL LAWS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

Who proposed the death penalty in the Philippines?

Leo Echegaray. Leo Echegaray (11 July 1960 – 5 February 1999) was the first Filipino to be meted
the death penalty after its reinstatement in the Philippines in 1993, some 23 years after the last
judicial execution was carried out.

When did death penalty started in the Philippines?

The death penalty in the Philippines was first abolished in 1987, making the Philippines the first
country in Asia to terminate death penalty.

Is the death penalty an inhuman?

The death penalty is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. Amnesty
International opposes the death penalty in all cases and is working for its abolition worldwide.
Some 96 countries today, nearly half the countries in the world, have abolished the death penalty
in law or practice.

Is death penalty a good thing?

One side says the death penalty is good because it scares people away from doing things that
could get them killed, the other side says there's a potential of executing an innocent man; one says
justice, retribution, and punishment; the other side says that execution is murder.

5 solid reasons to support death penalty

With the rise of alarming and heart-wrenching crimes in the metro alone – drug addict raped
and murdered an innocent three year old, group of friends, who cannot keep their libidos upon
themselves, gang raped a working college student while high on drugs – one cannot just close eyes
on this issue. Something needs to be done. For incoming iron-fisted and crime-busting President
Rodrigo Duterte, the answer is no less than the capital punishment: death.
The issue on death penalty has raised more debates today in the country since President-elect
Duterte opened the doors on its re-imposition during his three month campaign and continues on
insisting it despite the recent sermon of Pope Francis.However, Vice President-elect Maria Leonora
“Leni” Robredo and former Justice Secretary and Senator-elect Leila de Lima are vocal of their
3
opposition. For them, death penalty does more harm than good. But, does it?The following are
strong reasons why people need to reconsider their inherent abhorrence to the death penalty and
replace it with openness and acceptance.
1. To revive people’s fear of the consequences of law violation“. We have a society now
where obedience to the law is really a choice, an option only,” Duterte quipped.It is not
anymore a surprise for Filipinos to see fellow citizens violating the law. One cannot just summon
its people to follow a simple traffic rule. There are vehicular accidents left and right and most of
it are because of lack of discipline and lack of fear of the consequences of violating the
law.Death penalty may help put this to an end. Even before Duterte sits as president, the
country has been witnessing criminals, especially those involved with drugs, surrender and
admit themselves to undergo rightful processes.
2. Crime deterrence. Robredo, former human rights lawyer, earlier said that death is not the
solution to lower the high crime rate of the country. She believes that it does not prevent the
commission of heinous crimes, mentioning the instances of giving such penalty under the
Marcos and Ramos administration.Duterte admitted that “(d)espite the fact that there is the
death penalty law at that time, it never deterred the criminals from committing their acts.”But
he also rebutted the argument with a question: How can crime be deterred if they never
implemented the law? Nobody was even killed, he claimed.Nothing will deter a criminal than
fear of death. Life behind the bars is less feared, even preferred by some who do not have a
roof and cannot eat three times a day.
3. Retribution. Both the victims and families of the victims of heinous crimes have no voice to shout
how they struggle everyday feeling every bit of excruciating pain brought about by injustice.
People do not know what they need to go through daily just to move on and let the incident
past behind them.How can the mother of a poor three year old, raped and murdered, sleep
soundly at night and move on? How can a hopeless father who drives the jeepney to send his
only daughter to a good school look at life the same way again after she was raped and parts of
her body were decapitated?It is because of them Duterte pushes for the death penalty.“Because
this part of the law says, this is retribution. Magbayad ka sa ginawa mo.”“Dito, one-year-old,
three months old, nire-rape pinapatay. Anak ka ng—tapos sabihin nila huwag iyang death
penalty kasi inhuman?” he said.(Here in our country, a one-year-old, or three months old, gets
raped and killed. You son of a—then they warn us don’t implement the death penalty because
it’s inhuman?)
4. Less expense and less unprecedented offense. Criminals in prisons exceed the limit of
people allowed to be inside a jail. They say it is because of lack of fund. Most of them sleep
literally beside each other, smelling each other’s breath and feeling each other’s sweat. They
wake up and get fed three times a day. They are even offered livelihood programs and seminars
good for the wellness of their being.Duterte proposes death penalty by hanging which entails an
obviously cheaper cost than maintaining their daily needs. The government will, indeed, spend
less.In addition, most crimes nowadays are committed by those already convicted, those who
are inside the New Bilibid Prison (NBP). To address unprecedented offenses to be committed by
them, it is better to eradicate the root rather than the fruits.
5. To discourage taking of innocent lives. They say that imposing the death penalty puts
innocent lives at risk, but not imposing it puts more innocent lives at risk especially if we let the
heartless criminals live and kill more people.Yes, no justice system is and would ever be
perfect. There is always the possibility of convicting the wrong person, with or without the
death penalty, but it is beyond human ability to ever control it. The unavoidability of a mistake
should not serve as grounds to completely do away with the death penalty any more than the
risk of having a deadly accident should make vehicles illegal.In deciding between the lesser evil
and the most evil, you choose the former. To reiterate, more innocent lives are at risk if we let
the criminals live.

4
Are you for or against Death Penalty in the Philippines?
 Yes I support DEATH Penalty, if we based on Philippine Constitution stated that politics are
separated from religion. As the the practice before we had Death Penalty whom commit
heinous crimes were sentence to death. Filipinos have mixed opinions about the death
penalty, with many opposing it on religious and humanitarian grounds, while advocates see it
as a way of deterring crimes. As our present settings in our country the Reinstatement of
Death penalty is highly needed. I am suggesting to add the crimes of Drug related from big-
time pusher and supplier. And also the politicians who commit rampant abused of power and
corruption practices. Since because it adds burden to our people such budget intended for
health, social service and some other programs to the people it brings to his own pocket. I
know a lot more to mention whom politicians who is corrupt. Death penalty it may brings fear
to whom committed and to think twice their actions accordingly. If we look to consider
Philippine religion majority of it are christian. Although our politicians contend that there
should be separation of church and state. How many times do we see religious convictions and
political issues intersect in such a way that religion cannot possibly be separated from the
state. It is absolutely ridiculous to suggest that religious convictions don't influence political
decisions. I know its timely for the reinstatement of death penalty which serve mechanism to
fought criminals. I think Death penalty sentence is better than Extra Judicial Killings were not
the clear reason for them committed.
 Yes! I support Death Penalty. I believe that it is the key in order to bring back the discipline of
the Filipino people. Now a days, people are not afraid to commit crime because they knew that
they can get away with it easily because of the due process in the Philippines which takes
years to finish. The fear of the people to death penalty will bring their discipline back and will
result to lower crime rate.
 Yes, I go for death penalty. Because the person who committed heinous crimes, should be
punished by the law through death sentenced. Filipinos has mix opinions about the topic death
penalty, which people oppose due to the so called "human right" and by the teaching of the
church. In the current situation here in the Philippines, the returning of death penalty is highly
needed. People who committed such acts should not be forgiven by the law, because no
apology could return a life or something precious to the family that lost it. I know many
politicians who are corrupt that should be penalized by death, to prevent the increase of
corrupt politicians in the country. Death penalty can bring fear to people who are committing
crimes against the law. I think death penalty sentence is better than making criminals rot in
jails, because it can make a true statement that you should not commit crimes.

 As a Filipino citizen,
Death Penalty is a MUST on the country's present state,

Let the LAW have it fangs to strike a strong message to violators

that we are serious in protecting the sovereignty of our country and promote the common
good of the people.

 I support Death penalty because it can gives warning to people. Also to reduce the cost for the
food, shelter and some stuff for the people who commit a crime. Filipino People tend to pay
tax and the money was just use to feed the people who commit crime. Just imagine if that
money was use to build more roads to lessen traffic.

 Yes I agree with the death penalty to be imposed here in the Philippines. This is to impose
discipline among the Filipinos. People will keep on killing and commit crime if no strong and
5
 courageous leader to impose this law. Imprisonment and bailing are not enough punishment
for the criminals because they will again and again commit crimes.

List of the Pros of the Death Penalty

1. It is a way to provide justice for victims well keeping the general population safe.
There is an expectation in society that you should be able to live your life without the threat of harm.
When there is someone who decides to go against this expectation by committing a violent crime,
then there must be steps taken to provide everyone else the safety that they deserve. Although
arguments can be made for rehabilitation, there are people who would continue their violent
tendencies no matter what. The only way to keep people safe in those circumstances, and still
provide a sense of justice for the victims, is the use of the death penalty.

2. It provides a deterrent against serious crimes.

The reason why there are consequences in place for criminal violations is that we want to have a
deterrent effect on specific behaviors. People who are considering a breach of the law must see that
the consequences of their actions are worse if they go through without action compared to following
the structures society.
Although up to 88% of criminologists in the United States report that capital punishment is not an
effective deterrent to homicide, the fact that it can prevent some violence does make it a useful
structure to have in society.

3. It offers a respectful outcome.

Two critical elements of justice in modern societies involve punishments for criminal behavior that do
not involve cruelty or unusual circumstances. That structure has led the United States to implement
capital punishment which involves lethal injections. Although some regions struggle to purchase the
necessary drugs to administer this consequence, the process of putting someone to sleep before they
stop breathing in their heart stops beating eliminates the pain and negative outcomes associated with
other execution methods.
Modern processes are much more compassionate compared to hanging, firing squads, or other
gruesome methods of taking a life under the law.

4. It maintains prison populations at manageable levels.

Over 2 million people are currently part of the prison population in the United States. About one in
five people currently in jails across the country are awaiting trial for charges that they face. That is
about the same amount of people who are labeled as being violent offenders. By separating those
who are convicted of a capital crime, we create more room for the individuals who are willing to work
and rehabilitation programs to better their lives in the future. This structure makes it possible to limit
the financial and spatial impacts which occur when all serious crime requires long-term prisoner care.

5. It offers society an appropriate consequence for violent behavior.

There are times when rehabilitation should be the top priority for criminals. Then there are times
when violent conduct is the preferred behavior for a criminal. By keeping capital punishment as an
option within society, we create an appropriate consequence that fits the actions taken by the
criminal. The death penalty ensures that the individual involved will no longer be able to create havoc
for the general population because they are no longer around. That process creates peace for the
victims, their families, and the society in general.

6. It eliminates sympathetic reactions to the criminal charged with a capital crime.

The United States offers a confrontational system of justice because that is an effective way to
address the facts of the case. We should make decisions based on logic instead of emotion. The lawn
must be able to address the actions of a criminal in a way that discourages other people from
deciding to conduct themselves in a similar manner. Our goal should be to address the needs of each
victim and their family more than it should be to address the physical needs of the person charged
with a capital crime.
6
7. It stops the threat of an escape that alternative sentences would create.
The fastest way to stop a murderer from continuing to kill people is to eliminate their ability to do so.
That is what capital punishment does. The death penalty makes it impossible for someone convicted
of murder to find ways that kill other people. Failing to execute someone who is taking a life unjustly,
who that is able to kill someone else, puts all of us into a place of responsibility for that action.
Although there are issues from a moral standpoint about taking any life, we must remember that the
convicted criminal made the decision to violate the law in the first place, knowing full well what their
potential outcome would be.

Legalization of Death Penalty in the Philippines

Death Penalty needs to be implemented in the Philippines. And here are the advantages.

It deters bad people to commit heinous crimes.

One reason supporters of the capital punishment are for death penalty is its effectiveness as a crime
deterrent. According to the advocates for death sentencing, potential criminals will be scared to
suffer such harsh punishment and as a result, they will be hesitant to commit crimes like rape and
murder

It is what hardened criminals deserve.

Some of the crimes that are under capital punishment include murder and rape, depending on the
country or state legalizing the practice. For pro-death penalty, there are criminals who are repeat
offenders and not scared to rape and murder again, knowing they will only be imprisoned.  

t reduces the number of committed crimes.

People who are for death penalty posit that without it, the number of major crimes like murder and
homicide will escalate since bad elements will not be afraid to do whatever they want., from dealing
drugs to killing other people. Without harsh punishments for their offenses, criminals will be taking
advantage of weaker people and victims.

MOST IMPORTANTLY

The government need not spend for criminals who are murderers and such.
Death penalty costs the government less compared to the costs of life imprisonment because they
will be given the expenses of food, health care and other costs that will sustain their lives. Some
critics says that spending for people who committed such heinous crimes is impractical and just a
waste of taxpayers’

Personally, we really care about the status of the Philippines especially the Filipinos' status of way of
living. We don't want crimes anymore and we believe that this is the only way to change the
corrupted country.

If this would be implemented, then we promise you all of these advantages to be fulfilled and a
change in the budget for the government for other sectors.