Article III, Section 19 of the 1987 Constitution provides in part that death

penalty shall not be imposed, unless for compelling reasons involving heinous
crimes. Congress was given the power to define which crimes are to be considered
heinous to be meted the penalty of death. Accordingly, on December 31, 1993,
Republic Act 7659 took effect. Said law considered the crimes 1 enumerated therein
as 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.2

Three years after, the law was put to test in the landmark case of Echegaray
v. People,3 where the Supreme Court affirmed on automatic review the conviction
of Leo Echegaray for the crime of rape committed against his ten-year old
daughter.
In resolving Echegaray’s motion for reconsideration, the Supreme Court had the
occasion to discuss a short history of the imposition of death as penalty for certain
crimes, thus:

Although its origins seem lost in obscurity, the imposition of death as

punishment for violation of law or custom, religious or secular, is an ancient
practice. We do know that our forefathers killed to avenge themselves and their
kin and that initially, the criminal law was used to compensate for a wrong done
to a private party or his family, not to punish in the name of the state.

The dawning of civilization brought with it both the increasing

sensitization throughout the later generations against past barbarity and the
institutionalization of state power under the rule of law. Today every man or
woman is both an individual person with inherent human rights recognized and
protected by the state and a citizen with the duty to serve the common weal and
defend and preserve society.

One of the indispensable powers of the state is the power to secure society
against threatened and actual evil. Pursuant to this, the legislative arm of
government enacts criminal laws that define and punish illegal acts that may be

1
treason, piracy, qualified piracy, mutiny on the high seas or Philippine waters, qualified bribery, parricide,
murder, infanticide, kidnapping and serious illegal detention, robbery with violence against or intimidation of any
person, destruction arson, rape, plunder, importation of prohibited drugs, sale, administration, delivery,
distribution, and transportation of prohibited drugs, maintenance of a den, dive, or resort for prohibited and
regulated drug users, manufacture of prohibited drugs, possession of prohibited drugs, cultivation of plants which
are sources of prohibited drugs, importation, manufacture, sale, administration, dispensation, delivery,
transportation, and distribution of regulated drugs, possession or use of regulated drugs, and carnapping. (See full
text of R.A. 7659)
2
Second Whereas Clause, R.A. 7659.
3
G.R. No. 117472, June 25, 1996.
 committed by its own subjects, the executive agencies enforce these laws, and the
judiciary tries and sentences the criminals in accordance with these laws.
Although penologists, throughout history, have not stopped debating on
the causes of criminal behavior and the purposes of criminal punishment, our
criminal laws have been perceived as relatively stable and functional since the
enforcement of the Revised Penal Code on January 1, 1932, this notwithstanding
occasional opposition to the death penalty provisions therein. The Revised Penal
Code, as it was originally promulgated, provided for the death penalty in specified
crimes under specific circumstances. As early as 1886, though, capital
punishment had entered our legal system through the old Penal Code, which was a
modified version of the Spanish Penal Code of 1870.

Thus, even when the 1987 Constitution abolished or suspended the

imposition of the death penalty, it nevertheless granted Congress the power to
impose the same with respect to certain crimes considered heinous.

Subsequently, Congress enacted Republic Act 8177, or the Lethal Injection

Law, in 1996. Consequently, Leo Echegaray was the first convicted felon who was
meted the penalty of death by lethal injection in the Philippines. The nation was
gripped as the execution was highly publicized, with the nation glued to their
television, supporters and opposers of the death penalty alike, albeit, as well both
well-meaning citizens and those with criminal tendencies.

Unfortunately, the life of R.A. 7659 was cut short. Thirteen years after said
law took effect, Congress, in 2006, passed Republic Act 9346, which prohibited the
imposition of the death penalty and reduced the penalty to either reclusion
perpetua or life imprisonment.

At present, R.A. 9346 is still in effect, thus, the imposition of death penalty,
even when an accused is convicted of a heinous crime as defined and enumerated
in R.A. 7659, is withheld.

When President Duterte came to power in 2016, he vowed to eliminate the

drug problem of the country as part of his electoral promise. Oplan Tokhang came
into operation. According to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), the
total number of drug suspects that were killed in the government’s war on drugs
reached 6,235 as of February 28, 2022. 4 Most notable of these deaths was that of
Kian delos Santos, a seventeen-year old who was mistaken for a drug suspect and
was brutally killed in execution style by his gunmen, who were members of the
4
https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1575931/total-drug-war-deaths-at-6235-as-of-feb-28-says-pdea#:~:text=MANILA
%2C%20Philippines%20%E2%80%94%20The%20total%20number,reached%206%2C235%20as%20of%20Feb.
Philippine National Police (PNP). The perpetrators were subsequently convicted
for murder.5 Sadly, these men, who were armed no less by the State, will only be
meted with imprisonment for the forty years – the limit of the period for reclusion
perpetua – all because R.A. 9346 prohibited the imposition of death.

There were many other stories like that of Kian delos Reyes. Some of these
cases are under litigation, but the fact remains that even if the perpetrators were
convicted of murder, death penalty will never be a possibility.

Meanwhile, according to Statista Research Department, the number of rape

cases in 2022 reached 8,360, a 13-percent decline from the 9,620 cases reported in
2021.6 According to the PNP, rape is still one of the most common crimes
committed during the period between July 2022 and January 2023. 7 Again, even if
these cases reached conviction, at the most, the penalty will only be reclusion
perpetua. Yet, the Supreme Court decisions hold rape as a reprehensible act.8

These are only the tip of the iceberg. Despite six years of war on drugs, the
nation is still gripped with the drug problem. Rape cases are still one too many
despite the supposed decline. Indiscriminate killings committed no less by the
agents of the State, who are sworn to serve and protect the citizens are still on the
headlines.

In his article Defending Death Penalty,9 Walter Berns opined:

The allegedly moral objections to capital punishment are a product of

modern amoral political philosophy, from which has derived the modern
reluctance to exact retribution. Retribution is demanded by angry and morally
indignant people, and, it is said, there is no legitimate basis for this anger and
indignation. But anger, as Aristotle demonstrates, is connected to justice; and,
when it is aroused by the sight of crime, it deserves to be rewarded. By punishing
the criminal, the law rewards this anger and thereby teaches law-abidingness; by
so doing, it promotes respect for those things-such as human life-that the criminal
has violated. From retribution comes the principle that the punishment should fit
the crime, and the only punishment that fits some crimes-for example, some
particularly heinous murders-is capital punishment. If human life is to be held in
awe, as it should be, the law forbidding the taking of it must be held in awe, and
5
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-46381697
6
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1170653/philippines-number-of-cases/#:~:text=In%202022%2C%20the
%20number%20of,year's%20total%20number%20of%20cases.
7
https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1715756/rape-declines-but-numbers-dont-tell-the-story-sexual-violence-still-
pervasive
8
People v. Palanay, G.R. No. 224583.
9
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/001112878002600404
 the only way the law can be made awe inspiring is to entitle it to inflict the
penalty of death.
With the deluge of heinous crimes constantly being committed on a daily
basis, it is high time for Congress to take a second look at re-imposition of the
death penalty. The Constitution has established safeguards for its imposition – that
it be only for heinous crimes. R.A. 7659 has enumerated them. Considering the
present circumstances, Congress may add to them, remove some of them,
depending on the exigencies of the times and the pulse of the nation.