Question: What are the strongest arguments that the Human Rights Coalition can

raise to assail the Constitutionality of RA 21030?

The Human Rights Coalition, having the locus standi to assail the
Constitutionality of Republic Act 21030, has the following as their strongest
arguments to counter such law.
1. The first provision of RA 21030 which states that,
The death penalty shall be imposable against those found guilty of committing
heinous crimes as defined under Republic Act No. 7659, as well as offenders
who committed a non-heinous crime found to be positive for the use of
dangerous drugs at the time of his/her arrest;

We find this provision unconstitutional. To impose death penalty on nonheinous crime offenders found positive of dangerous drug use at the time
of arrest is against the Constitution. The fundamental mantle of protection
of the right to life of every inhabitant of the country is guaranteed under
the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, thus1:
Article II, Section 11 provides that:
The State values the dignity of every human person and
guarantees full respect for human rights.

Article III, Section 11 provides that:

No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property
without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the
equal protection of the law.

Article III, Section 19 guarantees that:

Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel,
degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither shall
death penalty 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.

While the first two Articles (II, Sec. 11 and III, Sec.19) of the 1987
Constitution presses to value the dignity of human person and the
preservation and sanctity of human life, Article III ,Section 19 of the
Constitution vests in Congress the power to re-impose the death penalty
only for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes. Thus, it is clear
that punishment of Death Penalty shall only be imposable on crimes
classified as heinous.
Heinous crimes are 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.
The Constitutional exercise of this limited power to impose the death
penalty entails (1) that the Congress define or describe what is meant by
heinous crimes; (2) that the Congress specify and penalize by death only
crimes that qualify as heinous in accordance with the definition set by the
Death Penalty Bill; and (3) that Congress, in enacting this death penalty
bill be singularly motivated by compelling reasons involving heinous
crimes.3
1

Paragraph 10, Position Paper on House Bill No. 566, Commission on Human Rights
Second Whereas Clause, Preamble of RA 7659
3
People vs Echegaray G.R. No. 117472 February 7, 1997
2

2. Provisions No.s 3 and 4 which states that,

The attendance of justifying and exempting circumstances shall not be appreciated in
cases where the offender was found positive for the use of dangerous drugs at the time of
his/her arrest, regardless of the nature and gravity of the crime committed;
The attendance of mitigating and aggravating circumstances shall not be appreciated
where the imposable penalty is death;

are also unconstitutional. While attendance of aggravating circumstances

is immaterial as Death Penalty is already the Capital Punishment,
attendance of justifying and exempting circumstances when the suspect is
found in possession of dangerous drugs at the time of arrest, and
attendance of mitigating circumstances where imposable penalty is death
should not be disregarded. Disregarding these circumstances is
tantamount to enactment of an ex post facto law or bill of attainder which
the Constitution abhors.4
3. Provision No. 5 which states that,
The provisions of Republic Act No. 9344 shall not apply to Children in Conflict with the Law
found guilty of committing a heinous crime, or a non-heinous crime where the CICL is
found to be positive for the use of dangerous drugs at the time of his/her arrest;

is not in harmony with Article XV of the Constitution which states,

The right of children to assistance, including proper care and nutrition, and special
protection from all forms of neglect, abuse, cruelty, exploitation and other conditions
prejudicial to their development;

The Child is one of the most important assets of the nation. Every effort
should be exerted to promote his welfare and enhance his opportunities
for a useful and happy life. The child is not a mere creature of the State.
Hence, his individual traits and aptitudes should be cultivated to the
utmost insofar as they do not conflict with the general welfare 5. Provision
No. 5 of RA 21030 cannot simply bar the application of the provisions of RA
9344 over Children in Conflict with the Law guilty with heinous or nonheinous crime found positive with the use of dangerous drugs at the time
of arrest as this law (RA 9344) is in harmony with the Constitution being a
progressive step as a restorative and child oriented juvenile justice
system.6
4. Provision No. 6,
Lethal injection shall no longer be recognized as a means of executing the death penalty.
Under the DPRA Law, the death penalty shall be executed by firing squad, and shall be
conducted in broad daylight in a public park to be designated for such purpose. Every Local
Government Unit shall, in accordance with the provisions of the DPRA Law, pass an
ordinance designating a public park in their locality for purposes of executing the death
penalty;

The above mentioned provision is not in harmony with Article III Sections
12(2) and 19(2) which states that;
No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the free
will shall be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other
similar forms of detention are prohibited.
Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment
inflicted. Neither shall death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling reasons involving

Castillo vs CA, G.R. No. 189151 January 25, 2012

heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty already imposed
shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua.

Lethal Injection is already sufficient in carrying out the capital punishment

and is in harmony with the Constitutions provisions of no imposition of a
cruel, degrading and inhuman punishment. Lethal injection should be the
manner of execution rather than by firing squad which is cruel and a
concrete degradation of human life.
5. Provision No. 7 which states,
Upon conviction for a crime punishable by death, the convict has no right to appeal the
case. The only remedy is for the suspension of the execution of sentence, to be
determined by the Chief Executive, whenever in his best judgment, the grounds forwarded
by the convict are meritorious;

Above mentioned provision is unconstitutional. The right to appeal is a

statutory right and the party who seeks to avail must comply with the
requirements of the rules. Failure to comply, right to appeal is lost 7.
Therefore, no provision can bar appeal. Appeal is either only lost or
waived.

Castillo vs CA, G.R. No. 189151 January 25, 2012