3rd Negative Speaker

Practicability

I will be discussing the practicability, or lack thereof, of

reinstating the death penalty here in the Philippines.

First, according to the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG), for

the death penalty to be practical and efficient, a fair criminal
justice system is essential. Unfortunately, this is yet to be
attained here in the Philippines since our judicial system is faulty
at best.

Reforms in our criminal justice system, particularly in the

proper and speedy disposition of criminal cases, should be the
States top priority rather than the re-imposition of the death
penalty. Necessary improvements in our justice system must first
be made; these improvements can be costly, and the State
cannot divulge its finances on something that is yet to be proven
effective.

Second, the death penalty is subject to too many judicial

errors.

According to a study conducted by no less than the Supreme

Court itself, as documented by Mamamayang Tutol Sa Bitay-
Movement for a Restorative Justice (a group composed of some
150 human rights, sectoral, political, and church groups,) 4 out
of five death row inmates have been wrongfully sentenced by
various lower courts. Although the Supreme Court corrected some
of these decisions, still an alarmingly high number of innocent
people have been subjected to the mental and emotional torture
of going through the ordeal of being sentenced to die for a crime
which they did not commit.

In this same study, out of the 1,513 cases reviewed, almost

half, 645 to be more specific, were modified from death penalty to
reclusion perpetua. Close to a third were transferred to the court
of appeals, 69 were aquitted, and 37 were remanded for further
proceedings. The result? Only 18% or 270 cases were affirmed by
the Supreme Court or were correctly decided. So 72% of the
decisions imposing the death penalty were WRONG.

As an example: the case of Wilson vs. People, a case replete

with procedural errors that led to a wrongful conviction. Albert
Wilson, a British National, was charged with the crime of rape. He
was found guilty and was placed on death row. For one year and
five months, he was tortured and subjected to inhuman living
conditions; he suffered financial extortion and psychological
trauma inflicted by his fellow inmates, as well as the prison
guards, while inside the national penitentiary; only for it to be
proven that he was actually a victim of fabricated charges as part
of a plot to extort money.

He was later released from custody under orders from the

Supreme Court, but was forced to pay for overstaying in the
Philippines before being allowed to leave the country.

In other cases, the convicts, however, were unable to escape

death. Minors as young as 16 years old and elderly aged above 70
have been sentenced to death here in the Philippines.

The death penalty law requires trial courts to forward the

records of all capital cases to the Supreme Court for automatic
review and judgment en banc within 15 to 20 days from the trial
courts promulgation of judgment or notice of denial of a motion
for new trial or reconsideration. Unfortunately, there have been
cases where the trial courts fail to forward the records of capital
cases within the designated periods.

FLAG brought to the Supreme Courts attention, in March 2011,

the plight of 20 inmates whose case records had not yet been
forwarded to the Court. One of these inmates, Rodel Lumen, was
sentenced to death in January 1997. He spent last 5 years waiting
for the Supreme Courts action on his case only to find out that it
took almost 5 years for the trial court to forward his case records
to the Supreme Court. Of these 20 inmates, the records of 18
death convicts have since been forwarded to the court. However,
as of November 15, 2011, the records of two death inmates,
Pedro Basada and Edwin Gayeta, have not yet reached the
Supreme Court. The trial courts sentenced both of them to death
in 1999.

The death penalty is impractical because of the time it wastes

and that it clogs the Supreme Courts dockets with erroneous
decisions made by the lower courts, slowing down the disposition
of justice, a fundamental right granted to all people.

Also, according to Amnesty International, the death penalty is

irrevocable; coupled with a justice system that is prone to human
error and prejudice, the risk of executing an innocent person is
ever present. Mistakes like that cannot be unmade.