HB No.

4727: Death Penalty Law

(Affirmative)

DEATH PENALTY LAW:

Life-a matter of choice not a matter of chance

By: Arnold V. De Castro

“A leader must be a terror to the few who are evil in order to protect the lives and well-being of the
many who are good.”
-President Rodrigo Duterte

Philippine Arena

The Philippines’ overall index crime rate went down but the murder rate soared during the
first five (5) months of the administration of President Rodrigo Duterte, according to latest figures
from the Philippine National Police (PNP)1. This supports the idea that there may be a high
probability that comparison be created in the minds of the Filipino people as between the then
Aquino administration and the present Duterte administration. It is indeed clear that the two
administrations have uncommon advocacies or should we say hierarchy of advocacies. Despite the
fact that said overall index decreased, President Duterte has signified his firm support to the more
effective vehicle in order to totally eliminate the heinous crime rate in our State. In fact, Pres.
Duterte has sought the restoration of death penalty because that, according to him, would be the
only way to win justice for the victims of heinous crimes2. In other words, the restoration of capital
punishment underlines the Duterte administration's goal to reduce criminality, the death penalty,
with its strong deterrent effects, protects innocent lives3. At the same time, its punitive aspect
ensures that criminals recompense grievous loss.

Theories Collide
It is elementary that one of the essences of criminal law is the imposition of penalty4. With
this fact, several concepts were formed as to what is really the purpose of imposing penalty. The
following Schools of Thought are instructive on this matter:

First, the Utilitarian Theory which provides that the penalty is purposely for the protection
of the society from actual or potential wrongdoers;
Second, the Classical theory which elucidates that the basis of penalty is human free will,
endeavoring to establish a direct proportion between crime and penalty;
1
“PNP: Crime rate down, but murder rate up. ” News Abs Cbn.com. n.p. Dec 19 2016. Accessed September 20,
2017. Available from <http://news.abs-cbn.com/news/12/19/16/pnp-crime-rate-down-but-murder-rate-up>.

2
Gil Cabacungan, “Duterte: Death penalty for heinous crimes in case there’s no God.” News Info Inquirer.net.
n.p. September 26, 2016. Accessed September 20, 2017. Available from
<http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/819219/duterte-death-penalty-for-heinous-crimes-in-case-theres-no-god>.
3
Mara Cepeda, “Death for drug convicts: House passes bill on final reading”. Rappler.com. n.p. March 8, 2017.
Accessed September 21, 2017. Available from <https://www.rappler.com/nation/163495-drug-convicts-
philippines-death-penalty-bill-final-reading>.

4
Luis B. Reyes, The Revised Penal Code Criminal Law, (Manila: Rex Printing Company, Inc., 2006.
 Third, the Positivist Theory professing that the primary purpose of penalty is reformation;
and
Fourth, the Eclectic or Mixed Theory combines the positivist and classical thinking treating
heinous crimes in a classical manner, thus, a need for capital punishment which is death5.

As a matter of fact, the Philippines adheres to the Mixed Theory.

MANDATE OF THE SUPREME LAW

As the Constitution is fundamental law of the land, its professed mandate should always
prevail. Indeed, the framers who introduced HB No. 4727 admitted that they were guided by the
constitutional provision regarding the imposition of death penalty6.

In connection with this, the supreme law provides under Section 19 par. (1), Article III that:

x-x-x-x-x-x Neither shall death penalty involving be imposed, unless, for compelling reasons
involving heinous crimes, the Congress, hereafter provides for it7. x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-

Granting the fact that the Constitution does not absolutely prohibit the imposition of death
penalty, it is crystal clear that the controlling factor that may give rise to its restoration is the
commission by the people of heinous crimes8. The phrase “unless for compelling reasons involving
heinous crimes, the Congress shall thereafter provide for it” was introduced as an amendment by
then Commissioner Christian Monsod9.

THE BILL’S BACKBONE

I. Heinous crimes are those grievous, odious and hateful offenses, 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
society10;

5
“University of the Philippines Bar Reviewer”, Media Fire.com. n.p. 2013. Accessed September 20, 2017. Available
from <http://mediafire.com/file/nn98itf918sd7rt>.
6
Audrey Morallo, “House passes death penalty bill on third reading”. Philstar.com. n.p. March 7, 2017. Accessed
September 21, 2017. Available from <http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2017/03/07/1678869/house-passes-
death-penalty-bill-third-reading>

7
Sec. 19, par.1, Art.III, 1987 Constitution
8
Genalyn Kabiling, “Duterte argues death penalty as a heinous crimes deterrent”. News Mb.com. n.p. February
11, 2017. Accessed September 22, 2017. Available from <http://news.mb.com.ph/2017/02/11/duterte-argues-
death-penalty-as-a-heinous-crimes-deterrent/>

9
People vs. Echagaray, G.R. No. 117472, February 7, 1997.
10
Ibid.
 II. Generally, the bill proposes to merely give courts the option of penalizing “heinous
crimes” with Reclusion Perpetua to Death on all of the 21 crimes enumerated from Section 4 to
Section 22 thereof11.

III. Penalized by death alone are:

i. Sec.6- Qualified Bribery under Art. 211 of the Revised Penal Code if the public
officer demands gift or present12 ;
ii. Sec. 10- Rape with Homicide13 ;
iii. Sec. 10- Rape, attended by any of the 10 aggravating/qualifying circumstances
enumerated in Art. 266-B of RPC14 ;
iv. Sec. 13- Destructive Arson under Art. 320 of RPC if Arson results in death15 ;
v. Sec. 15- The organizer, manager, financier in the Sale, Trading,
Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution, Importation of Drugs, etc.,
that is violative of Sec. 5 of RA 916516 ;
vi. Sec. 15- The organizer, manager, financier, manufacturer, etc, in the maintenance of
den, dive or Resort of dangerous drugs, that is violative of Sec. 8, RA 916517 ;
vii. Sec. 16- The organizer, manager, financier, manufacturer, etc, in the manufacture of
dangerous drugs, controlled precursors that is violative of Sec. 8, RA 916518 ;
viii. Sec. 18- The organizer, manager, financier in the cultivation or culture of plants
classified as Dangerous Drugs or are sources thereof that is violative of Sec. 16,
RA 916519 ; and
ix. Sec. 21- Any “person” who is guilty of “planting” in evidence any “dangerous drug
and/or precursor and essential chemical, regardless of quantity and purity”’ which is
violative of Sec. 28 of RA 916520.

IV. The said Bill will not impose death penalty on guilty persons below eighteen (18)
years old or more than seventy (70) years old at the time of the commission of the crime21.

INCIDENTAL POINTS CONSISTENT WITH THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF

THE BILL

11
“FULL TEXT: Death penalty is 'not anti-God' – Veloso”. Rappler.com. n.p. February 8, 2017. Accessed
September 23, 2017. Available from < https://www.rappler.com/nation/160771-vicente-veloso-sponsorship-
speech-death-penalty-bill-full-text>.
12
“House Bill No. 1727: Proposed by Rep. Reynaldo Umali, et.al.” Congress.gov.ph. n.p. Submitted on January 11,
2017. Accessed on September 22, 2017. Available from
<http://www.congress.gov.ph/legisdocs/first_17/CR00047.pdf>.
13
Ibid.
14
Ibid.
15
Ibid.
16
Ibid.
17
Ibid.
18
Ibid.
19
Ibid.
20
Ibid.
21
Supra note 3
 A. The Philippines is not bound by the “State Party to the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Second Optional Protocol on the ICCPR”
because such is not generally accepted principle of international law. In ASEAN,
only the Philippines, as of now, does not have the death penalty law22.

B. Legislation on death penalty is the sole concern of Congress23.

Art.II, Sec. 4 of the 1987 Constitution mandate that “The prime duty of the Government
is to serve and protect the people”. It is for said reason that Art. III, Sec.19(1) provides that “
for compelling reasons involving the heinous crimes, the Congress” shall enact a death penalty
law.”
C. What the State has is a legal question, not a religious issue. The battleground is not
the Bible but the Constitution.

CHOICE vs. CHANCE

At the end, whether or not said bill will be enacted as a law, the most important decision still
rests upon us. Why? Let every person be enlightened that every penal law is created in order to
devastate any evil it seeks to devastate. If such evil will no longer be in the scenario, the law ceased
to be a law. Cessante ratione legis cessat ipsa lex. The reason of the law being at an end, the law itself
ceases. Reason is always the acknowledged soul of the law. Hence, it is within every citizen to
refrain from temptation of chances to commit mistakes or at worst to commit any heinous crime. It
is within the person’s power to make choices that will benefit him and the society-at large. All
consequences of actions depend upon one’s choice for after all life is not a matter of chance but a
matter of choice. The choices that one has made, or has been making, or will be making are binding
upon him/her.

22
Supra Note 11
23
Ibid.