Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
The Philippines today is plagued with violent crimes. The imposition of the death penalty
in the country has had in a repressive history. For the most part (1848 to 1987), it was used to
curtail the liberties, freedoms and rights of the Filipino people. In recent history, however, the
death penalty was re-imposed as a knee-jerk response to what has largely been seen as rising
criminality in the country.(Cenizal, 2016) “Deterrence” became the official justification for the
imposition of the death penalty. This is the same justification used for the declaration of Martial
Law in 1972. Halfway through Marcos’ regime, the electric chair was still the chosen means of
execution. Death by firing squad was the next most-used method. (Poblete, 2016). Under the
Estrada administration, the first to be executed by this capital punishment was Leo Echagaray
Death penalty in the Philippines was abolished during Aquino in 1987 under the present
Constitution making it the first Asian country to abolish capital punishment, re-introduced in
1993 by Ramos after a rise in crime, banned by Estrada in 2000, brought back by Arroyo then re-
abolished by her again on June 24, 2006 under Republic Act No. 9346 because it had not proven
to be a deterrent to crime and had become a dead-letter law. RA 9346 downgraded the death
penalty to life imprisonment. The Philippines played an important role in the region, signaling a
The Philippines became a State Party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights State Party on January 1987. The 1987 Philippines’ Constitution was the first in Asia to
prohibit the use of the death penalty, stating that: ‘the death penalty shall not be imposed unless
for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it.
In November 2007 the Philippines ratified and became a State party to the Second
Optional Protocol. States who are party to the treaty have a legal obligation to abolish the death
penalty within their borders, even in the event of future changes in national legislation.
Reintroduction of the death penalty is not allowed for any reason unless a reservation allowing
execution "in time of war pursuant to a conviction for a most serious crime of a military nature
committed during wartime" was made at the time of ratification which is not the case for the
Philippines. President Duterte, when he took office on June 30, vowed that the Philippines "will
espousal of the return of the death penalty which has drawn flak from Catholic and Protestant
churches, Amnesty International, and individuals. And after he was declared winner of the May
9 presidential election, he said he would reintroduce capital punishment and give security forces
“shoot-to-kill” orders in his war against crime, and he will urge Congress to restore the death
penalty by hanging.
Eventually, President Duterte and some lawmakers have called for the return of the death
penalty as a way to strengthen the rule of law. The senators who filed these bills calling for the
revival of the death penalty were Panfilo Lacson, Majority Leader Vicente Sotto III, Manny
Pacquiao, Joseph Victor Ejercito and Sherwin Gatchalian. The bill seeks to re-impose capital
punishment for human trafficking, illegal recruitment, plunder, treason, parricide, infanticide,
rape, qualified piracy, bribery, kidnapping, illegal detention, robbery with violence against or
intimidation of persons, car theft, destructive arson, terrorism and drug-related cases. (Romero,
2016) Most of these bills proposed in the 17th Congress take off from the government’s ongoing
“war on drugs,” which sees people involved with drugs as criminals who should be dealt with the
The country being a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR), an international treaty that, among other things, observe fundamental freedom
Commission on Human Rights Chairperson Chito Gascon, death penalty is categorized as one
such cruel, inhumane and degrading punishment. And to reinstate the death penalty would
violate the Philippines’ international legal obligations . On the contrary, President Duterte, when
he took office on June 30, vowed that the Philippines "will honor treaties and international
obligations" that it has entered into. One of the international declarations signed by the
Philippines was a joint declaration against the death penalty in October 2015, under the Aquino
a State Party to the present Protocol shall be executed” and that “each State Party shall take all
necessary measures to abolish the death penalty within its jurisdiction.” According to Kine,
deputy Asia director, deterrent effect of the death penalty has been repeatedly debunked and that
reinstatement of the death penalty won’t solve any drug-related societal problems that Congress
House Bill No. 1 seeks to address, it will only add to the already horrific death toll that President
Duterte’s ‘war on drugs’ has inflicted on Filipinos since he took office on June 30, 2016.”
(Villanueva, 2016). Romeo Cabarde, vice chairman of Amnesty Philippines, said that reviving
the death penalty would not be a successful crime deterrent. Implementing capital punishment
also implies that the country’s justice system is not working, Cabarde said, and that “if that’s the
root of criminality, then I think we have to hit the target at its very root.”
CHR Commissioner Dumpit, “No one in the jurisdiction should be executed and we have
to take all the necessary measures to abolish the death penalty within our jurisdiction. The
country is legally bound, to the international commitment to the right to life, and if passed, then
it will be a breach to international human rights law. Right to life is the supreme of all rights. The
Constitution did not really abolished the penalty, it only set it aside for the Congress to revive it
if needed. There were no reservations deposited when we embraced the optional protocol
abolishing the penalty. All efforts are to affirm the right to life. (Reviving the Death Penalty-
Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez, as opposed to the country being a party to the ICCPR, that
the Constitution allows the imposition of the death penalty for heinous crimes. It was only set
aside for reviving such in case needed. And that the Charter prevails over any international
protocol. Deputy Speaker Fredenil Castro of Capiz, “Crimes which victimize a lot of people
should be punishable by death. Without penalty, these criminals will just enjoy life as if nothing
happened. For one, those who swindle people have expensive cars. We should teach them a
lesson,” the lawmaker said. Another argument raised against the death penalty is that it violates
the constitutional prohibition against cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment. The prohibition is
again found in Article III, Section 19(1) of the Constitution which reads: Section 19. (1)
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. The Supreme Court, however, has consistently ruled
that the death penalty is not a a cruel, unjust, excessive or unusual punishment. The death penalty
is “not inherently barbaric or an unacceptable mode of punishment for crime.” The Supreme
Court quoted a U.S. case ruling that “punishments are cruel when they involve torture or a
lingering death, but the punishment of death is not cruel, within the meaning of that word as used
in the constitution. It implies there something inhuman and barbarous, something more than the
mere extinguishment of life.” Another argument against the re-imposition of death penalty is the
absense of proof that death penalty serves as an effective deterrent against crimes. Vice-President
Leni Robredo recently questioned why the death penalty bill was passed by the House
Committee on Justice “even though its proponents failed to show sufficient evidence and studies
On Wednesday December 7th , the House justice committee approved, by a 12-6 vote, a
substitute measure reinstating the capital punishment for heinous crimes, sending the bill to the
plenary floor for deliberations on second and third reading. The vice president, who has voiced
her opposition to the death penalty in the past, the committee seems to have approved the bill
without evidence or studies showing the death penalty is effective as a deterrent to crime. She
said that questions raised by lawmakers opposed to the death penalty bill were not answered.
(Javier, 2016)
On December 9, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad
Al Hussein stated that if the Philippines wants to revive capital punishment, the country is
allowed to impose the death sentence only on the “most serious crimes.
Gordon explained that he was against the death penalty because he could not see it as a
deterrent to the commission of heinous crimes. Heinous crimes covered by the bill include
treason, qualified piracy, qualified bribery, parricide, murder, rape, kidnapping and serious
illegal detention, robbery with violence, destructive arson, plunder, carjacking, importation of
dangerous drugs and paraphernalia, sale, trading, distribution and transportation of dangerous
drugs, maintenance of a drug den, manufacture of dangerous drugs, and cultivation of culture of
plants classified as dangerous drugs. He added he would rather see the criminal behind bars,
which would have a more profound impact on a person’s life and could offer him a chance to
reform. Senator Pacquiao had been nagging Senator Gordon to call a hearing on the death
penalty bills, to which he believes is the latter’s commitment to the President. Apart from
Gordon, Senator Francis Pangilinan, Paolo Benigno Aquino IV, Leila De Lima and Senate
President Pro Tempore Franklin Drilon of the Liberal Party are also opposed to the death penalty
as a party stance. Franklin Drilon stressed out that the judicial process is something that is argued
against the re-imposition of death penalty. When you make a mistake, you can no longer correct
it.(Sy, 2016) Dinagat Representative Kaka Bag-ao, strongly objected to the approval of the bill.
He suggested that Congress should instead be making laws to fix the justice system instead of
discussing the severity of punishment for criminal offenses. According to Albay Representative
Edcel Lagmay, in recalling the early 2000s, during the campaign for the abolition of the death
penalty, he stated that 73.1% of death row inmates then belonged to the lowest and lower income
classes, while only 0.8% came from the upper socio-economic class.
Senator Ping Lacson, in an interview held on the first State of the Nation Address of
President Duterte, he pointed out that after Leo Echegaray’s execution which was under his term
as the Chief PNP, there was an influx of victims that went to PNP to report that they have been
raped. Which means that the victims saw hope that what happened to them can be served justice
after all. He also cited that the reason why the drug lords from China, Taiwan and other
neighboring countries are all going in the Philippines for shelter is that because we do not have
death penalty whereas all the other countries around us do. According to Oriental Mindoro
Representative Reynaldo Umali, the revelations of the inmates of NBP during the committee
hearings made it imperative for them to re-impose death penalty, and is one of the compelling
House Deputy Speaker Capiz Rep. Fredenil Castro informed House Speaker Pantaleon
Alvarez and Majority Floor Leader Rodolfo Farinas, his coauthors, that the proposal should not
single out drug dealing and drug use. To which the president of the anti-crime group of
Volunteers against Crime and Corruption(VACC) disagreed that in doing so, it would be
Pantaleon Alvarez said the debate on the method of executing death convicts should
focus more on cost―the cheaper, the better. Alvarez’s preference was for a low-cost method to
save on government resources. He proposed that the Executive branch be allowed to make the
decision on the mode of execution. President Duterte has announced in his campaign he wanted
the shock value of a double hanging. (Cabacungan, 2016) Moreover, Alvarez and Capiz
Representative Fredenil Castro authored House Bill 01 which provides for lethal injection as the
Arroyo said the death penalty should be abolished because it had not proven to be a
deterrent to crime and had become a dead-letter law. RA 9346 downgraded the death penalty to
life imprisonment. A decade after ending the use of the death penalty and taking a lead role in a
global campaign to abolish capital punishment, the Philippines is again considering sending
prisoners to the gallows. This is deeply concerning on a number of fronts. Capital punishment is,
in practice, fundamentally unjust. (Al Hussein, 2016). Death penalty often violates the right to
equality and non-discrimination. Statistics worldwide have repeatedly demonstrated that the use
of the death penalty consistently and disproportionately discriminates against the poor and most
The Philippines' two most influential Catholic bishops have spoken. The alleged deterrent
effect of the death penalty has been repeatedly debunked. Manila Archbishop Luis Antonio
Cardinal Tagle through his chancellor, Father Reginald Malicdem, released a prayer against the
death penalty. Both Manila Archbishop Luis Antonio Cardinal Tagle and Lingayen-Dagupan
Archbishop Socrates Villegas denounced the plan to revive the death penalty as pushed by
President Rodrigo Duterte and his allies in Congress and has organized a prayer rally against the
passage of the death penalty bill and the drug-related killings. Villegas urged Catholic lawmakers
to withhold support from any attempt to restore the penalty, as well as the Catholic jurists to
study the issue and to oppose through proper proceedings, the reintroduction of the capital
punishment. He also added that the government pushes for the reinstitution of the death
punishment to justify the rampant extra-judicial killings in the country allegedly perpetrated by
law enforcers.
The leader of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP), Villegas, said
improving the criminal justice system is the most effective deterrent against criminality, not the
death penalty which is being revived by Congress. Killing people through the use of the death
penalty is an irreversible act which has wrongfully killed many innocent people across the
world. It prohibits the correction of mistakes by the justice system and leaves no room for
human error, with the gravest of consequences. Democratic and just societies are, by definition,
required to provide due process to people before the law. Death penalty often violates the right to
equality and non-discrimination. Study conducted by the Free Legal Assistance Group showed
that more than half of those who were on death row were poor.
There is no credible evidence or recognized research that demonstrates that the death
penalty deters crime, including drug offenses, any more than lengthy imprisonment does. It is not
the severity of punishment that deters wrongdoers, but its certainty. To curb crime, the focus
should be on reforming the justice system, rendering it more effective, while also ensuring that it
is humane. Investing in measures to address issues of public security and crime, such as more
effective policing, and a fair and functioning criminal justice system is essential for an ethical
and just management of crime. Fear, despair and frustration clearly prevail among all Filipinos
amid a rise in crime and drug-related offenses. But it is the duty of political leaders to adopt
solutions to the country’s challenges in ways that will support the rule of law and advance the
protection of human rights. The government should hire “efficient prosecutors who can closely
collaborate with investigating bodies and other law enforcement units for a strong case buildup,
and a law enforcement sector that will implement the law to the letter.” said Senator De Lima.
(Ramos et.al, “Pro and Con of death penalty: Poe, De Lima give their views” Inquirer.net 22
March 2016) There is, however, no need to support the bill with any statistics showing the
deterrent effect of the death penalty. The Supreme Court in Echegaray that there is no
constitutional requirement that the death penalty be first proven to be a deterrent. The imposition
of the requirement that there be a rise in the incidence of criminality because of the suspension of
the death penalty, moreover, is an unfair and misplaced demand, for what it amounts to, in fact,
is a requirement that the death penalty first proves itself to be a truly deterrent factor in criminal
behavior. If there was a dramatically higher incidence of criminality during the time that the
death penalty was suspended, that would have proven that the death penalty was indeed a
deterrent during the years before its suspension. Suffice it to say that the constitution in the first
place did not require that the death penalty be first proven to be a deterrent; what it requires is
Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman learned from House members who attended the majority
caucus last week that there was a sizable number who are undecided or against the re-imposition
of capital punishment for heinous crimes. Lagman considers this a victory in the “first battle” for
those opposed to one of the priority bills being pushed by President Duterte’s administration.
(Yap, 2016)
Senator Richard Gordon, chairman of the Senate committee on justice and human rights,
on the other hand, said that based on his assessment, the bill would be approved in the Senate.
However, he added that it was very likely to be limited in scope, unlike what the House was
pushing for in its version. Moreover, he would conduct public hearings on the bills filed by his
colleagues and have a healthy debate on the issue. The bills were taken up briefly during one of
the hearings of the committee on the issue of extrajudicial killings in the country, it had to be set
aside though because the resource persons were not prepared to comment on the bills. (Sy, 2016)
The supermajority in the House of Representatives lacks the numbers to pass the death
penalty bill, prompting them to push back the floor debates on the measure to next year
following the House panel’s approval of a bill seeking to reinstate capital punishment for heinous
Cabacungan, Gil. “Death Penalty: The cheaper, the better”. Inquirer.net. 10 August 2016
Sy, Marvin. “Senate tackles death penalty bill in January” The Philippine Star. page 8, 10 December
2016
Romero, Paolo. “House Bill No.: Restore death penalty”. Philstar.com. 7 July 2016
Diaz, Jess. “House defers death penalty bill approval” philstar.com 9 December 2016
Villanueva, Rodina “House asked to reject proposal reinstating death penalty” philstar.com. 4 December
2016
Al Hussein, “On every level, death penalty is wrong” inquirer.net, 21 July 2016
Javier, Kristian “Robredo: Panel’s approval of death penalty bill seems rushed” Philstar.com 8 December
2016
Reviving the Death Penalty- Karen Gomez-Dumpit CHR Commissioner , CNN Newsroom interview
Porcalla, Delon “NBP drug trade calls for revival of death penalty” philstar.com 17 October 2016
Yap, Dj “Death penalty bill lacks the numbers; House debates reset” 14 December 2016
https://hronlineph.com/2016/11/27/statement-health-not-death-a-statement-opposing-the-reinstatement-
of-death-penalty-in-the-philippines-nobox-philippines/
http://www.balayph.net/news-events/features-and-articles/128-fact-sheet-note-on-the-death-penalty-and-
the-philippines-2
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/785954/in-the-know-death-penalty