The 1987 Constitution never abolished the death penalty.

Kung babalikan natin ang

naging deliberasyon ng mga miyembro ng 1986 Constitutional Commission, malinaw ang
kanilang naging consensus: ipaubaya na lamang sa lehislatura ang desisyon kung
pahihintulutan o ipagbabawal ang pagpataw ng parusang kamatayan.
Members of the Con-Com are no ordinary people. They are the revered experts in
their respective fields. Their collective wisdom fueled by their undying patriotism became
the backbone of the highest law of our land. Their words are engraved in the highest piece of
legislation which embodies the aspirations of the Filipino people. But even our forefathers
recognized their own limitations.
In the wise words of Commissioner Ambrosio Padilla, the Commission admitted that
it cannot a priori determine “a positive provision in the Constitution that would prohibit
even the legislature to prescribe the death penalty.” He argued that the State is not deprived
of the right of advocating death penalty to ultimately safeguard the well-being of the general
public. This is the reason why there is no absolute prohibition on its imposition in the
Constitution. Instead, our forefathers empowered Congress to enact legislation to impose
death penalty for “compelling reasons involving heinous crimes.”
For this, our prevailing Constitution reserved the imposition of the capital
punishment for offenses so abhorrent to orderly society. This means after due trial and
exhaustive review, death penalty may be imposed on certain offenses which, based on good
faith and best judgment of Congress, qualifies as heinous crimes.
Thus, Section 19, Article 3 of the 1987 Constitution now reads, and I quote:
“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.” End of quote.
The Commissioners were in agreement that the death penalty should only be imposed
on those who committed heinous crimes. But the exact criterion as to what crimes are to be
considered as heinous is delegated to Congress to determine.
Before we delve into the complexities of criminal law, let us first examine the meaning
of the qualifier used by our forefathers: heinous. The word is taken from the old French word
“haine” which means “hatred.” Through times, it was used to define things and circumstances
that are abominable or totally reprehensible. Kasuklam-suklam. (insert bisaya translation)
As members of this august chamber, we are given the herculean task of determining
what crimes under specific circumstances are considered heinous. But we are not totally left
in the dark. During the deliberation, a clarificatory question was raised: what could be an
example of a heinous crime?
Commissioner Jose Suarez asked Commissioner Christian Monsod if the head of an
organized syndicate in dope distribution or dope smuggling fall within the qualification of a
heinous offender. To this, Commissioner Monsod answered in the affirmative.
 Dope smuggling. Dope, as we all know, is the colloquial term used for any drug taken
illegally for recreational purposes. On the other hand, under the Tariff and Customs Code,
smuggling is the unlawful importation of any article contrary to law or the act of receiving,
concealing, buying, selling, or in any manner facilitating the transportation, concealment, or
sale of such article after importation. Read together, the crime categorically classified by our
forefathers as heinous crime is what we now refer to as drug trafficking. This means that
even the framers of our Constitution recognize this social menace as highly reprehensible
that anyone adjudged guilty of it should be meted out with the supreme penalty of death.

Section 19, Article III of the Constitution was crafted in such a way that the
Commissioners did not completely foreclose the possibility that the needs of the time may
change and may warrant the imposition of the capital punishment. In our forefathers’ mind,
“the temper and condition of the times change.” Hence, they left it to us – the elected
representatives of the people – to assess our current situation and determine whether we
find compelling reasons to reinstate the death penalty to decisively protect and preserve our
nation.
To my humble opinion, there has been an evident change in the milieu that justifies
the imposition of death penalty on the heinous crime of high level drug trafficking.

(insert PDEA data)