LEADER:

John Adrian Gamin Claire Anne Aboyme

MEMBERS: Sherlyne Rojas
Vanessa Conel Rose Marie Telen
Aiman Labao Khurey Pillen
Does the death penalty stop crime? Does it give victims justice? Is there a humane way to execute?
Get your facts straight about the death penalty with Amnesty’s top 10 FAQs on capital punishment.
1. Why does Amnesty International oppose the death penalty? The death penalty violates the most
fundamental human right – the right to life. It is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading
punishment.
The death penalty is discriminatory. It is often used against the most vulnerable in society,
including the poor, ethnic and religious minorities, and people with mental disabilities. Some
governments use it to silence their opponents. Where justice systems are flawed and unfair trials
rife, the risk of executing an innocent person is ever present.
When the death penalty is carried out, it is final. Mistakes that are made cannot be unmade. An
innocent person may be released from prison for a crime they did not commit, but an execution
can never be reversed.
2. Don’t victims of violent crime and their families have a right to justice? They do. Those who have
lost loved ones in terrible crimes have a right to see the person responsible held to account in a
fair trial without recourse to the death penalty. In opposing the death penalty, we are not trying to
minimize or condone crime. But as many families who have lost loved ones have said, the death
penalty cannot genuinely relieve their suffering. It just extends that suffering to the family of the
condemned person. Revenge is not the answer. The answer lies in reducing violence, not causing
more death. Marie Deans, whose mother-in-law was murdered in 1972
3. If you kill someone else, don’t you deserve to die, too – “an eye for an eye”? No. Executing
someone because they’ve taken someone’s life is revenge, not justice. An execution – or the threat
of one –inflicts terrible physical and psychological cruelty. Any society which executes offenders is
committing the same violence it condemns.
4. Doesn’t the death penalty prevent crime? Not according to the research. There is no credible
evidence that the death penalty deters crime more effectively than a prison term. In fact, crime
figures from countries which have banned the death penalty have not risen. In some cases they
have actually gone down. In Canada, the murder rate in 2008 was less than half that in 1976 when
the death penalty was abolished there.
5. What about capital punishment for terrorists? Governments often resort to the death penalty in
the aftermath of violent attacks, to demonstrate they are doing something to “protect” national
security. But the threat of execution is unlikely to stop men and women prepared to die for their
beliefs – for example, suicide bombers. Executions are just as likely to create martyrs whose
memory becomes a rallying point for their organizations. People accused of “terrorism” are
especially likely to be sentenced to death after unfair trials. Many are condemned on the basis of
“confessions” extracted through torture. In some cases, special or military courts set up through
counter-terrorism laws have sentenced civilians to death, undermining international standards.
[The death penalty] is a cheap way for politically inclined people to pretend to their fearful
constituencies that something is being done to combat crime. Jan van Rooyen, South African law
professor
6. Isn’t it better to execute someone than to lock them up forever? Every day, men, women, even
children, await execution on death row. Whatever their crime, whether they are guilty or innocent,
their lives are claimed by a system of justice that values retribution over rehabilitation. As long as
a prisoner remains alive, he or she can hope for rehabilitation, or to be exonerated if they are later
found to be innocent.
7. Is there a humane and painless way to execute a person? Any form of execution is inhumane.
The lethal injection is often touted as somehow more humane because, on the surface at least, it
appears less grotesque and barbaric than other forms of execution such as beheading,
electrocution, gassing and hanging. But the search for a “humane” way to kill people should be seen
for what it really is – an attempt to make executions more palatable to the public in whose name
they are being carried out, and to make the governments that execute appear less like killers
themselves.
8. What business is it of Amnesty’s if different societies want to use the death penalty? Human
rights – including the most basic right to life – are universal and endorsed by the vast majority of
countries in the world. Our call to end the death penalty is consistent with the mercy, compassion
and forgiveness that all major world religions emphasize. To date, 140 countries have abolished
the death penalty in law or in practice, demonstrating that the desire to end capital punishment is
shared by cultures and societies in almost every region in the world.
Human rights apply to the best of us – and the worst of us. -Anonymous

MANILA - Senators on Tuesday began debates on proposals to revive the death penalty in the
Philippines, with minority Sen. Franklin Drilon making good on his promise to fight “tooth and
nail” its reimposition. Senate President Vicente Sotto III said a successful demand reduction
strategy, not death penalty, is the best way to curb the country’s illegal drug problem. Drilon said
Sotto’s statement “confirms the fact that killing, whether judicial or extrajudicial, is not the
solution to our drug problem.” “The Senate President has put it very rationally: Let us reduce the
demand,” Drilon said. “Killing the users or the pushers is not the solution, except probably where
it is a high-value offender.” The debates on the death penalty started with Sen. Manny Pacquiao’s
privilege speech, where he asserted that reviving the death penalty is the most effective solution
in dealing with the illegal drug scourge and heinous crimes. “Illegal drugs are destroying the lives
of our people. The organized international drug syndicates are more aggressive than ever. Should
we just allow them to keep doing what they are doing?” Pacquiao said. Pacquiao said it appears
that drug syndicates were undeterred by the government’s drug war. Thus, “it is high time for the
State to step up its game and put these criminals to death through judicial sanction.” In his
interpellation of Pacquiao, Drilon argued that judges and justices, being humans, are fallible and
could render decisions that could cost people’s lives. He noted that between 1993 and 2004, trial
courts imposed the death penalty in 1,493 cases, out of which 907 were elevated to the Supreme
Court for review. Of the 907 cases, the death penalty was affirmed in 230. “In other words, if
there was no appeal process, almost 72 percent of those convicted would have died a wrongful
death,” Drilon said. “We can commit mistakes, and if you commit a mistake, and impose the death
penalty, that becomes irrevocable.” Pacquiao countered by saying that the public must trust the
government and authorities. Meanwhile, minority Sen. Risa Hontiveros said certainty of
punishment is the best deterrent against drug trafficking. “The sustainable solution lies in
reforming our overall justice and criminal system to ensure that the law will be applied swiftly
and evenly and ensure that the rights of every individual are protected,” Hontiveros said in her
interpellation of Pacquiao. “The effectiveness of the law is determined not by its harshness or
ruthlessness, but by its sureness.” The death penalty was abolished in the Philippines in 2006,
during the time of then president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. Duterte has been hoping to reinstate
the death penalty in the Philippines, where nearly 80 percent of the population is made up of
Catholics, as he wages his war on illegal drugs and pursues an anti-crime campaign. The Catholic
Church has been opposed to death as capital punishment. After Pope Francis' declaration, CBCP
says 'no reason' to justify death penalty Several 18th Congress senators, including Pacquiao, have
filed their respective bills seeking the revival of the death penalty. Sen. Ronald "Bato" Dela Rosa’s
bill imposes death as maximum penalty only for the importation and manufacture of illegal drugs
and its precursors. Dela Rosa was Duterte's chief enforcer of the anti-drug campaign during his
time as national police chief. Sen. Panfilo Lacson, on the other hand, seeks death penalty for a
slew of crimes including illegal drug crimes, qualified piracy, qualified bribery, parricide, murder,
rape, kidnapping and serious illegal detention, destructive arson, plunder, terrorism, human
trafficking, and arms smuggling. Sen. Christopher “Bong” Go, meanwhile, is seeking to include
plunder among crimes punishable by death.
1. JUSTICE…
An eye for an eye. The death penalty is reserved for the most heinous of crimes, such as

murder. Why should a murderer be allowed to live out the rest of their lives in relative
comfort, paid for by the public? To continue to house, clothe and feed them for the
remainder of their natural life at taxpayer expense makes a mockery of justice. They gave
up their right to life when they took the life of another person, and justice can only be
served by their lawful execution.
1. MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE…
You cannot un-execute someone. Miscarriages of justice are bad enough, but the wrongful
execution of an innocent person takes it to the extremes. If someone is wrongfully
imprisoned they can at least be released and compensated by the state. If they are
executed, however, then a posthumous pardon won’t be much comfort.
 2. DETERRENCE
The death penalty saves lives. Would-be murderers have a better reason to think twice if
they know their life is on the line. Ultimately, only the most severe punishment possible
will dissuade the most violent crimes. Only then will it be clear that the good guys aren’t
messing around, because taking an innocent life would mean forfeiting your own.
2. TOO MUCH POWER TO THE STATE
The three countries that executed the most people in 2016 were China, Iran, and Saudi
Arabia. There’s a reason why the death penalty is favoured in authoritarian regimes: it is
the ultimate form of state control. Troublesome political dissidents can be mixed in with
criminals and drug dealers on death row, and any criticism can be deflected as being “soft
on crime”.
3. CLOSURE
The execution of a criminal is the best way to provide closure to the family of their victim.
They can finally put the crime behind them and move on, knowing that there is no
possibility of the person who took away their loved one ever leaving prison and walking
free.
4. KILLING IS WRONG
Two wrongs do not make a right. Taking a human life is unethical, whether it is a crime or
whether it is done in the name of ‘justice’. Everyone’s right to life should be protected by
law, including criminals. We should aim to set the example that killing is always wrong and
that there are always alternatives. Life in prison is not a ‘soft’ option.

There are innocent people wrongly executed. Critics believed that they keep on sending innocent
people who are wrongly accused to death row and the sad thing about this is that, innocence is
proven after the execution has been carried out.

 Critics also argue that death penalty does not really deter criminals from committing
crimes, since there are criminals who suffer from mental illness and death sentence will
not prevent them from doing things they can no longer control without proper
medication.
 Pro death penalty believed that feeding the inmates is much more expensive than death
penalty. On contrary to that, Anti- death penalty believes that the drug used in lethal
injection and other expenses related to execution is much more costly.
 Death penalty is a form of revenge. While pro death penalty thinks that capital
punishment is a form of death retribution, Anti death penalty also believes that to
avenge a crime committed by individual may be understandable yet killing someone is
also unconstitutional. It is also a crime that is only masked by the term capital
punishment but the reality is, it only continues the series of violence.
  People who have been involved in the process of death penalty suffer from depression
out of guilt from having to end another person’s life. Former executioner once stated
that people who participated in executions were later destroyed, some of them turned
to drugs and alcohol to feel better.
 It is a platform that is anti-poor because accused people who are poor are mostly the
ones who get the death penalty, since these people lack finances to pay for a powerful
defense attorneys.
 It is not humanity and cannot be undone. Those innocent criminals who got executed
and then latter would have proven the person’s innocence, he or she can never be
brought back to life anymore.

With the ongoing issue about death penalty, opinions continues to be divided. Deciding which
opinion is able to prove a more logical perspective regarding on the issue can be challenging with
the disparate views of proponents and opponents.

Crime is a more complex and nuanced issue than many of our politicians will care to admit

To address the country’s drug and crime problem, President Duterte has called on Congress to
resurrect the death penalty after it was abolished in 2006.

In response, the House of Representatives Committee on Justice swiftly approved House Bill 1
last December, with plenary debates now ongoing. In the Senate, the death penalty bill is
reportedly having a much harder time because of greater opposition from the senators. (READ:
Senate poised to kill death penalty)

Indeed, there’s a great deal of debate surrounding the pros and cons of the death penalty. But in
this article we take on the issue by turning to statistics, empirical studies, and a review of the
country’s past experience with the death penalty.

All in all, the data suggest that the death penalty will be unnecessary, anti-poor, and error-prone
given the current state of our legal and judicial system.
1) Crime rates have fallen even without the death penalty.

Many people justify the return of the death penalty because of its purported ability to quell the
rising tide of criminality plaguing the country. The idea is that executing felons for committing
heinous crimes will deter future criminals, thus lowering crime rates.

But Figure 1 shows that from 1978 to 2008 there had been a general decline in the incidence of
“index crimes”. These are crimes that occur with “sufficient regularity” and have “socioeconomic
significance”, including some “heinous” ones like murder and rape.

Crime data are usually laden with many caveats, most notably underreporting. But despite these
limitations, Figure 1 suggests at least 3 things.

First, the supposed “rising tide” of criminality is more of a myth than a fact: index crimes have, in
fact, been falling steadily since the early 1990s.

Second, even in the years without the death penalty, the index crime rate had plummeted. Hence,
the death penalty is not necessary to see a fall in crime rates.

Third, even after a record number of executions in 1999 (when Leo Echegaray and 6 others were
put to death by lethal injection), no pronounced drop in index crimes was observed. The
incidence of index crimes even rose by 8.8% from 1999 to 2002.
Figure 1. Source: PSA, PNP. Note: Data cover 1978 to 2008. According to the PNP, 'index crimes'
are those considered to have socioeconomic significance and 'occur with sufficient regularity to
be meaningful'. These include the following crimes against persons (e.g., murder, homicide,
physical injury, rape) and crimes against property (e.g., robbery, theft, carnapping). Also note
that the PNP made methodological changes since 2009 making data thereon incomparable to
previous data.

2) Studies abroad could also not find strong evidence the death penalty deters crime.

Many other countries also fail to see compelling evidence the death penalty deters crime.

In the US, for example, the death penalty alone could not explain the great decline in homicide
rates observed in the 1990s. Figure 2 shows that the homicide rates in Texas, California, and New
York had fallen at roughly the same pace throughout the 1990s. This is despite the fact that these
3 states used the death penalty very differently: Whereas Texas executed 447 people over that
period, California executed just 13 people, and New York executed no one.
Figure 2. Source: Nagin & Pepper [2012] Deterrence and the death penalty. Washington, DC: The
National Academies Press. Note: Data cover 1974 to 2009.

Indeed, the US National Research Council concluded in 2012 that, “research to date…is not
informative about whether capital punishment decreases, increases or has no effect on homicide
rates.”

In Asia, a separate study reached the same conclusion when it compared the homicide rates in
Singapore (a country of many executions) and Hong Kong (few executions). More recent
research also shows that, instead of imposing harsher punishments, a higher certainty of being
caught may be more effective in deterring crime.

3) Previous death sentences fell disproportionately on the poor.

The death penalty, as applied in the Philippines before, was not only unnecessary in reducing
crime but also largely anti-poor: poor inmates were more likely to be sentenced to death than
rich inmates.

Back in 2004 the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) did a survey of 890 death row inmates.
Among other things, FLAG found that 79% of death row inmates did not reach college and 63%
were previously employed in blue-collar work in sectors like agriculture, transport, and
construction.

Most tellingly, two-thirds of death row inmates had a monthly wage on or below the minimum
wage (see Figure 3). Meanwhile, less than 1% of death row inmates earned a monthly wage of
more than P50,000.

One main reason behind this disparity is that rich inmates have much more resources to
aggressively defend themselves in court (e.g., hiring a battery of lawyers) compared to poor
inmates. Unless this imbalance is addressed, the death penalty will only continue to be a vehicle
for “selective justice”.

Figure 3. Source: FLAG (2004) 'Socio-economic profile of capital offenders in the Philippines'.
Note: Income brackets are in nominal terms.

4) Previous death sentences were also error-prone.

Too many Filipinos were also wrongly sentenced to death before. This may be the single most
damning argument against the reimposition of the death penalty.
In the case of People of the Philippines vs. Mateo (2004), the Supreme Court admitted that a vast
majority of trial courts had wrongfully imposed the death penalty during the time it was available
as a sentencing option from 1993 to 2004.

Figure 4 shows that of the 907 death convictions that went to the Supreme Court for review, as
many as 72% were erroneously decided upon. These cases were returned to lower courts for
further proceedings, reduced to life imprisonment, or even reversed to acquittal. By detecting
these errors, a total of 651 out of 907 lives were saved from lethal injection.

Unless this alarmingly high rate of “judicial errors” is fixed, bringing back the death penalty will
only put more innocent people on death row.

Figure 4. Source: People v. Mateo, G.R. No. 147678-87, July 7, 2004. Note: Data were collected by
the Judicial Records Office of the Supreme Court as of June 8, 2004.

Conclusion: The death penalty is a naïve way of dealing with criminality

The death penalty can be assailed on many grounds, whether moral, philosophical, or legal. But
just by focusing on the available data, it is apparent that the death penalty, as used in the past,
was largely unnecessary and ineffective in reducing crime.

Even assuming for a moment that it was a deterrent, the death penalty tended to discriminate
against the poor and was subject to alarmingly high error rates.

It is no wonder that so many countries around the world today have abolished the death penalty
rather than retained it. As of 2015, 140 countries have abolished the death penalty in law or in
practice.

Crime is a more complex and nuanced issue than many of our politicians will care to admit.
Reinstating the death penalty – and equating death with justice – is a patently naïve and
simplistic way of going about it. – Rappler.com

JC Punongbayan is a PhD student and teaching fellow at the UP School of Economics. Kevin
Mandrilla is an MA student at the UP Asian Center with a background in human rights advocacy.
Their views do not necessarily reflect the views of their affiliations.

1. It is the ultimate denial of human rights when implemented.

Amnesty International describes the implementation of capital punishment like this. “The death
penalty is the ultimate denial of human rights,” the organization says. “It is the premeditated and
cold-blooded killing of a human being by the state in the name of justice. It violates the right to
life. It is the ultimate cruel, inhuman, and degrading punishment. There can never be any
justification for torture or cruel treatment.”
The definition of justice can be a tricky element. How a society chooses to punish its offenders is
more reflective of them than it is the choices that criminals make. Sparing someone’s life, even if
that person took the life of another, takes vengeance out of the scenario. Being pro-life by
definition means that one must be for every life.

2. The death penalty can execute someone who is possible innocent.

Ever since the United States reinstated the death penalty after a Supreme Court ruling allowed
for it as part of the justice system, over 1,400 people have been executed by the state or federal
government. Courts in the U.S. don’t usually entertain a claim of innocence until after the
convicted individual dies of natural causes or goes through with the execution. There are 15
cases where there is strong evidence to suggest innocence out of this number, with the latest
being Carlton Michael Gary, who was executed in 2018 by the state of Georgia.
A police statement withheld from the defense indicated that the witness who identified Gary in
court was actually asleep at the time and that she could not describe or identify her attacker. DNA
evidence left at the scene excluded him as well. Improper handling of evidence and a lack of
presentation of other items were also part of the issue, along with a lack of federal review despite
all of these concerns.

Even one innocent person being put to death by the state is too many.

3. The cost to prosecute the death penalty is much higher than other cases.
When the state of Oklahoma examined the differences in cases where capital punishment was the
desired outcome sought with a conviction rather than life in prison, the overall cost of pursuing
the death penalty was 3.2 times higher. This data is similar to that found in a review of 15 state
studies that looked at the cost of this issue and found that seeking the death penalty raises the
average cost of a case by over $700,000. Even the most conservative estimates from this
information finds that there is a $110,000 increase in expense.
When you incorporate the time spent on death row, the cost of the lengthy appeals process in the
United States, and the issues with secure housing, it can cost over $1 million more to proceed
with capital punishment instead of a sentence of life without the possibility of parole.

4. There may not be any deterrence to crime with the death penalty in place.
“I know that in practice, the death penalty does more harm than good,” said Police Chief James
Abbot of West Orange, NJ. “So, while I hang on to my theoretical views, as I’m sure many of you
will, I stand before you to say that society is better off without capital punishment. Life in prison
without parole in a maximum-security detention facility is the better alternative.
When examining data between states with and without the death penalty, there are five specific
conclusions to draw.

 States with the death penalty have higher murder rates than those without it.
 National trends do not impact local decisions by criminals to break the law, whether the
death penalty is present or not.
 There is no apparent correlation between the death penalty and changes in murder rates.
 Capital punishment has no discernible effect on the killing of law enforcement officials.
 The abolition of the death penalty occurs most often in states where the murder of police
officers is a very low percentage of all homicides.
In 2014, there were 14,000 murders that took place in the United States, but there were only 35
executions that took place.

5. It is used to control political messages.

The United States uses the death penalty exclusively for the punishment of crimes as defined by
legal code and precedent. It is a principle which is not consistent for other countries in the world.
78% of global executions because of capital punishment come from just four countries when
excluding China: Iraq, Vietnam, Saudi Arabia, and Iran.
Some countries, including Sudan and Iran, use the death penalty as a political tool. It becomes a
way to punish political opponents who might want to take their country in a different direction.
There were a total of 2,500 death sentences recorded in 54 countries in 2018, with about 20,000
people currently under sentence around the world at the end of the year.

6. Children are sometimes put to death through the use of capital punishment.
There are at least 97 kids who were put to death by capital punishment laws in Iran since 1990.
Another 145 child executions have happened in China, the Republic of Congo, Pakistan, Sudan,
South Sudan, Yemen, Nigeria – and the United States.
Scott Hain, Toronto Patterson, T.J. Jones, Napoleon Beazley, Gerald Mitchell, Shaka Sankofa, Glen
McGinnis, and Steven Roach were all put to death in the United States for a crime that they
committed at age 17. Sean Sellers was executed when he was 29 for a crime that he committed
when he was 16.

7. There is no going back after the execution takes place.

When we carry out a death sentence, it is an irreversible sentence. Over 160 people sent to death
row in the United States have either been exonerated of the crime or released because there was
direct evidence of their innocence. Even though a grand jury must indict someone and then the
case and sentencing are both held before another jury in the U.S., their finding that someone is
guilty does not mean the individual is innocent.
Conservative estimates on the number of innocent people convicted in the United States suggest
that at least 0.4% of convicted criminals are not guilty of the crimes for which they are accused. If
the death penalty were not in place, then there would be time to reverse an unjust conviction.

8. The evidence obtained to justify the death penalty is sometimes tainted.

There are specific guidelines in the United States today that limit how and when law enforcement
can obtain evidence during questioning. This structure of protection is not always available
around the world. There are numerous people executed after being convicted during an unfair
trial, often on the basis of evidence or confessions obtained through the use of torture. Some
defendants were not given adequate legal representation.
Some countries even use the death penalty as a mandatory punishment for specific offenses,
which means the judge cannot consider the circumstances of the crime during the sentencing
phase of a trial.

9. It tends to be applied in a discriminatory way.

“The weight of the death penalty is disproportionally carried by those with less advantaged
socio-economic backgrounds or belonging to a racial, ethnic, or religious minority,” writes
Amnesty International. The Women Donors Network found that 95% of the elected prosecutors
in the United States are white, and 79% of them are white men. In nine of the death penalty
states, there was not a single elected prosecutor who came from a minority group.
Professor Katherine Beckett of the University of Washington found that jurors were 4.5 times
more likely to impose a capital punishment sentence on a defendant who was black compared to
a white defendant in a similar circumstance in an examination of 285 cases.

10. Family members of a victim are adversely impacted by the death penalty.
The Marquette Law Review found that when family members go through the capital punishment
process after someone they love becomes a victim, they have higher levels of mental, physical,
and behavioral health problems when compared to when the perpetrator receives a sentence of
life in prison. Although this issue does not happen in every circumstance, some family members
can feel responsible for the fact that the government is putting this criminal to death.
Proponents would argue that capital punishment provides relief because it guarantees that
person can no longer harm another, but there are many families who do not feel a sense of
satisfaction with this action. If they are the ones who experience loss, then there should be a way
to provide input for them.

11. There are very few prison escapes that occur, and fewer that involve violent criminals.
The number of escapes from prison in the United States declined by more than 50% between
1998-2013, falling to a rate of 10.5 escapes per 10,000 prisoners in 2013. At the same time, the
number of life sentences handed out by the court system has gone up by 500%. Most of the
incidents that contribute to a prisoner escape come from low-security situations, like when 16
prisoners walked away from a work site and another 3 disappeared from a community work
center.
Out of all of the reported escapes in 2013, only one inmate from a secured facility was able to get
away.

12. Some people just don’t care.

There are people who will always decide to operate outside of the rules that society sets for
safety and security. These are the criminals that filter into and out of prison consistently until
they end up spending their life there. Rehabilitation doesn’t work because there is no investment
to be different. The death penalty is not going to stop someone from hurting another person in
this situation because the criminal is living for the thrill of the moment instead of thinking about
their future consequences.
Verdict on the Advantages and Disadvantages of the Death Penalty

As of May 2019, about 60% of the world’s population lives in a country, state, or province where
the death penalty is a possible outcome for criminal conduct. There are 56 nations which retain
the option for capital punishment for a variety of crimes, including incidents that do not include
aggravated homicide.

Some countries execute people who are under the age of 18 when the crime was committed. It is
used against those with intellectual or mental disabilities. There are times when it is applied after
an unfair trial in clear violation of international laws and norms. “The death penalty is a symptom
of a culture of violence,” writes Amnesty International, “not a solution to it.”

The advantages and disadvantages of the death penalty rely on several instruments to restrict its
use to the most severe situations while providing states, provinces, and nations the freedom to
implement it as local populations see fit. Whether it is the right or wrong approach is ultimately
up to you to decide.
 Ang buhay ng tao ay parang gulong minsan nasa ibaba minsan nasa
itaas. Ngunit naisipan mo bang magiging maganda ang iyong
kinabukasan? Na parang bituin na magniningning? Ikaw may pangarap ka
ba? Pangarap mo bang yumaman, maging sikat na artista, magaling na
negosyante, makapagtayo ng sariling eskwelahan, propesyunal sa napiling
kasanayan o kaya’y maging bayani ng bayan? Maging sino ka man, bata
man o matanda, may pera o wala ito’y iyong karapatan na TUPARIN,
ABUTIN, MAKAMTAN AT MAKUHA. Ito ang mga salitang gusto kong
ITATAK, IDIKIT, ISAMA AT AT ITANIM sa inyong kaisipan at kalooban
kapag naiiisip ninyo ang inyong pangarap. “Libre” ang mangarap pero lahat
ng indibidwal ay mayroon nito, samakatuwid lahat ay maaring umunlad.

Isang mapagpalang araw sa inyong lahat. Ako nuong bata pa ako iisa
ang aking pangarap at yun ang matuto akong magluto. Kaya araw - araw
pinapanuod ko ang aking nanay na magluto. Inaral ko ito sa pamamagitan
ng lagi kong pinapanuod ang aking nanay sa bawat pagluto niya ng aming
pagkain kahit ito'y mahirap dahil ako'y laging napapaso at mahirap
kabisaduhin ang proseso hindi ako sumuko. Kaya't ngayon ako'y natutuwa
sapagkat kahit ito'y munting pangarap akin itong naisakatuparan. Ito'y
isang anekdota na aking iingatan na nagpapalakas sa aking loob.

Ang pangarap ay hindi nakukuha agad. Ito'y nagsisimula sa

pagpaplano mo sa mga bagay na gusto mo mangyari pagdating ng panahon.
Ang plano na minsa'y nanggagaling sa pagkakaroon ng inspirasyon mula sa
iyong pamilya at sa isang tao upang pagtibayin ang iyong paniniwala na
balang araw ito'y iyong makakamtan. Ang pangarap ay parang bituin
mahirap man abutin ngunit ito' y patuloy mong pagsusumikapan. Ang bituin
na nagsisimbolo para sa iyong sarili,sariling binibigyan mong buhay, sarili
mong magniningning pag ito'y iyong aabutin.Bituing nagbibigay liwanag
para sa iyong pangarap at pagharap sa buhay. Ang bituing ito na
nagsisilbing gabay sa bawat araw mong tatahakin. Bilang estudyante o
mamamayan na maraming suliranin sa buhay tayo'y patuloy na lumalaban
kahit ito man ay may kahirapan.
 Nakagisnan ko sa aking kamusmusang isip ang mga sakripisyo at
paghihirap na isiniwalat sa aming magkapatid. Walang humpay na
pagtratrabaho ng aming mga magulang para lamang matustusan ang aming
pangangailangan, kahit umabot na sa puntong ang aking tatay ay
nagbebenta ng kopre ng "electric fan" dahilan sa sunod sunod na suliraning
dumaraan. Ngunit,sa kabila ng mga bagabag na iyon, kami'y naging isang
matatag at solidong pamilya. Lingid sa kaalaman ng nakararami na
mayroon kaming matiwasay na pamumuhay, na nagbibigay ginhawa sa
aming pang araw-araw na pagbangon at pag-ahon sa mga matataas na
along imposibleng malampasan. Gayunpaman itinatatak ko na lamang sa
aking isipan na andiyan ang Panginoong Diyos na magbibigay sa akin ng
lakas at katalinuhang taglay na nagmumula sa kanya. Sa anumang
masasalimuot na problema na aking nadarama, hindi ako basta basta
susuko, sabi nga nila kapag mahal mo ang isang bagay gagawin mo ang
lahat para lamang masungkit ito kaya't ito ang ating nagsisilbing bituin.
Marahil,naitatanong niyo sa inyong sarili kung bakit ko ibinahagi ang
ganitong klaseng istorya. Sapagkat nais kong malaman niyo na hindi
hadlang ang ibat-ibang suliranin upang sukuan niyo ang inyong mga
pangarap o hangarin sa buhay. Andito ako upang iparating na hindi kayo
nag-iisa sa mga labang inyong nilalakbay. Wala sa yaman, kapangyarihan o
antas ng pamumuhay ang magdadala sa inyong matayog na pangarap.

Sa bawat pagsisikap at pagtiya-tiyagang aking pinupuhunan ay may

kapalit na gantimpala't kagalakang aking minitmithi. Nahihirapan,
nasusugatan o nabibigo ka man, sa bandang huli tayo parin ay lalaban sa
anumang tatahaking landas ng ating buhay. Maglaan lamang ng pasensiya,
pagtitiyaga at pinakamahalaga ang pagtitiwala sa iyong sarili at sa Poong
Maykapal. Laging isaisip, na sa bawat hamon ng buhay ay may nakatagong
biyayang nakalaan na magpapatibay upang ikaw ay lumaban. "Wag ka
lamang mabuhay bagkus ikaw din ay mamuhay".