Sei sulla pagina 1di 3

Ex injuria jus non oritur

Law does not arise from injustice


Citizens of the Republic of the Philippines, Honorable
panel of adjudicators, to my colleagues and to our
esteemed opponents from the affirmative side, good day.
The topic to either not or re impose death penalty had
been the subject of discourse all around the world.
Ladies and Gentlemen, in this august academic
discourse, I will elicit our primary reasons why it
would not be beneficial to re impose death penalty in
the Philippines. Re imposing death penalty in the
Philippines is not beneficial or it is disadvantageous
because of 2 main reasons.
1. There is no absolute assurance that the convict is
always guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
Constitutional Framer Hector S. De Leon stated in his
textbook on the 1987 constitution that “There is always
a possibility of error in condemning a person to
death”. This was further stated in the 1987
constitution: A commentary by Constitutional Framer and
Dean Emeritus of Ateneo Law School Joaquin G. Bernas.
“Assuming mastery over the life of another man is just
too presumptuous for any human” This argument was
strengthened in the admission of the Supreme court in
2004 that in every 10 cases of capital punishment, 7
are guilty of judicial errors. Out of the 1,493 cases,
907 were passed for review of the court and 71.77% of
which was guilty of judicial error. This was elicited
in the case of
a. People of the Philippines vs. Efren Mateo
Other cases were already sentenced to death but were
acquitted in the Supreme Court such as the cases of
a. People of the Philippines vs. Marlon Prazo
b. People of the Philippines vs. Fernando Galera
Finally, fatal mistakes led to execution of somebody
not proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt. In the case
of people of the Philippines vs. Eusebio Molijan,
Supreme Court acknowledged that there was insufficient
evidence that he was the instigator of the crime but
his death sentenced was confirmed. Clearly, death
penalty is undeniably risky giving no benefit to the
victim’s family and the appellant.
2. It is not beneficial because death Penalty
is an inherently agonizing process
Constitutional Framer Hector S. De Leon stated in
the same book that “It is cruel and inhuman for the
convict and family who are traumatized by the
waiting even if it is never carried out.” Similar
principle was reiterated in the book of
constitutionalist Joaquin G. Bernas in the same
book; “Its imposition even if not carried out
traumatizes not only the convict but also the
members of his family” Regardless of the method
used in execution, the psychological trauma that is
caused by the time it takes before the actual
execution is not beneficial to the convict and his
family whereas one of the main objective of the
death penalty is that it must be humane and not
inflict psychological punishment stated in the Bill
of Rights Article 3, Section 19, paragraph 2. In
the research of Professor Susan Sharp: Review of
hidden victims: The effects of the Death Penalty on
Families of the Accused. She noted that “It is
always forgotten that prisoners condemned to die
are not only accused murderers but also sons,
perhaps brothers, fathers and husbands. Because of
their connection to a person judged to be so evil
that he must be exterminated, families are treated
as less deserving of compassion, or even as being
treated as partially responsible crime of their
relatives.” There are also distinctive challenges
faced by these neglected families, challenges
created by the stigmatized, shamed status of the
family member; a lack of social support; the
multilayer process of appeals and waiting; dealing
with people who clamor for the execution of the
person they love; and, for many, watching their
loved one being killed at an appointed time.
Clearly, the process of death penalty is giving no
benefit at all most especially to the family of the
accused which is supposed to be humane. Does the
data presented define the term humane? In the first
place, considering the fact that life is taken away
from you intentionally, is the concept of death
humane?