Death Penalty in the Philippines: A Deterrent to the

Fundamental Right to Life or the Solitary Means to Effectuate

Justice?

Research Outline

BY:

CANDELA, JOEL R.
CUMPIO, JOLINA C.
DEL PILAR, VINCENT NOEL M.
DE SAN MIGUEL, DARWIN A.
DUBLON, ARVIN
NOEL, NADIA JUNE G.
I. Introduction:

Is the death penalty justified or should it be abolished? According to Wikipedia,

“Capital Punishment is a matter of controversy in several countries and states, and
positions can vary within a single political ideology or cultural region”; in the Philippines,
the capital punishment which is the death penalty is one of the most debatable topics
among the legislature and even among the public.
The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines prohibits the use of death penalty by
stating that “death penalty shall not 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”. On the other hand, the current
administration under President Duterte supports for the restoration of the death penalty
specifically by hanging. However, the law reinstating the death penalty stalled in the
Senate in April 2017, did not appear to have enough votes to pass.
This research paper presents arguments on whether or not death penalty is indeed
applicable in the Philippines.

II. Arguments in Favour and Against Death Penalty

Death Penalty as a Solitary Means to Effectuate Justice
Real justice requires people to suffer for their wrongdoing, and to suffer in a way
appropriate for the crime. Each criminal should get what their crime deserves and in the
case of a murderer what their crime deserves is death. Imposition of appropriate
punishment is the manner in which the courts respond to the society's cry for justice
against the criminals. Justice demands that courts should impose punishment befitting
the crime so that the courts reflect public abhorrence of the crime. It's often supported
with the argument "An eye for an eye".
Many people find that this argument fits with their inherent sense of justice and
here are absolute and relevant arguments in favour of the death penalty:
 Reimposition of death penalty as a gear towards reformation of the Philippine
criminal justice system
 Death penalty as capital punishment for heinous crimes
 Statistics: Heinous crime rate in the Philippines from the time
death penalty was abolished (2006 – Present)
 Positive impact of death penalty to the reduction of crime
rate from 1993 – 2005
 Death penalty as a measure to restore respect in the laws of the land
 Positive impact to maintaining peace and order in the Society
 Leo Echegaray Case
 Eliminating the possibility of an escape and future victims
  The need to reform punitive aspect of our penal system
 Certain privileged heinous crime offenders continuing to perpetuate
illicit activities while serving sentence inside the prison
 Death penalty does not revictimize the affected family
 The application of capital punishment can limit prison congestion and
overpopulation issues

Death Penalty – A Deterrent to the Fundamental Right to Life

Life is sacred. This is an idea that the majority of people can agree upon. For this
reason, taking the life of another has always been considered the most deplorable of
crimes, one worthy of the harshest available punishment. Thus, arises some of the
greatest moral dilemmas of our time— should taking the life of one who has taken the life
of others be considered an available punishment? Is a murderer's life any less sacred
than the victim's is? Can capital punishment, the death penalty, execution, legal murder,
or whatever a society wishes to call it, be morally justifiable? The underlying question in
these issues is if any kind of killing, regardless of reason, can be considered acceptable.
Hence, a lot of people argue that the death penalty have a lot more to consider
other than just a punishment for a heinous crime. Here are other arguments that rebut the
Death Penalty:
 Violating the most fundamental human right
 Provision in the 1987 Constitution
 Human Rights advocates’/sectors’ Stand
 Philippines’ Legal Obligation under the Second Protocol to
the ICCPR
 There is no going back after the execution takes place
 How it goes beyond ethical and moral standards of society
 The strong stand of the church against killings
 Inhumane methods of execution
 How it doesn’t give the convicted a chance to change or repent
 Repent and regret of heinous crimes can be possible while in
prison
 The risk of executing an innocent person
 Poor quality-defense leaves many sentenced to death
 Unfairness of trials
III. Conclusion
Death Penalty is a highly controversial and divisive issue, and trying to stay neutral
is not always a common stand, but such capital punishment is a derision to the
Constitution. The Philippines as a state tries its best to maintain and promote a restorative
criminal justice system, and in doing so, it believes in bringing about a society which
provides a chance for criminals to reform.
With the disparate views pointed out by proponents and opponents of death
penalty it can be agreeable that the cons greatly outweighs the pros. It is innately
acceptable that human life is God-given and there is no any person or state which has
been given the mandate to pass such type of prosecution.