DEATH PENALTY ISSUES

Among the myriad of issues gripping the country today, no issue stirs passion as much as the
proposal to revive the death penalty. This issue, however, is not new: it has been the subject of endless
debates in decades past. This paper intends to review the primary sub-issues involved in the discussion .
In formulating ones opinion on the matter, it is crucial to review these issues to be able to claim a
rational and educated stand.
*(-): AGAINST; (+): FOR
Death Penalty and Morality
(-) That human life is valuable is the primary argument used by the opponents of death penalty
(Abolitionists). They argue that human life is so valuable that even the worst of criminals should not be
deprived of the value of their lives; the value of a persons life cannot be destroyed by his bad conduct.
They also argue for the persons inalienable human right to life; sentencing and executing a person to
death violates that right.1

(+) On the other, the Proponents of death penalty agree that life is important and that it should
be preserved, however, a person may be deprived of its value and forfeit his right to life by his actions
for the good of the society. As St. Thomas Aquinas aptly reasoned: Therefore if any man is dangerous to
the community and is subverting it by some sin, the treatment to be commended is his execution in
order to preserve the common good...2

Constitutional Issue
(-) The primary constitutional issue currently contended is the Philippiness obligations under the
international law as signatory to the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights (Second Protocol). The Second Protocol is an international treaty that prohibits
executions and provides for total abolition of the death penalty and requires signatory states to
renounce the use death penalty definitively. Abolitionists argue that, as signatory to the treaty, the
Philippines is bound to comply with its international law obligations in good faith and that a State
cannot invoke its own national law to xxx excuse itself from breach of duty under international law. 3
(+) Proponents, however, resist such obligation by citing the ruling of Supreme Court in Gonzales
v Hechanova,4 that our Constitution authorizes the nullification of a treaty not only when it conflicts
with the fundamental law but also when it runs counter to an act of Congress. Dean Magallona noted
that the Court in Secretary of Justice v Lantion5 asserts that international law has been made part
of the law of the land, but this does not pertain to or imply the primacy of international law
over national or municipal law in the municipal sphere. In fact, Ichong v Hernandez6 goes so far as to
say that even supposing that the law infringes upon the said treaty, the treaty is always subject to
qualification or amendment by a subsequent law. 7 Hence, Congress may validly amend the treaty by a
subsequent enactment of law reviving death penalty.

Other pertinent constitutional issues had been passed upon by the Court in Echegaray v
Secretary of Justice.8

Deterrent
(-) Abolitionists cite substantial research which failed to show the deterrent effect of death
penalty. A 1988 UN Report concluded that "xxx (the) research has failed to provide scientific proof that
executions have a greater deterrent effect than life imprisonment." 9 The US National Research Council
also noted that studies claiming that the death penalty has a deterrent effect on murder rates are
fundamentally flawed and should not be used when making policy decisions. 10 Similar studies also
show that convicted persons, despite their knowledge of the death penalty, did not remember thinking
they might be sentenced to death before committing the crime. 11 Amnesty International concluded that
the key to real and true deterrence is not death penalty but the increase in the likelihood of detection,
arrest and conviction.

(+) The present administration, the very proponent of the revival of death penalty, would claim
otherwise. Bureau of Corrections director Benjamin Delos Santos at the Senate deliberations said that
before the abolition of capital punishment in 2006, there were 189 inmates convicted of heinous crimes.
The number rose to 6,204 inmates when the death penalty was revoked; a staggering 3,280 percent
increase.12

Flawed Judicial System

(-) Error in the judgment of conviction is the single most powerful argument against death
penalty. In People v Mateo,13 the Court acknowledged that it affirmed only 25.36 percent of the cases of
convictions that found their way before it on automatic review; that is 230 of the 907 conviction cases
from 1993 to June 2004. An astounding 651 out of the 907 appellants were spared from certain death!

(-) Not very unlike the present crackdown on drugs, most of those meted out with capital
punishment are poor. A 1994 Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) survey of the 890 death row inmates
revealed that two-thirds had a monthly wage on or below the minimum wage, while less than 1% earned
more than Php 50,000.00 a month. The obvious reason behind such discrepancy is that rich convicts
have more resources to defend themselves compared to poor convicts. 14 As the CHR noted, although
appointed with counsel de officio, poor persons may not receive fair trials due to incompetent,
inexperienced or ineffective and overworked counsel. 15

(-) Aside from the resulting clogged dockets, death penalty cases also substantially cost the
government more. Although, there is no empirical study as to the real cost of death penalty litigations in
the Philippines, common sense dictates that the Courts automatic review of death penalty judgments
necessarily involved more expenses to the government and to the accused. Studies done in the US
found that capital trials are six times more costly than other murder trials. 16

(+) Proponents may simply argue that it is wrong to think of justice in simplistic financial terms
and that life sentence without parole would cost as much as death penalty proceedings.

Closure for Co-victims

(-) Advocates of death penalty propose that death penalty would bring healing and closure to
the victims family (co-victims). However, the slow and long judicial process from conviction to execution
prolongs grief and pain for co-victims for they are forced to repeatedly relive the traumatic events all
throughout the proceedings.17 A study conducted by Professor Scott Vollum of University of Minnesota
showed that among the co-victims only 2.5 percent achieved true closure, and 20.1 percent said that the
execution did not help them heal. They also expressed feelings of emptiness when the death penalty did
not bring back the victim.18 Families of the victims simply do not experience the healing they thought
they would feel at the execution.
 The issue of the revival of the capital punishment is far from being one dimensional; it is multi-
faceted. Each aspect needs to be thoroughly investigated and analyzed before a decision to reinstate the
same should be made. There is no room for haste because peoples lives are literally at stake.
1Arguments Against Capital Punishment. BBC Online. Undated. (17 February 2017)
2 Summa Theologiae
3 [VCLT, art. 6; Polish Nationals in Danzig Case (PCIJ, 1932); VCLOT; Articles on State Responsibility, art. 32]
4 SCRA 230 (1963)
5 322 SCRA 160 (2000)
6 101 Phil. 1156
7 Magallona, Merlin. The Supreme Court and International Law: Problems and Approaches in Philippine Practice. Philippine Law Journal, VOL 85, pp.3-
4.
8Echegaray vs Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 132601, January 19, 1999
9 Report by Roger Hood, Director of the Center for Criminological Research at Oxford University in the United Kingdom. The study was prepared and
published pursuant to Economic and Social Council Resolutions 1986/10, section X and 1989/64 as quoted in Echegaray vs Secretary of Justice
10 Facts about the Death Penalty. Death Penalty Information Center. 1015 18th St. NW, Suite 704 Washington, DC 20036.
11 Dissenting Opinion, Echegaray vs Secretary of Justice.
12 Duterte: Death Penalty A Deterrent vs Heinous Crime. Ruth Abbey Gita & Karina V. Canedo. SunStar Manila. 10 February 2017.
13 People vs Mateo. G.R. NO. 147678-87. 2004 July 7.
14 Why the death penalty is unnecessary, anti-poor, error-prone. JC Punongbayan and Kevin Mandrilla. Published 9:00 AM, February 11, 2017.
15 CHR Resolution on the Re-examination of the Death Penalty. 6 March 1997.
16 What Politicians Don't Say About the High Costs of the Death Penalty. Richard C. Dieter. Undated.
17 Muller, Robert T. Ph.D. Death Penalty May Not Bring Peace to Victims' Families. Psychology Today. 19 October 2016.
18 Vollum, Scott. Co-victims of Capital Murder: Statements of Victims' Family Members and Friends Made at the Time of Execution. 2007;22 (5):601-19.
Robert T. Muller &Caitlin McNair. The Trauma and Mental Health Report. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/talking-about-trauma/201610/death-
penalty-may-not-bring-peace-victims-families