FIRST SPEAKER, NEGATIVE TEAM

Good morning Ma’am Barte, Ladies and Gentlemen.

TEAM SPLIT

The negative side of the house will present 3 main points on why we negate on the issue of death
penalty:

1. I as the first speaker will tackle about the views on the death penalty here in the
Philippines as a Christian nation.
2. The second speaker of this side of the house will tackle about the irrelevance of death
penalty issue in the Philippines for it is unjustifiably expensive.
3. Our last speaker will talk about the impractical and not justifiable of the Capital
Punishment in the Philippine setting.

True justice can never be achieved with a life expectancy. Instead, it depends on the
person if he repents of his sins and changes his life. So if we were asked if we agreed to the death
penalty enforcement, our answer would be no. We object here because the life God has given us
is sacred. He alone has the right to withdraw it. He alone has the right to judge us all. We are
only human beings and we have no right to kill people. This is a great sin against God.

Today as first speaker, I will be talking to you about views on the death penalty here in
the Philippines as a Christian nation. The Philippines is a religion-based country. Filipinos are
broad-minded most especially in distinguishing what is right and what is wrong. Our philosophy
is centrally base in “The Bible” with accordance to their religion. But, the government is greatly
alarmed because of the continuous rise of the crime rate in the country. This issue became a
reason for reinstating Death Penalty as a law in the Justice system of the Philippines.
Philosophical politicians and the Church firmly do not want to return Death Penalty as a law here
in the country. Death penalty as a law in the Philippine Justice System for, we, a religion
oriented and “The Bible” told us that killing other people is immoral. The death penalty is unjust
and morally wrong. When someone murders someone else, the correct punishment is not to
murder him or her, but to try and help them. We don’t steal from the thieves, or rape the rapists.
“It would be degrading to the penal authorities. It would appear to condone the crime by
repeating it. It would be a wanton cruelty.” Why do we murder the murderers? The death penalty
takes focus away from the victims and focuses the attention on the criminal. Views on the death
penalty here in the Philippines as a Christian nation run a spectrum of opinions, From the
complete condemnation of the punishment, seeing it as a form of revenge and as contrary to
God’s message of forgiveness, to the enthusiastic support based primarily on Old Testament
Law. Let's just say that it has a good effect as it goes forward. Some examples of this could
reduce the prevalence of crime for fear of being punished, reduce the bad people in society,
facilitate the development of our country, and more.

In the Philippines, more and more Catholic-Christians are citizens. We must not separate
the politician from the religion. For many, life is precious. We are all given the life of God. Our
lives are just borrowed. No person has the right to take another person's life. Human life is messy
and sinful. All we can do is hold the offender accountable but not in the way we harm others.
The death penalty should not be reinstated. We will always remember, that there is no perfect
being. Everyone makes mistakes and sins. So let's not punish our neighbors for violent means.
So for us, we really don't agree with the death penalty. We are Catholic and we believe that our
lives are the most precious blessing our Lord has given us. Yes, we are sinful humans. At times,
others commit a serious sin or crime, but that is not enough reason for the person to be deprived
of life. The solution here to eradicate crimes is upon us. We can only help ourselves. Only
discipline and morality, which should also be taught to the next generation so that everything can
be corrected. Again, we do not agree with the imposition of death penalty in our country.
 SECOND SPEAKER

It is only when you experience where you can best present facts and it is only facts of
history where we can understand the glimpse of the future.
I will be discussing about the irrelevance of death penalty issue in the Philippines for it is
unjustifiably expensive.

Give me some proof that the Philippines has enough resources or even just a budget that
would support your claim that the Philippines is capable of pursuing death penalty as capital
punishment for heinous crimes and if ever you have it their please at some point present facts about
the sustainability issue of death penalty with regards to the current Philippines economic situation,
then maybe you can at a little way convince me to support your side of the house or simply show
me any reliable proof of that “warehouse of money” that the Philippine possesses specifically for
the restoration of death penalty.
Well maybe you can argue that it is cheaper to do away and be done with a criminal rather
than to house and feed them for the rest of their natural lives. Well I will lay down the facts of my
research that aside from your barbaric point of view “IT IS NOT cheaper” because the general
statistics showed that the death penalty is three times more expensive than life imprisonment.
The irreversibility of the death sentence requires courts to follow heightened due process
in the preparation and course of the trial. The separate sentencing phase of the trial can take even
longer than the guilt or innocence phase of the trial. And defendants are much more likely to insist
on a trial when they are facing a possible death sentence. After conviction, there are
constitutionally mandated appeals which involve both prosecution and defense costs. Since there
is no reliable historical data in the Philippines available in the internet and other general
periodicals, let me use the American costing of death penalty as widely used in intelligent
discourses.
 Here are some specifics from Washington State, which has a very careful and involved
system for capital punishment:
FIRST, State vs. Gonzalez, murder of a police officer: Costs were at ($481,576 or ₱21.7
million) when it was determined that the defendant was incapable of premeditated intent and the
death penalty was dropped. This allowed a simpler, quicker trial of one month. Well, consider that
one, conviction of death penalty was not even given and the trial only last for a month but it already
cost that much. State vs. Rupe, death penalty sought: Costs have exceeded one million dollars or
around ₱44.0 million, and there is still a possibility of appeal and more cost.
Most of these costs occur in every case for which capital punishment is sought, regardless
of the outcome. Thus, the true cost of the death penalty includes all the added expenses of the
"unsuccessful" trials in which the death penalty is sought but not achieved. Moreover, if a
defendant is convicted but not given the death sentence, the state will still incur the costs of life
imprisonment, in addition to the increased trial expenses. Well, let us consider that scenarios
presented with a shorter period of time were millions of pesos were already incurred. Then how
about the long number of years before a case here in the Philippines is settled. For the states which
employ the death penalty, this luxury comes at a high price. I can’t imagine how the Philippines
could sustain such cost.
According to an article wrote by Ron Gluckman (during the reign of death penalty here in
the Philippines) which won an award for Excellence in Reporting from the Society of Asian
Publishers in 1999. In the Philippines, inmates pay for their crimes in many ways. Aside from
serving their sentence in prison, the inhumane prison cell itself and the long number of years before
a case will be given a final decision by the Court. Everything is available for a price. According to
Maria Diokno, head of the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG), which handles most last-ditch
appeals for condemned men "These are all poor people in Death Row". Father Silvino "Jun"
Borres, director of the Philippines Jesuit Prison Service, calls the Row a "home for the poor." A
survey showed that mostly in the Row earned less than $6 a day when they were arrested. Three-
quarters of them were farmers, truckers, laborers and so on. Few can afford the ₱1,500 attorneys
charge to attend the death sentence hearings.
Diokno estimated that only 12%-15% of those charged in capital cases can afford private
representation. "And most of these are drug cases or foreigners." Instead, Death Row inmates are
served by a severely under-funded Public Attorney's Office (PAO), often with disastrous results.
Condemned men say they are railroaded into prison with limited or no representation. FLAG cites
cases in which public attorneys advise clients to plead guilty to obtain a lighter sentence, unaware
that the charges carry a mandatory death sentence. PAO acknowledges that that most of their
attorneys receive no special training on capital cases. It also notes that besides handling death-
sentence cases, public defenders are involved in more than 350,000 civil and criminal cases each
year, as well as millions of consultations, filings and mediation matters.
While state and national politicians promote the death penalty, the country government is
typically responsible for the costs of prosecution and the costs of the criminal trial. In some cases,
the country is also responsible for the costs of defending the indigent. Well, without degrading the
profession that I want to be with, we cannot escape the truth that because of the low budget of the
government to public attorney’s office, we cannot assure that the lawyers were given enough
trainings to competitively give legal advice to the accused.
Some state appeals courts are overwhelmed with death penalty cases. The California
Supreme Court, for example, spends more than half its time reviewing death cases. Many
governors spend a significant percentage of their time reviewing clemency petitions and more will
face this task as executions spread. 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. Before I end,
I would like to add a quote says, "Whether you're for it or against it, I think the fact is that
Philippines simply can't afford it."
 THIRD SPEAKER

To take a life when a life has been lost is revenge, not justice. From the words of the late
Martin Luther King Jr., “returning violence for violence multiplies violence adding deeper
darkness to a night already devoid of stars”

As the third speaker of the Negative team, I strongly oppose to this resolution, Resolved,
That Death Penalty is justifiable.

First, death penalty violates a person's right to live. Article III Section 1 of the 1987
Constitution, otherwise known as the Bill of Rights, states that "No person shall be deprived of
life, liberty, or property…" furthermore, Article II, Section 11 of the 1987 Philippine
Constitution states: "The State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full
respect for human rights". How is death penalty justified if in the first place the right of a
criminal to live is being violated? Furthermore, it is a known fact that majority of Filipinos are
Catholics. As said, we have one of the world's largest Christian populations. According to the
latest study, 86% or 88.5 million Filipinos are Catholics. As Catholics or Christians, The Ten
Commandments of the Church teaches us that thou shall not kill. Therefore, nobody is given the
right to take the lives of others. Whether that person is a criminal or not, nobody has the right to
play God and take the life that He has given. Filipinos should respect and value the sanctity of
human life and uphold the virtue and religious doctrines that are expected of us as a dominant
Christian nation.

Secondly, it is a very cruel, inhuman and irreversible practice. Once a person is killed, the
act cannot be reversed. Death penalty cannot be justified making it very impracticable because it
shall cause a plethora of constitutional and judicial conflicts and questions. Apart from the
articles stated above, it is also to be noted that Article III, Sec. 19 ( I ) of the 1987 Constitution
states that “Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment
inflicted. Neither shall the death penalty 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.” Furthermore, Republic Act 9346 was also enacted which is an
Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines. The Commission on Human
Rights has opposed the enactment of any law re-imposing the death penalty law in the
Philippines on the ground that it offends the dignity of human person and human rights. The
abolition of the death penalty by the 1987 Constitution was a very big step towards a practical
recognition of the dignity of every human being which has the inherent right to life which is
protected by law. Moreover, justifying death penalty would be a violation of our international
commitment in support of the worldwide abolition of capital punishment where the Philippines is
a signatory to the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human rights and the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which strongly opposes death penalty.

Lastly, death penalty is anti-poor. Majority of those who are in death row are poor, it is
mostly by reason of poverty that brought them there and many of those cannot afford to get a
good lawyer to defend them. A study showed that the death penalty is anti-poor as the
underprivileged who cannot afford the services of competent counsels are oftentimes the ones
convicted of death penalty. Further studies show that death penalty is disproportionately imposed
on the poorest, least educated and most vulnerable members of the society. According to a
former appellate judge "Imposition of the death penalty is arbitrary and capricious. Decision of
who will live and who will die for his crime turns less on the nature of the offense and the
incorrigibility of the offender and more on inappropriate and indefensible considerations: the
political and personal inclinations of prosecutors; the defendant's wealth, race and intellect; the
race and economic status of the victim; the quality of the defendant's counsel; and the resources
allocated to defense lawyers." Clearly, a lot of considerations factors in this issue.
 Death penalty is not practical in the Philippines because the culture and religion of
majority of the Filipino people opposes to it. It is against the basic and fundamental principles of
our laws and constitution and it is anti-poor which makes it very oppressive and subject to abuse
by those in position or power.to end, Death penalty is impractical and not justifiable in the
Philippine setting.

Sources: Divided by Death by ron gluckman. www.gluckman.com

 REBUTTAL

To Ma’am Barte, ladies and gentlemen, worthy opponents, allow me and my side of the
house to take the next few minutes to further convince you that Death Penalty mustn’t be
imposed in the Philippines.

My colleagues in the negative side have sufficiently presented before you the strongest
arguments for death penalty which the opposite side hardly overcome.

First, on death penalty there is no second chance that the offender will change because their
life will be cut off. Nor is it a solution to the ever-increasing crime rate. It cannot prevent a
person from making a mistake. The poor will be greatly affected because it is possible that others
are not the perpetrators of the crime and cannot afford a good lawyer to defend the accused case.
These are just some of the possible side effects when the death penalty is advanced. Sinners and
wrongdoers deserve to be punished but through their learning. In the state of our country, we can
say that there is a lot of crime going on. They deserve to be punished correctly.

Second, the elimination of crimes in the country cannot be solved even with the death
penalty, because change is the only solution. Even if a person makes a mistake, that does not
mean that he or she has no opportunity to correct his or her mistakes. He just had to give him
another chance to change his life.

Third, many innocent people may be victimized. There may be a death penalty but he is not
guilty, he may be acquitted. And if there are really criminals with serious crimes, they should be
jailed for life. To put it in perspective, this penalty is worse than death, because the situation in
the jail is poor. There is no doubt in your life that you are confined to death. It is also painful
because you cannot be with your loved ones, especially your family. Once inside the prison, they
will be given the opportunity to repent and change their lives. Thus, imprisonment is better than
death.

Fourth, a study revealed that crimes in the Philippines did not decrease during the death
penalty, back in 2006. Instead, more and more killings are needed without any basis. The death
penalty is not fair, once it is re-enforced, the "due process" that takes place every time there is
corruption and crime goes away. The Supreme Court loses power because the guilty person is
killed immediately.

The death penalty may and may not serve the interests of justice, perhaps it can be used to
uphold the freedoms and rights of the Filipino people. Moreover, we cannot say that the death
penalty will reduce the level of crime in the Philippines. If the government lacks the funds, it is
better not to have a death penalty. They also say that the money will be greater if the criminals
are kept alive to do something immoral but not the money or expenses that will be the basis for
executing the death penalty. And if this country does have justice, a good solution would be to
have qualified, capable and experienced lawyers who will handle the case of a poor defendant
and not favor the wealthy other side who oppressed the suspect. If a death penalty is found to be
innocent, then the government can do nothing to restore its life.

For us, death penalty is not necessary because no one should be killed. It is as if this life
cycle is turning into life. There are other severe punishments like life imprisonment. Thus, the
implementation of the real justice process should only be improved. Lawyers, judges, justices,
police and other law enforcement and justice should not be sold. No sport, just treat everyone
equally.

Therefore, ladies and gentlemen, Before we end, allow me to make a conclusion,

reaffirm, and clearly right in saying that, we strongly believe that you that Death Penalty mustn’t
be imposed in the Philippines. With that thank you.