“Human rights are not optional”

Your Honor, ladies and gentlemen good afternoon. (Rebuttals first)

The negative side would like to present 4 reasons why re-instating death penalty is NOT
PRACTICABLE.

First, PH’s relationship with the International Community in terms of economic and political
aspect will be affected.

PH is a State Party to the ICCPR and ratified in 2007 the Second Optional Protocol, thus we
commit ourselves to abandon the imposition of death penalty, as a generally accepted
principles of International Law and form part our Constitution. As stated in Article 13 of the
Declaration of Rights and Duties of States adopted by International Law Convention in 1949, a
country cannot assert its own domestic law to violate and negate its obligation in international
community and the principle of pacta sunt servanda must be complied as a fundamental
principles of IL.

Based from UN, out of 195 countries only 37 retain the DP in both law and in practice. If the DP
is re-imposed, the PH will lose its leadership as the first country in Asia to abolish DP. ASEAN
nations would not only indicate a rejection of hard fought process but it would also cause other
ASEAN nations to question the PH commitments in IL.

On economic repercussions, Philippines’ eligibility for the European Union’s Generalized System
of Preferences Plus (GSP+) tariff exemption system is in danger. In obtaining eligibility, the
Philippines had to agree to ratify and implement 27 different international treaties and
conventions including human rights.

The tariff exemption benefits had an immediate impact on Philippine trade with the EU. Over
the past two years, great beneficiaries is country’s small and medium enterprises, since by
design the absence of tariffs favors smaller volumes of goods. Therefore, losing the tariff-free
advantage is going to hurt the country’s small businesses the most.

Due to this, Philippines’ fate in GPS+ eligibility might possibly turn out just like Sri Lanka which
was ejected from the program for human rights violations in the aftermath of that country’s
long civil war and also with Pakistan, which have been warned to be ejected if it did not
reconsider its restoration of the death penalty.

The future also of our OFW’s waiting to be executed in other countries lies in re-imposition of
this policy. We would lose a moral ascendancy in negotiating for the lifting of the death
sentences on Filipino OFWs. Due to President Duterte’s stand on imposition of DP, the
government was unable to save the life of a Filipino death convict in Kuwait who maintained her
innocence to her last breath.

Second, re-imposition of death penalty gains strong oppose from the Catholic Church and the
public.
The heart of Christian teaching on the death penalty is the belief that human life is sacred
because from its inception it involves the creative action of God and it remains forever in a
special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end.

Results of the March 2018 SWS survey found that Filipinos demand for life imprisonment hit
more than 50% as punishment for those 7 crimes related to illegal drugs which includes murder
and rape under the influence of drugs, with the highest at 78% those convicted of working in
drug dens. Among those who disagree with death penalty, at least 42% cite religious reasons for
opposing it.

Philippines is a Catholic nation the Catholic Church itself condemned the imposition of death
penalty. Law which is contrary to morals and traditions will not gain acceptance and respect in
the society.

Third, previous death sentences is error-prone

The judicial system in the Philippines is very slow. Even the Supreme Court admitted it had its
share in miscarriages of justice when death penalty was in effect, there was 72% out of 907
wrong conviction rate. A system that finds serious error in seven out 10 sentences can hardly be
described as working. Authority, money, and influence could sway the judicial system in this
country.

Throughout history there have been concerns about innocent people being wrongfully
executed. No human judgment is infallible. Judges’ decision are vulnerable to errors, and while
steps can be taken to improve the system, given human frailty, we can never guarantee that
only the guilty will be executed.

The penalty of death differs from all other forms of criminal punishment, as it is unique in its
total irrevocability. Society may never be able to fully eliminate wrongful convictions. However,
by not re-instating the death penalty, society can at least allow the wrongly-convicted citizen
the life- long opportunity to prove his innocence.

Fourth, death penalty cost up to 10 time than incarcerating someone without parole -Death
penalty process is more complicated because a life is on the line that is why it under intense
scrutiny and subject to frequent tinkering and refining which other sentences don’t receive. It
involves more lawyers, experts, witnesses, and rigorous process. The

Contrary to popular belief, the system’s finality, complexity, and length drive costs through the
roof, diverting precious resources from crime prevention, community needs, and other national
issues with pressing concerns. For every penny that we spend on a broken death penalty
system, we are taking money from criminal justice program that would actually prevent crime
and keep us safer.

It is indeed true that there is no price on justice but the question of the cost of death penalty is
about counting lives. There is a saying that a budget is a moral document because the choice we
make about how to spend our precious resources are a reflection of what we think is important
in the society. Thus, implementing death penalty means choosing a failed policy that makes
irreversible mistakes, monopolizes our courts, and delays justices for families of victims.

In conclusion, we the negative side strongly oppose the re-instatement of death penalty for the
following account:

There’s no necessity since

1. Death penalty does not deter crime as we already proved through study
2. Life imprisonment serves as a better penalty to address the root cause and effect of the
commission of a crime
3. Even history would tell us that death penalty is not effective in solving criminality

It is not beneficial because

1. It is contrary to the rehabilitative purpose of criminal justice and does not fully consider
the possibility of mistakes as it cannot be undone
2. it is unequally applied on the poor given with the statistics presented
3. Our justice system is struck as dysfunctional and we need to fix the system first rather
than re-impose the death penalty where the benefits is merely speculative

It is not practicable for the PH

1. The international community is frowning upon death penalty and it will have a negative
implications to us economically and politically.
2. It gains strong oppose from the Catholic Church and the public
3. Previous death sentences is error-prone so there is no assurance that only the guilty will
be convicted
4. Death penalty cost up 10 time higher than incarcerating someone thus, it is better to
spend our resources while at the same time giving primacy to human life.

To end this debate, let me quote Mohandas Gandhi “an eye for an eye, makes the whole world
blind. “
With all the foregoing premises, we respectfully submit.