To install StudyMoose App tap and then “Add to Home Screen”
Save to my list
Remove from my list
1987 .
But six yearsafter it has reimposed the death penalty, the Philippines has overtaken its Asian neighbors and hasthe most number of death convicts.Within less than a year, however, the military establishment was lobbying for its reimposition as ameans to combat the "intensifying" offensives of the CPP/NPA guerrillas. Gen. Fidel V. Ramos, thenChief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and later elected President of the Philippines in 1992,was among those who were strongly calling for the reintroduction of the death penalty againstrebellion, murder and drug trafficking.In mid 1987, a bill to reinstate the death penalty was submitted to Congress.
Military pressure wasvery much evident in the preamble which cited the pestering insurgency as well asthe recommendations of the police and the military as compelling reasons for the reimposition ofthe death penalty.
The bill cited recent right wing coup attempts as an example of the alarmingdeterioration of peace and order and argued for the death penalty both as an effective deterrentagainst heinous crimes and as a matter of simple retributive justice .When Ramos was elected as President in 1992, he declared that the reimposition of the deathpenalty would be one of his priorities.
Verified writer
Proficient in: Death penalty
5 (893)
“ Thank you so much for accepting my assignment the night before it was due. I look forward to working with you moving forward ”
Political offenses such as rebellion were dropped from thebill. However, the list of crimes was expanded to include economic offenses such as smuggling andbribery.
In December 1993, RA 7659 restoring the death penalty was signed into law. The law makersargued the deteriorating crime situation was a compeling reason for its reimposition. The mainreason given was that the death penalty is a deterrent to crime.
In 1996, RA 8177 was approved,stipulating lethal injection as the method of execution. Six years after
Last February 5, 1999, Leo Echegaray, a house painter, was executed for repeatedly raping hisstepdaughter. He was the first convict to be executed since the re-imposition of death penalty in1995.His execution sparked once again a heated debate between the anti and the pro-death penaltyforces in the Philippines with a huge majority of people calling for the execution of Echegaray. Thatthere was a strong clamor for the imposition of the death penalty should be viewed from the pointof view of a citizen who is desperately seeking ways to stop criminality.The Estrada administration peddled the death penalty as the antidote to crime. The reasoning wasthat if the criminals will be afraid to commit crimes if they see that the government is determinedto execute them. Oppositors maintained that the death penalty is not a deterrent and that therehave been studies already debunking the deterrence theory. Legislators and politicians refused toheed the recommendation of the Supreme Court for Congress to review the death penalty riding onthe popularity of the pro-death penalty sentiment Six years after its reimposition, more than 1,200 individuals have been sentenced to death andseven convicts have been executed through lethal injection.
Yet today, there are no signs thatcriminality has gone down.From February 6, 1999, a day after Leo Echegaray was executed, to May 31 1999 two leadingnewspapers reported a total of 163 crimes which could be punishable by death penalty. But perhapsthe best indicator that this law is not a deterrent to criminality is the ever-increasing number ofdeath convicts.From 1994 to 1995 the number of persons on death row increased from 12 to 104. From 1995 to1996 it increased to 182. In 1997 the total death convicts was at 520 and in 1998 the inmates indeath row was at 781. As of November 1999 there are a total of 956 death convicts at the NationalBilibid Prisons and at the Correctional Institute for Women.As of December 31, 1999, based on the statistics compiled by the Episcopal Commission on PrisonerWelfare of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines, there were a total of 936 convictsinterned at the National Bilibid Prisons and another 23 detained at the Correctional Institute forWomen. Of these figures, six are minors and 12 are foreigners.
One of the reasons as to why human rights groups oppose the death penalty is because of theweaknesses and imperfections of the Philippine justice system. This is very much evident in thereview of death penalty cases made by the Supreme Court from 1995 to 1999. Two out of everythree death sentences handed down by the local courts were found to be erroneous by the SupremeCourt.Out of the 959 inmates the SC reviewed 175 cases involving 200 inmates from 1995 to 1999; 3cases were reviewed in 1995, 8 in 1996, 8 in 1997, 38 in 1998, 118 in 1999.Of these 175 cases, the SC affirmed with finality and first affirmation only 31% or 54 casesinvolving 60 inmates. Of these cases 24 were affirmed with finality, while the remaining 36 weregiven first affirmation.Sixty nine percent (69%) or 121 cases were either modified, acquitted or remanded for retrial.Eighty four (84) cases involving 95 inmates were modified to reclusion perpetua, 10 cases involving11 inmates were modified to indeterminate penalty, 11 cases involving 11 inmates were remanded tolower court for retrial and 16 cases involving 23 inmates were acquitted by the SC..
In a study prepared by the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG), it pointed out that the result ofthe review of cases done by the Supreme Court "point all too clearly to the imperfections,weaknesses and problems of the Philippine justice system". Some decisions of the trial courts wereoverturned for imposing death penalty on offenses which were not subject to death penalty. Otherdecisions of the lower courts were set aside because of substantive and procedural errors duringarraignment and trial. Still others were struck down because the lower court mis-appreciatedevidences.In a survey conducted among 425 convicts in 1998, 105 or 24.7% were agricultural workers, 103were construction workers, 73 were transport workers, and 42 were in workers in sales andservices. Only 6% finished college while 32.4 % finished various levels of high school while theremaining did not go to school or have finished only elementary or vocational education It is perhaps important to point out that out of these 46 crimes punishable by death, the deathpenalty has been applied to only 17 crimes.
No one has been convicted of qualified bribery, qualifiedpiracy and plunder. Interestingly also, no public official has been sentenced to death for crimesinvolving public officials.Yet, the government maintains that it is effective in combatting crime. Under the death penaltylaw, 46 crimes are considered heinous and are now subject to the death penalty. It imposes themandatory death penalty on 21 crimes while the other 25 crimes are death eligible. These arecrimes for which a range of penalties including the death penalty is imposed.Some Congressmen and Senators are proposing other lists of crimes to add to the above. Some evencontemplated lowering the age of those punishable by the death penalty to include youthfuloffenders.The death penalty is an easy way out for a government in the face of a strong outcry from thecitizenry who wanted the government to stop criminality. It is being used to create the illusion thatthe government is doing something to stop the crimes when in fact it is not.Sad though it maybe, more lives would be lost unless the death penalty in the Philippines is repealed. SANTOS A. LABANPHILIPPINE ALLIANCE OF HUMAN RIGHTS ADVOCATESAquino administration
1987
According to the 1987 Constitution,Art. III (Bill of Rights), Sec. 19.(1) Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted.Neither shall death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, theCongress hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced toreclusion perpetua.In mid-1987, a bill to seeking to reinstate the death penalty for 15 'heinous crimes' includingmurder, rebellion and the import or sale of prohibited drugs was submitted in Congress. 1988
In 1988, the military started lobbying for the imposition of the death penalty. Then Armed Forcesof the Philippines Chief General Fidel Ramos was prominent among those calling for thereintroduction of the death penalty for rebellion, murder and drug-trafficking. The militarycampaign for the restoration of the capital punishment was primarily against the CPP-NPA, whoseoffensives then included urban assassination campaigns.Anti-death penalty groups including Amnesty International opposed the bill, but the House ofRepresentatives voted for restoration by 130 votes to 25. 1989
Three similar bills were put before the Senate. After a bloody 1989 coup, President Aquinocertified as urgent one of these bills on the prompting of Ramos. The said bill again proposed deathpenalty for rebellion, as well as for sedition, subversion and insurrection. 1990
The Senate suspended the vote on death penalty for a year 1991 The Senate did not agree to move to a decision.
Ramos administration
A series of high profile crimes during this period, including the murder of Eileen Sarmenta andAllan Gomez, created public impression that heinous crimes were on the rise. The Ramosadministration succeeded in restoring death penalty.
1992
President Fidel Ramos during his first State of the Nation address declared that hisadministration would regard the restoration of the death penalty a legislative priority, and urgedCongress to take speedy action. 1993
Ramos signed into Republic Act 7659, the new death penalty law, on December 13, 1993. 1994 Republic Act 7659 took effect on January 1, 1994. 1996
Republic Act No. 8177, which mandates that a death sentence shall be carried out through lethalinjection, was approved on March 20, 1996. Estrada administration Seven death convicts were executed during the Estrada administration before he announced amoratorium on executions. 1999 Leo Echegaray, 38, was executed by lethal injection on February 5, 1999. He was the first to beexecuted after the Philippines restored death penalty. It was the Philippine's first execution in 22 years. Six more men followed within the next 11 months.
2000
On March 24, 2000, Estrada imposed a de facto moratorium in observance of the Christian JubileeYear. He also granted 108 Executive Clemencies to death convicts.On December 10, 2000, Human Rights Day, Estrada announced that he would commute sentences ofall death convicts to life imprisonment. He expressed his desire to certify as urgent a bill seeking arepeal of the Death Penalty Law.
Arroyo administration
Please see Gloria Arroyo on death penalty--a timelineWhile the Arroyo administration has been characterized by a flip-flopping stand on death penalty,no death convict has been executed under her watch.Voting separately, the two Houses of Congress on June 6, 2006 repealed the death penalty law.Arroyo signed Republic Act 9346 on June 24, 2006. The law prohibited the imposition of the deathpenalty. History of death penalty in the Philippines
The history of the death penalty was extensively discussed by the Supreme Court in People vs.Echegaray. [1] As early 1886, capital punishment had entered the Philippine legal system through theold Penal Code, which was a modified version of the Spanish Penal Code of 1870.
The Revised Penal Code, which was enforced on 1 January 1932, provided for the death penalty inspecified crimes under specific circumstances. Under the Revised Penal Code, death is the penaltyfor the crimes of treason, correspondence with the enemy during times of war, qualified piracy,parricide, murder, infanticide, kidnapping, rape with homicide or with the use of deadly weapon orby two or more persons resulting in insanity, robbery with homicide, and arson resulting in death.The list of capital offenses lengthened as the legislature responded to the emergencies of thetimes.In 1941, Commonwealth Act (C.A.) No. 616 added espionage to the list. In the 1950s, at the heightof the Huk rebellion, the government enacted Republic Act (R.A.) No. 1700, otherwise known as theAnti-Subversion Law, which carried the death penalty for leaders of the rebellion. From 1971 to1972, more capital offenses were created by more laws, among them, the Anti-Hijacking Law, theDangerous Drugs Act, and the Anti-Carnapping Law.
During martial law, Presidential Decree (P.D.)No. 1866 was enacted penalizing with death, among others, crimes involving homicide committedwith an unlicensed firearm.In the aftermath of the 1986 revolution that dismantled the Marcos regime and led to thenullification of the 1973 Constitution, a new constitution was drafted and ratified. The1987Constitutionprovides in Article III, Section 19 (1) that:Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted. Neithershall death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congresshereafter provides for it.
Any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to reclusionperpetua.Congress passed Republic Act No. 7659 (entitled "An Act to Impose the Death Penalty on CertainHeinous Crimes, Amending for that Purpose the Revised Penal Code, as Amended, Other SpecialPenal Laws, and for Other Purposes"), which took effect on 31 December 1993.Constitutional challengeThis is extensively discussed in the case of People vs. Echegaray. (For editing)Abolition of death penaltyOn 24 June 2006, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo signed into law Republic Act No. 9346,entitled "An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines"
Effectivity of the new law
Section 5 of R.A. No. 9346 specifically provides that it shall take effect immediately after itspublication in two national newspapers of general circulation. This is pursuant to Article 2 oftheCivil Codewhich provides that laws shall take effect after 15 days following the completion oftheir publication either in the Official Gazette, or in a newspaper of general circulation in thePhilippines, unless it is otherwise provided.R.A. No. 9346 was published in Malaya and Manila Times, two national newspapers of generalcirculation on 29 June 2006. Accordingly, R.A. No. 9346 took effect on 30 June 2006. [2]
Illustrative cases
As a result of the abolition of the death penalty, existing penalties for death were reducedtoreclusion perpetua, within the possibility ofparole. Here are illustrative cases:
The case of People of the Philippines vs. Quiachon
[3]
involves an accused who raped his 8-year olddaughter, a deaf-mute. Under Article 266-B of theRevised Penal Code, the imposable penaltyshould have been death. With the abolition of the Death Penalty, however, the penalty was reducedtoreclusion perpetua, without the possibility of parole under theIndeterminate Sentence Law.
The case of People of the Philippines vs. Santos
[4]
involves therapeof a 5-year old child. Theaccused was meted the penalty of death because rape committed against a ¶child below seven (7) years old· is a dastardly and repulsive crime which merits no less than the imposition of capitalpunishment under Article 266-B of theRevised Penal Code. The sentence was also reducedtoreclusion perpetua, without the possibility ofparole.
The case of People vs. Salome
[5] involves arapeof a 13-year old girl (who got pregnant), committedin a dwelling and with the aid of a bladed weapon. The imposable penalty should have been death,but with the abolition of the Death Penalty, theSupreme Courtreduced the penalty toreclusion perpetua, without the possibility ofparole.
The case of People of the Philippines vs. Tubongbanua
[6] involves the murder of a victim whosuffered 18 stab wounds which were all directed to her chest, heart and lungs. Considering theexistence of the qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation and the aggravatingcircumstances of dwelling, and taking advantage of superior strength without any mitigatingcircumstance, the proper imposable penalty would have been death. However, with the abolition ofthe death penalty law, the penalty imposed wasreclusion perpetua, without the possibility ofparole
Death penalty is a legal process through which, as a punishment a person is sentenced to death for a criminal offense by the state. Criminal offenses punishable through death penalty are referred to as capital offenses or capital crimes. The death penalty proponents, pro-capital punishment argues that it is an important aspect for deterring crimes, preserving law and order, and is less expensive compared to life imprisonment. They also claim that it is in the honor of the victim to award the death penalty. This is because it ensures the offenders of the heinous offenses do not get another chance to commit such crime again. In addition, the death penalty consoles the victims grieving families. Those opposed to death penalty, abolitionists argue that there is no deterrent effect on crimes, and government wrongly uses it as power to take life. They claim that it is the death penalty is a means to bring about social injustices through targeting people who cannot afford good attorneys, and people of color disproportionately. They argue that life imprisonment is less expensive and more severe than the death penalty.
With all these arguments, we are left to decide on what course to take, assess the pros and cons of capital punishment and decide to support or oppose it. Questions relating to who deserves the death penalty and who does not have been raised by both the advocates of death penalty and those opposed to the death penalty (Zimring 91-93). Should death penalty be introduced? This is the argument of this paper. Capital punishment, in many countries, cultures and societies, throughout the human history has been applied in the justice system; the question that arises is that is it morally acceptable? Is it justified? Both the advocates for death penalty and the opponents of death penalty have valid arguments to back up their reasons. Those for the death penalty argue that the act of capital punishment is a deterrent to crime. However, those against argue that the death penalty is only a life imprisonment and not a deterrent to crime. It is however evident that the deterrence from the perspective of capital punishment is about the murderer’s mind involving the existing psychological processes (Haag 70-71).
Not everybody deserves the death penalty. However, some people earn capital punishment. A person who breaks into a grocery store and steals bread definitely does not deserve the death penalty. In addition, people who commit murder for self-defense or during moment of passion. Such people according to me do not deserve death. On the other hand, a serial killer after the lives of innocent people for fun and personal gains deserves capital punishment. I support the proponents of capital punishment. This stance is informed by a number of facts and reasons. Death penalty is a deterrent to crime. Even though the death penalty is irreversible, convicted persons are often given numerous chances to prove their innocence. Capital punishment assures societal safety through elimination of criminals. A life for a life is a sensible and credible assertion. Deterrence is punishing someone to create fear among people for punishment.
Capital punishment is a punishment creates fear, especially in the minds of sane persons. Haag (2003) in his article On Deterrence and Death Penalty, people refrain from dangerous and harmful acts because of inchoate, vague, habitual, and most importantly preconscious fear (Haag 72). Everyone fears death, and most criminals would have a second thought if they were aware their own lives would be on the line. There are not so many justifications and evidence of death penalty to effectively deter crime than the usual long term imprisonment. The countries or states with the capital punishment has no lower rates of crime or rates of murder than those countries and states without those laws. On the other hand, the states or countries that campaign against capital punishment have not shown any significant deviation in the rates of murder or crime. The indicates that capital punishment has no defined deterrent impact. Claims that the executions dissuade particular number of murders have been discredited thoroughly by the researches of social sciences. In fact people do commit murder widely in the heat of passion basically under drug or alcohol influence, or because of mental illness, without thinking about the implications of the act.
Those murderers who make plans of their murder crimes expect and intend to escape punishment by avoiding getting caught (Haag 70-73). On the other hand, some social research has found that execution has a significant deterrence to incidents of murder. In addition, the implementation of the capital punishment is related to the increased murder incidences, while those against the death penalty argue that the capital punishment is used unfairly against the African Americans, every extra execution prevents murder of 1.5 African Americans. In moratoria, death row, and commuted sentences removals tend to increase murder incidences. Americans have emerged to support the capital punishment for reasons such as; the existence of minimal justification that suggest unfair treatment of the minorities, and that the death penalty results into a reduction or deterrent to crimes and saves life. Those for capital punishment believe that the death penalty ultimately deter murderers from killing more innocent people. No concrete evidence justifies this assertion. Therefore the supporters suggest that the capital punishment is a basic reminder to the general public that there is no reward for crimes. It gives people a notion that if you engage in killing innocent people then you are forced to pay a quite high price (Zimring 95-96).
Abolitionists, opponents of the death penalty argue that there is no need to take the life of a criminal to deter life, and that imprisonment in itself is a deterrent to criminal activities. Zimring (2004) asserts that deterring crime is only possible by frightening the would-be criminals by arrest, conviction, and punishment. However, imprisonment may not be enough for some criminals to stop committing more crimes. A number of criminals such as serial killers believe that they would never be caught and brought to justice. For these kinds of criminals, the death penalty should be warranted to teach others a lesson and instill fear in them. The advocates of anti the death penalty argue that capital punishment is irreversible, and may lead to making irreversible mistakes. I accept this fact because once someone is awarded the death penalty; there is no reverse even if they only failed to prove their innocence (Haag 77-78 ). However, the probability of making a mistake with the death penalty is very minimal, extremely low. Capital punishment is very extreme.
Therefore, the judicial system exercises it with a lot of care and caution. Because of the various guaranteed rights protection of people facing capital punishment, guilt must be determined by convincing and clear evidence that leaves no room for alternative justification of facts. The right to appeal is also protected for the convicts, and other privileges that ensure only rightly accused persons are awarded the death penalty. According to Haag, whenever life is at stake, trials are often more likely to be fair, and the death penalty is less often inflicted unjustly than others. Therefore, the abolitionists’ argument of making irreversible mistakes is unjustified. People have argued that the death penalty theory is correct since people are deterred from doing crimes by what they fear most, that people fear death more than any other punishment, that the death penalty is a deterrent to crimes that any other punishment possible, and that the capital punishment is humane enough and the law supports it.
They also argue that because those sentenced to death normally do much to have the day postponed, it proves that people fear death and therefore will avoid it (Zimring 97). Others have also said that the televised executions are more effective as people exercise more reaction to what they see than that which they imagine. It is hence hard to threaten murderers with something basically invisible, but in their minds, the death penalty is a major deterrent option. These are justifications that the death penalty is effective. The U.S establishment of the death penalty was due to capital crimes and murder. State or congress legislature may recommend the death penalty for capital crimes. According to the Supreme Court ruling, the death penalty does not violate the Eighth Amendment's ban per se on unusual and cruel punishment. However, the Eighth Amendment shapes certain aspects of procedures regarding where a jury may prescribe the death penalty and the way it must be conducted.
Analyses of Eighth Amendment demand courts to consider the evolution of decency standards. This is important in ascertaining that a particular punishment constitutes an unusual or cruel punishment. It is required that when considering evolving decency standards, objective factors that show a change in standards of the community must be observed and independent evaluations made concerning the reliability and/or essence of the statute in question. Although the death penalty is being considered effective in deterring capital crimes, the Supreme Court ruling discredited capital punishment for juvenile offenders. Majority opinion indicated that juveniles are irresponsible and immature. They have incomplete character development and are greatly vulnerable to negative influences. The Supreme Court deduced that adolescent offenders assume reduced accountability for their crimes. However, social science researchers point out that people do commit murder widely in the heat of passion. The reason for this may be influence from drug or alcohol, mental illness.
This renders little or no thought to the consequences of the act. Those murderers who make plans of their murder crimes expect and intend to escape punishment by avoiding getting caught. Therefore, the death penalty may be appropriate in such cases (Zimring 98-101). In conclusion, I support the arguments given by the proponents of the death penalty, the pro-capital punishment. I think death penalty should be reintroduced. I take this stance because I believe the death penalty serves a definite purpose of deterring crime and bringing criminals to justice, as well as honoring the victims. For capital punishment to rightly serve this purpose, it must be made efficient and more effective. The system of justice has gone through a drastic transformation to ensure only rightly accused persons are brought to justice.
I believe the death penalty ensures societal safety, brings criminals to book, brings justice to the victims, and deter crimes and reduce the number of criminals. From these illustrations, I believe capital punishment should not be abolished. Capital punishment is necessary to maintain public safety and keep justice shining in the society. It also cuts down the number of convicts on death row. The death penalty relieves families and friends who lose their loved ones in the merciless hands of criminals. It also solves the problem of overcrowding through a humane action. From this account, the death penalty aids in resolving a number of societal criminal issues. Therefore, I take the stance of the pro-capital punishment: I support the reintroduction of death penalty.
Works Cited
Haag, Ernest Van Den. On Deterrence and Death Penalty, Reserved reading for Philosophy, 2(3) 2003; 44-78.
Zimring, F. E. The Contradictions of American Capital Punishment, New York: Oxford University Press. 2004. Print.
Death Penalty in the Philippines. (2017, Feb 09). Retrieved from https://studymoose.com/death-penalty-in-the-philippines-essay
👋 Hi! I’m your smart assistant Amy!
Don’t know where to start? Type your requirements and I’ll connect you to an academic expert within 3 minutes.
get help with your assignment
