This document discusses several issues related to the debate over reviving the death penalty in the Philippines. It outlines arguments for and against the death penalty on the basis of morality, constitutionality, deterrence, flaws in the judicial system, and lack of closure for victims' families. Both proponents and opponents of the death penalty cite research and cases to support their perspective on these complex issues. An informed decision requires thorough investigation and analysis of each aspect of this multifaceted issue since people's lives are at stake.

1. DEATH PENALTY ISSUES
Among the myriad of issues gripping the country today, no issue stirs passion as much as the
proposal torevive the deathpenalty. Thisissue,however, isnotnew:it has been the subject of endless
debatesindecadespast.This paperintendstoreview the primarysub-issuesinvolved in the discussion.
In formulating one’s 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 humanlife isvaluable isthe primaryargumentusedbythe opponents of death penalty
(Abolitionists).They argue thathumanlife issovaluable that even the worst of criminals should not be
deprivedof the value of their lives;the value of aperson’s life cannot be destroyed by his bad conduct.
Theyalso argue for the person’s inalienable human right to life; sentencing and executing a person to
death violates that right.1
(+) On the other,the Proponentsof deathpenaltyagree thatlife isimportantand that it should
be preserved,however, apersonmaybe deprivedof itsvalue and forfeit his right to life by his actions
for the goodof the society.AsSt.Thomas Aquinas aptlyreasoned:“Thereforeif anymanisdangerousto
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 Philippines’s obligations under
the international lawassignatorytothe SecondOptional Protocol tothe InternationalCovenantonCivil
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, resistsuchobligationbycitingthe rulingof Supreme Courtin Gonzales
v Hechanova,4
that “our Constitution authorizes the nullification of a treaty not only when it conflicts
withthe fundamental law but also when it runs counter to an act of Congress.” Dean Magallona noted
that the Court in“Secretaryof 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 lawinthe 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
qualificationoramendmentbyasubsequentlaw.”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 Reportconcludedthat"xxx (the) researchhas failed to provide scientific proof that
executionshave agreaterdeterrenteffectthanlife imprisonment." 9
The US National Research Council
also noted that studies claiming that the death penalty has a deterrent effect on murder rates are

2. “fundamentally flawed” and should not be used when making policy decisions.10
Similar studies also
showthat convictedpersons,despitetheirknowledge of the deathpenalty, did not remember thinking
theymightbe sentencedtodeathbefore committingthe crime.11
AmnestyInternational concluded that
“the keyto real and true deterrence is notdeathpenaltybutthe increase inthe likelihood of detection,
arrest and conviction.”
(+) The presentadministration,the veryproponentof the revivalof deathpenalty,would claim
otherwise. Bureauof Corrections director Benjamin Delos Santos at the Senate deliberations said that
before the abolitionof capital punishmentin2006, there were 189 inmatesconvictedof heinouscrimes.
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 Peoplev Mateo,13
the Courtacknowledgedthatitaffirmedonly 25.36 percentof the casesof
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,
althoughappointedwithcounsel de officio, poorpersonsmaynotreceive fairtrialsdue toincompetent,
inexperienced or ineffective and overworked counsel.15
(-) Aside from the resulting clogged dockets, death penalty cases also substantially cost the
governmentmore.Although, thereisnoempirical studyastothe real cost of deathpenaltylitigationsin
the Philippines,commonsense dictates that the Court’s 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
(+) Proponentsmaysimplyargue thatit 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 victim’sfamily(co-victims).However, the slow and longjudicialprocess fromconviction toexecution
prolongs grief and pain for co-victims for they are forced to repeatedly relive the traumatic events all
throughoutthe proceedings.17
A studyconductedbyProfessorScott Vollum of University of Minnesota
showedthatamongthe co-victimsonly 2.5percentachievedtrue closure,and20.1 percent saidthatthe
executiondidnothelpthemheal. They alsoexpressedfeelingsof emptinesswhenthe deathpenaltydid
not “bringback the victim.”18
Familiesof the victimssimplydonotexperience the healing they thought
they would feel at the execution.

3. The issue of the revival of the capital punishmentisfar from being one dimensional; it is multi-
faceted.Each aspect needstobe thoroughlyinvestigatedandanalyzedbefore adecisiontoreinstate the
same should be made. There is no room for haste because people’s lives are literally at stake.
1Arguments Against Capital Punishment. BBC Online. Undated. (17February 2017)
2 Summa Theologiae
3 [VCLT, art. 6; Polish Nationals inDanzigCase (PCIJ,1932); VCLOT; Articles onState Responsibility, art. 32]
4 SCRA 230 (1963)
5 322 SCRA 160 (2000)
6 101 Phil. 1156
7 Magallona, Merlin.“The Supreme Court and InternationalLaw: Problems and Approaches in Philippine Practice.” Philippine LawJournal, VOL
85, pp.3-4.
8Echegaray vs SecretaryofJustice,G.R. No. 132601, January 19, 1999
9 Report by Roger Hood,Director ofthe Center for CriminologicalResearch atOxfordUniversity inthe UnitedKingdom. The study was prepared
and publishedpursuant toEconomicand SocialCouncilResolutions 1986/10, section X and 1989/64 as quoted in Echegaray vs Secretary of
Justice
10 Facts about the DeathPenalty. DeathPenalty Information Center.1015 18th St.NW, Suite 704Washington, DC20036.
11 Dissenting Opinion,Echegaray vs Secretary ofJustice.
12 “Duterte: DeathPenalty ADeterrent vs Heinous Crime.”RuthAbbey Gita& KarinaV. Canedo. SunStarManila. 10February 2017.
13 People vs Mateo. G.R. NO. 147678-87. 2004 July 7.
14 Why the death penalty is unnecessary,anti-poor, error-prone. JCPunongbayanandKevinMandrilla.Published 9:00 AM, February 11, 2017.
15 CHR Resolutionon the ‘Re-examination ofthe Death Penalty.6 March 1997.
16 What Politicians Don't Say About the High Costs ofthe Death Penalty. RichardC. Dieter.Undated.
17 Muller, Robert T. Ph.D. “Death PenaltyMay Not Bring Peace toVictims'Families.” Psychology Today. 19 October 2016.
18 Vollum, Scott.Co-victims ofCapitalMurder: Statements ofVictims'FamilyMembers and Friends Made atthe Time ofExecution. 2007;22
(5):601-19.
Robert T. Muller &CaitlinMcNair. The TraumaandMental Health Report. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/talking-about-
trauma/201610/death-penalty-may-not-bring-peace-victims-families