RA 9346, entitled: AN ACT PROHIBITING THE IMPOSITION OF DEATH PENALTY IN THE

PHILIPPINES, was approved on June 24, 2006. It repealed RA 7659, the Death Penalty Law.
Currently, there is no death penalty in the country. RA 9346 also repealed RA 8177, otherwise
known as AN ACT DESIGNATING DEATH BY LETHAL INJECTION. In sum, the death penalty is
subject to the enactment of a law by Congress. This is based on the 1987 Constitution, which
states that:

"Sec. 19(1). Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment
inflicted. Neither shall the death penalty be imposed, the Congress hereafter provides for it. Any
death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua. (Art. II, Bill of Rights,
1987 Constitution).

Arguments:

1. Faulty Justice System

“the certainty of being caught and punished that deters crime and not the severity of the
punishment.” According to FLAG chairman Chel Diokno.

In People v. Mateo, G.R. No. 147678-87, July 7, 2004, the Supreme Court admitted that 72% of
the death convictions that went to the Supreme Court for review or 651 out of 907 were
wrongfully sentenced by trial courts.

The RULE OF LAW in the Philippines remains one of the weakest in East Asia and the Pacific
region placing at 13th place and globally ranked 102 in the overall.

The World Economic Forum has ranked the Philippines a lowly 95 th place (out of 140 nations) in
terms of corruption; 123rd in term of reliability of police and law enforcement agencies; 105 th in
terms of the independence of the judiciary; 100 th in terms of efficiency of our legal framework;
and 121st in terms of conflict of interest regulations. Transparency International’s Corruption
Perception Index placed the Philippines as the 111th most corrupt country in the world out of
180 nations evaluated. It’s quite pathetic.

Our justice system is broken; it is the weakest link in our nation.

2. Cannot guarantee deterrence/ mistaken convictions

The death penalty is not an effective deterrent. States that use it don’t have lower murder rates
than states that do not. Plus, life imprisonment would protect the public just as well as
execution does.

Countries who execute commonly cite the death penalty as a way to deter people from
committing crime. This claim has been repeatedly discredited, and there is no evidence that the
death penalty is any more effective in reducing crime than life imprisonment.

Research has shown the punishment frequently affects the most disadvantaged. At present,
even without the death penalty being imposed, police said crime rate in the Philippines declined
by 50 percent in the last five years––2.67 million in 2010 to 2015 to 1.36 million in 2016 to
September 2021.

3. It is irreversible and mistakes happen.

Execution is the ultimate, irrevocable punishment: the risk of executing an innocent person can
never be eliminated. Since 1973, for example, more than 160 prisoners sent to death row in the
USA have later been released from death row on grounds of innocence. Others have been
executed despite serious doubts about their guilt.

Error in a capital case is inevitable and an innocent person will be executed. In fact, DNA
evidence has demonstrated the innocence of at least 17 death-row inmates since 1993,
according to the Innocence Project.

4. Against human rights

The death penalty also violates UDHR Article 5, the right not to be subjected to torture and other
cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment or punishment. Furthermore, the death penalty
undermines human dignity that is inherent to every human being.

Amnesty opposes the death penalty in all cases without exception – regardless of who is
accused, the nature or circumstances of the crime, guilt or innocence or method of execution.

Amnesty International holds that the death penalty breaches human rights, in particular the
right to life and the right to live free from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment. Both rights are protected under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
adopted by the UN in 1948.

In the Bill of Rights Article 3 Section 1

No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any
person be denied the equal protection of the laws.

5. Against the poor people/ anti poor

To illustrate how anti-poor it is, the task force cited a survey of persons on death row conducted
in May 2004, which showed that most of them belonged to low-income families. Based on
income levels of the death convicts, 73.1 percent were poor, 8.2 percent belonged to the middle
class while 0.8 percent belonged to affluent families.

The survey also showed that a majority of the inmates on death row had low literacy, having
finished only elementary education mostly in public schools while half did not own their homes
and most were informal settlers., the task force said.

6. Death Penalty is expensive

The task force said a 2018 survey commissioned by the Commission on Human Rights revealed
that 63 percent of Filipinos agreed with the statement that “most people on death row are poor
people who cannot afford a good lawyer.”

According to the task force, the cost of competently defending a person facing the death penalty
could be conservatively placed at P329,000 a year, broken down as follows:

 Acceptance fee – P50,000

 Appearance fee – P60,000 (or P5,000 multiplied by 12 months)
 Cost of transportation/food for witnesses/relatives – P18,000 (P1,500 x 12)
 DNA testing – P90,000 (P45,000 x 2)
 Experts’ fees (medical doctors, handwriting experts, forensic scientists, private
investigators) – P75,000
  Miscellaneous (transcript of stenographic notes and other costs of suits, photocopying,
trips for ocular inspection, trips to government agencies and to jail, interviews of
witnesses) – P60,000 (P5,000 x 12)

The task force said the estimated cost does not include the loss of income of the defendant while
in detention.

Evidence:

According to Sen. Leila De Lima the Philippine justice system is broken and no amount of
censorship by the courts or anyone else can change this fact. Our criminal justice system is
broken not just in the ‘how,’ but also as to ‘why.’ If it were a person, it is not only broken in body,
it is broken in spirit. I would go so far as to say that it is lacking a soul.

The fact that the Philippines, in the index, failed in fundamental rights and criminal justice
system means that there is something terribly wrong, (and) this does not give any comfort in the
public’s confidence in the justice system. Impunity is written large across the face of criminal
justice in the Philippines: perpetrators of killings, torture, abductions and other gross abuses
have easy assurances that they will get away with whatever they have done. And where these
persons are themselves a part of the police, military or armed groups working on their behalf,
impunity is all but guaranteed. Little wonder that attacks are carried out in broad daylight and
in public places-a crowded market, the front of the victim’s home, during a church service-by
men who don’t even bother to conceal their faces or identities. They know full well that they will
never be arrested.

There is no concrete proof that capital punishment deters the commission of crimes, and it
is anti-poor and error-prone given the country’s justice system. The death penalty is also
disproportionate to the crime, even as the classification of drug trafficking and other drug-
related offenses as heinous crimes remains in question. It also violates international treaties
entered into by the Philippines.

President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo was a vocal opponent of the death penalty. She approved a
moratorium on the carrying out of capital punishment. In 2006, this prohibition was formalized
into a full law when the Congress passed Republic Act 9346 in 2006, which Arroyo signed on
June 24, 2006. The law was passed following a vote held in Congress on June 7, which
overwhelmingly supported the abolition of the practice. The penalties of life
imprisonment and reclusion perpetua (detention of indefinite length, usually for at least 30
years) replaced the death penalty.

According to the Survey of the Social Weather Station (Commission on Human Rights) on
October 2018, it showed that if people were given a choice, 7 out of 10 would not choose death
penalty, at the same time 6 out of 10 also believed that it is very possible that the courts would
wrongfully sentence people accused of doing a crime. Furthermore, 80% of the 2000
respondents who were interviewed one on one were in favor of life imprisonment rather than
death penalty.

A FLAG (Free Legal Assistance Group) survey in 2004 also showed that 73% of death row
inmates were poor and were illiterate or did not receive much education. Eighty-one percent of
convicts had low-income jobs before they were arrested, prosecuted and sentenced.

The use of the death penalty is not consistent with the right to life and the right to live free from
torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. There is growing consensus
for universal abolition of the death penalty. Some 170 States have abolished or introduced a
moratorium on the death penalty either in law or in practice. Despite this abolitionist trend, the
death penalty is still employed in small number of countries, largely because of the myth that it
deters crime. We should abolish it because it is necessary for the enhancement of human dignity
and progressive development of human rights.

With the “imperfect justice system” the country has, the poor would stand to suffer the most.
Although the state is duty-bound to provide legal counsel to accused who cannot afford their
own lawyers, Public Attorney's Office lawyers handle multiple cases and it would be impossible
for them to give the same attention as a private lawyer hired by a wealthy defendant.

According to FLAG (Free Legal Assistance Group) they estimated that those facing cases
punishable by death would also need at least P300,000 to mount a legal defense.

Questions:
 How can you compensate the family of the person who is wrongfully convicted of death
penalty?
 How can you manage the involvement of the church if you implement this?
 Are you aware that there is a possibility that an innocent person can be wrongfully
convicted?
 What if one of your family member will be convicted of death penalty? Will you still want
to implement it? Do you think he/she deserved it? Or does he/she deserved another
chance to live?
 Is death penalty the only solution to those people who committed heinous crimes?
 Do you think death penalty is effective or relevant in punishing crimes?
 Some think that the death penalty is the best punishment to teach horrible criminals a
lesson, but do these criminals really learn a lesson if they are dead?

Solutions:
We at the opposing side strongly believes that Death Penalty is not the only solution to lessen
the crime rates in the Philippines and it is not the only solution for people who committed
heinous crimes.

Rehabilitation
It is more humane and compassionate. The death penalty is a permanent and irreversible
punishment. Even in cases where an individual is guilty of a heinous crime, many people believe
it is not appropriate to end someone’s life as a punishment. Additionally, rehabilitation offers the
possibility of reform and redemption, but the death penalty does not. Rehabilitation programs
provide individuals with the tools and resources they need to change their behavior and lead
successful, law-abiding lives. This not only benefits the individual, but it also has the potential to
make society as a whole safer by reducing recidivism.

It is often a more cost-effective approach. The death penalty is a complex and costly process
involving lengthy appeals and expensive legal representation, while rehabilitation programs
often come at a much lower cost.

 First, rehabilitation addresses the underlying causes of criminal behavior, such as mental
illness or addiction, which can help prevent future crimes. Punishment, on the other
hand, only addresses surface-level behavior and does not address the underlying issues.
 Second, rehabilitation can help individuals improve their behavior and decision-making
skills, reducing their risk of re-offending. On the other hand, punishment often does not
provide individuals with the tools and skills they need to make positive changes in their
lives.
  Third, rehabilitation can provide individuals with a supportive environment where they
can receive the help and support they need to make positive changes. On the other hand,
punishment often involves isolation and exclusion, which can make it more difficult for
individuals to reintegrate into society and make positive changes.
 Finally, rehabilitation can positively impact public safety by reducing the risk of re-
offending and preventing future crimes. On the other hand, punishment may not always
be effective in reducing the risk of re-offending and may even increase the risk of
recidivism in some cases.

Life Imprisonment without parole/ reclusion perpetua/capital punishment

The state has the responsibility of protecting its citizens and punishing criminal activity. Our
society should support the alternative to the death penalty by sentencing those who commit
violent crimes to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. It is a severe punishment
and this keeps society safe without taking an additional life.
When the state takes the life of a convicted criminal in our name, it diminishes all citizens. When
we condemn killing, but kill in return, we violate our own dignity. It does not make sense to
teach that killing is wrong by killing.

Implement Programs
In addition to the use of LWOP, states have also looked beyond punishment to alternative ways
of reducing violent crime, including community policing, the introduction of crime-fighting
technology, and restorative justice. The money saved from not seeking the death penalty can be
used to support those initiatives.

Educational Seminars
For children to be enlightened with the law and to know how to exercise our rights even if at the
young age, they can use that knowledge in the future. If we don’t have education, there is a
possibility that in the future we would become people who don’t abide with the law because if in
the early age, we would know the law, we would become people who avoid doing crime.

Religious Programs
We can bring back the faith by preaching the word of God and engaging in good recreational
activities like bible studies, they can become pastors and they can change their way of life.

Recreational Programs
For Example, Zumba, Dancing, Sports like Basketball, Art or Bussiness. They can still live a life by
staying physically fit and be productive while serving their sentence in prison.

(Repeats Arguments)

There are already many victims of Death Penalty and we think to not let this happen ever again
in the Philippines. So we should abolish the death penalty.