“AN EYE FOR AN EYE, A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH, A LIFE FOR A LIFE:

HOW FAR CAN JUSTICE BE SERVED?”

Submitted by: Kate Selwyne G. Ignacio, Liezel Anne Ribon, Maximine

Alexi E. Santiago, and Kimberly V. Sumaway
Saint Loius University School of Law
May 2024

I. INTRODUCTION

Capital punishment, widely known as death penalty, is the execution

by the state of an individual who has been convicted of a very serious
crime.1 The act of carrying out a sentence imposing the death penalty is
known as an execution, and the sentence itself is known as the death
sentence. A person awaiting execution after receiving a death sentence is
referred to as being on death row.2 There are different methods of capital
punishment; the most common ones are lethal injection, hanging, firing
squad, gas chamber, and electrocution.

The death penalty has been a highly contested issue for centuries
due to its severity and the complexity of the ethical, legal, and socio-
political conundrums it posits. Both proponents and opponents of the death
sentence have made a number of arguments. Opponents argue that the
death penalty is an unusually harsh punishment that breaches human
rights. They contend that killing a life, under all circumstances, is
intrinsically wrong and that the idea of state-approved killings violates
human rights and condones violence. The core of the argument is that
human life has intrinsic value. Essentially, every person, regardless of their
actions, possesses an inherent dignity and worth that should be respected.
In particular, modern trends in international laws place higher value
on the worth of the individual person and the sanctity of human rights. This

1 The Scottish Center for Crime and Justice Research. (2019). Capital Punishment. University of
Glasgow, 1. https://www.sccjr.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/6-Capital-punishment.pdf
2 capital punishment. (n.d.). LII / Legal Information Institute.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/capital_punishment
increased emphasis on human rights is manifested in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Adopted by the United Nations
General Assembly on December 10, 1948, it was created in the aftermath
of World War II with the aim of ensuring that the atrocities and injustices
witnessed during the war would never be repeated. UDHR plays a
significant role in shaping the global discourse on the imposition of the
death penalty. Even though it does not explicitly address the death
penalty, its principles, however, provide a framework for evaluating and
critiquing the practice. Below are some of the key principles that interdict
with the imposition of death penalty:

Article 1: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and
rights.
Article 3: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of
person.
Article 5: No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman
or degrading treatment or punishment.3

Taking a life, even of someone who has committed serious crimes,

undermines these fundamental principles. Thus, the declaration’s emphasis
on the right to life, dignity, and security of the human person has provided a
strong ethical and legal basis for challenging the death penalty worldwide.

On the contrary, supporters of the death penalty argue that it is a

suitable punishment for some offenses. In the common law system, capital
punishment is only used in a limited number of crimes such as treason,
murder, rape, arson, while some includes drug offenses. 4 Proponents
argue that the death penalty promotes deterrence, protection, and
retribution against severe crimes.
The threat of facing the ultimate punishment, death, is believed to
have a powerful psychological impact on individuals, making them think
twice before committing capital offenses such as murder, terrorism, and

3 Universal Declaration of Human Rights | United Nations. (n.d.). United Nations.

https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights
4 capital punishment. (n.d.). LII / Legal Information Institute.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/capital_punishment
other heinous crimes. Further, the presence of the death penalty in the
legal system discourages the general population from engaging in criminal
behavior. The visibility and finality of executions are intended to reinforce
the consequences of committing serious crimes, thus promoting law-
abiding behavior. Therefore, it becomes an effective tool for crime
prevention thereby affording the protection of individuals and the society in
general, keeping them safe from being victims of crimes. By the same
token, retributive justice also plays an important justification used by
proponents of the death penalty. It is based on the idea that criminals
deserve to be punished in a manner proportionate to the severity of their
crimes. In the context of the death penalty, this means that individuals who
commit particularly heinous crimes like murder, deserve the ultimate
punishment—death. Most importantly, the families of victims often see the
death penalty as a way to achieve justice and closure for their loved ones.

At present, there are 87 nations who still have the death penalty in
place. Amnesty International lists 24 of them as abolitionists in practice,
meaning the countries haven't carried out an execution in at least ten
years.5 In the Philippine setting, our country was the first Asian country to
abolish the death penalty under the 1987 Constitution. During the
administration of President Fidel Ramos in 1993, it was actually reimposed
to address the growing crime rate, only to be abolished again in 2006 after
the then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo signed the Republic Act No.
7659 otherwise known as the Death Penalty Law which suspended its
imposition and reduced the maximum punishment to life imprisonment.6

With this foregoing, along with the drafting of the UDHR and the
ratification of the subsequent Second Optional Protocol to the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR-OP2) on 2007 which
required countries to abolish the death penalty, the status of death penalty

5 Death penalty - Penal Reform International. (2022, August 24). Penal Reform International.
https://www.penalreform.org/global-prison-trends-2022/death-penalty/
6
in the Philippines remains suspended. However, its reinstatement is one of
the heightened topics in the socio-political setting today.

II. THE REIMPOSITION OF DEATH PENALTY IN THE PHILIPPINES

TO BE LIMITED TO HEINOUS CRIMES

In the May 2016 election when the then President Rodrigo Duterte
vowed to reintroduce the death penalty to combat drug trafficking in the
Philippines and other crimes during his campaign, such campaign posed a
new serious threat to the protection of human rights in the country. In
March 2017, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed Bill No.
4727 for the reinstatement of the death penalty for drug-related and
“heinous” crimes. The Bill, however, remained stalled in the Senate for the
following months due to a lack of support from Senators, including several
PGA Members who publicly spoke out against the reintroduction of capital
punishment in the country.

It has been provided under Section 19 of Article III in the 1987

Philippine Constitution that an accused has the right against cruel,
degrading or inhuman punishment. However, the death penalty, is not
degrading or a cruel punishment, per se, for as long as the method of
execution is not barbaric and does not prolong human suffering. In
example, death by lethal injection is still civilized compared to death by
electric chair as it will prolong the suffering of the convict and subject the
convict to torture as he is to be electrocuted with high-voltage electricity.
Hence, if we are to reinstate the death penalty in our country, it must be
reserved for the most serious crime. Now, the question is, how “serious”of
a crime are we talking of?

Heinous crimes were considered heinous7 “for being grievous, odious

and hateful offenses and which, by reason of their inherent or manifest
wickedness, viciousness, atrocity and perversity are repugnant and
outrageous to the common standards and norms of decency and morality
in a just, civilized and ordered society”. An example of a heinous crime, for
context, is the case of People of the Philippines v. Francisco Juan
7 https://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/iq/239205-things-to-know-heinous-crimes-philippines/
Larrañaga et al.8.It is dubbed as the “trial of the century” and known as the
Chiong Sisters Murder case. This was a trial regarding a gruesome incident
on July 16, 1997, in Cebu City, in which sisters Marijoy and Jacqueline
Chiong were kidnapped, raped, and murdered. Ultimately they were
sentenced to death by lethal injection on February 3, 2004. Larrañaga was
later commuted to life imprisonment, following the abolition of capital
punishment, the death penalty, in the Philippines in June 2006, and was
transferred to Spain to serve out his sentence in October 2009. In the year
2019, it has been flashed all over the news that the “Chiong murder
convicts” are freed9 on Good Conduct Time Allowance (GCTA), a provision in
the Revised Penal Code that shortens jail time for good behavior. In the
article written by Bobit S. Avila, a columnist of the Philippine Star, Thelma
Chiong ultimately blames Faeldon for their release saying, “Four presidents
have come and gone, but the Chiong 7 never got a presidential pardon. But
here comes Faeldon who easily released them without considering the
legal ramifications of his act.”

But was the release on Good Conduct Time Allowance truly justified
given the gravity of the crime that has been committed and its impact to
ordinary Cebuanos too feel that this was indeed a travesty of justice. Some
crimes are so severe that lesser punishments do not adequately reflect
their gravity. For example, rape, serial killings, acts of terrorism, and other
brutal crimes are seen as warranting the death penalty to proportionally
respond to the harm caused. If we are to reinstate the death penalty,
improving execution methods to address ethical, legal, and practical
concerns would be essential.

The goal would be to ensure that the methods used are as humane,
efficient, and transparent as possible, minimizing the risk of undue suffering
and procedural errors. One way to address this is to ensure transparency
and legal oversight by establishing comprehensive and clear legal
guidelines that outline the procedures for carrying out executions, then
creating an independent body to oversee death punishment and execution.

8 G.R. Nos. 138874-75, February 03, 2004

9 https://www.philstar.com/opinion/2019/09/03/1948579/now-chiong-murder-convicts-are-freed
This way, transparency and accountability is ensured. Second, we must
choose the most humane methods that do not prolong human suffering, so
as not to fall within the purview of cruel, degrading, and inhumane
punishment. Lastly, strengthen judicial review and ensure fair trials. As the
taking of a life is the punishment, it is only necessary that death penalty
cases are scrutinized for fairness and accuracy before the execution is
carried out.

III. CONCLUSION

The debate over the death penalty is a profound reflection of the

society’s struggle to balance justice and mercy, retribution and
rehabilitation, deterrence and human rights. It is undeniable that certain
heinous crimes are so atrocious and malevolent that they instill terror and
fear among people, shaking the very foundation of societal norms and
values. These crimes, often committed with extreme cruelty and
degradation, challenge our moral compass and evoke a demand for the
ultimate form of justice: capital punishment. However, this desire for
retribution must be weighed against the irreversible nature of the death
penalty and the potential for miscarriages of justice.

The risk of executing an innocent person remains the most

compelling argument against the death penalty. Historical and
contemporary examples have shown that errors in the judicial process,
whether due to flawed evidence, inadequate defense, or prosecutorial
misconduct, can lead to wrongful convictions. The irrevocability of the
death penalty means that such errors cannot be rectified, leading to a
grave injustice that undermines the very fabric of a fair and equitable legal
system.
Nonetheless, proponents of the death penalty argue that the current
justice system incorporates multiple safeguards designed to minimize such
risks. These include rigorous jury selection processes, extensive appeals,
and post-conviction reviews. While acknowledging the system's
imperfections, advocates maintain that these measures provide a
reasonable assurance of justice being served. Furthermore, they argue that
the severity of certain crimes justifies the existence of the death penalty as
a proportional response, providing a sense of closure to the victims'
families and serving as a deterrent to potential offenders.

Yet, this argument must be critically examined. The deterrent effect of

the death penalty remains highly contested, with studies showing mixed
results on its efficacy in preventing serious crimes. Moreover, the retributive
aspect, while emotionally satisfying for some, raises ethical questions
about the role of the state in administering such an irreversible punishment.
The emphasis on retribution can sometimes overshadow the need for
rehabilitation and the possibility of redemption, which are also fundamental
tenets of a humane justice system.

In considering the reimposition of the death penalty, particularly in the

Philippine context, it is crucial to ensure that the methods of execution are
humane, the legal processes are transparent, and the trials are
scrupulously fair. This entails establishing clear legal guidelines,
independent oversight bodies, and enhanced judicial reviews. Only through
these measures can we hope to mitigate the risks of wrongful executions
and uphold the principles of justice and human dignity.

Ultimately, the question of capital punishment forces us to confront

our values and the kind of society we aspire to be. It compels us to
consider whether the death penalty aligns with our commitment to human
rights and the sanctity of life as enshrined in the UDHR. While some crimes
may indeed warrant severe punishment, the ethical, legal, and practical
challenges associated with the death penalty necessitate a careful
approach.

In conclusion, the pursuit of justice in cases of heinous crimes must

be balanced with the imperative to protect human rights and prevent
irreversible errors. The debate over the death penalty is not merely a legal
or political issue but a profound moral quandary that requires ongoing
reflection and vigilance. As society evolves, so too must our understanding
and application of justice, ensuring that it remains fair, humane, and
aligned with our deepest values.

IV. RECOMMENDATION

Amidst the ethical dilemmas and legal complexities surrounding the

re-imposition of the death penalty in the Philippines, our recommendations
chart a path grounded in prudence and thorough analysis. It is essential to
ensure fair treatment and due process for all accused persons, taking into
account the sanctity of life and the fundamental importance of justice. This
necessitates a meticulous examination of both prosecution and defense
evidence to avert the grave risk of judicial errors. In a nation where deep-
seated religious principles and human rights are paramount, legislators
must embark on exhaustive studies and rigorous investigations prior to the
re-imposition of the law.

It is imperative that the death penalty’s implementation aligns fully

with international standards and the provisions of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). This is to ensure that the
use of capital punishment upholds the highest principles of justice and
respect for human dignity. The ICCPR enshrines the right to life as a
fundamental human right. Central to this treaty is the enshrinement of the
right to life as a fundamental human right, articulated powerfully in Article 6,
which states, “every human being has the inherent right to life.”

The framework of the ICCPR also highlights the significance of the

right to a fair trial and procedural justice, both of which are critical when the
consequences are as great as life or death. It is essential to guarantee that
defendants have access to competent legal representation and that trials
are held impartially and without undue delay. Any deviation from these
standards not only risks miscarriages of justice but also erodes public
confidence in the legal system.

Moreover, the ICCPR emphasizes the importance of treating those

who have been given death sentences in a humane manner. This includes
the ban on the death penalty for juveniles, pregnant women, and anyone
who has serious psychological or intellectual disabilities. It also mandates
that one who is facing the death penalty shall be allowed to petition for a
pardon or communication of their sentence, preserving the principle that
even the most heinous of criminals should still be treated with dignity and
be granted the chance to find mercy.

Hence, if the death penalty is to be reinstated in the Philippines, it is

not only legally required but also morally required to reconcile its
application with the ICCPR. Likewise, the country must heed the universal
principles against cruel, inhumane, or degrading punishments. This
involves not only ensuring that methods of execution are dignified but also
addressing systemic problems like arbitrary or discriminatory application
and prolonged periods of incarceration under inhumane conditions.
Adherence to these demonstrates a dedication to the highest standards of
justice, bolstering the judicial system's integrity and promoting increased
public confidence.

Furthermore, establishing a separate oversight institution that

exclusively monitors the death sentence procedure can add a crucial
degree of accountability and scrutiny. Its main duty should be to ensure
that all aspects of the death penalty process comply with the strictest
human rights and justice standards.
This body should comprise disinterested professionals, such as legal
academics and forensic experts. The existence of such an impartial body
can act as a defense against oversights, prejudices, and misuses that
could jeopardize the process's integrity. It should also be the oversight
body's task to monitor trial conduct and ensure due process standards are
followed. This way, the body can assist in addressing challenges like
socioeconomic prejudices that frequently taint the administration of justice
by evaluating the fairness of trials.

In addition to establishing an independent oversight body,

implementing standardized procedures is crucial to minimize the risk of
miscarriages of justice. These procedures ought to be thorough, precisely
outlined, and uniformly implemented in all death penalty cases. Every
phase of the procedure, from the investigation and arrest to the trial,
sentence, and execution, should be covered by standardized instructions.

For instance, standard operating procedures for gathering, storing,

and evaluating evidence must be strictly followed during the investigation
stage. This involves making certain that evidence-handling protocols guard
against contamination or tampering and that forensic procedures are
supported by scientific validation. Following these procedures can greatly
increase the credibility of the evidence used in court, which lowers the
possibility of erroneous convictions. Meanwhile, the procedure of execution
must be conducted with the highest regard for human dignity. This entails
forbidding execution methods that are fundamentally cruel or inhumane
and making certain that executions are conducted in a manner that
minimizes suffering.

Another way to ensure that the death penalty is administered justly

and humanely is through continuous research and improvement.
Continuous research is fundamental to understanding the impacts of the
death penalty. This entails assessing its deterrent efficacy, social and
psychological ramifications, and compliance with modern human rights
principles.
Empirical research can shed light on whether the death penalty
serves the intended purposes or whether alternative solutions for justice
and public safety might be adopted instead. Through rigorous analysis and
transparency, many systemic flaws can be mitigated, ensuring a higher
standard of fairness in capital cases.
 Improvement in the implementation of the death penalty also requires
the adoption of best practices from around the world. Adopting international
best practices is also necessary for improving the execution of death
penalty cases. Comparative analysis can draw attention to innovative and
effective reforms in states that continue to employ the death penalty.
Consequently, legislative bodies must remain open to reform, incorporating
new research findings and public sentiment into their decisions.

Engaging the public and fostering an informed dialogue about the

death penalty is also important. Campaigns for ongoing education and
awareness can aid in the public's understanding of the implications of the
death penalty. By promoting an informed and compassionate discourse,
society can collectively strive towards a justice system that genuinely
reflects its values and aspirations.

Finally, to safeguard justice, it is imperative to enhance accountability

for prosecutors in implementing the death penalty. Prosecutors wield
significant discretion in deciding whether to pursue the death penalty in a
given case. If left unchecked, this discretion may result in biased or
arbitrary judgments that are influenced by social, political, or personal
factors. Enhanced accountability measures are necessary to guarantee
that prosecutors make decisions based only on the law and factual
evidence, not on personal preferences or other influences.

Ultimately, as the Philippines contemplates the re-imposition of the

death penalty, let us remember that the measure of a nation's greatness
lies not only in its laws but in its unwavering commitment to justice
tempered with compassion. By embracing international standards,
establishing vigilant oversight, and nurturing open dialogue, we can sculpt
a future where justice is not just blind, but also empathetic, fair, and truly
humane. In this pursuit, we uphold not just the sanctity of life, but the
dignity of our shared humanity.