The Committee on Justice of the House of Representative, after having conducted extensive consultations with various sectors and stakeholders during the meetings held on November 9, 15, 22, 29 and December 7, 2016, recommended House Bill (HB) 4727 in substitution of House Bills 1, 16, 513, 3237, 3239, 3240 and 3418, with Reps. Fredenil H. Castro, Pantaleon D. Alvarez, Rodolfo C. Fariñas, Rolando G. Andaya Jr., Michael John R. Duavit, Carlos O. Cojuangco, Elisa T. Kho, Raneo E. Abu, Benhur L. Salimbangon, Danilo E. Suarez, Rodel M. Batocabe, Gwendolyn F. Garcia, Rozzano Rufino B. Biazon, Robert Ace S. Barbers, Rogelio D. Pacquiao, Reynaldo V. Umali, Vicente S. E. Veloso, Henry S. Oaminal and Doy C. Leachon as authors thereof.
HB 4727 will amend Republic Act (RA) 9346 (prohibiting the imposition of the death penalty in the Philippines); RA 3815 (Revised Penal Code) and other special laws. It seeks to impose the death penalty for crimes defined therein as heinous for being “grievous, odious and hateful offenses, 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”.
These heinous crimes include: treason; qualified piracy; qualified bribery; parricide; murder; infanticide; rape; kidnapping and serious illegal detention; robbery with violence against or intimidation of person; destructive arson; sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution and transportation of dangerous drugs and/or controlled precursors and essential chemicals; maintenance of a drug den, dive or resort; manufacture of dangerous drugs and/or controlled precursors and essential chemicals; possession of dangerous drugs; cultivation or culture of plants classified as dangerous drugs or are sources thereof; planting of evidence; carnapping. Plunder, which was not originally included in HB 4727, was belatedly added in reaction to the strong public outcry as to its noninclusion as a heinous crime.
Where the guilty person is below 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the crime or is more than 70 years of age, or when upon appeal or automatic review of the case by the Supreme Court, the required the majority vote is not obtained for the imposition of the death penalty, in which cases the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua (life imprisonment). HB 4727 further provides that the death sentence shall consist in putting the person under sentence to death by hanging, through firing squad or by lethal injection.
The death sentence shall be carried out not earlier than one year or not later than 18 months after the judgment has become final and executory, without prejudice to the exercise by the president of executive clemency powers at all times.
Article III, Section 19, paragraph (1) of the Constitution states that “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, Congress hereafter provides for it”.
While the fundamental law suspended the imposition of the death penalty and commuted all the death penalties imposed then to reclusion perpetua, Congress was not altogether prevented from reimposing it “for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes”. Thus, on December 13, 1993, Congress in the exercise of its legislative powers deemed fit to enact RA 7659 that imposed the death penalty on certain crimes, which it defined as “heinous 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.”
This law was implemented for nearly 13 years with a number of convicted criminals sentenced to death, but due to strong intervention of opponents the death penalty, mainly the Church, Congress was compelled to enact RA 9346 on June 24, 2006. This law prohibited the imposition of the death penalty and commuted their sentence to either reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment. However, the alarming surge of heinous crimes in recent years has shown that reclusion perpetua, in lieu of death penalty, is not a deterrent to grave offenders. In 2015 the Philippine National Police (PNP) reported that 75 percent of the most heinous crimes are drug-related, while 65 percent of inmates in prisons are either accused or convicted of drug-related crimes.
Belatedly, PNP-Directorate for Investigation and Detective Management (DIDM) has documented 9,646 murder cases; 31,741 cases of robbery; and 10,298 rape cases in 2015. These translate to an average crime incidence of a murder every 54 minutes, a robbery every 16 minutes and a rape case every 51 minutes. Data from January to May of 2016 also showed a staggering number of crime incidents: 3,615 murder cases, 3,996 rape cases and 9,971 robbery cases.
Proponents of the death penalty invariably state in their “Explanatory Notes” to their draft bills that “the reinstatement of the death penalty is appropriately necessary due to the alarming upsurge of such crimes, which has resulted not only in the loss of human lives and wanton destruction of property, but also affected the nation’s efforts toward sustainable economic development and prosperity, while, at the same time, has undermined the people’s faith in the government and the latter’s ability to maintain peace and order in the country.”
Similar bills have been filed in the Senate by Sens. Panfilo M. Lacson, Sherwin T. Gatchalian, Emmanuel D. Pacquiao, Joseph Victor G. Ejercito and Vicente C. Sotto III. Sen. Leila M. de Lima in Senate Bill 368 proposes instead of the death penalty, qualified reclusion perpetua, which is imprisonment for a period 50 years with no possibility of parole and a fine of P5 million. Death penalty as a means of deterrence has long been debunked by countless studies. The consensus among criminologists is that the death penalty does not add any significant deterrent effect above that of long-term imprisonment (https://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/files/DeterrenceStudy2009.pdf). The same study revealed that criminologists believe that “politicians support the death penalty as a symbolic way to show that they are tough on crime”. Furthermore, they posit that “debates about the death penalty distract politicians from focusing on ‘real’ solutions to crime”.
Opponents of the death penalty aptly point out that the death penalty tends to be imposed more on the poor than those who are able to afford full-time lawyers. To quote a US Circuit Court decision, “[t]he Constitution, as interpreted by the courts, does not require that the accused even in a capital case, be represented by able or effective counsel. Consequently, accused persons who are represented by ‘not-legally-ineffective’ lawyers may be condemned to die when the same accused, if represented by effective counsel, would receive at least the clemency of a life sentence. [Riles v. McDotter, 799 F.2d 947, 955 (5th Cir. 1986) (Rubin, J., concurring)]. Being poor means being represented by a court-appointed lawyer who may lack the skill, resources and, in some cases, even the inclination to provide a competent defense. Once convicted and sentenced, many are unable to challenge their conviction and sentences in postconviction proceedings because they have no lawyer. (https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1263&context=sjsj) see Explanatory Notes to Senate Bill 368.
On the issue of wrongful conviction, the Supreme Court (SC) acknowledged in People v. Mateo, (GR 147678-87, July 2004), that there is a judicial error rate of 71.77 percent on death- penalty cases. In fact, the SC’s review of capital cases up to January 2006 revealed that four out of five death inmates have been wrongfuly sentenced by the various lower courts. Of the 1,513 cases reviewed, almost half (645) were modified from death penalty to reclusion perpetua or indeterminate sentence, close to a third (456) were transferred to the Court of Appeals, 69 were acquitted, and 37 were remanded for further proceedings. Only 270 cases (18 percent) were affirmed by the SC. (htttp://pcij.org/blog/2006/04/17/debate-on-death-penalty-rages-anew)
Moreover, the Philippines is a signatory to the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which is an international treaty prohibiting executions and providing for total abolition of the death penalty. Restoring the death penalty will be a clear breach of both the covenant and the protocol.
As a practicing litigation lawyer for close to four decades, I am personally against the death penalty. Reform in our criminal justice system must first be enacted to ensure that justice cannot be bought, that hoodlums in robes are dismissed and convicted, that all accused (whether rich or poor) are given equal fair, impartial and speedy trial, that the innocent are acquitted and the guilty are convicted beyond reasonable doubt. A wrongful conviction of death is irreversible error for the innocent.
And last but not the least, Pope Francis in February 2016 (Reuters Report) called for the worldwide abolition of the death penalty saying the Commandment “You Shall Not Kill” has absolute value and applies to both the innocent and the guilty.
6 comments
“Thou shalt not kill.” Otherwise, they will kill you, too.
Lorna is dead wrong.
None of the judicial statistics that you stated showed any actual innocent people. All you described was legal disposition.
In fact, innocents may well be better protected by the death penalty, than by allowing murderers to live, as in the US.
Deterrence has never been debunked and cannot be, as detailed:
The Death Penalty: Saving More Innocent Lives
http(COLON)//prodpinnc.blogspot(DOT)com/2013/10/the-death-penalty-do-innocents-matter.html
It was nothing short of astonishing, that Pope Francis stated that “the Commandment “You Shall Not Kill” has absolute value and applies to both the innocent and the guilty.”
This contradicts 2000 years of bilical and theological teachings, by the Church, as well as the most recent Catechism:
CCC 2258-2266
The biblical foundation for the death penalty is found in Genesis 9:5-6 and is based, specifically, upon “shedding blood” and the recognition of the sanctity of life, as man is made in the image of God. The Noahic covenant is for all peoples and all times.
2260: “For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning…. Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.” “This teaching remains necessary for all time.”
2261 Scripture specifies the prohibition contained in the fifth commandment “Do not slay the “innocent and the righteous.” The deliberate murder of an “innocent” person is gravely contrary to the dignity of the human being, to the golden rule, and to the holiness of the Creator. The law forbidding it is universally valid: it obliges each and everyone, always and everywhere.”
“Do not slay the innocent and the righteous.” “An ‘innocent’ person.”
2258 “Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an “innocent” human being.”
“An ‘innocent’ human being”
Always and everywhere there is the prescribed sanction of “For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning…. “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed.”, which, is confirmed in the Council of Trent, that execution represents paramount obedience to that commandment.
“paramount obedience”
2262 In the Sermon on the Mount, the Lord recalls the commandment, “You shall not kill,” and adds to it the proscription of anger, hatred, and vengeance. Going further, Christ asks his disciples to turn the other cheek, to love their enemies. He did not defend himself and told Peter to leave his sword in its sheath.
The type of killing being discussed, here, is the illegitimate type, meaning with anger or hatred, the intentional killing of innocents, as well as many others, not the just prescription of death for murder. We also have the distinction between personal obligations to defend innocents and the obligation of the state to defend their citizens.
A more full review: : “You have heard that it was said to the men of old, ‘You shall not kill: and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment.” (from CCC, Article 5, THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT, MT 5:21-22)
All Catholics May Support the Death Penalty
There is a very robust debate countering the Church’s 20 year old anti death penalty teachings (CCC, 1997), which are, fully, rebutted by fact, reason and the Church’s 2000 years of death penalty support, which exists through today, as detailed:
1) as per Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI:
All Catholics may support the death penalty and more executions, today, and remain Catholics in good standing (1).
2) The Catholic Church cannot reverse 2000 years of pro death penalty teachings (2).
Saint (& Pope) Pius V, “The just use of (executions), far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this (Fifth) Commandment which prohibits murder.” “The Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent” (1566).
“Paramount obedience”.
Archbishop Charles Chaput: “Both Scripture and long Christian tradition acknowledge the legitimacy of capital punishment . . . ” “The Church cannot repudiate (the death penalty) without repudiating her own identity.” (3)
3) The massive problems within the Church’s newest death penalty teachings have been well known since the Catechism’s CCC 2267 was first amended (4).
4) The Bishops use well known, false anti death penalty claims to support their positions (5).
footnotes:
1) “3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”
“Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion: General Principles”, from then Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation of the Faith, the top authority of the body responsible for promulgating and defending Catholic doctrine, now Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, in a memorandum to Cardinal McCarrick, made public in the first week of July 2004.
2) Why the Church Cannot Reverse Past Teaching on Capital Punishment, Profs. Edward Feser and Joseph M. Bessette, The Catholic World Report, July 17, 2016, http(COLON)//www.catholicworldreport(DOT)com/Item/4928/why_the_church_cannot_reverse_past_teaching_on_capital_punishment.aspx
Four Catholic Journals Indulge in (anti death penalty) Doctrinal Solipsism, Steven Long, THOMISTICA, March 5, 2015
http(COLON)//thomistica(DOT)net/commentary/2015/3/5/mutationist-views-of-doctrinal-development-and-the-death-penalty
The Death Penalty: Mercy, Expiation, Redemption & Salvation
http(COLON)//prodpinnc.blogspot(DOT)com/2013/06/the-death-penalty-mercy-expiation.html
New Testament Death Penalty Support Overwhelming
http(COLON)//prodpinnc.blogspot(DOT)com/2014/01/new-testament-death-penalty-support.html
3) “Archbishop Chaput clarifies Church’s stance on death penalty”, CNA, Catholic News Agency, Oct 18, 2005. Chaput was then archbishop of Denver, now of Philadelphia
4) Catholic Church: Problems with Her Newest Death Penalty Position:
The Catechism & Section 2267
http(COLON)//prodpinnc.blogspot(DOT)com/2015/03/catechism-death-penalty-problems.html
BISHOPS HIDE TRUTH FROM THEIR FLOCK: DEATH PENALTY
http(COLON)//prodpinnc.blogspot(DOT)com/2016/10/bishops-hide-truth-from-their-flock.html
Catechism & State Protection
http(COLON)//prodpinnc.blogspot(DOT)com/2014/10/catechism-state-protection.html
Why the Death Penalty is Still Necessary, Profs. Edward Feser and Joseph M. Bessette, The Catholic World Report, July 21, 2016
http(COLON)//www.catholicworldreport(DOT)com/Item/4939/why_the_death_penalty_is_still_necessary.aspx
5) Rebuttal to all the Church’s secular anti death penalty nonsense
Cathelic Bishops: So Wrong on Death Penalty
http(COLON)//prodpinnc.blogspot(DOT)com/2016/09/catholic-bishops-so-wrong-on-death.html
The Death Penalty: Fair and Just
http(COLON)//prodpinnc.blogspot(DOT)com/2013/12/is-death-peanalty-fairjust.html
The Death Penalty: Justice & Saving More Innocents
http(COLON)//prodpinnc.blogspot(DOT)com/2013/05/the-death-penalty-justice-saving-more.html
The Death Penalty: Saving Innocent Lives
http(COLON)//prodpinnc.blogspot(DOT)com/2013/10/the-death-penalty-do-innocents-matter.html
People will not support the death penalty until they (or their family or friend) are victimized. If your daughter, wife, sister or anyone you are close to is raped, then murdered, and thrown into the river, how will you feel?
“Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed.” (Genesis 9:6)
“Whoever takes a human life shall surely be put to death…. If anyone injures his neighbor, as he has done it shall be done to him, fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; whatever injury he has given a person shall be given to him.” (Leviticus 24:17-20)
“You shall not accept indemnity in place of the life of a murderer who deserves the death penalty; he must be put to death.” (Numbers 35:31)