Chief justice: Death penalty law unconstitutional

BAGUIO CITY — Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban said here yesterday the death penalty law is unconstitutional.

Speaking after a seminar for journalists covering the Supreme Court (SC), Court of Appeals and the Department of Justice, Panganiban said Congress failed to show "compelling reasons" when it passed Republic Act 7659 and restored the death penalty in 1994.

"My position is that the death penalty law, as written, is unconstitutional because the 1987 Constitution says that the death penalty is abolished," he said.

"But the Congress may restore it on two conditions: First, it shall be only on heinous crimes and second, it was restored only upon proof of compelling reasons."

Panganiban said it is President Arroyo’s call to commute the sentence of 1,200 death convicts to life imprisonment. "It’s the President’s call to commute the death sentences," he said.

"It is for Congress whether to repeal the law or abolish it. My view is Congress was not able to show compelling reasons and some of the crimes mentioned in the law are not heinous."

Panganiban said the Philippines is a Catholic country which believes that only God can take a person’s life.

"The present death penalty is unconstitutional," he said. "If the law is unconstitutional, the killing would be unconstitutional."

In a separate interview, Court of Appeals Presiding Justice Ruben Reyes said Congress must review the death penalty law, especially the definition of heinous crimes which has a wide coverage.

Reyes said the death penalty should be imposed only on convicted rapists, kidnappers who killed their victims. "If the victim is saved and was merely raped, I would give the accused a chance," he said.

"Death can be justified if it is shown that the accused has taken the victim’s life. Like in case of rape with homicide, kidnapping with homicide, among others."

Reyes said the death penalty is a very sensitive issue that needs to be studied carefully.

"He who lives by the sword and kills by the sword can be killed by the sword," he said.

"No one has the right to take the life of any person."

Reyes said the death penalty law has failed to deter heinous crimes.

"There is no concrete proof that it is a deterrent against crimes," he said.

"The family of the victims of heinous crimes, who failed to get justice, might be tempted to take the law into their hands," he said.

Reyes said he was the first judge in Bataan to impose the death penalty on two people convicted of robbery with homicide.

"As long as the evidence supports very clearly that the death penalty is the appropriate law to be imposed, it has to be implemented," he said.

"My decision in Bataan is already finished, but I gave myself one week to review it. If there is a basis evading the imposition of the death penalty, I will hand down life imprisonment instead of the death penalty."

Reyes said the Supreme Court affirmed his 1984 decision imposing the death penalty on the two convicts and meting life imprisonment on a third convict.

"The Supreme Court automatically reviewed the case, but late in 1987, the Constitution abolished the death penalty," he said.

Meanwhile, House Deputy Majority Leader Edcel Lagman said yesterday he agrees with Panganiban that Congress failed to cite "compelling reasons" when it restored the death penalty in 1993 as required by the Constitution.

In a statement, Lagman said these compelling reasons must be supervening circumstances which obtained after the 1987 Constitution took effect.

"This was precisely the argument a handful of congressmen and I used in opposing the restoration of the death penalty during the 8th and 9th Congresses," he said.

"We anchored our opposition, among others, on two principal groups:

• There were no compelling reasons, as Congress failed to validate any, to warrant the legislative restoration of the death penalty as required by the 1987 Constitution; and

• The death penalty is not a deterrent to the commission of heinous crimes."

Lagman said when Congress passed the death penalty law, it failed to identify and validate the requisite supervening "compelling reasons" to justify the restoration.

"The odiousness of the crimes punishable by death is not a compelling reason because they were by their very nature already ‘heinous’ even before the abolition of the death penalty," he said.

Malacañang earlier announced that President Arroyo would certify to Congress a bill seeking to repeal the death penalty law.

Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez said 98 death convicts, whose cases have already been affirmed with finality by the Supreme Court, would benefit from Mrs. Arroyo’s no execution policy.

"There will be no execution of death convicts under President Arroyo’s term," he said.

"Effectively, there is a moratorium until 2010. She does not want to send someone to lethal injection. There is a moratorium in carrying out the death sentence, but it does not prevent the court from imposing the death penalty."

The other cases would eventually be covered by the policy once their cases are affirmed with finality by the SC, he added.