To be sure however, Catholic Catechism (Art. 2266) recognizes the right of the legitimate civilian authorities as part of their ordinary attributions to take the life of a criminal but only for "very serious reasons and with due judicial process". So even as the right of the people (Catholics particularly) to take a stand on death penalty is recognized depending on their assessment of the particular cultural and social circumstances, it is still the civilian authorities which decide on whether to impose the death penalty or not for "very serious reasons". These very serious reasons may vary in different societies but the most common are the prevention of grievous crimes and preservation of peace and order. Thus in December 1993 our civilian authority, or the Congress of the Philippines enacted Republic Act 7659 imposing death penalty on heinous crimes therein enumerated which are, in the words of our legislators, "heinous for being grievous, odious and hateful offenses and which, by reasons of their inherent or manifest wickedness, viciousness, atrocity and perversity are repugnant and outrageous to the common standards of decency and morality in a just, civilized and ordered society". Hence even as Catholics (including myself) believe that human life is sacred because our well formed Christian conscience tells us that the "integral good of the human person" demands respect for his right to life, our faith dictates that we have to recognize this law without however betraying our conscience and forsaking our stand.
Despite RA 7659 therefore anti-death penalty Catholics persisted in advocating the abolition of death penalty because of their Christian conscience. They continue to believe that preventing heinous crimes and preserving peace and order can be achieved by more efficient law enforcement and swifter dispensation of justice rather than by imposing death penalty as capital punishment. In this present age at least 86 countries in the world have already realized that the good effects of death penalty can be achieved by lesser penalties. These countries have realized that death penalty as capital punishment has automatically become illicit as an unnecessary cruelty. In other words, the very serious reasons for imposing death penalty are not permanent. In our case what may be serious enough reasons in 1993 may no longer be the same now. This is the belief of our President. And 16 Senators as well as 119 Congressmen agree with her. They may have already believed in 1993 on the sanctity of human life but their assessment of the circumstances then compelled them to pass RA 7659 imposing death penalty on heinous crimes. Between 1993 and 2006, circumstances may have changed according to their assessment. Or they may have realized that their assessment of the circumstances in 1993 was wrong after all. Hence they pushed for and passed the bill abolishing death penalty.
With the abolition of the death penalty, the President and Congress should now ensure that the supposedly good effects of such penalty that led to its imposition in 1993 – the prevention of heinous crimes and the preservation of peace and order – can be better achieved even with lesser penalties by effectively stretching the long arm of the law and unswervingly letting the gentle hand of the blindfolded lady justice fall on every offender without fear or favor.
E-mail at:jcson@pldtdsl.net