Death penalty: Abolition, reinstatement, abolition
Abolition of death penalty
Under Article III Section 19 of the Philippine Constitution, it is so provided that death penalty shall not be imposed, “unless for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it.” Upon the ratification of the Constitution in February 1987, the sentence of death penalty already imposed was reduced to reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment.
The abolition of death penalty, opened once again the debate on whether such capital punishment serves as an effective deterrent to the commission of crimes. In mid 1987 soon after the ratification of the Constitution, a bill to reinstate the death penalty was filed in Congress. Its explanatory note recites the alarming deterioration of peace and order and citing coup attempts to topple the Government. A series of heinous offenses including rape, murder and kidnapping for ransom was cited in support of the bill. In 1989 three more bills for the reimposition of death penalty was filed in the House but failed to get the support of the Senate.
RA 7659 restoring the death penalty
A year and a half after he assumed office, President Ramos signed into law RA 7659 in December 1993. This was followed in 1996 by another law RA 8177 providing for lethal injection as the method for execution. Six years after the reinstatement of death penalty, more than a thousand individuals have been found guilty by final judgment of crimes with death as the imposable penalty. Under our laws when the maximum penalty of death is imposed, the same shall be subjected to automatic review by the Supreme Court even if the convict does not appeal the judgment. However, Article 47 of the Penal Code provides for exceptions in that the guilty person is more than 70 years of age and that upon appeal or revision of the case by the Supreme Court, all the members thereof are not unanimous as to the propriety of imposing the death penalty. It is also provided in the same Article that in affirming the judgment of death penalty, the Supreme Court shall render its decision per curiam which means that all justices must sign the decision.
RA 7659 assailed before the High Court
The restoration of death penalty was questioned relentlessly by many groups, mainly that the law is infirmed and saddled with Constitutional defects. It has been the thesis of the objectors that the Philippine Judicial System is imperfect which could result in the conviction of the innocent. That our system is biased against the marginalized sector of our society. In a survey it was found that most of those convicted were workers and uneducated. It is also argued that the Trial Courts have committed substantive and procedural errors in their judgment imposing death penalty and that the convicts due to poverty did not have the benefit of competent legal representation.
In August of 1996, the Supreme Court scheduled for oral arguments the case against RA 7659. Appearing as counsel was a set of lawyers from the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG). Likewise, friends of the Court or Amicus Curiae were invited to express their views and to assist the Court. Under the Rules of Court (Rule 3 Section 22), when a Treaty, Law, Executive Order, Decree or Ordinance is questioned relative to validity or constitutionality, the Solicitor General is served notice and required to appear. Hence, the author accompanied by his Assistants appeared in that proceedings and argued in support of the law, pointing to the recital of facts supporting its enactment and the absence of any Constitutional flaw. The Court gave the Parties/Counsel full latitude in expressing their views for or against the assailed law. Other ideas were ventilated during the oral arguments among which is that the usage of the words “compelling reasons” in the Constitution which impelled Congress to reinstate the death penalty would require the Courts to examine further or inquire rigidly on the necessity of imposing the death penalty. In other words the “compelling reasons” are not directed solely at Congress but also at the Courts.
RA 7659 remained until RA 9346 abolishing the death penalty
With the Supreme Court not declaring RA 7659 as unconstitutional, the death penalty remained in force. However, even with the death penalty remaining in force, President Gloria Arroyo issued a “moratorium” suspending or putting on hold the death penalty even when judgments imposing the same had become final and executory. This explains the reasons why there was no execution carried out for a number of years. On June 2006 the President signed RA 9346 abolishing the death penalty in the
Global picture
Since World War II, there has been a trend globally to abolish death penalty. As of this year, 92 countries on record had already abolished it. In
In 2007, China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, USA and Iraq represent the countries with a great number of executions. China with 470, Iran 317, Saudi Arabia, 143, Pakistan, 135, USA 42 and Iraq 33.
Conclusion
Recent events however have again opened the discussion on the death penalty. The dastardly killing of employees at the RCBC branch in Cabuyao, Laguna; the murder of a family in Payatas, Quezon City including the razing of their residence to conceal the crime, the occurrences of kidnapping and the beheading of soldiers, rape, murder and other heinous offenses rekindled the justification for the reinstatement of death penalty. Recently, at the weekly meeting of the Rotary Club of Manila, the incumbent chief of the Philippine National Police, Director General Avelino Ignacio Razon Jr. on a question asked about death penalty, he answered without equivocation that the police force is four square for the restoration of the death penalty.
(Writer is a former Solicitor General, Philippine Envoy to Canada and a Jurist/Member UN International Law Commission.)
- Latest
- Trending
