# data[].attributes.headline
Definition of Death Penalty/Capital Punishment

# data[].attributes.subject
Definition of Death Penalty/Capital Punishment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Only about 1/3 of the countries around the world still allow the death penalty.

What Is the Death Penalty?

The death penalty remains a controversial issue in many governments and states all over the world. Death penalty refers to the sentence of death imposed by a court of law on an offender who has committed a capital offense. The death penalty is sometimes referred to as the capital punishment. Even though the words death penalty and capital punishment are used interchangeably in many contexts, some people believe that there exists a difference in the meaning of the two phrases. However, the difference in meaning is negligible. The death penalty is merely the imposition of a death penalty on a capital offender by a court of law, whereas capital punishment is the actual execution or killing of the offender after imposition of a death penalty. The death penalty should be differentiated from the extrajudicial execution. Whereas death penalty is imposed through conviction of an offender is a court of law, extrajudicial executions happen without the due process of the law.

Death Penalty Around the World

In the recent centuries, the death penalty has become rare because its use as a method of punishment has been banned by many governments. Countries that still carry out punishment by death penalty constitutes about only a third of the countries in the world. Such countries include Iran, Iraq, China, Saudi Arabia, United States, Afghanistan, Yemen, and Sudan among others.

Other countries, among them Australia, Canada, Mexico, and all members of the Council of Europe have abolished the use of the death penalty. A total of 75 countries in the world have completely abolished the use of death penalty regardless of whether the offense committed is a capital offense or not.

In most countries that practice the death penalty, the penalty is reserved only for the capital or serious crimes. Such crimes include murder, terrorism rape, kidnapping and human trafficking, illegal drug trafficking and corruption and bribery. Besides, in some states, some sexual offenses such as prostitution homosexuality and adultery are punishable by the death penalty. However, some countries also impose the death penalty on smaller crimes such as general theft and drugs.

It is also important to understand that execution of the death penalty is governed by some laws and regulation. For instance, particular groups of people are excluded from being sentenced to death. According to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, juvenile offenders are excluded from receiving the death penalty. Besides, mentally handicapped criminals are also excluded from receiving the death penalty. The severity of the capital offence committed by the juvenile and the mentally handicapped is seen as less severe based on the mental capability and therefore imposing a death penalty on them is regarded disproportionately severe.

Forms of Execution

When imposing the death penalty, the form of execution is prescribed by the legislature in charge. The form of execution imposed must not inflict unnecessary pain on the capital offender. Some of the forms of execution applied today include the use of an electric chair or electrocution, lethal injections, strangulation, hanging, beheading and the use of firing squad. Stoning is a traditional method of imposing the death penalty.

1. Home

2. Society

3. What is the Death Penalty?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The death penalty remains a controversial issue in many governments and states all over the world. Death penalty refers to the sentence of death imposed by a court of law on an offender who has committed a capital offense. The death penalty is sometimes referred to as the capital punishment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

Section 3. (1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise, as prescribed by law.

(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.

Section 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.

Section 5. No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.

Section 6. The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law.

Section 7. The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized. Access to official records, and to documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to government research data used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.

Section 8. The right of the people, including those employed in the public and private sectors, to form unions, associations, or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged.

Section 9. Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.

Section 10. No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed.

Section 11. Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason of poverty.

Section 12. (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.

(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the free will shall be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited.

(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.

(4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of this section as well as compensation to the rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices, and their families.

Section 13. All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as may be provided by law. The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required.

Section 14. (1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law.

(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused: Provided, that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable.

Section 15. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except in cases of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it.

Section 16. All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.

Section 17. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.

Section 18. (1) No person shall be detained solely by reason of his political beliefs and aspirations.

(2) No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except as a punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.

Section 19. (1) 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, the Congress hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua.

(2) The employment of physical, psychological, or degrading punishment against any prisoner or detainee or the use of substandard or inadequate penal facilities under subhuman conditions shall be dealt with by law.

Section 20. No person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-payment of a poll tax.

Section 21. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. If an act is punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act.

Section 22. No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION ARTICLE III, BILL OF RIGHTS Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws. Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against...

# data[].attributes.headline
Adoption of Bill Allowing the Imposition of the Death Penalty for a New Crime.

# data[].attributes.subject
Adoption of Bill Allowing the Imposition of the Death Penalty for a New Crime.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Adoption of Bill Allowing the Imposition of the Death Penalty for a New Crime.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Philippine House Bill No. 7814 provides the death penalty for a new crime under the 2002 Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act. WCADP

# data[].attributes.headline
A lethal mix? Death penalty and a 'flawed, corrupt' justice system

# data[].attributes.subject
A lethal mix? Death penalty and a 'flawed, corrupt' justice system

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
MANILA, Philippines - With intensified calls to revive the death penalty, is the Philippines, particularly its criminal justice system, ready for it and its consequences?

No less than President Rodrigo Duterte is pushing for the reimposition of the death penalty, a law that was repealed by his newfound ally former president and now Pampanga Representative Gloria Arroyo in 2006. (READ: Duterte: Bring back death penalty so I can hang criminals)

Critics say certainty of punishment - not death penalty - is effective in preventing crimes, urging the government to focus first on reforming the justice system. But Duterte defended his stand, saying the punishment of death is more of retribution than deterrent.

"The other school of thought is, 'yang death penalty, hindi 'yan pantakot. Hindi 'yan to deter (the death penalty is not to instill fear, not to deter). Whether you like to commit a crime or not, that's not my business. Death penalty to me is the retribution," said the President also known as "The Punisher."

Duterte, a believer in karma and eye-for-an-eye justice, said the death penalty is a way to exact payment from a perpetrator of a heinous crime.

"Magbayad ka sa ginawa mo sa buhay na ito (You pay for what you did in this life)," he said.

It is, however, not as easy and simple as it seems, with the kind of judicial system the country has. Before a court metes out a verdict of death, the case has to undergo several stages of the Philippine criminal justice system, which critics say, is widely known to be flawed and corrupt. (READ: Block return of death penalty in PH - Human Rights Watch)
Corruption, incompetence
As with many government agencies, the justice system is primarily plagued with issues of corruption - from paid law enforcers to paid prosecutors and justices, among others. This, in turn, only further spawns injustice, opponents of the bill said.

Albay Representative Edcel Lagman, one of the staunch critics of the revival of the policy, said the death penalty could not be mixed with the present "defective" justice system.

" Isasalang mo death penalty sa (You will allow death penalty in a) flawed and defective justice system, many incompetent and corrupt prosecutors and judges, so talagang mahirap ang mangyayari nito (this will be really difficult). It will exacerbate injustice, spawn too much injustice because of flawed judicial and prosecutorial systems," Lagman said in an interview on Friday, December 2.

Another problem is the supposed incompetence of court officers. Jose Manuel Diokno, dean of the De La Salle University Law School, said crime and corruption are rampant because the system is not delivering the justice that the people "need, deserve, and are clamoring for."

The prosecution rate is only 20%. This means only 1 out of 5 cases prosecuted by the National Prosecution Service under the Department of Justice is elevated to the Office of the Ombudsman.

Not all those who are convicted serve their punishments, Diokno said: " Magugulat kayo, only less than 10% serve their time (penalty)." (You'll be surprised, only less than 10% serve their time.)

"The reason they are so rampant and that they are operating with impunity is because of shoddy police work, ineffective police investigation, and weak prosecution," he added.

Human Rights Commissioner Karen Dumpit said training of police investigators should be intensified "so they can handle data in ways that will materially enhance evidence presented in prosecution."

Dumpit said this has been a problem. What happens in many instances is that the police fail to gather evidence that could strengthen a case. If evidence is weak, the prosecutor would not have a strong case and might end up losing the legal battle against the violator. In short, there is no certainty of punishment.

Dumpit added prosecutors should be trained against any form of prosecutorial misconduct. Violators, she said, should be caught and held accountable.

Easier said than done, though, as this problem has long been inculcated in the justice system: "Political will is needed," she said.

"The court is not infallible, not in any country. How can we advocate permanent taking of life when there are mistakes like these that cannot be rectified?" Dumpit said.

Another problem hounding the judiciary is the lack of budget and manpower, leading to the backlog of cases. There are even courts without judges - a problem that gives birth to further delays in justice.

Diokno said courts, "if lucky", take at least 6 to 10 years to decide on criminal cases, while some take as long as 29 years. High-profile cases are no exception to this, such as the Maguindanao massacre, which has been ongoing for 7 years now. How much more for ordinary criminal cases?

"Why is there such a terrible state? Because courts are plagued with vacancies. 20% of trial courts have no judges. 1 out of 5 salas has no one to decide. Even our prosecution service has a higher vacancy rate of 25%," Diokno said.

Justice Secretary Vitaliano Aguirre on July 1 - his first day in office - said the DOJ is planning to hire at least 500 prosecutors nationwide, saying only 42% vacancies in the National Prosecution Service (NPS) have so far been filled up.
Lower courts issued wrong verdicts
While it is the lower courts' role to issue verdicts, the Supreme Court automatically reviews cases wherein death, reclusion perpetua or imprisonment from 20 years and 1 day to 40 years, or life imprisonment, is imposed.

A new precedent, however, was set in 2004 when the SC allowed an intermediate appeal to the Court of Appeals to ensure the correctness of death penalty decisions.

This is because majority of the death verdicts by regional trial courts were either revoked or modified by the SC upon review. The High Court itself said this in its decision in People v Mateo in 2004.

In the said case, the SC said that for 11 years from 1993 to June 2004, 907 out of 1,493 cases were submitted to them for review. Of this number, the death penalty was affirmed in only 230 cases or 25.36%.

More than half (53.25%) or 483 death penalty cases were reduced to reclusion perpetua while 65 were acquitted. All in all, the SC revealed the judicial error of 71.77%. In short, it saved 651 out of 907 appellants from death.

Acknowledging this problem, the SC said all possible venues should be allowed to truly determine the guilt or innocence of an accused, especially if a person's life or liberty is at stake. But the SC, just like the lower courts, also faces the problem of being overloaded with cases.

"If only to ensure utmost circumspection before the penalty of death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment is imposed, the Court now deems it wise and compelling to provide in these cases a review by the Court of Appeals before the case is elevated to the Supreme Court," the SC said in People v Mateo.

"Where life and liberty are at stake, all possible avenues to determine his guilt or innocence must be accorded an accused, and no care in the evaluation of the facts can ever be overdone," the SC added.

It remains unclear, however, how this 2004 decision would shape the present debates on the controversial measure. But the anti-death penalty groups are sure to bank on it, like Diokno.

"It's a shocking reason. The court revealed for the first time that the staggering 71.77% of decisions handed down by Regional Trial Courts were wrong, which meant 7 in 10 on death row were wrongfully convicted," Diokno said.

The SC, however, has also proven that it is not infallible. In the case of Leo Echegaray, the first convict to undergo lethal injection, then chief justice Artemio Panganiban said in a speech on May 30, 2006 that the High Court made a mistake when it affirmed the death sentence against him.

Panganiban argued that the sentence should have been downgraded to life imprisonment, noting that it was not proven in court that Echegaray was the biological father of the victim.

Another case was that of Marlon Parazo in 1999, a deaf, blind, mute, and retarded man accused of rape and attempted homicide. According to a PCIJ report, Parazo was meted the death sentence in 1995, and the lower court that tried his case did not ensure that he clearly understood the proceedings. His disabilities were also never mentioned in court, not even by his court-appointed lawyer.

His death sentence was affirmed by the SC in 1997. Taking over the case, the Free Legal Assistance Group or FLAG won and the SC reversed itself in 1999.
Death penalty anti-poor?
With the President himself vowing to reimpose the death penalty for his war against crime, some opponents of the measure warned that it would end up discriminating against the poor.

Lagman, in his counter speech to the 1st State of the Nation Address of Duterte, said only rich people could afford getting top lawyers to defend themselves.

"The death penalty is anti-poor because indigent and marginalized litigants could not afford the high cost of top caliber and influential lawyers to secure their acquittal," Lagman said.

Recalling the early 2000s, during the campaign for the abolition of the death penalty, Lagman said 73.1% of death row inmates then belonged to the lowest and lower income classes, while only 0.8% came from the upper socio-economic class.

" Anti-poor talaga ito, halos mga nasa death row ay mga mahihirap at yung may kaya sa buhay nakakakuha ng mahusay na abogado, may impluwensya sa husgado. (This is really anti-poor. Almost all on death row are poor and those are rich can afford to get the best lawyers, and have influence on the courts). If indicted, they can seek and work for acquittal. If convicted, they can work for pardon. Kaya tinatamaan nito mga mahihirap (That's why those who are hit are the poor)," he said.

Diokno shared the same sentiment. Citing previous data from his organization FLAG, he said 73% of capital offenders then earned below P10,000 monthly, 81% had low-income jobs in the manufacturing, sales, and transport sectors, 74% were arrested without warrants and were not assisted by legal counsels during investigations.

"In my own personal view, death penalty is a myopic view, narrow-minded thinking. The President refuses to see two things: both extrajudicial killings and judicial killings are anti-poor," Diokno said.

With all these issues and problems, critics said the country's judicial system should be reformed first before even considering the reimposition of the death penalty.

Senator Leila de Lima, fiercest critic of Duterte and also a former secretary of justice, said certainty of punishment - not death - would deter crimes. This could only be achieved, she said, through reforms in the system.

"And there can only be certainty of punishment if we have a duly functioning and effective justice system, especially the 5 pillars of the criminal justice system -investigators, prosecutors, courts or judges, the correctional, and then the community," said De Lima, who filed an alternative bill to the death penalty.

While the House of Representatives, filled with newfound allies of the President, is keen on approving the measure before the year ends, the same could not be easily said of the Senate, as the committee on justice and human rights has yet to start hearings on the issue. (READ: 'Have a deadly Christmas'? House subpanel OKs death penalty bill)

In the meantime, both pro- and anti-death penalty groups are making their case before the public, whose collective voice could ultimately shape politicians' stand on the measure. - Rappler.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A lethal mix? Death penalty and a 'flawed, corrupt' justice system

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
MANILA, Philippines - With intensified calls to revive the death penalty, is the Philippines, particularly its criminal justice system, ready for it and its consequences? No less than President Rodrigo Duterte is pushing for the reimposition of the death penalty, a law that was repealed by his newfound ally former president and now Pampanga Representative Gloria Arroyo in 2006.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
THE imposition of the death penalty in the country has had a repressive history. For the most part (from 1848 to 1987), it was used to curtail the liberties, freedoms and rights of the Filipino people. In recent history, however, the death penalty was reimposed as a knee-jerk response to what has largely been seen as rising criminality in the country. The following, with help from the Mamamayang Tutol sa Bitay-Movement for Restorative Justice, traces the death penalty's historical roots and context in Philippine society:

Spanish Period (1521-1898)

Spanish colonizers brought with them medieval Europe's penal system, including executions.

Capital punishment during the early Spanish Period took various forms including burning, decapitation, drowning, flaying, garrote, hanging, shooting, stabbing and others.

Capital punishment was enshrined in the 1848 Spanish Codigo Penal and was only imposed on locals who challenged the established authority of the colonizers.

Between 1840-1857, recorded death sentences totaled 1,703 with 46 actual executions.

Filipinos who were meted the death penalty include Magat Salamat (1587); the native clergies Gomez, Burgos and Zamora who were garroted in 1872; and Dr. Jose Rizal, executed on December 30, 1896. All of them are now enshrined as heroes.

American Period (1898-1934)

The American colonizers, adopting most of the provisions under the Codigo Penal of 1848, retain the death penalty.

The Codigo Penal was revised in 1932. Treason, parricide, piracy, kidnapping, murder, rape, and robbery with homicide were considered capital offenses and warranted the death penalty.

The Sedition Law (1901); Brigandage Act (1902); Reconcentration Act (1903); and Flag Law (1907) were enacted to sanction the use of force, including death, against all nationalist Filipinos.

Macario Sakay was one of those sentenced to die for leading a resistance group. He was sentenced to die by public hanging.

The capital punishment continued to be an integral part of the pacification process of the country, to suppress any resistance to American authority.

Japanese Occupation (1941-1945)

There are no recorded or documented cases of executions through the death penalty during this period simply because extrajudicial executions were widely practised as part of the pacification of the country.
Post-World War II

Espionage is added to the list of capital offenses.

The Anti-Subversion Law called for the death penalty for all Communist leaders. However, no executions were recorded for any captured communist leader.

For the period of 1946-1965, 35 people were executed for offenses that the Supreme Court labeled as "crimes of senseless depravity or extreme criminal perversity."

The Marcos Years (1965-1986)

"Deterrence" became the official justification for the imposition of the death penalty. This is the same justification used for the declaration of Martial Law in 1972.

The number of capital crimes increased to a total of 24. Some crimes which were made punishable by death through laws and decrees during the Marcos period were subversion, possession of firearms, arson, hijacking, embezzlement, drug-related offenses, unlawful possession of firearms, illegal fishing and cattle rustling.

Jaime Jose, Basilio Pineda, and Edgardo Aquino were executed for the gang rape of movie star Maggie dela Riva in 1972. Despite prohibitions against public executions, the execution of the three was done in full view of the public.

Nineteen executions took place during the Pre-Martial Law period. Twelve were executed during Martial Law.

Senator Benigno Aquino, Jr. was sentenced to die by firing squad for charges of murder, subversion and illegal possession of firearm in 1977.

The last judicial execution under the Marcos years was in October 1976 when Marcelo San Jose was executed by electrocution.

Similar to the reasons for the imposition of capital punishment during the Colonial Periods, the death penalty during the Marcos Regime was imposed to quell rebellion and social unrest.

President Corazon Cojuangco Aquino (1986-1992)

The Death Penalty was "abolished" under the 1987 Constitution.

The Philippines became the first Asian country to abolish the death penalty for all crimes.

All death sentences were reduced to reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment.

In 1988, the military started lobbying for the imposition of the death penalty for crimes committed by the CPP-NPA.

President Fidel Valdez Ramos (1993-1998)

A series of high profile crimes during this period, including the murder of Eileen Sarmenta and Allan Gomez, created public impression that heinous crimes were on the rise.

The Ramos administration reimposed the death penalty by virtue of Republic Act No. 7659 in December 1993 to address the rising criminality and incidence of heinous crimes.

The Death Penalty Law lists a total of 46 crimes punishable by death; 25 of these are death mandatory while 21 are death eligible.

Republic Act No. 8177 mandates that a death sentence shall be carried out through lethal injection.

President Joseph Ejercito Estrada (1998-2001)

Leo Echegaray was executed in February 1999 and was followed by six other executions for various heinous crimes.

In 1999, the bumper year for executions, the national crime volume, instead of abating, ironically increased by 15.3 percent or a total of 82,538 (from 71,527 crimes in the previous year).

Estrada issued a de facto moratorium on executions in the face of church-led campaigns to abolish the death penalty and in observance of the Jubilee Year.

President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo (2001-present)

Arroyo publicly stated that she is not in favor of executions.

Due to the rise in crimes related to drugs and kidnappings that targeted the Filipino-Chinese community, she announced that she would resume executions "to sow fear into the hearts of criminals."

Arroyo lifted the de facto moratorium issued by Estrada on December 5, 2003.

Even as executions were set to resume on January 2004, this did not push through by virtue of a Supreme Court decision to reopen the Lara-Licayan case.

Since then, the administration has been issuing reprieves on scheduled executions without actually issuing a moratorium.

With the amendment of Republic Act No. 8353 (Anti-Rape Law of 1997) and Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs act of 2002), there are now 52 capital offenses, 30 of which are death mandatory and 22 are death eligible.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A timeline of death penalty in the Philippines

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
THE imposition of the death penalty in the country has had a repressive history. For the most part (from 1848 to 1987), it was used to curtail the liberties, freedoms and rights of the Filipino people.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
THE PHILIPPINES abolished capital punishment in June 2006 when then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo signed Republic Act No. 9346, also known as An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of the Death Penalty in the Philippines.

Arroyo said the death penalty should be abolished because it had not proven to be a deterrent to crime and had become a dead-letter law. RA 9346 downgraded the death penalty to life imprisonment.

The Philippines has had a history of invoking and scrapping capital punishment since the end of World War II.

Between 1946 and 1965-the year Ferdinand Marcos became the President-35 people were executed, mainly convicted of particularly savage crimes marked by "senseless depravity" or "extreme criminal perversity."

Following the Edsa People Power Revolution that toppled Marcos from power, then President Corazon Aquino promulgated the 1987 Constitution, which abolished the death penalty "unless for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, Congress hereafter provides for it."

In 1993, Congress passed RA 7659, or the Death Penalty Law, which reimposed capital punishment.

Under RA 7659, crimes punishable by death included murder, rape, big-time drug trafficking, kidnapping for ransom, treason, piracy, qualified bribery, parricide, infanticide, plunder, kidnapping and serious illegal detention, robbery with violence or intimidation, qualified vehicle theft and arson.

In March 1996, through RA 8177, the law was amended prescribing death by lethal injection for offenders convicted of heinous crimes.

But opposition from human rights groups held up executions until 1999.

Between 1999 and 2000, during the term of deposed President Joseph Estrada, seven inmates were put to death.

The first to be executed was Leo Echegaray, on Feb. 9, 1999, and the last was Alex Bartolome, on Jan. 4, 2000. Echegaray was convicted of raping his stepdaughter. Bartolome was convicted also of raping his daughter more than 100 times over two years, starting when she was 16. Inquirer Research

Source: Inquirer Archives

Subscribe to INQUIRER PLUS to get access to The Philippine Daily Inquirer & other 70+ titles, share up to 5 gadgets, listen to the news, download as early as 4am & share articles on social media. Call 896 6000.

For feedback, complaints, or inquiries, contact us.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
THE PHILIPPINES abolished capital punishment in June 2006 when then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo signed Republic Act No. 9346, also known as An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of the Death Penalty in the Philippines. Arroyo said the death penalty should be abolished because it had not proven to be a deterrent to crime and had become a dead-letter law.

# data[].attributes.headline
Looking at the numbers behind death penalty

# data[].attributes.subject
Looking at the numbers behind death penalty

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Does the death penalty deter crime? It's an issue that's long been debated and remains under dispute, but that has not stopped Congress from scheduling this coming week the plenary debates on House Bill No. 4727, a consolidated version of seven bills on capital punishment.

When Republic Act No. 7659 imposed the death penalty for heinous crimes more than 20 years ago, the crime rate-the number of crime incidents per 100,000 population-decreased from 145.7 in 1993 to 98 in 1998. In 1999, however, when six of the seven executions under the Estrada administration happened, the crime rate rose to 111.

After 2006, when the death penalty was abolished, data showed that the crime rate inched up in 2009, while a "downtrend" was seen from 2010 until 2012. It rose again in 2013.

The fluctuations, however, can be traced to changes in the system of crime reporting and inconsistencies in recording crime, not to actual spikes or dives in the number of crimes committed.

Beginning 2009, carnapping and cattle rustling were added to index crimes, which are defined as crimes that are "serious in nature and occur with sufficient frequency and regularity such that they can serve as an index (or measure) of the crime situation."
Barangay blotter
The shift from the old system of crime reporting known as Police Regional Office Period Report to the Unit Crime Periodic Report (Ucper) in 2009 also meant that total crime volume would be sourced not only from the police blotter but also from the barangay blotter and crime reports from other law enforcement agencies like the National Bureau of Investigation, Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency and the Department of Social Welfare and Development.

This might explain why the crime rate soared from 74.7 in 2008 to 552.3 in 2009.

When a validation of 2012 crime statistics in police blotters in Metro Manila was conducted by the Philippine National Police, it appeared that only 45 percent of the crime incidents were reflected in the Ucper.

When the Regional Investigation and Detective Management Division conducted another validation of crime statistics from January to February 2013, the review found a discrepancy of 16,282 crime incidents.

A validation by the police national headquarters meanwhile revealed several flaws: underreporting of crime incidents and statistics; failure to submit crime incidents recorded in police blotters in the barangay; discrepancies in crime data vis-á-vis the data validated by the Directorate for Investigation and Detective Management; failure to reconcile incidents recorded in barangay blotters, and the tendency to report to police stations only those crimes that were solved.
Fear of retribution
This and other memoranda showed that the police had been perennially confronted with problems in crime recording. Add to this the likelihood that victims were not reporting crimes due to fear of retribution or lack of resources. Similarly, the accuracy of the body count in President Duterte's war on drugs, which has so far exceeded 6,000, has been repeatedly challenged.

When the numbers do not capture the true crime situation in the country, how then can criminality be solved?

A question that legislators should be asked is: Would someone contemplating murder be discouraged to commit the crime because he knows he could be executed?

However, another equally valid question is: Would someone contemplating murder hesitate if he knows that he could get away with it?

It's a question prompted by a previous Amnesty International Philippines report that concluded that it was not just fear of the death penalty, but also the certainty of arrest and conviction, that influences crime.

Records show that in the past decade, the number of cases of heinous crimes pending in the lower courts had been reduced from 16,461 at the end of 2006, to 10,986 at the end of last year, a 30 percent decrease within a 10-year period.
Error rate
While the current conviction, acquittal and dismissal rates for heinous crimes could not be immediately determined, one telling statistic from 10 years ago is the error rate in the death penalty sentence under RA 7659.

A review of 907 capital punishment cases from 1993 to 2004 resulted in the modification of penalty for 555 cases, acquittal for 65 cases and dismissal for 26.

Meanwhile, 31 cases were remanded while only 230 were affirmed. This means that seven in 10 of the cases reviewed did not deserve the death penalty.

On the other hand, an analysis of data from the Department of Justice showed a steady prosecution disposition rate for rape, murder and kidnapping cases from 2010 to 2016.

Beyond the efficiency of the judicial system, economic factors were also been identified as among the determinants of crime. Again, it has been asked: Is criminality lower in places where economic conditions are better?

A comparison of crime rate, poverty incidence and gini coefficient-a measure of income inequality within a population-showed a direct relationship between poverty and crime rate. The three regions in the top eight poorest regions in the country-Central Visayas, Northern Mindanao and Bicol-were also among the top eight when it comes to the most number of reported crimes.

Central Visayas and Northern Mindanao, along with Western Visayas, are also among the regions with higher income inequality as well as a higher crime rate.

Given such reports and varied factors behind crime, shouldn't the government look at the numbers first before turning to death penalty in its campaign for safer communities?

Subscribe to INQUIRER PLUS to get access to The Philippine Daily Inquirer & other 70+ titles, share up to 5 gadgets, listen to the news, download as early as 4am & share articles on social media. Call 896 6000.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Looking at the numbers behind death penalty

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Does the death penalty deter crime? It's an issue that's long been debated and remains under dispute, but that has not stopped Congress from scheduling this coming week the plenary debates on House Bill No. 4727, a consolidated version of seven bills on capital punishment.

# data[].attributes.headline
Philippines death penalty: A fight to stop the return of capital punishment

# data[].attributes.subject
Philippines death penalty: A fight to stop the return of capital punishment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Capital punishment opponents expect a steep battle to prevent President Rodrigo Duterte from reimposing the death penalty, as he renews calls for the law as part of a "drug war" that has already killed thousands of Filipinos.

Few were surprised when Mr Duterte last month pushed, once again, to reintroduce the death penalty for drug offenders.

Since coming to power in 2016 he has waged a brutal crackdown on suspected drug users and dealers, issuing police with shoot-to-kill orders while encouraging citizens to kill drug users too.

Officially the police say they shoot only in self-defence and data shows more than 8,000 people have been killed in anti-drug operations. The nation's human rights commission estimates a toll as high as 27,000.

The piling bodies have been documented by photojournalists whose images of dead suspects face-down in pools of blood after a police raid, or strewn on streets in suspected vigilante murders, have shocked the world.

"The death penalty would give the state another weapon in its ongoing war against drugs," said Carlos Conde, Philippines researcher for Human Rights Watch.

Mr Duterte was restrained, at first, by the upper house of parliament. But last year's mid-term elections saw his allies win control of the senate and many fear the law could now be passed.

Twenty-three bills have been filed across both houses to reinstate the death penalty for drug crimes, including possession and sales. Committee deliberations began last week.

Nuanced views

Mr Conde says he would like to be proved wrong but senses the law "is as good as passed". He points to the swift recent passing of the controversial anti-terrorism law, and the speed at which ABS-CBN, a broadcaster critical of the president, was forced off air.

The move would be a breach of international human rights law.

But this is unlikely to faze Mr Duterte, who frequently expresses his disdain for human rights checks. Last year the Philippines left the International Criminal Court as it was probing accusations of crimes linked to his drugs campaign.

Surveys by the Social Weather Stations, a pollster, have shown the war on drugs remains popular among Filipinos despite experts saying the signature policy has failed to curb drug use or supply. A majority are also in favour of reinstating capital punishment.

But a closer look at the results shows an alternative picture, says Maria Socorro Diokno, secretary-general of the Free Legal Assistance Group, a network of human rights lawyers.

When presented with alternatives to capital punishment for crimes linked to illegal drugs, for instance, most favoured other options.

"They begin to think that death is not always the answer," said Ms Diokno.

Ms Diokno, who leads her group's anti-death penalty task force, has been braced for a battle with Mr Duterte ever since he vowed to bring back the death penalty as part of his election campaign.

She knows that minds can be changed because she was part of the movement that succeeded last time.

The death penalty has been abolished twice before - first in 1987 and then again in 2006 after being reinstated in 1993.

The last push for abolition was led by the Catholic church, which holds considerable influence over Filipinos in the largely Catholic country while Mr Duterte is an open critic.

Last week the Clergy of the Archdiocese of Manila condemned the "lack of independence and imprudence" of some lawmakers in supporting the president on the issue.

"We see such acts as betrayal of the people's interests and an implicit support to the creeping authoritarian tendencies exuded by this administration," it said.

Mistaken convictions

In his annual address to the nation last month Mr Duterte claimed reinstating the death penalty by lethal injection would "deter criminality".

But there is little evidence to prove that the death penalty can be a deterrent. Instead research has shown the punishment frequently affects the most disadvantaged.

In the Philippines alone the Supreme Court said in 2004 that 71.77% of death penalty verdicts handed by lower courts were wrong.

By imposing the death penalty for drug offences, the Philippines would also be moving away from what Harm Reduction International has identified as a downward global trend in using the penalty for such crimes.

It says 35 countries and territories retain capital punishment for drug offenders but only a few carry out executions regularly. Five of the eight "high application states" are in South East Asia.

Raymund Narag, an assistant professor of criminology at Southern Illinois University, knows firsthand the problems of a flawed criminal justice system.

He spent nearly seven years jailed in the Philippines as a pre-trial detainee before he was acquitted of a campus murder that took place at his university when he was 20.

The death penalty was still intact at the time and prosecutors had sought it for the 10 men charged.

Worse than his overcrowded cell and frequent prison riots, he says, was the "agony of waiting" for hearings.

"It was traumatic thinking that you can be put to death for a crime you did not commit," said Dr Narag, speaking from the US.

Now 46, he was one of five men eventually acquitted, while the others were sentenced to life imprisonment.

The experience has shaped his career. He now researches prolonged trial detention in the Philippines, while advocating for criminal justice reform.

Dr Narag says that if he hadn't managed to track down a key witness, an overseas worker, to return home and testify, proving he wasn't at the crime scene, he may have been convicted.

Through his advocacy he wants Filipinos to know the consequences of mistaken convictions, which could become mistaken executions if the law changes, in an already struggling justice system.

The scope of and timeline for the eventual death penalty bill put to vote in parliament is uncertain, especially during the Covid-19 pandemic. Some have argued the bill should not be a priority.

Gloria Lai, Asia director of the International Drug Policy Consortium, says the death penalty has not solved the drug-related problems of any country.

"It is the poor and vulnerable who bear the harsh punishment of criminal justice systems in grossly unjust ways," she says.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Philippines death penalty: A fight to stop the return of capital punishment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Capital punishment opponents expect a steep battle to prevent President Rodrigo Duterte from reimposing the death penalty, as he renews calls for the law as part of a "drug war" that has already killed thousands of Filipinos. Few were surprised when Mr Duterte last month pushed, once again, to reintroduce the death penalty for drug offenders.

# data[].attributes.headline
In Defense Of the Right to Life and Death Penalty in the Philippines

# data[].attributes.subject
In Defense Of the Right to Life and Death Penalty in the Philippines

# data[].attributes.headline
Evidence shows death penalty does not deter crime. Yet politicians still call for it.

# data[].attributes.subject
Evidence shows death penalty does not deter crime. Yet politicians still call for it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The rape-slay case of a grade 9 female student in Cebu revived calls on Twitter to enforce capital punishment for heinous crimes like rape despite previous evidence showing that the death penalty does not deter crime.

Late dictator Ferdinand Marcos imposed the death sentence in the country from 1965 to 1986.

It was abolished via the 1987 Constitution during former President Corazon Aquino's time.

In 2016, President Rodrigo Duterte sought to reinstate it to instill fear and discipline among criminals and rebels.

However, various studies have shown that death penalty either by hanging, lethal injection or any other means is not effective in preventing crime.

A study in 2009 titled " Do executions lower homicide rates: the views of leading criminologists " revealed that majority of criminal experts or criminologists they interviewed disagreed that death penalty can act as a deterrent or can lower the murder rate.

Results showed that 88 percent of criminologists they interviewed disagreed that death penalty can act as a deterrent to murder.

"In short, the consensus among criminologists is that the death penalty does not add any significant deterrent effect above that of long-term imprisonment," researchers Michael Radelet and Traci Lacock said.

Moreover, 52 percent agreed that politicians in general support capital punishment "as a symbolic way" to show their tough stance against crime.

These findings discredited claims of professors and economists published in articles in the New York Times and the Washington Post that state otherwise.

An article from the American Civil Liberties Union also explained that enforcing death penalty is similar to the criminals' motive of devaluing human life.

"In civilized society, we reject the principle of literally doing to criminals what they do to their victims: The penalty for rape cannot be rape, or for arson, the burning down of the arsonist's house. We should not, therefore, punish the murderer with death," it said.

It also concurred with the earlier conclusion of no strong evidence associating lower crime rates due to imposing death sentence.

"No, there is no credible evidence that the death penalty deters crime more effectively than long terms of imprisonment. States that have death penalty laws do not have lower crime rates or murder rates than states without such laws. And states that have abolished capital punishment show no significant changes in either crime or murder rates," it said.

According to Amnesty International, 142 countries have abolished death penalty either in law or in practice for human rights purposes.

The United Nations also marked a World Day against Death Penalty to raise awareness on the plight of prisoners on death row.

In the Philippines, a survey conducted by the Social Weather Station in 2018 showed that six in every 10 Filipinos agreed on restoring death penalty for people who committed heinous crimes.

In particular, 47 percent of Filipinos demand capital punishment to be imposed for rapists under the influence of drugs.

However, the bill to reinstate this which had just been approved at the Lower House only includes persons found in possession of illegal drugs at social gatherings or meetings.

When it was first proposed in 2016, rape, murder, treason, infanticide and other criminal acts were considered to be punishable by death.

Justice

Reports tell of a 16-year-old girl who was brutally killed when she was on her way home from the church in the municipality of Lapu-lapu in Cebu.

Filipinos expressed their condolences and sadness over the incident.

Others criticized those who shared the gruesome photos of the girl's death on social media.

If you see tweets containing the graphic photos of the victim, please make sure to REPORT the tweet so Twitter can take it down.#JusticeForChristine pic.twitter.com/XnEXGPkH0m

- Hello What's Up (@hitherejetaime) March 12, 2019

guys, if you've seen the rape-slay photo of the girl in Cebu, report the tweet or do not retweet the original post. let's give the girl the privacy she deserves by not letting her photos spread online 😔.

and to the people who committed that abominable crime, fuck you.

- avogadro (@pttata_86) March 12, 2019

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Evidence shows death penalty does not deter crime. Yet politicians still call for it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The rape-slay case of a grade 9 female student in Cebu revived calls on Twitter to enforce capital punishment for heinous crimes like rape despite previous evidence showing that the death penalty does not deter crime. Late dictator Ferdinand Marcos imposed the death sentence in the country from 1965 to 1986.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Punisher’s Punishment: The Effectiveness of the Death Penalty in the Philippines

# data[].attributes.subject
The Punisher’s Punishment: The Effectiveness of the Death Penalty in the Philippines

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In the Philippines, the war on drugs still rages on. Reports on the deaths and killings related to the drug trade have become an almost a daily occurrence in the media. Aside from letting extrajudicial killings committed by the police slide, the Duterte administration has begun drafting a bill to reinstate the death penalty. If fully implemented, will the ultimate punishment truly deter crime in the country? The death penalty is a controversial topic, and different countries across the globe implement it or don't. This article is not meant to declare whether or not capital punishment is right or wrong, as that is the business of societal norms and personal beliefs. Rather, it is meant to be an analysis in order to determine whether or not reinstating capital punishment is truly the right direction for civil society in the Philippines.

The country has had a long, turbulent relationship with the death penalty. Capital punishment was implemented until Corazon Aquino took power in the late 1980s. As part of the 1987 Constitution, it was prohibited except for extremely compelling situations. It was reinstated, again, during her successor's, Fidel Ramos, time in office. Republic Act Number (RA No.) 7659 imposed the death penalty on certain heinous crimes such as treason, kidnappings for ransom, murder, rape, and plunder. Human rights activists constantly opposed capital punishment, and they were satisfied when President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo suspended it again in 2006. In place of the death penalty, RA No. 9346 prescribed life imprisonment instead. With Duterte in power, it appears that capital punishment is making a coming back to Philippines.
Death is not something to be taken lightly, especially by the government, so why does it continue to swing its opinion on the subject?
It could be that it is used as a tool by the ruling government to keep power instead of truly determining the just punishment for certain crimes. Those reinstating it show their supporters their strong will and determination to keep crime off the streets, while those repealing it show compassion for the citizens to gain more support. The implementation of capital punishment in the Philippines has become dependent on the leader and the projected main issue of the time instead of something the government truly believes is just.

The majority of the arguments concerning the death penalty circle around the idea of deterrence. While this is effective in many countries, it is doubtful to see how it will help deter crimes in the Philippines. While the national police have claimed that incidents of crime fell by 13% last year in relation to Duterte's election, the number of murders has increased significantly. The main reason for this spike was the extrajudicial killings by either the police or vigilante groups. In their effort to clean up the streets of the country, those who are meant to protect the citizens end up murdering them without much consequence even though they committed a crime. Despite almost a year of Duterte's hardline on drug-related crimes, the industry has yet to show a decline in operations. In most cases, the police apprehend drug users and not the dealers. The police shootings and raids were an attempt to deter drug-related crimes from spreading, but there has been no evidence to show that much progress toward finding the leaders and stopping the industry.

The issue with the war on drugs is that it mainly affects the poor. President Duterte himself admitted that this is the case, and targeting the poorer areas is necessary to destroying the industry. While one can find certain links in the poorer areas, the illegal drug industry needs more than just operations in these zones to be successful. For example, while most drug mules are from poorer families, the industry also relies on those with presentable backgrounds to traffic drugs abroad. Respectable business fronts are a common strategy to hide underground narcotics operations. Targeting the poor is not only ineffective, but also a societal danger. With the reinstatement of the death penalty, majority of those to be executed will be from poorer backgrounds. This has the potential to increase the already polarizing gap between the rich and poor of the country. Money will not only buy security against others, but from the government as well. The poor will not have the proper resources to defend themselves in courts. Ultimately, most of those who will be on the death row will be citizens who cannot afford a lawyer. Furthermore, the reinstatement of capital punishment will justify the extrajudicial killings already committed by the police. If they avoided unlawful police execution, they would have been executed anyway by the court of law. Not only does this turn a blind eye to the abuse of power by the police, but it also questions whether or not there will be repercussions for raids without warrants and police killings.

What is most puzzling about this attempt to reinstate the death penalty is the crimes that warrant the punishment. The proposed bill focuses mainly on drug-related crimes; offenses like rape, treason, and plunder are to be removed from the proposal. It was defended in The House in an attempt to speed up the process, as adding more crimes would take longer. It is argued that crimes like rape and plunder will be added after the current one targeting drug-related crimes becomes law. With a proposal containing death by hanging, a firing squad, or lethal injection, lawmakers should not rush the process. Not only do they need to determine whether or not the country has the budget for humane executions, but there are so many definitions and clarifications to be made when the lives of the country's citizens are on the line. Furthermore, there is something very wrong with delaying the addition of other heinous crimes that will warrant the highest level of punishment. The purpose of reinstating the death penalty is to protect the citizens, but as of right now, it will only attempt to protect them from drug-related offenses, which are not the only crimes that affect the country. With a government that is known to have corruption, public officials removing plunder from the list is very sketchy. It seems that capital punishment is simply being used as a ploy to defend Duterte's decisions to the public and to keep campaign promises instead of a true solution to the problems at hand.

Practically, it is doubtful that the country can afford to execute so many people humanely, as there is such a large number of people killed on a regular basis thanks to Duterte's war on drugs. The problem is real and warrants government attention, but the way the Duterte administration is dealing with the problem is not effective or efficient. The reinstatement of the death penalty with the bill's current tenants is not only impractical, but also another reason to separate the rich from the poor. While there are movements to stop the bill, if the Senate for some reason finds it proper, the Philippines will be going down a very dark path. Instead of drafting a bill that will truly help the country keep safe, it appears that the government's efforts are messy and selfish. Once it is law, at least for the time that Duterte is president, the country will have to abide by it. Despite protests and demonstrations, the bill will become law if passed through the proper bureaucratic processes.

Maybe it will work, and citizens will approve of the perceived protection the government projects. However, letting it happen and simply praying it will work is not the way to go. The sad part is that is all the citizens can do for now. Duterte was democratically elected, so all they can do is follow his judgement. There are politicians and citizens who are actively opposing the law, and it is through them that one can find hope for the future. As one can see, the administrations' opinions on capital punishment can be swayed over time. In the coming years, it is possible that those in charge will be able to concretely decide whether or not the death penalty is right for the Philippines.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Punisher's Punishment: The Effectiveness of the Death Penalty in the Philippines

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the Philippines, the war on drugs still rages on. Reports on the deaths and killings related to the drug trade have become an almost a daily occurrence in the media. Aside from letting extrajudicial killings committed by the police slide, the Dute

# data[].attributes.headline
The Death Penalty: Criminality, Justice and Human Rights

# data[].attributes.subject
The Death Penalty: Criminality, Justice and Human Rights

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This report is accompanied by a document entitled:

"Philippines: The Death Penalty: Some Questions and Answers and Appeal Cases" (AI Index ASA 35/10/97)

1.Introduction

In 1987 the Philippines set an historic precedent by becoming the first Asian country in modern times to abolish the death penalty for all crimes. The move formed part of a determined effort to restore respect for human rights following the ouster of President Ferdinand Marcos. The new government of President Corazon Aquino also promulgated a Constitution with a Bill of Rights, established an independent Commission on Human Rights and acceded to the major international human rights treaties.

Today, more than 400 people convicted of capital offences are held on Death Row and a newly constructed 'Lethal Injection Chamber' stands ready adjacent to the National Penitentiary at Muntinlupa. With an average of up to twelve people being sentenced to death every month the Philippines, in less than four years, has gone from an abolitionist position to having one of the highest sentencing rates in the world. The Supreme Court has begun its review of these sentences and the first execution, by law possible after 27 February 1998, could well presage a flood.

At one time the Philippines, standing against a regional tide towards the increased use of the death penalty and seeking clemency for its own nationals facing execution overseas, stood as a positive role model in Southeast Asia. Today it risks losing that status, undermining its ability to protect Filipinos on death row abroad who may have been unfairly convicted.

The decision of the Philippine Congress in late 1993 to re-introduce capital punishment for 'heinous' crimes was founded on a sense of public fear and frustration at spiralling rates of violent crime. With public faith in the effectiveness of the criminal justice system at a low ebb the reintroduction of the death penalty was portrayed as a symbol of the authorities' determination to dispense justice effectively, to respond to the suffering of crime victims, and to 'get tough on criminals'.

Attitudes to capital punishment and to the part played by the abolition of the death penalty in the struggle to build an over-arching structure of human rights protection after the repression of the Marcos years, have undergone a marked shift. The relevant principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) that guided the framers of the 1987 Constitution-specifically the clauses stating that one of the most fundamental of human rights is the ' right to life', and that the process culminating in an execution of a detainee constitutes the most extreme form of ' cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment'-appear to have been set aside. Nevertheless persistent voices in the Philippines continue to express deep disquiet over how the death penalty is being applied, and to oppose the move towards executions.

Claims that executions have a significant impact on reducing crime levels and enhancing the security of law-abiding citizens have been proved false in other countries and are set to be proved false in the Philippines. There is no evidence that the death penalty acts as a greater deterrent to criminals than other forms of punishment. The killing by the Philippine state of prisoners convicted of capital crimes will not provide a solution to the challenge of criminality-which will continue to be fuelled by a complex of factors including poverty, social inequality, unemployment and the weakening of formal and informal methods of social control.

The death penalty also carries a manifest risk of miscarriages of justice. No criminal justice system in the world is immune from errors and that of the Philippines is no exception. A single error that culminates, irrevocably, in the execution of an innocent person would represent a shocking failure of justice-in effect, a judicial murder.

The risk of judicial error is sharply increased if torture or ill-treatment of criminal suspects is used to extract confessions. Such grave violations of human rights are prohibited by the Philippine Constitution and by the key international human rights treaties to which the Philippines is a party. In April 1997 an Amnesty International delegation visited the Philippines and gathered testimonies of some of those prisoners awaiting execution. The interviews conducted revealed allegations of illegal methods used by law enforcement officers to extract confessions-including ill-treatment and torture. The allegations of the death row prisoners were consistent with patterns and types of torture and ill-treatment by police reported by other criminal suspects and prisoners.

Amnesty International is concerned that illegal methods often used in the past to secure convictions of political suspects continue to be used against criminal suspects today. As well as torture and ill-treatment warrantless arrests, the planting of evidence, and the intimidation of witnesses and alleged accomplices appear to remain part of police investigative practice-and has sharply increased the risk that the innocent may indeed be executed.

The current rapid rate of death sentences in the Philippines is taking place within a context of deep-rooted public doubts over the equity, impartiality and effectiveness of the overall judicial system. These doubts are fuelled by the perception that those with influence or wealth are at times able to enjoy impunity-literally exemption from punishment. The knowledge that the overwhelming majority of those responsible for grave human rights violations in the context of past conflicts with armed opposition groups, including the communist New People's Army (NPA), have never been prosecuted has weakened confidence in equality before the law.

Similarly the fact that the overwhelming majority of those on death row come from disadvantaged sectors of society and-because of economic deprivation, lack of educational attainments or low social status-are among those least able to secure effective legal counsel, suggests that in practice not all Filipinos are equal before the law, and that the death penalty is being applied disproportionately against members of more disadvantaged sectors of society.

Amnesty International welcomed the abolition of the death penalty in the Philippines in 1987 and strongly opposed its reimposition in 1993. The organisation is now seriously concerned that death sentences are being imposed in an arbitrary, inconsistent manner which falls disproportionately on poorer, disadvantaged sectors of society. The organisation fears that there is a grave risk of judicial errors in the light of reports that illegal methods-including torture-are being used by law enforcement officers against criminal suspects. Given the threat of irrevocable executions Amnesty International is also concerned that safeguards to ensure fair trials, including the right of the accused to competent legal counsel at all stages of proceedings, are not being consistently upheld.

This report documents these concerns and describes the events that led to the reimposition of the death penalty and the current rapid rate of sentencing. One chapter with brief 'snapshot' descriptions of some of those on death row-and a later attachment (ASA 35/10/97) containing six more detailed Appeals Cases-seek to provide representative illustrations of the lives and circumstances of the more than 400 prisoners now awaiting execution. The attachment also contains some Questions and Answers regarding Amnesty International's unconditional opposition to the death penalty worldwide.

2.Changing Times: Past Use of the Death Penalty in the Philippines

As the 21st century approaches it is a matter of deep regret that in the Philippines neither the optimism engendered by the revival of human rights protection after the 1986 'People's Power' movement, nor the impact of the clear international trend towards abolition worldwide, has proved capable of reversing the recent advocacy in favour of the death penalty by leading members of the political and military establishment-purportedly as a means to address popular fears at an apparent break-down in law and order.

Yet Philippine history this century shows how the prevailing political climate has substantially changed how the death penalty has been applied. The challenge facing Philippine law-makers today is clear: they have a responsibility to lead public opinion away from the false and simplified belief that the death penalty is an effective deterrent to crime, or that retribution and vengeance justifies the state killing prisoners.

Moreover the legitimate demand of the public for protection against the impact of rising crime should be properly answered. Real protection against criminality lies not with the death penalty but with reform of the police investigative agencies and the judiciary. As articulated by the Philippine Commission on Human Rights (CHR), criminality should be confronted through ' effective law enforcement, quick and impartial delivery of justice and a responsive penal system'.

Spanish and American Rule

In 1898 three hundred years of Spanish colonial rule neared its end when the Philippine nationalist leader General Emilio Aguinaldo declared independence. However the coincident Spanish-American war led to the dispatch of a US fleet to Manila and to subsequent Spanish agreement to cede the Philippines to the US. After a short period of bitter guerrilla resistance to US troops by Philippine nationalist forces the US administered the country until introducing internal self-government in 1934. Full independence was achieved in 1946.

The Spanish Codigo Penal of 1848, introduced in the Philippines in 1884, remained the main body of criminal law during much of the American period. The first major revision came in 1932 when the Revised Penal Code came into force. It included seven capital offences: treason, piracy, parricide, murder, kidnapping, rape and robbery with homicide. Espionage was later added as a capital offence after the outbreak of the Second World War.

Post World War 11

The emergence of a peasant rebellion which had started as a resistance movement to the wartime Japanese occupation forces (the People's Anti-Japanese Army, more commonly known as "Hukbalahap" or "Huks") was regarded by the post-war authorities as being communist-inspired. The first Anti-Subversion Law, aimed against the Communist Party of the Philippines (PKP) came into force. Though it carried the death penalty for leaders of the PKP, no executions were carried out under this law. However between 1946 and the election of President Ferdinand Marcos in 1965 thirty-five people were executed-mainly those convicted of particularly savage crimes marked, in the words of Supreme Court judges who reviewed the cases, by "senseless depravity" or "extreme criminal perversity".

The Marcos Years (1965-1986)

Under President Marcos the official justification for the death penalty increasingly became that of deterrence-and its application became deeply influenced by a context of worsening political tensions. By 1969 public opposition to the Marcos government had mounted and contributed to the formation of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and its armed wing the New People's Army (NPA) by a Maoist-orientated faction of the old PKP.

Responding to the growing political and social tensions, from 1971- 1972 Congress created new capital offences involving specific crimes involving hijacking, dangerous drugs or carnapping. Subsequently Marcos justified the imposition of Martial Law (1972-1981) as both a response to the communist insurgency, and to the increase in ' lawlessness and criminality like kidnapping, smuggling, extortion, blackmail, armed robbery ....and tax evasion by syndicated criminals'

Repeatedly citing the need for deterrence a series of Presidential Decrees made many of these crimes capital offences-including crimes involving subversion, possession of firearms, arson, embezzlement and illegal fishing. In a number of the Decrees the imposition of the death penalty was made mandatory for specific offences.

Eventually a total of 24 offences were punishable by death with most being tried under military tribunals-which were defined as part of the Executive rather than of the Judiciary. Basic legal safeguards were not upheld in the tribunals-a fact highlighted by the sentencing in 1977 of Marcos' main political rival, Senator Benigno 'Ninoy' Aquino, " to die by firing squad" after being charged with murder, subversion and illegal possession of firearms. In the face of strong domestic and international pressure Marcos ordered the re-opening of the case and in 1978 allowed Aquino to leave for the US for medical treatment. Senator Aquino was subsequently assassinated by military agents at Manila airport on his return to the Philippines in 1983.

The extension of the number of crimes covered by the death penalty, and the high number of death sentences subsequently handed down, mainly by the military tribunals, was accompanied by the active propagation of the view that this policy represented a sign of 'decisive government' in confronting insurgency, lawlessness and criminality. This formed a politically useful adjunct to the Marcos' justification for the seizure of emergency powers.

A similar message had been conveyed by the last three executions to take place before martial law was imposed. The sentencing and execution in 1972 of Jaime Jose, Besilio Pineda and Edgardo Aquino for the gang rape of film star Maggie de la Riva were unprecedented in the history of the Philippine criminal justice system. Despite the prohibition against public executions the electrocutions were carried out in full view of television cameras.

Despite the changing climate and high sentencing rates the number of executions actually carried out did not undergo a dramatic increase. Of the 52 prisoners executed between 1946 and 1976, 19 took place during the pre-martial law administration of President Marcos (1965-1972), with the year 1967 accounting for 12.

During the martial law period itself 12 other executions took place before a general- and unwritten-policy of not carrying out death sentences took effect in late 1976. Of these twelve, 11 were convicted by civilian courts and one by a military tribunal. The case judged by tribunal involved convicted heroin manufacturer Lim Seng who was sentenced to life imprisonment. However President Marcos decided to use the case as a deterrent against would-be drug smugglers-and increased the sentence to death when it came before him for review. Lim Seng was executed by firing squad. The last judicial execution to take place in the Philippines, that of Marcelo San Jose, was carried out by electrocution in October 1976.

During this period a number of attempts were taken to move towards abolition but none reached legislative enactment. In 1969 the Laurel Report on Penal Reform by Senate Justice Committee chairman Senator Salvador Laurel strongly supported abolition, and in 1970 Laurel introduced a Senate bill for this purpose. The bill failed to prosper, as did two bills placed before the National Assembly in 1979. One of these, Parliamentary Bill 543 introduced by Assembly member Salacnib Baterina, summed up the concerns surrounding the application of the death penalty in the Philippines:

'The Philippine Penal system's method of retributive justice is vengeful and barbaric...Capital punishment is a form of cruelty and inhumanity unworthy of a society that claims to be humane. Since the death penalty is irrevocable and judicial error is always possible, the penalty appears as an unpardonable crime committed by society on its citizens. It is no more than a lazy answer which hinders the search for effective means of curbing crime and for a rational system of prevention'.

President Corazon Aquino (1986-1992)-Abolishing the Death Penalty

Death sentences continued to be handed down by the courts until late 1986. In 1987, when the death penalty was finally abolished, over 500 prisoners, many of whom had been sentenced by military tribunals in the martial law period, were still under sentence of death. Following the promulgation of the 1987 Constitution President Aquino announced that all existing death sentences would be commuted. The announcement backed up the Constitutional provision that ' any death penalty already imposed be reduced to "reclusion perpetua" (life imprisonment)'.

1987 Constitution-Bill of Rights, Section 19

'Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither shall the death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it'.

The decision to abolish the death penalty was influenced by four main arguments expressed in the debates of the Constitutional Commission: firstly, that capital punishment, even if not carried out, was inhuman because it traumatizes not only the prisoner but also his family; secondly, that there was no solid evidence to show that the death penalty had acted as an effective deterrent against the commission of serious crimes; thirdly, that life was a divine gift and as such should not be put in the hands of a human judge; and fourthly that modern penal systems favoured reformative rather that vindictive punishment.

During the Commission's debates the Roman Catholic Church played an influential role, arguing for respect for life and calling for effective reformative measures to be introduced into the penal code. One of the Commissioners, Bishop Teodoro Bacani, drew attention to the risk of judicial errors, and the prolonged suffering the death penalty imposed on the prisoner and his family. Recalling a former parishioner who had been erroneously sentenced to death for rape before being acquitted by the Supreme Court the Bishop said,

"....just the thought that he was going to be electrocuted, that he was among the dumb, so to speak, was such a terrible torment, not only for him but to his family. It was probably like dying two times, and when you consider his family, the death that they die, dying many times for something which proved in the end to be wrong."

Moves to Reimposition

Within less than a year, members of the armed forces, citing ' compelling reasons involving heinous crimes', began lobbying for the death penalty to be restored by Congress. General Fidel Ramos, then Chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and later elected President of the Philippines in 1992, was prominent among those calling for the reintroduction of the death penalty for rebellion, murder and drug-trafficking.

The military took a lead in submitting recommendations to the President and the Congress for the provision of the death penalty primarily as a means to combat the intensifying CPP-NPA offensives, which included urban assassination campaigns. General Ramos told Congress that a key reason behind low morale affecting the armed forces-which he believed was helping fuel repeated coup attempts by right-wing military rebels-was a lack of legislative support for the AFP's anti-insurgency campaign. To counter this Ramos called for the restoration of the death penalty for serious crimes and the introduction of a national identification system.

A bill was put before Congress in mid-1987 to reinstate the death penalty for 15 'heinous crimes' including murder, rebellion and the import or sale of prohibited drugs. The military pressure was acknowledged, with the bill's preamble reading:

'In the light of rising and mounting tide of criminality and lawlessness [...] particularly the pestering insurgency and the alarming incidents of violent crimes, and considering further the observations and recommendations coming from the military and police as well as from the courts of justice it is hereby declared that for compelling reasons of public order and national security the death penalty shall be imposed for certain heinous crimes'.[1]

The bill cited recent right-wing coup attempts as an example of ' the alarming deterioration of the peace and order condition throughout the country' and argued for the death penalty both as an ' effective deterrent against heinous crimes' and ' as a matter of simple retributive justice'.

While supporters in Congress promoted the bill as a counter-insurgency measure it was quickly acknowledged that the death penalty would not in fact deter politically-motivated crimes. Sedition was therefore left off the list of 'heinous' crimes, and 'rebellion' dropped in a later amendment. Instead supporters argued that 'retributive justice' was more important than deterrence, and the terrorist "should not be given the chance to escape and to kill again".

Amnesty International and Philippine anti-death penalty groups testified against the bill but in 1988 the House of Representatives voted for restoration by 130 votes to 25, and in 1989 three similar bills were put before the Senate. One of these bills, certified by President Aquino as urgent on the prompting of Defence Minister Fidel Ramos in the aftermath of one of the most serious right-wing military coup attempts, once again called for the death penalty for rebellion, as well as for sedition, subversion and insurrection. In 1990 the Senate suspended the vote for a year, and in 1991, amidst vigorous public debate and intense lobbying by anti-death penalty groups, did not agree to move to a decision. Senators opposed to capital punishment, notably Senator Rene Saguisag, argued forcibly that Philippine history had shown that the application of the death penalty been tilted against the poor and disadvantaged and in favour of the rich and influential.

However in the preceding five years public opinion, articulated by leading political figures, had been flowing in the direction of support for the death penalty as a form of 'retributive justice'. The belief that some crimes were so horrendous that they ' cried out to heaven for vengeance', and that the death penalty was the only punishment commensurate with such offences, gained ground. A significant incident occurred in 1990 when President Aquino visited the parents of two young girls who had been raped, murdered and mutilated in Pangasinan. Newspapers headlined reports that the President had subsequently 'vowed to work hard for the reimposition of the death penalty for heinous crimes'.

A series of horrific, widely publicised crimes including rape, murder and kidnapping-for-ransom reinforced public fears that lawlessness and criminality had reached unprecedented levels. Aside from the bloody coverage of the Manila daily tabloid press, a number of high-profile murder cases, some perpetrated by corrupt police or town mayors and at times involving children of middle-class families, were very widely reported and increased the sense of public outrage. The view that the death penalty was necessary to fight such criminality, rather than being promoted as a tool in the anti-insurgency campaign, gained ascendency.

President Fidel Ramos 1992-

Following his election as President in 1992 Fidel Ramos declared in his first State of the Nation address that the restoration of the death penalty would be regarded by his government as a legislative priority. Citing his government's aim of rebuilding foreign investor confidence and the need to address public demands for a restoration of law and order Ramos urged Congress to take speedy action.

As the congressional debate resumed Ramos agreed not to include 'political' offences such as rebellion in the measures because of the adverse impact this would have on 'national reconciliation' in the context of an official peace process-including offers of amnesty-with the major armed opposition groups. However, the list of crimes to be considered 'heinous' was expanded to reflect the administration's emphasis on economic issues. Ramos proposed that, in addition to crimes such as drug-trafficking, murder, kidnapping and other crimes involving the use of unlicensed firearms, 'economic' offences including smuggling, illegal export of foreign currency and bribery should be included.

Despite opponents arguing that the bill's proponents had failed to prove 'compelling reasons' for the restoration of the death penalty as required by the Constitution, that inadequate crime statistics had led to a failure to clarify before Congress the real nature and trend of criminality, and that there were persistent reports that corrupt police regularly planted evidence in criminal investigations, both House and Senate eventually voted in favour of the death penalty. A joint measure, Republic Act 7659, restoring the death penalty was agreed by Congress and signed by President Ramos in December 1993-taking effect on 1 January 1994.

Republic Act 7659: An Act to Restore the Death Penalty on Certain Heinous Crimes

Under the Act the death penalty may be imposed for 13 "heinous crimes": treason, piracy, bribery, parricide, murder, infanticide, kidnapping and serious illegal detention, robbery with violence, arson, rape, plunder (of at least Peso 50m ($2m)), certain drugs offences[2], theft of a vehicle with rape or murder.

For most crimes the imposition of the death penalty is optional with the court given the choice of penalties ranging from designated 'short' and 'medium' periods of imprisonment, reclusion perpetua (life imprisonment)[3] to death.

Under certain aggravating circumstances-including when an offender takes advantage of his/her public position to extort bribes or violate the Dangerous Drugs Act, or when murder is committed in the course of rape or kidnapping for ransom-a mandatory death penalty is stipulated.

The death penalty cannot be imposed on those aged under 18 or over 70 at the time of the crime.

Death sentences are automatically reviewed by the Supreme Court sitting en banc. Supreme Court confirmation of an execution requires a majority, not a unanimous, vote. Executions are to be carried out no earlier than one year and no later than 18 months following confirmation of the sentence. Prisoners facing execution may also submit a petition for clemency to the President.

Republic Act 8177, approved in 1996, stipulated that the method of execution should be by lethal injection.

3.Who Are the Prisoners on Death Row?

Since January 1994 more than 400 people have been sentenced to death in the Philippines. By September 1997 six prisoners had had their sentences confirmed by the Supreme Court-and the countdown in the statutory 12 to 18 month waiting period between confirmation and execution had begun. The Supreme Court has ruled that the execution of Leo Echegaray (see Appeal Case), the first prisoner to have his death sentence confirmed, can take place at any time after 27 February 1998 and before 28 August 1998.

The cases oulined briefly below, together with the Appeal Cases listed in the Attachment, seek to illustrate more clearly the lives and circumstances of a small number of the people who lie behind the statistics.

Fernando Galera, a 26-year-old fish vendor, who was sentenced to death for rape and robbery in April 1994. He was the first person to be sentenced to death since restoration of the death penalty. He is reported to have been too poor to afford to pay for a competent lawyer.[4] He also claimed he did not have enough time to prepare for his defence before his trial. His request for a re-trial, to allow new witnesses to come forward, was refused in May 1994.

Adoracion Sevilla, a 52-year-old woman, who was sentenced to death with her male business partner, Joel Gaspar, in February 1996 for possession of four kilos of marijuana leaves. The trial judge is reported to have said that the court had no other alternative than to impose the death penalty to serve as a deterrent to others.[5] Adoracion Sevilla is suffering from cervical cancer. She is one of seven women who have been sentenced to death for drugs offences or murder. All are believed to have committed their alleged crimes with male accomplices who were also sentenced to death. Female death row prisoners are held at the Correctional Institute for Women in Manila.

Richard Ong, aged 33, who was sentenced to death in August 1996 for his alleged role in a highly publicized murder case. In an interview with Amnesty International, Richard Ong claimed he was blindfolded, tortured with electric shocks and threatened with death by agents of the Presidential Anti-Crime Commission in order to force him to confess. He claims he is innocent.

The mother of Abe Valdez y dela Cruz fainting in his arms when journalists informed her that her son had been sentenced to death.

Ceasar Perante, Vizcaya Advocate

Abe Valdez y dela Cruz, a 25-year-old farmer who was sentenced to death in February 1997 under the Dangerous Drugs Act for planting seven marijuana plants. He claimed that he was unaware he was breaking the law and that the plants were intended to be used for herbal medicines. According to a press report, he did not understand the verdict, which was announced in English, until it was translated for him by journalists.[6] He is also reported to have said that the police threatened him into confessing that he owned the marijuana plants.

Arnel Alicando, an illiterate butcher who was sentenced to death for rape and murder in July 1994. The Supreme Court later sent his case back for re-trial after finding that the court proceedings had not been translated from English, which he did not understand, into Waray, his native language. In June 1996 the Iloilo Regional Trial Court sentenced him to death a second time, reportedly on the basis of testimony by one lone witness.[7]

Hideshi Suzuki, a 38-year-old Japanese man is one of six foreign nationals on death row. He was sentenced to death for trafficking in marijuana in December 1994. He has claimed that the drugs were planted on him by police officers. Narcotics officers reportedly questioned him in English, a language he could barely understand.[8] Other foreign nationals under sentence of death include four Taiwanese men convicted of drugs offences and a Libyan national convicted of kidnapping and rape.

4.Amnesty International's Concerns

4.1The Lessons of the Past

On the eve of the possible renewal of executions in the Philippines after 20 years it is clear that the concerns surrounding the application of the death penalty in the past remains pressing today. These concerns include:

-The risks of judicial error-especially in the light of continued reports of illegal methods including the planting of evidence, and the use of ill-treatment and torture to secure confessions from criminal suspects.

-Evidence that the death penalty continues to be applied in an arbitrary, inconsistent way which falls disproportionately on poorer, disadvantaged sectors of society.

-The safeguards necessary to ensure fair trial, which are especially important when the punishment is irrevocable-and which include the right of the accused to have access to competent legal counsel at every stage of proceedings-are not being rigorously and consistently upheld.

In a 1989 report[9] Amnesty International highlighted seven cases from the pre-abolition period where mistakes by lower courts-eventually exposed by Supreme Court reviews-led to the death penalty being imposed. The cases underscored the inevitable risks of human error in the judicial process and how, in practice, the death penalty was imposed in an arbitrary, selective way. The cases also drew attention to the human suffering of the falsely convicted-most of whom had to endure imprisonment under sentence of death for over ten years before being acquitted by the Supreme Court.

Moreover fears remain that innocent people may have been executed. In one case, involving a farmer named Eusebio Molijan, sentenced to death for multiple murder during an attempted robbery in 1950 and executed by electrocution in 1958, there remains concern that he may have been falsely convicted. Eusebio Molijan was convicted on the strength of a written confession which he retracted during his trial, saying he had been punched in the stomach and beaten with a piece of wood by police to force him to confess. He also claimed he had been forced against his will to participate in the robbery and that another man had planned and carried out the murders. The Supreme Court acknowledged that there was insufficient evidence to prove that Molijan was the instigator of the crime, but his death sentence was confirmed.

The risks of executing the innocent were highlighted by the case of two men convicted of piracy by military tribunals who were due to be executed in 1976. Late on the night before the execution one of the prisoners, an elderly man named Felipe Santos, told the prison chaplain that he was innocent. The chaplain went to the adjoining cell and asked Santos' co-accused about Santos' involvement. The co-accused admitted that he had involved Santos only so as to have a 'companion in my misery'. After hurried attempts to contact the authorities, the execution, due to take place at 3.00 pm, was called off by President Marcos at 2.55 pm.

4.2.Upholding International Standards

By September 1997, less than four years after capital punishment was restored in the Philippines, over 400 people had been sentenced to death. The lower courts are handing down death sentences with increasing frequency. There are reports that many lower court judges, responding to popular calls for a strong response to crime, are tending to exercise their discretionary powers in imposing death sentences, rather than giving life sentences. Some observers also claim that once the crime is labelled 'heinous' in court, and the weight of proof appears to be moving against the defendant, a momentum can be unleashed which works against the need to uphold the most stringent procedures to minimise the risks of a false conviction. Amnesty International has documented cases in which trial irregularities have taken place. Such tendencies are exacerbated by the fact that many defendants, from poor or disadvantaged backgrounds, cannot afford counsel with a proven record of competence.

Yet in capital cases, where there is a possibility of an irrevocable execution, it is critical that the defendant is afforded a fair trial. Human rights standards adopted by the UN have repeatedly insisted that those charged with capital crimes must be extended all possible safeguards to ensure a fair trial. The UN Safeguards Guaranteeing Protection of the Rights of Those Facing the Death Penalty[10] make clear that these safeguards should 'at least be equal to those contained in Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)'[11]

The UN Safeguards, which apply to all UN member states, also provide that capital punishment may only be carried out pursuant to final judgement by a competent court in which defendants are entitled to adequate legal assistance at all stages of the proceedings, and have the right to appeal to a higher court and the right to seek pardon or commutation of sentence. In all cases, the death sentence may only be imposed when the guilt of the person charged is based on clear and convincing evidence leaving no room for an alternative explanation of the facts.

The UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions has reiterated that

"proceedings leading to the imposition of capital punishment must conform to the highest standards of independence, competence, objectivity and impartiality of judges and juries, in accordance with the pertinent international legal instruments. All defendants facing the imposition of capital punishment must benefit from the services of a competent defence counsel at every stage of the proceedings. Defendants must be presumed innocent until their guilt has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, in strict application of the highest standards for the gathering and assessment of evidence. In addition, all mitigating factors must be taken into account."[12]

In the Philippines the automatic review of all death penalty cases by the Supreme Court forms an essential, though not infallible, safeguard in accordance with the principles of the UN Resolution. However there are continuing and serious concerns related to the guarantees of a fair trial for death penalty by the courts at the regional and local level. There is mounting concern that lower court judges, to some extent affected by a political and popular climate calling for rapid sentencing, are not ensuring that death penalty cases adhere to the legal safeguards defined in Article 14 of the ICCPR.

4.3Reforming the Criminal Justice System

Public confidence in the integrity and effectiveness of the criminal justice system-undermined under President Marcos by patterns of political pressure, corruption, extended delays and witness intimidation-failed to recover under President Aquino and remains weak today. President Ramos has identified reform of the judicial system as a government priority. In October 1996, addressing the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and other lawyers' groups, Ramos linked weaknesses in the judicial system to the deterioration in law and order and stated:

"...the wheels of justice grind much too slowly. Many investigators and prosecutors are incompetent. The rich and powerful, as well as government officials, set a bad example by flouting the law".

The government has focused on the criminal investigation agencies, especially the PNP, and made repeated efforts to improve the credibility and effectiveness of the police service by removing officers alleged to be corrupt or to have violated human rights. Nevertheless corruption within the PNP has been highlighted by a number of cases of PNP personnel being involved in kidnap-for-ransom and bank robbery gangs, or being linked to protection rackets for such gangs. In one high-profile case, regarded by many as representing the tip of the iceberg, Vice President Joseph Estrada, head of the Presidential Anti-Crime Commission (PACC), at a televised news conference in 1992, arrested the former head of Manila's anti-kidnapping task force Chief Inspector Jose Pring and Chief Inspector Timoteo Zarcal of the Criminal Investigation Service Command for involvement in kidnap-for-ransom gangs. Zarcal was dismissed and Pring relieved from the police force after an internal investigation: a judge later dismissed criminal charges against them because of the improper manner of their arrest. The PACC itself came under sharp public criticism after reports emerged that its members were involved in the 'salvaging' (the local term for extrajudicial execution) and torture of criminal suspects-particularly those suspected of involvement in kidnap gangs.

There are serious concerns that some of the illegal methods used in the past by the security forces against political suspects to secure confessions-including intimidation, ill-treatment and torture-continue to be used today by the Philippine National Police (PNP) and other criminal investigation agencies against criminal suspects. Some Filipino observers in Metro Manila have suggested that ill-treatment or torture of criminal suspects is in danger of becoming police 'standard operating procedure'. Those particularly vulnerable include people suspected of involvement in high-profile 'heinous' capital crimes, such as kidnapping for ransom or rape with murder, where the police are under official or public pressure to 'solve the case quickly'.

Within this context Amnesty International and other Philippine human rights groups were dismayed that President Ramos, as he announced in late 1995 the creation of a special inter-agency task force-comprising elements from the PNP, AFP and National Bureau of Investigation (NBI)-to weed out police or military officers found to be corrupt or to have violated human rights, at the same time called for the Supreme Court to speed up the confirmation of death sentences. The President was supported by Senator Ernesto Herrera, author of the bill restoring the death penalty, who stated the upsurge in heinous crimes could partly be blamed on the slow enforcement of the death penalty, and called for Congress to reduce the mandatory waiting period between final Supreme Court confirmation and execution to six months.

Amnesty International acknowledges that the authorities are facing the challenge of serious, frequently violent crime. However there is no indication that the death penalty will act as an effective deterrent and have a marked effect on future crime rates. After the death penalty came into effect in January 1994 crime levels did not decline significantly. Rather, the commission of rape is reported to have risen by 40 per cent in 1994 and by 44 per cent in 1995, while kidnappings and bank robberies continued at a high level. In 1994 the nationwide crime rate was reported to have declined by only 1 per cent, while the average monthly crime rate in Metro Manila rose by over 6.5 per cent in 1994 from the previous year.[13]

Public anxiety over violent crime, and concerning police-officers' involvement in human rights violations, is being addressed not by effective institutional reforms-including the provision of improved police training, remuneration and crime-detection equipment-but by an official policy advocating the execution of prisoners convicted of capital offences. Though the flaws in the criminal justice system are clearly visible the death penalty is presented by the authorities, and accepted by much of the public, as an answer to the rising crime rate. As Senator Ernesto Herrera, the author of the bill restoring the death penalty, commented in 1997 on announcing a report that up to 400 people have now been sentenced to death:

" It seems that judges are resorting to the death penalty with ruthless efficiency. I believe it is their way of declaring war against rising criminality'.[14]

4.4Torture and Ill-Treatment: The Use of Physical and Mental Duress to Extract Confessions

The Philippine Constitution[15] states that " No torture, force, violence, threat or intimidation, or any other means that vitiate the free will" shall be used against any person under investigation for the commission of an offence. Any evidence or admission obtained by these means is inadmissible as evidence.

Yet one of the most pressing of concerns relating to the inherent risk of judicial errors in death penalty cases in the Philippines involves allegations that unlawful methods are at times being used to extract confessions. There are persistent reports that the PNP and other investigative agencies periodically flout established legal procedures during criminal investigations. The police practice of arresting criminal suspects without warrants is widespread. Criminal suspects are frequently 'invited' for questioning and then held in legal 'administrative detention' before the laying of formal charges, by law required within 12-36 hours of the arrest depending on the seriousness of the charge. It is during this period that suspects are most vulnerable to ill-treatment and torture as police interrogate them to secure a confession, or coerce suspects to identify and incriminate their suspected 'accomplices'.

Judges play a critical role in exposing and acting against such violations. When police attempt to short-circuit and accelerate the judicial system by extracting forced confessions, and are then exposed, judges reject such denials of due process and send the affected cases back for reinvestigation. The dispensation of justice, already too slow in the public's eye, is slowed still further.

Interviews conducted by Amnesty International representatives in April 1997 with criminal suspects-involving both capital and non-capital offences-point to a continuing pattern of ill-treatment and torture by law officers during the interrogation period, notably in the Metro-Manila area. These cases reveal common characteristics: criminal suspects are often picked up by unidentified men in plain-clothes without warrants. Suspects are often quickly handcuffed, punched and kicked and forced into waiting cars. They are mostly blindfolded with masking tape or cloths, before being taken to police headquarters, local police precincts, or, in some instances, to secret places of detention.

During interrogation, which may be staggered over a period of days, suspects report being punched with fists (at times with bullets held between the interrogator's fingers) and being beaten with rifle-butts or batons wrapped in newspaper. Pistol barrels are placed against the head or in the mouth and the suspect threatened with death. Bullets are put between the fingers and then the hand squeezed. Plastic bags are put over the head and held tightly at the back to suffocate the detainee. This can be repeated six times or more. Suspects also have their heads forced down toilet bowls or into water containers. Pieces of cloth are placed over the head and water dripped on to create a gradual suffocation. Alternatively water is poured directly into the nostrils or mouth. At times interrogators simultaneously stand, or place weight on the stomach, to intensify the suspect's experience of suffocation.

Electric shocks are also used, with water being poured over the body and then bare electric wires touched against the genitals, lips, ears, arms or legs. At times the suspects are forced to put their feet in pails of water, and the electric current passed through the water.

Edgar Maligaya, a 28-year old former parolee now on Death Row, was picked up in January 1996 by plainclothes police at Manila City Jail where he used to return regularly as a volunteer guitarist in the prison chapel. Edgar Maligaya alleges that he was blindfolded, punched and pushed into a car where his head was held down between the front seats. The car was driven to a location he suspected was a hotel and he was taken into an air-conditioned, carpeted room where he was interrogated about his alleged involvement in the fatal shooting of a Filipino-Chinese businessman in 1995.

During the interrogation, which was staggered over a period of a night, Edgar Maligaya claims he was punched hard when he failed to answer a question 'correctly'. He was then pushed to the floor with his shirt pulled off, his trousers round his knees and his hands cuffed behind his back and beaten on the stomach with a wooden baton wrapped in paper. A plastic bag was placed over his head and held tight at the back of the neck until he began to gag: the process was repeated more than five times. On being threatened with electric shocks Edgar Maligaya agreed to confess. A typewriter was brought to the room and a confession typed up. Maligaya signed the papers without reading them. Maligaya's case came to trial and he was sentenced to death in August 1996. The Supreme Court has yet to review the verdict. A friend of Maligaya, Expedito Bolima, also suspected of involvement in the crime, claims to have been arrested by police the same night and taken to an unidentified hotel room where he was interrogated and allegedly subjected to various forms of torture, including beatings, electric shocks and having his face held under the water in a toilet bowl. Expedito Bolima finally agreed to confess and his trial is continuing. Both Maligaya and Bolima claim that they were pressured to incriminate other alleged members of the group suspected of killing the businessman.

Dante Piandiong, whose death sentence has been confirmed by the Supreme Court, has also made allegations of torture. Dante Piandiong, a 26 year old old fish-vendor was sentenced with two alleged accomplices, Jesus Morallos and Archie Bulan, for staging a robbery of a passenger jeepney in which a policeman was shot dead. Dante Piandiong claims that he was innocent and that he was tortured during interrogation to secure a confession-which he refused to give. The torture allegedly included being badly beaten, being suffocated by having water dripped onto a cloth placed over his face and through electrocution by wires being placed on his genitals.

The Philippines, as party to the UN Convention Against Torture (CAT)[16], has a duty to ensure that any individual who alleges he has been subjected to torture has the right to complain to, and to have his case promptly and impartially examined by its competent authorities.

The allegations recorded by Amnesty International not only raise the most serious concerns over whether those facing the death penalty can be ensured a fair trial, but also lend credence to a widely reported public belief that PNP and other law enforcement agencies continue to commit grave human rights violations in the course of investigations against criminal suspects, and that many of these alleged violations are not properly investigated. In 1995 and 1996 the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) named PNP members as topping the list of those responsible for alleged human rights violations reported to it.

4.5Fair Trial: Justice Denied?

'The administration of justice in this country needs a stronger foundation not in terms of restoration of the death penalty, but in the strict implementation of penal laws and the equitable administration of justice, in accordance with international human rights laws'.[17]

The Philippine Constitution provides that those accused of crimes shall be informed of charges against them, have the right to counsel, and be provided with a speedy and public trial. Defendants are presumed innocent and have the right to confront witnesses against them, to present evidence and to appeal their convictions. There is no jury system under Philippine law and all cases are heard by judges.

There is apprehension that, in practice, the implementation of these constitutional provisions has been weakened and that the Philippines Government's obligation-as a party to the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)-to adhere, at a minimum, to the provisions of ICCPR Article 14 in death penalty cases is not being consistently upheld. The application of the death penalty in the Philippines suggests that, in practice, everyone is not afforded equal protection under the law as guaranteed by the Constitution[18]

In addition to concerns over the corrosion of the integrity of the criminal investigation process-heightened by examples of police offices violating human rights or being corrupt or inefficient-there is also concern over some of the procedures and practices of the courts, primarily at the local or regional trial court level.

While many recognise the Philippine judiciary's long-established traditions of defence of the rule of law it is evident that the institution as a whole has come under increased criticism in recent years. Public confidence has been shaken by open charges of corruption and failures to uphold strict impartiality-which have been levelled at judges up to the Supreme Court itself, specifically in relation to commercial cases. In 1994 Vice President Estrada famously declared a campaign against allegedly corrupt judges whom he labelled " hoodlums in robes".

Moreover there is a widely-held perception that the judicial system, notoriously slow and inefficient, works in favour of the wealthy and influential and against the poor and disadvantaged. Although a number of important convictions in recent years-notably the conviction in 1995 of the Mayor of Calauan, Antonio Sanchez, for the rape and murder of a university student and the killing of her boyfriend-raised hopes that those with traditional influence over police, public officials or judges, who could enjoy impunity would be brought to account, there is still a widely held perception that court procedures and rulings can be arbitrary and that the poor and ill-educated are vulnerable to the vagaries of a system they cannot afford, and do not understand.

The length of trials and the subsequent costs of retaining private counsel for extended periods weighs heavily against the poor. Numerous technical delays and frequent failures of judges and prosecutors to appear cause trials to be frequently prolonged.

The provision of counsel from the Public Attorney's Office (PAO) for those unable to afford private lawyers has also been criticised-especially in death penalty cases. Some PAO lawyers, often underpaid and under-resourced, have been accused of not having the necessary competence and experience for the vigorous and searching defence especially important in a capital case.

Defendants are at risk of being inadequately represented by lawyers untrained in capital punishment law, or because poorly paid attorneys often fail to investigate their client's background or raise relevant mitigating circumstances at the sentencing hearing.

A number of death penalty people convicted of heinous crimes also complain that their assigned PAO lawyers appeared to regard them with a negative bias for being part of a perceived social or criminal underclass, had limited interest in their cases, and did not exert consistent and regular efforts on their behalf.

A statistical survey[19] of death row prisoners issued in May 1997 by the Coalition Against the Death Penalty in the Philippines (CADP)-an alliance of abolitionist NGOs-confirmed that the death penalty is being applied disproportionately against the poor, disadvantaged and ill-educated. There is a grim realisation that the patterns of the past appear about to be repeated-a study of the pre-abolition period showed that of the 82 prisoners executed between 1926 and 1976, 92 per cent came from the lower socio-economic sector.

Coalition Against the Death Penalty survey 'Some Statistics on Death Row', May 1997

By May 1997 a total of 323 male death penalty prisoners were recorded as having been transferred to death row at the National Penitentiary at Muntinlupa, with three women death penalty prisoners held at the Women's Correctional Institute at Mandaluyong.

Education-Of 325 prisoners surveyed 47 per cent had been educated to Elementary or primary level, 36 per cent to High School level and only 13 per cent to College level.

Income and Occupation-Of 265 prisoners surveyed 69 per cent earned less than 5,000 pesos[20] a month.[21] Three percent of the prisoners earned less that the official designated poverty line of 740 pesos a month. Over 67 per cent of 320 prisoners surveyed worked in the Agricultural, Construction[22] or Transportation[23] sectors.

Types of Offences-Of 325 prisoners surveyed over 50 per cent offences related to Rape and its related crimes, 21 per cent related to Murder, 13 per cent to Homicide and its related crimes and 4 per cent to drugs-related offences.

Legal Representation -Of 279 death row prisoners surveyed 38 per cent had no legal representation for the review of their sentence by the Supreme Court, 28 per cent retained private lawyers, 20 per cent were represented by Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) human rights lawyers and 12 per cent by lawyers from the Public Attorney's Office (PAO).

There is also disquiet over allegations that some judges in the lower courts, who may be strongly supportive of the death penalty, are failing to combat a climate of opinion both inside and outside the court room suggesting that a person under strong suspicion of committing an unsolved heinous crime deserves to be found guilty and sentenced to death in a rapid and decisive manner- undermining the presumption of innocence. In an attempt to meet public demands for a more rapid delivery of justice, a number of regional trial courts have been designated 'special courts' and assigned to try cases involving heinous crimes within an allotted time limit. Amid public outrage at the kidnapping and murder of 18-year-old student Manuel Luis Ongpin in March 1996 a judge of one such 'special court', which had been allotted two months for the trial and one month for a decision, conducted hearings at an accelerated pace. Three men-Richard Ong, Raymundo Baricaua and Asenio Corpuz-were sentenced to death after five weeks of hearings. The judge later criticised the PNP and National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) for serious failings-both in terms of methodology and use of equipment-in their handling of the investigation.

The particular need in capital cases for 'reasonable doubts' to be entertained in a rigorously dispassionate and impartial manner appears at risk of being prejudiced by a pervasive desire for the death penalty as 'deterrence' to other criminals. References to 'hanging judges' and members of the bench belonging to groups such as the 'Guillotine Club'-a group of judges in favour of the death penalty-reinforce such disquiet. In addition, reports from the provinces suggest that local lawyers are increasingly reluctant to defend those on capital charges, with one court judge commenting that lawyers avoid defending such cases " because the chances of winning are slim".[24]

There are accounts that many of those who protest their innocence but have had the death sentence imposed against them had a very limited understanding of the direction and course of their trials, and were astounded and deeply shocked at the eventual verdict and sentence-not only because the balance of evidence had unexpectedly been found to weigh against them, but also because the judge announced death as the punishment prescribed by law. There are also reports of court proceedings being conducted mostly in English, as is normal, with inadequate provisions for translation into the various regional languages or dialects used as the first or only means of spoken communication by the overwhelming majority of death penalty defendants. In one case Arnel Alicando, an illiterate butcher, was sentenced to death for rape and murder in July 1994 despite not understanding the court proceedings which were not translated from English to Waray, his native language. The Supreme Court later sent his case to a lower court for retrial, where he was sentenced to death again.

4.6Review by the Supreme Court

Because of concerns over irregularities during police criminal investigations and over the fairness of trials by the lower courts, the safeguard role of the Supreme Court in automatically reviewing all death penalty convictions is of critical importance. This is borne out by a Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) study of pre-abolition death penalty cases from 1976-86 which found that of 463 cases where the death penalty was imposed by the lower courts, the Supreme Court confirmed only 86 cases.

Unlike other judicial systems such as that of the United States, where there are a number of appeal avenues-including courts at the local, state and federal levels-in the Philippines all death penalty cases have only one level of judicial appeal and go directly to the Supreme Court.[25] Of the 23 capital cases whose reviews had been ruled on by the Supreme Court by September 1997 six sentences were confirmed, four prisoners were acquitted, six had the trial court decisions set aside and their cases remanded for re-trial, and seven had their death sentences commuted to imprisonment.

The burdens borne by the Supreme Court, including both capital and non-capital cases, are already onerous. There is concern that with over 350 death penalty cases waiting for review the Supreme Court may at times be unable to devote the same level of rigorous attention to each and every case. The risk that an unsafe conviction may not be detected-and that an innocent person may be executed-is constantly present.

By law the full Supreme Court of 15 justices en banc[26]must rule on death penalty cases. A majority, rather than a unanimous decision, is required to confirm a death sentence. As each justice faces a formidably heavy case load of both non-capital and capital cases, the Justice selected to be the ponente, or writer, of the case assessment for presentation to the full Court for decision potentially has very great influence.

Case load pressures mean that each individual justice is unlikely to have the time to study all the motions and pleadings of every case, but will need to rely to a large extent on the guidance and synthesis outlined in the opinion of the ponente. While capital cases may prove an exception to this procedural practice-with every justice seeking to apply an exceptional degree of attention to each case because of the irrevocable nature of the death penalty-there remains concern that if a single ponente fails to detect a potential flaw in the case, it may well never be revealed and explored by the wider court.

5.Killing by Lethal Injection

The last execution to take place in the Philippines was by electrocution in 1976. The country's only electric chair was subsequently destroyed by fire, and in February 1996 Congress approved a bill to allow those on death row to be executed by lethal injection. Those supporting the bill argued that execution by injection was the most 'humane' method of killing, and that it was cheaper than alternative proposals to build a gas chamber or electric chair. The lethal injection chamber was costed at $38,000, with each injection estimated at less than $50 per person.

A Lethal Injection Chamber has now been completed at the National Penitentiary at Muntinlupa. Reportedly using equipment from the United States, the unit is believed to consist of two 60-ft metal 'cargo' containers joined together and adapted to contain five small rooms.

It is reported that the execution room will be equipped with a bed and an injection machine, and that the prisoner will be strapped down by technical staff wearing surgical gowns and masks. A needle will be inserted into the prisoner's vein and a succession of three drugs injected from the machine. Unconsciousness is claimed to occur within 10 seconds with death following within minutes.

The first drug, an anaesthetizing barbiturate (sodium thiopental) is intended to make the prisoner unconscious; the second, a chemical paralytic agent (pancuronium bromide), to paralyse the diaphragm and thus arrest the motion of the lungs, and the third, potassium chloride, to cause cardiac arrest.

The proponents of this form of execution suggest that it is 'humane'. However if a prisoner struggles during the execution the poison may enter an artery or muscle tissue and cause pain. If the components of the lethal solution are not balanced or they combine prematurely, the mixture may thicken, clog the intravenous line and slow the process of death.If the anaesthetizing barbiturate does not take effect quickly, the prisoner may be conscious of suffocation as his or her lungs become paralysed.

Edward Brunner MD, Professor of Anaesthesia at Northwestern University Medical School (USA), has argued that the different physiological constitution of individual prisoners requires the administration of different amounts of anaesthetizing barbiturate for the drug to always have its intended effect. Moreover if the three drugs were administered out of sequence there was a high risk that the prisoner would suffer extreme pain during a lethal injection even without the outward appearance of pain[27]

In the case of Ricky Rector, executed by lethal injection in January 1992 in Arkansas (USA), witnesses to the execution reported hearing moans or outbursts coming from the execution chamber as technicians searched for almost an hour to find suitable veins in which to inject the lethal chemicals. Ricky Rector was apparently aware of the problem and helped the execution team in their task. In an article in a local newspaper[28] an official with the Arkansas Department of Correction said:

"We weren't just sticking him every minute. We were looking for a new vein. We kept thinking the next one would be it....We thought we had it, but we didn't, that is unusual, but it happens. He had spindly veins that collapsed easily. We searched. We were lucky to find a vein at all".

James Autry was executed in Texas (USA) in 1984 and Newsweek magazine reported that he " took at least ten minutes to die and throughout much of that time was conscious, moving about and complaining of pain". A prison doctor who was present at the execution was later reported to have said that the catheter needle may have become clogged, slowing down the execution.

6.Saying No to the Death Penalty

Individuals from all sections of Philippine society have sought to uphold and strengthen respect for the individual human dignity of all Filipinos by opposing the reimposition and application of the death penalty. They have included members of Church, human rights and women's groups, politicians, academics, lawyers and journalists from the leading Philippine newspapers.

The Roman Catholic Church (82 per cent of those on death row are Catholic) and other religious groups have played a consistently important role in seeking to question prevailing political and popular opinion suggesting that the answer to criminality, especially appalling heinous offences, lay in executing prisoners.In July 1997 the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) responded to a government announcement that the first executions would take place in early 1998 by stating that the official push for executions was

"...an implicit admission of the government's failure and utter helplessness in enforcing the law, improving the judicial system and setting up a truly reformative prison program"

The Bishops also made clear their conviction that

"The government has once again chosen to turn a blind eye to those who will ultimately be executed - the powerless and helpless majority".

The CBCP's position on the death penalty is based on the thinking articulated by the Holy See, most recently in the 1995 Papal Encyclical, Evangelium Vitae or Gospel of Life. In this statement Pope John Paul II brought the Church the closest it has come to calling for a ban on capital punishment by stating that, in modern societies, cases of justifiable capital punishment are ' practically non-existent'. He noted that

'....there is a growing tendency, both in the Church and in civil society, to demand that it [the death penalty] be applied in a very limited manner or even that it be abolished completely. The problem must be viewed in the context of a system of penal justice ever more in line with human dignity and thus, in the end, with God's plan for man and society'.

In the same statement the Pope also referred positively to the abolition of the death penalty when, speaking of 'signs of hope', he cited 'growing opposition to the death penalty, even when such a penalty is seen as a kind of 'legitimate defence' on the part of society'. The Pope went on to state that

'Modern society in fact has the means of effectively suppressing crime by rendering criminals harmless without definitively denying them the chance to reform'.

In the Philippines, the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) has made clear its firm opposition to the application of the death penalty. In Resolutions issued in 1991 and 1996 the Commission rejected the argument of deterrence and retribution put forward by death penalty advocates, warned of the risk of irrevocable judicial error, and stressed that the answer to rising criminality lay in effective law enforcement, an equitable administration of justice and a responsive penal system.

In 1996 the CHR reiterated that it was mandated by the Constitution to monitor the government's compliance with international human rights treaties, including the ICCPR, and that it would work to ensure that, in accordance with such treaties, the legal procedures and safeguards guaranteeing the rights of those facing the death penalty were upheld. It resolved that legal services would be extended to those facing the death penalty-especially the economically disadvantaged-through its Legal Assistance and Visitorial Services. In March 1997 the Commission moved further and resolved to call on President Ramos to exercise his powers of Executive Clemency on those whose sentences had been confirmed by the Supreme Court, to lobby Congress to repeal the Death Penalty Act (RA 7659) and to recommend that the Senate ratify the Second Optional Protocol of the ICCPR, which states in its preamble that " abolition of the death penalty contributes to enhancement of human dignity and progressive development of human rights".

The Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG), an association of human rights lawyers, has taken a lead in the task of providing experienced, competent legal counsel for as many death penalty prisoners as possible in filing submissions on behalf of prisoners whose cases are being reviewed by Supreme Court and in pursuing constitutional challenges to the use of the death penalty. In the case of Leo Echegaray, who in June 1996 became the first prisoner to have his death sentence confirmed by the Supreme Court, FLAG lawyers filed a Motion for Reconsideration. Following the Supreme Court's reconfirmation of the sentence 'with finality' in February 1997, FLAG filed a Second Motion for Reconsideration, but the Court refused to hear it. These efforts, within the context of a rapidly accelerating rate of death penalty convictions, have placed great strain on FLAG's resources. The CADP Survey of May 1997 revealed that FLAG were able to provide counsel at the stage of Supreme Court review for only 20 per cent of the 279 prisoners surveyed, and that at this stage 43 per cent of prisoners on death row had no legal counsel at all.

The Coalition Against the Death Penalty (CADP, known also as the Association For the Abolition of the Death Penalty, AADP) represents a broad array of groups and individuals working against capital punishment. Groups in the Coalition include the CBCP-Episcopal Commission on Prisoners Welfare (ECOPRIW), Caritas Manila, the Philippine Jesuit Prison Service (PJPS), the Manila City Jail prisoner welfare group Bisig ni Kristo, the Philippine Alliance of Human Rights Advocates (PAHRA), Pro-Life Philippines, Amnesty International-Philippines and others.

The Coalition exerted great efforts during the Congressional debates on the death penalty Bills in 1992-3 and subsequently challenged the constitutionality of the death penalty Act before the Supreme Court in 1994. The Court rejected their appeal on the grounds that the petitioners lacked legal standing as they were not directly affected by the Act.

Since then the Coalition has sought to increase public awareness of the death penalty, to provide support for death row prisoners and their families, to stop the move towards executions and to lobby for the death penalty's total abolition. The Coalition also set up small local community groups, including both concerned individuals and prisoners' relatives, to offer practical, pastoral and paralegal support for death row prisoners and their families.

Women's groups have also played a significant role in opposing the death penalty. Nearly 50 per cent of death penalty convictions have been for rape and related 'complex' of crimes as defined by the Death Penalty Act.[29] The high and increasing incidence of rape is a major source of concern in the Philippines and yet women's groups did not call for the death penalty, or for the inclusion as rape as a capital crime. They do not agree with the view put forward by proponents of capital punishment that executions are a legitimate or effective response to patterns of rape and other serious crimes affecting women in the Philippines.

7.Against the Tide- The Philippines and the International Community

In 1987 the Philippines became the first Asian country in modern times to abolish the death penalty for all crimes. Since then many Philippine and foreign observers have been particularly disappointed that the international leadership displayed by the Philippines in support of the protection of human rights has not been sustained in relation to the death penalty.

Instead the Philippines now stands against a clearly emerging worldwide trend towards the abolition of the death penalty and has put aside its potential for regional leadership on the issue of the death penalty-of particular importance at a time of extended use of capital punishment in Southeast Asia.

Many Filipinos were proud that the Philippines was one of the principal backers and co-sponsors of the Second Optional Protocol of the ICCPR, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1989. The Protocol, a binding international agreement, aims for the total abolition of the death penalty (outside of wartime).It proved paradoxical that at the very time the Philippines displayed leadership in furthering the move towards abolition worldwide, at home the government and legislature moved in the opposite direction. By mid-1997, 30 states had ratified the Optional Protocol, with four others signing (indicating their intention to ratify at a later date).The Philippines has not signed or ratified the Protocol.

It is evident that an increasing number of countries from widely different regions and cultural traditions worldwide continue to move towards abolition. By 1997, 98 countries and territories had abolished the death penalty in law or practice-including 57 countries which have abolished the death penalty for all crimes, 15 which have abolished capital punishment for all but exceptional crimes (such as wartime crimes), and 26 which can be considered abolitionist de facto in that no executions have been carried out for ten years or more.

Once abolished the death penalty is seldom reintroduced: since 1985 only 4 abolitionist countries have reintroduced the death penalty-the Philippines, Gambia, Papua New Guinea and Nepal.

In March 1997 a further significant step in the direction of worldwide abolition took place when the UN Commission on Human Rights adopted a resolution[30] encouraging states to suspend executions and called on countries which retain capital punishment " to consider suspending executions, with a view to completely abolishing the death penalty". The resolution, which was co-sponsored by Italy and 45 other countries, was adopted with a vote of 27 in favour and 11 against, with 14 countries-including the Philippines-abstaining.

At the regional level, where a number of South-East Asian governments have promoted so-called 'Asian values' and stressed community rights and economic priorities over individual human rights, the Philippines has in significant regards provided a positive model for human rights protection. However, the Philippine's stance towards the death penalty serves to weaken its role and credibility in this respect, and to reduce its ability to offer support to and protection for its own citizens facing execution in neighbouring countries.

The welfare of Filipino migrant workers, estimated to number over four million, is of great concern to many in the Philippines who are conscious of persistent reports of exploitation, ill-treatment and executions of those convicted of crimes in their host country. Some of those executed are alleged to have been falsely convicted. In 1995 domestic Philippine migrant organizations reported at least 108 Filipinos facing the death penalty worldwide. The perception that Filipino workers abroad are often vulnerable to ill-treatment and unfair conviction and do not enjoy the effective protection and support of their government was a major factor behind an outburst of public anger and frustration unleashed by the death of Flor Contemplacion, a Filipino maid executed in Singapore in 1995 after conviction for murder.

Flor Contemplacion's case, and also that of Sarah Balabagan-a 15 year-old Filipino Muslim girl sentenced to death in the United Arab Emirates in 1995 for killing her employer after an alleged rape-sparked outrage in the Philippines. Flor Contemplacion's execution led to serious diplomatic strains between Singapore and the Philippines and, eventually, to the resignation of the Philippine Foreign Secretary.

Yet many of the concerns fuelling public anxiety and sympathy for the fate of migrant workers facing death sentences abroad are the same as those concerns surrounding the application of the death penalty in the Philippines itself. These include fears that it is the more vulnerable and marginalised individuals in society-those with few resources for their defence or a lack of education or knowledge about the legal system-who are most likely to be unfairly convicted and sentenced to death.

President Ramos appealed for clemency and a commutation of sentence for Flor Contemplacion, Sarah Balabagan and other migrant workers sentenced to death overseas. In a clemency appeal to the Sultan of Brunei in July 1997 on behalf of two Filipinos sentenced to death for armed robbery and illegal possession of firearms, President Ramos reportedly reflected on the hope for rehabilitation and reform of criminals, and on the sanctity of life.

"I have appealed to his Majesty on humanitarian grounds for clemency to allow these young people...a new lease on their lives, during which they could be reformed and taught the importance of discipline, good behaviour and the sanctity of human life."[31]

The effectiveness of such appeals will be weakened in the future if the Philippines begins to execute its own citizens. Amnesty International hopes that the sentiments which motivated such appeals-including concerns over fair trials and a desire for humane treatment-will also prompt the President to extend the option of clemency and commutation to those facing execution in the Philippines.

8.Conclusion

The death penalty is no solution to the severe challenge posed by criminality in the Philippines. It is the certainty of arrest, conviction and long periods of imprisonment, not the threat of execution alone, which will act as deterrent against crime. The frustration and fear felt by many Filipinos because of high rates of crime deserves a genuine answer-not a short-term palliative offered through the death penalty as a means of retribution.

A sustained program of reform of the Philippine National Police, criminal investigation agencies and elements of the judiciary is necessary. At present law enforcers are too often perceived as corrupted or responsible for human rights violations while justice is not seen to be distributed fairly-the wealthy and influential are, in practice, not equal before the law.

The death penalty is being applied at an accelerating rate in the Philippines. As in the past it appears to be imposed inconsistently and in a disproportionate way against the poor, ill-educated and disadvantaged. The risk of judicial errors is mounting and Amnesty International is gravely concerned over the use of illegal methods, including torture, by criminal investigative officers seeking to extract confessions. Moreover, there is apprehension over inadequate safeguards, especially in the lower courts, to ensure the defendants have access to competent counsel, and that the rigorous standards of fair trial essential in capital cases are upheld.

Strapping a prisoner to a bed and injecting him or her with a cocktail of lethal drugs is brutalizing and degrading. It violates the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), and undermines the aspiration for a renewed respect for human rights that lay at the heart of the popular movement that restored constitutional democracy in the Philippines in the 1980s.

9.Recommendations

Amnesty International therefore urges the President of the Philippines to exercise clemency in the case of those death row prisoners whose sentences have been confirmed and to commute their sentences.

The organization, in line with the March 1997 Resolution of the UN Human Rights Committee, calls on the Government of the Philippines to suspend executions, with a view to completely abolishing the death penalty.

Amnesty International believes that such a suspension would provide a timely opportunity for the government to confront the institutional weaknesses-notably within the police and judiciary-that help contribute to high crime rates. The death penalty is no solution to criminality-rather determined institutional reform, at a time of increased economic prosperity, will best serve to confront crime while upholding justice and human rights in the Philippines.

Amnesty International is urging that:

ØNo executions should go ahead, and clemency should be extended to those whose sentences have already been confirmed by the Supreme Court.

ØPending commutation of all death sentences, the government should ensure those facing the death penalty receive fair trials in accordance with international standards, including the right to legal representation of their choice at all stages of proceedings.

ØThe Government of the Philippines should order an independent inquiry into the reports of illegalities at the pre-trial stage, including reports of ill-treatment and torture to coerce confessions.

ØThe Government of the Philippines should sign and move to ratify the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at abolition of the Death Penalty.

ØIn preparation for the permanent suspension and eventual abolition of the death penalty the Government of the Philippines should lead the death penalty debate by giving the public information about the risk of judicial error and the disproportionate application of the death penalty against disadvantaged groups. The government should launch and explain a program of police and judicial reform designed to provide an effective check to criminality.

[1] House Bill 295.

[2] The Act provides for the death penalty as an optional punishment for the unauthorized importation, sale, administration, transportation, manufacture possession or use of drugs where the quantity of drugs involved is 40 grams or more of opium, morphine, heroin or cocaine; 50 grams or more of marijuana resin; 750 grams or more of marijuana; and 200 grams or more of 'shabu' (methlamphetamine hydrochloride).Death can also be imposed on those who cultivate marijuana or opium poppy. The death penalty is mandatory regardless of the quantity of the drugs if the victim of the offence is a minor, or if the offender is a government official or member of the armed forces or police.

[3] Reclusion perpetua is defined as imprisonment from twenty years and one day to forty years.

[4] Philippine Political Update, May 1994

[5] Philippine Daily Inquirer, 19/2/97

[6] The Weekly Vizcaya Advocate, 25/2/97.

[7] The Philippines Daily Inquirer, 4/6/97.

[9] See Philippines: Case Studies in the use of the Death Penalty: ASA 35/08/89.

[10] Adopted by the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) in 1984 (Resolution 1984/50) and endorsed by the General Assembly in the same year.

[11] Standards for fair trial set forth in ICCPR Article 14 include: the right of anyone facing a criminal charge to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal; the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty; the right to be informed promptly of the nature and cause of the crimes with which the defendant is charged; the right to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of a defence; the right to communicate with counsel of the defendant's choosing; the right to free legal assistance for defendants unable to pay for it; the right to examine witnesses for the prosecution and to present witnesses for the defence; the right to free assistance of an interpreter if the defendant cannot understand or speak the language used in court

[12]Extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions: Report by the Special Rapporteur.., UN document No. E/CN.4/1997/60, 24 December 1996, paragraph 81.

[13] Statistics quoted in the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) 'Position Paper on the Proposal of Death by Lethal Injection', October 1995.

[14] Agence France Press (AFP) report cited in the South China Morning Post 2 June 1997.

[15] Article 3, Section 12

[16] The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, approved by the UN General Assembly in 1984. Article 13

[17] Philippine Commission on Human Rights-Resolution on the Death Penalty (No. A91-033) 1991.

[18] Section 1, Article 111

[19] CADP: ' Some Statistics on Death Row since the Return of the Death Penalty '(Jan 1994-1 May 1997)

[20] $1US = 25 pesos\

[21] The national minimum wage is set at 4,290 pesos ($171) a month.\

[22] 'Construction' includes carpenters, painters, masons, building labourers, electricians \

[23] 'Transportation' includes drivers, delivery men, mechanics, tire workers, truck helpers.\

[24] Manila Times 8 May 1997 'Few lawyers for many death row candidates'.

[25] Following the final confirmation of a death sentence by the Supreme Court the prisoner's only remaining recourse is to petition the President for Executive Clemency.

[26] En banc-the sitting together of all the judges, or a quorum thereof, as distinguished from their separate sittings or sittings in panels.

[27] 'Under such circumstances, the prisoner will suffer an extremely painful sensation of crushing and suffocation, as the pancuronium bromide takes effect and stops his ability to breathe. The pancuronium bromide will paralyze the prisoner, rendering him unable to move or communicate in any way, while he is experiencing excruciating pain. As the third chemical, potassium chloride is administered, the prisoner will experience an excruciating burning sensation in his vein. This burning sensation-equivalent to the sensation of a hot poker being inserted into the arm-will then travel with the chemical up the prisoner's arm and spread across his chest until it reaches his heart, where it will cause the heart to stop'. Brunner Affidavit, cited in Iowa Law Review-1997, Page 62.

[28] Arkansas Democrat Gazette- January 26 1992.

[29] Republic Act 7659 states that the crime of rape should be punished by reclusion perpetua, with the option of the death penalty when the rape is committed with a deadly weapon, or by two or more people, or when an attempted rape leads to homicide. The death penalty is mandatory when rape leads to homicide, when the victim becomes insane, when the victim is under 18 and the offender is a family member, when the victim is under police or military custody, when the rape is committed in view of close family members, when the victim is a religious or a child below seven, when the offender knows he is afflicted with AIDS, when the rape is committed by members of the AFP, PNP or other law enforcement agencies, or when the victim suffers permanent physical mutilation.

[30] Resolution 1997/12

[31] Agence France Presse (AFP) report 16 July 1997

Copyright notice: © Copyright Amnesty International

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Refworld | The Death Penalty: Criminality, Justice and Human Rights

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Refworld is the leading source of information necessary for taking quality decisions on refugee status. Refworld contains a vast collection of reports relating to situations in countries of origin, policy documents and positions, and documents relating to international and national legal frameworks.

# data[].attributes.headline
Death penalty: Deterrent or dilemma in PHL’s war vs. crime?

# data[].attributes.subject
Death penalty: Deterrent or dilemma in PHL’s war vs. crime?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
IF two former police chiefs had their way, there would be a channel on free TV airing live how the state wields its power over life and death.

Now members of the Senate, Panfilo M. Lacson Sr. and Ronald M. dela Rosa, approve of public viewing of the killing of a death-row convict. But while Dela Rosa favors death by musketry, Lacson is averse to it. Still, the two believe that showing the killing of a convicted criminal would lead to a decrease in heinous crimes. And they seem confident death penalty would be reinstated under the Duterte administration.

But while this is yet to be scheduled for debate in the 18th Congress, the polarizing effect of death penalty on Philippine society is already felt inside and outside the House of Representatives and the Judiciary.

Recent memory

PHILIPPINE society's most recent memory of the death penalty was 20 years ago, seven days before Valentine's Day of 1999, in the persona of Leo P. Echegaray.

Echegaray became the first Filipino to be executed via lethal injection after capital punishment, abolished in 1987, was reinstated in 1994 during the term of President Joseph Estrada via Republic Act (RA) 7659 or the Death Penalty Law.

Echegaray, a house painter, was executed five years after he was convicted in 1994 for statutory rape. The case was filed by his then 10-year-old stepdaughter who claimed she was raped several times by Echegaray.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City in 1994 sentenced him to death.

In a unanimous decision issued on June 25, 1996, the Supreme Court rejected Echegaray's petition to reverse the ruling issued by the Quezon City RTC.

In his plea, Echegaray maintained his innocence of the crime. He said the accusation against him was concocted and strongly motivated by greed over a certain lot situated at the National Housing Authority's (NHA) Madrigal Estate Housing Project in Barangay San Antonio, San Francisco del Monte, Quezon City.

Echegaray was referring to the maternal grandmother of his victim, Asuncion Rivera.

Rape case

ECHEGARAY accused Rivera of brainwashing his stepdaughter to file a rape case against him so that if he is meted out a death sentence, the title to the said property will be consolidated to her favor.

The subject property is co-owned by Echegaray and the live-in partner of Rivera, based on NHA records.

Thus, Echegaray tried to persuade the Supreme Court to believe that Rivera fabricated the rape charge in order to eliminate him from being a co-owner so that the live-in partners would have the property for their own.

However, the High Tribunal, then headed by Chief Justice Andres D. Narvasa, gave weight to the testimony of the victim over Echegaray's claim, paving the way for his execution.

Estrada green-lighted Echegaray's execution hoping it would serve as a deterrent to heinous crimes, despite pleas and calls from the religious sector and human-rights advocates to stop the execution.

However, then Deputy Speaker for Mindanao Daisy Avance-Fuentes reported that a record-high 3,164 cases of rape were reported to the police in 1999, or 131 more than the number recorded in 1998.

Avance-Fuentes said that in 1999, around nine women were raped each day.

"Ironically, that was the year when we started hauling off rapists to the lethal injection chamber," she was quoted in the Today newspaper article of January 30, 2000.

Still, how a lethal injection snuffed out the life from Echegaray as he lay on a bunker at the National Penitentiary wasn't publicly shown. He was pronounced dead by prison officials at 3:19 p.m. on that Friday, 329 days before a new millennium.

Policy origin

THE reinstatement of the death penalty in 1994 came just seven years after a general State policy against it was enshrined in the 1987 Constitution.

However, Article III, Section 19 of the 1987 Constitution did not abolish per se the death penalty, Muntinlupa Rep. Rozzano Rufino B. Biazon explained. Biazon said the article gave Congress the power to impose the death penalty for compelling reasons, involving heinous crimes.

Thus was RA 7659 (An Act to Impose the Death Penalty on Certain Heinous Crimes, Amending for that purpose the Revised Penal Laws, as amended, other Special Penal Laws, and for other purposes) passed.

By 2002, RA 9165 (An Act Instituting the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) repealed RA 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) and imposed the extreme penalty of death for illegal drug traffickers and their cohorts.

However, the Thirteenth Congress during the administration of President Gloria Arroyo enacted, in 2006, RA 9346 (An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines) and repealed RA 8177 (An Act Designating Death by Lethal Injection), RA 7659, "and all other laws, executive orders and decrees, insofar as they impose the death penalty."

Biazon's proposal

BIAZON, one of the authors of a bill seeking to re-impose the death penalty, said that up until 2006, the Philippines was just one of a handful of countries in the world that impose the death penalty as capital punishment for criminals found guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

He said that intense lobbying from various interest groups led by the Roman Catholic Church succeeded in changing the mindset of legislators.

According to the lawmaker, the passage of RA 9346 became a statement of the Philippines to the international community that the country is abandoning death penalty to punish criminals found guilty of committing heinous crimes.

In his House Bill (HB) 741, Biazon said the impunity by which criminals carry on with their "dastardly acts makes it appear as if we are not a nation of laws."

"We are confronted almost every day by reports in the tri-media of children still learning how to walk being raped or of senior citizens who are in their twilight years being bludgeoned to death right in their very own homes," he said.

"These barbaric acts are, more often than not, committed by perpetrators under the influence of drugs. Such crimes leave wailing parents, sons, daughters, brothers, sisters and their relatives who are scarred and traumatized for the rest of their lives crying and demanding for justice," Biazon added.

When asked if his office has statistics on the cases of crimes, the lawmaker said the data came from the Philippine National Police (PNP).

Deterrent vs criminals

BIAZON said it has always been argued that there is no evidence that the death penalty serves as a deterrent to deadly criminals.

"Hence, life should not be destroyed just in the hope that other lives might be saved," he said. "There may be truth to such argument but the fear of dying is also a strong motivation to hinder an individual from doing a certain type of activity such as selling illegal drugs to people."

Another argument against the death penalty is that imprisonment is sufficient punishment for those who commit crimes and are convicted, Biazon said, adding that it is even argued that reform is possible when a convict experiences incarceration.

"Considering that the Constitution grants Congress the flexibility to impose death penalty under certain circumstances and based on the current wisdom of the times, it is best to once again restore the penalty of death for crimes under RA 9165," he said. "This is to put back into the consciousness of those involved in the illegal drugs trade that the ultimate punishment of death awaits them should they continue with their nefarious acts."

IN filing House Bill 2026, Surigao del Norte Rep. Robert Ace S. Barbers said the alarming rise of heinous crimes in the country calls for the re-imposition of capital punishment.

"Crimes disturb the order of society," Barbers said. "The death penalty is said to be the strongest deterrent society has against such crimes."

The lawmaker said his proposal aims to restore order and adequately punishes criminals, saying the death penalty also serves as retribution for victims and their families.

"Since the government has the highest interest in preventing heinous crimes, it should use the strongest punishment available to deter unlawful acts-the death penalty," he said.

"If criminals charged guilty of committing heinous crimes are sentenced to death and executed, potential criminals will think twice before committing crimes for fear of losing their own life."

For Oriental Mindoro Rep. Paulino Salvador C. Leachon, the reinstatement of the death penalty is one of the major thrusts of the Duterte administration.

Leachon's proposal

IN filing his HB 3128, Leachon pushed to impose the death penalty for the heinous crime of treason, aggravated rape, plunder and certain grave violation of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

"There is a need to effectively carry out death penalty for criminals who do not give value to the life and security of their fellow countrymen, to serve as a deterrent against the commission of heinous crimes and to bring justice to the victims of such crimes," he said.

"It is thus imperative for Congress, in the exercise of its mandate, to take every conceivable step to protect the honor and dignity and the very life of each law-abiding Filipino citizen, to impose the death penalty for the heinous crime of treason, aggravated rape, plunder and certain grave violation of the Dangerous Act," he added.

During the 17th Congress, the House passed on third and final reading a bill reinstating the death penalty for drug-related offenses. The bill, however, remained unacted upon because the Senate refused to take it up.

Militate vs poor

A DECADE ago, former Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban issued a dissenting opinion insisting that RA 7659 was unconstitutional for failure to comply with the requirements of "heinous" and "compelling reasons" prescribed by the Constitution.

In the same opinion, Panganiban expressed belief that RA 7659 seemed to militate against the poor, the powerless and the marginalized.

He based his opinion on the profile of 165 death convicts submitted by the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG), the group that offered legal services for the said convicts.

Of the 165 convicts that the group surveyed, 21 percent were then earning between P200 and P2,900 monthly; while approximately 27 percent had salaries between P3,000 and P3,999 monthly.

Data from the Philippine Statistics Authority revealed that the minimum wage in 1999 for non-agriculture workers was between P117 and P223.50 daily; up from the P115 daily to P185 daily rates in 1997.

Those earning above P4,000 monthly are exceedingly few: 7 percent were earning between P4,000 and P4,999; 4 percent had salaries between P5,000 and P5,999; 7 percent were earning between P6,000 and P6,999 ; those earning between P7,000 and P15,000 comprise only 4 percent, while those earning P15,000 and above were only 1 percent.

In terms of occupation, most of the death convicts were workers in the agricultural, construction, transport and service sectors or vendors.

In terms of education, most of the death convicts were either elementary or high-school graduates, while none of them use English as their medium of communication.

Almost half of the death convicts speak and understand Filipino.

Push start

THE move to reinstate death penalty for heinous crimes, especially those related to drugs as well as plunder, took its cue from President Rodrigo Duterte.

In the President's fourth State of the Nation Address, he said he is "aware that we still have a long way to go in our fight against this social menace."

This is the reason "I advocate the imposition of the death penalty for crimes related to illegal drugs. Our citizens have begun to do their part in the war against drugs, and through the barangay formation of anti-drug councils, and also actually surrendering bricks of cocaine found floating in the sea into our islands. I call this responsibility," Duterte said. "However, the drugs will not be crushed unless we continue to eliminate corruption that allows this social monster to survive."

While Congress has yet to define and identify the crimes which the death penalty would cover and how the execution would be carried out, Lacson and Dela Rosa already have formulas, albeit differing ones.

Lacson wants capital punishment to cover crimes involving the following: illegal drugs; piracy; bribery; parricide; murder; rape; kidnapping and serious illegal detention; arson; plunder; terrorism; human trafficking and arms smuggling, for which he favors lethal injection as the means of execution.

Firing squad

DELA Rosa said he wants the execution to be carried out by firing squad, which he considers the best method if the objective of the government was really to instill fear among criminals and big-time drug offenders.

It was under dela Rosa's helm of the PNP where the anti-illegal drugs campaign was initiated, and which is now being sustained by the leadership of Police General Oscar D. Albayalde. The anti-drugs drive remains among the thrusts of the Duterte government.

Lacson agreed with dela Rosa that a firing squad would deliver the most chilling effect, noting that when Chinese drug trafficker Lim Seng was executed by musketry in Fort Bonifacio in 1973, crimes involving drugs totally disintegrated, but he said a firing squad would be too "brutal."

Dela Rosa's proposal is to carry the firing squad in a plaza and have it covered live by the media.

System imperfections

GIVEN that the death penalty has to go through full deliberations by Congress, Albayalde said the focus of the PNP is how to address the imperfections of the justice system, wherein law enforcement is at the forefront.

He said the PNP must help ensure that it would be "guilt-free," or has done its job properly when a convict is sent to death row. And one way of doing it is to make sure that convicts are really guilty of the crimes that were committed, he added. This is the reason internal cleansing is being stepped up in the organization.

Albayalde declines to cite his preferred manner for carrying out capital punishment, deferring to what the law would dictate. But being in a civilized country, he believes that lethal injection would be enough.

He agrees that having a law imposing death penalty would be a crime deterrent.

No solution

For De La Salle University economics professor Maria Ella C. Oplas, reimposing the death penalty is not the solution to the country's problems.

Oplas said it does not help that the justice system is flawed. "Although I would like to still have faith in our justice system, the problem is justice is still pro-rich whatever side we look at," Oplas said in a text message to the BusinessMirror. "I believe death penalty will not solve the many problems in the country."

But should there be a death penalty, she said she is fine with having this imposed on rapists.

"Because rape is a psychological problem. You have a problem psychologically if you can rape. I think that is the most gruesome thing you can do to another person," she said.

Nonetheless, she said it would be better for the government to focus on implementing other solutions, such as addressing poverty, often the root cause for people to commit crimes.

"[The government] should encourage investments so that there would be employment opportunities because if people are employed, crimes will be lessened," she said. "This is because they now have the means to live decently."

Small, manageable

While rich countries like Singapore impose death penalty, Oplas doesn't see the imposition of capital punishment as a factor for their economic growth.

"If they have economic growth, it's not because they have death penalty," she said. "Singapore is just small, hence, relative to the Philippines, it is manageable. Its location is also strategic, that is why it is a hub."

Moreover, Singapore's justice system is also way better than the Philippines and their leaders also lead by example.

"For example, people who are violating traffic rules are really caught and fined. I think they really do not need death penalty because the people are already afraid of violating the rules because they know that they can be fined and be caught. I think that is...why we [Filipinos] follow traffic rules in Singapore and not when we go back to the Philippines," she explained.

In terms of addressing jail congestion in the country, she said she would have been okay with the pardoning system. However, she got concerned especially after the controversy on Good Conduct Time Allowance (GCTA) broke out, starting with the foiled release of convicted rapist and murderer Antonio Sanchez, a former mayor of Calauan, Laguna.

Sanchez was supposed to be released supposedly after earning enough GCTA credits, which will be deducted from jail time.

Ibon's opposition

MEANWHILE, Jose Enrique A. Africa, executive director of nonprofit IBON Foundation Inc., said they oppose the revival of death penalty in any form.

"The reality that the country's justice system doesn't treat the poor fairly and justly is more than enough reason to oppose the proposal. The courts system will tend to let influential elite political and economic interests off easy, including from capital punishment, while coming down hard on the poor, including many innocent poor," Africa said. "The country's unreformed justice system and its institutions are the worst conditions for deciding whether an alleged criminal lives or dies."

Africa agreed with Oplas that criminality in general, including heinous crimes, will only be reduced by improving socioeconomic conditions and not by just imposing severe penalties.

"Proponents argue that capital punishment will have a deterrent effect. Even if this were true, it still doesn't mean that it should be used because whether that's enough reason for the State to willfully take a life is still a moral and ethical matter. But even that argument is not really well-established and is questioned by scientific studies and many criminology experts," he said.

Religious beliefs

IN the event that the death penalty is re-implemented, judges are expected to hand them down on convicts who deserve capital punishment even though it goes against their religious or political beliefs.

This is because, in a ruling issued by the Supreme Court in October 1995, it remanded to the sala of then Manila RTC Branch 47 Presiding Judge Lorenzo B. Veneracion-for him to impose the penalty of death-the case of Henry Lagarto and Ernesto Cordero whom he found guilty of the crime of rape with homicide.

The two were found responsible for the rape and killing of 7-year-old Angel Alquiza, whose body was found on August 2, 1994, wrapped in a sack and yellow table cloth tied with a nylon cord floating along Delpan Street in Binondo, Manila.

Instead of imposing the capital punishment against Logarto and Cordero, Veneracion merely imposed reclusion perpetua, which drew criticism from the families of the victim as well as various anti-crime groups.

Veneracion argued that he has no right to send convicts to death as "it's only God who can do that."

The case was elevated to the SC for consideration, which ruled that Judge Veneracion erred in not imposing the corresponding penalty for the crime.

The Court emphasized the need for judges to strictly obey the rule of law, "which forms the bedrock of our system of justice."

It said that laws would become meaningless if judges are influenced by their religious or political beliefs in exercising their duties.

"While this Court sympathizes with his predicament, it is its bounden duty to emphasize that a court of law is no place for a protracted debate on the morality or propriety of the sentence, where the law itself provides for the sentence of death as a penalty in specific and well-defined instances," the SC pointed out.

"A government of laws, not of men, excludes the exercise of broad discretionary powers by those acting under its authority. Under this system, judges are guided by the Rule of Law, and ought 'to protect and enforce it without fear or favor,' resist encroachments by governments, political parties, or even the interference of their own personal beliefs," the High Tribunal further explained.

Compelling reason

A well-positioned member of the SC who begged off from being named, however, expressed belief there is a compelling reason to restore capital punishment.

He explained that the country's penal system works on the deterrence angle, thus, the re-imposition of the death penalty would certainly be in light with such objective.

"Yes, there is a compelling reason. The drug problem which is widespread-that is a social problem, more than a criminal problem," the magistrate said.

The magistrate said the illegal drug trade is one of the compelling reasons for the restoration of the death penalty.

He said he was among the judges who convicted to death several individuals who committed heinous crimes.

The SC member said it was wrong to say that the death penalty is anti-poor considering that there were " spoiled brats" who were also then convicted and sentenced to death.

The magistrate cited the sensational case of Maggie de la Riva, who was abducted and raped on June 26, 1967, at Swanky Hotel in Pasay City by four individuals all belonging to affluent families.

On February 6, 1971, the SC sentenced her four assailants to death via electric chair.

"It's really a matter of law enforcement going after these people; and prosecution that follows after that will always succeed if there is evidence," the magistrate said.

Law enforcers manufacturing evidence against an accused should not be used as a reason to oppose the re-imposition of the death penalty, according to the magistrate.

"It is easy to detect for an experienced judge if the evidence is fabricated," the magistrate said.

Abandonment option

SPEAKER Alan Peter Cayetano said the lowering cases of crime in the country could influence the House of Representatives to abandon the call to re-impose death penalty for heinous crimes related to illegal drugs.

However, Cayetano urged all groups opposing death penalty to "pray and work hard" on the proposal that would make crime rates to continuously go down.

Cayetano also assured the public of a healthy debate on the measure in the 18th Congress, saying all stakeholders would be "given enough time to speak on the issue."

Image credits: Satori13 | Dreamstime.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Death penalty: Deterrent or dilemma in PHL's war vs. crime? | BusinessMirror

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By Rene Acosta, Jovee Marie dela Cruz, Bernadette Nicolas and Joel R. San Juan IF two former police chiefs had their way, there would be a channel on free TV airing live how the state wields its power over life and death. Now members of the Senate, Panfilo M. Lacson...