Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 5

Death Penaltys Constitutionality Under the 1987 Constitution, the capital punishment of death penalty was abolished in the

Philippines and it became one of the first Asian countries to do abolish it for all crimes. However, what differentiates the Philippines with the other countries who have done the same thing is that it later on implemented death penalty again for heinous crimes.1 According to Fr. Bernas opinion about death penalty on his The Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary: Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither shall the constitutional abolition of the death penalty, which immediately took effect upon ratification of this Constitution, does not prevent the legislation from re-imposing it at some future time2 Based on the commentary abovementioned, it could be inferred that death penalty can be temporarily suspended; however, the legislation has the power to re-impose it in the future if it is deemed essential. Therefore, this answers the question on why after being abolished in 1987, it was later on implemented again. However, the re-implementation of the death penalty is a conditional one as it should be only executed on heinous crimes and in lieu of it, the punishment shall be lowered to reclusion perpetua stated in Article III, Section 19 (1) in the 1987 Constitution: [t]he death penalty shall not be imposed unless for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes Any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua3 In 1993, the Congress passed R.A. No. 7659 or the Death Penalty Law which defines the crimes that would be considered heinous and death penalty would be conducted through electrocution. Based on the act, the reason on why death penalty was re-instated after being abolished is that: the alarming upsurge of such crimes which has resulted not only in the loss human lives but also affected the nations efforts towards sustainable economic development and prosperity while at the same time has undermined the peoples faith in the Government and latters ability to maintain peace and order in the country[.]4
1

The Philippine Experience in Abolishing the Death Penalty. Government Linkages Office of the Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines. (January 2007) 2 Bernas, Joaquin G. (1987). The Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary. Rex Book Store 3 Sec. 19, Art. III, 1987 Constitution 4 Republic Act No. 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

In 1996, the R.A. No. 8177 or An Act Designation Death by Lethal Injection was passed which changed the method of carrying the penalty by amending Art. 81 of the Revised Penal Code: The death sentence shall be executed with preference to any other penalty and shall consist in putting the person under the sentence to death by lethal injection5 Death penalty has been a subject of debates for a very long time. One of the legal disputes that have been raised is its constitutionality as it may have violated some of the rights stated in the Constitution. One of the criminals who had the punishment of death penalty was Leo Echegaray who at the time of his trial, R.A. No. 8177 was implemented. Based on the arguments raised in his case6, he states that they are unconstitutional for the being and his some of his arguments are: x I. x III. x x Death by lethal injection is unconstitutional for being a cruel, degrading and inhuman punishment. x x Lethal injection, as authorized under Republic Act No. 8177, is unconstitutional because it is an unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain on a person x x7

As inferred in the abovementioned quote, unconstitutionality stems from the violation of the right to life and equal protection which the state and its laws should do for its citizens. Furthermore, Echegaray and his counsel stress that it is a cruel, degrading and inhuman punishment to inflict which the Commission on Human Rights, which campaigns against the death penalty, also supported by citing provisions which states:
a) Article II, Section 11 of the Constitution which provides: The State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights.; b) Article III of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states that Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person, [c)] Article V thereof, which states that No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.8

Their argument is based on the respect for human life which they believed not to be violated because the Constitution as well as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states it.
5

Republic Act No. 8177, AN ACT DESIGNATING DEATH BY LETHAL INJECTION AS THE METHOD OF CARRYING OUT CAPITAL PUNISHMENT, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE ARTICLE 81 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE 6 Leo Echegaray vs. The Secretary of Justice, et. al. G.R. No. 132601. October 12, 1998 7 Ibid. 8 Ibid.

Moreover, despite being a criminal in society, he should have equal protection and rights and should not be deprived of them. His being convicted of lethal injection is a violation against the Constitution and international obligations. According to the Supreme Courts decision on Echegarays case, they said that lethal injection is not cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment under Section 19, Article III of the 1987 Constitution as quoted above. Because the latter contends that the R.A. No. 8177 fails to stipulate what kind of drug is going to be used and the uncertainty that there should be any mistakes in the execution, the former replies by saying that he has not presented evidence to support his claims that the drugs are unsafe and mistakes done through the procedure. As for his main argument of cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment, the court responds that [a]ny infliction of pain in lethal injection is merely incidental in carrying out the execution of death penalty and does not fall within the constitutional proscription against cruel, degrading and inhuman punishment.9 What the cruelty stated in the Constitution protects the convict from the cruelty inherent in the method of punishment.10 Although a person who has undergone lethal injection could suffer few minutes of pain, this does not equate to constitutional violation. As for the second argument, reinstating death penalty as a form of punishment does not violate international treaty of obligation. The petitioners claim lies on the inherent right to life of every person and sentence of death may be imposed only for the most serious crimes in accordance with the law in force.11 The Court answers that based on the Covenant they are basing their argument, it is explicitly stated that it recognizes death penalty as a capital punishment but is subject to the condition of executing only to most heinous crimes. Since the Philippines recognizes rape as a heinous crime and at the time of the final judgment, Death Penalty Law is not suspended, it is not contrary to the said provision. Even though death penalty seems to be a constitutional act based on the decision of the Supreme Court in Echegarays case, there are still various organizations in the country that does not condone this act. The Commission on Human Rights is tasked to monitor governments adherence to its international obligations on human rights so they are against the imposition of death penalty. Before the re-imposition of the death penalty in 1993, it has expressed its opinion on the matter and states that:
[i]t is not fully convinced that the death penalty is the answer to rising criminality. The proper response to criminality lies in effective law enforcement, the quick and impartial delivery of justice, [w]hen such reforms are proven to be ineffective should the legislative begin to consider other alternatives to restore the death penalty.12

Based on the resolution, the commission believes that failure of the government to have effective laws that should govern its citizens. The failure of the justice system to prosecute and rehabilitate criminals should be done first before sorting to death penalty as a punishment. It is
9

Ibid. Ibid. 11 Article 6 (2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 12 Ordonez, Sedfrey A., et al. (8 August 1991). CHR Resolution A91
10

basically saying that before it resorts to death penalty as a capital punishment, the government should first exhaust its possibilities first in having peace and order in the country. Furthermore, it stresses that there is something wrong with the penal system that sometimes justice is served half-baked because of the undue influences that is surrounding the case. A plausible root of the flaw is that most of those who are sentenced to death penalty are in the lower class of society which means they cannot afford competent and experienced counsels.13 Furthermore, according to the separate opinion of Justice Panganiban on Echegaray vs. the Secretary of Justice, he believes that the Death Penalty Law is unconstitutional insofar as some parts thereof prescribing the capital penalty fail to comply with the requirement of heinousness and compelling reasons.14 Moreover, referring back to Sec.19 of Article III of the 1987 Constitution, he states that it has two-fold aspects: prospective and retroactive. The prospective aspect refers to the abolishment of death penalty as it has been barred for future imposition. On the other hand, retroactive aspect states that death penalty has been reduced to lesser penalty of either reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment. He further strengthens his stand by referring to the dissenting opinion of Justice Melencio-Herrera15 in which the latter stipulates that when Fr. Bernas sponsored the non-imposition of death penalty, he was talking about totally abolishing it and the framers of the Constitution intended the same. Upon the re-implementation of death penalty, it is violating the presumption that penal laws should be against the State and liberally in favor of the accused. Justice Panganibans inquiry on the constitutionality of the law is also supported by him questioning the definitions of heinous and compelling reasons. He states that neither the Contistution nor the Congress defined the word heinous. The heinousness of a crime cannot clearly identify because neither standards nor characterizations were given. Moreover, the whereas clause of the Death Penalty Law that reads crimes punishable by death under this Act are heinous for being grievous, odious and hateful offenses16 could not be considered as a coherent and adequate definition of heinous. On the other hand, the determination of compelling reasons also was designated to the Congress by the Constitution. Based on the transcript of discussion on House Bill No. 62 that became the Death Penalty Law, the compelling reasons given by Congress Pablo Garcia for re-imposition of the punishment was because of the worsening peace and order and justice. 17 However, based on the statistics from the Philippine National Police, it shows that crime volume declined from 1987 to 1993. Furthermore, there is no sufficient proof that upon the re-imposition of the death penalty, it would be an effective way against to lower the volume heinous crimes. As of 2012, the Death Penalty Law has been suspended but there have been debates on whether or not it should be re-instated again. Based on the discussion above, it is still not clear
13 14

Recina, Aurora N., et al. (6 March 1997). The CHR Resolution on the Re-examination of the Death Penalty. Separate Opinion of Justice Panganiban on Leo Echegaray vs. The Secretary of Justice, et. al. G.R. No. 132601. 12 October 1998. 15 People vs. Munoz. G.R. No. L-38969-70. 9 February 1989. 16 Republic Act No. 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 17 Record of the House of Representatives, First Regular Session, 1992-1993, Volume IV, February 10, 1993, p. 674.

on whether or not death penalty is constitutional. However, the argument of the Commission on Human Rights that the justice system in the Philippines should be adjusted in such a way that it could render service efficiently and competently without discriminating on whether you have the money to pay for it or not. The system should not only favor those who can afford to pay excellent counsels but also those who are marginalized in the society. Moreover, there is no statistical data that supports the idea that the re-imposition of death penalty equates to lower volume of crimes so the Congress and as well as the executive and the judiciary departments should look beyond imposing the same but instead reorganize the system and go to the roots of the problems.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi