Your honor, your excellences, we, the members of ProLife Society, reiterates our support for the

government in its initiatives for genuine peace and justice. Like each and every Filipino, we
dream of a renewed Philippines where our generation lives in security and prosperity, and where
crime and drugs is no longer a scourge.

Being witnesses to the current state of our country, we stand by the victims of lawlessness, those
who have lost family members, loved ones, and friends to crime and violence.

We do not pretend to personally know what it is like to lose a beloved or to suffer for years
because of violence. But today, with the help and guidance of Our Lady of Guadalupe, the
patroness of the unborn and of pro-life movement, we wish to underline our definitive and strong
opposition to the re-imposition of death penalty in the Philippines, for any and all cases. Our
opposition is also anchored on several arguments, some of which were already discussed and
assailed by our First Speaker, but Id like to reinforce some of those arguments:

Firstly, it violates our Constitution, particularly on theArticle 3, Sec. 1, on the right to life, equal
protection and Sec 19 (1) which prohibits inhuman, cruel, and degrading punishment.It also
violates Article 2, Sec. 2 which states that, [t]he Philippines renounces war as an instrument of
national policy, adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of
the land and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation, and amity
with all nations.

Second, the Philippines is under International obligations committing its self to abolish all forms
of death penalty in the country that has already been established when we ratified the ICCPR and
strengthen by the ratification we made on the Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR, be it
known to all of us that the 2nd optional protocol prohibits the implementation of death sentences
within our jurisdiction and encourages all the state parties to abolish if there are any existing
laws that support death penalty within the country. We would also like to reiterate that these laws
are not subject to derogation at any cost. And also, in these optional protocols, it does not allow
an opt-out provision.

Third, your honor, the Death Penalty law is swimming against how the other countries across the
globe behave as far as their death penalties are concerned.
Lastly your honor, we believe that this is inconsistent with the Philippines international position
on death penalty, as the Philippines has already shown leadership in the international side in co-
sponsoring the adoption of certain resolutions opposing the imposition of death penalty. This
might have certain implications whether or not we have the moral ascendency to request from
other countries the commutation of sentences for our countrymen who are in death row convicted
in other countries.

Human life is sacred. Prolife Society continues to believe and uphold that human life is sacred
(CCC, 2258) and no one should, under any circumstance, be deprived of their right to life.The
right to life of a person is the most fundamental right.We are all called to respect the life and the
dignity of every human being.Every person is imbued with dignity. Capital punishment by
whatever method such as by firing squad and hanging, as what is stated in our present law,
would constitute cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. It does not accord dignity to human
beings and has no place in a civilized society.

The death penalty is a barbaric and outdated form of punishment and represents the kind of
policy our region should be moving away from, not back toward, in line with our international
obligations. The commitment to respect international obligations now precludes the invocation of
Section 19(1), Article III of the Constitution, which serves as a manifest deviation from the
constitutional recognition of the value of man more than property, people more than the state,
and life more than mere existence . This reaffirmation of the respect of the right to life is in
consonance with the Charters social justice provisions, the heart of the Constitution ,
especially considering the death penaltys widely demonstrated futility in deterring crimes and its
disproportionate and oppressive effect to the poor and marginalized sectors of society .

In a decided case of Sabio vs Gordon, the Supreme Court clearly states thatin reimposing the
capital punishment, therefore, the members of the House of Representative would not only
violate International Law, theywould also violate the Constitution itselfthe highest law of our
land and the fundamental, paramount and supreme law of our nation to which all persons,
including the highest officials of the land, must defer. It bears recalling, then, that the
Constitution, which itself irrefutably respects the nations international legal obligations, cannot
be simply made to sway and accommodate the call of situations and much more tailor itself to
the whims and caprices of the government and the people who run it.

The Supreme Court ruled in Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Association V. Health Secretary that
under the 1987 Constitution, international law can become part of the sphere of domestic law
either by transformation or incorporation. The transformation method requires that an
international law be transformed into a domestic law through a constitutional mechanism such as
local legislation or statutory enactment. The incorporation method applies when, by mere
constitutional declaration, international law is deemed to have the force of domestic law. Treaties
become part of the law of the land through transformation pursuant to Article VII, Section 21 of
the 1987 Constitution which provides that no treaty or international agreement shall be valid
and effective unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all members of the Senate.

Philippines is a party to International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), a treaty
which prescribes states to respect and observe fundamental freedoms such as freedom of
expression, religion and freedom from cruel, inhumane or degrading punishment. The
Philippines has also ratified the ICCPR's Second Optional Protocol which urges states to abolish
the death penalty and prevents them from carrying out executions.

The ratification of the Second Optional Protocol by the Philippines in 2007, twenty years after
the passage of the Constitution, is a valid sovereign act of the Philippines as a matter of
international law. The Philippines may not withdraw from the Second Optional Protocol as this
treaty unambiguously prohibits, permanently, the imposition of the death penalty in the
Philippines for all crimes.The 2nd Optional Protocol to the ICCPR contains no provision on
renunciation, and States may not unilaterally withdraw from their obligations under the Protocol.
The resumption of executions in the Philippines would therefore constitute a violation of
international law and represent an alarming disregard for the international human rights
system.To announce long after ratification that a treaty is inconsistent with the Constitution and
so not to be treated as binding, would call into question virtually every treaty to which
Philippines is a party.
Article 56 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties expounds the general rule that a
treaty which contains no provision regarding its termination and which does not provide for
denunciation or withdrawal is not subject to denunciation or withdrawal. In this regard, the
Philippines cannot legally withdraw from either the ICCPR or the Second Protocol due to lack of
provision as regards its withdrawal or denunciation. The no withdrawal or denunciation clause of
the Second Optional Protocol guarantees the permanent non-reintroduction of the death penalty
in States that ratified the Protocol.

As we speak today, some countries are abolishing death penalties as there capital punishment
and it is a manifestation that maybe many of the countries around the world do not believe, the
value, the purpose that death penalty embrace. As of today there are already 101 countries
recorded, more than 2/3 of the worlds countries that has abolished death penalty both in law and
in practice.

The Philippinesviolated a multilateral treaty and poses a risk of losing international credibility in
restoring death penalty. While the death penaltys reimposition will not result in a legal sanction
for the Philippines, it would affect the countrys standing in the global community.THE
GOVERNMENTs move to bring back the death penalty may come at the expense of the
countrys exports to the European Union (EU), a senior official of the Commission on Human
Rights (CHR) warned last week.

Reinstatement of capital punishment could imperil the countrys Generalized System of

Preferences Plus ( GSP+) status with the EU since December 2014 that is key to tariff-free sales
to that blocs members of over 6,000 Philippine products. The Philippines bagged wider EU
access for its products on the condition that the country would comply with 27 international
conventions, including a commitment against the death penalty.That can be a determinant for
relationships that can be affected in the course of our movement towards violating international
law.
Let me also make it clear that under Article 26 of the VCIT with reference to Article 27,that the
constitutional obligation to protect nationals cannot serve as a justification for intervention under
international law. Domestic law can in principle not be invoked as a justification for a breach of
an international legal rule. Yes domestic law prevails over an international law, however, for this
argument to hold water, the said law should be in accordance with the natural, and by logic we
know that taking away someones life has never been in consonance with natural law.

Yes, crimes must be deterred, criminals must be held to account, and victims must be given
justice. However, the death penalty is not the answer. No studies support it. Effective law
enforcement and a criminal justice system that works is the most important deterrent to
criminality.

The Philippines has twice abolished the death penalty since the end of the Marcos dictatorship.
Let us not revive a policy that has not proven to be any deterrence to crime. We see a disconnect
between what this punishment proposed and what message it tries to convey. Because how can
you send the message of death penalty that killing is wrong, when in fact the law allows killing
by death penalty itself. Yes, it can be true that criminals will be lessen after they have been
slain in death row, but no matter how many criminals we kill by any means, the crime itself will
never perish.