The reinstatement of the death penalty in the Philippines

Nachelle Baylon
Bachelor of Arts in Political Science
West Visayas State University

What was once considered an instrument of retribution is now regarded as one of

the worst crimes against humanity itself. From guillotines and gas chambers, to electric

chairs and lethal injections, people have been subjected to numerous types of capital

punishment way before the modern discourse over death penalty was brought into light.

In this day and age, the controversial argument remains the same: Is death penalty

against the very essence of human nature? Or is it a necessary step in establishing a well-

governed system?

In the case of the Philippines, President Rodrigo Duterte has called on Congress

to resurrect capital punishment after it was abolished in 2006 for the sake of addressing

the country’s war on drugs and crime conundrum. In response, the House of

Representatives’ Committee on Justice swiftly approved House Bill 1 in December 2016,

with plenary debates underway. Meanwhile in the Senate, the death penalty bill is

reportedly having a much harder time due to greater disagreement among the senators.

Not to mention the impact of conflicting Filipino opinions which result to nasty comment

sections on social media platforms and heated debates at school, work or even at home.

The issue then becomes about how capital punishment has led to unprecedented

executions of people living in poverty without first undergoing due process of law.

Conversely, those who are in position of power with actual committed atrocities are
deemed as innocent as a newborn babe despite numerous allegations. People are

encouraged to see crime as something quite simple: Laws are made so that society can

function smoothly. Steal or kill, and you are punished; disobey these laws, and you pay

a price. This is where the concept of death penalty comes into the picture.

Capital punishment can be set upon many grounds; whether moral, philosophical,

or legal. But just by focusing on the available data, it is apparent that the death penalty

was largely unnecessary and ineffective in reducing crime. As applied in the Philippines

before, capital punishment was not only futile in reducing crime but it was also

exceptionally anti-poor. The probability of poor inmates of being sentenced to death was

more likely than that of rich inmates. One main reason behind this disparity is that rich

inmates have much more resources to aggressively defend themselves in court (e.g.,

enlisting prominent lawyers) compared to poor inmates. Unless this imbalance is

corrected, the death penalty will only continue to serve as an agent for “selective justice”.

Even if we assume for a moment that capital punishment could be a deterrent, the

death penalty still had a propensity for alarmingly high error rates. Too many Filipinos

were wrongly sentenced to death in the past due to the judicial system’s incompetence

and slow pace of justice. In the case of People of the Philippines vs. Mateo in 2004, the

Supreme Court admitted that a vast majority of trial courts had wrongfully imposed the

death penalty during the time it was available as a sentencing option from 1993 to 2004.

Studies abroad could also not find strong evidence the death penalty impedes crime. In

the United States, for example, the death penalty alone could not explain the great

decline in homicide rates observed in the 1990s.

 Crime is a more complex issue than many of our politicians will care to admit.

Restoring the death penalty – and equating death with justice – is just downright naïve

and absolutely imprudent when it comes to dealing with lawbreakers. Capital punishment

is merely a way of "legalizing" the extra-judicial killings. It creates a system wherein those

who can pay will be declared innocent by a court. In this way, getting to keep your life

will no longer be a matter of fairness nor morality. The crime and drug hysteria in the

Philippines not only disproportionately targets the poor and oppressed; it serves an

important ideological function—of creating a sense of solidarity, using socially charged

stereotypes of the lower class which diverts attention away from the crimes of the elite.

On top of everything, a person does not cease to be human the moment he/she becomes

implicated in a drug-related crime.

Proponents of the death penalty are not wrong to argue that capital punishment

does provide a sense of “closure” to those who are faced with the tragedy of losing a

loved one as a result of a grave offense, but these individuals exaggerate when they

claim that capital punishment is the only means by which criminals receive objective

punishment for their unlawful acts. Supporters of the death penalty fail to recognize that

there are alternative methods – such as psychotherapy – that are able to replace the

barbaric method of the capital punishment.

To conclude, I stand against the reinstatement of the death penalty in the

Philippines. Human rights are inalienable; not because a 2,000-year-old holy book says

so, but it is a simple fact every person must learn and uphold. This right should never be

overlooked, regardless of an individual's needs, especially since evidence throughout

history shows that 'criminality' is determined by a number of factors including poverty,

lack of proper education, shortage of economic opportunities, and even disability. What’s

more, the use of capital punishment extinguishes the offender's hopes to reform and

engage in rehabilitation. It emphasizes the gravity of their offense, instead of their

capacity to change for the better through the process of remedial justice which would

enable them to connect, reconcile, and learn from their offense.