What are the impacts or implications of the legalization of the death penalty in the Philippines?

In a country like the Philippines that has constituents that are predominantly traditionalist
and Catholics, it is not surprising that the issue of the imposition of death penalty would create such
a controversy. As the current administration pushes for the legalization of death penalty in the
Philippines, the question of whether or not it is proper to make offenders dread the consequence of
their wrongdoings is once again put in the limelight. To determine the propriety of the government’s
thrust to reintroduce death penalty in the country, it is important to consider not just the moral but
also the economic and political implications of such act.

Most of the advocates of death penalty believe that its re-imposition will promote public
safety by preventing the commission of heinous crimes through its deterrent influence.1 As a
retributive punishment, death penalty is seen as an appropriate sentence to ensure that the citizens
will feel secure in their free exercise and enjoyment of their rights. Scholars observed that revenge is
a human instinct which is evident whenever he or she is wronged by another person.2 If the
punishment imposed by the state is not viewed as sufficient redress for the wrong done, a person
may resort to revenge crimes. Expression of such human instinct through violent acts must be
curbed by ensuring that appropriate penalty is meted out to the offenders.3 Furthermore, those who
support death penalty equate the latter to attaining justice and equality. They allege that the victims
will be urged to prosecute their cases for they will feel as if the death penalty is their assurance that
they will not be shortchanged as they were in the past. This is especially true for those who will not
settle for anything less than the penalty of death which they sometimes resort to using their own
hands. As a consequence, the state will be given an opportunity to protect the interest of the public
instead of allowing the latter to resolve the matter outside the realm of law. Moreover, death
penalty will serve as a symbol that will reiterate the fact that certain acts are fundamentally wrong
and the public must refrain from doing it for fear of severe punishment.

Critics of the re-imposition of death penalty anchors their claim mainly on moral grounds.
The Catholic Church, which is the biggest religious institution in the Philippines, emphasized the
value of life.4 The Church stressed their position against death penalty by highlighting the fact that
taking the life of an offender is not the appropriate solution to decrease the crime rate in the

1
A.F Tadiar, Philosophy of a Penal Code, 52 Phil L.J 165 (1977)
2
Id.
3
Id.
4
Reuters Asia, Thousands of Filipino Catholics march against death penalty, war on drugs, February
21, 2017, accessed from: http://www.reuters.com/article/philippines-drugs-int-idUSKBN15X03C
Philippines.5 It is important to note that the continuing conflict between the state and the church’s
stand regarding death penalty will cause division among the Filipinos. Furthermore, it is expected
that there will be incessant protests coming from human rights activists who will question the
country’s decision in resorting to death penalty. Such is an alarming scenario considering the fact
that the Philippines is already at the middle of several other issues on violation of human rights. As a
result, a sense of national unity becomes improbable and it is likely that many citizens will lose their
confidence to the government.

The re-imposition of death penalty also has serious repercussions in the country’s standing
in the international community. First, the Philippines is a party to the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights (ICCPR), which imposes upon the state parties the obligation to guarantee
fundamental freedoms such us freedom of expression, freedom of religion, and freedom from cruel,
inhumane, or degrading punishment.6 Since death penalty, by its nature, is considered as inhumane
punishment, it is evident that the Philippines will be violating its obligation under such treaty in the
event that the death penalty will be re-imposed. However, the ICPPR states that “in those States
which have not abolished the death penalty, the sentence of death can only be applied for the most
serious crimes."7 Although the ICCPR provides for an exception to the general rule that death
penalty shall not be imposed, the Philippines cannot validly claim for such an exception. It has been
established by the Human Rights Committee, which ensure the proper implementation of the ICCPR,
that drug related cases are not covered by the phrase “most serious crimes”.8 Since the current
thrust of the government is to impose death penalty to drug related cases, it can be deduced that
the proposal to re-introduce death penalty will violate our international commitments. Second, the
Philippines has ratified the ICCPR's Second Optional Protocol, which binds state parties to ensure the
abolishment of death penalty.9 Under such commitment, the Philippines is expected to exert all its
effort to prevent any execution intended to serve as a punishment for an offense.10 Zeid Ra'ad Al
Hussein, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, explained that both the ICCPR
and the Second Optional Protocol was drafted with deliberate intent to prevent the possibility of

5
Id,
6
United Nations Human Rights, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, accessed from:
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CCPR.aspx
7
Human Rights Watch, Philippines: Don’t Reinstate Death Penalty, December 3, 2016 accessed from:
https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/12/03/philippines-dont-reinstate-death-penalty
8
Supra note 6
9
United Nations Human Rights, Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty, accessed from:
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/2ndOPCCPR.aspx
10
Id.
future denunciation.11 Therefore, state parties have the perpetual obligation not to reintroduce
death penalty. Scholars pointed out that the ICCPR and its Second Optional Protocol are part of
international law.12 Hence, re-imposing death penalty in the country will be tantamount to
committing violations in international law.

There are major economic implications in reawakening the death penalty. Failure to ensure
compliance with the Second Optional Protocol will adversely affect the country’s Generalized System
of Preferences Plus (GSP+) status with the European Union.13 One of the requirements to ensure a
good standing in the GSP+ is to uphold our commitment to honor twenty seven international
treaties including the Second Optional Protocol to ICCPR.14 According to Karen Lucia S. Gomez
Dumpit, the Commissioner on Human Rights, it is not impossible that the country will be suspended
or its membership be revoked if the re-imposition of death penalty will push through.15 She
explained that the country’s credibility as a trading partner is at stake if we will renege on our
obligation to respect the conditions we ought to comply when we applied for the GSP+. It should be
noted that the grant of the GSP+ privilege has significantly boost the country’s economy in terms of
exportation. According to the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA), exports to EU has increased to
2.6% when the country was given the regular GSP+ status.16 It is evident that the continuous
relationship with the EU will bring economic benefits in the country. This is not to downplay the
possible impact of death penalty on the country’s national budget. Additional costs is expected to be
incurred if the death penalty will be implement. Furthermore, the Department of Social Welfare and
Development (DSWD) is also expected to incur additional expenses in carrying out the burden of
foreseen increase in the number of children who will be orphaned because of the imposition of
death penalty.

Although there is widespread criminality in the country, Filipinos must not choose to resort
to death penalty in the expense of violating human rights which are fundamentally important.
Considering the serious implications of re-imposing death penalty in the country, it is clear that it is
not the solution to a pressing problem in our society. The current administration must find ways to

11
Paterno Esmaquel II, UN on death penalty: PH will break int'l law, December 9, 2016, accessed
from: http://www.rappler.com/nation/155014-un-death-penalty-philippines-violate-international-
law
12
Supra note 4
13
Roy Stephen C. Canivel,Death penalty push could imperil Philippines’ GSP-plus privilege, December
27, 2016, accessed from:
http://www.bworldonline.com/content.php?section=TopStory&title=death-penalty-push-could-
imperil-philippines&8217-gsp-plus-privilege&id=138243
14
Id.
15
Id.
16
Id.
effectively guarantee the safety and security of the citizens without resorting to an inhumane
penalty. The country’s existing international commitments serve as a reminder that we do not aim to
create a society where impunity is a custom. The Philippines must respect its existing obligations in
the realm of international law in order to maintain our integrity as a member of a greater
international community.