An eye for an eye does not mean

vengeance, for the Almighty God

himself said, vengeance is mine and
by this he meant he would met
justice in accordance with his
mysterious ways, through The 10
Commandments from which moral
laws were taken.
Death Penalty have been abolished since
June 2006, through the enactment of RA
9346

December 7, 2016, the HoR introduced

HB 1 (reimposing death penalty) and got
the nod of the justice committee
member with a vote of 12-6-1
The re-imposition of Death Penalty is
primarily anchored on Pres. Dutertes
war on drugs campaign
 Crimes punishable by death:
1. Treason
2. Qualified Piracy
3. Qualified Bribery
4. Parricide
5. Murder
6. Infanticide
7. Rape
8. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention
9. Robbery with violence against or
intimidation of persons
10. Destructive arson
11. Plunder
12. Planting evidence concerning illegal drugs
13. Drug-related crimes
 SIGNIFICANT
ARGUMENTS AGAINST
THE RE-IMPOSITION OF
DEATH PENALTY
1. Violation of International Treaties
The Philippines is a signatory to the 2nd
Optional Protocol to the ICCPR, aiming
at the abolition of death penalty which
commits its members to abolish death
penalty within its jurisdiction.
The Philippines signed the 2nd Protocol on
September 20, 2006 and it was ratified by the
Senate on November 20, 2007.

As per Art. VII, Sec. 21 (1) of the Constitution No

treaty or international agreement shall be valid
and effective unless concurred in by at least 2/3
of all the members of the senate.

Art. II, Sec. 2 of the Constitution- adopts the

generally accepted principles of international law
as part of the law of the land
2. Unconstitutional
Art. II, Sec. 11 of 1987 Constitution - the
States values the dignity of every human person
and guarantees full respect for human rights.

Art. III, Sec. 19(1) - 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.
Last Feb. 27, 2017, the House majority bloc
has agreed to only limit the crimes
punishable by death to drug-related
offenses only, with the exception of
possession of illegal drugs.

The Human Rights Committee, a body of

independent experts to monitor the
implementation of the ICCPR has determined
that drug-related offenses did NOT met the
threshold of most serious or heinous crimes
3. Judicial errors
In the landmark case of People vs
Echegaray, former SC Chief Justice
Panganiban was of the opinion that
Echegaray s penalty should have been
reduced to reclusion perpetua since it was
not proven during the trial that he was the
father, steofather or grandfather of the
victim, a qualifying circumstance for him to
be meted the death penalty.
 Subsequently, in People vs Parazo,
the accused a deaf, blind, mute and
retarded was meted death sentence
for rape and attempted homicide. The
Court never bothered to ensure that
he understood the proceeding against
him. His multiple disabilities were
never mentioned in court not even his
lawyer
 A study conducted by the University
of Westminster-based Center of
Capital Punishment Studies observed
that in most cases of wrongful
sentences, the letter of the law is
often ignored, either because
documentary evidence does not exist
or because the presiding judge is
ignorant of the law.
 In People vs. Mateo (July 2004), SC
acknowledged the judicial error rate of
71.77% on death penalty cases.
4. Not
proven deterrent to heinous
crimes
According to report by Philippine Center for
Investigative Journalism (2003), since the dawn
of RA 7659 in December 28, 1993 the crime
volume from 1992 to 2006 fluctuated from time
to time, most notably in 1998 to 1999 wherein
the crime volume increased from 71, 576 to 82,
538
 Humans, by the way, tend to
think highly of themselves, and
generally value human life more
than any other living organism
-Agon Regard